The discourse begins as a dialogue between Jesus and the crowd, and becomes more and more of a monologue as it continues. The crowd had begun following him because of the miracles he had done (cf. 6:2), but since the multiplication of the loaves, they have been pursuing him as one who can satisfy their physical hunger and (they hope) their political ambitions as well (cf. 6:15). They think they have found him, but they have not. They have been fed, yet they have not begun to receive what Jesus has to give. Their search must therefore continue (cf. Luke 11:9–10). What they do not yet realize is that food is a metaphor. Like Jesus himself, whose food was “to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work” (4:34), they must work … for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you (v. 27; cf. the “water” Jesus offered to the Samaritan woman, 4:14). This work of God is to believe in the one he has sent (v. 29).
The mention of “believing” (rather than merely seeking or pursuing) draws from the crowd a demand for another miracle or sign comparable to that of the manna that Moses provided for the Israelites in the desert (vv. 30–31). The incident is recounted fully in Exodus 16, but Jesus’ questioners cite merely the psalmist’s summary of it: He gave them bread from heaven to eat (v. 31; cf. Ps. 78:24). The request is strange, coming so soon after a miracle that itself invites comparison with Moses and the manna. Why would those whom Jesus had miraculously fed only the day before ask for bread from heaven? It appears that the controlling term is not bread but the phrase from heaven. The scene recalls an argument between Jesus and the Pharisees just after the second feeding of a crowd in Mark and Matthew: “To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. He sighed deeply and said, ‘Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it’ ” (Mark 8:11–12). In Matthew (16:4) there is one exception: “the sign of Jonah” (i.e., the resurrection of Jesus, cf. 12:39–41). Whether or not the occasion is the same in John 6, the apparent nature of the request is similar in the two instances. Nor is the incident unique within John’s Gospel. Jesus had been challenged in much the same way when he first visited Jerusalem (2:18) and had replied (as in Matthew) with a veiled reference to his resurrection (2:19). Here his answer is much more elaborate. He begins by adding certain interpretive comments to the psalm just quoted (v. 32):
Not …
But …
Moses
God (Jesus’ Father)
gave
gives
bread
true bread
The true bread is immediately defined as he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world (v. 33). The terms of the discussion are almost totally changed. It is not a question of what Moses did in the time of the Exodus but of what God is doing right now. It is not a question of manna from the sky but of a flesh-and-blood person who stands before them—Jesus, the son of Joseph (cf. v. 42). Jesus does not merely give bread (or a miraculous sign) from heaven. He is that bread; in all that he says and does, he is God’s miraculous sign. The crowd, not ready to grasp this distinction, still asks him, from now on give us this bread (v. 34). Their plea recalls that of the Samaritan woman (4:15), yet their situation is not the same as hers. Their hunger for food is satisfied, but not their hunger for miracles. These Jews who “demand miraculous signs” (1 Cor. 1:22) have not yet understood that to which Jesus’ miracles are pointing. They know that his miracles give life (v. 33) but not that life means believing in him (cf. 5:39–40).
At verse 35 the dialogue becomes a monologue with interruptions (i.e., vv. 41–42, 52). These interruptions by the crowd, now called “the Jews” (vv. 41, 52) can be used to divide the discourse into three sections: verses 35–40, 41–51, and 52–58. An alternative structure is in two sections (vv. 35–47 and 48–58), each introduced by the identical pronouncement, I am the bread of life (vv. 35, 48), and each subdivided by a dispute among “the Jews.” In either case the discourse as a whole is designated a synagogue discourse given (presumably on a Sabbath) in the synagogue at Capernaum (v. 59). At some point (perhaps v. 35?), the scene has shifted from the lakeshore to the synagogue, and the discussion has taken on a somewhat more formal character.
Many scholars prefer the threefold division of the discourse because of the definite breaks at verses 41 and 52 and because the last section is regarded by some as the work of a later editor, but if content is the prime consideration, the twofold division is more appropriate. Verses 35–47 unfold further the meaning of the phrase bread from heaven in the preceding Scripture quotation (v. 31), whereas verses 48–58 expand on the words to eat in the same quotation. Psalm 78:24 is the text, and verses 35–47 and 48–58 comprise a two-part synagogue sermon based on it. In the middle of each section, the hearers take offense at the claim Jesus is making—in verses 41–42 the claim to have come down from heaven, and in verse 52, the claim to be able to give them his flesh to eat.
