[And] Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life he that comes to me shall never hunger, and he that believes on me shall never thirst at any time.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
But I have said to you, that ye have also seen me and do not believe.
They had watched Him feed thousands and followed Him across the lake. They had even asked Him to give them this bread always. The Lord answers by naming what was missing in them. His charge is not that they lacked evidence, but that they had it and remained unmoved.
The sight the Lord speaks of was not a glance. It took in everything He had done and everything He was, and still left them cold.
He Himself is the Bread of life, able to fully satisfy the need of every hungry and thirsty heart. Yet He sadly tells the Jews that they too had seen Him. That seeing of course takes in His works of power and grace, and every outward quality that proved His great glory. Still they did not believe. They saw no beauty in Him personally. Dense indeed is the darkness of mere materialism!
The crowd wanted another sign. The Lord refuses. A sign was never the road to the faith that saves. So He talks with them instead.
A miracle is not the proper or direct ground of divine or gospel faith — the faith the Spirit works, the faith that saves the soul. No. The faith that saves the soul takes hold of the Son of God in the way that only sinners convinced of their guilt and need do. It is knowledge that the conscience itself makes. All of John's Gospel has been showing us this. So in this very chapter the Lord does not work the miracle the crowd wanted. Instead He talks with them in a way that uncovers whether their conscience had been reached. Were they following Him as sinners who needed life, or only as an admiring and interested crowd?
These are not the words of a cold judge. They are the words of love that was offered and pushed away.
No language is as cutting as the language of rejected mercy, of love repulsed and slighted! Here was this blessed One. His errand to this world was nothing less than this: to be the expression of His Father's love and the Saviour of lost men! He carried His credentials in every gracious word from His lips and every action of His perfect, spotless life. The miracle of the loaves had drawn a crowd who followed Him across the lake from selfish motives. They admitted that they had "seen" Him. But sadly they "did not believe." When they understood that He was the bread of life, they showed plainly that this was not the food they had come for.
Being closest to Him made their unbelief worse, not better. And the point does not stop with that crowd.
Sadly, the crowd that saw Him had no faith in Him. Their privilege in seeing Him only added to their guilty unbelief. And there is more to add. The atoning work is now done. He is dead, risen and glorified, and preached among the nations. So it is a greater sin still where He is not believed on in the world.
This verse is the first of three refusals in John 6. Each time the Lord presents Himself in a new way, man turns from Him again.
Sadly, man left to himself rejects Christ when He comes as a man, just as later he rejects Him in death (verse 52) and as ascended (verse 66). The Lord has to say, "You have seen Me and yet do not believe."
He does not stop at the failure. The next words turn from what man would not do to what the Father will do.
Here we see the contrast between the breakdown of man and the steadfast, unchangeable will of the Father. In verse 36 Jesus said to those around Him, "You have seen Me and yet do not believe." At once He went on to add, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me." Man, the responsible man, may fail, as he always has. But God's purposes will surely be accomplished. Hold this in the soul by the power of the Holy Spirit, and it will bring continual joy to our hearts. Through grace it gives us both strength and stability. It sets our feet upon a rock — the rock of God's power and love.
- Seen — their sight of Him took in His works of power and grace, everything that proved His glory. The problem was never a shortage of evidence.
- Unmoved — a miracle is not the ground of saving faith. Saving faith is the knowledge a conscience makes, and the Lord's words test whether anything had reached theirs.
- Wounded — the sentence carries the tone of mercy pushed away; they wanted another meal, not the One who gave it.
- Exposed — nearness makes guilt greater; it does not excuse it. The refusal repeats through the chapter: they reject Christ come as a man, then in death, then ascended.
- Answered — the Father's unchanging will meets man's breakdown at once, so the crowd's failure opens the way to a rock that does not move.
All that the Father gives me shall come to me, and him that comes to me I will not at all cast out.
The crowd in this chapter had seen Jesus and still refused to believe Him. He does not argue with them. He states two certainties: everyone the Father gives Him arrives, and everyone who arrives stays. So how does anyone know they are one of the given, and what does Christ promise the one who comes?
The verse joins God's choosing to Christ's open welcome. Commentators warn against pulling the two apart.
This is the key, and it has two sides. We only know the truth when we hold both. Take one side and leave out the other, and the teaching is incomplete. The result is likely to be error on one side or the other... The theologian who sees only the divine decrees pays little attention to the encouragement the Lord gives to the person who comes to Him. The man who argues for what he calls free will tries to cancel out the statement that all the Father gives to Christ will come to Him — if he does not ignore it altogether.
Some heard Christ and rejected Him; others heard and believed. The first half of the verse explains the difference.
There is the sovereign grace of the Father, which has given certain people to the Son, and every one of them comes to Him. As far as they themselves are aware, many different things draw these happy people to Him, and those things differ in almost every case. Yet beneath it all, as the ultimate explanation, lies this gift of the Father to Christ — a love gift, we may call it.
That gift also explains why the unbelief around Him could not make His coming a failure.
If blessing depends on man's responsibility, then it is all over; no one will be blessed. But, as always, when man stands fully exposed, God falls back on the purposes of His own heart. He will not allow all to perish; nor will He allow that the coming of the Son of Man shall be all in vain.
How can anyone know they are among those the Father gives? One writer settles it with a single question.
Suppose I ask someone who has no peace with God, "Have you come to Christ?" If that person can answer, "Yes," then I can say: "This shows that you are one whom the Father has given to Christ. He said, 'All that the Father gives me will come to me' — and you have come to Him."
The promise asks nothing but coming. Hamilton Smith names the kinds of people it covers.
Whatever their nationality or their character — Jews or Gentiles, fallen women or hardened thieves, Pharisees or tax collectors — if they only come to Christ, He will receive them. Their coming is the proof that they are the Father's gift to the Son.
The next verse gives the reason: He came down to do the will of the One who sent Him. So refusing anyone would mean refusing His Father.
All that the Father has given come, and the Son casts out none who come. This is not only because of His own grace and personal love for them. It is because they are the Father's gift, and because the very purpose of His coming down from heaven was to carry out the Father's will, and so reveal the Father's heart... There is no possibility of any slip between the Father's gift and the Son's reception.
The wording is a promise about the future as much as the moment of arrival.
When He said, "whoever comes to me I will never cast out," it meant three things. First, I will receive him. Second, I will hold him fast. Third, I will never give him up — "never cast out."
- Gift — The Father gives people to His Son as a love gift. That gift is the deepest reason anyone comes.
- Guarantee — Between the Father's giving and the Son's receiving there is no gap, no slip, no lost case.
- Grounds — Christ receives you out of obedience as well as kindness. He came to do His Father's will, and turning you away would break it.
- Range — No nationality, record, or reputation shuts anyone out. The promise asks only that you come — and coming is itself the proof of the Father's gift.
- Grip — "Never cast out" means received, held fast, and never given up — a welcome that has no expiry.
For I am come down from heaven, not that I should do *my* will, but the will of him that has sent me.
Jesus has just promised to turn no one away. Here He gives His reason: He came down from heaven to do the will of the One who sent Him.
Two things stand together in the verse. Coming down is His own act. Being sent is the Father's.
The Son had come down from heaven of His own choice, and yet He was the Sent One of the Father. It was the Son's will to come, but to do His Father's will. The will of the Son and the will of the Father were not different. But the Son had come to reveal the Father, and to make known in everything what the Father wanted to do. The Father's will could only be shown and carried out in a place of complete subjection and obedience. The Son took that place.
Obedience was something new for Him.
The blessed Lord took His human body, "born of woman, born under the law" (Galatians 4:4). He did this so that obedience might become possible for One who had not only made all things, but also upheld them all "by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3). Before taking human form, He had never been in a position to obey. Once He had taken it, His delight was to carry out to the very end the will of the Father who had sent Him. The Psalm puts it this way: "Behold, I have come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me: I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart."
"Not to do my own will" is sometimes read as though He had no will at all.
He was not someone who had no will of His own, as people sometimes say. He had a will as a true man, but He subjected His will to the will of the Father. He never exercised His will independently. He would not have been a perfect man if He had had no will. Think of Him never acting on His own will!
His obedience also left His enemy no opening.
Jesus never did His own will, though, as we know, blessed be His holy Name, His will was absolutely perfect. He was a perfect servant, from first to last. His rule of action was the word of God. His power of action was the Holy Spirit. His only motive for action was the will of God. So the ruler of this world had nothing in Him.
The verse opens with "for". It gives the reason behind the promise just before it.
People miss the beauty of that well-known passage — "whoever comes to me I will never cast out" — because they do not read the context. "Whoever comes to me" is only the last half of the verse. The whole verse is seldom quoted. First comes, "All that the Father gives me will come to me." Suppose I ask someone who has no peace with God, "Have you come to Christ?" If that person answers, "Yes," I can say, "That shows you are one whom the Father has given to Christ." The Father sends these sheep to Christ, and in receiving them He is doing the Father's will. How would He be doing the Father's will if He cast out those whom the Father had given Him?
His obedience also governed when He acted. It explains why He once waited two days before going to Lazarus.
This is why He stayed two days longer where He was, even after the cry of these sorrowing hearts had reached Him. In coming down to this scene, He came not to do His own will, but the will of Him who sent Him. So He would not act at the promptings of His own heart. He had taken the place of obedience, and He waited for the Father's word before answering the appeal. Cold must be the heart that is not moved by this shining out of His moral glory. Here is infinite greatness joined with the lowliest grace and humility.
- Came — He came down of His own choosing, and the Father sent Him. Both are true. His will and the Father's will were never different.
- Body — obedience was not open to Him as Creator. He took a human body so that a life of obedience could begin, as the Psalm says.
