Jesus was often involved with food

JESUS WAS OFTEN INVOLVED WITH FOOD
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
John 6:35 35ThenJesus declared, "I am the bread of
life. Whoevercomes to me will never go hungry, and
whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
BIBLEHUB RESOURCES
The True Bread
John 6:32
J.R. Thomson
From any other than Jesus Christ this language wouldhave been egotisticalin
the extreme. Coming from his lips, referring as it did to himself, this
declarationis natural enough. For since he was the Son of God, no claim
inferior to this would have been just. It is a marvellous metaphor, this, in
which our Lord proclaims himself the true Bread, the Breadfrom heaven, the
Breadof God, the Breadof life.
I. CONSIDERTHE HUNGER OF THE SOUL WHICH IS PRESUMED. The
body is dependent upon food for life, health, and strength; and the appetite of
hunger prompts to the seeking andpartaking of food. There is a
correspondence betweenthe hunger that craves and the bread that satisfies;
an adaptation of the supply to the necessity. There is a parallel arrangement
in the spiritual realm. Man is a weak, dependent, craving being, with an

ineradicable desire for the highestgood - a desire not to be appeasedby
earthly provisions. It is a spiritual appetite, which in many is deadened by
carnalindulgence, by sinful habit, yet which ever and anon recurs. What a
revelation of soul yearning would there be, could the inner nature and
experience of any congregationbe exposedto an observer's view!
II. CONSIDERTHE BREAD OF THE SOUL WHICH IS PROVIDED.
1. Christ, as the true Bread, is the gift of the Father. All the family are
dependent upon the liberality and thoughtfulness of the greatFather and
Benefactor. If "he openeth his hand, and satisfieth the desire of every living
thing," it is not to be believed that, providing for the lowerwants, he will
neglectthe higher. And, as a matter of fact, he has not done so.
2. Christ is the Bread"from heaven." As such he was prefigured by the
manna of the wilderness. This gift is bestowedfrom the sphere of the spiritual
and supernatural, which is thus brought near to our souls.
3. He is the true, the real Bread. There is no hollow pretence in this gift. God
is not a Fatherwho, if his son ask bread of him, will give him a stone. He who
made the soul of man knows how that soul's wants canbe fully and forever
met.
III. CONSIDER THE SATISFACTION OF THE SOUL WHICH IS
SECURED.
1. Christ is partaken, not by physical eating, but by communion of the spirit
with the Saviour. Faith is the means of appropriating the Divine provision.
Jesus in this conversationespeciallywarnedhis disciples of the error into
which some of them afterwards fell - the error of confounding carnal with
spiritual participation of his body and blood.
2. The result of feeding by faith upon the Bread of life is - satisfactionand
gladness, healthand vigour of soul, and a life which is immortal. "If a man eat
this Bread, he shall live forever." As the hunger of the Israelites was appeased
by the manna, as the hunger of the multitude was appeasedby the miraculous
multiplication of loaves in the wilderness, so have myriads in every age

partakenof the true and spiritual Bread, and have borne witness to its
efficacyto satisfy their deepestcravings, and to nourish their spiritual life. - T.
Biblical Illustrator
Lord, evermore give us this bread.
John 6:34, 35
Three sayings of Christ
Bp. Ryle.
I. ABOUT HIMSELF (ver. 35).
II. ABOUT THOSE WHO COME TO HIM (ver. 37).
III. ABOUT THE WILL OF HIS FATHER (vers. 39, 40).
(Bp. Ryle.)

The true hunger of the soul awakenedandsatisfiedin Christ
F. Ferguson, D. D.
I. MAN'S HUNGER. There is in every finite existence one greatappetite. No
creature is independent; it must draw life from another. In man, who is a
complex being, there are various kinds of hunger.
1. Natural.(1)Bodily hunger. Even as an upright creature man was made
dependent on the fruits of the ground; and now his first question is, "How am
I to get bread." How much thought and labour are expended on it! It has
impelled to every crime. Hunger pressedIsrael into Egypt, and that involved
mighty issues for both. Hunger brought Ruth into view and linked her with
the royal ancestryof Christ. The greatestspiritual conflict in the world was
connectedwith a state of hunger. The central petition of the Lord's prayer is
"Give us this day," etc.(2)Mental hunger. Man's bodily appetite is typical of
mental conditions.(a)The heart hungers for happiness. Man, when left to
himself, is an unhappy being.(b) The intellect hungers for truth. Man has been
made to inquire into, study, and know the truth of things.(c) The will hungers
for liberty. The triumph of a man's life is to prevail over the conditions which
would fetter him.(d) The conscience hungers for righteousness. We are made
to act in accordancewith the supreme law of the universe, the will of God. All
altars, sacrifices,priesthoods are witnessesto that.
2. Unnatural. Greatmultitudes, instead of seeking forlegitimate satisfaction,
lay hold of false food, and drug themselves. Forthese Satan keeps a great
variety of delusions.(1)Forlow natures coarse animalpleasures.(2)For
intellectual natures there are the sciences, etc.(3)Forlight and giddy natures
there is the world and all its glory.(4)For ambitious natures, principalities
and powers.(5)Formore serious and half. religious natures penancies,
pilgrimages, rites, ceremonies, and goodworks. The result of eating such false
bread is that the mere hunger of the soulis deadened, and a false appetite
created, which grows with what it feeds on, and this bread of death instead of
supporting the soul consumes it.
3. Supernatural; the longings which existwith any degree of strength only in
the renewednature. Along with the other tastes there may be a love of sin, but

this partly consists ofa hatred of sin and a love of all that is good, a counting
of all things but loss, so that we may gain Christ.
II. THE DIVINE PROVISION.
1. On what ground does God provide for our bodily hunger? Forthe sake of
Christ. He has tasted death for every man, and thus securedan ample day of
grace and every blessing, temporal as well as spiritual. Thus in a literal sense
Christ is the Bread of Life.
2. Christ is the true food for the human mind.(1) We canonly see the true
beauty and deep spiritual meaning of nature through Him.(2) He is the Bread
of Life to the conscience. In Him the sins of the pastare washedawayand the
law magnified and made honourable.(3) He is the Breadof Life to the heart.
The heart that loves not is dead — but Jesus has revealedand communicates
the love of God.
(F. Ferguson, D. D.)
Breadand water
J. Parker, D. D.
You call these common things. Their excellence has occasionedtheir
commonness, and their commonness corresponds to a common want in
humanity.
I. LET US APPLY THIS SOCIALLY. Look on the greatestfeastever
prepared. What are its delicacies?Simply an adaptation, decorationor
adulteration of bread and water, and the seatedguests are compelledto say,
"This is well enough now and then, but only now and then," let us have
something plain. Bread and watersurvive. Empires of soups, etc., which are
the image and superscription of the cook's, who is bound like other
fashionable slaves to produce something fresh, rise and fall; but bread and
waterare God's, and they endure.

II. THE APPLICATION OF THIS IS OBVIOUS IN THE HIGHER
SPHERES OF CULTURE. Reading and writing are the bread and waterof
the mind. Your duty to your child is done when you have given this; let him
get the rest for himself. But fine cookeryis imitated in fine intelligence, and
sometimes with like results — mental indigestion. Hence we have imperfect
French, caricaturedGerman, and murdered music, and the native tongue and
history passedby. When will people learn to prize bread and waterand see
that it is better to know a little well, than to know next to nothing about a
greatdeal?
III. THESE ILLUSTRATIONS PREPARE FOR THE HIGHEST TRUTH
OF ALL, viz., that Jesus Christ is the bread and water, without which man
cannot live. He never says that He is a luxury which the rich only can afford.
An adventurer would not have seenin metaphors so humble a philosophy so
profound.
1. Man needs Christ as a necessityand not as a luxury. You may be pleasedto
have flowers, but you must have bread. Jesus has often been presentedas an
ornament, a phenomenon; but He preachedHimself, and would have others
preach Him, as bread and water.
2. What has been the effectof omitting to declare Christ as bread and water?
Leaving the simplicity of Christ, we have elaboratedtheological sciences,
workedout a cunning symbolism, filled the Church with many coloured
garments, and constituted splendid hierarchies. All this means that man is a
fool, and prefers vanity to truth. Poorsouls are left to believe that they can
only getto Christ through priests, catechisms, and ecclesiasticalmumbling.
Take the pure Bible and read it for thyself, and thou shalt see the Lord and
eat heavenly bread.
3. History furnishes a most graphic confirmation of these views. J.S. Mill says:
"Let rational criticism take from us what it may, it still leaves us the Christ."
Exactly: it leaves us bread. It modifies the theologicalcook andconfectioner,
but it leaves the living water. Men can't get rid of Christ, because they can't
get rid of themselves. The Lord allows the chaff to be blown away, but saves

every grain of wheat;yet nervous people think that the wheatis lost because
the chaff is scattered.
(J. Parker, D. D.)
Breadthe symbol of Christ
Bp. Ryle.
He is to the soul what bread is to the body — its food.
I. Breadis NECESSARYfood. Other things may be dispensedwith, but all
need bread,
II. It is food that SUITS all — old and young, weak and strong.
III. It is the most NOURISHING kind of food: nothing does so much goodor
is so indispensable to bodily development.
IV. It is food that we NEED DAILY. Other foods are at best only occasionally
required.
V. It is the only food we are NEVER TIRED OF;hence it is on every table,
unlike every other kind of food.
(Bp. Ryle.)
The bread of life a representationof the Saviour
W. Jay.
1. All life is valuable in its degree. Vegetable life is superior to dead matter,
animal to vegetable life, rational to animal, the life of God to human life.
2. This latter was man's once;but it was forfeited, and is now restoredby the
Spirit. Hence Scripture loves to present religion under the notion of life; not
as a picture that is only resemblance, notas mechanism that is only form.

3. The relation in which Christ stands to this life. He is "bread," its
nourishment; bread, i.e., "bruised corn." He becomes our Saviour by His
death.
4. Breadis nothing to us unless eaten, so unless we "eatthe flesh of the Son of
God," etc.
I. THE WAY IN WHICH WE DERIVE ADVANTAGE FROM HIM. By
coming to Him or believing on Him.
1. This reminds us that Christ is accessible. "Where two or three," etc.
2. It teaches us that faith is not a notion, but a principle always attendedwith
an application of the soul to the Redeemer.
3. This application is not a single address, but a continued exercise.
"Cometh."
II. THE HAPPINESS HIS FOLLOWERS SHALL ENJOY.
1. They shall never hunger nor thirst againafter the world. Having tasted the
provisions of God's house, their language is, "Lord, evermore give us this
bread." A covetous, sensual, ambitious Christian is one the Scripture knows
nothing of.
2. They shall not hunger and thirst in vain. The new creature has appetites,
but ample provision is .made for them.
3. They shall not hunger and thirst always. The days of imperfect enjoyment
will soonbe over.Conclusion;The subject is a standard by which we may
estimate —
1. Christ.
2. Faith.
3. The Christian.
(W. Jay.)

