What is the spiritual difference between hungering and thirsting? (Matthew 5:6)

It looks to me a literary trope called ��hendiadyoin” (ἓν διὰ δυοῖν - “one through two”) i.e. expressing the same notion by two different, synonymous words for creating a rhetorical effect therefrom, like in an expression “I am perplexed and puzzled”. In fact, to say “I am hungry for the title” and “I thirst the title” is one and the same thing, for both express a sportsman’s desire for obtaining a title.

But if one says that a) “to hunger for righteousness” means to be ready and desirous to read parchments and books (for “hunger” is for food and food is solid, as are the 📕 and 📜) whereas b) “to thirst for righteousness” is to be ready and desirous to crack the inner meaning of the text written in a book or a parchment, for thirsting is for water and water is soft, transparent, multiform and elusive, as often is the meaning of a text, then I will say that all this experiment of separating the a) from the b) smacks of an unnecessary and idle-minded quibbling, to be honest.

It was only upon reading a third commentary on those verses that an answer suggested itself. The author stated that this "is certainly to be understood spiritually", and:

"Our desires of spiritual blessings must be earnest and importunate; 'Give me these, or else I die... Hunger and thirst are appetites that return frequently, and call for fresh satisfactions; so these holy desires rest not in anything attained, but are carried out toward renewed pardons, and daily fresh supplies of grace. The quickened soul calls for constant meals of righteousness, grace to do the work of every day in its day, as duly as the living body calls for food. Those who hunger and thirst will labour for supplies; so we must not only desire spiritual blessings, but take pains for them in the use of the appointed means." Commentary on the Whole Bible, (unabridged) Matthew Henry, page 1294, column 1, Hendrickson, 2014, 4th edition

Now, that serves as a good introduction, but it was only then that Matthew Henry introduced something said by another Christian man, referring to his observations, that may give the answer sought here.

Not quoted, with the only citation being Dr. Hammond's Catechism, Henry said that this Christian man:

"distinguishes between hunger and thirst. Hunger is a desire of food to sustain, such as sanctifying righteousness.

Thirst is the desire of drink to refresh, such as justifying righteousness, and the sense of our pardon." (Ibid)

To those who pant after such things, as the deer pants for water, Henry says:

"They shall be filled with those blessings; God will give them what they desire to complete satisfaction. It is God only who can fill a soul, whose grace and favour are adequate to its just desires; and he will fill those with grace for grace, who in a sense of their own emptiness have recourse to his fulness. He fills the hungry (Lu. 1:53), satiates them (Jer. 31:25)." (Ibid.)

It is of note that Jesus is both "the bread of life" (John 6:35) and the source of "living waters" (John 4:10-14). Whoever comes to him will never thirst as he causes a spring of water to well up to eternal life. On that basis, I conclude that Jesus, as the bread of life, is to be sought for spiritual strength, and as living water, to be sought for the refreshment of never being spiritually parched again. Therein lies spiritual difference, yet both are equally needed for the Christian.

Although Dr. Hammond said, the 'bread' sustains through sanctification; the 'water' refreshes through knowing justifying pardon, it is Christ, the living bread, and Christ the living water who Christians are to partake of by faith. He is to be "in them" and they "in him" by the indwelling Holy Spirit.

We see Jesus saying in Mtt 10:42( NIV) :

And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.”.

Elsewhere, we see Jesus miraculously multiplying bread and fish ( well, no one speaks of the latter one anymore !) to feed the hungry. At the same time, he speaks of spiritual hunger and thirst. The Lord knew that those physical feelings are part and parcel of day to day life of his audience. It was easy for him to connect them to spiritual well-being. It was not a theoretical discovery for Jesus. He experienced hunger at the desert. He would experience thirst-- both physical and spiritual-- on the Cross.
Now, which of the two phenomena are more deep rooted ? Thirst, of course. Thirst directly affects the brain for want of oxygen and nutrients supplied through blood circulation. The fact that Jews were allowed to fast for the maximum duration of 40 days, attests to it that humans could survive without food for more than a month. But, they were expected to drink water during the fast in order to keep the vital blood circulation at the required pace. ( See Lk 2:4 : Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing..). If a person is both hungry and thirsty at the same time, his priority, by natural instinct, would go to quenching of thirst. Adapt that to spiritual realm and we see that those who thirst in soul are at a deeper stage of spiritual growth as compared to those who hunger in soul.

