Chapter VI (2)

=29. This is the work of God, that ye have faith in him whom he hath sent.= They ask respecting the _works_ of God (plural), he replies concerning the _work_ of God (singular); they ask what they shall _do_, he replies _have faith_; they ask respecting work to be done _for_ God _by_ them, he replies that it is a work _of_ God _in_ them that is required. The condition of eternal life is not doing any work for God, it is having a work of God done in ourselves. See John 3:5; Titus 3:5-7. The condition of this work is faith in Christ. The nature of this faith it is the object of the discourse which follows to explain; it is certainly not equivalent to belief, and the use of the word believe is an unfortunate necessity from the poverty of the English language, which contains no verb corresponding to the noun faith. Of this faith I know no better nor more comprehensive definition than that of Webster’s dictionary, “That confiding and affectionate belief in the person and work of Christ which affects the character and life, and makes the man a true Christian.” See Heb. 11:1, and notice that it is there defined not only as the _evidence_ of things unseen, _i. e._, the power of seeing and realizing the invisible world, which would include the imagination, but also as the _substance_ of things hoped for, which clearly includes the activity of the desires and affections. The germ of all Paul’s subsequent teaching of justification by faith is contained in this one single sentence. The Epistles are but an amplification of the gospel as proclaimed by Christ himself. “I know not where we can find any passage, even in the writings of the apostles, which says more significantly that all eternal life in men proceeds from nothing else than faith in Christ.”--(_Schleiermacher._)

30 They said therefore unto him, What sign[218] shewest thou
then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

[218] Matt. 12:38; 1 Cor. 1:22.

31 Our fathers[219] did eat manna in the desert; as it is
written,[220] He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

[219] Exod. 16:15; Numb. 11:7; 1 Cor. 10:3.

[220] Neh. 9:15; Ps. 78:24, 25.

=30, 31. What therefore doest thou as a sign that we may see and believe thee?= This response of theirs brings out the contrast between faith and belief. Christ has said, Believe in him whom God hath sent; the people, recognizing his reference to himself, reply, Why should we believe you? or, as Norton renders it, “give you credit.” He calls for an affectionate and confiding belief in his person and work, they decline to give him simple credence.--=What dost thou work?= This is not, as Maurice seems to interpret it, the language of a spiritual yearning, but, as Alford, Stier, Meyer, the language of unbelief and opposition, a sarcastic retort of his own words. “Thou commandest us,” say they, “to work; what dost thou work thyself?” This demand, coming so soon after the feeding of the five thousand, has given rise to some perplexity, and rationalistic commentators cite it as an evidence that no such miraculous feeding took place. If not, why should the people refer to the manna? The fact is that, though the five thousand were fed, no explanation was made to them of the way in which the food was provided; they were commanded to take their seats; the barley cakes, the bread of the poorest peasantry, were distributed among them; they were doubtless astonished; but no conclusions were drawn for them, and they were not in the habit of drawing conclusions for themselves. When, therefore, on the Sabbath, Christ met in the synagogue some of those who had been fed, together with others who had not been present, nothing was more natural than this demand, impliedly for both a repetition and an explanation of the miracle. This is the significance of the reference to the O. T. account of the miracle of the manna, “He gave them bread from heaven to eat” (Ps. 78:24). It was as if they said, The Psalmist has explicitly pointed out the way in which the commission of Moses was confirmed; leave us not in the dark respecting the feeding of the multitude, which was, indeed, strange, but which has not been interpreted.--There is also implied a contrast between the work of Moses and the work of Christ; the manna came down from heaven, the bread was distributed upon the earth; the manna was given day by day as needed for forty years, the bread had been given but once; the manna was a sweet and delicate food, “the taste of it like wafers with honey” (Exod. 16:31), and it was among the rabbinical prophecies that the Messiah would cause manna to descend which would please all tastes, “bread for the young men, honey for the old, oil for the children;” but the bread which Christ had distributed was barley bread, the commonest fare of the poorest people.

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto
you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my[221]
Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

[221] Gal. 4:4.

33 For the bread of God[222] is he which cometh down from
heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

[222] verses 48, 58.

