John 7:1-13 Preparing for The Festival of Tabernacles

Video Teaching
Verse-by-Verse Commentary
Full Transcript

From the Pulpit

Commentary

7 After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. 2 But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, 3 Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. 4 No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

  1. “After this, Jesus went around in Galilee…”
    1. Jerusalem was an urban, high-population density area, but Galilee was a rural region.  The tendrils of the Jewish leaders were much less likely to strike at Jesus while he was in this peripheral area.

    2. Jesus didn’t go to this region out of cowardice.  To the contrary, he knew he was headed towards the cross, but it wasn’t time for that yet.  Jesus knew that God’s appointed timing (referred to as kairos in Greek) didn’t always follow the first given opportunity in linear, human time (chronos in Greek).  This is a strategic and obedient waiting, not a fearful retreat.

    3. “He withdrew too now to Galilee, because the hour of His passion was not yet come; and He thought it useless to stay in the midst of His enemies, when the effect would only have been to irritate them the more.” -Theophylact, Explanation on the Gospel of John, Ch. 7.

  1. “…the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near…”

    1. The Festival of Tabernacles, known in Hebrew as Sukkot, was one of the three great festivals where Jewish men were commanded to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. There are several important aspects to this festival:

      1. Harvest Celebration– It was a joyous harvest festival, occurring after the crops had been gathered. This timing meant people had the resources and the time to make the pilgrimage.

      2. Historical Commemoration The festival commemorated the 40 years the Israelites spent wandering in the wilderness after the Exodus from Egypt. During this time, they were sustained directly by God’s provision, such as manna from heaven.

      3. Ritual Practices To remember that time of wandering and reliance on God, participants would build and dwell in temporary booths (sukkot) for the duration of the festival. This act of “camping” was a tangible reminder of God’s faithfulness despite their disloyalty.

      4. These themes all give a symbolic backdrop as Jesus, the ultimate fulfillment of God’s presence and provision, has come.

    2. “At the present time… we acknowledge that we are journeying in the wilderness… What is it to be in the wilderness? In the desert waste. Why in the desert waste? Because in this world, we thirst in a way that no water could quench. But yet, let us still thirst that we may be filled. For, “Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled,” (Matthew 5:6). And our thirst is quenched from the rock in the wilderness: for the Rock was Christ, and it was smitten with a rod that the water might flow.” -Augustine, Tractate 28, 9.

  2. Jesus’s Family and Siblings

    1. John 7:3-5 shows Jesus had brothers who did not believe in him during his ministry. His most prominent brother was James, later author of the Epistle of James in the Bible.
    2. Protestants and Catholics read this section very differently.  Protestants say that Jesus had brothers, whereas Catholics say that they were only Jesus’s cousins.
      1. The Catholic Interpretation 
        1. Doctrinally, Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
        2. This doctrine was formed in the late-second to early-third century, partially to defend the virgin birth from people who insisted that Mary probably had relations with Joseph or other men to have Jesus.

        3. Some early Christian myths dating from the same timeframe assert that Joseph married Mary at God’s request specifically to defend her and take care of her.  He was much older than her and never actually consummated their marriage.

        4. Note that this interpretation evolved to counter the claims of non-Christians against the Bible, but it goes beyond the Bible’s claims to defend the Bible.

      2. Protestant Interpretation

        1. The Greek word used in this instance is adelphoi (ἀδελφοί ), literally “brothers.” Etymologically, the word comes from a (together with) and delphys (womb) to create a word that would literally be something like, “from the same womb.”

        2. While adelphoi can be metaphorical (Paul uses it in this sense throughout his epistles), the context here doesn’t fit a metaphor; these “brothers” taunt and doubt Jesus.  They certainly aren’t acting like comrades in any sense of the word.
        3. Another Greek word, anepsios (ἀνεψιός), specifically means “cousin.” It isn’t an uncommon word.  It appears in Colossians 4:10 (“Mark, the cousin of Barnabas”), in the Septuagint (Numbers 36:11), and in Josephus’s histories. If these men were Jesus’s cousins, John would have used that word to describe them.

      3. Theological Significance

        1. It matters whether Jesus had siblings because it shapes our understanding of holiness and Jesus’s life. Mary’s holiness is shown in being a normal wife and mother whom God used, ordinary people can be holy. You don’t need to go to a monastery and take a vow of celibacy to be holy.

        2. Jesus having unbelieving siblings who frustrated him means he experienced family conflict and can relate to those torn down by family rather than built up.

      4. [E]ven his brethren did not believe in him. Hence we infer how small is the value of carnal relationship…So much the more ridiculous is the superstition of Papists, who, disregarding everything else in the Virgin Mary, extol her only on the ground of relationship, bestowing on her the title of the Mother of God, as if Christ himself had not reproved the woman who exclaimed from the midst of the crowd, “‘Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the breasts that suckled thee;’ for Christ replied, ‘Nay, rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God,’” (Luke 11:27-28)” -John Calvin, Commentary on John, John 7, 5.

6 Therefore Jesus told them, “My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. 8 You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.” 9 After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee.

  1. “My time is not here yet…”

    1. Despite his brother’s taunting, Jesus prioritizes God’s timing over public or relational pressure.

    2. “[H]alf the power of: a Christian life depends upon its being timely. The bringing forth of fruit in due season is one of the marks of the tree planted by the rivers of water; and one of the signs of the Son of man, who delighted in the law of the Lord, was that he said, “My time is not yet full come.” When it did come, then he went.” -Charles Spurgeon, Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions on the Bible, John 7.
    3. Jesus’s response is unambiguous about the world’s evil and even implies that his brothers are complicit in it.  Why is he so fierce?  Because the conversation concerned his identity and work, which are critically important.

      1. Jesus models being both a “lamb” (gentle) and a “lion” (fierce and combative when necessary).

      2. Most of us naturally favor one role; we should learn from Jesus’s example to embody both.

10 However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. 11 Now at the festival the Jewish leaders were watching for Jesus and asking, “Where is he?”

12 Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, “He is a good man.”

Others replied, “No, he deceives the people.” 13 But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the leaders.

  1. “…he went also, not publicly, but in secret…”
    1. Jesus chose to go to the festival secretly, but not because he was afraid.  He wanted to fulfill God’s command for devout Jews to go to Jerusalem, but he also wanted to honor God’s timing first and foremost.  Making a public statement to his brothers or to Jewish leadership would have pushed the timetable in an unhelpful way.

    2. By contrast, the crowds in Jerusalem are very afraid.  They whisper about Jesus, but they don’t dare to do it publicly because they’re worried about what the leaders might do.

    3. Do not let fear keep you from doing what God has commanded, but also don’t rush in recklessly.  If you feel unprepared, it may be a sign to wait for God’s timing.

    4. Pray, prepare, and gather the things that you need while you discern the right time to act.  Jesus didn’t ignore his mission while he waited on the Father’s timing.  He walked closely with the Father and understood when the time was right.

  1. “But who were those that did not speak of Him for fear of the Jews? Undoubtedly those who said, ‘He is a good man,’ not those who said, ‘He deceives the people.’ As for those who said ‘He deceives the people,’ their whispers were heard like the noise of dry leaves. ‘He deceives the people,’ they sounded more and more loudly.  ‘He is a good man,’ was whispered more and more quietly. But now, brothers, in spite of the fact that glory of Christ which will give us immortality has not yet come, but now I say, His Church so increases, He has clearly decided to spread his Gospel abroad throughout the whole world, so that it is now ‘He deceives the people,’ is only whispered, and and more and more loudly it sounds forth, ‘He is a good man.’” -Augustine, Tractate 28, 11.

Full Transcript

Fall has begun. The kids are going off to school, and we’re back in the book of John. I think this has a timely word for us. August, when school starts, that is one of two times in a calendar year that people tend to really sit down and think about what they want to accomplish in the coming 12 months. In a calendar year, you have January and the New Year, where everybody makes their resolutions and thinks about the next 12 months. Then you also have the fall when school starts—a time that is built into our schedule from our earliest days as the time to get things underway. So, we think about what we want to accomplish.

That also means you have to wonder: what does God want you to accomplish in the coming 12 months? Not just what are your plans, but what are His plans for you? What has He put on your heart? You don’t want to waste time getting through a year where you’re not doing what God would have you do. Thinking about how to incorporate that into your life well and how to plan on it—that is what so much of the beginning of chapter seven has.

Let’s dig in. We are at chapter 7, verse 1: “After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders were there looking for a way to kill him.” Galilee was a more rural region, and it is where Jesus spent most of his time. Judea was the more urban area; it had the capital, it had Jerusalem, and it was where a lot of stuff happened. It is the difference between Hardin County and Franklin County. Jesus spent his time in the rural area because he knew that the people in Judea were waiting there to kill him. He knew he was up against deep resistance in his life. There were priests and kings that stood against him. Jesus was someone who had some powerful enemies.

Yet, he didn’t just rush in and confront them. It’s kind of weird to think about because we know how the story ends. Jesus does eventually go to Jerusalem. He does face all of the men who want to kill him, and they do kill him. He dies on a cross and conquers death. We know that time is coming, but it’s not yet. Why isn’t Jesus going to Judea? He’s not afraid to go up against powerful people, but he knows that not every opportunity requires you to run in and start a fight. He’s waiting for the right time. He’s not just doing things on his timeline; he’s doing things on God’s timeline.

Verse 2 tells us, “When the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near…” That’s kind of a strange reference for us because we don’t celebrate it. The Festival of Tabernacles was one of the big ones as far as Jewish festivals go. You would go into Jerusalem, the capital, for what was in many ways a harvest festival. This was after you had harvested all of your crops, so you had a little extra time on your hands to go into Jerusalem to celebrate. Not only was it a harvest festival, but it was also a time to remember the forty years that the Israelites walked through the wilderness and were sustained by manna from God. It was a time to remember that they lived in tents and ate whatever God gave them. They were sustained by Him even though they were disloyal; God stayed with them even in the wilderness. To remember what their ancestors had done and the situations they were in, people would go to Jerusalem, bring a tent, and spend some time camping. That’s what the Festival of Tabernacles was.

As the festival approached, verse 3 says, Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea so that your disciples there may see the works you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

There is a lot to talk about right here. First off, Jesus had brothers. I don’t know how often you think about that, but it’s a little strange to consider. They don’t appear in a ton of stories in the Bible, which makes sense since we don’t have a lot of details about Jesus’ childhood. He’s already older at this point in time, but he had siblings. The most prominent of them was James, the writer of the epistle of James, but there were others. None of them believed in him during his lifetime, though they came to faith after.

Now, if you have a Roman Catholic background, or maybe you’ve talked about this with a Catholic friend, you might think something sounds off here. You may have heard from a priest at some point that Jesus did not have siblings. Catholics believe in a doctrine called the perpetual virginity of Mary. In other words, she was not just a virgin before Jesus, but she remained a virgin her whole life long. Consequently, they believe this passage would be better translated as “cousins.”

Why do Protestants and Catholics believe something different here? To put it succinctly, we believe Jesus had siblings because that’s what the Bible says. The word used here for brothers in the original Greek is adelphoi, and adelphoi does not mean cousins; it means brothers. The etymology of the word shows this, as it is made up of a prefix meaning “connected” and delphus, which means “womb”—connected by the womb.

In English, when we use the word “brother,” we can use it literally or metaphorically. For example, if I came in this morning, saw Jim, and said, “Jim, brother, how’s it going?” you guys wouldn’t sit around and think, “Oh, they’re related! I didn’t know they were brothers.” You would know it just means they are close, on the same page, or comrades in arms. The same was true in Greek. The word adelphoi can be used literally or figuratively. The apostle Paul uses it many times in the epistles metaphorically, such as when he writes, “Brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant of this.” Anytime he uses that term, he is using adelphoi.

In this instance, we have to look at the context. Were these individuals on the same page as Jesus? Were they comrades in arms? Would it make sense for this to be a metaphorical use of the word? No. They are making fun of Jesus and doubting him. This would not be a good use of the term metaphorically; it would make no sense. So, we have to assume it’s literal: brothers of the same womb.

They had a completely different word for cousin in Greek—anepsio. It’s not like they didn’t have a word for it. Paul actually uses the word anepsio in the book of Colossians, chapter 4 verse 10, when he talks about Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. Right there, we can see Paul certainly knew the word for cousin. Furthermore, the people who translated the Old Testament into Greek around the time Jesus was alive used anepsio as well. Because not every person throughout the Roman Empire spoke perfect Hebrew, they translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, and you can see instances of the word cousin there—such as in the book of Numbers, chapter 36 verse 11. Secular sources, like the histories of Josephus (the premier historian of that era), also commonly used this word to mean cousin. So, why didn’t the Gospel writer use the word cousin if these were Jesus’s cousins? Because they weren’t his cousins; they were his brothers.

That brings up a different question: why would Catholics believe that Jesus did not have brothers if the text uses that word? For that, you have to dig into the history of doctrine. Very early in the Christian Church, all the way back in the late second and early third centuries, there were people who did not believe that Jesus was miraculously born of a virgin. People have been making arguments against Christianity for hundreds of years; we haven’t invented new ones. Back then, critics said, “Hold on, Mary, a virgin, had a child? That doesn’t make sense. You have to have a guy in the mix.” They insisted that Jesus must have been born from an earthly father and that Mary wasn’t a virgin after all.

In response, some of the early Christians argued against those critics by taking it a step further. They said, “You don’t think Mary was a virgin? Let me tell you, she was the ultimate virgin. She never knew a man before she had Jesus, and she never knew one after, her whole life long.” From a Protestant perspective, we appreciate the spirit of what they were trying to do in defending the fact that Jesus had a heavenly Father. However, the argument itself is flawed. You shouldn’t have to claim something beyond the Bible to prove the Bible. Scripture is sufficient in and of itself.

We disagree with that doctrine because the biblical evidence doesn’t suggest Mary was a nun; it suggests she was a person like us. Why does this matter? Why spend so much time on this piece of history? You should care because it makes a difference in the way you think about what a holy person looks like, and it changes how you view the life of Jesus. What made Mary so special is that she participated in the most miraculous thing that God did in all of history. But was she holy because she lived like a nun, had a husband but was never intimate with him, and spent all her time in prayer? Or was she holy because God chose to work through a regular person? Mary was not so different from a lot of us.

