Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 6:59
These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
59. in the synagogue ] Or, in synagogue, as we say ‘in church:’ there is no article in the Greek. Comp. Joh 18:20. The verse is a mere historical note, stating definitely what was stated vaguely in Joh 6:22 as ‘the other side of the sea.’ ‘These things’ naturally refers to the whole discourse from Joh 6:26; we have no sufficient evidence of a break between Joh 6:40 and Joh 6:41. On the other hand there is strong evidence that from Joh 6:26 to Joh 6:58 forms one connected discourse spoken at one time in the synagogue at Capernaum. The site of Capernaum is not undisputed (see on Mat 4:13); but assuming Tell Hm to be correct, the ruins of the synagogue there are probably those of the very building in which these words were uttered. On one of the stones a pot of manna is sculptured.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Joh 6:59
These things said He in the synagogues
I.
The OCCASION of this wonderful revelation to the Church. The desire of the Jews to have the miracle of the manna repeated. Those of larger views may have had the supply of an army in thought.
II. The DESIGN was to quench for ever any such ambition. If you desire a warrior leader I am not of that kind.
III. The SUBSTANCE showed that mans true peace lay not in things of sense. Christs errand was to bestow spiritual blessings on all mankind. To this end He must die as a vicarious sacrifice. To participate in the blessings of this sacrifice there must be faith. The discourse is a complete resume of the gospel plan of salvation. (W. H. Van Doren, D. D.)
Capernaum
was a busy bright little town; a station on the great road; a garrison for Roman troops; a port for collecting dues by land and lake; a place of tanners, dyers, soap-boilers; a market for oilmen, shepherds, cheesemongers, fruit grocers; a halting ground for the buyers and sellers of every kind, the corn-chandlers, the fishermen, the woolstaplers, the vinters, and the gardeners. Being the first town on the Lake of Tiberias as you ride in from Damascus, as Arena is the first town on Lago Maggiore as you come from Turin, it was the port at which any one coming that way would embark for cities lying south and east on the shore. Standing on a hill of limestone, rough and rich with the flow of the basaltic rocks from higher volcanic hills; having the rich plain and cool lake of Gennesareth at its feet, with the palm, the orange, and the pomegranate blooming everywhere about, Capernaum became, like Come or Palanza nearer home, a retreat for the rich as well as a field of labour for the poor. Most of the Jewish inhabitants, net-makers, fishermen, farmers, were believers in a physical Messiah; followers of Herod, of Judas, of Simon, of John; Jews of an earnest and yet of a most worldly type. The strangers who dwelt among those Jews, like every one trained in the Hellenic schools, were liberal and tolerant in affairs of faith. Had not the Roman governor built a synagogue for the Jews at his own expense? Capernaum, properly spelt Capharna Hum, was one of the towns most favoured by the Lord. It was the first place to which He came after His baptism by John. There He dwelt for a little while with His early disciples, Peter and Andrew, James and John. Here lived the good nobleman whose son He cured. There too He healed the demoniac in the synagogue, relieved the mother-in-law of Peter, healed the man sick of the palsy, and restored the withered hand. There He made whole the centurions servant, and raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead. From the blue waters of the lake He obtained the tribute money, and on its slimy shores, among the brambles and vines, He spoke the parables of the Tares, of the Sower, of the Treasure, of the Merchant, of the Net. In the White Synagogue, built by the Roman soldier, He pronounced His discourses on Faith, on Fasting, on Humility of Spirit, on Brotherly Love. Near to Capernaum He fed the five thousand, walked on the sea, and preached His Sermon on the Mount. He loved the busy, Basaltic town, and after His expulsion from Nazareth He made it the scene of His ministry. In the words of St. Matthew, a native of the place, it became His own city. Where, then, was this favoured spot? Strange to say, the great Churches of East and West, while bent on fixing the sites of events in the sacred story kept no clear record of the scene of so many miracles and sermons as Capernaum. (Hepworth Dixon.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 59. In the synagogue – in Capernaum.] From Joh 6:26, to this verse, the evangelist gives us the discourse which our Lord preached in the synagogue, in which he was repeatedly interrupted by the Jews; but this gave him the fuller opportunity to proclaim the whole truth relative to his passion and death, to edify the disciples, and confute these gainsayers.