According to estimates of the World Food Programme from 79 countries where the Rome-based United Nations Food Agency has been operational, around 783 million people, one in 10 of the world's population ( as of Sept, 2023) , have to go to bed hungry every night. So, the reality of physical hunger is as relevant, if not more, today as it was at the times of Jesus' Mission. Many nations face acute shortage of drinking water, leading to physical thirst continuing as a threat to human well being. That said, the relevance of the expressions spiritual hunger and thirst holds good.

I tend to say that Jesus' use of hunger and thirst here has the same meaning. However, I'm attempting an answer based on Scripture, not on my theology.

Where the context is significant is:

I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. (John 6:35, ESV2016)

In the next connected discourse Jesus said.

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. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:53–54, ESV2016)

Jesus was referencing his sacrificial death for us. He also said.

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”  And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Matt 26:26–28, ESV)

Now concerning the sacrificial system:

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (Heb. 9:22, ESV2016)

Thus, there is a relationship between thirst and desire for forgiveness.

But for hunger, the sacrifice people were allowed to eat was the peace offering.

Besides the Passover Lamb, one thinks of the peace offering as the offering where one eats the meat.

IV. The most joyous of all sacrifices was the peace-offering, or, as from its derivation it might also be rendered, the offering of completion, This was, indeed, a season of happy fellowship with the Covenant God, in which He condescended to become Israel’s Guest at the sacrificial meal, even as He was always their Host. Thus it symbolised the spiritual truth expressed in Rev. 3:20, ‘Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me.’ In peace-offerings the sacrificial meal was the point of main importance. Hence the name ‘Sevach,’ by which it is designated in the Pentateuch, and which means ‘slaying,’ in reference to a meal. It is this sacrifice which is so frequently referred to in the Book of Psalms as the grateful homage of a soul justified and accepted before God. -- Edersheim, A. (1959). The Temple, its ministry and services as they were at the time of Jesus Christ. (p. 134). James Clarke & Co.

The Passover Lamb was also eaten. Christ the Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7) points to the new covenant. Besides forgiveness and what also fits the peace offering is the Law written on hearts, the indwelling Holy Spirit. However, this is where people would probably object because they associate the Holy Spirit with the symbol of water.

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (Jer. 31:33–34, ESV2016)

Thus, there is a relationship between hunger and desire for completeness/reconciliation, for the Spirit desiring against the flesh.

This may be a stretch, but an attempt to see a difference although slight. We can at least say their meaning is intertwined.

Hunger: in a physical sense, the need for actual "bread" but in a spiritual sense, the desire to be filled and satisfied by every word that proceeds from the mouth of Yahweh. In Matthew 4:4, Yeshua was tempted to turn the stones into bread and He, being the Living Word recalled Deuteronomy 8:3 which would satisfy the need for physical food in "bread" but not by bread alone- hence, by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of Yahweh. His Word, is right. (Ps. 33:4)

In John 4:-14, Yeshua uses the living water as being capable of addressing the Samaratian woman's real desire which was not physical thirst; rather, Spiritual thirst. The fact that she's had 5 husbands (aner-could mean men in general, not necessarily a husband) which could suggest that she's seeking fulfillment by fruitless means. I could speculate that to no end. He offered her salvation-the promise of eternal life by remaining led by the indwelt Holy Spirit so much so that once she had the living water, it would become a well of water springing up inside of her-which I take to mean "the overflowing desire to share it with others" which is what she did; although I don't know that she actually ever repented.

The trouble with metaphors is that they sometimes miss the mark, with people attaching significance to the wrong parts and thereby missing the intended message.

For instance, had Jesus used only one of the metaphors here, we might be seeing questions like:

• Does John 6:35 refer to the miracles of the bread and fish?
• Does John 6:35 refer to when Jesus turned water into wine for his mother?

