THEOLOGICAL MESSAGE PAPER:

JOHN 6.2265

___________________

A Paper

Presented to
Dr. W. Hall Harris III & Dr. Michael H. Burer

Dallas Theological Seminary

___________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Course

NT305 Exegesis of Gospel Narrative

___________________

by

Wesley Burroughs, Mike Turner,

Joshua Francis, Chip Davidson

April 2015

Folder #189
 THEOLOGICAL MESSAGE PAPER:
JOHN 6.2265

Prolegomena and John 6.22251

Prima facie the Bread of Life discourse has no actual parallel in the Synoptic
Gospels. For this reason, the historicity of the passage must first be considered before moving
forward. Both the Marcan and Matthean accounts mention Jesus and his disciples landing at
Gennesaret after the multiplication miracle (Mark 6.53; Matt 14.34). The immediate response to
their landing is a massive gathering of people from the entire area, who were bringing all of the
sick so that they might be healed (Mark 6.5456; Matt 14.3536). It is only after the second
multiplication account, when they land at Dalmanutha or Magadan (Mark 8.10; Matt 15.39), that
the Pharisees approach Jesus to ask for a sign.2 In Johns account the multiplication miracle takes
place near Tiberias (v. 23) and they subsequently land at Capernaum. Despite these inherent
difficulties, there are a few reasons why the historicity of this discourse should be trusted. First,
while these writers hold to a view that Johns account is probably independent of the Synoptic
accounts, this does not necessarily mean that there is no evidence of traditional sayings within
the Johannine discourses.3 In fact, in this particular discourse there is a growing consensus that
the Evangelist made extensive use of lapidary sayings from a source (cf. vv. 27, 35b, 37b, 44, 48,

1 There are a few textual issues in this section. First, there is a variant after in v. 22. The
following witnesses transmit these additions: ( D 33 syh) ( *Dc
13 syc sa) *D(*).c K 13 33. 700. 892. 1424 a e sy sa. The shorter reading is also supported by
substantial witnesses: 75 2 A B L N W 1. 565. 579. 1241 lat co. The shorter reading is preferred {A-} for a few
reasons: 1) externally, the longer reading is largely Western and Byzantine. One should not be throw off by , which
is Western in John 1.18.38. See Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its
Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 310. The shorter
reading, however, has Alexandrian solidarity (75 and B); 2) internally, the Western and Byzantine texts are known
for changing clauses or words liberally, often to harmonize or augment the narrative. See Metzger and Ehrman, The
Text of the New Testament, 277, 27980. The second variant that needs to be considered is found in v. 23. The
witnesses D 091 a e sys.c omit the phrase . The vast majority of the other witnesses
(75 A B L W 0141 [f1] f13 33 etc.) include the reading. The longer reading is preferred for the following
reasons: 1) externally, the longer reading has strong Alexandrian solidarity and is also found in the majority of
Byzantine MSS; 2) internally, is only undisputedly used by John in one other place prior to the resurrection
(11.2). While the internal evidence is ostensibly weak, the external evidence is strong enough to include the reading
with a {B} rating. See Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart:
German Bible Society, 1994), 182.

2 Cf. Matt 16.14; 12.3839; Mark 8.1113; Luke 11.16; 12.5456. Luke deviates from the Marcan sequence of
events.
3 C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: The University Press, 1963), 430
ff. This is not to say that John was not aware of any of the Synoptics. It is merely to say that he most likely did not
use any of the written Synoptic accounts as a source.

1
 2

46b48, and 53).4 These were then inserted into a larger discourse in which John provides his
theological interpretation of the account. Secondly, there are striking similarities between the
Marcan and Johannine sequence of events: 1) feeding of the five thousand (John 6.115; Mark
6.3044); 2) Jesus walking on water (John 6.1624; Mark 6.4554); 3) request for a sign (John
6.2534; Mark 8.1113); 4) request for bread5 (John 6.3559; Mark 1421); 5) Peters
declaration (John 6.6069; Mark 8.2730); 6) passion/betrayal (John 6.7071; Mark 8.3133).6
Brown concludes that the Evangelist probably drew on an independent tradition which had the
same general sequence as precanonical Mark.7 Finally, in v. 22 is not necessarily
meant to be a precise chronological indicator, since John uses it elsewhere to create an integrated
literary structure.8 Thus, it is reasonable to assume that Jesus arrived at Gennesaret and continued
on to his home in Capernaum, where the multitude finally caught up with him, and he proceeded
to explain the true meaning of the multiplication of the bread in the synagogue.9

