Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - John 6:66 - 6:71
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Apostacy Of Many Disciples. Incipient Treason In The Circle Of The Twelve. Confession Of Peter
Joh_6:66-71
Went back; åἰò ôὰ ὀðßóù .—Comp. c. Joh_18:6; Joh_20:14.
Joh_6:67. Will ye also, etc.—So Luther, Baumgarten-Crusius [and the English version], not accurately. Rather, “But ye will not go away, will ye?” Expressing confidence mingled with suspicion in reference to the traitor. Giving occasion for a volutary decision. [The Lord asked the question in order to test their faithfulness, to elicit their confession, and to attach them more closely to Himself, but not, as Alford suggests, for His own comfort and encouragement; for as He knew the future treason of Judas (Joh_6:64; Joh_6:71), so He foresaw also the faithfulness of the eleven. In this place, John first mentions the Twelve, without a word about their previous calling.—a clear proof that he took for granted a general knowledge of the gospel history.—P. S.]
Joh_6:68. To whom shall we go.—So also Luther’s version. More accurately: To whom shall we go over, go away from Thee? Meyer: ἀðåëåõóüìåèá , future, ever go away. [Denying the future possibility.—P. S.] No second Messiah will appear. [Augustin: Da nobis alterum Te]. Prelude to the confession of Peter in Mat_16:16. [Peter quickly, resolutely and emphatically speaks and acts here as elsewhere in the name of the Twelve. He is the mouth-piece of the apostolic college. This gives him a certain primacy and priority down to the day of Pentecost and the calling of Paul, who was the independent head of Gentile Christianity by Christ’s own appointment. The Romish Church turns the temporary and personal primacy of Peter into a permanent and official supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. This, and the identifying of the church of Rome with the Kingdom of Christ, is the ðñῶôïí øåῦäïò , the fundamental error and the fundamental sin of the papacy.—P. S.]
Words of eternal life. And we.—The objective and subjective grounds of cleaving to Him. Words which come forth from, possess, and lead to, eternal life. See Joh_6:63.—And we: [ êáὶ ἡìåῖò ] the answer of faith to the object of faith. Not excluding, of course, the other “antithesis to the deserters.” (Meyer.)
[Joh_6:69. And we have believed and have known.—The perfect: ðåðéóôåýêáìåí êáὶ ἐãíþêáìåí , expresses the completed action and permanent result: assured faith and firm knowledge. Fides præcedit intellectum, “faith precedes knowledge.” This Augustinian and Anselmic maxim (which Schleiermacher also adopted; see the motto of his Dogmatics) may be derived from the order of ðßóôéò and ãíῶóéò in this verse. But the reverse maxim: Intellectus præcedit fidem (Abelard), is also true, though not in a rationalistic sense, and is supported by the order, Joh_10:38 (that ye may know and believe) and 1Jn_5:13. We must first be made acquainted with Christ before we can believe in Him (“faith comes by hearing,” Rom_10:17), but we must believe in Christ in order to attain an experimental and saving knowledge of Him. Faith itself is an intellectual as well as a moral and spiritual act.—P. S.]
The Holy One of God [see Textual Notes.] The One consecrated by and for God. Comp. Joh_10:36; Mar_1:24; Luk_4:34; Act_4:27; Rev_3:7. [The coincidence of the original text with the testimony of the demoniacs (Mar_1:26), who with ghostlike intuition perceived the higher character of Jesus, is remarkable.—P. S.] More indefinite designation of the Messiah. The full, matured confession, born of the Spirit, we find first in Matthew 16;—a fact mistaken by Weisse, when he makes this passage a variation of that in the Synoptical account. Peter’s answering here in this complete way for all the twelve could not be entirely of the Spirit, [as the later confession Matthew 16 was]. It unconsciously served to sustain Judas in his false and cold self-command, and to cover the aversion which was in him at the very time; and thus it gave occasion for the severe words of Jesus.
Joh_6:70. Did I not choose you the twelve?—A more definite exposition of the words of Joh_6:67. Meyer: “Not the language of reflection, but of sudden pain over the tragic result, in contrast with that joyful confession which Peter was convinced he could give in the name of all.” It probably refers not to the “tragic result,” but to the moral alienation, the germ of apostasy, which from this time forth developed itself in Judas. The distribution of the emphasis is very significant. “I” is first; then “you;” then “the twelve.” I, as the Holy One of God; have chosen you, to the highest honors.
And now the fearful contrast: One of you is a devil!—Interpretations: An informer (Theophylact, [DeWette]); an adversary or betrayer (Kuinöl, Lücke, et al.); devil, devilish, of a diabolical nature (Meyer). In New Testament designations, however, an ideal meaning is always lodged; the word is not a mere nomen; as Mat_13:39; Rev_12:10 prove. And this is the more sure to be the case in this figurative designation. In Mat_16:23 the term “Satan” is chosen, because Jesus intends to describe a tempter instigated by the devil; so here also “devil” denotes an actual traducer instigated by the devil. We must by all means abide by the term. The expression: “sons, or children of the devil,” (Joh_8:44; 1Jn_3:10), is not so strong. The mention of the number twelve shows that the brothers of the Lord also were by this time in the circle. [? See below, p. 241.—P. S.]
