CHAPTER VI.

Ch. 6:1-15. FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND.--THE GRACE, THE BOUNTY, THE POWER, AND THE METHOD OF CHRIST ILLUSTRATED.

Of this miracle accounts are given by the four Evangelists (Matt. 14:13-33; Mark 6:32-52; Luke 9:10-17); and it is the only miracle recorded by them all. There are some differences in their records; for details see notes below. In the main the three Synoptics agree, while the differences between them and the Fourth Gospel are more considerable. According to the Synoptics Jesus and his disciples crossed the Sea of Galilee to the east side; the people, going round by land, outran them, and apparently were waiting for them on the shore (Mark); Christ therefore abandoned his original design of rest, and devoted the day to instruction (Mark) and healing (Matthew and Luke). When evening was come the disciples asked him to send the people away to the villages to get necessary food; Jesus replied, Give ye them to eat; the disciples answered that they had nothing but five loaves and two small fishes to give; and from these Jesus fed them. According to John, Jesus crossed over the sea with his disciples, went up into the hills, and there sat with them; while sitting there he saw the people coming round by land, proposed to feed them, asked Philip where they should get the bread, and apparently going down to the plain to feed the people, took the five loaves and two small fishes and distributed them among the people. All agree, however, as to the main facts: the feeding of five thousand on five loaves and two small fishes, and the gathering of twelve baskets of fragments, are narrated by all four Evangelists; the subsequent departure of Christ into the mountain for solitude and prayer, the embarkation of the disciples by boat, and his walking to them upon the sea are recounted by all but Luke; Matthew alone gives the account of Peter’s attempt to walk upon the water to meet Jesus. Harmonists have endeavored to combine these accounts in one consistent narrative; this is the work, however, rather of imagination than of criticism; any such harmony is necessarily hypothetical. The attempts have succeeded in so far as to show that the accounts are capable of combination. It may be added that the variations are just such as we might expect in narratives coming from independent eye-witnesses, and not such as we might expect in different fictitious accounts, or in different versions of a myth, derived from the same tradition. The miracle took place immediately on the return of the twelve after executing the commissions given to them in Matthew, ch. 10; the immediate object of Christ in retiring to the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee was to secure quiet for a personal conference with the twelve respecting their work (Mark 6:30). For further statement of the chronology of the event, and the most probable harmony of the four accounts, see Matt. 14:13-27, note. A topographical difficulty is presented by an apparent but not real inconsistency between Luke 9:10 and Mark 6:45. According to Luke, Christ took the twelve with him into a desert place belonging to Bethsaida, whither the multitude followed him; according to Mark, after feeding the multitude he told the twelve to sail across to the other side unto Bethsaida. Thus Luke seems to place Bethsaida on the eastern, and Mark on the western shore of the lake, and this has led to the hypothesis that there were two Bethsaidas, an hypothesis generally adopted by the commentators, without, it seems to me, sufficient inquiry. It has no historical confirmation, was invented to harmonize Luke and Mark, and is needless. Let the reader compare the map of the Sea of Galilee (Vol. I, p. 342) with the accompanying illustration, in which he looks down on the Sea of Galilee from the north. The ruins in the foreground are those of Bethsaida; the river is the Jordan. Probably in ancient times the town of Bethsaida reached to or near the shore of the lake. The mountains in the distance are those on the eastern shore of Galilee, and the plain at their foot is the plain of Butaiha, where the five thousand were fed. Christ was at or near Capernaum; sailed with his disciples across the Sea of Galilee to the plain of Butaiha, at the foot of the hills on the northeastern shore of the lake, not far from Bethsaida. After the attempt of the multitude to make Jesus king, he bade them embark and row along the shore toward (πρός) Bethsaida (Mark 6:45), where he proposed to meet them. A sudden wind rising and blowing down the Jordan valley from the Lebanon range (see on verses 16-18), drove the disciples’ boat out into the lake; and it was while they were rowing back, against the wind, toward Bethsaida, where their Lord had promised to meet them, that he came out upon the waves for that purpose. Thus it is true that when they left Capernaum for the plain of Butaiha in the morning, they were going over to a plain belonging to the city of Bethsaida, as Luke reports; and also true that when they started back in the evening in the direction of Capernaum, as John reports (ver. 17, εἰς indicating the ultimate point they had in view), they were also going toward Bethsaida, which lay on the northern shore, and not far from midway between the eastern and the western shores. See further, Mark 6:45, note.

[Illustration: BETHSAIDA.]

1 After[206] these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is _the sea_ of Tiberias.

[206] Matt. 14:15, etc.; Mark 6:34, etc.; Luke 9:12, etc.