John 6.2629

In response to the crowds query, Rabbi, when did you get here, Jesus begins to
address the motives and expectations of his listeners. The first Johannine pattern that arises is
Jesus truly, truly saying (vv. 26, 32, 47, 53), which simultaneously acts to draw the intensified
attention of the reader and to signify the unique authority with which Jesus spoke. It is important
to note that Jesus accuses the crowd of seeking him merely for the satiation of their hunger,
rather than in response to his sign miracles. This seems to directly contradict verses 14 and 15,
which state that a number of this same crowd had desired to make Jesus their king because of his
sign miracles. While some attempt to alleviate this pressure by resorting to theories that involve

4 Robert Kysar, The Source Analysis of the Fourth Gospel: A Growing Consensus? Novum
Testamentum 15 (1973): 151.

5 Dodd is unconvinced by the bread connection. He writes, Its connection with the saying about
bread is artificial and unconvincing. All that the dialogue has in common with the Johannine discourse (apart from
its position in the sequence) is the idea that the Feeding of the Multitude is a mystery. There the resemblance ends.
Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 219, n. 1. Nonetheless, the theme and sequence are significant still.

6 This sequence of events is slightly adapted from Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John
IXII, AB 29 (New York: Doubleday, 1966), p. 238.

7 Brown, The Gospel according to John, 239.

8 Ibid., 257. Cf. John 1.29, 35, 43.

9 Phillip Schaff, Through Bible Lands: Notes of Travel in Egypt, the Desert, and
Palestine (New York: American Tract Society, 1878), p. 351.
 3

heavy redactions of the text,10 the simpler answer is that Jesus, knowing what is in men (2:23-
25), knew that the crowd had responded to the multiplication miracle as to a political, Davidic,
national Messiah. They failed to perceive the underlying truth and message that Jesus was the
one sent from heaven, with the authority and power to grant life. In a very real sense, the
problem with the crowd was that they were only looking for temporal salvation, whether that be
from oppressive rulers, or poverty and hunger. Such a misunderstanding of Jesus listeners is an
additional theme of Johns that runs not only throughout this discourse, but through the rest of
the Gospel.
It is also important to note that Jesus address, you ate of the loaves, makes it clear
that he was addressing an audience that had been present at the multiplication event, though that
does not rule out that there were others who had only recently entered the discourse in the
synagogue in Capernaum. Having accused the crowd of seeking him merely on account of their
filled stomachs, Jesus then challenges the crowd not to work11 for the food which
perishes, but for that which endures or remains to eternal life. He defines this food,
explaining that it is given by the Son of Man,12 because the Father, God, has set His
seal13 [on him].14 This sentence presents in didactic form what the rest of this discourse
10 Cf. Brown, The Gospel according to John, 264. This seems to suggest that the crowds were two entirely
different crowds, on two separate occasions.
11 When the crowd speaks again in v. 28, they ask Jesus what they should do to work the works of
God. Johns portrayal of their misunderstanding already comes out in that they, in essence, were asking
the rich young rulers what must we do to inherit eternal life? Jesus corrects their language, speaking of the work
of God, and describing not deeds of ethics or sacrifice for his audience to do, but a belief in the one whom God
sent, which is to say, the Messiah, the Son of ManJesus. Jesus has not yet made all of those points clear though,
and even when he does so, the hard hearts of the crowd will prevent them from understanding (cf. John 10:24-25).

12 In the Old Testament, the phrase son of man is used almost exclusively to speak of a person as
human, which has contributed to much confusion concerning whether the title in the NT is meant to highlight
Jesus humanity or his deity. However, Dan 7:13-14, which introduces this heavenly figure as having the
appearance of a son of man, sets the tone for the NT narrative. The verse establishes that there is a heavenly, pre-
existent figure who has the appearance of a human (son of man). In the Second Temple Period, this description
became the title Son of Man and seems to be equivalent to the Messiah (1 En. 46-48; 62:2-71; 2 Esd. 7:28-29;
11:1-12:39; 13:1-52). In Dan 7, 1 En., 2 Esd., and the New Testament, the term was often used to speak of the pre-
existent (John 3:13; 6:62) heavenly being who would be sent to earth with the authority to judge given to him by
God (John 5:22, 27), would be given a kingdom and a throne (cf. Mt 13:24, 37, 41; 16:28; 19:27-28; 25:31), would
act as both advocate and accuser in heaven (Luke 12:8-9; 21:36), would be lifted up (John 3:14; 8:28) and glorified
(John 12:23; 13:31), and would give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). Concerning the question of
whether it is possible that Jesus spoke of the Son of Man as some other figure separate from himself, Matt 16:13-
15, along with others, reveals that Jesus used the title in place of the first person pronoun, particularly through
Matthew. Also, Acts 7:56 shows that such was definitely the understanding of the early church, when Stephen
describes Jesus in heaven as the Son of Man. As Brown suggests, the term is often eschatological, and in this case,
reflects Johns realized eschatology. See Brown, The Gospel according to John, 264.

