John 6 - Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

6:1 Sea of Tiberias. This is another name for the Sea of Galilee. This name was borrowed from the town of that name erected by Herod and dedicated about AD 20 to the Emperor Tiberias. The name was probably attached to the lake after the time of Jesus and was used by John for clarity here and in 21:1 (its only occurrences in the NT).

6:3 climbed a hill. Some see symbolism in the mountain mentioned here, perhaps seeing Jesus as fulfilling the work of Moses, who ascended Sinai (so Schnackenburg). While Matthew emphasized mountain scenes (cf. Matt 5:1; 17:1; 24:3; 28:16), John did not, and it is doubtful whether there is any typology here.

6:11 gave thanks to God, and distributed them to the people. It is common to see eucharistic overtones because the language here is so similar to the prayer and distribution of the elements at the Last Supper (cf. Mark 14:22; 1 Cor 11:23, so Brown, Perkins, Schnackenburg, Michaels). However, every detail here fits the Jewish meal liturgy, and John gave very little attention to the meal on the night of the Last Supper. Thus, there is no evidence that there are eucharistic connotations here. As Witherington says (1995:152), “We are to think of a hearty repast, perhaps even a depiction of the messianic banquet, when many would come from the east and west and eat with Messiah (cf. Luke 14:15-24)”—but no Eucharist.

6:14 sign. Other mss read “signs” (75 B 091 ita), but this may be a scribal assimilation to 2:23; 6:2 (so Metzger 1994:181). In spite of the quality of witnesses behind the plural, the majority of mss support the singular and include early and diverse witnesses.

6:15 force him to be their king. Many scholars have seen John’s portrayal of the feeding of the 5,000 as an independent story with many fictional elements, such as naming Philip and Andrew and especially including the final scene where the people try to make Jesus the conquering king. The Synoptics move directly into the walking on the water scene, after Jesus dismisses the disciples and the crowds and goes off by himself to pray (Mark 6:44-46 and parallels). However, these details are not mutually exclusive. When Jesus sent the crowds home, it is easy to surmise that a group of nationalists refused to go and demanded that Jesus begin the messianic rebellion. Also, the messianic fervor can be seen in Mark’s picture of the people’s and Herod’s reactions, wondering if Jesus might be Elijah or the Baptist returned from the dead (Mark 6:14-16). The accounts can be harmonized and do not contradict one another (cf. Bernard, Morris, Carson). Blomberg (2001:120; so also Pryor 1992:31) takes this scene as a sign of historicity: “It fits the rising nationalistic fervor of first-century Israel, cuts against the grain of Johannine redaction in treating Jesus as a merely political king, and embarrassingly portrays Jesus as having to run away from the crowds, as it were.”

This is the fourth sign-miracle and is the only miracle found in all four Gospels (the walking on the water is missing in Luke). This is probably due to the depth of its theology. It reproduces not only the manna in the wilderness (Exod 16) but also the multiplication of loaves in 2 Kings 4:38-44, which describes how Elisha fed 100 people with 20 loaves of bread. Notice that Elisha multiplied the bread fivefold (a loaf is enough for one person), while Jesus multiplied it 1,000 times (a fact that would have been noticed by the early church). This was truly a messianic miracle pointing forward to the messianic banquet. The abundance of wine in the Cana miracle also pointed to the messianic banquet (2:1-11).

The scene is set in 6:1-4. Jesus was back in Galilee (ch 5 is set in Jerusalem) and crosses to “the far side of the Sea of Galilee,” the east side opposite Capernaum and the Jewish villages. This “rapid oscillation” of geographical movement (in ch 7 Jesus goes back to Jerusalem) fits John’s style, for he did the same thing in 1:19–4:54 (so Carson). Once more, a “huge crowd” followed him, and as in 2:23-25, their faith was inadequate, centered only on his sign-miracles. Their faith was insufficient because they were only enamored with the spectacular and just wanted to see more. In the meantime, Jesus wanted to be alone with his disciples, so he climbed a hill to be with them. This may well refer to the “hill country” of the region, probably the area known today as the Golan Heights (so Carson). John tells us this occurred about the “time for the Jewish Passover celebration” (6:4), the second Passover mentioned in John (Cf. 2:13; 13:1). His purpose is theological rather than chronological. The key to the Passover is the death of the sacrificial lamb for the people, and Jesus is to be the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29). This fulfillment theme will dominate the chapter.

As Jesus settled down to enjoy his time with the disciples, he saw a “huge crowd” approaching (6:5). He decided to use this as an opportunity to “test” (peirazō [TG3985, ZG4279]) his disciples, a term often used of temptation but here used neutrally of a general test (in Jas 1:2-3, like here, it is a test of faith; cf. 1 Pet 1:6-7). He asked Philip (the Synoptics have Jesus ask the disciples in general, while John specifies which one is asked) how they were going to feed so large a crowd. Philip, like Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman before him, was thinking entirely on the earthly plane, so he replied that it would take 200 denarii to buy enough food (cf. Mark 6:37). Since a denarius was the wage for a single day’s work for the average laborer, he was saying that it would take eight month’s pay to buy enough food. Of course, Jesus was thinking on a higher plane and was preparing them for the miracle to follow. Andrew spoke up (6:8-9), pointing to a boy in the crowd with “five barley loaves and two fish.” Barley loaves were the food of the poor, and this detail prepares for the great miracle to follow. It was also barley loaves that Elisha used in 2 Kings 4:42 (the term for “young boy” is also found there). Jesus here was fulfilling the Elijah/Elisha tradition (as is often seen in the Gospels, e.g., Luke 4:25-27; 7:16; 9:8, 19). The two fish were probably pieces of dried or pickled fish used to give the bread flavor.

