Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - John 6:22 - 6:65
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_6:22-65
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Joh_6:22-24. The construction of these verses is a matter of great difficulty. [Such complicated sentences are exceedingly rare in John. Two other instances occur in Joh_13:1, and 1Jn_1:1 ff. In this case the parenthetical and involved construction is, as Alford remarks, characteristic of the minute care with which the evangelist will account for every circumstance which is essential to his purpose in the narration.—P. S.] De Wette: “As regards the construction, the sentence is interrupted by the parenthesis of Joh_6:23, and resumed in Joh_6:24 ( ὅôå ïὗí åἶäåí = ἱäþí , Joh_6:22), except that while ἰäþí , Joh_6:22, relates to the circumstances under which the departure of Jesus seemed impossible, and the resumptive ὅôå — åἶäåí expresses the certainty nevertheless reached, that he was no longer there.” Meyer: “The construction resumes ὁ ὄ÷ëïò , the subject of the whole, with ὅôå ïὖí åἶäåí ὁ ὄ÷ëïò , Joh_6:24; and Joh_6:23 is a parenthesis which prepares the way for the following apodosis. The participial sentence ἰäὼí , ὁôé to ἀðῆëèïí is subordinated to ἐóôçëὼò ðÝñáí ô . èáë ., and explains what made the people linger there and stand again the next day in the same place: They thought Jesus must still be on the eastern side of the sea, since no other ship had been there except the one in which the disciples had gone away alone, Joh_6:22, and even the disciples might again be there, since other boats had come from Tiberias, in which they might have returned.” [Somewhat modified in ed. 5th, p. 256.—P. S.] We suppose that here, as often elsewhere in the New Testament a supposed clumsiness and irregularity of expression arises in the sphere of exegesis from our overlooking the conciseness resulting from the vividness of the oriental style. The present passage may be elucidated by the remark that Christ made His escape from the people with extreme deliberation and care, and that the people pursued Him with intense expectation; and the sentence takes this shape: And immediately the ship (in which they were escaping) was at the land whither they were going (for escape from the people); the day following the people (also) which stood (still remained standing, like a wall) on the other side of the sea, because they saw (in the first place) that there was none other boat there, save that one, and that Jesus went not with His disciples into that, but that His disciples were gone away alone (whence it seemed to follow, that Jesus was still in the neighborhood); but (in the second place) that other boats had come from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they had eaten bread by the power of the Lord’s thanksgiving (boats in which the disciples also might have returned). When the people therefore, etc.
Joh_6:24. They themselves entered into the boats.—Took those boats which had come from Tiberias. As these vessels are called ðëïéÜñéá [small boats], and besides were probably not very numerous, having accidentally arrived, it is not to be supposed that the whole five thousand came across. Tholuck supposes that the festival-pilgrims would have left, probably finding it necessary to go immediately on to the temple at Jerusalem. This mistakes the point of their extreme excitement. The áὐôïß is not antithetic to a previous passive behaviour of the people (Meyer), but to their wrong supposition that the disciples had been in the ships, and had returned by them. They sought the Lord in the place of His residence, Capernaum.
Joh_6:25. On the other side of the lake.—With reference to the eastern point of departure. According to Joh_6:59, they find Him in the synagogue at Capernaum. Meyer correctly: “The ðÝñáí ô . èÜë . is intended to suggest that the object of their wonder was their finding him on the western side.” When camest thou?—[ ÉÉ üôåὦäåãÝãïíáò ; In Greek this implies the double question of when and how, as Bengel remarks: Quæstio de tempore includit quæstionem de modo. When didst Thou come hither? and how didst Thou get here (perf. ãÝãïíáò ) so unexpectedly, like a ghost?—P. S.] The question how seemed the more natural. Yet they appear to suppose immediately that He went round the sea, or crossed at some other point. They ask, when He arrived just here. Meyer thinks they suspected some miracle, and Jesus did not enter into their curious question; but the passage leads rather to the opposite inference. The Lord must expect, not that they had been led by the feeding to think of the walking on the sea, but undoubtedly that they expected of Him so much of the miraculous as to make the question of when superfluous. This triviality is the very thing that betrays the sensuous confusion of their enthusiasm itself.
Joh_6:26. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me.—The term here is particularly strong, because it emphasizes a severe personal judgment. Considering this strength of the expression, the interpretation of the correlatives ïὐ÷ ’— ἀëë ’ by non tam—quam, in Kuinoel and others, entirely obliterates the thought. Not because ye saw the miracles.—Lücke explains the plural by the healing of sick before the feeding (see the other Evangelists); Meyer groundlessly rejects this, observing that the antithesis is simply the eating of the loaves; that the plural is a plural of category, and goes no further than the feeding. But if they had waited for the kingdom of God as true believers in the Messiah, they would have perceived the spiritual glory in all the miracles. On the contrary, the sensuous expectations of the Messiah fastened selfishly on the eating of the loaves. (Comp. Mat_4:3-4.)
