Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 6:66

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

66. From that time ] This may be the meaning, but more probably it means in consequence of that. Hereupon has somewhat of the ambiguity of the Greek, combining the notions of time and result. The Greek phrase occurs here and Joh 19:12 only in N.T.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Many of his disciples – Many who had followed him professedly as his disciples and as desirous of learning of him. See the notes at Joh 6:60.

Went back – Turned away from him and left him. From this we may learn,

1. Not to wonder at the apostasy of many who profess to be followers of Christ. Many are induced to become his professed followers by the prospect of some temporal benefit, or under some public excitement, as these were; and when that temporal benefit is not obtained, or that excitement is over, they fall away.
2. Many may be expected to be offended by the doctrines of the gospel. Having no spirituality of mind, and really understanding nothing of the gospel, they may be expected to take offence and turn back. The best way to understand the doctrines of the Bible is to be a sincere Christian, and aim to do the will of God, Joh 7:17.
3. We should examine ourselves. We should honestly inquire whether we have been led to make a profession of religion by the hope of any temporal advantage, by any selfish principle, or by mere excited animal feeling. If we have it will profit us nothing, and we shall either fall away of ourselves, or be cast away in the great day of judgment.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Joh 6:66-69

From that time many of His disciples went back.

Those who are mentioned in regard to


I. THE CHARACTER THEY ASSUMED. Disciples. This term was first used to designate the Apostles; then it was applied to or assumed by many whom our Lord had to distinguish from His disciples indeed. How many there are who are Christians only in name!


II. THE COURSE THEY PURSUED. They went away from Him.

1. They relinquished all attendance on His ministry.

2. Disowned all attachment to His person. 3, Repudiated all sympathy with His design. ,

4. Threw off His authority.


III. THE REASONS WHICH OPERATED LEADING THE MEN TO GO ASTRAY. Because He insisted

1. That all secular concerns were subservient to the salvation of the soul, which offended their avarice.

2. That all things pertaining to salvation belonged to God alone, which wounded their self-righteousness.

3. That they could not come to God except by Himself, which went counter to all their theological prepossessions.

4. That unless there was constant progressive fellowship with Himself experimentally they could not obtain ever-lasting life.


IV. THE DANGER THEY INCURRED. Where should they go? To go away from Christ a footstep was to go to perdition. (W. Brock, D. D.)

The touching appeal.


I. THE FACT RECORDED.

1. The designation given them. Disciples.

2. Their number was considerable.

3. The period of their desertion–From that time; the delivery of the discourse.


II. THE APPEAL MADE was

1. Touching.

2. Seasonable. When others turn their backs it is well to warn those who remain.

3. Important. Backsliding is a sin of peculiar aggravation.


III. THE ANSWER GIVEN.

1. To whom shall we go?

(1) To the scribes and Pharisees? They are blind guides.

(2) To heathen philosophers? Their foolish hearts are darkened.

(3) To the law? It thunders above our guilty heads its anathema.

(4) To the world? It has proved itself deceitful.

(5) To the ways of sin? The end of them is death.

2. Thou hast the words of Eternal life–we will stay with Thee, the Son of the living God for

(1) Pardon;

(2) purity;

(3) wisdom;

(4) strength;

(5) consolation. (Anon.)

A home question and a right answer


I. THE REASON FOR THE QUESTION. It was asked because

1. It was a season of defection. In all churches and ages there have been times of flocking in and flying out; ebbs and floods; and it is well at such seasons that decisive questions should be put.

2. It was a season of defection among the disciples; not merely camp followers who went after Him for the loaves and fishes. And this sets forth the grievous guilt of those who wear their Princes regimentals and then turn aside to false doctrine or sin.

3. It was a defection on account of doctrine because of the preceding discourse.

4. This defection was a going back. They did not go off the straight road, they simply reversed their steps and went back to their old lives.

5. It was open defection. They once walked with Jesus in the public streets, but now they will have no more to do with Him. This was at least honest and better than many a modern hypocrite.


II. THE QUESTION ITSELF. He might well press it for

1. One of them would certainly do so. He only chose twelve, yet one was a devil.

2. All of them might do so, and apart from His grace would. Let him that thinketh he standeth.

3. If they turned aside it would be specially sad. The chaff had been blown away and only the wheat was left, and that mixed with a little tares. These were picked men. How sad when an office bearer falls!

4. Apostasy is very contagious. Like sheep who, if one goes wrong, the next will follow.

5. He wishes His following to be perfectly voluntary. None can walk truly with Jesus who walk unwillingly.


III. THE ANSWER WHICH QUICK-VOICED PETER GAVE. It was threefold.

1. To whom shall we go? The thought was intolerable. Would you like to follow your old sinful life again?

2. Thou hast the words of eternal life. We cannot go away when we think of eternity. Those who turn back from Christ, what will they do in eternity?

3. We believe, and are sure, etc. Do you believe that? How then can you go away? (C. H. Spurgeon.)

A mournful defection


I. WHY DO MEN GO AWAY?

1. Because they cannot bear Christs doctrine. This is a hard saying. There are many points in the gospel offensive to human pride.

2. For the sake of gain.

3. Because terrified by persecution. Although the fires of Smithfield are extinguished there is much persecution still. Godless husbands tyrannize over their wives; employers over their servants; workmen over each other.

4. Out of sheer levity. In a list of wrecks you will find some which have gone down through collisions, or by striking on a rock; but sometimes you meet with one foundered at sea; how, no one knows, on a calm day. So there are many who make shipwreck of faith in easy circumstances. At the space of a moment they profess Christianity, and then suddenly, to everybodys surprise and without troubling themselves about it, renounce it.

5. Through wicked companions and unequal marriages. It is hard to keep religion when one pulls one way and one another.

6. For the sake of sensual enjoyments.

7. Through change of circumstances.

(1) Some because they have become poor and cannot look and do as they did.

(2) Some because they have become rich and religion is unfashionable with the set to which they now belong.

8. Unsound doctrine occasions many to apostatize.

9. Laziness causes others to turn aside. They do nothing, and as a consequence soon have nothing to do.


II. WHAT BECOMES OF THEM?

1. Some are very unhappy, and return.

2. Others are hardened in their obduracy and go from bad to worse.


III. WHY SHOULD NOT WE GO AS OTHERS HAVE GONE? Only because of the grace of God.


IV. IF YOU WOULD BE PRESERVED FROM FALLING you must

1. Keep humble and rely on the Holy Spirit of God.

2. Be jealous of your obedience, be circumspect.

3. Watch and pray.

4. Shun profane company. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Apostasy


I. OUR LORDS QUESTION was

1. The language of affection. Spoken in view of the loss of friends and immortal souls He came to save.

2. An implied warning. The propriety of such a question now rests on two grounds.

(1) The possibility, so far as they know, that professed disciples are not real disciples.

(2) The possibility that if real disciples they may apostatize. How our Lords declaration (Joh 6:70) must have constrained each to ask Lord is it I?

