📖 Series: Responding to Ferris on John 6

Analysis of Ferris’s Eucharistic Interpretation: Challenges and Inconsistencies
A final critique addressing logical, doctrinal, and scriptural inconsistencies in Ferris’s view.

Metaphorical Musings: Analyzing Ferris’ Approach to John 6 in “How to Be Christian”
An introduction to Ferris’s Eucharistic interpretation and its foundational errors.

The Logic of Life: Faith, Not Flesh, in John 6
Exploring how faith is the central motif in Jesus’ discourse, not sacramental consumption.

Why Eating Jesus Means Believing: A Biblical Answer to Ferris
Clarifying Johannine metaphor and the meaning of spiritual feeding in John 6.

Spirit Gives Life, Flesh Counts for Nothing: Ferris Misreads John 6
A theological and lexical analysis of John 6:63 and its implications for Eucharistic literalism.

Unraveling Ferris: The Structure of John 6 in the Greater Narrative of the Gospel of John
Examining how the literary structure of the Gospel undermines Ferris’s sacramental reading.

Spirit Gives Life, Flesh Counts for Nothing (Part 2): Ferris Misreads John 6 Again
A continuation focused on exegetical breakdowns Ferris overlooks or distorts.

📜 Part 2 – Romans and the Doctrine of Justification

8. Responding to How2BeChristian on Romans 4
   A defense of sola fide and imputed righteousness against Ferris’s anti-Protestant reading.
9. How Not to Read Romans: A Response to Ferris (“How to Be Christian”)
   A systematic rebuttal to Ferris’s handling of Pauline theology and justification.

Ferris’s argument that John 6 can refer to the Eucharist before its formal institution hinges on the notion that Jesus, being omniscient, could discuss future events. He likens this to how prophetic or anticipatory elements function in other parts of Scripture, such as references to the Ascension and the Crucifixion. This perspective is positioned against the backdrop of Protestant interpretations that see these references as purely forward-looking, without current sacramental implications.

Counterpoints Raised by Protestant Non-Sacramentalist Interpretation:

However, this interpretation is critiqued by Protestant non-sacramentalists who argue that the issue is not about whether one can refer to future events, but rather about how these events are presented within the narrative’s context. Steve Hays provides several key insights that challenge Ferris’s approach:

1. Contextual Focus on the Crucifixion: Hays points out that the thematic elements of John 6 align more with the symbolism of the Crucifixion rather than the Eucharist per se (John 19). The discourse foreshadows the sacrifice of Jesus, which is a central element understood within the Jewish framework of sacrificial atonement, echoed in messianic prophecies such as Isaiah 52-53.
2. Historical and Cultural Context: At the time Jesus spoke these words, the Eucharist had not yet been instituted. Thus, the original audience, primarily Jews, would not have had any conceptual framework for the Eucharistic elements of bread and wine symbolizing body and blood. Hays argues that it would be unreasonable to expect the audience to understand these elements as referring to the Eucharist.
3. Linguistic and Formulaic Differences: Unlike typical Eucharistic formulations, which explicitly link bread with body and wine with blood, John 6 uniquely pairs flesh with bread without mentioning wine. This deviation suggests a different focus, possibly more aligned with spiritual sustenance rather than sacramental ritual.
4. Audience and Address: The discourse was directed at first-century Palestinian Jews who lacked any Eucharistic frame of reference. This context suggests that the immediate interpretation by Jesus’ listeners would lean towards a spiritual or metaphorical understanding, rather than a sacramental one.
5. Spiritual versus Literal Interpretation: The Gospel of John frequently emphasizes the spiritual over the literal, as seen in the contrast between “spirit” and “flesh” (John 3:6, 4:24). This thematic thread supports a reading of John 6 that highlights spiritual nourishment and faith rather than physical eating and drinking.

These points collectively argue that while Jesus could theoretically discuss future sacraments, the immediate context and the audience’s understanding would not support a direct reference to the Eucharist in John 6. Instead, the passage likely served to deepen the understanding of Jesus’ sacrificial role and the spiritual life He offers, themes that are consistent with the broader narrative of John’s Gospel.

