Chapter VI

1‐13. *Christ crosses with His disciples to the eastern shore of
the sea of Galilee, where He miraculously feeds a multitude with
five loaves and two fishes.*

14‐15. *The multitude, moved by the miracle, wish to make Him
King, but He withdraws.*

16‐21. *On the night of that same day, as the disciples are
crossing to the western side of the lake, a storm rises, and He
comes to them, walking upon the waters.*

22‐25. *The following day the multitude also cross to the western
side of the lake, enter Capharnaum, and find Him there before
them.*

26‐59. *Christ’s discourse to the multitude, in which He promises
the Blessed Eucharist.*

60. *The place where the discourse was delivered.*

61‐67. *Effect of the discourse—murmuring of many of the
disciples; His explanation, and their departure from Him.*

68‐70. *St. Peter’s noble confession in reply to a question of
Christ.*

71‐72. *Christ refers to the wickedness of one of the Apostles,
and the Evangelist states to whom He refers.*

1. Post haec abiit Iesus trans 1. After these things, Jesus mare Galilaeae, quod est went over the sea of Galilee, Tiberiadis: which is that of Tiberias:

1. The interval to be admitted between what is recorded in this chapter and in the preceding depends upon the view we adopt as to what feast is referred to in the first verse of the preceding. If that was the Feast of Pasch, almost a year has elapsed, for we are told here, in verse 4, that the pasch is again at hand. If that was the Feast of Lots, and this the Pasch following, then the interval to be admitted is much less, only a month. Those who, like us, admit the longer interval say that St. John here passes over the events of that year, because they were already related by the Synoptic Evangelists.

In the last chapter we left Jesus at Jerusalem in Judea, the southern province of Palestine, and now, soon after the death of the Baptist (Matt. xiv. 3, Mark vi. 17, Luke iii. 20) and the return of the Apostles from their first mission (Mark vi. 30; Luke ix. 10), we find Him in the northern province, by the shores of the Sea of Galilee. This sea or lake (the Jews called every large body of water a sea), which lay to the east of the province of Galilee, was called also the Sea of Tiberias, because of the town built by Herod Antipas, on its western shore, and named after the Roman Emperor Tiberius. It was also called sometimes the Lake of Gennesareth, from the fertile plain of that name on its N.W. shore. It is almost heart‐shaped, with the narrow end towards the south, and its extent at present is 12‐½ miles from north to south, by 8 miles at its widest part east to west. (Smith’s _B. D._, 2nd Ed.)

2. Et sequebatur eum multitudo 2. And a great multitude magna, quia videbant signa followed him, because they saw quae faciebat super his qui the miracles which he did on infirmabantur. them that were diseased.

2. Jesus, accompanied by His disciples, having crossed the lake, a great multitude follows Him. Comparing the Synoptic Evangelists (Matt. xiv. 13, and foll.; Mark vi. 32, and foll.; Luke ix. 10, and foll.), we find that the desert near Bethsaida (Julias) on the north‐eastern side of the lake was the place to which Jesus repaired (Luke); that the multitude followed by land (πέζη = on foot, Matt., Mark); that they arrived before Him (Mark), and that He taught them for a considerable time.

3. Subiit ergo in montem 3. Jesus went therefore up Iesus: et ibi sedebat cum into a mountain, and there he discipulis suis. sat with his disciples.

3. *Jesus therefore went up into a mountain* (Gr., _the_ mountain); _i.e._, the well‐known mountain range on that side of the lake. See too in verse 15.

4. Erat autem proximum pascha, 4. Now the Pasch, the festival dies festus Iudaeorum. day of the Jews, was near at hand.

4. In the view we follow this was the third Pasch of our Lord’s public life.

5. Cum sublevasset ergo oculos 5. When Jesus therefore had Iesus, et vidisset quia lifted up his eyes, and seen multitudo maxima venit ad eum, that a very great multitude dixit ad Philippum: Unde cometh to him, he said to ememus panes, ut manducent hi? Philip: Whence shall we buy bread that these may eat?

5. In the Synoptic Evangelists the disciples are represented as asking our Lord to dismiss the multitude, that they may go and procure food. We may reconcile with St. John’s account thus. They make a suggestion, as in the Synoptic Evangelists. He then turns to Philip, as in St. John.

6. Hoc autem dicebat tentans 6. And this he said to try eum: ipse enim sciebat quid him: for he himself knew what esset facturus. he would do.

6. *To try him.* “One kind of temptation leads to sin, with which God never tempts anyone; and there is another kind by which faith is tried. In this sense it is said that Christ proved His disciples. This is not meant to imply that He did not know what Philip would say, but is an accommodation to man’s way of speaking. For as the expression: _Who searcheth the hearts of men_, does not mean the searching of ignorance, but of absolute knowledge; so here, when it is said that our Lord proved Philip, we must understand that He knew him perfectly, but that He tried him in order to confirm his faith. The Evangelist himself guards against the mistake which this imperfect mode of speaking might occasion, by adding _For He Himself knew what He would do_” (St. Aug.).

7. Respondit ei Philippus: 7. Philip answered him: Two Ducentorum denariorum panes hundred pennyworth of bread is non sufficiunt eis, ut not sufficient for them, that unusquisque modicum quid every one may take a little. accipiat.

7. The denarius was a Roman silver coin, whose value differed at different times. From the year 217 B.C. till the reign of Augustus (30 B.C. to 14 A.D.) it was worth 8‐½_d._; afterwards, and, therefore, in the time of Christ, it was worth about 7‐½_d._ See Smith’s _Lat. Dict. Calendarium_, Tables viii. and ix. Two hundred denarii, then would be equal to about £6 5_s._, and yet what bread this would purchase would not suffice to give even a little to each, so great was the multitude.

8. Dicit ei unus ex discipulis 8. One of his disciples, eius, Andreas frater Simonis Andrew, the brother of Simon Petri. Peter, saith to him: 9. Est puer unus hic, qui 9. There is a boy here that habet quinque panes hath five barley loaves and hordeaceos, et duos pisces: two fishes: but what are these sed haec quid sunt inter among so many? tantos? 10. Dixit ergo Iesus: Facite 10. Then Jesus said: Make the homines discumbere. Erat autem men sit down. Now there was foenum multum in loco. much grass in the place. The Discubuerunt ergo viri, numero men therefore sat down in quasi quinque millia. number about five thousand.

10. Christ tells the disciples to bid the multitude be seated “on the green grass” (Mark vi. 39); and about 5,000 men (“not reckoning women and children,” Matt. xiv. 21) sat down in companies “by hundreds and by fifties” (Mark vi. 40).