It also highlights the reality of Jesus’s everyday experience. He had brothers and sisters, and they were at odds with him. I bet some of you have older siblings who were a bit of a goody-two-shoes in your eyes, and it can be frustrating to follow after them. Imagine if your older sibling was literally Jesus Christ. You can see why they might get frustrated. You would go to school, and on the first day, the teacher would say, “Oh, you’re Jesus’ sibling. He was great. I’m glad you’re in this class.” You would get home, and you’d constantly be compared to him. We compare ourselves to Jesus and know we don’t meet his perfect standard, but to live with that every day in your own home must have been incredibly hard.

You can also imagine it from Jesus’s perspective. Here is a man who is perfect, and he’s not living a perfect life just to show someone up—he’s living it for them. He is living a perfect life for his siblings, for his parents, and for the world. Yet, they didn’t understand or appreciate it. They thought he was a little full of himself. When he started talking about being the Messiah, they essentially said, “All right buddy, whatever.” Jesus faced resistance not only from kings and priests, but within his own home.

I am very blessed. When I have a hard day and everything feels like it’s against me, I get to go home to a wife who is so supportive, children who are cute as a button, parents I can call, and a sister I can talk with. I have an incredible support network in my family. That’s one of the reasons churches should strive to support families. You want to help families live well because that’s what God wants. God wants the family to be a blessing. He wants husbands to help disciple their wives, wives to help disciple their children, and families to hold each other together. That is a massive blessing, but not everyone enjoys that luxury.If you ever feel that way—if you say, “Sometimes my family tears me apart more than they build me up”—Jesus knows. Jesus endured that too. You are not alone.

Look at what his brothers say specifically in verse 3: “Leave Galilee and go to Judea so that your disciples there may see the works you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” In other words, they are saying, “You think you’re a hot shot? Mr. Big Fish in a small pond out here in Galilee? Go into Judea and show everyone your miracles. They’re going to love it.”

How does Jesus respond? My temptation when someone is spouting off like that would be to avoid getting into it—just give one of those fake laughs, try to move on, and not make things awkward. But Jesus makes it a little bit awkward. He goes right there, leaving some tension in the room when they are done. He tells them to go on to the festival, but adds, “I am not going up to this festival because my time has not yet fully come. Of course, you’re comfortable with the world; they’ll love you. The world is evil, and I am against the world.”

Why is Jesus having this conversation? Why doesn’t he just laugh it off and move on? Jesus was gentle, but he was also fierce. He could be a lamb, and he could be a lion, depending on the circumstances. Here, he is talking about something of the utmost importance: who he is and what his work is. He is not going to make light of that. He is not going to be gentle when something that vital is on the line, and that is a lesson we could all learn from.

Naturally, very few people, if any, are born being equally comfortable as both the lion and the lamb. We are rarely naturally adept at being combative when the time calls for it and gentle when the situation demands it; usually, we are comfortable with one or the other. Some people are deeply comfortable in conflict, but when the time comes to relax afterward and build one another up, they feel awkward and don’t know what to do because they are just waiting for the next fight. Other people are naturally gentle, but when the time comes to stand up and confront a situation, they get clumsy and hesitant. Jesus is perfectly both lion and lamb. He is gentle and he is fierce, and we need to learn from him. It is not easy, but it is important.

This is where the narrative can get a little confusing if you aren’t looking closely. In verse 8, Jesus says he is not going to the festival, but then verse 10 says, “However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.” Why is Jesus going if he just said he wasn’t going to?

Jesus was simply refusing to go in the way his brothers demanded. He was not going to use the festival as a public PR opportunity to aggressively declare who he was. However, devout Jews were commanded by God to attend the Festival of Tabernacles. God didn’t say, “Hey, if you’ve got some spare time, it would be real great if you could roll into Jerusalem.” If you were a follower of God, this is what you did. Jesus wasn’t about to take the year off from obedience. If the Father commanded it, he was going to do it. So, sure enough, he went—not to prove a point to his siblings, but privately, to be a keeper of the law and to fulfill what God required.

Verse 11 continues: “Now at the festival the Jewish leaders were watching for Jesus and asking, ‘Where is he?’ Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, ‘He is a good man.’ Others replied, ‘No, he deceives the people.’ But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the leaders.”

Contrast the crowd’s silence with what we have seen from Jesus. Jesus was avoiding a public confrontation with the leaders because it wasn’t the right time; he was listening and waiting for God’s perfect timing. But the crowds in Jerusalem who wanted to talk weren’t staying quiet out of a structured sense of divine timing—they were just afraid. They didn’t want to get into a conflict with the leaders.

As you look ahead at these next 12 months and think about what you want to accomplish, I would bet God has put something specific on your heart. There is likely something you feel called to do for Him in this coming calendar year. And maybe you are a little afraid of it. Maybe you think to yourself that there is a personal cost associated with it that you don’t want to pay. Maybe your schedule is already packed, you don’t have time for one more thing, and you’re wondering if God can just wait another year. Maybe you don’t want to come off as weird to the people around you, and you aren’t interested in looking strange or paying that price.

Whatever the reason, if you are afraid, don’t be. If God is with you, who can stand against you? Why would you know what God wants for you and choose not to do it? What a tragic way to waste a year of your life. Do you think God put you on this earth and said, “Well, they have a set number of years, but this upcoming one doesn’t really matter. They can just fritter that one away with whatever they feel like because I don’t have any work for them this year”? You are a servant of God, and He has work for you.

Do not be afraid. That doesn’t mean you should leave today feeling like you have to run blindly right into the fire. Maybe it isn’t the exact time yet. Pray about it. If you feel unprepared, maybe you are. There is a proper season for the work He has for you. Pray to Him, think deeply about it, and discern the right timing. What do you need to gather? What is the right moment to step out into what He is asking?

When Jesus came to this earth, he didn’t say, “Well, I’m not sure when the Father wants me to die on that cross, so I’m just not even going to worry about it.” No, Jesus lived in an intimate, constant relationship with the Father, waiting and preparing. He didn’t wait because he was kicking the can down the road; he waited because he knew there was an exact right time for everything.

Pray to God about what He has put on your heart for this coming year. Prepare yourself, and trust that He is entirely sufficient for the work He has laid out for you. Amen.

John 6:41-71: Who Can Accept It?

Video Teaching
Verse-by-Verse Commentary
Full Transcript

From the Pulpit

Commentary

41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

  1. The crowd doubted the evidence first, insisting that Jesus owed them a better miracle since their ancestors ate bread from Moses.  Now, they move from attacking the evidence to attacking his identity.

  2. “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?
    1. They grumble at Jesus’s claim to be the bread from heaven, questioning his origins: “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph… How can he now say, I came down from heaven?”

    2. “These Jews were far off from the bread of heaven, and knew not how to hunger after it. They had the jaws of their heart languid; with open ears they were deaf, they saw and stood blind.” -Augustine, Tractate 26, 1.

43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

  1. Christ’s Response

    1. Jesus answers their attack on his identity by explaining their doubt.  Why can’t they come to him?  Because the Father has not drawn them.  All of this is in the Father’s plan.

    2. Jesus is the only one able to see God.  He has knowledge in a way nobody else has.  Even Moses could only see God by hiding in a rock and seeing his back (Exodus 33:21-22).  Jesus is God and can see God in His fullness.

    3. He reiterates his promise: those who believe have eternal life.  Previous bread only delayed death.  Christ’s flesh will end it.

  2. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them,”

    1. “[H]ave I not myself heard you say in your heart, ‘Jesus, Jesus, my whole trust Is in thee: I know that no righteousness of my own can save me, but only thou, O Christ, sink or swim, I cast myself on thee?’ Oh, my brother, thou art drawn by the Father, for thou couldst not have come unless he had drawn thee. Sweet thought! And if he has drawn thee, dost thou know what is the delightful inference? Let me repeat one text, and may that comfort thee: ‘The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.’ Yes, my poor weeping brother, inasmuch as thou art now coming to Christ, God has drawn thee; and inasmuch as he has drawn thee, it is a proof that he has loved thee from before the foundation of the world. Let thy heart leap within thee, thou art one of his.” -Charles Spurgeon, “Human Inability,” Mar. 7, 1858.

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “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. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

  1. First, they doubted the evidence, telling Jesus that their ancestors got bread from Moses and they deserved a better miracle.  Second, they doubted his identity, insisting that he was just the son of Joseph, not anyone from heaven.  Now, they doubt his message, claiming that he’s not even coherent.

  2. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

    1. The crowd fixates on a highly literal objection: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” even though Jesus speaks in a metaphor that points towards a profound spiritual reality.

      1. This rejection is very similar to when Nicodemos objected to Jesus’s language about being “born again” in John 3:4.
          
  3. Jesus doesn’t back down; he doubles down: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you… my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”  He has no interest in slowly chipping away at his message to accommodate people who have no real interest in it.

    1. “Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man – Spiritually: unless ye draw continual virtue from him by faith. Eating his flesh is only another expression for believing.”  -John Wesley, John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes of the NT, Jn 6.

    2. “It should be noted that this can refer either to spiritual eating or to sacramental eating. If it refers to spiritual eating, there is no doubt about the application… However, if it is applied to sacramental eating, a problem arises… since in the one receiving the Eucharist actual reverence and devotion are required, which those who do not have the full use of reason, such as children and the mentally ill, do not have, and therefore it is in no way to be given to them.” -Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on John, Lecture 7, 969.

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

  1. “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

    1. Often, so called “hard teachings” are less about comprehension and more about acceptance.

      1. One of the top defenses against countercultural commands is “I don’t understand this part.”  Verses like Mark 10:2-12 (Jesus on Divorce) and 1 Timothy 1:10 (Paul on sexuality) are more than clear as they’re worded, but many still claim that they can’t understand what the Bible says on these topics.

      2. Often “I’m confused” masks unwillingness to accept teachings that challenge personal preferences. The Christian life asks, “Do we trust that God knows more than we do and that his ways are good?”

    2. Jesus asks, “Does this offend you?” and warns that if they stumble here, they will be further confounded by future events like his ascension.

    3. Jesus does not water down his teaching or chase those leaving; he invites trust beyond comfortable words, preparing disciples for wild things to come.

  2. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them… no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

    1. Jesus knew from the beginning who did not believe and who would betray him.

  3. “Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.”

    1. Jesus’s words are “full of Spirit and life;” understanding and embracing them relies on divine action, not just human effort.

  4. Augustine famously wrote about this struggle to know God and approach him by drawing on Romans 10:14 in Confessions.

    1. “Lord, what comes first: asking for your help or praising you?  Do we start a life with you by asking for your help?  Or do we need to know who you are before we can do that?  How could we ask for your help if we don’t know who you are?  We might start talking to you like you were some totally different being!  Or do we start out by asking for your help so that we can know you?  But how could we ask for help from a god that we don’t believe in?  And how could we believe in that god if nobody brought the Gospel to us?  In the end, people who seek the Lord always end up praising him, because anyone who seeks will find, and anyone who finds will praise.  I’m seeking you, Lord, by asking for your help.  I’m calling on your name while believing completely in you because the Gospel was brought to me.  You gave me faith, and now that faith is crying out to you.” -Augustine, Confessions, Ch. 1.

    2. If you can’t see God, pray to Him.  “Knock and the door will be opened.” (Matt. 7:7)

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

  1. “You do not want to leave too, do you?

    1. As people leave due to his “hard teaching, Jesus asks the Twelve if they also wish to leave.  It had to have been an emotionally-charged moment as thousands left and he turned to his closest friends.

    2. Peter’s confession: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life…” isn’t just a buddy cheering up a sad friend.  Peter sincerely believes in everything that Jesus is said.  He’s seen the evidence, he acknowledges Jesus’s identity, and he believes in the message.

  2. “Yet one of you is a devil!”
    1. Jesus repeatedly forewarns about Judas’s betrayal, which does not change Judas’s course.  What God has destined will not be changed by human will, even if Judas has every opportunity to do otherwise.

    2. The disciples were tested through all of this.  The crowd left, but they stayed despite how unpopular it was.  This wasn’t the end of the testing.  Their faith would continue to be tested throughout their lives, and not everyone would pass in the end.

    3. “Mark the wisdom of Christ: He neither, by exposing him, makes him shameless and contentious; nor again emboldens him, by allowing him to think himself concealed.” -Chrysostom, Hom. xlvii. 4.

 

Full Transcript

For weeks we have talked about this question: If God is all-powerful, why doesn’t he give us everything we want? We have looked at wrong answer after wrong answer, haven’t we? We’ve looked at the prosperity gospel—this claim that God wants to give you everything you could possibly imagine, and the only thing holding him back is you! You don’t have the faith. If you did, you’d have that new car. That doesn’t align with scripture. The apostles were not promised health or wealth, and they did not get it.

We looked at the claims that God deals with spiritual stuff, that he doesn’t deal with earthly stuff because that’s beneath him. Don’t go to him for stuff like food or money; it’s beneath him. He deals with spiritual things. Also, not true. Throughout this chapter, we saw God dealing with very physical things. He multiplied bread and fish; He helped His apostles get across a sea. These are all very physical, worldly things going on, and he deals with each of them without being disgusted. God made the world; he certainly doesn’t hate it. It’s not beneath him.

Then last week, we even looked at the classic atheist response: if God’s all-powerful, why doesn’t he give us everything we want? They would say, because he can’t, because he’s not real. We see bad things happen every day. If there was an all-powerful, good God, wouldn’t he stop those bad things from happening? Of course he would, but he doesn’t—because he can’t, because he’s not real. The atheists would have us dead to rights if that’s the God the Bible described. If the Bible said there is an all-powerful God, and he’s good, and no bad things will ever happen to you, what would we say in response?

That’s not what the Bible says. The Bible never says that you’re not going to suffer. As a matter of fact, many people in the Bible do suffer despite following God. The true biblical answer to this that we finally get to dwell on now is this: God won’t always give us what we want, but He’ll give us what we need. God’s miracles are not at our beck and call. There it is, and he has told us what his will is. He’s told us in no uncertain terms what he wants to do. He said, “I want you to live eternally. I want to destroy sin and death.” Part of the problem is we are still addicted in many ways to sin and death.

Giving us what we want would actually go against what he wants in many cases. God has to find a way to rehabilitate us, to help us seek what is good in an eternal sense, not just in a temporary sense. Sometimes that won’t be easy. The question is, can we trust him? Knowing what he said he’s going to do, knowing what his goals are, and knowing that they don’t always align with ours, do we trust him?

