52The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum. 60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
As we discussed in the previous section (read here), our approach to this text will be that of acknowledging the author of the sacred scriptures to be both the Father and the King. Therefore, we can come to this and all other texts with our God given inquiring minds, together with honesty, trust, and faith.
Let us return to the text and to our main questions. Did Jesus make a rhetorical error by comparing the earthly real union with him (communion/eucharist) to eating flesh and drinking blood? If not, our question is, knowing the risk, why did he do this. Could the answer be obvious? Could it not be that Jesus chose the hardest metaphor possible in order to make sure that only those who perceived its true meaning, and were not afraid of being misunderstood, would have the privilege of being called his followers? I think there is some truth to this theory. However, I think that Jesus’ main reason for making such a radical pronouncement was simply because it was true. Let me restate it differently, I think he said it because nothing else could have possibly described that which he was seeking to make clear.
In other words, in God’s intended sense, Jesus’ body and blood are indeed the true food and the true drink, no matter how difficult a concept this may seem to us. Even though I agree that this is a difficult saying, I think there are some things that must be kept in mind. Let us continue thinking together.
I will argue here that Jesus’ point here is no different than what those who read the Bible should already be acquainted with – a move from the present to the ultimate. Here one example comes to mind, but there are others.
Do you remember the biblical prohibition against swearing, together with the affirmation that Israel must swear only by God himself?
We read in Matt. 5.34-35: “I say to you, do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.”
But we read in Deut. 10.20: “You shall fear the Lord your God. You shall serve him and hold fast to him, and by his name you shall swear.”
In Hebrews 6.13 “For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself.”
There is no apology. The reason Jesus forbids his followers to swear is not because he thinks swearing is unethical in all cases, but because there is no reason to swear about things that first, are not important, and second, call inferior things as witnesses. If one must swear, one must swear by the ultimate – Israel’s God himself.
Now let us ask a different type of question. Did Jesus expect his disciples to understand his “body and blood” speech and accept it? Or was it so “out there culturally and religiously” that only those who could “close their eyes to it” could be expected to remain with him? I am persuaded that Jesus expected them to understand and fully accept it. That was not the difficult part. Let me explain.
The ancient Jewish Middle Eastern society was a physical one. The human body was fully associated with the person to whom the body belonged. This is clear when you read the Psalms of David. Reading the Bible today we sometimes don’t fully follow its logic. Let me illustrate. When the psalmist thought of his own death and burial, he thought of himself (not just his body) going down into the grave. In Ps.30.9 we read “What profit is there in my death, if I go down to the pit? Will the dust praise you? Will it tell of your faithfulness?” This was so, because there was no separation between the body and the soul as in Western societies today. We are very much at home with the body and soul distinction. This was not the case in biblical times.
Moreover, the Hebrew Bible declared that the life of the flesh is in the blood, which is why it strictly forbade Israelites to drink animal blood when they consumed animal flesh as food:
10 “If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. 12 Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood. (Lev. 17:10-12)
Animal blood was symbolically poured on the altar of the Jerusalem Temple to make atonement for the Israelites. It was meant for God. It was meant to be consumed by Him and by Him alone. This may sound strange to modern ears, but this is exactly how the ancients thought of sacrifice. The ancient Israelites were not exceptional in this understanding of sacrifice. They offered to God (and sometimes gods) food for holy consumption. Did Israel’s God need sacrifices in order to survive? Did he need the flesh and the blood of animals? Of course not. But in the ancient mind, the slaughtered sacrifice was meant to symbolize a fully dedicated life offered to the deity worshiped. No questions asked.
So, what is happening here? I think it is something like this – Jesus says: “Now the tables will be switched. It is God’s turn to offer you all that He is. Just as you offer him the sacrifices symbolizing the whole life, so is he offering you Himself in the person of his son.” Paul also will say something similar “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?” (Rom.8.32)
Therefore, when Jesus referred to his body and blood he meant that the bread and wine should become, in the minds and hearts of his followers, fully associated with him in the entire spectrum of his life: his person, his teachings and his works. In other words, Jesus expected to be fully understood and received through active participation by faith. By faith in Him the believer would partake of salvation that is found in Jesus alone and is offered freely to all. That was the point.
