Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 6:61
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
61. knew in himself ] Again He appears as the reader of the heart. Comp. Joh 1:42; Joh 1:47, Joh 2:24-25, Joh 4:18, Joh 5:14; Joh 5:42, Joh 6:26, &c. More literally the verse runs: Now Jesus knowing in Himself that His disciples are muttering about it: see on Joh 6:41, Joh 7:12. They talked in a low tone so that He could not hear: but He knew without hearing.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 61. Jesus knew in himself] By giving them this proof that he knew their hearts he also proved that he was God; that he could not be deceived himself, and that it was impossible for him to deceive any; consequently, that the doctrine he taught them must be the truth of God.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Christ, though clothed with our flesh, yet being also the eternal Son of God, knew by virtue of his Divine nature, personally united to the human nature, what was in the heart of man; hence is this phrase,
knew in himself; which is opposed to a knowledge from the hearing of his own ears, as man heareth, whether more immediately from the sound of their words, (for we read of nothing they spake audibly), or from the relation of others, as what they had heard: he knew in himself their thoughts by his Divine prerogative and property of searching the hearts, and trying the reins, and discerning the thoughts of men afar off. Knowing their thoughts, he saith, Doth this give you occasion of stumbling?
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
61, 62. Doth this offend . . . Whatand if, &c.that is, “If ye are stumbled at what Ihave said, how will ye bear what I now say?” Not that Hisascension itself would stumble them more than His death, but thatafter recoiling from the mention of the one, they would not bein a state of mind to take in the other.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
When Jesus knew in himself,…. And of himself, without any intelligence from others, or hearing what was said, being the omniscient God:
that his disciples murmured at it; at the doctrine he had delivered, looking upon it as absurd, incredible, and contrary to sense and reason:
he said unto them, does this offend you? or trouble you? cannot you get over this? cannot you understand it? or account for it? if not, how will you be able to digest some other things, or reconcile them to your minds, which are less known, and more unexpected, and will appear at first sight more surprising?
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Knowing in himself ( ). Second perfect active participle of . See 2:25 for this supernatural insight into men’s minds.
Murmured (). Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse. See 41 for .
At this ( ). “Concerning this word.”
Cause to stumble (). Common Synoptic verb from for which see Mt 5:29. In John again only in 16:1.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Offend [] . Rev., cause to stumble. See on Mt 5:29. Wyc., slandereth you.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “When Jesus knew in himself,” (eidos de ho lesous en heauto) “Then Jesus knowing in himself,” both by His supernatural knowledge and by their emotional and impulsive response to what He had said.
2) “That his disciples murmured at it,” (hoti gonguzousin peri toutou hoi mathetai autou) “That his disciples were murmuring about this,” concerning this statement; The term “disciples” here used referred to more than the twelve, but to other followers also. They murmured after a similar manner that the Jews had murmured, Joh 6:41. The created criticized the Creator, the living found fault with the giver and sustainer of life, La 3:22; Act 17:28.
3) “He said unto them, Doth this offend you?” (eipen autois touto humas skandalizei) “He said, does this (saying) offend you?” or cause you to stumble; Such was not the purpose of His plain teaching, using the natural to illustrate the supernatural, Joh 16:1.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
61. But Jesus knowing. Christ knew indeed, that the offense which the reprobate had taken up could not be removed; for, to tell the truth, (171) the doctrine does not so much wound them as it exposes the putrid ulcer which they inwardly nourished in their hearts. But he wished by all methods to try if there were not one of those who were offended that was not yet beyond the reach of cure, and to stop the mouths of the rest. By putting the question, he means that they have no reason to be offended, (172) or, at least, that the ground of offense does not lie in the doctrine itself. Thus we ought to repress the wickedness of those who, urged on by nothing but the rage of mastiff dogs, slander the word of God; and thus too we ought to chastise the folly of those who inconsiderately attack the truth.
