Flesh and Blood - John 6:35-65

Ironically, the people whom Jesus just miraculously fed the night before are demanding a sign from him before they will believe what he’s saying, and Jesus tells them, “Ye also have seen me, and believe not.” They’ve already seen the signs and miracles, but if those weren’t enough to convince them of Jesus’ divinity, then nothing else will, because again, miracles don’t convert. I feel like there are many parts of this discourse that don’t flow together, so I’m going to try to make it so that the whole thing makes sense in my mind, maybe at the end, I’ll do a recap in my own words. Jesus continues, “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” The JST for the last part of these verses changes “at the last day,” to “in the resurrection of the just at the last day.” This is said several times during this discourse, and they are all changed to say the same thing. The comment “raise up at the last day” is pretty abstract, it leaves questions like “raise up from what? What will their state be before they are raised up? Where will they be raised up to? What will their state be after they are raised up? When is the last day? What is it the last of? What will happen to everyone else who isn’t raised up?” But by discovering that Jesus really said, “I will raise him up in the resurrection of the just at the last day,” many of those questions are answered.

It’s interesting to me that Jesus was resurrected, but from what I recall, there isn’t a lot of talk about the resurrection in other parts of the New Testament. In fact, there were some people I work with who were surprised the other day that the resurrection is Mormon doctrine, that’s how little it’s understood outside of the church. There are a couple of implications that come from having “in the resurrection of the just at the last day” removed, and particularly in this instance. The statement in general reveals that there will be a resurrection at some point in our existence (at the last day, though that’s not very specific), and that the just will be resurrected. But what about the unjust? Because Christ specifically identifies the “just” as being those who will be resurrected at the last day, we can infer one of two possibilities for the unjust. Either the unjust will not be resurrected at all, or they will be resurrected at a different time, indicating that there will be at least two resurrections. In general, the absence of any talk of resurrection in the New Testament, yet Jesus is resurrected, it might be implied that Jesus got to be resurrected because he was perfect, and it was a reward given to him by God for what he did on earth, meaning that we will not be resurrected because we are flawed individuals. It almost makes me wonder if Satan focused on removing those parts of the verse specifically, or if it was a translating error that just really worked out well for him.

The Jews in attendance are not amused by Jesus’ statement, “I am the bread which came down from heaven… Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down form heaven?” He’s rejected by the people who know him personally, again. But I think it’s interesting because we know Jesus’ character, and that he had been perfect his whole mortal life, so my question is, what is it about the Savior that gave these people cause to doubt that he was from God? Is it something that has to do with him personally, or is it because they refuse to believe no matter what? It seems to be the latter. Jesus continues with an interesting point saying, “I am the bread of life. 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.”  It almost sounds like Jesus is talking about immortality, but if we look at his statements keeping in mind that he just spoke of the resurrection, I think the “not die” part will make more sense in the eternal perspective. Jesus is pointing out that the manna did not save their ancestors, and the Mosaic law won’t save them now. That’s interesting, I wonder if Jesus is making the correlation between Moses/manna and himself/bread of life to illustrate that the Mosaic law was about physical principles, commandments, and a lesser law, and Jesus’ new law is about spiritual principles, commandments, and is the higher law. He’s trying to help them realize that the old law is done away and that for salvation there is a new law, and he is the giver of that law.

He gets a bit more graphic in his metaphor saying, “except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” When I got to this part, I thought that the confusion by the Jews in attendance was justified because this is some pretty intense teaching, it made absolutely no sense to me because if he was just being metaphoric he didn’t have to go into the details of “eat my flesh and drink my blood.” But in JTC, it states that the Jews knew exactly what Jesus meant and their lack of understanding was because they refused to try to understand.

There is a long, but profitable note in JTC that helped me understand how they knew. It says, “The idea of eating, as a metaphor for receiving spiritual benefit, was familiar to Christ’s hearers, and was as readily understood as our expressions –‘devouring a book,’ or ‘drinking in’ instruction. In Isaiah 3:1, the words, ‘the whole stay of bread,’ were explained by the rabbis as referring to their own teaching, and they laid it down as a rule, that wherever, in Ecclesiastes, allusion was made to food or drink, it mean study of the law, and the practice of good works. If was a saying among them- ‘In the time of the Messiah the Israelites will be fed by Him.’ Nothing was more common in the schools and synagogues than the phrases of eating and drinking, in a metaphorical sense. ‘messiah is not likely to come to Israel,’ said Hillel, ‘for they have already eaten Him’- that is, greedily, received His words- ‘in the days of Hezekiah.’ A current conventionalism in the synagogues was that the just would ‘eat the Shekinah.’ It was particular to the Jews to be taught in such metaphorical language. Their rabbis never spoke in plain words, and it is expressly said that Jesus submitted to the popular taste, for ‘without a parable spoke he not unto them.’”

