Genesis 12:1-7

The Call of Abram (Acts 7.2-5)

12:1 Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

4 So Abram went, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. 5 Abram took his wife Sarai and his brother’s son Lot, and all the possessions that they had gathered, and the persons whom they had acquired in Haran; and they set forth to go to the land of Canaan. When they had come to the land of Canaan, 6 Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. 7 Then the LORD appeared to Abram, and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.” So he built there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him. (Genesis 12:1-7, NRSV)

The following comments are based on comments from January 2, 2007 (Tuesday in the Week of the First Sunday after Christmas, References for January 2, Year One), comments on Genesis 11:27-12:8 from January 25, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two), and earlier comments as indicated respectively on those dates. Introductory comments on Gen. 11:27-32 from January 25, 2008, set the scene for today’s reading and are included as well.

A recurring theme, if not an organizing principle, in the Book of Genesis is reference to the “generations (tdol4OT, tôl^edōth) of [this person, usually, or that],” beginning with “these are the generations of the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 2:4), and continuing with the generations or descendants (tdol4OT, tôl^edōth) of Adam (5:1, “the list of the descendants of Adam (Md!x! tdol4OT rp@s2, sēfer tôl^edōth ’ādām), NRSV), Noah (6:9; cf. 10:32), Noah’s sons (10:1), Shem (11:10), Terah (11:27), Ishmael (25:12), Isaac (25:19) and Jacob (37;2); compare “the names of the sons of Levi according to their generations” (Exod. 6:16). A variation refers to the “sons of” (yn2B4, b^enê) Japheth (Gen. 10:1), Ham (10:6, 20), Joktan (10:29), Shem (10:31).

It is almost as though these references form a vortex, focusing on the creation as a whole, then Adam’s descendants, then Noah’s, and through his, a narrowing focus that comes to rest on Abraham and the Israelite nation. At any rate, with today’s reading, we are brought to Abram and Sarai and their family. We have noted signs of God’s mercy and grace along the way, but much of the “prehistory” represents the dark side of humankind, with sins of Adam and Eve, Cain, Lamech, all of humankind except for Noah and his family, but further problems after the flood with the incident of Noah’s drunkenness and Ham’s dishonor. Today’s reading follows the story of the Tower of Babel. The call of Abram, “Go from your country” (Gen. 12:1), is anticipated in chapter 11, when Terah’s family departs from Ur of the Chaldeans in the lower Mesopotamian valley.

Abram, later called Abraham, first appears in Genesis, chapter eleven, at the conclusion of the genealogy (tdol4OT,

tôl^edōth) from Shem to Terah’s family (Gen. 11:10-26). A new genealogy (tdol4OT, tôl^edōth), that of Terah, introduces persons who will appear in the following narratives, principally Abraham, Sarai, Nahor and Milcah (vv. 27, 29). The move from Ur of the Chaldeans in Mesopotamia to Haran (vv. 28, 31) appears to have been at the initiative of Terah, who settled in Haran, and died there (v. 22). Jon D. Levenson comments:

The idea that ‘Abram began his trek to Canaan together with his father contradicts the impression one receives from 12:1, wherein Abram leaves his ‘father’s house’ to go to an unnamed land that turns out, of course, to be Canaan (cf. 15:7). Source critics solve the problem by assigning vv. 32-32 to P, but the account of Abraham’s leaving his ‘father’s house’ for Canaan to J. The more traditional approach would be to speak of two stages to Abram’s trek, the first from Ur to Haran with Terah, the second from Haran to Canaan without him. (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Gen. 11:31-32).

“ Terah,” we are told, “was the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran was the father of Lot” (Genesis 11:27). We will soon meet Abram and later Lot. “Haran,” however would die early, “before his father Terah in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldeans” (v. 28). Later, we may note that Lot could have used a father’s wisdom (chap. 14). “Abram and Nahor took wives,” the narrative continues, “the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife was Milcah” (v. 29a). The “daughter of Haran,” she had a sister, Iscah” (v. 29b). Although, as we know, Sarai will later have a child in her old age (chap. 21), at this point, her barrenness is emphasized; “she had no child” (v. 30). According to Ronald Hendel, “The notice that Sarai . . . had no child is an anticipatory announcement of the central problem of the Abraham narrative, which will come to the foreground in gradual stages after God’s promise that Abram will be father of a great nation in 12:2” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Gen. 11:30).