Joh_6:27. Work not for the food.—We think the first word must be emphasized. It is aimed at the chiliastic inclination to laziness in the enjoyment of miraculous food, and resembles the word of Paul in 2Th_3:11-12. But the injunction immediately takes a turn designed to lead their mind to the essential point. Direct your labor not to the food which perisheth, but, etc.—The radical meaning of ἐñãÜ ́ æåóèå it is difficult here to preserve in its precise force; and yet we are led to do so by the spirit of the transaction. Luther: wirket, work, produce; De Wette: erwirket, work out; Van Ess: mühet euch, trouble yourselves. Luther also translates ἐñãáæüìåíïò , Eph_4:28, by schaffen, work. There is a double oxymoron or paradox: (1) that they should not labor for the perishable food, which is the very thing they must get by working; (2) that they should labor for the heavenly food, which is not to be earned by labor. The solution lies (1) in the position of the exclamation: Labor, at the beginning of the sentence: Be earnest workers; (2) in the addition of the next words to elucidate the first. Work not for the earthly food, which perisheth; even work for daily bread should not aim at mere material support and sensual enjoyment, but at the eternal in the temporal; (3) in the doing away of all thought of human production in matters of faith by the further words: “Which the Son of Man shall give unto you.”—The food that perisheth; or rather, which spoils, corrupts. Earthly nourishment enjoyed in idleness, without sanctification of the Spirit, is not merely perishable. This word is too weak for ἀðïëëõìÝíçí (comp. Mat_9:17 : ïἱ ἀóêïὶ ἀðïëïῦíôáé ); the food goes to destruction, and with it the man who seeks his life in it. It therefore leaves not only hunger, but also loathing (Num_21:5, in regard to the manna). Decaying food loses not only (1) its efficiency, but (2) its healthful nature, and (3) its very nature itself. On the contrary food which endureth unto everlasting life has (1) eternal efficiency; (2) eternal freshness; (3) eternal durability.—The difference between this and the water which quenches thirst, Joh_4:14. That passage concerns the life of Christ refreshing, quickening, and satisfying the soul; this describes the life of Christ refreshing, nourishing, and supporting the whole being of the man.—Everlasting life;—viewed here in the main as an outward object, but including the internal operation of it.
Which the Son of man shall give unto you.—Undoubtedly based on the figure of laborer and employer, as in Joh_4:36, and in the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, Mat_20:1 sqq. In His service they must work only for the eternal food, and this He would give them. And as the eternal food can come from God alone, He declares that He is sealed as steward of the Father; appointed and accredited with commission and seal ( óöñáãßæåéí also denotes confirmation, appointment with a seal). He is sealed (accredited in particular by the miraculous feeding as a sign) as the Son of His Father’s house, commissioned or sent from God. He thus seems to appoint them as laborers of God; and hence the question that follows.
Joh_6:28. What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?—They seem ready to consent to the requirement of Christ. They wish to be in a general sense the servants of God, and do His work. But that their spirit in the matter is rather chiliastic than moral (Meyer) is shown (1) by their asking about works in the plural; (2) by their stress on their doing. The case is like that in Joh_8:30 : an apparent or conditional readiness, arising from chiliastic misconception. Not exactly a merely moral legalness of mind, though it includes this. Two interpretations: 1. The works which God requires, has commanded (De Wette, Tholuck). [Alford: the works well pleasing to God, comp. 1Co_15:58.—P. S.] 2. The works which God produces (Herder, Schleiermacher). The former interpretation is true to the mind of the people.
Joh_6:29. This is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom he sent.—Jesus meets the plural with the singular, and their proposal to do with the demand of faith in Him whom God sent. The connection of ideas is close: As servants of God they must yield themselves with unreserved confidence to the messenger of God; through Him alone do they become capable of doing anything, Joh_6:50; Joh_17:3; 1Jn_4:17. Bullinger, Beza: Faith is called a work per mimesin. Tholuck, on the other hand: Faith is itself a work. It is the decisive work of the man, in which resides the decisive work of God. [Mark the distinction between believing Christ, which is simply an intellectual assent to an historical fact and which may be ascribed to demons and infidels, and believing in Christ as an object of confidence and hope, which implies vital union with Him. This is both a work of Divine grace and the highest work of man. Godet finds here the germ of the whole Pauline theology and also the bond of union between Paul and James. Faith is the greatest act of freedom towards God; for by it he gives himself, and more man cannot do. In this sense James opposes works to a faith which is nothing but an intellectual belief; and in an analogous sense Paul opposes active living faith to dead works of mere outward observance. The faith of Paul is in fact the work of James, i.e., the work of God. Schleiermacher calls this passage the clearest and most significant declaration that all eternal life proceeds from nothing else than faith in Christ,—P. S.]
Joh_6:30. What signs shewest thou then?—i.e.: To prove that Thou art the one sent of God? For that He professed Himself to be this messenger, is evident from what He had said. The term Messiah is indeed not used, but it is implied. Some have considered the question strange, because the people had just yesterday been miraculously fed. Grotius supposed it to be put by persons who had not been present at that feeding; the negative critics found in it a contradiction of the preceding account (Bruno Bauer, and others): De Wette considers the conversation as having no reference to the feeding. But we must bear in mind, that the people presumed that Jesus, if He were the Messiah, must have accepted their acclamation and their proclamation of His royalty; and that, instead of doing so, He had, to their great chagrin, eluded their design. They therefore demanded that He more satisfactorily attest Himself than He did by that feeding. A sign from heaven they probably did not, like the Sanhedrists and Pharisees, intend; but no doubt a perpetual miraculous supply of bread under the new kingdom now to be set up. This is indicated by the explanatory addition: “What dost Thou work?” ôß ἑñãÜæῇ . What dost Thou produce? Ironically pointed at His demand that they should work. The chiliastic Messiah must take the lead of all the people as the greatest master-workman. The expression is doubly antithetic: putting His working against theirs, and especially putting a working in testimony of His Messiahship against His declaration of it.
