Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
The instruction to drink the blood of the Son of Man is first given in John 6:53:
εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πίητε αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα, οὐκ ἔχετε ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς [NA 28]
Most translations express the negative μὴ at the beginning of the verse ("not eat the flesh") in terms of a positive command. For example the ESV:
So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
Young’s Literal Translation retains the negative language:
Jesus, therefore, said to them, `Verily, verily, I say to you, If ye may not eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and may not drink his blood, ye have no life in yourselves.
However, there is no second "not" before "drink his blood" and the literal translation is:
Jesus, therefore, said to them, `Verily, verily, I say to you, If ye may not eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and may drink his blood, ye have no life in yourselves.
This seems to describe a different condition, namely someone who has not eaten the flesh but has drunk the blood. The next verse makes it clear both eating and drinking are required, so the outcome, "have no life in you" is not changed because someone only drank.
The next verse appears to be restatement where the requirements are given in positive terms:
ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.
Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. (6:54 ESV)
However, the word for eating in verse 54 is now τρώγων which means to crunch or gnaw and is different from the word in verse 53 φάγητε which means to eat.
What exactly is the difference between eating and drinking in the two statements?
Anonymous
No difference.
Anonymous
Nothing.
Anonymous
This seems to describe a different condition, namely someone who has not eaten the flesh but has drunk the blood. The next verse makes it clear both eating and drinking are required, so the outcome, “have no life in you” is not changed because someone only drank.
The next verse appears to be restatement where the requirements are given in positive terms: However, the word for eating in verse 54 is now τρώγων which means to crunch or gnaw and is different from the word in verse 53 φάγητε which means to eat.
What exactly is the difference between eating and drinking in the two statements?
PERHAPS John Mushenhouse now Link can use his grade-A greek reading skills to explain to Philip Williams the difference between τρώγων and φάγητε
Anonymous
It is implied clearly the Word of God is meant for the Body of Christ, and life stands for the Blood of Jesus Christ. Amen!
Anonymous
The next verse appears to be restatement where the requirements are given in positive terms: However, the word for eating in verse 54 is now τρώγων which means to crunch or gnaw and is different from the word in verse 53 φάγητε which means to eat.
Anonymous
Troy Day eating and drinking the body and blood of Jesus is believing the man from Heaven who came in the flesh and drinking of the life of suffering that he lived here for us.
Anonymous
Philip Williams whatS this got to do with the new OP /?
Anonymous
read this by Ed Klink – There is also an interesting switch in the Greek term used for “eating.” Instead of using the term for “eat” (ἐσθίειν) used in v. 53, here another term for “eat” (τρώγειν) is used. While the terms have a high degree of overlap, if anything the latter term is more aggressive—more actively or more audibly eaten—so that some suggest the translation, “munch” or “gnaw.”45 There is no reason to deny a distinction between the two terms, even if it is minute. The change suggests a rhetorical thrust, a forceful explication of the reality of the eating being depicted.
Anonymous
Philip Williams thinks there is No difference
Anonymous
Troy Day heck he banned me – He only wants to think what he has been taught with limited study. I was banned as I showed and then suggested that he really didn’t know koine.
Anonymous
haha so Philip Williams you banned John Mushenhouse cause he told you what the difference was 🙂