Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 6:51

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

51. the living bread ] Not merely the Bread of life ( Joh 6:48), the life-giving Bread, but the living Bread, having life in itself, which life is imparted to those who partake of the Bread.

which came down ] At the Incarnation. Now that the Bread is identified with Christ, we have the past tense of what took place once for all. Previously (Joh 6:33; Joh 6:50) the present tense is used of what is continually going on. In one sense Christ is perpetually coming down from heaven, in the other He came but once: He is ever imparting Himself to man; He only once became man.

he shall live for ever ] Just as ‘living Bread’ is a stronger expression than ‘Bread of life,’ so ‘live for ever’ is stronger than ‘not die.’

and the bread that I will give ] The precise wording of this sentence is somewhat uncertain, but the best reading seems to be: and the Bread that I will give is My Flesh for the life of the world. That in Christ’s mind these words looked onwards to the Eucharist, and that in thus speaking to believers throughout all time He included a reference to the Eucharist has already been stated to be highly probable. (See above, Introduction to 26 58). But that the reference is not exclusively, nor even directly, to the Eucharist is shewn from the use of ‘Flesh’ ( sarx) and not ‘Body’ ( sma). In all places where the Eucharist is mentioned in N.T. we have ‘Body,’ not ‘Flesh;’ Mat 26:26; Mar 14:22; Luk 22:19; 1Co 11:24 ff. Moreover the words must have had some meaning for those who heard them at Capernaum. Evidently they have a wider range than any one Sacrament. Christ promises to give His Flesh (by His bloody death soon to come) for the benefit of the whole world. But this benefit can only be appropriated by the faith of each individual; and so that which when offered by Christ is His Flesh appears under the figure of bread when partaken of by the believer. The primary reference, therefore, is to Christ’s propitiatory death; the secondary reference is to all those means by which the death of Christ is appropriated, especially the Eucharist. Not that Christ is here promising that ordinance, but uttering deep truths, which apply, and which He intended to apply, to that ordinance, now that it is instituted.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

51 58. Further definition of the identification of the Spiritual Bread with Christ as consisting in the giving of His Body and the outpouring of His Blood

In Joh 6:35-50 Christ in His Person is the Bread of Life: here He is the spiritual food of believers in the Redemptive work of His Death.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

The bread that I will give is by flesh – That is, his body would be offered as a sacrifice for sin, agreeably to his declaration when he instituted the Supper: This is my body which is broken for you, 1Co 11:24.

Life of the world – That sinners might, by his atoning sacrifice, be recovered from spiritual death, and be brought to eternal life. The use of the word world hero shows that the sacrifice of Christ was full free ample, and designed for all men, as it is said in 1Jo 2:2, He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. In this verse Jesus introduces the subject of his death and atonement. It may be remarked that in the language which he used the transition from bread to his flesh would appear more easy than it does in our language. The same word which in Hebrew means bread, in the Syriac and Arabic means also flesh.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 51. Is my flesh, which I will give, c.] Our Lord explains his meaning more fully, in these words, than he had done before. Having spoken so much of the bread which feeds and nourishes the soul, and preserves from death, the attention of his hearers was fixed upon his words, which to them appeared inexplicable and they desired to know what their meaning was. He then told them that the bread meant his flesh, (his life,) which he was about to give up; to save the life of the world. Here our Lord plainly declares that his death was to be a vicarious sacrifice and atonement for the sin of the world; and that, as no human life could be preserved unless there was bread (proper nourishment) received, so no soul could be saved but by the merit of his death. Reader, remember this: it is one of the weightiest, and one of the truest and most important sayings in the book of God.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: See Poole on “Joh 6:33“. See Poole on “Joh 6:35“. Our Saviours so often inculcating this, and what follows, lets us see both how necessary this is to be known, and also how difficult the work of believing is.

Those words,

he shall live for ever, expound those that went before in the Joh 6:50, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. His saying that the bread which he giveth is his flesh, expounds what he said before, viz. how he is the bread of life, viz. by giving his flesh, that is, his life, for the life of the world, that many might be saved; hereby showing us, that the object of our faith is a Christ crucified, 1Co 2:2.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

51. I am, c.Understand, it isof MYSELF I now speak asthe Bread from heaven of MEifa man eat he shall live for ever; and “THEBREAD WHICH I WILL GIVE IS MYFLESH, WHICH I WILL GIVE FOR THELIFE OF THE WORLD.” Here, for the first time in this highdiscourse, our Lord explicitly introduces His sacrificial deathforonly rationalists can doubt this not only as that which constitutesHim the Bread of life to men, but as THAT very element INHIM WHICH POSSESSES THELIFE-GIVING VIRTUE.”From this time we hear no more (inthis discourse) of “Bread”; this figure is dropped, and thereality takes its place” [STIER].The words “I will give” may be compared with thewords of institution at the Supper, “This is My body which isgiven for you” (Lu22:19), or in Paul’s report of it, “broken for you”(1Co 11:24).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

I am the living bread which came down from heaven,…. This is the same with what is said in Joh 6:33, which is true of Christ, as he has life in him; and is the author and giver of life to others; and is of an heavenly original, and came from heaven to give life to men: and such is the virtue of this living and heavenly bread, that

if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever; not a natural, but a spiritual life; a life of sanctification, which is begun here, and will be perfected hereafter; and a life of glory, which will never end:

and the bread that I will give is my flesh; or “body”, as all the Oriental versions render it. Here our Lord explains more clearly and fully what he means, under the notion of bread; and which shows, that by bread he did not design merely his doctrine, but his flesh, his human nature; though not as abstracted from his deity, but as in union with it:

which I will give for the life of the world; and which he did by the offering up of his body, and making his soul, or giving himself an offering, a propitiatory sacrifice for sin; which was done in the most free and voluntary manner, in the room and stead of his people, to procure eternal life for them, even for the whole world of his elect; whether among Jews or Gentiles; particularly the latter are here meant, in opposition to a notion of the Jews, that the world, or the Gentiles, would receive no benefit by the Messiah when he came; [See comments on Joh 3:16].

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The living bread ( ). “The bread the living.” Repetition of the claim in John 6:35; John 6:41; John 6:48, but with a slight change from to (present active participle of ). It is alive and can give life. See 4:10 for living water. In Re 1:17 Jesus calls himself the Living One ( ).

For ever ( ). Eternally like with in 47.

I shall give ( ). Emphasis on (I). Superior so to Moses.

Is my flesh ( ). See on 1:14 for the Incarnation. This new idea creates far more difficulty to the hearers who cannot grasp Christ’s idea of self-sacrifice.

For the life of the world ( ). Over, in behalf of, means, and in some connexions instead of as in 11:50. See 1:30 for the Baptist’s picture of Christ as the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. See also John 3:17; John 4:42; 1John 3:16; Matt 20:28; Gal 3:13; 2Cor 5:14; Rom 5:8. Jesus has here presented to this Galilean multitude the central fact of his atoning death for the spiritual life of the world.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

The living bread [ ] . Literally, the bread the living (bread). Wyc., quick bread.

I will give. The ejgw, I, is emphatic, in contrast with Moses (ver. 32).

Flesh. See on 1 14.

Which I will give. The best texts omit. Read, as Rev., my flesh for the life of the world.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “I am the living bread,” (ego eimi ho artos ho zon) ”I am (exist as) the living bread,” life imparting and life sustaining bread. The manna, not itself living, could never impart life, but Jesus as the living bread can give continual life to meet the need of every soul, as this miracle of loaves and fishes met every need with much left over, Joh 6:9-14.

2) “Which came down from heaven:” (ho ek tou ouranou katabas) “The one who has come down out of and from heaven,” repeatedly asserted, Joh 6:32-33; Joh 6:50-51; 2Co 8:9.

3) “If any man eat of this bread,” (ean tis phage ek toutou tou artou) “If anyone eats out of or of this bread,” this eternal-life giving bread which bread I am, Joh 6:48; Joh 6:58.

4) “He shall live forever: (zesei eis ton aiona) “He shall live into the age,” the heaven age, forever, with eternal life from the moment he believes, Joh 6:35; Joh 6:47; Joh 6:58.

5) “And the bread that I will give is my flesh,” (kai ho artos de hon ego doso he sarks mou estin) “And indeed the bread which I will give is (exists as or in) my flesh,” in which He “bare our sins in His body on the tree,” 1Pe 2:24; Col 1:14; Col 1:20-22; Eph 2:15-16.

6) “Which I will give for the life of the world.” (huper tes tou kosmou zoes) “On behalf of the life of the world,” of the created universe and all men and all things in it, which when He finished, the Father was satisfied, and all who have accepted His Son by faith have been satisfied, Joh 10:30; Isa 53:10-12, Joh 10:10.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

51. I am the living bread. He often repeats the same thing, because nothing is more necessary to be known; and every one feels in himself with what difficulty we are brought to believe it, and how easily and quickly it passes away and is forgotten. (156) We all desire life, but in seeking it, we foolishly and improperly wander about in circuitous roads; and when it is offered, the greater part disdainfully reject it. For who is there that does not contrive for himself life out of Christ? And how few are there who are satisfied with Christ alone! It is not a superfluous repetition, therefore, when Christ asserts so frequently that he alone is sufficient to give life. For he claims for himself the designation of bread, in order to tear from our hearts all fallacious hopes of living. Having formerly called himself the bread of life, he now calls himself the living bread, but in the same sense, namely, life-giving bread. — Which have come down from heaven He frequently mentions his coming down from heaven, because spiritual and incorruptible life will not be found in this world, the fashion of which passes away and vanishes, but only in the heavenly kingdom of God.