Joh_6:71. He spoke of Judas.—That is, He meant him. See the Textual Notes. On Judas Iscariot see the Com. on Matthew, John 10 [p. 182.] Not to be confounded with the other Judas (son of James), Joh_14:22.
For it was he that was about to betray him.— Ἤìåëëåí is hard to translate. Traditurus erat. The betrayal germinated in him from this time forth. Meyer, groundlessly: “Not that he was already meditating the betrayal, (see, on the contrary, Joh_13:2), but that the betrayal was the divinely appointed result.” Joh_13:2 speaks of the final resolution; this passage of the first swerving of the temper and inclination. One of the twelve.—Showing up the monstrous, diabolical character of this incipient infidelity. The silence of Judas is in keeping with his character. It now firmly lodges the seed. On the Lord’s choosing of Judas see Meyer [p. 285, 5th ed. See also the Literature quoted below in Doctr. and Ethical No. 3.—P.S.]
[The call of Judas is only one of the innumerable mysteries in God’s moral government, which no system of philosophy can solve at all, and which even Christianity solves but in part, reserving the final answer for a higher expansion of our faculties in another world. It involves the whole problem of the relation of God to the origin of sin, and the relation of His foreknowledge and foreordination to the free agency of man. The question why Christ called and received Judas into the circle of His chosen twelve, is more dogmatical than exegetical, yet cannot be passed by unnoticed. It admits of three answers, none of which, however, is entirely satisfactory:
1. Christ elected Judas an apostle, not indeed for the very purpose that he might become a traitor (which no sensible divine ever asserted, at least not directly); but that, through his treason, as an incidental condition or a necessary means, the Scriptures might be fulfilled (comp. Joh_13:18; Joh_17:12), and the redemption of the world be accomplished. So Augustine (electi undecim ad opus probationis, electus unus ad opus tentationis), supralapsarian Calvinists, also Daub who (in his speculative treatise: Judas Iscariot) represents the traitor as an incarnate devil, predestinated to exhibit wickedness in its worst form in contrast with the highest manifestation of goodness in Christ. This view, although it contains an element of truth, seems after all to involve our blessed Lord in some kind of responsibility for the darkest crime ever committed.
2. Jesus foresaw the financial and administrative abilities of Judas (comp. Joh_12:6; Joh_13:29), which might have become of great use to the apostolic church, but not his thievish and treacherous tendencies, which developed themselves afterwards, and He elected him solely for the former. This explanation is rather rationalistic and incompatible with the prophetic foresight of Christ, as well as the express remark of John ἤäåé ἐî ἀñîῆò , Joh_6:64, and Joh_6:70-71.
3. Jesus knew the whole original character of Judas from the beginning, before it was properly developed, and elected him in the hope that the good qualities and tendencies would, under the influence of His teaching, ultimately acquire the mastery over the bad. So Meyer, Park and many others. This implies that Jesus was mistaken, if not in His judgment at the time, at least in His expectation, and is likewise at war with His perfect knowledge of the human heart.
Alford despairs of solving the difficulty. Wordsworth and other English commentators pass it by in modest or prudent silence.
I must add that the fall of Judas does not necessarily interfere with the doctrine of the perseverance of saints. For by his election is evidently meant the external historical call to the apostleship which was confined to the twelve, ( ὑìᾶò ôïὺò äþäåêá ἐîåëåîÜìçí , Joh_6:70), not the eternal election of the Father and the drawing of the Father to the Son, which applies to all true disciples who persevere to the end (Rom_8:28 ff.; Joh_10:28-29; Joh_13:18). With this important distinction we may endorse Bengel’s remark: “There is therefore a certain kind of election from which man may fall away (Est igitur aliqua electio ex qua aliquis potest excidere),” but we must add: there is another kind of election which is as certain and unchangeable as God.—P. S.]
2. Undoubtedly also the first disaffection now formed itself in the mind of Judas; since after the explanation of Jesus, he must have felt that he had been deceived in his glowing expectations. How little the disciples in general noticed this, appears from the protestation of Peter. Yet, besides the all-seeing eye of Christ, the feeling of John seems also to have caught an impression of this alienation. (See Leben Jesu, II p. 609.)
3. On the calling [and character] of Judas, comp. Matthew, p. 183; Meyer in loco [5th ed. p. 285]; Lücke II p. 182. [Also Schaff’s treatise on the Sin against the Holy Ghost (Halle, 1841), pp. 35 ff., the article Judas in Winer and in Smith, especially the analysis by Prof. Park of Andover in Hackett’s edition of Smith, Vol. II pp. 1495–1503.—P. S.]
