The Eucharist - The Bread of Life

CONTEXT

The first thing we need to do is set John 6 in context. This is done in two ways. First, is the context of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The second step is to look at the immediate context within John 6 itself.

Matthew, Mark and Luke all recount the establishment of the Eucharist. This is discussed in detail in this post. When Christ said, “do this in remembrance of me”, he intended something active, not a simple act of passive memory. He said, “this is my body”, not "this is like my body", or "this is reminiscent of my body”. THIS IS. Keep these things in mind as we go through John 6.

The immediate context is set out at the beginning of the chapter. The first part deals with the multiplication of the loaves and fishes (v 1-14). After Christ feeds the “multitude”, he sets crosses the sea on foot (v 15-24). In this second case, not only does he walk on the water, but also they cross the sea “immediately”.

This immediate context is vital. John is stressing the fact that his followers had seen some impressive miracles in the previous 24 hours. The feeding of the multitude, the walking on water and the immediate crossing of the sea, all would have been fresh in the minds of those that heard what follows - the Bread of Life Discourse. Keep this closely in mind as you read through the rest of this post.

IT’S ALL GREEK TO ME

The quotes from Protestant study Bibles above stress metaphor and symbolism. They don’t see Christ’s words as literally true. However, you simply cannot get metaphorical or symbolic language out of the original Greek. Here are the details.

First, look at verse 27. The RSV translates this as “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you...” What we want to focus on now is the verb “endures”.

What happens to food that’s left out? Eventually, it will rot or be eaten by bugs. It spoils rather than endures. The Greek word used in verse 27 is μενουσαν (men-OU-san, which is a form of μενω (me-NO)). This is a very old word. In fact, my Arndt & Gingrich Greek Lexicon calls it a “primitive verb”. The use of this word is specific and very pointed. It gives no sense or connotation of change. In this sense, it is permanent in the absolute. Christ is speaking of food that endures in the same sense that he speaks of life that is eternal. The food to which He refers - very specifically - will last forever.

However, we’re not done with μενω. It is a word with multiple meanings, and John loads it with theological heft. This is found in verse 56 as well, where it means, “abide”. My Arndt & Gingrich says, “remain, last, persist, continue to live, abide in.” John uses all these meanings. In John 6:56, he who eats His flesh abides-lives-remains in Him and He in them. In John 14:10, the Father abides-remains-lives in the Son. In John 1:32, the Spirit remained-lived-abided in Jesus. In John 15:4, believers abide-live-remain in Him and He in them.

The use of meno in these cases indicates an abiding presence that endures with us unchanged forever. It fits well with Matthew 28:20, where Christ says that he is with us always.

Now, let’s go a bit further and look at verses 47-59. This section is recreated in Greek below. I’ll highlight the important words, so you won’t have to learn Greek.

John 6:47-59

47 Αμήν αμήν λέγω �?μίν, ό πιστε�?ων εχει ζωήν αιωνιον.

48 εγω ειμι ό α�?τος της ζωης.

49 όι πατέ�?ες �?μων εφαγον εν τή˛ ε�?ήμω˛ το μαννα καί απεθανον.

50 ο�?τός εστιν ό α�?τος ό εκ του ου�?ανου καταβαίνων, ίνα τις εξ αυτου φαγη˛ και μή αποθανη˛ .

51 εγώ ειμι ό α�?τος ό ζων ό εκ του ου�?ανου καταβάς. εαν τις φαγη˛ εκ το�?του του α�?του ζησει εις τον αιωνα, και ό α�?τος δέ όν εγω δωσω ή σα�?ξ μου εστιν �?πε�? της του κόσμου ζωης.

52 Εμάχοντο ουν π�?ος αλλήλους όι Ιουδαιοι λεγοντες, Πως δυναται ο�?τος ήμιν δουναι τήν σά�?κα αυτου φαγειν;

53 ειπεν ουν αυτοις ό Ιησους, Αμην αμην λεγω �?μιν εαν μη φαγητε την σα�?κα του υίου του ανθ�?ώπου και πιητε αυτου το αίμα, ουκ εχετε ζωην εν έαυτοις.