13 This language was seen in 3:33, where the one who receives Jesus testimony has set his seal on
the claim, God is true. As such, it is a mark of approval, as the NET renders it, for God the Father has set his seal
of approval on him, (v. 27). This most likely refers to the baptism of Jesus as testified by John the Baptist, when the
Spirit descended upon Jesus, John 1:30-34.

14 This language should cause the reader to hearken back to 4:34, in which Jesus tells the disciples,
My food is to do the will of the one who sent me, and to complete his work.
 4

will explicate. John will explain that the work God desires is belief in the one sent from
God (v. 29), that that work is not only desired by God, but caused by God (29, 37, 44-45,
65), that the food which endures is actually Jesus himself,15 pictured as the bread that
abides (33, 35, 51, 56-58), that eternal life is his purpose and that it is the will of God for
believers in the Son (33, 39-40, 50-51), and that Jesus is the Danielic pre-existent Son of
Man (27, 53, 62), the one who has come down from heaven (33, 38, 42, 46, 51, 53, 58,
62). These are the elements that drive the discourse, all boiling down to the main idea that
the internalizing belief in Jesus the Messiah yields a life that will never end.

John 6.3035

In v. 30 the crowd asks for a sign that has a parallel in 2 Baruch 29.8: And it will
happen at that time that the treasury of manna shall again descend from on high, and they will eat
from it in those years because these are they who will have arrived at the consummation of
time.16 Furthermore, the Midrash Mekilta on Exod 16.25 says, You will not find it [manna] in
this age, but shall find it in the age to come. Thus, the background material suggests that the
crowd is looking for a sign superseding what was provided by Moses in the wilderness if they
are to believe Jesus is the expected prophet, who is initiating the eschaton.17 Rather than
providing the expectant crowd with a sign superseding Moses, Jesus rebukes them by citing
Psalm 78.24. Here the Psalm is contrasting Gods faithful provision to the Israelites lack of faith
in the wilderness. Jesus is now applying this contrast to the crowd in 6.31.18
In vv. 3233 Jesus continues the theme from Psalm 78.24 further emphasizing the
source of the provisionthe Father who is continually faithful. In 6.33, a background study
indicates the contrast implicit in the text. Regarding YHWHs provision of the Law at Sinai,
Exod Rabbah 29.9 comments as follows: The earth trembled when HE gave life to the world
(emphasis mine). Jesus contrasts this Rabbinic belief by saying, The bread of God is the one
who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world (emphasis mine) (6.33). Here, the

15 A number of commentators will further recognize the bread as the teaching of Jesus, in large part
because of OT passages which allude to the instruction of the law as bread/food from heaven (Deut 8:3; Isa 55:13).
In this instance, the picture is of the miracle of manna, and the link that just as consuming food gives temporal life,

consuming (internalizing) the person of Jesus yields eternal life. Manna itself is compared to the words of God in
Deut 8:3, but assuming that this means Jesus words are manna is failing to recognize that Jesus is the Word in
John. Thus, the Word of God (Jesus) IS the manna (Bread of Life).

16 James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1983), 631.

17 Raymond Brown, The Gospel according to John, 263-264

18 Contra D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1991), 286, who ignores the LXX tradition and argues instead that the Fourth Evangelist is loosely referencing
Psalm 78.24, Exodus 16.4, and Nehemiah 9.15 without providing any interpretation resulting from his suggested
loose allusions.
 5

Evangelist via the voice of Jesus is indicating that Jesus is superseding and fulfilling the Jewish
expectation of Torah.19 In v. 34 the Evangelist uses misunderstanding by the crowd thinking with
their stomachs to move the discourse further along.20 Finally, Jesus self-identifies as the bread in
6.35, drawing the readers focus back to 6.3233, further emphasizing the life given to the world,
which is superseding and fulfilling the Jewish belief of Torah.21 Here the metaphors of never
again being hungry and thirsty continue to build the theme of internalization, which culminates
in John 6.5356.22 The predicated describes the metaphorical function of Jesus as being
the one provided by the Father for life.23

