John 6:22-59

Bread of Life Discourse

​After the feeding of the five thousand, the disciples sail toward the other side of the sea, while Jesus prays and then walks on the water to their boat. Immediately, their boat reached the other side. The next morning, the crowds that had been fed looked for Jesus and eventually found Him in Capernaum. They ask how He got there (since they noticed only the disciples left in a boat), but Jesus sees through their question to their real motivation for seeking Him. They were fed the prior day and now were hungry again. Jesus then takes the opportunity to explain man’s need to “feed” on the true bread, His flesh. Through graphic imagery, Jesus portrays the spiritual truth that His death provides continual sustenance for His followers. The phenomenon in this discourse, though, is the multiple ways in which the author describes the follower’s response to Jesus, and this has interpretive results for later passages.

​After reading John 6:22–59 carefully, the reader will notice the various types of “response imagery.” When the crowds ask how Jesus got to Capernaum, He tells them to labor for the food that does not perish instead of constantly seeking daily, physical food (6:27). Then, throughout the discourse, the crowds are indirectly encouraged to believe on the One whom the Father sent (6:29, 35b, 40, 47). Furthermore, these responses are paralleled by the idea of “coming to Jesus” (6:35a, 37, 44, 45). The reader will notice that verse thirty-five contains two distinct terms for the proper response, but the parallel structure of the verse implies the two phrases have the same referent. At one point, Jesus states that those who “look on the Son” and believe fulfill the will of the Father (6:40). This probably parallels John 3:14–15, where John references the bronze serpent that Moses raised in the wilderness. Though a different word for “seeing” is used in the LXX (ὁράω; θεωρέω), the final response image in John 6 points to the death of Christ that is also referenced in chapter three. Jesus closes the discourse with graphic remarks about eating “this” bread, later described as the flesh of the Son of Man, and drinking His blood (6:51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58). No less than five distinct phrases of terminology represent the actions that Jesus calls His followers to perform.

The reader may ask, Which am I supposed to do? What does it mean to “eat flesh” and “drink blood,” and how does that fulfill the will of God (6:39–40). Questions like these are answered by noticing the effects or results of performing the above actions. In a few instances, the result of a particular response is unique. First, the one who comes to Jesus will never hunger, and the one who believes will never thirst (6:35), but these metaphors are not explained further in literal terms. Second, coming to Jesus also results in not being cast out by Jesus (6:37), which indicates some type of inseparable bond between the individual and Christ.

On the other hand, two effects of these responses are repeated for multiple actions. First, Jesus claims that He will raise various individuals “on the last day.” He offers this promise to the one who believes on Him (6:40), the one who comes to Him (6:44), and the one who eats His flesh (6:54). Second, the concept of eternal life is declared certain for those who do the following: labor for food that does not perish (6:27), believe in Christ (6:40, 47), look on the son (6:40), and eat His flesh (6:54, 57). Similarly, whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood will live forever (6:51, 58). The only action not included in the second list is coming to Jesus. However, the first repetitive phrase (“raise on the last day”) connects this response to the others. 

Based on these observations, I conclude that these phrases are multiple ways of referring to the same action. Since the same results are applied to those who perform each action, it follows that the actions are also identical. In this way, John presents that “salvation” in modern evangelical terminology is based on faith (i.e., “believing on Him whom the Father sent”). Coming to Jesus and looking on Him are different perspectives of the fundamental act. Finally, “eating His flesh” and “drinking His blood” refer to this process of believing in Jesus as the Source and Sustainer of spiritual life. In John 6, Jesus claims that His death is the means by which life flows to the believer, and dependence on that death is the content of “saving faith.”

Two final comments should be introduced here, though. First, the content of this belief is clear to modern Christians (and probably the author of John at the time of writing), but the disciples did not understand the necessity of Christ’s death until after the resurrection. They were constantly questioning His assertions of a coming death and forbad Him from speaking such things. Therefore, the content of their faith eventually progressed to the salvific necessity of His death and resurrection to provide atonement, but at the time of the Bread of Life Discourse they most likely considered the “object” of belief to be the truth of Christ’s being the Messiah or God’s promise of a new covenant and deliverance from sin.