4. The protestation of Peter forms a beautiful contrast to the sullen silence of Judas, in whose apostasy three periods are to be marked: 1. The beginning of alienation from this time forth; 2. The thought of betrayal and the dalliance with it after the anointing in Bethany; 3. The full purpose and the execution of it after the pass-over. And yet the beautiful contrast is not perfect, because Peter indiscreetly and without misgiving answered for the whole company, including Judas himself. Even the grand sentence: “Thou hast the words of eternal life,”—does not fully reach the deep meaning of Jesus in His discourse, if it refers to it. The word of the disciple falls something short of the self-presentation of the Master. The confession in Mat_16:16 is an expression of purer and riper faith. Hence Jesus answers here with the stern word: “One of you is a devil,” while after that other confession he blesses him. Even in the latter case it is true, that the sharp rebuke, “Get thee behind me, Satan,”—follows the benediction; for in that case also the divine enthusiasm of faith had not yet matured in Peter into a firm spirit of faith; Peter was not yet free from all sympathy with Judas in chiliastic ambition.
5. It is not to be supposed that the disciples in general received any definite idea as to whom the Lord meant. Least of all do they seem to have fixed on Judas, who, on the contrary, appears from the account of the anointing at Bethany in Matthew and Mark to have enjoyed high consideration among them. That Judas felt himself in some way hit, is very probable; and also that John was led to suspect who the forbidding fellow disciple was (see John’s account of the anointing). The stern word of Christ must therefore have burdened the minds of the disciples as a heavy riddle, giving them continuous warning, even amidst the great successes of His subsequent ministry.
The turn we here mark in the history of Jesus now comes fully to view in His subsequent conduct as depicted in the next chapter.
“Nothing more grimly holds thee back
Than falsehood of thy being.”
—The silence of Judas and the out-speaking of Peter.—The striking contrast in the circle of the twelve: Peter and Judas: 1. Honest loyalty and false adherence. 2. Fresh, clear openness and dark obduracy. 3. Happy confession and unhappy reserve.—Peter, Judas and John.—The declaration of Peter in its light and shade.—“Lord, to whom shall we go?”—We must continue with Jesus our Lord, because (1) no other Christ will come; (2) no one will bring a better word; (3) there remains no other faith; (4) there remains no brighter knowledge.—The solemnity and dread with which Jesus answered the declarations of Peter.—The fearful contrast: To be chosen to a higher service than angels, and to prove a devil.—The terrible omen, that from among the twelve arose a traitor to the Lord, and a betrayer of the Lord Himself.—The depravity germinates slowly, but ripens rapidly to judgment.—The second turn in the life of Jesus (in Galilee), compared with the first (in Judea).—Because Christ presented Himself to His disciples as the bread of eternal life, many feared they should starve, and fell away.—They wish only things, things, things (worldly things, spiritual things, ecclesiastical things), and so come not to personal life in the beholding and partaking of the glorious personality of Christ.—As a man’s ideal is, so is he: he who wishes only idols and stocks, is like idols and stocks; he who wishes only creatures and things, is himself but creature and thing; and this leads to apostasy. [comp. Psa_115:8.—Tr.]—Hence apostasy is from Christianity to Judaism, from gospel to law.—It needs courage to trust oneself to Christ, the focus of life, and let the world go; but a believing courage which the Lord gives to him who asks.
Starke: Quesnel: A preacher may lose his hearers through no fault of his own.—Majus: As Jesus unkindly thrust no one away, so He will forcibly retain none. Let those go who wish not to stay. He who forsakes Christ, the Life, follows Satan to death.—Canstein: Christ needed none, but no one can do without Him.—It often fares with faithful teachers as with Christ (in the history here before us).—There is hardly a company, but the devil finds one or another in it.—Preachers may certainly rebuke the sins of their hearers, yet with care that they call no one by name; for this embitters without edifying.—In unbelievers Satan so nestles, that they themselves are as it were the devil. Eph_2:2.—Trouble thyself not and doubt not for the truth of the gospel, when one of the most distinguished ministers becomes a Mameluke and proves faithless to Christ.—Osiander: Even those who are adorned with excellent gifts, may still forfeit the grace of God.—Beware of presumptuous security! False brethren give more pain to the faithful servants of God, than open enemies.—Bengel: Christ is concerned not for the number, but for the purity of His disciples.—Gossner, on Joh_6:67 : By this He would show that He forces no one, but would have all voluntary disciples.—Heubner: There is a gross apostasy from Jesus; this is rare; but there is also a subtle apostasy, which is the more frequent.—The voluntary departure of spurious disciples is no loss, but a gain.