John 6.3640

Following Jesus first qualified I am statement in 6.35, the Fourth Evangelist ties
this conceptually to a necessary response of faith/ belief from the audience in John 6.3640.
There is disagreement over where one paragraph ends and the next begins. The Greek
conjunction can function either to establish a contrast within the same clause structure or to
indicate that the preceding material is regarded as a settled matter, thus forming a transition to
something new.24 We opted to follow the NA28 paragraph divisions and thus see 6.36 as
conceptually tied to what precedes, but transitioning to a new point about the subjectthat is, a
necessary response of faith. At this point, Jesus says the audience does not believe despite seeing.
But what was the object the audience saw? The pronoun is found in the majority of primary
papyri and uncials and can be considered to reflect the Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine
archetypes. But is also missing in and A (One should note that is Western in John 6 and A
is Byzantine in the Fourth Gospel). Metzger says the should be included in brackets to
indicate is found in most but not all the manuscripts.25 So the question becomes, regardless of
whether the is explicit or implicit in the text, what is meant when Jesus says, you have seen
[me] and still do not believe? Beasley-Murray suggests, they see nothing beyond loaves and

19 Andreas J. Kostenberger, John (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), kindle location
4375.

20 George R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36 (Waco: Word Publishing, 1987), 92.

21
Francis J. Moloney, Signs and Shadows, 47-49.

22 Andreas J. Kostenberger, John, kindle location 4409.

23 George R. Beasley-Murray, John, 92.

24 BDAG, 45.

25 Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: German
Bible Society, 1994), 182.
 6

power.26 Carson picks up this reasoning saying they have only seen a mightily endowed man
only bread and power but not what they signify.27
The reader knows what the crowd does not from the Prologue; they do not see Jesus
as the Danielic Son of Man. Jesus continues developing this concept by answering why the
crowd should believe in him in 6.3739 and by showing how he and the Father are working in
harmony. What does 6.3739 say about the Gospel as it relates to the harmonious work of the
Father and Jesus? It shows the universal scope of this work in that everyone whom the Son has
been given will be raised up on the last day (6.39).28 It shows an individualistic quality of the
GospelJesus will receive and preserve each person who comes to him (6.39).29 And it shows
that their work is predestinarian. Jesus has come from heaven to do the will of the Father (6.38).30
This topic about the necessary response of faith culminates in 6.40 with an allusion to Numbers
21.89. Through the voice of Jesus, the Fourth Evangelist is using the bronze snake in the
wilderness, which God used to provide deliverance for his people, as a type reaching its ultimate
fulfillment in the antitype Jesus. The deliverance and life found in 6.40 is both realized
eschatology through the present and futuristic eschatology through the future .31
is a key Johannine term that is modified by the adjective 17 times out of the 36
times that it is used in the Gospel (such as in 6.27 and 6.40). Only once is the object of a
future verb (1.36). But there are multiple occurrences (such as 5.2429 and 11.25) in which the
clause is discussing futuristic eschatology in setting (i.e. resurrection) without using future verbs.
For the Gospel of John, is often described as possessed (i.e. ) in a realized manner, but is
also described in a possessive future like here.

John 6.4151

In the paragraph containing John 6.4151, the Evangelist continues the theme of an
internalization of faith being a necessary response to Jesus as he reveals his identity to the
audience. In 6.41, the Evangelist alludes to the Israelite attitude of grumbling while in the
wilderness by using to describe the audience.32 Here, the Evangelist is linking John
5.4547 to this allusion found in John 6 by demonstrating that Moses witnessed to Jesus as the