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Though the state of the Jewish church at this time was corrupt enough, both as to matters of doctrine, worship, and discipline; yet it being constituted by his Father, he did not decline their assemblies either in the temple at Jerusalem, or in the places of the public worship, which were called synagogues, and were both in their cities and villages; for he had a liberty to teach in them, as appeareth both from this and many other texts; which he accordingly used, and usually spent the sabbath, or a great part of it, in those places and assemblies: yet by his presence he no way owned or declared his approbation of their corruptions, but frequently and freely reproved them; only because of those superstitious impertinencies (there being at this time no idolatry practised amongst them) he would not disown what was of God his Father among them. The same practice we shall observe amongst the apostles, till the Jews declared themselves hardened, drove them out from their synagogues, and spake evil of the way of the gospel before the multitude, Act 19:9. Then indeed, and not before, Paul separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. This also is further to be observed in the practice of our Saviour, that although he went to the temple and the synagogues, and there joined with the Jewish worship instituted by his Father, and reproved (as he had occasion) the corruptions they had introduced and superadded; yet he did not forbear himself teaching the gospel in other places besides the temple and the synagogues. The evangelist also notes, that the synagogue where he taught these things was in Capernaum, a city of Galilee, which in this was exalted to heaven, that it had not only the gospel preached in it, but by Christ himself; but for the contempt of the gospel is since brought down to hell, as much debased as it was before exalted, being long since reduced to a poor inconsiderable place, and at this day under the tyranny of the Mahometan prince.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
59. These things said he in thesynagoguewhich seems to imply that what follows took placeafter the congregation had broken up.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
These things said he in the synagogue,…. Openly and publicly, in the place of divine worship, where the Jews resorted for that purpose:
as he taught in Capernaum; his own city, and where there was a synagogue, into which he often went and taught his doctrines, and wrought miracles; see Mt 3:13.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
In the synagogue ( ). Definite like our in church, though article absent. Only use of the word in John except 18:20. “Among the ruins at Tell Hum, the probable site of Capernaum, have been found among the remains of a synagogue a block of stone perhaps the lintel, carved with a pot of manna, and with a pattern of vine leaves and clusters of grapes” (Vincent).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
In the synagogue [ ] . But the definite article is wanting; so that we must either understand in a synagogue, or in an assembly. See on Jas 2:2. Among the ruins at Tell Hum, the probable site of Capernaum, have been found among the remains of a synagogue a block of stone, perhaps the lintel, carved with the pot of manna, and with a pattern of vine leaves and clusters of grapes. See a full account of these ruins in Thomson’s “Land and Book, Central Palestine and Phoenicia,” pp. 417 – 419.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “These things said he in the synagogue,” (touta eipen en sunagoge) “These things he stated in a synagogue,” where the mixed congregation listened, elders, rulers, disciples, and the laity, including men and women; Membership in the synagogue afforded education, fellowship, and worship, a thing prized by the Jews from which none desired to be excluded, or cast out, Joh 9:22; Joh 9:34-35.
2) “As he taught in Capernaum.” (didaskon en Kapharnaoum) “While teaching in Capernaum,” where He resided while in the Northeastern area of Galilee, Mat 4:13; Luk 4:30-31. Here Jesus frequently taught publicly and even performed miracles, Mat 12:9-14.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
59. He spoke these things in the synagogue. John points out the place, that we may know that there were many present, and likewise, that a sermon was delivered as on a weighty and important subject. But it immediately follows that out of so great a multitude there were scarcely to be found a very few who profited by it; and — what is worse — it proved to be the occasion of desertion to many who professed to be disciples of Christ. If the Evangelist had said that only some of them were offended, that ought to have been accounted monstrous; but when they rise up in crowds and conspire together against him, what name shall we give to such an action? Let this narrative then be deeply impressed on our minds, that we may never murmur against Christ when he speaks; and if in the present day we perceive any thing of this kind in others, let not their pride disturb our faith.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(59) As he taught in Capernaum.If we accept the identification of Capernaum with Tell-Hm, which is in every way probable (comp. Note on Mat. 4:13), we have good reason for believing that modern discovery has traced out the foundations of the synagogue in which this discourse was spoken. It was a gift to the Jews by a devout Gentile (Luk. 7:5), and as such, of greater architectural beauty than was common among Galilean synagogues. Corinthian capitals and a heavy cornice and frieze are among the ruins, and the travellers eye may rest to-day on the very ornaments which our Lords eyes saw there eighteen centuries ago. On one of the lintels of the door he may trace a sculptured pot of manna, and connect with it the thoughts of the manna which the fathers did eat, and died: just as in a Christian church he may trace the emblems of the bread of life, which a man may eat of and not die. A plan and details of the synagogue, with an account by Captain Wilson, R.E., will be found in the Second Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund (June, 1869). The same society has published a photograph of the ruins.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
59. Said he in the synagogue in Capernaum Our Evangelist thinks, wisely, that he has here made a great record, and he carefully notes the place: he well remembers it.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘These things he said in the synagogue as he taught at Capernaum’.
