John 6:52 - Exposition

The Jews therefore strove one with another ( ἐμάχοντο represents more vigorous demonstration of their difficulties than the ἐγόγγυζον of John 6:41 ). They were not unanimous in their judgment. Some said one thing, and others said another. The "Jews" had not yet come to a unanimous opinion that this wonderful Being was talking sheer heresy or incomprehensible mystery. They knew his habit of metaphoric speech, and that underneath common imagery he was in the habit of conveying doctrines the full purport of which was not at once apparent. Some denounced him as uttering an intolerable riddle. Some saw, in a measure, through it, and hated the doctrine that was thereby conveyed. How could he be so essential to the life of the world? and how, said the pure materialist, "how can he give us his flesh to eat?" A question of great interest arises. He has already identified, in John 6:35 , "coming to him," "reaching him" under the drawing of the Father, with the transcendent blessing of life eternal, of victory, over death, and resurrection. In John 6:40 "beholding" and "believing" are cognate or equivalent conditions of life and resurrection. In John 6:47 , again, "believing," per se, is the essential and all-comprehensive condition. Now, has Christ added, in this verse, anything fresh to the fundamental ideas? Let it be pondered that he has already equated "believing" with eating a bread that endureth to everlasting life ( John 6:27-29 ). He has declared himself to be the "Bread of life," and to be appropriated by "coming" and "believing." He has spoken of himself as "living Bread," which, coming for the life of the world from heaven itself, is offered as food. Now, what more than this has he said when he declared that he will offer his " flesh " as heavenly food? The Jews undoubtedly show, by their mutual contest, that he had put some part of the previous oracle in a still more enigmatical, if not offensive, form. So far the imagery was not altogether beyond them. Here it takes on a form which excites angry controversy. If they understood him to mean "doctrine," "truth," "cause," even "office," as Head of a spiritual school—as one providing by his gracious will ample nutriment for all who would eat of the rich banquet of his words—they would, to some extent, follow him. The eating of the tree of life was a well known figure in Hebrew Scripture ( Proverbs 4:17 ; Proverbs 9:5 ); cf. the language of Isaiah ( Isaiah 55:2 ), the action of Ezekiel ( Ezekiel 3:1-3 ), and the imagery of Hosea ( Hosea 10:13 ). In the "Midrash on Ecclesiastes 2:24 ; Ecclesiastes 3:12 ; Ecclesiastes 8:15 ," "eating and drinking" is said always to refer to the Law (Edersheim and Wunsche). But when he spoke of giving his " flesh " for the life of the world, he passed beyond the limits of their interpreting power. They did not see through his imagery; nor did Jesus exactly answer the angry query which they were putting one to another.