SECTION III. THE SERMON
John vi. 32-58.
The task now before us is to study that memorable
address delivered by Jesus in the synagogue of Capernaum on the bread of life,
which gave so great offence at the time, and which has ever since been a stone
of stumbling, a subject of controversy, and a cause of division in the visible
church, and, so far as one can judge from present appearances, will be to the
world's end. On a question so vexed as that which relates to the meaning of
this discourse, one might well shrink from entering. But the very confusion
which prevails here points it out as our plain duty to disregard the din of
conflicting interpretations, and, humbly praying to be taught of God, to search
for and set forth Christ's own mind.
The sermon on the bread of life, however
strangely it sounds, was appropriate both in matter and manner to the
circumstances in which it was delivered. It was natural and seasonable that
Jesus should speak to the people of the meat that endureth unto everlasting
life after miraculously providing perishable food to supply their physical
wants. It was even natural and seasonable that He should speak of this high
topic in the startling, apparently gross, harsh style which He adopted on the
occasion. The form of thought suited the situation. Passover time was
approaching, when the paschal lamb was slain and eaten; and if Jesus desired to
say in effect, without saying it in so many words, "I am the true Paschal
Lamb," what more suitable form of language could He employ than this: "The
bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the
world"? The style was also adapted to the peculiar complexion of the speaker's
feelings at the moment. Jesus was in a sad, austere mood when He preached this
sermon. The foolish enthusiasm of the multitude had saddened Him. Their wish to
force a crown on His head made Him think of His cross; for He knew that this
idolatrous devotion to a political Messiah meant death sooner or later to one
who declined such carnal homage. He spoke, therefore, in the synagogue of
Capernaum with Calvary in view, setting Himself forth as the life of the world
in terms applicable to a sacrificial victim, whose blood is shed, and whose
flesh is eaten by those presenting the offering; not mincing His words, but
saying every thing in the strongest and intensest manner possible.
The theme of this memorable address was very
naturally introduced by the preceding conversation between Jesus and the people
who came from the other side of the lake, hoping to find Him at Capernaum, His
usual place of abode.[9.35] To their warm inquiries as to how He came thither,
He replied by a chilling observation concerning the true motive of their zeal,
and an exhortation to set their hearts on a higher food than that which
perisheth.[9.36] Understanding the exhortation as a counsel to cultivate piety,
the persons to whom it was addressed inquired what they should do that they
might work the works of God, i.e. please God.[9.37] Jesus replied by declaring
that the great testing work of the hour was to receive Himself as one whom God
had sent.[9.38] This led to a demand on their part for evidence in support of
this high claim to be the divinely missioned Messiah. The miracle just wrought
on the other side of the lake was great, but not great enough, they thought, to
justify such lofty pretensions. In ancient times a whole nation had been fed
for many years by bread brought down from heaven by Moses. What was the recent
miracle compared to that? He must show a sign on a far grander scale, if He
wished them to believe that a greater than Moses was here.[9.39] Jesus took up
the challenge, and boldly declared that the manna, wonderful as it was, was not
the true heavenly bread. There was another bread, of which the manna was but
the type: like it, coming down from heaven;[9.40] but unlike it, giving life
not to a nation, but to a world, and not life merely for a few short years, but
life for eternity. This announcement, like the similar one concerning the
wonderful water of life made to the woman of Samaria, provoked desire in the
hearts of the hearers, and they exclaimed, "Lord, evermore give us this bread."
Then said Jesus unto them, "I am the bread of life: he that cometh unto me
shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."[9.41
In these words Jesus briefly enunciated the
doctrine of the true bread, which He expounded and inculcated in His memorable
Capernaum discourse. The doctrine, as stated, sets forth what the true bread
is, what it does, and how it is appropriated.
I. The true bread is He who here speaks of
it--Jesus Christ. "I am the bread." The assertion implies, on the speaker's
part, a claim to have descended from heaven; for such a descent is one of the
properties by which the true bread is defined.[9.42] Accordingly we find Jesus,
in the sequel of His discourse, expressly asserting that He had come down from
heaven.[9.43] This declaration, understood in a supernatural sense, was the
first thing in His discourse with which His hearers found fault. "The Jews then
murmured at Him, because He said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we
know? how is it then that He saith, I came down from heaven?"[9.44] It was
natural they should murmur if they did not know or believe that there was any
thing out of course in the way in which Jesus came into the world. For such
language as He here employs could not be used without blasphemy by a mere man
born after the fashion of other men. It is language proper only in the mouth of
a Divine Being who, for a purpose, hath assumed human nature.