As the story continues, we learn that “Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, his son Abram's wife, and they went out together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan; but when they came to Haran, they settled there” (v. 31). And we are told that “the days of Terah were two hundred five years, and Terah died in Haran” (v. 32). Abram’s brother Nahor also remains in Haran, where Jacob will later come, fleeing Esau’s wrath (chaps. 28-29). According to Jon D Levenson,

The idea that Abram began his trek to Canaan together with his father contradicts the impression one receives from 12:1, wherein Abram leaves his ‘father’s house’ to go to an unnamed land that turns out, of course to be Canaan (cf. 15:7). Source critics solve the problem by assigning vv. 31-32 to P, but the account of Abraham’s leaving his ‘father’s house’ for Canaan to J. The more traditional approach would be to speak of two stages to Abram’s trek, the first from Ur to Haran with Terah, the second from Haran to Canaan without him. Note that if one computes the life span of 205 years given for Terah in v. 32 with other numbers in the life of Abraham–born when his father is seventy (v. 26), seventy-five when he left Haran (12:4)–then Terah lived for sixty years after Abraham’s departure. The difference between the narrative order and the chronological order provides Rashi with the basis for pungent observation. “The wicked are called ‘dead’ even in their life-time’ (according to Josh. 24:2, Terah was an idolater). (op. cit., on Gen. 11:31-32).

And so, as chapter 12 begins, we hear “the LORD’s call and promise to Abraham” (David M. Carr, NOAB, 3^rd ed., on Gen. 12:1-3). The call of Abram is a significant turning point in the story of humankind. Christians see it as a step forward in God’s plan for salvation. The Gospel of Matthew traces the genealogy of Jesus, the Christ, from Abraham to Joseph and Mary (Mt. 1:2-16). But its significance for the Jews is self-evident. God promises to make of Abram “a great nation” (Gen. 12:2). “I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (vv. 2-3).

Rabbi J. H. Hertz’s text, following the Hebrew, has an imperative at the end of Genesis 12:2, “be thou a blessing” (trans., Jewish Publication Society of America, 1917), where the NRSV has “so that you will be a blessing” (based on a proposed reading in BHS). Rabbi Hertz comments:

These words contain the ideal which Abram was to set himself, to become a blessing to humanity by the beneficent influence of his godly life and by turning others to a knowledge of God. With the change of one vowel, says the Midrash, the Hebrew word for ‘blessing’ means ‘spring of water’. Even as ta spring purifies the defiled, so do thou attract those who are far from the knowledge of God and purify them for their heavenly Father. And such as indeed been the role played by the children of Abraham on the stage of human history. ‘The Jew is that sacred being,’ says Tolstoy, ‘who has brought down from heaven the everlasting fire, and has illumined with it the entire world. He is the religious source, spring, and fountain out of which all the rest of the peoples have drawn their beliefs and their religions.’ (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2^nd ed., 24^th printing, 1981, on Gen. 12:2)

Rabbi Hertz adds that through Abraham, “all men were to be taught the existence of the Most High God, and the love of righteousness, thereby opening for themselves the same treasury of blessings which he enjoyed” (ibid.). Rabbi Hertz cites S. Singer,

The germ of the idea underlying the fuller conception of a Messianic Age was in existence from the time of the founders of the race of Israel. In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed, was the promise given both to Abraham and Isaac. It was a promise that reached far beyond the lifetime of each, farther than the limits of the temporal kingdom their descendants founded; that has obtained but partial fulfilment up to our time, and looks for fullest realization to that future towards which each of us in his measure may contribute his share. (ibid.)