The bread of life
B. Noel, M. A.
I. IN WHAT SENSE IS OUR LORD THE BREAD OF LIFE?
1. He evidently intimated that there was in Him that which, if properly
received, would communicate eternallife (vers. 51, 53).
2. He obviously points to His sufferings and death as that from which we were
to derive our life.
3. ForHim to be to us the bread of life depends on two things —
(1)That we receive the full pardon of our sins;
(2)that we have a meetness for glory by the sanctificationof our souls.
II. WHO ARE THOSE WHO DERIVE BENEFIT FROM HIM? Not all, but
only those who come in faith.
1. Before we cando this we must have a sense ofour need of Him.
2. Those will not come to Him who fail to see His perfections, believe in His
atonement, and hear His invitation.
3. There must be moral effort. "Labour." We must evidently turn our backs
resolutelyon the sins we loved.
4. We must come to Him by the prescribedmeans — meditation on His Word
and importunate prayer.
III. WHAT IS THE BENEFIT ofwhich He speaks. The believershall never
hunger or thirst —
1. After sin.
2. Noranxiously after holiness;only with such a sweetdesire as serves to
animate the spirit on its road to that state where it will thirst no more.
(B. Noel, M. A.)

Breadis for common use
H. W. Beecher.
I remember what bread was to me when I was a boy. I could not wait till I was
dressedin the morning, but ran and cut a slice from the loaf — all the way
round, too — to keepme until breakfast;and at breakfast, if diligence in
eating earned wages,I should have been well paid. And then I could not wait
for dinner, but ate again, and then at dinner; and I had to eat againbefore
tea, and at tea, and lucky if I didn't eatagain after that. It was bread, bread,
all the time with me, bread that I lived on and got strength from. Just so
religion is the bread of life; but you make it cake — you put it away in your
cupboard and never use it but when you have company. You cut it into small
pieces and put it on china plates, and pass it daintily round insteadof treating
it as bread, common, hearty bread, to be used every hour.
(H. W. Beecher.)
The soul needs to be often fed
C. H. Spurgeon.
When people are being strengthenedof God, they are not content with one
meal on the Sabbath; they want another, and perhaps a prayer-meeting or a
Sunday-schoolfor a dessert. They are not content with just two or three
minutes' prayer in the morning; they like, if they can, to slip out of business
and geta word with God in the middle of the day. They delight to carry a text
of Scripture in their memories to sweetentheir breath all the day, and they
cannot be happy unless they meditate upon the Word. I think you make a
greatmistake when you go galloping through the whole Bible, reading half a
dozen chapters every day; you do much better when you get a text and
ruminate upon it, just as the cows chew the cud. Turn the Scripture over and
over, and get all the juice, sweetness, andnourishment out of it, and you will
do well. The spiritually hungry man says, "I must go and hear some servant of

God, and hear what God, the Lord, will speak to me. I must getas much of the
heavenly food as I possibly can, for I need it so greatly."
(C. H. Spurgeon.)
Hunger a sign of health
C. H. Spurgeon.
Men who are mending find themselves hungry betweenmeals. "Oh," the
doctor says, "thatis a capital sign. You will get on now." I love to see God's
people when the Lord is strengthening them, for then they leave off being
dainty and fault-finding, and prove the truth of Solomon's proverb, that to the
hungry man every bitter thing is sweet. Thenthey come to Monday night
prayer-meetings and week evening services. Theyused to be able to do very
well from Sunday to Sunday, and I have known some of them get on with one
meal on the Lord's day, and like it all the better if that was quickly served and
soonover. When the gracious Lord strengthens His people they become very
sharp-set. Somebody said on Sunday morning to me, "Did you not feelit sweet
preaching?" I replied, "I always feelit sweetpreaching the gospelofthe grace
of God." "Ah, but," he said, "the people swallowedit all just as it came from
your mouth, and they seemedso hungry after it." Truly this makes a preacher
happy.
(C. H. Spurgeon.)
Christ the best food
Fuller.
The old Grecians that had fed altogetheron acorns before, after that bread
came in amongstthem they made no reckoning of their mast any more, but
kept it only for swine. And leathern and iron money beganto grow out of
request amongstthe Lacedemonians after that goldand silver came into use.
So when a man hath once found the favour of God in his heart, and the love of

God in Christ hath once lighted on it, and got assurance ofit, he ceaseththen
to be greedyof the world's trash, which is in regard of it but dross or pebble-
stones to gold and diamonds, as mast to the bestbread corn; yea, rather of far
less worth or value to that than either of these are to it.
(Fuller.)
Feeding on Christ
C. H. Spurgeon.
If anybody were to sayto me, "I have a man at home who stands in my hall,
and has stood there for years, but he has never eatena mouthful of bread all
the time, nor costme a penny for food," I should sayto myself, "Oh, yes, that
is a bronze man, I know, or a plastercastof a man. He has no life in him, I am
sure; for if he had life in him, he would have needed bread." If we could live
without eating, it would be a cheapmethod of existence;but I have never
found out the secret, andI do not mean to make experiments. If you are trying
it, and have succeededin it so far that you canlive without Christ, the bread
of life, I fear your life is not that of God's people, for they all hunger and thirst
after Jesus, the bread of heaven.
(C. H. Spurgeon.)
False food
H. O. Mackey.
During the Irish famine of 1849 the Duke of Norfolk invented a curry-powder
of which he boastedthat if takenby the starving peasants it would destroy all
cravings of hunger. How many remedies for the soul's hunger arc mere
mockeries ofunsatisfying! Curry-powder is poor food at the best.
(H. O. Mackey.)

Christ an incorruptible food
Ralph Robinson.
Christ is incorruptible meat and drink. All earthly meat and drink is of a
fading, perishing nature. The bestbread grows mouldy in a little time; the
best flesh in time putrefies and taints; the best wine grows eagerandsour in a
little time, and becomes unfit for the body of man; the very manna itself, when
it was kept till the morning of the next day, contrary to God's command, bred
worms, and stank (Exodus 16:20). But Jesus Christ knows no corruption. His
flesh and blood is now as sweetand pleasant, after so many ages, as it was the
first hour it was eatenand drank (chap. John 8:27). And it will be as far from
corruption at the end of the world as now it is. The manna in the goldenpot
corrupted not, though keptfor many generations. Christis manna in that
golden pot; the humanity in the golden pot of the Divinity shall see no
corruption.
(Ralph Robinson.)
Soul-satisfying bread
C. H. Spurgeon.
I. THE LORD JESUS IS TO BE RECEIVED BYEACH ONE OF US
PERSONALLYFOR HIMSELF. Breadwhich is not eaten will not stay
hunger. Water in the cup may sparkle, but it cannotslake thirst unless we
drink it. How do we receive Christ.
1. By coming to Him, which represents the first act of faith. We return to the
Christ from whom we have been alienatedwith a motion of the heart
performed by desire, prayer, assent, consent, trust, obedience.
2. Believing on Him, in the sense oftrusting Him.
3. Eating and drinking Him. It is monstrous that this should be taken literally,
for what greatercrime could there be than to eat the flesh of our Saviour?
What He meant was receiving Him into our hearts. Now, in eating —(1) The

food as a whole goes into our mouths; so as a whole Christ is receivedinto our
belief and trust.(2) We masticate it, and even in this way the believer thinks of
Jesus and discovers His preciousness.(3)It descends into the inward parts to
be digested; so Christ is to dwell and restin the affections till His comfort is
fully drawn forth.(4) The food is next assimilated;so the greattruths of Christ
are inwardly receivedtill our whole nature draws from them satisfactionand
strength.(5) As a man who has feastedwell, and is no more hungry, rises from
the table satisfied, so we feel that in our Jesus our entire nature has all it
wants.(6)The two points about Christ which He says are respectivelymeat
and drink are —
(a)His flesh, i.e., His humanity. Our soul feeds on the literal historical factthat
"Godwas in Christ," and was made flesh and dwelt among us.
(b)His blood, which clearlyrefers to His atoning death.
II. WHERE JESUS IS RECEIVED HE IS SUPREMELYSATISFYING —
1. To our highest and deepestwants, not to mere fancies and whims.
Hungering is no shame; thirst is not sentiment.
2. Christ meets the hungering of conscience, whichfeels that God must punish
sin, but is appeasedas it perceives that it has been punished in Christ.
3. Men, when awakened, have a hunger of fear, but when they find that Christ
has died for them, fear expires and love takes its place.
4. The heart has its hunger, but in Christ its roving affections find rest.
5. There are vastdesires in us all, and when we are quickenedthey expand,
and yet are satisfied.
6. This perfectsatisfactionis found only in Christ.
(1)Some have tried to be satisfiedwith themselves.
(2)Some have gone to Moses.
(3)Some have dosedthemselves into a torpor with the narcotics ofscepticism.

(4)Many stave off hunger by indifference, like the bears in winter, which are
not hungry because they are asleep.Conclusion:All believers bear witness that
Jesus Christ is satisfying to them.
1. They never seek additional ground of trust beyond Christ.
2. They never want to shift their confidence.
3. Christ satisfies in the hour of death.
(C. H. Spurgeon.)
The "I am" of Christ
Bp. Westcott.
This form of expressionis not found in the synoptists. It occurs not
unfrequently in St. John, and the figures with which it is connectedfurnish a
complete study of the Lord's work.
I. I am the LIGHT OF THE WORLD (chap. John 8:12).
II. I am the BREAD OF LIFE (vers. John 6:35,41,48,51).
III. I am THE DOOR (John 10:7,9).
IV. I am THE GOOD SHEPHERD (John10:11,14).
V. I am THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE (John 11:25).
VI. I am THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE (John 14:6).
VII. I am THE TRUE VINE (John 14:1-5).
(Bp. Westcott.)
Spiritual assimilation
S. S. Mitchell, D. D.