- Will — He had a real human will and never acted on it apart from the Father. That is why the ruler of this world found nothing in Him.
- Welcome — receiving those who come is the Father's will. Turning them away would break the obedience He came for. Your welcome rests on His obedience, not on you.
- Restraint — the same obedience held Him back before He went to Lazarus. He waited for the Father's word instead of acting on the promptings of His own heart.
And this is the will of him that has sent me, that of all that he has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up in the last day.
In John 6 the crowd wanted Jesus as their king on earth. He answers by pointing to the Father's will: no one given to Him is lost, and resurrection will prove it.
The verse starts with the Father's will, not with what the believer does. Christ presents Himself as the One who carries that will out, and His service reaches even into the grave:
The Father has given souls to the Lord Jesus. His will is that the Lord should lose not one, but should raise it up at the last day. He cares for those given to Him. He guards them, so that the enemy does not destroy them and their own folly does not lose them. He keeps even the body that lies in the grave, so as to raise it up again at the last day. In doing all this the Lord Jesus is the Servant doing the Father's will.
Two dangers appear there: the enemy outside and our own folly inside. Christ has taken responsibility for every member of the flock:
The Lord Jesus has His own personal love for the sheep, proved in life and in death. Apart from that love, in this memorable passage He presents Himself as responsible to the Father — willingly so, no doubt. He is responsible to keep every member of the loved and valued flock through all the changing circumstances of this life, and to present them in resurrection glory at the last day.
Two things people often set against each other stand together here. God keeps His own, and He turns away no one who comes:
It is beautiful to see how perfectly the Son of the Most High becomes His Servant, now to save, as later to administer the glory. He chooses none for saving; He leaves all with Him Who sent Him. "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." One side is the security of the children. The other is the free grace of the gospel.
Verse 39 speaks of a company as one thing. Verse 40 turns to the single person.
In John 6:39-40 the main difference, I think, is between the negative and the full positive. The negative says of "all that he has given me" that "I should lose nothing, but raise it up" — the "it" agrees with the "all" looked at as one whole. In the positive He brings in the person: "everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him." There the question is not about being lost, but about the present possession of eternal life.
What about believers who died long ago and are now forgotten?
It might seem that as generation after generation of God's people pass away, and are forgotten by men, that they are forgotten by God. The Lord's words assure us that it is not so. Not one is lost or forgotten. They will appear again at the last day. The resurrection power exercised by the Lord will be the final proof that He has lost nothing.
Christ does not merely delay the kingdom hope. He puts something else in its place:
In John 6, as I see it, the Lord is putting a blessing in resurrection in place of any royal Jewish blessing... He does not come and set up the Jews. The Father draws, and a man comes to Him. He blesses that man in the power of eternal life, raising him up when this busy and rebellious scene comes to its close.
Two questions remain: whose resurrection is this, and what is "the last day"?
In John 6 our Lord refers to the resurrection no fewer than four times, and each time it is the resurrection of His people. The way He speaks shows that this resurrection is their own distinctive privilege. The "last day" is not, as people commonly suppose, a day of twenty-four hours right at the close of all things. It is the great closing period. In it God makes clear the character and results of what man and Satan have done, of His own eternal purposes, and of His gracious workings throughout the periods before it.
- Given — the believer is first a gift from the Father to the Son. Salvation starts on God's side, not ours.
- Guarded — Christ takes responsibility for the gift. He guards it from the enemy outside and from our folly inside.
- Whole and single — verse 39 holds the whole company. Verse 40 holds each single person. Neither hides the other.
- Not forgotten — generations pass and people forget them. Nothing given to Christ drops out of His keeping.
- Raised — the proof comes at the last day. Resurrection will show that He lost nothing.
For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son, and believes on him, should have life eternal; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jesus has just spoken of the will of the One who sent Him. Now He states that will again — this time as an open offer to anyone who looks at the Son and believes. The verse holds together two things people often set apart: God's settled purpose and real human responsibility.
Verse 39 and verse 40 say "this is the will" of the Father, but they say it from different directions. One commentator sets the pair side by side.
Before, it was the Father's purposes that could not fail. Here it is the Son of God held out as the object of faith. If someone looked through the Lord's lowliness, saw the Son and believed on Him, that person would have everlasting life, and the result would be the same. In the first case it is a matter of the Father's purposes and His acts, and of what Jesus does in raising them: the Father gives them, Jesus raises them, not one of them is lost. Next comes the Son held out to people, along with man's responsibility.
The word "looks on" (older translations read "sees") is not about eyesight. Crowds looked straight at Jesus and saw only an ordinary man.
The first thing is the doorway into eternal life, which is seeing the Son and believing on Him. By "seeing" we mean discernment. It means God has opened a person's eyes, as He opened the eyes of the blind man in chapter 9, to see that Jesus of Nazareth, the Man Christ Jesus, is the Son — the Son of God. Not everyone who met the Son in human form saw this, for the natural eye saw only a lowly Man. The one who saw was the one who received the testimony that Jesus truly was God's Son.
Where does such sight come from? Another writer traces it back to the Father.
There were many who looked at Jesus and did not discern that He was the Son… It was the Father's revelation to Simon Peter that enabled him to say, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." That was a special revelation, no doubt. But in anyone at all, only the Father's work can enable him to see the Son and to discern the glory of Christ's Person, so that he believes on Him.
John's Gospel keeps using words like "everyone," "whoever," "he who." One writer refuses to limit these words to Israel.
Do these words apply only to people of the family of Jacob? Or do they rightly reach as far as the whole human race?… "Whoever" means whoever. We must take "Every man," "he that," and the like in the widest sense. The Lord Jesus, we now understand, used language that foretold how far-reaching the thoughts of God and His purposes of grace were.
The believer is not promised eternal life some day. He has it now, and the closing promise guards it.
He has everlasting life. Someone may say he could lose it. But the Lord shuts out that way of dodging the truth by adding, "I will raise him up on the last day." That is, He ties the final blessing to having eternal life now.
John 6 repeats this promise four times. One writer points out who is in view, and what the phrase does not mean.
In John 6 our Lord speaks of the resurrection four times, and each time it is the resurrection of His people. The way He speaks shows that this resurrection belongs to them as their own privilege… The "last day" is not, as many suppose, a day of twenty-four hours right at the close of all things. It is the great closing period, when God brings to light the character and results of what man and Satan have done, and of His own eternal purposes.
If the believer already has eternal life, why must anything more happen? Because that life belongs somewhere else.
Eternal life does not belong to this world. Its home is in heaven, in the Father's house, so its full enjoyment, according to the thoughts of God, is still future… Even now we have the well that springs up inside us, and by the power of the Holy Spirit we can enter into the joy of eternal life and taste it in our measure. But to know it as the Father purposed, we must wait until the Lord Jesus Christ returns as Saviour and changes our lowly bodies.
- Will. The Father's will appears twice: first as a purpose that cannot fail, then as the Son held out to all. Grace and responsibility stand together, not opposed.
- Sight. "Seeing" is discernment, not eyesight. The crowds saw only a lowly Man. Only the Father's work opens eyes to recognise the Son.
- Reach. "Everyone" is not narrowed to one nation — whoever means whoever, as wide as the human race.
- Life. The believer has eternal life now. The promise of resurrection shuts out the fear of losing it later.
- Raising. The "last day" is the closing period, and in John 6 it concerns His own people only. Then the Saviour changes our lowly bodies, and the life already given is enjoyed in full.
The Jews therefore murmured about him, because he said, I am the bread which has come down out of heaven.
A man standing in front of them had just called Himself the bread of life. Here that grace meets open resistance for the first time. No one asks Him a question. They grumble about Him instead, and the sticking point is one claim: that He came down from heaven.
The objection does not come from the Galilean crowd. It comes from another group, and nothing He had just said moved them.
Wonderful, must we not admit, had been the revelation just given. A man, who stood before them, was the bread of life. He had come down out of heaven... But there were Jews there who heard those words unmoved. Those who came from Judaea are meant here, in contrast to the Galilean crowd. They seized the chance to disturb the meeting by their murmurings.
Their murmuring was not new. Israel had done the same thing in the wilderness, over bread from heaven.
Long ago in the wilderness, an unbelieving and sinful generation murmured at the heavenly manna. That same generation now murmured in the presence of the Bread of God, come down from heaven. He came to fill with good things those who were hungry and thirsty for righteousness.
The offence was not that they misunderstood His words. It was that they felt no need of what He offered.
Their pride refused to be in debt to one so lowly. They were so pleased with themselves that they saw no need for anyone to come from heaven to meet their case and be their Deliverer and Redeemer — much less for anyone to die on the cross... So when the lowly Jesus presented Himself as the Saviour of their souls and the Giver of everlasting life, this was a deliverance they felt no need of, and a Deliverer they had no taste for. They did not hunger for such bread; they did not thirst for such life-giving drink.
Their objection proves they caught His meaning. A man who "came down" must have existed before He was here.
They could see what His language implied: that He existed in heaven before He was a man on earth. In other words, He was claiming divine glory as His own — glory veiled in His lowly place and condition as Son of Man. Against that implied claim they set what they supposed His origin to be.
They answered His claim with what they knew of His family, and even that they had wrong. Much hangs on the difference between His legal father and His actual mother.
So they set the circumstances as they knew them (and they knew them badly) against the truth of Christ. It was judging by appearances, and so it was unrighteous judgment. He was the son of Mary — truly and properly man; otherwise His work would not have availed for man. He was not the son of Joseph except legally; but this He was, so that He should be Messiah according to the law. If He had truly been the son of Joseph, as He was the son of Mary, He would not have been Son of God, or a divine Person. This was the foundation of everything. Without it the Incarnation would be a lie and the Atonement would be worthless.