May it be so, and, where possible, may we work together to achieve this promise. But the story continues. “So Abram went, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him.” And, as noted above, “Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran” (Gen. 12:4). Although Terah remains in Haran, Abram, Sarah and Lot move on. “Abram took his wife Sarai and his brother's son Lot, and all the possessions that they had gathered, and the persons whom they had acquired in Haran; and they set forth to go to the land of Canaan” (v. 5a). “When they had come to the land of Canaan,” we are told, “Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh” (vv. 5b, 6a). Although, “at that time the Canaanites were in the land” (v. 6b), the LORD promises the land to Abraham’s family: “to your [i.e., Abram’s] offspring I will give this land” (v. 7a). And in response Abram builds “there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him” (v. 7b). Abram’s initial entry into Canaan, so to speak, marks off significant locations for Israel’s later national life. According to Lawrence E. Toombs, “Shechem was the first city visited by Abraham in his migration from Haran (Gen. 12:6), but it figures most prominently in the traditions associated with Jacob. . . . When the Hebrews returned to Canaan from Egyptian slavery, they brought Jacob’s mummified body with them and buried it in a tomb near the city (Josh. 23:32)” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1985, s.v. Shechem).

But Abram moves quickly on. “From there [i.e., from Shechem] he moved on to the hill country on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; and there he built an altar to the LORD and invoked the name of the LORD” (v. 8). Bethel, later one of the sites where Jeroboam would set up worship of the calf (1 Kings 12:26-33), and which would be condemned by the prophet Amos (Amos. 4:4-5; 7:10-17), would be the site of an important religious experience for Jacob (Gen. 28:11-22). According to Joel F. Drinkard, Jr., “the religious heritage of Bethel for the Hebrews went back to Jacob (eighteenth century B.C.)” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1985, s.v. Bethel).

Levenson observes that, “What the LORD promises Abram . . . land, numerous offspring and blessing–constitutes to a large extent a reversal of some of the curses on Adam and Eve–exile, pain in childbirth, and uncooperative soil (3:16-24)” (op. cit., on Gen. 12:1-9). Levenson adds that

the twin themes of land and progeny inform the rest of the Torah. In Gen. ch. 12, these extraordinary promises come like a bolt from the blue, an act of God’s grace alone; no indication has been given as to why or even whether Abram merits them. In 22:15-18, they will be reinterpreted as the LORD’s condign [i.e., merited] response to Abraham’s great act of obedience when he proved willing to sacrifice his beloved son, Isaac. In Second Temple and rabbinic sources, various details of Abraham’s early life are filled in, and he sometimes appears as the first monotheist, discovering the one true God even before God calls him. (ibid.)

Hebrews 11:1-12

The Meaning of Faith

11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 Indeed, by faith our ancestors received approval. 3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.

The Examples of Abel, Enoch, and Noah (Gen 4.1-16; 6.5-8.22)

4 By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain’s. Through this he received approval as righteous, God himself giving approval to his gifts; he died, but through his faith he still speaks. 5 By faith Enoch was taken so that he did not experience death; and “he was not found, because God had taken him.” For it was attested before he was taken away that “he had pleased God.” 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever would approach him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. 7 By faith Noah, warned by God about events as yet unseen, respected the warning and built an ark to save his household; by this he condemned the world and became an heir to the righteousness that is in accordance with faith.

The Faith of Abraham (Gen 15.1-6; 21.1-7; 22.1-14; 48.8-16; 50.22-25)

8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; and he set out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he stayed for a time in the land he had been promised, as in a foreign land, living in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he looked forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11 By faith he received power of procreation, even though he was too old–and Sarah herself was barren–because he considered him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore from one person, and this one as good as dead, descendants were born, “as many as the stars of heaven and as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.” (Hebrews 11:1-12, NRSV)

On January 2, 2007 (Tuesday in the Week of the First Sunday after Christmas, References for January 2, Year One), comments were repeated with revision and supplement from January 30, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Fourth Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two); they are repeated again here with some editing and supplement:

The writer to the Hebrews has concluded his description of salvation from sin through the once for all time sacrificial death of Christ and his entrance into the heavenly sanctuary. Much of the remainder of the Epistle consists of exhortations to endure the Lord’s discipline (chap. 12) and advice about practical Christian living (chap. 13). But first, there is a long list of “witnesses to faith” (Cynthia Briggs Kittredge, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, subject heading for Heb. 11:1-12:2) to consider. Three antediluvians (persons who lived before the flood) are mentioned briefly, Abel, Enoch, and Noah. “By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain’s” (Heb. 11:4). As we know, “Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard” (Gen. 4:3-5a). “In either case,” says F. F. Bruce, “the material of the sacrifice was suitable to the offerer’s vocation” (The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT, rev. ed., 1990, p. 281, on Heb. 11:4). Bruce adds this explanation:

Why was there this discrimination? Cain was dejected because his offering was disregarded, but God pointed out to him the way of acceptance. ‘If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it’ (Gen. 4:7). This rendering of the Massoretic text is quite in line with the later prophetic teaching about sacrifice; sacrifice is acceptable to God not for its material content, but insofar as it is the outward expression of a devoted and obedient heart. Let Cain gain the mastery over the sin which threatens to be his undoing, and his sacrifice will be accepted as readily as Abel’s was. (ibid.)