2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

=1, 2. After these things.= Not a definite note of time. It was subsequent to the healing of the impotent man at the foot of Bethesda. But many and important events had intervened. See Tabular Harmony of Gospels, Vol. I, p. 44.--=Which is the Sea of Tiberias.= John, writing for Gentile readers, gives the name by which this body of water was best known in the Gentile world. For map and description, see Vol. I, p. 342. The eastern shore was not populous; it is to this day comparatively a solitude; Christ went thither with his disciples partly for rest and a quiet conference (Mark 6:30, 31), and partly in consequence of the death of John the Baptist, perhaps to avoid the possibility of danger to himself and to them from Herod. After the sermon which followed this miracle of feeding, reported in this chapter by John, he engaged no more in any public ministry in Galilee. See Matt. 15:29-39, note.--=Because they saw his miracles which he did.= John has not recorded any miracles done at this time in Galilee, and only two performed at any time in Galilee. This is one of those incidental references which makes it clear to my mind that John wrote not only with a personal knowledge of the writings of the other Evangelists or some of them, but with a recognition of the fact that their writings would be familiar to the readers of his own Gospel. The miracles referred to here are those performed in Christ’s Galilean ministry subsequent to his return from the second Passover at Jerusalem. They are recorded in Matthew, chaps. 8-13; Mark, chaps. 2-5; and Luke, chaps. 5-8.

3 And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples.

4 And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.

=3, 4. And Jesus went up into the hill country.= Up from the shore of the sea to the quiet of the hills. These, on the eastern shore, rise to a height of nearly 2,000 feet above the level of the sea, which is however itself depressed some 600 feet below the level of the Mediterranean.--=The Passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.= This affords both a note of time and an explanation of the multitude present. The month was Nizan (our March). The grass was green; the trees were in full leaf; the palm trees were laden with blossoms; the orange and lemon trees with fruit; the barley was ripening in the fields. At such a season and in such a climate, to spend a night without shelter is no hardship, and is not unusual. The leisure of the Oriental is partly a characteristic of the people, partly an incident of a climate which compels less labor than ours. The fifteen days preceding the Passover were largely devoted to various preparations for it; the roads, streets, and bridges were repaired, and the caravans began to move toward Jerusalem. The gathering at such a time of a congregation of 5,000 men, besides women and children, attracted by the fame of such a prophet, is not at all incredible. The reader must also remember that Galilee was then the home of a large population. According to Josephus, there were six cities of considerable size on the thirteen miles of coast-line along the northern and northeastern shores of the Lake of Tiberias.

5 When Jesus then lifted up _his_ eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?

6 And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.

=5, 6. When Jesus then lifted up his eyes.= According to Mark the people going round by the shore outran Jesus, and he found them there upon his arrival (Mark 6:33). There is no irreconcilable inconsistency in the two statements. It may be that Jesus found a few of his disciples, those that knew his probable destination, and took them up with him and the twelve into the hills; for the term _disciples_ (ver. 3) is not in the Gospels confined to the twelve apostles; that the larger multitude followed, looking for the Lord; and that their gradual congregating moved his compassion (Mark 6:34) and led him to descend from the retirement of the hills to teach and to heal them.--=He saith unto Philip.= He spent the greater part of the day in teaching and healing (Matt. 14:14; Mark 6:34; Luke 9:11). The people, absorbed by their interest, took no note of the passage of time. As the afternoon drew on, the disciples proposed to Christ to send the people away to procure food (Matthew, Mark, Luke); it was probably as a result of this proposition that Christ addressed to Philip the question here, Whence shall we buy? This question is reported alone by John. Why did Jesus address this inquiry to Philip? Some commentators have supposed that he was the purveyor for Christ and the apostles; others that his faith was especially weak and needed strengthening; still others that the question was addressed to him because he belonged to Bethsaida (ch. 1:44), and therefore would be the one to know where food could be procured; but there is no evidence to support either hypothesis. Christ frequently questioned his disciples in order to bring out to their own consciousness the measure of their faith (Matt. 9:28; 16:13; 19:17; Luke 24:17, etc.).--=For he himself knew what he would do.= A statement made by the apostle to emphasize the truth that Jesus himself was not in perplexity, and taking counsel with his apostles for his own guidance. This he is never recorded to have done. According to Matthew the question of providing for the multitude was not raised until “it was evening” (Matt. 14:15). Yet both Matthew and John say that “when evening was come” Jesus was left alone in the mountain (ver. 16; Matt. 14:23). The explanation of this discrepancy lies in the fact that there were two evenings recognized by the Hebrews, as by the Greeks, one beginning with the declining sun at or about three in the afternoon, the other with the setting sun. It was during the first evening, _i. e._, between three and six, that the people were fed; at the second evening, _i. e._, about sunset, they had departed and left Jesus alone.

7 Philip answered him, Two[207] hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.

[207] Numb. 11:21, 22; 2 Kings 4:43.