We’re going to look at that even more today as we continue on from where we left off. Let’s briefly refresh our memories. We began chapter six four weeks ago. All the way back then, where did we start? Jesus was teaching and he was healing by the Sea of Galilee, and there were all these people—five thousand or more. They didn’t have anything to eat. Jesus turns to Philip, “Hey, we need to feed these people.” Philip says, “Impossible! Can’t be done!” Meanwhile, a boy offers Jesus some bread and some fish, and Jesus starts handing it out. He just keeps going and going. There is not only enough; there is more than enough. At this point, the crowd gets to thinking and they say, “Hey, if he can do that with bread, what else can he do? I want this guy working for me. Let’s make him our king whether he wants to be king or not. He’s going to solve our problems.” Jesus goes up a mountain to pray, and he tells his disciples to go across the sea.

That night there is a horrible storm, and they are paddling and paddling, trying to get across the sea. All night they only get halfway. Muscles aching, blisters on their hands, not getting where they want to go, but Jesus comes to them over the water. The second they trust him and let him onto their boat, they’re right where they want to be. They have learned a lesson, but the crowd has not. The next day they wake up and say, “Hey, where’d Jesus go? I can’t find him anywhere.” So after searching, they get on some boats. They go across the Sea of Galilee, and they start searching on the other side. Finally, they go into Capernaum. They find Jesus teaching there in a synagogue, and they start asking him questions. They say, “Jesus, where have you been?” He says, “You’re here because you want bread and fish. You want something that’s going to be good for a day. I want to give you something that’s good for eternity. Believe in me. Believe in me and you will have eternal life.”

They immediately start to doubt him. The first doubt they throw out there is they doubt whether he’s given them sufficient evidence to believe in him. They say, “Okay, so you gave us some bread once. Not a big deal. Moses did that. He did the bread thing. You’re going to have to do better than bread if you want us to believe in you.” Which is pretty ironic. They came all this way because of the bread. Obviously, they were impressed, but the second Jesus says, “Trust in me, not in yourselves,” then they start to bristle. Then they start to take a step back. Hold on! I don’t know if I am ready to trust you. I liked the bread trick, but that’s not enough. They’re going to continue to take steps back. They’re going to doubt Jesus three times throughout the course of this, moving from doubting whether he’s given them enough evidence, to doubting who he is next, and then finally they are going to doubt whether his message even makes sense at all.

That is where we pick up after the first doubt, and Jesus has reaffirmed that he does indeed offer eternal life. He gets a little wordier this time, a little fuller. Pay attention to that. We pick up at verse forty-one. At this, the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?” This guy’s not so special. I know his dad. That’s Joe’s kid. This is not a big deal. Now he’s acting like he’s all special. “I’m from heaven. You’re not.” I know where you’re from. I know your parents. Again, strange, isn’t it?

Just yesterday, they called him the prophet in the line of Moses and wanted to force him to be their king. They obviously knew there was something special about this guy, but the second Jesus tries to acknowledge that and explain it to them, they take another step back. Jesus responds to their second doubt saying, “Stop grumbling among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and has learned comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Notice again—he’s gotten even more complicated. Jesus doesn’t water it down when people object. If anything, He seems to get a little more intense. He’ll explain why. But notice also here he’s gotten more complex, but he hasn’t gotten insanely, unfollowably complex. The core of his message that he said all the way back in verse twenty-nine is still there, and we know how he got there. He said, “You are here for bread. You were impressed by loaves and fishes. You wanted bread for a day. I want to give you bread that will last for eternity. Believe in me.” He’s gotten a little more complex, but that’s still there, and they’ve seen the argument kind of develop. I don’t think it’s unfollowable. I don’t think at this point there is any rational reason to believe that Jesus is saying, “Hey, come up here and take a bite out of my arm. It’s going to do something for you.” No, obviously he’s not.

The crowd goes in that direction anyway. They argue sharply among themselves and say, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Suddenly, Jesus doesn’t make sense to them anymore. We saw this all the way back in John chapter 3 with Nicodemus. Jesus told Nicodemus, “You must be born again.” And what did Nicodemus say? “Jesus, come on. That’s ridiculous. What, you want me to crawl back inside my mother’s womb? You don’t make any sense.” Jesus did not invent metaphor. It was around; it was well-established since the beginning of time. Nicodemus knew that Jesus was not proposing what he said, in the same way that this crowd understands that Jesus does not literally want them to go up and tear him to pieces with their teeth. They know what he’s asking for. They just don’t want to do it. The confusion with the crowd is not up here. It’s not that they don’t understand; it’s that they’re not willing to accept it, and that’s a different thing.

I’ve seen this many times in the church. I remember, for example, there was one church where they would read two scriptures every Sunday, and it was from the lectionary, so they were all pre-chosen for the entire year. The first scripture would always be read by a member of the congregation. The second scripture would always be read by the pastor, and the pastor would preach from the second passage. One day, the congregation member gets up to read their first one. She stands up there and she reads the Mark passage—Mark chapter ten, verses two through twelve:

Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” “What did Moses command you?” he replied. They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.” And when they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

Sure enough, they read this. Then they followed it up with this in front of the whole church. They said, “And as a divorced person, I’m confused. I’m so confused by this. I hope the pastor’s about to tell us what this means because I don’t understand it. I sure hope they have some answers.” It was uncomfortable. The pastor got up there and disarmed the situation. They said, “I’m actually going to preach on the second passage. But if anyone’s confused and would like to talk about the first passage you heard, come to my office hours. Delighted to talk about that or anything else you’re confused about.” I think the uncomfortable thing wasn’t necessarily the combativeness; it wasn’t that as much as the fact that the passage isn’t really that unclear. She knew what it said; she just didn’t like it. She wasn’t willing to accept it, and again, that can happen in so many places.

I remember with the split of the United Methodist Church, I can remember a colleague coming to me and saying, “I am wrestling with this because one of the things people seem to disagree on is same-sex marriage. And I just don’t understand. I read this morning in First Timothy, chapter one, verse ten. It says, ‘Those who practice homosexuality will not enter the kingdom of God.’ That’s what it says, but I don’t know what that means. That doesn’t make any sense because we don’t know what Paul was dealing with. That could mean any number of things. I mean, maybe he’s talking about prostitution. Maybe he’s talking about pedophilia. We just can’t know what Paul meant. We can’t know. I’m too confused. I don’t understand what he was trying to say. If only he would have left a second letter explaining his first letter, maybe we could have known what he meant, but we just can’t. It’s so confusing.”

I responded and said, “Well, what if he meant what he said? What if the two thousand years of Christians who all believed that he meant what he said were right, and it’s exactly what it looks like? I think your concerns are because the ethics that are often practiced today suggest that if you have any restrictions on sexuality, you must hate someone. Jesus never tells us to hate anyone—by no means. We’re supposed to love people, but there are certain ways that God tells us to shepherd our sexuality. That’s what the church has traditionally held. That’s what makes sense in the passage. What if Paul meant what he said?” He just responded, “That’s ridiculous. You’re being ridiculous. You can’t know what he meant. You can’t know. It’s impossible to know.” He knew what it said. He just wasn’t willing to accept it.

I don’t say this as someone who always is willing to accept what the Bible says immediately. We’ve all had those instances, haven’t we, where we read something—something that touches a nerve, something that calls us out, something that makes us say, “Jesus is going too far here. That’s not… I’m confused. I don’t understand what this means.” Often the confusion is not up here; it’s here. God has shared something that isn’t the way we would have done it. Do we trust him? Do we trust that he knows more than we do, and that his ways are good?

The crowd doesn’t. The crowd thinks he’s too baffling. They’re not ready to trust him. In verse fifty-three, Jesus responds again and again. Notice he will not make it even a little bit easier; he will get more intense again. He says, “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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.”

“This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Really intense. He’s just gone right out there. They’ve said, “I object on this premise,” and he says, “Let’s talk about that premise. I’m going to go with it. I’m going to run with it.” Why is he doing this? He’s about to explain. Verse 60: On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Notice what they say there. They don’t say, “This is a hard teaching. Who can understand it?” They understand. This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it? Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where He was before?”

Here he’s explaining why he is getting more intense. If he was chasing people down saying, “No, don’t walk away. Hear me out. Let’s work through this together”—Jesus doesn’t do that, though, and that’s consistent throughout the scripture. Think about the story of the rich young ruler who came to Jesus and said, “Jesus, I need you. I want to follow you. What do I need to do?” Jesus said, “Sell everything, give the money to the poor, and come follow me.” The man leaves sad because he’s not willing to do that. Jesus doesn’t chase him down; he lets him go. That seems to be the same spirit Jesus has here. He gets more intense. He doesn’t water it down. He says, “Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before?”

If you can’t believe this, this is just a starting place. This is nothing. Just wait, things get crazier from here. If you can’t accept this, there are going to be things to come that will utterly confound you. You are going to see the miraculous and balk. You are going to see things like me ascending—I’m going to leave. What are you going to do? You’re going to panic! Why? Because right now you’re counting on me making it easy, coming to you, and constantly making things easier. I don’t want you to trust my pretty words. I want you to trust me. Do you trust me? Because if you do, you will be able to weather anything that comes—all the wild stuff. That’s good for us today, too. God isn’t done doing wild things. If we can’t trust him in the little stuff, how can we trust him with things that haven’t even happened yet?

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of Spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

When we see Jesus getting more intense and not chasing people down, it can feel like he must hate them or that he doesn’t care about them. We think if he really cared, he would make it easier. Jesus says, no. Everything I have spoken is spirit and life. Those who are enabled by the Father will get it. What does that mean? Here, we’ve got a group of thousands of people that we know are genuinely interested in Jesus. They have followed him to both sides of a sea and hunted for him on either side. They care, but they’re looking by their own power, not by God’s power. When humanity sinned and fell away from God, we became incapable of doing good.

We were meant to function hand in hand with God. The Holy Spirit is supposed to be our fuel, keeping us going and drawing us closer to God. When we cut ourselves off from God, how are we supposed to do good without the Holy Spirit? We’re capable of no good without God, and that includes things like knowing God. Even just knowing God is a good thing, and without God, we’re not even capable of that.

So what’s the solution? We have to ask God for help in knowing God. That seems a little crazy, I know. It’s a bit of a mind-bender. Even in his seminal work, Confessions, Augustine of Hippo admits that this is incredibly confusing. How do I do that? How do I call on a God that I don’t know yet? I have to know Him to call on Him, don’t I? And yet, when a preacher brings that word, it provides enough information to help us call on Him. You are loyal, God. You listen, and you allow us to draw on you to know you better. The only real way to know God is through God. We need His help to even know Him.

That is applicable to us today as well. If you are in a place where you can’t see God—you are looking and you just can’t see Him in the world around you—ask him for help. Just pray a simple prayer: God, reveal yourself to me. Help me to see you in this world. Help me to know you better. Knock and the door will be opened.

Verse 66: From this time, many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the twelve. We know Jesus knows the answer to this. That’s been one of the focuses throughout John chapter six. Every time there has been a question, the text tells us that Jesus already knew. It said just a few verses ago that Jesus already knew who was going to follow him and who wasn’t. He knows. But you have to imagine this is an emotionally charged question, because watching thousands of people turn away—thousands of people he loved, thousands of people he came here to save and to die for—watching them walk away must have broken his heart. He turns to the twelve: “You don’t want to leave me too, do you?” Simon Peter responds, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” What a beautiful response. Peter gets a lot of things wrong, but this is beautiful. Lord, to whom shall we go? Where else could we go? Jesus, this is home. We belong with you. We wouldn’t know where else to go. Of course, we’re going to be here.

Is Jesus your hope? Could you say that? Who else would we go to? There is nowhere else. I’ll be here no matter what; it’s where I belong. “You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” He doesn’t say, “We have come to believe that we believe in you,” or, “We’ve come to believe that it’s possible that you are the way.” He doesn’t say, “We have come to believe that we have faith that you are the one.” He says, “We believe and we know.” The witness of God opened his eyes. He doesn’t just theorize; he knows. The evidence is sufficient. He knows.

The Holy Spirit can do that. You can know who God is. Wouldn’t this be a perfect place to end? Honestly, for a while, I thought it ended there. Isn’t it a nice triumphal ending? Everyone leaves, but the disciples stay and they’re not going anywhere. It doesn’t end there, though; it goes on just a little more. Jesus replies, “Have I not chosen you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil.” He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the twelve, was later to betray him.

This is not the only time Jesus says something like this. There are multiple instances in Scripture where Jesus, in front of Judas, foretells that Judas will betray him. It doesn’t seem to change Judas’s mind. Judas does not seem to be someone who is particularly open to meditating on the words of Jesus. We’ve all known that person who, whenever they hear criticism, looks at everyone else. I imagine Judas is like that. If Judas were around today and working in an office, and the boss came out and said, “All right guys, this quarter we’re going to have to work extra hard. I know some people have been slacking. I need you to buckle down,” Judas would be there saying, “Yeah! I know you guys have been slacking. Time to get serious.” Meanwhile, Judas is the one sleeping at his desk. He doesn’t even recognize it. He just looks at everyone else and says they’re the problem.

I imagine Judas is in just the same place here. Judas unapologetically is the one who is going to betray Jesus, and yet when Jesus says, “One of you is going to betray me,” I imagine Judas looking really severely at everyone else, maybe even looking at Peter. But it’s Judas. He’s a hypocrite. He doesn’t think these things through.

The passage ends on a note of telling them that it’s not done. They have faith here and they’ve learned, but it’s not over. There is more to come. There are new challenges that they will have to learn to trust God through. They’ve learned to trust Jesus even when the crowd turns away, but now there is a new circumstance: one of the twelve will turn away. There’s something new that they will go through, and they will need a new depth of trust in Jesus because even one of the ones that he chose will turn away.

The Christian life is always one of new challenges. There’s never a moment where you just say, “I have faith in Jesus,” and you’re done, you’re finished, and you never have to worry about it again because you trust Him and that’s good forever. You will still be concerned, you will still be afraid, and you will still be confused. The Christian life continually involves gaining a new, deeper faith. There are always new things that you will wrestle with and new challenges that life throws at you. Can you trust Jesus there? Can you trust him in what’s next? That development of faith doesn’t end after you just do it once. Continually, we are invited to know him better and to trust him even more.

Here at the end, let’s ask our question one last time: If God is all-powerful, why doesn’t he give me what I want? Why doesn’t he guarantee health and wealth? God’s miracles are not at our beck and call; they’re at His. We can ask him for help, and sometimes we’ll get it, and sometimes we won’t. Ultimately, a big part of this is trusting his will. He’s made his will known to us; he’s told us what he’s seeking. He is seeking the end of sin and death itself. He is seeking something wonderful, and he’s trying to help us. He’s told us that.