The faith of Enoch is mentioned briefly. “By faith Enoch was taken so that he did not experience death; and ‘he was not found, because God had taken him.’ For it was attested before he was taken away that ‘he had pleased God’ ” (Heb. 11:5, referring to Gen. 5:21-24). Noah’s faith is commended because he respected God’s warning “and built an ark to save his household; by this he condemned the world and became an heir to the righteousness that is in accordance with faith” (v. 7).

But the major example of faith is Abraham (Heb. 11:8-12, 17-19). He answered God’s call and “set out, not knowing where he was going” (v. 8). He “looked forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (v. 10). But major tests of faith relate to Isaac: Abraham “received power of procreation, even though he was too old” (v. 11), and, when tested by God, he “offered up Isaac” (v. 17). We should not overlook Sarah’s faith. According to Kittredge, “In some manuscripts, Sarah is the subject of the sentence: ‘By faith, Sarah received the power of procreation . . .’ Sarah’s faith in the unseen is parallel to Abraham’s, and she is one of the heroic people of faith” (op. cit., on Heb. 11:11). Kittredge thus defends what we might call the “traditional reading”: “Through faith also Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised” (Heb. 11:11 AV/KJV). F. F. Bruce defends the view that Abraham, not Sarah, is the subject of the sentence (op. cit., pp. 294-296, on Heb. 11:11), listing several reasons, but concluding “The one firm argument against taking v. 11 as a statement of Sarah’s faith lies in the fact that the phrase traditional rendered ‘to conceive seed’ just does not mean that; it refers to the father’s part in the generative process, not the mother’s” (pp. 295-296). But other translators apparently side with Kittredge in seeing the verse as a reference to Sarah’s faith. The Revised Standard Version, second edition (1971) makes Sarah the subject, the one whose faith is described. The New International Version (1978/1984) makes Abraham the subject. But later editions of each reverse the interpretations of their respective earlier translations, for Today’s New International Version (2001) makes Sarah the subject, whereas the New Revised Standard Version (1989) makes Abraham the subject. The variety of manuscript readings leads the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament editors to rate their reading at this point “D,” showing “a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text” (UBS Greek New Testament, 3^rd ed., 1975, on Heb. 11:11, cf. p. xiii). Bruce M. Metzger notes “the difficulties of this verse [that] are well known” and quotes a majority of the Committee to understand Abraham (v. 8) as the subject, “By faith, even though Sarah was barren, he [Abraham] received power to beget . . .”; though he also presents the alternative, “By faith he [Abraham] also, together with barren Sarah, received power to beget. . . .” And Metzger cites several major commentaries on each side of this issue (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1971, on Heb. 11:11). In any event, whether the grammar and vocabulary refer here to the faith of Abraham or Sarah, one cannot deny her part in the matter. But the following verse clearly refers to Abraham, as the writer describes a miracle: “Therefore from one person ( eJnovV, henos, masculine genitive singular of ei|V, heis, ‘one’), and this one as good as dead, descendants were born, ‘as many as the stars of heaven and as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore’ ” (v. 12).

John 6:35-42, 48-51

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away; 38 for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.”

