Coming Down, Cannibalism, and Ascending in John 6 – Part 2

To continue: At this point, the author knows that he’s got the reader’s attention. What on earth could this amount to? Whatever it is, it is not going to be what the clowns thought – not that Jesus is demanding cannibalism, and that he literally descended from heaven. But the author hopes you remember how all this started. It was the opponents who brought up the ancient miracle of bread from the sky. Jesus exploited this to make his point. But what had he been talking about? The necessity of trusting in him, and so in his teaching – “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” And if you do “eat him,” he (!) will resurrect you from the dead, never to die again!

Our author knows that even the sympathetic reader may be put off by all of this. The disciples speak for the Christian reader:

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?”

Now, let’s give them a little credit. Presumably, they did not think that Jesus was about to hand them a fork and a knife, and say “Tuck in,” throwing aside his clothes! Look just above, at what was just said: that they who “eat Jesus” will “live forever,” and this because Jesus “will raise them up on the last day.” An exceedingly bold claim, even when we interpret our way through the eating and drinking metaphor. Remember, these are presumably long term, or at least serious followers; they want to believe him. But this is just too much for some of them. And Jesus perceives this.

But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

We need to take care to see the point of his challenge here. “Ascending” need only mean going up. But is it the “going up” of Jesus to heaven, as in his ascension, or is it his going up from the grave, to once again walk the earth as a living man? Well, keep in mind the most recent point of offense – they can’t swallow that those who trust in him will be raised, by him, to eternal life. Consider here two readings:

1. Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending up to heaven, where he was before?
2. Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending up from the grave to the land of the living, where he was before?

He’s noting their unbelief, and saying, but would you still not believe me, even if they saw this new sight? The most natural reading, I suggest, is 2, because this connects with the bone of contention here – his ability to raise them. And we should be wary of 1, as it was the clowns, the spiritually blind carpers, who suggested just above that he came down from heaven rather than being being. Compare the jist of his comeback here, on both readings:

1. “Really? You don’t think I can raise you? What if you see me miraculously ascend to heaven? Would you believe then?”
2. “Really? You don’t think I can raise you? What if you see me raised? Would you believe me then?”

Now, such a miracle as ascension would be, and was impressive. But I suggest that 2 is the more forceful point. As “firstborn from the dead” (Revelation 1:5; Colossians 1:18 ), Jesus embodies our hope of resurrection through him. And just the chapter before, the author has him say, “just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself” (John 5:26). Indeed, this little remark of his anticipates his interaction with Thomas, who need to see him raised in order to fully trust him. (John 20:26-29) All in all, 2 strikes me as the better interpretation.

Anyway, after insisting (we infer) that he really is going to raise them, Jesus returns to his main point:

It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But among you there are some who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.”

Here the author assures the worried reader that this is really what it’s all been about – you should trust in Jesus because he really is from God, being God’s Messiah. To trust in him is to trust in what he teaches – believing this results in eternal life. That’s all it is to “eat his flesh” and “drink his blood” – this “bread” that we must “eat” to get eternal life – it’s really Jesus and his God-given message. To eat or drink is to take in; we must take in his teaching, not into our stomachs, but into our hearts and minds, where it can “nourish” us and make us grow.

Some of Jesus’s followers “got” this, but others did not.

Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.  So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life.  We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Peter understands; Jesus’s point is that he really is God’s Messiah, “from heaven,” in whom you must trust, which means trusting in his teaching, in “the words of eternal life.” And yes, he really will raise up his own on that day (John 11:25), just as he himself was raised by God. (John 2:22; John 21:14) The clowns… not so much!

If you’re looking for preexistence proof-texts, in my view, there is no help here. No right-thinking character draws the preexistence conclusion from Jesus’s words. The star student here walks right past that issue, and fastens onto the central claims actually being made. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the author here is arguing against a preexistence doctrine; but it doesn’t look good, that the suggestion comes from typically point-missing, spiritually blind rejectors of Jesus’s ministry to his own people.