M. Peter's Confession (6:67-71)

M. Peter's Confession (6:67-71)

JOHN 6

J. THE FOURTH SIGN — FEEDING THE MULTITUDE (6:1-15)

1Some time after this, Jesus crossed to the far shore of the Sea of Galilee (that is, the Sea of Tiberias), 2and a great crowd of people followed him because they saw the miraculous signs he had performed on the sick. 3Then Jesus went up on the hillside and sat down with his disciples. 4The Jewish Passover Feast was near. 5When Jesus looked up and saw a great crowd coming toward him, he said to Philip, "Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?" 6He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do. 7Philip answered him, "Eight months wages'" would not buy enough bread for each one to have a bite!" 8Another of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, spoke up, 9"Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish, but how far will they go among so many? " 10Jesus said, "Have the people sit down." There was plenty of grass in that place, and the men sat down, about five thousand of them. 1 Jesus then took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed to those who were seated as much as they wanted. He did the same with the fish. 12When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, "Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted." 13So they gathered them and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves left over by those who had eaten, 14After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world." 15Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again into the hills by himself.

a. 7 Greek two hundred denarii

This is the one miracle, apart from the resurrection, that is recorded in all four Gospels. We can only conjecture why this story was thus singled out, but obviously it made a strong appeal to the Gospel writers. In this account we see that the reason for the multitude's presence was the attraction of the "signs" that Jesus wrought (NIV translates "miraculous signs," which brings out the truth that Jesus performed miracles but obscures the fact that the word could be used for signs that were not miraculous).¹ John also records Philip's perplexity as to the feeding of the great crowd, and his little piece of mental arithmetic that showed so clearly the impossibility of a solution out of the disciples' own resources. And he tells us that it was Andrew who brought the boy forward. It is in this Gospel that we read of the nearness of the Passover, of the bread as "barley loaves," of the reason for gathering up the fragments, of the effect on the people, and of Jesus' dismissal of the disciples and of the people in general. Clearly John has quite a lot of information not derived from the Synoptists. Characteristically, John describes what happened as a "sign." The effect of the sign is to make some people think of Jesus as a prophet, and some to wish to make a king out of him.

There are three principal ways of understanding what happened. One is that a "miracle" took place in people's hearts. Christ induced the selfish to share their provisions, and when this was done there proved to be more than enough for them all. Lindars rightly remarks that this "can scarcely be regarded as a serious possibility." A second view is that the feeding should be understood as a sacramental meal, rather like Holy Communion, wherein each received a tiny fragment. This view has been severely criticized by G. H. Boobyer.² Though it is defended by Alan Richardson,³ for example, it seems untenable. Indeed, both the views we have noticed seem to rely too much on presupposition and to overlook what the writers actually say. It is much better, accordingly, to hold to the third view, that Jesus, the Son of God incarnate,⁴ did do something that we can describe only as miracle. Undoubtedly, it inculcates spiritual truth (it is a "sign"). But this does not alter the fact that the Gospel writers speak of something wonderful that actually happened.

For the significance of the story we must bear in mind that the figure of eating and drinking is widely used in the Old Testament. It is a figure of prosperity ("nothing is better for a man under the sun than to eat and drink and be glad"; Eccl. 8:15; cf. also Eccl. 3:13; 5:18), and it is often used of the blessings the people of God would enjoy in the promised land (Deut. 8:9; 11:15; Neh. 9:36, etc.). Contrariwise, not to be able to eat is disaster (Eccl. 6:2). The metaphor of eating is used also of spiritual blessing. There are some interesting passages where people are said to eat God's word (Jer. 15:16; Ezek. 2:8; 3:1, etc.), but these are probably not the most apposite for our purpose. Eating is sometimes associated with the vision of God (perhaps because it was so characteristic of the sacrificial system), as when Moses and his companions "saw God, and they ate and drank" (Exod. 24:11; cf. also Deut. 12:7; 15:20; 27:7; Ezra 6:21; Neh. 8:10; Ezek. 44:3). There may also be some link with the experiences of Israel in the wilderness at the time when God "rained down manna for the people to eat, he gave them the grain of heaven" (Ps. 78:24). So the prophet holds out before the people the promise of God: "If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the best from the land" (Isa. 1:19; cf. Ezra 9:12). On the other hand, disobedience to God will lead to the absence of satisfaction in eating (Lev. 26:23-26). So also the gracious invitation goes forth: "come, buy and eat! . . . Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy? Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good" (Isa. 55:1-2). So, too, the Psalmist can look forward to the day when "The poor will eat and be satisfied" (Ps. 22:26). From all this it is not surprising that the messianic banquet was one of the ways in which the delights of the age to come were set forth (e.g. Enoch 62:14).⁵

This "sign," then, shows Jesus to be the supplier of people's need. John's mention of the Passover (v. 4) is evidently meant to awaken associations of the wilderness as well as to locate the event in time. Later in the chapter the references to "living bread" (v. 51), "the true bread from heaven" (v. 32), "the bread of God" (v. 33), etc., are clearly to bring the same things before us. What the manna in the wilderness foreshadowed is perfectly given in Jesus. He is the Messiah who gives us the richest banquets to enjoy. The "sign" has to do with the Kingdom. The Jews misinterpret it, and think in terms of a prophet (v. 14) and of an earthly kingdom (v. 15). Both times they were on too low a plane. The miracle, rightly understood, pointed them to the Messiah, not a prophet, and to the heavenly Kingdom, not a kingdom on earth. There is probably another thought. Paul tells us that in the wilderness the Israelites "all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ" (1 Cor. 10:3-4). It is likely that John has a similar thought. Christ has always been the perfect provider of his people's need. It was he who was their "bread of God" in the wilderness, and it is he who is the bread of God now.

There are one or two coincidences of language in John's account with the story of Elisha and the feeding of a hundred men (2 Kings 4:42-44).⁶ But with the Synoptic narratives before us we will be slow to accept any theory of dependence on the Old Testament story. While we need not think of John as necessarily dependent on them,⁷ they show us that a story of miraculous feeding was current in Christian circles.⁸

1 "Some time after this" is an indefinite note of time.⁹ It does not pinpoint the following narrative. If we follow the text behind NIV the name of the lake is given twice. "Galilee" was probably the name by which it was known locally and referred to in the Christian church. But it was officially called "Tiberias" from the town on its shores named after the Emperor. This town was founded about A.D. 20, so it is unlikely that the lake was called "Tiberias" during Jesus' ministry.¹⁰ John then adds the name by which it was known when his Gospel was written. There is some support for reading "to the region of Tiberias" after "Sea of Galilee,"¹¹ and Brown, for example, thinks this may be original. NIV, however, has much greater support and is to be preferred.

2 There is a succession of imperfect tenses here, denoting continuous action. The multitude "kept following" Jesus because they "continually saw" the signs that he "habitually did" on the sick. John does not record a great number of miracles, but this statement shows that he knew that there were many. Chacteristically he refers to them as "signs" (see Additional Note G, pp. 607-13).

3 The place of these happenings is defined as "the mountain" (NIV, "the hillside"), which raises the question whether there was a particular mountain that Jesus and his immediate followers knew as "the" mountain. If so, we have no means of identifying it. In any case, the expression need mean 110 more than "the hill country."

4 Here we have a number of Johannine characteristics: an interest in feasts,¹² and in time notes, and the reference to "the Jews" (see on 1:19).¹³

5-7 John does not record that Jesus and the disciples had withdrawn to a deserted place to be alone, and that the multitude sought him out. Nor that he spent the day teaching and healing. Nor that it was in the evening that the crowd was fed. It may be that he presumed that these facts would be known. For whatever reason he takes up the story at the point where Jesus sees¹⁴ a large number of people coming toward him. Philip was the natural person to ask where food might be found to feed them all, for he was a native of nearby Bethsaida (1:44). John makes it clear that the question was a test for Philip¹⁵ (perhaps a test of his faith; did he believe that Jesus would provide?). It was not because Jesus did not know (for Jesus' knowledge see on 4:18).¹⁶ Philip's reply stresses the hopelessness of the situation judged from the meager resources of the little band. Two hundred denarii's worth of bread would not suffice to give all this crowd a little taste.¹⁷ Philip does not point to a solution, but to an impossibility.

8-9 For Andrew see on 1:40, 42. Here, as there, he is introduced as "Simon Peter's brother," and there as here he is bringing someone to Jesus. It is possible that his knowledge of the lad came as the result of a reconnaissance with a view to finding out what food resources could be mustered, for he definitely relates the boy's supply (evidently provisions for his own personal use) to the needs of the multitude. Or the boy may have offered his food to Jesus. But, like Philip, Andrew is baffled by the emergency. The word for "boy" is a double diminutive, probably meaning "little boy."¹⁸ Barley bread¹⁹ was bread of a cheap kind,²⁰. So the boy was probably poor. The two fishes were something of a tidbit²¹ that would make the coarse barley bread more palatable.

10-11 Jesus now takes charge. He instructs the disciples to get the people²² seated (strictly the word means "recline"). John tells us that there was a good deal of grass (so that reclining would present no difficulty), and says that the number²³ was five thousand. Then he says that Jesus took the loaves and gave thanks ("said grace").²⁴ After this he distributed the food to the people. John lets us understand that the disciples were the medium of this act of distribution, and does not mention them explicitly as the Synoptists do. "As much as they wanted" indicates that this was a satisfying repast, not a token meal.

12-13 The thought of plentiful supply is continued in the reference to their having "had enough to eat" (cf. Mark 6:42). But though there was abundance there was no waste, for Jesus commanded that they gather up the pieces left over.²⁵ MiM thinks that the reason for this was "to bring out the preciousness of the food which Jesus had given." Twelve baskets²⁶ were filled in this way, from the pieces of loaves that remained after the people had eaten.²⁷

14 Once more John refers to a "sign" (some MSS read "signs," but the singular is more likely; for "sign" see Additional Note G, pp. 607-13). It pointed people to God. But these folk saw only a reference to a prophet, though admittedly the prophet that they held would be the greatest of them all, namely the one foretold in Deuteronomy 18:15. It is somewhat curious that they thought of this prophet rather than the Messiah, unless, contrary to usual Jewish opinion, they thought of this prophet as the Messiah.²⁸ But perhaps this is part of the confused state of mind of so many at that time. Various ideas about the Messiah were current, and various prophets were expected (see further on 1:20-21), some being linked with nationalist, militarist views.²⁹

15 Jesus saw the effect on the crowds, and perceived that they would try to make a king of him. There were fierce nationalistic longings among the Jews of that period, and doubtless many of those who saw the miracle felt that here was a divinely accredited leader, who was just the one to lead them against the Romans. So they set themselves to make him king. Like many others since, they wanted to use him to further their own ends. But to Jesus the prospect of an earthly kingdom was nothing other than a temptation of the devil, and he decisively rejected it (Luke 4:5-8). So, on this occasion he simply withdrew³⁰ into the mountain until he was alone,³¹ thus effectively stopping the enthusiasm of the would-be king-makers.³² Bailey points out that there is "much of S. John's irony in the passage; He who is already King has come to open His kingdom to men; but in their blindness men try to force Him to be the kind of king they want; thus they fail to get the king they want, and also lose the kingdom He offers."³³

K. THE FIFTH SIGN — WALKING ON THE WATER (6:16-21)

16When evening came, his disciples went down to the lake,17where they got into a boat and set off across the lake for Capernaum. By now it was dark, and Jesus had not yet joined them. 18A strong wind was blowing and the waters grew rough. 19When they had rowed three or three and a half miles,^a they saw Jesus approaching the boat, walking on the water; and they were terrified. 20But he said to them, "It is I; don't be afraid." 21Then they were willing to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat reached the shore where they were heading.

a. 19 Greek rowed twenty-five or thirty stadia (about 5 or 6 kilometers)

This incident is recounted also in Matthew 14:22-33; Mark 6:45-52. In both cases the account is somewhat fuller than here (Chrysostom thinks of two different miracles, but the evidence does not indicate this). Matthew speaks of Peter's attempt to walk on the water, a detail not found in either of the other two accounts. Some interpreters hold that John is not giving an account of a miracle, but that he thought that Jesus was walking by the shore. In the uncertain light the disciples, who in any case were scared by the storm, thought that he was walking on the water. But that is not the way the narrative reads. The disciples' terror at the sight of Jesus is inexplicable if he were on the shore and they were thus safe. Some of them, at least, were used to the lake and its storms, and there is no indication that they were afraid before they saw Jesus. It seems clear that John recounts this as one of the "signs" of which he is so fond,³⁴ even though he does not apply that word to it. In fact he makes no comment on the story at all. He apparently records it because it happened at this juncture, and not because he wants to point an edifying moral. This does not mean that it is without significance in this place. Its appropriateness as an introduction to the discourse that follows has often been pointed out.³⁵

16-17 John's account is highly compressed. We do not learn from him, as we do from Matthew and Mark, that Jesus had sent the disciples away. Clearly he preferred to deal with the would-be kingmakers without the presence of his own close followers. But this has to be inferred; John says nothing about the reason for the embarkation. He simply tells of the journey.³⁶ He mentions the coming of darkness,³⁷ which is understandable. But it is not easy to see why he tells us that "Jesus had not yet joined them." They scarcely expected him to come walking on the sea, as their subsequent terror shows. Probably, with Westcott, we should take the meaning to be: "Jesus had directed the apostles to wait for Him at some point on the eastern shore on their way to Capernaum, but not beyond a certain time." The statement that Jesus "made his disciples ... go on ahead of him to Bethsaida while he dismissed the crowd" (Mark 6:45) is not irreconcilable with this view. The disciples were sent away by ship, but Jesus might well have rejoined them at some point further along the shore. His delaying is related to the dismissal of the crowd. The disciples knew this and may have expected him accordingly.³⁸

18 John indicates something of the difficulties of the mariners. A storm was rising.³⁹ The Synoptists tell us that the wind was contrary. John merely says that it was "a strong wind."

19 Rowing under these circumstances was very hard work,⁴⁰ but they made fairly good progress. Twenty-five to thirty stadia⁴¹ must have taken them the best part of the way across the lake.⁴² Then they see Jesus. John's language becomes vivid with the use of the present tense. The sight of Jesus walking on the sea⁴³ and nearing their boat filled them with fear. Again we must supplement this narrative by that of the Synoptists to find the reason — they thought that they saw a phantom.

20 Jesus immediately reassured them. His well-known voice with its words of comfort identified him to them. What they saw was real. It is possible that his words are meant to give a hint of deity.⁴⁴ Certainly spoken in these circumstances at the culminating point of the miracle they must have been impressive, and it is probably no coincidence that all three accounts tell us that he said, "It is I; be not afraid" (the Synoptists prefix "Take courage").