Knowing in himself. He says that Jesus knew in himself, because they had not yet declared openly what gave them uneasiness, but secretly murmured and groaned within themselves, and, therefore, he anticipates their open complaints. If it be objected, that the nature of those complaints was not difficult to understand, because in express terms they rejected the doctrine of Christ, I acknowledge that the words which John has formerly related are plain enough; but still I say that, like persons who are disgusted at any thing, they whispered those words to each other in low murmurs. For if they had spoken to Christ, there would have been better ground of hope, because the way would have been opened up for teaching them; but now, when they indulge in secret murmurings, they shut up against themselves the way to gain instruction. So then, when we do not immediately perceive the Lord’s meaning, there is nothing better than to go straight to him, that he may solve all our difficulties.
Doth this offend you? Christ appears here to increase the offense instead of removing it; but if any person examine very closely the ground of offense, there was in the following statement what ought to have pacified their minds.
(171) “ Pour dire a la verite.”
(172) “ De se scandalizer.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(61) When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured.The tenses in the original describe the scene in the present: Jesus as knowing, the disciples as murmuring. The knowledge is in Himself, uninformed by them, and His teaching is addressed to the thoughts of their hearts. They were placing themselves in the position of the Jews (Joh. 6:41), and were making the stepping-stone of spiritual knowledge, up which faith would have walked, into a rock of offence over which blindness fell.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
61. Offend you It is the you which is here emphatic. Are you too offended, who have professed to be my pupils, (for such is the meaning of the term disciples,) and who have learned by many a miracle that I am the Son of man, and that my word, however mysterious, cannot be less than divine?
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascending where he was before?” ’
Aware of their murmuring and the danger of their falling into disbelief Jesus answered them by pointing to His resurrection. ‘Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending where he was before?’ (Joh 6:62). Though His death must come, He told them, it would be followed by resurrection, and the receiving by Him of kingship and glory. He would be returning to the glory that was once His (Joh 17:5), ‘where He was before’, with the certainty that those who were His would follow Him. In the words of Isa 53:10, after being bruised by the Lord, ‘He will see His seed, He will prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand’. Thus they need not be upset by His talk of death. Let them think on what He had said before about where He came from and where He was going (e.g. Joh 3:13). Let them recognise that His death would result not in tragedy but in victory. Death would be followed by resurrection.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 6:61-62. Doth this offend you? “Are you offended, because I said my flesh is bread, and that it came down from heaven, and that you must eat my flesh and drink my blood, in order to your having eternal life?What if ye shall see me ascend up into heaven bodily, where I was before? Will not that convince you of the truth of my having come down from heaven? Will it not shew you likewise, that I never intended you should eat my flesh in a corporeal manner, and consequently that my discourse is to be taken in a figurative sense?” See the next verse.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 6:61-62 . ] In Himself , without communication; , Nonnus.
.] as in Joh 6:41 .
] concerning this harshness of His discourse.
. .] Question of astonishment: this , namely, which you have found so hard in my discourse (Jesus knew what it was), does this offend you ? Are you so mistaken in your opinion and feelings towards me? Comp. Joh 6:66 .