3. Anxious concern in view of abundant reasons for it.

(1) Many disciples had already forsaken Him.

(2) They were all the subjects of much weakness and prejudice.

(3) They were to be exposed to many temptations and dangers.

4. They were ignorant to a great extent of the nature of Christs salvation, and similar reasons exist in the present day for anxious concern and it may be useful to consider some of the sources of danger.

(1) The deep depravity of the human heart. How easily does this depravity

(a) lead men to deny or disregard the great practical truths of the gospel;

(b) to lose all just impression of the distinction between Christians and the world;

(c) to disregard the comparative worth of temporal and eternal things;

(d) to become insensible to the danger of small departures from duty;

(e) to banish the thought of eternity;

(f) to become more solicitous to preserve appearances before men than reality before God;

(g) to neglect the means of grace.

(2) The power of temptations without us, arising from wealth or poverty, business, society, etc.


II. THE DISCIPLES ANSWER, which bespeaks a just sense of his wants as a sinner and of his dependence on Christ as a Saviour.

1. As sinners we need the forgiveness of God, and can obtain the blessing only through Christ.

2. As sinners we need sanctification, guidance, support, consolation which no one but Christ can give.

3. We need eternal life: Christ only has the words of eternal life. (N. W. Taylor, D. D.)

The uses to be made of the falls of Christians

It behoves us


I. TO THINK WITH GRATITUDE OF THOSE WHO YET STAND, Many went away, but some, and they of the most value, remained. To despond would

1. Unduly magnify the importance of the apostles.

2. Give too much pleasure to the enemies of God.


II. TO FEEL AND ACKNOWLEDGE OUR OWN DANGER.

1. Because others have gone their own way and there is no likelihood of our following them, that is not to say that we are not in danger of pursuing a way of our own from Christ. You are in no danger of drunkenness, are you in danger of pride?

2. This sentiment will provoke charitable sentiments respecting falls of others.


III. TO COME WITH ALL FAITH AND SUPPLICATION TO THE SAVIOUR FOR PROTECTION AND MERCY. Neglect of this is the fruitful cause of backsliding. (S. Green, D. D.)

Going and staying


I. THE SADNESS OF APOSTASY.

1. Many take up a profession of Christianity who afterwards go away.

(1) The matter of fact. They ran well, and to all appearances judged by outward standards, were excellent Christians.

(2) To what this is owing.

(a) Largely from the want of the root of grace within;

(b) From insufficiently counting the cost.

(c) The want of a sensible joy in Christ as soon as was expected.

2. The sadness of their case.

(1) In general it is worse than if they had never made a profession of Christ (2Pe 2:20-21).

(a) As the Holy Spirit is grieved, and it may be, retired, their recovery is more doubtful.

(b) As they have put themselves out of the way of the Spirits influence it cannot be expected that it should follow them.

(c) As Satan has got faster hold of them.

(2) As their case is now worse than it was at the beginning, so by forsaking Christ they judge them- selves unworthy of eternal life and out of the way of heaven. In the day of judgment they will be convicted of base ingratitude, the greatest treachery and unfaithfulness and of the most unaccountable folly.


II. CHRISTS TENDER CONCERN FOR THE SAFETY OF HIS REAL DISCIPLES.

1. How this appears.

(1) In His incarnation and death;

(2) In His intercession;

(3) In His approachableness.

2. Whence it proceeds from.

(1) Their being ransomed by Him (1Pe 1:18);

(2) Their being entrusted to Him by the Father (Joh 6:38-39);

(3) Their being not only His servants and friends, but the members of His body;

(4) Their being specially loved by Him;

(5) Their danger through apostasy and their blessedness through abiding with Him.


III. THE BELIEVERS REASON FOR CLEAVING TO CHRIST.

1. They are sensible that they have no one but Christ to whom to go.

2. They dread the thought of going away, considering its sin, folly, misery and ingratitude.

3. How many soever revolt from Christ, sincere believers will and ought to cleave to Him still.

(1) To repair the dishonour cast upon Him by apostates and to witness that He never gave any just occasion to leave Him.

(2) To show that their choice of Him is not built on what others say, but upon what they know and experience of Him. (D. Wilcox.)

Experience and hope conservative of faith

1. In the discourse of this chapter we have many dark sayings, which gave great offence to many, and were the occasion of the apostasy of some of our Lords disciples.

2. The men who replied to our Lord felt the mysteriousness of His teaching as deeply as others, and at different times confessed as much. But in spite of all difficulties they did understand that their Master had what no other teacher had–the words of eternal life, and for that reason they would cling to Him. So with many of His disciples in the present day.


I. THE MEANING OF ETERNAL LIFE.

1. It has been said that Eternal is expressive of the character and quality of a thing not of its continuance, and stands for what is divine and spiritual in present enjoyment, e.g

(1) If any being possessed of animal or intellectual life were to have its being perpetuated for ever, though this would be life everlasting it would not be life eternal.

(2) If an angelic or human being possessed of this divine life were to be annihilated for a period it would still be proper to say that they had been made partakers of eternal life.

2. This is only half a truth and needs completing before we can grasp what was in the disciples minds. Let all this be granted, yet the subject of our Saviours teaching must have included perpetuity. He called them to a subjective life now, and declared that that in its ultimate issues, was to be their everlasting possession.


II. LET US SEE HOW THIS MEANING MAY BE ILLUSTRATED IN THE ANSWER OF THE DISCIPLES. This answer could not have embodied all that we know. It was given previously to our Lords redemptive work which throws such light on our Lords teaching, aud previously to the dispensation of the Spirit. Moreover, they were slow to learn and misunderstood the meaning of much which our Lord did teach. Nevertheless, they knew something about eternal life from

1. Our Lords teaching.

(1) He demanded of them a present divine life in its origin, continuance, and outward graces.

(2) He authenticated the popular belief in a life after death.

2. Our Lords example embodied the first and was connected by Him with the prospect of entering upon an endless life which they were to share. There was no uncertainty about this, and when asked if they would abandon Him of whom they had learnt it, they felt it to be impossible.


III. TO WHOM COULD THEY GO?

1. To the Sadducees–the rationalists of the age? They rejected immortality, and this being gone, what room was there for the culture of a divine life, or even of secular virtue, seeing that we might eat and drink for to-morrow we die.

2. To the Pharisees–the ritualists of their day? They believed in a future life, but held such views of what constituted the present religious life of man as to rob it of everything, spiritual and divine,

3. To the Essenes–the ancient monks and ascetics? These went further than the Pharisees. They tried to reach the Divine by ceasing to the human, and by practices which, if universal, would have brought society to an end, showed that they could not have the words of eternal life. (T. Binney.)

A critical hour

What the first battle is to an army whose general wishes to test its courage, so was this trial to the disciples. In this crisis there were two causes of trouble and temptation for their faith.


I. THE FORSAKING OF JESUS BY THE MULTITUDE.

1. The inclination of most men is to yield to the authority of numbers. This is seen in the camp of the freest philosophy as well as in that of religion. Nothing is more rare and difficult than adhesion to truth in the face of dominant opinions, as is shown by the history of great inventors, teachers, martyrs. In the eyes of the multitude truth, like victory, lies on the side of great battalions.