21 The narrative ends rather curiously. The disciples wanted to take Jesus into the boat, which is natural enough. But did they actually do so? John's words may be intended to mean that they did (so translations like KJV, GNB, Knox, Phillips, and Schonfield). The choice of expression may be dictated by the wish to show that their attitude was completely changed from the fear of a short time back. Bernard thinks the meaning is that they were so close to the shore that they were not able to translate their wish into action. They finished the voyage before this could happen. But it may well be that John's very short account is intended to be understood in the same way as that of Mark, who tells us that Jesus was received into the ship, and that there was then a lull in the wind. This could facilitate the speedy end of the voyage,⁴⁵ which John tells us actually came to pass. Or John may wish us to think of a second miracle, as Barrett suggests, in the spirit of Psalm 107:22-32 (especially v. 30, "he guided them to their desired haven"). This is brought out in Moffatt's version: "so they agreed to take him on board, and the boat instantly reached the land they were making for."⁴⁶

L. THE FOURTH DISCOURSE — THE BREAD OF LIFE (6:22-66)

There are three main lines of interpretation of this discourse.⁴⁷ Most expositors these days apply it to the Lord's Supper. Unlike the Synoptists, John does not mention the institution of the sacrament. He has a lengthy account of Jesus' farewell discourse, but gives no hint of the institution of the Supper though this occupied an important place in the life of the church at the time the Gospel was written.⁴⁸ However, in this chapter John uses language that many scholars feel applies to the sacrament as it applies to nothing else. They hold accordingly that John, for reasons of his own, has omitted all mention of the sacrament at the point where one would naturally have expected it, and has instead given us his sacramental teaching in the form of a discourse of our Lord inserted at this point.⁴⁹ Little evidence is cited for this view. It is taken as axiomatic that language like that used here (especially in vv. 53ff.) refers to the sacrament.⁵⁰

But there are some strong reasons against it. First of all, there is the setting. Jesus is speaking in the synagogue at Capernaum to a crowd that includes opponents and lukewarm disciples. It is difficult to hold that John wants us to think that to such an audience Jesus gave teaching about a sacrament whose institution lay well in the future. References to such a sacrament could not possibly have been discerned by this audience, and the only result could have been profound mystification. Second, there is the strength of the language used. Take as an example verse 53: "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." This language is absolute. There is no reference to repentance or conversion or believing. There is no qualification of any sort. No loophole is left. But it is impossible to think that Jesus (or for that matter the Evangelist) should have taught that the one thing necessary for eternal life is to receive the sacrament. Those who think of the discourse as referring to Holy Communion usually do not face the logic of their position at this point, but introduce some qualification.⁵¹ Third, the consequences of the eating and drinking spoken of here are also said by John, both elsewhere and in this very context (see vv, 35, 40, 47) to follow from receiving Christ and believing in him. Fourth, the words, considered as the utterance of a first-century Jew, would most naturally have quite a different meaning. The metaphor of eating and drinking was quite common among the Jews, as Odeberg, for example, has shown. It points to a taking within one's innermost being. Westcott can say that language like that used here "cannot refer primarily to the Holy Communion; nor again can it be simply prophetic of that Sacrament. The teaching has a full and consistent meaning in connexion with the actual circumstances, and it treats essentially of spiritual realities with which no external act, as such, can be co-extensive."⁵²

Such considerations have led some commentators to hold that the sacramental view is untenable.⁵³ They hold to the second view, namely, that the chapter refers to purely spiritual realities. Eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood point to that central saving act described otherwise in, say, 3:16. Christ's death opens the way to life and people enter that way by faith. So in this chapter Christ speaks of giving his flesh (v. 51), which signifies the same act as God's giving his Son.⁵⁴ But people must appropriate this gift by faith (v. 47). Eating the flesh and drinking the blood represent a striking way of saying this. The Son of man "must enter into and be assimilated with the spiritual organism of the believer."⁵⁵ People must take Christ into their innermost being if they would have the life he died to bring them. J. D. G. Dunn can say, "the primary emphasis is on Jesus himself. The central theme is that Jesus himself is the source and sustenance of eternal life . . . [John] also takes great care to emphasize that it is the incarnate Jesus only as given up to death who is the bread of life."⁵⁶

The third line of interpretation (which seems preferable) is a mediating one. It sees in the words primarily teaching about spiritual realities (as outlined in the preceding paragraph), but does not deny that there may be a secondary reference to the sacrament.⁵⁷ This teaching about spiritual feeding on Christ must be seen to have its primary reference to something other than any liturgical observance. It refers to the spiritual appropriation of Christ, however that takes place, whether in sacraments or in any other way. But in a secondary sense the discourse may well show us how we should receive the Holy Communion.⁵⁸ It is not impossible that Christ should have had some thought of the sacrament in his mind. He certainly did not institute it on the spur of the moment, and we have no means of knowing how long he premeditated it.⁵⁹ John, moreover, may have had in mind some who gave undue emphasis to the externals of sacramental religion. So he left out all formal mention of Holy Communion, which would certainly discourage overemphasis. But communion is important, so he included a discourse of the Lord Jesus that sets forth the principles governing worthy reception.⁶⁰ But to agree with this is not to see the main thrust of the passage in sacramental teaching. It lies elsewhere.⁶¹

Perhaps we should also notice the view that in the earliest tradition of the Christian church the bread and wine were not symbols of Jesus' body and blood, but joyful signs of his presence. John M. Perry has argued that "originally the eucharistic memorial of the Johannine community was of an earliest Jewish Christian type that celebrated the resurrection of Jesus and his anticipated return in glory without memorializing his passion and death."⁶² He sees vv. 51b-58 as coming from a later stage when the leaders of the Johannine church "decided to adopt a liturgical practice similar to that of the Pauline churches and commemorate both the resurrection and death of Jesus at the Eucharist."⁶³ But Paul's writings are early; he speaks of the eucharist as it was in the 50's, probably earlier. It is difficult to hold that the practice of the Pauline churches, attested also in the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is later than that in a hypothetical early draft of this Gospel. And it is not easy to see why the Johannine church should commemorate the resurrection and parousia but not the passion.

1. The Audience Gathers (6:22-25)

22The next day the crowd that had stayed on the opposite shore of the lake realized that only one boat had been there, and that Jesus had not entered it with his disciples, but that they had gone away alone. 23Then some boats from Tiberias landed near the place where the people had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24Once the crowd realized that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they got into the boats and went to Capernaum in search of Jesus. 25When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, "Rabbi, when did you get here?"

The next day the multitude looked for Jesus. They discerned that he was no longer on the same side of the lake as they (though they could not see how he could have crossed it). So they followed the disciples across the lake, looking for him. John does not say where they found him. It may have been in the synagogue (v. 59), but it is not at all impossible that the discourse took place in stages, with only the concluding section in the synagogue.⁶⁴

22 The crowd had been very determined to make Jesus king, so it is not surprising that with the morning light those that remained of them sought him out again. The meaning of the reference to the boat⁶⁵ is not quite clear. The usual interpretation is that the crowd, on reflection, recalled that there had been only one boat there the previous night and that Jesus had not sailed in it (the boats of v. 23 were driven in during the night by the gale). But it is also possible to understand "only one boat" to mean that only one boat had been at the disposal of Jesus and his party, and they knew that Jesus had not traveled in that. Again, it may be that they had one boat before them on the shore, as Lightfoot holds. Jesus had not entered that one (it was still there), nor had he gone with the disciples. Our inability to determine which of these is correct need not trouble us. The main point is that the crowd saw no way by which Jesus could have crossed the lake.

23 The boats from Tiberias⁶⁶ may have come before the miracle, and have been there still. More probably they arrived after the disciples left, probably blown in by the storm. The miracle is described in an unusual fashion. Indeed, it is not described as a miracle at all; there are simply references to eating the bread, and to the Lord's giving of thanks.⁶⁷ Jesus is not commonly referred to as "the Lord" (see on 4:1). Indeed, there are several unusual features in the Greek of verses 22-23, and we may conjecture that this long sentence was not revised by the author into what would otherwise have been its final form.

24-25 The crowds, seeing neither Jesus nor the disciples, and seeing that there were boats there, decided to sail across the lake to Capernaum, looking for Jesus. There was apparently little difficulty in finding himn once they reached Capernaum (it was a small town). They greeted him as "Rabbi," which may be significant in the context. John has just described happenings that show that Jesus was far removed from the ordinary. But the crowds have no knowledge of the events nor of his person. They think of him as a teacher (which is curious after their recent attempt to make him a king), not as the divine Son. Somewhat strangely they ask him when he came⁶⁸ there. After their puzzlement about the ships we might have expected them to ask "How?" which we know to be the significant question.⁶⁹

2. Food That Abides (6:26-27)

26Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

The long discourse is broken several times by interjections of the Jews. At first these interjections are close together, though later there are more considerable sections of exhortation. Jesus begins by putting his interrogators in the wrong, and urging them to amend their habits.

26 Jesus totally ignores the opening question of the multitude (as he had done earlier with Nicodemus's courtly greeting, 3:1-3). With an emphatic "I tell you the truth" (for this expression see on 1:51) he moves straight into the important thing. He recognizes the real motive of these fellow travelers and speaks sharply. Had they come even on the basis of the "signs" (see Additional Note G, pp. 607-13) they had seen, it would have betokened some faith, however small. Faith that rests on the miracles is not the highest kind of faith, but it is better than no faith at all. But these people were crass materialists. They had not reflected on the spiritual significance of the sign they had seen.⁷⁰ "Instead of seeing in the bread the sign, they had seen in the sign only the bread."⁷¹ They came because their hunger had been satisfied.⁷² They were moved not by full hearts, but by full bellies.⁷³

27 So Jesus bids them labor for the right sort of food.⁷⁴ The food they were seeking would perish. There is another kind of food, that which remains forever and issues in eternal life.⁷⁵ This Gospel habitually associates life with Christ. If people seek this food, then the Son of Man (see Additional Note C, pp. 150-52) will give⁷⁶ them eternal life. Life is not the reward for work. Life is always his gift. They may seek the more confidently because the Father (in the Greek "God" is not prefixed to "the Father" but added at the end of the sentence with emphasis, a most unusual order) has "sealed" him.⁷⁷ The affixing of a seal was common in antiquity as a mark of ownership. In an age when many were illiterate the seal attested ownership as a written label could not. But a seal could also authenticate a document or the like; the seal showed that the seal's owner approved. This is the meaning here. The Father has set the seal of his approval on the Son.⁷⁸

3. The Works of God (6:28-29)

28Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

28 Perhaps in view of Jesus' reference to working, the question in terms of human endeavor is natural enough. Nevertheless "What must we do?" shows that the questioners had not grasped Jesus' point that life was his gift. They looked for salvation as the result of their own effort (as people in their natural wisdom always do). They simply ask what the particular work God requires of them is. The present subjunctive denotes continuity: "What is to be our regular course of action?" Moreover, there are rabbinic passages in which heavenly food is taken to symbolize the Torah, the Law.⁷⁹ The Jews may have taken Jesus' words about the food that abides to eternal life as meaning the Law. What, then, does Jesus think, ought they to do by way of law works? "The works of God" (NIV "the works God requires") is an unusual expression, but there seems little doubt that we should take it in the sense "godly works," "works pleasing to God."⁸⁰

29 Jesus replaces their "works of God" with the singular "work of God." But one thing is needful. And this one thing, he makes plain, is faith.⁸¹ They must believe⁸² on him (for the construction see on 1:12; the present tense here denotes the continuing attitude, not the once-for-all decision). In view of the controversy over faith and works reflected in the Epistle of James, it is interesting to find Jesus describing "work" as believing: God does not require that we pile up merits to obtain a heavenly credit. He requires that we trust him. The "work of God" means that which God requires of us. "There is a sense in which 'to believe' is to perform a work" (MacGregor). The object of faith is spoken of in terms of mission. Jesus is sent by the Father ("he" is emphatic⁸³ — none less than he!), and this makes faith in him eminently reasonable.

4. The Bread of Life (6:30-40)

30So they asked him, "What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'^a" 32Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." 34"Sir," they said, from now on give us this bread." 35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

a. 31 Exodus 16:4; Psalm 78:24

This section of the discourse is to be understood against the background of a Jewish expectation that, when the Messiah came, he would renew the miracle of the manna. Comfortably filled with the loaves Jesus has provided, the multitude challenge him to give them a permanent supply of bread. Jesus turns their attention to "the true bread" (v. 32), "the bread of God" (v. 33), "the bread of life" (v. 35). Their thoughts are hopelessly earthbound; he seeks to raise them to heaven and to that eternal life which is inextricably linked with himself. A. M. Farrer captures the central thought of the chapter here: "The whole of ch. vi is a homily on v. 31b, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.' It must be shown (a) that Christ is true Bread, (b) that He came down from the true Heaven, whereas the manna was earthly bread from the visible sky."⁸⁴

30 "Jews demand miraculous signs," wrote Paul (1 Cor. 1:22),⁸⁵ and we could scarcely wish for a better example (see on 2:18). At the same time their demand is curious, for they have just seen one sign, and had they been spiritually aware would probably have known of another. Indeed, the plural in verse 26 implies that they had seen several signs. But they had not penetrated to the spiritual significance of what they had seen.⁸⁶ They observed only the wonders, and for some reason these did not satisfy them. They dared to impose on God the sign they must have before they would believe.⁸⁷ "You" is emphatic. They do not think for one moment that Jesus can produce the sign they demand. "See it and believe" puts the priority on sight. They do not understand the nature of faith.

31 They bring out the kind of sign they want by citing the manna in the wilderness. In a way this is a strange choice, for the multiplication of the loaves seems to be a sign of exactly the same type. But it took place on one occasion: Moses gave the manna for forty years. Jesus provided bread for five thousand: Moses supplied manna for a whole nation. Jesus gave them ordinary bread, bread such as they ate every day: Moses gave "bread from heaven," and goodness knows what fantasies they had about this (in Matt. 16:1 they asked for a sign "from heaven"). "It appears that the controlling term is not bread but the phrase from heaven" (Michaels). Add to this a Jewish expectation that when the Messiah came he would give people manna once more,⁸⁸ and we see that there was much that might arouse speculation. Jesus had done something wonderful in supplying bread. But could he go on from there and produce manna? They support their plea with a quotation, apparently from Psalm 78:24 (it is also like Neh. 9:15, and has some resemblances to Exod. 16:4, 15; Ps. 105:40, but agrees exactly with none of these). Though they do not mention his name, they apparently apply the quotation to Moses. The manna accredited Moses.

32 For the second time in this chapter Jesus prefaces his remarks with the solemn "I tell you the truth." What follows is important. He begins by dispelling their illusion about Moses. It is difficult to find an English translation that will bring out the two meanings of what follows. He is saying first of all that the gift of manna was not Moses' gift. It came from God (which is the real meaning of the words they have quoted; cf. Exod. 16:13ff.). Second, it was not the true "bread from heaven," but an earthly, material type of that bread.⁸⁹ A third contrast is that between "has given" and "gives"; the gift Jesus brings is ongoing. "My Father" indicates a consciousness that Jesus stood in a relation to the Giver that his hearers did not. He assures them not that God once gave the gift of the manna, but that he continually gives. This would present us with a difficulty if it were the manna that he continually gives, but it is something more; God keeps giving the true bread. The word order puts emphasis on "true."⁹⁰ The crowd had followed Jesus because of the loaves they had eaten. But they were unmindful of the much more important fact that the Father keeps on giving that bread which is bread indeed.