=32, 33. Verily, verily, I say unto you, not Moses gave to you that bread from heaven; but my Father is giving you that which is the true bread from heaven.= The people have referred to the manna as the authentication of Moses; though they do not in words refer to him, the spirit of their response is analogous to that of ch. 4:12, Art thou greater than our father Jacob? Compare ch. 8:53. To this Christ replies (1) that Moses did not give the manna; it was given by God; Moses had nothing to do with bestowing it; the Israelites found it in the morning after the dew had dried off the ground (Exod. 16:4, 14). (2) This manna was not the true bread, but merely a type or shadow of the spiritual antitype; so the Red Sea, the rock, the brazen serpent, were mute prophets of spiritual verities, to be fulfilled through Christ (ch. 4:14, 15; 1 Cor. 10:1-11). (3) Hence, the bread of God was not a past, historic gift fulfilled in the days of the wilderness, but a present and a perpetual gift, which the Father is ever giving. The practical contrast suggested is that between the faith which reveres only a past religion, a providence and an inspiration in the days of the patriarchs and prophets and apostles, and that which holds fast to a present providence, an ever-living Spirit, and a continuous inspiration, a living bread ever given throughout all ages.--=For the bread of God is that which comes down from the heaven and gives life to the world.= Christ here lays down a general principle in which he defines the essential characteristics of God’s spiritual gift. That alone is the true bread (1) which is evermore descending from the heavens, a perpetual bestowment; (2) which bestows life; (3) which is for the world. The manna did not last over a single day (Exod. 16:19, 20), and finally ceased to fall when the Israelites entered the Holy Land (Josh. 5:12); they that ate it all died (ver. 49); and it was given only to a single nation. The type was brief in its duration, limited in its effects, confined to a few recipients. The antitype is for all mankind, confers everlasting life, and is bestowed evermore.

34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this
bread.

=34. Lord, evermore give to us this bread.= Comp. ch. 4:15, note. Not spoken ironically (_Calvin_), nor with a definite idea of some miraculous kind of sustenance, a magic food or means of life from heaven (_Alford_, _Meyer_), nor with a serious comprehension of his spiritual meaning and a sincere desire for his spiritual gift (_Maurice_, _Lucke_). The people were shallow and superficial; without comprehending the meaning of Christ’s words, they yet saw in them the offer of something desirable, they knew not what, and asked for it. In the minds of some there may have been a dim sense of the value of the inner life, such as is sometimes borne in upon sensual and superficial natures by the mere power of the presence of a great soul. Comp. Luke 14:15. There, as here, Christ by his teaching rebukes the superficial and ignorant desire for an uncomprehended blessedness; there, by showing parabolically how the spiritual food is declined by those to whom it is offered; here, by interpreting the nature of spiritual food. The rejection of Christ by the people here, illustrates the parable uttered by Christ there.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life:
he[223] that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he[224]
that believeth on me shall never thirst.

[223] Rev. 7:16.

[224] chaps. 4:14; 7:38.

36 But I said unto you, That ye[225] also have seen me, and
believe not.

[225] verse 64.

=35, 36. I am the bread of life.= They say, Give us this bread. His reply is, The bread is already given; it is for you to accept and feed upon it. And this is always the answer of the gospel to every soul that cries out for a Saviour and a salvation. How the soul is to accept this bread he then goes on to say.--=He that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that hath faith in me shall never thirst.= It is clear that the “coming” and “believing in” here are equivalent to the eating and drinking of ver. 54. See notes there. The coming is a continuous coming (present participle with πρός); a coming into Christ’s likeness, and therefore into spiritual unity with him; a coming perfected only by the process of feeding upon him, drinking in his spiritual power so as to be transformed by it. It is the coming which David describes in Psalm 63:8, “My soul followeth hard after thee,” and Paul in Phil. 3:13, 14, “Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” Comp. with the promise here Matt. 5:6; Rev. 7:16. All spiritual hunger and thirst are not ended when Christian experience begins, because in this life we are ever coming toward Christ, we have never come fully into him. This coming is consummated when we are one with Christ as he is one with the Father (John 17:21, 22); the promise of the gospel is then fulfilled in the glorious satisfaction of a perfected redemption (1 John 3:2; Ps. 17:15). We are not _satisfied_ till we awake in his likeness.--=Ye also have seen me and ye have not had faith.= See ch. 20:29. The reference here may either be to words actually uttered in this discourse, but not reported by John, or to what he has said by implication though not by exact words, or to rebukes uttered on some previous occasion, _e. g._, John 5:38, 40, 43.

37 All[226] that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and
him[227] that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

[226] verse 45, ch. 17:6, 8, etc.

[227] Ps. 102:17; Isa. 1:18; 55:7; Matt. 11:28; Luke
23:42, 43; 1 Tim. 1:15, 16; Rev. 22:17.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will,
but[228] the will of him that sent me.

[228] ch. 5:30; Ps. 40:7, 8.