The obstacle they hit is not only theirs. Left to itself, the human mind still stops at the same place.
The Jews judge by appearances and reason according to nature. So they cannot accept that anyone has come down from heaven. This is still the difficulty. The natural man can understand the family line of Christ according to the flesh. But he rejects the great truth that Christ is a divine Person, come in flesh, and so far more than the legal son of Joseph or the actual son of Mary.
Their murmuring did more than reject a claim. It showed what these people were, and what they lacked.
They only saw the Man Jesus, and thought they knew His parents. They completely missed that He was the Son, come of David's seed according to the flesh. In this way they made it plain that they had no part or share in this matter. They were strangers to that drawing of the Father, apart from which no one actually does come to Christ.
- Murmur. Israel murmured at the manna in the wilderness. The same word marks them here, in front of the true Bread. The complaint is against God's provision, not just against a claim.
- Pride. They did not hunger for such bread. A Saviour from heaven is only welcome to someone who admits a need that nothing on earth can meet.
- Appearance. They set what they thought they knew of His family against the truth of His Person. Judging by appearances is unrighteous judgment.
- Person. He was truly Mary's son, and Joseph's son only by law. If Joseph had really been His father, He would not be a divine Person — and the Incarnation and the Atonement would both fall.
- Drawing. Their murmuring showed they were strangers to the Father's drawing. The natural mind can handle a family line. Only the Father brings anyone to Christ.
And they said, Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we have known? how then does *he* say, I am come down out of heaven?
The crowd hears a claim about heaven and answers with what the town knows about His family. Their reply raises the question this chapter turns on. Can a known local man also be the bread that came down from heaven? And what has to happen inside a person before they can say yes?
The objection sounds like solid local knowledge. One writer shows how badly they held their facts, then sorts out how Jesus was son of Mary and son of Joseph.
They set the circumstances as they knew them (and they knew them ill) against the truth of Christ. It was judging according to appearances, and so it was unrighteous judgment. He was the son of Mary — truly and properly man; otherwise His work would not have been of use for man. He was not the son of Joseph except legally; but this He was, so that He should be Messiah according to the law. Had He really been the son of Joseph, as He was of Mary, He would not have been the Son of God, or a divine Person. But this was the foundation of everything. Without it the incarnation would be a falsehood and the atonement worthless.
Their question is not stupid. It is the reach of a mind working from nature alone, and it stops one step short.
The Jews, judging by appearances and reasoning according to nature, cannot accept the fact that anyone has come down from heaven. This is still the difficulty: the natural man can understand the genealogy of Christ according to the flesh, but he rejects the great truth that He is a divine Person, come in flesh, and so a great deal more than the legal son of Joseph or the actual son of Mary.
Behind the objection sits something other than a lack of information. One writer traces their resistance back to what they thought they needed.
Their pride would not be in debt to one so lowly. They were so pleased with themselves that they saw no need for anyone to come from heaven. Still less did they see any need for anyone to die on a cross, to meet their case and be their Deliverer and Redeemer... They did not hunger for such bread.
Readers often expect Jesus to settle the matter by telling them how He was born. One writer weighs that idea against the state these men were in.
Critics would have had the Lord reveal His supernatural birth here. But would that have suited men in the state of mind these were in? It could only have provoked their scorn.
Instead of arguing genealogy, He goes to the root of why they are murmuring at all.
They did not speak to the Lord directly. They showed a clear refusal of the truth of His incarnation... The Lord's quiet answer exposed their real state of soul, the cause of their murmuring: "Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day"... The matter, then, was perfectly simple. The Father must draw a person before he will bow to the truth of the Lord's incarnation. God had not done that work in these objectors. For those who have, the difficulties melt away. The soul that is simple before God accepts His word without hesitating. It still cannot fathom the mystery of the Son — God and man in one Person.
That leaves a warning for anyone who thinks checking the family records settles the matter.
Questions may be raised and settled well, even about Christ's genealogy. But unless God does a work in a man, he will never have eternal life in Christ Jesus as one drawn by the Father to the Son. A man may be religious, or not. He may look into the royal descent of Jesus and satisfy himself about it. In his soul he can still stay far from the Saviour. Those who questioned about the Lord were very religious, but they were in darkness and death of soul.
- Sight — They judged by appearances, so they judged wrongly. What they "knew" about His family they knew badly.
- Sonship — He was really Mary's son, so His work could count for man. He was Joseph's son only by law, and that gave Him His title as Messiah. Had He been Joseph's son in fact, the incarnation would be false and the atonement worthless.
- Stomach — The refusal was not only mental. They felt no need of a Saviour from heaven, so they had no hunger for this bread.
- Silence — He does not answer by explaining His birth. To men in that state it would only have drawn scorn.
- Sovereign drawing — His actual answer names the cure: no one comes unless the Father draws him. Settle the genealogy and you may still stand far off. Let the Father draw you, and the difficulties melt, even where the mystery stays beyond you.
Jesus therefore answered and said to them, Murmur not among yourselves.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
No one can come to me except the Father who has sent me draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day.
The people listening to Jesus were grumbling at what He said. His answer goes past their complaint to its root. Nobody comes to Him under their own power. The words raise two questions at once — if the Father must draw, where does that leave the person who wants to come? And why does a saying about coming to Christ end with a promise about resurrection?
Jesus does not argue with the complaint. He points to what unbelief does, and to where the power to come actually comes from.
Unbelief can only destroy and trouble; it cannot give life or comfort. Man under Satan is the source of unbelief, which always leads away from Christ, not to Him. But as the Father sent Christ, so He draws the believer to Christ, who raises him up at the last day. It is not man's worth or work or will, therefore, but the Father's grace, by which one comes to Christ. The whole blessing, in short, is of sovereign mercy.
"Cannot" here does not mean a locked door. God turns nobody away. The problem is the person's own unwillingness — and they are still responsible for it.
Notice that Jesus says, "You will not come." I fully believe that they are responsible for it... Now certainly God does not stop anyone from coming, but the disposition of man's heart is such that he will not. This is why the work of God is necessary, and why it is said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him." Perhaps you will say, everyone is drawn. No — the one who is drawn comes, and Jesus will raise him up on the last day: he is saved.
The verse has a matching half. The Father gives people to Christ, and Christ welcomes each one who comes. Commentators warn against holding one half without the other.
This then is the key, and it is twofold; and only in this largeness do we know the truth. If either side is taken to the exclusion of the other, the teaching is imperfect... The theologian who sees only the divine decrees pays little attention to the encouragement the Lord gives to the individual who comes to Him. The advocate of what he calls free will tries to neutralise, if he does not completely ignore, the declaration that all the Father gives to Christ will come to Him.
The drawing does not work like force. From the inside it feels like hunger, and like an honest look at oneself.
No one hungers for the bread of life enough to come to the Saviour unless a sense of urgent need draws him. That sense of need is found only in those whom the Father draws... God deals with the soul in this way. These humbling discoveries of self and sin lead to open confession of total ruin. That is what accounted for anyone coming to Christ.
The drawing is not the Father's work alone.
The Father draws (verse 44); the Son speaks (verse 63); and the Spirit gives life by applying His words in power to the soul.
The verse can sound like a lock on the door. Turn it around, and it becomes evidence: if you have come, the Father drew you.
Notice: if you come to Jesus, it is proof of two things. First, that the Father has given you to Him (v. 37). For "no one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (v. 44), and no one comes unless the Father grants it to him (v. 65). Second, it is proof that you are taught of God (v. 45). If you have not come, is it not because you do not believe God?
The promise attached to the drawing reaches past the soul to the body.
Here we learn that the teaching about the Bread from heaven involves the truth of the resurrection of the body. For the body, as well as the soul of the believer, is to share in everlasting life. So four times over in this chapter (6:39-40, 44, 54) the Lord declares, "I will raise him up on the last day."
But when is that day?
The last day is the last day of the present age. It is a general term for the end of that age, not just the final twenty-four hours.
- Cannot — the barrier to Christ is not a shut door but a heart that will not move; God stops nobody, yet nobody starts alone.
- Drawn — the Father's grace brings a person to the Son — not human worth, work, or will. The whole blessing is sovereign mercy.
- Taught — from the inside, the drawing feels like hunger and an honest sight of one's own ruin. Father, Son, and Spirit all work in it.
- Both — hold two truths together — the Father gives, and Christ welcomes everyone who comes. Drop either half and the teaching goes wrong.
- Raised — if you have come, your coming is the evidence that He drew you. And the same verse promises your body's resurrection at the close of this age.
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every one that has heard from the Father [himself], and has learned [of him], comes to me;
Jesus has just told the crowd a hard thing. No one can come to Him unless the Father draws him. Here He backs that up with a line from the prophets. So two questions follow. What is this teaching from God? And how can anyone know they have received it?
The Lord is not inventing a new idea. He is quoting an old one, and its full scope still lies ahead.
The Lord quotes Isaiah 54:13: they will all be taught by God. It is a prophecy of Israel's blessing in the coming thousand-year kingdom, linked with their new faith in the Lord Jesus. Meanwhile it is just as true that everyone whom the Father has taught will come to the Son. But the word "all" cannot be applied today as it will be in that coming kingdom.
The drawing of verse 44 and the teaching of verse 45 are one action, not two. One writer describes what that teaching does inside a person.
The way the Father draws is by divine teaching, as the word says: "they will all be taught by God." The Father gives light to the soul. He convicts it of its need of Christ. He reveals the glory of Christ. So the soul is driven by need and drawn by grace to Christ.
If God is the teacher, then no one can take credit for coming to Christ.