Joh_6:31. Our fathers did eat manna.—Meyer: “The questioners, after being miraculously filled with earthly bread, rise in their miracle-seeking, and demand bread from heaven, such as God gave by Moses.” What they wanted was, no doubt, primarily continuance; though not this alone. The thought is: If Moses perpetually fed his people with bread from heaven, it is too little that the Messiah, the greater than Moses, should give His people only one transient miraculous meal, and as it were put them off with that, He ought to introduce the Messianic kingdom by giving every day a miraculous supply, and that by all means finer than barley loaves, superior manna. Comp. Mat_4:3.
As it is written, He gave them bread from heaven. (Exo_16:4; Psa_78:24; Psa_105:40). Meyer: The Jews considered the manna the greatest of miracles. As Moses was the type of the Messiah (Schöttgen, Horæ Talm., II., p. 475), a new manna was expected from the Messiah Himself: “Redemptor prior descendere fecit pro iis Manna; sic et redemptor posterior descender faciet Manna.” Midras Coheleth. Fol. 86, 4. (Lightfoot, Schöttgen, Wetstein.)
The manna ( îָï ), which miraculously furnished the Israelites in the Arabian desert [for forty years] the means of support, Exodus 16; Numbers 11, etc., fell during the night, and in the morning lay as dew upon the earth, Exo_16:14, in small grains (like coriander-seed, Exo_16:31), sweet, like honey, to the taste. It had to be gathered [every day except the Sabbath] before the sun rose, or it melted, Joh_6:21. “The quantity divided daily to each person, Exo_16:16, Thenius (Althebräische Masse) estimates at somewhat over two Dresden quarts” [about three English quarts.—P. S.]. On the well-known oriental (medicinal) manna of natural history, see Winer, sub v This appears even in southern Europe on various trees and shrubs; then in the east (manna-ash, oriental oak, especially the sweet-thorn), likewise tarfa-bush; abundant in Arabia, particularly in the vicinity of Sinai. A resinous exudation, resembling sugar, appearing sometimes spontaneously, sometimes through incisions made by insects or by men; appearing specifically on leaves and twigs. Several travellers assure us that in the east the manna falls as dew from the air. Even in this case a vegetable origin must be presumed. Our idea of the miraculous manna must be formed after the analogy of the Egyptian plagues: A natural phenomenon miraculously increased in an extraordinary manner by the power of God for a special purpose. At present scarcely six hundred-weight are gathered on the peninsula of Petræa in the most favorable years.—According to Chrysostom and others the manna came from the atmosphere, and so from just below the real heaven.
Joh_6:32. It is not Moses [ ïὐ before Ìùõóῆò ] that gave you the bread from heaven.—Introduced with a: Verily, verily. Not questioning the miraculousness of the manna (Paulus), but denying that the manna of Moses was from the real heaven, and was real manna. The question is not of a manna in an ideal sense, but of the real, true manna. Tholuck: “The negation is to be taken not absolutely, but only relatively.” It is relative, of course, considering the affinity of the symbol to the substance; but it is also absolute considering the infinite difference between them. According to Meyer the words “from heaven” in both cases (and in Joh_6:31) relate not to the bread (for then the phrase would be ôὸí ἐê ô . ïὐñ .), but to äÝäùêåí and äßäùóéí ; and “in like manner in Exo_16:4, îִï äַùָׁîַéִí belongs not to ìֶçֶí , but to îַîְèִéø .” But we must not forget that the nature of the bread is described with the source of it: Bread of heaven, Psa_78:24; Psa_105:40. Just on account of the former of these two passages, to which the words before us refer, and where the Septuagint has ἄñôïõ ïὐñáíïῦ , Tholuck, not without reason, prefers the usual interpretation.
[My Father giveth you; äßäùóéí , now and always, opposed to äÝäùêåí , which is said of Moses. Bengel: Jam aderat panis, Joh_6:33.—P. S.] The true bread from heaven.—[ ἀëçèéíüò , genuine, veritable, essential, as opposed to derived, borrowed, imperfect, while ἀëçèÞò , true, is opposed to false. Comp. note on Joh_1:9, p. 66.—P. S.] Exactly parallel with the true light (Joh_1:9); the true vine (Joh_15:1); and to the same class of expressions: the true well of water, the true medicinal fountain, the true shepherd, etc., substantially belong.
Joh_6:33. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven.—The decisive declaration by way of a description of the bread of God; ὁ êáôáâáßíùí referring to ἄñôïò , not to Christ (against Paulus, Olshausen). Without this bread there is no substantial life, and no substantial nourishment of life. [Unto the world, i.e., all mankind; in opposition to the Jewish particularism which boasted in the manna as a national miracle. Bengel: Non modo uni populo, uni ætati, ut manna cibavit unum populum unius ætatis.—P. S.]