11. Accepit ergo Iesus panes: 11. And Jesus took the loaves: et cum gratias egisset, and when he had given thanks, distribuit discumbentibus: he distributed to them that similiter et ex piscibus were set down. In like manner quantum volebant. also of the fishes as much as they would.

11. Having returned thanks for all the benefits of God, and particularly for that which He was now about to bestow, Christ took and blessed the loaves and fishes, and through His disciples distributed them to the multitude (Matt., Mark, Luke). It is not said at what precise time the loaves were multiplied or enlarged, whether in the hands of Christ, or of the disciples. It may be, as Mald. supposes, that the increase began in our Lord’s hands, and continued as far as necessary during the distribution by the disciples. That it at least began in our Lord’s hands, we think extremely probable, for thus He was more clearly shown to be the author of the miracle.

12. Ut autem impleti sunt, 12. And when they were filled, dixit discipulis suis: he said to his disciples: Colligite quae superaverunt Gather up the fragments that fragmenta, ne pereant. remain, lest they be lost.

12. The disciples are told to gather up the fragments—(1) to teach us not to neglect the gifts of God; (2) that the fragments might serve as a proof and a memorial of the miracle which had been wrought.

13. Collegerunt ergo, et 13. They gathered up impleverunt duodecim cophinos therefore, and filled twelve fragmentorum ex quinque baskets with the fragments of panibus hordeaceis, quae the five barley loaves, which superfuerunt his qui remained over and above to manducaverant. them that had eaten.

13. “Observe how the four Evangelists use the word κοφίνους, _baskets_, in narrating this miracle, thus distinguishing it from a like one recorded elsewhere by Matthew and Mark, in which there were seven loaves, and 4,000 men, and seven _panniers_ (σπυρίδας) of fragments. It is difficult perhaps to point out distinctly how σπυρίς differed from κόφινος, but certain it is that they did differ, else they would never have been so nicely discriminated by the sacred writers in every instance” (M’Carthy: Gosp. of the Sundays, fourth Sunday of Lent).(54)

14. Illi ergo homines cum 14. Now these men, when they vidissent quod Iesus fecerat had seen what a miracle Jesus signum, dicebant: Quia hic est had done, said: This is of a vere propheta, qui venturus truth the prophet that is to est in mundum. come into the world.

14. *The prophet*, the Messiah, for whom their fathers and they had yearned so long (Luke vii. 19).

15. Iesus ergo cum 15. Jesus therefore when he cognovisset, quia venturi knew that they would come to essent ut raperent eum, et take him by force and make him facerent eum regem, fugit king, fled again into the iterum in montem ipse solus. mountain himself alone.

15. Jesus, knowing their thoughts and intentions, withdrew to _the_ mountain, where He had already been earlier in the day (verse 3). And He withdrew all alone, a circumstance which makes it extremely probable that He rendered Himself invisible, else some of the crowd would have followed.

It may seem strange at first sight, how differently Christ treats the Jews, on their recognising Him as the Messias, from the way He treated the Samaritans in similar circumstances (iv. 42, 43). And yet His action in the two cases is intelligible enough. The Jews looked for a Messias who would improve their external condition, free them from subjection to any foreign power, and set them up as a powerful nation. But the Samaritans could have, and had, no such hope from the advent of a Jewish Messias. With the Jews, as we see in the present instance, the intention was to declare the Messias their King, and thus to throw off their allegiance to Rome. The consequence, of course, would have been great political excitement and rebellion, ending, doubtless, in the triumph of the Roman arms. But no matter what the success of such a rebellion, it would have prejudiced the Roman world against the teachings of Christ, and rendered more difficult the recognition of the spiritual character of Christ’s kingdom.

16. Ut autem sero factum est 16. And when evening was come, descenderunt discipuli eius ad his disciples went down to the mare. sea. 17. Et cum ascendissent navim, 17. And when they had gone up venerunt trans mare in into a ship, they went over Capharnaum: et tenebrae iam the sea to Capharnaum: and it factae erant: et non venerat was now dark, and Jesus was ad eos Iesus. not come unto them.

17. *They went over the sea.* Rather, *they were going*. From St. Matthew we learn that Christ had told the disciples immediately after the miracle, to go before Him across the lake, whilst He dismissed the crowd. St. Mark adds that they were told to cross to Bethsaida; _i.e._, to the town of this name, which was near Capharnaum. See above, i. 44. The direction of the wind or some other motive may have induced them to go towards Capharnaum, as St. John here tells us they did.

18. Mare autem, vento magno 18. And the sea arose by flante, exurgebat. reason of a great wind that blew. 19. Cum remigassent ergo quasi 19. When they had rowed stadia viginti quinque aut therefore about five and triginta, vident Iesum twenty or thirty furlongs, ambulantem supra mare, et they see Jesus walking upon proximum navi fieri, et the sea, and drawing nigh to timuerunt. the ship, and they were afraid.

19. The stadium, a Greek measure, was nearly equal to an English furlong, so that the distance here indicated was, at the least, almost three miles. The exact length of the stadium was 625 feet, that of the English furlong is 660 feet.

20. Ille autem dicit eis: Ego 20. But he saith to them: It sum, nolite timere. is I: be not afraid. 21. Voluerunt ergo accipere 21. They were willing eum in navim: et statim navis therefore to take him into the fuit ad terram, in quam ibant. ship: and presently the ship was at the land, to which they were going.

21. *They were willing therefore to take him into the ship.* ἤθελον here is equivalent to an adverb (Kuin.), and the sense is: “They gladly took Him into the ship” (boat), as St. Mark indeed tells us they did (Mark vi. 51). Or, if, with Winer, _Gr. Gram._, p. 586, it be admitted that θέλω never has an adverbial force, except in the participle, then we would explain that though at first afraid (verse 19), they were afterwards willing to take Him into the ship, and took Him in.

22. Altera die, turba quae 22. The next day, the stabat trans mare, vidit quia multitude that stood on the navicula alia non erat ibi other side of the sea, saw nisi una, et quia non that there was no other ship introisset cum discipulis suis there but one, and that Jesus Iesus in navim, sed soli had not entered into the ship discipuli eius abiissent: with his disciples, but that his disciples were gone away alone. 23. Aliae vero supervenerunt 23. But other ships came in naves a Tiberiade, iuxta locum from Tiberias, nigh unto the ubi manducaverant panem, place where they had eaten the gratias agente Domino. bread, the Lord giving thanks. 24. Cum ergo vidisset turba 24. When therefore the quia Iesus non esset ibi, multitude saw that Jesus was neque discipuli eius, not there, nor his disciples, ascenderunt in naviculas, et they took shipping, and came venerunt Capharnaum quaerentes to Capharnaum seeking for Iesum. Jesus.

