Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 6:49
Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
49. Christ answers them out of their own mouths. They had spoken of the manna as superior to the multiplied loaves and fishes; but the manna did not preserve men from death. The same word is used both in Joh 6:49 and Joh 6:50; therefore for ‘are dead’ it will be better to substitute died. Moreover, the point is, not that they are dead now, but that they perished then; the manna did not save them. They ate the manna and died.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Your fathers did eat manna – There was a real miracle performed in their behalf; there was a perpetual interposition of God which showed that they were his chosen people.
And are dead – The bread which they ate could not save them from death. Though God interfered in their behalf, yet they died. We may learn,
- That that is not the most valuable of Gods gifts which merely satisfies the temporal wants.
- That the most distinguished temporal blessings will not save from death. Wealth, friends, food, raiment, will not preserve life.
- There is need of something better than mere earthly blessings; there is need of that bread which cometh down from heaven, and which giveth life to the world.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 49. Your fathers did eat manna – and are dead.] That bread neither preserved their bodies alive, nor entitled them to life eternal; but those who receive my salvation, shall not only be raised again in the last day, but shall inherit eternal life. It was an opinion of the Jews themselves that their fathers, who perished in the wilderness, should never have a resurrection. Our Lord takes them on their own ground: Ye acknowledge that your fathers who fell in the wilderness shall never have a resurrection; and yet they ate of the manna: therefore that manna is not the bread that preserves to everlasting life, according even to your own concession.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Your fathers by nature, or in respect of unbelief, did eat manna in the wilderness, and they are naturally dead; (manna would not always preserve their natural life); and those of them who were unbelievers, are also dead eternally; their eating of manna, which was a type of me, without believing in me, would not save them.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
49. Your fathersof whom yespake (Joh 6:31); not “ours,“by which He would hint that He had a higher descent, of whichthey dreamt not [BENGEL].
did eat manna . . . and aredeadrecurring to their own point about the manna, as one ofthe noblest of the ordained preparatory illustrations of Hisown office: “Your fathers, ye say, ate manna in the wilderness;and ye say well, for so they did, but they are deadeventhey whose carcasses fell in the wilderness did eat of that bread;the Bread whereof I speak cometh down from heaven, which the mannanever did, that men, eating of it, may live for ever.“
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness,…. All the while they were in the wilderness, for the space of forty years, till they came to the borders of the land of Canaan; this was their only food on which they lived, during their travels through the wilderness. It is observable, that Christ says, not “our fathers”, but “your fathers”; for though Christ, as concerning the flesh, came of these fathers, yet in every sense they were rather theirs than his; because regard may be had to such of them more especially who ate the manna as common food, and not as spiritual meat, as typical of the Messiah, as others did; and whom these, their offspring, did very much resemble. Though perhaps the reason of the use of this phrase may be, because the Jews themselves had used it in Joh 6:31, and Christ takes it up from them.
And are dead. This food, though it supported them in life for a while, could not preserve them from a corporeal death, and still less from an eternal one: for some of them not only died the first, but the second death.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
And they died ( ). Physical death. The manna did not prevent death. But this new manna will prevent spiritual death.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Are dead [] . The aorist points, not to their present condition but to the historical fact; they died. So Rev.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness,” (hoi pateres humon ephagon en te eremo to manna kai apethanon) “Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness or desert and they all died;” Our Lord went back to their own words, Joh 6:31; Neh 9:15; Psa 78:24; Psa 105:40.
2) “And are dead.” (kai apethanon) “And they are dead,” still. For that manna, that kind of heavenly bread was to satisfy a physical need and physical life against death. Their carcasses fell in the wilderness, Ecc 9:5; Rom 5:12; 1Co 10:5-10.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
49. Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness, and are dead. He says that the manna was a perishing food to their fathers, for it did not free them from death. It follows, therefore, that souls do not find anywhere else than in him that food by which they are fed to spiritual life. Besides, we must keep in remembrance what I formerly stated, that what is here said does not relate to the manna, so far as it was a secret figure of Christ; for in that respect Paul calls it spiritual food, (1Co 10:3.) But we have said that Christ here accommodates his discourse to the hearers, who, caring only about feeding the belly, looked for nothing higher in the manna. Justly, therefore does he declare that their fathers are dead, that is, those who in the same manner, were devoted to the belly, or, in other words, who thought of nothing higher than this world. (155) And yet he invites them to eat, when he says that he has come, that any man may eat; for this mode of expression has the same meaning as if he said, that he is ready to give himself to all, provided that they are only willing to believe. That not one of those who have once eaten Christ shall die — must be understood to mean, that the life which he bestows on us is never extinguished, as we stated under the Fifth Chapter.
(155) “ C’est a dire, ne pensoyent plus haut que ce monde.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(49) Your fathers . . . and are dead.Better, . . . and died.The manna which their fathers ate (Joh. 6:31) seemed to them a greater work than this which He has done. Its true relation to Him is shown in the fact that those who ate it afterwards died; whereas He is the true spiritual food for the world, and those who feed upon Him shall not afterwards die. That was manna, special in time and circumstance; this is bread, the true sustenance for all times and all circumstances. That seemed to them to come from heaven, and this from earth; but this outer earth-born form of flesh contains the true life, in the only way in which humanity could receive it. The life itself cometh down from heaven.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
49. Eat manna Parallel to that manna is Christ; parallel to their living by manna is our life by Christ; parallel to their gathering and eating is our faith in receiving Christ; as in Joh 6:47.
Dead There is one great opposition in the parallels: the manna gave but a transient earthly life; this true manna gives heavenly and eternal life.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Joh 6:49-50. Your fathers did eat manna Our Lord next drew a comparison between himself, considered as the bread from heaven, and the manna which Moses provided for their fathers in the desart, and which they admired so greatly. “Those who thus regard me,” said he, “as the bread of life, will receive far more important blessings than Moses, of whom you have now been boasting, could possibly give: for though indeed your fathers, under the conduct of that illustrious prophet, did eat manna in the wilderness; yet it was not sufficient to maintain their spiritual or temporal life; they are long since dead: but this of which I now speak, is the true bread which cometh down from heaven, and is of such a nature, that any one may eat of it, and have his life so nourished and supported by it, that he shall not die, but be assuredly delivered from the condemnation and ruin to which the breach of God’s righteous law has subjected every offender.” The opposition between , and are dead, in Joh 6:49 and , may not die, in Joh 6:50 is elegant, and shews that in the former the spiritual death is meant, as well as in the latter.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 6:49-50 . , . . .] “regeruntur Judaeis verba ipsorum Joh 6:31 ,” Bengel.
] a diversity in the reference which is full of meaning: loss of earthly life, loss of eternal life, whose development, already begun in time (see on Joh 3:15 ), the death of the body does not interrupt (Joh 11:25 ).
, . . .] of this nature is the bread which cometh down from heaven: one ( ) must eat thereof , and (in consequence of this eating) not die . This representation is contained in ; see on Joh 6:29 . The expression, however, is not conditional ( ), because the telic reference ( ) does not belong to the last part merely. The present participle shows that Jesus does not mean by His own concrete Personality, which is not named till Joh 6:51 , but intends to set forth and exhibit the true bread from heaven generally, according to its real nature (comp. Joh 6:58 ). On , one , comp. Dem. Phil . i. 8, and Bremi, p. 118; Ellendt, Lex. Soph . II. 883; Ngelsbach on the Iliad , p. 299, Exo 3 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
Ver. 49. Did eat manna ] They fed upon sacraments, and yet many of them perished eternally. A man may go to hell with font water on his face, and be haled from the table to the tormentor, as he, Mat 22:13 .