Jesus took charge (6:10), telling everyone to sit down on “the grassy slopes” in preparation for the meal. Mark 6:39 tells us the grass is green, and this fits the time of Passover in early spring (so Westcott). This was a huge crowd; as only the men were numbered (cf. Matt 14:21), the 5,000 could easily have been 10,000 or more. Jesus then blessed the food by giving “thanks to God” for it, becoming in effect the head of the family there. Barrett (1978:276) relates the common blessing: “Blessed are thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who bringest forth bread from the earth.” The synoptic Gospels tell us the disciples distributed the food, while John stays centered on Jesus. He was entirely in charge. The miracle was extravagant, as the people “ate as much as they wanted” to the extent that “everyone was full” (6:11-12). The food for the poor had been turned into a lavish banquet, and they all literally stuffed themselves (the abundance is akin to that of the Cana miracle in ch 2). God’s supply is boundless, and he provides beyond anyone’s expectation. As Burge points out (2000:194), Jesus was deliberately “fulfilling and re-creating images from Israel’s sacred past,” underscoring the reality that he is “the provider of food, the source of life for these people.”

The incredible bounty of the miracle is seen also in the gathering up of the leftovers. Gathering up the leftovers is a Jewish custom, not so much cleaning up the environment as making sure nothing is wasted (Carson calls this “an ethical note of social responsibility”). There are 12 baskets gathered, presumably one for each of the disciples; the “basket” is a small wicker basket of the type used for carrying provisions when traveling. This makes the point that there is far more left after everyone has been filled than before they started. The fact that there are 12 baskets left after the feeding of the 5,000 (perhaps symbolic of the restoration of the 12 tribes in the 12 disciples, so Borchert, Köstenberger) and seven left after the feeding of the 4,000 (perhaps symbolic of God’s perfect work) may be significant (cf. Matt 15:38), for these were certainly important numbers for the early church. But the face value of these statements is quite significant in itself—the numbers probably show simply that God was in control, giving graciously to his people.

As before, the people were overwhelmed by “this miraculous sign” (6:14), but they drew a similar conclusion to that of the Sanhedrin delegation with regard to the Baptist in 1:21, thinking that Jesus was the “prophet like Moses.” It is interesting that they centered on the Mosaic Prophet rather than the Messiah, but there is some evidence that segments of Judaism linked the Prophet with the Messiah. This could be signified here with the added “we have been expecting” (lit., “who is to come into the world”), showing they were thinking of the coming Messiah. This would make sense in light of the connection of the multiplication of loaves with the manna that fell in the wilderness in Moses’s time (Cf. 6:31). The problem, however, is that this was a political cry, and Jesus realized that their true desire was “to force him to be their king.” In other words, they wanted Jesus to destroy the Romans and usher in the Kingdom they had been longing for. The Jewish people (and the disciples too) had no idea of a suffering Messiah; they expected only a political Messiah who would conquer their enemies. For them, Isaiah 53 referred to the nation’s sufferings, not the coming Messiah. Thus, if Jesus would not go along, they were perfectly willing to “force” him to do so—that is, start a revolt and place him at the head of it by force if necessary. His response was to “[slip] away into the hills by himself”; Jesus knew he was not to be an earthly king, so he withdrew privately.

6:19 walking on the water. Many have said (e.g., Schleiermacher) that Jesus was not walking on the water but on the shore by the sea. Note that this same phrase (epi tēs thalassēs [TG2281, ZG2498]) is used with that meaning in 21:1, but the context here does not make this possible. They had rowed several miles onto the sea when Jesus came, and that could hardly allow a scene on shore. If the disciples had stayed near the shore the whole way and saw Jesus there (so Bernard), it is hard to see why they would be so afraid. As Barrett says (1978:281), “There can be little doubt that both Mark and John . . . intended to record a miracle.” Whitacre notes there are three ways to view this miracle: (1) a suspension of natural law; (2) Jesus was using nature to accomplish his purposes; (3) a unique supernatural event happened. Any of the three is possible; the main thing is that God was bending the laws of nature to his will.

At first glance, it looks as if this story is out of place, for it seemingly interrupts the progression from the multiplication of the bread miracle to Jesus’ presentation of himself as the Bread of Life. It actually fits very well, for it identifies Jesus as the divine provider. In a sense, the feeding miracle undergirds the “Bread of Life” aspect of 6:35, and the walking on the water undergirds the “I AM” aspect of 6:35. In Mark 6:45, Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and head across the lake. Here, John records, they went “to the shore to wait for him,” and when he didn’t come “as darkness fell,” they started across the lake. The Sea of Galilee is 13 miles long and seven miles across at the widest part. They were headed across the northern tip, probably about a five-mile journey. On the eastern shore, the lake is ringed by mountains, and often the wind whips through the passes and causes terrible storms with waves several feet high. One of these storms caught the disciples on the way across, and it was a particularly severe one.

They left at about dusk, and Mark tells us (6:48) that Jesus came to them at 3 A.M. They had been rowing for their lives for nine hours, and John said they had only gone three or four miles (6:19), a distance that would normally take only about an hour to row. They were naturally at the end of their strength and filled with terror when suddenly they “saw Jesus walking on the water toward the boat.” There are several miracles here. Mark also tells us Jesus was praying up in the hills when he “saw that they were in serious trouble” (6:48). How could he see three or more miles away through a storm? How could he walk to them not just on water but through that same storm? Stilling the storm may have actually been one of the lesser miracles!