1. Discouragement of Seeking Physical Food:
   • Earlier Verses (26-29): Before the explicit discourse on eating his flesh and drinking his blood, Jesus addresses the crowd’s focus on physical sustenance, stating, “Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life.” This sets a thematic foundation for interpreting his later references to flesh and blood as metaphorical, emphasizing spiritual rather than literal nourishment.
2. Temporal Context Prior to the Institution of the Eucharist:
   • The discourse in John 6 occurs before the Last Supper, where the Eucharist is instituted. This chronological placement is crucial as it suggests that the original audience would not have had a sacramental understanding of eating Jesus’s flesh and drinking his blood, further supporting a non-literal interpretation.
3. Specific Use of “Flesh” (Sarx) Rather Than “Body”:
   • In John 6:53-56, the term “flesh” (sarx) is used instead of “body” (soma), which is significant. The Greek term sarx can have various connotations, including human nature or the physical body, typically without sacramental implications. This linguistic choice supports a metaphorical interpretation aligned with the theme of spiritual sustenance.
4. Verse 66 and Its Implications:
   • Following Jesus’s difficult teachings in John 6, verse 66 notes that many disciples turned away and no longer followed him. This reaction underscores the challenging nature of his metaphorical language, which was misinterpreted by many as literal, leading to confusion and abandonment.
5. Lack of Questions from Disciples About Consuming Christ’s Flesh Physically:
   • Notably, the disciples do not ask for clarification on how to literally eat Jesus’s flesh and drink his blood, which would be expected if such a startling command were intended literally. Their lack of inquiry suggests they understood his metaphorical language within the broader context of his teachings about spiritual life.
6. Absence of Clarification for Spiritual Life Without Physical Consumption:
   • Engwer points out that there is no discussion or question from the disciples about how they can possess spiritual life, as asserted by Jesus (e.g., “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve?” John 6:70), when they haven’t yet consumed his flesh and blood if taken literally. This absence indicates a metaphorical understanding of spiritual life not contingent on a physical act, aligning with broader Johannine themes of belief and spiritual transformation.

1. Parallel Verses and Metaphorical Interpretation:
   • Carson highlights the close parallel between verses 54 and 40, pointing out that both verses offer the promise of eternal life and resurrection at the last day, but through different actions: one through eating Jesus’s flesh and drinking His blood, and the other through looking to the Son and believing in Him. He argues that the former must be a metaphorical expression of the latter, underscoring that belief in Jesus is equated with spiritually ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ Him. This interpretation is bolstered by the similar outcomes promised in both verses, suggesting that physical eating is not the intended meaning.
2. Exclusive Requirement for Eternal Life:
   • Carson notes that if verses 53-54 were to be taken literally as referring to the Eucharist, then the logical conclusion would be that participation in the Lord’s Supper is the sole requirement for eternal life. This interpretation, however, contradicts other parts of the discourse, particularly verse 40, which emphasizes belief as the requirement for eternal life. Thus, he suggests that these verses should instead be seen as reinforcing the earlier truth in a metaphorical manner.
3. The Role of the Flesh:
   • The statement in verse 63, “the flesh profits nothing,” serves as a critical clarification within the discourse. Carson interprets this not as diminishing the importance of Jesus’s incarnation (as the Word made flesh) but as emphasizing that the literal interpretation of eating flesh is not the source of spiritual life or benefit. This supports the view that the scandalous idea of cannibalism is not the issue but rather the cross—Jesus’s sacrificial death and its significance.
4. Resurrection and the Eucharist:
   • Carson also points out that the inclusion of the phrase “and I will raise him up at the last day” in verse 54 indicates that eating Jesus’s flesh and drinking His blood do not confer immortality on their own. This challenges the view that the Eucharist, by itself, is the “medicine of immortality” as suggested by some early church fathers if taken without the broader context of faith and the work of the Spirit.

Broad Usage of “Flesh” in the Gospel of John

In the Gospel of John, the term “flesh” is frequently employed to underline the limitations inherent in human nature and the indispensable need for divine intervention for true spiritual rebirth and enlightenment. This dual usage of “flesh” begins with the Incarnation, as stated in John 1:14: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Here, “flesh” positively signifies God’s entry into the human condition, demonstrating that the divine can operate within the material realm to fulfill spiritual objectives.