Your fathers did eat, &c. ] They sought only the satisfying of their bodily hunger, and they had it, but yet are dead. Manna could not immortalize them, as the poets feign their ambrosia did their dunghill deities. “Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats, but God will destroy both it and them.” These mentioned in the text fed upon sacraments, and yet they died in God’s displeasure, 1Co 10:3 ; 1Co 10:5 . The carcase of the sacrament cannot give life, but the soul of it, which is Christ; neither do the sacraments work as a medicine, whether men sleep or wake, by virtue inherent in them, ex opere operate, sed ex opere operantis, i.e. according to the disposition and qualification of the party that partaketh.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
49. ] That bread from heaven had no power to keep off death, and that, death owing to unbelief: our Lord by thus mentioning and their death, certainly hints at the similar unbelief of these Jews. And the same dubious sense of prevails in Joh 6:50 . Death is regarded as being swallowed up in the glory of the resurrection, and the second death which was hidden in the former has over him who eats this Bread of Life, no power: nay, he is brought, even here , into a resurrection state from sin and death: see Rom 6 . init. and Col 3 init.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 6:49-50 . , “Your fathers ate the manna in the desert and died: this is the bread which comes down out of heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die”. In other words: The manna which was given to your fathers to maintain them in physical, earthly life, could not assert its power against death, and maintain them continually in life. Your fathers died physically. The bread which comes down from heaven does not give physical life; it is not sent for that purpose, but the life which it is given to maintain, it maintains in continuance and precludes death. Taken in connection with the context, the words interpret themselves. Godet however says: “Jesus, both here and elsewhere, certainly denies even physical death in the case of the believer. Cf. Joh 8:51 . That which properly constitutes death, in what we call by this name, is the total cessation of moral and physical existence. Now this fact does not take place in the case of the believer at the moment when his friends see him die.” This seems to misrepresent the fact of death for the sake of misrepresenting the present passage.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
did eat = ate.
are dead = died.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
49.] That bread from heaven had no power to keep off death, and that, death owing to unbelief:-our Lord by thus mentioning and their death, certainly hints at the similar unbelief of these Jews. And the same dubious sense of prevails in Joh 6:50. Death is regarded as being swallowed up in the glory of the resurrection, and the second death-which was hidden in the former -has over him who eats this Bread of Life, no power: nay, he is brought, even here, into a resurrection state from sin and death: see Romans 6. init. and Colossians 3 init.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 6:49. , your fathers) concerning whom ye have spoken, Joh 6:31, Our fathers did eat manna, etc.-, your) Your, He saith, not our: by which very expression He shows, that He has a higher descent than they had supposed; Joh 6:42, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph?- , did eat manna in the wilderness) Their own very words are retorted on the Jews; see Joh 6:31.- ) and yet they died, and that by a terrible death.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 6:49
Joh 6:49
Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.-The manna was the bread given them to support them through the journey to the earthly Canaan, as Jesus was to support them in the journey to the heavenly Canaan. But the manna was not life giving, for those who ate of it died.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
fathers: Joh 6:31
and are: Num 26:65, Zec 1:5, 1Co 10:3-5, Heb 3:17-19, Jud 1:5
Reciprocal: Exo 16:15 – It is manna Pro 9:5 – General Joh 4:13 – Whosoever 1Co 6:13 – but God
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
9
The argument of Jesus in this verse, is that the manna which their fathers ate in the wilderness was not the bread that would produce everlasting life, seeing that all of those ancestors were dead.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 6:49. Your fathers did eat the manna in the wilderness, and died. No other bread has given life eternal. Even the manna, the bread given out of heaven, did not bestow life on their fathers, who (as the people themselves had said) ate the manna in the wilderness. It seems very probable that the addition in the wilderness is more than a mere repetition of the words of Joh 6:31. It recalls Num 14:35, Psa 95:8-11, and other passages in which the wilderness is specially mentioned as the scene of disobedience and of death; and thus the fathers, who (Deu 1:32) did not believe the Lord and died, are contrasted with the believer who hath eternal life (Joh 6:47).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Ver. 49, 50.-Your fathers, &c, in the desert, “signifying,” says S. Chrysostom, “that the manna did not long continue, nor come to the land of promise; for as soon as they reached it the manna ceased.” But this Bread of Christ endureth for ever. Listen to the words of Josue (v. 12): “And the manna ceased on the morrow after they had eaten of the old corn of the land; neither had the children of Israel manna any more; but they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year.” For as God fails us not in things needful, so He gives not an abounding of superfluities.
And died: i.e., manna fed your fathers after the way of other food, and neither did, nor was able to protect them from death; but My Bread will save from death.
That whosoever shall eat of it, by true faith and living charity, shall never die. That is, the manna had not the virtue of preserving life from corporeal death, much less the souls of your fathers from death, but this My Bread has the power of freeing from death not only the body, but the soul, and that for ever. For although it will not prevent the temporal death of the body, it will cause nevertheless the faithful man to rise up from that death, and to die no more for ever.
I am the living Bread (bread is used by a hebraism for food), quickening those who eat Me in Myself who am Life, and communicating My life to them. Whilst the manna was in itself inanimate and dead, and therefore could not bestow life upon those who ate it. Who came down from heaven (by reason of a Divine supposition, says Suarez); “Since they sought food from heaven,” says Chrysostom, “therefore He frequently testifies that He came down from heaven.”
Ver. 52.-If any one shall eat, &c. For this Bread gives to the soul the life of grace, which endures even to the life of glory for all eternity. And It shall make the body to rise from death to live together with the soul gloriously for ever.
Calvin and the heretics contend that this Bread is not the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, but mystical food; for that we mystically eat the Body of Christ by faith when we believe in Him. Of Catholics the same opinion was held by Jansen on this passage, Cajetan, Gabriel, Ruardus Tapper, Nicolas Casanus and Hesselius, who are cited by Baronius (lib. 1, de Eucharist, c. 5). Against these authors Didacus Castillus has written a whole book, Nicholas Sanders another, and Toletus, Maldonatus and Bellarmine refute them at length.
I say then that Christ from this place onward speaks expressly of the Eucharist. This is so certain that Maldonatus says, to deny it is rash, and almost heretical (erroneum).
It is proved (1.) because Christ here most clearly asserts it, constantly bidding us eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, in such sort that the doctrine of the Eucharist could not be more clearly expressed. For this is what He reiterates over and over again, you hear nothing else but My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My Flesh, and drinketh My Blood. Unless ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood. Surely it is incredible that Christ should wish to obscure a thing in itself so clear, and by Him so often repeated; I mean that we must believe in Him, by so many words and metaphors about eating His Flesh and Blood, especially when He foresaw that many, even of His disciples, would for this cause depart from Him.