Jesus reached them, calmed their fears, and made the key pronouncement: “I am here” (or better, “The I AM is here,” or, “I, Yahweh, am here”). Certainly, by itself the phrase means simply, “It’s me,” but in the context of John with all the absolute uses of egō eimi [TG1473/1510, ZG1609/1639] (8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5), as well as predicated forms like “I am the bread of life” (6:35), it means much more. Brown (1966:536) sees the primary background for its use in Isaiah 43:10, 25; 47:8, 10; 51:12; Hosea 13:4; and Joel 2:27 for “God and God alone” (e.g., Isa 43:10, “to know me, believe in me, and understand that I alone am God”). I would add Exodus 3:13-15, where God gave Moses his covenant name at the burning bush and defined it as, “I AM WHO I AM.”

Then comes the third miracle (or fourth, if one includes seeing a great distance through the storm): they let him into the boat, “and immediately they arrived at their destination” (6:21). Notice that the actual stilling of the storm is not mentioned here; instead, they arrived at the shore at once, implying a further miracle. Perhaps the stilling was not mentioned so that the whole emphasis would be on Jesus and who he is rather than on what he did. “Jesus comes to them as the ‘I am,’ the divine provider, and swiftly takes them to shore—the goal of their journey” (Comfort 1994:71).

6:27 the seal of his approval. Some (Westcott, Hoskyns, Morris) read this as a Jewish metaphor for Jesus as the acceptable sacrifice, “sealed” as the perfect victim. This is unlikely; the more frequent use of “seal” is preferable (cf. commentary on 6:27).

6:33 the one who comes down from heaven. The descent-ascent motif is very important in John (cf. Köstenberger 1998a:121-130). Jesus is the one who has “come down from heaven,” and he will soon return there. This begins in 1:9; 3:19 with the Light coming into the world and forcing division so that the blind are given sight and “those who think they see” are shown to be blind (9:39). The two ideas together begin in 1:51 with the idea of the angels ascending and descending on Jesus, with the thrust that Jesus has united heaven and earth. Then in 3:13 they occur for the first time as a reference to Jesus as the glorified Son of Man. According to Köstenberger (1998a:126), ascent-descent is part of a “journey theme” with Jesus’ fourth trip to Jerusalem presented as a journey back to the Father via the cross. His descent centers on his mission to call the world to God, and it will be met with controversy and widespread rejection. His ascent back to God is a return to glory and vindication.

6:36-40 Brown (1966:275-276, following Léon-Dufour), finds a chiasm here:

6:37 those the Father has given me will come to me. Arminian theology accepts the doctrine of predestination but asserts that it occurs on the basis of foreknowledge (Rom 8:29; 1 Pet 1:2)—that is, God knew beforehand who would respond to the Spirit’s convicting power via faith-decision, and he chose them. On predestination according to foreknowledge, see Osborne 2003:221-222.

6:39 I should not lose even one. Arminians accept the security of the believer but believe it is conditional rather than unconditional—that is, God keeps believers secure, but we are responsible to avail ourselves of his power. In John, there are not only the examples of 6:60-66 and 17:12 but the warning passage of 15:1-6, stating that if those who are in Jesus quit bearing fruit, they will be “thrown away . . . wither . . . [and be] gathered into a pile to be burned.” Outside John, Arminians appeal to such passages as Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-31; Jas 5:19-20; 2 Pet 2:20-21; 1 John 5:16. In other words, they believe that God keeps us secure but that there is a real danger of rejecting his security and turning our backs on Christ. As Witherington says, “God’s role in the relationship is incomparably greater than the human one, but the fact remains that God does not and will not save a person without the positive human response, called faith, to the divine leading and drawing” (1995:158).

at the last day. It is strange that so many higher critics separate John’s realized eschatology (the present gift of eternal life) from his final eschatology (the final resurrection), as if they were somehow contradictory. Both are found clearly in his Gospel (for final eschatology, see 5:28-29; 14:2-3; 21:22-23, as well as 6:39-40, 44, 54) and are interdependent. Future security is the natural extension of present protection. The God who watches over us now will continue to do so until “the last day.”

6:51 this bread . . . is my flesh. This is similar to the words of institution at the Last Supper (Mark 14:22, “This is my body”) and appears eucharistic at first glance. However, it probably was not intended as such by Jesus since he said it long before the Last Supper and used “flesh” rather than “body.” The arguments for a eucharistic connotation (e.g., “flesh” is the more primitive form of “body”) are usually linked to the view that this is a later addition rather than a record of the actual words of Jesus, but this explanation is unnecessary (against a sacramental interpretation see Morris, Carson, Ridderbos, Burge, Blomberg, Keener, Köstenberger). As Kysar points out (1986:108-109), it is possible that sacramental overtones were originally present, but there is little evidence for such in the text here and even less evidence of eucharistic allusions elsewhere in John.

The message of the Bread of Life discourse is simple and yet the most important truth in human history: eternal life is available only to those who partake of Jesus by coming to faith in him.