In setting Himself forth, therefore, as the bread
which came down from heaven, Jesus virtually taught the doctrine of the
incarnation. The solemn assertion, "I am the bread of life," is equivalent in
import to that made by the evangelist respecting Him who spoke these words:
"The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth."[9.45]
It is, however, not merely as incarnate that the
Son of God is the bread of eternal life. Bread must be broken in order to be
eaten. The Incarnate One must die as a sacrificial victim that men may truly
feed upon Him. The Word become flesh, and crucified in the flesh, is the life
of the world. This special truth Jesus went on to declare, after having stated
the general truth that the heavenly bread was to be found in Himself. "The
bread," said He, "that I will give is my flesh, (which I will give) for the
life of the world."[9.46] The language here becomes modified to suit the new
turn of thought. "I am" passes into "I will give," and "bread" is transformed
into "flesh."
Jesus evidently refers here to His death. His
hearers did not so understand Him, but we can have no doubt on the matter. The
verb "give," suggesting a sacrificial act, and the future tense both point that
way. In words dark and mysterious before the event, clear as day after it, the
speaker declares the great truth, that His death is to be the life of men; that
His broken body and shed blood are to be as meat and drink to a perishing
world, conferring on all who shall partake of them the gift of immortality. How
He is to die, and why His death shall possess such virtue, He does not here
explain. The Capernaum discourse makes no mention of the cross; it contains no
theory of atonement, the time is not come for such details; it simply asserts
in broad, strong terms that the flesh and blood of the incarnate Son of God,
severed as in death, are the source of eternal life.
This mention by Jesus of His flesh as the bread
from heaven gave rise to a new outburst of murmuring among His hearers. "They
strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to
eat?"[9.47] Jesus had not yet said that His flesh must be eaten, but they took
for granted that such was His meaning. They were right; and accordingly He went
on to say, with the greatest solemnity and emphasis, that they must even eat
His flesh and drink His blood. Unless they did that, they should have no life
in them; if they did that, they should have life in all its fulness--life
eternal both in body and in soul. For His flesh was the true food, and His
blood was the true drink. They who partook of these would share in His own
life. He should dwell in them, incorporated with their very being; and they
should dwell in Him as the ground of their being. They should live as secure
against death by Him, as He lived from everlasting to everlasting by the
Father. "This, therefore," said the speaker, reverting in conclusion to the
proposition with which he started, "this (even my flesh) is that bread which
came down from Heaven; not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead: he that
eateth of this bread shall live forever."[9.48]
A third expression of disapprobation ensuing led
Jesus to put the copestone on His high doctrine of the bread of life, by making
a concluding declaration, which must have appeared at the time the most
mysterious and unintelligible of all: that the bread which descended from
heaven must ascend up thither again, in order to be to the full extent the
bread of everlasting life. Doth this offend you? asked He at his hearers: this
which I have just said about your eating my flesh and blood; what will ye say
"if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before?"[9.49] The
question was in effect an affirmation, and it was also a prophetic hint, that
only after He had left the world would He become on an extensive scale and
conspicuously a source of life to men; because then the manna of grace would
begin to descend not only on the wilderness of Israel, but on all the barren
places of the earth; and the truth in Him, the doctrine of His life, death, and
resurrection, would become meat indeed and drink indeed unto a multitude, not
of murmuring hearers, but of devout, enlightened, thankful believers; and no
one would need any longer to ask for a sign when he could find in the Christian
church, continuing steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in
breaking bread and in prayers, the best evidence that He had spoken truth who
said, "I am the bread of life."