If any man eat of this bread. Whenever he uses the word eat, he exhorts us to faith, which alone enables us to enjoy this bread, so as to derive life from it. (157) Nor is it without good reason that he does so, for there are few who deign to stretch out their hand to put this bread to their mouth; and even when the Lord puts it into their mouth, there are few who relish it, but some are filled with wind, and others — like Tantalus — are dying of hunger through their own folly, while the food is close beside them.

The bread which I shall give is my flesh. As this secret power to bestow life, of which he has spoken, might be referred to his Divine essence, he now comes down to the second step, and shows that this life is placed in his flesh, that it may be drawn out of it. It is, undoubtedly, a wonderful purpose of God that he has exhibited life to us in that flesh, where formerly there was nothing but the cause of death. And thus he provides for our weakness, when he does not call us above the clouds to enjoy life, but displays it on earth, in the same manner as if he were exalting us to the secrets of his kingdom. And yet, while he corrects the pride of our mind, he tries the humility and obedience of our faith, when he enjoins those who would seek life to place reliance on his flesh, which is contemptible in its appearance.

But an objection is brought, that the flesh of Christ cannot give life, because it was liable to death, and because even now it is not immortal in itself; and next, that it does not at all belong to the nature of flesh to quicken souls. I reply, though this power comes from another source than from the flesh, still this is no reason why the designation may not accurately apply to it; for as the eternal Word of God is the fountain of life, (Joh 1:4,) so his flesh, as a channel, conveys to us that life which dwells intrinsically, as we say, in his Divinity. And in this sense it is called life-giving, because it conveys to us that life which it borrows for us from another quarter. This will not be difficult to understand, if we consider what is the cause of life, namely, righteousness. And though righteousness flows from God alone, still we shall not attain the full manifestation of it any where else than in the flesh of Christ; for in it was accomplished the redemption of man, in it a sacrifice was offered to atone for sins, and an obedience yielded to God, to reconcile him to us; it was also filled with the sanctification of the Spirit, and at length, having vanquished death, it was received into the heavenly glory. It follows, therefore that all the parts of life have been placed in it, that no man may have reason to complain that he is deprived of life, as if it were placed in concealment, or at a distance.

Which I shall give for the life of the world. The word give is used in various senses. The first giving, of which he has formerly spoken, is made daily, whenever Christ offers himself to us. Secondly, it denotes that singular giving which was done on the cross, when he offered himself as a sacrifice to his Father; for then he delivered himself up to death for the life of men, and now he invites us to enjoy the fruit of his death. For it would be of no avail to us that that sacrifice was once offered, if we did not now feast on that sacred banquet. It ought also to be observed, that Christ claims for himself the office of sacrificing his flesh. Hence it appears with what wicked sacrilege the Papists pollute themselves, when they take upon themselves, in the mass, what belonged exclusively to that one High Priest.

(156) “ Il nous escoule et vient a estre mis en oubli.”

(157) “ Laquelle seule fait que nous tirons vie de ce pain.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(51) I am the living bread.The words are again repeated (comp. Joh. 6:35; Joh. 6:48), but with a new fulness of meaning. He spoke before of bread which was of life, characterised by life, producing life. He now speaks of this bread as living, containing the principle of life in itself. (Comp. Joh. 4:13-14; Joh. 5:26). Once again, too, He answers their demand for bread from heaven (Joh. 6:31). The lifeless manna fell and lay upon the ground until they gathered it, and passed to corruption if they did not. Each days supply met the need of each day, but met that only. He is the bread containing life in Himself, coming by His own will and act from heaven, living among men, imparting life to those who eat by coming to and believing on Him, so that it becomes in them a principle of life, too, which cannot die, but shall live for ever.

And the bread that I will give is my flesh.The following words, which I will give, should be, probably, omitted, and the whole clause should be readAnd the bread that I will give is My flesh for the life of the world. The words are in every way full of meaning, and the history of their interpretation is a long chapter in the history of Christian doctrine. Their connection with the words used at the institution of the Lords Supper will be dealt with in Excursus C: The Sacramental Teaching of St. Johns Gospel. Their meaning for the immediate hearers is to be found in the thoughts which led up to them, and which they would suggest to a spiritually-minded Jew. They are, indeed, to be spiritually interpreted (Joh. 6:63), and many, even among the disciples, feel it is a hard saying which they cannot hear (Joh. 6:60); but the elements of the interpretation are to be sought in the Jewish mind. They have followed Him after a miracle which multiplied a few common barley loaves and fishes, and made them more than enough for thousands (Joh. 6:22-24); He has rebuked the mere bread-seeking spirit, and declared to them the true food (Joh. 6:26; Joh. 6:29); they have demanded a sign from heaven like the manna (Joh. 6:30-31); He has answered that the manna was the Fathers gift, and that He is the true bread from heaven (Joh. 6:32-35); He has shown parenthetically the real ground of their unbelief (Joh. 6:36-46), and again returned to the thought of the bread of life which they have murmured at (Joh. 6:41-42), and which He has more fully explained (Joh. 6:47-51). He now identifies the bread of which He has spoken with His flesh, and says that He will give that for the life of the world. This form of human flesh is, as bread, the means by which life is conveyed; it is the word by which the Eternal Spirit speaks to the spirit of man. (Comp. Joh. 1:14, which is the only other passage in this Gospel, and Luk. 24:39, of the resurrection body, which is the only other passage in the New Testament, where the word flesh is used of the person of Christ.)

These are the thoughts which have immediately led to these words; but many a chord in the Jewish mind ought to have vibrated to them. The emphatic I will give, whether it is repeated or not, refers perhaps to the contrast with Moses (Joh. 6:32), but certainly to a gift in the future, and, therefore, not to the Incarnation, but to the Crucifixion. The great Teacher, whom many of them had heard, realised that the human form they now looked upon was the Lamb of God of Isaiahs prophecy (Joh. 1:36, Note). It was now the time of their Paschal Feast (Joh. 6:4), when Jewish families were assembling to eat the flesh which told of the deliverance from Egyptian bondage and the birth of the nations life. Every day of Temple service told of flesh given in sacrifice for sin, and eaten in maintenance of the individual life. His words, uttered at this Passover, and fulfilled at the next, announce a gift of His own flesh as the true Paschal Lamb, as the sacrifice for the sins of the world, and as the sustenance of the true life of mankind.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

51. My flesh Up to this word the unbelieving perverts could allow our Lord’s figure its true interpretation. He literally means, they would allow that faith in him secures eternal life. But this eating bread which is flesh, at once opens a divine mystery to his faithful hearers, but a terrible handle for perversion by the perverts.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

“I am the living bread which came down from Heaven. If any man eats of this bread he will live for ever. Yes, and the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

In contrast to the ‘manna from Heaven’, Jesus points out that He is ‘the living bread which came down from Heaven’, heavenly food that gives life. Indeed if anyone eats of this bread (by coming to Him and believing on Him – Joh 6:35) he will live for ever. Thus the ‘eternal life’ is not only a present life with eternal qualities, but also a life which will go on for ever. Here is bread which can give true life, eternal life, and He is that bread. They must eat of Him, that is they must respond to Him and His teaching in full faith, and then they will live for ever.

But now a new theme is introduced into His teaching. ‘The bread which I will give is my flesh’. Up to this point the bread has been life-giving bread, offered to be ‘eaten’ by coming to Him and hearing His words, and responding in obedient trust (Joh 6:35). It has been composed of Himself and His teaching. Those were His words to the crowds, and he had repeated them to the Judaisers. It was an offer of life to all who would come to Him at that time and truly believe, although He was no doubt ever conscious of the way in which it would finally be brought about. Now He would deal with a new situation, the antagonism of the Judaisers, and it enabled Him to introduce a new and challenging form of teaching, with His coming Passover possibly in mind (Joh 6:4).

You will remember from Joh 5:18 that these latest hearers were the same men who were plotting to kill him. They were men of blood. They carried death in their hearts. This explains the change that now takes place in Jesus’ tone and the change in His illustration. Their presence had brought home to Him what lay before Him. From now on He would not talk of ‘the bread of life’, the life-giving bread, but would use the Old Testament simile of ‘eating flesh’ and ‘drinking blood’, which meant killing someone, or benefiting by their death. It would, however, still give life, for finally that life would be made available through His death. But it was a new perspective not introduced to the general people.

In order to fully appreciate what He was saying we need an awareness of vivid Jewish imagery. In the Old Testament the Psalmist spoke of those who ‘eat up my people like they eat bread’ (Psa 14:4; Psa 53:4), whilst Micah describes the unjust rulers of Israel as ‘those who hate the good and love the evil — who eat the flesh of my people’ (Mic 3:3). Compare also Psa 27:2, ‘evil-doers came on me to eat up my flesh’. Thus ‘eating flesh’ or ‘eating people’ signified killing them or doing them great harm.

Furthermore in Zec 9:15 the LXX speaks of the fact that the victorious people of God ‘will drink their blood like wine’ signifying a triumphant victory and the slaughter of their enemies, and David used a similar picture when three of his followers had risked their lives to fetch him water. He poured it out on the ground as an offering to God and said, ‘shall I drink the blood of the men who went at the risk of their lives?’.

Isaiah brought both metaphors together when he said of the enemies of Israel that God would ‘make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine’ (Isa 49:26), signifying that they would destroy themselves. Thus in Hebrew thought drinking a person’s blood meant killing someone or benefiting by their death.

This can be paralleled elsewhere in the New Testament for in Matthew’s Gospel the people said of their ‘fathers’ that they were ‘partakers in the blood of the prophets’ (Mat 23:30), because they contributed to their deaths. Thus when Jesus spoke of ‘eating my flesh and drinking my blood’ He was using easily recognised metaphors.