All of this is dependent on the relationship between the Father and the Son and the relationship of both to life (as in ch 5). God is “the living Father,” the one who is life and who gives life. He is also the Father who “sent” Jesus as his official envoy (Cf. 6:29, 38, 39, 44). Therefore, Jesus lives because of him (6:57)—that is, Jesus finds his source of life and mission from his Father. This goes back to 1:14: “The Word became human and made his home among us.” The incarnate God-man draws his life from the Father but has also been given authority over that life in his mission (5:21, 25-26), so in turn he becomes the source of life for anyone who feeds on him. Since Jesus is the Bread of Life (6:35), the only way to have eternal life is to “eat” that bread—that is, encounter him wholly and come to faith. Note the progression: the “living Father” is the source of life for Jesus, and Jesus is the source of life for us. This is because Jesus is “the true bread . . . from heaven,” a title that combines the idea that he is “the bread of life” (6:35, 48) with the idea that he has “come down from heaven” (6:33, 38, 41, 42, 51).

To make certain they understood his message, Jesus clarified that his flesh and blood were “true food” and “true drink” (6:55). This means that his flesh and blood really are what food is meant to be; they are archetypal food in its truest sense (so Barrett). Food and drink sustain life, but Jesus’ flesh and blood provide everlasting life. This is because anyone who partakes of Jesus wholly “remains in him,” and he remains in them. This is called “mutual indwelling” and is another key theme in John’s writings (Cf. 14:20; 15:4-7; 1 John 2:24; 3:24; 4:15). The Father and the Son share completely in this way (10:38; 14:20; 17:11, 21), and when we become one with the Son, we share in that union. This produces a dynamic day-by-day union and fellowship with the Son that will always be at work in us.

This led to further debate (6:52), as the people in the synagogue started arguing sharply (stronger than the “murmur” in 6:41) over how Jesus could “give us his flesh to eat,” reminiscent of Israel’s striving with Moses (so Schnackenburg, Borchert). Again, they were thinking from an earthly perspective and could not understand the heavenly reality. As John Chrysostom points out (Homilies on John 46.2), “When questioning concerning the ‘how’ comes in, there comes in with it unbelief.” Jesus’ response develops significantly what he meant when he spoke of the need to “[eat] the bread from heaven” (6:50). As another solemn truth (note the double amēn [TG281, ZG297]; Cf. 6:47), this is especially important. In fact, 6:53-56 form the climax of this narrative. He shocked them to the core of their being when he said they must “eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood.” The first half may well go back to the Passover Lamb of 1:29. The Torah said that after the sacrifice, the lamb was to be wholly consumed, every part (Exod 12:9-10). Also, “flesh and blood” is a Jewish idiom for the whole person (so Brown). Jesus’ point was that the encounter must be total, but by adding “drink his blood,” Jesus invoked a strange and scandalous (even repulsive) element that deepened the point. God had forbidden the Jews to drink blood (Gen 9:4; Lev 7:26-27). The early church was concerned enough about this that the Jerusalem council asked Gentiles Christians (who had no such rule) to respect Jewish sensitivities and not drink blood in their presence (Acts 15:28-29). Since blood signifies violent death in Scripture (so Carson), Jesus’ comment was a clear reference to his death on the cross. Jesus used very strong metaphors to say that only the one who wholly surrenders to Jesus and his death “has eternal life.” Secondarily, Christians who read this would certainly think of the Lord’s Supper. Jesus, however, did not intend a sacramental reading. This statement does not point forward to the Lord’s Supper; rather, the Lord’s Supper draws significance from its truth about the necessity of Jesus’ death.

This challenge is as valid today as in Jesus’ time. Too many Christians, let alone unbelievers, are wasting their time pursuing only the temporary “treasures here on earth” and ignoring the “treasures in heaven” (Matt 6:19-21). The only source of real value is the Son of Man, the one who united heaven and earth (1:51; 3:13) and was appointed by God as Savior (3:17; 4:42) and judge (5:27). The reason Christ can do this is that his Father has placed “the seal of his approval” on him, which could refer to his incarnation or baptism but probably is meant more generally (the aorist verb translated “has given . . . the seal” is global, referring to Jesus’ ministry as a whole). Christ bears God’s royal seal and so is his official agent or envoy (cf. the “sent one” passages; e.g., 3:17, 34; 5:23-24, 36, 38, as well as 6:29, 38 below).

Jesus added the new truth, stating, “This bread, which I will offer so the world may live, is my flesh.” This becomes the theme for this final section of the discourse. It refers to Jesus’ passion. The “Word [that] became flesh” (1:14, NLT mg) will give his “flesh” on the cross “so the world may live.” In 6:33 Jesus said, “The true bread . . . gives life to the world,” and now he speaks to how that will come to pass. The great paradox of Christianity is that life comes through death. Jesus died so that we may live, and we live by dying to this world (Rom 6:4-6). Moreover, the Greek says that Jesus dies “for (huper [TG5228, ZG5642]) the life of the world,” and this preposition probably signifies substitutionary atonement—that Jesus is a vicarious sacrifice “for” the world. It is used in this way in the eucharistic saying of Mark 14:24 (“This is my blood . . . poured out as a sacrifice for many”), and the preposition is found in sacrificial contexts throughout John’s Gospel (10:11, 15; 11:50-52; 15:13; 17:19; so Barrett). Our “life” has its basis in Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, and we appropriate it by faith—that is, by eating the bread, by trusting in his fleshly sacrifice that atones for our sin.