(2.) Because He distinguishes both kinds in the Eucharist. For His Flesh He calls the food which we may eat: but His Blood that which we may drink. Unless ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye shall not have life in you (ver. 54). Therefore He speaks concerning the Eucharist, in which we truly and properly eat the Flesh of Christ and drink His Blood. Now in that spiritual eating of Christ which takes place by faith, drink cannot be distinguished from food, nor blood from flesh. Nor indeed ought we especially and severally to believe in the Flesh, and then again in the Blood of Christ, but it suffices to believe generally and fully in the whole Humanity of Christ.
(3.) Because nowhere in Scripture are the efficacy and fruit of the Eucharist, as well as the universal obligation of receiving It, clearly expressed and inculcated except here. And this precept, since it is so important, and so binding upon all the faithful, ought clearly to be expressed.
(4.) If S. John does not here treat of the Eucharist, then he nowhere does so. But who could believe such a thing of Christ’s Benjamin, who at the Last Supper, when Christ instituted the Eucharist, lay upon His breast, who, I say, could believe that he should have passed over, and involved in silence this most august monument and mystery of the love of Christ?
(5.) Because in a similar way (cap. 3), he narrates the institution of Baptism, and Christ’s conversation about it with Nicodemus. So here he relates the mystery of the Eucharist, and Christ’s disputation with the Jews concerning It. And these two Sacraments are necessary to the faithful, and are, as it were, the two bases and pillars of the Christian Church.
Lastly, this is the common opinion of the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, also of the commentators and Scholastic Doctors, viz. S. Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, S. Thomas, Rupert, Lyra, Maldonatus, Toletus, on this passage, and others in various places, who are quoted at large by Toletus, Ribera, Maldonatus, Sanders and Castillus, commenting upon this chapter, and by Bellarmine (lib. 1, de Euch. c. 5).
In like manner the Council of Ephesus understand this passage (Epist. ad Nestor.), so do the Second Council of Nice (Act 6), the Council of Cabillon (II c. 46), and the Council of Sens (cap. 10), and the Council of Trent (Sess. 13, c. 2). Nor does S. Augustine dissent, as is plain to those who read him carefully, although many think the contrary. For from this very passage he, in common with several others of the ancients, maintained that the Eucharist ought to be given even to infants. And this was actually the practice in various places for 600 years, until the Church laid down the contrary, namely that the Eucharist is not necessary for infants, and that it is not expedient to give it to them through fear of irreverence.
Here observe, that S. Augustine, besides the literal and genuine explanation of this passage, which is concerning the Eucharist, adds another which is symbolical and mystical. And he understands by this bread and food the society of the members and the body of Christ which is the Church: that to eat the flesh of Christ is the same thing as to be incorporated into the Church, to be aggregated and associated to it, and so to be brought in to Christ, and to drink and participate in His Spirit. S. Austin does this on account of the Donatists of his time in Africa, with whom he had a perpetual controversy. For they by schism rent the society and unity of the Church. It may be added the Eucharist is not only a symbol, but a cause of this union (societas) of the faithful in the Church. For as out of many grains of wheat ground together one loaf is made, and out of many clusters of grapes pressed together wine floweth, so of many faithful communicants is one society and Church. (2.) Because this union and society of the faithful is the end and fruit of the Eucharist, which without it profits not unto salvation. (3.) Because S. Augustine often just glances at and passes over the literal sense, as a thing easy and plain, and dwells upon the spiritual and mystical sense, as more obscure, subtle and sublime. Origen, SS. Gregory and Jerome, and other Fathers do the same. So S. Augustine is explained after his manner by his disciple S. Bernard (Serm. 3 in Ps. xc.) “What is it to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood but to participate in His sufferings, and to imitate His conversation in the flesh? Wherefore also that spotless Sacrament of the Altar sets this forth, when we receive the Lord’s Body. As that form of bread appears to enter into us, so we know by that conversation which He had upon earth He enters into us to dwell in our hearts by faith.”
You will say that S. Augustine asserts (lib. 3, de Doct. Christ. c. 16), that there is in these words of Christ a trope or figure, by which we are commanded to have communion in His sufferings. I answer, S. Augustine calls this a figure because the flesh of Christ is not here commanded to be cut, cooked and eaten (as is done with the flesh of bulls and sheep), as the Capharnaites imagined, and therefore were offended; but figuratively, i.e., sacramentally. For he thinks that it is here commanded that in the Eucharist, by means of the species of bread and wine, separated one from another, and as it were dead, we should represent the Passion and Death of Christ, which took place through the separation of the soul and blood of Christ from His body, and that we should both imitate this by mortification and shew it forth by holy living.
You will say secondly: Christ .(Joh 6:27,Joh 6:29, Joh 6:63) treats concerning the spiritual eating of Him by faith, therefore also He here proceeds to speak of the same, and not of sacramental and corporal eating, otherwise He would not speak consistently and logically (cohrenter). I answer (1.) by denying the consequence. For Christ wished by degrees to raise the ignorant Jews, and first to set before them easy things, and afterwards things more difficult and mysterious. Wherefore from the multiplication of the loaves with which He had fed the multitude He rises to the manna, and from that to the spiritual food of faith: ( Joh 6:27, Joh 6:29, Joh 6:35, Joh 6:36, Joh 6:40, Joh 6:47). Then in this verse and afterwards (He proceeds) to the real eating of Himself in the Eucharist, which is the end, the goal and aim of that miracle of the multiplication of the loaves. In a similar manner He led on the Samaritan woman from the drinking of material water to spiritual water. And Christ Himself sufficiently hints at, and indeed explains this leading onward, when (Joh 6:29, Joh 6:35) He said that bread was already possessed by those who believed, but here He says that His Eucharistic bread was not yet possessed, and that He was not then giving it, but that He would give it in the future. The bread, He says, which I will give is My flesh for the life of the world. But the reason of this change is that Christ (Joh 6:27, &c.) wished to forewarn and prepare His hearers for the most august mystery of the Eucharist. For in It faith and spiritual manducation are required in the highest degree, for without them the real and corporeal profits nothing, as S. Augustine says.
I reply (2.) by denying the antecedent. For Christ did not say that we were to eat Him by (per) faith, but He required faith as a means for obtaining from Him the heavenly bread and food, which is nothing else than His flesh and blood in the Eucharist, as I have observed in verse 27, &c.
They object (3.) that Christ says (Joh 6:64), It is the Spirit which quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. This I will explain in the proper place.
From what has been said it is clear that in the Eucharist the very flesh of Christ is truly and properly eaten, and His blood drank, and not bread, as the Calvinists suppose, which is only a type and figure of the flesh of Christ. For the figure of the Eucharist was rather the manna of the Jews, as being something celestial and sweet to the taste, than the common arid bread of Christians. And if the Eucharist is mere bread, and not the body of Christ, then Christ would have no ground for preferring the Eucharist to the manna, since the manna was sweeter and better than bread. And so the Capharnaites and His disciples understood Christ, namely, that He wished His Flesh to be truly and properly eaten, although they were ignorant of the manner of eating It sacramentally, under the species of bread and wine. And this they could not at this time have received, even though Christ had expounded it. And although they were so grievously offended, yet did not Christ correct them, when this their offence, and apostasy He could and should (debuisset) have done by a single word, saying that He was speaking figuratively (mystic), namely, that to eat His Flesh was nothing else but to believe in Him as incarnate and suffering for the salvation of men. Since, therefore, it is certain that He did not do this, it is certain that He was speaking concerning the real and sacramental eating of His Flesh in the Eucharist. “Consider,” says Theophylact, “that the bread which is eaten by us in the Mysteries is not merely a certain figure of the Lord’s body, but is the very Flesh of the Lord. He said not, The Bread which I will give is a figure of My Flesh. For by the words secretly spoken (arcanis verbis) that bread is transformed through the mystic benediction and the accession of the Holy Spirit, into the Flesh of the Lord. And how is it that flesh does not appear to us, but bread? It is that we may not shrink from eating it. For if indeed It had appeared to be flesh, we should have been disaffected towards communion. But now through the Lord’s condescension to an infirmity, the mystic Food appears to us such as that to which we are accustomed at other times.”