2. All is not absolutely false in this assumption. True religion should be the lot of all; and the gospel is universal. Yet it has never made any appeal or sacrifice to popularity and has triumphed in the teeth of antipathy and resistance.

3. On the other hand, as in the text, there are defections from it, and these defections severely try those who abide.


II. THE STRANGE CHARACTER OF THEIR MASTERS TEACHING. At present the subject of the discourse seemed fantastic and impossible. But by and by in the Cross they understood it, which teaches us that the gospel contains mysterious points which raise difficulties and objections which are only to be overcome gradually. Most accept it on a side which responds most to their inmost aspirations, and accept the rest on trust; and, after years of Christian experience, they come to a comprehension of the harmony of revelation. Suppose, then, one of you in a situation like the apostles, what must you do?

1. The partisans of absolute authority say, Submit yourselves, and the more difficult the submission, the more valuable the faith. But it is never safe for a man to go against his conscience, and it is no honour to God to bring him the heart of a slave and the blind obedience of a fanatic.

2. Reject every doctrine that wounds the conscience or the reason. This is what these disciples did, and forgot many admirable discourses and works of mercy. And how many to day yield without a struggle, never trying to get to the bottom of their doubt, nor asking if there is not a deeper meaning!

3. The faithful apostles by their example seem to say, Wait. Why?

(1) Because religious truth must be full of mystery. A Divine revelation which should not surpass our comprehension would be no revelation.

(2) Because the fault may be less in the doctrine than in our minds.

(3) Because an experience a thousand times repeated proves that that which hurts us is precisely that which ought to heal us. Were the Pharisees right in being offended at the universality of the gospel?

(4) Because the greater part of the gospel enlightens, consoles and sustains. Will you reject this for the fraction which you misunderstood?

(5) Because experience may, and will, show you the futility of your objection, If any man will do, etc. (E. Bersier, D. D.)

The dividing point

In the state of Ohio there is a courthouse that stands in such a way that the raindrops that fall on the north side go into Lake Ontario at the Gulf of St. Laurence, while those that fall on the south side go into the Mississippi and the Gulf of Mexico. Just a little puff of wind determines the destiny of a rain drop for two thousand miles. And how small apparently the influence which decides whether the current of our lives shall flow towards Christ or away from Him.

Speculation and faith

1. The chief cause of declension in the Church is the pre-occupation of the mind with an imaginary Christ. This narrative teaches us that a miracle is no match for a pre-determined judgment. These men believed on Christ because they saw His miracles, and they framed in their minds a conception of what that Messiahship should mean; but when they found that Christs conception differed from theirs, in spite of the miracles, they rejected Him. They could not understand a Messianic empire over the hearts of men.

2. But they ought to have understood something; that the position of Christ would invest Him with mystery, and that His teaching would be original, and that His disciples should have no pre-occupations and be able to distinguish between statement and parable, and that Jesus required childlike honesty and docility in his hearers.

3. The chief disputants on this occasion were leading Jews striving to turn the current of popular favour from Jesus. The declaration at which they affected to stumble was that of Joh 6:51. How can this man, etc. (Joh 6:52), was the carnal reasoning of the adversaries. The Masters reply afforded no help, but rather otherwise (Joh 6:53). The disciples were silent, but these strange words shocked the men who had imagined that fellowship with Jesus would be a steppingstone to power (Joh 6:60). His explanation (denied to incorrigible adversaries)to them preserved a medium between the indulgence of curiosity and the repression of an honest desire to learn the truth (Joh 6:62-65).

4. These went away because no proof could touch them which threatened their anterior conception of Christ. Not miracle, nor the unique personal influence of Jews.

5. This picture of the force of a pre-judgment inspired by passion will guide the Christian Student in interpreting modern unbelief. Science is supposed to have no prejudgments; but then it affirms that a miracle is inconceivable, and therefore no testimony can make the record of a miracle credible. What is this but a prejudgment I And since Christianity is based upon the resurrection of Christ, then, according to this, it is logically a fraud. Let us now consider


I. THE APPEAL OF CHRIST.

1. It should be regarded as an appeal when the Church is surrounded by an unstable mood of thought concerning Christ.

2. This mood is highly dangerous and brings death with noiseless footsteps, and its ravages are seen, when, in connection with some sentiment of passion or selfishness, it puts back the faith or destroys it; and it is answerable for the loss to Christ of thousands of our youth, and the wide failure of initial steps of Christian profession.

3. It may be traced in modern secular literature when the writer simply refers to a Christian doctrine or fact, indicating no bias whatever, so different to those firm strokes which fifty years ago showed us if the public mind was pervaded by an impression of the Divine authority of the Scriptures.

4. Not that this necessarily threatens an unusual reverse to the Christian faith, but everything depends upon the way in which this unstable mood is dealt with during the next fifty years.

5. The appeal of Jesus is intended to bring into conspicuous contrast the immovable form of the Rock of Ages.


II. THE ANSWERING CONFESSION OF THE CHURCH. Are we prepared to drift? or to prosecute a new search? If Christ has failed to give us the words of eternal life, where shall we go to fro them?

1. To some ancient religion? Thanks to modern research, the new science of comparative theology is now accessible to every one. The question is not whether the religious systems of India or China are not possessed of fine sentiment, but whether they can compete with Christianity.

(1) What are they all but at best obscure impressions of mysteries which in Christianity are definitely proclaimed!

(2) What have they done for the people I Instead of elevating the general mind, they have narrowed, impoverished and depraved it. Modern research therefore pronounces that the religion of the future must be the Christian or none.

2. To modern philosophy?

(1) Where is its moral power to come from?

(2) How is this moral power to be disseminated? With all its boasts, it is built upon an hypothesis which, as yet, has constructed no thing: whereas we have a faith which has been attested by the history of centuries, whose Divinity is verified this day by the only civilization which is living. (E. E.Jenkins.)

Temporary discipleship


I. THAT JESUS CHRIST AND HIS DOCTRINES ARE NECESSARILY OFFENSIVE TO UNREGENERATED HUMANITY. But let us inquire what were the hard sayings, the unpalatable truths, that offended the crowd.

1. That Christ was greater than Moses. This was a mortal offence to the Jews. While Moses was yet alive the treatment he received was anything but respectful, but after his death their veneration for the great lawgiver knew no bounds. Again, they spoke of the manna in the wilderness very highly indeed, but their fathers had a very different opinion of it.

2. That God is the God of the Gentile as well as the Jew (Joh 6:37). Another hard saying

3. That the atonement (the bread from heaven) is the life of the world. Millions wilfully reject this heavenly food, to pine away and die on the unwholesome, adulterated fare dearly supplied by pleasure, ambition, and philosophy, falsely so called. Such were the hard sayings that made many of the disciples turn back and walk no more with Jesus. But what offended the Jews is no longer offensive to us. Yet many forsake Him in our days.