We now learn that the latter part of His teaching has been given officially in the synagogue, with the Judaisers who were seeking His death playing a prominent part and being seated in the chief places, in contrast with the earlier part which was given to the group who had come across the Sea of Galilee, seeking Him.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 6:59. These things said he in the synagogue, It is very probable that these discourses were introduced after prayer, and the reading of the law. We are not to wonder at the dialogue which passed here; there are many other instances of disputes which Christ and his apostles had with the Jews in their synagogues. See Mat 12:9. Luk 13:10. Act 13:44; Act 17:17.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Ver. 59. These things said he in the synagogue ] In a set sermon, and yet to little purpose; for many made defection. Vultures unguento fugantur, et scarabei rosa, Vultures are put to flight by perfumes and the rose bettle, say Pliny and Aelian. Aelian, On Animals, l. 3. c. 7. 1:165 When we have spent all our wind on our people, their hearts will be still apt to be carried away with every wind of cantrary doctrine or satanical suggestion.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Joh 6:59 . With his usual exact specification of time and place John adds . Lampe says: “Colligi etiam inde potest, quod haec acciderint in Sabbato”; but the synagogue was available for teaching on other days, and it is not likely that on a Sabbath so many persons would have followed Him across the lake.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
synagogue. See App-120.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Joh 6:59. -, He spake-teaching) Comp. ch. Joh 8:20, These words spake Jesus, as He taught in the temple [as here in the synagogue]; Joh 7:28.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 6:59
Joh 6:59
These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.-Capernaum was now the home of Jesus and these things were taught in the synagogue there.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
in the: Joh 6:24, Joh 18:20, Psa 40:9, Psa 40:10, Pro 1:20-23, Pro 8:1-3, Luk 4:31
Reciprocal: Mat 4:13 – Capernaum Mar 1:21 – Capernaum
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
9
The synagogues were structures erected by the Jews, and used principally for the reading of the law, and for teaching and exhortation.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 6:59. These things said he, as he was teaching in a synagogue in Capernaum. These words not only give information as to the place in which the discourse (probably Joh 6:41-58; see note on Joh 6:40) was delivered, but also show the boldness with which Jesus declared truths so new and so surprising to His hearers. He spoke thus in public teaching (comp. chap. Joh 18:20), and that too in the presence of His powerful enemies, and in the place where their influence was greatest.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Joh 6:59. These things The things recorded in the preceding verses; said he in the synagogue He spoke them openly in the hearing of all the people who attended at public worship in the synagogue; and that probably after prayer, and the reading of the law, in consequence of the question said to be asked him, Joh 6:25. Nor are we to wonder at the dialogue which passed here; for conversations between different persons, and even debates, were not unusual in the Jewish synagogues: there are many other instances of disputes, which either Christ or his apostles had with the Jews in these places of worship. See Mat 12:9-13; Luk 13:10-17; Act 13:44-47; and Act 17:17. It was evidently for wise reasons that our Lord involved a part of his discourse in figurative and mysterious language; as, in particular, that which related to eating his flesh and drinking his blood; or to his sufferings and death, and the life and salvation to be obtained thereby.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Ver. 59. These things said Jesus, as he taught in the synagogue, at Capernaum.
There was a regular meeting in the synagogue on the second, fifth and seventh days of the week (Monday, Thursday and Saturday). The day of the Passover must have fallen in the year 29, on Monday, April 18th (see Chavannes, Revue de theol ., third series, Vol. I., p. 209ff.). If the multiplying of the loaves occurred on the evening before the Passover (Joh 6:4), the following day, the day on which Jesus pronounced this discourse, must consequently have been Monday, which was a day of meeting. But with what purpose does the evangelist insert this notice here? Does he mean merely to give an historical detail? It is difficult to believe this. Tholuck thinks that his design is to account for the numerous audience which the following narrative (therefore, Joh 6:60), implies. Is not this somewhat far-fetched? It seems to us, rather, that after having given the account of so solemn a discourse, the evangelist felt the need of fixing forever the locality of this memorable scene (comp. Joh 8:20).
In order to be sensible of this intention we must, first, observe the absence of an article before , not: in the synagogue, but: in full synagogal assembly; then, we must connect the objective words in an assembly with teaching, and in Capernaum with He said, and paraphrase as follows: He spoke thus, teaching in full synagogue, at Capernaum. The term , teaching, which denotes a teaching properly so called, recalls the manner in which Jesus had explained and discussed the Scriptural texts, Joh 6:31; Joh 6:35; it is in accord with the solemnity of this scene.
The hearers had questioned, murmured, debated; now it is the betterdisposed among them, and even some of the permanent disciples of Jesus, who make themselves the organs of the general discontent.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Verse 59
In the synagogue; not as an address to a congregation, at public worship, but in conversation with bystanders. The synagogue was a place of general resort on all occasions.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Ver. 59.-This is the bread, &c. He intimates the same thing which I have said at the end of the foregoing verse. For Christ came down from heaven not as man, but as God. Wherefore he who eateth Him in the Eucharist shall live for ever, because in truth he eateth God and the Godhead, which being ever present with him who eateth, continually breathes into him His own life. Hear S. Ambrose (Serm. 18 in Ps. cxviii.), “How shall he die whose food is Life?” And presently, describing its wonderful effects, “Draw nigh unto Him, and be filled, for He is Bread. Draw nigh unto Him, and drink, for He is a Fountain. Draw nigh unto Him, and be enlightened, for He is Light. Draw nigh unto Him, and be free, for where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. Draw nigh unto Him, and be absolved; for He is remission of sins.” And S. Bernard (Serm. de Cna. Dom.) says, “Two things that Sacrament worketh in you: it diminishes the sense (of sin) in the least matters, and in graver sins it wholly takes away consent.” And again he says, “If any of you feel neither so frequently nor so severely the motions of anger, envy, lust, and such like passions, give thanks to the Body and Blood of the Lord, forasmuch as the virtue of the Sacrament worketh in you.” And S. Chrysostom on Psa 22:5 (Vulg.), saith upon the words, “Thou hast prepared a table before me, against them that trouble me,” “Let those who have trouble of the flesh come to the table of the Mighty One, and tribulation shall be turned into consolation.” Lastly, S. Cyril says, “The body of Christ quickens, and by our participation of it restores us to incorruption. For it is the body of none other than of the Life itself. It retains the virtue of the Word Incarnate, and is full of the power of Him by whom all things live and have their being.”