It is not what a man eats, but what he digests, that nourishes him. Now, so it is
with that truth which is food for the mind, which is the soul's nutriment.
There is a certainkind of truth which needs only to be heard, only to he
received:facts about the sun or earth, about light and heat and electricity. All
that you need to do in respectto these truths is to get them, to store them
awayin your mind. Thus, for instance, the sun is ninety-two millions of miles
from the earth. Receive these facts, and you need go no farther with them.
There is no necessaryafterprocess ofassimilation. They are of themselves
nourishment for the mind, without any such after process. Butnot so is it with
moral truth — that truth designedto regulate and govern human action. This
is worth nothing, unless it is wrought into the life; unless it be so assimilated
as to lose the form of abstracttruth, and become principle; unless it passes
into, is convertedinto life. This is the way with bread, when it does any good.
It does not remain bread. It turns to flesh and blood and bone. The bread of
yesterdayis the myriad-hued, the myriad-sided life of to-day. It is the
eloquence of the orator, and the strength of the drayman. It is the skill of the
artist, and the energy of the ploughman. And it is all this, through the
wonderful process ofassimilation, through the mysterious force of a
transubstantiation, strangerthan priest ever taught, or poet ever fancied.
Now, the truth of this analogyfurnishes an explanation of the fact that so
many persons in the world have a great dealof Bible know-ledge, an
abundance of moral truth, without having much of spiritual life. In such
Cases,truth has remained truth. Doctrine lies within them, as so much
doctrine. So moral truth remains as so much unassimilated knowledge in the
minds of thousands. And this analogy, besides anexplanation, suggests also
the greatduty we owe to our moral or spiritual being. It is this. The duty of
assimilating the moral truth which we have received, of turning it into life.
This should be our daily work. Is time nothing, and eternity everything? Do
we believe this? Then we should be more careful for an estate there, than for
building up one here. Is it true, that without holiness no one shall see the
Lord? Do we believe this? If so, how important that this truth should be
turned into a principle of actionin our daily life. And we should come to place
very little, if any, value upon the mere possessionoftruth. Many a post
mortem examination discloses plenty of unused food within the body. Still, the
man died — died, because his system did not take up and use the bread. So,

many a post mortem moral examination, no doubt, will exhibit an abundance
of moral truth within the soul. And farther than this I think we should go
here. We should come to place comparatively little value upon doctrines,
which we are unable to convert into life-force, from which we cannotgather
spiritual guidance and strength. If the truth which we possess is not digestible,
it is very poor stuff. But, without further amplification here, I ask your
attention to the greatmatter suggestedby the text — THE CONDITIONS OF
SPIRITUAL ASSIMILATION.
1. And the first I mention is, something to be assimilated. The process denoted
by this word is only the changing of one substance into another. Thus, the tree
takes the air and the sun. light, and the rain, and turns them into tree, into
roots and trunk, branches and fruit, into its own peculiar life. Every leaf on
your vine in spring-time is an open mouth, asking for these surrounding
substances, thatit may convert them into life for itself. It does not want light
and heat and moisture, as such. It does not lay them up as such, counting
them treasures. No, but silently, surely, swiftly, it assimilates them to itself.
The sunbeam, when your flowergets hold of it, is no longera sunbeam. No;
but it is blood in the veins of your rose, it is the blush upon its cheek, it is
sweetodour filling the air. Now, not otherwise is it with the life of the soul.
This life, like all others, grows by the process ofassimilation. But there must
be something to be assimilated;and what this something is the text distinctly
affirms. It is Christ, who is the bread of life, the bread which is turned into life
within the soul. Christ, and not something else;not philosophy, not art, not
knowledge. Where in the history of the world has any of these supported
moral life? Look at ancientEgypt, ancientGreece. Christis its food; but this
means the true Christ, and a whole Christ. The soul cannot live on the Pope,
or what of Christ may come through the Pope. It needs a whole Christ. Then,
again, take the case where Christ is shorn of His sympathy, of His boundless
love, of His ineffable yearning, and the same result is apparent. The soul
starves. Its bread againis only half bread. Then there is another half Christ,
the sentimental one. A Christ who is no sin-bearer, who holds no relation to
the Divine law as its atonement — a Christ, of whom it can, only by the widest
possible metaphor, be said, that He was made a curse — a Christ with no

blood I And the same sad result of spiritual life is here againwitnessed. Souls
are starved.
2. The secondcondition is a goodmoral atmosphere. This implies two things.
First, that your homes should be favourable to Christian life; and second, that
your daily business, outside the home, should be such and so conducted as to
be the same. No church, no religious privileges, can do much for any man or
woman, who either has no home, or whose home is a bad one. Why, suppose
you only gave your body one or two hours a week ofpure atmosphere. Could
you preserve health? Could you live? If you go from the church into an
atmosphere of frivolity and selfishness, ofacrimony and impurity, you will be
sure to arrestthe process ofspiritual assimilation. Shun evil and corrupt
association. It is said that the Upas-tree is girt in with a circle of dead and
rotting carcasesofbird and beast. So, upon every side of these corrupt rings,
are strewnthe dead consciences, the lost souls of men. See to it, then, that you
breathe the atmosphere of love and of kindness, of purity and of honesty, day
by day.
3. The third condition of spiritual assimilationis activity, the exercise ofthe
new and true life. Duty is a Divine and immutable condition of moral growth.
"He that savethhis life shall lose it." Selfish idleness will kill any soul.
Something you must do for this world in which you live, if you would do the
best for yourself.
4. A fourth condition of spiritual assimilationis thought, intelligence. Better
believe half of what you do, intelligently, with your whole soul, than believe it
all, languidly, ignorantly.
5. The last condition of spiritual assimilationwhich I mention, and the great
one, is the presence of the vital principle — the vital principle which
philosophy cannot find out, which chemistry cannotdetect. See those two
trees. One of them lifts up its bare and shrunken branches;the other is
coveredwith leaves, and the birds sing among its branches. Yet the air, the
sunshine, the moisture, all within reach of both of these trees. What makes the
difference? Why, in one the vital principle is present, from the other it has
departed. Take two members of the same family again. One stands before the

cross, only to fall in worship. The other hunts through the soil, wetwith the
blood of the Saviour, for gold, and lifts up his face to blaspheme, when he
finds it not. The cross is life to the one, but death remains in the case ofthe
other.Two orthree remarks in conclusion.
1. It is Christ who is the Breadof Life — not the Church, not truth, not
doctrines; but Christ the personalChrist.
2. Christ being the Breadof Life, characterbecomes a goodtestof the
soundness of faith. He who is pure, who is Christlike in conduct, must have
partakenof Him who is the only bread of such a life.
3. Many of us are daily guilty in this matter. We transgress, yearafter year,
the plainestlaws of spiritual health and of moral growth.
(S. S. Mitchell, D. D.)
The Breadof Life
John Crofts, M. A.
Every one acknowledgesthe golden cornfields to be full of the highest
spiritual teaching. It is as if He who gave us the Written Word, which we call
the Bible — "the Book" — speciallydesignedthe harvest-field to be to it a
sort of companion volume; and to that purpose filled it to overflowing with the
most striking and beautiful illustrations, which should be at the same time
bright enough to catch the attention of the most untutored, and profound
enough to richly repay the deepeststudy of the thoughtful and learned. Nor
would our Saviour allow this beautiful supplementary volume to be neglected
or overlooked. Letus listen for a moment to what science has to tell us of the
characterand position of corn in the economyof nature. Corn belongs to the
secondgreatorder of plants — the lily order; and according to the
evolutionist's theory it is either a lily in the making, or in a degenerate and
degradedform. This latter theory is the generallyacceptedone. In process of
the ages the corn-plant which was, and is still, of the lily order, gradually
developed the invaluable property of producing corn, and did ibis at the

expense of its beauty. It separateditselffrom its beautiful sisters, laid aside
the glory of the colouredvesture and elegance whichbelongedto it as of right,
and took insteadthe russetgarments in which we see it now clad; and all in
order that it might be of service in its day and generation, and give its own life
and substance for the life and support of others. If this were so, what a
wonderful little parable we have in its history of the law of self-sacrifice, and
of the blessing and rewardattending such sacrifice:for what if it that really
happens to the corn as a result of its self-surrender? We callit now the "staff
of life." That is its usual and well-fitting title. To be singled out from all other
plants in the world as the very staff of human life were, I say, marvellous
honour for so small and insignificant a plant. But more than that; in giving its
life as the staff of ours it, becomes itselfa partaker of a nobler nature. In
eating it we incorporate its nature with ours, so that it becomes part of our
very selves — bone of our bones and flesh of our flesh — and in a very real
sense it comes in this wayto participate with us in the enjoyment of human
life. What a striking illustration we have here, then, of some of our Saviour's
words! Jesus said, "He that loveth his life shall lose it, and he that hateth his
life in this world shall keepit unto life eternal;" and the life-history of the
corn emphasizes this truth in a way so remarkable that no one can help being
impressed by it. But we have not exhaustedthis lessonevenyet, nor have we
reacheda thousandth part of the honour God has designedto bestow upon the
self-abasing little plant; for when the Lord Jesus Himself came down from
heaven to give His life for the world, and one day stoodand lookedaround
Him for a figure by which He might signify something of His ownPersonand
office, He could find nothing better to His purpose than the little corn-plant in
its so-calleddegradedform and russet-dress. "Iam the Breadof Life," He
said, "I am the living Bread which came down from heaven." We can well
appreciate the aptness of that simile. The plant that had laid aside its lily-
dress, and put off all its glory — clothing itself in russet-brown, and stooping
very low, that it might give its life for the many — and, moreover, that could
even then only become life-giving bread by being first bruised and crushed
and broken — I saywe can wellperceive how fitting a type in all these
particulars it was of Him "who made Himself of no reputation," etc.
"Wherefore Godalso hath highly exalted Him," etc.

(John Crofts, M. A.)
The Breadof Life
W. Hoyt, D. D.
1. Every living thing is a feeding thing. That it feeds is the test and signalthat
it lives.
2. Moreover, everyliving thing, whateverit may be, whether lowestin the
scale ofexistence, orhighest, must have food appropriate to itself, or it cannot
live. There is a pathetic story which comes to us from the earlier explorations
of the vast island of Australia. In the central deserts of that island there grows
a strange plant calledthe nardoo, bearing leaves like clover. The Englishmen
Burk and Wells, who were making these explorations, in the failure of other
food, followedthe example of the natives, and began to eatthe leaves and
roots of this plant named nardoo. It seemedto satisfy them; it seemedto fill
them with a pleasantsense of comfortand repletion. But they grew weaker
every day, and more emaciated;they were not hungry, for the plant seemedto
satisfy the calling of hunger. But all the effects of an unfilled hunger beganto
appear in them; their flesh wastedfrom their bones, their strength leakedtill
they scarcelyhad the energy of an infant; they could not crawlon in their
journey more than a mile or two a day. At lastone of them perished of star-
vation; the other was rescuedin the last extremity of it. On analysis, it was
discoveredthat the bread made of this plant lackedan element essentialto the
sustenance ofa European. And so, even though they seemedfed, the explorers
wastedaway, and one of them died, because they were feeding on a sustenance
in. appropriate.
3. Now all this is true of man's higher and moral nature. The mistake men are
constantly making is, that they seek to feed their higher nature upon wrong
food, which may satisfyfor the time, but in the long run cannot keepback the
pangs of a noble spiritual hunger.
4. This is what Christ came into the world to be to men — the appropriate,
satisfying, sustaining, upbuilding food for their highest nature.