Joh_6:34. Lord, evermore give us this bread.—Comp. the request of the woman in Joh_4:15. The people presume that Christ is the agent of the Father’s gift. Interpretations: 1. Dim suspicion of the higher gift [perhaps the heavenly manna which, according to the Rabbis, is prepared for the just in heaven; comp. Rev_2:17] (Lücke, Tholuck, and others). 2. They think the bread something material, separate from Christ (De Wette, Meyer, [Godet]). And in any case their prayer is more decidedly sensuous and chiliastically perverted, than the prayer of the woman of Samaria. [Some take the prayer as an irony based on incredulity as to the possibility of such bread. Not warranted.—P. S.]
Joh_6:35. I [ Ἐãþ ] am the bread of life.—[Transition from the indirect to the direct form of speech, as in Joh_6:30, and a categoric answer to the request of the Jews: “Give us this bread,” together with the indication of the way how to get it. Here is this bread before you, and all you have to do is to come unto Me. I am the bread, and faith is the work or the means of getting it.—P. S.] Most emphatic and decisive assertion. Still stronger than that in Joh_4:26, since it was more open to contradiction; though here it is not the profession of Himself as the Messiah by name. (Philo, Allegor. legis, lib. III.: ëüãïò èåïῦ øõ÷ῆò ôñïöÞ )—He that cometh to me.—Is willing to believe, and uses the means of faith that he may believe. Conversion in its Christian aspect. Not, as Meyer makes it, only a different phrase for ðéóôåýùí . According to Meyer the expression: “Shall never thirst,” is a confusion of the figure, and anticipates the drinking of the blood of Christ, which follows. But it is rather an introduction to Christ’s further declaration of Himself. As faith is developed, it brings, besides the importation and sustenance of the spiritual life, the satisfaction also of having drunk. It is less natural to make this addition, with Lücke [and Alford], a description of the excellence of the heavenly bread over the manna [which was no sooner given, than the people began to be tormented with thirst and murmured against Moses, Exo_17:1 ff.—P. S.]
Joh_6:36. But I said unto you.—He said this to them not, as Lücke and De Wette have it, at Joh_5:37; for there He was speaking to the Sanhedrists in Jerusalem; but, as Grotius [Bengel] Luthardt and others, [Stier, Olsh., Hengstenberg, Godet] make it, at Joh_6:26; though He there said it to them in other words. [Christ quotes Himself here, as He often quotes the Old Testament, more after the spirit than after the letter.] According to Euthymius Zigabenus [and Alford] the Lord refers to some utterance not recorded; according to Meyer it means: I wilt have said [ åἶðïí =dictum velim] to you just now; which it can mean, as to the letter, but must not mean here. That ye have even seen me.—They have already seen Him in a Messianic function at the feeding, and yet did not see the sign in His miracle, and so did not truly see Him. So near were they to salvation; but they lacked faith. A paraphrase of Joh_6:26. [The two êáß are correlative and bring out the glaring contrast of the two facts of even seeing the Son of God in His glory, and yet not believing in Him.—P. S.]
Joh_6:37. All that the Father giveth me.—As to the connection: The judgment just uttered is true of the body of those who were before Him. It is not intended to exclude the thought that there were some among them, whom the Father had given to Him. It is, therefore, not in absolute antithesis to what precedes (as Meyer makes it). All. Neuter. The strongest expression of totality, as in Joh_3:6, [totam quasi massam, as Bengel has it; comp. also Joh_17:2, where ðᾶí is likewise used of persons in this emphatic sense of totality.—P. S.] That the Father giveth me. [The same as whom the Father draws, Joh_6:44.—P. S.] Not only the gratia præveniens, operating through nature and history, conscience and law, (comp. Joh_6:44), but also the effectual call to salvation—the gratia convertens—itself, is the work of the Father. The conversion, the coming to Jesus, is the answer to the call. Tholuck: It runs through the Gospel of John as a fundamental view, that all attraction towards Christ presupposes an affinity in the person for Christ, and then this affinity is the operation of the Father; and so here the un-susceptibility of the people is traced to this want of inward affinity. The phrase äßäïóèáé ðáñὰ ôïῦ ðáôñüò is also in Joh_10:29; Joh_17:2; Joh_17:6; comp. in the Old Testament, Isa_8:18 : “I and the children whom the Lord hath given me.” The Predestinarians refer this passage to the eternal election [Augustine, Beza], the Arminians to the gratia generalis, the ability to believe [Grotius: pietatis studium], the Socinians to the probitas, natural honesty and love of truth, etc. We consider that in the “giveth” the three elements of election, predestination (fore-ordination), and calling are combined, Rom_8:29. But undoubtedly fore-ordination is very especially intended. [Shall come unto me, ðñὸò ἐìὲ ῆîåé . By an act of faith. Comp. the following ôὸí ἐñ÷üìåíïí . Godet distinguishes ἥîåé from ἐëåýóåôáé , and explains it: will arrive at Me, will not suffer shipwreck, but infallibly attain the goal. He calls the usual interpretation tautological, in as much as the gift consists in the coming, but this is not correct; the äßäùóé is the act of God, and the ἔñ÷åóèáé the act of man, i.e., faith in actual motion towards Christ.—P. S.]
And him that cometh to me, I Will in no wise cast out.—Every one who comes to Him is welcome. The only criterion is the coming or the not coming; no matter what the previous condition or guiltiness; the coming bespeaks the will of the Father, which it is the office of Christ to fulfil. [ Ïὐ ìὴ ἐêâÜëù ἐîù does not refer to Christ’s office as Judge at the resurrection, but to the present order of grace, and is a litotes, i.e., it expresses in a negative form more strongly the readiness of Christ to receive with open arms of love every one that comes to Him.—P. S.]