Can we trust him? Can we trust him when things are easy and when things are hard, when we get the miracle and when we don’t? God has not promised us anything in this life; he’s promised us everything in the next. Do we believe that? Can we trust him? The disciples learned to trust him. The crowd did not; they found every excuse in the book. Can we trust him? We have to learn to trust if we really want to be followers of God—to trust that in all circumstances he is seeking our good, our wellness, and that he loves us immensely.

Amen.

John 6:25-40 The Bread of Life

Video Teaching
Verse-by-Verse Commentary
Full Transcript

From the Pulpit

Commentary

25 When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”

  1. Realizing Jesus didn’t board the disciples’ boat, the crowd searches both shores and eventually finds Him teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum (John 6:59). They may not fully understand what Jesus is trying to teach them, but there’s no doubt as to their zeal!  They’ve come a long way to find Jesus.

26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

  1. “Rabbi, when did you get here?”
    1. Jesus doesn’t answer the question with any of the expected data (what, when, where, why).  He gives an answer that’s entirely different from the question they asked!

       

    2. Sometimes, God leaves questions unanswered, even as He reveals himself to us.  There are always details that we won’t quite understand on this side of eternity, no matter how hard we search for them.

       

    3. When he was on his deathbed passing away, Thomas Aquinas, one of the most famed theologians in Christian history, said, “Everything I have written is but straw!”  If one of the deepest thinkers of God knew he knew nothing compared to the fullness of God’s revelation, how much can we claim to truly know the depths of God?

       

    4. We can’t understand everything, but we can be humble enough to accept what we’ve been given and trust it given its source.

       

  1. “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.”

     

    1. Jesus explains their motive to them: they seek Him because his miracle gave them full bellies, not because they grasped the miracle’s meaning. They’re stopping so far short of what they could get!

       

    2. The problem isn’t wanting too much but too little.  They avoided hunger for an evening and are excited about that, when they could avoid death for an eternity.

       

    3. “It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.” -C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory

       

    4. “Not that he forbids his followers to labor that they may procure daily food; but he shows that the heavenly life ought to be preferred to this earthly life, because the godly have no other reason for living here than that, being sojourners in the world, they may travel rapidly towards their heavenly country.” -John Calvin, Commentary on John, 6.

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

  1. “What must we do…
      1. [T]hey said this, not that they might learn, and do them, but to obtain from Him another exhibition of His bounty. -Chrysostom, Homlily xIv. 1.

         

  1. “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent”
    1. The belief that Jesus is talking about isn’t just an acknowledgement that he exists or any other sort of intellectual affirmation of the facts.  It’s trust.  This kind of belief is the kind that we mean when we tell someone we love, “I believe in you.”

       

    2. Laws are important, but they aren’t the core of the Christian life.  You don’t become a member of God’s family because you followed the rules well enough.  We’re adopted into the family of God through Christ.  We follow the law because we love our Father and trust him, not because it earns us our spot in his family..  

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”

32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

  1. “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you?”
     
    1. Even after they witnessed one of Christ’s miracles firsthand, they insist that they should get to see an even greater miracle so that Jesus can earn their trust.  Their ancestors saw this miracle!  It’s too old!  What’s something better that Jesus can offer up?

       

    2. They want to stay in control, rather than yield to Jesus.  Belief is less about evidence than most people think.  The inclination of the heart is more influential than any amount of evidence.

       

    3. Romans 1:20 explains that we’ve all seen enough evidence of God’s existence just by looking around creation: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”  Even with more miracles, a resistant heart reinterprets signs as coincidence and asks for more.

       

  2. “it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven,”

     

    1. Jesus corrects an important detail: Moses didn’t give anyone bread from heaven.  God gave them bread from heaven, and he’s offering it to them again right now.

       

    2. “Therefore, both that manna signified this meat, and all those signs were signs of me. You have longed for signs of me; do ye despise Him that was signified? Not Moses then gave bread from heaven: God gives bread. But what bread? Manna, perhaps? No, but the bread which manna signified, namely, the Lord Jesus Himself. My Father gives you the true bread.” – Augustine, Tractate 25, 13.

       

    3. “‘But was it not true bread that their ancestors had in the desert?’
      I answer: If we define the true as defined against the false, then that bread was true, for the miracle of the manna was not false; but if we define the true as defined against the symbolic, then that bread was not true, but a symbol pointing to the spiritual bread, namely, our Lord Jesus Christ, whom the manna signified, as the Apostle says, 1 Cor. c. 10, 3: ‘all ate the same spiritual food.’” -Aquinas, Commentary on John, Lecture 4, 908

34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

  1. “I am the bread of life.”
    1. “He does not say, I am the bread of nourishment, but of life, for, whereas all things brought death, Christ hath quickened us by Himself. But the life here is not our common life, but that which is not cut short by death: He that cometh to Me shall never hunger; and He that believeth on Me shall never thirst.” -Theophylact, Commentary on John, Ch. 6

       

  1. “I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.”

     

    1. Jesus isn’t there to do the crowd’s will or even his own will!  He lives to do the Father’s will.  And what is that will?  Giving eternal life to those given to him.

       

    2. God’s number one objective is solving the biggest problems: sin and death.  Daily issues matter, but they’re not nearly as big and don’t matter nearly as much as we think they do.

       

  2. “I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.”
    1. “They therefore who by God’s unerring providence are foreknown, and predestined, called, justified, glorified, even before their new birth, or before they are born at all, are already the sons of God, and cannot possibly perish; these are they who truly come to Christ. By Him there is given also perseverance in good unto the end; which is given only to those who will not perish. Those who do not persevere will perish.” -Augustine, de Cor. et Gratia, c. ix.

       

  1. Life constantly throws new problems at us.  Even today’s solutions lead to tomorrow’s problems!  Bread today requires bread tomorrow.  Most problems and solutions are temporary.  Only God endures.

 

Full Transcript

We’ve been going through John chapter 6 here. The big question we’ve had on our minds as we go through is: if God is all-powerful, why doesn’t he give us what we want? Why doesn’t he give us health and wealth? We’ve thought of some different ways that people today answer that question.

The first week, we thought about prosperity gospel preachers—the people who say, “Why doesn’t God give you everything you want? He wants to! He wants to give you a million dollars. He wants to give you a new car. The problem is you. You don’t have enough faith. If you had more faith, God would be able to give you everything he wants to give you.” But when we look in John chapter 6, sometimes Jesus does say no. Sometimes Jesus puts people through difficult trials. Jesus doesn’t always give us an easy life. Not only that, but as we look through Christian history, there have been a lot of Christians who were very good, devout, and faithful, but were neither particularly healthy nor particularly wealthy. God doesn’t always give us everything we want.

Then we looked at another way people might try to answer that question, one that falls short of Christian orthodoxy. We thought about the people who kind of spiritualize it. They say, “Why doesn’t God give us everything we want? Because that’s not really what He does. That’s not what God’s interested in. God is not a god of earthly things; He’s a god of heavenly things. Go to Him with problems that are on your heart, problems that you know are on your mind, and problems that are about salvation, courage, and the things you can’t see and touch. That’s what God deals with. He doesn’t deal with stuff like food or money; that’s too earthly. It’s not good to go to him with things like that.”

But again, looking at John chapter 6, God does work that way. God works in ways that definitely impact the earth and earthly things. He multiplies food for hungry people. When his disciples are struggling to get across the Sea of Galilee, he helps them get to the other side. Not only does he repeatedly find ways to change the world, but he uses things that people actually do. He takes this offering of bread and fish from a boy and multiplies it. He takes the hard work that the disciples have put in and gets them all the way across. God does care not only about the physical world, but about what we do in it. He wants to see our work and magnify it. God’s not just a God of the heart; he’s the God over everything.

Today I want to introduce one more kind of answer to that question. The two we’ve looked at at least have a Christian framework. Today we’re going to look at one that does not: “Why doesn’t God give me everything I want if he’s all-powerful?” Some people respond, “Because he’s not real. If God were a person, we would not suffer the way we do.” People who have this answer very often have a wound they’re dealing with—some personal frustration or some hurt that is real. They ask things like, “If God’s real, why did my mom get sick? If God is all-powerful, why did my child die? If God is real, why did I suffer the way that I did while He didn’t lift a finger to help me? If God is all-powerful, He’s not good. Frankly, I don’t even think He’s real.”

That alone, I think, makes some of us hesitate. We see the woundedness and we don’t want to be insensitive, but I think we still need to acknowledge that that’s a wrong way of thinking. It’s easier to identify it when it’s in the positive. It’s easier to say, “God isn’t going to give you a million dollars just because you want it,” than it is to say, “God won’t always make your life easy, even when important things are on the line—even when you’re asking for someone you deeply care about to be healed, or even when you’re dealing with basic household economics and things aren’t coming out in the positive.” God doesn’t guarantee that everything is always going to go your way. Even when you aren’t just trying to get something actively positive, but are enduring something negative, there’s not always a miracle that comes in and sweeps you off your feet, hard as that is to acknowledge.

But it’s not that God doesn’t care. God cares. His plans are often hard for us to understand, but he cares. Do we trust him? That’s what’s at stake, and that’s what we’re going to be engaging with throughout these passages: trusting God even when we don’t get the things that seem like an obvious good, things that He knows are good.

Let’s engage here in chapter 6, starting at verse 22. Remember, we started at the beginning of the chapter. Thousands of people go around the Sea of Galilee to listen to Jesus speak and to have Him heal people for them. Jesus turns to Philip and says, “How are we going to feed all these people?” This is a test; he knows what he’s going to do. Philip says, “We can’t. Too many people. Can’t afford it.” Then the boy offers up his bread and fish. Jesus starts handing it out and just keeps handing it out. He just keeps going and going, handing out more than enough from this tiny little meal of a kid. The crowd sees that, and they get to thinking, “All right, if this guy can make bread and fish, what else can he do? I want this guy solving all my problems. Let’s get him working for us. Let’s make him the king. I don’t care what he thinks, I want him to be working for me.”

Jesus sees this happening. He sends the disciples across the Sea of Galilee, and he himself goes up on a mountain to pray. It’s a stormy day, and a storm kicks up over the sea. The disciples row all night, from evening until the dawn breaks, muscles aching and blisters forming on their hands, and they’re only halfway after all those hours. Jesus sees them, comes to them over the water, and they accept him onto their boat. Immediately, they’re where they need to be. I’m not saying that in an abstract way; they are at the other side. The second they take Jesus into their boat, they reach the other side.

Now we pick up, but we’re going to go back. We’re going to be with the crowd—the same crowd that saw Jesus do the loaves and fishes. They’re waking up the next morning and figuring things out. The next day, the crowd that had stayed on the opposite side of the lake realized that only one boat had been there, and that Jesus had not entered it with his disciples, but that they had gone away alone. Then some boats from Tiberias landed near the place where the people had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. Once the crowd realized that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they got into the boats and went to Capernaum in search of Jesus.

They wake up and they realize, after enduring this night of storms—I don’t know how they slept, if they brought tents, or what their sleeping arrangement was—but they wake up and wonder, “Where’d the disciples go?” Gone. They took a boat last night. “Where’s Jesus?” Nobody knows. Nobody saw him. Maybe they even went up that mountain. Maybe someone saw him going up there. They’re peeking around for him. This is thousands of people; you can imagine how chaotic it would be to figure out what’s going on! So they spend all morning trying to figure it out. They don’t find him, and they don’t find any of the disciples, so they go on a search for Jesus.

Here’s just a little detail. I don’t think it has any deep spiritual or symbolic meaning, but I just think it’s a good thing to remember. Did you notice that boats come? The disciples were the only ones with a boat last night. There were no other boats—thousands of people, no boats. Now there are boats landing to take them. Why were there no boats the night before? Because there was a storm coming! Everyone else had taken their boats in. The disciples were the only ones crazy enough to get in their boat and try to cross the sea when there was a storm of that magnitude, and even then, it was only because Jesus told them to. Little details like that are helpful. It reminds us that this is not Aesop’s fables. Boats don’t just appear and disappear at random. These are real people in the real world. There are reasons for things. When the boats weren’t there, it’s because conditions were bad and the storm might damage them. When they are there, there is a rationale to it.

Verse 25 says, “When they found him on the other side of the lake…” This is another moment where I think it would be easy to misimagine what’s going on. It’s helpful to skip ahead a little bit to get the setting. Verse 59 tells us where they find Jesus; it says Jesus was speaking to them while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. So, this does not unfold on the beach. We don’t just go hang out on the beach with the crowd while Jesus and his disciples sit quietly, waiting for everyone to catch up with them. They’ve got places to be. They’re trying to make it to Capernaum. They get there, Jesus goes to the synagogue, and he starts teaching. He doesn’t just sit there quietly while the crowd catches up. So, that’s where they are; you can keep that in your mind.

This crowd is so eager to see Jesus that they not only walk around the sea and then boat over it, but they search for him on one side and then search for him on the other side, all the way to the point where they find him teaching in a synagogue in Capernaum. As much as they don’t get Jesus, you can’t doubt that they want to. They’re trying. These are people who are really, genuinely attempting to get it—crossing the sea twice and searching for him on both sides.

When they found him on the other side, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?” Can you imagine if he answered that? “Oh yeah, I was up on the mountain praying, but then I saw down in the storm that my disciples were having a hard time. So I just kind of strolled down and walked across the water to help them out. Then I used a little bit of miraculous power to teleport them the rest of the way. We took a break that morning while you were searching, strolled into Capernaum, and I started teaching.” He doesn’t say that. You have to wonder if they would even believe it if they heard it. They’ve seen Him multiply loaves and fishes, but would they believe He can walk across water? Would they believe he can teleport boats? You have to wonder if they would be able to believe any of those things. They don’t even have a framework to think about it properly.

But we don’t get to find out because Jesus doesn’t tell them. They ask this question, and Jesus never answers it. They don’t need to know. He just moves on. God does that to us sometimes, doesn’t he? We have questions that are burning on our hearts, and we ask God, “Why, God?” And He doesn’t answer them—sometimes not for days, sometimes not for months, and sometimes we just never know. That’s not because God doesn’t want us to know Him. Scripture as a whole is a revelation of God telling us who He is, what He’s about, and what He’s doing. But there are still these things that we just don’t know.