, . . .] Aposiopesis, which, especially “in tam infausta re” (Dissen, ad Dem. de cor . p. 362), takes the place of the impassioned statement. See on Luk 19:41 ; Act 23:9 ; Rom 9:22 . The completion of it must be derived solely from the context, and therefore is not or the like (Nonnus, Euthymius Zigabenus, Kuinoel, and many); but (comp. Winer, p. 558 [E. T. p. 750]; Fritzsche, Conject . pp. 22, 31): “ Will not this impending sight serve to offend you still more ?” By Jesus indicates His death ; and, indeed, as He in whom Daniel’s prophecy of the Son of man was to be fulfilled (comp. Joh 12:23 ; Mat 26:24 ) contemplated it in the consciousness of His heavenly origin and descent (Joh 3:13 ), of which He had already spoken in Joh 6:58 . His death, therefore, so far as it would be to Him, by means of the resurrection and ascension therewith connected, a return to the which He had before His incarnation. Comp. Joh 17:5 , and the , Joh 12:32 . To the spectators, who only saw the humiliating and shameful outward spectacle of His death, it served only to give the deepest offence . The concluding argument a minori ad majus which lies in , is like that in Joh 3:12 . The interpretation of the ancient Church, which referred the words to the corporeal ascension in and by itself (so also Olshausen, Lindner, Maier, Ebrard, Kahnis, p. 120, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann, Hengstenberg, Baeumlein, Godet, Harless), would require us of logical necessity to supply, not the supposed increase of offence (Baeumlein), but a question expressing doubt or denial: “would ye still take offence then?” Comp. Joh 8:28 . But this import of the aposiopesis, which even Ewald and Brckner adopt, though not explaining the words merely of the ascension, has the itself decidedly against it, instead of which would be logically required; and the reference to the ascension as such, as an event by itself , is totally without analogy in the discourses of Jesus, and quite un-Johannean. [247] So also the , in particular, is against this view; for, with the Present participle , it would describe the ascension expressly as a visible event (in answer to Luthardt’s observations, who explains it of the ascension, but with Tholuck regards its visibility as a matter of indifference, so far as the present passage is concerned), though its visible occurrence is attested by no apostle, while in the non-apostolic accounts (Mar 16:19 ; Luk 24:51 ; Act 1:9 ) only the disciples in the narrower sense, the twelve, who are just those not meant by the “ye” in our text, are represented as the eye-witnesses. On the other hand, the opinion that there lies in . only the possibility of those present being eye-witnesses (Kahnis, Hofmann) [248] is nothing more than a subtle evasion, unsupported by the (comp. Joh 12:32 , Joh 14:3 , Joh 16:7 ), and no better than Hengstenberg’s assertion (comp. Tholuck): “those who were present at the ascension were the representatives of the collective body of the disciples.” Parallel with is the designation of the death of Jesus as a going to God , Joh 7:33 , Joh 13:3 , Joh 14:12 ; Joh 14:28 , Joh 16:5 ; Joh 16:28 , Joh 17:11 ; Joh 17:13 . That He here describes His death not according to its low and painful phase, but according to the essence of its triumphant consummation as present to His own consciousness, is therefore quite Johannean; comp. also Joh 17:5 , Joh 12:23 . The reference to the gift of the Spirit , the exaltation being intended as the medium of effecting this (Lange), is remote from the context, and is not indicated by any word in the sentence, for nothing is spoken of but the seeing with the eyes the future departure .
Upon , see on Gal 4:13 . It refers to the period preceding His present form of being, when as to the divine part of His nature, i.e. as the Logos, He was in heaven; [249] comp. Joh 17:5 ; Joh 17:24 , Joh 8:58 .
[247] Appeal is made, but unreasonably, not only to Joh 3:13 , but likewise to Joh 20:17 (see especially Hofmann, Schriftbew . II. 1, 517, and Godet). Jesus there is speaking after His death, when that blessed end was still future, in reference to which before His death he was wont to describe that event as a departure and an ascension to the Father. There, accordingly, He could not avoid mentioning the ascension alone .
[248] “For they would certainly see Him die, but they would see Him ascend only if they remained His disciples,” Hofmann. The former is as incorrect as the latter. For Jesus is speaking to His Galilean disciples, and, indeed, to His disciples in the wider sense (ver. 67), of whom therefore we cannot say that they would certainly he present at His death in Jerusalem; while the witnesses of the ascension were not those who remained faithful to Him generally, but the apostles . According to Harless, Christ means to say that they must not think of His flesh and blood in His state of humiliation, but of both in His state of glory. But flesh and blood is the contradictory of . The glorified body of Christ in the form of flesh and blood is inconceivable (1Co 15:49-50 ).