8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, saith unto him,

9 There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?

=7-9. Two hundred pennyworth of bread.= The penny, or denarius, was equal in value to seventeen cents American coin; but it was the day’s wages of a common laborer (Matt. 20:2); two hundred pennyworth therefore would be practically equivalent to $200 worth in our time.-- =One of his disciples said unto him.= Christ bade them ascertain how much they had on hand for themselves (Mark 6:38). Andrew ascertained and reported in response to Christ’s direction. The lad here mentioned was therefore probably some one in attendance upon Christ and the twelve, and carrying their simple store for them. How much blessing the Lord can impart to the service of a little child. Comp. 2 Kings 5:2, 3. Here a _little boy_ (παιδάριον) had but five loaves, and they of barley, and yet when given to the Lord, and blessed by Him, they feed five thousand.--=Five barley loaves.= The loaves of the Jews were thin round cakes or crackers; for illustration and description, see Mark 8:3-5, note. Barley was the food only of the lower classes. “One in the Talmud, speaking of barley bread, says, ‘There is a fine crop of barley.’ Another answers, ‘Tell this to the horses and asses.’ A Roman soldier who had quitted his ranks, had for part of his punishment that he received barley bread instead of wheaten.”--(_Geike’s Life of Christ._) Thus we have here (1) an indication of the simplicity of the living of our Lord; without a place to lay his head, _i. e._, a permanent home, and with the plainest possible food for his fare, the bread of the peasant classes; (2) a suggestion of true benevolence; he did not create wheaten bread for the multitude; he gave such as he had. To share what we have, not to aspire to give what we have not, is true benevolence.--=And two small fishes.= The word here rendered _small fishes_ (ὀψύριον) denotes any relish eaten with bread; hence, because fish was a common accompaniment, the most common from the animal kingdom, it came to be used for fish, generally salt fish, prepared for and used as a relish.

10 And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.

11 And Jesus took the loaves: and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.

=10, 11. Make the men sit down.= It requires little imagination to picture to the mind the wondering surprise with which the disciples prepared to obey a direction the object of which they could not conceive, and the perplexity of the people as they prepared to take their places, wondering what was to occur next. They sat down; Mark tells us _in ranks_, literally _garden plats_ (πρασιαὶ πρασιαὶ; the repetition without καί denotes distribution). With their bright-colored Oriental dresses, these men sitting cross-legged on the ground in groups of fifty each (Mark 6:40), so that their number was afterward easily estimated, presented an appearance which recalled a brilliant garden in the early summer. The picture thus presented by Mark, but lost in our English translation, is one of the pictorial characteristics of his Gospel, and is thought to have been derived by him from Peter, the most effective and therefore probably the most pictorial of all the apostolic preachers.--=There was much grass in the place.= This is not inconsistent with its description by the other Evangelists as a _desert_ place, the word desert implying simply solitude, not an arid soil. The location (_Thompson’s Land and Book_, Vol. II, p. 29) was probably the rich level plain of Butaiha, forming a triangle, of which the Eastern mountains make one side and the lake shore and the Jordan the other two. It was at the southeastern angle of this plain, near the point where the hills abut upon the lake, that the feeding took place. “From the four narratives of this stupendous miracle we gather: 1st, that the place belonged to Bethsaida; 2d, that it was a desert place; 3d, that it was near the shore of the lake, for they came to it by boats; 4th, that there was a mountain close at hand; 5th, that it was a smooth, grassy spot, capable of seating many thousand people. Now all these requisites are found in this exact locality, and nowhere else, so far as I can discover. This Butaiha belonged to Bethsaida. At this extreme southeast corner of it the mountain shuts down upon the lake, bleak and barren. It was, doubtless, desert then as now, for it is not capable of cultivation. In this little cove the ships (boats) were anchored. On this beautiful sward, at the base of the rocky hill, the people were seated.”--(_Andrews._)--=About five thousand.= Besides women and children (Matt. 14:21), who perhaps sat separately from the men, as Oriental custom would require them to do.--=When he had given thanks.= The same act is differently expressed by the other Evangelists as blessing the bread. Asking a blessing upon food before meals was a universal custom among the Jews, and was practised both by Christ and by the apostles (Luke 22:17, 19; 24:30; Acts 27:35).--=He gave [to the disciples and the disciples] to them that were set down.= The words which I have put in brackets are not in the original according to the best manuscripts. They have been added from Matt. 14:19. They undoubtedly represent the actual fact, viz., that the bread was distributed by the hands of the twelve.

12 When they were filled,[208] he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing[209] be lost.

[208] Neh. 9:25.

[209] Neh. 8:10.

13 Therefore they gathered _them_ together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.

14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that[210] prophet that should come into the world.

[210] Gen. 49:10; Deut. 18:15-18.