Conversely, “flesh” also represents the constraints of human understanding and the inefficacy of human efforts in achieving spiritual enlightenment. For instance, in John 3:6, Jesus instructs Nicodemus, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” This delineation emphasizes that mere human birth (flesh) is insufficient for accessing spiritual truths or eternal life, necessitating a rebirth initiated by the Spirit to enter God’s kingdom.

Linking to John 6:63

This thematic exploration is intricately connected to the discourse in John 6, particularly verse 63, where Jesus clarifies misconceptions from His previous metaphorical teachings about eating His flesh. He states, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” This declaration directly addresses any literal misinterpretations of His words, asserting that spiritual understanding and life are derived not from literal actions—such as physically consuming flesh or blood—but from the transformative work of the Spirit.

This verse also serves to reiterate that the sustenance Jesus offers is not of a physical nature but a spiritual one, grounded in divine revelation and insight. The broader narrative of John’s Gospel supports this interpretation, suggesting that references to eating Jesus’s flesh in John 6 must be viewed through a spiritual lens, not a literal one.

Jason Engwer provides additional clarity by highlighting how verses such as John 6:35 and John 6:63 are instrumental in guiding us toward understanding Jesus’s corrective intentions. In John 6:35, Jesus proclaims, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” This metaphorical language sets the stage for interpreting His words about flesh and blood in a spiritual context—emphasizing belief and communion with Him as the true path to eternal life.

Engwer further notes that Jesus’s statement in John 6:63 serves as a corrective to ensure His followers do not fall into a literal interpretation trap. This approach is consistent with Jesus’s method throughout the Gospel, where He frequently clarifies His teachings to deepen understanding and guide His followers toward spiritual truths.

Integrating insights from various scholars on John 6:63 reveals a rich tapestry of interpretations that examine the intricate interplay between “flesh” and “spirit” in the Gospel of John. This nuanced analysis involves contributions from Leon Morris, D.A. Carson, Jason Engwer, Andrew T. Lincoln, J. Ramsey Michaels, and Edward W. Klink III, each bringing a unique perspective that deepens our understanding of this pivotal verse.

Leon Morris and D.A. Carson discuss “flesh” in terms of human limitations juxtaposed with divine potential, particularly emphasizing that true spiritual enlightenment can only be achieved through the Spirit, not through “flesh” alone. Morris highlights the Incarnation as a transformation of “flesh” into a divine revelation medium, while Carson underscores the need to move beyond a literal interpretation to grasp the spiritual truths symbolized by “flesh.”

Jason Engwer argues for a symbolic interpretation of “flesh,” noting that the broader context of John 6, which centers on faith as the mechanism for eternal life, supports a non-literal understanding. This aligns closely with Andrew T. Lincoln’s observation of the dual usage of “flesh”—positively in connection with Jesus and negatively regarding human incapacity to accept divine revelation without the Spirit.

J. Ramsey Michaels further elaborates on the transformative aspect of Jesus’s teachings about “flesh,” suggesting that it points beyond mere physical death to a resurrection that offers eternal life through the Spirit. Edward W. Klink III distinguishes between ordinary human “flesh,” which is bound to mortality, and the life-giving “flesh” of Jesus Christ, emphasizing the unique role of Jesus’s “flesh” in mediating eternal life.

These scholarly interpretations, while resonating with how Ferris understands the term “flesh,” do not support a sacramental reading of John 6:63. Instead, they align more persuasively with a metaphorical interpretation that views eating Jesus’s flesh and drinking His blood as symbols of deeply engaging with His teachings and experiencing spiritual rebirth through the Spirit. This perspective does not necessitate a sacramental action to access eternal life but rather emphasizes faith and spiritual insight as the keys to understanding and embracing Jesus’s message.