[249] The meaning is not that “we immediately substitute another subject” (Beyschlag, Christol . p. 29); but, in harmony with the witness of Jesus regarding Himself elsewhere in John, we have given us a more definite mention of the state wherein the Son of man had His pre-existence in heaven. That He had this as the Son of man , as Beyschlag, p. 85, explains (understanding it of the eternal divine image, whose temporal realization Jesus, by an intuition given Him on earth, knew Himself to be), the text does not say; it says: “the Son of man, i.e. the Messiah, will ascend up where He was before.” There can be no doubt, if we will follow John, in what form of existence He previously was in heaven. Neither is there any doubt if we ask Paul, who speaks of the pre-existence of Jesus . See on Phi 2:6 ; comp. 2Co 8:8-9 . He does not there mean that He pre-existed as Jesus , but as the . . For the rest, comp. ver. 46, Joh 8:58 , Joh 7:5 , Joh 1:8 . If it be true, as Keim says ( Geschichtl. Chr . p. 102, Exo 3 ), that “not one particle of the self-consciousness of Jesus reaches back beyond His temporal existence,” the fundamental Christological view not only of the fourth Gospel, but of Paul also, is based upon a great illusion. As to the Synoptics, see on Mat 11:27 ; Mat 8:20 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
Ver. 61. When Jesus knew in himself ] For they had not yet discovered what pinched them; but only muttered it among themselves, aversantium more, in a discontented manner. They had done much better if they had opened their minds to Christ and sought satisfaction. But men will sooner talk against a preacher by “the walls and in the doors of their houses,” Eze 33:30 ; (taking everything with the left hand, and by the left handle), than either candidly interpret, or let him be his own interpreter.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
61. ] , by His divine knowledge.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 6:61 . This apparently was said out of the hearing of Jesus, for Joh 6:61 says , “Jesus knowing in Himself,” that is, perceiving that they were murmuring, He intuitively understood what it was they were stumbling at, and said ; “Does this saying stumble you? If then ye see the Son of Man ascending where He was before ” What are we to supply? Either, Will you not be much more scandalised? Or, Will you not then be convinced? According to the former, the sense would be: If now you say, how can this Man give us His flesh to eat? much more will you then say so when His flesh wholly disappears. But the second interpretation gives the better sense: You will find it easier to believe I came down from heaven, when you see me returning thither. Cf. Joh 3:13 ; Joh 13:3 . You will then recognise also in what sense I said that you must eat my flesh. , . It was therefore the spirit animating the flesh in His giving of it which profited; not the external sacrifice of His body, but the spirit which prompted it was efficacious. The acceptance of God’s judgment of sin, the devotedness to man and perfect harmony with God, shown in the cross, is what brings life to the world; and it is this Spirit men are invited to partake of. It is therefore not a fleshly but a spiritual transaction of which I have been speaking to you. [Bengel excellently: “Non sola Deitas Christi, nec solus Spiritus sanctus significatur, sed universe Spiritus , cui contradistinguitur caro ”.] , His entire discourse at Capernaum, and whatever other sayings He had uttered, were spirit and life. It was through what He said that He made Himself known and offered Himself to them. To those who believed His words, spirit and life came in their believing. By believing they were brought into contact with the life in Him.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
it = this.
offend = cause to stumble.
you? Emph.; i.e. you, as well as those Jews.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
61.] , by His divine knowledge.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 6:61. , in Himself) without any external informant.- ; does this offend you?) Enallage [change of form of expression]: that is [He means], whether are ye offended at this truth? The passion of Christ was to the Jews a stumbling-block.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 6:61
Joh 6:61
But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them, Doth this cause you to stumble?-Jesus knowledge of their fleshly appetites called out this question. [The disciples could not take in what had just been said. They expected an earthly king, not a crucified Savior. Hence, they murmured and were offended.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Joh 6:64, Joh 2:24, Joh 2:25, Joh 21:17, Heb 4:13, Rev 2:23
Reciprocal: Mat 9:4 – knowing Mat 11:6 – whosoever Mat 13:21 – root Mat 13:57 – they Mat 24:10 – shall many Mar 6:3 – offended Joh 3:7 – Marvel
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
A SPIRITUAL PLUMMET
Doth this offend you?