Ver. 52.-And the bread which I will give is My Flesh for the life of the world (Vulg.) The Greek has, But the bread which I will give is My Flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. And so read the Syriac, S. Cyril, Theophylact and Theodoret. The Arabic reads Body instead of Flesh. The meaning is, “The bread, i.e., the food of the Eucharist, which I will give at the Last Supper, is My Flesh which I will give, i.e., will offer to God upon the cross, a price and a ransom, to redeem the world from death, so that I may indeed raise the world dead in sin to the life of grace and glory.” Or better, “The bread of the Eucharist, which I will give in the way of food for the life of the world, will be My Flesh which I will deliver to the death of the cross for the life of the world, but in such manner that upon the cross I will give It to restore to the world its lost life, but in the Eucharist I will give It for food, that the world being raised by My death to the life of grace, may be nourished, may grow, and be perfected by It.” He means, “I will give My true Flesh upon the cross, as it were corn in a mill, to be broken and ground, that from It might be produced the bread of the Eucharist, fruit-bearing and life-giving, feeding the faithful for the life of grace, and leading them to the life of glory.” S. Ignatius, when he was condemned to the lions, had regard to this when he heard them roaring, and said, “I am the corn of Christ; by the teeth of the beasts I shall be ground, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ.”
From the expression, I will give, in the future tense, all the ancients, and the moderns generally, understand this passage of the Eucharist, and some add that Christ not only on the cross, but in the Eucharist also gives, i.e., offers His flesh to God for the life of the world. For Christ not only offers Himself to God upon the cross, as it were a bloody victim for the life of the world, but also daily offers Himself for the same in the Eucharist, as it were an unbloody victim. For the Eucharist, or the Mass, is the perpetual, but unbloody sacrifice. As Euthymius says, “He said not, the bread which I give, but, which I will give; for He was about to give It in the Last Supper, when He gave thanks, and brake the bread which He had taken, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take ye, and eat, This is My body.” After an interval, “I will give unto death. For He presignifies His crucifixion and voluntary passion.” Hear also Theophylact, “Although also He is said to be delivered up by the Father, yet He is also said to have given up Himself. And the one indeed was said that we might learn His accordance with the Father, the other that we might not be ignorant of the free volition of the Son.”
Ver. 53.-The Jews therefore . . . strove, Greek, , i.e., fought, contended in words, quarrelled among themselves, some accusing Christ, others defending Him.
How: when the question enters in, how a thing is done, unbelief enters in at the same time, says S. Chrysostom. “For when it behoved them,” says Cyril, “who by a miracle had perceived the Divine virtue of the Saviour, and the power of His miracles, readily to receive His words, and if any seemed too hard to seek for their solution, they did altogether the opposite. How can this man, &c. S. Chrysostom says, “if thou inquirest this, why didst thou not say the same in the miracle of the loaves, as to how He so greatly increased them? For from that it ought to have caused this more easily to be believed. The expression how, therefore, is a Judaic word, and the question of unbelievers.” Let the heretics hear this, who say, “How can so great a Christ be whole in so small a host?” Rather let them say, “How can an angel be wholly in a point?” “How is God everywhere?” “How is the soul whole in the whole body, and whole in all its parts?” And if they can neither understand, nor express these things, how can they understand the mystery of the Eucharist? Let them believe Almighty God giving assurance of the fact, although they do not understand the mode. God can do more than man can understand,” says S. Augustine. “It behoves us therefore,” says Theophylact, “when we hear, Unless ye eat the Flesh of the Son, ye shall not have life, to maintain undoubting faith in the reception of the Divine Mysteries, and not to ask, By what means?” In like manner Cyril, “But let us depart far away from the sins of others, having firm faith in the Mysteries. In such sublime things let us never either think, or say, ‘how?’ For this is a Judaic word, and a cause of extreme punishment.” Therefore he wisely concludes, “When God works, let us not ask ‘how?’ but let us ascribe to Him alone both the way and the knowledge of His own work.”
Ver. 54.-Jesus therefore said, &c. Hear S. Chrysostom, “They indeed judged this to be impossible, but He showed it to be altogether possible; and not only so, but necessary.” “The manner indeed in which it was possible,” says Cyril, “He did not unfold, but exhorted them to ask in faith: but they before they believed asked querulously.” Similarly Augustine, “How indeed It is given, and the manner of eating that Bread ye know not, but unless ye shall eat, &c.”
Unless ye shall eat: this is Christ’s precept concerning taking the Eucharist. Therefore from the very form of the words it is clear that it pertains only to adults: although indeed some of the ancients have extended it to little ones and infants, to whom they actually gave the Eucharist. This appears from S. Augustine (Epist. 23 ad Bonifac.) and S. Cyprian (Tract. de Laps). Indeed at Constantinople and elsewhere it was the custom to give the remains of the Eucharist to pure and innocent boys whom they called out of school into the church for the purpose. This appears from the case of the Jewish boy which I will speak of presently. But the Church subsequently defined that young children not yet come to the use of reason, are not the subject of the precept, and but little capable of fulfilling it reverently. Wherefore the Council of Trent says (Sess. 21, Can. 4), “If any one shall say that the communion of the Eucharist is necessary for young children before they come to years of discretion, anathema sit.” It is otherwise concerning the precept of baptism: Unless any one be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. For there it is plain from the form of words that Baptism is not only commanded, but also that it is ordained as a necessity for salvation, and therefore that infants cannot be saved without baptism as a means, although they are not bound by the precept of it, indeed cannot be bound. Others have extended this command of eating the Eucharist to little children in a non-literal but figurative sense, namely, that the little ones ought to eat the flesh of Christ, i.e., ought to be partakers of the mystical body of Christ which is the Church, that is, they ought to be baptized, that by the faith, hope and charity infused into them at their baptism, they may be incorporated with Christ and the Church. So think and explain S. Cyprian (lib. 3, ad Quirin. c. 53.), Pope Innocent 1. (Epist. 93, ad Patres Concil. Milev.), &c. But this meaning is far fetched and symbolical, not literal and natural.
You will say, infants ought to be united to Christ and the Church: and this union is the effect and fruit of the Eucharist, as the Council of Florence teaches: therefore they ought to receive It, that they may obtain this union. I reply, that infants are united and incorporated into Christ and the Church by baptism, but that the perfecting of the union takes place in the Eucharist, and is Its proper and peculiar effect. But this perfection is not required of infants, nor is it necessary for their salvation. So Suarez.