=37, 38. The all which the Father has given to me shall come toward me, and he that comes toward me I will in no wise cast out.= _Toward_, not _to_ me. The original (πρὸς) indicates the object toward which anything is directed, not ordinarily the goal actually reached. The promise then is that he who sets out in the direction of Christ shall not be rejected by him. He does not wait till we have come to him; he receives us when we start toward him. In this and the next verse _all_ (πᾶν) is in the neuter gender, indicating, not that the body is included with the soul (_Maurice_), but that _the whole_ is given by the Father in its totality, but is received by the Son separately and individually. “In Jesus Christ’s discourses, that which the Father hath given to the Son himself is termed, in the singular number and neuter gender, _all_; those who come to the Son himself are described in the masculine gender, or even the plural number, _every one_, or _they_. The Father has given to the Son the whole mass, as it were, that all whom he hath given may be one; that whole the Son develops individually in the execution of the divine plan.”--(_Bengel._) Christ’s language here indicates his dependence upon the Father’s will and power, and is analogous to that in many of his discourses, especially in those reported by John. He has come to do his Father’s will; the works which he does are those which his Father has given him to do, and are done by his Father’s power; the words which he speaks are his Father’s words; his whole life is represented as the incarnate expression of his Father’s will; and those whom he saves are saved not by his own independent power, they are those whom his Father has given him (ch. 10:28, 29). Here then I understand Christ neither to limit his salvation nor to declare it to be without limit. He simply asserts on the one hand that his saving power is efficacious only over those whom the Father has given unto him, and on the other that there is nothing lacking in his grace or power which shall cause those thus given to fail of a perfected salvation. As a Saviour he is the representative of the Father’s gracious love and power. Here there is no indication who are the _all_ thus given to him. From other Scripture, however, it appears clear that it includes many among the heathen nations (Ps. 2:8 with Matt. 8:11), and that it does not include the entire human race (ch. 17:6, 9, 25). This interpretation is confirmed by the verse which follows, which further expresses the subjection of the Son in his mediatorial work to the Father.--=Because I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.= The catholicity of Christ’s love is a disclosure of the love of the Father toward us. In these words Christ gives us a suggestion of the reason of his receiving sinners and making them companions and associates. His own earthy inclinations, tastes, and sensibilities, had he followed them, would all have been against such society; but all were subordinate to, and overridden by, his great controlling purpose that the world through him might be saved (ch. 3:17; 1 Tim. 1:15). For every Christian disciple there is a practical lesson in these words of Christ. We are all sent into the world as Christ also was sent into the world (ch. 17:18); and it is ours to see to it that no pride, or social taste, or moral irresolution, induce us to cast out those who would otherwise come to us for help; but we are also to remember that our power to help does not extend beyond those whom the Father in his own gracious wisdom has seen fit to give to us as the seals to our apostleship (1 Cor. 9:2).

39 And this is the Father’s will[229] which hath sent me,
that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing,
but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that[230]
every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may
have everlasting life: and I will[231] raise him up at the
last day.

[229] chaps. 10:28; 17:12; 18:9; Matt. 18:14; 2 Tim.
2:19.

[230] verses 47, 54; ch. 3:15, 16.

[231] ch. 11:25.

=39, 40. And this is the will of him that sent me, that the all which he has given me, from it I should lose nothing, but shall raise it up in the last day.= In omitting the word Father from verse 39 and inserting it in verse 40 I follow the best MSS. See _Alford_. The resurrection here spoken of is the resurrection of life, _i. e._, unto eternal life (ch. 5:29), which is given only through Christ (ch. 11:25; Phil. 3:10, 11).--=For this is the will of my Father, that every one= (πᾶς, not πᾶν), masculine, not neuter; the _whole_ is given to the Son; but each one must come by and for himself to the Son.--=Seeing the Son.= Looking unto him, as those bitten in the wilderness looked unto the brazen serpent (ch. 3:14, 15; Numb. 21:9; Isa. 45:22).--=And having faith in him.= Making Christ the substance of his hope as well as the object of his faith (Heb. 11:1; ver. 29, note).--=May have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.= These verses clearly imply (1) that there is nothing in any secret decree or election of God, or in the nature or extent of the provisions of divine grace, to limit the gift of eternal life or prevent any one from receiving it through faith in the Son; (2) that the only condition required is one inherent in the nature of the case, namely, a sincere belief in, and desire for, that spiritual life which alone is eternal and of which Christ is the supreme manifestation; (3) that whoever has once thus looked to Christ with living faith has an absolute assurance of preservation from the weakness of his own will, as well as from external temptation, an assurance afforded by Christ’s declaration, “Of all which he has given me I shall lose nothing.” It does not imply a literal bodily resurrection. The literalism which so reads this promise is akin to that which misinterpreted Christ’s language respecting eating his flesh and drinking his blood. The whole spirit and tone of this discourse is poetic and metaphorical.

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the
bread which came down from heaven.

42 And they said, Is[232] not this Jesus, the son of
Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then
that he saith, I came down from heaven?

[232] Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 4:22.

=41, 42. The Jews then murmured at him.= The _Jews_ are in the usage of John the _Judeans_; here, those who had come from Jerusalem, or who, dwelling in Galilee, partook of the character of the more bigoted and superstitious dwellers in the southern province.--=Because he said, I am the bread=, etc. Their reference is to what he has said in verses 33, 35, 38. Envy was the real cause of their murmuring. This claim to superiority offended their pride.--=Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph=, etc. Comp. ch. 7:27; Mark 6:3. The Christ they knew was the Christ according to the flesh, whom Paul declared he would not know (2 Cor. 5:16); the Christ who came down from heaven, that is, the divine Spirit working in him and manifesting itself through him, they did not know. He is known and only can be known by spiritual apprehension.--=How then saith this fellow= (λέγει οὗτος). There is implied in the original Greek a contempt which may fairly be expressed by this translation. The same expression is so translated in Matt. 12:24; 26:61; Luke 23:2; John 9:29.