41 Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” (John 6;35-42, NRSV)

[43 Jesus answered them, “Do not complain among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life.] (John 6:43-47, NRSV)

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 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.” (John 6:48-51, NRSV)

On August 23, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, Year Two), when the reading was John 6:41-55, comments were repeated from March 22, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Lent, Year One), when comments were combined with revision and adaptation from January 2, 2005 (the Second Sunday after Christmas, Year One), from March 10, 2005 (Thursday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Lent, Year One), from January 31, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Fourth Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two), from August 26, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, Year Two), and from January 2, 2007 (Tuesday in the Week of the First Sunday after Christmas, Year One). The combined comments are repeated here with some editing and supplement:

Most of John, chapter six, is devoted to a discussion of Jesus with Jews of Galilee following–and in some sense based upon–the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Jn. 6:1-15; cf. Mt. 14:13-21; Mk. 6:32-44; Lk. 9:10-17). This miracle, as is frequently pointed out, is the only miracle reported in each of the four Gospels (unless one counts the resurrection of Jesus). It is followed in three Gospels by the report of Jesus Walking on the Sea (Mt. 14:22-27; Mk. 6:45-51; Jn. 6:16-21). Luke omits most of the following material from Mark through the report of Healing a Blind Man at Bethsaida (Mk. 8:22-26), as he moves toward the Journey to Jerusalem (Lk. 9:51-18:14) and the preparation in Jesus’ Passion Predictions (Lk. 9:22; 43b-45; 18:31-34 and parallel passages).

After the 5000 are fed and Jesus crosses the lake with his disciples, the crowds followed him (Jn. 6:22-24). When they find him (v. 25), he says that they are only following him for food (v. 26). He introduces the subject of spiritual food. “Do not work for the food that perishes,” he says, “but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.” It is “on him,” says Jesus, that is, on the Son of Man, “that God the Father has set his seal” (v. 27). As John continues his report of this discussion, questions from the people–apparently not the Jerusalem Jews who are so hostile in the discussions of chapters five and seven to ten–serve to set up points Jesus will make. “What must we do to perform the works of God?” they ask (v. 28). “This is the work of God,” Jesus replies, “that you believe in him whom he has sent” (v. 29). “What sign are you going to give us,” they ask, “so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing?” (v. 30). This from the crowd that experienced the Feeding of the Five Thousand! They refer to a sign from Moses. “Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat’ “ (v. 31). That comment leads into Jesus principal claim. “Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” (vv. 32-33). “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty” (v. 35).

Jesus points out that they “have seen me and yet do not believe” (v. 36). Those whom the Father gives to him, says Jesus, “will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away” (v. 37). Jesus has come down from heaven to do the Father’s will, not his own will (v. 38; cf. 3:31-34), and, though he expresses it in abstract terms, God’s will is for Jesus to lose noone but to raise them up on the last day (v. 39, cf. 17:12). In a word, God wills “that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day. Raymond E. Brown suggests that verses 36-40 “may have a history of their own,” but, in any case, they

spell out the necessity of believing in Jesus and the will of the Father that men should have life through him. The eschatology is interesting. In vs. 37 Jesus speaks of not driving out anyone who comes to him. This is the same expression the Synoptics use in the context of final judgment when men will be driven out of the kingdom (Matt. viii 12, xxii 13). For John the context is that of realized eschatology. However, in 39, which resembles 37, the context switches to final eschatology (‘the last day’). And 40 has both aspects: everyone who believes in the Son has eternal life now, and still he will be raised up on the last day. . . .

The stress in v. 37 that God destines men to come to Jesus does not in the least attenuate the guilt in vs. 36 of those who do not believe. (The Gospel According to John I-XII, Anchor Bible, 29, pp 275-276, on John 6:36-40).

At this point “the Jews [begin] to complain about him because he said, ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven,’ for they say, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” (v. 41; cf. Mk. 6:2b, 3). The Pharisees (“Jews”) object that he is an ordinary human being. “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” (v. 42). After responding to their complaint (v. 43) and reiterating his claim to represent the Father and that he will “raise up on the last day” those who come to him (v. 44), he alludes to support in the prophets, for those who will learn (v. 45; cf. Isa. 54:13). But Jesus is clear about his identity. He is sent by God (v. 43), and “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me” (v. 45). Furthermore, “Whoever believes [in me] has eternal life” (v. 45). They should have “heard and learned God’s voice in their scriptures” so they “would have recognized its accents in him who alone has direct communion with God” (Donald G. Miller and Bruce M. Metzger, NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Jn. 6:44-45). “Not that anyone has seen the Father,” says Jesus, “except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father” (v 46; cf. 1:18).