Initially Jesus signalled the change in tone in His words by saying ‘The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh’. This had more sinister overtones than what had gone before. He was indicating that His flesh must be given for the life of the world. Previously the eating had been by coming to Him and believing in Him, by responding to Him and His teaching. Now the thought is entering that they must be ‘eat Him’ by bringing about His death.

We could paraphrase what follows like this – ‘you are plotting to kill Me (to eat my flesh and drink My blood). Well, let Me tell you this. It is actually necessary for Me so to die so that this offer of life might be provided. Paradoxically, unless you do put Me to death (eat my flesh and drink my blood), the life will not be available. But as a result of the death you are plotting for Me, men will be able to partake of the benefit of My death by believing in Me and finding life through it.’ This is not a message He had been preaching to the crowds. They would not have understood. But now He has been forced into going public about it, for He is facing those who are after His blood, and He therefore intends to declare it. These men were planning to kill Him, to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Well, they will be permitted to do so, for His death was necessary in order that men might benefit from His life. But at least let them face up to what they were doing.

For the truth was that if life was indeed to be made available it was necessary for them to put Him to death, to “eat His flesh and drink His blood”. And paradoxically the result would be that they could then, if they came to believe, partake of the benefits of His death by receiving life. Indeed all who would come to Him must recognise that they were in some way responsible for His death and must partake in that death and the benefits that spring from it.

The innocent listeners would be puzzled, but the plotters would be fully aware of at least part of the import of His words. They knew what their own sinister intentions were. They knew what they were plotting. They knew that they were ‘after His blood’. And so did He. Yet still He was offering them life. He would not give up on them. Perhaps one day when they had killed Him, they would remember His words, and having eaten His flesh and drunk His blood in one way, they might also do it in another way by putting their trust in the crucified and risen Christ. If they did they would receive eternal life and be raised at the last day (Joh 6:54). (Paul was one such, and there were surely others). Again we have here a double entendre.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Except You Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink His Blood ( Joh 6:51-59 ).

We are now gliding into the third phase of His teaching where He is teaching in the Synagogue, although the point at which the break comes is not fully apparent. Now He knows that He is talking to those who are seeking His life, and His message therefore alters to take that fact into account. This explains the change in emphasis. From now on He has His coming death in view.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Joh 6:51. I am the living bread Because it was a matter of infinite importance to his hearers, that they should form a just notion of his ability to save them, and believe in him as the Redeemer of the world, our Lord affirmed the third time, that he was himself the living bread which came down from heaven, to give eternal life and glory; and that all who would faithfully and perseveringly eat of it should live for ever, because he was about to give them his flesh to eat, by making it an expiation for the sins of the world. The word rendered bread in this discourse, might be better translated, according to the Hebrew idiom, the meat; and particularly in this verse. There is a beautiful gradation observable in our Lord’s discourse. The first time that he called himself the bread of life, Joh 6:35 he assigned the reason of the name somewhat obscurely; He that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. The second time that he called himself the bread of life, Joh 6:47-48 he spake to the same purpose as before, but more plainly; he that believeth on me hath everlasting life, therefore I am the bread of life, connecting this with his affirmation, Joh 6:46 that he was the only teacher of mankind who had ever seen and was most intimately acquainted with all the councils of the Father, and that he gave life to men by his doctrine, being on that account also the bread of life. The third time he called himself bread, he added to the name, the epithet of living, not only because he gives spiritual life to men, raises them from the dead, and makes the faithful eternally happy, but because he gives them this life by means of his human nature, which was not an inanimate thing, like the manna, but a living substance; for he told them plainly, that the bread or meat which he would give them, was his flesh, which he would give for the life of the world; and spake of men’s eating it, in order to its having that effect: but to the meaning of this expression he had before directed them, when in calling himself the breadof life, he always joined the believing on him, as necessary to men’s living by him; wherefore to eat, in the remaining part of this discourse, is to believe, including all the fruits of faith. There appears another beautiful gradation in this verse, compared with Joh 6:21. The Jews had insinuated, that feeding a few thousand, with the five loaves, was an inconsiderable thing, compared with what Moses did; but our Lord declares the purposes of his grace and bounty to be far more extensive, as reaching to the whole world, andgiving life, immortal life, to all that should believe in him, the great atoning sacrifice for all mankind.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Joh 6:51 . Continuation of the exposition concerning the bread of life, which He is. “I am not only the life-giving bread ( . , Joh 6:48 ); I am also the living bread; he who eats thereof shall live for ever,” because the life of this bread is imparted to the partaker of it. Comp. Joh 5:26 , Joh 14:19 . Observe the threefold advance: (1) . , Joh 6:48 , and , Joh 6:51 ; (2) the universal , Joh 6:50 , and the historically concrete , Joh 6:51 ; (3) the negative , Joh 6:50 , and the positive , Joh 6:51 .

] Christ is the bread, and He will also give it (consequently give Himself ); how this is to take place, He now explains. The advance lies in ; hence also the which carries on the discourse, and the emphatic repetition of the thought, . Translate: “and the bread also which I ( I on my part, ) will give [instead now of saying: is myself , He expresses what He means more definitely] is my flesh,” etc. Concerning , atque etiam , being and , and expressing the idea on the other hand , see in particular Krger, and Khner, ad Xen. Mem . i. 1. 3; Bumlein, Partik . p. 149. It often introduces, as in this case, something that is specially important. See Bremi, ad Dem. Ol . II. p. 173. Observe, moreover, that what Christ promises to give is not external to His own Person (against Kling in the Stud. u. Krit . 1836, p. 142 f.).

] He promises to give His flesh, i.e . by His bloody death , to which He here, as already in Joh 2:19 , and to Nicodemus, Joh 3:14-15 , prophetically points. is the living corporeal substance; this His living corporeity Christ will give , give up, that it may he slain ( ), in order that thereby, as by the offering of the propitiatory sacrifice, [237] He may be the means of procuring eternal life for mankind, i.e . (for the benefit of) ; comp. 1Jn 4:10 ; 1Jn 4:14 . But as the atoning efficacy which this giving up of His flesh has, must be inwardly appropriated by faith, Christ’s , according to the figure of the bread of life, inasmuch as He means to give it up to death, appears as the bread which He will give to be partaken of ( ). In the repeated there lies the of the surrender (Euthymius Zigabenus). But observe the difference of reference, that of the first to the giving up for eating , and that of the second to the giving up to death . [238] That eating is the spiritual manducatio, [239] the inward, real appropriation of Christ which, by means of an ever-continuing faith that brings about this appropriation, and makes our life the life of Christ within us (Gal 2:20 ; Eph 3:17 ), takes place with regard to all the benefits which Christ “carne sua pro nobis in mortem tradita et sanguine suo pro nobis effuso promeruit.” Forma Concordiae , p. 744. On the idea of the life of Christ in believers, see on Phi 1:8 . On , so far as it was put to death in Christ by His crucifixion, comp. 1Pe 3:18 ; Eph 2:14 ; Col 1:20 ff.; Heb 10:20 . This explanation, which refers the words to Christ’s propitiatory death , is that of Augustine, Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Beza, Aretius, Grotius, Calovius, Wetstein, Lampe, and most others, also of Kuinoel, Lcke, Tholuck, Ammon, Neander, J. Mller ( Diss . 1839), Lange, Ebrard, Dogma v. Abendm . I. p. 78 ff.; Keim, in the Jahrb. f. d. Theol . 1859, p. 109 ff.; Weiss; comp. also Ewald, Kahnis ( Dogmat . I. p. 624), Godet. [240] Others, following Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Basil, have understood by the entire human manifestation of the Logos , which He offered up for the world’s salvation, including therein His death (so in modern times, in particular, Paulus, D. Schulz, Lehre vom Abendm ., B. Crusius, Frommann, De Wette, Baeumlein; comp. Schleiermacher, L. J . p. 345, and Reuss). Not only is the future opposed to this view, but the drinking of the blood in Joh 6:53 still more distinctly points to Christ’s death as exclusively meant; because it would not be apparent why Jesus, had He intended generally that collective dedication of Himself, should have used expressions to describe the appropriation of it, which necessarily and directly point to and presuppose His death. That general consecration was already affirmed in , . . .; the advance from being and giving now demands something else, a concrete act, viz. His atoning death and the shedding of His blood. This tells also against the profounder development of the self-communication of Jesus which is said to be meant here, and is adopted by Hengstenberg and Hofmann ( Schriftbew . II. 2, p. 245 ff.), following Luther; [241] viz. that faith in the human nature of Jesus eats and drinks the life of God, or that His life-giving power is bound up in His flesh, i.e . in His actual human manifestation (Brckner). Others , again, have explained it of the Lord’s Supper; viz. Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, most of the Fathers (among the Latin Fathers, Cyprian, Hilary, perhaps also Augustine, etc.) and Catholic writers, also Klee and Maier, further, Calixtus too, strongly opposed by Calovius; and among moderns, Scheibel, Olshausen, Kling in the Stud. u. Krit . 1836, p. 140 ff.; Lindner, Kstlin, Delitzsch in Rudelbach’s Zeitschrift , 1845, ii. p. 29; Kaeuffer in the Schs. Stud . 1846, p. 70 ff.; Kahnis, Abendm . p. 104 ff.; Luthardt; Richter in the Stud. u. Krit . 1863, p. 250; further, while also calling in question the genuineness of the discourse, Bretschneider, Strauss, Weisse, Baur, Hilgenfeld, and many others. Thus, as Joh 3:5 refers to baptism, we have now, it is said, a reference to the second sacrament. This explanation [242] has already this against it, that the eating and drinking is regarded as continuous (Joh 6:56 ); and, moreover, it can be maintained only by surrendering the authenticity of John. But if this be assumed, and the discourse be regarded as historical, Jesus could not Himself speak in the manner in which He here does of the Lord’s Supper. Had this been His reference, He would have spoken inappropriately, and in terms which differ essentially from His own mode of expression at the institution of the holy meal, irrespective of the fact that a discourse upon the Lord’s Supper at this time would have been utterly incomprehensible to His hearers, especially to the who were addressed. Moreover, there nowhere occurs in the Gospels a hint given beforehand of the Supper which was to be instituted; and therefore, that this institution was not now already in the thoughts of Jesus (as Godet, following Bengel and others, maintains), but was the product of the hour of the Supper itself, appears all the more likely, seeing how utterly groundless is the assumption based on Joh 6:4 , that Jesus, in the feeding of the multitude, improvised a paschal feast. To this it must be added, that the promise of life which is attached to the eating and drinking could apply only to the case of those who worthily partake. We would therefore have to assume that the reporter John (see especially Kaeuffer, l.c.; comp. also Weisse, B. Crusius, Kstlin, etc.) had put this discourse concerning the Lord’s Supper into the mouth of Christ; and against this it tells in general, that thus there would be on John’s part a misconception, or rather an arbitrariness, which, granting the genuineness of the Gospel, cannot be attributed to this most trusted disciple and his vivid recollections; and in particular, that the drinking of the blood, if it were, as in the Lord’s Supper, a special and essential part, would not have remained unmentioned at the very end of the discourse, Joh 6:57-58 ; and that, again, the evangelist would make Jesus speak of the Lord’s Supper in terms which lie quite beyond the range of the N. T., and which belong to the mode of representation and language of the apostolic Fathers and still later writers (see the passages in Kaeuffer, p. 77 ff.; Rckert, p. 274 f.; Hilgenfeld, Evang . p. 278). [243] This is specially true of the word , for which all places in the N. T. referring to the Lord’s Supper (Mat 26:26 ff.; Mar 14:22 ff.; Luk 24:24 ff.; 1Co 11:23 ff.) have ; so that here accordingly there ought to have been stated the identity, not of the bread and the flesh (which Baur in particular urges), but of the bread and the body; while with reference to the blood, the element identified (the wine ) ought also to have been mentioned. Further, the passage thus taken would speak of the literal “ eating and drinking ” of the flesh and blood, which is a much later materializing of the N. T. in the Lord’s Supper; and lastly, the absolute necessity of this ordinance, [244] which Joh 6:53 ff. would thus assert, is not once mentioned thus directly by the Fathers of the first centuries; whereas the N. T., and John in particular, make faith alone the absolutely necessary condition of salvation. Had John been speaking of the Lord’s Supper, he must have spoken in harmony with the N. T. view and mode of expression, and must have made Jesus speak of it in the same way. But the discourse, as it lies before us , if taken as referring to the Lord’s Supper, would be an unexampled and utterly inconceivable ; and therefore even the assumption that at least the same idea which lay at the root of the Lord’s Supper, and out of which it sprang, is here expressed (Olshausen, Kling, Lange, Tholuck, etc.; comp. Kahnis, Keim, Luthardt, Hengstenberg, Ewald, Godet), is only admissible so far as the appropriation of Christ’s life, brought about by faith in His death, which here is enjoined with such concrete vividness as absolutely necessary, [245] likewise constitutes the sacred and fundamental basis presupposed in the institution of the Supper and forms the condition of its blessedness; and therefore the application of the passage to the Lord’s Supper (but at the same time to baptism and to the efficacy of the word) justly, nay necessarily, arises. Comp. the admirable remarks of Harless, p. 130 ff.