33 This statement is explained a little further. The bread is now "the bread of God," which fastens attention on another aspect of the gift. It originates with God, and is connected with him in a special way. It is his bread. "He who" might be understood as "that which" (as in NRSV).⁹¹ It is unlikely that Jesus' hearers understood it as "he who" (they immediately say, "Sir, from now on give us this bread"). But Jesus did. He knew himself to be the bread of God, and in accordance with this he speaks of this bread not as sent, but as coming down. It has life. And it gives life. The present tense denotes continuing action, and "the world" indicates its scope. Here is no narrow particularism but a concern for the whole human race.⁹² This is to be interpreted against the background of the grossly materialistic way in which the messianic age was commonly understood.⁹³ Jesus did not come to bring manna or satisfy any other materialistic expectation of the people. His discourse is a vigorous protest against unworthy views of messiahship and a strong affirmation of the essentially spiritual character of the life he came to bring.⁹⁴

34 Like the woman at the well who wanted the living water (4:15) these people want the bread of God. They may have had much the same materialistic reason. She wanted the water in order to be relieved of the task of drawing from the well. They had been fed from the loaves and they probably wanted some permanent gift of this kind. And they, like the woman, were ironical. They did not really think that Jesus could provide this bread.⁹⁵ The word NIVrenders "Sir" often means "Lord" (see on 4:1), but surely not here. The greeting is respectful, but these people do not regard Jesus as Lord. They ask him to provide them with the bread "always."⁹⁶

35 In a supremely majestic statement Jesus removes this misconception. The bread of which he speaks is not like the manna, something they could pick up and eat. It is nothing less than himself (cf. vv. 48, 51). His "I am" is a solemnly emphatic statement, and in this context has overtones of divinity.⁹⁷ This is the first of seven such emphatic statements in this Gospel.⁹⁸ Each one brings home an important aspect of the person and the ministry of Jesus. "The bread of life" is another way of linking life in the closest fashion with Christ. He himself is the food, the sustenance that nourishes spiritual life. It is only from this bread that we really obtain life.⁹⁹

Becoming a Christian may be described in various ways. Here Jesus speaks of coming to him, which stresses the movement away from the old life with its beggarly famine and its total inability to satisfy, and into all that association with Christ means. The thought of coming to Christ recurs (vv. 37, 44, 45, 65). People must come, as Wright puts it, "not as they have now come, in physical presence, but come with the whole needy personality" (cf. Matt. 11:28ff.). The expression is parallel to "he who believes in me" in the latter part of the verse (cf. 64-65; 7:37-38), and it indicates another facet of the same essential process. "Never" is emphatic both times (cf. Weymouth, "shall never, never thirst"). No room is left for spiritual hunger and thirst¹⁰⁰ after receiving Christ. This does not exclude a further desire for spiritual things, but it rules out forever the possibility of that unsatisfied hunger, for it knows not what is typical of the world even at its best.¹⁰¹ This verse should not be regarded as an abstract statement. It constitutes an appeal. Since Jesus is the bread of life people are invited to come to him, and to believe on him.

36 "But"¹⁰² introduces a strong contrast with what Jesus would have wished to see, perhaps also with what might have been expected. His hearers had seen him, and were still seeing him, but they were far from appreciating the significance of what they saw.¹⁰³ They did not believe. Their attitude was the very reverse of that for which Jesus looks in 20:29. The occasion to which "I told you" refers is not clear. It may point to verse 26, but it is more likely that it refers to a saying on some other occasion altogether.¹⁰⁴

37 "All" is neuter, which makes it very general, "everything," although persons are certainly meant. The words stress the sovereignty of God.¹⁰⁵ People do not come to Christ because it seems a good idea to them. It never does seem a good idea to sinful people. Apart from a divine work in their souls (cf. 16:8) people remain more or less contentedly in their sins. Before they can come to Christ it is necessary that the Father give¹⁰⁶ them to him. This is the explanation of the disconcerting fact that those who followed Jesus to hear him, and who at the beginning wanted to make him a king, were nevertheless not his followers in the true sense. They did not belong to the people of God. They were not among those whom God gives him. The second part of the verse brings us Jesus' warm welcome to all. He rejects none. "Never" is emphatic (cf. Amplified, "I will never, no never reject..."). There are difficulties as we try to reconcile the two parts of the verse. But whether we succeed in that or not we dare not abandon the truth in either part.

38 In this whole work of salvation Jesus is in the most perfect harmony with the Father. He came down from heaven specifically to do the will of the Father (see on 4:34). The thought of his coming down from heaven is repeated seven times in this chapter (vv. 33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, and 58). In this verse we have the characteristic statement of a proposition in both its negative and positive forms. The perfect unity with the Father ensures that Christ will accept all that the Father gives. It underlines the certainty of the process of the previous verse. For "sent" see on 3:17.

39 The will of God is not left in general terms; the particular aspect of his will that Jesus came to perform has to do with what the Father gives him. Again we have the negative and the positive sides. Jesus is to lose none of what¹⁰⁷ he is given (and at the end of his life he could affirm that he had lost none of them, 17:12). But his keeping of them is not concerned with this life only. Those who are his he will raise¹⁰⁸ at the last day (cf. 5:25ff.). This is a kind of refrain that runs through this address (vv. 40, 44, 54). The salvation Jesus brings is no ephemeral thing. It is ultimate and final. This thought is of the greatest comfort to believers. Their assurance is based not on their feeble hold on Christ, but on his sure grip on them (cf. 10:28f.). "The last day" is an expression found only in John in the New Testament. It is clear evidence that John, like the other New Testament writers, held a futurist eschatology and looked for Jesus to usher in the final state.

40 For the third consecutive verse the subject is God's will. By a characteristic Johannine construction we have a slight change from the way the thought has been expressed before. Jesus has spoken of people coming to him and believing in him; now he refers to beholding him and believing (contrast the attitude of his hearers in v. 36). "Looking to" the Son is not commonly used in connection with salvation. It reminds us of the necessity for seeing the heavenly vision, and seeing it with a steady, constant gaze.¹⁰⁹ Once again Jesus insists that the life he brings is eternal. None other than he ("I" is emphatic) will raise the believer at the last day. The close connection of this with eternal life should not be overlooked. So far from the present possession of eternal life excluding the idea of a future resurrection it demands it in the Johannine understanding of things. It is unthinkable that death should blot out forever the life that Christ gives. Because he is what he is, he will assuredly raise up those to whom he gives life.¹¹⁰

5. Christ and the Bread (6:41-51)

41 At this time the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "lam the bread that came down from heaven." 42They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?" 43 "Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God. '^a Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If a man eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

a. 45 Isaiah 54:13

Jesus' words were not what the crowd expected or wanted. They rebel against the claims implied in what he said, feeling that they know very well who he is. In the face of this Jesus emphatically repeats what he has said, and takes the thought a stage further by speaking of the bread that he will give as his flesh.

41 "The Jews" is a change of subject, and may indicate a change of scene. There is nothing unlikely in the supposition that the earlier words were spoken near the lake, and that the scene now shifts to the synagogue. Yet as the dialogue flows on, it appears that Jesus' opponents are the same as in the previous section. It is unusual to find the expression "the Jews" used of Galileans. More usually it is the Jews of Jerusalem (see on 1:19). But the primary idea is that of the Jews, especially the leading Jews, in opposition to Jesus, so, while it is unusual, it is not out of place to have the expression used of Galilean Jews. "Grumble" indicates discontent.¹¹¹ It is the confused sound that runs through a crowd when the people are angry and in opposition. Their words are not an accurate quotation of what Jesus has said,¹¹² but they do give his meaning.

42 The first question is another example of the Evangelist's irony. Had the Jews known the truth about Jesus' parentage,¹¹³ as they claim, they would have perceived that it illustrates vividly the truth he is here expounding. "We" is emphatic. These people feel that, whatever be the case with others, they can show out of their own personal knowledge that Jesus' statement is false. They do not stop to question their assumptions that because Jesus was lowly, and because he was well known to them, therefore he could not have been from heaven.¹¹⁴ They fasten their attention on his claim to have come from heaven,¹¹⁵ and not on that to give life. "Now" means "after all the years he has lived like anyone else." For the pattern of misunderstanding see on 2:20.

43-44 Jesus bids them cease their grumbling among themselves; that is not the way to learn divine truth. Then he repeats the saying of verse 37, but in a slightly stronger form. Now he says that no one "can" come unless the Father draws him. The thought of the divine initiative in salvation is one of the great doctrines of this Gospel,¹¹⁶ and indeed of the Christian faith. People like to feel independent. They think that they come or that they can come to Jesus entirely of their own volition. Jesus assures us that this is an utter impossibility. No one, no one at all, can come unless the Father draws him. "This is so because it is impossible that my perceptions, distorted as they are by the fact that I make myself the center of my world, could of themselves recognize and receive the presence of God in this man" (Newbigin). The impossibility was implied in the former statement, but it is explicit here. And even when talking of this subject Jesus refers to the Father as sending him.¹¹⁷ Not for one moment does he lose his sense of mission. For the third time he refers to his future activity of raising up his people at the last day.

45 The same truth is put in another way. To show that this is some-thing in the plan of God Jesus quotes from Isaiah 54:13 (or perhaps Jer. 31:34).¹¹⁸ God will teach his people himself, that is he will teach them within their hearts.¹¹⁹ Only those who are taught in this fashion come to Jesus. But he makes it quite clear that all those who are taught in this way, who hear God, and learn what they hear, do come to him. Haenchen cites Bultmann's interpretation of the passage: "any man is free to be among those drawn by the Father," and rejects this with decision: "The interpretation that hangs everything finally on the free decision of man turns the sense of the text into its opposite" (p. 292). This is surely correct.

46 This might be misunderstood as implying that those who have heard God have also seen him.¹²⁰ All the more is this the case in the light of the words: "You have never heard his voice nor seen his form" (5:37). This saying might perhaps have been understood to mean that hearing and seeing are firmly linked. To hear him would then guarantee seeing him. This is not the case. As in 1:18, it is insisted that no person has ever seen God. There the exception is described as "God the only Son," here "the one who is from God." Both expressions point to an intimate relationship between the Father and the Son shared by none else. No human has the vision of God, no one apart from the Son. The reality of intimate intercourse is stressed by the addition, "he has seen the Father."

47 For the third time in this discourse there is the solemn "I tell you the truth" (previously vv. 26 and 32; see on 1:51). Jesus' main concern is with life and how people obtain it, not with his own person. Now he solemnly repeats the way to life. For "believes" see Additional Note Ε (pp. 296-98), and for "everlasting life" see on 3:15.

48 For "the bread of life" see on v. 35. The statement stands here in isolation and simplicity, which makes it very impressive. Jesus lets his claim be seen in all its stark grandeur.

49 The crowd had earlier introduced the subject of the manna, and had intimated that they would like to have such a gift from Jesus. It was this that brought forth the great saying, "I am the bread of life." Now as Jesus repeats his majestic claim he goes on to point out that the manna had its limitations. It was food for the body, but it was no more. Those who ate it died in due course.¹²¹

50 By contrast, Jesus offers bread that brings the life for which there is no death. This bread is not of earthly but of heavenly origin. And when anyone once takes it ("eat" is in the aorist tense, of the once-for-all action of receiving Christ), he will not die. "Died" in the previous verse referred to physical death; here the same verb refers to spiritual death. Anyone who partakes of Christ has the life that is eternal.

51 Once again Jesus refers to himself as bread, this time as "living bread" (cf. 1:4; 5:26). "Came down" is in the aorist, pointing to the single act of the incarnation. As in the previous verse, "eats" (aorist tense) points to the act of appropriating Christ.¹²² Anyone who takes this decisive action will live forever, the positive statement balancing the negative of the previous verse. In the manner of verse 35 this constitutes an invitation to eat. In a very startling statement Jesus defines the bread that he will give as his flesh. The future, "I will give," is not a general statement but looks to the gift that would be made on Calvary.¹²³ Those who understand the verse of the incarnation or the like usually ignore the tense, but it is difficult to understand how it can fit into their theories. "Flesh" is a striking word. In distinction from "my body" or "myself" it puts marked emphasis on the physical side of life. It is a strong word and one bound to attract attention. Its almost crude forcefulness rivets attention on the historical fact that Jesus did give himself for others. He is not speaking simply of a moving idea. Many commentators speak as though the word "flesh" self-evidently marked a reference to Holy Communion.¹²⁴ It, of course, does nothing of the sort. The word is not found in tne narratives of the institution, nor in 1 Corinthians 10 or 11 in connection with the sacrament. Nor is it common in the Fathers¹²⁵ in this sense. The usual word in sacramental usage is "body." The last words of the verse bring before us once more the truth that the mission of Jesus is

universal. He did not come to minister to the Jews only. When he gave his flesh it would be "for the life of the world."¹²⁶

6. Eating the Flesh and Drinking the Blood (6:52-59)

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Our forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

This is the section of the discourse that is claimed most confidently to refer to the Holy Communion. The language of eating the flesh and drinking the blood is said to be explicable only, or at least most naturally, in terms of the sacrament. But is this so? Surely not! The objections already urged remain, and the very strength of the language is against it. The eating and drinking spoken of are the means of bringing eternal life (v. 54), and they are absolutely unqualified. Who is going to argue seriously that the one thing necessary for eternal life is to receive Holy Communion? Nothing is said, for example, about faith; is it not necessary to believe if we are to have life? Again, "flesh¹²⁷ is not commonly used with reference to the sacrament. In every other New Testament passage referring to it the word is "body." Ryle further points out that to take the view we are opposing "is to interpose a bodily act between the soul of man and salvation. This is a thing for which there is no precedent in Scripture. The only things without which we cannot be saved are repentance and faith." I am not contending that we cannot apply the passage helpfully to the sacrament. But I very strongly doubt whether this is the primary meaning. It seems much better to think of the words as meaning first and foremost the appropriation of Christ.¹²⁸

52 Not unnaturally the Jews are perplexed, for the saying is not an easy one. "Began to argue sharply"¹²⁹ is not quite what we would have expected. It implies that some were strongly for Jesus, though the following narrative makes it clear that they must have been outnumbered. Their question indicates that they do not understand how it is possible for Jesus to give them his flesh. The mechanics of it bother them.¹³⁰ For the pattern of misunderstanding a saying of Jesus see on 2:20.

53 Jesus does not retract one iota of his statement. He prefixes his reply with the solemn "I tell you the truth" (used for the fourth time in this chapter; see vv. 26, 32, 47 and the note on 1:51). What he says is thus shown to be deliberate and important; he wants there to be no doubt about it. He adds to what he has said before. He has spoken about eating bread that is himself, and as giving his flesh. Now he speaks explicitly of eating his flesh, and he adds the drinking of his blood,¹³¹ an idea that would be especially abhorrent to Jews because they were forbidden to partake of blood (Gen. 9:4, etc.).¹³² Both "eat" and "drink" are aorists, denoting once-for-all action, not a repeated eating and drinking, such as would be appropriate to the sacrament. And this eating and drinking are absolutely necessary for eternal life. Those who do not eat and drink in the way Jesus says have no life. Eating and drinking Christ's flesh and blood thus appears to be a very graphic way of saying that people must take Christ into their innermost being. There is, moreover, a reference to the death of Christ, as we saw on verse 51. Flesh and blood in separation point to death.¹³³ The words, then, are a cryptic allusion to the atoning death that Jesus would die, together with a challenge to enter the closest and most intimate relation with him.¹³⁴ They are to be interpreted in the light of verse 47.

54 What has been put negatively is now stated positively in a way typical of this Gospel. Anyone who eats Christ's flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life,¹³⁵ and he will be raised up by Christ at the last day. The word for "eats" is different¹³⁶ from that used previously, and it is used again in the following verses (56, 57, 58; elsewhere in the New Testament only in Matt. 24:38; John 13:18). It properly applies to somewhat noisy feeding (like "munch" or "crunch"). There is often the notion of eating with enjoyment (so in Matt. 24:38). It is a startling word in this context, and stresses the actuality of the partaking of Christ that is in mind. Some suggest that it points to a literal feeding and therefore to the sacrament. But this does not follow. There is no logic in saying: "The verb is used of literal eating. Therefore eating the flesh of Christ must mean eating the communion bread.¹³⁷ On any showing there is a symbolic element in the "eating," and it is better to understand it, as in the earlier reference, to receiving Christ. The continuing reference to Christ's raising up the believer at the last day is interesting. There may be more to eternal life than life in the age to come, but life in that age is certainly prominent.