54 ό τ�?ωγων μου την σα�?κα και πινων μου το αίμα εχει ζωην αιωνιον καγω αναστησω αυτον μου το αίμα εχει ζωην αιωνιον, καγο αναστησω αυτον τα˛ εσχατη˛ αμε�?α˛.

55 ή γα�? σα�?ξ μου αληθής εστιν β�?ωσις, και το αίμα μου αληθής εστιν πόσις.

56 ό τ�?ωγων μου την σα�?κα και πινων μου το αίμα εν εμοι μενει καγω εν αυτω˛.

57 καθως απεστειλεν με ό ζων πατη�? καγω ζω δια τον πατε�?α, και ό τ�?ωγων με κακεινος ζησει δι εμε.

58 ο�?τος εστιν ό α�?τος ό εξ ου�?ανου καταβας, ου καθως εφαγον οί πατε�?ες και απεθανον, ό τ�?ωγων τουτον τον α�?τον ζησει εις τον αιωνα.

59 ταυτα ειπεν εν συναγωγη˛ διδασκων εν Καφα�?ναο�?μ.

The words highlighted in blue are forms of the verb φαγω (pronounced: PHA-go). Phago is the word for “eat”. Phago (and its root word esthio) appears in the New Testament 162 times in 145 verses. In the New Testament, phago and esthio are the most common words used for anything to do with eating.

The words highlighted in green are forms of the verb τ�?ωγω (pronounced: TRO-go). Trogo is different. Trogo means to chew, or gnaw, as an animal would trogo a bone. Trogo is used in classical Greek literature to describe the eating habits of animals like pigs. It is not used to describe the eating habits of human beings. Trogo is used only six times in six verses, so relative to phago/esthio it is very rare. (The other verses where trogo is use are Matthew 24:38 and John 13:18. In each case, trogo is used for emphasis.)

Now, look at your own Bible and consider this. Through verse 53 (inclusive), Jesus says that we are to eat his flesh. However, those that heard him said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” They didn’t understand. Jesus doesn’t back down. He doesn’t explain that they have misunderstood him. Instead, He raises the stakes. Beginning in verse 54, He suddenly changes the verb to the word for chew or gnaw or crunch. Those that chew his flesh and drink his blood have eternal life. This really was a “hard saying”, and under this translation, “who can listen to it” (v 60) is a natural reaction. Christ is deliberately using the most base meaning to emphasize his intent - THIS IS his flesh. He drives this point home more solidly with the change of verb from the common word, phago, to the uncommon and rather crude word, trogo.

Far from being symbolic language, trogo is graphic and is intended to add force. Christ is demanding that we express our faith by physically eating His life-giving flesh in a sacramental way.

STRONG’S

I have a copy of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance at my house. It’s basically an index to the King James Version of the Bible. In the back of the concordance is a short Greek lexicon. Each entry in the concordance itself has a “Strong’s Number” listed next to it, and that number refers to a Greek word in the lexicon. The listing for phago is 5315.

One person I encountered told me that my analysis of the Greek words phago and trogo are wrong. She reasoned this because of the Strong’s lexicon.

Strong’s listing for “eat” has only two New Testament entries in the lexicon - phago and esthio (keep in mind that phago is the only one used in John 6, and hence more important for our discussion here). Even the verses in John 6 that have trogo in the original text are marked with phago in the concordance. To look at Strong’s, it would appear that trogo doesn’t exist in the New Testament. However...

Strong’s also lists trogo as number 5176. The problem is this - Strong’s doesn’t list a use for this word - EVER. Why have it in the lexicon at all if it doesn’t appear in the New Testament at all?

It’s very simple: Strong’s is in error.