Part One: The Bread from Heaven (vv. 35–47). The theme of the first section was anticipated in verse 33: The bread from heaven is Jesus. In verse 35, Jesus repeats the claim in the form of an “I am” pronouncement, the first of seven such pronouncements found throughout this Gospel:
I am the bread of life (6:35, 48; cf. vv. 41, 51).
I am the light of the world (8:12; cf. 9:5).
I am the gate for the sheep (10:7; cf. v. 9).
I am the good shepherd (10:11, 14).
I am the resurrection and the life (11:25).
I am the way and the truth and the life (14:6).
I am the true vine (15:1; cf. v. 5).
Of these, all but the fifth and sixth occur twice. The repetition allows Jesus to use the metaphors in different ways. In some instances the first use of the metaphor introduces Jesus in his uniqueness or in contrast to others who might claim a similar designation, and the second explores a particular aspect or implication of the metaphor. Here, the context suggests that Jesus is the true bread (v. 32) in contrast to the manna, just as he is the “true” vine (15:1), or the “good” shepherd in contrast to hirelings (10:11–13), or the sheep gate in contrast to thieves (10:7–8). Yet what dominates part one of the discourse is not the metaphor of bread but the personality of Jesus. Aside from a passing reference to hunger in verse 35, the metaphor lies mostly dormant until part two. In verses 35–47, Jesus speaks as the Son (v. 40) more than as bread of life. If he is bread, he is bread from heaven (vv. 38, 41–42; cf. v. 33), and it is on his divine origin and mission that the main emphasis falls. Though in his coming he satisfies hunger and thirst (v. 35), he is not “eaten” as bread. Those to whom he ministers have seen him (vv. 36, 40), come to him (vv. 35, 37, 45) and believe in him as the Son (vv. 35–36, 40, 47; cf. v. 29). The metaphor of eating is in the background (cf. v. 27), but Jesus prefers to speak in straightforward language. It is necessary to define for the crowd all that it means to come to him and follow him (cf. vv. 2, 5, 22–25), not so they will do it (for they will not), but for the sake of a “hidden” audience—the disciples (vv. 60–71) and, ultimately, the readers of the Gospel. The conclusion of part one is that in the fullest sense “coming to Jesus” means believing in him and receiving eternal life (vv. 40, 47). This is the food that never spoils (cf. vv. 27, 29) and that satisfies the deepest hunger. It is food this crowd will not taste (v. 36).
Implanted in the metaphor of bread from heaven is a sketch of the whole plan of salvation as seen in John’s Gospel (vv. 37–40). Jesus came down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me (v. 38; cf. 4:34). God’s will for Jesus is then spelled out twice, in parallel fashion:
… that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day (v. 39).
… that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day (v. 40).
The Father’s intent, realized through the Son, is a saving intent. Those who come to Jesus, those who see and believe, are those the Father has given him. The Father will see to it that they are kept safe; he will grant them new life as a present possession and raise them from the dead at the last day (cf. 5:24–25, 28). They are the Father’s gift to Jesus his Son.
Even as Jesus explains the plan of salvation to the crowd, he makes clear what the reader of the Gospel must already suspect, that the crowd itself is not a part of it: As I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe (v. 36). The crowd’s reaction to his words (vv. 41–42) is therefore no surprise. Verse 44 is the negative complement to verse 37: All whom the Father gives Jesus will come to him, and no one can come unless “drawn” to Jesus by the Father. A person is drawn by hearing the Father’s voice and learning from him. Though this “educational” process has deep roots in divine election and in the individual conscience (cf. 3:20–21), only the free outward act of coming to Jesus in faith proves that a person has been thus taught by God (v. 45). As far as human experience is concerned, to hear and learn from the Father means hearing and believing the message of Jesus, for only Jesus (having come from heaven) has seen the Father (v. 46; cf. 5:19; 8:38) and only he can interpret the Father to the world (cf. 1:18). In Jesus, the Father speaks (cf. 5:37–38).
Verse 47 summarizes the discourse thus far and reduces the divine message to its simplest terms: I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.