As the Father sent Christ, so He draws the believer to Christ, Who raises him up at the last day. So it is not a person's worth or work or will that brings anyone to Christ. It is the Father's grace. In short, the whole blessing is sovereign mercy, and that is what the prophets wrote. All true teaching comes from God. All are taught by God, Who never forgets what is due to Christ.
What does it look like when someone hears from the Father? One writer points to Nathanael, a man Jesus saw under a fig tree before the two had ever met.
No one hungers for the bread of life and comes to the Saviour unless a sense of urgent need draws him. That need is found only in those whom the Father draws… Everyone in Israel who had heard God's voice within not only came to Jesus, but was overjoyed to do so. Take Nathanael as an example (John 1:49). God dealt with his soul under the fig tree. Those humbling discoveries of self and sin, leading to an honest confession of total ruin, are what accounted for anyone coming to Christ.
The Father's teaching brings a person to Christ. So the coming is evidence — and staying away is evidence too.
Notice this. If you come to Jesus, it proves two things. First, that the Father has given you to Him (v. 37). For "no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (v. 44), and no one comes unless the Father grants it (v. 65). Second, that you are taught by God (v. 45). If you have not come, is it not because you do not believe God?
The verse says "Everyone who has heard," not "the crowd." God teaches one person at a time. That matters for anyone who thinks understanding only comes through other people.
The Holy Spirit remains with us. Among other privileges of the greatest value, He enables the believer to enjoy the whole revelation of God, in the measure of his faith by grace… See that you do not sink below your privileges. Enter into them by faith. This does not rest on your own opinion or on the authority of other men. There is much blessing in the fellowship of God's people, but God's teaching must be individual: "they will all be taught by God."
- Taught long ago. The line comes from Isaiah 54:13. It promises blessing to Israel, and its full "all" belongs to a coming day. The principle holds true now.
- Taught, then drawn. The Father draws by teaching. He shows the soul its need of Christ, and He shows the glory of Christ. Need drives, grace pulls, and both point one way.
- Taught, not earned. Coming to Christ rests on the Father's grace. It does not rest on a person's worth, work or will. The whole blessing is sovereign mercy.
- Taught inwardly. Hearing God's voice humbles a person. It uncovers self and sin and leads to honest confession — as it did with Nathanael under the fig tree.
- Taught personally. God teaches each person, not just the crowd. So coming to Jesus is the proof of it, and staying away means not believing God.
not that any one has seen the Father, except he who is of God, he has seen the Father.
In verse 45 Jesus promised that all would be taught by God, and that everyone who learns from the Father comes to Him. Verse 46 sets a limit on that promise. The teaching is real, but no one has ever laid eyes on the Father — except One.
He now blocks one wrong way of taking that promise.
The Lord guards this truth from any physical idea of it. Being taught by God does not mean that any man has seen the Father. The teaching is spiritual.
The Father's drawing works inside a person, not through the eye.
Then He explains that this drawing is done by divine enlightenment. The prophets had spoken of being taught by God. Everyone who had heard from the Father and learned from Him came to Jesus. And yet no one had actually seen the Father except Himself, who was from Him.
Why can no one claim to have seen the Father? Because the Father never took human form. The Son did.
What treasures these few words unfold. Souls may be taught by God, drawn by the Father, and so come to Christ. Even so, the Father is not directly revealed, so as to be seen. The Father never became a man, as the Son did. He remains God, never shown in visible form. Only in the Son do we see the Father — the Son who stooped to "come down from heaven" and be here a Man on earth.
The exception in the verse sets Jesus apart from everyone else on earth. His seeing did not begin when He came here.
An infinite distinction between this blessed Son of Man and all men on the earth, where in grace He had humbled Himself to come. He had seen the Father. Back in the depths of that eternity, when the Word was "with God" and the "eternal life" was "with the Father," He — who now humbly speaks of Himself as "He who is of God" — saw what no creature can see. He saw the Father. What deep secrets of love and blessedness and glory these short, simple words hold!
His seeing rests on who He is. Only a divine Person knows God in this way.
Here I may mention how fully able the Son of God, now become Man, is to bear witness to God and declare what He is — to reveal Him to man. He is Himself a divine person, one of those who dwell in the unapproachable light. So He knows God in a divine way, with absolute knowledge in the essence of His being. He knows what God's moral nature and character are. He could say, and did say, "We speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen" (John 3:11).
Set beside the prophets, the difference is not one of degree. They received a message from outside themselves; He spoke out of what He already was.
A Divine Person knows all things in Himself, as they are in themselves. He does not know as the prophets did. They received their commission, vision and message from One outside and above them... But Jesus spoke what He knew. Coming from God, and being Himself God, He knew the Divine nature perfectly, and was here a man to reveal it to men. He alone of all born of women had this ability, as Son and as the image of the invisible God — a place not only above others, but His alone.
The verse shuts one door and opens another. The unseen Father becomes knowable, because the One who saw Him came here.
"No one has ever seen God" (John 1:18). But here we have One who had seen the Father (John 6:46). He had always dwelt in the Father's bosom. He could bring Him to light before the eyes of men, so that those who saw Him saw the Father. It was God drawn near to men in the Person of the Son become Man in order that He might bring God near to man.
Verse 45 says that all will be taught by God. That promise comes from a prophecy, and its full reach is still future.
The Lord quotes Isaiah 54:13, that all shall be taught by God. It is a prophecy of Israel's blessing in the millennium, linked with their newly awakened faith in the Lord Jesus... But the word "all" cannot be used today as it will be in the millennium. The Lord says so in verse 46: only those who are of God had seen the Father; others were still in darkness.
- Drawn — the Father works in a soul by inward light, never by a sight of Himself. You can be taught by God and never see Him.
- Hidden — the Father never became a man. He was never shown in visible form, and no creature has seen Him.
- Seen — one Person is the exception, and His seeing reaches back into the eternity when the Word was with God.
- Known — He knows God not as a prophet given a message, but as a divine Person knowing in Himself; He speaks what He knows.
- Near — so the unseen Father comes within reach. God drew near to men in the Son become Man, so that men might be brought near to God.
Verily, verily, I say to you, He that believes [on me] has life eternal.
Jesus speaks to a people who were rejecting Him. He does not argue. He answers with an oath and a single condition. Two words carry the verse: "believes" and "has." Both have been argued over ever since.
So why the solemn repetition? One commentator points to what was new in that moment.
The Lord then solemnly repeats, "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life" (verses 47, 48). In truth, as the promised One, He was always the object of faith. As the eternal Son He had always given life to the believer. But now He was the Word made flesh. He was the Son of God, and this as man in the world. Rejected by Israel, He announces that He is the giver of eternal life. This is the grand point: not the kingdom merely by and by, but eternal life now in the Son.
The verb is present tense. One writer meets head-on the idea that it points to a gift still to come.
How awful to hear someone whittling away the plain meaning of "whoever believes has eternal life"! This is not a promise, but a revealed fact. The Lord did not say that the one who has the faith of eternal life will have this life by and by. To confuse His present assurance with Old Testament prophecy is to give up the gospel for the law.
The practical result is that a believer does not live in suspense about it, and does not need to die first to find out.
We do not have to wait until we get to heaven either to receive this divine life, or to learn whether it is ours or not: we have it now, and we have the assurance of possessing it now by the word of God.
Notice what the sentence does not say. It does not describe a feeling about yourself; it names a Person and asks whether you are resting on Him.
Give this your earnest attention. It is a weighty fact. What you must believe is not something about yourself, but something about Christ. Do you simply and heartily believe in Jesus? Do you trust Him? Are you thoroughly satisfied with Him? If so, you have eternal life, and you should from this moment know it and rejoice in it. Our Lord does not say, "Whoever feels he is one of My sheep will have eternal life."
That also settles the anxious question of whether one's faith is strong enough.
It is not a question of the amount of your faith. It is a question of how trustworthy the person is that you place your confidence in. One man takes hold of Christ, as it were, with a drowning man's grip. Another only touches the edge of His garment. But the sinner who does the first is not one bit safer than the one who does the second. Both have made the same discovery: while everything in themselves is totally untrustworthy, they may safely trust Christ, calmly rely on His Word, and confidently rest in the eternal effectiveness of His finished work. That is what it means to believe on Him.
Later in the chapter Jesus speaks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and that language has often been attached to the Lord's Supper. Commentators reading verse 47 as the key to what follows warn against letting any ceremony take the place named here.
If a ceremony were meant here, it would carry a twofold and fatal error: that no one who failed to take the Lord's Supper could have life, and that whoever does take it has eternal life and must rise in the resurrection of the just.
The Lord's Supper does indeed refer to Christ's death, which this part of John 6 refers to as well. But He speaks only of faith in Him who died for sin and sinners, so that believing on Him they may have life. So the Lord's assurance of eternal life is not given to the person who takes communion as such, but to the believer. Turn away, then, from every substitute for Himself, who is the only Saviour.
The next sentence — "I am the bread of life" — is not a change of subject. It explains why the life given in verse 47 carries the word "eternal."
No one can challenge this, for He Himself is the Bread of life, the source of the sustenance of that life. Since He who sustains the life is eternal, the life also is eternal.
The same Christ who gives the life also makes it grow.
Some say a believer reflects Christ's life by strict self-discipline: a man rids himself of his evil dispositions, and once he has ground down the old nature, the new one shines out. But that is not what this passage says. It is by feeding upon Christ that eternal life grows into strength and activity.
- The Speaker. "Truly, truly" is Christ's own oath. He does not promise a future kingdom. He announces Himself as the giver of eternal life now.
- The object. You believe something about Christ, not something about yourself. Christ never makes your feelings the test.
- The measure. What counts is not the size of your grip on Him but His trustworthiness. A touch of His garment leaves you as safe as a drowning man's clutch.