According to Rckert ( Abendm . p. 291 f.), the discourse is not intended by Jesus to refer to the Supper, but is so intended by John, through whose erroneous and crude method of apprehension the readers are supposed to be taught, whether they themselves believed in an actual eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood, or whether this was a stumbling-block to them. An interpretation this which is neither indicated by the text nor has any historical basis.

Upon the history of the interpretation of our text, see Lcke, Exo 2 , Rev 2 ; Lindner, vom Abendm . p. 241 ff.; Tischendorf, De Christo pane vitae , 1839, p. 15 ff.; Mack, Quartalschr . 1832, I. p. 52 ff.; Kahnis, p. 114 ff.; Rckert, p. 273 ff. The exposition which takes it to refer to faith in the atoning death forms the basis of Zwingle’s doctrine of the Eucharist. See Dieckhoff, evangel. Abendmahlslehre , I. p. 440.

[237] Not that by the death of Jesus the barrier of the independent individuality existing between the Logos and the human being is destroyed. See against this explanation (Kstlin, Reuss), so foreign to John, Weiss, Lehrbegr . p. 65 ff.

[238] The words are wanting in B C D L T , a few cursives, several versions (following Vulg. It.), and Fathers (even Origen twice), and are rejected by Lachm., Ewald, Tisch., Baeumlein, Harless. The preponderance of testimony is certainly against them; and in omitting them we should not, with Kling, take as in apposition with (see, on the contrary, Rckert, Abendm. p. 259), but simply render it: “the bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world” (the former is the latter for the life of the world). But this short pregnant mode of expression is so little like John, and the repetition of is so completely Johannean, that I feel compelled to retain the words as genuine, and to regard their omission as a very early error, occasioned by the occurrence of the same words a little before. Following , Tischendorf now reads, after . . : , . This is manifestly an arrangement resorted to in order to asssign to the words . . . . the place which, in the absence of , seemed to belong to them. Baeumlein supposes that . . . . is an ancient gloss.

[239] The expression “resurrection of the flesh ” cannot be justified from Joh 6 , as Delitzsch, Psychol . p. 460 [E. T. p. 541], supposes. If it cannot be justified by anything in St. Paul, which Delitzsch admits, it can least of all by anything in St. John. When, indeed, Delitzsch says (p. 339), “The flesh of Christ becomes in us a tincture of immortality, which, in spite of corruption, sustains the essence of our flesh, in order one day at the resurrection to assimilate also His manifestation to itself ,” we can only oppose to such fancies, “ Ne ultra quod scriptum est .”

[240] Who, however, attaches great importance to the corporeal side of the real fellowship of believers with Christ, by virtue of which they will become at the resurrection the reproduction of the glorified Christ, referring to Eph 5:30 . The eating and drinking alone are figurative, while the not merely spiritual, but also bodily appropriation, must, according to him, be taken literally. This, however, is not required by the , . . ., ver. 54, which we already had in ver. 39, and is not even admissible by ver. 63.

[241] “Therefore one eats and drinks the Godhead in His human nature. This flesh does not carnalize, but will deify thee, i.e . give thee divine power, virtue, and work, and will take away sins,” and so on ( Pred. Dom. Oculi ).

[242] A view which Luther decidedly opposed previous to the controversy regarding the Lord’s Supper. In the heading or gloss he says: “This chapter does not speak of the sacrament of the bread and wine, but of spiritual eating, i.e . of the belief that Christ, both God and man, hath shed His blood for us.”

[243] Hilgenfeld calls the passages in Justin, Apol . i. 66; Ignatius, ad Smyrn . 7, ad Rom 7 , an admirable commentary upon our text. They would, indeed, be so if our evangelist himself were a post-apostolic writer belonging to the second century.

[244] Its limitation to the Contemtus sacramenti (Richter) is a dogmatic subterfuge which has no foundation in the text.

[245] “He makes it so that it could not be plainer, in order that they might not think that he was speaking of something else, or of anything that was not before their eyes; but that He was speaking of Himself.” LUTHER.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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

Ver. 51. If any man eat, &c. ] Hic edere est credere, Here to eat is to believe, saith Augustine; faith being the soul’s hand, mouth, stomach, &c. The Fathers commonly expounded this part of our Saviour’s sermon as spoken of the sacrament of the Lord’s supper; and so fell into that error, that none but communicants could be saved; wherefore also they gave the sacrament to infants, and put it into the mouths of dead men, &c. We are not to think that either our Saviour spake here properly, and ex professo, from the declaration of the sacramental eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood; or that this discourse pertains nothing at all thereunto. The Papists have expunged a great part of Origen’s commentary upon this chapter, as directly making against their monster of transubstantiation. And Cardinal Campeius affirmed against Luther, that faith is not necessary to him that receiveth the sacrament. As for Bellarmine, although we believe, saith he, that all virtues are found in the Church, yet that any man may be absolutely said to be a member of the true Church, we do not think that any inward virtue is required, but only an external profession of the faith, and such communion of the sacraments, as is received by the outward man. a This mark very well agrees to the Church of Rome, wherein if any be truly virtuous, it is by mere accident, as Cicero wittily said of the epicures, that if any one of them were good, he was merely overcome by the goodness of his nature; for they taught a licentious looseness, Si quando viri boni sint, vinci bonitate naturae.

a Bell. iii. 2, de Eccles. milit.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

51. ] , ‘containing life in itself,’ not merely supplying the waste of life with lifeless matter: see on ch. Joh 4:13-14 .

. ] From this time we hear no more of : this figure is dropped, and the reality takes its place.

Some difficult questions arise regarding the sense and reference of this saying of our Lord. (1) Does it refer to HIS DEATH? and, (2) is there any reference to the ORDINANCE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER?