43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not
among yourselves.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent
me draw[233] him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

[233] Cant. 1:4.

45 It is written[234] in the prophets, And they shall be
all taught of God. Every man[235] therefore that hath
heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

[234] Isa. 54:13; Jer. 31:34; Micah 4:2.

[235] Matt. 11:27.

=43-45. Jesus therefore answered=, * * * * =No one= (not, _no man_) =can come unto me except the Father which has sent me draw him=. Parallel to this declaration is that of Matt. 16:17; the true knowledge of Christ is revealed to the soul by the Father. There has been much theological discussion as to the proper interpretation of this passage. On the one hand, Calvin declares that “it is therefore a false and profane assertion, that none are _drawn_ but those who are willing to be _drawn_, as if man made himself obedient to God by his own efforts; for the willingness with which men follow God is what they already have from himself, who has framed their hearts to obey him;” on the other hand, Adam Clark, representing the Arminian school of theology, thus interprets the divine drawing: “A man is attracted by that which he delights in. Show green herbage to a sheep, he is drawn by it; show nuts to a child, and he is drawn by them. They run wherever the person runs who shows these things; they run after him, but they are not forced to follow; they run through the desire they feel to get the things they delight in. So God draws man; he shows him his wants--he shows the Saviour whom he has provided for him.” The true interpretation of the declaration involves the long disputed and yet unsettled problem of the psychology of the will, what is the nature of and what are the limits to its freedom of action, a problem which belongs rather to the domain of mental science than to that of theology or Biblical interpretation. In interpreting this passage, however, the student should consider: (1) the literal meaning of the word draw (ἕλκω). This primarily carries with it the idea of force, and is used by Homer of carrying one away captive; by Luke, of dragging persons before a court (Acts 16:19; comp. James 2:6); and by John himself of dragging a net (ch. 21:6, 11). Thus the metaphor involved in the word implies at least a certain resistance to the divine love and a certain difficulty to be overcome by the divine drawing. (2) Parallel teachings in the O. T. and N. T. (comp. Sol. Song 4:1; Jer. 31:3; Hos. 11:4; Luke 14:23, note; John 12:32; 1 Cor. 1:9), where the word _called_ is parallel to the word _draw_ here (Phil. 2:12, 13). (3) Christ’s own interpretation of the Father’s drawing, afforded by ver. 45. They that have learned of the Father are they that are drawn by him. (4) The nature of that coming to Christ which is the object of the divine drawing. “We do not come to Christ by walking, but by believing; not by the movement of the body, but by the free will of the heart. * * * * Think not that thou art drawn against thy will, for the mind is drawn by love.”--(_Augustine._) Interpreting this passage in the light of these considerations, I understand not that God drags the unwilling by an irresistible grace, nor merely the willing by placing before the will in its natural condition such objects--a sense of its needs and a revelation of its Saviour--as attract the unsatisfied heart to himself; but that he makes the soul willing in the day of his power, working in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure (Ps. 110:3; Phil. 2:13).--=It is written in the prophets= (Isa. 54:13), =They shall be all taught of God=. The _all_ here appears clearly from the reference in Isaiah to be all the children of God, not all humanity.--=Every one, therefore, hearing from the Father and learning, comes unto me.= Emphasis is placed by the structure of the sentence in the original Greek on the word _learning_. The Pharisees heard, but they did not learn. He that does not reverently recognize the divine glory in the life and character of Christ, who sees no beauty in him that he should desire him, does not possess true piety, has not heard and learned of God.

46 Not[236] that any man hath seen the Father, save he
which is of God,[237] he hath seen the Father.

[236] ch. 5:37.

[237] Luke 10:22.

=46. Not that any one has seen the Father.= The object of this verse, which is parenthetical, seems to be to guard the Jews against an unspiritual interpretation of his words.--=Save he which is from God.= Evidently Jesus refers to himself. Comp. ver. 35, and observe how habitually he distinguishes himself from man, never classing himself with men. “Imagine a human creature saying to the world, ‘I came forth from the Father--ye are from beneath, I am from above;’ facing all the intelligence and even the philosophy of the world, and saying, in bold assurance, ‘Behold, a greater than Solomon is here’--‘I am the light of the world’--‘the way, the truth, and the life;’ publishing to all peoples and religions, ‘No man cometh to the Father, but by me;’ promising openly in his death, ‘I will draw all men unto me;’ addressing the Infinite Majesty, and testifying, ‘I have glorified thee on the earth;’ calling to the human race, ‘Come unto me’--‘follow me;’ laying his hand upon all the dearest and most intimate affections of life, and demanding a precedent love: ‘He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.’”--(_Bushnell._)

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you,[238] He that believeth
on me hath everlasting life.

[238] verse 40.

48 I[239] am that bread of life.

[239] verses 33, 35, 51.