22‐24. On the following day, the crowd on the eastern shore seek for Jesus (verse 24), thinking Him to be still on that side of the lake, inasmuch as He had not left by the only boat that was there on the preceding evening (verse 22). Not finding Him, they take boats which had just arrived on the eastern shore, and cross to the western shore to seek Jesus in Capharnaum, where He usually abode at this time.

25. Et cum invenissent eum 25. And when they had found trans mare, dixerunt ei: him on the other side of the Rabbi, quando huc venisti? sea, they said to him: Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

25. When they found Jesus, they asked Him when He had come to Capharnaum, being equally anxious, no doubt, to know _how_ He had come.

26. Respondit eis Iesus, et 26. Jesus answered them and dixit: Amen, amen dico vobis: said: Amen, amen, I say to quaeritis me, non quia you, you seek me, not because vidistis signa, sed quia you have seen miracles, but manducastis ex panibus, et because you did eat of the saturati estis. loaves, and were filled.

26. Without answering their question, our Lord takes occasion from the miracle of the preceding day to raise their thoughts to a higher and more precious bread than that which He had miraculously given them. But first He tells them that they followed Him, not because they had realized the spiritual significance of His miracles, and believed Him to be God, but merely, He implies, because they hoped for a gross material satisfaction, such as they had experienced the preceding day. The Greek word, rendered: _and were filled_, means literally; were satisfied with food, as animals with fodder.

Having thus made known to them, that He knew their motive in following Him, He goes on to tell them to labour not, that is to say, not so much, for the food that perisheth as for that which endureth unto eternal life. This food enduring unto eternal life (verse 27) we understand to be the Blessed Eucharist.

But before giving our reasons for holding that reference to the Blessed Eucharist begins here, and not merely at verses 48, 51, or 52, it is desirable to indicate the Protestant interpretations of this discourse of our Lord, and prove that they are untenable.

Most Protestants deny that there is any reference to the Blessed Eucharist in this chapter; they hold that it refers merely to the reception of Christ through faith; and through faith especially in the atoning efficacy of His passion and death. It is of this faith in His passion that they interpret the words: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you,” (verse 54). Indeed they are logically constrained either to deny that there is reference here to the sacrament of the Eucharist, or else to abandon their teaching regarding the nature and efficacy of the sacraments. On the one hand, if they admit reference to the Eucharist, they see the difficulty of denying the real and substantial presence of Christ in the sacrament; on the other hand, holding, as they do, that the few sacraments which they retain,(55) are not _causes_ of grace, as the Catholic Church teaches, but merely signs or pledges of grace, and external notes of the Church, they find themselves in direct conflict with our Lord, if His words are to be understood of the sacrament of the Eucharist. For again and again throughout this discourse He attributes salvation and grace to the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood, in such a way as to leave no room for doubt that whatever it is He speaks of, whether faith or the sacrament of the Eucharist, it is the cause of grace. See, _e.g._, 27, 52, 55, 57, 59.

But besides those who deny that there is any reference to the Blessed Eucharist in this chapter, there is a considerable number of Protestants who take up even a more indefensible position. These admit the reference, but contend that nothing more can be concluded from this or any other part of Scripture than that Christ is _spiritually_ present in the Sacrament. They will not admit that Christ is really and substantially present, much less that the sacrament causes grace. Against the first class we shall show that Christ refers, in this discourse, to the Blessed Eucharist; and against the second, that His words prove that He is really and substantially received in the sacrament.

I. CHRIST REFERS IN THIS DISCOURSE TO THE BLESSED EUCHARIST.(56)

We may premise that no more appropriate occasion could have been chosen by Christ for promising this heavenly bread than the day following that on which He had multiplied the bread in the desert; and we know that it was Christ’s practice to explain His doctrines as they were suggested by circumstances. Thus, after curing the _centurion’s_ servant, He foretells the vocation of the _Gentiles_ (Matt. viii. 6‐13); after expelling the unclean spirit, He describes the power of Satan (Matt. xii. 22‐45); after asking for water, He speaks of the water of life to the Samaritan woman (John iv. 10, and foll.); after healing the paralytic, He predicts the general resurrection (John v. 28); and after curing the man born blind, He denounces the blindness of the Pharisees (John ix. 41). It was quite in accordance with Christ’s practice, then, to predict the Blessed Eucharist on the present occasion: and that He did so is proved by the following arguments:—

(1) If St. John did not mean to record here a reference to the Blessed Eucharist, then he does not mention that sacrament at all, for he does not allude, unless perhaps very obscurely (xiii. 1) to its institution. But it is very improbable that our Evangelist omits all mention of this sacrament in his Gospel. For if, as we shall prove, this sacrament contains the body and blood of Christ, there was a reason why St. John should mention it in order to confirm the faithful against the Docetae who denied the reality of Christ’s human nature. Nor does it at all weaken this argument to say that the Docetae who denied the reality of the body in which Christ had walked and talked, would not be likely to be convinced by a reference to His body present in the Eucharist. For St. John wrote, not to convert heretics, but to confirm against heresy Christians who believed in the real presence.

(2) Christ’s words (27, 52) can refer only to the Eucharist. For He speaks of a food which was still to be given _in the future_, whereas His _doctrines_, and His _Person_ as the object of faith, had been given already.

(3) His words: “Amen, amen, I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you” (verse 54), could be understood only in a literal sense, and so understood, they must refer to the Blessed Eucharist. For, if Christ had spoken in a figurative sense, it should be in that figurative sense which was known and recognised among the Jews. Now, the recognised figurative sense of eating a man’s flesh was to do him some serious injury, especially by calumny.(57) Such a figurative sense, however, would be absurd here; and hence Christ must have been understood, and must have spoken, in the literal sense. See Wiseman’s _Lect. on the Euch._, pp. 77‐91.

(4) The disciples understood our Lord to speak of a real eating of His flesh and blood, such as takes place only in the Eucharist, and understood Him correctly. Their words (verse 61), and their departure for ever from Him (verse 67), show that they understood Him of a real eating; otherwise why should they be offended or desert Him? What had He said that was new, or hard to take in, if He merely spoke of the necessity of faith in Himself or His doctrines? Their action, then, shows in what sense the disciples understood Him; and His action in permitting them to depart, shows they understood Him correctly.