55 Other things were not food in the true sense. Jesus has already pointed out that the fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and they died (v. 49). His opponents had altogether the wrong idea of what constituted true bread. With Christ's signs before them they still sought their sustenance apart from him. This verse is an emphatic statement that true food and drink for our deepest needs are to be found in Christ, and by implication in him alone.

56 The close connection between fellowship with Christ and the activity of eating the flesh and drinking the blood is stressed, since Jesus gives what is almost a definition of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Anyone who so eats and drinks "remains" (the tense is continuous; it denotes more than fleeting contact) in Christ. There is the closest possible relationship so that the eater is in Christ and Christ is in the eater. The thought of abiding is a prominent one in John. It reminds us that the believer enters no temporary state, but a permanent one, with fellowship with the Lord as the predominant note.

57 Jesus comes back to his mission: he had been sent by "the living Father," where the participle stresses the active quality of life that inheres in the Father. "Because of" is patient of two meanings¹³⁸ and probably both are in mind here. First of all, the life of the Son is bound up with that of the Father (it is 5:26 in another form): the Son has no life apart from the Father. And, second, the Son lives for the Father. To do the Father's will is his very meat (4:34). This forms an analogy whereby the effect of feeding on Christ may be gauged. Notice that no longer does he speak of eating the flesh and drinking the blood, but simply of eating him. The tense is continuous. This way of putting it makes it clearer than ever that it is the taking of Christ within oneself that is meant by the metaphor of eating and drinking.¹³⁹ Anyone¹⁴⁰ who so receives Christ will have the life that comes only from Christ. And that person will live only for Christ; nothing else will matter. Notice that Christ alone has direct access to the Father. Believers receive life only mediately through Christ.

58 The thought of verses 49-50 is repeated in another form. Jesus' opponents had expressed their respect for the manna, and, indeed, had challenged him to produce it. Jesus now reminds them that, wonderful though the manna had been, there had been no life-giving quality in it. Those who ate of it died like other people. But the bread of which he has been speaking, the bread that really came down from heaven,¹⁴¹ is different. Anyone who eats of it will not die like others. That person will, to be sure, pass through the gate of death but will live eternally. It is likely that the singular "he who feeds" in contrast with the plural "Our forefathers" is significant. At any rate throughout the discourse the singular is regularly used to denote the person who is in right relationship with Jesus. Faith must be personal. There is more to it than being a member of a group.

59 John adds a note locating the speech he has just recorded; it took place "in synagogue" (cf. our "in church"), as Jesus taught in Capernaum. The absence of the article in the Greek seems to indicate an assembly for worship, not simply the building.

7. Words That Are Spirit and Life (6:60-66)

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" 61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit^a and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him. "66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

a. 63 Or Spirit

During the first part of Jesus' ministry people were attracted by his teaching and flocked around him. Many attached themselves to him, some of them wholeheartedly, some very loosely. But then came a time when their allegiance was tested. The real nature of the claims of Jesus became apparent. The true disciples were sifted from the false, the deep from the shallow. We see something of this process here. Hitherto there has been the dominant theme of witness. Christ has been attested in one way and another and many people have come to hear him. But in this past discourse it has become painfully obvious that he is not simply another rabbi. His claims for himself and his claims on his followers are such that it is no longer possible to follow him unreflectively and without committing oneself. So John tells us of what happened, not now among his enemies, but among his professed adherents, his disciples (v. 60), and the Twelve (v. 67).

60 For "his disciples" see on 2:2; a wider circle than the Twelve is meant. The reference is to those who had attached themselves loosely to Jesus, but without giving much consideration to the implications of their act. "Hard"¹⁴² means not so much that the saying is hard to understand as that it is hard to accept, as the following words make clear. "Accept" (lit. "hear") means "hear with appreciation," "take in" (see on 5:25).¹⁴³ The disciples no doubt found the discourse mysterious. But it was the part they could under-stand rather than the part they could not that bothered them.¹⁴⁴

61 This is the occasion of another demonstration of Jesus' unusual powers of knowledge (see on 2:24; 4:18). Jesus knew what was going on in his disciples. Whereas earlier the grumblers were the opponents of Jesus, "the Jews" (v. 41), now they are his own followers. They do not like the sound of what he is saying at all. So he asks them, "Does this offend you?¹⁴⁵ His choice of words indicates that he knew exactly how it was with them.

62 The sentence is unfinished, and there is no certainty as to how we should complete it. The meaning might be "If, then, you see the Son of man ascending to where he was before, will you not be convinced?" Or we could supply as the last clause, "will you not then be even more offended?" On the former view the ascension will be the means of ending the difficulty for those who see it. When they see Christ ascend they will know that the eating and drinking are spiritual phenomena, to be interpreted in the light of Jesus' heavenly status. To this it is objected that John does not record the ascension (though he does allude to it, 20:17). In any case in the Lukan account the ascension was witnessed by only a very small band of intimate disciples. It was evidently not meant to be seen by a large group as a means of comfort and a help to them. The other view is that "ascending" is not to be isolated from the cross. John's previous reference to Christ as ascending (3:13) led immediately to one to the "lifting up" on the cross. On this view the ascension is to be seen as the culmination of the entire series of events that was inaugurated by the crucifixion. If people stumbled at the discourse, much more would they stumble at the cross! To them it would seem like defeat, like a going down to Sheol. In reality it would be victory, the first in a series of events that would bring Christ back to his Father. Difficulties here are the word used for "ascending¹⁴⁶ and John's later reference to ascension subsequent to the cross (20:17). Neither view is really satisfactory, and it may well be that both are required. The form of question does seem to favor the view that a severe testing is in store,¹⁴⁷ and this will be the cross. But the cross does not stand alone. The crucifixion and resurrection and ascension are linked in an unbreakable sequence. The one implies the others. And what to the shallow-minded is a cause of stumbling and going away becomes to the believer the deepest cause of comfort and assurance.¹⁴⁸ Where he was before" implies Christ's preexistence. It is one and the same Person who was with the Father, who became incarnate, and who would in due course return whence he came.

63 The thought of this verse is complex. There is a contrast between "the Spirit" who "gives life"¹⁴⁹ and "the flesh" that "counts for nothing."¹⁵⁰ The antithesis between flesh and spirit would lead us to think that the human spirit is meant. But the human spirit is not life-giving. There is unquestionably a reference to the Holy Spirit, the Life-giver. This is the case in John's previous contrast between flesh and spirit in 3:6 (cf. also the reference to the Spirit in the discourse on living water in ch. 4 and in 7:38-39). Probably there is also a contrast between the letter of the words and the spirit (in the manner of 2 Cor. 3:6). A woodenly literal, flesh-dominated manner of looking at Jesus' words¹⁵¹ will not yield the correct interpretation. That is granted only to the spiritual, to Spirit-dominated people. Such words cannot be comprehended by "the flesh" (for this term see on 3:6). The word may be used in this Gospel in a good sense; after all the Word became flesh (1:14), and in this chapter we have seen several references to the flesh of Jesus. But here it is the limitations of fleshly life that is in mind. Those whose lives are taken up with material things, things of the here and now, cannot understand Jesus' teaching. People whose horizon is bounded by the things of earth cut themselves off from his teaching and their kind of living "counts for nothing." Only as the life-giving Spirit informs us may we understand these words. This applies to much more than the words of this discourse. In his teaching as a whole Jesus emphasizes the Spirit, though specific references to the Spirit are not frequent. He is not concerned with the good that people may produce by the best efforts of the flesh, their earthly nature. All his teaching presupposes the need for a work of the divine Spirit within us. Jesus goes on to equate his words with spirit and with life.¹⁵² This does not mean that we should indulge in whole-hearted allegorical interpretation. It means that Jesus' words are creative utterances (cf. the words of God in Gen. 1). They not only tell of life; they bring life (cf. 5:24). Life is here connected with Christ's words, whereas earlier in the chapter life comes from eating the flesh and drinking the blood. There is no contradiction, for we must not separate the words and deeds of Christ.¹⁵³ His words point us to the deed on Calvary whereby life is won for believers. Those words and that deed are one.

64 Despite the life-giving quality of Jesus' words some people do not accept them (or him). In contrast with what would have been expected ("but" is a strong adversative)¹⁵⁴ some of the hearers, though in a sense disciples, do not believe (see Additional Note E, pp. 296-98); in verses 64 and 65, as in verse 35, believing and coming to Jesus are parallel expressions. The truths of which Jesus has been speaking are accessible only to faith. They are hid forever from such as Judas. Human wisdom can never win an understanding of them, for only those in whom God works come to Christ. John uses this as the opportunity to tell us that Jesus knew those who would believe and those who would not. This was not simply a matter of observation, but right from the beginning¹⁵⁵ he knew. It is a little curious that John should mention also that Jesus knew that Judas would be¹⁵⁶ his betrayer.¹⁵⁷ Perhaps this arises from a combination of Jesus' more than human knowledge and the reference to the passion that underlies the preceding discourse (see v. 51). It is in keeping with John's picture of Jesus as going on his serene way well aware of all that concerned him, and of the crucifixion as divinely predestined.

65 The predestinarian strain continues. John knows of both the divine act (v. 44) and the human response (which he brings out with the verb "believe"); here he emphasizes the divine. Jesus has already told his hearers that it is only as the Father draws anyone that that person can come to him (v. 44). He explains now¹⁵⁸ that he had told them this so that they might not be perplexed when some did not believe. Unbelief is to be expected apart from a divine miracle. It is impossible for anyone to come to Christ unless the Father gives the grace to do so. Left to themselves, sinners prefer their sin. Conversion is always a work of grace.

66 "From this time" might also be rendered "for this reason,"¹⁵⁹ or John may mean both. A large number of "his disciples" went away, not only from the synagogue where Jesus had been teaching, but from all that discipleship means.¹⁶⁰ The events of this chapter had made it all too clear that following him meant something different from anything they had anticipated. Nothing is said to give us a clear idea of their views, but the probability is that they were interested in a messianic kingdom in line with the general expectation. Instead they found themselves invited to believe, to receive Christ, to eat his flesh and drink his blood, to enter into that eternal life which he proclaimed. It was too much for them. They rejected these words of life. They went back. "Followed," more literally "walked," is a revealing little glimpse of the wandering nature of Jesus' ministry.

Μ. PETER'S CONFESSION (6:67-71)

67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve. 68Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God." 70Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

John brings his account of Jesus' ministry in Galilee to a close; from now on he will concentrate on Judea. This is a passage of tremendous importance. So far in this Gospel enough has been said about the claims of Jesus to make it clear that he was no run-of-the-mill claimant to messianic honors. His claims for himself and his claims on his followers are becoming clearer. At first people tended to flock around him (2:23). He had chosen to withdraw from Judea because of the problem posed by the number of those who associated themselves with his little band (4:1-3). It had looked as though he might become the head of a very popular movement. But then people began to see what Jesus really stood for and they did not like it. The preceding sections of this chapter have shown how first the multitude and then some of his disciples were repelled. Now comes the big test. What will the Twelve do? Here Peter becomes their spokesman in a magnificent declaration of allegiance and acceptance. The passage is paralleled in the Synoptics with the crisis at Caesarea Philippi (Matt. 16:13ff.).¹⁶¹ John has a typical addendum with Jesus' knowledge of Judas's role. Jesus knew what was in a man (2:25), even at the moment when Peter made his great confession on behalf of them all.

67 It is a dramatic moment as Jesus challenges the Twelve.¹⁶² They have heard the sermon. They have seen the reaction of "the Jews." They have observed the defection of many disciples. Now Jesus puts the question to them: "You do not want to leave too, do you?" The form in which the question is put shows that a negative answer is expected. Jesus confidently looks for loyalty from these men.

68-69 The question is addressed to them all, but it does not surprise us that Peter is the spokesman. He often appears in this role in the Gospels. He is impetuous, ready sometimes to jump to conclusions, and capable of incredible ineptitude (for example, his rebuke of Jesus, Matt. 16:22). But he is also capable of reaching astonishing heights. He does so now. "Lord" could mean much or little (see on 4:1). It might be no more than a polite form of address, but it might also be the proper form of addressing deity. In this context there is no doubt that it has the maximum, not the minimum meaning. Peter shows the impossibility of their forsaking Jesus by asking to whom could they go.¹⁶³ Then he shows that he has correctly understood what Jesus said in verse 63 by saying that Jesus has "words¹⁶⁴ of eternal life." No one who has come to know Jesus' life-giving word would ever forsake him. When one once knows Jesus, none else can satisfy. "And we" Peter goes on, using the emphatic pronoun: whatever be the case with the others, we, the Twelve, have made our decision. The verbs "believe and know" are both in the perfect tense, and this should be given its full force: "We have come to a place of faith and continue there. We have entered into knowledge and retain it.¹⁶⁵ "You" is also emphatic; Peter stresses Christ's place and person. "The Holy One of God" is an unusual description of Jesus; in fact, it is applied to him on only one other occasion in the New Testament, when the demon-possessed man addressed him in the synagogue in Capernaum (Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34). It is rare in the Old Testament (used of Aaron in Ps. 106:16, and cf. "your Holy One," Ps. 16:10), but it does remind us of the frequently occurring "the Holy One of Israel." There can be not the slightest doubt that the title is meant to assign to Jesus the highest possible place. It sets him with God and not man.¹⁶⁶

70-71 Jesus did not allow himself to be carried away by Peter's enthusiasm. He knew what was in man. He knew that, well meant as they were, Peter's words overstated the case. He himself had chosen the Twelve. and of this inner circle, one would not merely go away as the fringe disciples had gone. He was "a devil," and in the spirit of Satan he would actively oppose what Jesus stood for. John adds an explanatory note. The words apply to Judas, whose name is given in full with solemnity.¹⁶⁷ For "betray" see on verse 64. Here it is preceded by an auxiliary that adds a little touch of certainty.¹⁶⁸ The poignancy of it all is underlined with the addition, "one of the Twelve" (NIVs "though" is an addition to bring out the meaning). It is worth noticing that none of the Evangelists indulges in invective when they speak of Judas's act of treachery. They simply record the fact and let it speak for itself. At most, as here, they mention that he was one of the inner circle, but even then they let their readers work out for themselves how that adds to the enormity of his crime. All four Evangelists speak of Judas as the traitor when they first mention him (Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16).

————————————————————

1. Augustine marvels at the blindness of those who discern God's miracles only in the unusual: "For certainly the government of the whole world is a greater miracle than the satisfying of five thousand men with five loaves; and yet no man wonders at the former; but the latter men wonder at, not because it is greater, but because it is rare. For who even now feeds the whole world, but He who creates the cornfield from a few grains?" (24.1; p. 158).

2. JThS, n.s. III (1952), pp. 161-71.

3. The Miracle Stories of the Gospels (London, 1952), pp. 96-97.

4. Temple brings out the implications of the narrative for Christology: "It is clear that every Evangelist supposed our Lord to have wrought a creative act; and for myself I have no doubt that this is what occurred. This, however, is credible only if St. John is right in his doctrine of our Lord's Person. If the Lord was indeed God incarnate, the story presents no insuperable difficulties. But of course such a creative act is quite incredible if He is other or less than God incarnate."

5. Cf. also the passages cited in SBk, IV, pp. 1154ff.

6. Thus in 2 Kings and in John the loaves are said to be of barley bread (which Richardson sees as evidence that John regarded Jesus as "the new Elijah-Elisha" (An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament [London, 1958], p. 101), whereas the Synoptists do not specify any kind of bread. The word for "servant" in LXX of 2 Kings 4:41 (immediately before our incident) is παιδάριον, which John uses of the boy with the loaves.