The consensus among these scholars suggests that “flesh” in John’s Gospel, while multifaceted, fundamentally communicates the limitations of human efforts in achieving divine ends and the necessity of divine intervention through the Spirit. This interpretation aligns better with non-sacramental readings of the passage, challenging Ferris’s stance by demonstrating that even his understanding of “flesh” does not inherently require or support a sacramental interpretation of the text. Instead, it underscores the Gospel’s broader theological themes of spiritual transformation and divine life offered through faith in Jesus Christ, mediated not by sacramental rituals but by the transformative power of the Spirit.

The discussions by scholars such as Leon Morris, D.A. Carson, and others on the nuanced role of “flesh” in John’s Gospel highlight its dual capacity as both a symbol of human limitation and a potential medium for divine revelation. However, these interpretations collectively pivot on a critical theological assertion that “the flesh profits nothing,” as stated by Jesus in John 6:63. This declaration serves as a cornerstone for understanding the limited efficacy of “flesh” in spiritual matters.

If we consider the broader implications of this statement, we can employ a greater-to-the-lesser form of reasoning to deepen our understanding: If “flesh,” in the larger sense of human nature and effort, is declared by Jesus to profit nothing towards achieving spiritual life, then how much less would mere physical flesh—devoid of any spiritual empowerment—contribute to such an end? This line of reasoning directly challenges sacramental interpretations that prioritize physical acts over spiritual insight.

Edward W. Klink III and J. Ramsey Michaels articulate that the transformation promised through Jesus’s “flesh” transcends mere physical consumption, instead pointing towards a deeper, spiritual ingestion that is life-giving precisely because it is spirit-filled. This spiritual dimension is what imbues Jesus’s flesh with its life-giving property, contrasting sharply with ordinary human flesh, which remains bound to mortality and is incapable of imparting eternal life.

By extending this argument, we see that if the metaphorical and spiritually enriched “flesh” of Jesus—as a conduit of divine revelation and eternal life—profits only in conjunction with the Spirit, then physical flesh, or the literal consumption thereof, would inherently profit even less.

The Freedom of the Spirit

The Gospel of John consistently underscores the freedom and sovereignty of the Holy Spirit, which moves beyond human control and institutional boundaries. John 3:8 vividly illustrates this by comparing the Spirit to the wind, highlighting its unpredictable nature: “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” This metaphor strongly implies that the Spirit’s activity is not limited or necessarily mediated by physical elements or sacraments such as baptism and the Eucharist.

In the context of John 6:63, where Jesus asserts that “the flesh profits nothing; it is the Spirit that gives life,” a connection to John 3 reinforces the argument against a sacramental reading that ties grace exclusively to the physical elements of communion. If the Spirit operates like the wind—free from predictable patterns and human constraints—then the notion that grace is dispensed mechanically through sacraments becomes theologically tenuous. John’s depiction of the Spirit suggests that divine grace and spiritual life are imparted according to God’s will and timing, independent of ritual actions.

Furthermore, this interpretation aligns with the broader Johannine theme that true spiritual life is accessed through belief and the transformative work of the Spirit, rather than through ritualistic observances alone. When Jesus discusses being “born of the Spirit” in John 3 and later speaks of His flesh and blood as true food and drink in John 6, He is not establishing a sacramental formula but rather illustrating the depth of spiritual communion necessary for eternal life—a communion that transcends physical consumption and is rooted in faith and spiritual insight.

This perspective challenges interpretations that rigidly link the Spirit’s movement to sacramental acts. The Gospel of John presents a more dynamic relationship between the believer and the divine, where spiritual rebirth and sustenance are mediated by the Spirit’s free and sovereign action, much like the wind that does not confine itself to fixed paths. Thus, the sacramentalist focus on physical elements as necessary conduits of grace does not fully encapsulate the theological richness and spiritual freedom emphasized in John’s narrative.

By understanding “flesh” and “spirit” within this broader Johannine context, it becomes clear that the life-giving work of the Spirit is not bound by the sacraments but operates in a realm that transcends our physical and ritualistic conceptions. This insight not only challenges the sacramentalist interpretation but also invites a deeper exploration of how divine grace operates freely and powerfully within the believer’s life, echoing the sovereign and unpredictable nature of the Spirit described in John 3.