Jesus also reiterates the claim that only he, who has come from God, has seen God (v. 46), and the promise that “whoever believes has eternal life” (v. 47). So he returns to the theme. “I am the bread of life” (v. 48, cf. v. 35). Brown calls this repetition, verses 48-40, “an inclusion” (op. cit., p. 277, on vv. 44-50). Earlier, it was the people who brought up Moses and the manna (v. 31), but now Jesus makes the comparison. “Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died” (v. 49). “This,” he says, still referring to his own “identity” as the bread of life, “is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die” (v. 50, cf. vv, 53-57). The theme, “I am the bread of life,” is now expressed as, “ I am the living bread that came down from heaven” (v. 51a). With all of this repetition, you would think that we would get the point, wouldn’t we? But there’s more. “Whoever eats of this bread will live forever” (v. 51b). It is through Christ, says John, that one can be related to God the Father and have eternal life (cf. 3:16, and various other passages in John’s Gospel). Due to the identification of Jesus as “the bread of life” (v. 41), affirmations here amount to saying “I [the bread of life] will raise that person [i.e. the one drawn by the Father] up on the last day” (v. 44), “whoever believes [in me, the bread of life] has eternal life” (v. 47), and “one may eat of it [i.e., the bread from heaven = Jesus] and not die” (v. 50). The words, “the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (v. 51) anticipate later references to eating Jesus’ “flesh” (e.g. vv. 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, cf. 57). Raymond E. Brown sees the Eucharist as “the exclusive theme” of verses 51-58, whereas it was only secondary in verses 35-50 (op cit, p. 284).

The first indication [that the Eucharist is in mind] is the stress on eating (feeding on) Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood. This cannot possibly be a metaphor for accepting his revelation. . . . The second indication of the Eucharist is the formula found in vs. 51: “The bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world.” If we consider that John does not report the Lord’s words over the bread and the cup at the Last Supper, it is possible that we have preserved in vi 51 the Johannine form of the words of institution. In particular, it resembles the Lucan form of institution: “This is my body which is given for you.” (Ibid., 284-285)

On the other hand, John Wesley, for example, has a different understanding. Of verse 51 (and the larger context); he says,

If any eat of this bread--That is, believe in me: he shall live for ever--In other words, he that believeth to the end shall be saved. My flesh which I will give you--This whole discourse concerning his flesh and blood refers directly to his passion, and but remotely, if at all, to the Lord's Supper ( my emphasis by underlining) (http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/john.htm#Chapter+VI, accessed again Dec. 31, 2008; you may have to copy and paste the URL).

Compare these words from John Calvin, in comment on verse 53:

The ancients fell into a gross error by supposing that little children were deprived of eternal life, if they did not dispense to them the eucharist, that is, the Lord’s Supper; for this discourse does not relate to the Lord’s Supper, but to the uninterrupted communication of the flesh of Christ, which we obtain apart from the use of the Lord’s Supper. Nor were the Bohemians in the right, when they adduced this passage to prove that all without exception ought to be admitted to the use of the cup. (John Calvin, Commentary on . . . John. Trans., William Pringle; vol. I, 1847, p. 265)

The Friends (Quakers) have usually agreed with Robert Barclay:

The communion of the body and blood of Christ is inward and spiritual, which is the participation of his flesh and blood, by which the inward man is daily nourished in the hearts of those in whom Christ dwells, of which things the breaking of bread by Christ with his disciples was a figure, which they even used in the Church for a time, who had received the Substance, for the sake of the weak: even as abstaining from things strangled, and from blood, the washing one another's feet, and the anointing of the sick with oil, all which are commanded with no less authority and solemnity than the former; yet seeing they are but shadows of better things, they cease in such as have obtained the Substance. (“The Thirteenth Proposition,” An Apology for the True Christian Divinity, 1676 [in Latin], English translation by himself [1678]; online edition at http://www.qhpress.org/texts/barclay/apology/prop13.html (accessed again Aug. 21, 2008).

The Friends have chosen to emphasize the inner spiritual reality, that our spiritual lives depend on Christ from start to finish. Eating his flesh and drinking his blood must be symbolic ways of referring to Christ as the source of our spiritual nourishment. In that much, at least, we agree, by and large, with the whole Christian tradition. (At least, it seems to be so, in my opinion.) It is through Christ, says John, that one can be related to God the Father and have eternal life (cf. 3:16, and various other passages in John’s Gospel).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net