(5) The Jews understood Him of a real eating, which was quite different from belief in His doctrines or in Himself, and which has no meaning unless in reference to the Eucharist. “_How_ can this man give us _His flesh_ to eat?” they said (verse 53); and His solemn asseveration, negatively (verse 54), and positively (verse 55), shows that He is inculcating the very truth which they had questioned, and which they were bound to accept on His testimony, even though they could not see _how_ it was to come to pass.

II. CHRIST SPEAKS OF A REAL, ORAL RECEPTION OF HIS BODY AND BLOOD, AND NOT MERELY OF A SPIRITUAL RECEPTION THROUGH FAITH EXCITED BY THE SACRAMENT.

(1) The manna with which Christ compares the bread that He will give (verses 49, 50, 59) was really eaten; therefore, also the bread, which is His flesh (verse 52), is to be _really_ received.

(2) After the Jews had murmured, Christ declared His flesh to be _truly_ meat, and His blood to be _truly_ drink (verse 56), and therefore it must be truly and really received.

(3) In any sense other than the literal, Christ’s meaning would be obscure, and His words misleading; and our Evangelist, according to his ordinary practice (i. 41, 42; ii. 21; iv. 2; xii. 33), would explain. But he does not explain; therefore the language is not obscure, and therefore the literal sense was meant.

(4) See arguments (3), (4), and (5) for the preceding proposition.

And now, having satisfied ourselves that there is reference to the Blessed Eucharist in this chapter, and to a real, oral reception of Christ in the sacrament, let us try to decide where that reference begins. Some (as Wiseman, _Lect. on Euch._, p. 51, and foll.) say at verse 48; others, at 51; and others, at 52. But it seems much more probable that the reference begins before any of these points; and Wiseman is certainly mistaken when he states, on page 48: “That Protestants and Catholics are equally agreed that the discourse, as far as the 48th or 51st verse refers entirely to believing Christ. St. Cyril of Alex., Theophy., Toletus, Lucas of Bruges, had held, before Wiseman’s time, that the reference to the Blessed Eucharist begins in verse 27”; and since his time, Beelen, Perrone, Corluy, Franzelin,(58) and others have held the same.

The most probable view seems to be that from verse 27, wherever there is question of the bread (verses 27, 32, 33, 35, ... 59), the Blessed Eucharist is meant. Christ began in verse 27 to promise the Blessed Eucharist, but the Jews interrupted Him (verse 28), and their interruption raised the question of faith in Him, so that He digressed for a time from His main purpose to explain the necessity of faith, in order to ensure a fruitful reception of the Eucharist. But though we admit this digression, we hold that wherever Christ refers to the bread to be given, He means the Blessed Eucharist, and that the reference to it begins in verse 27. For—

(1) In verse 27 He speaks of a food that was still _to be given in the future_, just as in verse 52, where all Catholics admit there is question of the Eucharist.

(2) This food was to be given by the Son of Man, Christ Himself; and though in verse 32 the Father is said to give it, this is naturally explained by saying that the Father gives us in the Incarnation what Christ gives in a sacramental form in the Eucharist.

(3) The food in verse 27, is a food for which, as we shall see, faith is a _preparation_; therefore, not itself faith.

(4) In verses 32, 33, there is question of a bread that cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world, and in verse 59, of a bread to which the very same properties are attributed; and in both cases this heaven‐ descended, life‐giving bread is contrasted with the manna. Is it not natural, then, to conclude, remembering that both passages belong to the same discourse, that the same bread is meant in both instances?

And now we have seen—(1) that there is reference to the Blessed Eucharist in this discourse; (2) to a real reception of Christ in it; and (3) that the reference most probably begins in verse 27. Having got so far, it will not be very difficult to interpret the discourse, and to this we proceed at once.

27. Operamini non cibum qui 27. Labour not for the meat perit, sed qui permanet in which perisheth, but for that vitam aeternam, quem Filius which endureth unto life hominis dabit vobis. Hunc enim everlasting, which the son of Pater signavit Deus. man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed.

27. *Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that ** which endureth unto life everlasting.* As our Version indicates, the meat is the object for the attainment of which they are exhorted to do their part. The meaning cannot be that they are to _make_ the food by believing, as if the food were faith; for they had not _made_ the bread in the desert the previous day, nor were they thinking of making it now, but they were trying, _striving to obtain it_. This sacramental food will endure _in its effects_ unto eternal life. This food *the Son of Man will give*; _i.e._, Christ as man will give us His flesh; but since the food is to endure in its effects unto _eternal life_, mere man could not give such; and hence it is added that the Father who is God has sealed with the impress of Divinity (August., Tolet.) the Son of Man, who therefore, being God as well as man, can give a food that will endure unto eternal life.

28. Dixerunt ergo ad eum: Quid 28. They said therefore unto faciemus ut operemur opera him: What shall we do that we Dei? may work the works of God? 29. Respondit Iesus, et dixit 29. Jesus answered, and said eis: Hoc est opus Dei, ut to them: This is the work of credatis in eum quem misit God, that you believe in him ille. whom he hath sent.

28‐29. Some of His hearers now interrupt Christ, not however to inquire what this food was, but to ask what they must do on their part in order to perform the works which they take it for granted _God requires_, before they may receive such food. Christ’s answer is, that in order to obtain it, so that it may remain unto eternal life, they must believe in Himself. So too is it even now; the sinner may sacrilegiously receive the Lord into his breast, but it is only for Him who believes (and acts accordingly) that the Sacrament endureth unto eternal life.

30. Dixerunt ergo ei: Quod 30. They said therefore to ergo tu facis signum ut him: What sign therefore dost videamus, et credamus tibi? thou show that we may see, and quid operaris! may believe thee? what dost thou work? 31. Patres nostri 31. Our fathers did eat manna manducaverunt manna in in the desert, as it is deserto, sicut scriptum est: written, _He gave them bread Panem de coelo dedit eis from heaven to eat_. manducare.

30‐31. Christ having declared the necessity of faith in Himself, they now ask for motives of credibility, and point to the great standing miracle wrought for their fathers in the desert. But whereas He had demanded faith in Himself: “That you believe _in Him_ whom He hath sent” (verse 29), they seem to miss the point, and speak not of believing in Him, but merely of believing Him, believing what He may have to say to them. They did not mention Moses, nor was the manna given by Moses; but our Lord’s reply shows that the comparison between Himself and Moses was in their minds. It is as if they said: You call upon us to believe you on the strength of the miracle wrought yesterday in the desert, whereas Moses fed our _whole race_ for _forty_ years with a bread _from heaven_. These people who speak thus, are probably different persons from those who on the preceding day recognised Christ as the Messias (verse 14).

32. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: 32. Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen dico vobis: Non Amen, amen, I say to you: Moyses dedit vobis panem de Moses gave you not bread from coelo, sed Pater meus dat heaven, but my Father giveth vobis panem de coelo verum. you the true bread from heaven. 33. Panis enim Dei est qui de 33. For the bread of God is coelo descendit, et dat vitam that which cometh down from mundo. heaven, and giveth life to the world.

32‐33. They had asked for some great miracle (comp. Matt. xii. 38), but since they had already had sufficient evidence to enable them to believe, Christ does not gratify their desire, but proceeds to declare that it was not Moses who gave the manna, but God (see Ps. lxxvii. 21‐24); so that their tacit comparison of Moses with Himself is baseless. He then goes on to declare that His Father giveth them the true bread from heaven. This means, as we have already explained, that the Father gave us in the Incarnation what Christ gives us in the Eucharist, namely, the Person of the God‐man. That it is true or perfect bread, He proves from the fact that it comes, not like the manna from the clouds, but from heaven itself, and that it not merely _sustains_ the life of _one people_, but _gives_ life to the _world_.

34. Dixerunt ergo ad eum: 34. They said therefore unto Domine, semper da nobis panem him: Lord, give us always this hunc. bread. 35. Dixit autem eis Iesus: Ego 35. And Jesus said to them: I sam panis vitae, qui venit ad am the bread of life: he that me, non esuriet: et qui credit cometh to me shall not hunger; in me, non sitiet unquam. he that believeth in me, shall never thirst.

34, 35. They at once ask that He would give them this bread always. They evidently think that He speaks of some excellent food like the manna, which would support their corporal existence, and they desire to be constantly supplied with it. But as they know not _what_ they ask, nor _how_ they should be disposed to receive it, He tells them—(1) What the bread is, namely, Himself; and (2) what is required for a proper and fruitful reception of it, namely, faith in Himself. The words: *He that cometh to Me*, mean the same thing as: *He that believeth in Me*. The believer shall *never thirst*; because, if he act upon his belief, he will receive Christ in the Eucharist, and be spiritually filled, never again to thirst, except through his own fault.

36. Sed dixi vobis, quia et 36. But I said unto you, that vidistis me, et non creditis. you also have seen me, and you believe not. 37. Omne quod dat mihi Pater, 37. All that the Father giveth ad me veniet: et eum qui venit me shall come to me; and him ad me, non ejiciam foras: that cometh to me, I will not cast out.

36, 37. Christ again, as in verse 26, reproves their want of faith, and declares that those who believe in Him, do so through the grace of the Father; and all such He receives and rejects not.

38. Quia descendi de coelo, 38. Because I came down from non ut faciam voluntatem meam heaven, not to do my own will, sed voluntatem eius qui misit but the will of him that sent me. me. 39. Hac est autem voluntas 39. Now this is the will of eius qui misit me, Patris: ut the Father who sent me; that omne quod dedit mihi, non of all that he hath given me, perdam ex eo, sed resuscitem I should lose nothing, but illud in novissimo die. should raise it up again in the last day. 40. Haec est autem voluntas 40. And this is the will of my Patris mei, qui misit me: ut Father that sent me; that omnis qui videt Filium, et every one who seeth the Son, credit in eum, habeat vitam and believeth in him, may have aeternam, et ego resuscitabo life everlasting, and I will eum in novissimo die. raise him up in the last day.

38‐40. He declares the reason why He does not reject such: because He came down on earth to do His father’s will; and that will is that all who recognize in Him the Son of God and believe in Him as such (acting according to that belief), should be raised up to a glorious life on the last day.

41. Murmurabant ergo Iudaei de 41. The Jews therefore illo, quia dixisset: Ego sum murmured at him, because he panis vivus, qui de coelo had said, I am the living descendi. bread which came down from heaven. 42. Et dicebant: Nonne hic est 42. And they said: Is not this Iesus filius Ioseph, cuius nos Jesus the son of Joseph, whose novimus patrem et matrem? father and mother we know? How Quomodo ergo dicit hic: Quia than saith he, I came down de coelo descendi? from heaven? 43. Respondit ergo Iesus, et 43. Jesus therefore answered dixit eis: Nolite murmurare in and said to them: Murmur not invicem: among yourselves.

41‐43. The Jews, by whom the Scribes and Pharisees perhaps are meant, now murmur because He claims celestial origin, whereas they fancy they know Him to be an ordinary man, born in the ordinary way of an earthly father and mother. He merely reproves their murmuring without replying to their difficulty, and proceeds to declare the necessity of grace.

44. Nemo potest venire ad me, 44. No man can come to me, nisi Pater qui misit me except the Father, who hath traxerit eum: et ego sent me, draw him, and I will resuscitabo eum in novissimo raise him up in the last day. die.

44. No one can believe in Him, unless the Father draw him; _i.e._, by preventing and assisting grace. We have here a clear proof against the Pelagians, for the necessity of grace in order to faith. It must be borne in mind that, though we are drawn by God, we are drawn by impulses of grace which we are free to resist.(59)

45. Est scriptum in prophetis: 45. It is written in the Et erunt omnes docibiles Dei. prophets: _And they all shall Omnis qui audivit a Patre, et be taught of God_. Every one didicit, venit ad me. that hath heard of the Father and hath learned, cometh to me.

45. Christ declares _how_ we are drawn by the Father, namely, by an illumination of the intellect and motion of the will, so that we hear (“audivit”) and obey (“didicit”). *It is written in the Prophets: And they shall all be taught of God.* The Jewish Scriptures were divided into the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographers, and the reference here is to the portion written by the Prophets. The phrase: *They shall all be taught of God*, which is found substantially in Isaias, liv. 13, implies direct Divine teaching through the influence of the Spirit upon the mind and heart, and indicates not merely one Divine communication, but an established relationship, for the faithful who allow themselves to be drawn, are life‐long pupils in the school of God.

46. Non quia Patrem vidit 46. Not that any man hath seen quisquam, nisi is qui est a the Father, but he who is of Deo, hic vidit Patrem. God, he hath seen the Father.

46. *Not that any man hath seen the Father.* It is, says St. Augustine, “as if He said: Do not when I tell you: Every man that hath heard and learned of the Father, say to yourselves: We have never seen the Father, and how then can we have learned from Him? Hear Him then in Me, I know the Father, and am from Him.”

47. Amen, amen dico vobis: Qui 47. Amen, amen, I say unto credit in me, habet vitam you: He that believeth in me aeternam. hath everlasting life.