Joh 6:61
This interrogation is the plummet wherewith God tries, from time to time, the depth of our religion, our progress in the hidden life.
I. He tries our faith!You say that you believe in Jesus. You do well; but Satan does the same. How, then, must our faith differ? The eagle knows the sun is shining, and some men will love their sins, lay up riches and fawn upon the great to feed ambition; yet they will tell you they believe in Christ. But why? Because they want to quiet conscience and put on Death a more pleasing garb. Is this true faith? No; their faith is in themselves or in their wealth. Again, laying ones sins on Jesus to-day and wilfully repeating them to-morrow, believing He will always free you from their guiltthis is not faith. It is asking God to give consent to evil, thinking wickedly that He is even such an one as thyself. Then what is faith? Faith in Christ means perfect trust; thus if you believe that He can make you clean, you will rely upon the means He has ordained. Do not set your heart on Pharpar or Abana lest it offend you to be sent to Jordan, and faith begins to argue with divinity.
II. He tests our earnestness.You have given yourself to Christ, and asked Him to do with you according to His blessed will. You want to tread the paths the saints of old have trod, and live for Jesus only. The march begins with conscious grace. He fills the soul with sweet and heavenly calm. You see the best visions of the Fatherland, visions of peace. Jesus is near in all His beauty, you see His footprints clearly and feel His guiding hand. This opening of the souls true life is like the golden sunrise on the snowy Alps. But do not stop to gaze; enjoy the vision as you would the flowers of spring. Those roseate hues will fade ere the sun is fairly on its waydark clouds will gather round and tempests beatcold winds will moan and whistle through the corridors; the driven snow just now so beautiful will wear a leaden aspect. Time has no lasting beauty, no bright unchanging sky. We seek this in eternity; earth gives the Cross and Paradise the Crown. Then count thyself happy if the sun resumes his early splendour as he sinks into the West. If the soul is bathed again in heavenly peace in its last struggles on the wave of timeDoth this offend you? Yet rest assured that if you have really given yourself to God you soon will find how true it is. The soldiers valour is not proved in time of peace, nor does he look on peace as lasting, but simply as the hour to train for war. Is it for nothing that we call the Man of Sorrows Brother? For nothing that the infant brow was signed? And bear in mind, the Cross of Baptism has never been effaced. It is the mark distinct whereby the angels know us to this day, the seal indelible which we shall carry to eternity. But what an empty show that Cross would be if the Christian life was to be a life of ease and satisfaction.
III. He tests our obedience.If we would grow in holiness we shall meet with many things that will offend our nature or wound self-love. We shall learn every day how much remains unconquered. But whatsoever the Master saith unto thee, do it. If His demands on thy affection seem too great it only proves how much He loves thee, but that thy whole heart has not yet been given in return. And inasmuch as the Lord our God is jealous, these demands are made till we hold nothing from Him, love nothing that does not savour of Him, seek nothing out of Him. But in each call your will is freeDoth it offend you? You have it in your power to refuse to hear; God will not force us to receive His Grace. It may be He is asking you to give up some pleasure which robs Him of His glory, some companion who leads you from the Saviour and the Churchs faith, some pet indulgence that makes your life a selfish or a worldly life, and keeps a prisoner on earth the soul that ought to hover round the Throne of Grace. Or, more glorious still, perhaps it is the Spirit breathing in your ear one of those great counsels of perfection which the world will ever treat with ridicule and scorn. Doth it offend you? Or do you try to think the call is not a real one, only some untamed fancy, painting religion with unnatural tints? Many a soul has tried to think the like, and gone to the grave a spiritual failure. Why? Because Christianity is terribly practical, though not after mammons fashion; these Divine inspirations must be carried out; the calls of Love obeyed. God will not be mocked; then think of the danger of despising His counsels. Are they too hard? Do they offend you?