Part Two: Eating the Bread (vv. 48–58). With the second occurrence of I am the bread of life (v. 48), the bread metaphor begins to come into its own, giving a new shape to the argument and a new dimension to the simple need of believing in order to gain life.
Attention centers on the phrase, to eat, in the Psalm 78 text. Jesus virtually repeats the word uttered earlier by his questioners, Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert (v. 49; cf. v. 31), adding significantly, yet they died. The manna is then contrasted with the bread that comes down from heaven (v. 50; cf. v. 33). Whoever eats this bread will not die, but live forever. Once more Jesus identifies himself with this bread. Specifically, he calls it my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world (v. 51). Here for the first time he connects the metaphor of bread with the prospect of his own death. His language recalls words attributed to him in the earliest account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper: “This is my body, which is for you” (1 Cor. 11:24; cf. Luke 22:19). His flesh or his “body” means the giving up of his body in death, just as Christ’s blood refers in the New Testament to the shedding of his blood on the cross. Paul uses “body” in this way when he says that Christians have “died to the law through the body of Christ” (Rom. 7:4), and “flesh” when he declares that “in his flesh” (Eph. 2:14) Christ destroyed the enmity between Jew and Gentile.
Near the beginning and at the end of part two of the discourse, Jesus speaks of eating the bread that is his flesh (vv. 50–52, 57–58):
which a man may eat (v. 50)
f anyone eats of this bread (v. 51)
this bread is my flesh (v. 51)
how can this man give us his flesh to eat? (v. 52)
the one who feeds on me (v. 57)
he who feeds on this bread (v. 58)
Verses 53–56 present a different phenomenon. Four times in rapid succession Jesus speaks of the twofold necessity of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Nothing in the bread metaphor prepares the reader for the mention of drinking blood, so abhorrent to the Jewish mind (e.g., Lev. 17:10–14). Just when the Jews take offense at the notion of eating his flesh (v. 52), Jesus multiplies the offense many times over. Instead of explaining the statement away, he tells them they must drink his blood as well! The metaphor of eating flesh and drinking blood was used in the Old Testament for slaughter and utter desolation (e.g., Ezek. 39:17–20). Israel’s oppressors would be made to eat their own flesh and drink their own blood (Isa. 49:26).
Because such a meaning seems impossible in the present context, many scholars find in Jesus’ shocking language a symbolic allusion to the two elements of bread and wine in the Christian sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. If that is the meaning, it is argued, the passage (usually defined as vv. 51c–58, starting with the words, The bread that I will give him is my flesh) must have been added to John’s Gospel by a later editor. Neither Jesus nor the Gospel writer would have spoken so directly of the Lord’s Supper or made participation in it a condition of salvation (v. 53). If it is early tradition at all, it must have originated in the context of the last supper, as a variant form of the words of institution (“This is my body.… This is my blood”), not in Galilee at the height of Jesus’ ministry. But these conclusions are all based on the assumption that verses 51c–58 present a different teaching than the rest of the discourse. Is this the case? The only new factor introduced in verse 51 is the allusion to Jesus’ death (my flesh which I will give for the life of the world). Even the Synoptics represent Jesus as predicting his death while still in Galilee (e.g., Mark 8:31; 9:31), and there is no reason why John’s Gospel might not do so as well. The statement in verse 33 that Jesus gives life to the world surely hints at the notion that he gives his flesh for the life of the world. He has come down from heaven not to do my own will but to do the will of him who sent me (v. 38). It is only a small step from speaking of Jesus’ mission, or his obedience to the Father, to speaking of his death on the cross. In Gethsemane he will pray “not what I will, but what you will” (Mark 14:36).
Before discussing whether or not the references to eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood are sacramental, it is well to notice something closer at hand, the fact that they presuppose his violent death. Their effect is to intensify what is already implied by flesh alone in verse 51. The mention of blood adds no distinct theological dimension of its own but simply makes more vivid and shocking the notion that Jesus will give his life, his very flesh, for the sake of the world. The references to flesh and blood together stand within the framework of references simply to eating the bread that is Jesus (i.e., vv. 50–52, 57–58) and must be interpreted in light of these. The bread or flesh references, in turn, stand within the framework of Jesus’ mission. Only the truth (established in part one of the discourse) that he is the living bread that came down from heaven (v. 51) makes it possible to eat his flesh.