26 George R. Beasley-Murray, John, 92.

27 D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 290.

28 C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978), 294.

29
Carson, The Gospel according to John, 290.

30 Andreas J. Kstenberger, John, kindle location 4427.

31 Beasley-Murray, John, 92. Contra Bultmann who sees a later redactor adding futuristic
eschatology.

32 Francis J. Moloney, Signs and Shadows (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 51.
 7

antitype fulfilling Moses role as the prophet. Jesus self-identifies as the Danielic Son of Man in
6.27 and 6.52; yet the audience identifies Jesus as the son of Joseph in 6.42. The reader is aware
that Jesus self-identification is true via the Prologue; however, the audience fails to see that
Jesus self-identification is true of him. Again Jesus responds to their misunderstanding in 6.43
by identifying himself as the one sent from the Father. And as the one sent from the Father, the
voice of Jesus through the words of the Evangelist gives eschatological significance to this
response of faith by again drawing on the not yet eschatology. Carson hits hard on the
harmonious active force of the Father and Son drawing those responding in faith to Jesus.33 And
this act of drawing has a Jewish correspondence found in Pirqe Aboth i.12: here the point being
made is to be brought into a fuller knowledge with Torah. The difference here lies in how one is
brought into a fuller knowledge of the Father; Jesus is stating that it is through him because he
and the Father are harmoniously at work together, contra how the Pharisees used Torah/ Tanak in
John 5.3640.34
Throughout John 6.3644, the Evangelist has continually shaped this idea through the
allusions of the Israelites in the wilderness. The emphasis in doing so is to show Jesus as the
antitype fulfilling the role of the prophet to whom the audience and reader ought to respond in
faith because his self-identification is true. When John 6.45 uses a quote from Isaiah 54.13, the
Evangelist is identifying that the New Covenant is realized through Jesus. This chapter of Isaiah
looks ahead to when God will completely restore the exiled people of Judah. By using a pesher
interpretation of this chapter, the Evangelist, through the voice of Jesus, is saying God is now
reigning and the restoration of the exiled comes through him. This utilization of quotation of the
New Covenant being realized through Jesus also alludes to Jeremiah 31.3133 and Ezekiel
36.2426 by drawing upon internalizing this response of faith in 6.47.35 The Johannine Eternal
Life corresponds to the Synoptics Kingdom of God language. The Evangelist is emphasizing
both the realized eschatology of Jesus initiating the New Covenant in 6.45 and the future
eschatology found in 6.44.
Jesus repeats 6.35 in 6.48 by stating, I am the bread of life. The content between
these two references emphasizes Jesus self-identification as the Son of Man, the antitype
fulfillment, and the one initiating Gods restorative plan via the New Covenant for the exiled.
The theme of responding in faith to Jesus has been addressed at points throughout; however, the
Evangelist now focuses upon the internalization by expanding the illustration of bread. In 6.49
the contrast is evident through the continued wilderness theme mentioning those who ate the
manna and died. The counter point is made in 6.5051: Jesus self-identifies as, the bread that
has come down from heaven, recalling the language used in 6.41. is used twice here
metaphorically emphasizing the internalization of this faith in Jesus. And it also recollects the
language of the prologue using as the Evangelist clarifies why the Word was made flesh. It
is on behalf of the life of the world. 36 The response of faith via internalization results in life;

33 D.A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 293.

34 Raymond Brown, The Gospel according to John, 271.

35 Carson, The Gospel according to John, 293-294.

36 George R. Beasley-Murray, John, 94.

 8

he came to show us the Father by being the Word made flesh so that the world can respond in
faith experiencing the restoration promised to the exiled.

John 6.5259

The content in this section is closely connected to Jesus statement in v. 51c. Some
commentators attempt to link v. 51c with the subsequent material by claiming that it introduces a
new section where the eucharist is the main theme, as opposed to believing in Jesus.37 However,
this view is inadequate because it fails to take into consideration the progression of the larger
narrative, in which the discussants play an important role. For instance, in vv. 27, 3233, 40, 51,
58, 63f. Jesus summarizes the preceding content in a three-fold sentence, which serves as a
bridge to the next stage of the discourse.38 Thus, the content in v. 51c should not be severed from
its preceding context; it should be interpreted metaphorically as referring to Jesus death on the
cross and the eternal life that is given to the one who believes in him.39 It is also significant that
the term is used instead of , which is used elsewhere in the New Testament to refer
explicitly to the eucharist. Moloney points out the likely allusion to John 1.14, claiming, It is as
the incarnate logos that Jesus is able to give his flesh for the life of the world.40 The verb
is used in v. 52 to describe the fight that broke out between the Jews upon hearing
Jesus claim.41 The grumbling from v. 41 has intensified along with the teaching.42 Verse 53

37 See Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John IXII, 284285. Brown takes the
sacramental position for two reasons: 1) the emphasis on feeding on Jesus flesh; 2) the formula of v. 51c.

38 David Gibson, Eating is Believing? On Midrash and the Mixing of Metaphors in John 6,
Themelios 27.7 (Spring 2002): 11. Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Flesh of the Son of Man John 6.53, in Essays on John
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 40. Barrett makes a similar argument in response to the redaction critics
regarding the integrity of vv. 51c58.