47. Having pointed out the necessity of faith (verse 29), its sufficiency (verse 35), and the necessary condition to it, namely, the grace of God and correspondence therewith (verses 44, 45), He now solemnly repeats what He had declared in verses 35 and 37, that he who believes in Him shall have eternal life. The present tense, *hath everlasting life*, need create no difficulty here: for he who believes will receive the Blessed Eucharist, the food “that endureth unto everlasting life,” (verse 57); and the present tense is so used to indicate the certainty with which the result will follow.

48. Ego sum panis vitae. 48. I am the bread of life. 49. Patres vestri 49. Your fathers did eat manna manducaverunt manna in in the desert, and are dead. deserto, et mortui sunt. 50. Hic est panis de coelo 50. This is the bread which descendens: ut si quis ex ipso cometh down from heaven: that manducaverit, non moriatur. if any man eat of it, he may not die. 51. Ego sum panis vivus, qui 51. I am the living bread, de coelo descendi. which came down from heaven.

48‐51. Before quitting this portion of His discourse, and going on to declare _how_ He is the bread of life, Christ sums up what He has said, repeating again the proposition laid down in verse 35: “I am the bread of life;” again comparing and preferring the Blessed Eucharist to the manna (49, 50 compared with 32, 35); and combining in one the two propositions contained in verses 35 and 38, namely, that He is the bread, and that He came down from heaven. In verse 50 where it is declared that he who eats this bread shall not die, the meaning is, that the Blessed Eucharist, _of its own nature_, is calculated to save us from the death of the soul, and to secure even for our bodies a glorious resurrection. Sin, of course, may rob it of its glorious effects.

52. Si quis manducaverit ex 52. If any man eat of this hoc pane, vivet in aeternuum: bread, he shall live for ever: et panis, quem ego dabo, caro and the bread that I will mea est pro mundi vita. give, is my flesh for the life of the world.

52. Having summed up the preceding portion of His discourse, Christ now proceeds to declare _how_ He is the bread of life. Till now He had contented Himself with declaring that He is that bread, and with pointing out the chief disposition necessary to receive Him worthily; now He goes further, and points out _how_ He will be the bread of life; namely, by giving His flesh, that is, His whole human nature (i. 14), to which the Divine nature is inseparably united, to be received in the Blessed Eucharist. Thus He gradually unfolds the mystery, reserving till the last supper the further knowledge, that this reception of His body and blood was to take place in a sacramental manner.

*And the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.* Many Greek MSS. read: “And the bread that I will give is My flesh, _which I will give_ for the life of the world.” If the words “which I will give” be genuine, we would explain them not in reference to the sacrifice of the cross, but in reference to the sacrifice of the Eucharist, in which Christ is given for us and to us. Compare St. Luke: “This is My body, which is _given for you_” (Luke, xxii. 19), and especially Luke xxii. 20, where the Greek text shows that it is the blood _as in the chalice_ (and not as on Calvary) that is said to be offered in sacrifice. But the words more probably are not genuine; they are omitted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott, and Hort, and by the Revised Version, as well as by the Vulgate.

Though not merely Christ’s flesh, that is, His humanity (i. 14), but also His Divinity, is received in the Blessed Eucharist, His human nature is specially mentioned, lest it should be thought that He is the living bread only as God, or merely spiritually. “Dixerat enim,” says St. Thomas on this verse. “Quod erat panis vivus; et ne intelligatur quod hoc ei esset in quantum est Verbum, vel secundum animam tantum, ideo ostendit quod etiam caro sua vivificativa est: est enim organum divinitatis suae: unde, cum instrumentum agat virtute agentis, sicut divinitas Christi vivificativa est, ita et caro virtute Verbi adjuncti vivificat; unde Christus tactu suo sanabat infirmos.” Besides, as St. Thomas adds, since this Sacrament is commemorative of our Lord’s Passion (“For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord,” 1 Cor. xi. 26), His “flesh” is mentioned to remind us of the weakness of that human nature wherein it was possible for Him who was God to suffer.

53. Litigabant ergo Iudaei ad 53. The Jews therefore strove invicem, dicentes: Quomodo among themselves saying: How potest hic nobis carnem suam can this man give us his flesh suam dare ad manducandum? to eat? 54. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: 54. Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen dico vobis: Nisi Amen, amen, I say unto you; manducaveritis carnem Filii Except you eat the flesh of hominis, et biberitis eius the son of man, and drink his sanguinem, non habebitis vitam blood, you shall not have life in vobis. in you. 55. Qui manducat meam carnem, 55. He that eateth my flesh, et bibit meum sanguinem, habet and drinketh my blood, hath vitam aeternam: et ego everlasting life: and I will resuscitabo eum in novissimo raise him up in the last day. die.

53‐55. The Jews *therefore* (_ergo_, not enim), because of what He had now said, disputed among themselves, evidently taking different views of what He had said; but Jesus, far from retracting, solemnly insists upon what He had just said, and declares negatively (verse 54), and positively (verse 55), not only the possibility, but the _necessity_ of receiving His body and blood. It does not follow from verse 54, as the Utraquists falsely contended, that Communion under both kinds is necessary; for Christ is received whole and entire under either species. Under the species of bread only the body is present _in virtue of the words of consecration_, and similarly under the species of wine only the blood; but since Christ’s body is now a _living_ body, it follows that in the Blessed Eucharist, where the body is, there also are the blood and the soul _in virtue of the natural connection_ between the parts of a living body, and there, too, the Divinity, _in virtue of the hypostatic union_. See Decrees of the Council of Trent, sess. xiii., ch. 3. The precept is to receive both body and blood, but not necessarily under both species. For, as the Council of Trent (sess. xxi., cap. 1) points out, Christ attributes the same effects to eating in verses 55, 58, 59, as He does here to eating and drinking. See also 1 Cor. xi. 26, where he who eats _or_ drinks unworthily, is said to be guilty of _both_ body and blood. The precept of Christ, then, is obeyed whether one or both species be received, and it is a disciplinary matter entrusted to the care of the Church, whether the faithful are to receive under one or both species.

Seeing, then, that there is no obligation for the faithful to receive the Blessed Eucharist under both species, it may be asked why does Christ mention both species? We reply, that He does so to signify that in the Blessed Eucharist there is a perfect repast, which ordinarily supposes the presence of both meat and drink; and, perhaps, also to indicate that this sacrament is commemorative of His death, in which His body and blood were separated.