That’s frustrating. I think it’s frustrating. I am someone who wants to know everything I possibly can, so to know that there are some things I will never know is deeply frustrating, and I know some of you have certainly endured that same frustration. But the question is: can we trust God even when we don’t know all the answers? Can we trust Him even when we lack the framework to understand them, even if He did give them to us?

Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest Christian theologians from the Middle Ages, wrote big commentaries on Scripture. He wrote giant, weighty tomes that are still read to this day, and he was one of the foremost Christian scholars of his era. When he was passing away, kind of drifting in and out of consciousness on his way to be with his Lord, his final words were, “Everything I have written is but straw.” His life’s work—some of the greatest Christian writings that we still look to—he called nothing. I don’t think he was saying that they are useless, but I do think that compared to eternity, compared to what we will know when that veil is lifted and everything is made clear to us, what we have now is so small in comparison. There are some things we just won’t know this side of eternity.

Can we trust God? Can we trust God even when He doesn’t give us the answer that we’re looking for? Jesus doesn’t give this crowd the answer they’re looking for. Instead, He says, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed, but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

First off, he immediately knows their hearts, right? Jesus knows why they’re there. There is no fooling him. He knew when they wanted to make him king, and now he knows exactly what got them there. He says, “Oh, I know why you’re here. You want more bread.” And they want more than that too, right? They want all kinds of things. They want the solution to every problem. They want to make him king so that he can execute their vision. But does Jesus scold them? Does he say, “Shame on you for wanting more bread”? Does he say, “Shame on you for wanting solutions to your problems?”  Does he say, “It doesn’t really work like that. I’m kind of tired. I can only do so many miracles a day, so I’m kind of in my cool-down period. You’ve got to understand”? He doesn’t say any of that. Instead, Jesus says, “You’re not asking for enough. You are focusing on things that are too small. You want the solution to the problem right in front of you, but you know what’s going to happen after that? Another problem. And after that, there’s going to be another problem, because that’s the way life is. There’s always something, isn’t there? There’s always something new that draws your attention.”

Jesus tells them, “I don’t just want to give you the solution to one problem. I want to give you the solution for all of your problems—the biggest solution there is. Think bigger! You’re getting distracted by the bread. I want to solve death! That’s the problem I want to solve. You are going to die someday, and I want to solve that. I want eternal life for you. I want to take away the biggest thing that is stressing everything, the thing that causes every other problem. I want to address that.”

Think bigger! Address the biggest problem there is. I think C.S. Lewis said it really well: “It would seem that our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at sea. We are far too easily pleased.” Jesus offers them more than they asked for.

It is worth addressing because I think to many people, just reading that Jesus is offering them the bread of life—this eternal life thing—feels like, “Okay, but that’s a spiritual thing. That’s not something genuinely real that I can touch and have, and that’s not the kind of solution I’m interested in. That’s a luxury.” For people who already have food, money, and their whole lives figured out, then they can dabble in things like eternal life and these theoretical problems.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs comes to mind—this idea that you can’t really focus on self-actualization until you’ve addressed a million other things, and once you get those in place, then finally you can start to think about things like spirituality and eternal life. But here’s the thing: Jesus is addressing a concrete problem, which is death.

Think about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. In many ways, it’s anti-poor. It assumes that if you don’t have the physical stuff you need, you will have no interest in addressing questions like, “Why do I exist? How do I live a good life?” There can be no bigger question than that. How are you going to live a good life if you don’t know what one is? How are you going to reach the end of your life and say, “I’m glad that I lived the way I did,” unless you know what the point was? Spirituality is not a trifle to be toyed with by people who already have life figured out. It’s the biggest question there is: why do you exist, and how do you live well? That’s what Jesus is addressing. He says, “Seek eternal life. Solve the death problem.”

Then they ask him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Verse 29: “Jesus answered, ‘The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.'” Look at their question: “What must we do to do the works God requires?” They’re thinking quid pro quo. “What do I have to do? You won’t give me this stuff; I get it. Maybe I’m not good enough. What do I have to do to get to a place where you will give me the things that I am seeking?” And what does Jesus say? “Believe in me.”

When he says “believe,” he’s not saying to theoretically affirm his existence. He’s saying it in a way that means loving trust—the same way you might say, “I believe in you” to a friend that you love. If you turned to someone and said, “I believe in you,” you certainly wouldn’t be saying, “I affirm that you exist.” You’d be saying, “I trust you. I know you’ve got this.” That’s what Jesus is talking about. That’s what he’s looking for—not just adhering to a law, and not just behaving in a way that’s acceptable. Not that laws are bad; there are a lot of laws in the Bible. They are good things, and they are intended to get you on track, but that is not the core of our relationship with God. The core of our relationship with God is trusting Him, loving Him, and believing in Him.

Can you imagine a family that functioned strictly based on rules? There was no affection at all, but all of the kids did exactly what they were told the whole time. The way that family functioned would be bizarre! It would be really weird. I know some of you who have kids are probably like, “I don’t know, I might be able to deal with that a little bit.” But that’s not what a family is about. It’s not about marching orders and strictly adhering to the rules. Love is the core of a family. The rules and laws are good; you hope your kids follow the rules because you love them and want what’s best for them, and you hope that they trust you enough to do what you ask. God wants us to be members of his family. He’s not just looking for us to take marching orders strictly. He says, “I want you to believe in me.” That’s the starting place, and we can go from there.

The crowd’s not thrilled with this answer. They respond, “What sign will you give us that we may see it and believe in you? What will you do? You want us to believe in you? What are you going to give us? Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'”

Our other passage touched on this: the Jews are seeking signs. Isn’t it interesting that they’re seeking signs even though they were already given one? They literally saw Jesus multiply bread and fish right in front of their eyes. But when Jesus says, “Trust me. You’re worrying about the little stuff. Trust me and stop worrying,” the first thing they say is, “Well, hold on. You haven’t given us enough evidence to trust you yet. You’re jumping the gun. Sure, you did the bread thing—that was interesting—but let’s be honest, the people in Moses’ day got bread from heaven. We’ve seen that one before. You’re going to have to do better than that if you want us to really trust in you.” They flip it around so that rather than putting their faith in Jesus, giving him agency, and following him, they want to be the ones in the driver’s seat. They say, “Jesus, you do what we say.” Jesus says, “Trust me,” and they say, “You haven’t given me reason to yet. Give me a little more evidence. Give me something bigger.”

That, again, I think is something many people wrestle with. I wrestled with that for a long time. Is there enough evidence? Has God given us sufficient evidence? This group had the advantage of literally seeing the multiplication of bread and fish, but even after that, did they think it was sufficient? No.

God gives us all the evidence we could possibly want. The book of Romans says that in chapter 1: all of the world has sufficient evidence to know that God exists and is good. Just by looking around, just by looking outside, we can see the universe is so intricately and carefully designed. The beauty around us alone is testimony to the fact that God exists and loves us. Who could look at the eclipse and say there’s no evidence? Who could look outside at a field and say there’s no evidence? There’s evidence all around us. God has given us evidence after evidence.

When we say there’s not enough evidence, very often God has already given it to us. But even when we get the evidence—even when God gives us a special revelation, or even when he does a miracle to show us that he’s there, he loves us, and he’s seeking us—if our heart is not in a place where we are able to trust him, there’s no amount of evidence that will be sufficient. God could give us more and more up until eternity, and it wouldn’t be enough. You get one thing and say, “God, if you give me this, I’ll believe in you.” Then you get it and say, “Eh, that’s just a coincidence. I’m going to need another one.” Then something else happens and you think, “I’m not sure. It would need to be bigger.” Being able to believe in Jesus is much less an evidence problem than some people make it out to be. It’s much less about evidence and much more about the heart. Can we trust that someone else is seeking what’s best for us, or are we unwilling to get out of the driver’s seat and trust someone else?

Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

“Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

We’re back to bread talk. They like that—something physical, something they can wrap their minds around. “Give us that.”

Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come from heaven not to do my will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should not lose anything, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

“I’m not here to do your will. I’m not here to do my will. I’m here to do the Father’s will.” And he makes the Father’s will clear in no uncertain terms. What does God want? Eternal life for us. That’s what He is seeking. He wants to solve the biggest problem there is.

As we go through life, there are a million problems that catch our eye. We are not so very different from the people who kept chasing Jesus all over the place, trying to get more miracles out of him. We face problems about where we are going to get our meals, problems about governance, and problems about economics. There are a million and one problems constantly bearing down on us. Can we trust God? Can we trust God even when we don’t get what we want all the time? That’s the question we have to endure.

God recognizes that even in spite of the individual problems stacked up against us, there’s a bigger problem bearing down on us. All of these problems that we see are only problems for a day. They are problems for a day that we will endure, we will get past, and we will continue to work through. But everything we see is passing away. None of it is permanent. The little problems aren’t permanent, and the solutions aren’t permanent. We get a bag of bread, and then we need a new bag of bread. There’s only one permanent thing, and that permanent thing is God. He lives forever, he endures, and he wants us to endure too. Put your faith in me. He says, “I will not just solve the little problems; I’m going to solve all of them. I’ve got a plan. Do you trust me?”

Do you trust him?

John 6:16-24 Jesus Walks on Water

Video Teaching
Verse-by-Verse Commentary
Full Transcript

From the Pulpit

Commentary

16 When evening came, his disciples went down to the lake, 17 where they got into a boat and set off across the lake for Capernaum. By now it was dark, and Jesus had not yet joined them. 18 A strong wind was blowing and the waters grew rough. 19 When they had rowed about three or four miles, 

  1. “…they got into a boat and set off…”
    1. Why did Jesus send his disciples away from the crowd while he went to the mountain? Knowing that the crowd had differed from Christ’s teachings so much that he had to remove himself, it is likely he wanted his disciples exposed to the same tempting thought patterns.

    2. The crowd preferred the gift to the giver.  The disciples left their company, assuring that their thoughts would not start to drift towards their way of thinking.

  1. “A strong wind was blowing and the waters grew rough.”

    1. The Sea of Galilee, 600 feet below sea level and surrounded by mountains, is prone to sudden, strong winds and storms.

    2. “Darkness was increasing, discernment was diminishing, iniquity was growing. When, therefore, they had rowed about twenty-five or thirty furlongs. Meanwhile they struggled onward, kept advancing; nor did those winds and storms, and waves and darkness effect either that the ship should not make way, or that it should break in pieces and founder; but amid all these evils it went on.” -Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 25, 6.

  2. …they had rowed about three or four miles…”

    1. The disciples rowed all night (six to eight hours) in a brutal storm and only reached halfway across the sea (about three to four miles).

    2. This struggle wasn’t some sort of punishment; Jesus Himself sent them into the storm.  He has something to teach them here.

    3. Even though the disciples couldn’t see Jesus, Mark 6:48 explicitly says that Jesus was watching them straining at the oars from the top of the mountain and praying for them.  He never took his eyes off them.

they saw Jesus approaching the boat, walking on the water; and they were frightened. 20 But he said to them, “It is I; don’t be afraid.” 21 Then they were willing to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat reached the shore where they were heading.

  1. “It is I; don’t be afraid.”

    1. Strangely, they are afraid of the very thing that can save them.  The glory of Christ on the water is a sight they can’t fully comprehend at this point in their lives.

    2. “[T]he interior effect was fear; and therefore the fear of the disciples, conceived from Christ’s sudden appearance, is set forth when it says: ‘and they were afraid’ — either with a good fear, because it was caused by humility; ‘Do not be haughty, but fear’ (Romans 11:20). Or with an evil fear, because, as is said in Matthew 14:26, they thought him to be a ghost. ‘They trembled with fear where there was no fear’ (Psalm 13:5 [Vulgate numbering]). For fear especially belongs to carnal people, who shrink back from spiritual things.” -Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on John, Ch. 6, 882.

  2. Here, Matthew’s Gospel mention’s Peter’s attempt to walk on water (Matt. 14:22-33), which is an incredible act of faith, even though he faltered.

  3. “Then they were willing to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat reached the shore where they were heading.”

    1. Jesus waited until the disciples were willing to take Him into the boat. He doesn’t force His way in; He waits for an invitation.

    2. The moment Jesus entered the boat, they “immediately” reached the shore.  This is a second miracle, which shows the the power of letting Jesus take control.

22 The next day the crowd that had stayed on the opposite shore of the lake realized that only one boat had been there, and that Jesus had not entered it with his disciples, but that they had gone away alone. 23 Then some boats from Tiberias landed near the place where the people had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24 Once the crowd realized that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they got into the boats and went to Capernaum in search of Jesus.

  1. “Our Lord, though He did not actually shew Himself to the multitude walking on the sea, yet gave them the opportunity of inferring what had taken place; The day following, the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto His disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with His disciples into the boat, but that His disciples were gone away alone. What was this but to suspect that He had walked across the sea, on His going away? For He could not have gone over in a ship, as there was only one there, that in which His disciples had entered; and He had not gone in with them.” -Chrysostom, Hom. xliii. 2.

Full Transcript

“Sow a financial seed on your MasterCard, Visa, or Discover and watch the heavens open up and the blessings of the Lord come down on you.”

Last week, we started talking about John chapter 6 with a conversation about what’s known as the prosperity gospel—this idea that God wants you to have everything you could possibly want. He wants you to have a million dollars; he wants you to get that raise at work; he wants you to have an attractive spouse. He wants you to have health, wealth, and prosperity—everything you could ever dream of. The problem, according to this view, is you. You don’t have enough faith. If you just had a little more, he would give you everything you wanted.

Now, that’s not true. You can tell because even the people in the biblical era didn’t have big hordes of cash. The apostles were poor. Jesus was poor. Throughout history, there have been a lot of great Christians who have not been particularly wealthy or healthy. Your faith does not directly correlate to you getting everything you’ve ever wanted.

The prosperity gospel is not true, but I do want to clarify something here. I think we can go in the opposite direction pretty easily and end up in a bad place. We can say, “Oh, God doesn’t like us talking about money. Maybe he can’t handle money. Maybe I should never pray about money or health. Maybe God’s a spiritual God and he only handles spiritual things.” We might think that when we pray to God, we should only bring the spiritual stuff, but for the real world—for this life—we shouldn’t go to God because that’s too worldly.