And drink His Blood. From hence the Hussites, Luther, Calvin and others contend that the Eucharistic chalice ought to be given to the laity also, that they may communicate in both kinds. But the practice and definition of the Church is otherwise, and this is the best interpreter of Holy Scripture.
I reply therefore (1.) that as regards the thing (rem) contained in the Sacrament, the laity do also drink the Blood of Christ when they receive His Body under the species of bread. Because under that species (sub ea) by virtue of consecration, there is there (ponitur) the Body of Christ, but by concomitance there is under the same the Blood of Christ, for the Body of Christ is not bloodless, nor can the Blood of Christ be separated from His glorified Body. As therefore he who takes the Eucharist under the species of wine by virtue of the words of consecration, takes directly and primarily the Blood of Christ, and yet by concomitance takes the Body of Christ, because the Blood of Christ cannot be without His Flesh; so in turn, he who takes the Flesh of Christ, under the species of bread, takes directly the Flesh of Christ, but by concomitance takes also his Blood. For in spiritual and sacramental and divine things food and drink are the same: consequently to eat and to drink means the same thing. Wherefore he who receives in one kind only receives as much profit and grace as he who takes in both kinds. Indeed as in material things, the same milk is both food and drink, the same bread dipped in wine both feeds and affords drink. It is at once eaten and drunk. It satisfies at once hunger and thirst. Still, as regards the sacramental species, he is properly said to eat the Flesh of Christ who eats It under the species of bread, and he is said to drink His Blood who drinks It under the species of wine.
You will say, then the laity ought to do both, for Christ Jesus commands it. I reply that the expression, and drink, both here and elsewhere is frequently put by a hebraism for or drink. For it suffices to receive one species, because under either is contained whole and perfect Christ. Thus it is said (Exo 21:13), “Whoso striketh father and (i.e., or) mother, let him die the death.” For he who strikes either one or the other is guilty of death. The conjunction and here, although it disjoins the members of the subject, viz. father and mother, nevertheless conjoins them in the predicate, that is to say, the penalty of death. Thus also, “silver and (i.e., or) gold have I none” (Act 3:6). Similar constructions are found in Exo 22:10; Eze 44:22, and elsewhere. So here too it may be taken thus, from what Christ says (Joh 6:51, Joh 6:58), concerning bread alone. And thus Paul explains Christ’s saying, “Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord” (1Co 11:27). See the Council of Trent (Sess. 21, Can. 1), Bellarmine, Suarez, Maldonatus and others.
We may add that also by a hebraism, the word unless ought to be repeated, thus, Unless ye eat, &c., and unless ye drink, &c. That means, If ye neither eat nor drink, &c. This clearly appears from the Greek, which for unless has , i.e., if ye do not eat, and if ye do not drink, that is, if ye do neither the one nor the other. The reason priori is because Christ is here answering the Jews striving among themselves, and saying concerning the Flesh alone of Christ, How can this man give us His Flesh to eat? To whom He replies, Amen, Amen, i.e., most truly and certainly, except ye shall eat the Flesh of the Son of man, &c. But He adds, and drink His Blood, that He may strengthen the expression, unless ye shall eat His Flesh. For that is not true and living flesh which has no blood. He would also show His liberality, charity, and the greatness of the benefit, by which He affords to the faithful in the Eucharist, the complete sustenance which consists of food and drink. These words have respect therefore rather to the blessing than to the precept.
Lastly, there is a canon for the interpretation of Holy Scripture delivered by S. Augustine (de Doct. Christ. lib. 3, c. 17). There are many precepts in Scripture which are given to the whole Church, which yet are to be fulfilled by some, not by all. Such is, “Increase and multiply” (Gen. i.) This bids some to take wives, and propagate the human race, but not that all and each should do so. So here, Unless ye shall eat, &c., i.e., unless there are some, viz. priests, who take the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both species, ye shall not have life in you. For if there be none such, then there will be none to consecrate the Eucharist, none to administer it, and so the whole fruit of the most Blessed Sacrament would be lost, as Bellarmine observes. For it is the office of priests to consecrate and receive in both kinds, that there may be not only a perfect Sacrament, but also that they may offer the sacrifice. This requires both kinds, both to signify perfect nourishment (for the sacrifice is, as it were, the food of God): and this nourishment consists of food and drink: as also that there may be a perfect representation of the passion and death of Christ. In them the Blood was separated from the Body of Christ, as by the force of the words of consecration, the Body is consecrated separately under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine. Formerly indeed the laity at times, not always, communicated in both kinds in the primitive Church. This is plain from S. Paul (1 Cor. xi. 28), and S. Dionysius (Celest. Hierarch. cap. 3, part 3), and S. Cyprian (Serm. de Laps). But as the number of believers increased, the Church rightly abrogated this custom, because of the peril of irreverence, and various abuses which had been often experienced.
Ye shall not have, &c. That it is possible to have spiritual life, by which the believing soul lives in the faith and love of God without the Eucharist is plain from the case of the newly baptised. Here however it is said that there cannot be life without It, because life cannot be long retained, nourished and fed without this food, especially since the precept of communicating, both by the natural and Divine law, as well as human law (for the Church has ordained that every one shall communicate once a year, at Easter), urges and obliges us to take It. Whence Ruperti says, A man is not considered to have not eaten, unless he be unwilling to eat, or has been careless and neglectful. And we commonly say that a man cannot live without food, meaning for long. Hence S, Basil says (lib. 1, de. Bapt), “He who has been regenerated by Baptism, ought afterwards to be nourished by the participation of the Divine Mysteries.” Similarly Dionysius Carthusianus, “As the body cannot be sustained without corporeal food, nor continue in natural life, so without this life-giving food the soul cannot persist in the spiritual life of grace.” So too Lyra, “As in bodily life food is necessary to preserve life, so is this Sacrament necessary to the spiritual life, because it is preservative of the spiritual life: for as Baptism is a certain spiritual generation, so is the Eucharist spiritual nutriment.”
From what has been said it is clear that the fruit and effect of the Eucharist may be gathered from the analogy of the benefits of bread and food. What bread and food do for the body the Eucharist does for the soul, and occasionally even for the body, in that it nourishes and quickens the body, yea, sometimes heals diseases, and drives away peril of death. Wherefore formerly some persons when going on board ship were wont to carry the Eucharist with them, that they might take It in case of danger; yea, to ward off peril. Thus, Gregory, the father of S. Gregory Nazianzen, being worn out by a protracted burning fever, and being nigh unto death was delivered from it, and restored to life and health by means of the Eucharist, received on Easter Day. Nazianzen relates this in his discourse on the death of his father. The same saint relates that his mother was restored to health from a severe and dangerous sickness through receiving spiritual nourishment from bread which he himself had consecrated for the holy sacrifice. He also testifies in a sermon on the death of his sister Gorgonia that she was healed of paralysis of all her limbs, and excruciating pains, by partaking of the Eucharist. S. Ambrose in a discourse on the death of his brother Satyrus, relates that he being shipwrecked escaped certain peril of death and swam to shore, in consequence of the Eucharist being appended to his neck. S. Gregory relates a similar escape by means of the Eucharist of Maximianus, Bishop of Syracuse (lib. 3, Dial c. 36). In the time of the Emperor Justinian at Constantinople, the son of a certain Jew received after the custom of that age, together with several Christian children, the remains of the Eucharist. For this he was thrown by his father, a glass-blower, into a burning furnace of glass. There by the virtue of the Eucharist he was preserved alive and unhurt. This happened A.D. 552. (See Evargrias, lib. 4, c. 24, Gregory of Tours, lib. 1, Mirac. c. 10.) Finally listen to Cyril summing up the fruits and effects of the Eucharist: “It drives away not only death, but all diseases. For it calms down, while Christ abides in us, the raging law of our members: It strengthens godliness: It extinguishes the perturbations of the mind: nor does It make question of our sins: but It heals the sick, It restores the bruised, and like the good Shepherd, who laid down His life for the sheep, It raises us from every fall.”