So let me summarize. Jesus’ statement about his body and blood is true and no other picture could have made it clearer. His flesh and his blood, meaning Jesus Himself – the whole Jesus – is the only thing that can sustain a human being to life everlasting (Jn.1.1, 14).
But there is one more intriguing question here. In the context of the Gospel of John (and if you have read my comments from the beginning you will know what I mean) Jesus is polemicizing with the current rulers of Israel, based in Jerusalem. They say: “We are in control. We must approve everything. If Jesus is the Messiah, he must tell us (emphasis is mine) clearly.” They are saying: “We are the gate-keepers. We are the way to the Father”. Jesus’ view is different. He challenges their authority through his prophetic speeches and signs. Jesus says: “I and the Father are one. I am the way to the Father and I am Bread of Heaven that can sustain Israel to life eternal. I am the way, the truth and the life. If someone eats and drinks me, he will live forever.” You must a choice.
What then was the hard saying? (Jn.6.60) Was it that Jesus told the people to eat his flesh and drink his blood? Or was the hard saying the implication of what Jesus said about the body and blood? I think it was the latter.
My view is that the disciples understood him perfectly. It was not the Jerusalem Temple, the High Priest and Sanhedrin-led leadership, but Jesus who was the way to the Father. By Him life is given and is sustained. The disciples were smarter, than they looked. Jesus could not be possibly accepted by those already in the position of power and influence. They realized the storm was coming.
What do you think? Do you agree? Do you disagree? Why?
IF YOU HAVE NOT YET DOWNLOADED “Psalms: A Hebraic Small Group Bible Study Guide”. Make sure to do now. Click to download HERE!
[…] Jesus’ most dramatic statement about the nature of his person and mission (eating his body and drinking his blood) was delivered in Capernaum, he began to spend more time in Galilee. The reason is given in the […]
Dr. Eli,
I will have to disagree with you on your interpretation.
1. No one used that language about themselves as a person
2. It is not true that people viewed themselves as body and soul together after death. One of the most common practices was to gather a person’s bones after a little while and place them in an ossuary.
3. They were offended by the teaching. This strikes me as an odd statement to make if it was really about authority.
1. Of course not.
2. Sure they did. Read the psalms.
3. The teaching was the challenge to the authorities.
[…] Please, see my comments in Eating His Flesh and Drinking His Blood Part 1 and Part 2. […]
Having been raised Quaker, it has been a very difficult thing for me to accept communion as the Prostestant world has. Its taken many years (48) to accept what my late husband, a Baptist, was taught. Now I come to this part that tells me some people thought of communion as a sort of cannabalistic practice. The whole thing is difficult for me. Yes, I believe Jesus was resurrected and commanded we practice remembering Him by taking communion, but is there not another way to express the communion? I guess I am very graphic in my imagination. The OT forbids eating or drinking blood so I am having trouble with this in my thinking. I know Jesus was considered a revoluntionary, but this? Can someone help me understand something? Am I missing something in explanation?
Dolores, perhaps, others could help, but what I think about it I wrote in this post :-). Blessings and peace, Dr. Eli
It’s just an idiomatic expression, It refers to those who will receive Christ as their personal Lord and savior and will obey His command and trust His word by living on it from day to day.
While I never believed Jesus statement was to be taken literally or in transubstantiation this article was so helpful in giving the context and background-doesn’t it highlight how we Gentile believers need this teaching. It brings the gospels to life and gives deeper understanding so thank you. And yes, where for so long we have thought that the Jews and the disciples didn’t fully realise who He was and what He was saying, we are now being enlightened!
Ruth, it is so good to hear! Blessings, Dr. Eli
Dear Dr Eli!
My understanding to date has been that of Jesus being the ‘sacrificial lamb’ as also in Isa53 ” But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was on him; and with his stripes we are healed” and also e.g. with passages like “my body, broken for you” etc. And so, if we do not acknowledge that it was OUR neediness, and OUR sins that required the price of his death in our place, then we have no part of him – because we have rejected his sacrifice unto death, thus “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you”
But you are taking my understanding further, because it is not only in his DEATH, but also in his LIFE that he is sustaining us by his sacrifice of his body, once and for all
So this will tie up with the vine and the branches in John 15 – that if we are not part of the living vine, we will die.