Joh_6:38. For I came down from heaven, etc.—Expressing the complete condescension and humiliation in the estate of the Redeemer. But how could His will be different from the Father’s? The ideal will of the Son of man, in and Of itself, must continually press towards the perfecting of the world and of life, and therefore legitimately lead to judgment. But in the spirit of redemption Christ continually directs this current of rightful judgment by the counsel of that redemption which is in operation till the end of the world; and this is His humiliation to the death of the cross, and this His patience, in the majesty of His exaltation.
Joh_6:39. And this is the will of him that sent me [according to the correct reading instead of the Father’s will] that of all which he hath given me.—The decree of redemption. Hence the perfect: Which He hath given me. Spoken not from a point of view in the future (as Meyer says); nor with reference to election, but with with reference to the perseverance of the divine purpose of salvation, to which the perseverance of the patience of Christ and the perseverance of believers correspond (see Rom_8:29 ff.). I should lose nothing.—Let nothing be lost by breaking off before the final decision of persistent unbelief in every case. But should raise it up.—Evidently meaning the resurrection to life. The Son is not only to continue, but to carry to its blessed consummation the work of resurrection. It is not, therefore, the day of death (Reuss), nor specifically the first resurrection (Meyer), which is intended. The last day, ἐó÷Üôç ἡìÝñá .—The period of judgment and resurrection from the second coming of Christ to the general resurrection, Revelation 20.
[The resurrection of the body is the culmination of the redeeming work beyond which there is no more danger. Bengel: Hic finis est, ultra quem periculum nullum. Citeriora omnia præstat Salvator. This “blessed refrain,” as Meyer calls it, is three times repeated, Joh_6:40; Joh_6:44; Joh_6:54; comp. Joh_10:28; Joh_17:12; Joh_18:9. What stronger assurance of final resurrection to life everlasting can the believer have than this solemnly repeated assurance from the unerring mouth of the Saviour: “I shall raise him up on the last day.” But true faith is no carnal confidence, it is always united with true humility. The more we trust in Christ, the less we trust in ourselves. All is safe if we look to Christ, all is lost, if we look to ourselves alone. Christians should pray as if all depended upon God, and watch and work as if all depended upon themselves.—P. S.]
Joh_6:40. That every one that seeth the Son.—A stronger putting of the gracious will of God in its final intent. Hence again naming the Son in the third person. “What John said to his disciples, Jesus now says openly to the Jews: Faith in the Son has everlasting life. Who the Son is, He gives them to know by declaring that He will raise up these believers.
Joh_6:41. The Jews therefore murmured at him.—A new section of the affair, occasioned by the Jews’ taking decisive offence at the preceding discourse. The ïὖí is again very definitive. The verb ãïããýæù , of itself, denotes neither, on the one hand, a whispering, nor, on the other, a grumbling or fault-finding; but the murmuring is here the expression of fault-finding, and is made by the context (“among yourselves,” and by the antagonism (“at Him”) synonymous with it.—The Jews. In the ὄ÷ëïò itself the Jewish element was aroused (De Wette); but no doubt the Pharisaic members of that synagogue are here especially concerned; and even Judas, whose very name is Jew, here seems to have already become soured (see Joh_6:64).
The bread which came down from heaven.—This declaration transcended their idea of the Messiah; and that in it which, unconsciously, most offended them was its offer of a suffering or self-sacrificing Messiah. Hence the Lord afterwards brought this out with special prominence. But they seized the declaration in another aspect. When, without directly claiming it, He indicated His divine sonship by saying that He came down from heaven, they considered Him as contradicting His known origin. A sensuous, narrow, literalistic apprehension.
Joh_6:42. Is not this Jesus.—The ïὖôïò , primarily, strongly demonstrative. The same person, of whom we know that He sprang from Nazareth and rose to be a Rabbi, pretends to have come down from heaven. This contrast and the skepticism of the people add a contemptuous tone to the pronoun. The son of Joseph.—These words do not imply that both the parents were still living (Meyer), but that the people considered both (whom they once knew) to be His parents. Of Joseph, whom the tradition represents as advanced in years at the time of his marriage to Mary, we have no trace in the Gospels after the childhood of Jesus (comp. Mat_13:55). [John introduces here the Jews as speaking from their own stand-point. They, of course, knew nothing of the mystery of the supernatural conception, and would not have appreciated it, if Jesus had corrected them. This was a truth for the initiated, and was not revealed even to the disciples before they were fully convinced that Christ was the Son of God.—P. S.]
Joh_6:43. Murmur not among yourselves.—Jesus intended not to draw out their thoughts, but goes on to expose their defect.