From Proverbs to Bread: Wisdom Literature’s Influence on John 6

1. Christ as the Embodiment of Wisdom:
   • In John’s Gospel, Christ’s identification with wisdom is profound. The metaphor of consuming His flesh and blood can be linked to wisdom literature where wisdom invites us to “eat” and “drink” her words for spiritual nourishment and insight (Proverbs 9:5; Sirach 24:19-21). This connection is pivotal in understanding Christ not only as a teacher but as the incarnate Divine Wisdom, offering Himself as the ultimate sustenance for eternal life.
2. Scriptural Echoes in Christ’s Words:
   • The idea of “eating” words as a form of internalizing them is not new but deeply rooted in Jewish scriptural tradition. For instance, Jeremiah describes his joy and delight in consuming God’s words (Jeremiah 15:16), and similarly, Ezekiel speaks of eating a scroll in a vision (Ezekiel 2:8–3:3), symbolizing the internalization of divine messages. Revelation also uses the imagery of eating a scroll that tastes as sweet as honey but turns bitter in the stomach (Revelation 10:9-10), reflecting the mixed blessings of receiving God’s word. These references reinforce the metaphorical interpretation of Jesus’ directive to eat His flesh and drink His blood, emphasizing the transformative power of embracing His teachings.
3. Divine Wisdom in Old Testament Context:
   • The Old Testament concept that humans live by every word from God’s mouth, as quoted in Deuteronomy 8:3 and echoed by Jesus in Matthew 4:4, underscores the life-giving power of divine words. This idea is directly linked to the assertion that Jesus’ words are “spirit and life” (John 6:63). Just as the Israelites were sustained by manna—a physical bread with spiritual significance—so too are believers sustained by every word of Christ, the true bread from heaven.
4. Theological Insights from Scholars:
   • D.A. Carson points out that the spiritual ingestion of Jesus’ words aligns with the identity of Jesus as the Word made flesh (John 1:1-18). This theological underpinning suggests that to truly “eat” and “drink” Jesus is to fully accept and internalize His entire mission and teachings, bridging the Word’s incarnation with its life-giving message.
   • Andreas Köstenberger further amplifies this by highlighting the eschatological dimension where consuming Jesus’ words prepares believers for eternal life, tying physical metaphors to spiritual readiness and transformation.
5. Wisdom’s Invitation in Sirach:
   • The Wisdom of Sirach explicitly invites readers to come and learn, promising that those who eat of her will hunger for more, and those who drink will thirst for more (Sirach 24:19-21). This invitation mirrors Jesus’ offer in John 6, where He promises that whoever comes to Him will never hunger or thirst again, emphasizing the completeness of the spiritual sustenance He provides, contrasting with the ongoing desire for more in Sirach.

By synthesizing these insights and scriptural references, the interpretation of Jesus’ discourse on eating His flesh and drinking His blood as metaphorical becomes richer and more deeply rooted in the biblical tradition. This approach does not just see Christ’s words as instructional but as an invitation to partake in the divine life He offers through His incarnation, death, and resurrection—echoing the call of Wisdom throughout scripture to consume what is truly life-giving.