I think of a monk from a long, long time ago named Evagrius. Isn’t that a great name? Evagrius. He sounds like a wizard. Evagrius the monk was someone who wrote about prayer. He wrote a lot of good stuff and a lot of bad stuff—it was kind of a toss-up. In his writing on prayer, he said that if you’re a really mature Christian, you should only have to pray one prayer: “Thy will be done.” That’s it. You don’t need to pray for anything else because you should just be able to trust God. Don’t worry about the details; just one prayer: “Thy will be done.” I can see what he was trying to get at, and I don’t want to be uncharitable—there is some wisdom to that—but I can’t help but notice that it doesn’t sound very much like what Jesus said.

In Matthew chapter 7, verses 7 through 11, Jesus said, “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him?” You can ask God about food and worldly things. It is interesting that Jesus gives the specific examples of bread and fish. Those are two things he brings up that someone might ask for.

Isn’t that exactly what Jesus dealt with last week? We saw that he was dealing with bread and fish in the feeding of the five thousand. Remember, there were probably more than five thousand men, and we don’t know how many women and children. “The feeding of the five thousand” sounds really cool, so we just go with that. Jesus did this miracle, and while there were certainly symbolic and spiritual elements to it, keep in mind the primary reason he did it: people were hungry. They needed something to eat.

Our God is not just the God of the spiritual realm. He’s not someone you can’t go to about your real physical needs. Jesus cares about all of it, and he’s the God over all of it. So don’t fall into that opposite trap of thinking Jesus doesn’t care about physical stuff. He does. The problem with the prosperity gospel isn’t that God can’t give us whatever we ask for—God can do whatever he wants; he’s God. The problem is that sometimes we’re more interested in the gifts than the Giver.

Sometimes we forget to seek God and trust that he knows more than we do. Sometimes the things he is trying to help us with are things we don’t even know about. We think our biggest problem might be that we don’t have a million dollars, but God can see other things. Sometimes he’s working on our character or teaching us to trust him. He is teaching us lessons that are really important in the face of eternity. If we only lived 100 years, that would definitely change our needs, but we know we’re eternal beings. There are things really important beyond this life that God might be working on in us. We need to be open to God, trust him, and let him work on what we need. We must trust that he knows what we need and not get angry and say, “Well, God hasn’t given me all the stuff I want. God, you owe me some stuff.”

This is one of those things we’re going to keep hearing about as we continue. If God has all this power, why doesn’t he give me all this stuff? Last week at the beginning of chapter six, we looked at the feeding of the five thousand. We saw how Jesus turned to Philip and said, “Hey, we need to feed all these people.” Philip said he didn’t know how they were going to do that because they didn’t have the money or the logistics. It didn’t make sense to him. Jesus was testing him, and Philip failed the test because he relied on what was in his control. He didn’t rely on Jesus or trust him; he tried to solve it by himself.

Andrew, a different disciple, introduced the young boy who gave Jesus his lunch of bread and fish. Jesus took that lunch and started handing it out. He just kept going and going. Not only was he able to feed everyone who had gathered, there were actually whole baskets of food left over. It wasn’t just enough for everyone to have their fill; it was more than enough.

Then those people got to thinking: “If Jesus can do this, what else can he give me?” They wanted to force Jesus to become their king. It didn’t matter what he wanted; they wanted him in charge so he could solve all their problems. This is something I didn’t talk about last week, but I wanted to touch on it because they say, “Surely this is the prophet who has come into the world.” From that, we learn that Jesus knew their intent was to force him to become king.

Why would they say that? It seems like an odd, random thing to say, but it’s a reference to Deuteronomy chapter 18, verse 15. That is where Moses is speaking to the Israelites and says, “The Lord will raise up a prophet like me from among you.” Moses was the greatest prophet of all time. David was a great king, but Moses was the one—the Ten Commandments guy who got them out of Egypt. You can’t do better than Moses, and Moses said there would be a prophet like him. People were waiting on that guy who was going to be as incredible as Moses.

Now here comes Jesus. Moses led them into the wilderness and fed them bread from heaven to sustain them for forty years. Jesus leads them into the wilderness and doesn’t just give them enough bread to sustain them; he gives them more than enough. This guy’s not only like Moses, he’s even better. That’s where that phrase connects.

They want to make him king, but Jesus has had this offer before. At the beginning of his ministry, Jesus went into the wilderness where he was tempted by Satan. One of the temptations was to bow down, and everything he saw would be his. Of course, Jesus said no. Jesus does not need the approval of the world. He has authority of his own. He doesn’t need an earthly crown; he has a heavenly one. Jesus said no to Satan, and here is this crowd hoping he will seize a crown for himself. Jesus leaves and goes to a mountain by himself.

This morning, I am going to rely on a few different passages. This story of Jesus walking on the water appears in three of the gospels: Mark, Matthew, and John. The only one that does not contain it is Luke. I’m going to rely on all of them. Normally, I don’t always do this. I think there is wisdom in looking at individual passages and letting them stand on their own. But as I read the other two accounts, I couldn’t help but notice that they all add something really important. Mark tells us so many details about motivations, Matthew tells us about the reactions of the disciples, and John tells us some of the more miraculous elements.

At the end of the day, I am not just looking at this passage because I want to know the words John chose. I am learning about it because I want to know what happened that day with Jesus and the disciples. If you want to look at them in the coming week, I encourage you to—they are well worth it. The other two are Mark chapter 6, verses 45 through 52, and Matthew chapter 14, verses 22 to 33. It is really interesting to read them all next to each other and see how those elements interact.

Mark tells us a little more about the motivation of why Jesus left. John just says, “And Jesus left and went to a mountain by himself.” Mark tells us he went to the mountain to pray. Now we know what Jesus is doing: he is spending time with his Father in heaven. While Jesus is on that mountain praying, see verse 16: “When that evening came, his disciples went down to the lake, where they got into a boat and set off across the lake for Capernaum.”

Again, we can rely on Mark to tell us why. Why are these disciples getting into a boat and going across a lake when Jesus is going up the mountain? Why don’t they follow him? Mark tells us Jesus told them to do that. Before he went up the mountain, Jesus turned to them and said, “Hey, get in the boat. Go across the lake. I’ll catch up.”

Isn’t it interesting that he tells his disciples to get out of here in a way that’s difficult for people to follow? The crowd wants Jesus to become king. They are so hopeful he will solve all of their problems after seeing his divine power. Don’t you think the disciples might have been a little tempted to do the same? They already believe in Jesus and think he’s incredible. They don’t always understand him, but they know he’s an impressive guy. With all these people wanting him to be king, there would be that temptation to say, “Maybe Jesus doesn’t know what’s best. Maybe he should be king. Maybe he doesn’t believe in himself enough, and I believe in him more than he does. Jesus, yes, we’re going to make you king. The crowd is right.”

Rather than stay and allow them to be continually tempted, Jesus tells them to get out of there. That is a good reminder for all of us. How often do we put ourselves in situations where we are tempted to do something we know God wouldn’t want us to do? Rather than leave, we stay and see how long we can make it, continually fending off that temptation. Don’t do that. Get out.

Maybe you’re in a situation where you’re working with someone who’s just irritating. They’re driving you nuts, they’re getting everything wrong, and they’re saying crazy things. You’re about to give them a piece of your mind—get out of there. If you need to talk, come back later when you’ve cooled down. Don’t allow yourself to be continually tempted. Remove yourself from the situation.

Or maybe you’re with a friend and you’re enjoying your evening, but suddenly you start talking about things that aren’t very edifying. Suddenly, you start sniffing around some gossip. You might say, “Oh, we shouldn’t talk about that,” but then you come around for another pass. You just keep getting closer and closer. Don’t do that! Get out of there. Change your environment. When you see yourself being tempted in an environment where it’s continually coming at you, move. Maybe Jesus is telling you, “Get out of there! Go!” That’s what he tells the disciples.

So they get on this boat and they go. A strong wind was blowing and the waters grew rough. There seem to be an awful lot of storms on the Sea of Galilee, don’t there? This is not the only miracle about a storm on that sea. I am sure you remember another one where the storm is raging and Jesus is sleeping. The disciples tell him, “Jesus, we need help,” and he quiets the storm.

The Sea of Galilee has a lot of storms because of a geographical feature. Galilee is a mountainous region, and the Sea of Galilee is six hundred feet below sea level. When a wind comes whipping down off those mountains, it becomes very easy for the weather to get rough. It’s just a region given to storms because of its geography. Now, these disciples knew this well; some of them were experienced fishermen.This was not their first rodeo. It wasn’t that they’d never seen a storm before, but this one was especially brutal. John tells us that they had rowed about three or four miles, which is about halfway through the Sea of Galilee. They were at the halfway point, and Mark tells us how long it took them to reach that spot: he says it was about dawn.

They left the night before, meaning they had been rowing all night and were still only halfway. That would be brutal. Just imagine being in that boat. Imagine the darkness around you and the wind howling. Imagine the thunder and lightning. Imagine sweat dripping down your brow, interspersed with seawater. You are straining at those oars, and blisters are forming on your hands because you’ve been at it for hours and hours. It’s three or four in the morning at this point, and you’re still going.

But when they had made it about three or four miles, they saw Jesus approaching the boat, walking on the water. Now, you have to admire where they’d been until this point. They worked hard, didn’t they? The venerable Bede, one of the most prolific commentators in the Middle Ages, wrote regarding this passage: “The ship does not carry a lazy crew.” They were all stout rowers. The Church is not lazy or fragile; we are tireless, constantly persevering in good works, eager to reach the harbor of everlasting salvation. These were men who worked hard. Jesus told them to do it, so they did it—even though he sent them right into a storm.

Some of you might be in storms right now. I know several of you have told me about the storms you’re facing. This week, more than usual, I feel like a lot of people are facing some hard stuff. If you are in a storm, just remember: that is not evidence that you are doing something wrong or something that Jesus doesn’t want you to do. There is that prosperity gospel thinking that says, “If God wants me to do it, it will be easy.” That’s really tempting. We think, “Oh man, this is getting hard; God must not want me doing this.” That is not necessarily true.

Here, Jesus sent these men into something very difficult because he was teaching them something. There was value to this. Going into something hard was not worthless; it was important. If you are in a storm, stay with it. You never know when you are right on the brink of something. You never know when Jesus is going to come walking to you over the waters.

Where was Jesus to these disciples? They didn’t know. They couldn’t see him. We know he was up on a mountain, and the book of Mark provides those little details: he was watching them and praying. He saw them straining at the oars. He knew they were having a hard time, and he was praying for them. They were never out of the sight of Jesus. They may not have been able to see him, but Jesus never took his eyes off them.

When he saw it was time, he came down off that mountain. I don’t know what that looked like. Did he just zoom down? Did he make a trek? We only know that he made his way over those stormy waters. These were not still, gentle pond waters, either. I imagine it would be harder to walk on storm waters—that’s just my hot take.

Jesus comes walking over the storm waters, and they are terrified. Verse 19 says: “When they had rowed three or four miles, they saw Jesus approaching the boat, walking on the water, and they were frightened. But he said to them, ‘It is I; don’t be afraid.'” Maybe that is something Jesus is saying to you. If you are in a storm, if you are having a hard time, if you are facing something that’s frustrating and just beating you down, Jesus is saying to you: “Do not be afraid.”

Matthew tells us the part where Peter gets out of the boat and tries to walk to Jesus. He makes it a couple of steps across those waters, but then he ultimately falls in because he does not have enough faith. Usually, that is a lesson about how Peter should have had more faith. But I have to give Peter a little bit of credit. Even making one step on the water is more than I’ve made. That’s impressive—to have so much faith you could even take one step on water. We should all try to have as much faith as we can.

After that incident, they were willing to take him into the boat. Now, Jesus had just walked across the water; if he wanted on that boat, there wasn’t a thing anyone could do to stop him. But Jesus doesn’t just jump onto the boat. He waits. He waits until they want him on the boat.

I’m not going to say Jesus always follows this rule, because sometimes he does things that are unexpected. For example, Paul, who wrote so many of the epistles in the New Testament, was someone who persecuted the church, and Jesus blinded him so that he would see the truth. Sometimes things happen in unexpected ways. But as much as that is true, more often than not, Jesus does not go around blinding people on a regular basis. Most of the time, he waits. He waits just outside the boat, waiting for someone to let him in. He stands at the door and knocks, waiting for someone to answer.

Is there an instance in your life where Jesus is waiting just outside of it? You haven’t let him in yet. You’re trying to do it on your own, working by your own power, and Jesus is just waiting for the invitation to come in. Look what happens when he is on the boat: it says that immediately the boat reached the shore where they were heading.

This passage doesn’t get enough credit. A lot of people don’t notice that this right here is a miracle. It doesn’t say, “And the storm subsided and they got there pretty quickly.” It says immediately the boat reached the shore where they were heading. They were exactly where they needed to go. The minute Jesus got on the boat, they were there.

How many of you need to learn the same lesson that Philip learned: that if you are trying to make it through something on your own power, it’s going to be hard? It might not be enough. Maybe there is a storm in your life, a challenge that you are facing. You are straining at the oars and working hard, giving it all of your effort, but making little to no headway. Jesus is coming to you across the water. He is waiting. Let go of those oars, let him into the boat, and trust that he will get you where you need to go.

Aquinas and Abortion

Thomas Aquinas’s name gets dropped in quite a few pro-abortion arguments.  Roe v. Wade referenced Aquinas.  President Biden referenced Aquinas.  There’s even a popular undercurrent of pseudo-history you can find around the internet that appeals to Aquinas to portray the Middle Ages as this golden age of abortions where your local herbalist was always at the ready to sell the neighborhood abortion drugs at the drop of a hat.  But why is Aquinas referenced with such regularity?  

Aquinas didn’t believe that a fetus was genuinely human until one to three months after the pregnancy began.

And that’s true!  He didn’t.  We’ll get to why in just a minute.  But the strange thing about all of the Aquinas citations is that the people who reference Aquinas (on both sides of the aisle) don’t seem to know much about him.  They know he’s a famous Christian and philosopher and if they can convince people he’s on their side, boy, that would be a knockout punch in their favor.  But that’s the thing; they’re not curious about what he actually has to say for himself.  They want to explain their own position and drop his name in there when it’s convenient.  When they bother to give any citations, they tend to be from secondary sources (which is so lazy when when the person in question wrote as much as Aquinas did) and even when there are direct citations, his most famous works are usually referenced, rather than the most relevant to the actual topic at hand.  So, I wanted to give Aquinas a fair opportunity to speak on the matter.  What did Aquinas actually believe about abortion? 

It’s a big question, so I’m going to tackle it in three different pieces: Aquinas on the Beginning of Human Life, Aquinas on Sex, and Canon Law in the Day of Aquinas.