Jesus anchored his assertion regarding God’s drawing his chosen in a free translation of Isaiah 54:13: “They will all be taught by God” (6:45). This is one of the new covenant passages (cf. Isa 42:6; 54:10; Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 36:26) in which God promises a glorious future for Zion. At that time, his people will find a new, direct, internal relationship with him. Jesus was saying that his followers constitute that new community and fulfill the prophecies to that effect. The “all” includes the world (6:14, 33, NASB) as a whole, Jew and Gentile. Applying this to his Jewish listeners, he once more centered on the basis of their unbelief: only those who listen and learn can come to Jesus (6:45). There have now been four synonymous metaphors for conversion—“see” and “believe” in 6:40, as well as “listen” and “learn” here. All the senses are involved—the eyes, the heart, the ears, and the mind. Conversion is a total process in which God captures and involves the whole person in a holistic change from the earthly to the heavenly. The Jewish people had been unwilling, and they rejected the divine call at every level. To clarify the means by which God teaches, Jesus then added that he is the only path to knowing God. Repeating the message of 1:18 and 5:37, he stated that no one but him has ever seen the Father. He is the only revelatory means of seeing God or finding salvation; it is Jesus who reveals God (1:18; 14:6-7).

Jesus responded by repeating what he had just said in 6:37 but with one very important difference. Their complaints should cease (6:43) because they could never find God that way (as their ancestors had proven). In fact, they could only find life if they came in God’s way. In 6:37, believers were “given” to Jesus by God, and here we see that they were drawn by God, and only then could they come to Jesus. Once more, salvation is sovereignly controlled by God, and only those brought to faith by God can come. This is a reference to the convicting power of the Spirit, but it goes beyond that to describe the whole process of salvation. Calvinists have called this “irresistible grace,” and Morris (1995:371) argues that the drawing power of God is always successful. This might go too far, however, for in 12:32 Jesus says he will “draw everyone to [himself],” and he was hardly teaching universalism. Still, 6:44 refers to God’s control of salvation and to the security of the believer, for Jesus also repeats the promise that he will raise them at the last day (Cf. 6:39, 40). Jesus was saying that a person’s rejection of him was a rejection of God’s drawing, and that would mean death for them.

Verse 40 summarizes the themes stated in 6:35-39. “All who see his Son and believe in him” (Cf. 6:35) “have eternal life” in the present (Cf. 6:37, 39a) and the guaranteed promise of final resurrection “at the last day” (Cf. 6:39b). We again see both sides of the salvation debate—human decision (“see/believe”) and sovereign protection (“my Father’s will”). Note the exceptions in 6:60-66 (the apostasy of “many of his disciples”) and 17:12 (“not one was lost, except the one headed for destruction”). The question is whether these were true followers of Christ. For Judas, the answer is “no,” but for the disciples in 6:60-66, the answer is “possibly” (cf. comments on 2:23-25). The final balance between the security and responsibility of the believer, between divine sovereignty and the will of the individual, is a mystery and will remain so until we enter eternity. Still, John’s Gospel is the perfect book for working out the debate between Arminianism and Calvinism, for both sides are present here and must be held in tension.

This new sovereign power in salvation is anchored in the will of God (6:38-40). Christ already spoke of the will of God in 4:34, where he said his food (similar imagery to this passage) is “doing the will of God,” which he defined as his mission to gather a harvest of souls. Here also he states that he came down from heaven to “do the will of God who sent me” (6:38). Jesus was “sent” as God’s sovereignly appointed envoy, a major emphasis in this section (Cf. 6:27, 29, 39, 44, 57); as such, his origin is heavenly, and he has descended to earth (cf. note on 6:33) for the sole purpose of obeying his Father’s will rather than his own (Cf. 5:30). His mission is an act of obedience, and it is the result of complete unity between Father and Son. God guarantees that Jesus “should not lose even one of all those he has given me.” This tells how Jesus will preserve his followers. Note the progression—God gives them in 6:37 and protects them in 6:39 (this is elaborated further in 6:44). This is realized eschatology, as God ensures the present security of all Jesus’ true followers. Yet there is also a final eschatology, as Jesus will “raise them up at the last day.” Their ultimate future is also guaranteed.

This passage defines the divine and the human sides of salvation. In that sense, it combines the Arminian and the Calvinist systems. The human side is to “come” and “believe,” and the divine side is that God “draws” the believers to Jesus (6:44), gives them to him (6:37, 39), and keeps them secure (6:40, 44). The problem with the crowd was that they refused to believe even though they had seen what he said and did. This is the same unbelief seen in 1:11; 3:19-20; and especially 5:38, 46-47. They had seen the sign of the feeding miracle and still asked for more (6:30). They had heard Jesus explaining who he was and still failed to understand or accept his words.