(1) In treating this question I must at once reject all metaphorical and side-interpretations, as, that the teaching of Christ is the Bread, and to be taught by Him is feeding upon it (so Grotius, and the modern rationalists): that the divine Nature of Christ , or His sending of the Holy Spirit , or His whole life of doing good on earth , can be meant: all such have against them the plain sense of the words, which, as Stier observes, are very simple ordinary words; the only difficulty arising, when we come to enquire into their application to His own Person. The Bread of Life is Himself: and, strictly treated, when we come to enquire what , of that body, soul, and spirit, which constituted Himself, this Bread specifically is, we have His answer that it is His Flesh which He will give (for this will be the meaning, whether the words are to be regarded as part of the text or not) on behalf of the life of the world. We are then specifically directed to His Flesh as the answer.

Then, what does that Flesh import? The flesh of animals is the ordinary food of men; but not the blood . The blood, which is the life, is spilt at death, and is not in the flesh when eaten by us. Now this distinction must be carefully borne in mind. The flesh here, (see Joh 6:53 ,) and the eating of the flesh, are distinct from the blood , and the drinking of the blood . We have no generalities merely, to interpret as we please: but the terms used are precise and technical . It is then only through or after the Death of the Lord , that by any propriety of language, His Flesh could be said to be eaten.

Then another distinction must be remembered: The flesh of animals which we eat is dead flesh. It is already the prey of corruption; we eat it, and die ( Joh 6:49 ). But this Bread is living Bread; not dead flesh, but living Flesh. And therefore manducation by the teeth materially is not to be thought of here; but some kind of eating by which the living Flesh of the Son of God is made the living sustenance of those who partake of it. Now His Flesh and Blood were sundered by Death. Death was the shedding of His precious Blood, which He did not afterwards resume: see ch. Joh 20:27 , and Luk 24:39 . His Flesh is the glorified substance of His Resurrection-Body, now at the right hand of God. It is then in His Resurrection form only that His Flesh can be eaten, and be living food for the living man. I cannot therefore see how any thing short of His Death can be here meant. By that Death, He has given His Flesh for the life of the world: not merely that they who believe on Him may, in the highest sense, have life; but that may have life. The very existence of all the created world is owing to, and held together by, that Resurrection-Body of the Lord. In Him all things are gathered together and reconciled to God: , Col 1:17 .

(2) The question whether there is here any reference to the ORDINANCE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER, has been inaccurately put . When cleared of inaccuracy in terms, it will mean, Is the subject here dwelt upon, the same as that which is set forth in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper? And of this there can surely be no doubt. To the ordinance itself , there is here no reference; nor could there well have been any. But the spiritual verity which underlies the ordinance is one and the same with that here insisted on; and so considered, the discourse is, as generally treated, most important towards a right understanding of the ordinance.

On the history of the exegesis of this passage, see Lcke ii pp. 149 159 (3rd edn.), and Excursus ii., in his 2nd edn. (omitted in his 3rd); also Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc. To attempt to recount the various opinions, would exceed the limits of a note in an edition of the whole Testament: for the present subject is one in which the manifold dogmatical variations of individual belief have influenced Commentators to such an extent as to render accurate classification impossible. I may roughly state, that three leading opinions may be traced: that of those who hold ( ) that no reference to the Holy Communion is intended, among whom are Origen and Basil, of the ancients; and of the moderns, the Swiss Reformers, Zwingle and Calvin (the former however not very decidedly, see Olsh. ii. 173 note), Luther, Melanchthon. ( ) That the whole passage regards exclusively the Holy Communion, among whom are Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius, the Schoolmen, and the Roman Catholic expositors, with a few exceptions. ( ) That the subject and idea of the Holy Communion, not the ordinance is referred to: to which class belong the best modern Commentators in Germany, e.g. Lcke, Tholuck, Olshausen, Stier. Bengel’s note to the same effect is important: “Jesus verba sua scienter ita formavit, ut statim et semper illa quidem de spirituali fruitione sui agerent proprie; sed posthac eadem consequenter etiam in augustissimum S. Cn mysterium, quum id institutum foret, convenirent. Etenim ipsam rem hoc sermone propositam in S. Cnam contulit; tantique hoc sacramentum est momenti, ut facile existimari possit, Jesum, ut proditionem Jud Joh 6:71 , et mortem suam hoc versu, ita etiam S. Cnam, de qua inter hc verba certissime secum cogitavit, uno ante anno prdixisse, ut discipuli possent prdictionis postea recordari. Tota hc de carne et sanguine J. C. oratio Passionem spectat, et cum ea S. Cnam. Hinc separata carnis et sanguinis mentio constanter. Nam in passione sanguis ex corpore eductus est, Agnusque mactatus.”

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Joh 6:51 . In Joh 6:51 Jesus adds two fresh terms in explanation of the living bread, which, however, through their want of apprehension, increased their difficulty. The first is . In giving this explanation He slightly alters the designation of Himself as the Bread: He now claims to be not “the bread of life,” but , “the living bread”. Godet says: “The manna, as not itself living, could never impart life. But Jesus, because He Himself lives, can give life.” That is correct, but is not the full meaning. contrasts the bread with the ; and as “living water” is water running from a fountain in perpetual stream, and not a measured quantity in a tank, so “living bread” is bread which renews itself in proportion to all needs like the bread of the miracle. The second fresh intimation now made is This intimation is linked to the foregoing by a double conjunction , “and besides” indicating, according to classical usage, a new aspect or expansion of what has been said. The new intimation is at first sight an apparent limitation: instead of “I am the bread,” He now says “My flesh is the bread”. Accordingly some interpreters suppose that by “flesh” the whole manifestation of Christ in human nature is meant. Cf. . Thus Westcott says: “The life of the world in the highest sense springs from the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ. By His Incarnation and Resurrection the ruin and death which sin brought in are overcome. The thought here is of support and growth, and not of Atonement.” To this there are two objections. (1) If is equivalent to the whole manifestation of Christ in the flesh, this is not a new statement, but a repetition of what has already been said. And (2) the compels us to think of a giving yet future. Besides, the turn taken by the conversation, Joh 6:53-57 , seems to point rather to the atoning sacrifice of Christ. [So Euthymius: . , , . So too Cyril: , , , , . Bengel says: “Tota haec de carne et sanguine Jesu Christi oratio passionem spectat”. Beza even finds in the sense “offeram Patri in ara crucis”.] The giving of His flesh, a still future giving which is spoken of as a definite act, is, then, most naturally referred to the death on the cross. This was to be , “for the sake of the life of the world”. when used in connection with sacrifice tends to glide into ; see the Alcestis of Eurip. passim and Lampe’s note on this verse. Here, however, the idea of substitution is not present. It is only hinted that somehow the death of Christ is needed for the world’s life. This statement, however, only bewilders the crowd; and the next paragraph, Joh 6:52-59 , gives expression to and deals with this bewilderment.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

living. See note on Joh 4:10.

if. For the condition, see App-118.

this bread = this [One before you]. One of three passages in which “this” indicates the speaker. Compare Joh 2:19. Mat 16:18.

he shall live; in and by resurrection. See note on Joh 4:50, Joh 4:51, Joh 4:53.

for ever = unto the age. See App-151. a.

and the bread that I will give = but the bread, moreover, which I will give. The omission of the particle (“de”) in Authorized Version hides the line of the discussion: (1) I will give this bread; (2) This bread is My flesh; (3) My flesh is My body which I will give up in death.

My flesh = Myself. Put by the Figure of speech Synecdoche (of the Part), App-6, for the whole person, as in Gen 17:13. Psa 16:9 (Act 2:26-31). Pro 14:30. Mat 19:5. Rom 3:20. 1Co 1:29. 2Co 7:5; and for Christ’s own person, Joh 1:14. 1Ti 3:16. 1Pe 3:18. Heb 10:20. 1Jn 4:2. Just as “My soul” is also put for the whole person (Num 23:10. Jdg 16:30. Psa 3:2; Psa 16:10; Psa 33:19; Psa 103:1. Isa 58:5. Act 2:31. Rom 13:1). In view of the Jews’ unbelief, the Lord used the Figure of speech Synecdoche here. To take a figure of speech literally, and treat what is literal as a figure, is the most fruitful source of error.

flesh. See note on Joh 1:13.

I will give. All the texts omit this, but not the Syriac. See App-94.

for. Greek huper. App-104.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

51.] , containing life in itself, not merely supplying the waste of life with lifeless matter: see on ch. Joh 4:13-14.

.] From this time we hear no more of : this figure is dropped, and the reality takes its place.

Some difficult questions arise regarding the sense and reference of this saying of our Lord. (1) Does it refer to HIS DEATH? and, (2) is there any reference to the ORDINANCE OF THE LORDS SUPPER?

(1) In treating this question I must at once reject all metaphorical and side-interpretations, as, that the teaching of Christ is the Bread, and to be taught by Him is feeding upon it (so Grotius, and the modern rationalists): that the divine Nature of Christ, or His sending of the Holy Spirit, or His whole life of doing good on earth, can be meant: all such have against them the plain sense of the words, which, as Stier observes, are very simple ordinary words; the only difficulty arising, when we come to enquire into their application to His own Person. The Bread of Life is Himself: and, strictly treated, when we come to enquire what, of that body, soul, and spirit, which constituted Himself, this Bread specifically is, we have His answer that it is His Flesh which He will give (for this will be the meaning, whether the words are to be regarded as part of the text or not) on behalf of the life of the world. We are then specifically directed to His Flesh as the answer.