Joh_6:67 : Jesus pours out His whole heart in this question, His sorrow and His love.—He still puts this question continually to all believers (i.e. in every solemn test) for the trial of their fidelity.—Upon the least likelihood that Jesus might doubt their fidelity, Peter breaks out the louder; so the Christian will attach himself the more fervently to Jesus at the faintest trace of apostasy.—Have believed and known. A hint that the believing, child-like posture of mind must precede the attainment of knowledge.—Jesus still knows all the faithful and the faithless (“The Lord knoweth them that are His”).—Christ bore with Judas; the hardest test of His love. Bear cheerfully with men, in whom thou canst not find thyself.—Not to be upright towards the most upright One, betrays a wicked heart. The richest grace of intercourse with the most holy One can turn to perdition with a wicked heart. Judas wont out of the school of Jesus far worse than he went in.—Besser: Unbelief towards this single article (the eating and drinking of His flesh and blood) brought on a complete renunciation of Christ. [More accurately: Offence at being required to find all salvation in His whole self-sacrifice and self-imparting person itself, led them to separate from His person. Offence also at the last utterance of Jesus, Joh_6:65, which runs as a companion thought through the whole discourse, must in some way come into the account. As the doctrine of the divine person of Christ and its impartation of perfect life through a sacrificial death which made it a sacrificial meal was an offence to them, so was the doctrine of a distinction made by a gracious spiritual drawing of God between the small election of the spiritual Israel and the mass of the theocratic Israelitish church.]—Judas represents what is befallen to the Jewish people as a whole. How immeasurably deep must be the grief of love, that what was intended for Israel’s salvation became its hardening! He chose Judas. He turned upon him the full earnestness of His saving love, and He endured that one of the twelve should do the service of the devil to Him, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, Joh_17:12; Psalms 109—Schenkel: Why we are resolved not to go away from Jesus Christ. We answer, with Peter, to the question of the Lord: 1. Whither would we go? 2. The Lord has the words of eternal life. 3. We have believed and known that He is Christ, the Son of the living God.
[Themes for discourses: The sifting power of truth. The sin of backsliding (Joh_6:66).—Peter the Confessor.—The first and fundamental Christian confession.—Christ, the best of teachers, the truest friend, the only refuge of the sinner. —Words of everlasting life.—Christ and Peter,—Christ and Judas.—It is better, with Peter in regard to Judas, to err on the side of charity than severity of judgment.—Christ, the purest of the pure, and the holiest of the holy, bore the traitor in His company to the close of His public ministry! What self-denial, what condescending mercy, what a rebuke to our intolerance and pride,—The mercy and severity of Christ in dealing with Judas.—The unknown sufferings of Christ in foreseeing the betrayal of one, and the treason of another disciple.—Peter called “Satan” for his human weakness (Mat_16:23), Judas, a “devil” for his lurking treason.—Christ’s wisdom and mercy in withholding the name of Judas, while giving him a clear hint of his danger.—A hypocrite may for a long while deceive all men, but he cannot deceive Christ.—Judas an involuntary instrument for the greatest good.—The overruling power and wisdom of God.—Christ, the true prophet of human nature who knows and reveals the secrets of the heart.—P. S.]
Footnotes:
[For a somewhat similar division see Godet, II. 97.]
[Strauss unnecessarily creates this difficulty.—P. S.]
[So Bengel “Jesus singularem numerum opponit plurali Judæorum, qui dixerant, opera Dei, Joh_6:28.” Alford: “Because there is but this one work, properly speaking, and all the rest are wrapt up in it,”—P. S.]
[Josephus called it èåῖïí êáὶ ðáñÜäïîïí âñῶìá .]
[Others regard the Scripture manna as wholly miraculous, and not in any respect a product of nature. So the writer of the article Manna in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, who thus sets forth the difference between the natural and this supernatural manna: “The natural products of the Arabian deserts and other oriental regions, which bear the name of manna, have not the qualities or uses ascribed to the manna of Scripture. They are all condiments or medicines rather than food, stimulating or purgative rather than nutritious; they are produced only three or four months in the year, from May to August, and not all the year round; they come only in small quantities, never affording any thing like 15,000,000 of pounds a week, which must have been requisite for the subsistence of the whole Israelitish camp, since each man had an omer (or three English quarts) a day, and that for forty years; they can be kept for a long time, and do not become useless in a day or two; they are just as liable to deteriorate on the Sabbath as on any other day: nor does a double quantity fall on the day preceding the Sabbath; nor would natural products cease at once and for ever, as the manna is represented as ceasing in the book of Joshua.”—P. S.]
[Alford: “The words ὁ êáôáâ … are the predicate of ὁ ἄñôïò , and do not apply, in the construction of this verse, to Christ personally, however truly they apply to Him in fact, The E. V. is here wrong: it should be, The bread of God is that (not He) which Cometh, etc. Not till Joh_6:35 does Jesus first say, ‘I am the bread of life,’ The manna is still kept in view, and the present participle, here used in reference to the manna, is dropped when the Lord Himself is spoken of.” The note of Wordsworth on Joh_6:33 is a curious specimen of the wild allegorizing of this learned and devout patristic and Anglican antiquarian. He sees here everywhere allusions to the sacrament. Even the meaning of the word Manna, “what is it,” is made to indicate the wonderful double nature of Christ and the mystery of His presence in the eucharist.—P.S.]