1. Narrative Structure in John 6:
   • Blomberg highlights the use of double-‘Amen’ sayings in John 6, emphasizing the repeated and deepening themes that Jesus introduces throughout the discourse. His analysis suggests that while verses 49-50 revisit the theme of “bread from heaven,” the introduction of Jesus’ flesh as “spiritual bread” in verse 51 marks a pivotal shift in the narrative, focusing directly on Jesus’ own person and sacrifice as the ultimate source of life.
2. Jesus as the Eschatological Bread:
   • Echoing the insights of Pryor and others, Blomberg points out that by the time we reach verse 51, the discourse makes it unequivocally clear that Jesus Himself, not manna or even the Torah or Wisdom traditionally celebrated in Jewish thought, is the true, eschatological bread from God. This shift underlines the novel and radical nature of Jesus’ teaching, positioning Him as the fulfillment and supersession of earlier understandings of divine sustenance.
3. Eating Christ’s Flesh:
   • The discussion of “eating Christ’s flesh,” introduced in verse 51 and questioned in verse 52, ties into later rabbinic teachings that metaphorically speak of ‘eating the Messiah’. While these teachings are admittedly later than the Gospel text, they provide a cultural and religious context that helps modern readers understand how early audiences might have interpreted such language. Blomberg’s reference to this teaching highlights the metaphorical usage of “eating” in Jewish interpretive traditions, supporting the argument that John’s language about eating Jesus’ flesh should also be understood metaphorically as partaking in the life He offers through His sacrificial death.
4. Theological Implications:
   • By emphasizing that Jesus’ flesh, given “for the life of the world,” is the true bread, Blomberg reinforces the interpretation that Jesus’ words are not about cannibalistic literalism but about a profound spiritual truth. This truth connects the Incarnation and the Atonement directly with the believer’s spiritual nourishment and eternal life.
5. Linking Old and New Testament Themes:
   • The connection to Old Testament themes such as manna and divine wisdom, coupled with Jesus’ declaration that He is the true bread from heaven, provides a theological bridge that links Israel’s historical experiences with God’s ultimate revelation in Christ. This continuity and fulfillment are central to John’s theological narrative, showing how Jesus completes and transcends all previous divine manifestations.

Johannine vocabulary for the object of God’s salvation (1:29; 3:16–17; 4:42; 6:51) and to a lesser degree the crowd’s own words in 6:14 (cf. 4:42).197 Their request (6:34), similar to that of the Samaritan woman for water (4:15), allows Jesus to move the discourse further: he refers to spiritual bread and water, and is the object of their quest. (The attentive reader already knows from 4:32–34 that Jesus’ spiritual food is doing the Father’s will.) Their request for the bread (6:34) parallels the Samaritan woman’s request for the water Jesus described to her (4:15), though this story will turn out differently (6:66; cf. 4:28–30, 39–42). (The “always” may relate to the gift of life being “eternal,” 6:27; cf. 4:14.) Jesus now explains that he is the bread of life. The reader approaches Jesus’ claims to be living bread (6:35, 41, 48, 51) in light of the revelation of 6:20, but the crowds in the story world are utterly unaware of that theophanic context for the saying.198 In 6:35 Jesus employs language that alludes directly to divine wisdom, just as when he promised the Samaritan woman that one who drinks from his water will never thirst (4:14; 6:35). The summons to “come” and to quench “thirst” (6:35; cf. 7:37–38) could stem from a sage emulating wisdom (Sir 51:23–24), but in the context of the Fourth Gospel (1:1–18) undoubtedly alludes to Wisdom herself: Wisdom invites hearers, “Come to me,” addressing their hunger and thirst (Sir 24:19–21).199 At the same time, Jesus is greater than Wisdom, for Wisdom promises that those who eat and drink from her will hunger and thirst for more (Sir 24:21), whereas Jesus emphasizes instead that one who comes to and believes in him will never hunger or thirst for anything else.200 When one follows Jesus, one gets all that is available. Numerous times in the Fourth Gospel Jesus declares “I am” with a predicate, three or four times here (6:35, 48, 51; cf. 6:41); also as the light of the world (8:12; cf. 9:5 without the pronoun); the door (10:7, 9); the shepherd (10:11, 14); the resurrection and the life (11:25); the way, the truth and the life (14:6); and the vine (15:1, 5)—in all, thirteen or more sayings with seven predicative uses.201 On other occasions a predicate is lacking (4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5, 6, 8), in at least some cases invoking Jesus’ deity.

Dr. Craig Keener. The Gospel of John, Volume One & Volume Two (Page 683).