Nor do verses 54 and 55 afford any proof that the Blessed Eucharist is necessary, _necessitate medii_ unto salvation, like Baptism (John iii. 5). For—(1) Baptism is declared to be absolutely necessary for all, “unless a man be born again;” here the Blessed Eucharist is declared necessary only for those who are capable of receiving a precept, “Unless you eat,” &c. (2) From the nature of the case, Baptism, being a new _birth_, is absolutely necessary for all who are to live the new spiritual life; and as many as are born, must be _born again_ in order to live the higher life; but the Blessed Eucharist is not the introduction to a new life, but a means of nourishing the life already acquired. Hence for children who have already acquired that spiritual life in Baptism, and cannot lose it because incapable of sinning, the Blessed Eucharist cannot be necessary to salvation, nor even for adults can it be absolutely necessary as a means, if there be, as there are, other means of retaining the life already acquired.

56. Caro enim mea, vere est 56. For my flesh is meat cibus: et sanguis meus, vere indeed: and my blood is drink est potus. indeed; 57. Qui manducat meam carnem, 57. He that eateth my flesh et bibit meum sanguinem, in me and drinketh my blood, abideth manet, et ego in illo. in me, and I in him.

57. In the Blessed Eucharist we are united to Christ, and His humanity remains in us until the sacred species become corrupted; His divinity, until mortal sin is committed, and He is expelled.

58. Sicut misit me vivens 58. As the living Father hath Pater, et ego vivo propter sent me, and I live by the Patrem: et qui manducat me, et Father: so he that eateth me, ipse vivet propter me. the same also shall live by me.

58. The sacred union between Christ and the communicant is compared to the ineffable union between Him and His heavenly Father.

*The living Father.* This is a unique instance of this title, but we frequently find: _The Living God_, Matt. xvi. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16, &c. *And I live by* (διὰ τὸν παπέρα) *the Father*. It is to be noted that διὰ is followed by the accusative, not the genitive. If, then, we are to regard it as meaning here what it ordinarily means when followed by the accusative, and as the Vulgate seems to take it, the sense would rather be: As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live _on account_ of the Father, so he that eateth Me, the same also shall live _on account_ of Me. This would mean that as complete devotion to the Father is the object of the life of the Incarnate Son (the Son _as sent_), so complete devotion to the Son shall be the object of the life of him to whom Christ shall have united Himself in the Blessed Eucharist. Others, however, think that διὰ is here equivalent to _through_, or _by_, as in our Rheims Version. The sense then is: as Christ lives through the eternal life communicated to Him in His eternal generation by the Father; so, in some way, the communicant shall live in virtue of the spiritual life communicated to him or sustained in him because of his union with Christ in the Blessed Eucharist.

59. Hic est panis qui de coelo 59. This is the bread that descendit. Non sicut came down from heaven. Not as manducaverunt patres vestri your fathers did eat manna, manna, et mortui sunt. Qui and are dead. He that eateth manducat hunc panem, vivet in this bread shall live for aeternum. ever.

59. This verse concludes and unites the principal points of the discourse. Compare verses 32, 41, 49, 50, 52, 55. Hence it confirms the view we have followed regarding the unity of subject throughout the discourse.

*He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.* With this encouraging and glorious promise, made not to any one people, nor to any class as such, not even to all believers, but to each one (note the change from the plural to the singular: _your fathers ... He that eateth_) who shall worthily receive, and duly profit by the Blessed Eucharist, the discourse ends.

60. Haec dixit in synagoga 60. These things he said docens, in Capharnaum. teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

60. Because of the solemn importance of the discourse, the place where it was delivered is noted. At Tell Hûm (see above on ii. 12) the ruins of a large synagogue are still to be seen.

61. Multi ergo audientes ex 61. Many therefore of his discipulis eius, dixerunt: disciples hearing it, said: Durus est hic sermo, et quis This saying is hard, and who potest eum audire? can hear it?

61. The effect of the _discourse_ upon many of the disciples is recorded. *Hard* (σκληρός), _i.e._, harsh, hard to accept.

62. Sciens autem Iesus apud 62. But Jesus knowing in semetipsum quia murmurarent de himself, that his disciples hoc discipuli eius, dixit eis: murmured at this, said to Hoc vos scandalizat? them: Doth this scandalize you?

62. The Evangelist notes, according to his custom, that their thoughts were known to Christ.

63. Si ergo videritis Filium 63. If then you shall see the hominis ascendentem ubi erat son of man ascend up where he prius? was before?

63. *If then you shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?* The sense according to some, is: If you shall see Me ascending into heaven, it will then be easier to believe My doctrine, seeing I am Divine; and you shall at the same time understand, that it is not in a bloody manner (as you suppose) that you are to eat My body. Thus He would correct their too carnal interpretation of His words, and point at the same time to a reason why the true sense, however difficult, was to be accepted. Others think that Christ’s words increase the difficulty, the sense being, if you are scandalized now, because I say, _while present with you_, that I will give My body, how much more will you be scandalized when you see that body taken away into heaven, and are yet asked to believe that it is to be eaten on earth? It is argued in favour of this opinion, that the form of Christ’s reply: “Does this scandalize you? If _therefore_,” &c., indicates that their difficulty would then be greater. So Mald., Tolet., Beel., Corl. We may remark, as against the Nestorians, that language could not signify more clearly than this verse signifies the unity of Person in Christ. The Son of Man will ascend to heaven where as Son of God He is from all eternity. “Filius Dei et hominis unus Christus ... Filius Dei in terra suscepta carne, Filius hominis in coelo in unitate personae.” St. Aug. on this verse.

64. Spiritus est, qui 64. It is the spirit that vivificat: caro non prodest quickeneth: the flesh quidquam: verba quae ego profiteth nothing. The words locutus sum vobis, spiritus et that I have spoken to you, are vita sunt. spirit and life.

64. Many interpretations of this verse have been advanced. The following two are the most probable, intrinsically and extrinsically:—

(1) *The spirit* is the spirit of man elevated and ennobled by grace; *the flesh*, the corrupt dispositions and weak thoughts of human nature unaided by grace (see Rom. viii. 5, 6); and the meaning of the verse is; it is the mind illumined by grace that quickeneth to faith and to a proper understanding of My words; the mind or human nature by itself is of no avail in such matters; the words which I have spoken to you are _to be understood by_ the mind quickened and illumined by grace. So St. Chrys., Teoph., Wisem., Perr., M’Ev. But there are serious difficulties against this view—(1) “caro” is then taken metaphorically in this verse, while throughout the context it has been taken literally of the flesh of Christ; (2) the explanation of the words “are spirit and life” is unnatural.