(1). Because they do not know Him. One may be acquainted with all the facts of His life, from the manger to the cross, and yet be totally ignorant of the principles that animated that life.

(2) Because they cannot have Christ and their sins at the same time. The people of Rome demanded of Brutus why he had stabbed Caesar, by his own admission the foremost man of all the world; and he answered to this effect, Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more. The surgeon of intemperate habits kills himself by degrees, and knows it; does he hate life? No, he loves drink more, and is content to fall into a premature grave. Men are loth to admit this, and many try hard to deceive themselves and others that they are kept away by doubt, as though intellectual pride was pardonable and praiseworthy. Samson perished under the ruins of his prison–why? Was it for the want of evidences? I trow not. His burning lust for Delilah brought him to that vulgar, shameful end. Demas turned His back upon the Redeemer, and forsook Paul and the churches when they greatly needed his sympathy and help. Was it doubts that caused his apostasy? No; he loved the present world. Your iniquities have separated between you and God.


II. JESUS CHRIST HAS NO DESIRE TO SEE PEOPLE FOLLOWING HIM AGAINST THEIR INCLINATION. Will ye also go away? The question suggests two things

1. That the gospel is a moral influence, and not a coercive agency. In making a personal appeal to the undecided, once and again have I been told, by way of self-justification, that they expect some irresistible power, some messenger from the dead, to compel them to believe the gospel. Oh, false and foolish expectation! In a speech of the Earl of Chatham the following passage occurs, which, with a little modification, will help to illustrate this point:–George the Third endeavoured to give undue influence to the prerogative of the Crown; but the great orator strenuously opposed him, and stood up for the constitution, saying, The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail–its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter–but the King of England cannot enter. All his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. You are at perfect liberty to stay with Him or go away with the multitude that do evil–choose ye.

2. That religion without love is no religion at all. In this commercial age people are apt to introduce a mercenary spirit even into spiritual things, and ask with the apostate Jews, What profit shall we have if we pray to Him? Many of us, in our visits to rural districts, where the inhabitants cling tenaciously to primitive customs, have been made sad and solemn by meeting a funeral procession bearing a dead one to his burial; and although strangers to us, no one need tell us who the relatives of the departed one are–they are easily distinguished from all others both by their nearness to the coffin and their willingness to endure any inconvenience in order to follow him they loved to his long, long home. Others may, and will, turn back half-way, if the distance be far and the weather foul, but such is their grief after the departed that, however rough the way and stormy the weather, they will walk to the brink of the grave, and shed the tears of affection on his coffin-lid as they look down and bid their last farewell. The relatives of the Saviour likewise are easily recognized by their nearness to Him in thought and duty, and also by their fidelity to their beloved Redeemer, through honour and dishonour, through evil report and good report, even unto death.


III. THERE ARE A FAITHFUL FEW IN EVERY AGE AMONGST THE FAITHLESS MANY. To whom shall we go? Go to the service of mammon with boats and fishing-tackles, and leave others to become fishers of men. Go to swine-land, the far country of self-indulgence and carnal pleasures, and spend your substance with the prodigal in riotous living. Go to Vanity Fair and the City of Destruction: follow the crowd! No; we have already been to all those places, and failed to find a resting-place for a weary, heavy-laden soul. You had better stay, then. Peters reasons for staying were

1. Because no one else could give such a clear account of the future. Thou hast the words of eternal life.

2. Because He was the Divine Redeemer. And we believe, and are sure, that Thou art Christ, the son of the living God. (W. A. Griffiths.)

Departing from Jesus

In Mammoth Cave the old negro guide told us how people had been lost there from time to time. When found, they overwhelmed him with embraces and other demonstrations of gratitude. Some became insane through fright; some fled in terror from the guides. Once a woman was lost for about twenty-four hours. In that terrible darkness, in the silence in which hearts beat loud, she had waited in dreadful suspense. Superstitious dread filled her crazed heart. At last the guide came, his footfalls echoing like whispers and groans, his lantern casting ghostly shadows upon the walls. The poor terrified creature arose, and tied away into the darkness. The guide pursued–a veritable black devil he seemed! At last he overtook her–unconscious, prostrate, ashy white. In his strong arms he raised her from the ground, and carried her out to safety and light and home! How often is it so: When the Saviour comes, we flee from Him. Misconceptions of Him, distortions of Him, shadows of Him in this dark world, fancies of Him in our sinful hearts, make Him seem other than He is. And we flee from our Saviour and our Guide–flee away into the darkness. And yet He came to find us, to save us, to bear us to the light. He came to His own, and His own received Him not. (R. S.Barrett.)

The physiology of backsliding

Within the body of the Hermit crab a minute organism may frequently be discovered, resembling, when magnified, a miniature kidney bean. A bunch of root-like processes hangs from one side, and the extremities of these are seen to ramify in delicate films through the living tissues of the crab. This simple organism is known to the naturalist as Sacculina: and though a full-grown animal, it consists of no more parts than those just named. Not a trace of structure is to be detected within this rude and all but inanimate frame; it possesses neither legs, nor eyes, nor mouth, nor throat, nor stomach, nor any other organs, external or internal. This Sacculina is a typical parasite. By means of its twining and theftuous roots it imbibes automatically its nourishment ready-prepared from the body of the crab. It boards, indeed, entirely at the expense of its host, who supplies it liberally with food and shelter, and everything else it wants. So far as the result to itself is concerned, this arrangement may seem at first sight satisfactory enough; but when we inquire into the life history of this small creature we unearth a career of degeneracy all but unparalleled in nature. When the young animal first makes its appearance, it bears not the remotest resemblance to the adult animal. A different name even is given to it by the biologist, who knows it at this period as a Nauplius. This minute organism has an oval body, supplied with six well-jointed feet, by means of which it paddles briskly through the water. For a time it leads an active and independent life, industriously securing its own food and escaping enemies by its own gallantry. But soon a change takes place. The hereditary taint of parasitism is in its blood, and it proceeds to adapt itself to the pauper habits of its race. The tiny body first doubles in upon itself, and from the two front limbs elongated filaments protrude. Its four hind limbs entirely disappear, and twelve short forked swimming organs temporarily take their place. Thus strangely metamorphosed the Sacculina sets out in search of a suitable host, and in an evil hour, by that fate which is always ready to accommodate the transgressor, is thrown into the company of the Hermit crab. With its two filamentary processes–which afterwards develop into the root-like organs–it penetrates the body; the sac-like form is gradually assumed; the whole of the swimming feet drop off–they will never be needed again–and the animal settles down for the rest of its life as a parasite There could be no more impressive illustration than this of what with entire appropriateness one might call the physiology of backsliding. We fail to appreciate the meaning of spiritual degeneration or detect the terrible nature of the consequences only because they evade the eye of sense. But could we investigate the spirit as a living organism, or study the soul of the backslider on principles of comparative anatomy, we should have a revelation of the organic effects of sin, even of the mere sin of carelessness as to growth and work, which must revolutionize our ideas of practical religion. There is no room for the doubt even, that what goes on in the body does not with equal certainty take place in the spirit under the corresponding circumstances or conditions. The penalty of backsliding is not something unreal and vague, some unknown quantity which may be measured out to us disproportionately, or which, perchance, since God is good, we may altogether evade. The consequences are already marked within the structure of the soul. So to speak, they are physiological. The thing affected by our indifference or by our indulgence is not the book of final judgment, but the present fabric of the soul. The punishment of degeneration is simply de-generation–the loss of functions, the decay of organs, the atrophy of the spiritual nature. It is well known that the recovery of the backslider is one of the hardest problems in spiritual work. To reinvigorate an old organ seems more difficult and hopeless than to develop a new one; and the backsliders terrible lot is to have to retrace with enfeebled feet each step of the way along which he strayed; to make up inch by inch the leeway he has lost, carrying with him a dead weight el acquired reluctance, and scarce knowing whether to be stimulated or discouraged by the memory of the previous fall. (Prof. Drummond.)

