article23

§17 The Words of Eternal Life (John 6:60–71)

If the real theme of the bread of life discourse is discipleship, it is not surprising that the real (though hidden) audience turns out to be Jesus’ disciples, not mentioned since 6:22. What is surprising is that their reaction to the discourse corresponds closely to that of “the Jews” who grumbled about Jesus (v. 41) and argued among themselves over his claims (v. 52). It is not self-evident that Jesus’ disciples in this passage are a well-defined group firmly committed to following him—except for the Twelve, who emerge as a distinct entity in verses 67–71. The term disciples is perhaps used loosely to refer to all who traveled with Jesus (for however short a period) and listened to his teaching. When questioned later “about his disciples and his teaching,” Jesus emphasized that he always taught publicly “in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together.” His teaching was not esoteric and his disciples were not a secret or subversive group (18:19–21). Here in Capernaum in chapter 6, the Gospel writer has just furnished a lengthy example of Jesus’ public synagogue teaching (cf. v. 59), and disciples seems to have become a general term for all who listened to his teaching—both the group of committed adherents whom he encountered on the lake (6:16–21) and the crowd that followed the next day (6:22–25). This would help to explain how “the Jews” (who “do not believe,” 6:36) and “the disciples” (who are at least potential believers) can function in the narrative in such similar ways.

The point of the disciples’ complaint that Jesus’ teaching is a hard teaching (v. 60), is probably not that it is difficult to understand (because of its literal implication of cannibalism!) but that it is difficult to put into practice. Jesus’ meaning was no longer obscure to them, but all too clear. To follow the Son of Man to a violent death was hard teaching indeed! Yet their grumbling (v. 61) recalls that of “the Jews” (v. 41), and Jesus’ answer suggests that what scandalized them were the same two questions that had caused controversy earlier. First, how could Jesus, a mere Galilean like themselves, say that he had come down from heaven (v. 42)? Second, how could he give them “his flesh to eat” (v. 52); that is, how could he demand that they follow him and become sharers in his violent death?

Jesus replies to the two objections together in verses 62–63. First, what if they were to see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before (v. 62)? Would that not convince them that he came down from heaven in the first place? To the hearers, such a notion was pure theory and imagination. Yet the readers of the Gospel would know and believe that the Son of Man did exactly that. “Do not hold on to me,” Jesus would later say to Mary Magdalene, “for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God’ ” (20:17).

Second, Jesus reminds his reluctant disciples that the Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing (v. 63). Ascension and the Spirit go together, whether in the theology of John’s Gospel in particular (cf. 7:39; 20:22) or of the New Testament generally (e.g., Acts 2:33). But what kind of distinction is Jesus making here between Spirit and flesh? How can he insist in one breath on the absolute necessity of “eating his flesh” and admit in the next that the flesh counts for nothing? Some have argued that the preceding synagogue discourse is no longer in mind, but that Jesus is reverting to the distinction made to Nicodemus between that which comes from God and that which is of merely human origin (cf. 3:6). Others interpret verse 63 as qualifying the sacramentalist tendencies of verses 53–58: Partaking of the Lord’s Supper is crucial to a person’s Christian life as long as one partakes “spiritually” (i.e., in accord with the sacrament’s true meaning).

It is more likely that flesh has the same meaning here as in its first occurrence in the discourse, that is, in verse 51. “Flesh” there referred to Jesus’ death for the world, and if the word is given a similar sense in verse 63, the assertion is that death by itself is worthless. Spirit functions here as a life-giving spirit, the means of resurrection (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45; Rom. 8:11). Without the hope of resurrection, death even for a noble cause counts for nothing, and death “for the life of the world” (v. 51) is an impossibility Verse 63 thus accents the repeated promise of the preceding discourse that “I will … raise them up at the last day” (6:39, 40, 44, 54). To the hesitant disciples of verse 60 Jesus’ words seemed hard, for their theme was “flesh” and “death,” but because of the promise of resurrection Jesus can characterize them instead as “Spirit” and “life” (v. 63).

Despite his explanation, many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him (v. 66). Without minimizing this crisis in Jesus’ ministry, the narrator emphasizes that he was not taken by surprise. He knew of the discontent without being told (v. 61) and was quick to conclude, even after making his case, that some of you … do not believe (v. 64). The narrator uses this statement (along with the reference to Judas Iscariot in v. 71) as evidence that Jesus knew all along which of his followers would turn their backs on him and which one would betray him. Jesus himself points to his earlier warning that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him (v. 65; cf. v. 44) as further evidence of the same supernatural knowledge.

In contrast to the indefinite many of verses 60–66, the Twelve (vv. 67, 70) are assumed to be a fixed group already called and chosen (cf. Mark 3:13–19 and parallels). In John’s Gospel the call of at least four of them has been recorded (1:35–51), but their existence as a group is made explicit only here (cf., however, the twelve baskets gathered by Jesus’ disciples in v. 13). Simon Peter, whose role was a relatively minor one in the narrative of their call (1:42), now appears as the group’s spokesman. He acknowledges Jesus’ words as the words of eternal life and Jesus as God’s Holy One. The faith of the Twelve thus established will serve as a basis for the instructions Jesus will give them in his farewell discourses.

Even from this group one will still turn away. Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, anonymously mentioned already as Jesus’ betrayer (v. 64), is named for the first time. He is a devil because through him finally the devil will seek Jesus’ life (cf. 13:2, 27). But this is a momentary glimpse of the future; the immediate threat that hangs over Jesus’ head is from “the Jews” in Judea (7:1).