Joh_6:44. No man can come to me.—Here: reach Me; in particular: reach an understanding of My nature, apprehend the Spirit in the flesh, Deity in humanity, the Son of God in the Nazarene. Except the Father draw him.— Ἑëêýåéí denotes all sorts of drawing, from violence to persuasion or invitation. But persons can be drawn only according to the laws of personal life. Hence this is not to be taken in a high predestinarian sense (Calvin: It is false and impious to say non nisi volentes trahi; Beza: Volumus, quia datum est, ut velimus; Aretius: Hic ostendit Christus veram causam murmuris esse quod non sint electi). Yet on the other hand the force of the added clause, denoting a figurative, vital constraint, subduing by the bias of want, of desire, of hope, of mind, must not be abated. The drawing of the Father is the point at which election and fore-ordination become calling (the vocatio efficax), represented as entirely the work of the Father. Meyer: “The ἑëêýåéí is the mode of the äéäüíáé , an internal pressing and leading to Christ by the operation of divine grace (Jer_30:3, Sept.), though not impairing human freedom.” The element of calling is added through the word of Christ. Hence: The Father who sent Me. As sent of the Father, He executes the Father’s work and word. The congruence of the objective work of salvation and the subjective operation of salvation in the individual.
[ Ἑëêýåéí (or ἕëêù , fut. ἕëîù , which is preferred to Ýëêýóù by the Attic writers), to draw, to drag, to force, almost always implies force or violence, as when it is used of wrestling, bending the bow, stretching the sail, or when a net is drawn to the land, a ship into the sea, the body of an animal or a prisoner is dragged along, or a culprit is drawn before the tribunal (comp. Joh_18:10; Joh_21:6; Joh_21:11; Act_16:19, and the classical Dictionaries, also Meyer, p. 266). It is certainly much stronger than äßäùóé , Joh_6:37, and implies active or passive resistance, or obstructions to be removed. Here and in Joh_12:32, it does, of course, not mean physical or moral compulsion, for faith is in its very nature voluntary, and coming to Christ is equivalent to believing in Him; but it clearly expresses the mighty moral power of the infinite love of the Father who so orders and overrules the affairs of life and so acts upon our hearts, that we give up at last our natural aversion to holiness, and willingly, cheerfully and thankfully embrace the Saviour as the gift of gifts for our salvation. The natural inability of man to come to Christ, however, is not physical nor intellectual, but moral and spiritual; it is an unwillingness. No change of mental organization, no new faculty is required, but a radical change of the heart and will. This is effected by the Holy Ghost, but the providential drawing of the Father prepares the way for it.—P. S.]
Joh_6:45. It is written in the prophets, etc.—[This verse explains what kind of drawing was meant in the preceding verse, viz., by divine illumination of the mind and heart.] Prophets, i.e., the division of the Holy Scriptures called the Prophets. Yet the phrase is no doubt intended to assert that the particular passage, Isa_54:13, (quoted freely from the Sept.), is found in substance throughout the prophets (which Tholuck calls in question; comp. Isaiah 11; Jer_31:33; Joe_3:1). Taught of God.—Taught by God; the genitive with the participle denoting the agent. The promises of universal illumination in the time of the Messiah. In the prophet the point of the passage quoted lies in the “all” in contrast with the isolated enlightenment under the Old Testament. And here, too, this universality is not denied, though it is to be limited to all believers. The children of the Messianic time are the “all” from the fact that an inward, immediate divine illumination gives them faith in the word spoken by Christ. Cyril, Ammonius, and the older Lutheran expositors: Taught of God, per vocem evangelicam; the mystics: by the Spirit working with the outward word, by the inner light; Clericus, Delitzsch, and others: by the prevenient grace.—It is the calling provided for by election and fore-ordination; but it is this calling considered inwardly, as the operation of the Father by the Spirit;—an operation distinct from the spiritual life which proceeds from the Son, but not separate from it. Effectual calling, on its intellectual side: the enlightening of the mind.
Every man that hath learned of the Father.—According to the reading ἀêïýùí , we suppose the hearing the Father is to be conceived as continuous. As soon as the having learned is thereby effected, the man, as one taught of God, comes to Christ. The reference is of course to the whole discipline of the Father, which proceeds from His election; but it is to this (1) as becoming manifest in the effectual calling, and (2) as therein reaching its goal. Hence it is not the elect simply in view of this election (Beza), that are intended; still less the elect in a predestinarian sense.
Joh_6:46. Not that any one hath seen the Father.—Explaining, that those who are taught of God in the Messianic age, still have need of the Messiah. Different interpretations: (1) The Lord would contrast His true seeing of God with that of Moses (Cyril, Erasmus). (2) He would forestall the spiritualistic view, that the inward manifestation of God supersedes the historical Christ (Calovius, Lampe). (3) He would mark a difference in degree and kind of revelation (Bengel: Videre interius est, quam audire; Tholuck). The third interpretation does not, as Tholuck thinks, set aside the second. The same fact, that the historical Christ is the positive fulfilment of all previous revelation and knowledge of God, and is therefore indispensable, is expressed in a different way; but all such facts as that He is Reconciler, King, Redeemer, are rooted in the fact that, being the Son; He is, in His perfect vision of God, the absolute Prophet (comp. Joh_1:18). Save he who is of God.—The full divine nature was necessary to the full view of God.
Joh_6:47. He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.—Here again it must be observed, (1) that Christ has put His previous Messianic statements in a general form, not in the first person, but that He connects His soteriological statement, His declaration of salvation, directly with His person; and (2) that He asseverates: Verily, verily. This is, therefore, Christ’s positive offer of Himself as the personal Saviour; and now follows the declaration.