The effects of backsliding on the steadfast

When, at the close of the First Empire, our soldiers fought against united Europe, there frequently arose from the midst of the battle a cry that troubled all hearts. The reason was that a corps of the army, deserting the flag of Napoleon, had turned to the enemy. It was so at Leipsic: when the Saxons abandoned the French eagles the blast of ruin passed over the whole army, for treason was seen everywhere. And we also, in the desperate struggle in which the Christian army is engaged, we have often seen discouragement agitate the, most steadfast, when in the front ranks of the enemy, to have to encounter those who but the day before helped our faith and stood close around our flag. Only yesterday our allies, to-day our implacable enemies, directing their sharp, haughty, and contemptuous criticism against a cause whose weak points were well known to them. The crisis has been a terrible one, and more than one heart has succumbed under the anguish. But in this heartrending apostasy we seem to hear the voice of our Head say to us, as formerly to His disciples, Will you also go away? In reply to this appeal we have acknowledged our Master; shame has laid hold on us for having a moment submitted to the contagion of example; we have felt that never should His cause be more dear to us than when it was abandoned by the multitude; that the number and assent of masses are nothing and ought to be nothing; and with a more profound faith we have said to the Christ, Lord, to whom can we go? (E. Bersier, D. D.)

A backsliders end

Albert, Bishop of Mayence, had a physician attached to his person, who, being a Protestant, did not enjoy the prelates favour. The man, seeing this, and being an avaricious, ambitious, worldseeker, denied his God, and turned back to Popery, saying to his associates, Ill put Jesus Christ by for a while till Ive made my fortune, and then bring Him out again. This horrible blasphemy met with its just reward; for next day the miserable hypocrite was found dead in his bed, his tongue hanging from his mouth, his face as black as a coal, and his neck twisted half round. I was myself an ocular witness of this merited chastisement of impiety. (Luther.)

A brave martyr

Anne Askew, when asked to avoid the flames, answered, I came not here to deny my Lord and Master.

Where backsliding begins

In the Life of Philip Henry it is said, He and his wife constantly prayed together, morning and evening. He made conscience of closet worship, and abounded in it. It was the caution and advice which he frequently gave to his children and friends, Be sure you look to your secret duty; keep that up, whatever you do; the soul cannot prosper in the neglect of it. Apostasy generally begins at the closet door. Besides these, he was uniform, steady, and constant in family worship from the time he was first called to the charge of a family to his dying day. He would say, If the worship of God be not in the house, write, Lord, have mercy upon us, on the door; for there is a plague, a curse in it.

A backsliders misery

After poor Sabat, an Arabian, who had professed faith in Christ by means of the labours of the Rev. Henry Martyn, had apostatized from Christianity, and written a book in favour of Mohammedanism, he was met at Malacca by the late Rev. Dr. Milne, who proposed to him some very pointed questions, in reply to which he said, I am unhappy! I have a mountain of burning sand on my head! When I go about I know not what I am doing. It is indeed an evil thing and bitter to sin against the Lord our God.

Reasons for backsliding

Those who forsake God to return to the world, do it because they find more gratification in earthly pleasures than in those arising from communion with God; and because this overpowering charm, carrying them away, causes them to relinquish their first choice, and renders them, as Tertullian says, the penitents of the devil. (Blaise Pascal.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 66. Many of his disciples went back] They no longer associated with him, nor professed to acknowledge him as the Messiah. None of these were of the twelve. Christ had many others who generally attended his ministry, and acknowledged him for the Messiah.

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

His disciples at large, so called because they followed him, partly to hear what he would say, partly to see his miracles, followed him no more. Many professors and seeming disciples of Christ may draw back and fall from their profession, though none that truly receive Christ shall fall away, but be by the power of God preserved through faith unto salvation.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

66-71. From that time, &c.or, in consequence of this. Those last words of ourLord seemed to have given them the finishing strokethey could notstand it any longer.

walked no moreMany ajourney, it may be, they had taken with Him, but now they gave Him upfinally!

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

From that [time] many of his disciples went back,…. Not any of the twelve apostles, for they are distinguished from these in the next verse; nor any of the seventy disciples, for their names were written in heaven, and could not apostatize totally and finally, as these did; but some of the multitude of the disciples, who followed Christ, heard him, and professed to believe in him, and were baptized in his name, but were not true disciples, only nominal ones: they had never heard and learned of the Father, otherwise they would have known what it was to come to Christ, as the Father’s gift, and under the drawings of his grace; and would not have been offended at the words of our Lord, just now spoken by him, concerning that sort of coming to him: but from the time he spoke those words; “because of this word”, as the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions render it; they withdrew themselves from his ministry, they dropped their profession of faith in him, and relinquished him as a Saviour and Redeemer: for finding that he would not be made king, nor set up for a temporal redeemer; and talking of himself as the bread of life, and of coming to him, in a sense they did not understand; they turned their backs on him; and as the words may be literally read, “returned to the things that were behind”; to the world, and to their old companions, to Satan and their own hearts lusts; like the dog to its vomit, and the swine to its wallowing in the mire: their true picture is drawn, in the parable of the unclean spirit going out of the man, and returning,

Mt 12:43. And they returned to their quondam teachers, the Scribes and Pharisees, and to the law of works, and to seek for righteousness by it; setting up their own righteousness, and not submitting to the righteousness of Christ; and thus to look back and draw back, is a sad case indeed:

and walked no more with him; never returned to him more, or went with him from place to place as before: never more attended on his ministry, or had any intimacy and fellowship with him: and so it commonly is with apostates from the profession of Christ; they seldom or ever return, or are recovered; it is difficult, if not impossible, which is sometimes the case, to renew them again to repentance.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Upon this ( ). Same idiom in 19:12. “Out of this saying or circumstance.” Jesus drew the line of cleavage between the true and the false believers.

Went back ( ). Aorist (ingressive) active indicative of with , “to the rear” (the behind things) as in 18:6.