=47, 48. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hath faith hath eternal life.= The words _on me_ are wanting in the best manuscripts, are omitted by Tischendorf and Alford, and are queried by Schaff; internal evidence is against them. The declaration is generic; faith in the largest sense of that word--the power which lays hold upon the invisible and the hope which reaches after it (Heb. 11:1), a faith which may be and is exercised by those who have never known Christ (Rom. 2:7), is the essential condition of spiritual life. This life is not, as in our English version, merely “everlasting life,” but life eternal, _i. e._, the spiritual life which is created in the soul when it is born from above, which is nurtured in the soul that follows after that it may apprehend Christ Jesus (Phil. 3:12), the fruits of which are love, joy, peace, etc. (Gal. 5:22, 23). This eternal life is a present possession; he that hath faith already hath this life.--=I am the bread of that life.= Faith may exist without Christ, as it did in the O. T. prophets and patriarchs, and as it does in greater or less measure in some at least of those in heathen lands; but Christ is the bread of that life; by him it is fed, strengthened, and made to grow; by him faith in invisible things is made rich and strong. The universal effect of a pure Christianity has been to turn the mind away from material things to unseen realities (2 Cor. 3:18).

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and[240]
are dead.

[240] Zech. 1:5.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a
man may eat thereof, and[241] not die.

[241] verse 58.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: it
any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the
bread that I will give is my flesh,[242] which I will give
for the life[243] of the world.

[242] Heb. 10:5, 10, 20.

[243] ch. 3:16; 1 John 2:2.

=49-51.= In these verses Christ marks the contrast between the bread given in the wilderness through Moses, to which the people had referred (ver. 31), and for a repetition of which they had asked, and the spiritual bread of which this material manna was but a type. That manna was temporary in its effects, the fathers were dead, of this spiritual bread if one eats he shall _not_ die, it is eternal in its effects; that bread was material, dead, this is a living and immortal bread; that was given to a few, the Jewish nation, this descends from heaven, that any one may eat of it, it is for universal humanity; that bread was bestowed without suffering, this bread is a divine sacrifice given for the sake of saving others from suffering.--=This= (fellow) =is the bread=. They had said (ver. 42), “How then saith this fellow?” He replies, repeating their language of contempt, This (fellow, οὗτός) is the bread which descends from heaven. Observe that his language here, as throughout this discourse, implies his pre-existence, if not his supernatural birth.--=In order that any one may eat of it and may not die.= Not merely “that one may eat;” his language, “that any one may eat,” implies the universality of divine grace; the bread is for whosoever will.--=I am the living bread.= Not equivalent to life-giving, for which another Greek word (not ζόω, but ζοωποιέω) would have been used. Here, as in John 4:10, is signified the spiritual life of the food itself which Christ affords by the bestowal of himself. It is true that Christ is life-giving, but he is so because he is ever-living. He _is_ the life, therefore he _gives_ life.--=If any one eat of this bread.= Again the universality of divine grace is implied. Comp. Acts 2:38, 39, note and refs. there.--=He shall live unto eternity.= Not merely _forever_. The idea here, as everywhere throughout the N. T., is not merely an endless existence, which might be no boon, but an immortal, a divine life, the very life of God, making the new-born soul a true son of God.--=And the bread which I will give.= Observe the future tense. He speaks therefore of a gift yet to be perfected by his passion and death.--=Is my flesh, which I will give for the sake of= (ὑπὲρ) =the life of the world=. Comp. ch. 3:16. It seems to me that these enigmatical words are added to guard the church from falling into the error of supposing that Christ’s _doctrine_ is the bread of life, and that to hear and believe his words as a divine teacher is to secure the life eternal of which he speaks. This bread is not merely the teaching nor the example of Christ; the sacrifice is an essential principle of that spiritual food which he has provided for the world’s life.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying,
How[244] can this man give us _his_ flesh to eat?

[244] ch. 3:9.

=52. How can this= (fellow) =give us his flesh to eat=? The Judeans here interpret Christ’s words with precisely the literalism with which the church of Rome has interpreted them since. The rest of the discourse Christ devotes to guarding his hearers against this misapprehension of literal and prosaic natures, and to emphasizing the mystical doctrine to the elucidation of which the whole discourse is devoted. Verses 53-55 reiterate and re-emphasize the truth that the soul must feed on Christ, receive him, his life, his death, his character, as the supply of its own spiritual life; verses 57-59 and verses 61-63 interpret what he means by the metaphor. In the interpretation of Christ’s symbolic language here we are to guard ourselves against simplifying it, either by a literal rendering on the one hand, or, on the other, by that process of rationalism which, under pretence of interpreting a metaphor, does away with it altogether. If there were nothing mystical in the doctrine, we may be sure that Christ would not have clothed it in language seemingly so full of mysticism.

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto
you, Except[245] ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and
drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

[245] Matt. 26:26, 28.

54 Whoso[246] eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath
eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

[246] verse 40.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed,[247] and my blood is drink
indeed.