7. Edwin D. Johnston discusses the relationship between the Markan and the Johannine accounts and finds five items, which have every appearance of being historical, in John but not in Mark. He concludes that John's account is not derived from that of Mark, but is independent (NTS, VIII [1961-62], pp. 152ff.).

8. For a full discussion of this miracle see H. van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus (Leiden, 1965), pp. 619-37.

9. For μετὰ ταϋτα see on 2:12.

10. Josephus refers to της προς Τιβεριάδι λίμνης (Bell. 3.57; Loeb notes as v.l. προς Τιβεριάδα and Τιβεριάδος).

11. είς τά μέρη is read by D Θ, some cursives, it^b.d.e.rl geo Chry. If accepted, this reading would place the feeding to the southwest of the Lake, whereas Luke 9:10 locates it near Bethsaida, on the northeast.

12. Dodd thinks the mention of the Passover significant: "the Christian reader could hardly fail to remember that the Christian Passover was the Eucharist, and it is probable that the evangelist intended at the outset to give a hint of the eucharistic signif-icance of the narrative which follows" (IFG, p. 333). But the Christian Passover was not the Eucharist, but Christ (1 Cor. 5:7). There is no more reason for thinking that the Passover points to the Eucharist here than in 2:23. It is much simpler to hold that John mentioned the Passover because it was, in fact, near. Strachan wonders whether John represents the crowd "as receiving what the Passover could not give them." This is probably justified, for John seems to use the feasts to show how Jesus supplies what the feasts point to. Cf. Lucetta Mowry: "Christ in his signs, discourses, and religious ideas associated with each of the Jewish feasts finds a higher and absolute meaning in them. Thus Jesus is the bread of life and not the mazzah or unleavened bread" (The Biblical Archaeologist, XVII [Dec. 1954], p. 88). Similarly R. Morgan points out that John "sets the content of his message within the framework of Jewish feasts. The long discourses on manna in the sixth chapter of John find their meaning within the perspective of the Jewish Passover" (Interpretation, XI [1957], pp. 155-56). Bertil Gartner has worked out in detail the points of connection between the Passover and this chapter (John 6 and the Jewish Passover [Copenhagen, 1959]). P. Borgen criticizes Gartner (along with others) on the grounds that he does not reckon with the Torah and the theophany on Sinai as an important part of the background of this chapter (Bread from Heaven [Leiden, 1965], pp. 152-53).

13.  So, too, εγγύς is a Johannine word, occurring 11 times in this Gospel (the largest number elsewhere is 3 each in Matthew, Luke, and Acts). John uses πάσχα 10 times (7 times in Luke), and έορτή 17 times (3 times in Luke).

14.  He says, Jesus, "having lifted up his eyes ..." (NIV, "looked up"). Elsewhere in this Gospel Jesus is said to have lifted up his eyes only in prayer, at the tomb of Lazarus (11:41) and at the beginning of his high-priestly prayer (17:1).

15.  πειράζω is used here (John's one use of the verb) in the neutral sense of applying a test. It was often used of testing in a bad sense, testing with a view to failure, so that it came to mean "tempt." By contrast δοκιμάζω came to mean testing in a good sense, testing with a view to commendation, so that it came to mean "prove," "approve."

16. John brings out Jesus' certainty: αυτός sets him in contrast to Philip, !*δει speaks of knowledge not optimistic speculation, while εμελλεν gives a note of definiteness lacking in the simple future.

17.  Westcott, working on the fact that a denarius was a day's wage (Matt. 20:2), and that in normal times its purchasing power was known (eight choenixes of wheat), concludes that two hundred denarii would buy 4,800 quarts of barley, or 1,600 quarts of wheat. Attempts to render the amount into modern currency produce curious results. Goodspeed, RSV and Amplified make it forty dollars, but Berkeley makes it fifty dollars and Good News for Modern Man two hundred dollars. In the sterling area the divergence is also marked. Barclay and Weymouth have £7, Schonfield £8, Rieu, Lightfoot, and Phillips £10, Twentieth Century and NEB £20. More recent translations resist the temptation to provide a precise equivalent. GNB has "two hundred silver coins," REB "two hundred denarii," and NRSV "six months' wages." Allowing for sabbaths, the two hundred days would come to 34 weeks, so NIV is more accurate with "eight months' wages."

18.  παιδάριον (here only in the New Testament). The strict meaning cannot be insisted upon, for the word is used in LXX to describe Joseph at the age of seventeen (Gen. 37:30), and several times in Tobit 6 it refers to a young man of marriageable age. MM says it is often used in the papyri with the meaning "slave," and Moffatt translates it here as "servant." Horsley argues from the papyri that the word may mean "lad," "boy," but also "girl" or "manservant" (New Documents, I, p. 87).

19. κρίθινος, "made of barley,"is found elsewhere in the New Testament only in v. 13.

20.  Philo says of barley meal, "as a foodstuff it is of somewhat doubtful merit, suited for irrational animals and men in unhappy circumstances" (De Spec. Leg. 3.57).

21. The word is όψάριον, diminutive of δψον. Both signify what is eaten with bread, "cooked food." οψαριον thus has the meaning of a special delicacy, a tidbit (see MM), and sometimes it denotes fish. The parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels have ίχθΰς, which indicates that its meaning here is "fish." In the New Testament the word is used only by John (five times).

22. There is a change from τους άνθρώπους ("the people") to oi ἄνδρες ("the men"). It is unlikely that only men sat, the women and children remaining standing. Abbott suggests dropping oi (with WH mg.) to give the meaning, "they sat down therefore (being) men (exclusive of women) to the number of five thousand" (2009). This would agree with Matt. 14:21. Weymouth translates, "the adult men numbering about 5,000."

23.  The use of the accusative, τόν άριθμόν, according to Moulton is a survival of the classic use of the accusative of specification, whereas in the papyri and the New Testament the dative is more usual (Μ, I, p. 63).

24. There is probably no great significance in the fact that John uses the verb εύχαριστέω, whereas the Synoptists employ εύλογέω in the parallels. Apart from a quotation in 12:13 John never uses εύλογέω. Matthew and Mark use εύχαριστέω in their accounts of the feeding of the four thousand (Matt. 15:36; Mark 8:6). Though in later times εύχαριστέω came to be associated especially with the Eucharist, John's use does not express this, as we see from 11:41.

25.  Those who like to see a symbolical meaning sometimes draw attention to the gathering of believers into the unity of the church as expressed in Didache 9:4, "As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom." If John does wish to express a symbolical meaning in recording this detail it is perhaps more likely that he is thinking of the "abiding" bread that Christ supplies: "the pieces which are to be collected symbolize the bread which 'abides' and is not 'lost' " (Dodd, HTFG, p. 207).

26. The word is xόφινος, which is used in all four accounts of this miracle. It is usually thought of as a small wallet, such as might be used by a traveler to carry his provisions, σπυρίς (or σφυρίς), used in the accounts of the feeding of the four thousand, could certainly be large, for one could hold a man (Acts 9:25). But the real difference between the two words, as MM maintains, "is one of material rather than of size." The xόφινος was more rigid and probably of wicker, whereas the σπυρίς was of hemp or similar material and thus flexible. Hort has a lengthy note on the words xόφινος, σπυρίς, and σαργάνη (JTh.S, X [1909], pp. 567-71) in which he denies that a distinction is to be made on account of size. "The distinction appears to lie in the material, consistency, and use. xόφινος is a word of very comprehensive use, but seems always to denote a stiff wicker basket, σπυρίς always flexible mat-basket made of such materials as rushes" (p. 567). Juvenal apparently regards the xόφινος as typical of the Jews (3:14; 6:542), which might well arise from a Jewish habit of carrying food for reasons of ceremonial purity.

27. The perfect, τοις βεβρωκόσιν, is a little surprising. Perhaps it is used to reinforce the earlier indication of a satisfying meal. The plural έπερίσσευσαν, after a neuter plural subject, is unusual. It may be meant to emphasize the multiplicity of the fragments.

28. Lagrange points out that the Pharisees were the ones who distinguished between the Christ and the prophet in 1:21, whereas here the reference is to a group of Galileans. This may point to the explanation. The Galileans may well have had ideas different from those of the Jerusalemites, and they were perhaps influenced by the Samaritans (see on 1:21; for Jesus' messiahship on 1:41). Wayne A. Meeks maintains that "the prophetic and royal elements in the Johannine christology are not to be understood separately, but exactly in their combination and mutual interpretation" (The Prophet-King [Leiden, 1967], p. 25). For John Jesus' prophetic and kingly functions were closely connected.

29. See SBk, II, pp. 479-80.

30. πάλιν is difficult if it be understood as "again." Abbott points out that the word can mean "back" locally as well as "again" temporally. He explains this passage as" 'he retreated (lit.) back . . . to the mountain.' He had not 'retreated' before; he had 'sat' there; now He retires 'back' to the mountain" (2649 [i]). Similarly, BAGD takes the word

to mean here "go back, return" (πάλιν, la). John uses the word 43 times, which is considerably more than any other New Testament writer (Mark is next with 28 times).

31. αύτός μόνος, coming at the end of the sentence, is very emphatic. Knox renders "all alone." μόνος is another Johannine word; it occurs 9 times in this Gospel, the most in any New Testament book.

32. Matthew and Mark tell us that Jesus withdrew to pray. But, as Bernard points out, such a motive is not at all inconsistent with that given by John. Again, Matthew and Mark both say that Jesus dismissed the crowds. This, however, does not exclude the possibility that "some, more obstinate and excited than the rest, would not leave" (Bernard).

33. This is another indication that this Gospel is early, or at least that it is faithful to the facts. At the end of the first century, when Christianity was coming into conflict with the state, there would be no temptation to invent and little inclination to record that one result of Jesus' "signs" was that people wanted to make a king out of him.

34. Cf. Barrett: "That he meant to record a miracle, and not that Jesus waded intothe sea a few yards from the beach, seems certain" (p. 279). And again, "There can be little doubt that both Mark and John, whether or not they used the best possible Greek, intended to record a miracle" (p. 281).

35. For example, MacGregor comments on the story's "fitness to serve as an introduction to the sacramental discourse on 'the bread of life.' The miracle in part meets the objection of verses 52 and 60, by hinting that Jesus' corporeality was of a peculiar kind that transcended the limits both of gravity and of space." Similarly Wright: " I f . . .

in the discourse that follows, the author is seeking to express the real mind of Jesus as to wherein true eucharistic feeding consists, it is exceedingly suggestive that he prefaces it with a narrative pregnant with the allegorical thought that Jesus is to be found when least expected." Even if one has doubts about the application of the discourse to the Eucharist,

it still follows that this passage makes a suitable introduction to the later part of the chapter. Morgan points out that it was a miracle seen by the disciples only. He suggests that it is Jesus' way of answering the disappointment they must have felt when he refused to be made king. "So He gave them a demonstration of His present Kingship, and that in the

realm of Nature. It was as though He had said, I have refused to be crowned King upon the basis of bread, but make no mistake, I am King in every realm; King in the realm of Nature, contrary winds cannot hinder Me; the tossing sea cannot overwhelm Me. I am King."

36. ήρχοντο points to a continuity, "they were in process of crossing," unless it is conative, "they were trying to cross."

37. The impression left is that the voyage began shortly before or after darkness set in. Mark says that the walking on the sea took place "about the fourth watch of the night" (Mark 6:48), that is toward dawn (the fourth watch was about 3 a.m.-6 a.m.). The storm had made the four-mile crossing so difficult that it took practically all night.

38. Hendriksen thinks the reason for this way of expressing it is that the Evangelist, writing long after the event, presupposes that his readers will have in their minds the story of Jesus' coming to the disciples: "that coming of Jesus about which you have read in the other Gospels happened later during this same night." But Godet, writing of a similar view, says, "this sense seems quite unnatural."

39. For the way in which sudden storms arise on the lake, and for a description of one such, see W. M. Thomson, The Land and the Book (London, 1880), pp. 374-75.

40. έληλακότες may possibly imply this. It is used of a demon "driving" a demoniac into the wilderness (Luke 8:29). There is the thought of a compulsion. LS gives the meaning as "drive, set in motion."

41. Α στάδιον was about 600 feet (according to LS, 606 3/4 feet). The greatest breadth of the lake is 61 στάδια, but they were not crossing at the greatest breadth. They were apparently going from the northeast to the northwest, and the distance, depending on their exact points of departure and arrival, would have been much less.

42. Mark says, "the boat was in the middle of the lake" (Mark 6:47). But this does not pinpoint the location as exactly in the center of the lake. It simply means that they were some distance from the shore.

43. It is natural to take έπΐ της θαλάσσης to mean "on the lake," and not "by the shore" as Bernard, Barclay, and others do. Bernard understands the incident in this way:"when the boat got into the shallow water near the western shore, the disciples saw Jesus in the uncertain light walking by the lake, and were frightened, not being sure what they

saw." He thinks that "to read έπϊ τήν θαλάσσαν would indicate beyond question that Jesus literally 'walked on the sea.' " This latter point is contradicted by the fact that precisely this construction is used in verse 16, where the meaning is that the disciples came to the seashore. That the construction with the genitive can mean "by the lake" is clear from its

use in 21:1. But that is not its only meaning, and here the context puts it beyond reasonable doubt that the meaning is "on" and not "by" the lake. Mark employs the same expression as does John, and there the context leaves no doubt that it means "on" the lake. Moule takes the genitive here to mean much the same as the accusative in Matt. 14:25 (IBNTG,

p. 50). In a similar construction in John 17:4 έπι της γης can mean only "on" (not "by") the earth.

44. Έγώ είμι is often the style of deity, especially in the Greek Old Testament. Undoubtedly such a meaning is conveyed in some places in this Gospel (e.g., 8:58). But here it is primarily a means of self-identification. What else would he say? Dodd, however, can say, " i t seems more than probable that it is to be understood here as elsewhere as the equivalent of the divine name , I AM" (IFG, p. 345). Schnackenburg finds the story marked "by the authoritative 'It is I', which acquired a mysterious depth from the epiphany on the lake" and which continued to sound in "the revelatory discourse" that follows (Π, p. 11). Abbott denies that the expression means "It is I , " and brings evidence to support the meaning " I am the Saviour" (2220-22). Bultmann has a long note on the expression (pp. 225-26).

45. McClymont thinks the meaning may be "that the vessel went straight to its destination, and that the remaining mile or two seemed as nothing to the astonished and rejoicing disciples." D. F. Hill suggests that the boat was near the land and the meaning may be " 'He wanted to go beside them, that is, walking parallel at the same rate as they were rowing" (ET, 99 [1987-88], p. 269).

46. Cf. Godet, "One can scarcely imagine, indeed, that, after an act of power so magnificent and so kingly as Jesus' walking on the waters. He should have seated Himself in the boat, and the voyage should have been laboriously continued by the stroke of the oar. At the moment when Jesus set His foot on the boat, He communicated to it, as He has just done for Peter, the force victorious over gravity and space, which had just been so strikingly displayed on His own person."

47.  Some scholars prefer to think of various strata in the narrative and regard it as it stands as self-contradictory. Of such views Hoskyns says: "The dislocation of the discourse on the assumption that it is possible to separate an original stratum from later interpolations is only a learned method of saying that a scholar is unable to penetrate the author's meaning, and prefers to substitute two or more disjointed fragments for one homogeneous whole" (Detached Note, p. 305).