- The tense. "Has," not "will have" — a revealed fact you can know today, not a prize held back until later.
- The supply. The One who gives the life also sustains it. The life is eternal because He is eternal. It grows by feeding on Him, not by grinding down the old nature.
I am the bread of life.
Jesus has just said that whoever believes has eternal life. Now He names what He Himself is — not a gift held out beside Him, but the food.
One writer sets the two lines side by side. What is new is the speaker: a man in front of them, rejected by His own nation.
The Lord then solemnly repeats, "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life" (verses 47, 48). In truth, as the promised One, He was always the object of faith. As the eternal Son He had always given life to the believer. But now He was the Word made flesh. He was the Son of God, and this as a man in the world. Rejected by Israel, He announces that He is the giver of eternal life. This is the great point: not the kingdom at some future day, but eternal life now in the Son. That life cannot be separated from Him — and He is now a man.
The exact wording matters. Why "bread" and not simply "life"?
Here our Lord presents Himself as the full, present object of faith: "I am the bread of life"; "he that believes." The "I am" includes His flesh. That is, He has come and is now here. Faith rests on Him as one who has come in the flesh and been made visible — the life that was with the Father, now made visible. He is "the bread of life." He does not say simply "life," but the constant sustenance of life: life from God, life from the Father, really made visible, seen, and able to be touched.
Of all foods He could have named, He chose the one nobody can live without.
Scotland is the land of cakes, and there is great variety in them, but you can do without them; you cannot do without bread. Bread is a necessity; you can do without treats, but you must have bread. It is basic, and the Lord says, I am the Bread of life, an absolute necessity to life. He presents Himself like that. Do we know Him as the One who is absolutely indispensable to us? He is all-sufficient, blessed be His name — but do we know Him as needed for life itself?
Bread on the table feeds nobody. One writer contrasts the chapter before: there Christ gives life; here He also keeps it going.
Now turn to chapter 6. Here we have Christ as the Bread of life. In chapter 5 it is more the Word of life, Christ as the quickener or life-giver. In this chapter 6 He is not only the giver but the sustainer of life. Jesus is the Bread of life. He was to be eaten. He had come within reach of man's appropriation... If man is to live by bread, he must partake of it; it may be set before him, and he may not eat it, and if he does not eat it he must perish of hunger. Nothing can satisfy the hunger of a man's soul but Christ.
Manna was the bread God gave Israel to eat in the desert. It pictured Him, but the picture fell short in two ways: it could not keep people alive, and it never reached past one nation.
The discourse in the later part of John 6 seems to let us see in the Lord Jesus the fulfilment of the manna. But (as always) the reality appears to be so much greater than the picture. For example, "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die." Again, the manna was for Israel only; not for Amalekites, or Moabites, or any Gentile nation. But Jesus says, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven... And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."
Physical hunger is only the picture. There is a deeper appetite, and feeding it is not the same as satisfying it.
Hunger and thirst belong to man's natural life in this world. They are not only of the body. There is also the natural desire for what will satisfy the soul — a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy. Man may gratify his natural desires; he can never satisfy them. But the life that the Lord Jesus came to give was one in which there is true satisfaction. Every desire of the heart is satisfied not only by Him, but with Him.
- Person — He does not hand out life as a separate item; eternal life is in the Son and cannot be had apart from Him.
- Sustenance — He says "bread," not simply "life," because bread is what keeps life going day after day.
- Necessity — you can skip treats; you cannot skip bread. He presents Himself as both needed and enough.
- Eating — bread set before a man who will not eat leaves him to starve. Chapter 5 gives life; chapter 6 keeps it going.
- Reach — the manna fed one nation, and they still died. This bread comes down from heaven for the life of the world, so that one may eat and not die.
Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and died.
The crowd had just played their trump card: the manna — the bread God sent from heaven to feed Israel in the desert, given through Moses. They raised it to belittle Christ. He takes their own example and finishes it: those fathers all died in that desert.
Their appeal to the wilderness bread stopped halfway. One writer points out the words they left off, and what those words show about the other gifts God gave Israel.
They tell Him, "Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness." They failed to add what the Lord reminds them of — "and they died." They had found no life in the law, in the manna, or in the well that sprang up for them. They ate the bread of the mighty, angels' food, but they had died like men, and their bodies fell in the wilderness. These mercies could not deliver them from death, because of the perversity of the flesh.
The manna was a real gift from God. But its whole service was to keep a life going that was already running out — which is why the Lord sets it against Himself so sharply.
They had pointed to the manna, and behind it to Moses as its giver, to belittle Christ. He returns to that subject now, to press the contrast on them for their own sakes... The manna was a witness to God's power and grace, and a real picture of Christ Himself. Yet in actual use it only nourished for a few years that poor, fleeting, feverish, forfeited life. That life begins at our birth and ends at our death. It is a candle burning down from the moment it starts to shine. It is "a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes." Is it for this life, or to keep it going, or for the brief pleasure it gives, that people toil, fret and wear themselves out? Is it for this that they despise heaven with all its glories, and refuse or neglect Christ and His great salvation?
Their fathers died in two ways, and unbelief lies behind the deeper death.
after_note: DELETE
The Jews had brought up the manna in the wilderness. The Lord now uses it in sharp contrast with Himself. Their fathers were dead, though they shared in the manna. He was the bread come down from heaven, and to partake of Him meant deliverance from death. Their fathers were dead in soul as well as in body. They ate the manna, but they had no faith (see Hebrews 3:19). The person who eats the bread that came down from heaven never dies in soul, whatever happens to his body.
The manna pictures Christ, and the picture carries a detail easy to miss. Israel did not eat it as it fell; they crushed it and baked it first.
The crowd had drawn attention to the manna. The Lord reminds them that the manna kept people alive, but it never saved anyone from death. He, however, the living bread, as He now presents Himself, could give eternal life to those who eat of it. But as with the manna of old, so with the living bread, something more was needed before it could be eaten. The manna was first pounded in a mortar, or ground in a mill, and then baked in a pan (Numbers 11:8). The One who is the living bread had first to die.
Commentators call the manna a type of Christ, and Christ its antitype — the reality the picture stood for. Here the reality outgrows the picture in two ways: in what it does, and in how far it reaches.
The second half of John 6 seems to justify seeing the Lord Jesus as the antitype of the manna. And, as always, the antitype turns out to be far greater than the type... Again, the manna was for Israel only; not for Amalekites, or Moabites, or any Gentile nation. But Jesus says, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."
- Bread that ran out. The fathers ate God's own gift, angels' food. Still their bodies fell in the desert. Manna could keep life going; it could not save from death.
- Bread that came down. Against that, Christ presents Himself as the bread from heaven that can be eaten so that a person does not die.
- Bread that was crushed. Israel pounded and baked the manna before eating it. The living bread had first to die before anyone could feed on Him.
- Bread for the world. The manna was Israel's alone; the flesh He gives is for the life of the world. The reality outgrows the picture.
- Bread that lasts. Those who ate manna and died are the warning. Those who eat this bread live forever, and never die in soul, whatever happens to their bodies.
This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, that one may eat of it and not die.
The crowd had just pointed back to the manna their ancestors ate in the desert, and Jesus answers by setting Himself beside that bread. His answer raises two questions: which death does He rule out, and what does "eating" mean?
The Lord takes up their own example of the manna. That bread had one obvious limit: everyone who ate it still died.
So if the Lord was pictured by the manna, He went far beyond anything it could do. The ancestors of the Jews ate the manna in the wilderness, but it could not keep death away, for they died like everyone else. Christ is the Bread that comes down out of heaven so that a person may eat of it and not die. Eternal life is in the Son of God, and no less so because He was then the Son of Man. Rather, the grace of God was more clearly seen in Him that way; for if He was a man, was it not so that men might eat of Him and not die?
Believers die and go to the grave like everyone else. Commentators answer that the death this verse rules out is not the death of the body.
Their ancestors were dead, though they had shared in the manna. He was the bread come down from heaven, and to share in Him meant deliverance from death. Their ancestors were dead spiritually as well as physically, for they had no faith (see Hebrews 3:19) though they ate the manna. The man who eats the bread come down from heaven never dies spiritually, whatever happens to him physically.
What came down from heaven was a Person. People saw Him and touched Him.
Here it is Christ come down from heaven, the incarnation, setting aside every idea of promise. It is the great and mighty fact that in the Person of Jesus people saw the One who had come down from heaven, the Son of God become Man. We see the same in the first chapter of the First Epistle of John: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life... the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us."
Some readers take this bread as a church ceremony. William Kelly rules that out, and widens the offer past Israel to the whole world.
The Bread of life is not a rite or a sacrament, but the Incarnate Word. He is the object of faith set before us, so that needy, starving souls may have eternal life. The manna in the wilderness pointed to Him, though those who ate it and died there hardly knew it. The Lord Jesus is the Bread of God that comes down out of heaven and gives life not to Israel only but to the world.
The verse speaks of one person eating. Nobody can do it for you.
It is entirely an individual matter, and each one must face it for himself. We have either accepted in faith the death of the Son of Man as the way of life or we have not. When He gave His flesh at Calvary, it was with the whole world in view. But we must take it for ourselves, as He said, "so that one may eat of it and not die" (John 6:50)... It is a question of receiving the truth into our hearts by faith. The truth is made known, and the true believer takes it as his own. That is the eating and drinking spoken of here.
The bread could not be taken until Christ had died and risen. After that, only one thing is left for the reader to do.
Christ is the bread of God that came down from heaven, so that a man should eat of it and not die. But that could not happen until He had died and risen again. But now that He has died and risen again, you and I are called on to eat and drink, to take what God provides... There is God's side, and your side. He gives; you have only to take and enjoy.