Walked no more with him ( ‘ ). Imperfect active of . The crisis had come. These half-hearted seekers after the loaves and fishes and political power turned abruptly from Jesus, walked out of the synagogue with a deal of bluster and were walking with Jesus no more. Jesus had completely disillusioned these hungry camp-followers who did not care for spiritual manna that consisted in intimate appropriation of the life of Jesus as God’s Son.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

From that time [ ] . Render, as Rev., upon this. As a result proceeding out of [] this. Compare Joh 19:12.

Went back [ ] . The Greek expresses more than the English. They went away [] from Christ, Literally, to the things behind, to what they had left in order to follow the Lord.

Walked [] . Literally, walked about, with Jesus in His wanderings here and there.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “From that time many of his disciples went back,” (ek toutou polloi ton matheton autou apelthon eista opiso) “Out of and from this many of his disciples went away or turned back by choice,” who showed by their conduct that they had no vital union with Him, Eph 1:4-6; Luk 9:62; Heb 10:38-39. See also Act 15:37-38, about John Mark who looked back and others who left Paul, 2Ti 4:10-11; 2Ti 4:16.

2) “And walked no more with him.” (kai ouketi met’ autou periepatoun) “And they no longer walked with him,” associated or communed no more in fellowship with Him at all; It was a forlorn turning away from the best friend they ever had. They deserted Him and turned to their own ways, to give account at the day of judgement, Joh 2:19; 2Co 5:10-12; Heb 9:27; Rev 20:10-15; 2Pe 2:20-22.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

66. From that time many of his disciples went back. The Evangelist now relates what trouble was the consequence of that sermon. It is a dreadful and monstrous thing, that so kind and gracious an invitation of Christ could have alienated the minds of many, and especially of those who had formerly professed to belong to him, and were even his ordinary disciples. But this example is held out to us for a mirror, as it were, in which we may perceive how great is the wickedness and ingratitude of men, who turn a plain road into an occasion of stumbling to them, that they may not come to Christ. Many would say that it would have been better that a sermon of this kind should never have been preached, which occasioned the apostacy of many. But we ought to entertain a widely different view; for it was then necessary, and now is daily necessary, that what had been foretold concerning Christ should be perceived in his doctrine, namely, that

he is the stone of stumbling, (Isa 8:14.)

We ought, indeed, to regulate our doctrine in such a manner that none may be offended through our fault; as far as possible, we ought to retain all; and, in short, we ought to take care that we do not, by talking inconsiderately or at random, (175) disturb ignorant or weak minds. But it will never be possible for us to exercise such caution that the doctrine of Christ shall not be the occasion of offense to many; because the reprobate, who are devoted to destruction, suck venom from the most wholesome food, and gall from honey. The Son of God undoubtedly knew well what was useful, and yet we see that he cannot avoid (176) offending many of his disciples. Whatever then may be the dislike entertained by many persons for pure doctrine, still we are not at liberty to suppress it. Only let the teachers of the Church remember the advice given by Paul, that the word of God ought to be properly divided, (2Ti 2:15😉 and next let them advance boldly amidst all offenses. And if it happen that many apostatize, let us not be disgusted at the word of God, because it is not relished by the reprobate; for they who are so much shaken by the revolt of some that, when those persons fall away, they are immediately discouraged, are too delicate and tender.

And walked no more with him. When the Evangelist adds these words, he means that it was not a complete apostacy, but only that they withdrew from familiar intercourse with Christ; and yet he condemns them as apostates. Hence we ought to learn that we cannot go back a foot breadth, without being immediately in danger of falling into treacherous denial of our Master.

(175) “ Inconsiderement, ou a la volee.”

(176) “ Il ne peut eviter.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

EXPLANATORY AND CRITICAL NOTES

Joh. 6:69. And we believe and are sure that Thou art the Holy One of God.This is the reading of all the great MSS. , B, C, D, L, and is adopted by Tischendorf, Tregelles, etc. If this reading is to be received, we are probably to understand Peters confession as referring to Jesus as sent into the world to do the Fathers will, and as having His authority sealed by His mighty works and holy life.

Joh. 6:70. Hath a devil. , i.e. one having the qualities of him who is called .

Joh. 6:71. Judas Iscariot, etc., rather Judas the son of Simon Iscariotes.Iscariot is no doubt (Ish-Kerioth), a man of Kerioth, a town or village belonging to Judah (Jos. 15:25). But Westcott suggests that, as the true reading in Joshua is Kerioth-Hezron, this Kerioth might be identified with the Kerioth () of Moab (Jer. 48:24).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Joh. 6:66-71

The relation of different classes of men to the Saviour.A time of testing had come for the followers of the Saviour. In His discourse in the synagogue of Capernaum, He had advanced into regions of thought not only far above, but alien to the desires of many among them. And they were not, we may think, of the number of the Jews who murmured (Joh. 6:41-42), nor men who were inimical to the Redeemer. They were those who would willingly have continued to be His disciples; but His late teaching proved a stumbling-block, the prospects He held out were not such as they anticipated, His yoke to some of them was not easy, it may be, and thus we read that many went back. They were

I. Those who separated themselves from Jesus.

1. Many of those who had never really come to Christ, and remained spiritually unchanged, were more and more offended at His teaching; indifference, lukewarmness, faintheartedness, doubtless characterised them. His demands were too great for their little souls. The spiritual life and kingdom to which He pointed had no charms for them.
2. Thus they go without one word more from Him. Not by such followers would the world be won for Him. Rather will He choose a small handful of faithful, self-sacrificing men; for only such, guided by His Spirit, would turn the world upside down (Act. 17:6).

3. As Gideons army at the spring of Harod was purged from all the fainthearted and unfit (Jdg. 7:3-7), so that by the three hundred left God saved Israel from the Midianites, thus the ranks of Jesus disciples were freed from unfit and encumbering elements. They had put their hands to the plough and turned back, etc. (Luk. 9:62). Such Jesus does not retain in His serviceor rather they go back willingly, freely, from Him into the old life and the old ways.

II. Those who willingly and joyfully remained with Him.

1. It is to the twelve our Lord addresses Himself in the memorable question, Will ye also go away? Did no others remain? That is an idea hardly to be entertained. But those five disciples already chosen, and the others who had associated themselves more closely with Him, stood nearest. And, as He saw the departing many, seeking some solace for His grieved human heart, He asked the others this question.
2. And the answer was, without doubt, cheering and grateful to the Son of man, despised and rejected, etc. Simon Peter, here as ever the spokesman, if not the representative of them all, confessed their loyal adhesion to their Master. He and they did not probably understand much that had been spoken in the synagogue. But they knew what Christ waswhat peace He had brought to their souls; they had seen His wondrous works, and heard His heavenly teaching which those works explained and illumined. To whom else could they go? from whom else hear the words of eternal life? Nay, all they knew and had seen led them to believe and know that Jesus was the Christas He claimed to beand the Son of the living God.
3. Our Lord desires a willing service. He had chosen these disciples; but those who were really His consecrated themselves freely to Him, under the blessed free constraint of His love and His Fathers drawing.