[Mark the present tense hath ( ἔ÷åé ), not shall have. Eternal life is not confined to the future world, but is ever present and becomes ours as soon as we lay hold of Christ who is eternal life Himself. The resurrection of the body is only the full bloom of what has begun here. Mark also that faith, and nothing else, is laid down here, and in this whole discourse (comp. Joh_6:40; Joh_3:15-16,) as the condition of eternal life. The eating of Christ’s flesh and the drinking of His blood, to be consistent with this, is only a stronger form of expressing the same idea of a real personal appropriation of Christ by faith. This refutes all forms of ecclesiasticism which throw any kind of obstruction between the soul and Christ, as an essential condition of salvation, whether it be the authority of pope or council or creed or system of theology, or the intercession of saints, or good works of our own. Salvation depends solely and exclusively upon personal union with Christ: all other things, however important in their place, are subordinate to this. Without faith in Christ there can be no salvation for any sinner: this is the exclusiveness of the gospel; but with faith in Christ there is salvation for all of whatever sect or name: this is its charity.—P. S.]
Joh_6:48. I am the bread of life.—Tholuck (like Meyer), on Joh_6:47-51 : “After repelling the objection of the Jews, Jesus returns to His former theme in Joh_6:32-40, and in the first place repeats the same thought.” We find here not a return, but an advance, carrying the thought forward from the person of Christ to His historical work. This appears from what follows. “Of the life.” Referring to the preceding promise of eternal life. “ Ôῆæ æùῆò . Genitiv. qual. and effectus.” Or probably, conversely, the genitive of form or mode of existence. [That is, not: “the bread which has the quality and effect of life, the bread which is and which gives life;” but: “the life which is bread; the life existing and offered in the form of bread, and operating as bread.”—E. D. Y.] Previously the bread was the subject, with various predicates (the person); now the bread becomes an attribute of the life (the giving and the effect of the person). The life as bread, not the bread as life. That Jesus is the life, follows from Joh_6:46-47. This thought is expanded further on.
Joh_6:49. Your fathers did eat manna.—The manna gave no abiding life, because it was not essential life.
Joh_6:50. This is the bread.—By this the bread may be known as the true bread: that it comes down from heaven for the purpose and to the effect that whosoever eateth of it shall not die; or, more precisely: It cometh down from heaven, in order that men may eat of it (the ìὴ ἀðïèÜíῃ affecting this first clause), and that he who eateth of it may not die. The definition of the true bread by its origin, its design, and its effects. The ìὴ ἀðïèÜíῃ is more exactly expressed in the êἂí ἀðïèÜíῃ of Joh_11:25.
Joh_6:51. I am the living bread.—I am the bread living. The life is now the logical subject. The Vulgate: Ego sum panis vivus (,) qui de cœlo descendi; the bread living, who [1st pers.] have come down from heaven.
If any man eat of this bread.—Because Christ is the living bread, He offers Himself as bread, and communicates by the eating of this bread a living forever. Christ, therefore, now distinguishes Himself as life from the bread of life as a gift.
And the bread that I will give.—No longer: The bread which I am. The êáß — äÝ , [atque etiam] is to be noted [i.e., êáὶ ὁ ἄñôïò äÝ , ὃí Ýã . ä .: “And the bread, now, which I will give.”] See Tholuck. Is my flesh.—The bodily, finite, historical form of Christ, which He yields up for the world in His death, and thus gives to the world for its nourishment, Joh_2:19; Joh_3:14. Not only the sacrifice of Christ in His atoning death to procure the eternal life of the world (Meyer), but also the renewal and transformation of the world by its participation of the sacrificed life of Christ; as, in Joh_2:19; Joh_3:14, death and resurrection are combined. It seems strange that the second ἣí ἔãὼ äþóù [after Þ óÜñî ìïõ ἐóôßí ] should be wanting in Codd. B. C. D. L. T. [and à .], the Itala, the Vulgate, and three times in Origen; so as to be stricken out by Lachmann and Tischendorf [Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort—P. S.] Tholuck accordingly says, with Meyer: “A pregnance like this: The bread which I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world,—would be as contrary to the style of John as the repetition ἣí ἐãὼ äþóù is agreeable to it.” And he conjectures: “The omission may have been caused by the preceding äþóù .” But the addition, too, may very easily have been made for doctrinal elucidation, to make the sentence point more distinctly to the atoning death. If, therefore, we let the above manuscripts decide, the death and resurrection are united; the point of the sacrificial death by itself is not yet so distinctly brought, out in this place; and this seems more congruous with Joh_3:14 (and with the conception of the Jews in the sequel). Therefore: My flesh for the life of the world. The manifestation in the flesh is necessary to the full life. The flesh of Christ will be the life of the world. That is, the giving up of His flesh in death and the distribution of His flesh in the resurrection will be the life of the world. Yet in the giving up of His flesh, His sacrificial death is mainly intended, and in the eating of it, faith in the atonement; and as this element in the conception is to be distinguished, on the one hand, from the fact that Christ is the bread in His person, in His historical life itself, so, on the other hand, it is to be distinguished from the fact that He, in His flesh and blood, prepares His life, glorified through death, for a eucharistic meal for the world.
Joh_6:52. The Jews therefore strove among themselves.—Here a dispute arises concerning the sense in which the Lord could give men His flesh for the life of the world. And this dispute is described as a dispute of the Jews. Yet it is not a question of the interpretation of Christ’s word, but of the offensiveness of it, which here sets the Jews at strife. The skeptics and cavillers lead, saying: How can this man, etc. They seem disposed to charge the word with an abominable meaning, taking it literally.