39 James D. G. Dunn, John VI: A Eucharistic Discourse?, New Testament Studies 17.3 (1971):
329330. This is especially the case when one considers the usage of in GJohn (10.11, 15; 11.50; 11.51f.;
15.13; 17.19). Barrett concludes that these passages show that a reference to Jesus sacrificial death is intended. See
C. K.
Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2 ed.
(Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1978), 298.

40 Franics J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man (Rome: LAS, 1978), 115, cited in D. A. Carson,
The Gospel according to John, 295.

41 The term denotes to engage in heated dispute, without use of weapons, fight, quarrel, dispute.
See BDAG, 622. This would seem to imply that there were some in the crowd who were strongly for Jesus as well.
See Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971), 377. There is also a
textual variant after . The witnesses C D K L W 1.13 33. 565. 579. 700. 1241. l 844. l 2211 ff2
omit . The witnesses 66 B T 892. 1424 lat sy include it. The external evidence is fairly even and the internal
considerations are not conclusive one way or another. Thus, Metzger et al. have included in brackets with a
rating of {C}. See Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2 ed. (Stuttgart,
Germany: German Bible Society, 1994), 183.

42 Edwyn Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, ed. F. N. Davey (London: Faber and Faber, 1947), 298.
 9

begins with the emphatic double amen for the fourth time in this chapter. The expression
would have been particularly unsettling to Jews, who were prohibited
from consuming any blood.43 Jesus also refers to himself here as the Danielic Son of Manthe
mediator between God and man, who descended from the Fathers side to do the Fathers work,
and who will ascend back to his Fathers side when that work is done.
The language of eating and drinking is a metaphorical expression of the preceding
idea of internalizing Jesuss life and death by believing. Concerning this idea of internalization in
Semitic thought, one scholar writes, In addition to their literal meanings of ingesting solids and
liquids, eat and drink mean to assimilate, to internalize, to make a part of oneself.44 This
implies that the believer must continuously exercise this faith in the same way that one must
continually eat and drink to preserve physical life.45 This truth must become part of their very
being. Whereas the Synoptic Gospels present eternal life in an eschatological sense, the Gospel
of John presents it as being efficacious both now and not yet.46 John presents the appropriation of
eternal life as an immediate transfer from death to life.47 Though physical life is portrayed in the
resurrection of Lazarus from the dead, John mostly uses with transcendent connotations.
One author writes: One who hears the word of the revealer transcends the more comprehensive
death of separation from God.48 However, this life is not entirely spiritualized, since John
inextricably links the content of faith to the incarnate Jesus.49 In v. 54 we see overtly this idea of
eternal life both now and not yet. The person who internalizes Jesus through faith both presently

43 Cf. Gen 9.4; Lev 17.12, 14; Deut 12.23; Josephus, Antiquities, 3.260. Regardless of how figural
one takes this expression to be, it most likely refers to violent bloodshed and death. See C. H. Dodd, Interpretation
of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 339. See also Alan M. Stibbs, The Meaning
of the Word Blood in Scripture (London: Tyndale Press, 1947).

44 A. W. Jenks, Eating and Drinking in the Old Testament, in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary,
vol. 2, ed. D. N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 252.

45 W. Hall Harris III, The Gospel of John: Witness to the Word (Unpublished commentary for NT325
A. Dallas Theological Seminary, Spring Semester, 2014).

46
BDAG write, Especially in Johannine usage the term is copiously employed, as a rule to
designate the result of faith in Christ; in most cases it is stated expressly that the follower of Jesus possesses life
even in this world: . See BDAG, 430. Thus, the term is used by John to denote the salvation that the
believer receives upon hearing and trustingthat is, in the proclamation of Jesus. John often attaches
the term to : (3.15, 16, 36; 4.14, 36; 5.24, 39; 6.27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10.28; 12.25, 50; 17.2, 3). It is also
important to note that is in the present tense here and in v.54.

47 Cf. 5.24 ().

48 Luise Schottroff, , in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, eds. Horst Balz and
Gerhard Schneider, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), 107.