III. The traitor in the ranks of the disciples.

1. The gleam of joy which fell on the Saviours path at the manifestation of His disciples faith and love was again clouded by the thought that even in this inner circle lurked a traitor.
2. One of you is a devil, our Lord had to say sadly. Judas remained, although he should have departed; for his adherence to Peters confession was evidently hypocritical. He remained, cherishing in his heart those carnal and earthly ideas of Messiahs kingdom, probably resolving that he would watch the Saviours movements, and force Him to declare Himself Messiah in a temporal sense (all Judas would have cared for), or

3. That Judas was wholly unmoved by the Saviours holy life and loving works and heavenly teaching can hardly be held in view of his bitter remorse (Mat. 27:3-5).

4. The patience with which our Lord endured the presence of this spying traitor (who was, moreover, a thiefJoh. 12:6) was wonderful. But His Father willed that it should be sofor some purpose it was necessary that it should be so (see on Joh. 6:64)and His will rose, even in this, into loving acquiescence with His Fathers will.

IV. 1. Consider Him who endured such contradiction, etc. (Heb. 12:3).

2. Consider the necessity for earnestness in religion. The religion of Christ will not admit of half-hearted adhesion, of lukewarmness, etc. Christ does not desire such disciples (Rev. 3:16). And in the ears of many in all the Churches His words of blame to Laodicea still apply, I would thou wert cold or hot.

3. The continuance of a hypocritical profession may lead in the end to awful results. Nothing more surely hardens the heart, and freezes the springs of faith and feeling, than a false and hypocritical profession of religion (Jas. 1:22; 2Ti. 3:13; Isa. 29:13-14, etc.).

(See Illustrations, Chap. Joh. 13:18 seq.)

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

THE TWELVE THEIR FINEST HOUR

Text 6:66-71

66

Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

67

Jesus said therefore unto the twelve, Would ye also go away?

68

Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou has the words of eternal life.

69

And we have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God.

70

Jesus answered them, Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil?

71

Now he spake of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Queries

a.

Why did Jesus question the twelve?

b.

What is the significance of Peters answer?

c.

Why does Jesus mention the betrayer?

Paraphrase

On account of this, many of His disciples left Him and returned to their former way of living and thinking. Then Jesus said to the twelve, You do not also wish to leave Me, do you? But Simon Peter, answering for the group, said, Lord, to whom shall we go? You alone have the words which lead unto eternal life. And we have learned to believe and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God. And Jesus answered them, Did I not expressly choose you as the Twelve? And yet, I know that one of you is a minister of the devil. He was speaking of Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, for this Judas was about to betray Him, even though he was one of the Twelve.

Summary

This is the moment of truth for the Twelve. The superficial disciples have been tried, and have judged themselves unfit for His kingdom. However, for the Twelve (excluding Judas), this is their finest hour.

Comment

Most of the scholars agree that the phrase After this introducing Joh. 6:66, is a phrase which shows result as well as passage of time. The preceding discourse was not easily tolerated by the multitudes, and a further result of the sermon on the Bread of Life was the defection of many of His Galilean disciples. These many disciples were both fair-weather friends, and disciples of Jesus. They followed Him as long as they thought He was going to give them bread on their tables. But at the first intimation of the spiritual and moral food the cross and self-surrender on their part they turned their backs on Jesus. The inference of the original language here helps us to interpret their actions even more fully. They not only ceased following Jesus, but they gave up what they had gained with Him, and . . . reoccupied their old places. Before, they had called Him Rabbi and Lord (cf. Joh. 6:25; Joh. 6:34), but now they disclaimed Him even as unfit to listen to. They had attached themselves to His bandwagon they had put their hands to the plow without first counting the cost. Now, having turned back, they judged themselves unfit for the kingdom of God (cf. Luk. 9:62). The very same attitude prevails today. There are far too many today who, having started with Jesus, have failed to count the cost and are now inactive church-members. (cf. Luk. 14:25-35).

Then the Lord challenges His chosen Twelve in a most direct manner. What a test this must have been for them! Up to this moment Jesus was the Man of the hour in Galilee. To be one of His personally-chosen inner-circle was to enjoy a certain amount of prestige in Galilee. To be one of the Twelve, and to see the great popularity of its leader was to have great expectations, But now the Man of Galilee is losing His following and His prestige at one crucial moment when thousands are turning disgustedly away.

What were the emotions of the Twelve fear, hate, disgust and shame? Were they also on the verge of deserting the Lord? Indeed not! Peter, probably because of his age and personality, speaks for the Twelve a classic confession full of faith and devotion to Jesus, Although undoubtedly puzzled and distressed by the mysterious words of Jesus, Peter is convinced that Jesus alone has the words leading unto eternal life. We quote here Professor R. C. Fosters comments on Joh. 6:68-69 :

When we meet things in Scripture irreconcilable with our reason, what should be our conclusion? Peter has summed up the true attitude of the Christian. God has not promised to satisfy our curiosity or all our intellectual problems, but He rather demands that we walk by faith when we cannot see the way, We should use our reason and all intellectual gifts in endeavoring to understand, but we should not desert Christ because we find difficulties. If we cast aside the Bible just where is the Book of God to be found that will lead us to eternal life?

The perfect tenses of the verbs have believed and have come to know show that Peters answer was one of an understanding born of a clear perception . . . through progressive experience. We must know the Lord before we can believe Him. Faith is not born of emotion. We must have knowledge of His life, His claims, and the evidence by which He establishes the validity of His claims. We must then weigh this evidence and make a decision as to whether we shall trust Him or reject Him. This does not mean, however, that we are to reject Jesus and His words when we cannot understand every thing He says. As with the Twelve, we have more than sufficient evidence to prove Jesus identity as the Son of God. The confession of Peter as compared with the rejection by the multitude emphasizes further the axiom that rejection of Christ is generally on moral grounds and not intellectual.

Peters impulsiveness and over-confidence, shown by his instantaneous confession on behalf of the whole company, receives a check by Jesus as it does at other times. The Lord cautions him here, as in Mat. 16:23, Joh. 20:15-22; Mar. 14:29-30, not to be too confident, for one of the Twelve did not share his faith and trust.

The question is always raised, in connection with Joh. 6:70-71 : If Jesus knew Judas would betray Him, why did He choose him? We can only answer, It was within Gods Infinite wisdom, will and plan for the redemption of the world. More than that, we can only speculate. One thing is certain: God did not compel Judas to betray Christ. Jesus tried repeatedly to turn Judas from his evil scheme by warning him that He was aware of his intentions.

Judas is carefully described here as the son of Simon, called Iscariot (a man of Kerioth) probably an area of Judah (cf. Jos. 15:25). This distinguishes him from the other Judas, also one of the Twelve.