In verse 57 he bases the “eating” even more explicitly on his own mission and his relationship to the Father: The living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. What is this “eating”? Whatever the metaphor means concretely, it expresses a relationship to Jesus corresponding to Jesus’ own relationship to God the Father. As Jesus depends on the Father for his very life, so the person who eats Jesus depends on him for life. Though Jesus’ dependence on the Father is not explicitly described here in terms of eating, he had said earlier: “My food … is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work” (4:34). As the Father sent Jesus, Jesus will send out disciples (4:38; 17:18, 20:21). As his food is to obey the Father and complete the Father’s work, their food is to obey him and complete his work. This divine work was earlier defined as believing in Jesus (vv. 28–29), with the promise that he who believes has everlasting life (v. 47). But now faith is shown to involve discipleship. As Jesus obeyed the Father and completed the Father’s work by giving his life (cf. 17:4; 19:30), a disciple of Jesus will obey him and follow him even to death.
The language of violent death—eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood—points to the necessity, not merely to accept the reality of Jesus’ death for the life of the world, but to follow him in the way of the cross. In the Synoptics, when Jesus began to predict his Passion he added, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it” (Mark 8:34–35). Later in John’s Gospel, Jesus will speak simultaneously of his own death and of what it means to be his disciple; “I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My father will honor the one who serves me” (12:24–26). The metaphors vary, but the point is much the same. To eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood (v. 53) is not merely to partake of the benefits of Jesus’ death but to participate in the death itself by becoming his servant and disciple. It is to follow him and (in one’s own way) to share his mission and destiny. The point is not that actual martyrdom is inevitable but that if a person is faithful it is always a distinct possibility (e.g., 13:36; 15:18–16:4; 21:18–19).
Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the early second century, seems to have understood the metaphor along similar lines. As he sailed toward Rome, and martyrdom, he wrote: “I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David, and for drink I want his blood, which is uncorruptible love” (To the Romans 7.3). The emphasis on discipleship or martyrdom does not, of course, rule out a connection with the Lord’s Supper. It is likely that Ignatius saw the two aspects as interrelated and inseparable, and if Ignatius did so, the possibility must be allowed that John’s Gospel as well viewed the Lord’s Supper as a key expression and example of the Christian community taking up its cross to follow Jesus.
The promise of life in this chapter unfolds against a backdrop of death, not only Jesus’ death, but (potentially at least) the death of those called to follow him. It is the prospect of actual death that gives special poignancy to the recurring refrain I will raise him up at the last day (vv. 39, 40, 44, 54), and to the concluding assurances that those who eat will live forever (vv. 51, 58). Part two of the discourse ends where it began, with the ancestors in the desert who died and stayed dead even though they received the manna (v. 58; cf. v. 49). Jesus promises something far greater than manna in the desert: Life with him now and victory over death at the last day.
Additional Notes
6:27 On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval: Like 3:35–36, this brief explanatory clause is best understood as the Gospel writer’s reflection on the baptism of Jesus. There are several other such possible asides in this chapter that either carry the argument along (vv. 33, 50, 58) or add a necessary qualification (v. 46).
6:33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven. The abrupt use of the third person again suggests a parenthetical comment merging Jesus’ words with the words of the narrator in the manner of 3:13–21 or 3:31–36. The identification of Jesus with the bread from heaven in this verse seems to get ahead of the story, for such an identification does not become explicit on Jesus’ lips until v. 35. Also, v. 33 appears to be ignored in its immediate context. The crowd’s request in v. 34, from now on give us this bread, is most easily understood as a reply, not to v. 33, but to Jesus’ initial reference to the true bread from heaven in v. 32.
On the other hand, a serious attempt to give v. 33 a place in the give-and-take of an actual conversation would require that it be translated differently: “For the bread that God gives is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” Such a rendering is grammatically possible because the Greek word for bread is masculine (like the pronoun he). It avoids explicitly identifying Jesus with the bread (leaving that until v. 35) and makes the statement more at home in its immediate context. Either translation is legitimate, and it may be that the Gospel writer is being deliberately ambiguous. From the crowd’s standpoint the bread is “that which” comes from heaven (like the manna), yet the NIV translation is the appropriate one for the reader of the Gospel, who knows from the onset that the Bread is a person.