Ver. 55.-He that cometh &c. Eateth, i.e., says Ruperti, worthily, with due preparation and purification, with a previous act of contrition and sacramental confession, if a man have any mortal sin upon his conscience. For if, after examination, a man be not conscious of any mortal sin, even though he may really be in some mortal sin unknown to himself, the communion of the Eucharist will blot out that sin, and restore the communicant to the grace and love of God. This is the teaching of Suarez, and Theologians, passim. Moreover, the sixth General Council (Act 8) understands this verse of the Eucharist, and asserts that in it the Flesh of Christ is called life-giving, because It is the proper Flesh of the Word, and hypostatically united to the Word.
Hath eternal life: because by the Eucharist he receives grace to preserve him, and bring him unto life eternal. As Dion Carthusianus says, “He hath eternal life, because he hath Me: and he hath the life of grace which is continued by this Sacrament, until he arrive at the life of everlasting glory.” S. Cyril gives the reason-“Because the Flesh of Christ is the Flesh of God, which is united to the Word of God, who is, by His nature, Life, and thus is made life-giving. The Eucharist therefore quickens the soul, because It preserves, feeds, augments grace. Also It blots out venial sins, and even mortal sins, if a man has forgotten them. And It will raise up the body from death. Wherefore it follows, And I will raise him up. Moreover, S. Bernard thus explains these words of Christ tropologically (Tract. de Diligend Deo). He that eateth, &c., “That is, he who recalls to mind My death, and after My example mortifies his members which are upon the earth, hath eternal life.”
And I will raise him up at the last day, in which the passion of Christ and the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist, will gain their ultimate and perfect fruit and reward in the saints. I, who am really contained and eaten in the Eucharist, will raise up him that eateth Me, that as I give its own glory to the soul, so I may bestow upon the body its glory. For the glorified soul requires a glorious body that the whole man may be beatified. Hearken to S. Cyril, “I, He said, that is, My Body which shall be eaten, will raise him up. For Christ is no other than His Flesh. I do not say so because It is not different by nature, but because since the Incarnation He can by no means be divided into two Sons. I, therefore, He says, who am made man, will raise up those who eat Me by means of My Flesh at the last day. Assuredly it is altogether impossible that death and destruction should not be overcome by Him who by nature is Life.”
I will raise up, to immortal glory. “Lest they should suppose,” says S. Augustine, “that by that food and drink life eternal was promised in such a manner, that those who receive it should not die in the body, He condescended to meet such a thought by immediately adding, and I will raise him up at the last day, that meanwhile he should live according to the spirit, in the rest which the spirits of the saints enjoy: and as concerns the body, not even his flesh should be defrauded of life eternal, but should possess it at the resurrection of the dead at the last day.”
Wherefore the Council of Nice calls the Eucharist “the symbol of the resurrection.” And S. Ignatius (Epist. ad Ephes.) calls It the “medicine of immortality.” S. Cyril in this verse calls It “food nourishing for immortality and eternal life.” Hence S. Chrysostom (lib. 6, de Sacerdot.) asserts that the souls of those who receive this Sacrament at the end of life are by reason of having received It carried direct by the angels into heaven; and that their bodies, the angels like attendants surrounding them, are guarded for eternal life. Nyssen indeed adds (Orat. Catechet. c. 37), “that our bodies cannot win immortality, unless they have been united to this immortal Body of Christ.” S. Cyprian has a similar remark (Serm. de Cna Dom.), also Tertullian (de Resurrer. Carn.) Yea, S. Irenus (lib. 4, c. 34), from the truth that we communicate of the Flesh and Blood of an immortal Christ proves the resurrection, that is to say, that we shall rise to life immortal. Understand all these sayings, not that by the Eucharist there is confined in the body any physical quality, as a cause of its resurrection, nor any supernatural gift, which in the way of grace and glory is not due to the holy soul, but because the resurrection due to grace is given also to the saints by another title, which peculiarly and specially belongs to the Eucharist, that is to say, on account of that special union with the glorified Body which takes place in the Eucharist because of the institution and promise of Christ. So Suarez. Let me add that the Eucharist preserves, nourishes, and augments grace, which is the seed of glory. The Eucharist therefore is the instrumental cause of the resurrection (a moral, that is, not a physical cause), because of which Christ will cause us to rise again. Wherefore He saith not, “the Eucharist shall raise him again,” but, “I will raise him again.”
Ver. 56.-For My Flesh, &c., truly, i.e., not parabolically nor figuratively, as Euthymius says from S. Chrysostom, but really and properly, according to the plain meaning of the words. Hence S. Chrysostom (Hom. 61. ad. Pop.) teaches that we in the Eucharist are united and commingled with the Flesh of Christ, not only by love and consent of will, but also really and substantially. “Wherefore,” saith he, “He hath commingled Himself with us, and united His Body to ours, that we should be made one whole, even as a body is connected with its head. This is the desire of ardent lovers. It is this which Job hinted at, saying to his servants, to whom he was beyond measure desirable, because they showed their desire, saying, ‘Who will give us to be filled with his flesh?'” (Job xxxi.) “Not only does Christ afford Himself to be seen by those who desire Him, but even to be handled and eaten, to have our teeth fastened in His Flesh, and to fulfil every desire. As lions therefore breathe out fire, so let us depart from that Table, made terrible to the devil, and contemplating our Head in our minds, and the charity which He has manifested towards us.”
Ver. 57.-He that eateth, &c. Observe (1.) S. John delights in the word abide. By it he sometimes signifies delay, and duration of time (as i. 33), upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding. Sometimes, however, by the expression abides he expresses, moreover, indwelling and intimate union, as here and in his 1st Epistle (iii. 9), “His seed,” i.e., of the grace of God, “abides in him.” And iv. 16, “He that abideth in love abideth in God, and God in him.”