[So also Godet: “Les deux termes, venir et croire, expriment, avec et sans figure, une seule et meme idée: le joyeux et confiant empressement avec lequel le cœur affamé et pressé de besoins spirituels s’empare de l’aliment céleste qui lui est présenté en Jesus Christ.” Coming to Christ is faith indeed, yet not in repose as mere trust and confidence, or as a state of mind, but in active exercise and motion from the service of sin to the service of Christ; comp. 37, 44, 45, 65; Joh_7:37-38.—P. S.]
[In classical usage (see Kühner, II. § 443, 1, and Hermann Ad Viger., p. 746) but not in New Testament unless it be the åἶðïí in Joh_11:42.—P. S.]
[Yet the absence of a connecting particle seems to indicate a pause of reflection intervening between the preceding reproof ( ïὐ ðéóôåýåôå ), and the following description of the true children of God.—P. S.]
[Bengel’s observation on ðᾶí is longer than is usual with this epigrammatic commentator, but well worth quoting: “A most weighty word, and, in comparing with it those things which follow, most worthy of consideration; for, in the discourses of Jesus Christ, what the Father hath given to the Son Himself, that is termed, both in the singular number and neuter gender, all (omne): those who come to the Son Himself, are described in the masculine gender, or even the plural number, every one (omnis), or they (illi). The Father hath given to the Son, as it were, the whole mass, in order that all whom He hath given, may be a unit (unum): that whole (universum) the Son evolves individually (one by one), in the execution of the Divine plan. Hence that expression, Joh_17:2, that all which ( ðᾶí ὅ , omne quod) thou hast gives Him, he should give them ( áὐôïῖò , eis) eternal life. In the Greek style of the New Testament, especially of John, wheresoever fastidious minds would say the construction was a solecism, an elegance truly divine, which to the Hebrews never seemed harsh, is usually found to lie beneath. That remark especially holds good of this passage.”—P. S.]
[Against this false interpretation of Reuss (Hist, de la théol. Chrétienne, II p. 462), comp. Godet 2 p. 114.—P. S.]
[In Joh_6:37 Christ had declared that the totality ( ðᾶí which is to be taken collectively as of one integral whole) of those whom the Father giveth Him, shall come to Him; in Joh_6:44 He declares that no one can come in any other way except by the drawing of the Father. The effect follows in every case from a certain cause, but this effect will follow from no other cause.—P. S.]
[Calvin, however, says before (ad loc.) that the efficient motion of the Holy Spirit first makes unwilling men willing (“homines ex nolentibus et invitis reddit voluntaries”). So also Augustine who expressly says that faith is inseparable from will (credere non potest nisi volens), and: “Non ut homines, quod fieri non potest, nolentes credant, sed ut volentes ex nolentibus fiant.” He quotes from Virgil: trahit sua quemque voluptas, to show that the drawing is that of choice not of compulsion. Calvin expressly guards in this connection against the abuse of his doctrine. “They are madmen,” he says ad. Joh_6:40, “who seek their own salvation or that of others in the labyrinth of predestination, not keeping the way of faith which is proposed to them.… Since God has elected us to this very end that we believe, we destroy the election if we set aside faith (tolle fidem, et mutila erit electio) … If God calls us effectually to faith in Christ, it is of the same force to us, as if by an engraved seal He confirmed His decree concerning our salvation. For the testimony of the Spirit is nothing else but the sealing of our adoption. To every man, therefore, his faith is a sufficient attestation of God’s eternal predestination, so that it is impious and an insult to the testimony of the Holy Spirit to search beyond it.”—P. S.]
[Tholuck says: êáß — äÝ designates a more detailed statement, as in Joh_1:3, or a correction, as in Joh_15:27. Zwingli (as quoted by Tholuck), “Dixi diu me panem esse vitæ, sed nondum quo facto id fiat, hoc jam aperiam.” ÄÝ introduces here something of special importance. Comp. Meyer in loc.—P. S.]
[On Augustine’s interpretation see note in the Excursus below, p. 228.—P. S.]
[M*ver (p. 270) adds to the above names, as favoring this view, Tholuck, Neander, Jul. Müller, Lange, Ebrard, Keim, Weiss, Ewald, Kahnis, Godet. But Lange, Ewald, Kahnis, Hengstenberg and Godet should be classed with No. 6 below.—P. S.]
[In his work on the Lord’s Supper, p. 104 ff., but later, in his Dogmatics, Vol. I. p. 624, Kahnis denies that John 6 refers directly to the Lord’s Supper, and explains the eating and drinking to be identical with believing for the reason that the same effect is made dependent on both, viz., eternal life. He should be classed with No. 6.—P. S.]
[Latin dissertations on the difference between Luther’s and Calvin’s views on the Lord’s Supper, 1853, now reproduced in German by Dr. Jul. Müller, of Halle, in his Dogmatische Abhandlungen, just published, Bremen, 1870, pp. 404–467.—P. S.]
[In the second Excursus to the second edition of his Commentary on John (which is omitted in the third edition), and in the third edition, Vol. II. pp. 149–159.—P. S.]