And if you’re looking for spoilers, here’s the big picture: working within the bounds of popular science in his day, Thomas did believe that human life starts to be genuinely human between one and three months into a pregnancy (depending on the child’s gender). This qualified early-term abortion as a crime other than murder. That said he still lists it as a crime against nature regardless of when it happens, and he worked within a system where it was legally punishable by law at any stage during the pregnancy. Aquinas’s question wasn’t “Is abortion a crime,” so much as it was, “How serious a crime is abortion at each stage?”

Let’s dig in.

Aquinas on the Origins of Life

If we want to talk about Aquinas and abortion, the first place to go is his commentary on Peter Lombard’s Sentences.  It’s not as well known as his famous Summa Theologica, but it’s the only place where he goes from speaking in abstract terms about human development to a description that’ so concrete that it lists specific timeframes for that development.  The context here is a debate about Jesus’s development during Mary’s pregnancy. When was that little fetus Jesus? Was he the Son of God right from the moment of conception?  Or did he become the Son of God at a certain moment in the pregnancy?  Classic Aristotialian thought held that sperm grew into a person in the incubating space of the womb (indicated in the word’s derivation from the Greek σπέρμα sperma meaning “seed”). That process took 40 days for a male child and 90 days for females.  If you hold to that Aristotlian science (and Aquinas certainly did), you end up with a question: did Jesus have a proto-human phase in which he successively became a human from a sperm?  Or was he just instantaneously there in the womb as a person through the power of the Holy Spirit?  He answers as follows:

[A]ccording to the faith, Christ’s conception must be held to have happened instantaneously, for human nature was not assumed before it was perfected in its species, since its parts were not assumable except by reason of the whole, as is evident from what was said in Distinction 2. … For this reason we must consider that conception to have been instantaneous, so that these things existed in the same instant: the conversion of that material blood into flesh and the other parts of Christ’s body; the formation of the organic members and the soul being infused in the organ-bearing body; and the assumption of the ensouled body into the unity of the divine person.

Now, in others these things occur successively, such that a male child’s conception is not completed until the fortieth day, or a female’s until the ninetieth, as the Philosopher says in History of Animals, [book] 9. But in the completion of the male body Augustine seems to add six days, which are distinguished as follows, according to him in his Letter to Jerome. For the first six days the seed has a likeness resembling milk; in the next nine days it changes to blood; then in twelve days it solidifies; in eighteen days it is formed to the complete lines of the members; and from then on the rest of the time until the time of delivery it grows in size. Thus the verse: Six days as milk, three times three as blood, two times six forms the flesh, three times six the members. However, in Christ’s conception, the matter that the Virgin supplied immediately took the form and figure of the human body, as well as the soul, and was assumed into the unity of the divine person (Commentary on the Sentences, Book 3, Distinction 3, Question 5, Article 2).

You can see him reference some of his previous work (Book 3, Distinction 2, Article 3) in the quote there to try to establish that Jesus Christ was not just the soul, but the body.  In the incarnation, there was a perfect union of God and man, not a material body that developed separately and then a soul that came along after the fact. There had to be a legitimate, full union between the two natures. He admits that for normal humans, the Aristotelian norm of 40 and 90 days before you’re fully human is true, but Christ’s exceptional incarnation led to him just popping into being through the power of the Holy Spirit, rather than developing from a sperm.

All of this science is very strange to us and obviously wrong. He doesn’t even know that eggs exist; only sperm. Even so, you can see how this really clearly gives us the framework to determine when a fetus is a human child. In his words, it’s “ensouled” after the first few weeks. Before that, an organic creature is developing, but it’s not one that’s human just yet.

If we just look at this solitary piece, abortion feels like a pretty rational move for a Christian that’s following in his footsteps, right?  Ah, but we can’t just pluck out his pieces about human development (a proportionally small piece of his works) and ignore the lion’s share of what’s left and declare ourselves to be thinking in his tradition.  Let’s keep going to see why Aquinas actually did not support abortion.

Aquinas on Sex

Now that we know what Aquinas thinks about the development of a fetus, we need to understand what he thinks about the procreative act itself.  On this topic, Aquinas really is absolutely a man of the medieval Chrisitan world.  And what did medieval Christians think about sex?  Well, to them, it was absolutely intertwined with having babies.  You couldn’t rightly separate the sensual aspect from the procreative aspect without stumbling into sin.  Now, obviously I’m not saying that everyone in the middle ages acted according to that worldview and never cheated on their spouse or whatever other thing you can imagine.  Of course they did.  People don’t always live up to the ideals of their society, even if they claim to ascribe to them.  But when it comes to the ideals, doctrines, and philosophy of the time, there can’t be any doubt that any effort to enjoy sex without an openness to procreation was sinful.

And why?  Well, the medieval world, and especially Thomas Aquinas, thought in terms of natural law.They believed the world had a natural sort of logic to it that was built in by God.  As you went about living your life, you were expected to look at each object and each act to consider why it exists.  Why did God make this?  What was his purpose?  Are you acting in a way that’s consistent with the logic of God’s creation?  Or are you twisting things around to serve your own wants, rather than God’s intended purpose?

That’s really abstract, so let’s work through an example.  An obvious one is food.  What is the logic of food?  Food exists to give us nourishment.  The process of eating it might be pleasurable (and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that), but if we’re going to live by the logic of the thing, the process of eating should never be separated from its natural end: we eat to be nourished.  If we start to enjoy it without that end in sight, that’s when we start to sin.  Are you enjoying Doritos because you’re hungry?  That’s great!  Are you enjoying Doritos when you’re already full but you just want to keep munching because they’re delicious?  That’s sin.  You’re losing sight of why God gave us food and just enjoying it out of gluttony.

Now, take that logic and apply it to sex.  Why does sex exist?  To have kids.  That’s the natural, logical end of the process.  If you wanted to have sex righteously, you were expected to look towards the end (babies), rather than just indulging for the pleasure of the process itself.  That was lustful and a misuse of what God gave us.  Not only was this logic very popular throughout the medieval world, but it was very popular with Thomas Aquinas.  As a matter of fact, the argument and examples that I just gave (sans Doritos) are straight out of his magnum opus, Summa Theologica, when he’s rejecting the idea that all “venereal acts” are inherently sinful:

A sin, in human acts, is that which is against the order of reason. Now the order of reason consists in its ordering everything to its end in a fitting manner… Now just as the preservation of the bodily nature of one individual is a true good, so, too, is the preservation of the nature of the human species a very great good. And just as the use of food is directed to the preservation of life in the individual, so is the use of venereal acts directed to the preservation of the whole human race (Question 153, Article 2).

Also, notice that he felt the need to debate whether or not there can be non-sinful sex.  That should tell you something else about the medieval world verses our own!  While we debate, is there any sex that is morally wrong, they were debating whether there was any sex that is morally right!  A very different starting place

This alone helps us shift gears when we’re thinking about Aquinas and abortion.  Aquinas would not have wanted anyone to have sex if they weren’t open to having children.  That would be against the nature of the act and sinful sex, even for a married couple.  Aquinas says as much directly in his Commentary on the Sentences when he addresses one of Peter Lombard’s quotes about birth control:

As for those who procure poisons to induce sterility, they are not marriage partners, but fornicators. (Sent. IV, 31.3 (184). 1.

Although this sin is grave, and to be counted among wicked deeds, and against nature (for even beasts desire offspring), nevertheless it is less grave than murder, since a child conceived could be prevented in another way.  Nor is such a person to be judged irregular, unless he should now procure an abortion for the child about to be born  (Book 4, Distinction 31, Question 2, Article 3).

And in that quote, you can see how he starts to move from birth control to abortion in applying the same logic. We are given food to be nourished.  We are given sex to procreate.  Why is a person made pregnant?  Is it to end the pregnancy?  No.  That would qualify as going against the natural logic of pregnancy in the most direct way possible.  Natural law philosophy was one of Aquinas’s biggest emphases, so if we want to introduce him to conversations about abortion, we have to remember that background first and foremost before we can deal with any of the specifics.

Church Law in the Days of Aquinas

But now that we’ve set the stage on some of Aquinas’s basic convictions as an Aristotilian thinker and a natural law enthusiast, we need to acknowledge the actual law of the medieval church during the era that he was at work.  As famous as he was, he influenced the teachings, and the teachings most definitely influenced him, so what did the church actually hold during the eras in question?  And I do want to acknowledge that this is a really complicated thing to research.  A shocking amount is not readily accessible if you don’t speak Latin.  Luckily, Paul Harrington wrote an excellent summary of laws pertaining to abortion over time in church history in The Linacre Quarterly that makes the depths of medieval church law accessible to anyone. While we have a particular interest in church law during the lifetime of Aquinas (1225-1274), a broader picture of what was going on in the medieval and Roman Catholic church won’t hurt our understanding either.

Looking at church law over time, for a little over a thousand years, the church considered abortion to be legally identical to murder and the standard punishment was usually excommunication.  It’s hard for us to wrap our minds around something like excommunication, since there’s not really an equivalent today. If we get kicked out of our congregation, good riddance! We’ll just go to the church down the street! But if we want to really understand their mindset, it’s crucial to recognize just how serious a punishment like that was in that timeframe.  An excommunicated person was cut off from the church until they had fully repented, meaning they couldn’t go to worship with their family and community.  They couldn’t participate in the sacraments.  They couldn’t get married.  They couldn’t offer prayers for dead relatives.  They couldn’t get buried. And if they died while excommunicated, Hell was the destination.  Excommunication was the most severe punishment you could get from the church.  This was serious.

A little after the turn of the millennium, we do see that distinction between an animated and inanimate fetus make it’s way into law. It first appeared in 1116.  A bishop named Ivo of Chartres first introduced it, and that distinction was taken up by a legal scholar named Gratian and printed in the legal textbook that became the standard for decades moving forward, Decretum.  It continued in Roman Catholic law for 753 years until Pope Pius IX ended that distinction in 1869.  During this period, if you got an abortion outside of the 40 day limit for males or 90 day limit for females, you were a murderer.  If you got an abortion within the limit, you had committed quasi-murder or homicide (the language varied depending on specifics at the time).  As the name implies, the punishments were less severe for quasi-murder.  For example, in 1159, your punishment was 3 years of penance if you aborted an inanimate fetus, verses the 7 years of penance or more that you would receive for aborting an animated fetus (which was the punishment for murder). And that’s just one specific instance. Sometimes, the punishment was a lifetime of excommunication. Sometimes it was left up to regional leaders. You get the idea. The important thing to note is that there was a legal distinction that made one a greater sin and the other a lesser sin. Some of the other abortion-centric laws in this timeframe didn’t acknowledge the distinction. For example, a piece of legislation by Regino of Prum in 1211 introduced a law that anyone caught selling drugs to induce abortion (at any stage of development) was guilty of murder. On the whole though, the distinction stands (for those who are curious, the distinction never really seems to have made a meaningful appearance in the Protestant world).

Notice that Aquinas’s position was the dominant position of the church during this time.  Abortion was always sinful.  The distinction in church law was never used to imply otherwise.  The distinction came up because people wanted to know how severe the sin of abortion was. Was it murder? Was it quasi-murder? Was it grave sin? Is it a lifetime excommunication or a period of penance? What punishment fits the crime?

Conclusion

Whew!  That’s a lot to take in.  Honestly, every time I learned more about this topic, it genuinely pushed me to deeper levels of understanding.  It was wild to see how recent our modern understanding of biology is, how church law was enacted in different eras, and how philosophy and theology have influenced one another in so many different ways.  I didn’t come to this question knowing the answer.  I came because I wanted to see firsthand what the truth was, and after some sifting around, I found more of it than I started with.  And I got to rediscover that history is so weird!  People in different times had such different ideas that are hard to wrap our minds around.

Nevertheless, at the end of it all, I have to wonder whether pro-abortion appeals to Aquinas are a product of ignorance or if they’re knowingly made in bad faith.  The solitary point of agreement is that he did not think human life began instantaneously after sex.  After that point, it’s all downhill.  In spite of that agreement, he did agree to a relatively early date where the child was fully human.  He considered abortion a crime against nature at best and murder at worst (depending on the timing).  He upheld and helped to shape a system of philosophy and canon of law that literally included it as a punishable offense.  Is this really the best person to appeal to?

As humans, we have the unique privilege of looking at this world around us and trying to figure it all out.  That’s wild!  We get to learn and read and try our best to come to knowledge of the truth.  A basic part of wielding that privilege well is acknowledging when we disagree with others and why we do.  When we misrepresent the legacy of others to make our ideas more palatable to those who would otherwise disagree, we’re participating in a lie, and the truth is never uncovered by lying.

Other great recommendations for those who want more:
Summa Theologica Ch. 118
Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 2, Ch. 65 and up
Abortion: Part VIII, Paul V. Harrington
A Great Free Translation of All Things Aquinas by the Aquinas Institute

What Did Jesus Write in the Dirt in John 8:1-11? Big Name Theologians Weigh In

While poking around some different articles on the treatment of women in Leviticus, I stumbled across some wacky interpretations of what Jesus wrote in the sand in John 8:1-11. Let me refresh your memory on that passage (with a verse from chapter 7 to make sure we don’t start in the middle of a sentence):

53 Then they all went home,

but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

What did Jesus write? It’s important enough that it’s referenced twice at crucial story moments, but apparently not important enough to tell us anything about it. I’ve heard people say he was writing a passage from Leviticus 20 indicating that BOTH people were supposed to be stoned, revealing that they would be breaking the law if they stoned her because they failed to produce both parties. Others have said that he was writing the names of every accuser along with the sins that they had recently committed. I’ve even heard that he drew a line in the sand for people to cross if they felt they were worthy. There are a lot of takes out there, but most of them aren’t really founded on much apart from one person’s random guesswork. What have the major theologians of the Christian tradition said about the writing in the sand?

Naturally, I started with Augustine (because you can never go too far wrong with Augustine). Luckily for me, he preached a series of sermons about the book of John and his take was customarily good. He suggested the trap the Pharisees laid was in making Jesus choose between gentleness and justice. If Jesus approved of the women’s death, he’d be the guy that condemned peasant women and his popularity would suffer. If he didn’t approve of her death, he was speaking against God’s justice and was officially a transgressor of the law! Jesus navigates the dilemma with his typical craftiness by taking neither option. But what about the finger writing?