15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

=12-15. Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.= “It was a custom and a rule (among the Jews) that when they ate together they should leave something to those that served. ‘Every one leaves a little portion in the dish, which is called the servitor’s part.’”--(_Lightfoot._) The fragments thus gathered up by the apostles were probably preserved for their own use. The practical lesson is important: “He likewise exhorts his disciples to frugality when he says, ‘Gather the fragments which are left, that nothing be lost’; for the increase of the bounty of God ought not to be an excitement to luxury. Let those therefore who have abundance remember that they will one day render an account of their immoderate wealth, if they do not carefully and faithfully apply their superfluity to purposes which are good, and of which God approves.”--(_Calvin._) This gathering up of the fragments demonstrates also the reality of the miracle. See below.--=They filled twelve baskets= (κοφίνος). These baskets were the common baskets used universally by the Jews in traveling to carry their food. See for description and illustration, Matt. 16:9, 10, note. Christ there distinguishes between this miracle and that of the feeding of the 4,000, which are evidently not to be confounded as one event.--=That prophet that should come into the world.= Foretold in Deut. 18:15, 16, and referred to by the delegation sent from Jerusalem to inquire of John the Baptist as to his character and authority (John 1:21). By some Rabbis this prophet was regarded as a forerunner of the Messiah; by others as the Messiah himself. Here apparently the people regarded the two as identical; this at least is indicated by their desire to take Christ at once and crown him as king.--=Jesus knowing that they were about to come and seize him that they might make him king.= Either by reading in their hearts the half-formed design; or perceiving it in their whispered conference; or informed of it by the apostles, who doubtless shared the enthusiasm of the multitude, and who may have been as eager as any for the coronation of their Lord. This attempt of the people to make Christ a temporal king was a renewal of Satan’s endeavor to tempt him to secure the kingdoms of the earth by Satanic methods (Matt. 4:8-10, note). The Jews anticipated a realm of material marvels and miracles with the advent of the Messiah. “Drought and famine should then be known no more. The prophecy of Isaiah (Isa. 65:13), ‘My servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry,’ should be literally fulfilled. Israel should be gathered together. The young men should feed on bread, the old men on honey, the children on oil. Every palate should be pleased, every appetite satisfied, and the prolific profusion of the Garden of Eden should repeat itself in the land of the Messiah. These prophecies of the scribes, with which constant repetition in the synagogue had made the common people familiar, seemed to them about to be fulfilled.”--(_Abbott’s Jesus of Nazareth._)--=He departed again into the mountain.= For solitude and prayer (Matt. 14:23; Mark 6:46). He first constrained his disciples to embark for Bethsaida, a fact which Matthew and Mark state (Matt. 14:22; Mark 6:45) without giving the reason for it; John alone tells of the purpose of the multitude to make Christ a king. There is significance for us in Christ’s refusal of their homage. They desired to _make_ him king, not to accept him as king; to give him a sceptre, not to own allegiance to the sceptre he possessed; to secure his power and authority in aid of their designs, not to recognize his royal authority and be obedient to his will. When they found out what that will involved, from his discourse on the following Sabbath at Capernaum, they would have him for their king no longer. It is one thing to attempt to make Christ serve our wills; it is a very different thing to make our wills obedient to his.

Various attempts have been made to explain this miracle on rationalistic principles. The two principal explanations offered are: (1) that the people were so satisfied with Christ’s instruction that they did not feel the claims of hunger (_Schenkel_); (2) that they had their hearts opened by the beneficence of Christ, so that those who possessed food themselves provided for those that had none, and thus all were furnished by a miracle of love, operating not by the literal creation of new supplies, but by the inspiration of a new spirit of benevolence in the people themselves. This, if I understand him aright, is Lange’s explanation. See his _Life of Christ_, Vol. II, p. 140. For a more elaborate classification of rationalistic theories, see _Lange’s Commentary on Matthew_, Am. ed., p. 266. Neither interpretation deserves serious refutation. The first is inconsistent with the fact that twelve baskets of the fragments were gathered up after the meal was ended; the second is contradicted by the language of the disciples, who plainly imply that the people are without food (Matt. 14:15; Mark 6:36; Luke 9:12), and by the enthusiasm of the people after the miracle has been performed. They were not of a kind to be ready to crown a prophet as king, merely because he had opened their hearts and inclined them to benevolence. It is, however, to be noted that here as elsewhere the Evangelists simply state the facts, leaving the reader to make his own deductions. These facts are that over 5,000 people were upon a plain, without provisions; that all the food which Christ had for them was five loaves and two small fishes; that he distributed this to the twelve, and they to the multitude; that all had enough; and that when the meal was over there were twelve baskets full of fragments remaining. Assuming these to be the facts, the explanation of a miraculous creation of bread is the only reasonable explanation; any other hypothesis impugns the historical verity of the four Gospels. The attempt to explain the miracle as an acceleration of the processes of nature (_Olshausen_), to which, as Dr. Schaff well says, “must be added an accelerated process of art, or the combined labors of the reaper, miller, and baker,” gives no help in understanding the process by which Christ provided for all. We can accept the fact without comprehending the method, which is indeed as entirely incomprehensible as are God’s methods in the ordinary phenomena of nature, _e. g._, the multiplication of a single kernel of corn into the many kernels upon the stalk. The parallel and contrast between this miracle and the analogous but different multiplication of food wrought by the O. T. prophets Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 17:16; 2 Kings 4:42-44) are instructive. Like all of Christ’s miracles, this multiplication is a parable. (1) It illustrates Christ’s method: the way to men’s hearts is often through ministering to their bodies; in the recent famines in India and China (1877), the missionaries have found the way opened for the gospel in many districts by their ability to provide the starving with food or employment. (2) It manifests the miraculous grace of God: “everything wastes in the hands of men; but everything multiplies in those of the Son of God.”--(_Quesnel._) (3) It rebukes distrust: “He who feeds here five thousand men in an extraordinary manner and by a visible miracle, cannot He find means to support this numerous family, which raises in the mind of this father and mother so many unceasing and distrustful thoughts?”--(_Quesnel._) (4) It is an inspiration and a prophecy of Christian love. It is “the brilliant inauguration of that fruitful miracle of Christian charity which has ever since gone on, multiplying bread to the hungry. The heart of man once touched, like the rock in the desert touched by the rod of Moses, has gone on pouring over thirsty crowds the inexhaustible stream of generosity.”--(_Pressense._) (5) It is a symbol of the inexhaustible love of Christ himself; a symbol of that miraculous multiplying of sacred influences which, from one brief life of three active years, and one body pierced and broken on the tree, feeds innumerable thousands, a love which Christ imparts to his disciples, and which they in turn convey throughout the ages and to all lands.