48.  The reason for this omission is far from clear. J. Jeremias thinks that John "consciously omitted the account of the Last Supper because he did not want to disclose the sacred formula to the heathen" (The Eucharistic Words of Jesus [Oxford, 1955], p. 73). He rejects other explanations, such as that John wrote "before it was possible to speak of a Christian Eucharist" (G. Kittel), or that he "rejected the Eucharist or regarded it as superfluous" (R. Bultmann), or that he "did not connect the institution of the Eucharist with the Last Supper, but with the feeding of the five thousand" (H. Windisch and E. Loh-meyer). Perhaps better than any is the possibility that John was confronted with Christians who overstressed participation in the sacrament, and that he accordingly did not even mention the institution. But there is no evidence, and all this is conjecture.

49.  It is perhaps worth noting that this interpretation is not early. Cf. M. Wiles, "The Eucharistic interpretation of this passage is so familiar to us that it comes as something of a surprise to find that it takes a comparatively subordinate place in the earliest exegesis, especially from Alexandria" (The Spiritual Gospel [Cambridge, 1960], p. 52). Brown cites Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius as specific examples of patristic exegetes who interpreted the whole passage spiritually, not with reference to the Eucharist.

50.  O. Cullmann regards the chapter as practically a demonstration of the truth of his method (Early Christian Worship [London, 1954], pp. 93ff). The discourse refers to the Lord's Supper, and the miracle points to the discourse,without mentioning the sacra-ment; therefore other miracles should be taken as pointing to the sacraments. Characteris-tically Cullmann does not cite evidence for and against. He treats the sacramental reference as axiomatic (though he does notice some who disagree with his view). In particular he does not notice the implications of taking verse 53 as meaning the sacrament.

51. The Eastern Church, showing an unexpectedly logical attitude at this point, has carried on the practice of infant communion. But I do not think that even that Church goes as far as to say that no one who has not received communion can be saved. But Jesus says bluntly that, apart from the eating and drinking of which he speaks, there is no salvation. Richardson is one who does carry to its logical conclusion the view that the chapter refers to the sacrament, saying that the eucharist "is the indispensable means of salvation (John 6.53; 15.4f.). It is constitutive of the Christian community itself, and where there is no Eucharist there is no Church of Christ" (An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, p. 377); "In the Eucharist, St John is saying, the life-giving Spirit of Christ is received; that is why the Eucharist is necessary to salvation" (p. 372). This is more than difficult to reconcile with the testimony of the New Testament (e.g., John 3:16). And it excludes from salvation infants and whole Christian communions like the Salvation Army and the Quakers. It is a pity that Richardson does not examine the catastrophic implications of his position.

52. Additional Note, p. 256. Later he adds: "But, on the other hand, there can be no doubt that the truth which is presented in its absolute form in these discourses is presented in a specific act and in a concrete form in the Holy Communion; and yet further that the Holy Communion is the divinely appointed means whereby men generally may realise the truth." Cf. also W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology (London, 1930), pp. 389-90.

53. Cf. Marsh, "it is very doubtful i f the discourse is about the eucharist as such" (p. 281).

54. Cf. C. H. Dodd, "the 'flesh and blood' of Christ (all that He is, offered in complete self-sacrifice) are given to nourish the inner life of men. His gift of bread to the hungry was a 'sign,' or symbol, of the greater gift of spiritual life" (How to Read the Gospels [London, 1944], p. 26).

55. Odeberg, FG, p. 239. He goes on to say, "with this understanding of the meaning of the discourse it is obvious, that no part of the discourse, — still less the whole of it — can primarily refer to the sacrament of the Eucharist. In fact, one who understands the words of the eating and drinking of the flesh and blood to refer to the bread and wine of the Eucharist takes exactly the mistaken view of which Nicodemus in ch 3 and the 'Jews' here are made the exponents, viz. that J's (i.e. Jesus') realistic expressions refer to objects of the terrestrial world instead of to objects of the celestial world."

56. NTS, XVII (1970-71), pp. 337-38.

57. C. F. Nolloth speaks of Jesus as having in this discourse "laid down the meaning and necessity of that union with Himself of which the Sacrament was to be the chief effectual sign and means" (The Fourth Evangelist [London, 1925], p. 120).

58. Wright cites F. D. Maurice: " I f you ask me, then, whether he is speaking of the Eucharist here, I should say, 'No.' I f you ask me where I can learn the meaning of the eucharist, I should say, 'Nowhere so well as here' " (p. 180).

59.  "Are we to suppose that just a year before the Eucharist was instituted, the Founder of this, the most distinctive element of Christian worship, had no thought of it in His mind? . . . That the audience at Capernaum could not thus understand Christ's words is nothing to the point: He was speaking less to them than to Christians throughout all ages" (Plummer). This writer goes on to say, however, "But while it is incredible that there is no reference to the Eucharist in this discourse, it is equally incredible that the reference is solely or primarily to the Eucharist. . . . Rather the discourse refers to all the various channels of grace by means of which Christ imparts Himself to the believing soul: and who will dare to limit these in number or efficacy?" Bailey argues for the historicity of the discourse: "if we believe that Jesus often spoke words which He knew were too deep for all His hearers, or even for any of them at the time of utterance (see xvi.13), and if we believe, with S. John, that the whole divine plan of salvation lay open to His thoughts from the beginning, we cannot categorically deny that we are given the discourse just as it was first delivered."

60.  "Without minimizing the value of the Sacrament, the Evangelist rejects a conception of it that would isolate the presence of Christ in the Sacrament from His presence in the everyday life of the believer" (Strachan).

61.  It is often said that the Fathers unanimously interpret this chapter of the sacrament. But long ago Daniel Waterland conducted a thorough examination of the teaching of the Fathers on John 6 (A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist [Oxford, 1880], ch. 6). His conclusion is that, while there is some variety, "what prevailed most, and was the general sentiment wherein they united, was, that Christ himself is properly and primarily our bread of life, considered as the Word made flesh, as God incarnate, and dying for us" (p. 123). Any reference to "sacraments, or doctrines or any holy service" he finds to be of secondary importance. See also the discussion in chapter Π of A. J. MacDonald (ed.), The Evangelical Doctrine of Holy Communion (London, 1936).

62.  NTS, 39 (1993), p. 22. Perry finds "this earliest type of eucharistic practice" also in the Didache (NTS, 39, p. 29).

63. NTS, 39, p. 29.

64. Ryle holds it unnatural to think of the crowd as greeting Jesus in the synagogue in the way reported here. He thinks the first pan of the address was delivered at the landing place or somewhere else near the city, with a break at verse 40, and the remainder in the synagogue. This is possible, but there is no evidence.

65. It is possible, as Bernard thinks, that we are to distinguish between πλοιάριον and πλοΐον (NIVrenders the former "boat" and the latter " i t " ) . He speaks of the πλοιάριον as "the skiff or dinghy belonging to the πλοϊον," and the latter as being "the big fishing boat, able to carry Jesus and the Twelve." MM, however, holds that πλοιάριον is "hardly to be distinguished from the ordinary πλοϊον." Most commentators agree. Rieu manages to get three translations out of the two words: "only one dinghy was there. . . . Jesus did not board the ship . . . small boats from Tiberias."

66. The opening word of this verse could be accented άλλά, "but, however" (so REB) or άλλα, "other" (GNB),

67. The words εύχαριστήσαντος τοϋ Κυρίου are omitted by some MSS D 69 pc a d e syrsx. These are mostly Western. Since the Western text tends to insert rather than to omit, and since there seems to be no reason for omitting these words, i f original, it may be that they are not part of the true text.

68. The perfect γέγονας is somewhat unexpected after πότε. We might have anticipated an aorist. Perhaps there is a conflation of two thoughts: "When did you come?" and "How long have you been here?"

69. Murray says, "When they find Jesus they naturally ask how He had got there." Barclay makes a similar assumption. It does seem to us the natural question, but it is not the one they ask. Chrysostom sees in their failure to ask the right question an indication that they did not seek "to understand so great a sign" (43.1; p. 156).

70. Barrett points out that Jesus' hearers had certainly perceived that a miracle had taken place. They "are happy to obtain unexpected supplies of free bread, and willing to accord the highest honours to the supplier as a miracle worker; but they do not perceive the parabolic significance of what he does, that the loaves he distributes are the sign of heavenly food, the bread of eternal life . . . a sign is not a mere portent but a symbolic representation of the truth of the Gospel." So Morgan, "They had seen the wonder wrought, and the power put forth; but they had not caught the significance of the thing." Calvin goes a little further: "Just as today many would eagerly embrace the Gospel i f it were empty of the bitterness of the cross and only brought carnal delights."

71. Lange (cited in Godet).

72. The verb χορτάζω applied originally to the coarse feeding of animals. It came to be used of people (as in the Synoptic accounts of the feeding of the multitude, Matt. 14:20; Mark 6:42; Luke 9:17). But John earlier used ένεπλήσθησαν of the multitude's satiety (v. 12), and his change of word may be significant.

73. Ryle comments on this motive: "Perhaps those only can thoroughly understand it who have seen much of the poor in pauperized rural parishes. They can understand the immense importance which a poor man attaches to having his belly filled."

74. The word used is βρώσις, which properly denotes the act of eating. Here, however, it is equivalent to βρώμα, what is eaten, food (see on 4:32). On the whole expression Chrysostom compares Matt. 6:34, "Take no thought for the morrow," and this he says in a picturesque phrase means "not to be nailed to the things of this life" (44.1; p. 158).

75. τήν μένουσαν είς ζωήν αίώνιον is an unusual expression, which seems to contain two meanings: that the food, in contrast to that which perishes, remains forever, and that it also has the effect of producing a life that lasts forever. Schnackenburg notes that " In Catholic exegesis the prevailing view" has been "that these verses were an indirect reference to the Eucharist," but he produces some substantial objections. "A primary eucharistic meaning is not possible for 4:14," he concludes, "and therefore improbable for 6:27."

76. Eternal life is usually viewed in this Gospel as a present possession. The future here may point to the action of the Son on the last day (cf. v. 40). Or, as Hoskyns thinks, it may point to the atoning death of Christ, as yet in the future. I f the giving refers not to life, but to the food that abides, then that food being his flesh (v. 51), the giving is naturally thought of as yet future. See further on 1:4; 3:15.

77. If the aorist points to a particular act it will probably be Jesus' baptism. In the early church baptism was often described as a seal.

78. Westcott suggests that "the thought of Christ as an accepted sacrifice" may be what is meant. His reason is that "In the Jewish ritual the victims are examined and sealed i f perfect" and he gives as reference Mishnah, Shek. 1:5). He is followed by Hoskyns, who adds no other rabbinic reference. The view is attractive, but the passage cited says nothing about sealing perfect victims.

79. See Odeberg, FG, pp. 242-43.

80. It is found in the Manual of Discipline (1QS 4:4; DSS, p. 375), but in the sense "works done by God."

81. Hoskyns comments, "it would be to misunderstand what the Evangelist has here said, i f it were supposed that the Act of faith were an act grounded in an independent, individual decision to believe. The Act of faith is itself the work of God (v. 44, cf. Rom. xii.3). Neither the fourth Evangelist nor Saint Paul is driven finally to a Pelagian or even semi-Pelagian conception of faith." Cf. also Bernard: "The answer of Jesus contains, in small compass, the gist of the Pauline teaching about faith." Brown regards faith as "the all important work of God" (p. 265).

82. Cf. Augustine, "This is then to eat the meat. . . which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already" (25.12; p. 164).

83. For εκείνος see on 1:8.

84. The Parish Communion, ed. A. G. Hebert (London, 1957), p. 85n.

85. SBk cites a rabbinic saying that if a prophet gives "a sign and wonder then one must listen to him; but if not, then one need not listen to him."

86. Dodd sees Johannine irony: "The 'signs' which the people expect from the Messiah are mere miracles; yet when they see a miracle they fail to see the 'sign'; for to the evangelist a σημεΐον is not, in essence, a miraculous act, but a significant act, one which, for the seeing eye and the understanding mind, symbolizes eternal realities" (IFG, p. 90).

87. "Christ could produce no credential so conclusive but that the Jews would demand one more conclusive still" (MacGregor). "They were always deceiving themselves with the idea that they wanted more evidence, and pretending that i f they had this evidence they would believe. Thousands in every age do just the same. . . . The plain truth is that it is want of heart, not want of evidence, that keeps people back from Christ" (Ryle).

88. " It shall come to pass . . . that the treasury of manna shall again descend from on high, and they will eat of it in those years" (2 Bar. 29:8). Similarly in the Sibylline Oracles we read of those who inherit life in the new age "feasting on sweet bread from the starry heaven" (Frag. 3:49). A midrash expresses the idea in terms of Moses: "As the former redeemer (i.e. Moses) caused manna to descend, as it is stated, Behold, I will cause to rain bread from heaven for you (Ex. XVI,4), so will the latter Redeemer cause manna to descend, as it is stated, May he be as a rich cornfield in the land (Ps. LXXII,16)" (Eccl. Rab. 1.9; Soncino edn. p, 33). Peder Borgen shows that there is quite a complex of Jewish ideas behind this chapter, with thoughts of the Law, of the events on Mt. Sinai, and of the wisdom literature underlying much that is said (Bread from Heaven [Leiden, 1965], especially ch. 6). He says, " In John the bread from heaven has been given the life-giving functions of the Torah and wisdom" (p. 157). Jesus does perfectly what the others foreshadow. Borgen rejects the idea that the reference here is adequately explained on the basis of Jewish expectations of the manna in the messianic age, "since it ignores or minimizes the distinction between the external bread and the spiritual bread" (p. 174). That Jesus gives spiritual bread is one of the leading ideas in this discourse.

89. There may be other meanings. Among the rabbis "bread" often symbolizes the Law (see SBk on v. 35), and there could be a reference to Jesus as the true bread in contrast to the Law as the Jews understood it. Barrett notices also Torrey's suggestion that the words are a question, "Did not Moses give you bread from heaven? (Yes, indeed. But

the father gives you the true bread from heaven)."

90. For the use of άληθινός in this Gospel see on 1:9.

91. Or as "that (bread) which."

92. There are Jewish sayings that parallel this in part. They refer to the giving of the Law on Sinai as the giving of life to Israel or even to the world, e.g. " I f the earth trembled when He gave life to the world . . ." (Exod. Rab. 29.9; Soncino edn., p. 343).

93. This may be illustrated from the prophecy concerning the messianic age in 2 Bar. 29:5: "The earth also shall yield its fruit ten thousandfold and on each(?) vine there shall be a thousand branches, and each branch shall produce a thousand clusters, and each cluster produce a thousand grapes, and each grape produce a cor (about 120 gallons) of

wine."

94. J. Jeremias maintains that "The passages in the Fourth Gospel where Jesus calls Himself the bread of life (John 6.33, 35, 41, 48, 50, 51) and his Gospel bread (6.35; cf. Mark 7.27 par.) and water (John 4.10, 14; 6.35; 7.37-8), are to be understood similarly in an eschatological sense" (The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, p. 156). They point forward

to life in the age to come.

95. Cf. Calvin, "Thus unhappy men are not satisfied simply with the sin of rejecting God's promises, but throw the guilt of their unbelief on Christ."

96. πάντοτε is unexpected with the aorist. The verb implies a once-for-all gift, the

adverb that it will be with them always (there may be a glance at the gift of the manna every morning). NTV has "from now on," but this loses the sense of permanency implied in πάντοτε.