2. This, then, is the heavenly bread: even the
God-man incarnate, crucified, and glorified. Let us now consider more
attentively the marvellous virtue of this bread. It is the bread of life. It is
the office of all bread to sustain life, but it is the peculiarity of this
divine bread to give eternal life. "He that cometh to me," said the speaker,
"shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me, shall never thirst."[9.50]
With reference to this life-giving power He called the bread of which He spake
"living bread," and meat indeed, and declared that he who ate thereof should
not die, but should live forever.[9.51]
In commending this miraculous bread to His
hearers, Jesus, we observe, laid special stress on its power to give eternal
life even to the body of man. Four times over He declared in express terms that
all who partook of this bread of life should be raised again at the last
day.[9.52] The prominence thus given to the resurrection of the body is due in
part to the fact that throughout His discourse Jesus was drawing a contrast
between the manna which fed the Israelites in the desert and the true bread of
which it was the type. The contrast was most striking just at this point. The
manna was merely a substitute for ordinary food; it had no power to ward off
death: the generation which had been so miraculously supported passed away from
the earth, like all other generations of mankind. Therefore, argued Jesus, it
could not be the true bread from heaven; for the true bread must be capable of
destroying death, and endowing the recipients with the power of an endless
existence. A man who eats thereof must not die; or dying, must rise again.
"Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread
which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not
die."[9.53]
But the prominence given to the resurrection of
the body is due mainly to its intrinsic importance. For if the dead rise not,
then is our faith vain, and the bread of life degenerates into a mere quack
nostrum, pretending to virtues which it does not possess. True, it may still
give spiritual life to those who eat thereof, but what is that without the hope
of a life hereafter? Not much, according to Paul, who says, "If in this life
only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."[9.54] Many,
indeed, in our day do not concur in the apostle's judgment. They think that the
doctrine of the life everlasting may be left out of the creed without
loss--nay, even with positive advantage, to the Christian faith. The life of a
Christian seems to them so much nobler when all thought of future reward or
punishment is dismissed from the mind. How grand, to pass through the
wilderness of this world feeding on the manna supplied in the high, pure
teaching of Jesus, without caring whether there be a land of Canaan on the
other side of Jordan! Very sublime indeed! but why, in that case, come into the
wilderness at all? why not remain in Egypt, feeding on more substantial and
palatable viands? The children of Israel would not have left the house of
bondage unless they had hoped to reach the promised land. An immortal hope is
equally necessary to the Christian. He must believe in a world to come in order
to live above the present evil world. If Christ cannot redeem the body from the
power of the grave, then it is in vain that He promises to redeem us from guilt
and sin. The bread of life is unworthy of the name, unless it hath power to
cope with physical as well as with moral corruption.
Hence the prominence given by Jesus in this
discourse to the resurrection of the body. He knew that here lay the crucial
experiment by which the value and virtue of the bread He offered to His hearers
must be tested. "You call this bread the bread of life, in contrast to the
manna of ancient times:--do you mean to say that, like the tree of life in the
garden of Eden, it will confer on those who eat thereof the gift of a blessed
immortality?" "Yes, I do," replied the Preacher in effect to this imaginary
question: "this bread I offer you will not merely quicken the soul to a higher,
purer life; it will even revivify your bodies, and make the corruptible put on
incorruption, and the mortal put on immortality."
3. And how, then, is this wondrous bread to be
appropriated that one may experience its vitalizing influences? Bread, of
course, is eaten; but what does eating in this case mean? It means, in one
word, faith. "He that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth in
me shall never thirst."[9.55] Eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood,
and, we may add, drinking the water of which he spake to the woman by the well,
all signify believing in Him as He is offered to men in the gospel: the Son of
God manifested in the flesh, crucified, raised from the dead, ascended into
glory; the Prophet, the Priest, the King, and the Mediator between God and man.
Throughout the Capernaum discourse eating and believing are used
interchangeably as equivalents. Thus, in one sentence, we find Jesus saying,
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life:
I am that bread of life;"[9.56] and shortly after remarking,: "I am the living
bread which came down from heaven: If any man eat of this bread he shall live
forever."[9.57] If any further argument were necessary to justify the
identifying of eating with believing, it might be found in the instruction
given by the Preacher to His hearers before He began to speak of the bread of
life; "This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath
sent."[9.58] That sentence furnishes the key to the interpretation of the whole
subsequent discourse. "Believe," said Jesus, with reference to the foregoing
inquiry, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?--"Believe, and
thou hast done God's work." "Believe," we may understand Him as saying with
reference to an inquiry, How shall we eat this bread of life?--"Believe, and
thou hast eaten."