In 6:33, Jesus explicitly identifies “the true bread of God” (the point of 6:32) as himself: “the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” (6:33). Note the two emphases of this section—Jesus provides the bread (6:27, 33), and he is the bread (6:33, 35). This sums up several themes in John thus far. First, he is the one who “comes down” from heaven, as implied in the prologue (the Word “with God” in 1:1, 2 who becomes incarnate in 1:14) and stated explicitly in 1:51; 3:13, 31. This will be a major theme in this discourse (7 occurences, Cf. 6:38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58). Jesus’ true origin was heaven, and God has “sent” him from there to earth as his official representative. Second, Jesus as the provider of life has also been a key motif, beginning with the prologue (1:4, “the Word gave life”) and occurring often elsewhere (3:15, 16, 36; 4:14; 5:21, 24, 26, 29, 39-40; 6:27). It too will become a dominating theme in this discourse (6:35, 40, 47, 48, 51, 53, 54). Third, the focus shifts from the Jews to “the world,” a concept also seen in the prologue (1:9, 10) and later chapters (1:29; 3:16, 17, 19; 4:42; 6:14). It is emphasized again in 6:51 (“so the world may live”). The message of the fourth Gospel is that salvation comes for Jew and Gentile alike on the basis of faith rather than pedigree (cf. Rom 3:21–4:25). It is clear that Jesus’ claim here is thematic for the rest of the Bread of Life discourse. The crowd missed the fact that Jesus declared himself to be the living bread and believed he was offering them the miraculous sign they requested in 6:30. Like the Samaritan woman (4:15), they asked Jesus to give them “that bread every day,” expecting him to expand on the manna of Exodus and give them the life they sought. “Every day” (pantote [TG3842, ZG4121]) could mean they wanted it regularly repeated (Lenski, Schnackenburg), but more likely it means they thought of a heavenly once-for-all gift that would be with them always (Barrett, Morris). They still did not understand that it could only come from faith in Jesus.

It is commonly agreed that the quotation in 6:31b is the center of this section (“Moses gave them bread from heaven to eat”) and directly prepares for Jesus’ self-assertion in 6:35. There is no single Old Testament passage corresponding to this quote. It is probably an amalgamation of Exodus 16:4, Nehemiah 9:15, and Psalm 78:24-25. The idea of “bread from heaven” has a double meaning: both the manna from heaven in Exodus and the new heavenly reality Jesus has introduced (1:51; 3:13, 31). The crowd understood only the former, but the latter is inferred in the larger context. Jesus responded with his customary “I tell you the truth” for an important message. First, he corrected their misinterpretation of Scripture regarding Moses and the manna (a common rabbinic technique): “Moses didn’t give you the bread from heaven. My Father did” (again, see Exod 16:4-5, 15-16). Second, in the Greek Jesus says, “My Father does” (present tense), implying that the gift of manna is an ongoing gift, now given through God’s Son (as in the feeding miracle). This becomes the basis for 6:33, when Jesus will identify himself as that heavenly gift. Third, the manna in the wilderness is earthly and perishable like the “food” of 6:27. The Father’s gift is “the true bread from heaven” (note the switch to the new heavenly reality noted above) that will never cease.

Jesus is the heaven-sent envoy from God (Cf. 6:27), and he alone is the source of salvation. People can find eternal life only by believing in him. As Carson brings out (1991:285), this is indistinguishable from Paul, who says that a person is “made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law” (Rom 3:28).

The crowd picked up on the idea of working for eternal life and asked how they could “perform God’s works” as well—that is, those deeds God requires for salvation (6:28). As usual, they misunderstood and thought of earning something from God, entirely ignoring the major truth that eternal life is a divine gift rather than something to be earned. They were, in effect, asking Jesus to give them a grocery list of things they could do. Again, this is a common error today, as people attend church and become active in its work, hoping to buy or earn their way into heaven. Jesus’ response went directly to the point: The only work God requires is faith! Eternal life is not something that can be earned by works.

Their problem was their consuming interest in “perishable things like food” (6:27). The message here is similar to Jesus’ challenge of the Samaritan woman. He told her that the water she offered would only make her thirst again, while the “living water” he offered would be a “fresh, bubbling spring,” yielding “eternal life” (4:13-14). In similar fashion, he told the crowd that they should stop seeking perishable food but instead go after “the eternal life that the Son of Man can give you.” That is the only thing worthy of their “energy.” Literally, this says that they should “work for the food” that produces eternal life. It is interesting that eternal life is both work (our part) and gift (Christ’s part), concepts often thought of as opposing one another (so Whitacre). Here is another paradox: faith is not a work (Eph 2:8-9), but the only work God will allow is the act of faith (6:29).

In 5:21-29, Jesus described himself as the life-giver as a result of his relationship with his Father; those who come to him in faith will find eternal life. This discourse expands on both these elements of that seminal speech in chapter 5. Jesus gives life because he is the Bread of Life, and people find that life only by consuming him totally. While it is common to consider this an artificially constructed sermon in several stages of redaction (e.g., Bultmann, Schnackenburg) by different authors, it is more and more common to see this as a well-constructed unity (e.g., Borgen, Lindars, Carson, Ridderbos, Blomberg). The organization of the discourse is much debated. Perhaps the best approach is to see this as a Jewish midrashic homily, an idea developed especially by Borgen (1965:59-98) and basically accepted by many others (Brown, Barrett, Schnackenburg, Ridderbos). This is valid because 6:59 labels the passage as a synagogue address. Thus, I take 6:22-24 as the setting of the discourse; 6:25-29 as the introduction, centering on the work that produces life; 6:30-34 as the central Pentateuchal citation on bread from heaven; 6:35-50 as a midrashic homily on Jesus as the Bread of Life; and 6:51-58 on the consequent need to consume his flesh and his blood. There is some question regarding where the synagogue address begins. Since many synagogue messages involved dialog such as is found throughout this passage, it is likely that the discourse begins with the first question in 6:25. The hint of the text is that the entire dialog takes place in the synagogue.

