Gnawing on the Flesh -Some thoughts and questions about John 6: 51- 59

The past several weeks’ lectionary readings have focused on Jesus’ feeding of the 5,000, the walking on the water, and the subsequent “Bread of Life” discourse in Capernaum.   This week’s reading is from John 6: 51 – 59, a passage that many have noted makes a sharp break from the preceding verses (6: 35 – 50.)  The Bread of Life discourse in vss. 35 – 50 seems to be a full and complete sermon, with a beginning a middle and an end.  But vss. 51 – 59 pick up again, circling back round to the same material – though with a different emphasis.

In vss. 35 – 50 the “Bread of Life” teaching is –to use one of those fancy college words – Sapiential – that is - having to do with wisdom, especially God’s wisdom.  To eat the bread of life is to believe in the one that God has sent and to be taught by God.  This section may also be Sacramental – having to do with the Eucharist / Communion sacrament, but that seems to be a secondary or minor emphasis.

In vss. 51 – 59 the “Bread of Life” teaching lays stress on the eating (or more literally the “gnawing”) of Jesus’ flesh and the drinking of his blood.  There is no mention of “belief” in this section – only on the receiving and consumption of Christ’s flesh and blood – and the eternal life that those elements impart.

Many scholars have suggested that what we have here are two different “Bread of Life” discourses that have been edited together.

Rudolf Bultmann believed vss. 51-59 (and all sacramental references in John) to be the corrective work of a later editor who tried to bring John’s gospel back into line with traditional ideas and to make the discourse more acceptable to the church. Raymond E. Brown takes a ‘middle of the road’ approach, accepts vss. 51 – 59 as authentically John, but transplanted from the narrative of the last supper and the institution of the Eucharist sacrament.

This is an interesting suggestion. 

John, unlike the synoptic gospels, does not include in his Last Supper narrative anything about Jesus instituting the Eucharist sacrament. Though his account of the Last supper is substantially longer than the synoptic (5 chapters!) he says nothing about the communion sacrament.  The body and blood are absent in John’s last supper.

“His purpose in all of this seems to have been to spell out the eucharistic undertones already implicit in the chapter.  He has given 51 – 58 the same beginning and the same ending as 35 – 50; the same type of interruption where the Jews protest; the same promise of eternal life.  But where the original discourse stressed the necessity of belief in Jesus, the new discourse stresses the necessity of eating and drinking the eucharistic flesh and blood.”[1]

It wouldn’t be the only incident of narrative transplant in John’s gospel – the ‘cleansing of the temple’ incident, which occurs toward the end of the synoptics is placed at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in John.  And both of these stories are connected to the Passover celebration.  Is that merely a coincidence?

But – so what?  As the pastor for a small, Midwestern congregation of people who will be, at best, largely uninterested in hypothetical constructions of how the gospel came to be … or, at worst, hostile to the idea that John didn’t record authentic historical events in exactly the way they occurred – how do I interpret and teach and preach from this passage? 

Does the shift from an emphasis on wisdom and belief to sacramental consumption matter to them? And to further complicate the issue – how do I handle these issues from within a non-sacramental denomination?  (The Salvation Army, along with the Religious Society of Friends – the Quakers- does not practice formal sacraments, believing that all of life should be considered sacramental and holy.)

I’m also rather fascinated by that word “Gnaw”.

John doesn’t use the regular word for “to eat” here.  Instead of the expected esthiein “to eat,” John uses trogein, a word that was used to describe “crunching” and “munching” -the way animals eat.  [2]  It certainly gives emphasis to the sacramental theme – the eating of the bread of life – but it seems that John is deliberately making the message offensive.

The idea of crunching and gnawing upon the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ must have been repugnant and deeply offensive to the Jews who heard this message (whether in the synagogue with Jesus or in the artfully crafted narrative of John).  And perhaps it should be more offensive to us as well. It certainly sounds more like an episode of The Walking Dead than a dignified church service.

Eat Flesh - To eat someone’s flesh was an indication of violent and hostile intent:  “… the wicked came against me, to eat up my flesh…” (Psalm 27:2)  “…let what is dying die, and what is perishing perish.  Let those that are left eat each other’s flesh.” (Zechariah 11:9)  This is brutal slaughter and apocalyptic carnage. In speaking to the vultures and carrion eating animals, the prophet Ezekiel encouraged them to “gather together…that you may eat flesh and drink blood” (Ezekiel 39:17)

And Jesus didn’t do anything to discourage this ghastly (mis)understanding.  It’s as if he were making it difficult on purpose – trying to offend them.  If this was his intent, he certainly succeeded. In next week’s reading we find that even many of his followers were disgusted by this teaching and abandoned  him (John 6: 60 – 66).

So do I preach it this way?  I’m still the new guy here – barely a month in.  If I launch into a “Zombie Christ” kind of sermon complete with slurping and gnawing sound effects am I going to offend members of the congregation? 

And if I do, should that matter? 

Apparently it does.  Just yesterday I received a message from our Divisional Headquarters saying, “To date, Sunday School and Sunday Worship in your appointment have decreased in average attendance over last year. Consider what measures are being taken to promote growth and evaluate for effectiveness…. Continue to guard these souls with tender care and the truth of God's Word.”

Is this cannibalistic Christ part of the “tender care” of God’s Word? 

These are some of the questions that I’ve been trying to answer, and that I will continue to gnaw on through the rest of this week.

And, of course, if I mention Zombies then I have to include a link to my zombie movie!

---

[1] Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John: Introduction, Translation and Notes, ed. William F. Albright, David N. Freedman, Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York, 1966 page 287-289

[2] Moloney, Francis J. Sacra Pagina: The Gospel of John, page. 381