Then, what does that Flesh import? The flesh of animals is the ordinary food of men; but not the blood. The blood, which is the life, is spilt at death, and is not in the flesh when eaten by us. Now this distinction must be carefully borne in mind. The flesh here, (see Joh 6:53,) and the eating of the flesh, are distinct from the blood, and the drinking of the blood. We have no generalities merely, to interpret as we please: but the terms used are precise and technical. It is then only through or after the Death of the Lord, that by any propriety of language, His Flesh could be said to be eaten.

Then another distinction must be remembered: The flesh of animals which we eat is dead flesh. It is already the prey of corruption; we eat it, and die (Joh 6:49). But this Bread is living Bread; not dead flesh, but living Flesh. And therefore manducation by the teeth materially is not to be thought of here; but some kind of eating by which the living Flesh of the Son of God is made the living sustenance of those who partake of it. Now His Flesh and Blood were sundered by Death. Death was the shedding of His precious Blood, which He did not afterwards resume: see ch. Joh 20:27, and Luk 24:39. His Flesh is the glorified substance of His Resurrection-Body, now at the right hand of God. It is then in His Resurrection form only that His Flesh can be eaten, and be living food for the living man. I cannot therefore see how any thing short of His Death can be here meant. By that Death, He has given His Flesh for the life of the world: not merely that they who believe on Him may, in the highest sense, have life; but that may have life. The very existence of all the created world is owing to, and held together by, that Resurrection-Body of the Lord. In Him all things are gathered together and reconciled to God: , Col 1:17.

(2) The question whether there is here any reference to the ORDINANCE OF THE LORDS SUPPER, has been inaccurately put. When cleared of inaccuracy in terms, it will mean, Is the subject here dwelt upon, the same as that which is set forth in the ordinance of the Lords Supper? And of this there can surely be no doubt. To the ordinance itself, there is here no reference; nor could there well have been any. But the spiritual verity which underlies the ordinance is one and the same with that here insisted on; and so considered, the discourse is, as generally treated, most important towards a right understanding of the ordinance.

On the history of the exegesis of this passage, see Lcke ii pp. 149-159 (3rd edn.), and Excursus ii., in his 2nd edn. (omitted in his 3rd);-also Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc. To attempt to recount the various opinions, would exceed the limits of a note in an edition of the whole Testament: for the present subject is one in which the manifold dogmatical variations of individual belief have influenced Commentators to such an extent as to render accurate classification impossible. I may roughly state, that three leading opinions may be traced: that of those who hold () that no reference to the Holy Communion is intended,-among whom are Origen and Basil, of the ancients; and of the moderns, the Swiss Reformers, Zwingle and Calvin (the former however not very decidedly, see Olsh. ii. 173 note), Luther, Melanchthon. () That the whole passage regards exclusively the Holy Communion,-among whom are Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius, the Schoolmen, and the Roman Catholic expositors, with a few exceptions. () That the subject and idea of the Holy Communion, not the ordinance is referred to: to which class belong the best modern Commentators in Germany, e.g. Lcke, Tholuck, Olshausen, Stier. Bengels note to the same effect is important: Jesus verba sua scienter ita formavit, ut statim et semper illa quidem de spirituali fruitione sui agerent proprie; sed posthac eadem consequenter etiam in augustissimum S. Cn mysterium, quum id institutum foret, convenirent. Etenim ipsam rem hoc sermone propositam in S. Cnam contulit; tantique hoc sacramentum est momenti, ut facile existimari possit, Jesum, ut proditionem Jud Joh 6:71, et mortem suam hoc versu, ita etiam S. Cnam, de qua inter hc verba certissime secum cogitavit, uno ante anno prdixisse, ut discipuli possent prdictionis postea recordari. Tota hc de carne et sanguine J. C. oratio Passionem spectat, et cum ea S. Cnam. Hinc separata carnis et sanguinis mentio constanter. Nam in passione sanguis ex corpore eductus est, Agnusque mactatus.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Joh 6:51. , the living) This participle acts both as a means of giving increased weight to His speech, and as a declaration, by which it is shown that His speech is not concerning ordinary bread.-, I will give[150]) ought to be read.- , My flesh) A new step in the discourse. The [intensive], indeed, and the I will give in the Future, are in accordance with this: for heretofore there had been no mention made in this discourse of flesh; then at Joh 6:53, also of blood. The Father giveth the true bread, Joh 6:32, which is Christ Himself: Joh 6:35, I am the bread of life. Christ giveth the living bread, His own flesh. The portion of the discourse concerning the bread is rather allegorical, in accommodation to the miracle that precedes it: that concerning the flesh and blood is literal.- , for the life of the world) and so, for many, Mar 14:24, This is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many. Jesus framed His words so skilfully, that immediately at the time, and at all times subsequently, they would indeed apply in their strict literal sense to the spiritual enjoyment of Himself: and yet that afterwards the same words should by consequence be appropriate to express the most august mystery of the Holy Supper, when that should be instituted. For He applied to the Holy Supper[151] the thing itself which is set forth in this discourse; and of so great moment is this sacrament, that it may readily be thought possible that Jesus, as He foretold the treachery of Judas at Joh 6:71, and His own death in this ver., so also foretold, one year before, the institution of the Holy Supper, concerning which He most surely thought within Himself whilst speaking these words: and with this object, in order that the disciples might afterwards remember His prediction. The whole of these words concerning His flesh and blood have in view the passion of Jesus Christ, and along with it the Holy Supper. Hence arises the separate mention of the flesh and of the blood so invariably: for in His passion the blood was drawn out of His body, and the Lamb was thus slain.

[150] However both the margin of both Editions, and the Germ. Vers. imply that the reading is of doubtful origin.-E. B. BCDTabc Vulg. omit it. Rec. Text has it, with Orig. l,244de: but Orig. elsewhere omits it.-E. and T.

[151] Contulit in S. Cnam; He conferred on the Holy Supper in the case of the worthy receiver the actual partaking of Himself spiritually.-E. and T.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Joh 6:51

Joh 6:51

I am the living bread which came down out of heaven:-Jesus himself possessed life and could impart it to others. His life was spiritual and eternal.

if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; yea and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.-To make his will our will and to live according to his will is to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood-make his life our life. To do this is to eat his flesh and drink his blood and his life he gave for the life of the world.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

world

kosmos = mankind. (See Scofield “Mat 4:8”).

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

living: Joh 3:13, Joh 4:10, Joh 4:11, Joh 7:38, 1Pe 2:4

and the bread: This was one of the things which the Jews expected from the Messiah, as we learn from Midrash Koheleth. “Rabbi Berechiah, in the name of Rabbi Issac said, As was the first Redeemer, so also shall be the latter. The first Redeemer made manna descend from heaven, as it is said in Exo 16:4, And I will rain bread from heaven for you.’ So also the latter Redeemer shall make manna descend, as it is said, Psa 72:16, There shall be a handful of corn in the earth.’ etc.”

my flesh: Joh 6:52-57, Mat 20:28, Luk 22:19, Eph 5:2, Eph 5:25, Tit 2:14, Heb 10:5-12, Heb 10:20

the life: Joh 6:33, Joh 1:29, Joh 3:16, 2Co 5:19, 2Co 5:21, 1Jo 2:2, 1Jo 4:14

Reciprocal: Lev 8:31 – eat it Lev 14:10 – a meat offering Lev 24:7 – the bread Psa 22:26 – your Psa 133:3 – even life Eze 45:17 – he shall prepare Hos 9:4 – their bread Joh 3:31 – he that cometh Joh 6:27 – which endureth Joh 6:41 – I am Joh 6:48 – General Joh 6:50 – the bread Joh 10:10 – I am Joh 14:6 – the life Rom 7:4 – the body Rom 10:6 – to bring 1Co 11:27 – whosoever Eph 4:9 – he also 1Ti 2:6 – gave Heb 4:12 – is quick Heb 8:3 – have 1Jo 4:9 – we

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE EUCHARIST

The bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Joh 6:51

The Jews expressed no desire to know how to obtain this promised blessing, but perplexed themselves with the inferior questionhow the thing promised could be accomplished. How can this man give us His flesh to eat? In answer to this our Blessed Lord, Who never satisfied a profane curiosity, simply reiterated His previous assertion, only in stronger and more unequivocal terms.

I. What is required is cleara participation of Christheavenly food, which is Christ Himself, as once crucified, Who has now been glorified. It is not here said that the one thing needful is only faith in Christ, for, although it is only by faith that we can receive Christ, yet faith is not the bread, but the hand by which we receive the Bread; faith in Christ crucified is the condition required, but the bread of life is the reward conferred upon that faith. Faith is the qualification; the thing to be sought for is the Body and Blood of Christ. At the time of the institution our Lords natural body was visibly present before His disciples; they could not therefore have understood Him to mean that this was distributed to them, or that such would hereafter be the effect of their carrying out His orders. After His Ascension they understood more clearly the connection between His declaration, It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing, and His words, What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before? When He instituted this blessed sacrament, He anticipated the effects of His Ascension, and imparted Himself spiritually to His Apostles; and though sitting at the right hand of God, He is specially present in the Eucharist to convey Himself, through the consecrated emblems of His Body and Blood, spiritually but really, to the hearts of His faithful people. The Eucharist then is a sacrament, the means through which we receive a covenanted gift from God.

II. What we offer to God.There are sacrifices, which Christians present as their own, the best they can give to God. God gives us a property in certain things; and what He has given He permits us to regard as our own, and to accept what we give of these as offerings. He needs nothing at the hands of His children, but He is pleased to receive back out of what He gives as tokens of love and gratitude on our part. Out of Christ, it were presumption to approach God with any such intent; but through Christ, we are permitted to bring our gifts; and in offering anything to God, we offer a sacrifice. Our sacrifices, in the Eucharist, have all of them a spiritual reference, and are

(a) Almsdeeds; God hath declared that what we do to the poor and afflicted in His Name, He will regard as done unto Himself; therefore the giving of alms is a sacrifice. It is not the money which is the sacrifice; the money is only the outward and visible sign of the real offering, which is internal and spiritual, the benevolent sentiment within. And this must be a freewill offering; compulsory support of paupers, or money given grudgingly, cannot come under this head (Php 4:18; Heb 11:16; Act 10:4).