49 Rudolf Bultmann, , , in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard

Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromily, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964),
871.
 10

has eternal life and will also be raised up on the last day.50 The participle is quite graphic
and denotes biting, chewing, or eating audibly; it is often used to denote close comradeship.51
The term is used in Matt 24.38 to denote eating joyfully.52 Verse 55 goes on to mention that
Jesus flesh and blood are not imaginary, but real food and drink.53 However, one must not
confuse real with physical (as in eucharistic) because our spiritual dimension is just as real as our
physical.
Thus, Christs physical death on the cross has a real effect on the believers nature by
reconciling him or her to God. This is further fleshed out in v. 56 where we see a parallel with v.
54; however, in this instance, the result of the person who internalizes Jesus by faith is that he or
she continually remains in Jesus and Jesus continually remains in him or her.54 The term in
John often refers to a perpetual fellowship in which the believer remains in continuous
communion with the Father and the Son.55 In v. 57 one should note that the direct object of the
dependent clausethe one who feeds on meis a personal pronoun. Carson rightly notes,
the use of the pronoun me, replacing my flesh and my blood in v. 56, confirms that the whole
person of Christ is in view, not merely eucharistic elements.56 In v. 58 Jesus goes on to draw a

50 This verse closely parallels 6.40, which provides further reason to continue interpreting it
metaphorically. Regarding the future resurrection in Jewish thought, cf. Dan 12.2; 2 Macc 7.9.

51 BDAG, 1019. Many argue that this term alludes to the eucharist. One has to be careful, however,
when it comes to loading Johns words theologically. Some words function almost as technical terms (, ,
etc.), but John is also prone to stylistic variation (cf. John 21.1519). Moreover, this passage is clearly symbolic.
Harris writes, By anyones definition there must be a symbolic element to the eating which Jesus speaks of in the
discourse here, and once this is admitted, it is better to understand it to refer here, as in the previous references in the
passage, to a personal receiving of Christ (or appropriation of Christ, or internalization of Christ) and his work. See
Harris, The Gospel of John: Witness to the Word. Probably John simply prefers this term when he uses the present
tense. See Carson, The Gospel Acccording to John, 296.

52 Morris points out that Lukes account (Luke 17.27) uses , which shows that the terms are
essentially interchangeable. See Morris, The Gospel according to John, 380, n. 131.

53 BDAG, 43.

54

This usage of the present tense implies an ongoing state. See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar
Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 522. A few
witnesses D (a ff2) include the following after in v. 56: .
. This is
almost certainly a homiletic expansion. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 183.

55 BDAG note that it is a common practice of John to use the phrase to denote an
inward, enduring personal communion. See BDAG, 631. It is also probable that Johns usage of
corresponds to Pauls concept of . See Friedrich Hauck, , ., in Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament, ed. Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromily, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1968), 576. This perpetual fellowship is the effect of a believers internalization of Christ by
believing. It is what provides the believer with the spiritual sustenance necessary in order to love others. This
communion is further fleshed out in John 15.117.

56 Carson, The Gospel according to John, 299.

 11

distinction between physical food, which only sustains physical life, and spiritual food, which
restores and sustains true humanity in continuous communion with God, which is eternal life.

John 6.6065

The understanding of vv. 6065 pivots on the readers conclusion about 5158s place
in the pericope. If, as Brown, the reader has concluded that vv. 5158 are eucharistic and were
added to John by later redactors (or at least brought from elsewhere in the book to its current
location), then the confusion of the disciples is in Jesus claim to be descended from heaven in v.
50, and has nothing to do with eating Jesus flesh and blood. The point is made that the disciples
are struggling to listen, not refusing to eat.57 This line of argumentation fails to imagine the
conversations in context. Jesus is not at the time of the discourse offering the disciples anything
to eat, but telling them he is going to do so. As such, it makes complete sense for them to
struggle against hearing such an anti-Jewish promise of an invitation to cannibalism and drinking
of blood. Instead, as weve argued, the discourse should be taken in its entirety as written by
John, theologically interpreting Jesus discourse with the crowds shortly after the multiplication
miracle.
One of the more difficult details to figure out is the protosis, if you see the Son of
Man ascending to where he was before which occurs with no apodosis. Multiple theories
have been suggested for the referent, but thematically, the verse finds its significance in
highlighting Jesus once again as the pre-existent Son of Man, descended from heaven, and
signifies that the disciples may see him ascend back to heaven. It seems that Jesus is
questioning whether the disciples would still stumble over these truths if they had the further
evidence of the death and ascension of Jesus. Altogether, this final section acts to conclude the
discourse, relieving the tension that Jesus had gradually reinforced as a barrier to the crowds
belief by making the metaphor of the bread more and more visceral as the crowd grumbled. He
assures the disciples that their consuming of his flesh will be a spiritual consumption, and not
one of literal flesh.58 In the end, even this assurance is not satisfactory for some, but as Jesus has
reiterated again and again throughout the discourse, no one can come to me unless it has been
granted him from the Father.59

