July 19, 2015  John 6:53 – 7:1

Download discussion questions:  John 6_53 – 7_1 many withdraw

Jesus has been saying things that are “difficult to listen to” (John 6:60) and even more difficult to understand.  The comfortable metaphor about bread from heaven confused the crowd when Jesus said He was the bread, then it became very uncomfortable when He talked of eating His flesh and drinking His blood.  Jesus kept stretching their thinking with something He considered even more of a difficulty for them. 

He knows that what He has said so far is a potential cause of stumbling.  (More than one person in our discussion noted the English rhyme between grumble and stumble.  The Greek text doesn’t have the rhyme so that was not John (or Jesus’) intention, but it is still an interesting and helpful observation about the results of grumbling.)  Stumbling – we spent some time on the meaning (literal and figurative) of the word:  losing balance, tripping, falling, lack of equilibrium, failure to navigate obstacles.  At the end of Jesus’ discourse many “were not walking with Him anymore.”  Stumbling is failure to deal with obstacles like doubt or “difficult statements” or unfulfilled expectations (like more free bread).  Ultimately stumbling is to stop believing.  It is possible to stumble (literally or figuratively) and then to recover (physically or spiritually) but that recovery takes some intentional effort to deal with balance and obstacles, or with doubts and difficulties.  Many in the crowd grumbled and tottered at His words, almost losing their balance and their interest in Jesus.

Jesus responds, but not with words that are reassuring, but with what may become an even more disturbing challenge:  “What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?”  If you stumble at metaphors about eating, what will you think when I return to heaven?

What could they imagine He was talking about?  Most of this passage consists of figurative language that we understand as figurative – bread from heaven, eating His flesh and drinking His blood – or as literal – His bodily ascension after His crucifixion and bodily resurrection.  But none of His original hearers knew any of that.  Even the original readers of John’s Gospel may not have had a completely clear picture of all that He meant.  We see those words in the text and think of His ascension.  Why would His ascension be a greater stumbling block?  Who would be disturbed by His return to heaven?

What a good discussion about this question – mostly led by a married couple who took different views (our group is always exciting!).  He said the disciples would be disturbed when Jesus left them to ascend to heaven.  She said the Jewish religious leaders would be dismayed when they realized Jesus really was going back to heaven.  He said that the disciples were not ready for the ascension, and they really didn’t understand what was going to happen about the Spirit.  She said that the Jewish leaders would recognize they had missed out on “the stone the builders rejected” and they were the ones rejecting Him.  Both groups would find the ascension of Jesus a possible stumbling block.

We didn’t actually take a vote, but the consensus seemed to be that just about everyone would be affected and shocked when Jesus ascended.  Witnessing that event would be even more of a shock to both groups than all His metaphors about eating and drinking.  Jesus was still trying to get the people (Jews, disciples, the Twelve) to understand more than the physical meaning of what He was saying.  He shifts His explanation from the dramatic image of eating flesh and blood to a more literal statement about His ascension and the importance of the work of the Holy Spirit at that time.  (There was some discussion about how much His listeners understood about the Holy Spirit and His work in the Old Testament.  He is mentioned in Genesis 1 and elsewhere, but certainly none of the people listening to this discourse fully understood.  Jesus will have much more to say about this in later chapters, between the Last Supper and His arrest.)  He wants them to see that Spirit who gives life (John 6:63).  After His ascension His followers will be depending on the Spirit rather than His physical presence.  In addition, the Spirit is the One who will give life to others, perhaps even some of those who stopped following Him after this discourse.

The listeners were so caught up in the metaphor of eating His flesh and drinking His blood (“the Jews began to argue with one another” John 6:52) that they lost focus on what Jesus was saying.  His statement about the Spirit was to draw them back to His main point.  He even said in that same response, “the flesh profits nothing” (John 6:63).  Our group debated over the meaning of flesh in Jesus’ words.

• Was he referring to our fallen sinful nature (as the Apostle Paul often does using the same word (σὰρξ, sarx)? But that would seem to be significant tangent away from the topic He had been speaking about for most of this chapter.
• Was He saying that our physical flesh was unimportant (which the Gnostic heresy would say in the early church)? But the Apostle John recorded a prophecy about “a new heaven and a new earth” (Revelation 21:1) and Jesus’ physical resurrection as well as the resurrection we look forward to (1 Corinthians 15) demonstrate the importance of our physical bodies.
• Or was He providing a literal response to correct the misunderstanding that got the religious debaters off track. Was He trying to make them see that His words about eating His flesh were symbolic and figurative?  In the context of the lengthy exchange between Jesus and the Jews this seems the most likely explanation.

It is the eating of His physical flesh that “profits nothing” – exactly what the arguing Jews had missed in their debate about how He could give them His flesh to eat.

Jesus was not backing down from controversy.  In fact, He was essentially the center of much of the controversy.  Our stereotype of “gentle Jesus” is true, but not the whole truth.  He was able to be confrontational when necessary to help people understand what He was teaching, even when it meant that their understanding turned them away from Him.  He was not looking for superficial fans.

Throughout this discourse (over the last three weeks) Jesus has said some startling things about how God works and how we come to Him (e.g., John 6:37, 40, 44, 45, 65).  We barely touched on the questions that these statements raise:  election, free will, God’s choice, man’s choice, predestination.  A more complete discussion will have to wait until next week, but one person in our group pointed to the interaction between Jesus and the Twelve who remained after many others had left.

⁶⁷ So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” ⁶⁸ Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.⁶⁹ We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” ⁷⁰ Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” ⁷¹ Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.

She (our group member) pointed out that Jesus affirmed both their freedom to leave Him and His prior choice of them.  He also affirms His choice of Judas, including even the betrayal (Judas’ free choice) as part of God’s providence.  That observation may not have resolved all the questions that arise from the provocative statements Jesus made in this passage, but it was a very helpful combining of both truths – man’s free will and God’s sovereign providence.

Next week should be interesting!