[247] Ps. 4:7.

=53-55. Therefore Jesus said unto them.= Therefore connects what follows with what has preceded; he emphasizes and explains the eating and drinking, in response to their interruption in ver. 53.--=Verily, verily, I say unto you.= These words give a solemn emphasis to the declaration which follows.--=Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man.= That is, of the Messiah (Matt. 10:23, note).--=And drink his blood.= The use of animal blood in any form was prohibited to the Israelites as food (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; 7:26, 27; 17:10-14; 19:26; Deut. 12:16, 23; 15:23), and was exceedingly odious to the Jewish thought. Moreover, to touch even the corpse of a man rendered the Jew unclean. It is not, therefore, strange that Christ’s language here should have offended many even of his disciples (ver. 60).--=Ye have no life in you.= The mere physical life is accounted in the N. T. no life at all. The true life is that of God in the soul, the absence of which is death.--=Whoso eateth my flesh.= The Greek verb rendered in both places _eat_ is different from that used above. The word here (τρώγω) signifies literally to _chew_ or _masticate_, and seems to me to have been substituted by Christ for the more general one (φαγεῖν), in order to add still further emphasis to the doctrine which he is expounding.--=And drinketh my blood, hath eternal life.= A present possession. See ver. 47, note.--=And I will raise him up at the last day.= This is one of the passages on which the advocates of the doctrine of conditional immortality base their belief. The promise of resurrection here certainly is limited to those who through faith have received the gift of eternal life.--=For my flesh is true meat and my blood is true drink.= To Christ the material universe was but a shadow, and the realities were those things of which the material universe is a type. “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 the being.”--(_Alford._) In the interpretation of Christ’s language here, the student must remember the declaration respecting him, “Without a parable spake he not unto them” (Mark 4:34); unquestionably the language here is parabolic. It is also true that the phrases eating and drinking were used among the Jews in a metaphorical sense, and that bread especially was employed among them as a symbol for doctrine (Isa. 3:1; Jer. 15:16; Lightfoot on John 6:51; Geikie’s Life of Christ, ch. 44, note c). It seems to me, however, very clear not only that Christ here means something more than receiving his doctrines, but that he employs his peculiar language for the express purpose of emphasizing the truth that it is not merely enough to receive him as a teacher. If this had been his meaning, it would have been easy to correct the misapprehension of his Jewish hearers, and remove the offence which they felt at his discourse. This he does not do. On the contrary, he declares, not that they must eat the _bread_ of the Son of man, but that they must eat _his flesh_ and drink _his blood_ (ver. 53); in a slightly different form, he reiterates this declaration in ver. 54; and finally, to avoid the possibility of the misinterpretation which substitutes his teaching for his personal presence and influence, he adds the emphatic declaration of ver. 55. If something more than accepting and following the teaching of Christ is not meant by these verses, then it would seem that Christ has embodied a very simple truth in very unnecessarily mystical language. That more than this is meant I take to be declared unmistakably by verses 53-55; what more than this is meant it is the object of verses 56-58 to show. The commentators have discussed at great length the question what relation the solemn assertions of these verses bear to the Lord’s Supper. There are three general opinions: (1) that no reference to the Lord’s Supper is intended; (2) that the whole passage exclusively relates to the Lord’s Supper prophetically; (3) that the idea involved in the Lord’s Supper, but not the ordinance itself, is referred to. For discussion of these opinions, see Alford’s note. To me it seems clear that Christ here teaches by a word-parable the same truth which he subsequently embodies in a parable in action in the ordinance of the Supper; whether he prophetically refers to it or not is a question of no great importance.

56 He that eateth[248] my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
dwelleth[249] in me, and I in him.

[248] Lam. 3:24.

[249] ch. 15:4; 1 John 3:24; 4:15, 16.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the
Father: so[250] he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

[250] 1 Cor. 15:22.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as
your fathers[251] did eat manna, and are dead: he that
eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

[251] verses 49-51.

=56-58. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abides= (μένω) =in me and I in him=. This result of the eating and drinking interprets the kind of eating and drinking signified. The same truth is elsewhere interpreted by other metaphors, ask by that of being engrafted on Christ (John 15:4, 5); being rooted in him (Ephes. 3:17); being joined to him as the body to the head (Ephes. 4:15, 16); being married to him (Ephes. 5:23); receiving him as a temple receives and is made sacred by the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 3:16); being clothed with him (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27).--=And I in him.= As Christ is in the Father and the Father in Christ, so the disciples are to be one in them (John 17:21).--=As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.= This one verse should have prevented the three current errors of interpretation in this chapter: (1) that spiritual life is dependent on a literal feeding on Christ’s body and blood; (2) that it is dependent on a sacramental feeding on the sacred symbols of his body; (3) that it requires only a belief in him as a religious teacher. How did Christ live by the Father? Certainly not by any literal eating of the Father’s flesh or drinking of the Father’s blood; nor by any symbol or ceremonial whatever; nor yet by any mere hearing and obeying of the Father’s words. The Father was personally present in Christ; Christ, by his words and his acts, manifested the indwelling glory of the Father; so Christ fed on the Father because the Father was the source and supply of his spiritual life. In like manner we feed on Christ, not when we merely accept and endeavor to follow his precepts, but when, under the direct personal influence of his spiritual presence, we manifest his glory unto the world, having not merely a spirit like Christ, but having the very spirit of Christ himself in us (Rom. 8:9, 10).--=This is that bread which came down from heaven.= Christ thus interprets his own previous metaphor.--=Not as your fathers did eat and are dead.= Again he guards the Jews against their literal interpretation; the eating of which he has spoken is not the physical eating for the supply of the body; this can never give true life.