97. For this expression see Philip B. Harner, The "I Am" of the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia, 1970). In the present passage Morgan is reminded of the " I A M " that Moses heard from the burning bush. He thinks that Jesus "took the name of the burning bush, and linked it with the symbol of perfect sustenance for human life. '1 am the Bread of life.'

Thus He employed the simplest of terms, with sublimest significance." R. Kysar can say that John uses the expression "to assert the divinity of the founder of his faith . . . he uses it to claim that, when Christ speaks, it is God who speaks. . . . The words of Christ are God's words. The actions of Christ are God's actions. The human response to Christ is the

response to God" (John, The Maverick Gospel [Atlanta, 1976], p. 44).

98. έγώ εϊμι is repeated with "the bread of life" in v. 48, and with similar statements about bread in vv.41 and 51, with "the light of the world" (8:12), with "the door" (10:7, 9; NTV has "the gate"), with "the good shepherd" (10:11, 14), with "the resurrection and the life" (11:25), with "the way, and the truth, and the life" (14:6), and with "the true vine" (15:1, 5).

99. As Hendriksen points out, the use of the article in της ζωής indicates not life in general, but "the life," that is everlasting life. "Bread of life" means primarily "bread that gives life" (Goodspeed), though there will be the secondary meaning "living bread" (cf. v. 51).

100. The subjunctive is used of not hungering, ού μή πεινάση, and the indicative of never thirsting, οὺ μή διψήσει. But there does not seem to be significance in the change.

101.. In Sir. 24:21 Wisdom by contrast says, "Those who eat me will hunger for more, and those who drink me will thirst for more." That passage goes on to identify wisdom with the Law (v. 23), which may support the contention that Jewish ideas about the Law underlie this chapter. Jesus is superior to the Law and gives a satisfaction that the Law cannot. But unless we see such a reference to the Law there is no contradiction between the two sayings. Jesus is saying that people will not hunger after anything else once they have tasted of his good gift, the son of Sirach that people can never have too much of wisdom.

102. 'Αλλ'.

103. "They ask again for bread, the earth still and nothing but the earth, while He had desired, by means of this figurative repast, to offer them life, to open to them heaven!" (Godet).

104. Bernard favors the omission of με after έωράxατε with A a b e q syrs.c. Then the words refer to v. 26. I f the με be read, he finds an allusion to some unrecorded saying, as in 10:25; 11:40. Tasker also favors the omission, thinking that "The addition of the word would have seemed very natural; but the implied object of the verb in the context would appear to be the 'sign' which the disciples had recently witnessed" (GNT, p. 426). There is force in this, but it does not carry complete conviction. P. Borgen maintains that the explanation is in terms of current modes of exegesis. In v. 32 Jesus has substituted ύμῖν for αύτοῖς in the passage quoted in v. 31. He has authoritatively interpreted this Old Testament verse. Borgen thinks we should accordingly translate v. 36, "But I said 'you' because you have seen me and yet do not believe" (Bread from Heaven, p. 74). This is very attractive and may well be right.

105. MacGregor speaks of "a comprehensive neuter, the thought of the believer's individuality being thus subordinated to that of the Father's grace." Westcott reminds us that "The unbelief of the people was not a proof that the purpose of God had failed. Rather it gave occasion for declaring more fully how certainly the Son carried out the Father's

will."

106. The present tense is used here where the Son awaits. In verse 39 the perfect

δέδωκεν expresses the gift as completed in the will of the Father. For the things the Father

gives the Son see on 3:35.

107. The neuter πᾶν δ (as in v. 37), where we would have expected the masculine.

108. αναστήσω may be an aorist subjunctive dependent on ῐνα (and thus giving us part of the Father's will; cf. Schonfield, "must raise him up"), or future indicative in an independent clause ( " I will raise him up"). Concerning this raising Stauffer says, "The coming of Christ is no isolated event for John, but an historical fact which reaches out beyond itself to an explication at the end of history" (NTT, p. 43).

109. Bailey translates "contemplateth" and says that it "implies not mere vision but grasping the significance of a thing, and so it is the precursor of faith."

110. Cf. Westcott, "So far from the doctrine of the Resurrection being, as has been asserted, inconsistent with St. John's teaching on the present reality of eternal life, it would be rather true to say that this doctrine makes the necessity of the Resurrection obvious. He who feels that life is now, must feel that after death all that belongs to the essence of its present perfection must be restored, however much ennobled under new conditions of

manifestation." Aminor point is that in v. 39 all believers are included collectively, whereas in w. 40, 44 and 54 the reference is more individual.

111. We are reminded of the "grumbling" of the Israelites in the wilderness (Exod. 15:24; Num. 14:2, etc.). These people "preserve the genuine succession of unbelief" (Hoskyns). The imperfect έγόγγυζον indicates that "they kept grumbling."

112. Where Jesus used the perfect indicative καταβέβηκα, they have the aorist participle, ό καταβάς, and they link " I am the bread" directly with the reference to coming down from heaven as he does not when he identifies himself with the bread (v. 35); though cf. v. 33. Such differences are not important. See further SFG, ch. 5. It is worth noting the tenses used of Jesus' descent. The aorist (3:13; 6:41, 51, 58) points to the decisive action of the incarnation, the present (6:33, 50) to Jesus' character as the One from heaven, the perfect (6:38, 42) to the continuing result of the past act of incarnation.

113. The expression is Ίησοϋς ὁ υιός 'Ιωσήφ. In a similar expression in 1:45 there is no article. Its meaning here is probably, as Abbott suggests, "the (well-known) son of Joseph" (1970).

114. Odeberg draws attention to the Jewish idea of the divine nešama descending from heaven and joining itself to human beings. He goes on to state with precision the Jewish objection: "(1) The Jews do not reject the idea that a man appearing on earth as an earthly being could be descended from heaven; they maintained that Elijah and other celestial figures appeared on earth and dwelt among men as earthly beings; (2) neither do they reject the idea, that a man, born of known parents, of 'woman', of 'earthly semen', could receive a Divine calling, be a messenger from God, obtain revelations from the Divine world; (3) but they rejected the idea that a man born of earthly semen could at the same time be a celestial being, of celestial origin, could have 'descended from heaven'" (FG, p. 264, n. 3).

115. Their word order puts stress on ἐx τοῦ ούρανοῦ. This differs from Jesus' word order in the earlier verses (33, 38; his preposition in the latter is ἁπό, not ἐx, but the difference does not seem significant). But he follows it subsequently (50, 51, and 58).

116. "Here is a fundamental doctrine of the Fourth Gospel, viz. that the approach of the soul to God or Christ is not initiated by the man himself, but by a movement of Divine grace" (Bernard). Barclay gives a number of examples of the use of the verb ἐλxύω in the New Testament to show that "Always there is this idea of resistance." This is surely true, and indicates that God brings people to himself although by nature they prefer sin. But curiously Barclay adds, "God can and does draw men, but man's resistance can defeat the pull of God." Not one of his examples of the verb shows the resistance as successful. Indeed we can go further. There is not one example in the New Testament of the use of this verb where the resistance is successful. Always the drawing power is triumphant, as here. Calvin speaks of "an effectual movement of the Holy Spirit, turning men from being unwilling and reluctant into willing." Luther has an interesting note on the verse in The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston (London, 1957), pp. 310-11. The verb is used in one of the sayings of Jesus in the Oxyrhyncus Papyri, but the text is mutilated. It is impossible to be sure whether it is used in the same sense as here or not. See LAE, pp. 426-28. Borgen sees the verb as a legal term, equivalent to the Hebrew (which it often renders in LXX), and which means "to take possession of" (i.e., by drawing the object to oneself). Borgen regards Jesus as the agent of the Father and understands this verse to mean, "only those of whom the sender (through the agent) takes the actual possession are received by the agent, and nobody else" (p. 161). Apart from one example in Acts, the verb is confined to this Gospel in the New Testament (5 times).

117. Cf. Godet: "the God who sends Jesus for souls, on the other hand, draws souls to Jesus. The two divine works, external and internal, answer to and complete each other. The happy moment in which they meet in the heart, and in which the will is thus gained, is that of the gift on God's part, of faith on man's part." Bultmann comments,"faith becomes possible when one abandons hold on one's own security, and to abandon one's security is nothing else than to let oneself be drawn by the Father" (p. 231).

118. The Isaiah passage seems the more likely source. Perhaps both are in mind, for "the prophets" is an unusual way to cite a passage (though cf. Matt. 2:23; 26:56; received text of Mark 1:2; Acts 13:40). It may signify the general tenor of what is written in more than one prophet, no one passage being singled out. Or the plural may be meant to point us to "the prophets" as a division of the Old Testament. In my judgment the reference is to Isa. 54:13, though whether to the Hebrew or LXX is uncertain.

119. Cf. Paul's statement that the Thessalonian Christians were θεοδίδαxτοι (1 Thess. 4:9). Odeberg maintains that this term "points to the fact that no real knowledge exists of the Divine world, that does not proceed from God, it points to the internality versus the externality; διδακτοί θεού is to be subsumed under the general γεννηθέντες έx

θεοῦ" (FG, p. 258).

120. The previous verse "must not be taken to mean that any man might enjoy a direct mystical experience of God and then, enlightened, attach himself to Jesus. Jesus only has immediate knowledge of God (τον πατέρα έώρακεν), and to others he is the mediator, since he has come forth from the presence of God (ών παρά τοϋ θεοϋ)" (Barrett). Temple speaks or "an error that must be at once repelled, the alluring peril of mysticism, according to which a man may have direct experience of unmediated communion with the infinite and eternal God. That is not so; and any experience taken to be this is wrongly interpreted. Only the Son has that direct communion with the Father."

121. J. Painter comments, "Thus 'from heaven' no longer simply indicates the origin of the bread. Rather it is an indication of the quality of the life. It is the life of the age to come that is offered by Jesus in the present" (NTS, 35 [1989], p. 440).

122. This aorist makes it difficult to understand the word as referring to the Holy Communion as some suggest.

123. "For" is ὑπέρ. Barrett examines the use of this preposition in other contexts in John: ὑπέρ των προβάτων (10:11, 15), ΰπέρ τοϋ λαοϋ (11:50), ΰπέρ τοϋ έθνους (11:51-52), ΰπέρ των φιλών αυτού (15:13), and ΰπέρ αυτών έγώ αγιάζω έμαυτόν (17:19). He concludes: "These passages show conclusively that a reference to the death of Jesus is intended — he will give his flesh in death — and suggest a sacrificial meaning." For the substitutionary force of ύπέρ in such contexts see my The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross3 (London and Grand Rapids, 1965), pp. 62-64. R. H. Lightfoot points to another important aspect of this saying, namely that it "will make clear that the Lord's language in 63235־ is not to be understood in a sense which would imply that the true bread, the bread of life which He gives, costs nothing to the Giver. On the contrary, His gift involves His death." John's use of ΰπέρ is noticeably more frequent than is that of the other Evangelists, the figures being: Matthew 5 times and Mark twice, Luke 5 times, John 13 times. It mattered to John that Jesus died ὑπέρ ήμών. Considering the wide range of meaning of ΰπέρ it is interesting to notice the way John so often uses it of death; see 10:11, 15; 11:50, 51, 52; 13:37, 38; 15:13; 17:19; 18:14 (elsewhere he has it only in 1:30; 11:4). John's fondness for the word is due to his references to Jesus' death (9 times).

124. E.g., MacGregor: "no explanation is adequate which fails to recognize that John's main purpose in thus identifying the life-giving bread with Christ's flesh is at last to bring into prominence the sacramental bearing of the whole discourse." By contrast Plumtner finds in the use of the term "flesh" evidence that the reference is not primarily sacramental: "But that the reference is not exclusively nor even directly to the Eucharist is shewn from the use of σάρξ and not σώμα." Later he says, "The primary reference therefore is to Christ's propitiatory death; the secondary reference is to all those means by which the death of Christ is appropriated, especially the Eucharist."

125. Ignatius is usually said to use σάρξ in this way, but his words should be looked at very carefully. In Rom. 7:3 he says, " I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who was of the seed of David." This might be understood of the sacrament except that he immediately adds, "and for a draught I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible" (the blood is love also in Trail. 8:1). Moreover, the words occur in a passage in which Ignatius is seeking martyrdom ( " I write to you in the midst of life, yet lusting after death"). He appears to be using a highly colored way of referring to death, when he would enter heavenly blessing. To refer the words to the sacrament, besides ignoring the context, is to make them a commonplace, scarcely worth saying. What Christian does not desire to receive the sacrament? Philad. 4:1 is clear enough, "Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ . . .)," but Philad.

11:2 (which Hoskyns, for example, cites) has nothing to do with the sacrament, the words being, "Jesus Christ, on whom their hope is set in flesh and soul and spirit." Smyrn. 6:2 speaks of allowing that "the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ," but immediately goes on to say, "which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up." Ignatius, moreover, refers to the gospel as "the flesh of Jesus" (Philad. 5:1), and again of faith as "the flesh of the Lord" (Trail. 8:1). It is clear that"flesh" for him is far from being a technical term pointing to the sacrament. In any case, we must bear in mind the verdict of such scholars as Helmut Koester, "Σάρξ does not mean the same to John and Ignatius" ("The Bultmann School of Biblical Interpretation: New Directions?" Journal for Theology and the Church, I [1965], p. 114). Justin Martyr speaks of Christ as "having been made flesh by the Word of God . . . the food which is

blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh" (Apol. 1.66). But writers like Irenaeus consistently use "body," not "flesh," of the sacrament, and so do ancient liturgies like those of Hippolytus, Serapion, St. James, etc. J. Jeremias suggests that the Aramaic behind the words of institution in the Gospels was Ήψ3 לן , which might readily be rendered in Greek by σάρξ. He regards John 6:51c as "the Johannine tradition of the word of interpretation over the bread" (The Eucharistic Words, p. 141 and n. 13). The possibility that Jesus used the Aramaic and that this might readily be rendered in Greek by σάρξ is undoubted. All that I am contending is that in point of fact, when referring to the Eucharist, the custom was to use σώμα (whatever the original Aramaic may have been), so that the occurrence of σάρξ in itself cannot be held to point to the sacrament.

126. This is another expression not easy to reconcile with the sacramental reference. On Calvary Christ gave himself "for the life of the world," but in the sacrament his gift is to the communicants there present, not to the world. It is perhaps not impossible to apply the words in some sense to the sacrament, but they refer much more naturally to the

cross.

127. See n. 125 above. 111 an Appendix on vv. 51b-58 Godet suggests that the broken loaf at the institution of the the Lord's Supper corresponds to "His body as an organism (σώμα) broken. In the discourse at Capernaum where the question is only of nourishment, according to the analogy of the multiplication of the loaves, Jesus was obliged rather to present His body as substance (σάρξ) than as an organism. This perfect propriety of the terms shows the originality and authenticity of the two forms" (II, p. 41).

128. Cf. Strachan, "Whilst the Evangelist in vv. 52-57 is using sacramental language, the emphasis and intention of his thinking is to reassert his main central theme in the Gospel, that only through faith in the risen Christ, once an historical personality, is life obtained." Or again, "The primary reference of flesh and blood is not to the sacrament, but to the demand for faith in a Christ, who became 'flesh and blood', i.e. truly man." McClymont sees a reference to the sacrificial death of Jesus, and adds: "To go further than this, however, and apply the passage exclusively to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is not warranted by anything in the discourse or its circumstances, though it is quite true that in the Lord's Supper we have the symbolic representation of the eating and drinking which is here described." Augustine maintains that our Lord "would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the fellowship of His own body and members, which is the holy Church in his predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified saints and believers."

