‘Whoever eats of this bread’

Children at Bone Lake Lutheran Church, Luck, Wis. prepare for their first communion by studying Scripture and baking the communion bread.

Lectionary blog for Aug. 19, 2012
12th Sunday after Pentecost
Text: John 6:51-58

Most of us are so accustomed to hearing liturgical language about the bread and wine being the body and blood of Christ, that we no longer really hear the crude, primal, visceral nature of such language.

At least not the way Jesus’ audience heard it when he said to them: “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

When the text says they “disputed among themselves” about this, that is putting it mildly. The better translation would be “argued violently/angrily.”

As we shall see in next week’s Gospel, many got so upset that they quit following and listening to Jesus altogether.

This business of eating flesh and drinking blood was indeed a most offensive thing to say to Jewish people. Many of the laws about keeping kosher have to do with the avoidance of drinking blood or of eating flesh with blood still in it, etc.

How are we to understand this? What are we to make of such language? What is John trying to tell us with all these “bread” stories we find in chapter six?

There’s the feeding of the 5,000, the many references to the exodus from Egypt and God’s provision of manna from heaven, Jesus’ claims to be the true bread from heaven, and now this cannibalistic reference to eating and drinking Jesus himself.

It’s all a bit much for our modern, antiseptic sensibilities. We prefer our religion neat and clean and appropriately done and appropriately metaphorical, if you please.

So did many of the people to whom John was writing when he composed his Gospel several years after the death and resurrection. They were not only offended at this language about eating and drinking Jesus, they were also offended by the very idea that Jesus was really human. They preferred to think that he was a sort of ghost who only appeared in human form but was really all spirit.

There was an idea about that the body was bad and the spirit was good and that true religion consisted of being really spiritual and escaping the body. Therefore, many who became Christian with this idea decided that Jesus, the ultimate “Spiritual Person,” wasn’t really human, wasn’t “really real” I suppose.

John’s emphasis on Jesus’ fleshiness is meant to counteract this notion. The Greek word used here is “sarx.” It denotes meat, flesh. The alternate word John could have used is “soma,” which means “body.” By choosing “sarx,” John is making it clear that Jesus was a real live human being who ate and slept and went to the bathroom.

This was important then, and it’s important now. If Jesus just appeared or seemed to be human, then his death was not a real death, his suffering was not real suffering and his resurrection was just a show, a trick, an illusion.

For the economy of salvation to really work, it is necessary that Jesus be a real human being who lived and taught and was tried and suffered and died and went to hell and was brought back to life by the power of God.

Otherwise, it’s just a nice story and it really doesn’t change anything. In the end it doesn’t communicate anything to us about God’s love and our life.

Jesus says, “Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh (sarx).”

In his book “Written in Blood,” Robert Coleman tells the story of a little boy whose sister needed a blood transfusion. For various reasons, the boy was the only donor whose blood could save his sister. The doctor asked, “Would you give your blood to Mary?” The little boy’s lower lip began to tremble, then he took a deep breath and said, “Yes, for my sister.”

After the nurse inserted the needle into his arm, the little boy began to look very worried, then he crossed himself; finally he looked at the doctor and said, “When do I die?”

Suddenly, the doctor realized that the little boy had thought that to give his blood to his sister meant he had to die, and miracle of miracles, he was willing to do that for his sister.

Jesus did that for us. That’s what John wants us to contemplate. It’s not a metaphor, not a parable, not a mythological construct about dying and rising gods. John is clear about that and wants his readers to be clear also.

This is why we have the language about eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood. John uses a word for eating which is probably better translated “gnaw” or “chew.” Again, he wants to drive home the point of the grounded reality of Jesus’ life and death and resurrection.

As we come to the table, we are called to be mindful of Jesus’ presence in our midst. It was a real presence then and it is a real presence now.

The gospel is that Jesus really, truly came down from heaven to live among us as the fleshly love of God.

The gospel is that Jesus really, truly died upon the cross, giving up his flesh and spilling his blood, to save us from our sins.

The gospel is that God almighty really, truly raised him from the dead, brought him out of the grave to a new and eternal life.

The gospel is that God almighty really, truly has just such a future in store for each and every one of us.

Amen and amen.

Talkback:

• Do you find yourself ignoring that Jesus was a real “human” being?
  
• When has knowing that Jesus was flesh that died been lifesaving news for you?

Delmer Chilton is an assistant to the bishop of the Southeastern Synod of the ELCA, with responsibility for eastern and central Tennessee, northern Alabama and northern Georgia. Ordained in 1977, he has served parishes in North Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee.

You might also like to read:
‘This is my body …’
The assembly prays
A special welcome, cleansing on Maundy Thursday