(1)Christ, the Breadof Life, feeds and fills the human hunger for Divine
sympathy.
(2)Divine forgiveness.
(3)Divine helping.Lessons:
1. Do not refuse the Breadof Life because there are some things in Him you
cannot understand, any more than you refuse the bread upon your tables,
though there are mysteries in it that no science canexplain.
2. See the adaptation to our needs of the greattruth of our Lord's Divine-
human nature. He could not be the Bread of Life to us did He not possesssuch
a nature.
3. Learn the essentialmeaning of religion. The essentialmeaning of my
physical life is, that I come into contactwith food. The essentialmeaning of
my religious life is, that I as really and as utterly come into the Foodof my
spiritual nature — Christ.
(W. Hoyt, D. D.)
COMMENTARIES
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(35) I am the bread of life.—Comp. againthe conversationwith the woman of
Samaria. Here they have askedfor “this bread,” the bread which giveth life,
as distinct from that which perisheth. It is now presentwith them. He is that
bread, whose characteristicis life. He is the Word of God, revealing God to
man, teaching the eternal truths which are the life of the spirit just as bread is
of the body.
He that cometh to me . . . he that believeth on me.—The natural bread
satisfiedno need unless it was appropriated and eaten. Prompted by hunger,

they had takeninto hand and mouth the loaves He had given them, and were
filled. The same law holds for the spiritual bread. It is takenby him who
comes to Christ; it is eatenby him who believes on Him, and it satisfies every
need. It sustains the spiritual life in strength, and refreshes it in weariness.
The bread of life giveth a principle of life, and he who hungereth and thirsteth
for it shall also be filled, but with that which abideth, so that he shall never
hunger and shall never thirst. (Comp. Matthew 5:6.)
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
6:28-35 Constantexercise offaith in Christ, is the most important and
difficult part of the obedience required from us, as sinners seeking salvation.
When by his grace we are enabledto live a life of faith in the Son of God, holy
tempers follow, and acceptable services maybe done. God, even his Father,
who gave their fathers that food from heaven to support their natural lives,
now gave them the true Bread for the salvationof their souls. Coming to
Jesus, and believing on him, signify the same. Christ shows that he is the true
Bread; he is to the soul what bread is to the body, nourishes and supports the
spiritual life. He is the Breadof God. Breadwhich the Father gives, which he
has made to be the food of our souls. Breadnourishes only by the powers of a
living body; but Christ is himself living Bread, and nourishes by his own
power. The doctrine of Christ crucified is now as strengthening and
comforting to a believer as ever it was. He is the Breadwhich came down
from heaven. It denotes the Divinity of Christ's person and his authority; also,
the Divine origin of all the goodwhich flows to us through him. May we with
understanding and earnestnesssay, Lord, evermore give us this Bread.
Barnes'Notes on the Bible
I am the bread of life - I am the support of spiritual life; or my doctrines will
give life and peace to the soul.
Shall never hunger - See the notes at John 4:14.
Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBible Commentary

35. I am the bread of life—Henceforththe discourse is all in the first person,
"I," "Me," which occurin one form or other, as Stier reckons, thirty-five
times.
he that cometh to me—to obtain what the soul craves, and as the only all-
sufficient and ordained source of supply.
hunger … thirst—shall have conscious and abiding satisfaction.
Matthew Poole's Commentary
I am the bread of life; the bread that giveth spiritual and eternallife, and the
bread that upholdeth and maintains spiritual life; the Messiah, whomGod
hath sent into the world, to quicken those that are dead in trespassesand sins,
Ephesians 2:1; and to give eternal life to as many as the Father hath given me.
But those that have this life, must come unto me; which he interprets in the
next phrase by believing in him. Thus he taketh them off all gross and carnal
conceptions ofeating and drinking in a carnalmanner; and minds them to
think of getting and maintaining another kind of life than they dreamed of. By
believing in him, we have formerly showedis to be understood a receiving of
him as the Mediatorand Saviour of men, and closing with him, and
committing their souls in all their spiritual concerns unto him; and he that
doth so (saith he) shall never hunger nor thirst; that is, shall never want any
thing necessaryfor him for life and eternalhappiness. And for things of this
life, he shall have food convenientfor him; he shall be fed, Psalm37:3. See
such a promise, Isaiah49:10.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And Jesus saidunto them, I am the bread of life,.... Christ is so called, because
he gives life to dead sinners: men in a state of nature are dead in trespasses
and sins; and whateverthey feed upon tends to death; Christ, the true bread,
only gives life, which is conveyedby the word, and made effectualby the
Spirit: and because he supports and maintains the life he gives;it is not in the
powerof a believer to support the spiritual life he has; nor can he live on
anything short of Christ; and there is enough in Christ for him to live upon:
and because he quickens, and makes the saints lively in the exercise ofgrace,

and discharge ofduty, and renews their spiritual strength, and secures for
them eternal life.
He that cometh to me shall never hunger; not corporeallyto hear him preach,
or preached, or merely to his ordinances, to baptism, or the Lord's table; but
so as to believe in him, feed, and live upon him, as the next clause explains it:
and he that believeth on me shall never thirst; and which is owing, not to the
powerand will of man, but to divine teachings, and the powerful drawings of
the efficacious graceofGod; see John6:44. Now of such it is said, that they
shall never hunger and thirst; which is true of them in this life, though not to
be understood as there were no sinful desires in them; much less, that there
are no spiritual hungerings and thirstings after they are come to Christ; but
that they shall not desire any other food but Christ; they shall be satisfied
with him; nor shall they hereafterbe in a starving and famishing condition, or
want any goodthing: and in the other world there will be no desires after that
which is sinful, nor indeed after outward ordinances, in order to enjoy
communion with God in them, as now, for they will then be needless;nor shall
they have any uneasydesires after Christ, and his grace, and the enjoyment of
him, since he will be all in all to them.
Geneva Study Bible
And Jesus saidunto them, I am the bread {i} of life: he that cometh to me
shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
(i) Which has life and gives life.
EXEGETICAL(ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges
35–50.Identification of the Spiritual Breadwith Christ
35. I am the bread of life. The pronoun is very emphatic: comp. John 4:26. As
in John 5:30, He passes from the third to the first person. ‘Breadof life’
means ‘bread that giveth life.’ Comp. ‘the tree of life’ (Genesis 2:9; Genesis

3:22; Genesis 3:24), ‘the waterof life’ (Revelation21:6; Revelation22:1). In
the remainder of the verse ‘He that comethto Me’= ‘he that believeth on Me,’
and ‘shall never hunger’ = ‘shall never thirst;’ i.e. the believer shall
experience the continual satisfactionofhis highest spiritual needs. The
superiority of Christ to the manna consists in this, that while it satisfiedonly
bodily needs for a time, He satisfies spiritual needs for ever.
Bengel's Gnomen
John 6:35. Ἐγώ εἰμι, I am) To those who seek Him, He offers Himself
immediately.—τῆς ζωῆς, of life) Both living, John 6:51, and life-giving, John
6:54, “Whoso eatethMy flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life.”—ὁ
ἐρχόμενος πρός με, he who cometh to Me) So John 6:37; John 6:44-45;John
6:65. The parallel expressionto it follows presently, ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ, he
who believes on Me [ch. John 7:37-38, quoted above].—οὐ μὴ πεινάσῃ, shall
not hunger) Understand πώποτε, ever, from the end of the verse.—οὐ μὴ
διψήσῃ, shall not thirst) He touches on that, which subsequently He handles
more fully, as to drink, John 6:53, etc.:“My blood is drink indeed” [John
6:55].
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 35. - [But, or then] Jesus saidto them, now dropping all disguise, and
gathering up into one burning word all the previous teaching, which they
might have fathomed, but did not. I am the Bread of life; or "that which
cometh down out of heaven, the veritable life-eternal-giving Bread, which I, as
the stewardof the Divine bounty, am giving, is my very self, my Divine
humanity." On other occasions the Lord said, "I am the Light of the world"
(John 8:12), "I am the goodShepherd" (John 10:14), "I am the Resurrection
and the Life" (John 11:25), "I am the veritable Vine" (John 15:1). He claims
here to be giving himself to the world, as the Source of its true life. The mode
in which any human being can so assimilate this Breadthat it should
accomplishits purposes and transform itself into life, is by "coming" or
"believing." The two terms are parallel, though in "craning" there is more
emphasis laid on the distinct actof the will than in "believing." The process is
very impressively conveyed. He who has started to come, he that is coming to

me, shall by no means hunger; he that is believing on me - endeavouring to
effectsuch inward approval and surrender - shall never thirst (the πώποτε
responds here to the πάντοτε). There is no specialsignificance in the two-
foldness of the parallel. "Coming" does not stand in any more immediate
relation to "eating" than to "drinking," to the satisfactionofhunger than to
that of thirst, nor does "believing" connote exclusivelyeither the one or the
other. The parallelism is a strengthening of the same idea. Approach to
himself, believing surrender to the reality of his word, will satisfythe most
pressing spiritual need, and do it in such a way that the hunger and thirst
shall not, shall never, return. There is an invincible and unalterable assent
produced by a real apprehensionof Christ, which cannot be shakenout of the
soul. Satisfactionofhunger may possibly (as Godetsuggests)point to the
supply of strength, and the appeasing of thirst to the supply of peace. The
deeper idea is that the desire of the soul is satisfied, and it is not a recurrent
desire. There are certain realities which, if once perceived, can never be
unknown afterwards. There are consolationswhich, if once supplied,
absolutely stanchand heal the wounds of the soul. Christ, in "coming down
from heaven," by revealing the Divine Sonship in a Son of man. brings all
heaven with him, opens all the Father's heart. To come to him and to believe
on him is to feedon the corn of heavenand drink of that river of life, clearas
crystal, which is ever issuing from the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Vincent's Word Studies
I am the bread of life
A form of expressionpeculiar to John. See John 6:41, John 6:48, John 6:51;
John 8:12; John 10:7, John 10:9, John 10:11, John 10:14;John 11:25; John
14:6; John 15:1, John 15:5.
Cometh - believeth
Faith in its active aspectand in its resting aspect.
Never(οὐ μὴ)
Rather, in nowise, orby no means. Rev., shall not.