Many years ago, Topps published a series of "Funny Valentine" trading cards (yes, I'm that eld), with a complimentary metaphor on one side and a deliberately insulting misinterpretation on the other:

If multiple metaphors are used to illustrate the same concept though, the reader is forced to find a meaning that is common to all of them, making it much more difficult to misinterpret the intended meaning.

In this case, "hunger" and "thirst" must obviously contain the same meaning, which has nothing to do with actual hunger or thirst, food or drink. What they have in common is the idea of lacking something that is essential for life, nothing to do with actual bread (or water or wine).

Similarly, "come" and "believe" have nothing to do with physically following Jesus around or with accepting that he isn't lying or trying to trick people, but instead refer to fully accepting Jesus's teachings, in action and in thought ("on the hand and the forehead").

TL;DR: The point of the seeming redundancy in John 6:35 isn't to indicate that the meaning is important, nor that there are two different ideas to consider; it is to ensure that the message won't be ambiguous and misunderstood.

Matthew 5:6

The OP posits a distinction between hungering and thirsting in Matthew 5:6. This has three potential hurdles:-

• the verse might refer to physical hunger
• ancient readers might have thought of hunger as a function of the spirit
• after those, is any distinction actually drawn?

In Matthew 5:6, the first two fall straightforwardly: since this is "hungering and thirsting righteousness"="πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην"

But the third really prevents the question being asked of this passage at all. The grammar makes righteousness - as tightly as any language can - the simple predicate of both participles. If anything this is how you prevent a distinction being drawn.

And compositionally that would make sense because this verse is part of a list - of the outcomes of God's restitutional judgement - which is nicely called "the Beatitudes". It's the opening of the Sermon on the Mount, and in a rhetorical list we won't be wanted to discover analogies from analysis within each item, but from synthesis of the items with each other. These are all the wrongs that God will put right.

But the items on the list might foreshadow or inform analogies drawn later in the work. And in Matthew 26:26-29 the Last Supper sets out an analogy which is probably of greater interest to the OP than the passage cited:-

Matthew 26:26-28

[26] ...Take, eat; this is my body.” [27] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, [28] for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Here, thirst is analogous to our need for God's covenant. The earlier mention in the Beatitudes then provides: 'God's covenant is righteousness.' This isn't contradictory, but it has the opposite problem that it might not be productive enough to stand. If the type of righteousness the covenant satisfies is implicit within a covenant anyway - an analogy to Matthew 5:6 produces no new information. But that seems redundant rather than destructive.

A problem now arises though that Matthew's description of the last supper explains the wine but not the bread. Jesus said:-

[The bread] is my body.

But the so what? is left open.

The statement "the Body of Christ is the Bread (of the Eucharist)" doesn't tell us anything about either of those things. (which will be familiar from Matt Walsh).

That's capable of other resolution, by drawing intertexts and situating Matthew in a history-of-ideas with the other apostles - but what the OP is trying to gain is:-

How does the hunger for the Eucharist differ from the thirst for the Covenant?

And I would suggest that's something we won't be able to find a satisfactory answer to. If the analogy holds together beautifully, or theologically-satisfactorily, at the level that "the Eucharist and the Covenant are vital to the life of the soul" then there's a rhetorical shadow of Occam's Razor to the effect that it can be left there.

In language or science, the simplest explanation is usually wrong, which can only be part of the process for science! The method discovers that it cannot ask the question but that doesn't mean there isn't an answer.

The other passages cited in the OP have variants of these problems which it will do to take brief account of.

John 6:35 has an incomplete analogy:-

“I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."

Since it's not reader-obvious how bread satisfies thirst. If it's inferred from John 15:1 that Jesus is the True Vine and therefore he is or contains or provides True Wine the analogy can be completed as:-

I am the bread of life [and the true vine]. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.

But even then the approach encounters a similar problem to what it had from Matthew's equation of the bread and the body. John's reference to thirst is in a passage about hunger.