[Alford likewise makes this distinction, which is not sustained by the context. He says: “What is eating and drinking? Clearly not merely faith; for faith answers to the hand reached forth for the food,—but is not the act of eating. Faith is a necessary condition of the act: so that we can hardly say with Augustine, ‘crede, et manducasti;’ but crede et manducabis. Inasmuch as faith will necessarily in its energizing lead to this partaking, we sometimes incorrectly say that it is faith: but for strict accuracy this is not enough. To eat the flesh of Christ, is to realize, in our inward life, the mystery of His Body now in heaven,—to digest and assimilate our own portion in that Body. To drink His Blood is to realize, in our inward life, the mystery of His satisfaction for sin,—to digest and assimilate our own portion in that satisfaction, the outpouring of that Blood. And both these definitions may be gathered into one, which is: The eating of His Flesh and drinking of His Blood import the making to ourselves and using as objectively real, those two great Truths of our Redemption in Him, of which our faith subjectively convinces us. And of this realizing of faith He has been pleased to appoint certain symbols in the Holy Communion, which He has commanded to be received; to signify to us the spiritual process, and to assist us towards it.”—P. S.]
[Meyer thinks that the change implies no intention of a stronger expression, since ôñþãåéí êáὶ ðßåéí is used Mat_24:38 ( ôñþãïíôåò êáὶ ðßíïíôåò ), by Demosthenes, Plutarch and Polybius without perceptible difference from öáãåῖí or ἐóèßåéí . Ôñþãùí expresses the present of öáãþí , which must be either ôñþãùí or ἐóèßùí . So also Alford: The real sense is that by the very act of inward realization the possession of eternal life is certified. Wordsworth on the other hand presses the difference and, in fanciful sacramentarian exaggeration, says that ôñþãåéí presents the climax of the difficulty, and shows the need of coming to Christ in the holy communion with devout cravings and earnest longings of a famished soul for heavenly food.—P. S.]
[Meyer: ἀëçèÞò expresses in opposition to mere appearance the actual reality (1Jn_2:27; Act_12:9), which the Jews could not comprehend, Joh_6:52. Alford: “ ἀëçèÞò is here not= ἡ ἀëçèéíÞ , nor is the sense, ‘My flesh is the true meat,’ etc., but ‘My flesh is true meat,’ i.e., really to be eaten, which they doubted. Thus ἀëçèῶò is a gloss, which falls short of the depth of the adjective. This verse is decisive against all explaining away or metaphorizing the passage. Food and drink are not here mere metaphors;—rather are our common material food and drink mere shadows and imperfect types of this only real reception of refreshment and nourishment into being.” Godet: ““L’adverbe ( ἀëçèῶò ) ou l’adjectif ( ἀëçèÞò ) exprime la pleine réalité de la communication vitale opéré par ces éléments.”—P. S.]
[Per Patrem, as the fountain of life. So Beza, De Wette, Alford, etc.—P. S.]
[As Meyer takes it: wegen des Vaters, d. i. weil Mein Vater der lebendige ist. He quotes Plat. Conv., p. 203, E.: ἀíáâéþóêåôáé äéὰ ôὴí ôïῦ ðáôñὸò öýóéí .—P. S.]
[Comp. also the ὑøùèῆíáé ἐê ôῆò ãῆò , Joh_12:32. To make this interpretation at all plausible, the ἀíáâáßíåéí ὅðïõ ἦí ôὸ ðñüôåñïí must be understood from the standpoint of Jesus whose death was a return to the heaven whence He descended, and to the glory which He had before the foundation of the world, comp. Joh_17:5. But the hearers could not have understood ἀíáâáßíåéí in this sense.—P. S.]
[Aug.: Certe vel tunc videbitis, quia, non eo modo, quo putatis, erogat corpus suum; certe vel tunc intelligetis, quia gratia ejus non consumitur morsibus. Harless and Stier: Then you will understand that, and how my glorified heavenly humanity and corporeity can be food and drink. But this would make Christ speak of a future act. Meyer remarks against Harless: The glorified body of Christ is, as flesh and blood, inconceivable (1Co_15:49 f.)—P. S.]
[Comp. against this assertion of Meyer Joh_3:13; Joh_20:17, where the ascension is clearly alluded to. Usually Jesus speaks of His death in John as a going to the Father or to Him that sent Me, Joh_7:33; Joh_13:3; Joh_14:12; Joh_14:28; Joh_16:5; Joh_16:28; Joh_17:11; Joh_17:13.—P. S.]
[Mar_16:19; Luk_24:51; Act_1:9.—P. S.]
[But Christ may have addressed here some of the apostles. Hengstenberg says, the witnesses of the resurrection were the representatives of all the disciples.—P. S.]