* * * * *

Ch. 6:16-21. JESUS WALKS ON THE SEA.--CHRIST THE LORD OF NATURE: LIGHT IN OUR DARKNESS; PEACE IN OUR STORMS.--HE COMES TO THOSE WHO ARE TOILING TO COME TO HIM.--HIS MESSAGE TO ALL HIS DISCIPLES: FEAR NOT.--THE GROUND OF THAT MESSAGE: HE IS THE I AM. Compare Matt. 14:22, 23; Mark 6:45-52, and see Prel. Note at beginning of this chapter.

16 And[211] when even was _now_ come, his disciples went down unto the sea,

[211] Matt. 14:23; Mark 6:47, etc.

17 And entered into a ship, and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to them.

18 And the sea arose[212] by reason of a great wind that blew.

[212] Ps. 107:25.

=16-18. And when even was come.= This was the second evening, which began at sunset. See on ver. 6.--=His disciples went down unto the sea.= From the plain where the five thousand had been fed. By the disciples here is meant the apostles. They went reluctantly, yielding to Christ. This is implied by the language of Matthew and Mark, he “constrained his disciples.” While they departed by sea Jesus sent the multitude away.--=And entered into a ship.= A fishing-boat; large enough to carry Christ and the twelve; not too large to be propelled by oars. See for description, Mark 6:36, note.--=And went over the sea unto Capernaum= (εἰς Κ.). Mark says _toward Bethsaida_ (πρός β.). John indicates the final aim of their journey; Mark the direction in which the boat was steered. They started _for_ Capernaum _via_ Bethsaida. See Prel. Note above, and Mark 6:45, note.--=Jesus was not come to them.= An evidence that they expected to meet him along the shore; probably (this is implied upon a comparison of the three gospel narratives) at Bethsaida, _i. e._, at or near the entrance of the Jordan upon the lake.--=The sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew.= It is a common occurrence for the winds to arise suddenly upon this lake, drawing down the Jordan valley from the Lebanon range in the north. See Mark 4:37, note. “My experience in this region enables me to sympathize with the disciples in their long night’s contest with the wind. I spent a night in that wady Shukaiyif, some three miles up it, to the left of us. The sun had scarcely set when the wind began to rush down toward the lake, and it continued all night long with constantly increasing violence, so that when we reached the shore the next morning the face of the lake was like a huge boiling caldron. The wind howled down every wady from the northeast and east with such fury that no efforts of rowers could have brought a boat to shore at any point along that coast. In a wind like that the disciples _must_ have been driven quite across to Gennesaret, as we know they were. To understand the causes of these sudden and violent tempests, we must remember that the lake lies low--six hundred feet lower than the ocean; that the vast and naked plateaus of the Jordan rise to a great height, spreading backward to the wilds of the Hauran, and upward to snowy Hermon; that the water-courses have cut out profound ravines and wild gorges, converging to the head of this lake, and that these act like gigantic _funnels_ to draw down the cold winds from the mountains.”--(_Thompson’s Land and Book_, 2:32.) Dr. Thompson adds a testimony to the suddenness with which these winds arise: “I once went in to swim near the hot baths, and before I was aware a wind came rushing over the cliffs with such force that it was with great difficulty I could regain the shore.”

19 So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.

20 But he saith unto them, It is I;[213] be not afraid.

[213] Ps. 35:3; Isa. 43:1, 2; Rev. 1:17, 18.

21 Then they willingly received him into the ship; and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went.

=19-21. So when they had rowed about five-and-twenty or thirty furlongs.= _Stadia_; that is, a little over three miles. The lake at this point is about six miles across; they had therefore rowed about half way across the lake; but they were unable to make head against the wind, and could not reach the northern shore to keep their appointment with Jesus. _It was while they were endeavoring to come to Jesus that he came out upon the sea to meet them._--=They see Jesus walking on the sea.= That he was really walking on the sea, not standing on the land and supposed to be on the sea because only dimly discerned through the storm and darkness (_Bleek_), is evident from the facts, (1) that Peter went out to meet him (Matt. 14:28-31); (2) that on receiving him into the ship they were immediately at the land “unto which they were going” (εἰς ἣν ὑπῆγον). This was the plain of Gennesaret, on which Capernaum was situated, and was two or three miles away from the point where they met Jesus; for they had as yet rowed only about half the distance across the lake.--=He saith unto them, It is I.= Literally, _I am_. The same language used by Jesus in Jerusalem (ch. 8:58), for which the Pharisees would have stoned him, and in the O. T. to designate Jehovah (Exod. 3:14). Here I should prefer to give it this meaning. Christ says not merely, “It is I, your Friend and Master;” he says, at least implies, It is the “I am” who is coming to you, the Almighty One who rules winds and waves, who made them, and whom they obey.--=Be not afraid.= This is the message of Christ to his people in the hour of his advent (Luke 2:10); of their tempest experiences of temptation and struggle (Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; 1 Pet. 3:14); their sorrows (Matt. 28:10; Mark 5:36); and their hour of dangerous duty (Acts 18:9).--=Then they willingly received him.= Literally, _Thereupon they willed to receive him_. If this account stood alone we might perhaps doubt whether he actually did enter the ship, as some rationalistic commentators have done; but Matthew and Mark are explicit in their statements that he did so.--=And immediately the ship was at the land to which they were going.= That is, the shore at Capernaum. This, coupled with the statement of ver. 19 that they had only rowed twenty-five or thirty furlongs, _i. e._, about half way, seems clearly to imply a further miracle, unless indeed we give to the word _immediately_ (εὐθέως) a large latitude of expression, understanding it merely to mean that since the wind at once ceased (Matt. 14:32) they had no further difficulty in reaching their destination. Matthew adds that they that were in the ship came and worshipped Jesus, saying, “Of a truth thou art the Son of God;” and Mark that they were amazed beyond measure, “for they considered not the miracle of the loaves, for their heart was hardened,” rather _dull, stupid_. They had been amazed at the miracle of the loaves, but they had not deduced from it the natural conclusion that Christ was the Lord of nature, so when a new manifestation of his power was made they were as much surprised as if they had never seen any previous manifestation. In this they were very typical of Christians in all ages of the church.