After reading this explanation, I understood that the people who questioned, did so to justify their refusal to believe instead of a genuine lack of understanding. JTC also comments, “To eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ was and is to believe in and accept Him as the literal Son of God and Savior of the world, and to obey His commandments. By these means only may the Spirit of God become an abiding part of man’s individual being, even as the substance of the food he eats is assimilated with the tissues of his body…. The sacrament of the Lord’s supper, established by the Savior on the night of His betrayal, perpetuates the symbolism of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, by the partaking of bread and wine in remembrance of Him. Acceptance of Jesus as the Christ implies obedience to the laws and ordinances of His gospel.’” Partaking in the ordinance of the sacrament is the way that we can “eat and drink” the body and blood of Christ symbolically. I’m going to have to think about this.

Many of those who were listening, even some of his disciples, were unwilling to accept what Jesus was teaching, saying, “This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” The IM comments, “John 6 records a drastic shift in public opinion toward the Savior. He went from the high point of His popularity to a drastic decline. We may wonder how the same group of people who wanted to make Jesus Christ a king one day could abandon him the very next day. Elder Neal A. Maxwell of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles wrote… ‘Once His doctrines really began to make demands of people, it was too much for many… Complexity is scarcely the cause, for the gospel is so plain and simple. Rather, the failure to comprehend seems to be rooted in a resolute refusal to let go of the world long enough to ponder the precious truths in the message of the Master.”

Jesus makes an interesting statement to them saying, “it is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” He makes it clear that he is talking about spiritual matter, and the spirit is what’s alive, not the body. I heard a saying once, “you’re not a physical being having a spiritual experience, you’re a spiritual being having a physical experience.” That seems to correlate with what Jesus is teaching here, and it also reminds us that we were spirits before we had bodies and that we’ll be spirits again after our bodies die. The body grows and dies, but the spirit is forever, so it’s best to focus on our spiritual well-being more than our physical well-being.

He recognizes that “there are some of you that believe not… Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.” This was difficult for me to understand because it’s making it sound like it’s up to Heavenly Father to decide who believes in Jesus and who doesn’t, and that negates our agency, our ability to choose to believe. There are a couple of insights that help me to understand what Jesus means here. The first is a footnote from JTC which says, “Though within the reach of all who diligently strive to gain it, faith is nevertheless a divine gift, and can be obtained only from God. As is fitting for so priceless a pearl, it is give to those only who show by their sincerity that they are worthy of it, and who give promise of abiding by its dictates… faith is preceded by sincerity of disposition and humility of soul, whereby the word of God may make an impression upon the heart. No compulsion is used in bringing men to a knowledge of God; yet, as fast as we open our hearts to the influences of righteousness, the faith that leads to life eternal will be given us of our Father.” By withholding spiritual things to those who are not ready for it, God is not negating our agency but protecting it. I was listening to an Ensign article on my way to work this morning and it said, basically, “The Lord will give you as much spiritual knowledge as you are ready for, as fast as you are ready for it.

If someone wants to know about the gospel but doesn’t want to change their lives in order to live according to the gospel teachings, then that person will surely fail if they are given a knowledge of the truth and the required commandments that go with that knowledge. Jesus does not want us to take on more than we are ready for, he sets us up for success by giving us what we can do, and nothing more. Like the ancient Jews who constantly wanted more and more knowledge from God, but weren’t ready for it, when he finally gave them what they said they wanted, the religion and culture became a quagmire of zealots and Pharisees with people who could not or would not recognize their Savior when he arrived. Like Martin Harris and the lost pages of the manuscript. Joseph Smith held on to the translated manuscript the whole time and he didn’t lose any of the pages. His brother Hyrum was a custodian for the manuscript much of the time during printing, and he didn’t lose them. It was possible to have the manuscript pages entrusted to your care and not lose them, it just wasn’t possible for Martin Harris at the time when he asked for them. He asked for the responsibility so much that the Lord gave him what he asked for, knowing that he was incapable of taking care of the pages, and Martin Harris was unable to keep them safe. He wanted more than he was ready for, and it was to his detriment.