After this chapter had gone to press a remarkable article from the pen of Dean Stanley appeared on “The Eucharist” in the Nineteenth Century (May, 1878), in which he arrives at substantially the same conclusions that I have arrived at in these notes, and enforces them with his usual eloquence and learning. He urges that in all religious ordinances we ought to try to get beneath the phrases we use, and not to rest satisfied with the words, however excellent, till we have ascertained their meaning; that Christ’s words here and in the appointment of the last supper as a permanent memorial ordinance are evidently metaphorical; that the very strangeness of the metaphor should turn our thoughts from the outward form to the inward essence; that the body and flesh signify the personality and character of Christ; that we must incorporate in ourselves, that is in our moral natures, the substance--the moral substance--of the teaching and character of Jesus Christ; that this is the only true transubstantiation; that the blood of Christ is his spirit, the inmost essence of his character, the self of his self; and that to drink his blood is to imbibe this inmost spirit; that this spirit is love or charity, which is throughout the New Testament represented as the fundamental essence of the highest life of God, and therefore of his children; and he interprets verses 53-56 here, in accordance with these principles, as follows: “This is one of those startling expressions used by Christ to show us that he intends to drive us from the letter to the spirit, by which he shatters the crust and shell in order to force us to the kernel. It is as if he said: ‘It is not enough for you to see the outward face of the Son of man, or hear his outward words, or touch his outward vesture. That is not himself. It is not enough that you walk by his side, or hear others talk of him or use terms of affection and endearment toward him. You must go deeper than this; you must go to his very inmost heart, to the very core and marrow of his being. You must not only read and understand, but you must mark, learn, and inwardly digest, and make part of yourselves, that which alone can be part of the human spirit and conscience.’ It expresses, with regard to the life and death of Jesus Christ, the same general truth as is expressed when St. Paul says, ‘Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ’--that is, clothe yourselves with his spirit as with a garment; or again, ‘Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus.’ It is the same general truth as when our Lord himself says, ‘I am the vine; ye are the branches.’”

59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in
Capernaum.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard
_this_, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

=59, 60. In the synagogue.= I believe the whole discourse to have been delivered in the synagogue. See Prel. Note above.--=Many of his disciples.= Not of the twelve, but of those who had been theretofore inclined to accept him as a teacher.--=This is a hard saying.= Rather, _an impious saying_, or at least hard in the sense of harsh and repulsive, rather than in that of merely difficult. To the Jews then, as to the world ever since, a system of religion which proposes an amelioration of condition only by a revolution of moral character, by a new and divine life, seemed not only not attractive, but repellent.--=Who can hear it?= That is, Who can stay and listen to such teaching as this?

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured
at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62 _What_ and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend[252] up
where he was before?

[252] ch. 3:13; Mark 16:19; Ephes. 4:8-10.

63 It[253] is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh
profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, _they_
are spirit, and _they_ are life.

[253] 2 Cor. 3:6.

=61-63. When Jesus knew in himself.= Either miraculously or by a subtle sense which the delicately organized often possess.--=Doth this offend you?= _Stumble you._ See Matt. 5:29, note; 11:6, note. The teaching of the disciple, as the teaching of Christ, will sometimes be to men a stumbling-stone and a rock of offence.--=What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?= Another admonition that they are not to take his words in a material sense, for in his glorified body he is to ascend into heaven before their sight. The language is a strong testimony to the historical verity of the ascension.--=The spirit is the life-giver, the flesh profiteth nothing whatsoever=; _i. e._, It is my spirit in your spirit which will give eternal life, not my flesh in your flesh. This is the natural meaning of these words, and they are to be taken in their material sense, not with such qualifications as that of Augustine, “The flesh alone and by itself profiteth not,” _i. e._, without the blessing of the spirit; or such as that of Alford, “He does not say _my_ flesh profiteth nothing, but _the_ flesh.” _The_ flesh is _my_ flesh; for it is only of his own flesh that he has spoken at all in this discourse. The flesh of Christ, if it could be miraculously reproduced by the benediction of a priest, would still be of no profit.--=The words which I have spoken to you, they are spirit and they are life.= The meaning is not that Christ’s words are themselves life-giving, though this is true; but that the words which he has just spoken to them respecting his flesh and his blood relate to the spiritual realm and the eternal life, and are to be so interpreted.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus
knew[254] from the beginning who they were that believed
not, and who should betray him.