Believe, and thou hast eaten: such was the
formula in which Augustine expressed his view of Christ's meaning in the
Capernaum discourse.[9.59] The saying is not only terse, but true, in our
judgment; but it has not been accepted by all interpreters. Many hold that
eating and faith are something distinct, and would express the relation between
them thus: Believe, and thou shalt eat. Even Calvin objected to the Augustinian
formula. Distinguishing his own views from those held by the followers of
Zwingli, he says: "To them to eat is simply to believe. I say that Christ's
flesh is eaten in believing because it is made ours by faith, and that eating
is the fruit and effect of faith. Or more clearly: To them eating is faith, to
me it seems rather to follow from faith."[9.60]
The distinction taken by Calvin between eating
and believing seems to have been verbal rather than real. With many other
theologians, however, it is far otherwise. All upholders of the magical
doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation contend for the literal
interpretation of the Capernaum discourse even in its strongest statements.
Eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood are, for such, acts of the mouth,
accompanied perhaps with acts of faith, but not merely acts of faith. It is
assumed for the most part as a matter of course, that the discourse recorded in
the sixth chapter of John's Gospel has reference to the sacrament of the
Supper, and that only on the hypothesis of such a reference can the peculiar
phraseology of the discourse be explained. Christ spoke then of eating His
flesh and drinking His blood, so we are given to understand, because He had in
His mind that mystic rite ere long to be instituted, in which bread and wine
should not merely represent, but become, the constituent elements of His
crucified body.
While the sermon on the bread of life continues
to be mixed up with sacramentarian controversies, agreement in its
interpretation is altogether hopeless. Meantime, till a better day dawn on a
divided and distracted church, every man must endeavor to be fully persuaded in
his own mind. Three things are clear to our mind. First, it is incorrect to say
that the sermon delivered in the Capernaum synagogue refers to the sacrament of
the Supper. The true state of the case is, that both refer to a third thing,
viz. the death of Christ, and both declare, in different ways, the same thing
concerning it. The sermon says in symbolic words what the Supper says in a
symbolic act: that Christ crucified is the life of men, the world's hope of
salvation. The sermon says more than this, for it speaks of Christ's ascension
as well as of His death; but it says this for one thing.
A second point on which we are clear is, that it
is quite unnecessary to assume a mental reference by anticipation to the Holy
Supper, in order to account for the peculiarity of Christ's language in this
famous discourse. As we saw at the beginning, the whole discourse rose
naturally out of the present situation. The mention by the people of the manna
naturally led Jesus to speak of the bread of life; and from the bread He passed
on as naturally to speak of the flesh and the blood, because he could not fully
be bread until He had become flesh and blood dissevered, i.e. until He had
endured death. All that we find here might have been said, in fact, although
the sacrament of the Supper had never existed. The Supper is of use not so much
for interpreting the sermon as for establishing its credibility as an authentic
utterance of Jesus. There is no reason to doubt that He who instituted the
mystic feast, could also have preached this mystic sermon.
The third truth which shines clear as a star to
our eye is,--that through faith alone we may attain all the blessings of
salvation. Sacraments are very useful, but they are not necessary. If it had
pleased Christ not to institute them, we could have got to heaven
notwithstanding. Because He has instituted them, it is our duty to celebrate
them, and we may expect benefit from their celebration. But the benefit we
receive is simply an aid to faith, and nothing which cannot be received by
faith. Christians eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man at all
times, not merely at communion times, simply by believing in Him. They eat His
flesh and drink His blood at His table in the same sense as at other times;
only perchance in a livelier manner, their hearts being stirred up to devotion
by remembrance of His dying love, and their faith aided by seeing, handling,
and tasting the bread and the wine.
This document (last modifiedSeptember 17, 1997) from Believerscafe.com
Home | Bible versions | Bible Dictionary | Christian Classics | Christian Articles | Daily Devotions
Sister Projects: Wikichristian | WikiMD
BelieversCafe is a large collection of christian articles with over 40,000 pages
Our sponsors: 