57 Brown, The Gospel according to John, 299.

58 The verb translated gives life in vs. 63 (and 21) appears in the Pauline corpus seven times,
including 2 Cor 3:6, The letter kills but the Spirit gives life, and 1 Cor 15:45, the last Adam became a life-giving
Spirit. The contrast between useless flesh and the words of Jesus that hold the life-giving Spirit is reminiscent of
Isaiah 40:6-8, All flesh is grassThe grass withers; the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand forever.
cf. 1 Pet 1:24-25. See Brown, The Gospel according to John, 296. The words that I have spoken are spirit and life,
coupled with Peters words in 6:68 have reinforced the idea that Jesus teaching is the bread of life. Again though,
this seems to miss the bigger picture in John that Jesus is the Word. Thus, to receive Jesus words is to receive him,
and it is clearly him that is the Bread of Life (cf. the High Priestly Prayer in 17:7, 8).

59 Jesus apparent insistence on this theme throughout the discourse could be a reflection of Johns
own church experiences while writing his gospel, as reflected in 1 John 2:18, 19 that those who went out from us
were not really of us.
 12

Applications

There are a few important applications from this passage. The first involves the idea
of internalizing Jesus by believing. Internalization means to make Jesus part of oneself. In
Semitic thought believing something means that ones life conforms to that truth. This is why
belief is not a noun in John. It is not simply mental assent. It is a verb that describes ones
ongoing inclination toward God. The person who is born from above is continuously open to
God, feeding on Christ daily for his or her spiritual nourishment. The second application
involves the nature of eternal life. The internalization of Jesus immediately results in eternal life,
which is continuous communion with God the Father through God the Son. We see in John 15.1
17 that the evidence of remaining in Christ is that we will love one another. For John eternal life
begins the moment that one internalizes Jesus by believing, which inevitably results in a different
attitude toward others as well. If we truly internalize Jesus, then we will remain in him and he
will remain in us. The last application to be taken from this passage is that there is nothing we
can do to earn this eternal life. It is Gods work. In light of this truth we can have assurance that
all of those whom the Father has given to the Son possess eternal life upon believing and will be
raised up on the last day.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barrett, Charles K. The Flesh of the Son of Man John 6.53. In Essays on John. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1982. 3749.

. The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the
Greek Text, 2nd edition. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1978.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, revised and edited by Frederick W. Danker, 3rd edition. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2000.

Beasley-Murray, George R. John, Word Biblical Commentary 36. Waco: Word Publishing, 1987.

Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel according to John IXII, Anchor Bible 29. New York:
Doubleday, 1966.

Bultmann, Rudolf. , . In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by

Gerhard Friedrich, translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromily, volume 2. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964.

Carson, Donald A. The Gospel according to John. The Pillar New Testament Commentary;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Charlesworth, James H. ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1983.

Dodd, Charles H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: The University Press,
1963.

. Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.

Dunn, James D. G. John VI: A Eucharistic Discourse?. New Testament Studies 17.3 (1971):
328338.

Fee, Gordon D. On the Text and Meaning of John 20:3031. In To What End Exegesis?. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001. 2942.

12
Gibson, David. Eating is Believing? On Midrash and the Mixing of Metaphors in John 6.
Themelios 27.7 (Spring 2002): 515.

Harris III, W. Hall. The Gospel of John: Witness to the Word. Unpublished commentary for
NT325 A. Dallas Theological Seminary, Spring Semester, 2014.

Hauck, Friedrich, . In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by

Gerhard Friedrich, translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromily, volume 4. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968.

Hoskyns, Edwyn. The Fourth Gospel, edited by F. N. Davey. London: Faber and Faber, 1947.

Jenks, Alan W. Eating and Drinking in the Old Testament. In The Anchor Yale Bible
Dictionary, edited by David N. Freedman, volume 2. New York: Doubleday, 1992. 250
254.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, translated by William
Whiston. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987.

Kstenberger, Andreas J. John. The Baker Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament; Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2 edition. Stuttgart,
Germany: German Bible Society, 1994.

Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission,
Corruption, and Restoration. 4th edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Moloney, Francis J. The Johannine Son of Man. Rome: LAS, 1978.

. Signs and Shadows. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to John. The New International Commentary on the New
Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971.

Schaff, Phillip. Through Bible Lands: Notes of Travel in Egypt, the Desert, and Palestine. New
York: American Tract Society, 1878.

Schottroff, Luise. . In Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Horst Balz
and Gerhard Schneider, volume 2. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1991.

Stibbs, Alan M. The Meaning of the Word Blood in Scripture. London: Tyndale Press, 1947.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

13