- Manna — the desert bread pointed to Christ, but it never stopped a funeral. The ancestors ate and died.
- Descent — this bread comes down from heaven. It is not a ceremony but the Son of God become Man, seen and touched.
- Reach — He gives life not to Israel only but to the world. The offer stands open to any starving soul.
- Eating — you take this food by faith, one person at a time. No one can eat for you.
- Result — whoever eats never dies spiritually, whatever happens to the body.
I am the living bread which has come down out of heaven if any one shall have eaten of this bread he shall live for ever; but the bread withal which I shall give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Jesus is speaking to a crowd who keep pointing back to the manna their ancestors ate in the desert. Here He calls Himself the living bread, and then points ahead to the death by which He will feed the world.
No ordinary teacher could say what He says here. He came down from heaven, and in the same breath He speaks of flesh He will give away. Commentators note that both sides of who He is stand in this one sentence. You cannot pull one from the other.
He speaks of Himself as the living bread come down from heaven. Yet in the same sentence He says that He, the One who came down from heaven, will give His flesh as bread for the life of the world. Two natures stand here in His Person: manhood and eternal deity. Yet no one can separate them in His actions.
The verse names two separate gifts. The Father gave Him by sending Him down. Now He speaks of something He will hand over Himself.
In coming down, in becoming man, He was the bread of God, His Father's gift. But there was bread which He Himself would give: His own flesh, which He would give for the life of the world. This giving of His flesh was the laying down of His life. It was His yielding Himself up to death. So He might become to sinners — to fallen, perishing men — what bread would be to a crowd of people starving with hunger.
The crowd had raised the subject of the manna, the food God rained down in the desert. One writer points out that nobody ate that bread as it fell. It had to be prepared first.
The crowd had drawn attention to the manna. The Lord here reminds them that, though it sustained life, it never did preserve from death. He, however, the living bread, as He now presents Himself, could give everlasting life to those who eat of it. But, as with the manna of old, so with the living bread: something more had to happen before anyone could eat it. The manna was first pounded in a mortar, or ground in a mill, and then baked in a pan (Num. 11:8). He who is the living bread had first to die; for to profit by Him as the bread of life they must eat His flesh and drink His blood.
Halfway through the verse the subject shifts. Up to now He has spoken of His coming from heaven. From here on He speaks of His death. The people in view widen too.
There is a marked change in our Lord's discourse. He turns from His incarnation to His death. In both cases He speaks of eating. In scripture it is the well-known picture for making something your own, or for close fellowship. He was not only the Living Bread that came down out of heaven, that one might eat and live for ever. He would give His flesh for the life not of Jews only but of mankind, or as He says "for the life of the world."
Bread does no good sitting on the table. The wording He uses tells us how a person takes Him in — and for how long.
The tense of the verb "eat" in verses 51 and 53 is worth noticing. Darby's New Translation translates them as "if anyone shall have eaten…" and "unless you shall have eaten…". It means an act of taking Christ for yourself, done once for all. This act must happen if a person is to live toward God. There is no life without taking hold of the death of Christ by faith. This, however, does not rule out eating as a habit. The word appears four more times, in verses 54, 56, 57 and 58. The life received has to be fed and kept up. So the one who has eaten still eats… He has believed, and he goes on believing.
Because the verse speaks of bread and flesh, it is often read as being about the Lord's Supper. Commentators distinguish the two sharply, on the grounds of who each is addressed to and what each does.
Eating Christ's flesh and drinking Christ's blood (John 6:53-54) gives life. Eating of the supper does not. As the Bread from heaven, the Lord presents Himself to the world (John 6:33, 51). But He set up the supper for disciples only… No one should eat of the supper who has not first eaten of His flesh and drunk of His blood. For who has a part now in the blessed results of His death, but those who believe on Him?
- Given — the Father gave Him as bread by sending Him down; He then gives His own flesh, and that second gift is His death.
- Ground — people pounded and baked the manna before eating it; in the same way the living bread had first to die.
- Wide — He gives His flesh for the life of the world, not for one nation only.
- Eaten — eating means taking Christ for yourself: one decisive act of faith, then a lifetime of feeding on the same Christ.
- Forever — the manna sustained people who still died; this bread gives life that does not end.
The Jews therefore contended among themselves, saying, How can he give us this flesh to eat?
Jesus had just said that the bread He would give is His own flesh, given for the life of the world. The crowd did not worship; they quarrelled over the question that decides everything — what does it mean to eat Him?
The dispute begins because the discourse has moved on. Up to this point Jesus had spoken of coming down from heaven. Now He speaks of the death ahead of Him.
There is a marked change in our Lord's discourse. He turns from His incarnation to His death. In both cases He speaks of eating. It is the well-known figure of Scripture for appropriation or communion. He was not only the Living Bread that came down out of heaven, that one might eat and live for ever. He would give His flesh for the life not of Jews only but of mankind, or as He says "for the life of the world."
These hearers grew up under strict food laws. Whole kinds of meat were off limits to them, so the offer sounded not just strange but impossible.
His opponents thought they heard what no sensible person among them could receive. His flesh to eat! Who had ever heard of such a proposal put before one of the chosen people? Had not God through Moses marked out the limits within which alone they might eat flesh? Much that others might lawfully feed on was directly barred to them.
Their earlier complaint had been about where He came from. Now the objection shifts, and each new truth exposes the same weakness.
Already the Jews had murmured among themselves about His Incarnation; now they reason about His death. Each fresh truth increasingly shows how completely unable the natural mind is to take in divine things. They say, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" They reject the Lord's words because those words do not appeal to man's reason.
Behind the objection lay a quiet confidence. They felt nothing was wrong between them and God.
His words only raised a new difficulty for them. If they had seen how hopeless their state under the law was, and how their position under Roman power showed it, they might have understood the voices of the prophets better. They might have grasped the witness the prophets bore to the sufferings of Christ on their behalf. Then the word of Jesus might not have seemed to them such a "hard saying." But in the pride of their hearts they imagined their relations with Him were all that they should be, and the idea that their souls needed a ransom was never allowed a place in their minds.
The people arguing were long-standing opponents, not honest seekers, and that shaped the Lord's reply.
The Jews here are probably the Judeans, in contrast with the Galileans, and always His bitterest opponents. There was in them no spiritual need to make them infer a spiritual meaning, and the Lord does not explain. We shall find soon that when He does explain, it does not stop many even of His professing disciples from dropping away from Him. Here He only insists the more on the truth and the necessity of what He is declaring.
The picture is deliberate. Blood named apart from the body is the plainest sign of a life laid down.
So here we have His death under the figure of the flesh to be eaten and the blood to be drunk. It is the life given up, the blood drunk as a separate thing, the most emphatic sign of death. Of this faith partakes, and finds in it atonement and communion. Without it there is no life. This mattered all the more because some professed to receive Him as the Christ but stumbled at His death. Those who receive His coming as man in faith receive His death with the same faith, and these only have eternal life. Both are objects and tests of faith, and the more decisive of the two is His death.
Readers often ask whether these verses are about the Lord's Supper. One writer answers with a plain test.
We do not think that John 6:50 refers to the Lord's Supper. Many, sadly, may eat the Lord's Supper and yet not have life at all. We believe that John 6:50-58 refers to the soul feeding by faith on the death of Christ. His death is life to us. It is quite true that the Lord's Supper displays that most precious mystery. To faith, the bread and wine picture the broken body and shed blood of Christ.
- Eat — in Scripture, eating pictures making something your own. Faith takes Christ; it does not just admire Him.
- Death — flesh and blood named apart are the strongest sign of a life laid down. That death is what faith feeds on.
- World — He gave His flesh not for one nation but "for the life of the world," so the offer reaches all mankind.
- Reason — they argued over how. The arguing exposed a mind closed to divine things and a heart that never felt its need of a ransom.
- Insist — Jesus gave unbelief no explanation. He pressed the same truth harder: without eating there is no life.
Jesus therefore said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Unless ye shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk his blood, ye have no life in yourselves.
Jesus warns the crowd that without eating His flesh and drinking His blood they have no life at all. Two questions follow: what does that eating and drinking mean, and is He describing a religious ceremony?
Jesus starts with a diagnosis. He names what they lack before He names what He gives:
There is a saying we repeat often: "There is an exception to every rule." In this beautiful verse of Scripture, spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ, we have a rule and an exception. The RULE is that as ordinary men and women, poor sinful mortals, we have no life in us. This rule includes each one of us. Every child born into the world starts out on life's journey without divine life. Here is the EXCEPTION: those who have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man and drunk His blood no longer stay in their hopeless state of moral and spiritual death, away from God, but have His life in them.
The two outcomes He names leave no middle ground, and that is the force of the argument:
But again, look at the alternatives: "you have no life in you"; "has eternal life." If eternal life is not really in you, then you could eat His flesh and drink His blood and still have no life in you! Otherwise there is no contrast, though a contrast is plainly intended: whether you eat or do not eat, it comes to the same thing! Who can credit the words with such a total lack of meaning?
Blood inside the body is life; blood spoken of separately is blood poured out. That is why the phrasing points to the cross and not to the manger:
He must be received in this character; and to receive Him in this character, in which alone is life, we cannot stop short of His death. We must eat His flesh and drink His blood. This is His death — the blood separate from the body. Incarnation is of no use for life unless death comes in: otherwise there is no atonement, sin is not put away. Eating the flesh comes first, because it stands for the first prominent point, the incarnation — Christ come in flesh for man, for the world. Drinking the blood is added, because this is available in a dead Christ — the blood out of the body.