Ver. 60.-This spake He, &c. Christ taught these things, not in secret, not in a corner, but publicly in the synagogue in the presence of the Scribes, the Priests, and the whole people who had flocked together. For the synagogue was a sort of church.
In Capharnaum, “where,” says S. Chrysostom, “He had done so many miracles, and where He had the best right to be heard. Because the things which Christ spake concerning eating His flesh, and His being about to raise us up from death unto life eternal, seemed paradoxical and incredible to the Jews, He wished to proclaim them from that place, where by His many miracles He had gained faith and authority for Himself and His doctrine.”
Ver. 61.-Many therefore went back. Hard, i.e., austere, rigid, oppressive, unmerciful. The Arabic has difficult. Euthymius, can scarcely be admitted. And who can hear it. “Who can,” we do not say, ‘do such a thing, but even bear to bear it?” What Jesus said concerning His Flesh, and especially the command to eat It (Joh 6:54), except ye eat, &c., seems too difficult to be believed, and too horrible to be done. For what butcher will slay Christ? Who can bear to eat human flesh, or drink human blood? These are the feasts of cannibals, such as the heathen who did not understand the mystery of the Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist in after times reproached Christians with, and so were imitators of those Capharnaites, as Tertullian and other Fathers testify.
This saying was not hard in itself, but hard to the stupid Jews, who imagined that the Flesh of Christ was to be cut by a butcher, and mangled by the teeth like the flesh of an ox. But they greatly erred, for Christ neither said this, nor meant it. But He wished us to eat His Flesh sacramentally, i.e., hidden in the Sacrament under the species of bread and wine, a thing which is not dreadful, but which we who daily offer and communicate find by experience to be most easy and sweet. The Jews ought therefore humbly to have asked Christ to unfold to them the manner of doing this. If they would have done this, they would have heard it, and might have received it, and not thought the saying hard. As Cyril says, “They thought that they were called to the savage manners of wild beasts, and were urged to eat raw human flesh, and drink blood, things too horrible to hear of. Such were their thoughts as to how the flesh of this man would bestow eternal life, and bring them to immortality.”
Ver. 62.-Jesus knowing in Himself, Greek, , Syriac, in His soul, i.e., through His omniscience, without any one to tell, or reveal it. “For this was a proof of His Divinity, that He revealed secrets,” says Chrysostom. That His disciples murmured at this, He saith unto them, Doth this scandalize you? As though he said, “I do so many and wonderful things because I am sent by the Father for this purpose, as I have proved to you by My miracles; ye ought not therefore to be scandalized and offended at My words and deeds, but ye ought rather to ask God who sent Me for light and grace, that ye may be able to receive them.”
Ver. 63.-If therefore ye shall see, &c. “He is speaking,” says Euthymius, “concerning His future assumption into heaven.” For some of them, such as the Apostles, beheld this. And others, who did not believe, although they saw it not, might have heard, and certainly learnt from those who did see.
Where He was before, as regards His Divinity, says Euthymius. For He ascended into heaven, as regards His humanity. What will ye say, must be understood, as Euthymius observes. “Will ye be still scandalized? I trust not. Certainly I know ye will not rightly be so. For by My ascension into heaven by My own power ye will be able to know that I came down from heaven, and that I return whither I was before, and therefore that I am not only true and a prophet, but that I am also God, and the Son of God, to whom all things are possible, yea easy, and therefore that I am able to give My Flesh for food, and by It to raise the dead. From the miracle of His ascension into heaven Christ rightly proves His Divinity and omnipotence, and from them the mystery of the Eucharist. For to the Deity nothing is impossible, nothing strange, nothing paradoxical. Yea, it is becoming to Deity to do things strange (nova) and paradoxical, which are above nature and human reason. As S. Cyril says, “By another wonderful thing He urges them to faith,” and that appositely. For the ascension of Christ into heaven signified that He came down from heaven (for He went back from whence He came), and therefore that He was the Living Bread which came down from heaven, which was what He here wished to persuade the Capharnaites.
Maldonatus explains otherwise, thus, “When ye shall hear that I have ascended into heaven, what will ye say? Surely ye will be still more scandalized; ye will still less believe Me; ye will say that I am a sorcerer, who by the aid of the devils have pretended to fly into heaven.”