(2) Others take *the Spirit* of the Divinity of Christ, *the flesh* of His humanity considered apart from the Divinity; and the meaning of the verse then is: it is My Divinity that quickeneth, and maketh My flesh a meat enduring unto eternal life; the flesh if separated from the Divinity would profit nothing; the words which I have spoken to you regard My life‐giving Divinity as united to My humanity. In this view, as Mald. explains it, “life,” by a Hebraism, is equivalent to an adjective signifying _life‐ giving_, as may be inferred from the beginning of the verse, where it is said that it is the Spirit _that giveth life_.(60) Hence “Spirit and life” is equivalent to _life‐giving_ Spirit, and the latter part of the verse means that Christ’s words have reference to His life‐giving Divinity in union with His humanity. So, too, St. Cyril of Alex., Beel., Corl. We prefer this view, and hold that Christ here gives the key to the solution of the difficulty on account of which His disciples had murmured (verse 62). He had closed His discourse with words attributing eternal life to the eating of His flesh (verse 59); they murmured accordingly, thinking it absurd or incredible that such effect could follow from such a cause as the eating of a man’s flesh; and in verse 64 He explains that His flesh is the flesh of the Man‐God, which therefore through the quickening influence of the Divinity with which it is united, is capable of producing such marvellous effects.

There is not a shadow of probability in the interpretation put upon this verse by the Sacramentarians. They explained the verse to mean: that the _figurative_ sense of what He had said regarding the necessity of eating His flesh and blood profits, but that the _literal_ sense would profit nothing. Thus they professed to find in these words an assurance that Christ had not spoken of a real eating of His flesh in the Eucharist, but only of a spiritual reception of Himself through faith. In reply to this we say—(1) that throughout the rest of the Bible “spiritus” and “caro” are not even once used of a figurative and literal sense; (2) if Christ here gave the explanation which our adversaries suppose, how is it that, as we learn from verse 67, many of His disciples retired notwithstanding, and walked with Him no more? In such an explanation all their difficulty would be removed, and they would be taught that it was only of a figurative eating by faith that Christ had been speaking. How then account for their departure? But it was different in the explanation we have given above. In our view, Christ, still insisting on a real reception of His flesh, merely explains how it is that such real reception can lead to such glorious results.

65. Sed sunt quidam ex vobis, 65. But there are some of you qui non credunt. Sciebat enim that believe not. For Jesus ab initio Iesus qui essent non knew from the beginning who credentes, et quis traditurus they were that did not esset eum. believe, and who he was that would betray him.

65. In the view we hold regarding verse 64, the connection of this verse with it is: the fact that I am God explains what you find difficult in My words (verse 64); but some of you do not believe Me to be God; and hence your difficulty (verse 65). To indicate Christ’s Divine knowledge, the Evangelist adds that He knew _from the beginning_, &c.

66. Et dicebat: Propterea dixi 66. And he said: Therefore did vobis, quia nemo potest venire I say to you, that no man can ad me, nisi fuerit ei datum a come to me, unless it be given Patre meo. him by my Father.

66. Christ’s words in this verse are to be connected closely with the beginning of the preceding, the intervening words of the Evangelist being parenthetical.

*Therefore did I say to you.* The allusion is to what was said above (verse 44), which is substantially the same as what is said here, since to be drawn to Christ by the Father is nothing else than to be given grace by the Father to come to Christ. It might seem at first sight that these words excuse the incredulity of those whom Christ addresses; but it is not so. For, the reason they had not been drawn by the Father was because they _would_ not, because they had not followed the promptings of grace. See above on verse 45. “Peccabant tamen qui nolebant venire, id est credere in Christum, tum quia habebant gratiam sufficientem, qua possent credere si vellent, etsi non haberent efficacem, qua reipsa et actu crederent; tum quia humiliter non petebant a Deo gratiam efficacem, qua actu crederent: tum quia sua superbia aliisque peccatis illa gratia se fecerant indignos, imo pervicaces Dei gratiam et fidem repellebant et refutabant” (A Lap. on this verse).

67. Ex hoc multi discipulorum 67. After this many of his eius abierunt retro: et iam disciples went back; and non cum illo ambulabant. walked no more with him.

67. Had Christ in the preceding discourse spoken only of faith, surely, all‐merciful and loving as He is, He would have made His meaning clear, before allowing many of His disciples to depart from Him for ever. It was only, then, because they understood Him correctly, and refused to believe Him, that He allowed them to depart.

68. Dixit ergo Iesus ad 68. Then Jesus said to the duodecim: Numquid et vos twelve: will you also go away? vultis abire?

68. *The twelve.* These are spoken of as well known, though this is the first mention made of their number in this Gospel.

*Will you also go away?* While the question implies that such desertion was to be feared, its form implies a negative answer, and suggests that in the case of the chosen twelve such conduct ought to be impossible.

69. Respondit ergo ei Simon 69. And Simon Peter answered Petrus: Domine, ad quem him: Lord, to whom shall we ibimus? verba vitae aeternae go? thou hast the words of habes: eternal life. 70. Et nos credidimus, et 70. And we have believed and cognovimus quia tu es Christus have known that thou art the Filius Dei. Christ the Son of God.

69‐70. Peter replies for all the Apostles (not knowing the unbelief of Judas), and confesses the truth of Christ’s doctrine, and, according to the Vulgate reading, the Divinity of Christ. It is very doubtful, however, whether the Vulgate reading here is correct. The oldest Greek MSS. read: “And we have believed and know that Thou art the _Holy One_ (ὁ ἅγιος) of God.” Whether in the mind of St. Peter this latter form of the words meant a full confession of Christ’s Divinity, or only that He was the Messias, it is difficult to say. It would seem indeed from the praise bestowed upon Peter by our Lord (Matt. xvi. 16) on an occasion subsequent to this, that then for the first time Peter fully confessed Christ’s Divinity.

71. Respondit eis Iesus: Nonne 71. Jesus answered them: Have ego vos duodecim elegi, et ex not I chosen you twelve; and vobis unus diabolus est? one of you is a devil?

71. Peter had answered as he thought for all the Apostles, but Christ shows that He knows to the contrary. *A devil*, that is to say a sinner inspired by the devil (viii. 44), Judas was (_est_) even then.

72. Dicebat autem Iudam 72. Now he meant Judas Simonis Iscariotem: hic enim Iscariot, the son of Simon: erat traditurus eum, cum esset for this same was about to unus ex duodecim. betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve.

72. The Evangelist explains who was meant. “The name Iscariot has received many interpretations, more or less conjectural, but it is now universally agreed that it is to be derived from Kerioth (Josh. xv. 25) a city in the tribe of Judah, the Hebrew אישׂ קרִות ’īsh Kerīyoth passing into Ἰσκαριώτης” (Smith’s _B. D._, 2nd Ed.). In this view, Judas, unlike the other Apostles (Acts ii. 7), was from the Province of Judea.