So how is this eating done? Only one thing in a person can do it:
It is faith, and faith alone, which by the power of the Holy Spirit can and does eat His flesh and drink His blood. Flesh and blood separated means death. Feeding on the death of Christ by faith is what the poor sinner does when he realises he is guilty and condemned. The substitutionary death of Jesus, received in this way, brings him life.
Faith takes His death as its own. That has two effects at once:
In eating, I make what I eat my own. If I eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood, I make His death mine, and I eat and drink death to everything I am in the flesh. So I part company with everything death applies to, and I live in His life in the power of the Spirit.
Many read the verse as a requirement to take communion. Commentators here reject that reading, while still valuing the Supper:
It is not His incarnation only but His death; it is communion by faith with that precious death. Again and again He shows that this is not a rite, but to believe on Him and have eternal life. It is not the Lord's Supper, but the infinite truth itself of which the Supper is the sign. Understood this way, and only this way, the words are absolutely true. Applied to eating and drinking in a ceremony, they become false at every point.
The order settles it. The eating comes before any life exists:
The Lord says that a person who has not eaten His flesh and drunk His blood has no life. That makes it completely impossible to apply His words to the Lord's Supper. The eating and drinking He speaks of is the first receiving of life: until they ate and drank, they had no life in them. Only dead souls can take part in this eating and so receive life. To talk of preserving or sustaining life runs straight against the plain terms of the passage.
- No life. Everyone is born without divine life; the verse states this as a rule with only one exception.
- His death. Flesh and blood named apart mean death. His birth as a man was not enough; without His death there is no atonement and no life.
- Your faith. The eating is not done with the mouth. Faith alone takes His death and makes it yours.
- Not a rite. The Supper is a sign of this truth, not the truth itself. The eating here is how life first begins, so it cannot mean a ceremony for people who are already alive.
- His life. Here is the exception to the rule: those who feed on His death by faith no longer stay in spiritual death. They have His life in them.
He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal, and I will raise him up at the last day
Jesus has just told a shocked crowd that unless they eat His flesh and drink His blood they have no life in them (v. 53). Verse 54 turns that warning into a promise: life now, and resurrection later. But what does feeding on Him mean, and is this about the Lord's Supper?
Why does the Lord name His flesh and His blood separately?
"The flesh of the Son of man" and "His blood" can only refer to His death. The two things could not exist apart from each other except in death.
So the story could not stop at His birth among us.
But His birth into this world was not enough on its own to save us. He had to die, or He would have remained alone. The bread He gives is His flesh, which He had taken. He gives it for the life of the world. Here we have the cross.
Why did the Lord choose eating as the picture?
Eating and drinking are actions which one person cannot perform for another. The food, taken into the mouth, becomes one's own, and gives strength and nourishment to the body. So each person must make the death of Christ his own. The soul has to say, My Saviour, My Lord, My God.
Does He mean a physical meal?
In speaking of eating Him and drinking His blood, He means feeding on Christ spiritually, not any actual taking in of the Lord's body and blood. A person who eats in this sense lives by the life of Christ, has eternal life, remains in Him, and is raised up into glory.
The tense of the verb matters here.
The verb "to eat" appears in two different tenses. Whoever has eaten has eternal life... But in verses 54 and 56 we have the character of the man, and his eating is a present thing. Two things follow from it. First, he has eternal life and will be raised up. Second, whoever feeds on this bread lives in Jesus, and Jesus in him. So the general blessing comes first, with salvation present and to come. Then comes communion.
Once a person has tasted this, he does not walk away from the table.
If someone has eaten His flesh and drunk His blood, he will not be content with taking Him once. He will keep on finding in Him that best food... To have partaken of Him in death is life eternal. But there is more. To make Him in death our habitual spiritual food is to secure the communion of His love to the fullest.
Many read this verse as a description of communion. One writer tests that reading by following it to its end.
Suppose we wrongly apply John 6:54 to the Lord's Supper. It would then follow that every person who takes part in it has eternal life. It would follow too that each of them will be raised in the blessed resurrection at the last day. That reading is clearly wrong.
That does not empty the Supper of value. So where does it stand?
We must not confuse the Lord's Supper with John 6... There we have the substance, of which the Supper is the shadow. It means truly knowing Christ as the One who has died. Then, in faith and in the love of your heart, you turn back to the cross where Jesus suffered.
The promise reaches past the soul.
The teaching about the Bread from heaven involves the truth of the resurrection of the body. The body of the believer, as well as the soul, is to share in everlasting life... In chapter 5 He had already separated the resurrection to life from the resurrection to judgment. Here in chapter 6 He announces who can share in the resurrection to life: those who now eat His flesh and drink His blood. That is, they feed spiritually on Him as dead.
What is "the last day"?
Many suppose the "last day" is a day of twenty-four hours right at the close of all things. It is not. It is the great closing period. In it God makes clear the character and results of what man and Satan have done, and of His own eternal purposes.
- Death — Flesh and blood named apart can only mean a Christ who has died. This verse sets the cross before us, not only His coming.
- Appropriation — Eating means taking something in and making it your own. No one can do it for you. Each soul must say "my Saviour" for itself.
- Continuation — The present tense marks a man who keeps feeding. The first eating gives life. The ongoing feeding gives communion.
- Substance — The Supper is the shadow of what this verse describes. Read the verse as the Supper, and every person at the table would have eternal life. That is not true.
- Resurrection — The one who feeds already has eternal life. The pledge to raise him up carries that life through to the body, at the closing period God has fixed.
for my flesh is truly food and my blood is truly drink.
Jesus has just told the crowd that they have no life unless they eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood. Verse 55 gives the reason. Two questions follow. What does it mean to eat and drink a Person? And is this about a church ceremony?
Notice that Jesus names His flesh and His blood apart from each other.
Clearly, for the blood to be apart from the flesh, so that one is eaten and the other drunk, the blood must have been shed in death. So here, in the fullest way, we have the death of Christ and the shedding of His blood set before us. At the same time we have the most solemn testimony that it is absolutely necessary for each person, and that each must receive it individually… Life flows to us through His death. The soul whose hunger and thirst are met by what Scripture tells of Christ on the cross has not only eternal life, but a present fullness of nourishment and refreshing.
The law had its own sacrifices. The word "true" pushes them aside.
One feels at once that the Lord has left the realm of images and shadows behind. Shadow and substance could not stand together. The Man out of heaven alone could tell of heavenly things. He is here the living bread come down out of heaven, to be eaten if one is to live for ever… "My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink." Could such language describe the sacrifices God appointed under the law? Food indeed, drink indeed!
Commentators agree that this chapter is not about the bread and cup of the Lord's Supper. One of them gives a test anyone can apply.
The verses in this chapter which speak of eating His flesh and drinking His blood do not speak at all of the Lord's supper, but of Christ. The supper speaks of what the chapter speaks of. But the chapter does not speak of the supper — the symbol — it speaks of the thing symbolised. If the application of it to the supper were correct, then not one of those who have taken it would be lost. And anyone who had not taken it would be lost, whatever he might be.
Another writer turns the reader from the ceremony back to the Person.
The Lord's supper does indeed refer to Christ's death, which this part of John 6 also refers to. But He speaks only of faith in Him who died for sin and for sinners, so that believing on Him they may have life. So the Lord's assurance of eternal life is not to the person who takes the supper as such, but to the believer. Turn away, then, from every substitute for Himself, the only Saviour, the one substitute for your sins.
Why speak of eating at all? Consider what happens to food when we eat it.
But the bread must be broken before it can be used. He must die, for it is His flesh He gives for the life of the world. … It is set before us that we may eat and live for ever. In eating I make what I eat my own. If I eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood, I make His death mine, and I eat and drink death to all that I am in the flesh.
The picture runs one step further.
Our bodies absorb the food we take, and it becomes part of our very selves. This wonderful food has in it the true and eternal life. We are the dead and it is the living, so it works the opposite way to nature and makes us like itself. So we abide in Him and He in us: Christ makes us His own, and then lives in us as His own.
If Christ is truly food, then one meal was never the point.
But the Lord means more. Anyone who has eaten His flesh and drunk His blood will not be content with taking Him once. He will keep on finding in Him that best food… To have taken Him in death is eternal life. But there is more: to make Him in death our regular spiritual food is to be sure of the fellowship of His love to the very fullest.
Neglecting this has visible results.
Is this not the secret of the weak and sickly character of our lives as Christians? We do not feed continually on Christ. What do we feed on? What sustains the life within us? What nourishes us? That is the question.
- Death — Jesus names His flesh and His blood separately because His blood was shed in death; the verse points to the cross.
- Food — His death gives us life, and then becomes the food God sets before us to live on.
- True — "true food" leaves shadows behind; the sacrifices under the law only pictured what God now really gives.
- Faith, not ceremony — the Lord's Supper points to this truth but is not this truth; the Lord assures life to the believer, not to the person who takes the supper.
- Daily — whoever eats once keeps eating, and the food changes the eater until Christ lives in him as His own.
He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in me and I in him.
In the synagogue at Capernaum, Jesus has just called His flesh true food and His blood true drink, and now He adds a promise to that eating. It raises the question every reader asks: is this eating a church ceremony, and what is it to live in Christ while He lives in you?
The words sound like the Lord's Supper. But commentators read it the other way round. The meal is a picture of this reality, and this reality does not depend on the meal.
Do not think that this means the communion — the Lord's Supper. No, no, this is the substance; the Lord's Supper is the shadow. This is the reality, the communion is the figure. A man might eat the Lord's Supper a thousand times, and yet spend eternity in hell. But no one could eat the flesh of the Son of Man and not have eternal life. In plain words He says to the believer, We are one.