I appreciate your underlining that the ‘roles have been switched’ and so we cannot earn this salvation. It has been given, unilaterally, by G-d in the gift of his son, if we receive this.
Lastly, I am reminded of Peter not wanting Jesus to wash his feet – understandably. But then Jesus pointed out that “unless I wash you, you will have no part of me.” John13:8
“unless I wash you, you will have no part of me.” John13:8
Interesting that Jesus first recorded miracle in John is to turn the water of cleansing into wine, the new wine ( it is new but is also the finest aged wine) of the new covenant, this cup is the new covenant of my blood, the life is in the blood. We must be washed/cleansed by the life that is represented by His blood.
A movement through the symbols of the old covenant to the new covenant. Is this also representative of moving from the letter to the spirit? The letter kills but the spirit gives life?
The letter of the law is to teleos in Christ. Eg physical temple to body of Christ, now , collectively, body is ekklesia
When I read your comment where you say that it was not the temple but Jesus that is the way, I feel it also replies to the statement that the destruction of the temple was a triumph for Christianity. (In the discussion on the temple)
The temple was not the way, Jesus is the way. But the the Jews qtoday also do not say that the temple is the way to God.
When I started typing this my thoughts were so very clear. Now reading it again I wonder . . . I decided to post it anyway hoping someone will see what I am trying to say! And perhaps even correct my rambling.
🙂 I did not think that it was Jesus against the Temple and therefore Christianity vs. Jewish Temple. Rather I think it is Jewish Jesus vs. Jewish Temple-leadership. It is not that simple but it is a start 🙂
Doctor Eli: your comment about this passage was very enligthing for me. I always interpreted just like a figurative language, which I think is also the case here.
By the way, the literal interpretation of this passage had led some religions like the catholic, to the so call transubstantion theory.
I think it is literally true, I do not think that the bread and the physically becomes the body of Christ. But I think we are so concern over this that we end up saying that it is not literally true.
This is my first posting….
I say the “catholics” with transubstantion theory carries this too far. Why can we not just leave it just as scripture says. Bread is the body and wine is the blood. This is what the Lutherans believe.
Welcome, William. We are trans-denominational group so all we do is think together. If you would like to argue why Lutheran position is better than Catholic you should go ahead and briefly say why. Great to get your feedback. Blessings and peace, Dr. Eli
I think Jesus was saying we have Seder here where we renew and embody as Jews our holy Covenant with God. But then Jesus breaks ha motzi ( bread) and says, “there is a new covenant now!” ( had to shocking– that hard thing to hear!) meaning that rather than animal blood to offer as iur symbol
of Covenant, it is the life blood of Jesus’ message, that which he embodied in his mission to free the ” impure” from their impossible separation from God in the eyes of the high priests. The temple was sacred to Jesus but the corruption within the practices/ rituals within the temple was keeping the Jewish people from accessing God ( they had to pay so much for animals to sacrifice to be blessed as worthy that it truly hurt many Jewish people who longed to be blessed by God because forgiveness was iut of reach for the poor and incurably ill). I feel Jesus was saying that if you thought of Shabbat and Seder bread and wine as an actual, physical oneness with God, you will be and feel completely connected, never again separate from God. I think the Catholics are Roman in heritage ( also a very physically demonstrative culture) and the interpretation of Jesus and the spirit of God being truly present in the bread and wine is wonderfully passionate. It also captures what you taught, Dr Eli, that the sense and concept of body and spirit in the ancient world was not yet developed into a separated orientation ( which came later when a mind- body- spirit triad concept evolved).
Understanding this through their eyes of sacrifice was very helpful. I agree with you that the disciples understood him. I might use the word completely (?), rather than perfectly because Luke 24:30 sounds like Spiritual illumination to me. ( Luke 24: 30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”).
Writing from Tucson AZ. I am new to this blog for posting. I have never posted before my first and this my second. I hope to not rile to many feathers but will add what I hope will be conservative Lutheran perspective. I think when Christ talks about this true blood and body presence it is there with the bread and wine. Catholics and Lutherans and other denominations have “sacraments.” I believe the Catholics carry the sacrament too far by complete change to body and blood. Other reformed don’t go far enough…no body and blood. We say as Christ says here and Paul repeats…Bread and Wine “in, with, under” true body and blood. We have bread and body, wine and blood present in Supper.