* * * * *

Ch. 6:22-71. SERMON ON THE BREAD OF LIFE.--THE CONDITION OF ETERNAL LIFE: FEEDING ON CHRIST.--THE TRUE NATURE OF FAITH SYMBOLIZED.--THE MEANING OF THE LORD’S SUPPER.

PRELIMINARY NOTE.--Before entering upon this discourse in detail, some preliminary considerations are necessary. 1. _The report._ There is no reason to believe that we have a verbatim report of Christ’s discourse, but good reason to believe the reverse. John makes no claim to give the sermon in full. The language of ver. 59 implies that he does not. The whole sermon occupies in deliberate reading less than five minutes. We can hardly suppose that an actual discourse delivered in the synagogue would have been compressed in so brief a space. We have then, here, John’s subsequent report written out from memory, though from memory quickened by divine inspiration, of a discourse very much longer than the report. It embodies in John’s language the substance of Christ’s thoughts. 2. _The circumstances and connection._ After the feeding of the 5,000, the apostles embark in their boat; Christ goes up into the hills to pray; the people linger a while for his return, then conclude that he has returned to Capernaum, and go back to Capernaum themselves; on the following Sabbath morning he enters the synagogue; their astonishment at his approach is great; they break out in questioning, How did you get here? His answer diverts them from mere astonishment to a serious consideration of spiritual truth: “Ye are seeking me, not because of the evidence I have given of my divine commission, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled. Labor not for the meat that perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life.” Their response indicates some seriousness of desire: “What is the work which God would have us to do that we might have this bread of life as our reward?” This is the question of all religious aspiration, and Christ’s answer is the response of Christianity to the soul-hunger of the ages: “This is the work of God, that ye have faith in him whom he hath sent.” This I believe to be the text of the sermon which follows; it gives the subject; it is the key to its mysticism. The object of the discourse is to give Christ’s definition and interpretation of faith. This definition appears and reappears, first in metaphor, then in interpretation: My Father is giving you the true bread, which is coming down from heaven. I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger; he that believeth on me shall never thirst. This coming is not a literal physical coming; it is a coming of the spirit; a coming drawn by divine influence; a coming of those who are taught of God. To thus believe in me, to thus eat my flesh and drink my blood, is to have everlasting life; for to thus eat my flesh and drink my blood is to dwell in me and have in me an indwelling life. Finally, to guard his followers against that literalism which has since converted this metaphor into a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence, Christ adds to his discourse the decisive words of ver. 63, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, _the flesh_ profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” 3. _Meaning of the metaphor._ I believe then that the key to the metaphors of this sermon is to be found in the question and answer of verses 28, 29; that it is Christ’s metaphorical interpretation of the declaration that faith is a condition of spiritual life; that it is mystical, because experience is always mystical except to those that know it experimentally; that it is expressed in metaphor, because a spiritual experience can never be expressed in any other way; and that Christ has emphasized the importance of the metaphor by subsequently making it a permanent symbol in the Lord’s Supper. To eat his flesh and drink his blood is to have faith in him, to come unto him; to partake of his character and imbibe his spirit (verses 35, 40, 47, 54, 57). Faith, according to Christ, is not then merely believing what is revealed in the Word (_Westminster Confession_); nor merely receiving what God says to be true and resting on it (_George Muller_); it is feeding on Christ. It is interpreted (_a_) by the physical phenomenon of eating and drinking. The food enters into us, becomes a part of us; builds us up; makes us what we are; different food going to different parts of the body--some to brain, others to muscle, etc.; different natures and different avocations needing different food. It is Christ _in_ us who is the hope of glory. (_b_) By our own use of the same metaphor. We recognize in common language a higher than mere physical feeding; other gateways to the nature than the mouth and the stomach; other means that modify, develop, and make the character. Men are made by what they receive through interior faculties. So Christ’s metaphor constantly reappears in the language of our common life; we drink in a picture; imbibe ideas; devour books; _e. g._,