Observe (2.) the abiding and union of the soul with Christ in the Eucharist not only takes place by the Eucharist Itself, but by the Eucharist in such manner that Christ being therein hidden, really and corporeally enters into our body, and so Christ with us, and we with the flesh of Christ, and by consequence with His Person, Divinity and omnipotence are really united and commingled, even as food is really united and commingled with our flesh. So S. Chrysostom observes, “He saith, abideth in Me, that He may show we are commingled with Himself.” And Euthymius, “He abideth in Me; he is united to Me by the reception and communication of My Flesh and My Blood, and is made one body with Me.” Theophylact, “In this place we are taught the Sacrament of communion. For he who eats and drinks the Flesh and Blood of the Lord, abides in the Lord Himself, and the Lord in Him. For there is a new sort of commingling, and one beyond understanding, that God is in us, and we in God.” S. Cyril in this verse brings forward the apt similitude of wax. “It is as if when any one should pour wax into liquefied wax; it must be that the one should commingle with the other throughout. So if any one receive the Flesh and Blood of the Lord, he is so conjoined with Him, that Christ is found in him, and he in Christ.” And shortly afterwards, “As a little leaven, as Paul says, leaveneth the whole lump, so a little benediction draws the whole man into Himself (Christ), and fills him with His grace: and thus Christ abides in us, and we in Him. For truly the whole leaven passes into the whole lump. And this is the meaning of the passage.” The same Cyril also declares (lib. 10, c. 13) that Christ is in us, “not only through the indwelling, which is meant by love, but also by a participation of nature.”
S. Hilary teaches the same (lib. 8, de Trin.), and S. Irenus (lib. 4, c. 34). Hence S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. 4. Mystag.) declares, that in Holy Communion we become Christ-bearers, yea concorporate and united by consanguinity with Christ. Moreover Christ really abides with us so long as the sacramental species of bread and wine remain in us. But when they are digested and consumed by the stomach, Christ ceases indeed to live in us as Man substantially; but still through that previous union which He has contracted with us, the spiritual life of our souls is by His grace fed, strengthened and preserved for eternity. For (His Flesh) is grafted into our body as it were a seed of immortality. Which seed, as I have said, is not physical, but moral, like the merit of good works. For as a good work leaves after it merit, as it were a seed of glory, as it were a sort of title to eternal life, so does the communion of the Holy Eucharist leave a similar new title (jus), one peculiar to Itself, after It, unto the same life, as it were a seed of glory in us. For Christ grants this title to communicants through contact with, and partaking of His life-giving Body. For it is fitting and becoming that Christ should impart His own glorious life to those to whom He imparts Himself. “For it surely behoved,” says Cyril, “that not only the soul should rise to the blessed life by the Holy Ghost, but also that this worthless and earthly body should, by the taste of that which is akin to it, by contact and by food, be brought back to immortality.” The Flesh of Christ, therefore, in the Eucharist is the moral instrument of the Resurrection. Would you learn the physical cause of the same? It is this. The Deity of Christ in the Eucharist is the physical cause of the resurrection. To understand this from the foundation, observe that Christ as God, by the grace given and infused into a man by the reception of the Eucharist, even after the Eucharistic species have been consumed in the stomach, really dwells in the man, not only as in His temple by charity, but also as food in his stomach by way of nutriment. For as digested food nourishes and feeds the stomach, and through it all the limbs and members to which the stomach transmits the food, so in like manner the Divinity of Christ with His Flesh taken in the Eucharist, as it were the Food of soul and body, because it cannot be digested and consumed by man, abides continually in, as it were, the stomach of the soul, and nourishes and feeds it, and by it all the faculties and powers of the soul. And this is what Christ here saith, He that eateth My Flesh abideth in Me, and I in him. For the Deity of Christ as it were food abides always in the soul, feeding it; and the soul in her turn abides in the Deity of Christ, as an immortal and life-giving Food. For she abides as it were in Life itself, which feeds us continually with the influx of habitual grace, and at stated periods by the infusion of fresh actual grace, as by fresh holy illuminations, fresh inspirations, new pious affections and impulses sent into the soul, that we may become the same that Christ is, says S. Gregory Nyssen. And thus we are made spiritual, holy and divine, and that daily more and more, and have always in the stomach both of our body and our soul the very Divinity of Christ, as it were the tree of life, so that It in Its own time, in the day of judgment and the general resurrection, will communicate to us Its own immortal, blessed and Divine life. Thus sometimes medicine, a long time after it has been taken and digested, through the virtue which it leaves after it, works and heals, even though it at first makes those who take it more sick, because it attacks the depraved humours (of the body), and fights with them until it purges and expels them; and when they are expelled, it restores the body to its pristine purity and health.
The following is the order of things in the communion of the Eucharist. (1.) Through the receiving of the Eucharist, the Flesh and Blood of Christ, yea whole Christ, i.e., His Humanity and Divinity, as it were food, enters into us, and abides in us. (2.) The species of the Eucharist being digested by the stomach, and converted into our flesh (for the matter of the bread and wine which had been annihilated in consecration, comes back by the power of God), the Flesh and Humanity of Christ cease to be in us: but the Divinity of Christ, as it were immortal Food, remains in us. And This (3.) communicates Its own eternal life to the soul, nourishes and augments it by continually feeding in the way of which I have spoken. (4.) The Same will raise our bodies from death at the resurrection, and unite them to our souls, and so bestow the life of eternal glory upon the whole man, inasmuch as we have the Eucharist, at least as regards the Divinity of Christ which it contains, as it were the food and medicine of immortality always in our body and our soul. And by means of It Christ abides in us, as He Himself here asserts, inasmuch as He is very God. But God will be the physical cause of our resurrection as the Flesh of Christ will be the moral cause of the same. And although our flesh must first die, even as the Flesh of Christ died, yet this food of the Eucharist, that is, Christ as God always abiding in a man, will raise him up from death unto life eternal. This is what Christ saith, And I will raise him up at the last day. I am the living Bread who came down from heaven. If any man shall eat this Bread he shall live for ever. For Christ as God, not as man, came down from heaven. He that eateth, &c.-because as food It always sustains and nourishes him into eternal life. Nor indeed can these words be otherwise explained. As therefore food, after it has been digested, leaves its power to nourish in the chile which remains, so the species of the Eucharist after they have been digested, leave in a manner their power of nourishing unto eternal life in the Divinity of Christ which with grace remains, For His Humanity by His own ordinances has been tied to the species of bread and wine, that so long as they remain, It also should remain, and when they are consumed that It should cease to be present, as S. Thomas and the rest of the Theologians teach. In like manner after a good work there remains in us not only habitual grace, but also the Divinity Itself, and the Whole Most Holy Trinity, which makes us to be partakers of the Divine nature, and sons of God.
Here observe by the way a threefold distinction between the Eucharist and common food. (1.) The first is that common food does not remain in us, but is converted into chile, and then into blood, and then into the flesh and substance of our several members. But in the Eucharist the Flesh of Christ is not converted into the substance of him who eateth, but remains uncorrupt and unchanged in Itself, forasmuch as It is immortal and glorious. This is what Christ said to a certain Saint, “Thou shalt not change Me into thyself, but thou shalt be changed into Me.”
(2.) The second is, that common food is of itself without life, but is animated, and receives life from him that eateth it. But the Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist is both living and life-giving, giving life to him that eateth It.
(3.) Bread and food leave behind no part of themselves, because they are wholly converted into chile, and transfuse into it their power of nourishing. But the Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist, after the species being consumed, the bread has vanished, leaves after It, Its own hypostasis, that is to say, the Person of the Word, and His Divinity, on account of which Christ is here said to remain in him that eateth, and to raise him up, and he that eateth to remain in Christ. So Cyril and the Fathers cited above. Also S. Ambrose (lib. 6, de Sacrament, c. 1), whom hear. “How then did the Bread, even the Living Bread come down from heaven? Because the same our Lord Jesus Christ is a partaker both of Deity and of a body; and thou who receivest His Flesh, art partaker through that Food of His Divine Substance.” So too, S. Hilary (lib. 8, de Trin.) “He Himself is in us through His Flesh, whilst we are with Him in This which is in God.”