Ver. 64.-It is the spirit which quickeneth: the flesh, Arabic, the body, &c. The Calvinists bring forward against us these words of Christ to show that in the Eucharist there is not the Flesh of Christ really and corporeally, but only spiritually and figuratively by representation and faith, because, say they, the flesh profiteth nothing. But if this be true, then in vain was the Word made Flesh, then in vain did the Flesh of Christ suffer and was crucified, and died. God forbid. And who does not see that the Flesh of Christ is more profitable than the mere bread of Calvin, even though it were seasoned with sugar and honey out of Calvin’s throat? For in his bread there is no spirit, except the spirit of error and satanic madness.
First then SS. Cyril and Austin learnedly expound these words, thus: they are as if Christ said, “My Flesh alone profits not to preserve him who eats It unto life eternal, because it is not My mere Flesh which confers life and resurrection, but it is the Spirit, i.e., My Divinity united to the Flesh which quickens first the soul, and then the body at the Resurrection. And thus My Flesh profiteth very exceedingly, forasmuch as being united to the Spirit of the Word, it derives from It its quickening power.” By a similar form of speech we are wont to say, The eye doth not see, the ear doth not hear, nor the body feel, but it is the spirit i.e., the soul, which sees through the eye, and hears through the ear. Consequently, the words, i.e., the reality and the mystery of My Flesh to be eaten in the Eucharist, which I speak unto you are spirit and life. That is, My Deity, which is a pure Spirit, is a living and quickening Spirit. For It will give you life in the- Eucharist, not My bare Flesh. So S. Augustine says, “This Flesh alone profiteth not, but let the Spirit be joined to the Flesh, and It profiteth greatly. For if the Flesh profiteth nothing, the Word would not have become Flesh.” The same (lib. 10, de. Civit. Dei) says, “The Flesh of itself cleanseth not, but through the Word by which it hath been assumed.” And S. Cyril, “If the Flesh be understood alone, it is by no means able to quicken, forasmuch as it needs a Quickener, but because it is conjoined with the life-giving Word, the whole is made life-giving. For the Word of God being joined to the corruptible nature does not lose Its virtue, but the Flesh itself is lifted up to the power of the higher nature. Therefore, although the nature of flesh as flesh cannot quicken; still it doth this because it hath received the whole operation of the Word.”
For Christ is here making answer to the Capharnaites murmuring as to how Christ’s Flesh being eaten could give eternal life. But He gave this answer because they had murmured still more concerning the eating the flesh of Christ, and the method of doing so, which they thought of as something carnal and barbarous, as is seen by verses 52 and 60, and 61. For it seems something savage and inhuman to tear like wolves, and devour the human flesh of Christ. Hence secondly,
More aptly and naturally, the flesh, i.e., the carnal understanding, by which in sooth ye suppose that My Flesh is to be visibly cut and eaten like the flesh of sheep, profits nothing for the bestowal of everlasting life: but the spirit and the spiritual intelligence, by which we believe that the Flesh of Christ united to His spiritual Divinity, i.e., in a sacramental manner, veiled and hidden in the Eucharist under the species of bread and wine, is to be eaten – this gives life to soul and body. So S. Chrysostom, &c. No otherwise is S. Augustine’s meaning on the 98th Ps. (Vulg.), if he be carefully read: He says, “It is not this body which ye see nor the blood which those who crucify Me will shed, that ye are about to eat and drink. I commend unto you a sacrament which spiritually understood will quicken you. And although it be necessary that it be visibly celebrated, yet it ought to be understood in an invisible sense.” These words the Calvinists understood thus, that in the Eucharist we eat the Flesh of Christ not really, but figuratively and mystically by faith. But they are in error. For the meaning of S. Augustine is, In the Eucharist we do not eat the Flesh of Christ by visibly cutting and masticating it as the Capharnaites supposed, but under a sacrament, i.e., sacramentally and invisibly, lying hid under the species of bread and wine. For if understood otherwise, S. Augustine would conflict with himself (Serm. 1. in Ps. xxxiii. and Lib. 22, Civit. c. 8, and elsewhere), where he manifestly upholds the truth of Christ’s Body in the Eucharist.
Wherefore Christ subjoins, the words which I speak, &c.: Spirit, i.e., are spiritual, and must be understood spiritually, i.e., Sacramentally, in the manner in which I have now explained, and not carnally, as ye Capharnaites, like butchers, understand them. So they are life, i.e., vital, and bestow life on him who heareth and eateth Me. There is a hebraism, by which the abstract is put for the concrete. Thus frequently elsewhere the flesh and spirit are put for the carnal and spiritual understanding and sense. Thus 2 Cor. iii. 6, “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” Mat 16:17, “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee.” Moreover it is common in Scripture to play upon the meanings of words. Wherefore it is not surprising that flesh is to be understood differently from what it is in verse 56, &c. My Flesh is truly Food. For there real, but here figurative flesh is meant. So Christ plays upon the meaning of water (c. iv.), rising from the corporeal to the spiritual sense. So the Apostle plays upon the word sin (2Co 5:21), “He who knew no sin, was made sin,” i.e., a Victim for sin, “for us.”