[Aug. Tract, in Joh. 27, § 13 (Opera III. 503):’ Caro non prodest quidquam quomodo illi intellexerunt… quomodo in cadavere dilaniatur, aut in macello venditur, non quomodo spiritu vegetatur…Accedat spiritus ad carnem, quomodo accedit caritas ad scientiam, et prodest plurimum. Nam si caro nihil prodesset, Verbum caro non fieret, ut inhabitaret in nobis. Similarly Bengel: Caro mera nil prodest: qualem scil. Judæi putabant esse carnem illam, de qua loquebatur Jesus. Loquitur sub conditione eaque impossibili, si sola caro esset…Caro est vehiculum virtutis divinæ omnis vivificantis, in Chris to et in credentibus: et Christus, carne mortificatus, spiritu vivificatus, virtutem suam maxime exseruit, 1Pe_3:18; Joh_12:24; Joh_16:7.—P. S.]
[He and (Œcolampadius regarded Joh_6:63 as a ferreus murus of their doctrine of the Lord’s Supper; yet Zwingli, like the other reformers, did not directly understand the passage, Joh_6:51-58, of the sacrament.—P. S.]
[John uses here ôñþãåéí four times, öáãåῖí once; Matthew, Mark and Luke, in the words of institution, use öáãåῖí only, (which is employed as the second aorist of ἐóèßåéí from an obsolete öÜãù ). On the peculiar meaning of ôñþãåéí , manducare, see note on Joh_6:54. It cannot be essentially different here from öáãåῖí , since John uses the latter, Joh_6:53, in the same sense.]
[I say perhaps, for Augustine is not clear and is sometimes (e. g., by Meyer) quoted in favor of the first, more frequently in favor of the second interpretation. In his Tract. 26 in Joh. Evang. § 15 (ed. Bened. III. 500) he says, in expounding this passage, that the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ is received by some ad vitam, by others ad exitium (1Co_11:29), but he adds: res vero ipsa cujus sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicunque ejus particeps fuerit. Comp. § 18 in the same homily (III. 501): Qui non manet in Christo et in quo non manet Christus, procul dubio nee manducat (some MSS. insert here spiritualiter,—evidently a Romish correction) carnem ejus, nec bibit ejus sanguinem, licet carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi. In commenting on Joh_6:29 (Tract. 25, § 12, Tom. III. 489) he identifies the eating with believing: Crede et manducasti. At all events, Augustine cannot be quoted in favor of either transubstantiation or consubstantiation. Comp. on his doctrine on the eucharist my Church History, Vol. II pp. 498 f.—P.S.]
[This third view which I have defended myself in the text, was first clearly brought out by that profound, acute and devout commentator, Bengel, in his Gnomon on Joh_6:51, where he says: “Jesus purposely framed His words so skilfully that immediately at that time, and at all times subsequently they would indeed apply in their strict literal sense to the spiritual enjoyment of Himself (de spirituali fruitione sui); and yet that afterwards the same words should, by consequence, be appropriate to express the most august mystery of the Holy Supper when that should be instituted. For He applied to the Holy Supper the thing itself which is set forth in this discourse; and of so great moment is this sacrament, that it may be readily thought possible, that Jesus, as He foretold the treachery of Judas at Joh_6:71, and His own death in this verse, so also foretold, one year before the institution of the Holy Supper, concerning which He most surely thought Within Himself whilst speaking these words: and with this object in order that the disciples might afterwards remember His prediction. The whole of these words concerning His flesh and blood have in view the passion of Jesus Christ, and along with it the Holy Supper. Hence arises the separate mention of one flesh and of the blood so invariably; for in His passion the blood was drawn out of His body, and the Lamb was thus slain.” The same view is substantially held by Olshausen, who says: “The Saviour could indeed not with propriety speak of a rite before it was instituted, so that nobody could understand Him; but He might touch the idea, out of which the rite subsequently grew. This idea is that Jesus is the principle of life and nutriment to the new, regenerate man, not only for his soul and spirit, but also for his glorified body” (which, according to Olshausen is prepared here in germ to appear in full bloom at the final resurrection). Kahnis (Luth. Dogmatik, Vol. I., p. 625): “The discourse of Christ, John 6, does not treat directly of the Lord’s Supper, but of faith which unites us in living union with Christ. But He purposely veiled this faith in the image of eating and drinking His flesh and blood in order to express the mysterious idea embodied in the Holy Supper, just as Joh_3:5 expresses the idea of baptism.” Alford says: “The question whether there is here any reference to the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, has been inaccurately put. When cleared of inaccuracy in terms, it will mean, Is the subject here dwelt upon the same as that which is set forth in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper? And of this there can surely be no doubt. To the ordinance itself, there is here no reference; nor could there well have been any. But the spiritual verity which underlies the ordinance is one and the same with that here insisted on; and so considered, the discourse is, as generally treated, most important towards a right understanding of the ordinance.” Webster and Wilkinson: “What our Lord said at this time He afterwards expressed in a permanent form by the sacrament of His Body and Blood. He is not here alluding to that sacrament; but what He here teaches, and what He afterwards taught by it, are the same.” Godet (II. p. 135): “This mystery of our perfect union with the person of Christ (Eph_5:30-32) which in this discourse is expressed in words (en paroles), is precisely the same which Jesus desired to express by an act (par un acte) in the rite of the holy Supper. It is not necessary to say that in this discourse He alluded to the holy Supper; but we must say that the holy Supper and this discourse refer to one and the same idea, expressed here by a metaphor, there by an emblem. Hence in the institution of the Supper, holding and breaking one piece of bread, He used the term óῶìá , body, which as an organism corresponds to the broken bread; in the discourse at Capernaum where He treats only of nourishment in adaptation to the miraculous multiplication of loaves of bread, He represents His body more as substance ( óÜñî ) than as an organism. This perfect propriety of terms proves the originality and authenticity of the two forms.”]