END BIBLEHUB RESOURCES
A FOCUS ON FOOD Basedon Mark 8:1-10
By PastorGlenn Pease
Many years ago when Rudyard Kipling was a popular writer it was
reported that he was getting 10 shillings for every word he wrote. Some
students at Oxford University, who were not impressed with Kipling, sent him
10 shillings with a request that he send them one of his very best words. He
cabled back one word-thanks!
This is certainly one of the very best words in any persons vocabulary. I
became curious about what use Jesus made of this word thanks, and to my
surprise I discoveredthat Jesus usedthe word more often for food than all
other uses put together. He is not revealedas thanking God for nature, for
people, or for the temple in which to worship, but over and over againJesus is
portrayed as giving thanks for ordinary, everyday, commonplace food. The
main New Testamentword for thanks is eucharisteo. Outof the 9 times it is
on the lips of Jesus 8 of them are in reference to food. Now, lestyou think this
is a Greek word somehow relatedto food, let me assure you this is not the
case. The primary use of this word in the New Testamentis from the pen of
Paul, and he hardly ever used it for food. In all of the letters of Paul he is
always giving thanks for people.
The evidence overwhelmedme because Jesusis the only personin the
Bible who is so thankful for food that it becomes a prominent part of His life's

story. Here in the record of His feeding of the 4000 Jesus is recordedas giving
thanks 2 times in two verses. FirstHe thanks God for the 7 loaves in verse 6,
and then He takes the few small fish in verse 7 and gives thanks again. The
secondtime He uses a synonym that can also mean praise. He thanked God
for the bread and praised God for the fish. This is the only miracles Jesus
performed where He expressesHis thanks twice for the same meal.
In the feeding of the 5000 He only gave thanks once. The only other place
we see this double thanksgiving is also connectedwith food, but it is not a
miracle meal. It was the Last Supper, and Jesus in Luke 22 first took the cup
and gave thanks, and then He took the bread and gave thanks. Jesus was a
thankful person, and even though in His deity He was the creatorof all food,
in His humanity He was thankful for food. The dinner table is a frequent
piece of furniture in the life of our Lord. A focus on the role of food in His life
will magnify the reality of His humanity.
Mark's Gospelis a food-filled Gospel. The only miracles that all four of
the Gospels recordis the miracle of feeding the 5000. Mark goes beyondthe
others and records the feeding of the 4000 which Luke and John do not
record. He tells of the eating and drinking and feasting and banquets of
Jesus. Jesus ate with just about everybody. There was the tax collectors, the
sinners, and even the Pharisees. Mealswere sucha major matter that the
disciples of Jesus were suspectedofnot being as spiritual as John's disciples
and Pharisees,forthey fasted, but the disciples of Jesus did not. In Mark 2:19
Jesus defends their non-stop feasting by pointing out that you do not fast at a
wedding, and that was the atmosphere of His ministry. He was the
bridegroom, and the they were the guests, andso feasting was always in order.
The Pharisees did not like the crowdthat He ate with, nor the frequency of
His eating. It just did not seemvery spiritual to them, but to Jesus it was very
spiritual, and it was that for which He had so much gratitude. We know the

Pharisees made a big issue about Jesus healing on the Sabbath, but they also
made a big issue about His Sabbath eating habits. His disciples would pick off
some grain as they walkedthrough the grain field on the Sabbath. The
Pharisees chargedthem with breaking the law. Jesus defendedthem and said
in Mark 2:25-26, "Have you never read what David did when he and his
companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high
priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecratedbread, which is
lawful only for priests to eat, and he also gave some to his companions."
Jesus plays the role of the lawyer, and in defending his disciples he appeals
to precedent as any goodlawyerwould. Meeting the need of hunger is so
basic that it has priority over legalistic andceremoniallaws, and He sums up
His argument in verses 27 and 28: "The Sabbath was made for man not man
for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." When it
came to eating on the Sabbath Jesus is 100% in favor of it, and in Mark 1 He
even healed Peter's mother-in-law on the Sabbath, and she got out of bed and
made them a Sabbath meal.
Eating was not only a basic part of the sociallife of Jesus and His disciples,
it was a part of His healing ministry. When He raisedthe little 12 year old
girl from the dead, the first thing He said in Mark 5:43 was, "Give her
something to eat." Todayyou are given an IV with nourishment going into
your body because they know this is important in the prevention of shock. It
is vital part of the healing process,and Jesus knew this long before science
did.
We could go on through many references showing how food played a major
role in the ministry of Jesus, but we want to just look at the conclusionof His
ministry at the Last Supper. A large portion of the Gospels revolve around
this lastmeal. The Gospelis perpetuated through this meal, for Jesus left us
with the command to remember Him by eating bread and drinking a cup.

Mealsymbolism is the means by which the Mastermakes His atoning death a
perpetual part of our memory. All of this introduction is a foundation for the
point I am making which is-
I. THANKGIVING FOR FOOD IS A CHRISTLIKE FOCUS.
The reasonI think this is an important issue is that Christians often feel
more like the Pharisees then the Lord. We feel like too much focus on the
body and its pleasure in eating is not spiritual. At Thanksgiving we often feel
like gluttonous pagans when we spend so much time planning, buying,
preparing, and then devouring food. It all seems so secularand unspiritual
that if someone told us they only had a hamburger and fries at Thanksgiving
we would tend to feel they should be nominated for sainthood. We have an
uneasy feeling about our love for food. To add to the mixed feelings we know
that much food is a major cause ofhealth problems. So as American
Christians we are caughtin some ambiguous feelings about the spirituality of
our Thanksgiving celebration. Eating disorders are a problem, and on the
other hand millions are starving, so the more we think about food the more
mixed our feelings get.
To take food, and plenty of it, awayfrom Thanksgiving is like taking gifts
awayfrom Christmas, eggs awayfrom Easter, and fireworks awayfrom the
4th of July. Foodis the very essenceofThanksgiving. Mypoint is, we do not
need to feel that this is some sortof compromise with our culture, for the
spirit of Thanksgiving for goodand abundant food goes wayback before our
culture even existed, and is the foundation for why it is a part of our culture.
The American spirit came from the Christian spirit, and not the other way
around. The people who gave us Thanksgiving were Christian people. The
backgroundfor the first Thanksgiving in America is quite similar to the

feeding of the 4000 in our text. The people had been following Jesus for 3
days, and whatever provisions they had were now depleted. Jesus knew if He
dismissedthem to go home some of them would faint for lack of food. Jesus
had compassiononthese hungry people, and that was the motivation for this
massive meal by miracle. His own disciples only had 7 loaves and a few small
fish. This was scarcelyenoughfood for them to have a meal, but Jesus
multiplied it to feed the multitude.
The first Thanksgiving in America had this same desperate setting. The
Pilgrims in 1623 found themselves facing a crisis. A greatdrought had left
them with no rain on their crops from May to the middle of July. The people
down South in Virginia wonderedwhy the Pilgrims did not just give up and
come down to God's country where food was abundant. I am sure there were
people who thought the 4000 following Jesus were fools to be off in the barren
desertlistening to Him when they could be on the coastcatching an
abundance of fish. The Pilgrims trusted God to deliver them, and so they set
aside a day of fervent prayer. GovernorWilliam Bradford kept a journal of
these trying times, and so we have an eye witness accountof the events that
lead to Thanksgiving.
Bradford describes the day of prayer, and I will break into his accountand
share a portion: "...forall the morning and greatestpart of the day, it was
clearweatherand very hot, and not a cloud or any sign of rain to be seen;yet
toward evening it beganto overcastand shortly after to rain with such sweet
and gentle showers as gave them cause ofrejoicing and blessing God....Itcame
without either wind or thunder or any violence, and by degrees in that
abundance as that the earth was thoroughly soakedtherewith. Which did so
apparently revive and quicken the decayedcorn and other fruits, as was
wonderful to see, and made the Indians astonishedto behold. And afterwards
the Lord sent them such seasonable showers,with interchange of fair warm
weatherand through His blessing causeda fruitful and liberal harvest...for
which mercy, in time convenient, they also setapart a day of Thanksgiving."

Jesus fed the 4000 by miraculous provision of food. He fed the Pilgrims by
a natural provision of food, but the end result was the same: people filled
with gratitude for food. The focus on food was the very heart of the American
Thanksgiving because God's people were gratefulfor His provisions. Feasting
with lots of food is symbolic of God's blessing. Famine and lack of food is
symbolic of God's judgment, and being in a state which is out of His will.
Jesus had His longestencounterwith Satanwhen He had gone without food
for 40 days. Lack of food and spiritual warfare were linked just as abundance
of food and thanksgiving to God are linked.
When Jesus endured His greatestdarknessonthe cross, andfelt forsaken
by God, He was a very hungry man. He had lasteatenon Thursday evening.
He had since been through the energy consuming struggle in the garden of
Gethsemane, and the all night illegaltrial. He was hurried to the cross
without breakfastand hung there through the lunch hour, and at mid-
afternoonin His state of horrible hunger He felt God forsaken. He died a
hungry man, but when He rose from the dead He ate with His disciples again,
and promised He would eat with them forever. Lack of food and lack of
God's presence go hand in hand. The most cursedtimes in the history of
Israelwere times of terrible famine. In famine they were God forsaken. They
suffered horrible starvation under God's judgment, but when they lived in
obedience they feastedon great abundance.
Foodwas always a focus of thanksgiving. In the great23rd Psalm the very
essenceofbeing led by the GoodShepherd is abundance of food. "You
prepare a table before me in the presence ofmy enemies." The lying down in
greenpastures and being lead beside still waters is enjoying abundance of
eating and drinking. How revealing is the picture of the Good Shepherd in
Rev. 7 where He leads His people who have been through greattribulation to
springs of living water, and verse 16 says, "Neveragainwill they hunger;

never again will they thirst." The very essenceofheavenis food and drink in
abundance with hunger and thirst banished along with all other evils.
No wonder Jesus taughtus to pray, "Give us this day our daily bread."
Every meal we enjoy is a little taste of heaven. It is a reminder that God is
good, and that we have a basis for perpetual thanksgiving. Notonly is it not
unspiritual to focus on food for Thanksgiving, it is the very essenceof
spirituality to be thankful for food. Where do we begin our training of our
children to be thankful to God? We begin at the table with such prayers as,
"Godis great, God is good, and we thank Him for our food." Or, "Come
Lord Jesus be our guest, let this daily food be blest."
Why do we begin with food? Because foodis the primary symbol of God's
goodness. If you are not thankful for food, you are not a thankful person. If
you do not have food, nothing else matters. It is a level where the smallest
child can begin to grasp gratitude, and it rises to the level of the most
profound theology where Jesus says in John 6:51, "I am the living bread that
came down from heaven. If a man eats of this bread, he will live forever. This
bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." How is a man
saved? It is by what he eats. You are what you eat, and Jesus says you can
only have eternal life if you eatright. Here is food exaltedto the level of the
key to eternity. Jesus goes onin John 6:53-56, and stressesoverand over that
the keyto eternal life is in eating the proper diet. Your diet determines your
destiny. Jesus says,
"I tell you the truth, 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 him up at the lastday. Formy flesh
is real food and my blood is realdrink. Whoever
eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me
and I in him."
If you have been thinking that all this focus on food is much ado about
nothing, and trifling with trivialities, now you will have to change your mind,
for Jesus has lifted this subject to the highest conceivable levelof theology.
This subject is to vast to coverin one message. It takes us through the whole
Old Testamentsacrificialsystemwhere after the sacrifice was offeredto God
the priests and the people ate the sacrifice in a feastof thanksgiving. Jesus
was our sacrifice. He was the Lamb of God that takes awaythe sin of the
world. He was the bestsacrificialLamb ever offered to God. All the other
lambs were eaten and enjoyed with thanksgiving. What is to be done with the
best offering ever? Jesus says that He too is to be food for a feastof
thanksgiving. He is our manna from heaven. He is our sacrificialmeat which
we are to enjoy perpetually as we thank Godfor this provision that
guarantees we will never hunger again. In Christ we consume that food and
drink that feeds the eternalnature and gives it life abundant.
Taking Christ into your life is taking nourishment that feeds the soul. The
Christian life from salvationto eternity has a food focus. Jesus saidto the
church, "BeholdI stand at the door and knock, if any man hears my voice and
opens the door I will come in and eatwith him and he with me." Eating
togetherwith Christ is where the Christian life begins. The new birth is a
birthday party. It is a feastfor the soul, and the final result of this meal with
the Masterwill be the marriage supper of the Lamb that begins eternity.
That first feastwith Jesus leads to feasting with Him forever. The Christian
life is to be a feastoriented life of enjoying food on all levels. There is food for
the body, for the mind, and for the soul.