Ver. 58.-As the living Father, &c. . . . hath sent Me, in the Flesh into the world, through the Incarnation, for the salvation of men. The living Father, who is Himself Divine Life, uncreated Substance, and therefore in begetting Me hath communicated to Me the same Substance, that I might communicate the same to the Humanity, which He sent Me to assume, that I might communicate similar spiritual, holy, blessed and eternal life to the faithful who eat of Me.
And I live because of (propter) the Father, i.e., through the Father, of the Father. For the Father in begetting Me communicates to Me His own Divinity, which is the essence of life. For God hath begotten God, the Living One hath begotten the Living One. “The Son therefore,” saith Cyril, “is as Light of Light, and as Life of Life. And as the Father gives light through the Son to the things which need light, and through Him does wisely, so through the Son as through His life which proceeds from Him, He quickens those things which have need of life.” And again, “I live by (propter) the Father: for since My Father is Life by nature, and because I am by nature His Son, I naturally possess this property of His nature, that is life.”
Here Christ gives the reason by which He is living and quickening Bread in the Eucharist, who will raise us from death at the judgment-day. And He opens out the very origin and fountain of life and resurrection. For God the Father is that Fount of life, according to the words, “With Thee is the Fountain of life” (Psa 35:10). And He communicates together with His Essence this life to His Son, whereby it comes to pass that the Son Himself is a Fountain of Life. Wherefore as the Father always abides in the Son, always imparts this source of life to the Son, so also the Son, being sent by the Father in the flesh, and abiding in it, continually infuses this Divine life into the flesh and the Humanity which He has assumed, and continually abiding in us, inspires the like life into us who receive His Flesh in the Eucharist. He therefore shall live by Me, that as the Father communicates His own life to the Son, so Christ communicates His life to the Christian who rightly receives Him. Wherefore S. Dionysius the Areopagite (de Eccles. Hierarch. c. 1) teaches that the Priest passes into fellowship with the Godhead, and (c. 2) that communion deifies, and (c. 3) that those who worthily communicate are by the similitude of a pure and divine life grafted into Christ. Moreover, the Eucharist does the same thing for the pure and the penitent. Whence S. Augustine (Serm. 1, de Temp.) says, “Let him change his life, who wishes to receive Life. For if he change not his life, he will receive Life unto condemnation, and will rather be destroyed than healed by It: rather slain than quickened.” For the impure and the impenitent receive not life, but death of body and soul, both now and eternally, from the Eucharist. Thus S. Cyprian (Serm. 5, de Laps.), speaking of a woman who communicated unworthily, says, “She received not bread, but a sword, and as it were taking some deadly poison she was shaken, trembled, and fell. She who had deceived man, felt the vengeance of God.” He relates several cases of a similar kind. Durandus also (Ration. Divin. 0ff. lib. 6, c. 10) relates that the pestilence which ravaged Rome, from the time of Pope Pelagius until Gregory the Great, and caused many thousand deaths, was sent by God in punishment of those, who, after the Lenten fast and the Easter communion, returned to their former wickedness. For they were to be visited with death who profaned the Eucharist, which is true life.
The meaning then is, “As the Father, who liveth by Himself, and is the Essence itself of life, hath sent Me into this world, and I have life from Him who begat Me, life, I say, both human, from a human soul, and of greater importance, Divine life, through partaking of the Godhead, with which My humanity is hypostatically united, and will be united for ever, so in like manner he who eateth the living Me, also from Me, ever abiding in Him as regards My Godhead, shall receive a perpetual life of grace and glory; and as regards his body, I will in due time raise it up into a blessed and eternal life.” Christ here signifies that the life which is originally in the Father is communicated to us through the Son and the Eucharist, as by an organic means. So Leontius, Jansen, and others. But above the rest, S. Cyril, whom hear, “As I am made man by the will of the Father, who came forth from essential life, and as being man I live, and have filled My body with Life, no otherwise shall he who eateth My flesh live by Me. For I assumed mortal flesh; but because I exist as life essentially, dwelling in the flesh, I have made it wholly like unto My own life. For I indeed am not conquered by the death of the flesh, but as God I have overcome all death and destruction.” And shortly afterwards, “As the Father hath sent Me, so that I am become man, yet I live by the Father, that is, I perfectly preserve the Father’s nature: so he who shall receive Me by eating My flesh shall surely live, being made wholly like unto Me, who am able to give him life, because I am of the living Father.” He adds a simile taken from red-hot iron. For as the fire communicates its heat to the red-hot iron, so does the living Christ impart His life unto us in the Eucharist. In admiration of this S. Augustine exclaims (lib. 7, Confess. c. 10), “0 eternal Truth, and true Charity, and sweet Eternity, I tremble with love and dread, as though I heard Thy voice from on high saying, ‘I am the Bread of the strong: grow as thou shalt eat Me.'”
Observe here the gradation, by which life gradually descends to us from God as it were by stairs. The first step is, the Father communicating His own Divine Essence to the Son. The second, when the Son communicates the same life to the Humanity which He assumed by the participation of attributes. Third, when He inspires the life of grace and glory which He shares with It. The fourth, when He infuses not equal but like life into us in the Eucharist.
Lastly, Christ here signifies what I have spoken of in the preceding verse, that His Godhead which always abides in us, after the reception of the Eucharist, even after the species have been consumed, continually causes the life of grace to flow into us, and will after death raise us up again unto immortal life. This is what He means when He saith, I live by the Father, &c. He means, Because I receive Godhead, which is pure life from the Father, therefore he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me. For My Godhead abiding in him, will continually breathe into his soul the breath of life. And his body shall after death be raised up by It to the beatific life. It is as the seminal virtue which lies hid in the heart of a grain of wheat, that seems dead through the winter, but in spring by the heat of the sun opening out its force, it, as it were, raises the grain of wheat itself from death, and causes it to germinate, and produce thirty and sixty fold.
Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary
Jesus had been speaking of everlasting life and had claimed that He as the Bread of Life could provide it. Now he clarified the distinction between the physical bread that God provided in the wilderness and the spiritual Bread that He provided in Jesus. The result of eating the manna was temporary satisfaction but ultimately death, but the result of believing in Jesus was permanent satisfaction and no death.
"When God gave the manna, He gave only a gift; but when Jesus came, He gave Himself. There was no cost to God in sending the manna each day, but He gave His Son at great cost. The Jews had to eat the manna every day, but the sinner who trusts Christ once is given eternal life.
"It is not difficult to see in the manna a picture of our Lord Jesus Christ. The manna was a mysterious thing to the Jews; in fact, the word manna means ’What is it?’ (see Exo 16:15) Jesus was a mystery to those who saw Him. The manna came at night from heaven, and Jesus came to this earth when sinners were in moral and spiritual darkness. The manna was small (His humility), round (His eternality), and white (His purity). It was sweet to the taste (Psa 34:8) and it met the needs of the people adequately." [Note: Wiersbe, 1:313.]