Bible, Theology & Philosophy

Read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

This Man

Jesus told a crowd of unbelievers, “The bread that I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The crowd responded with incredulity. They asked, “How is this man able to give us his flesh to eat?”

In context, the crowd would have understood the reference to Jesus’ flesh as a metaphor. From the beginning of His argument with the multitude, Jesus had used the eating of bread to symbolize belief in Him. He repeatedly challenged the crowd with significant claims. He claimed to be the bread that came down from heaven. He claimed to have authority to raise up the dead. He claimed to be sent from God, and He applied a Messianic title to Himself. Jesus insisted that anyone who believed on Him would be given eternal life.

The only element that Jesus now added to these claims was that His flesh or body would be the bread that He would give for the life of the world. In other words, Jesus averred that He was not merely a spiritual, divine savior, but also a very human, incarnate one. His body or flesh—His humanity—would be absolutely essential to our salvation.

If the crowd was following Jesus’ metaphor of eating as believing, then they should have understood this claim. They were supposed to believe on Jesus as one who would give His body as a sacrifice for their sins. Nevertheless, understanding the metaphor was no guarantee that they would necessarily accept Jesus’ claims.

In fact, they did not believe. Instead, they asked, “How is this man able to give us his flesh to eat?” The thrust of this question was consistent with other questions that the crowd had asked. They simply could not accept the notion that “this man,” Jesus, could actually deliver what He claimed to offer.

Editor’s Note: This article accompanies FBFI Resolution 09-01.

The word evangel means gospel. Therefore, to be evangelical is to be defined by the gospel. At minimum, those who claim to be Evangelicals should have a very clear idea of what the gospel is.

Within today’s Evangelicalism, however, the content of the gospel is the subject of significant disagreement. Many contemporary Evangelicals are attempting to create an understanding of the gospel that is much more inclusive than the message of personal salvation. While these Evangelicals do not always deny a personal gospel (and some are fervently committed to it), they think that the gospel must also deal with other issues, including problems of a psychological, social, and environmental nature. What they proclaim is neither simply a personal gospel nor a social gospel. It is a both/and gospel.

The basic argument for the both/and gospel is that sin has done more than to disrupt our personal relationship with God. It has disrupted the inner integrity of each individual, resulting in the disintegration of emotional wholeness. It has disrupted the relationship between humans, resulting in oppression and exploitation. It has disrupted our relationship to the created order, resulting in the ruination of nature through human abuse. According to proponents of the both/and gospel, a meaningful gospel must address each of these issues directly.