(b) Prayer, praise, and thanksgivings are direct offerings to God. From the Book of the Revelation we learn that, through the intercession of Christ, the prayers of Gods saints ascend before Him as the smoke of incense (Rev 5:8; Mal 1:11; Heb 13:15).

(c) The dedication of a contrite heart, sanctified by grace, is another acceptable offering to God (Psa 51:17).

(d) The sacrifice of the whole man, body, soul, and spirit (Rom 12:1).

All these sacrifices the faithful communicant offers when he takes part in the service of the Holy Eucharist. Thou hast sacrified Thyself for us, O Lord; Thou hast given us grace to make an offering to Theebehold it, even all we have and all we are.

Dean Hook.

Illustration

Let us remember how impossible it is for any one to explain the end of this verse who denies the sacrificial character of Christs death. Once grant that Christ is only a great teacher and example, and that His death is only a great pattern of self-denial, and what sense or meaning can be got out of the end of this verse? I will give My flesh for the life of the world! I unhesitatingly say that the words are unintelligible nonsense if we receive the teaching of many modern divines about Christs death, and that nothing can make them intelligible and instructive but the doctrine of Christs vicarious death, and satisfaction on the Cross as our Substitute.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

1

In this verse the Lord takes another step in his application of the figures that he has been using. Here the statement is made that man must eat of bread that is called the flesh of the Son of man.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

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

[The bread that I will give is my flesh.] He tacitly confutes that foolish conceit of theirs about I know not what dainties the Messiah should treat them with; and slights those trifles, by teaching that all the dainties which Christ had provided were himself. Let them not look for wonderful messes, rich feasts, etc.; he will give them himself to eat; bread beyond all other provisions whatever; food from heaven; and such as bringeth salvation.

As to this whole passage of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, it will be necessary to premise that of Mar 4:11-12; “I speak by parables; and all these things are done in parables; that seeing they may see, and not perceive,” etc. Mar 4:34; “Without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.”

And what can we suppose in this place but parable wholly?

I. There was nothing more common in the schools of the Jews than the phrases of ‘eating and drinking’ in a metaphorical sense. And surely it would sound very harsh, if not to be understood here metaphorically, but literally. What! to drink blood? a thing so severely interdicted the Jews once and again. What! to eat man’s flesh? a thing abhorrent to human nature; but above all abhorrent to the Jews, to whom it was not lawful to eat a member of a living beast; nor touch the member of a dead man.

“Every eating and drinking of which we find mention in the book of Ecclesiastes is to be understood of the Law and good works,” i.e. by way of parable and metaphor. By the Capernaite’s leave, therefore, and the Romanist’s too, we will understand the eating and drinking in this place figuratively and parabolically.

II. Bread is very frequently used in the Jewish writers for doctrine. So that when Christ talks of eating his flesh; he might perhaps hint to them that he would feed his followers not only with his doctrines; but with himself too.

The whole stay of bread; Isa 3:1. “These are the masters of doctrine; as it is written, ‘Come, eat of my bread,’ Pro 9:5.” “Feed him with bread; that is, Make him take pains in the warfare of the Law, as it is written, ‘Come, eat of my bread.’ ”

Moses fed you with doctrine and manna, but I feed you with doctrine and my flesh.

III. There is mention, even amongst the Talmudists themselves, of eating the Messiah. “Rabh saith, Israel shall eat the years of Messiah.” [The Gloss is, “The plenty and satiety that shall be in the days of the Messiah shall belong to the Israelites.”] “Rabh Joseph saith, ‘True, indeed: but who shall eat thereof? Shall Chillek and Billek [two judges in Sodom] eat of it? ‘ We must except against that of R. Hillel, who saith, Messiah is not likely to come to Israel, for they have already devoured him in the days of Hezekiah.” Those words of Hillel are repeated, folio 99. 1.

Behold, here is mention of eating the Messiah; and none quarrel the phraseology. They excepted against Hillel, indeed, that he should say that the Messiah was so eaten in the days of Hezekiah, that he was not like to appear again in Israel; but they made no scruple of the scheme and manner of speech at all. For they plainly enough understood what was meant by eating the Messiah; that is, that in the days of Hezekiah they so much partook of the Messiah, they received him so greedily, embraced him so gladly, and in a manner devoured him, that they must look for him no more in the ages to come. Gloss upon the place: “Messiah will come no more to Israel, for Hezekiah was the Messiah.”

IV. But the expression seems very harsh, when he speaks of “eating his flesh” and “drinking his blood.” He tells us, therefore, that these things must be taken in a spiritual sense: “Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” That is, “When you shall have seen me ascending into heaven, you will then find how impossible a thing it is to eat my flesh and drink my blood bodily: for how can you eat the flesh of one that is in heaven? You may know, therefore, that I mean eating me spiritually: ‘for the words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ ”

V. But what sense did they take it in that did understand it? Not in a sacramental sense surely, unless they were then instructed in the death and passion of our Saviour; for the sacrament hath a relation to his death: but it sufficiently appears elsewhere that they knew or expected nothing of that. Much less did they take it in a Jewish sense; for the Jewish conceits were about the mighty advantages that should accrue to them from the Messiah, and those merely earthly and sensual. But to partake of the Messiah truly is to partake of himself, his pure nature, his righteousness, his spirit; and to live and grow and receive nourishment from that participation of him. Things which the Jewish schools heard little of, did not believe, did not think; but things which our blessed Saviour expresseth lively and comprehensively enough, by that of eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Joh 6:51. I am the living bread which came down out of heaven. Once more Jesus declares that the bread of which He has spoken is Himself; but the assertion is expressed in words that differ significantly from those before employed. For the bread of life He says now the living bread: for cometh down, an expression which might seem a mere figure denoting heavenly origin, He says came down, speaking of an actual historical descent out of heaven. The former change especially is important. He has been speaking of the bread as given, but is about to declare Himself to be the Giver: therefore He says that He is the living bread, that can give itself, and with itself its inherent life. There was nothing in the bread of life that would necessarily suggest more than means and instrument. If the tree of life in Paradise bestowed immortality on man, it was but by instrumental efficacy. The living bread is a thought absolutely unique, and the words compel the thinks of the hearers to rest on the person of the Speaker, who in the possession of this life, and not as the precious but lifeless manna, descended out of heaven.

If any one shall have eaten of this bread, he shall live for ever. These words partly repeat and partly extend those of the preceding verse. There the nature and object of the bread are given; here the assurance that every one who makes trial of the promise shall certainly find it fulfilled to him in the gift of a life that lasts for ever.

And moreover the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. The personal significance of the preceding words is now made even more direct, and the meaning intended cannot probably be mistaken. He gives; the bread He gives is His flesh; the gift is for the life of the world. The questions which these words have raised will be best considered in connection with our Lords own comment in the following verses.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Joh 6:51. I am the living bread Because it was a matter of infinite importance to his hearers that they should form a just judgment of his ability to save them, and believe in him as the Saviour of the world, he affirmed a third time that he was himself the living bread, which came down from heaven to make and keep men alive to God. and render them immortal; and that all who did eat of it should live for ever, because he was about to give them his flesh to eat, by making it an expiation for the sins of the world. The intelligent reader will observe that there is a beautiful gradation in our Lords discourse. The first time that he called himself the bread of life, (Joh 6:35,) he assigned the reason of the name somewhat obscurely: He that cometh to me shall never hunger, &c. The second time he called himself the bread of life, (Joh 6:47,) he spake more plainly: He that believeth on me hath everlasting life; therefore, I am the bread of life. And by connecting this with the affirmation, (Joh 6:46,) that he was the only teacher of mankind that had ever personally seen, and conversed intimately with, the Father, he intimated that he gave life to men by his doctrine, being on that account also the bread of life. The third time he called himself bread, he added to the name the epithet of living; not only because he gives life to men by quickening their souls, raising their bodies from the dead, and making them eternally happy, but because he giveth them life in these senses, by means of his human nature, which was not an inanimate thing, like the manna, but a living substance. For he told them plainly, that the bread which he would give them was his flesh, which he would give for the life of the world And spake of mens eating it in order to its having that effect. But the meaning of this expression he had directed them to before, when, in calling himself the bread of life, he always joined believing on him as necessary to mens living by him. Wherefore to eat, in the remaining part of this discourse, is to believe. See Macknight.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Appendix on Joh 6:51 b-58.

What does Jesus mean by the expressions: to eat His flesh, to drink His blood?

1. Many interpreters see here only a metaphor, designating the act by which faith morally unites itself with its object. According to some (de Wette, Reuss), this object is the historical person of Jesus Christ as it appeared before the eyes of His hearers. The expression My flesh and My blood is to be taken in the same sense as flesh and blood, that is, the human person. According to others, the object of faith is not only the living Christ (the flesh), but also the sacrificed Christ (the blood); and Jesus describes here at once the appropriation of His holy life and faith in His expiatory death. This interpretation, in one or the other of the two forms which we have just indicated, is easily connected with the beginning of the discourse; for spiritual assimilation by means of faith is certainly the idea from which the Lord starts:

I am the bread of life, he that cometh to Me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst (Joh 6:35). Only we cannot understand, from this point of view, with what aim Jesus gives to this altogether spiritual conception an expression which is more and more paradoxical, material, and, consequently, unintelligible to His interlocutors. If this is all that He means to say, even in the last words of the interview, does He not seem to be playing with words and to lay Himself out needlessly to cause offense to the Jews?