Eschatological Implications and Divine Assistance in John 6

1. Divine Drawing as Enlightening Rather Than Coercive:
   • As described by D.A. Carson, Jesus explains divine ‘drawing’ in John 6:44 not as coercive but as an enlightening and loving invitation akin to the wooing of a lover. This drawing involves internal illumination in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies like Isaiah 54:13, which envisioned a restored relationship where “All your sons will be taught by the LORD.”
2. Internal Illumination and the New Covenant:
   • The notion of internal enlightenment is consistent across both the Old and New Testaments, indicating a shift towards a more personal and internalized form of divine interaction. Jeremiah’s new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34) anticipates God placing His law directly within the people, while Ezekiel (Ezekiel 36:24–26) speaks of God giving a new heart and spirit. These themes are echoed in the New Testament, where Jesus promises the Holy Spirit will continue His teaching role (John 14:26-27), illustrating the fulfillment of these prophetic visions.
3. Prophetic Fulfillment in Jesus’ Ministry:
   • Andreas J. Köstenberger notes that Jesus claims the fulfillment of being taught by God in His ministry, linking this to the broader prophetic context which included not only Jews but all people receptive to God’s word. This fulfillment is highlighted in the inclusivity of Jesus’ message and the universal offer of salvation, reflecting the eschatological promise that God’s teachings would reach beyond traditional boundaries.
4. The Role of the Holy Spirit in Understanding:
   • The Holy Spirit’s role as elucidated by Jesus in the Gospel of John emphasizes that true understanding of divine messages comes through spiritual enlightenment, not mere intellectual comprehension. This supports the metaphorical interpretation of consuming Jesus’ flesh and blood as embracing His teachings and sacrifice through spiritually infused insight.
5. Jesus as the True Eschatological Bread:
   • Craig Blomberg emphasizes that by the time we reach John 6:51, it is clear that Jesus Himself is the true, eschatological bread from heaven, superseding manna, Torah, or Wisdom. This highlights Jesus’ role as the ultimate fulfillment of divine provision and the source of eternal life, reinforcing the metaphorical interpretation of His words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
6. Connecting Old Testament Imagery with New Testament Revelation:
   • The direct allusions to Old Testament scriptures and the portrayal of Jesus as a teacher greater than Moses emphasize that Jesus’ teachings are the highest form of divine wisdom, intended to be ‘consumed’ or internalized by believers. This connection solidifies the metaphorical understanding of John 6 as it relates to consuming Jesus’ teachings for spiritual nourishment.
     
   • Divine Enablement as a Precondition for Coming to Jesus:
     • Keener points out that the ability to come to Jesus hinges on the Father’s enabling, as articulated in John 6:45. This is not just a call but a divine drawing that is necessary due to the fulfillment of the eschatological promise that God’s people will be directly taught by Him (Isaiah 54:13). This direct teaching is a profound, transformative learning that goes beyond mere intellectual understanding, emphasizing the necessity of divine intervention for true spiritual insight.
   • Failure to Hear as a Sign of Eschatological Disjunction:
     • Despite the availability of this divine teaching, Jesus’ contemporaries fail to “hear” Him, as highlighted in various verses (John 5:37; 6:60; 7:51; 8:38, 43, 47; 10:3). This failure underscores a significant eschatological theme: although the promise of direct instruction from God is being fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry, not all recognize or accept this. Keener suggests that only those truly part of the remnant—God’s eschatological people—will understand and respond to Jesus’ teachings.
   • Midrashic Interpretation Linking Torah and Prophetic Texts:
     • Keener further explains that Jesus, like other midrashic interpreters of His time, connects Torah teachings with prophetic insights to clarify His role as the fulfillment of these eschatological promises. This method underscores how Jesus positions Himself within the continuum of divine revelation, interpreting and fulfilling the deeper meanings of the Scriptures.
   • The Role of Jesus as the Ultimate Teacher Sent from God:
   • Highlighting Jesus as the “teacher” par excellence, Keener articulates that Jesus not only delivers God’s teachings but embodies them. His role as the teacher who perfectly understands and conveys the Father’s will is central to His identity and mission. This teacher-student dynamic is crucial in understanding the metaphor of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, as it represents a total internalization and acceptance of His teachings as the Word of God.
   • Continuation of Jesus’ Ministry Through the Holy Spirit:
   • Keener also emphasizes that the Holy Spirit will continue Jesus’ ministry post-Ascension, suggesting a seamless continuation of divine teaching through the Spirit. This continuation further supports the metaphorical interpretation of consuming Jesus’ teachings as a way of engaging with the living Word, sustained by the Spirit’s ongoing guidance and enlightenment.