Thirdly, the fullest sense will be if we join both meanings previously given, and with Bede unite them into one, thus – The virtue of giving life which My Flesh eaten in the Eucharist possesses, is not derived so much from the flesh as from the Spirit of the Word which is living and life-giving. And consequently this eating of My Flesh is not to be taken in the carnal manner of butchers, but in a spiritual manner, and accommodated to the spirit, that is to say in a hidden and sacramental manner. For from the words of Christ ignorantly understood the Capharnaites alleged the contrary of both, and turned away, as is plain from the words. And so this spiritual, i.e., sacramental, manner of eating the Flesh of Christ by taking the species of bread and wine, under which in reality lie hid the Body and Blood of Christ and His Divinity Itself, occasions no horror to the eater, and causes no wounding or harm to the Flesh of Christ which is eaten. For here Christ lies hid, and is invisible and indivisible like an angel. So Euthymius says, “They are things spiritual and life-giving. For we ought not simply to look at them (for that is carnally to understand them), but we ought to suppose something else, and to look upon them as mysteries with our inward eyes.”
Ver. 65.-But there are some, &c. The reason why some of you do not receive, but oppose, My words concerning the Eucharist, is not because My saying is hard, as ye say, but because ye are faithless, and will not believe My many miracles and signs. For here there is need of humble faith, which ought by lowly prayer to be asked and waited for from God the Father. But ye lack humility both of prayer and faith, and therefore ye neither pray to God, nor believe in Me. So S. Augustine, Bede and Rupert.
For Jesus knew, &c. It means that Christ as God knew from eternity what would happen, and this foreknowledge He communicated to His Humanity from the beginning of His conception. And who should betray Him. By this John intimates that Judas the traitor was one of those who did not believe; indeed, that he was offended at Christ’s sayings concerning the eating His flesh: that he conceived and cherished a dislike to Christ which at last broke out into treachery against Him. The connection makes this conclusion necessary. Otherwise this mention of the traitor would be inopportune, unless from this discourse of Christ Judas had taken the first initiative of his unbelief and subsequent treachery. So S. Augustine, Bede, &c
Christ added this that the Jews might not think that He had, unaware of his future treachery, admitted Judas to the Apostolate. He had done it consciously and advisedly, that so His Passion and man’s redemption might be fulfilled as God had decreed.
Ver. 66.-And said, &c., except it be given him, &c, i.e., except My Father draw him, as He said in verse 44. Graciously does Christ not attribute the unbelief of the Jews to their fault, but excuses them on the ground that it was not given them of the-Father: at the same time He consoles Himself, as it were, thus-“I do not distress Myself because many do not believe in Me, but I console Myself because the Father will cause to believe in Me those whom He hath chosen, and will cause them to come to Me. With these I am content. I am not ambitious of others. For whom the Father willeth (to come), those I also will; and those whom He willeth not (to come), those likewise I do not will.” Yet those who would not come, i.e., would not believe in Christ, sinned, both because they had sufficient grace, by which they might have believed if they had wished (although they had not efficacious grace, by which they would really and actually believe), as also because they did not humbly ask of God efficacious grace, also because by their pride, and other sins, they had rendered themselves unworthy of that grace. Yea, by their obstinacy they repelled the grace and faith of God, as S. Cyprian learnedly explains (lib. 1, epist. 3, ad. Cornel.)
Ver. 67.-From this time, say Euthymius and others: otherwise the Syriac, on account of this discourse: Arabic, because of this, left Jesus, &c. These disciples were not the Apostles, for Christ excepts them in the following verse. Neither were they the seventy-two disciples. For those had not yet been designated and chosen by Christ. But they were His more constant hearers and followers, “who,” as Theophylact says, “followed Him in the rank of His disciples, and remained with Him longer than the multitudes, and so, compared with the rest of the crowd, were called His disciples. These persons therefore up to this time being allured by the sweet doctrine of Christ, fed by the loaves miraculously multiplied, and hoping to be fed in future by similar food, when they heard Christ substituting His own Flesh in the place of bread, and willing that they should eat It, thought either that He was mad, or else was contriving some horrible and savage scheme, or perchance a conspiracy against the Romans, and would inaugurate it by their tasting His flesh and blood, as Cataline had done before at Rome. Thus, to provide for their own safety, they fell away from Christ.
S. Epiphanius declares expressly that one of these was S. Mark, who was afterwards brought back by S. Peter, and became an Evangelist (Hres. 51): but others deny this, and assert that S. Mark neither saw nor heard Christ (in the flesh), but was converted by S. Peter after His death. So S. Jerome on Ecclesiastical Writers, and others.
Ver. 68.-Jesus said therefore, &c. For when the others were scandalized and went away from Christ “the Twelve remained,” says S. Augustine, “for not even did Judas go away:” partly for shame’s sake, not to be the only Apostle to go away, and be called an apostate; partly that he might be fed by Christ without labour on his part, as he had been hitherto; and that as he bore the bag and was a sort of purveyor for Christ’s family, he might steal and enrich himself. For he was a thief.