Joh_6:53. Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood.—Jesus recedes not for the offense, but with a verily, verily, He goes further, and now divides the flesh into flesh and blood, and to the eating adds drinking, which He had first introduced at Joh_6:35.
Mark further: (1) This truth, enforced with verily, verily, is now expressed in four different forms; four times the Lord speaks of eating and drinking His flesh and blood. (2) The first time in a conditional injunction on the Jews with reference to the Messiah, in the negative form of threatening: “Unless ye eat, etc., ye have no life in you.” The second time in a positive statement referring to Jesus Himself, in the form of promise. The third time, in a statement of the nature and substantial effect of the flesh and blood of Christ, on which the preceding practical alternative is founded: “For my flesh is meat indeed,” etc. The fourth time, in explication of all these three propositions: “He dwelleth in Me, and I in him.”
For the interpretation, we must remember that elsewhere flesh ( óÜñî ), by itself, denotes human nature in its full concrete manifestation (Joh_3:6); hence the flesh ( óÜñî ) of Christ, likewise, is the manhood of Christ, His personal human nature. But flesh and blood ( óὰñî êáὶ áἶìá ) elsewhere denotes inherited nature; in Peter (Mat_16:17), for example, his old, hereditary Jewish nature, with its associations and views; in Paul (Gal_1:16), his Pharisaic descent, spirit, and associations; in Christians (1Co_15:50), the mortal, earthly nature and form, received from natural birth, which cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Accordingly the flesh and blood of Christ are the peculiar descent and nature of Christ in historical manifestation; the historical Christ. As the flesh and blood of historical mankind are reduced to the material and nutriment of its culture and development, its humanity; so the flesh and blood of the historical Christ are given to be the nutriment of mankind’s higher spiritual life, its divinity. And when the partaking of His flesh and blood is made the indispensable condition of salvation, the meaning is: The life of man proceeds only from the life of Christ completed in death; only by Christ’s actual person being made the especial vital element of mankind, the nourishment and refreshment of the real life of man,—by this means alone does man receive true life.
The four sentences of this passage may be arranged in the following system:
(1) The flesh and blood of Christ are really the food and drink of man; i.e., the sacrifice and the participation of the actual, divine-human Christ are for mankind the only escape from death, and the only way to the higher, spiritual life.
(2) Because nothing but the full reception of the historical Christ can effect full communion with Him, consisting in the believer’s dwelling in Christ (justification), and Christ’s dwelling in the believer (sanctification).
(3) Therefore he that eats, takes the nutriment of eternal life, which works in him to resurrection.
(4) He who takes not this nourishment, has no true life, and can attain to none.
Note: (1) the phrase flesh and blood ( óὰñî êáὶ áἶìá ) in our passage differs from body and blood ( óῶìá êáὶ áἷìá ) in the words of institution of the holy Supper: the former applying to the whole historical, self-sacrificing Christ, the latter simply to His individual person just coming forth from the sacrifice. (2) In the preparation of the óὰñî êáὶ áἷìá for food, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ are blended in one, the leading element being the death; as in óῶìá êáὶ áἷìá the two are blended under the leading aspect of the new life.—Tholuck: “The addition of áἷìá to óÜñî abates nothing from the notion (Mat_16:7; Eph_6:11; 1Co_15:20), but only expresses still more definitely, that is, by its two main constituents, the sensible human nature.” This, therefore, in its earthly manifestation (Joh_6:50; Joh_6:58), is to be spiritually received, and Joh_6:50, continuing to qualify the succeeding verses, shows that it is to be received especially in its atoning death, to which also the áἷìá may perhaps particularly point. The addition of áἷìá , however, denotes primarily the generic life in the individualized óÜñî . The flesh and blood of Christ are the historical Christ in His entire connection with God and man (as the “Son of God and of Mary”), as made by His death the eucharistic meal of the world;—certainly, therefore, a new point, with death as the most prominent aspect. [It should be added that the blood of Christ in the New Testament always signifies His atoning death for the sins of the world, comp. Rom_3:25; Col_1:14; Col_1:20; Heb_9:14; Heb_9:20; Heb_10:10; 1Pe_1:2; 1Pe_1:19; 1Jn_1:7; Rev_1:5. It must refer to the same sacrifice here, and flesh must be interpreted accordingly. Flesh and blood are the whole human life of Christ as offered on the cross for the propitiation of the sins of the world, and thus become the fountain of life for all believers.—P. S.]
Various Interpretations:
1. The atoning death of Christ: Augustine, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza, [Grotius, Calov.] Lücke, and many other modern expositors (see Meyer).
2. The entire human manifestation of Christ including His death (Paulus, Frommann, De Wette, etc.)
3. The deeper self-communication of Jesus, faith eating and drinking in the human nature of Jesus the life of God (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, [ ÉÉ . 2, p. 245 ff.]. “Not the giving of His flesh, but His flesh itself Jesus calls food.” (Delitzsch).
4. A prophetic discourse in anticipation of the Lord’s Supper (Chrysostom, most of the fathers [Cyril, Theophyl., Euth. Zigab., Cyprian, Hilarius, perhaps also Augustine, but see p. 228,] and Roman Catholics [Klee, Maier], Calixtus [a moderate Lutheran, strongly opposed by the high Lutheran Calovius]