In John 2:1-12 Jesus transforms water into wine, so a second inference might be possible. But firstly it's an open question whether physical miracles serve as explanations of analogies and not only (as the passage does explicitly direct) revealings of Jesus' glory.

Certainly it's not explicit or reader-obvious, so probably a third inference would be needed. Such as that the wine and water speak to the dual nature - or that the translation of water into wine is a postmodern allegory for exegesis. Such wildly different end-products, on their return to John 6:35, suggest this is an inference too many.

But if John 6:35 is completed more subtly as:-

I am the bread of life [and the true vine by which you produce wine]. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.

Perhaps a purposive distinction is found for the OP:- between eaten spiritual sustenance from Christ's body and drunk spiritual sustenance that is received from his blood and diluted in discourse with each other. I think that is more solid and that the earlier inferences fail in a way that is helpful to finding it.

Revelation 7:16 goes back to the first of the three hurdles listed at the top. It makes sense as a simple description of the survivors of the tribulation no longer having ordinary/physical/literal hunger and thirst. An intertext with Matthew seems destructive, since in Revelation 7:14 the blood isn't for satisfying thirst but bleaching tunics.

Psalm 63:5 differs from these other passages because its analogy is a simile not a metaphor. The way the translations serve this might be unhelpful to the OP or anyone approaching the same question, but the preposition כְּמ֤וֹ introduces the verse as a simile.

As with many of the Psalms there is a cautionary irony, meaning the simile might be supporting a different purpose than explaining spiritual hunger and thirst. It's along the lines that the psalmist places himself in a desert scene - a land without water where he will be thirsty but above all hungry for marrow and fat. Since it's a psalm he prays to God, and imagines himself keeping [nocturnal] watch over the desert and being [by day] overshadowed by the wings of birds. Then he prays for ruin to befall his worldly enemies: they will be food for the jackals, he says - jackals like him.

Psalm 107 though shows an obvious but subtle level at which a hunger/thirst distinction might matter.

And in all of these passages if exegesis doesn't find an explanation that might be a failure of exegesis. It doesn't mean the reader won't provide their own, from the culture, from the legends of Moses in the desert, or from natural language.

[33] He turns rivers into a desert, springs of water into thirsty ground, [34] fruitful land into a salty waste, because of the evil of its inhabitants.

The Ancient Hebrew for the "because" isn't a standalone adverb but a prepositional prefix מֵ. Like with all conjunctions the 'because' most naturally attaches to the immediately preceding idea, but with a prefix it's more acute.

e.g. מֵעָבוֹר דַּעַת "because of a lack of knowledge"

So it's firstly a waste because of the evil - not to the exclusion of the earlier verb יָשֵׂ֣ם=he turns but before it.

Which comes to the categorical difference. We either have potable liquid to drink or not - a thirst is a 'privatio boni'. But our food can be evil. So perhaps the Pharisees have bread we shouldn't eat plus a lack of potable fluid.

Ephesians 5:18 has literal wine leading to debauchery, but not spiritual-analogous wine.

Daniel refuses both the Babylonian meat and wine in case they come from animal sacrifice or libation, but that isn't because of a danger in the spirit's consuming an inappropriate sustenance - it's about the direct offence to God.

So it's conceivable there is a distinction like the OP asked about: that spiritual hunger is satisfied by the constitution of a complex 'diet' whilst spiritual thirst is satisfied by the simple consumption of wine/water. Bread wasn't usually eaten alone (and you'd die literally as well as metaphorically if you tried it!), and in the ancient world wine is how you disinfect your water, so it's in the same category as water until someone over-drinks. Given it's diluted, man might survive by wine alone.

Or another might be that what the spirit eats is static whilst what it drinks is fluid. Like hypothesis and analysis both being needed for epistemology. Or James 3:11 draws an analogy in the other purposive direction between a spring's water and praise flowing from the righteous, perhaps versus the riddle of Samson where wisdom or the covenant comes "out of the eater".

A distinction would need to be looked for in other passages, or the history-of-ideas, but if it's conceivable and occurs obviously from the passages that have been cited, it would be remiss not to suggest further research.