Don’t Be So Literal (Aug 18, 2024) John 6.51-58

In your lifetime you may have read or read to someone the children’s book Amelia Bedelia. If you have not read the book, it is the first of a series that tell stories of a character who takes things very literally. She is hired as a maid and is given a list of very specific things to do during the day while her employers are gone. She is told to dress the chicken, to draw the drapes, to dust the furniture and other tasks that we would know what they mean. Of course, as one who takes things literally, she does indeed “dress” the chicken in a fine suit; she “draws” the curtains with fine detail to her drawing; she sprinkles dust on all the furniture as requested; and so on. She also bakes a pie. When her employer returns that evening, she is astounded at what she sees. She is about to tell Amelia that she is fired when her husband puts a bite of pie in her mouth. Upon tasting the pie, the employer thinks that she may have been a bit hasty and decides to keep Amelia on as maid. However, from then on, she makes it a point to tell Amelia to “close” the drapes, to prepare the chicken to be cooked, and to make sure all the dust is off the furniture. It is a classic case of someone taking something literally.

Taking things literally is something that gets us all in trouble. Think about times when you were not being literal in saying something to your children when they were young. You know, that sarcastic comment that any adult would have known was not meant to be literal. In the mind of a child however, it is to be taken literally. And when things are taken literally, things can get out of hand in a hurry.

Jesus has been talking about bread for the entirety of the sixth chapter of John. It began when he fed the large crowd with bread and has worked its way through a sermon on bread and who is the bread of life. Jesus told the people listening that he is the bread of life, that his body is the bread that is to be eaten and those who eat it and believe will never again be hungry or thirsty.

Jesus continues telling his listeners that whoever believes, believes in the one that the Father has sent to earth. And whoever believes in that one will be raised up on the last day.

There are, of course, complaints. The Jews who oppose Jesus (remember, most if not all of those listening to Jesus were Jews, as was Jesus and his followers) begin to grumble that this is the son of Joseph who they know and how can he say that he comes from heaven. Jesus begins to explain that everyone who has learned from the Father comes to him, Jesus. Those who come to him have eternal life because he is the bread of life. The ancestors of those listening ate manna and died in the wilderness. That bread was physical bread that sustained for a day and then needed to be eaten again and again. And even this bread, a miracle that it was, could not prevent those eating it from eventually dying. Jesus tells them that this bread that comes from heaven is so that those who eat of it will not die.

With this we come to the text for today. Jesus is telling those listening that “…I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”[1] This is a summation of what he had been saying before. But there is something more to this statement. At the end is a new statement. Before Jesus was saying that the bread was his body. Here he is saying that it is his flesh, an entirely different statement. Body can mean a general body. Flesh on the other hand is the meat that is on the bone, the thing that makes a body a body. Commentators say that this section evokes the incarnation and the coming of Jesus to die for the world. One can see this in the giving up of his life in the flesh as an expression of his love for the world. Robert Mounce quotes F. F. Bruce, by saying he “…is correct in his view that “to give one’s flesh can scarcely mean anything other than death, and the wording here points to a death which is both voluntary (‘I will give’) and vicarious (‘for the life of the world’).”[2] This is showing again that John’s overarching theme in the gospel is that Jesus is God who became a man, taking on flesh, bone, and blood to become like us and that his coming was to save the world.

In verse 52, the Jews that oppose Jesus are incensed by this statement. How can this man give them his flesh to eat!? This a disturbing statement. They are ready to fight over it. Mounce tells the reader that “Machomai is a strong verb that, when taken literally, means “to fight” or “to battle.” The Jews were seriously offended by the repugnant idea of eating flesh—even the Greco-Roman world viewed any kind of “cannibalism” with horror.”[3] And who was “this man” who spoke these words? Again, did they not know him and from where he came? What kind of nonsense is this talk?

Jesus then adds gas to the fire by saying this, “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. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.”[4] Eating his flesh would have been bad enough, but drinking his blood? That was going too far. Blood was believed to be the source of life among the Jews and they were not to eat anything that had blood left in it (no medium rare steaks here). They would have been appalled that Jesus is telling them that they must drink his blood. It would mean that they were to drink and eat his life, which is interesting when Jesus says that he comes to bring life and that more abundantly. But also, it would mean that Jesus is speaking of the incarnation, that God became a man. In Hebrew, flesh and blood meant corporeality and would be an affirmation of the incarnation. We even say it today when we claim that someone is “in the flesh” or is made of “flesh and bone.” Imagine what the hearers of Jesus thought?

The verses that follow describe the eating and drinking. The verb used here to mean “eat” is a word that describes noisily eating, like an animal chewing its cud. You know what I mean: you are eating, and someone is chomping away so loudly that you can hear every bite. This is what Jesus is speaking of when he is speaking of eating, something that would be crude and rather unappetizing.

“Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.”[5] Gail R. O’ Day writes that, “The one who eats Jesus receives life because that person shares in the life-giving relationship of God and Jesus.” In this section of the text, we find that John is possibly writing of the eucharist or communion. His flesh is bread to be eaten and we are to drink his blood. This is the same formula that we speak when we have communion. And it could be the very thing that John is speaking of here, writing to a community that was fighting a group that denied the bodily existence of Jesus and wanting to prove that he was incarnated as a man and not some spiritual entity.

Jesus ends this section of the text by stating, “This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.”[6]He again returns to the fact that the ancestors ate of bread that would fill them in this life only. But the bread that comes from heaven, that is bread that when eaten will fill and enable those who eat it to live forever.

This text is one that is hard to wrap our minds around. What does it mean to eat flesh and drink blood? In our society today, we would be able to possibly understand this and not understand at the same time. Our society is filled with zombies and vampires. We understand that. But is Jesus literally saying that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood? And if we are to understand this text as eucharistic then there are some things to know.

First is that for John the meal of the eucharist is a meal of Jesus’ presence not just a meal of remembrance. It is a meal of fellowship. A meal where we are feeding on and being fed by Jesus. And that fellowship derives from the mutual indwelling of Jesus and the believers and the community that is formed from those who share in Jesus’ presence.

And what does this eucharistic theology of John mean for the church today? First, it means that nobody can claim exclusive rights to Jesus’ flesh and blood because they are Jesus’ alone to give. Second, it suggests that no one can control access to the meal but Jesus alone. It was common practice in the past for a pastor and elder to visit congregants to see if they were “worthy” of receiving communion. If deemed worthy, they received a token to bring and present when they came to the table. This was known as “fencing the table.” If you notice, I say that this is an open table because it is Jesus who knows the heart and it is his meal to give. An open table means that all are welcome.

Finally, O’ Day says that for John “the eucharist belongs to and is inseparable from the revelation of God in Jesus. At the heart of both word and sacrament is the urgency for people to see God in Jesus and believe.”

We wish sometimes that Jesus was all metaphorical, that way we could say that he really did not mean some of the things that he said. Metaphors can mean anything, and that can get us off the hook. But sometimes we know that Jesus was literal. And “eating my flesh and drinking my blood”, was this a literal statement!? Or was Jesus being outrageous? It is hard to know. But if we look at this text as a statement of the eucharist, we can find the grace and love that comes from the meal Jesus gave us. And when we eat the bread of heaven, we know that we will have communion with Jesus and have eternal life when we believe. Amen.

[1] The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989. Print. [2]Mounce, Robert H. “John.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Luke–Acts (Revised Edition). Ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. Vol. 10. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007. 448. Print. [3]Mounce, Robert H. “John.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Luke–Acts (Revised Edition). Ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. Vol. 10. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007. 448. Print. [4] The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989. Print. [5] The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989. Print. [6] The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989. Print.