Second, for future purposes, the one unmentioned result of “feeding” on Christ’s flesh should be mentioned. In verse fifty-six, Jesus claims that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood “abides” or resides (μένω) in Him. This is significant for two reasons. First, if eating and drinking Jesus’ body is identical to believing in Him or coming to Him as argued above, then all believers or Christians are “abiding” or “residing” in Christ. This conclusion opposes modern theories that only the seriously obedient and highly devoted Christians are “abiding” in Christ. Pastors and teachers often set this state of “abiding” as the goal of the daily Christian walk. Yet, John seems to argue that true believers always depend on Christ’s death for spiritual sustenance and thus “abide” in Him. Believers are those who abide in Christ, leaving no middle room for a Christian who does not abide in Jesus. John’s emphatic dualism is present in this chapter, providing only two options when it comes to accepting or rejecting Jesus. If the purpose of his writing is for the audience to believe that Jesus is the Christ (20:31), it follows that he would emphasize this need throughout the book. Second, the fact that believers are already abiding will become significant in later discussion of chapter fifteen. If John remains consistent in his terminology, he seems to imply that believers not only abide in Christ but also produce effects in their lives to show that to be the case. Again, he leaves no gray area: one believes and abides or one does not believe and does not abide.

John 3:16-21

“For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed. But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God.”

— ‭‭John‬ ‭3‬:‭16‬-‭21‬‬ 

There’s debate over where Jesus stops talking and John or the author begins explaining. I think v 16 is as good a guess as any but Jesus could go all the way through v 21. Or v 18…now this is the basis. Most of these verses certainly sound like something Jesus would say, but I’m sure scholars would nitpick exact wording here and there.

“In this way” is a huge translation issue in the verse, and this is correct. Versions that have “so loved” confuse people that this is about magnitude or quantity of love. God wasn’t filled with so much emotion that He had no choice…at least that’s not what John 3:16 is saying. It says God loved the world in this way: He gave His son. Similar to Romans 5:8. God demonstrates His love in that Christ died for us.

One and only.  Begotten is also mistranslation based on misunderstanding of Greek words and spelling. One and only is better but since believers are also children, I prefer the emphasis on Jesus as unique son. One of a kind. 

So that is purpose or result. Everyone who believes. Not the time for a predestination debate, and it wouldn’t really matter. Even in the most strict Calvinist belief system belief is necessary. So this is still true. Everyone who believes will gain life. (See more about the phrases that John equates with “believing” in my paper on John 6, 13, 15. Belief is definitely not a one time thing for John.)

Debate over the word perish. Annihilationists do have good arguments. I’m just not there, and I can’t base a belief system on what a word might mean. I would need to do more synchronic word studies for it and then look at how it’s used contextually. 

The real emphasis here is the good not the bad. Believers gain life and won’t perish. They won’t be condemned. It’s as if the assumption is these are what’s to be expected as standard. But believers are exempt and gain something else entirely.

World is also an odd word for John. The world should be saved. I can’t buy universalism either. Is this only the people on the earth or this more of the cosmos than we give John credit for? Maybe not since his other uses focus on people, and the chapter talks about belief, but the relationship between Jesus death being “for” all/the world and at the same time “applied” to believers has always been fuzzy to me.

What makes this more difficult is John’s apparent two uses of “world” even in this passage. God loved the world. But then the light came to the “world,” but “people” did not receive it. So world is not people here, just like “his own places” is not “his own people” in John 1:12. We have to be very careful and nuanced as we work through John because he loves double meanings, and he loves to use pronouns/adjectives where a noun would be helpful.

And since most people love to debate predestination and limited atonement and stuff like that (I’ve grown away from such passions), perhaps the best conclusion (if there is such a thing) is to take the author for what he says. So John emphasizes believing and personal choice throughout his gospel. People stand condemned (here) because they are not believing Jesus is God. But absolutely, once you dig into John, you find verses like “No one comes to the Father unless the Spirit draws him.” This is why I find no thrill in the debates anymore. Sovereignty wins the day for me, but people must still believe. Does that make it absolutely free will? Sure.