“My ears have not yet _drunk_ a hundred words Of that tongue’s uttering.”--(_Shakespeare._)

“Longing they look, and gaping at the sight, _Devour_ her o’er and o’er with vast delight.”--(_Dryden._)

(_c_) By the Rabbinical use of the metaphor, common in Christ’s time, and well understood by the Jews. “There is nothing more common in the schools of the Jews than the phrases of eating and drinking in a metaphorical sense.”--(_Lightfoot._) “To eat of my bread” was a phrase equivalent to partake of my doctrine. Christ borrows a common metaphor to emphasize a deeper truth; to have faith in him is not to “eat of my bread,” but to “eat of my flesh;” that is, it is to receive not merely the influence of Christ’s teaching, but yet more that of his life and character itself, an influence which could be imparted to the world only through his passion and death, through the literal rending of his flesh and shedding of his blood. (_d_) By the experience of faith in a lower sphere, our faith in each other. The highest faith of a child in his mother is not believing something about her, nor merely believing what she says; it includes an intellectual belief that she is his mother, and a filial trust in her, but it also includes such a reverence for her, an uplooking to her, an admiration of her, a feeding upon her, that all her best characteristics are reproduced in the worshipping child. So the character of the best teachers ever reproduces itself in the character of their admiring pupils. (_e_) By the actual record of the experience of faith contained in the O. T. and the N. T. (_e. g._, Ps. 42:5, 11; 63:5-8; 73:23-26; 2 Cor. 3:18; Gal. 2:20; Phil. 3:8-14). (_f_) By other metaphors in the N. T. in which Christ is compared to a way on which we walk, a garment which we are to put on, a vine on which we are to be engrafted, a husband to whom we are to be married, a head from which we as a body are to derive all our life, the ground in which we are to be rooted, the foundation on which we are to be built, and the Spirit which is to dwell in us as in a temple. Faith in Christ then, as defined by Christ himself, if I have rightly interpreted this discourse, _is not belief about him, nor trust in him, but appropriation of him_. It is not mere belief in what the Bible teaches respecting him, though it is certainly founded on historical Christianity; it is not mere trust in his word or power or grace, though it involves the highest personal trust in him as a divine and gracious Saviour. It is making him the soul’s spiritual aliment, following after him, coming to him, dwelling in him, so drinking in his words, life, and spirit as to be conformed to his image. The soul enters into eternal, that is spiritual life, not by believing any teaching respecting Christ, not by trusting that Christ will bestow that life, but by so fastening its love and aspirations and desires upon Christ that he becomes the All and in all to the soul, and at once the model for and modeler of its future and final character.

22 The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but _that_ his disciples were gone away alone;

23 (Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias, nigh unto the [214]place where they did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks;)

[214] verse 11.

24 When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.

=22-24. The day following=, etc. A part of the people undoubtedly had dispersed to the villages about; others of them remained, hoping for the reappearance of Jesus; when he did not reappear they thought it possible that he had returned to Capernaum, and went thither themselves. _The other side of the sea_ indicates the eastern shore, _i. e._, the opposite side from Capernaum. In ver. 25 the same phrase indicates the western shore, _i. e._, the opposite side from that on which the multitude had left Christ. The construction of these verses is complicated and involved, but the original is fairly well rendered in our English version. The facts here stated, together with the surprise of the people (ver. 25) at Christ’s appearance at Capernaum, afford an additional though incidental evidence of Christ’s miraculous passing from the eastern to the western shore.--=Tiberias.= A town on the southwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee; mentioned in the N. T. only by John; built by Herod Antipas, and named in honor of the emperor Tiberius. The present city, Tubanyeh, contains about two thousand inhabitants.

[Illustration: TIBERIAS.]

25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

=25. And when they had found him.= The greater part of the discourse which follows was apparently delivered in the synagogue (ver. 29), and presumptively on the Sabbath day. Maurice supposes that “the conversation commences on the borders of the lake of Tiberias, with the people who had just crossed and found Jesus there,” and is afterward continued in the synagogue, and he makes the synagogue discourse commence with ver. 43. This is certainly possible, though I should think it more probable, from the close connection between the beginning and close of the colloquy as reported, that all occurred at one time and in the synagogue. It is not at all incredible that such interruptions as are here reported should have occurred in the synagogue service.--=Rabbi, when camest thou thither?= “The question _when_ includes _how_.”--(_Bengel._) Wordsworth’s comment on the mysterious manner in which Christ crossed the sea and presented himself in the synagogue affords a curious illustration of the allegorizing method which he pursues throughout in dealing with this chapter. “By walking on the sea, invisibly to the eyes of the multitude, and suddenly presenting himself to them in the synagogue at Capernaum, in a manner unintelligible to them, he instructs us that, though he does indeed come by water in holy baptism, and is verily and indeed present in the holy eucharist, yet the _manner_ of his presence is not to be scrutinized by us. * * * * Let us not speculate inquisitively into the _time_ and _manner_ in which he is present in the holy eucharist, but let us receive him joyfully in our hearts, as the disciples received him into the ship; and then we shall soon be at the haven of peace where we would be.”