Christ asks the question of the Apostles for five reasons. The first was that He might leave them their liberty. As though He said, “I give you your choice: if ye wish to go away, depart: if ye wish to remain with Me, remain. I will not retain you either by force, or shame.” Listen to S. Chrysostom. “Jesus neither flattered, nor drove away: but He asked the question, not because He despised them, but that they might not seem to be retained by compulsion.” For if they had remained unwillingly, He would have been in exactly the same condition as if they had gone away.
(2.) To show His greatness of soul; and that He did not need the work of Apostles, forasmuch as He by Himself could do all things: and when they were sent away, He could substitute others who were better in their place.
(3.) That the Apostles might understand that by remaining, they did not commend, or show favour to Jesus, but to themselves. “That they received rather than conferred a benefit,” says Theophylact.
(4.) That by this freedom of choice He might the more bind them to Himself, and invite them to remain. For it often occurs, as a natural consequence, that when we are asked, we decline; when we are not asked, we desire; when we are invited, we flee; when we are not invited, we draw near.
(5.) That by this interrogation He might prove their affection, and try their constancy, and draw a confession of their true faith concerning Himself. So S. Cyril. And that such a confession was drawn forth is plain from the next verse.
Ver. 69.-Simon Peter therefore answered, &c. Peter, as greater in rank (ordine major), says S. Cyril, firmer in faith, more loving to Jesus, more fervent in spirit, answered in the name of the rest of the Apostles, thinking that this was the mind and feeling of all. For that which he himself thought of Jesus he believed his colleagues thought likewise.
To whom shall we go? Meaning, says S. Augustine, “Do you send us from thee? Give us another such as Thou art. To whom shall we go, if we leave Thee?” Wherefore S. Chrysostom says, “This is an answer of great affection. For Christ was preferable to both father and mother.”
Thou hast the words of eternal life. First, as it were said, “Thy words, 0 Jesus, are sweet and life-giving, because they promise the very eternal life. Who therefore, save a fool, would leave them, and go elsewhere?” S. Cyril saith, “Not hard are the words, as those Capharnaites say, but Thou hast the words of eternal life, which are able to lead those who believe to the incorruptible life.” Wherefore what Thou hast said concerning Thy flesh to be eaten, that by It we may obtain eternal life, although I do not as yet well understand it, yet am I not scandalized, nor offended by Thy words, but I firmly believe them to be true, not doubting that in due time I shall understand them better, and silently asking and beseeching Thee to cause me to do this.
(2.) By Thy words, 0 Jesus, Thou dost promise us eternal life, if we eat Thy Flesh. These words draw us and unite us to Thee, rather than drive us away. For who would not wish for eternal life, and such a means of obtaining it? Wherefore the Arabic renders, To whom shall we go, since the words of eternal life are with Thee? “Hence we learn,” says Cyril, “that one only Christ who is able to bring us to everlasting life, must be followed as our Master.”
(3.) Thou hast the words, &c. Because Thou art Life eternal. Therefore in Thy Flesh and Blood Thou only givest what Thou art, says S. Augustine. Thou art the Word of the Father: and therefore Thou hast in Thee eternal life, because Thou art Life eternal Itself. What wonder then if Thou bestowest on those who eat Thee, life eternal? For Thou dost bestow that very self-same thing which Thou art.
Ver. 70.-And we believe, &c. The Greek has the article to both Christ and Son: , the Christ promised by God, and expected for so many ages: , i.e., the Son of God by nature and substance, not adopted by grace. “Diligently consider this,” says Cyril, “that everywhere, especially with the prefix of the article, they say, Thou art the very Christ, the very Son of the Living God, truly and naturally separating (this) Son from other sons of God, who being called, are adopted by grace. And we being conjoined by likeness to Him, are called sons.”
We know, from the testimony of John the Baptist, our prophet and master, from the many and great miracles which Thou hast wrought, from Thy heavenly doctrine, and the holiness of Thy life, which we who are in constant intercourse with Thee, know to be heavenly and Divine.
Son of God: the Greek adds, , the living, so also the Syriac and Arabic read. The meaning is, We believe that Thou art the Son of God. Wherefore, we also believe that all Thy sayings are Divine and most true, even when we do not understand them, and therefore that they are life-giving, and confer salvation and eternal life. For Thou art the Son of the Living God, who in His Essence is Life, which He communicates to Thee: therefore nothing can proceed from Thee but what is vital and life-giving: neither do we expect anything else from Thee.
Ver. 71.-Jesus answered, Thou, 0 Peter, answerest in the name of all the Apostles, as if all believed in Me, and were My faithful friends. But know that thou art deceived, for one of them is a devil, unbelieving, and faithless to Me, who also will betray Me.
