In the first part of the metaphor (25-33) the focus is on whom the bread came from — the Mother-Father. This section culminates with the phrase “For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” (33) The focus is all on the one who sends — bread from God, bread from heaven.
Then in verse 34 the focus changes. Jesus declares, “I am the bread of life.” I talked about this in my last blog. But here, in the sequential view of the passage, it is written to establish who Jesus was. Jesus is the one who came from God, “I am the bread that came down from heaven”. (41).
Today, the lectionary passage starts with verse 51. It is a transitional verse between the second and third parts of the discourse on bread. It is the conclusion on the focus on Jesus as the bread — “I am the living bread that came down from heaven” (51a). Then the beginning of the introduction to the concept of flesh — “this bread is my flesh which I give for the life of the world” (51c)
This is a significant change in the metaphor. To recap, firstly was the bread sent from heaven the focus on the one who sent it. Secondly the focus was on Jesus as the bread that was sent from heaven (the divinity of Jesus) and now the focus has moved to bread as the flesh of Jesus. It is no longer on the divinity but on the humanity. The one who came as flesh.
Earlier, I read several articles about whether this section of John 6 is Eucharistic or not — both sides had good points. Personally, I suspect there is a hint of Eucharistic understanding in it especially given the late dating of the book of John but there is also so much more. By seeing it as only Eucharistic something is lost.
As I often do, I want to think about the impact these words (51-58) would have had on the contemporary audience. I think that often helps when considering a passage. Personally I have read and heard these seven verses so many times that they have become commonplace. They are part of our faith, our tradition and are accepted and read as such. They don’t cause any major unrest.
But for those following Jesus, and the later first and second readers of the gospel, they would have been totally shocking. Really, really offensive. As they were said, I can imagine a stunned silence. I can imagine a wave indignation. Even questioning, did Jesus really say that — “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.”
This phrase and concept go against everything the audience has understood and been taught from childhood. It is against the Jewish tradition and law and would have been heard as such.
“No one among you shall eat blood, nor shall any stranger who dwells among you eat blood” (Leviticus 17:12)
So, this would have been very offensive to the Jewish audience. This attacked their culture — who they were at the very centre of their beings. It destabilised everything they were, loved and felt. Culture, tradition and upbringing are really important. I feel English, nothing will change that, it doesn’t matter how long I have lived in USA, my culture is English. I have neighbours from different countries, we talk and share our different experiences. They too feel a sense of belonging to their cultures. In addition to my experience, one only has to look at the contemporary media to see how offensive an attack on a person’s culture is and how important and deeply ingrained culture is.
It is hard, if not impossible, to understand why the bread metaphor went from a pleasant metaphor about bread as nourishing and sustaining to something that would be a stumbling block for many.
The lectionary passage concludes with a re-emphasis on the bread metaphor, “the one who eats this bread will live forever” (58). Clearly, this not a reference to physical life as at the time the gospel was penned many would have already died. Nevertheless, certainly an encouragement after a hard passage. Yet, it does not negate the impact of those few verses about eating flesh and blood.
Although today’s lectionary text ends with that final bread phrase, there is a fourth section to this bread discourse (although bread in not actually mentioned). It is important as it reenforces how much offence was caused. I wonder if, maybe, it provided an explanation to why so many followers left Jesus.
The concluding section starts with the words that Jesus said this “while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum”. (59)
No longer on a mountain but in a synagogue — wow! That must have felt even worse to the listeners, maybe even heretical. The disciples grumbled and one acknowledged, “This is a hard teaching”. (60-61)
But then the story twists again, “The Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing”. (62) This was clearly included later as the text goes on to references the ascension and ensuing Spirit.
I can’t help but wonder if this was penned to minimize damage as the word blood is omitted? Nevertheless, at this point in the story many leave and no longer follow Jesus (66). The twelve remain, culminating with Peter acknowledging that they believe Jesus was the one from God. (69)
The metaphor of bread in John 6 is a bit like a roller-coaster ride there are so many twists and turns, highs and lows. But, I want to end back at today’s interesting lectionary passage which I have tried to set in a little context.
As it clearly caused offence talking about eating flesh and blood, it does raise for me lots to ponder about offence and should one abandon a cause if one is offended. And, of course, I’m not talking about trivial little offences but those that challenge everything one is and has held dear.
So, this week I’ll be thinking a lot about principles, upbringing and tradition —
What is heresy and what is new revelation?
When does one remain with one’s tradition or when does one abandon it to embrace new concepts?
Lots to muse on