The theme of this section is Jesus’ demand that everyone experience a total encounter with him as the Bread of Life. The event occurs at Passover (6:4) and is preceded by two nature miracles that prepare for his claim to be the living bread that must be consumed by all who believe. The first, the multiplication of loaves (6:1-14), establishes him as the giver of manna who satisfies the multitudes. The Exodus typology is foremost, as seen in the mention of Passover (6:4) and the crowds’ exclamation of him as the “prophet like Moses” (6:14). The second establishes him as the “I am” (6:20)—that is, the Bread of Life is Yahweh himself. It supports the sign of the feeding by establishing Jesus’ divine status and helping presence (so Schnackenburg). In the Exodus story, God gave the manna to the people, and here the God-man does the same. This prepares for the claim itself (6:35), after which Jesus demands that he be consumed completely (6:53-58) by anyone who wants eternal life. Jesus has been presented as life-giver and judge (ch 5) and now anchors this in the facts that he alone can provide life and that he forces all to a decision, resulting in the judgment of all who refuse to believe.

6:56 remains in me, and I in him. The theme of “abiding” or “remaining in” occurs in many ways in John and is translated variously by the NLT. The Gr. menō [TG3306, ZG3531] (abide) occurs, for example, in 5:38; 6:27; 14:10; 14:17; 15:4, 5, 7; 15:9-10. In these contexts it primarily characterizes the relationship between the Father, Son, Spirit, and believer.

In 6:37-40, Jesus stated why they had not found faith—they were not of God. This is one of the great passages of Scripture on the sovereignty of God in salvation. The reality that the majority of Jesus’ countrymen rejected God’s plan of salvation and turned their backs on Jesus did not discourage him, for God was still in charge. In fact, “those the Father has given [Jesus] will come to [him]” (6:37). There is a two-way street here. Jesus brings people to God, but they already belong to God and are God’s gift to Jesus. The doctrine behind this is called predestination, the view that God has chosen believers from before the foundation of the world, and they will come to Jesus. The point is that God is very aware of those who refuse to believe, and it does not damage his plan at all. The elect will come, and God’s purpose will be shown. Moreover, following predestination, Jesus alluded to the security of the believer: “I will never reject them” means that Jesus will preserve his followers. They belong to God, are given to Jesus, and Jesus not only accepts them but also watches over them.

6:60 hard to understand. Carson (1991:300) points out four things that made it so hard: (1) they were more interested in food, politics, and miracles than in spiritual realities; (2) they were unwilling to surrender their own autonomy in order to come in faith; (3) they were offended by Jesus’ claims to be greater than Moses and to have authority to give life; and (4) they were even more offended by the metaphors of eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

6:62 what will you think. The actual sentence is not finished; the “if” clause has no “then” clause, so Jesus could mean this in either a positive (you will be more convinced) or negative way (you will be more offended). This conditional clause is best understood as deliberately ambiguous and meant both ways. Those who have faith will be more persuaded; those who do not will be even more scandalized.

6:66 turned away and deserted him. The debate over the possibility of apostasy (cf. also note on 6:39) is in some ways a dangerous one. Calvinists stress the impossibility and so offer security to those who should not have it, and Arminians often stress the likelihood of it and produce a generation of neurotic Christians who think they have lost their salvation at the drop of a hat. The truth is in the middle. Members of the church will apostatize (15:1-6; Heb 6:4-6), and the only debate is whether those who do so were ever true believers or not. Calvinists and Arminians alike should use passages like this to warn the wavering “Christians” (we do not know whether they are true believers or not) in their church of a very real danger. The truth is that Arminians need to preach the security passages more, and Calvinists need to preach the warning passages more. Followers of both systems are spiritually truncated as a result of this lack of balance.

6:69 Holy One of God. Various mss differ regarding this title, with some reading “the Christ, the Holy One of God” (66 copsa,bo,ac2), others “the Christ, the Son of God” (C3 038 f1 33 ita,c,e syrs), and still others “the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (038c 0250 f13 syrp,h ). It is generally agreed that the simpler “Holy One of God,” supported by good mss (75 א B C* D L W itd), is original, with the other changes introduced by assimilation to Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi in Matt 16:16.

This section has two parts: the first pertains to the unfaithful disciples who deserted Jesus (6:60-66), and the second to the faithful ones who remained loyal to him (6:67-71). Jesus’ ministry caused division; as the living Revealer of the Father (cf. on “Word” in 1:1), he presented every person with the light of God (1:4, 7, 9; 3:18-21). In these encounters, here could be no neutrality; everyone becomes part of either darkness or light. All halfhearted disciples (2:23-25) eventually must make a final choice, and that is what happens in this passage. The hard sayings of Jesus in 6:22-58 (esp. 6:51-58) forced final choices, and many of his disciples departed.

The setting for all of this was a synagogue in Capernaum (6:24, 59). Many of the participants consisted of the wider circle of Jesus’ “disciples,” probably a group similar to that noted in 2:23-25—those who began to “trust in [Jesus]” even though he did not “trust in” them. They were similar to the plants in the rocky soil and the thorny ground in the parable of the sower (Mark 4:5-7, 16-19); as soon as troubles came, they wilted. These disciples found Jesus’ teaching in this discourse not only “hard to understand” (6:60; lit., it is a “hard word”) but also virtually impossible to accept.