To try and get awayfrom the focus on food for thanksgiving is to quench
the Spirit. You have to cut out a vast chunk of the Bible if you are going to
judge a food focus to be secularand unspiritual. You have to rejectthe
symbolism of Christ and a large portion of Scripture. Focusing on food does
not make you spiritual, for everybody does that. The most depraved and
ungodly will feaston thanksgiving. They will stuff themselves with no thought
of God. The response to this thoughtless and thankless feasting, however, is
not fasting, nor guilt, for our feasting. We are to feastwith a thankful heart
for the goodness ofGod that allows us to enjoy the abundance and pleasure of
food. Jesus lovedto feed people, and He died that we might have access again
to the tree of life for all eternity, and be able to eat foreverthe wonderful
fruits of God's creation.
In a sense, we are savedto eat. That is a sloganI have never seenin print,
but the facts of the Bible support it as a legitimate Christian slogan. We are
not born to lose, we are born to eat. We are born to enjoy what God has made
to give life on every level, for body, mind, and soul. Jesus is the total caterer,
for He provides food for the total man. To eaton the highest level is to feed on
the Word. We are to taste and see that the Lord is good. The Christian is to
enjoy
feasting for the total man. Christians are not to be gluttons, but they are to be
people who enjoy physical food as well as the mental and spiritual.
When we don't feel goodwe do not enjoy food. This is not a goodstate to
be in, but one which is negative, and one which does not produce the fruit of
the Spirit. We are most loving, joyful, peaceful, and in harmony with God
and man when we are cable of enjoying a goodmeal. The physical and the
spiritual are linked. All that hinders the enjoyment of food is of the kingdom
of evil. Sickness,depression, grief: you can put togethera whole list of things
that make us not enjoy eating, and they are all negative, and things that the

devil uses to rob us of abundant life. In contrast, all that leads to feasting and
enjoyment of food are things like health, joy, love, friendship, and victory over
the forces ofevil.
There is no escaping the facts, the focus on food is inescapable forthe
thoughtful person. Everything that God gives is food for the body, mind, or
spirit. He feeds the total man, and the more we recognize this, the more we
will see all of life as a feastof one sortor another, for which to be thankful.
God is the greatProvider. He provides the manna for His people in every
wilderness. In the feeding of the 4000 Christ is the Cosmic Catererdoing in a
more visible waywhat He has always done and will always do, feedHis sheep.
Israelin the wilderness came to see God as their daily host. The manna fell in
abundance, but they could not use doggie bags. Theycould only take enough
for the day. They had to depend on God everyday and not save up so they
could forget Him for a day or so. It is dangerous to be independent of God,
for we too easilyslip into thinking we can provide for ourselves, forwe are not
charity cases.
That is our greatsin as Americans. We are so affluent that we forgetour
dependence on God. Give us this day our daily bread is not relevant to us.
We buy groceries fora week or two, and we know we are always setfor better
than a day. We lose this sense of dependence on God, and thus, we lose a
sense ofgratitude for daily provision. We do not see Godas our daily
deliverer supplying our need for food. Our problem is not that we are too
focusedon food, but that we are not focusedenough on thankfulness for our
food. We try to minimize food, and in so doing we eliminate a basic element
for the building up of a spirit of gratitude.
Meals just do not last. Even this miraculous meal did not lastlong. By the
time these 4000 men got home they were, no doubt, extremely hungry again.
This miracle was no cure-all for hunger. It was just a stop gap measure to

help these people getback to their normal world where they provided for
their own daily needs. So this miracle lunch was old news by supper time.
Miracles do not last, and to depend on miracles is to make a major mistake. If
you are only thankful for miracles, you are not a very thankful person. We
need to see that God's primary way of meeting our needs is through natural
means, and this is to be the basis for most of our thanksgiving.
There is no hint that these people gatheredin the wilderness eachyearto
celebrate this greatevent of mass feeding. It was done and gone, and life went
on. They had to go fishing for fish, and they had to farm for bread the rest of
their lives in order to eat. Jesus did not tell them to forsake their farms and
boats and follow Him, and He would feed them by miracles. He sent them
back home to labor for their meals. The miracles solvedno problem, but only
met the need for this one meal. If you have never been fed by a miracle, do
not feelbad. Just be thankful you have the natural means by which to meet
your need for food. Your gratitude can never depend on miracles. This is
true in the spiritual realm as well. We need to be thankful for the
commonplace everyday provisions of food for the total man.
We become victims of our culture when we cannotbe thankful on this level,
but demand more and more things in order to feel gratitude. This has always
been a danger for Christians, and Paul warned about it in his day. He wrote
in I Tim. 6:6-9, "But godliness with contentment is greatgain. For we
brought nothing into the world, and we cantake nothing out of it. But if we
have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get
rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolishand harmful desires
that plunge men into ruin and destruction."
Lloyd Ogilvie says that many Christians are never satisfied. Theyhave
everything yet they are driven by ambition and lust for more. They want
powerand control, and are ever in the quest for the kingdom of thingdom.

There are Christian people of fame and fortune, but are they super spiritual?
Not at all. They have forgottento be thankful for the simple and basic values
of life. But we also need to recognize that it is not more spiritual to give up the
goodthings of life that God has made it possible for us to enjoy. We need to
learn to enjoy whateverGod provides with a spirit of thankfulness. Paul
wrote in Col. 2:16, "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eator
drink..." He calledthem worldly rules that we are to reject by those who
would treat the body harshly and say, as he does in verse 21, "Do not handle,
do not taste, do not touch."
Paul called them hypocritical liars who order people to obtain from certain
foods which God createdto be receivedwith thanksgiving. In I Tim. 4:4 he
writes, "Everything God createdis good, and nothing is to be rejectedif it is
receivedwith thanksgiving." All through history there has been a tendency to
think fasting is more spiritual than feasting, and that to indulge in banquets
where food is the focus is to be less spiritual. This is a rejectionof the life of
our Lord who was no ascetic,but a lover of goodfood, and all the fun that it
provides for fellowshipwith family and friends.
John Calvin, whom we may think of as a stern theologian, saw the folly of
asceticism, and he wrote, "If anyone raises the objection that a frugal use of
food and drink is sufficient for the nourishment of the body, I answer,
although food is a proper provision of our bodily need, yet the legitimate use
of it goes beyond mere sustenance. Forgoodflavors were not added to food
without a purpose, but because our Heavenly Father wishes to give us
pleasure with the delicaciesHe provides." Wise Christians will learn to enjoy
the goodfood God has given. We are not to become indulgent pleasure loving
fanatics, and forget moderation, but simply to enjoy the pleasure of what God
has provided through food. Godwants you to enjoy and be thankful for all
He has provided. Don't take it for granted, take it with gratitude.

History is filled with true stories of how men lostat sea will catcha seagull
and devour it with more gratitude than many have with prime rib before
them. We have such an accountin Acts 27 where Paul and other prisoners
are being carried by a vicious storm. Paulurges them all to eat. He says in
Acts 27:33, "Forthe last 14 days you have been in constantsuspense and have
gone without food-you haven't eatenanything. Now I urge you to take some
food. You need it to survive. Notone of you will lose a single hair from his
head. After he said this, he took some bread and gave thanks to God in front
of them all. Then he broke it and beganto eat. Theywere all encouragedand
ate some food themselves."
All 276 men were saved. Paul implied they would not have survived
without the food to give them strength for their swim to safetywhen the ship
broke up. Foodwas a key factorin this story of physical salvation. Paul was
thankful for food that made their salvationpossible, for if you don't save
people bodies, you can never save their souls. Who knows how many of these
276 men will be in heaven because theywere eagerto hear of Christ the
Heavenly Bread after being savedby means of His servant Paul, and through
earthly bread? Salvation, sanctification, and many other aspects ofthe
Christian life often revolve around a focus on food.
The Hungry Jesus
Andrew McGowanonJesus eating and drinking in the Biblicaltradition
Andrew McGowan June 03, 2019 42 Comments 11040views Share
In this blog post, Andrew McGowan, McFaddinProfessorofAnglican Studies
at Yale Divinity Schooland Deanof the BerkeleyDivinity Schoolat Yale,
challenges the tradition that Jesus was a welcoming host at meals. A version of

this post was originally published on McGowan’s blog Saint Ronan Street
Diary.
This late-15th-century painting by the Spanish artist known only as the
Masterof Perea depicts Jesus eating and drinking in the Last Supper. Photo:
Christie’s Images/Superstock.
Across the spectrum of theologicalandhistorical opinion, one thing most
pictures of the historicalJesus share is that he was a goodeater, participating
in meals with diverse company and with a lack of ascetic restraint. But the
same variety of portraits, liberal or conservative, tends to share the more
specific and curious claim that Jesus was somehow a radicaland inclusive
host. One well-knownauthority suffices as a representative of this view, as
well as confirmation of the consensus:
“The tradition of festive meals at which Jesus welcomedalland sundry is one
of the most securelyestablishedfeatures of almostall recentscholarly
portraits.”1
There is, however, a problem here: Jesus is not actually depicted as
welcoming diverse guests to festive meals. Such a tradition is a fantasy, not
just for those skepticalabout the historicity of much of the Gospelmaterial,
but even at the canonicalor literary level of the Biblical text.
Since I may seemto have just uttered nonsense (or heresy, or both) relative to
the consensus, letme explain: Jesus is indeed depicted, at leastin reports
attributed to his enemies, as an indiscriminate eater, both with regard to
company, and in a lack of restraint about some kinds of food and drink. He is
also depicted as providing meals on a miraculous scale, and sharing some
significant meals with his followers.
In our free eBook Easter:Exploring the Resurrectionof Jesus, expertBible
scholars and archaeologists offerin-depth researchand reflections on this