(In fairness, it should be pointed out that Strong’s lexicon is only 79 pages long. My Arndt & Gingrich weighs in at 900 pages. You can get a wee bit more detail in 900 pages than you can in 79.)

JOHN 6:63

“It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

This is the passage that most Protestants use to claim that Christ spoke metaphorically in every other verse of John 6. Theoretically, it is this verse that undermines the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. However, this begs several questions.

First, what flesh is He referring to? In verse 52, He said that unless we eat the flesh of the Son of Man we have no life in us. In verse 54, He says that if we eat his flesh we have eternal life. In verse 57, if we eat Him in the Eucharist, we live because of Him. In verse 58, if we eat this bread, we live forever. Is Jesus Christ contradicting Himself? Why would He tell us that there was value in eating his flesh, then turn around and tell us that there’s no value in it?

He is not contradicting himself. He is, in fact, speaking in a very specific way. Let’s break down verse 63 in some detail.

It is the spirit that gives life...

What spirit gives life?

All life comes from God, and it is specifically the Spirit that gives life (Genesis 2:7). When Christ tells us that it is the spirit that gives life in verse 63, He is speaking of the Holy Spirit. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end.

...the flesh is of no avail...

Man is God’s creation. We have nothing to offer that can compare to what Jesus is offering for our redemption and salvation. We cannot, under any circumstances, work out our own salvation. There is no salvation through human flesh. The “flesh” Jesus refers to in verse 63 is the flesh of man, the daily physical existence of humanity. It is through His glorified flesh and His glorified blood made present by the power of the Holy Spirit that our souls will be nourished and will receive life. Human flesh is of no avail, but His flesh glorified in the Spirit leads to eternal life.

...the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

It's absolutely true that his words are spirit and life. But what words? This applies to ALL the words of John 6, not just those in verse 63 and not just His words in other parts of the New Testament. Those that deal with the eating of the flesh of the Son of Man are spirit and life as well as all the others. It's not just believing in the words of God that's important, it's also doing what they say.

When we receive Christ in the Eucharist, we receive all the glorified, resurrected Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity. This is the “flesh” that gives life. We cannot fully understand this miracle without the power of the Holy Spirit acting in our lives.

1ST CORINTHIANS 11:27-29

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

Above is from the RSV. The KJV is a bit more bluntly: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself...”

So, if you eat the of the bread and drink of the cup - without considering the consequences and without discerning the reality - you eat and drink judgment or damnation upon yourself. This idea fits perfectly if, as stated above in the Greek section, you accept that Christ intended us to eat his body and drink his blood under the appearance of bread and wine. However, the quote above from 1st Corinthians becomes meaningless if we look at the bread of John 6 as metaphor or symbol. Is it possible that you could drink judgment or condemnation upon yourself for failing to discern a metaphor? If God intended the Real Presence in the Eucharist as opposed to a symbolic presense, then Paul’s admonition in 1st Corinthians makes perfect sense.

DEPARTURES?

John 6:66 is the only occasion when disciples depart from Christ. Not only do they leave, but they leave in large numbers. But there are some of you who do not believe. To me, these words carry a note deep sorrow. Jesus knew from the outset that some would find this teaching too hard. He knew, in his divine nature, that the hardness of this teaching would last to the present day.

This is the critical point of the text. It is obvious that the crowd believed Jesus was speaking literally. They didn’t hear metaphor. The crucial point is that when they walked away Jesus didn’t stop them. They walked away the day after they saw Him multiply loaves and fishes to feed the multitude. If He meant the bread of life to be metaphor, He would have stopped them and explained what he really meant. In fact, he would have been morally obligated to stop them and correct their understanding.

If he was speaking symbolically, why didn’t he stop the departing disciples and correct them?

IT IS REAL

The bread of life is literally the Bread of Life. Those that eat it have life in them. His words are indeed spirit and life, and His words say that we should eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.

NEXT - “It is finished...”