You have heard, O Jews, you have heard, O Pharisees, you have heard, O teachers of the law, the guardian of the law, but have not yet understood Him as the Lawgiver. What else does He signify to you when He writes with His finger on the ground? For the law was written with the finger of God; but written on stone because of the hard-hearted. The Lord now wrote on the ground, because He was seeking fruit. You have heard then, Let the law be fulfilled, let the adulteress be stoned. But is it by punishing her that the law is to be fulfilled by those that ought to be punished? Let each of you consider himself, let him enter into himself, ascend the judgment-seat of his own mind, place himself at the bar of his own conscience, oblige himself to confess… Each looking carefully into himself, finds himself a sinner. Yes, indeed. Hence, either let this woman go, or together with her receive ye the penalty of the law… [H]aving struck them through with that dart of justice, [Jesus] deigned not to heed their fall, but, turning away His look from them, “again He wrote with His finger on the ground.” 

Augustine, Sermon on John Chapter VII. 40–53; VIII. 1–11

Brilliant! Rather than focus on non-existent content, he’s looking at the symbolism of the act itself. Why would Jesus write on the ground? Because God wrote the law on stone the first time, and now he’s writing on the ground. This is the same dust that people were created from. Were they fertile enough to bear fruit after all these years? Or were their hearts still hard as the rocks that the commandments were once written on? He even returns to his idea of gentleness by indicating that Jesus didn’t stare them down after the incident, shaming them for their sin. He just keeps writing. Really nice work here.

Other patristic authors are less worthy of sharing. John Chrysostom has a sermon series on John that deliberately skips over this particular story and a lot of ancient theologians (especially in the East) follow suit, leading some to believe that they had copies of John that didn’t contain these verses. In Against the Pelagians, Book 2, Jerome suggests Jesus was writing out the names of the accusers to to fulfill Jeremiah 17:13 “Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust,” (a passage which seems to have been intended to be more poetic than literal). By and large, Augustine’s logic seems to have been attractive. Thomas Aquinas carries it forward to the Middle Ages in his mega-commentary Catena Aurea and includes support from Venerable Bede and Alcuin of York to back him up.

In the Reformation, John Calvin comes out swinging against Augustine and approaches the story without interest in allegory:

By this attitude he intended to show that he despised them. Those who conjecture that he wrote this or the other thing, in my opinion, do not understand his meaning. Nor do I approve of the ingenuity of Augustine, who thinks that in this manner the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is pointed out, because Christ did not write on tables of stone, (Exodus 31:18,) but on man, who is dust and earth. For Christ rather intended, by doing nothing, to show how unworthy they were of being heard; just as if any person, while another was speaking to him, were to draw lines on the wall, or to turn his back, or to show, by any other sign, that he was not attending to what was said. Thus in the present day, when Satan attempts, by various methods, to draw us aside from the right way of teaching, we ought disdainfully to pass by many things which he holds out to us.

John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentary on John 13:1-11

Gone is the speculative symbolism! Instead, we have a Jesus that’s just not listening. Pharisees are coming around, asking questions that they already know the answer to, and Jesus just starts doodling in the sand. That’s how little he cares what they have to say. When he says “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone,” Calvin reads that as a deliberate reference to their own sinfulness. They know they aren’t being sincere. They’re scheming, conniving, wretched men trying to kill someone to prove their own point. It’s not that the law isn’t legitimate; it’s that they aren’t being legitimate, and they know it. Again, Calvin is sticking to the Scripture pretty thoroughly and avoiding wild speculation about the writing. Well done.

The Reformation seems to be a bit of a hinge in historical interpretation. After the Reformation, commentaries that I can find seem to take a more practical approach to the matter. The symbolic dimension is swallowed up by the practical. Some lean more heavily on WHY he wrote (to avoid meddling in politics, to calm people down, etc.) while others focus on WHAT he wrote (names, sins, passages of the law, etc.). John Wesley is one of the better big-name interpreters to marry the practical and the symbolic, but his notes are still ruthlessly pragmatic:

God wrote once in the Old Testament; Christ once in the New: perhaps the words which he afterward spoke, when they continued asking him. By this silent action, he,

1. fixed their wandering, hurrying thoughts, in order to awaken their consciences: and,
2. signified that he was not then come to condemn but to save the world.

John Wesley, Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, John 8:1-11

Obviously there are oodles of others well worth reading, but these were the ones that I thought were worthy of lifting up. They’re all respected enough for their words to carry weight, and each seems to represent the general stream of mainstream interpretation within their era.

Ultimately, I’m really pleased with what I found. I expected to find some really wacky stuff, but a shocking majority of commentators avoided wild speculation about the specifics of the writing and interpreted in light of the information that they had, rather than what they didn’t have. Frankly, that was my bias from the outset. If the Bible doesn’t say what Jesus wrote, it couldn’t have been all that important to the story (sorry Jerome). But really, it was phenomenal to see all the directions people went with it. I have a soft spot for that symbolic dimension. It emphasized the weight of each action within the passage in a way that was far beyond the mundane. So what did he write? Beats me. As much as I like Augustine, I’ll side with Calvin for the sheer delightful possibility of Jesus rolling his eyes and playing tic tac toe against himself in the dirt while they were trying to talk to him.

Through the Eye of an ACTUAL Needle: The Fake Gate Theory

Matthew 19: 23-24 famously reads:

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

There are two popular interpretations for the phrase “eye of a needle.” The first theory is that it is a reference to the tiny hole at the top of a sewing needle. Simple enough. The second theory is that it is a reference to a gate with the name “the eye of the needle” that was in first century Jerusalem. The gate was so small that anyone that hoped to get a camel through would have to take all of their baggage off the camel, get it down to its knees, and kind of shimmy the camel through the tiny opening.

You can see why this is important for Bible readers. Either Jesus is saying that it is impossible for a rich man to get into Heaven, or he’s saying that it’s really challenging for a rich man to get into heaven. There’s a big difference between impossible and barely possible. So which is it? Is it hard or impossible? What is the eye of the needle?

After a little research, I wasn’t able to find a trustworthy modern commentary that genuinely advocated for the gate theory. In varying detail, they all disproved it with archaeology, translations from the Greek, interpretive history, and the plain sense of the story. That being said, I didn’t find a single place that really poured out all of the evidence for the reader’s consideration (especially when it came to the history of interpretation). So here we go! This is my attempt to round up all of that evidence and hand it over to you.

The archaeological evidence for the gate theory is pretty poor. There’s no legitimate evidence of a gate known as the “eye of the needle” gate existing in Jesus’ lifetime. I would cite something, but you can’t cite evidence proving a lack of evidence! A quick google search reveals that even modern claims about eye of the needle gates in Jerusalem are dubious at best. There’s one small Orthodox church that claims that they have the actual gate that Jesus was referring to (which looks suspiciously like a hole in an old wall). There’s also a handful of travel blogs from people that claim they went to the eye of the needle gate. None of these claims are citation-worthy. Church websites often make dubious claims (see my article about fake quotes from famous saints for more church website sins) and the travel blogs pictures feature people smiling by a variety of totally different “eye of the needle” gates. Were there gates in different times and locations referred to as eye of the needle gates? Yes. There’s gates like that in German castles from the Middle Ages and obviously a handful in Jerusalem today that claim to be eye of the needle gates. That being said, there’s no record of a gate being referred to by that title until after the year 1000. In first century Jerusalem, there is absolutely no evidence that such a gate existed. Strike one.

The Greek manuscript makes the gate theory even less viable. If the “eye of a needle” was the name of a specific gate or a reference to a type of gate, that would make the language a title. You’d have to use the same words, “eye of the needle,” every time you talked about it because you’re not actually talking about eyes and needles; you’re talking about a type of gate known as an eye of the needle gate. The story comes up three times in the Gospels (Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 18) and each author uses slightly different words for this phrase. Matthew calls the eye of a needle the “trypēmatos rhaphidos” (τρυπήματος ‘ῥαφίδος), while Mark calls it the “trymalias tēs rhaphidos” (τρυμαλιᾶς τῆς ‘ῥαφίδος). Both are using the same word for needle (referring specifically to a tailor’s needle), but they’re using different language to talk about the eye of that needle. Luke not only adds a third option for the eye, but uses the word for a surgeon’s needle rather than the word for a tailor’s needle: trēmatos belonēs (τρήματος βελόνης ). If they’re trying to use a title for a specific kind of gate, they’re all over the map! Two of the three of them are using the wrong words to refer to that gate. If, on the other hand, they’re talking about needles and the tiny holes in them, the differences in their accounts present no problem. Strike two.

Now to the history of interpretation. Most commentaries I looked at claimed that the gate theory was a legend from the Middle Ages, but there wasn’t much detail provided beyond that. I saw a lot of people throw around dates like the 9th century (maybe), the 15th century (definitely wrong), and the 19th century (right out), but few provided direct quotes from their sources, much less cited sources at all.

The oldest reference I could find that’s absolutely airtight comes from Thomas Aquinas’ megacommentary, Catena Aurea. It packed great quotes from multiple noteworthy church fathers into one convenient commentary. In the section on Matthew 19, he provides the following commentary from Anselm of Canturbury:

It is explained otherwise; That at Jerusalem there was a certain gate, called, The needle’s eye, through which a camel could not pass, but on its bended knees, and after its burden had been taken off; and so the rich should not be able to pass along the narrow way that leads to life, till he had put off the burden of sin, and of riches, that is, ceasing to love them.

Anselm of Canterbury as cited in Catena Aurea, Thomas Aquinas, CCEL Edition.

I can’t find a primary source from Anselm on this one, nor can I find anyone else who was able to track one down, so we’ll just have to take Thomas’s word for it. Anselm wrote in the early 12th century, so there’s definitely an uncomfortable gap here. Sources legitimately interested in uncovering the source of the theory often quote this as the its first official appearance, and I have to agree. I can’t find an earlier source than Thomas quoting Anselm. Did Anselm say it? Probably. Did he get it from someone else? I have to imagine he did. Someone that spent most of his life in England seems an unlikely candidate to start spouting off about gates in Jerusalem.

There are some people that point to an eastern bishop from the 11th century named Theophylact as the actual originator of the gate theory. If he did, it’s bizarre that he didn’t write it down anywhere and actively contradicted himself in writing. Here’s what he says on the matter in his commentary on Matthew:

As long as a man is rich and he has in excess while others do not have even the necessities, he can in no way enter the kingdom of heaven. But when all riches have been shed, then he is not rich and so he can enter. For it is just as impossible for a man with wealth to enter the kingdom of heaven as it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. See how Christ first said it was difficult to enter, but here that it is completely impossible. 

Theophylact’s Commentary on Matthew, Ch. 19, trans. Christopher Stade.

You can hear where he gets a little close: “when all riches has been shed, then he is not rich and so he can enter…” If there was a tiny gate where you had to get all of your gear off your camel and shimmy it through, the process might be something like that. But note that he still definitively says that it is impossible for a rich man to enter. Theophylact is describing the process of a rich person becoming poor, not talking about unpacking your camel for the sake of a narrow gate. Just to cover our bases, let’s see what he says about the same story in Mark 10:

Understand ‘hard’ here to mean ‘impossible’. For it is impossible for the rich man to be saved. This is clear from the example which the Lord gives, saying, ‘It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.’ For it is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.

Theophylact’s Commentary on Mark Ch. 10, trans. Christopher Stade.

Yeah, this guy is absolutely not the originator of the gate theory. Some people just misread his commentary on Matthew. This is why primary sources are so critical: because people don’t always say what others claim they did.

There are a number of proto-claims that come way closer to the gate theory than Theophylact did. For example, check out this commentary from Jerome (a Roman theologian from the 4th century):

By this saying it is shown to be not difficult but impossible. For if, in the same way that a camel cannot pass through the eye of a needle, so a rich man cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, then no rich man will be saved. But if we read Isaiah, how camels of Midian and Ephah come to Jerusalem with gifts and offerings, and those that were previously bent and distorted by the depravity of vices entered the gates of Jerusalem, we will see how even these camels to which the rich are compared, when they have laid aside their heavy burden of sins and the crookedness of their whole body, they can enter through the narrow and strait road that leads to life.

Jerome’s Commentary on Matthew, trans. Scheck, 220-221.

Like Theolphylact, Jerome EXPLICITLY says that it is impossible. Buuuut there is that passage in Isaiah (60:6) where camels with loads of fancy gifts and people who were bent and distorted get into Jerusalem. Sooo maybe rich people can get in too if they lay aside their riches and vices? A bit of a comforting stretch for a passage saying that something is impossible. In his commentary, John Broadus goes so far as to suggest that Anselm got the idea from a misreading of Jerome’s fanciful explanation. A bit of a stretch, I think, but the connection between proto-claims like this and the gate theory are definitely real.

There’s a definite instinct in the history of this passage to try to soften the blow. Whether the eye of the needle is made a gate, the camel is made a rope (a suggested mistranslation that’s just not viable, as you can tell from the simple fact that no reputable Bible translates it that way), or the reading of the story is followed up with long statements about how being rich is actually fine if you manage to resist the allure of your riches (Clement of Alexandria among others), there are a lot of people that want this to be a little easier to swallow. Which is surprising, because all of this evidence pales in comparison with the words of Jesus in the following verses (Matt 19: 25-26):

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Jesus literally says that the point of bringing up the whole camel and needle thing in the first place was to say that it is impossible. He’s intentionally using an absurd image to talk about something that can’t happen! If his words aren’t enough to put the final nail in the coffin of the gate theory, I don’t know what would be.

Aquinas’s Prayer before Study

I’ll admit that sometimes my studying can feel detached from my devotional life (probably because I’m usually tempted to skip prayer to get to reading, which is never a good thing), but this week, I ran across a delightful resource to help with that. I started a new class (The Major Works of Augustine) and the professor read this prayer before we started:

Creator of all things,
true source of light and wisdom,
lofty origin of all being,
graciously let a ray of your brilliance
penetrate the darkness of my understanding
and take from me the double darkness
into which I was born:
an obscurity of both sin and ignorance.

Give me a sharp sense of understanding,
a retentive memory,
and the ability to grasp things correctly and fundamentally.
Grant me the talent of being exact in my explanations,
and the ability to express myself with thoroughness and charm.

Instruct my beginning
direct my progress,
and set your seal upon the finished work.

Through Christ our Lord,
Amen.

-Thomas Aquinas

There’s different versions of this prayer posted all over the internet, so if there’s bits in this one that you don’t like, feel free to shop around. I just thought it was a lovely way of weaving two strands together that are so often pulled apart: study and devotion.