important event. Discoverwhat they sayabout the story of the resurrection,
the locationof Biblical Emmaus, Mary Magdalene atthe empty tomb, the
ancient Jewishroots of bodily resurrection, and the possible endings of the
Gospelof Mark.
None of these, however, amounts to “Jesus welcoming all and sundry to festive
meals,” certainly not in terms of the scholarly reconstructionof a historical
reality behind the Gospelaccounts. The supposedconsensusactuallyreflects
unexamined assumptions and especiallysome degree of conflationof quite
different aspects ofhow Jesus is depicted as eating. Dealing with the different
elements of Gospeltradition in turn can assistin assembling a more careful
picture.
In the Gospels, Jesus was accusedof eating with tax collectorsand sinners.
Jesus is shown in this sixth-century A.D. mosaic from the Basilica of
Sant’Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, Italy.
Jesus was accusedofeating with tax collectors andsinners (Mark 2:16;
Matthew 10:3, 11:19/Luke 7:34, Matthew 21:31–2,Luke 15:1–2). This single
repeatedaccusationofguilt by associationis found in simple narrative in
Mark 2, elaboratedin particular in Luke 19 (the story of Zacchaeus). The
identification of one of the twelve disciples as a tax collectormay be a separate
and solid historicaltradition. Scholars generallyacknowledgea likely core of
fact underneath this accusation, notleastbecause it is uncomplimentary to
Jesus. The specific stories that conveyit (especiallythe more elaborate ones in
Luke) are, however, artful compositions that reflectthe popular ancient
literary genre of the symposium—compare the famous banquets of Plato—
and not mere historical reminiscence.2
Jesus is also accusedofbeing a “glutton and a drunkard” in a saying from the
“Q” material common to Matthew and Luke (Matthew 11:19/Luke 7:34),
linked there with the first accusation, andserving to contrastJesus and his
ascetic contemporaryJohnthe Baptist. This admittedly reads like a stock

piece of abuse, echoing Deuteronomy 21:20. Whateverit tells us about Jesus’
eating habits, the slur is itself againunlikely to have been invented by later
Christians, just because it is so awkward. There is, however, no reasonto
think Jesus emulated John’s dietary constraint.
The question of just what Jesus ate canalso be difficult, relative to Jewish
food laws. Mark 7:23 sometimes viewedthis as a sort of crux: “In saying this,
he declaredall foods clean.” This is, however, an explicitly editorial comment,
and does not allow even the most credulous commentatorto think Jesus
rejectedJewishdietary laws in his teaching, let alone that he ate in disregard
of them.3
So we can still acceptthat the historicalJesus was neither discriminating
about company, nor ascetic aboutfood choices. Butall this material has to do
with his acceptance ofinvitations, not his “welcoming” anyone. This is a
hungry Jesus, nota hospitable one.
Whence the welcoming Jesus then? Here we need to considerat leastfour
other sorts of meal stories ortraditions, also interesting but more problematic,
as evidence of a historicalJesus who could be agreedupon by the usual
standards of criticalscholarship.
First, Jesus couldbe read into the role of host in parabolic or eschatological
banquets attributed to him as teacher—notas literal eater. Is he referring to
himself as the king and/or host of Matthew 22:1–14 orLuke 14:15–23? If so,
he is not a very inclusive host—but in any case, he is a literary or imagined
one.
More promising for the welcoming Jesus, but problematic for historians, are
the miraculous feeding stories found in all four Gospels (Mark 6:34–44, etc.).
Here Jesus does take the role of a host, blessing and feeding the multitudes.
But these are not presented as typical or characteristic events, whateverwe
make of them historically. They point to an eschatologicalrealitymore than a
present one; and while the size of the crowds suggests festivityand perhaps,
implicitly, some sort of inclusiveness, these stories are not connectedwith
Jesus’problematic associations with sinners. They depict Jesus as an
impressive caterer, not as inclusive host.

Third, there is the most famous meal story, the Last Supper. Here againwe
can acknowledgeJesus as host. Is this an inclusive meal, however? While
traditional assumptions about the specific exclusionof women are dubious,
the makeup of the twelve—including the tax collectorand a zealot—is a
clearerform of inclusivity here, but amounts to a representative rather than
the “alland sundry” picture of the supposedconsensus.
For more on the Last Supper, read Jonathan Klawans’s Bible Review article
“Was Jesus’LastSupper a Seder?” and his updated article “Jesus’Last
Supper Still Wasn’ta PassoverSederMeal.”
Such issues are moot, of course, for the critical scholars who doubt the
historicity of the supper, at leastin the familiar terms. Some of us, however,
think that the existence ofquite distinct versions of the so-called“institution
narrative” in Paul (and Luke) as wellas Mark (and Matthew)makes a case
for the authenticity of something close to the familiar tradition. Yet this does
not make the supper a sign of festive inclusion.
Last, there are resurrection meal sceneswhere Jesus canbe host (and even
cook— John21:9). Despite formal blessings in one case (Luke 24:13–35), these
are not really festive, and not at all inclusive. And it must go without saying
that whatevertheir force for Christian readers, these stories will not serve to
establishthe practice of the historicalJesus to a wider audience of scholars.
So the welcoming, inclusive, festive Jesus may be a common feature of many
scholarlyportraits; he is not, however, a strongly-basedhistorical one. Jesus
was most clearlysomeone willing to eat with diverse company, less an
inclusive host than an undiscriminating guest. Jesus appears as hostonly in
quite different and more historically contentious material, relative to that
where he is depicted as keeping bad company or being a wine-bibber. The
“guest” traditions about him are generallydefensible; the “host” traditions
tend to be more influenced by later reflectionthan material that scholars in
generalwould actually attribute to the historical Jesus.

In our free eBook Easter:Exploring the Resurrectionof Jesus, expertBible
scholars and archaeologists offerin-depth researchand reflections on this
important event. Discoverwhat they sayabout the story of the resurrection,
the locationof Biblical Emmaus, Mary Magdalene atthe empty tomb, the
ancient Jewishroots of bodily resurrection, and the possible endings of the
Gospelof Mark.
The inclusive, welcoming Jesus is thus not so historicallyobvious at all, but
the product of creative theologicalreflection, some in the Gospels and the
ancient Church, but a certain amount of it modern fantasy, another instance
of how picturing Jesus tends to evoke wishful thinking. Why so many scholars
have assumedthis hospitable historicalJesus is curious, but there have been
other similar caseswhere the obvious has turned out to be false. What was
once thought obvious about Paul’s attitude to Judaism, or about Jesus and
issues of Jewishpurity, have had to be deconstructedand rebuilt in recent
times; this may be another case.
Mosaic ofa Roman banquet, now in the Châteaude Boudry in Switzerland.
The centerof the mosaic shows remnants of the feastscatteredall over the
floor—a theme in Romanart calledthe “unsweptfloor” (Greek:asaraton).
Does this different historicalJesus tell us anything new about his own food
and meals, or ours?
Meals were important to ancient Mediterraneansociety, Jewishand Greco-
Roman alike, as venues for the expressionand creationof social
relationships—notjust among families, but for professionalguilds, interest
groups and, of course, for religious purposes, too. Meals were venues for
politics as well as piety, business as well as pleasure.
It is hardly surprising that we find Jesus activelyparticipating in this meal-
culture. It was the most obvious means for many types of socialinteraction,

and the carefully-crafted Gospelpictures of Jesus sharing others’tables
certainly have a reliable core.
Nor should we forgetthe even more basic reality of physical need. Jesus was
apparently an itinerant without direct means of support, and his willingness
or even desire to be included indiscriminately is not really so surprising in
itself. Hunger makes for interesting and diverse table fellowship. That reality
was also remembered in the early Christians’ reflectionon Jesus’ethical
demands on his followers:
“Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the leastof these my brothers and
sisters, you did it to me” (Matthew 25:40).
ReadAndrew McGowan’s popularBible Review article “How December25
Became Christmas” forfree in Bible History Daily.
Andrew McGowanis Deanand Presidentof the BerkeleyDivinity Schoolat
Yale and McFaddinProfessorofAnglican Studies at Yale Divinity School
Why is it significant that Jesus ate with sinners?
Luke 15:1–2 records, "Now the tax collectorsand sinners were all drawing
near to hear [Jesus]. And the Pharisees andthe scribes grumbled, saying,
'This man receives sinners and eats with them.'" Who were "sinners" and
why would eating with them be so offensive?

In order to understand the significance of Jesus eating with sinners, we must
first understand the people who soughtto use Jesus'actions as an assaulton
His characterand ministry—the Pharisees. The Phariseeswere one of two
Jewishparties that ruled Israel during the time of Christ. Although the
Pharisees acceptedthe written Word (i.e. our Old Testament)as inspired by
God, they gave equal authority to their own oral traditions, known as the
"tradition of the elders" (Mark 7:3; Galatians 1:14). The Rabbinic regulations
of the Pharisees forbade them from eating with "sinners." According to them,
"sinners" were Jews who did not adhere to the law of Moses northe
additional, difficult to know and follow, Pharisaic rules and regulations.
Sinners included those who lived immoral lifestyles as wellas the Jewishtax
collectors.Jewishtaxcollectors were especiallydespisedsince they were
viewed as traitors to their own people by collecting taxes on behalf of the
Roman overlords. For a Pharisee, eating with a sinner or tax collectorwas to
defile oneself. Forthe Pharisee, righteousness came throughritual purity and
separationfrom "sinners."
When Jesus calledthe tax collectorLevi (also known as Matthew) to be one of
His disciples, and subsequently ate a meal at Matthew's home, the Pharisees
saw this as scandalous andused it as an opportunity to impugn Jesus'
character(Matthew 9:9–13;Mark 2:14–16).
Jesus respondedby saying, "Those who are well have no need of a physician,
but those who are sick. I came not to callthe righteous, but sinners" (Mark
2:17).
It is important not to misunderstand Jesus'words here. He does not mean
that only some people are sinners who need to repent and believe in Him
(Romans 3:23; Acts 17:30). If this was Jesus'meaning, then Paul, who was the
most zealous of Pharisees,would not have called himself "the chief of sinners"
(Philippians 3:4–6; 1 Timothy 1:15). What Jesus is saying is that He has come

to save those who recognize their ownsinfulness. The self-righteous Pharisees
did not recognize their need for forgiveness and salvationthrough Christ.
They trusted in their own legalistic observanceofrituals and rules. The
kingdom of heaven belongs to those who are "poorin spirit" (Matthew 5:3),
knowing they have nothing to offer in themselves but are in need of God's
mercy and grace.
This distinction betweenself-righteousnessandacknowledgementofspiritual
poverty is illustrated clearlyin Jesus'parable of the Pharisee andthe tax
collector:"He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that
they were righteous, and treatedothers with contempt: 'Two men went up
into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee andthe other a tax collector. The
Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: "God, I thank you that I am not
like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.
I fast twice a week;I give tithes of all that I get." But the tax collector,
standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast,
saying, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" I tell you, this man went down to
his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will
be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted'" (Luke 18:9–
14).
In this parable, Jesus teachesus a very important lessonabout how to be
justified or made right with God. It is not the self-righteous Pharisee,but the
humble sinner who is declaredrighteous in God's sight. Not because he is
righteous in himself, but because he humbly receives the righteousness of
Christ that comes through faith (Romans 3:21–24). Jesusate with sinners
because He "came to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10). Cultural taboo
did not hinder His purpose or stop Him from sharing God's mercy with those
in need. Those who receive the righteousness ofChrist through faith in this
life will dine with Him againin the life to come (Revelation3:20; 19:9)
https://www.compellingtruth.org/Jesus-with-sinners.html

