July 12, 2015   John 6:37 – 60

Download discussion handout: John 6_37 – 60 hard sayings

One of the first comments in our Sunday morning discussion group was the public nature of Jesus’ teaching.  He was speaking openly even knowing that there was considerable “grumbling” among the crowd.  He was in a place where people normally gathered, the synagogue in Capernaum.  The free and unrestricted way Jesus taught was in contrast to the sermon we had just heard on Paul’s warnings to the church at Colossae about the danger of Gnosticism and their secret “special” teaching.  Nothing like that in Jesus’ ministry.

And what He was saying openly and publicly for all to hear was too much for some to hear.  The crowd reacted negatively, even many of His disciples, the ones following Him and learning from Him.  They didn’t just say that what Jesus was saying was difficult to understand.  His words were difficult to listen to.  Picture a young child covering his ears to avoid hearing something unpleasant.  That was the reaction from even those who seemed the most interested in what Jesus had to say.

What was so disturbing?  The discourse started when the crowd came to Jesus wanting bread.  Five-thousand-plus had been fed the day before and now they wanted more.  Jesus responds to their desires but with a different kind of bread in mind, Himself, the true bread coming down from heaven.  When they still don’t understand (or perhaps they do understand and are more interested in their kind of bread) Jesus radically and somewhat abruptly changes the metaphor.  Talking about bread, even with the double meaning, was interesting to the crowd, maybe even kind of fun or entertaining.  Talking about eating human flesh and drinking human blood was just repugnant and obnoxious, completely unacceptable.  Why would Jesus spoil such a great opportunity when people were really listening to Him.

Or was He more interested in how well they were listening rather than how many were listening?  We will see (in an upcoming passage, to be discussed soon) that He lost a large part of His following shortly after this encounter.  As one participant in the discussion pointed out, the “bridge” (her very descriptive word) is in verse 51 when Jesus shifts the image slightly to “living” bread.  Wouldn’t at least a few people ask, “What could that be?  What is living bread?”  Then He makes the shocking statement that what He is offering is not more loaves but His own flesh.

The Jews (perhaps the whole crowd, or maybe the religious leaders who were observing) reacted to those words.  Whereas before they had been grumbling (v. 41) now they begin arguing with each other (v. 52).  As someone suggested, maybe at least a few of them began to get the idea:  “Jesus is talking figuratively, both about bread and about His flesh.  Maybe we ought to listen and try to understand.”  In any case, they don’t seem to ask Him – they just shift from grumbling to arguing among themselves.  They seemed more interested in their own opinions and debate than in genuinely listening to Him, maybe even asking Him questions.  In contrast, Jesus responded directly to them in both instances.  He “answered” their grumbling (v. 43), and He “said to them” (v. 53) while they argued.  Unlike the skeptics, Jesus was not shy about directly engaging them about what He was saying.  His words were straightforward, trying to redirect their intramural arguing back to what they needed to hear about Him.

Whatever the argument was about, Jesus had an even more upsetting statement.  In addition to eating His flesh (disgusting to Jews, even to Roman gentiles) He talked about drinking His blood (absolutely forbidden; Leviticus 17:10-11 prohibits the eating of any blood).  Jesus continues to push their understanding.  Our discussion group observed that twice in this passage Jesus uses the emphatic opening of a statement, “Truly, truly” (literally, “Amen, Amen”).  The first time He draws special attention to what He is saying is in verse 47, still talking about bread and drawing the contrast with the manna in the wilderness that did not provide eternal life.  Then in verse 53 He again uses that emphasis, this time to describe the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood as the only possible way to have life.

This is one of the familiar passages that poses a risk.  After reading what Jesus said we might be thinking about the possible connection with Christian Communion.  We regularly eat bread that Jesus called His body, and drink from a cup that Jesus called His blood.  But the risk is that we miss how utterly appalling this would have been to the crowd, and to the religious leaders, and to the followers of Jesus.  One member of our group got all of our attention with an analogy.  What if we were following a speaker who seemed to be making sense, but he suddenly began saying things that sounded like Charles Manson, the brutal murderer?  No wonder many found it hard to keep listening.

If they really listened they might have understood the context of what He was saying.  He repeatedly talks about life, and Leviticus makes clear that the special nature of blood is that it carries life.  Jesus made it clear that He is the source of life, and apart from Him and His blood there is no real life.  The true life that comes from the “living Father” (v. 57) is only available through union with Christ, a union as close and intimate as eating and absorbing food and drink.  That union was pointed out by a member of the group in the words about mutual abiding:  “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him” (v. 56).  That mutual abiding is the intimacy Jesus intended with His scandalous imagery.  The crowd, and the Jews, (as well as many twenty-first-century Christians, like us) need to be shocked out of the complacency of a nice, comfortable, quiet religion and think of the shocking concept of participating in the life of the Triune God:  the living Father who sent the Son to give us life by His Spirit.