[Luther, Melancthon and the orthodox Lutherans of the 17th century felt this, and for this reason (not, as Tholuck thinks, from fear of transubstantiation) they repudiated the sacramental interpretation altogether. Luther says: “Eating in this passage means believing: he who believeth, eateth, and drinketh Christ.” Melanchthon: “I do not understand this discourse as referring to the Lord’s Supper or the ceremonial manducation, but as the words of Christ which preceded above were about faith, whereby we believe that God’s wrath was propitiated by the death of His Son, who offered His body and shed His blood for us,—so I understand all the rest of the same faith.” This interpretation was sanctioned by the Form of Concord, p. 743. When Calixtus came out in favor of the sacramental interpretation, he was charged with heresy by Calovius of Wittenberg.]
[Verknöcherte Handwerksseelen.]
Joh_6:66.—[ Ἐê ôïýôïõ is causal, and expresses, according to Lange and Meyer, the reason, not the time. Alford and Godet combine the temporal and causal meaning. Alford translates: Upon this. Noyes and Conant: From this time.—P. S.]
Joh_6:68.—[The ïὖí of the text. rec. is omitted by the best authorities.—P. S.]
Joh_6:69.—[The text. rec. inserts from Mat_16:16 ὁ ×ñéóôüò , which is wanting in the oldest sources, and is omitted by critical editors.—The original text is simply, ὅôé óὺ åἶ ὁ ἅãéïò ôïῦ èåïῦ , that thou art the Holy one of God. This, however, is equivalent to Christ or the promised Messiah.—P. S.]
Joh_6:69.—Codd. B. C.* D. L., etc., Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, read ὁ ἅãéïò ôïῦ èåïῦ . The Recepta conforms to Mat_16:16. [Cod. Sin. supports the ὁ ἅã . ô . è ., which also appears to have been a characteristic phrase with Peter; comp. Act_2:27; Act_2:31; Act_3:14; Act_4:27; Act_4:30.—E. D. Y.]
Joh_6:71.—The reading Ἰóêáñéþôïõ is here supported by B. C. G. L. (Lachmann, Tischendorf), against Ἰóêáñéþôçí . Also at c. Joh_13:26, by decisive authorities. On the other hand at c. Joh_14:22, after the treasonable decision, Judas himself is distinguished as Ἰóêáñéþôçò . This evinces a historical delicacy, which Meyer misses when he proposes to read Ἰóêáñéþôçò in all the places on the strength of c. Joh_14:22. [Stier and Theile adopt Ἰóêáñéþôçí in this place and in Joh_13:26; while the Cod. Sin. has in the latter case Ἰóêáñéþôïõ , belonging to Óßìùíïò , and in our passage ἀðὸ êáñõþôïõ , also referring to Ó .—E. D. Y.]
Joh_6:71.—[The ὤí of the text. rec. after åἶò is wanting in the best authorities and probably inserted from Mar_14:43.—P. S.]
[ Ìὴ êáὶ ὑìåῖò èÝëåôå ὑðÜãåéí . The interrogative ìÞ looks to a negative answer (doch nicht?) comp. Joh_7:31; Joh_21:5; Rom_3:5, etc. and Winer’s Gr. p. 476. Godet, discarding this rule, wrongly explains: Si vous le voulez, vous pouvez aller.—P. S.]
[So Bengel: Fidem sequitur cognitio, 2Pe_1:5. Perversi sunt qui cognitionem prius postulant.—P. S.]
[Meyer justly remarks against Weisse that in the nature of the case a confession that filled the hearts of the apostles, must have been repeated on similar occasions.—P. S.]
[The interrogation stops with ôïὺò äþäåêá , and what follows is an exclamation of holy sadness. So Meyer and Lange. Alford follows the wrong punctuation of the A. V.—P. S.]
[So also Alford, and rightly, for Christ had in view the treason of Judas which was inspired by the Evil One. The strong term corresponds to the profound indignation at the hypocrisy of the traitor who covered himself under the confession of Peter.—P. S.]
[It is more than the mere future (Alford), and yet not quite as strong as intended; it represents the future as an accomplished fact, the germ of which was already in existence at the time, and was detected by the penetrating eye of Christ.—P. S.]