John consistently says the only criteria for judgment or life is belief in Jesus as son of God. Even his epistles will echo statements like this.

Good and evil deeds also sound like 1 John 3 or even 3 John where John is talking about supporting traveling teachers. I don’t think that example applies here but it’s similar language. The weird thing is that all we see in Jesus’ ministry is “sinners” coming to Jesus. I thought they hated the light. They got exposed time and time again.

John is known for that phrase “practicing good” and “practicing evil” from 1 John 3. Once confronted with truth, we have the choice to repent/confess and turn to “light” or we can continue to practice evil and hide. I’m guessing John’s themes are that those sinners in the gospels came to Jesus because they sought true healing.

But it’s deeper than that, perhaps because for John (again) he’s usually focused on one of two things: loving one another, or as we have already see in this passage, confessing Jesus as God. And both of these things lead to seeking “holiness.”

So doing good is probably related to understanding the truth about Jesus first. Then we can live in the community He has called us to.

Revelation 21:9-27

“Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven final plagues came and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb!” So he took me away in the Spirit to a huge, majestic mountain and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God. The city possesses the glory of God; its brilliance is like a precious jewel, like a stone of crystal-clear jasper. It has a massive, high wall with twelve gates, with twelve angels at the gates, and the names of the twelve tribes of the nation of Israel are written on the gates. There are three gates on the east side, three gates on the north side, three gates on the south side and three gates on the west side. The wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. The angel who spoke to me had a golden measuring rod with which to measure the city and its foundation stones and wall. Now the city is laid out as a square, its length and width the same. He measured the city with the measuring rod at fourteen hundred miles (its length and width and height are equal). He also measured its wall, one hundred forty-four cubits according to human measurement, which is also the angel’s. The city’s wall is made of jasper and the city is pure gold, like transparent glass. The foundations of the city’s wall are decorated with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation is jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, the fifth onyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst. And the twelve gates are twelve pearls – each one of the gates is made from just one pearl! The main street of the city is pure gold, like transparent glass. Now I saw no temple in the city, because the Lord God – the All-Powerful – and the Lamb are its temple. The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, because the glory of God lights it up, and its lamp is the Lamb. The nations will walk by its light and the kings of the earth will bring their grandeur into it. Its gates will never be closed during the day (and there will be no night there). They will bring the grandeur and the wealth of the nations into it, but nothing ritually unclean will ever enter into it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or practices falsehood, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”

— ‭‭Revelation‬ ‭21‬:‭9‬-‭27‬‬

Debating the seven angels and the structure of Revelation for when these seven bowls fall in sequence is best to leave for another day.  This chapter is one of the most encouraging, because it (and chapter 22) provide a glimpse of what we assume to be “heaven.” 

However, as we read, we can see a couple ideas, most notably that John sees New Jerusalem coming down to earth. I hesitate to base my entire view of future realities on one passage, especially one so symbolic, but there are others that emphasize earth being remade. An overall theme of Scripture is what’s old is made new—something like redemption. Furthermore, God is the acting agent, and another repeated theme is His longing to live among His people. So it is not surprise here to see “heaven” coming to earth, and this appears to be the ultimate reconciliation of the two realms (in earth’s glorified state). 

The slightly confusing part is what this vision actually represents. John is known for his double meanings, and this could be a good example. Is this really a city? Is he showing us a location where we will live, a status/situation of existence, or something else entirely?

Here’s the kicker: The angel says, I’m going to show you “the bride, the wife.” I don’t think anyone has any questions on what/who that is. The bride of the Lamb is/has always been the church. That’s pretty universal throughout the NT, among all authors. But John turns to see…not the church. He sees a city coming down from heaven. Did the angel lie, or is this one big chapter of symbols. (It could be both, but there could be clues throughout to show John’s emphasis).

12 gates to represent the tribes of Israel, and 3 on each side—somewhat reflect the tribes position around the tabernacle. 12 foundations as the apostles—so 24 brings us back to what many think represent 24 elders earlier in the book. These represent the entire people of God.