Have chosen Twelve, as to the Apostleship according to their present state apt and meet Whence it seems that Judas the traitor, even when he was first chosen by Christ, was good and honest. For prudence and charity forbid the choice of one who is dishonest. So S. Cyril, Maldonatus and others. Also S. Jerome (lib. 3, cont. Polag.), Tertullian (lib. de prscrip. hret. c. 3). Some, however, think that Judas, when he was bad, as Christ knew, was yet chosen by Him to be an Apostle, with this object, that it might be one of His own who should betray Him, and so afford the occasion and the way for His passion and death, and from them the redemption of men. This opinion is attributed to SS. Bede and Augustine, yet neither says so expressly. Indeed, both rather intimate that Judas was chosen by Christ when he was good, even though he was known to be about to become bad by his own fault. Hear S. Augustine: “Their number of Twelve was consecrated, who through the four quarters of the world were to proclaim the Trinity. And because one of them perished, not on that account was the honour of that number taken away from them. For in the room of him who perished another was chosen.” And after a while he says, “He was chosen, from whom, albeit unwilling, and knowing it not, a great good was to proceed. For as wicked men wickedly use the good works of God, so, on the contrary, God for good uses the wicked works of men. The Lord used for good the wicked Judas, and delivered Himself to be betrayed that He might redeem us.” Hear also Bede: “To one end He chose eleven, to another end one. These He chose that they should persevere in the dignity of the apostolate, him, that by the office of his treachery He might work out the salvation of the human race.”
A devil: Syriac, Satan: Nonnus, he who is called by posterity another new devil. Christ would not name Judas that He might spare his reputation. “He neither openly pointed him out,” says S. Chrysostom, “nor wished him to lie concealed. The former was that he might not contend too impudently; the latter, lest supposing he was concealed, he should act too unguardedly.” He did it also that he might impress the Apostles with fear, that they like Judas might not apostatize, nor presume proudly upon their own constancy. Listen to Cyril: “He confirms them by sharper words, and makes them diligent by the peril before their eyes. For it is thus He seems to speak, Ye have need, 0 ye disciples, of great watchfulness, and great care for your safety: for the way of perdition is very slippery.” After a while, “He makes all more watchful, because He does not say openly who would betray Him, but affirming that the charge of such heinous impiety hung over one, He makes them all anxious, and by the dread of such a thing He arouses them to greater vigilance.”
You will ask why Judas is called a devil. I answer (1.) because he was (diabolus), i.e., a false accuser. For he spoke evil of the works and miracles of Christ to the Scribes and chief priests.
(2.) He was a diabolus, Hebrew and Syriac, a Satan, i.e., an adversary, because he opposed himself to Christ.
(3.) He was a diabolus because he did not believe in Christ because he was a thief and a liar. For the devil is “a liar and the father of a lie” (cap. viii.) Wherefore Christ saith, he is a devil, in the present tense, not will be in the future.
(4.) He was a devil, that is a minister of the devil, an instrument and organ of the devil. For at the instigation of the devil he betrayed Christ his Lord and his God, as though he had been possessed of a devil. Whence John says (xiii. 2), that “Satan entered into him.” So S. Chrysostom and others. So in common speech a very wicked man is called a devil.
(5.) He was a diabolus, i.e., betrayer of Christ. For in this sense diabolus is used for a traitor in Ecclus. xxvi. 6, in the Greek, though the Vulgate has betrayal. So the devil is the traitor angel, because by his malice he betrayed and ruined the angelic state. For from the angelic choirs and from, heaven Lucifer, the traitor, by his perfidy dragged down with himself to hell the third part of the stars (Apoc. xii. 4). He betrayed therefore heaven and its inhabitants to hell and destruction.
Christ is alluding to the fall of Lucifer, who being chosen by God prince of the angels, by his pride made himself a devil and the prince of the demons. In like manner Judas chosen by Christ to the angelic office of the Apostolate, by his own fault fell from it, and made himself a companion of the devil, and a diabolus, that we may learn to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and to fear a fall, although we stand in the most holy places. For the higher the place the greater is the fall, and the ruin the more profound.
Ver. 72.-But he spake, &c. Christ forewarns the Apostles, so that when they should afterwards behold the treachery of Judas, they might know that He had foreseen and foretold it, and therefore that it was not against His will, but by the permission of His certain counsel that this was done to bring about His death, by which he might redeem the human race.
Here John finishes the acts of the second year of Christ’s preaching, up to the third year, or from the second Passover to the third. He proceeds with the acts of the third year in the following chapter. He passes over therefore many acts of Christ’s second year, because they had been given at length by the other three Evangelists. He concludes Christ’s second year with the multiplication of the loaves, which He wrought about the time of the Passover, and which furnished the occasion of Christ’s long argument with the Jews concerning the spiritual bread and His Flesh to be partaken in the Eucharist.
Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary
John now identified the historical context in which Jesus gave this teaching. Jesus gave this discourse in the synagogue in the town that He had adopted as the headquarters of His ministry (cf. Joh 2:12). This verse evidently marks the conclusion of the discussion that took place within the synagogue.
Archaeologists have uncovered what they believe may be the foundations of this synagogue. Visitors to the site of Capernaum may now view a reconstructed edifice that dates from three or four hundred years later.
The Apostle Paul went to the Jewish synagogues in the towns that he evangelized because they were the places where pious Jews normally congregated to listen to God’s Word. We should probably view Jesus’ teaching ministry here as similar to Paul’s later practice. Both men announced God’s revelations to lost religious Jews and appealed to them to believe the gospel.