26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that[215] meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him[216] hath God the Father sealed.

[215] verses 54, 58; ch. 4:14; Jer. 15:16.

[216] ch. 8:18; Ps. 2:7; 40:7; Isa. 42:1; Acts 2:22; 2 Pet. 1:17.

=26, 27. Verily, verily, I say unto you.= See Matt. 5:18, note.--=Ye seek me, not because ye saw the signs, but because ye ate of the loaves and were satisfied.= Christ leads the people from the lower to the higher, from the earthly to the spiritual, making, as was his wont, a simple incident the text of a deeply spiritual discourse. See Matt. 11:7; 16:6; Luke 13:1; 14:7; John 4:10. The meaning here is this: You are not seeking _me_ because you have seen and recognized the evidences of my divine commission, and really desire to put yourselves under me as your Lord and Master; you are seeking my _gifts_, and because you have eaten and been satisfied. He thus characterizes and impliedly rebukes those who seek not Christ but Christ’s, because they want not _him_, but something external to himself, which they think he can give them.--=Busy not yourselves about the meat which perishes.= It is not literally true that we are not to _labor_ for the meat that perishes (Acts 18:3; Eph. 4:28; 1 Thess. 4:10-12); it is true that the meat which perishes is not to be the object of our life-work (Matt. 5:24). “If any be idle and gluttonous, and careth for luxury, that man worketh for the _meat that perisheth_. So, too, if a man by his labor should feed Christ, and give him drink, and clothe him, who so senseless and mad as to say that such an one labors for the meat which perisheth, when there is for this the promise of the kingdom that is to come, and of those good things? This meat endureth forever.”--(_Chrysostom._) Comp. with Christ’s language here Isa. 55:2, to which perhaps he refers, and John 4:13, 14, where an analogous metaphor is used to enforce the same teaching.--=But about the meat which abides unto everlasting life.= _Unto_ (εἰς) indicates the purpose for which it remains, namely, that it may nourish eternal life, _i. e._, the life which continues unto, not which begins in, eternity; for eternal life is a present possession (vers. 47, 54). This food abides in us. Chaps. 5:38; 6:56; 8:31; 15:4, 7; 1 John 2:6, 27; 4:12, 15; 2 John 2 indicate both what is the meat and what the abiding of which Christ speaks.--=Which the Son of man shall give to you.= The phrase _Son of man_ is here, as everywhere in Christ’s use of it, equivalent to the Messiah (Matt. 10:23, note), and would be so understood by his hearers. This food of the spiritual life is the _gift_ of God through the Messiah (Rom. 5:17; 6:23). We might well wonder that Christ’s characterization of it here as a gift should not have prevented the question of the multitude in the following verse, but for the fact that, despite the explicit teaching of the N. T. that eternal life is _given_, even the disciples of Christ have ever been seeking to earn it as wages by labor. Christ says _shall give_ (future) because the great sacrifice was not yet offered, and so the unspeakable gift (2 Cor. 9:15) was not yet perfected.--=For Him hath God the Father sealed.= In the East the method of authenticating a document is not, as with us, by a signature, but by the impression of a seal (1 Kings 21:8; Esther 3:12; 8:8, 10; Jer. 32:10). The meaning here then is that Jesus’ commission as the Messiah of God is authenticated by the Father, by the works given him to do (John 5:36).

28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

=28. What can we do that we may work the works of God?= Observe _can_, not _shall_; subjunctive, not future. _The works of God_ are not works wrought by God, but works pleasing to God (Jer. 48:10; 1 Cor. 15:58). The meaning is not, What are the works of God which we shall do? but, What can we do in order that we may please God by our works? This is the question which humanity has ever been asking, repeated in the pilgrimages and the self-mutilations of the Oriental religions, in the penances and appointed prayers of the mediæval religions, and in much of the so-called Christian activity of modern Protestantism. This was the question which Loyola asked by his vigils, and to which Luther found an answer when, climbing Pilate’s staircase on his knees, he heard the words, “The just shall live by faith,” and fled from the religion of works to that of faith. That the questioners of Christ were seeking, not guidance to devout activity, but to divine rewards, is clear from the sequel (ver. 31).

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This[217] is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

[217] 1 John 3:23.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[221] Gal. 4:4.

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

[222] verses 48, 58.

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

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

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

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

[223] Rev. 7:16.

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

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

[225] verse 64.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[231] ch. 11:25.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[233] Cant. 1:4.

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

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

[235] Matt. 11:27.

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

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

[236] ch. 5:37.

[237] Luke 10:22.

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

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

[238] verse 40.

48 I[239] am that bread of life.

[239] verses 33, 35, 51.

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

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

[240] Zech. 1:5.

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

[241] verse 58.

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

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

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

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

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

[244] ch. 3:9.

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

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

[245] Matt. 26:26, 28.

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

[246] verse 40.

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

[247] Ps. 4:7.

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

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

[248] Lam. 3:24.

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

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

[250] 1 Cor. 15:22.

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

[251] verses 49-51.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[253] 2 Cor. 3:6.

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

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

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

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

[255] verses 44, 45.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[259] ch. 13:27.

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

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