Rev. C. H. Rouse.
Illustration
Humility is the frame of mind which we should labour and pray for, if we would not be offended. If we find any of Christs sayings hard to understand, we should humbly remember our present ignorance, and believe that we shall know more by and by. If we find any of His sayings difficult to obey, we should humbly recollect that He will never require of us impossibilities, and that what He bids us do He will give us grace to perform.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
1
The disciples did not make their complaint audibly, but Jesus always knew what was in the mind of men. He let them know about it by asking them if they were offended or caused to stumble at what they herd.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 6:61. But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured concerning this, said unto them, Doth this make you to stumble? He knew their thoughts, and because they are disciples, not Jews bent on opposing Him, He seeks to help them.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Joh 6:61-65. When Jesus knew Greek, , Jesus knowing in himself; that his disciples murmured at it Though they did not speak out their objections and scruples; said, Doth this, which you have just now heard, offend you And do you stumble at it as incredible? What if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up , ascending; where he was before? How much more incredible will it then appear to you, that he should give you his flesh to eat? Or, will not that convince you of the truth of my having come down from heaven? Will it not show you, likewise, that I never intended you should eat my flesh in a corporeal manner? It is very probable that what Christ here says of his ascension, was, partly at least, intended to intimate to them the necessity of taking his discourse in a figurative sense, as it would so soon be evidently impossible to eat his flesh, which was to be received into heaven. It is the Spirit The spiritual meaning of these words; that quickeneth By which God giveth spiritual life. The flesh
The bare, carnal, literal meaning; profiteth nothing. The words that I speak, the doctrines that I preach, unto you are spirit and life Are to be taken in a spiritual sense; and when they are so understood and believed, or marked, learned, and digested, they are made the means of spiritual and eternal life to the hearers. There are some of you who believe not And so receive no life by them; for Jesus knew from the beginning Namely, of his ministry; who they were that believed not, and who should betray him He knew the inward disposition of every particular person that heard him, and foresaw which of his disciples would be so base as to betray him. From this we infer with certainty that God foresees future contingencies:
But his foreknowledge causes not the fault, Which had no less proved certain unforeknown.
Therefore said I, &c. Because I know perfectly the inward frame of your minds, that the prejudices of corrupt nature lie strongly against such a doctrine as I publish, and that nothing but divine grace can subdue them, therefore I told you plainly, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father And it is given to those only who will receive it on Gods own terms. See the note on Joh 6:37; Joh 6:44.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 61-63. But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them: Does this word offend you? 62. And if you shall see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63. It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words which I speak unto you are spirit and life.
As Lange remarks, the words in himself do not exclude the perception of any external signs, but they signify that Jesus had no need of questioning any one of them in order to understand these symptoms. The word offend, is to be taken here in the gravest sense, as in Luk 7:23 : to cause to stumble with respect to faith.
The words (Joh 6:62), which we have translated by and if, do not depend upon any principal proposition. One must, therefore, be supplied. We may understand, What will you then say? But this question itself may and must be resolved into one of the two following ones: Will not your offense cease then? or, on the contrary: Will you not then be still more offended? This last question is the one which is understood by de Wette, Meyer andLucke . According to Weiss, this second view is absolutely required by the , therefore; the first would have required but: But will not your present offense cease? True; nevertheless, this second form of the question, if one holds to it, cannot be any more satisfactory.