Again, "This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him" (26.15, 18; p. 173). Johnson says that the view that finds the Eucharist here rather than in 13:lff. is "extremely odd" (p. 28). Those who apply the words to the sacrament sometimes think of this section not as a part of the original discourse but as an interpolation. See J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words, p. 73.

129. έμάχοντο. The verb is used of men fighting (Acts 7:26), and it is translated"quarrel" in 2 Tim. 2:24. Berkeley and Moffatt have "wrangled," Weymouth, "This led to an angry debate," and Bruce, "held a heated disputation."

130. So does the Person, ούτος is probably used in a somewhat contemptuous sense,"This fellow." It stands in sham contrast to ήμίν. Bailey denies that they took the words literally; "They mean (in our language) 'How can one human personality be incorporated into another?' " This is very difficult to accept. It is much more likely that they thought of the words as meant literally, but could not understand how they could be put into effect.

131. Temple is of opinion that "The blood is the life; especially is it the life released by death that it may be offered to God.... Blood . . . when poured out, is the life released by death and given to God." Such positions are often advocated, though usually with no attempt to adduce evidence. It is true that some passages associate blood and life very closely, for example, Gen. 9:4-5; Lev. 17:11, 14; Deut. 12:23 (though it is not true, as Temple claims, that there are "many similar passages," at least in the Old Testament). It is also true that many primitive peoples regard blood with superstitious awe. But this is a flimsy foundation for the edifice that is build upon it by such writers as S. C. Gayford,

Sacrifice and Priesthood (London, 1924), or F. C. N. Hicks, The Fullness of Sacrifice (London, 1930). A close examination of the biblical evidence shows clearly that "blood" points to violent death, not the release of life at all. See A. M. Stibbs, The Meaning of the Word 'Blood' in Scripture (London, 1947), or my The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross" י

(London and Grand Rapids, n.d.), ch. 3 (this embodies material found in my article "The Biblical Use of the Term 'Blood,' " in JThS, n.s. III [1952], pp. 216-27; VI [1955], pp. 77-82). It is not without its interest that, whereas Temple sees in the blood a reference to life and in the flesh a reference to death, McClymont reverses the meanings.

132. References to drinking blood are rare in Jewish literature. Josephus once says,"it was still possible to feed upon the public miseries and to drink of the city's life-blood" (Bell. 5.344). But this sheds no light on the present passage

133. Cf. Dodd: "the expression δούναι τήν σάρκα, however figuratively it is taken, can hardly fail to suggest the idea of death. And the expression πίνειν τό αίμα, again, can hardly fail to suggest shed blood, and therefore violent death. In such veiled terms the evangelist suggests that it is through death that Christ becomes bread of life to the world" (IFG, p. 339). He cites Wettstein, Ubi sanguinis a carne separati fit mentio, violenta morte mortuus intelligitur.

134. Cf. Westcott, "To 'eat' and to 'drink' is to take to oneself by a voluntary act that which is external to oneself, and then to assimilate it and make it part of oneself. It is, as it were, faith regarded in its converse action. Faith throws the believer upon and into its object; this spiritual eating and drinking brings the object of faith into the believer." The midrash on Eccl. 2:24, "A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink . . . ," says, " A l l the references to eating and drinking in this Book signify Torah and good deeds" (Soncino edn., p. 71; so also on Eccl. 8:15).

135. Cf. the statements of Augustine, cited in n. 128 above.

136. The tense is different, too. The present ό τρώγων points to a continuing appropriation. Indeed, Ryle sees the whole point of the verb in this. He cites Leigh, that the word "noteth a continuance of eating, as brute beasts will eat all day, and some part of the night" and adds, "our Lord meant the habit of continually feeding on Him all day long by faith. He did not mean the occasional eating of material food in an ordinance."

137. That τρώγω does not differ significantly from έσθίω is indicated by the fact that in their reports of the activity of the people of Noah's generation Matthew uses the former (Matt. 24:38) and Luke the latter (Luke 17:27). Similarly, in the quotation from Ps. 41:9 in John 13:18 we find τρώγω, but the LXX has έσθίω.

138.. The Greek is διά τον πατέρα. Many draw attention to Alexander's dictum that he owed life to his father, but good life to Aristotle, δι' έκεῖνον μεν ζών, διά τοὑτον δέ καλώς ζών (Plut. V??. Alex. 8).

139. "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood" is identical in vv. 54, and 56. But this third time it is "the one who feeds on me." In threefold repetitions John has the habit of introducing slight variations without appreciable change of meaning (see on 3:5). It is unlikely that eating the flesh and drinking the blood are to be understood in any other sense than "the one who feeds on me." For the meaning Strachan aptly cites the Talmud (Sank. 99a) for a saying that speaks of "eating" the Messiah. The Soncino translation (p. 699) employs the verb "enjoy," which is what the passage must signify.

140. κακεΐνος is emphatic.

141. This is the tenth reference in this chapter to coming down from heaven. In the earlier nine οὑρανοϋ is invariably preceded by the article. There is no article here, though the meaning appears to be the same.

142. σκληρός is derived from σκελλω, "to dry." It means "hard to the touch,""rough." In the Bible it is applied metaphorically to Abraham's view of the command to cast out Hagar (Gen. 21:11), to people (Matt. 25:24), and to things, including its being"hard" for Saul of Tarsus to kick against the goad (Acts 26:14), and to the "strong winds" of Jas. 3:4. Here (as in Jade 15) the meaning is something like "harsh." Calvin comments,"the hardness was in their hearts and not in the saying."

143. αύτοϋ I have taken to refer to the saying. But it could refer to Jesus, "Who can hear him?"

144. Barclay comments: "Here we come upon a truth that re-emerges in every age. Time and again it is not the intellectual difficulty of accepting Christ which keeps men from becoming Christians; it is the height of Christ's moral demand." There is mystery in religion, of necessity. But "Any honest thinker will accept the mystery . . . to this day many a man's refusal of Christ comes, not because Christ puzzles and baffles his intellect, but because Christ challenges and condemns his life."

145. σκανδαλίζει. The σκάνδαλον was the bait stick that triggered off a trap when an animal or bird touched it. The verb, then, used metaphorically, signifies to be caught in a difficulty. It is frequent in Matthew and Mark, but only here and in 16:1 in this Gospel.

146. Elsewhere in the New Testament άναβαίνω is never used of the crucifixion.

Bernard accordingly rejects the view. He thinks that the use of this verb "provides a notable illustration of Jn.'s manner of writing, that here and at 20]7 he introduces an allusion to the Ascension of Christ, while he does not state explicitly that it took place."

147. A minor point supporting this is the use of οΰν, "therefore" (which MV omits). I f Jesus were proceeding to treat of something that would comfort rather than offend, "but" would be more natural, οδν is very frequent in this Gospel, but not in the words of Jesus. Abbott points out that of 195 occurrences of ούν only eight are in sayings of Jesus (2191). We are justified in finding significance in these few occurrences. Here the meaning will be, "You are scandalized at this? The logical, inevitable consequence i s . . . ."

148. Cf. Westcott, "You are troubled, the Lord seems to say, by words which cannot be interpreted according to the laws of material, phenomenal existence. How then will you bear the last revelation of the Ascension, when that which is truly human will be seen to be transfigured and to rise beyond the conditions of earthly life? This will be at

once the severest trial and the highest reward of faith."

149. ζφοποιέω occurs in 5:21, seven times in Paul, and once in 1 Peter. Especially interesting are 1 Cor. 15:45, έγένετο . . . δ Εσχατος Αδάμ είς πνεύμα ζωοποιοϋν, and 2 Cor. 3:6, τό γάρ γράμμα άποκτείνει τό δέ Πνεϋμα ζωοποιεΐ. This New Testament insistence that life comes from the Father or the Son (John 5:21) or the Spirit (here) should be contrasted with the rabbinic view: "Great is the Law, for it gives life to them that practise it both in this world and in the world to come" ('Ab. 6:7). But no Law can give life. Only the life-giving Spirit can do that.

150. "Counts for nothing" contains an emphatic double negative, ούκ ωφελεί ούδέν.

151. ρήμα is always used in the plural in this Gospel, and it always refers to the words of God or of Christ, λόγος (used in v. 60) is usually singular (plural in 7:40; 10:19; 14:24; 19:13); for this term see Additional Note A, pp. 102-11.

152. The repetition of ἐστιν in the expression πνεῦμά ἐστιν xαί ζωή ἐστιν means that πνεϋμα and ζωή are not blurred; they are regarded as distinct. There is also some emphasis on the verb, "spirit they are, and life they are."

153. Cf. Lightfoot, "The Lord's work and the Lord's word are one; and both must be received and assimilated by the believing disciple."

154. ἁλλ' (NIV translates "yet"). See on 1:8.

155. ἐξ ἀρχῆς is found elsewhere in the New Testament only in 16:4. But John does not seem to make much distinction between έx and ἀπό, so we should note that ἀπ' ἀρχῆς occurs in 8:44; 15:27 and frequently in 1 John. The expression here probably means from the beginning of their professing discipleship, though in view of the strongly predestinarian strain in this Gospel it is not impossible that there is the thought of a knowledge going back to God's eternal purpose (cf. 1:1). For Jesus' knowledge see on 4:18, and for the use of οἶδα and γινώσxω on 2:24.

156. τίς ἐστιν is read by most MSS here, but G. D. Kilpatrick points out in a private communication that τίς ἦν is read by p66 א a e q, and he suggests that this is an example of an infrequent construction (noted by Goodwin and occasionally found in the classics and elsewhere) when the imperfect replaces the present of direct speech, τίς έστιν, then, is a correction to the more usual construction.

157. παραδίδωμι is used in a variety of ways of the "delivering up" of Jesus. Here Judas was responsible, but Jesus was also "delivered up" by the Jewish nation and its high priests (18:35), by Pilate (19:16), for our sins (Rom. 4:25), and by the Father (Rom. 8:32). In the most moving passage of all Christ is said to have delivered himself up (Gal. 2:20). ὁ παραδώσων here is the only example in John of a future participle with the article (Abbott, 2510, citing Bruder).

158. If the imperfect tense (ἕλεγεν) is significant the meaning will be that this is the kind of thing that Jesus said repeatedly. Barclay renders, "So that was why He often said. . . ."

159.. έx τούτου. "For this reason" contains a further ambiguity in itself. It may refer to the words of the previous verse (they went back because the Father did not draw them), or to the discourse as a whole (they were repelled by the "hard" sayings).

160. ἀπῆλθον είς τά ὁπίσω, "they went away to the things they had left behind." Godet sees in the words "more than simple defection; they denote the return of these people to their ordinary occupations, which they had abandoned in order continuously to follow the Lord."

161. It is often said that John's narrative is no more than a variant of the Synoptic story, e.g., "The confession of Peter in w. 68 and 69 is the Fourth Evangelist's account of the confession of the Apostle at Caesarea Philippi, recorded by the Synoptists. . . . Here, he feels, is a dramatic setting too good to be missed, too allegorically appropriate to be lost. So he takes the confession of Peter out of its historical setting and places it against the denial that is growing within the soul of Judas" (Wright). The principal reasons for holding such views (apart from "insights" into the Evangelist's method) are two: the setting and the nature of the confession. In Matthew and Mark the incident is related not long after the feeding of the five thousand, in Luke it follows immediately on that feeding. The decisive nature of the confession, it is felt, means that it would have been uttered once only. Against the identification are (i) The difference in place. The Synoptics refer to an incident in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, John to one at Capernaum, (ii) The difference in Jesus' approach. The Synoptists record that he asked their opinion of his Person, John that he challenged them to continue following him. (iii) The difference in circumstances. In the Synoptists outsiders are recognized as venerating Jesus, though with imperfect knowledge. In John outsiders have opposed him and even disciples have left him. The Synoptists are talking about a more complete as against a less complete understanding of his Person. John is dealing with following versus desertion, (iv) The difference in the confession. In the Synoptists the wording differs, but it is concerned with "Christ" in one way or another: "You are the Christ" (Mark 8:29), "the Christ of God" (Luke 9:20), "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). In John Peter says, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God., י The differences are marked. Though the two come from the same period the evidence suggests that they should be regarded as different confessions. Murray thinks of John's account as " in striking contrast, in spite of many points of similarity, with the account given in the Synoptists of a challenge made by Jesus somewhat later at Caesarea Philippi. Here the challenge is addressed directly to their sense of personal loyalty, and the confession is a confession of a consciousness of personal indebtedness. There the challenge relates to the place that they were prepared to assign to their Master in the working out of the purpose of God for the nation and the world." Temple does not deal with the question directly, but assumes a distinction. Peter's epithet, "the Holy One of God," he says, "points to the spiritual character rather than the official status of the Messiah. That will be affirmed at Caesarea Philippi." P. Gardner-Smith says bluntly, "The only real point of contact is the belief that Peter understood the Lord's Person best" (Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels [Cambridge, 1938], p. 36).

162. John assumes that his readers will be familiar with the Twelve, for, though this is the first time the group is mentioned in this Gospel (it is implied in v. 13), he does not explain the term. Matthew adopts a similar procedure; he introduces the Twelve without explanation (10:1). Apart from 20:24 this is the only passage in which John speaks of the

Twelve.

163. The word for "go" used here (άπέρχομαι) is that used also of Judas's going to the chief priests to betray Jesus in Mark 14:10.

164. NIV has "the words," but the article is lacking in the better MSS. Barrett points out that "τά ρήματα would imply a formula." Moulton says, "For exegesis, there are few of the finer points of Greek which need more constant attention than this omission of the article when the writer would lay stress on the quality or character of the object. Even the RV misses this badly sometimes, as in Jn. 668" (Μ, I, p. 83).

165. Richardson points out that "one cannot know i f one will not believe.... 'To know' in the Johannine usage, as generally in the Bible, means to enter into relations with someone and thus to have personal experience of him, as distinct from mere knowledge by description; it is first-hand or Ί-thou' knowledge, not scientific-objective knowledge" (An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, pp. 45-46). See further on 2:24.

166. Vincent Taylor is of the opinion that, while the expression "does not appear to have been an accepted Messianic title," it is used by Peter as "a Messianic designation" (The Names of Jesus [London, 1953], p. 80). Schnackenburg comments, " 'Holy' expresses the closest possible intimacy with God, a participation in God's deepest and most essential being. Peter's confession is therefore the appropriate responsory (σb ει) to the revelatory formula έγώ-εϊμι" (II, p. 77).

167. This verse names his father, as Simon Iscariot. Ισκαριώτης, which is applied to Judas also in 12:4, is usually accepted as a place name, signifying , "man of Kerioth." It would then apply equally to father and son. Kerioth may be the Keriothhezron of Josh. 15:25 (in Judah), or Kerioth in Moab (Jer. 48:24). I f this view is correct, Judas was the only one of the Twelve who was not a Galilean. Schonfield and others think the title might mean "One of the Sicarii" (or "Assassins"; the name was given to a group of desperate rebels with a bitter hatred of Rome and of Roman sympathizers), citing Josephus, Bell. 2.3.3. But this view has little to commend it, and it has not attracted much support. Goguel rejects both views and finds it impossible to discover a satisfactory meaning (The Life of Jesus [London, 1958], p. 495, η. 1). Other suggestions include "liar,""man from Sychar," and "carrier of the leather bag." But i f the same name applies to both father and son, the place name, "man of Kerioth," seems most likely.

168. £μελλεν. The verb may denote simple futurity, but it can also convey the thought of inevitability, as when it is used in Matt. 17:22 of the certainty of the passion. That is surely the meaning here.

↑ Back to top