6:35 Will never be thirsty: It is important not to read back into this pronouncement the references in vv. 53–56 to drinking Jesus’ blood. Jesus is here presented simply as the giver of the water of life as in 4:14 and 7:37–38. The pronouncement is only loosely connected to the bread metaphor and the exposition of Psalm 78:24, for the verbs used are not “eat” and “drink” but “come” and “believe.”
6:36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. When did he tell them this? The most plausible answer is 5:38: “for you do not believe the one he sent” (cf. 5:40, 43, 46–47). When Jesus’ discourses take on a formal character, there is a sense in which his opponents are always the same people (i.e., “the Jews” 5:18; 6:41), whether he is in Galilee or Jerusalem and regardless of the occasion.
He did not tell them in so many words that they had seen him. The association of seeing with believing arises, rather, out of the present context. They ask to see a sign in order to believe (v. 30), but Jesus tells them that he is the sign (v. 35). Verse 36 could be paraphrased “But I told you that you do not believe—and you don’t, even though you have seen me” (contrast v. 40: “that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life”).
6:37 Whoever comes to me I will never drive away. Unlike the coming of the crowd in 6:5, the “coming to Jesus” referred to in vv. 35 and 37 is synonymous with “believing.”
6:39 That I shall lose none … but … raise them up: The relevant Greek pronouns in this verse are neuter and singular: lit. “that of everything he has given me I should not lose any of it, but raise it at the last day”; cf. v. 37a (lit., “everything that the Father gives me”). This grammatical feature suggests that Jesus views the redeemed corporately, as a single entity. In contrast, the pronouns in v. 40 are masculine singular, implying that the same promises are also held out to Christian believers as individuals.
6:41 The Jews. John’s Gospel often designates Jesus’ opponents as “the Jews” because in the writer’s day the Jews and the Jewish synagogue stood as a threat against the Christian community (cf. 16:1–2). Sometimes the term refers particularly to the religious authorities (e.g., 5:15–18), but here it becomes a designation for the crowd as it begins to grumble to itself about Jesus. The word grumble recalls the behavior of the Israelites in the desert in the time of Moses (cf. Exod. 16:2, 7, 8). Ironically, it was in response to their grumbling that God gave them the manna.
6:46 This time the narrator’s aside adds a qualification: “hearing” and “learning” from the Father is not the same as seeing him. Those who claim secret divine revelations are deceiving themselves and others. The thought is the same here as in the prologue. God reveals himself only in his Word (cf. 1:1, 18).
6:50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven: Once more the use of the third person suggests that the narrator is rephrasing Jesus’ claims from the perspective of a confessing Christian (cf. vv. 27b, 33). An alternation is thus created between “I” or “I am” pronouncements (vv. 48–49, 51), and confessional statements beginning with “this” or “this is” (v. 50, and “this bread” in v. 51). As elsewhere in John’s Gospel, the words of Jesus and the words of the believing community are regarded as almost interchangeable (cf. also v. 58).
6:54 Eats: Here and in vv. 56–58 a Greek word is used that normally means to “feed on” something as an animal feeds. Some say John has chosen this crude term deliberately to lend realism to the idea of eating Jesus’ flesh. But in the present tense he uses only this word for “eat” (cf. 13:18), and it is therefore best regarded simply as a peculiar feature of his style.
6:56 Remains in me, and I in him: This word for remains (Gr.: menein) is not used elsewhere in the chapter. It is used most conspicuously in Jesus’ farewell discourses (e.g., 15:4–10).
6:57 I live because of the Father … will live because of me: The meaning suggested by the context is that Jesus lives his life on earth from day to day in dependence on the Father, while the disciple, in turn, lives in daily dependence on Jesus. In 14:19, however, Jesus uses similar language to refer to his resurrection. It is possible that both aspects are in view here. Jesus lives because of the Father both in his life on earth and in resurrection from the dead, while the disciple lives because of Jesus in both senses as well. There is little doubt, however, that the emphasis in each case is on the present aspect, that is, from day to day.
6:58 This is the bread that came down from heaven.… The last of the asides by the Gospel writer virtually repeats v. 50, gathering into the pronouncement the phraseology of vv. 49–51 with which part two of the discourse began. This summary gives unity and cohesion to vv. 48–58 and makes it difficult to sever (as many have tried to do) vv. 51c–58 from the rest.