The reason for that is simple, and you can test it. Notice what the verse promises the eater. Then ask whether that is true of everyone who takes bread and wine.
If John 6 applies to the supper itself, then everyone who takes it not only has eternal life now but is saved for ever. Jesus said, "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." Applying John 6 to "sacraments" is a delusion, though the sacraments may allude to the truths taught.
Everything here turns on what eating does to the thing eaten.
In eating I make what I eat my own. If I eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood, I make His death mine, and I eat and drink death to all that I am in flesh. So I part company with everything that death applies to, and I live in His life in the power of the Spirit. If I make His death my death I am no longer in the flesh, I abide in Him, and He abides in me, for He is in me as my life.
The verbs change as the passage goes on, and that change matters.
There are two forms of expression here that we should tell apart: the act of having eaten His flesh and drunk His blood once, as in verse 53, and the continuous eating and drinking, as in verse 54. The believer has eternal life, but it is in the Son, not apart from Him. The believer eats His flesh and drinks His blood. He is not content that he ate once: if he were content with that, can such a person be supposed to have life in him? Certainly not. If his faith were real, he would always be eating His flesh and drinking His blood... if the heart has tasted that the Lord is so gracious, it perseveres, it can never tire, it feeds on Him again and again.
What this promise gives goes beyond being safe.
In John's Gospel, this abiding in Christ, and Christ in him, is one of the special privileges of the Christian. It is not merely security for the Christian, but Christ the home of the soul as it is of Christ. How unspeakable the nearness!
The two halves of the promise are not the same, and one moves with the other.
To abide in Christ is to live near Him. It is to depend on Him in communion, and to draw on the infinite resources in Him, where He now is in the Father's presence. He only abides in us in the measure that we abide in Him, and His abiding in us shows when we display His life. Christ dwells in our hearts by faith; as the eye and the heart are engaged with Him where He is, so He will have a dwelling place in our hearts.
Christ dwelling in a person is meant to show. The inward side turns outward.
The one who feeds on His death "abides in Me, and I in him". Before God, the believer is identified with Christ. Before other people, the believer represents the life of Christ.
- Feed — to eat His flesh and drink His blood is to receive His death by faith. The Lord's Supper only pictures it; it is never the thing itself.
- Keep feeding — the wording moves from a single act to a continuing one. A faith content with having eaten once is not real faith.
- Die — to make His death mine is to part company with all that I am in the flesh and live by His life instead.
- Dwell — the promise is more than safety. Christ becomes the home of the soul, and He abides in us as far as we abide in Him.
- Show — the believer whom God sees as one with Christ then shows Christ's life to other people.
As the living Father has sent me and I live on account of the Father, *he* also who eats me shall live also on account of me.
Jesus has been speaking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Now He points to His own life to explain the pattern behind it. The words turn on a small preposition — "because of" — and on a shift from eating His flesh and blood to eating Him.
The title Jesus gives His Father points to the source of His own life here.
Verse 51 has spoken of Christ as "the living Bread." Now we read of "the living Father" having sent Him (v. 57). In the Father, life in its pure and highest form is His own, from eternity to eternity. And Christ lived because of what the Father is. His essential, living unity with the Father is in view here. So the one who eats of Him, the living Bread, lives by Him. He gives this life and He keeps it going.
Older translations read "I live by the Father." That can sound as if the Father were only a source of power. The Greek says something else, as one writer explains in answer to a question.
In the Greek this is not dia with the genitive, which would mean "by means of" and might suggest sustaining power, as you put it. It is dia with the accusative, which has the force of "on account of." Notice carefully that it does not say the Father lived on account of the Son. It is the Son who lived on account of the Father. That is, the Father was the sole reason for the existence of the Son of God as come down here. We say that a mother lives for her child — she is so wrapped up in it. Or take Paul, writing by inspiration: "For to me to live is Christ." Christ had become the absorbing object of his life.
The verse sets two lives side by side and makes the first the template for the second.
Christ's own life as the Son of Man was a life of entire dependence on the Father. And ours is one of dependence on Christ Himself. But the one is the model for the other… Blessed Jesus, teach us to live like this, in hourly dependence on You!
Verse 57 does not simply repeat what came before. The object of the eating changes.
Now it is not eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. It is feeding upon Christ Himself — upon Christ Himself in the place where He is, in His glorified state. Down here, as sent by the living Father, He lived "because of what the Father was and His living." Now the one who feeds upon Christ lives because of what Christ is. He is our life, and because He lives, we shall live also.
Eating Him is not one act you can finish and file away.
Verse 57 says the living Father had sent Him, and He lived because of the Father. So we live because of Him by eating Him. We have the two things: eating both to receive life and to maintain it. I remember a person once saying he ate Christ once for all, but it is not so here. In verses 54 and 56 the Greek has the present participle for "eating"; in the others it has the aorist tense. I come in by Christ's death, and eat His flesh and drink His blood — that is eating to have life. But I go on eating Him afterwards, though my life is the result of that eating.
Everyone lives by something. The verse exposes what happens when that something collapses.
Men live by this world, and when the world fails them they pine away and die. One has often seen it. But He is Bread for us… He is enough for us, and we need nothing else, and no other. The Father was enough for Him. He did not live by the power of the world. Things might turn out badly. In the eyes of men His circumstances might look most wretched. But He did not depend on them, for He lived because of the Father.
Feeding also leaves a mark on the one who feeds.
Eating is taking something in for our need. God would have our souls sustained by feeding upon Christ, and so making what Christ is our own. What we take in becomes part of ourselves. As we feed upon Him in our souls, we shall grow like Him… our lives will bear the stamp of those supremely beautiful features of the life of Jesus.
- Source. Life belongs to the Father in Himself, from eternity. The Son He sent lived here because of what the Father is.
- Reason. "Because of" is not "by means of." The Father was the sole reason for the Son's life here, and Christ is the sole reason for ours.
- Pattern. Christ's dependence is the model for ours. He lived because of the Father; we live because of Him.
- Reach. Verse 57 moves past eating His flesh and blood to eating Him. We receive life through His death, then keep feeding on Him — never a once-for-all meal.
- Result. What we feed on, we become. A life lived by Christ carries the marks of Christ, and stands when the world fails.
This is the bread which has come down out of heaven. Not as the fathers ate and died he that eats this bread shall live for ever.
These are the last words of Jesus in the synagogue at Capernaum. They close a long talk about bread from heaven with a contrast: the manna Israel ate in the desert, and Himself. Two questions follow. What is this "eating"? And why does manna, a gift God Himself sent, fall so far short?
This verse is not a fresh thought but a knot tying the two halves of the chapter together — the bread that came down from heaven, and the flesh and blood given in death.
After the rich testimony to His death as the object of faith, the Lord in verse 57 seems to me to shut out every excuse for missing what He meant. He meant Himself, not a symbolic act. The words "whoever feeds on me" should make that plain. He then joins the two parts of the talk together in the next verse. It closes the section about His flesh and His blood by going back to the picture of "the bread that came down from heaven," and "whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."
One detail rules out reading the verse as a description of the Eucharist — the shared bread and wine of the church service. Everyone described here is finally saved.
The Lord says, "If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever." Again, "Whoever feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." This leaves no room for argument. He has everlasting life. Someone may say he could lose it. But the Lord shuts out that escape by adding, "I will raise him up on the last day." We all admit that not everyone who receives the Eucharist is finally saved. The people spoken of in John 6 are.
Manna kept a whole nation alive in the desert. Yet it could keep people alive without ever making them alive.
The manna sustained life, but it could not give life. It could not keep anyone from death. It could not guarantee resurrection to those who ate it. The Bread of Life, giving everlasting life to all who eat of it, secured resurrection at the last day.
The type carries further than most readers notice. Manna did not arrive on the table ready to eat.
The crowd had drawn attention to the manna. The Lord reminds them here that it sustained life, but never kept anyone from death. He, though, is the living bread, as He now presents Himself. He could give everlasting life to those who eat of it. But as with the manna of old, so with the living bread: something more had to happen before anyone could eat it. The people first pounded the manna in a mortar, or ground it in a mill, and then baked it in a pan. He who is the living bread had first to die.
The old bread had a fence around it. The living bread does not.
The manna was for Israel only. It was not for the Amalekites or the Moabites or any nation outside Israel. But Jesus says, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
The verse promises life to "the one who feeds," singular. That grammar is the whole point, and it rules out inheriting the blessing secondhand.
The living Bread is for us all, but it is like your natural bread — no one can eat it for you; you must eat for yourself, or starve. You cannot take Christ for your neighbour. Your neighbour must take Christ for himself. You cannot blame me if I lay hold of Christ for my own individual salvation. I need Him, and God has brought Him within reach of all.
"Forever" is not left as a vague word. Four times in this chapter the Lord attaches a bodily promise to it.
Here we learn that the teaching about the Bread from heaven involves the truth of the resurrection of the body. For the body, as well as the soul of the believer, is to share in everlasting life... Here in chapter 6 He announces who will share in the resurrection to life. They are those who now eat His flesh and drink His blood — that is, they feed on Him in spirit as the One who died. Such people live forever. The whole person of the saint is to share in this blessing. With this the Lord's discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum comes to a close. In John's Gospel He never taught there again.
- The gift. The manna kept Israel alive in the desert; it could not give life, stop death, or promise resurrection.
- The cost. Israel pounded and baked the manna before eating it; the living bread had first to die before anyone could feed on Him.
- The reach. Manna belonged to Israel alone; Christ gives His flesh for the life of the world.
- The taking. Eating is personal. No one can eat for you, and no ceremony can stand in for it, since everyone who eats here is raised up at the last day.
- The result. "Forever" covers the whole person: life now in the soul, and the body raised at the last day.