Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 6:60 - 6:60
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_6:60. Πολλοὶ οὖν ] Many therefore, for in Capernaum He had many adherents ( μαθηταί is here used in the wider sense, not of the apostles; see Joh_6:67).
σκληρός ] hard, harsh, the opposite of μαλακός (Plat. Legg. x. p. 892 B; Prot. p. 331 D);—in a moral sense, Mat_25:24; Sir_3:24; Sirach 3 Esdr. 2:27; Soph. Oed. R. 36, Aj. 1340; Plat. Locr. p. 104 C, and often;—of speeches, comp. Soph. Oed. C. 778: σκληρὰ μαλθακῶς λέγων ; Gen_42:7; Gen_21:11, Aq.; Pro_15:1. It here denotes what causes offence ( σκανδαλίζωι , Joh_6:61), does not comply with preconceived views, but is directly antagonistic, the relation in which the assurances and demands of Jesus from Joh_6:51 stood to the wishes and hopes of His disciples.[246] He had, indeed, from Joh_6:51 onwards, required that they should eat His flesh (which was to be slain), and drink His blood (which was to be shed), in order to have life. By this—whether they rightly understood it or not—they felt sorely perplexed and wounded. The bloody death, which was certainly the condition of the eating and drinking, was an offence to them, just as in that lay the lasting offence of the Jews afterwards, Joh_12:34; 1Co_1:23; Gal_5:11; comp. also Mat_16:21 ff. The explanation “difficult to be understood” (Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, Grotius, Olshausen) lies neither in the word nor in the context, for τίς δύναται , κ . τ . λ . affirms: “it is a thing not to be borne, to listen to the discourse,” such insuperable offence does it excite. Tholuck, following early writers, finds the offence to be that Jesus seemed arrogant in making life dependent upon participation in His flesh and blood. But it was not the arrogant, it was the lowly and suffering, Messiah that was a σκάνδαλον to the Jew. As little did the offence consist in the requirement that Christ “would be all, and they were to be nothing” (Hengstenberg), which, indeed, is only an abstract inference subsequently drawn from His discourse.
[246] Not as if they had understood the eating and drinking of the flesh and blood in a literal and material sense (hence the expression “manducatio Capernaitica”), and so nonsensical an affirmation had provoked them (Augustine, Grotius, Lücke, Keim, and many others). The speakers are μαθηταί ; but not even the Ἰουδαῖοι , ver. 52, so grossly misunderstood Jesus.