What purpose indeed would it serve to refer them to a coming fact which would offend them still more? We must come to a third supposition which unites the two questions, by passing from the second so as to end with the first. If therefore, one day, after you have heard this saying which is so intolerable to you, an event occurs which renders it altogether absurd, will you not then understand that you were mistaken as to its true meaning? The apostle calls this event an , ascending.A whole class of interpreters find here the indication of the death of Jesus as the means of His exaltation to the Father (Lucke, de Wette, Meyer, Reuss, Weiss). It is then indeed, Jesus would say, that your Messianic hopes will be reduced to nothing! But are the ideas of suffering and disappearing identical, then, with that of ascending? When the idea of death on the cross is united with that of the heavenly exaltation of Jesus (Joh 3:15; Joh 12:34), the apostle uses the passive term, , to be lifted up. When he desires to present this death from the point of view of the disappearance which will follow it, he says , to go away (to the Father) but not .
When John applies this last term to the exaltation of Jesus Joh 20:17, he does not mean to speak of His death; for it is after His resurrection. How could the term ascend designate the moment of His deepest humiliation? and that in speaking to Jews! Still more, according to all these interpreters, it is the death of Jesus with its consequences which is the hard saying at which the disciples are offended;and yet the new offense, a still greater one, which should form the consummation of the first, is again the death! Weiss perceives this contradiction so clearly that, in order to escape it, he supposes that the mention of the death contained in Joh 6:53 was imported by the evangelist into the discourse of Jesus; the allusion to the great separation of death could have occurred only in this passage. This is to make over the discourse, not to explain it. The only natural and even possible interpretation is that which applies the termascend to the ascension. It is objected that the fact of the ascension is not related by John and that the words: if you shall see, do not apply to this fact, since the apostles alone were witnesses of it.
But the omission of the ascension in John is explained, like that of the baptism; his narrative ends before the first of these facts, as it begins after the second. Nevertheless John alludes to the one and the other (Joh 1:32 and Joh 20:17). And as to the word see, it is not always applied to the sight of the eyes, but also to that of the understanding; comp. Joh 1:51 you shall see the angels ascending and descending; Joh 4:19 : I see that Thou art a prophet; but especially Mat 26:63 : Henceforth you shall see the Son of man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds. This last passage is altogether analogous to ours. In the visible facts of Pentecost and the fall of Jerusalem, the Jews beheld, whether they would or no, the invisible ones, the sitting of Christ on the right hand of God and His return in judgment. As to believers, they have seen and still see through the eyes of the apostles. Jesus Himself, if He foretold these facts, must have clearly foreseen the ascension which is the condition of them. Various details confirm this meaning. In the first place, the present participleascending, which forms a picture (see Baumlein); then, the opposition between this term and the term descending from heaven which, throughout this whole chapter, has designated the incarnation, as well as the words: where he was before, on which, as Keil observes, lies precisely the emphasis of the sentence; finally, the parallel in Joh 20:17. It is evident that this meaning is perfectly suited to the context: You are offended at the necessity of eating and drinking the blood of a man who is here before you. This thought will seem to you much more unacceptable, when you shall see this same man ascend again into heaven from which He descended before, and His flesh and blood disappear from before your eyes. But at that time you also will be obliged to understand that the eating and drinking were of an altogether different nature from what you at first supposed. The following verse fully confirms this explanation.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Evidently Jesus spoke these words to a large group of His followers that included the Twelve. He suggested that He would yet reveal things to them that would be harder for them to accept than what they had heard so far. He had told them that He had come down from heaven (Joh 6:38), and this had scandalized (Gr. skandalizei) them. What would they think if they saw Him ascend into heaven?
Jesus may have been referring to His bodily ascension, but perhaps He was speaking of His crucifixion (cf. Joh 3:14). This explanation is in harmony with Jesus’ metaphorical language that He had been using throughout the previous discourse. Jesus’ crucifixion was in a sense the first step in His ascending back to the Father since it permitted Him to do so. Certainly Jesus’ crucifixion was the most humanly offensive aspect of His entire ministry (cf. 1Co 1:23 where the same Greek word occurs).