Apparently the city is a cube, 1400 miles tall, wide, and deep. Umm, that’s really tall. And the gate is only 144 cubits, which I don’t have math for that right now, but as others have points out, it’s not exactly proportional to the height of the wall. It’s really short if it’s trying to “protect” a city that massive. A clue these numbers are representing something else.

Isaiah 54 and 60 are a big backdrop for this passage. 54 references wedding of Israel and YHWH, also some jewels, and enlarging the tabernacle area. 

I cannot discuss all the pictures of gold and jewels here. But pure gold is most likely a picture of purity/moral cleanness. God’s people have been cleansed and have righteous status. Various jewels pop up throughout OT, whether the garden of Eden, the temple decorations, or the priest’s vest. All important for worship of God and where He dwells.

The city is pure gold (transparent) and now the main road is the same. We could make a huge deal that only one street is gold and not “streets” as we hear often, but since John is probably not emphasizing real streets anyway, the point is moot. Beale, Revelation, 1089 notes that “the street of the city” is only mentioned one other place in the book—chapter 11 where the prophets are killed and left in the street (of Jerusalem). Whether one takes these prophets as two literal people or representative of the entire church doesn’t matter. It is significant that the street of blood, martyrdom, and persecution has become stainless, pure, and illustrative of the saints’ glory in the New Jerusalem.

Revelation 22:2 also mentions the main street (just not in that phrase). The river of life flows either down the middle of it or parallel to it (depending on where a sentence break is. And the tree of life grows along the river (symbolizing eternal life for those who enter God’s kingdom). The point is the main street of a city often carried sewage outside the city. Here it is pure, clean, and gives life. What a contrast between the old and the new.

Ezekiel 40-48 describe a “new temple,” and some see this as fulfilled in the millennium. Perhaps. Maybe that’s another debate for another time, but I can’t see how sacrifices could ever be reinstated after Jesus’ death and reading anything in the book of Hebrews. Revelation 21-22 describes a situation that would come after millennium, and there at least there is not temple. There’s no need for a special place to meet God, because He will be there in His full glory. 

His glory will shine and become so overwhelming, that John says there’s no sun or moon. But if creation is being transformed or repurposed in this new world, then there may be sun/moon. I don’t know. They’re purpose may be different. I like sunsets/sunrises. The point here is that God’s glory fills His new creation with majesty and splendor.

Gates never close. I thought all the “bad people” were taken care of by this point. And…if everyone who worships God is in the city, then where would we go? Who would want to leave the city where God is dwelling? I would think this is also a picture of what the perfect city would look like. (And again, John may be describing both the bride and the living situation at the same time. It gets confusing). This is asking the reader to picture a city in the ancient world that didn’t have to worry about attack, siege, war, invasion, etc. Guests, travelers, or embassies could approach without anyone having any fear. These verses are a summary of perfect safety and security. 

Furthermore, the mention of Gentiles is fulfillment of prophecy where nations will enter Israel and share in her wealth (Isa 60). So a bunch to dig deeper into here, but after the final resurrection, our eternal state with God will be absolutely glorious. 

Glorified bodies, living in a world with no fear or chaos. Vindicated from our enemies through faith in Jesus. And best of all, Jesus is reigning.

John 5:24-25

 ““I tell you the solemn truth, the one who hears my message and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned, but has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the solemn truth, a time is coming – and is now here – when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.”

— ‭‭John‬ ‭5‬:‭24‬-‭25‬‬

As with most of these constructions in John’s gospel and letters: “the one who” has present participles, which in these cases indicate generalities, lifestyles, consistent choices, however we want to phrase it. Not that the action is never broken or there’s no exceptions, nor that it can stop. In general, this is true all the time of this person. It continues.

“Has” “Has crossed” One is present, and one is perfect. The point is that the believer already has life. Eternal life is not a solely future idea. The insanity of Jesus’ ministry is that He brought the future kingdom/life/realm into the present. Confirmed by v. 25…is now here.

So is dead in v 25 physical or spiritual? Maybe another time in John where he loves double meaning.