The “complaining” of these disciples (6:61) parallels that of the Jews in 6:41-42 and the Israelites in the wilderness. Jesus confronted them with their own darkness by saying that if his words offended them, they would be even more disturbed when they saw “the Son of Man ascend to heaven again.” The Cross and Resurrection are seen as a stumbling block or offense in John 16:1 (so also 1 Cor 1:23; Gal 5:11; 1 Pet 2:8). Jesus often claimed that his true home was heaven and that he had descended from there (implying his preexistence, Cf. 3:13; 6:33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58). Here he reversed that image, speaking of the time when he would “ascend” back to heaven. The problem is that John does not describe Jesus’ ascension (only Luke does in Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:9-11), so many believe this refers to Jesus’ exaltation after his resurrection, as in the three “lifted up” sayings of 3:14; 8:28; 12:32 (cf. Beasley-Murray). Still, the Ascension is alluded to in 20:17, and it is best to take this as a reference to the whole complex of events seen in John as the time of Jesus’ glory—cross, resurrection, ascension, exaltation (so Westcott, Bruce). For John, Jesus’ humiliation was the first step in his exaltation.

Jesus then introduced the third member of the Trinity to the conversation (6:63; “Spirit” is not the human spirit here). God controls the gift of eternal life (3:16, 36; 5:21a, 24) and has passed that authority to the Son (5:21b, 28-29; 6:27, 33, 35, 39, 40, 44, 48, 50-51, 54, 57). This power to give life is inherent in the Spirit, who “alone gives eternal life.” The Spirit of God giving life is a frequent Old Testament theme (Gen 1:2; Isa 11:2; 44:3; 61:1; Ezek 37:5-6, 9-10; Joel 2:28; Zech 4:6), as well as a New Testament emphasis (Rom 8:4; 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 5:16; 6:8), and one central to John (3:5, 8; 7:37-39; 14:17). Here, the message is that it is the Spirit, not “human effort” (lit., “the flesh”), that provides eternal life. Jesus made this point throughout the “bread of life” discourse. Jesus’ teaching is “spirit and life,” meaning that Jesus’ words are filled with the power of the Spirit and produce life in those who believe them (the verb “to be” is reproduced before “Spirit” and “life,” thereby giving them separate emphases; so Godet). To believe Jesus’ words is to believe in him, for his words are life (Cf. 5:46-47).

Jesus “knew” who had rejected him “from the beginning.” His offensive teaching simply brought to light the unbelief that for some of them was there from the beginning. To anchor this prescient knowledge, John added that Jesus also knew “who would later betray him”—namely Judas, a trusted member of the apostolic band. John probably intended to link these quasi-followers with Judas; desertion is a form of betrayal. This is an important message for quasi-followers of Christ today. Many attend church regularly and seem concerned about their spiritual state but are unwilling to do anything about it in the way of true commitment. Many will face the parallel (and terrifying) indictment of Matthew 7:21-23, where Jesus said, “I never knew you. Get away from me.” Jesus connects this unbelief with his previous response to the unbelief of the Jews in 6:37, 44, that the only ones who can come are those who were given to him by the Father. In other words, God knew about them all along, and they were not among the elect. At that point, a group of them “turned away and deserted him” (6:66). It is clear that they found his teaching intolerable and were unwilling to make the sacrifice necessary to come to faith in him. Bruce says it well (1983:164): “What they wanted, he would not give; what he offered, they would not receive.” This does not tell us whether or not all the disciples outside the Twelve deserted Jesus. They probably did not, for we know of the “seventy-two other disciples” in Luke 10:1 who formed a circle of followers. Probably only some of the wider group of followers deserted Jesus here.

After speaking with those disciples who deserted him, Jesus turned to the Twelve and asked, “Are you also going to leave?” (6:67). Jesus knew the hearts of the Twelve (2:24-25; 6:64b), but he wanted to challenge them regarding the level of their commitment. As usual, Peter spoke for the others. First, he admitted, “Lord, to whom would we go?” They certainly knew the other religious options, but unlike the rest of the disciples, they had the faith to accept Jesus’ difficult teachings in 6:22-58. They had, in that sense, decided to consume Jesus and his teaching, so the other religious possibilities were not a true option. They did not want to turn to anything else, for they knew his words were indeed “spirit and life” (6:63). Second, Peter made two confessions: he said that Jesus’ words alone offer “eternal life” and that Jesus is “the Holy One of God” (6:68-69). According to the Greek, Peter said they “have believed” and “have known,” with the verbs in the perfect tense, signifying the disciples’ state of being. Unlike the other disciples, they had been believing and knowing Christ; this is why they would not desert him.

The title “the Holy One of God” is found elsewhere only in Mark 1:24 and Luke 4:34, when a demon confesses this of Jesus. There is not much evidence for it as a messianic title, but that is probably its meaning here. In the Old Testament, this phrase is used often of God as one who is apart from all other gods, or of God’s chosen leaders (Judg 13:7 [LXX, Vaticanus]; Ps 106:16) or priests (Lev 21:6-7). In John, the “Holy Father” (17:11) sets Jesus apart as his own (10:36). Peter was certainly recognizing Jesus as having been set apart by God as the chosen Messiah.

Lest Peter and the others should think too highly of themselves for remaining loyal to him, Jesus made it clear who was sovereign in the situation (6:70-71). According to 6:37-44, God is sovereign over the process of salvation, and Jesus is his official envoy, whom God made the life-giver. Therefore, the disciples had not just chosen him but he had chosen them (Cf. 15:16, 19). In fact, Jesus was sovereignly aware of the one exception, Judas, the one “who would later betray him” (6:64). In 17:12, Jesus calls him “the one headed for destruction”; here he calls him “a devil,” which could mean that he was demon possessed but more likely means that he was a tool of Satan who would be used to betray Jesus, as seen in 13:2, 27, when the devil first prompted Judas and then entered into him. Jesus knew Judas all along for what he was, but Jesus was is in control, not Judas or any of the Twelve.