2. This very real difficulty has impelled many commentators to apply these expressions to the scene of the Holy Supper, which Jesus had already had in mind at this time, and which was later to solve for His disciples the mystery of His words. But this explanation gives rise to a still greater difficulty than the preceding one. To what purpose this incomprehensible allusion to an institution which no one could foresee? Then, Jesus cannot have made the possession of eternal life depend on the accomplishment of an external act, like that of the Lord’s Supper? In all His teaching, the sole condition of salvation is faith. The Tubingen School, which has attached itself to this interpretation, has derived from it an argument against the authenticity of the Gospel; and not without reason, if the explanation were well founded. But the pseudo-John, who should have wished, in the second century, to put an allusion to the Lord’s Supper into the mouth of Jesus, would not have failed to employ the word , body, used in the text of the institution of the Supper and in the Liturgical formulas, rather than , flesh. A proof of this is found in the unauthentic addition which we read in the Cambridge MS. the Amiatinus, etc., at the end of Joh 6:56 : If a man receives the body of the Son of man as the bread of life, he will have life in Him. On the passages fromJustin (Apol. I., 66) and Ignatius (ad Smyrn., 7), see Weiss. These Fathers may have founded their expression on our passage itself.

To discern the true thought of our Lord, we must, as it appears to me, distinguish carefully, in the mysterious eating and drinking here described, the act of man and the divine gift, as Jesus does Himself in Joh 6:27. The human act is faith, faith alone; and inasmuch as the eating and drinking designate the believer’s part in his union with Jesus Christ, these terms do not go beyond the meaning which the exclusively spiritual interpretation gives to them. To eat the flesh, is to contemplate with faith the Lord’s holy life and to receive that life into oneself through the Holy Spirit to the end of reproducing it in one’s own life; to drink the blood, is to contemplate with faith His violent death, to make it one’s own ransom, to appropriate to oneself its atoning efficacy. But if the part of man in this mystical union is limited to faith, this does not yet determine anything as to the nature of the divine gift here assured to the believer.

To taste pardon, to live again by the Spirit the life of Christis this all? We cannot think so. We have seen with what emphasis Jesus returns, at different times in the foregoing discourse, to the idea of the bodily resurrection; He does so again at Joh 6:54, and in the most significant way. The life which He communicates to the believer is not, therefore, only His moral nature; it is His complete life, physical as well as spiritual, His entire personality. As the grains which the ear contains are only the reappearing of the grain of seed mysteriously multiplied, so believers, sanctified and raised from the dead, are to be only the reproduction, in thousands of living examples, of the glorified Jesus. The principle of this reproduction is undoubtedly spiritual: it is the Spirit which causes Christ to live in us (ch. 14-16); but the end of this work is physical: it is the glorious body of the believer, proceeding from His own (1Co 15:49). Jesus knew, Jesus profoundly felt that He belonged, body and soul, to humanity. It was with this feeling, and not that He might wantonly give offense to His hearers, that He used the terms which are surprising to us in this discourse.

The expressions: to eat and drink, are figurative; but the corporeal side of communion with Him is real: We are of His body, says the apostle who is least to be suspected of religious materialism (Eph 5:30); and to show us clearly that there is no question here of a metaphor intelligible to the first chance scholar, he adds: This mystery is great, I speak in respect to Christ and the Church (Joh 6:32). This mystery of our complete union with His person, which in this discourse is expressed in words, is precisely that which Jesus desired to express by an act, when He instituted the rite of the Lord’s Supper. We need not say, therefore, that this discourse alludes to the Lord’s Supper, but we must say that the Lord’s Supper and this discourse refer to one and the same divine fact, expressed here by a metaphor, there by an emblem. From this point of view, we understand why Jesus makes use here of the word flesh and in the institution of the Lord’s Supper, of the word body. When He instituted the ceremony, He held a loaf in His hand and broke it; now, that which corresponds with this broken bread, was His body as an organism () broken. In the discourse at Capernaum where the question is only of nourishment, according to the analogy of the multiplication of the loaves, Jesus was obliged rather to present His body as substance () than as an organism. This perfect propriety of the terms shows the originality and authenticity of the two forms.

There is one question remaining which, from the point of view where we have just taken our position, has only a secondary importance as related to exegesis;namely, whether already at this period, Jesus thought of instituting the ceremony of the Lord’s Supper. He was aware of His approaching death; the news of the murder of John the Baptist had just reawakened in Him the presentiment of it (Mat 14:13), He connected it in His thought with the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb, He knew that this death would be for the life of the whole world what the sacrifice of the lamb had been for the existence of the people of Israel.

From these premises He might naturally enough be led to the thought of instituting Himself a feast commemorative of His death and of the new covenant, in order thus to replace the feast of the Paschal lamb, the sacrifice of which was the figure of His own. This thought might certainly have arisen on the day when, being deprived of the joy of celebrating the Passover at Jerusalem, and seeing the multitudes flocking towards Him from all sides, He improvised for them a Passover, instead of that which was about to be celebrated in the holy city. It was this feast, offered to His disciples as a momentary compensation, which Jesus afterwards transformed, in the Lord’s Supper, into a permanent institution And is not this precisely the point of view at which St. John desired to place us, when he said at the beginning, Joh 6:4 : Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near. This near approach was not altogether foreign to the thought of the other evangelists; it explains the expression, so similar to that of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, with which they all begin the narrative of the multiplication of the loaves: He took the bread, and gave thanks.

ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

Vv. 51b-59. 1. In Joh 6:51 b a new thought is presentedthat the bread of which the discourse is speaking is the flesh of Christ. That the reference in these words is to the participation by faith in Christ as dying for the world’s salvation, and not to the Lord’s Supper, is proved, first, by the fact that union with Christ by faith is the main thought of the whole discourse; secondly, by the fact that the life of the believer through Christ is placed in correspondence with that of Christ through the Father; thirdly, by the entire subordination of the idea of the blood to that of the breadthe former comes in, apparently, only in an incidental way, and the thought returns to the bread alone in Joh 6:58.

The blood has, therefore, no such relation to the bread here as the cup has to the bread in the Supper; fourthly, because no similar representation of the participation in the Supper as related to the life of the soul is given elsewhere; fifthly, because no allusion to the Supper is made in the Gospels, in any other place, until it was instituted, and its institution seems to have had such reference to the closing hours of Christ’s life and to the future of the disciples after His death as to make an allusion to it beforehand improbable, and especially at this time and in the presence of an audience of this character. So far as we can judge, the apostles had no such understanding of its meaning and import, when it was instituted, as must have been the case, it would seem, if, as they heard this discourse or thought of it afterwards, they supposed it to refer to a physical eating or to any special rite.

The purpose of the Lord’s Supper is given by Paul in connection with the words of the institution of it, in 1Co 11:25, This do in remembrance of me; it would be strange, indeed, if such a more complete unfolding of the idea should have been presented to a company of murmuring and unbelieving Galilean Jews. Weiss ed. Mey. says: It cannot even be said that at least the same idea out of which the Lord’s Supper sprang is here expressed (Olshausen, Kling, Tholuck, etc.; comp. Kahnis, Keim, Hengstenberg, Ewald, Godet), or that the appropriation of Christ’s life, brought about by faith in His death, which is here demanded as absolutely necessary, forms also the sacred fundamental idea of the institution of the Supper and the condition of its blessedness, from which the application of the passage to the Lord’s Supper (but also at the same time to baptism and the efficacy of the word) necessarily arises (Meyer, with a reference to Harless, p. 130ff.), but, at the most, that a like symbolism to that which is here used lies at the basis of the institution of the Supper. This statement is to be regarded as containing (as Weiss remarks) the most that can properly be said.

The difficulty which is suggested by Godet on page 40, that Jesus, instead of explaining His spiritual conception (if the view above given is adopted), only adds an expression which is more and more paradoxical, material, and, consequently, unintelligible to His interlocutors, seems to the writer of this note to have no real foundation. It was not the design of Jesus, in these spiritual discourses with His adversaries, to make explanations on the low level of their thought, but rather by repeating His ideas in their boldest and loftiest form to challenge their minds to wrestle with them. He wished to force them to see how far removed they were from the life of which He was speaking, by the very difficulty they found in comprehending the terms in which it was described. He would compel disciples and enemies alike to think, and would give them words and truths which might become seeds for future growth, for the very reason that they were, at the beginning, hard to be understood.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

Verse 51

Which I will give, &c.; referring to the sacrifice of himself upon the cross.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

6:51 {11} I am the {q} living bread which came down from heaven: if any man {r} eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

(11) Christ being sent from the Father is the selfsame unto us for the getting and keeping of everlasting life, as bread and flesh, yea, meat and drink, are to the use of this transitory life.

(q) Which gives life to the world.

(r) That is to say, whoever is truly a partaker of Christ, who is our food.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

This verse contains a final summary of the main ideas in this section. Jesus is living Bread, not manna, but He came down from God as it did. Those who believe on Him will experience eternal life. The terms coming to Jesus (Joh 6:35), listening to Him (Joh 6:45), and seeing Him (Joh 6:40) all mean believing on Him (Joh 6:35). Jesus would give His body as bread so the world could live spiritually. He referred to His coming sacrificial death. Not only had the Father given the Bread, but the Bread would now give Himself. John characteristically emphasized Jesus’ death as being for life rather than for sin. [Note: Beasley-Murray, p. 94.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)