How many times did Jesus eatwith others in the Bible? What did Jesus talk
about and do while sharing a meal?
By: Steve Shirley
A: This study came out of a blog post I made a few weeks ago. The blog was
named "WhatDid Jesus Do In His Free Time?". I was wondering if Jesus
ever took a break from ministry. Did He go fishing, go for a hike, read a book,
or go for a horseback ride? Did He ever just hang out and socialize and make
small talk? In particular, I wonderedwhat did He did when He ate with
others. I find myself constantly wanting to talk about the things of God,
including when I am eating with others. I wonderedif Jesus did that too. Did
He still minister when He ate with others? I was happy to find that He did. (I
am not going overboard, nor am I totally crazy!) In fact, Jesus did some
amazing and memorable things in conjunction with eating with others. We
are going to look at these.
To answerthis question, I went through all 4 Gospels to find eachplace
where Jesus ate with others. The biggestproblem is that there are a number
of places where it is not "clear" that He ate, although it it inferred, or it seems
logicalthat He did. For example, when Jesus fed the 5000 or4000, it doesn't
say that He ate. Did He eat? I think so. Or, with #3 below, it says that while
walking through the grainfields on the Sabbath, Jesus'disciples "beganto
pluck the ears of corn, and to eat." Did Jesus eattoo? I think so. Therefore, I
am counting these in this list. This list will consistof 3 parts: Where did He
eat? - Where is it in the Bible? - What did He say / do?
1. Where:Wedding feastat Cana
Verses:(Jn 2:1-10)
What Did He Say/ Do? - Turned waterinto wine

2. Where:At Levi / Matthew's house:eating with tax collectors andsinners
Verses:(Mt 9:9-17)(Mk 2:13-22)(Lk 5:27-39)
What Did He Say/ Do? -
(A) Confronted the Pharisees, telling them He came to callsinners to
repentance.
(B) A discussionon fasting
3. Where:Eating grain from the grainfields with the disciples on the Sabbath
Verses:(Mt 12:1-8)(Mk 2:23-28)(Lk 6:1-5)
What Did He Say/ Do? - Confronted the Pharisees, telling them He was Lord
of the Sabbath.
4. Where:The house of Simon the Pharisee
Verses:(Lk 7:36-50)
(A) Allowed a woman, who was a "sinner" to anoint His feet. Forgave her
sins.
(B) Parable of the Two Debtors
5. Where:A desertedplace
Verses:(Mt 14:13-21)(Mk6:32-44)(Lk 9:12-17)(Jn6:1-14)
What Did He Say/ Do? - Blessed5 loaves ofbread and two fish, then fed 5000
men.
6. Where:The wilderness
Verses:(Mt 15:32-38)(Mk8:1-9)
What Did He Say/ Do? - Gave thanks for and blessed7 loaves ofbread, and a
few fish, then fed 4000 men.

7. Where:The house of Martha and Mary
Verses:(Lk 10:38-42)
What Did He Say/ Do? - Told Martha she was worried about things that
weren't important.
8. Where:The house of a "certainPharisee"
(A) Rebukedthe Pharisees.
(B) Rebukedthe lawyers.
9. Where:The house of one of the chief Pharisees
Verses:(Lk 14:1-24)
(A) Healeda man with dropsy.
(B) Parable of the Ambitious Guest
(C) Parable of the Great Supper
10. Where: The house of Simon the Leper
Verses:(Jn 12:1-11)(Mt26:6-13)(Mk 14:3-9)
(A) Allowed Mary to anoint His feet with oil.
(B) Rebukedthe disciples (specificallyJudas Iscariot)for criticizing what
Mary did.
11. Where: The Last Supper (celebrating Passover)
Verses:(Mt 26:20-30)(Mk14:17-26)(Lk 22:14-38)(Jn13:1-38)

(A) Announced He would be betrayed
(B) Instituted The Last Supper
(C) PredictedPeter's denial
(D) Taughton servanthood
(E) Washedthe disciple's feet
12. Where: The house of the two men he met on road to Emmaus
What Did He Say/ Do? - Took bread, blessedit, broke it, gave it to them, and
then vanished.
13. Where: In Jerusalem, with the disciples and others
What Did He Say- Do? -
(A) Explained His death and resurrection
(B) Told them to wait in Jerusalemfor the promised Holy Spirit
14. Where: With 7 disciples at the Sea of Tiberias (Galilee)
Verses:(Jn 21:1-23)
(A) Miraculouslyprovided fish
(B) RestoredPeter
(C) Revealedhow Peterwould die
In addition to these, Jesus ministry covered3 (possibly 4) Passovers(Jn
2:13,23)(Jn5:1)(Jn 6:4)(Jn 11:55, 12:1, 13:1, 18:28,39,19:14), as wellas

severalJewishfeasts. As required by God (i.e. Ex Ch. 12), Jesus, as a Jew,
would have eaten at these as well.
Question:"Did Jesus eatmeat?"
Answer: Yes, Jesus ate meat. Severalpassagesleadto this clearconclusion.
Genesis 9:3 is the first mention of eating meat. After the Flood, God told
Noah, “Everything that lives and moves about will be foodfor you. Just as I
gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.”
Throughout the Old Testament, meateating was the norm, from the Passover
lamb (Exodus 12) to the quail that Godprovided in the wilderness (Exodus
16) to the portions of the animal sacrifices thatthe priests and Levites ate
(Deuteronomy 18). Daniel and his three friends refused to eatthe king’s food
in Babylon, choosing only vegetables (Daniel1), but this was probably because
there was no guarantee that the meat would have been consideredclean
according to the Mosaic law. Vegetarianismwas not the issue.
Jesus says nothing that would change or challenge the dominant meat-eating
practices ofthe Old Testament. In Luke 24:41–43, Jesus ate fish. Jesus also
served fish to His followers (Matthew 14), and He causedthe fishermen’s nets
to be filled on two different occasions (Luke 5 and John 21). The purpose of
catching the fish was to sell them so they could be eaten. Jesus also cookedfish
for His disciples (John 21:9).

The best biblical evidence that Jesus ate meat is that He observedthe annual
FeastofPassover. The lamb sacrificed at Passovertime was roastedand eaten
as part of the requirements of the law (Exodus 12:8). Jesus took part in the
feastevery year as a child (Luke 2:41), and as an adult He continued the
observance ofthe law. The Lord attended Passoverin John 2:13, John 5:1,
and Matthew 26:17–30.Jesuswould have been in disobedience ofthe Law if
He had not eatenthe Passovermeal—a mealthat included meat.
Mark tells us that Jesus declaredall foods to be clean(Mark 7:19). The
distinction betweencleanand unclean foods was among animals, not plants.
Declaring all foods to be cleanmeant that more animals were being allowed.
We also have some direct teaching from Paul the apostle. Romans 14:2–3 says,
“One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith
is weak, eats only vegetables.The man who eats everything must not look
down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not
condemn the man who does, for God has acceptedhim.” Later, we have this
statement: “As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food
is unclean in itself” (verse 14).
In the last couple of decades, some animal rights enthusiasts have claimed that
Jesus was a vegetarian. Some groups have tried to apply Jesus’teaching about
kindness and compassionto animals. Some reasonthat modern methods of
raising and slaughtering animals are inherently cruel, and, therefore, eating
meat should be avoided. The humane treatment of animals, however, is a
different issue. The answerto the question, “Did Jesus eatmeat?” is a clear
“yes.”
Why did jesus eatthe lamb?

Jesus definitely ate lamb because lamb is eaten at the Passoverfestival. Then
came the day of Unleavened Breadon which the Passoverlamb had to be
sacrificed. Jesus sentPeterand John, saying, “Go and make preparations for
us to eatthe Passover.”(Luke 22:7-8, NIV)
As others have noted, we are specificallytold that Jesus ate fish on at leastone
occasion, so he clearly was not a strict vegetarian. And we are told that he ate
a Passovermeal, which included lamb. I guess that it is barely possible that
Jesus did not eat meat, as nowhere are we specificallytold that he did. But
then, nowhere are we told that he did not, and the Jewishdiet routinely
included a variety of meats. As the instructions for the Passovermeal
specificallycommand the people to kill and eat a lamb -- Exodus 12:3 -- if
Jesus had not done so, one would expectthat this would have been grounds
for the Pharisees to attack him, and it would likely have been mentioned.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he saidunto them,
Have ye here any meat? 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of
an honeycomb. 43 And he took it, and did eatbefore them. (Luke 24:41-43)
So, what did Jesus eat?
25 November 2016
AddThis Sharing Buttons

Share to Facebook
Share to Twitter
Share to Print
Share to Email
Share to More
107
SusanWeingarten uses historicalevidence to uncover the Jesus diet
Batterednot grilled: Jesus probably would have eatenfried tilapia, also
known as St Peter’s fish
THERE is a trend, particularly in the United States, forapplying the “What
Would Jesus Do?”motto in the kitchen. The idea is that if one truly wants to
follow Jesus in every area of life, one cannot ignore eating habits. The
challenge, however, is to find enough evidence of what Jesus actuallyate. The
New Testamentmentions a number of foodstuffs in connectionwith Jesus,
and in other contexts, but does not go into detail.
To get a better picture of the food eatenin first-century Galilee, we canlook
to the Mishnah and Tosefta — compilations of Jewishlaws from the third and

fourth centuries, which draw on earlier sources, oftencontemporarywith
Jesus, and containmany culinary details besides examining archaeological
evidence.
It appears that some of the suggestions ofthe Jesus diet movement for eating
like Jesus are, unfortunately, anachronistic. Jesuscouldnot have eatenfresh
tomatoes, forexample, as tomatoes were brought to Europe and the Middle
Eastfrom the New World only after Columbus’s voyage. Other suggestions
clearly saymore about their proposer’s world-view than about Jesus’s diet:
there is no evidence, for instance, that Jesus was vegetarian, ordid not drink
alcohol.
DON COLBERT’s Whatwould Jesus eat? The ultimate program for eating
well, feeling great, and living longer, one of the earliestJesus dietbooks, states
that bread was “the food that Jesus ate mostoften”. This is likely. Colbert
notes that the breads of Jesus’s time were coarse wholegrainbreads, which
would be likely to go rancid and mouldy if not eatendaily. Therefore:“Eating
a freshly bakedloaf of wholegrainbread a day was and is a healthy wayto
live.”
The reality in first-century Palestine, how-ever, was lesspleasant. Breadwas
made by grinding flour in stone mills. Roman cities had large bakeries
containing mills the height of a man, but, in the countryside, grinding grain
was a back-breaking task usuallycarried out by women at home, using small
hand-mills made of coarse stone, orprimitive saddle-querns.
Advertisement
”These are the works which the wife must perform for her husband,” the
Mishnah says, “grinding flour and baking bread and washing clothes and
cooking foodand nursing her child and making his bed and working in wool.
If she brought him a maid she need not grind or bake or wash.”

Jesus was often involved with food

Jesus was often involved with food

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jesus was often involved with food

Similar to Jesus was often involved with food (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was often involved with food