[254] Rom. 8:29; 2 Tim. 2:19.

65 And he said, Therefore said I[255] unto you, that no
man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my
Father.

[255] verses 44, 45.

=64, 65. But there are some among you who have not faith.= Such could not receive the teaching of Christ, for it is true in spiritual as in physical gifts, according to one’s faith, so is Christ’s blessing (Matt. 9:29).--=For Jesus knew from the beginning=, etc. Compare this distinct statement of Christ’s foreknowledge with Christ’s own statement of the limitations of his knowledge in Mark 13:32. The contrast illustrates one of the inexplicable mysteries of Christ’s nature, whose knowledge transcended that of man, yet in his earthly condition was less than that of omniscience. To the question, Why, if he foreknew the betrayal of Judas, did he ordain him as an apostle? there is no satisfactory answer. The problem of divine foreknowledge and human free-will, of that divine law the inflexibility of which science has in these later days so strikingly demonstrated, and that freedom of moral action to which universal consciousness testifies, is one which transcends the limits of the human intellect.--=Therefore said I unto you that no one can come unto me except it were given unto him of my Father.= Judas and the withdrawing disciples had, in a sense, come unto him; they had followed him, accepted him as their Master, and had given him for a time their allegiance. Yet they had not really come to him, for no one truly comes except he is drawn by a divine influence. _Therefore_ connects the declaration of ver. 44 with the fact here stated that some of the disciples were without true faith. The practical warning to us here is this, that we have need to examine ourselves that we may know whether our coming to Christ has been merely that of a natural inclination or that of obedience to the impulse of the Spirit of God.

66 From that _time_ many of his disciples went back,[256]
and walked no more with him.

[256] Zeph. 1:6; Luke 9:62; Heb. 10:38.

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

=66, 67. From this many of his disciples went back.= _From this_ indicates both, as the English version represents, the _time_ from which this withdrawal dated, and also the _cause_ from which it proceeded. Observe that faithful preaching will drive some apparent disciples away from Christ. The minister, like his Master, will ever have the fan in his hand, and the gospel which he preaches will in some measure separate the chaff from the grain. This was illustrated in the experience of the apostle Paul. See Acts 13:44-46; 14:4; 17:12, 13, etc. “It will never be possible for us to exercise such caution that the doctrine of Christ shall not be the occasion of offence to many; because the reprobate, who are devoted to destruction, suck venom from the most wholesome food and gall from honey. The Son of God undoubtedly knew what was useful, and yet we see that he cannot avoid offending many of his disciples.”--(_Calvin._)--=Then said Jesus also to the twelve, Ye do not also wish to go away?= The tone is one of pathetic protest; the language that of one who felt keenly the desertion, and yearned for an expression of the fidelity of his immediate friends, not as an assurance, for he knew from the beginning who believed not, and therefore who believed and would endure, but as an utterance of loyalty and love. At the same time he leads them to a confession which draws them more closely and binds them more tenderly to himself.

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we
go? thou hast the[257] words of eternal life.

[257] Acts 5:20; 7:38.

69 And [258]we believe and are sure that thou art that
Christ, the Son of the living God.

[258] chaps. 1:29; 11:27; Matt. 16:16.

=68, 69. Then Simon Peter answered.= As in Matt. 16:16, he speaks quickly, for all.--=Lord, to whom shall we go?= To go away from Christ is to go out even here into the darkness; unto loneliness, hopelessness, despair.--=Thou hast the words of eternal life.= As Martha’s utterance of her faith in John 11:27, so Peter’s declaration here is not wholly responsive to the discourse that has preceded. He does not fully comprehend the meaning of that personal feeding on Christ of which the Lord has been speaking; but he believes that Christ’s words, though he does not fully understand them, are words of, that is full of, eternal life, and that he is the Messiah and the Son of God. And in this faith he is content to await humbly till the full meaning of Christ’s enigmatical discourse shall be revealed to him, as it could not be till Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension, and the descent of the Holy Spirit.

70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and
one of you is a[259] devil?

[259] ch. 13:27.

71 He spake of Judas Iscariot _the son_ of Simon: for he it
was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

=70, 71. Have not I chosen you twelve?= Chosen them, not to be heirs of eternal life, but to be apostles; in the inner circle of his disciples; receiving his most sacred influence and intimate instruction.--=And one of you is a devil.= Not _the_ devil; not merely _devilish_; but belonging to the kingdom of the devil; one of his ministers and agents. To Christ all men belong to either the one or the other kingdom. He here, as it were, looks forward to the time when Judas should have gone to his own place, forecasts his future, and characterizes him in the present by what he is to be when the germinal sin, now in him, has brought forth its final fruit. On the character of Judas Iscariot, see Vol. I, p. 307, Note on character and career of Judas Iscariot.