Thus this Sixth Chapter has been fitly called The Great Galilean Crisis for here the great multitudes of Galilean disciples come to the moment of truth, and fail the test. On the other hand, for the chosen apostles (except Judas), this is their finest hour. They are also put into the crucible, but come out purified. This is the turning point in Jesus public ministry. Henceforth He will (except for occasional emotional outbursts such as at the Triumphal Entry) be unpopular, criticized, and hunted like an animal throughout all Judea.

Quiz

1.

What caused the many disciples to desert Jesus?

2.

Why would this be such a big test for the Twelve?

3.

How should we react to sayings of Jesus which are difficult to understand?

4.

What brought Peter to say, we have come to know?

5.

How was Peters display of overconfidence checked by Jesus here?

6.

Why is Joh. 6:1-71 entitled, The Great Galilean Crisis?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(66) From that time.The addition of the word time has given a definite and questionable meaning to the Greek, which is indefinite. From that probably means on that account, because of the words He had spoken. The actual departure was the result of the teaching, which tested their faith and found it wanting, and was at that time, not gradually from that time onwards. (Comp. Note on Joh. 19:12.)

Many of his disciples.Co-extensive with the same term in Joh. 6:60.

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

66. Disciples Not apostles. See note on Joh 6:60.

Many Doubtless a large minority.

Walked no more with him Indicating that they avoided the odium suggested in note on Joh 6:60.

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

‘On this many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.’

Disillusioned by His words many of the disciples who were following Him about ‘drew back and no longer went about with him’. This is one theme of John’s Gospel, belief that is based on signs and wrong misconceptions, but is not real. Now that they had learned that He was not to be the all-conquering leader who would deliver them from the Romans and give them glory, but was rather talking about suffering and approaching violent death at the hands of His own people, they no longer wanted to know. But Jesus was already aware of what was in their minds and hearts. He knew those whose faith was false. He knew the nature of the heart that would betray Him.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The loyalty of the Twelve:

v. 66. From that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him.

v. 67. Then said Jesus unto the Twelve, Will ye also go away?

v. 68. Then Simon Peter answered Him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.

v. 69. And we believe and are sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

v. 70. Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you Twelve, and one of you is a devil?

v. 71. He spake of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon; for he it was that should betray Him, being one of the Twelve.

In spite of the warning of Jesus, a great many of those that had followed Him for some time deliberately turned from Jesus and no longer accompanied Him on His preaching-trips. They gave up their adherence to Christ, they withdrew openly from His presence. They had not stood the test of faith. It is ever thus. In the midst of the true believers there are always some whose faith is not sound, because it is not based upon the words and works of Jesus only. Jesus now turned to the Twelve, to the apostles whom He had chosen with such great care. They were here weathering a crisis, and He put the question to them, as well that they might be confirmed in their faith, as that He might be gladdened by their confession of it. His words are partly a question, partly an affirmation: Surely you do not want to go away also! And impetuous Peter, deeply moved by the defection of the great number, answers in the name of the Twelve: Lord, to whom shall we go away? The words of eternal life Thou hast; and we have believed and are certain in our knowledge that Thou art the Christ, the Holy One, the living Son of God, the Messiah of the world. The apostles had not taken offense at the words of Christ. In the midst of apostasy and hostility the faith of the true believers is approved. It is at such times that they cling all the more closely to the Rock of their salvation, not in sentimental emotion, but in Bound trust in His Word, the Gospel of eternal life. Everyone that has truly learned and gotten the firm conviction that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the promised Redeemer of the world, has no intention, no desire to go away from Him. The truth and power of the word has fully taken possession of his heart and mind. Note: Confession in Christ, the Savior, is confession in Christ, the Son of God, true God with the Father and the Holy Ghost. The answer of Jesus upon the glorious confession of Peter was charged with deep feeling and carried a warning, especially to one of the Twelve. For although Jesus had chosen them all in the same way and with the same seriousness, yet one of them was a devil at heart, and was merely hiding his denial and hostility under the hypocritical mask of loyalty. That was Judas Iscariot. In him the devil lived and had free play, he was Satan’s willing victim and tool. That is a truly devilish crime, if a disciple, a believer, such as Judas was, that actually acknowledges Jesus as the Christ and has had many an experience in his Christian life, finally gives up his belief in the Savior and becomes an apostate. The example of Judas serves as an earnest warning to watch and to pray, lest faith be taken away and we commit the sin of Judas, betray our Lord and Savior.

Summary. Jesus feeds five thousand men, walks on the Sea of Galilee, proclaims Himself as the Bread of Life in the school of Capernaum, corrects the false offense of many of His followers, and hears the confession of loyalty from Peter.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Joh 6:66. From that time many of his disciples, &c. This sermon was in all its different branches so offensive to the Jews, that many of them who till now had been our Lord’s disciples, finding by the general strain of it, that their ambitious carnal views were to be utterly disappointed,went out of the synagogue in disgust, and never came to hear our Lord again.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Joh 6:66-67 . ] not: “ from this time forwards ” (so usually even Lcke, De Wette, Hengstenberg), for a going away by degrees is not described; but (so Nonnus, Luthardt): on this account , because of these words of Jesus, Joh 6:61 ff., which so thoroughly undeceived them as regarded their earthly Messianic hopes. So also Joh 19:12 ; Xen. Anab . ii. 6. 4, iii. 3. 5, vii. 6. 13. Comp. , quapropter , and see generally, concerning the of cause or occasion, Matthiae, II. 1334; Ellendt, Lex. Soph . i. 551, who justly remarks: “His etiam subest fontis , unde aliquid exoriatur, notio.”

] they went away, and went back , so that they no longer accompanied Him, but returned to the place whence they had come to Him. Comp. Joh 18:6 , Joh 20:14 ; 1Ma 9:47 ; Pro 25:9 ; Gen 19:17 ; Luk 17:31 ; Plato, Phaedr . p. 254 B; Menex . p. 246 B; Polyb. i. 51. 8.

] who and what they were, John takes for granted as well known.

, . . .] but ye too do not wish to go away ? Jesus knows His twelve too well (comp. Joh 13:18 ) to put the question to them otherwise than with the presupposition of a negative , answer (at the same time He knew that He must except one). But He wishes for their avowal, and therein lay His comfort. This rendering of the question with is no “pedanterie grammaticale” (Godet, who wrongly renders “ vous ne voulez pas ?”), but is alone linguistically correct (Baeumlein, Partik . p. 302 f.). According to Godet, the thought underlying the question is, “ If you wish, you can ,” which is a pure invention.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

III

Apostacy Of Many Disciples. Incipient Treason In The Circle Of The Twelve. Confession Of Peter

Joh 6:66-71

66From that time [upon this]85 many of His disciples went back, and walked no 67more with him. Then [Therefore] said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also [do ye 68also wish to] go away? Then [omit Then]86 Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go [go away, ]? thou hast the [omit the] words of eternal life. 69And we believe and are sure [we have believed and have known] that thou art that Christ [the Christ],87 the Son of the living God [the Holy One of God].88 70Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, [Did I not choose 71you the twelve?] and one of you is a devil? [!] He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon [Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot]John 89: for he it was [it was he] that should [was about to] betray him, being90 one of the twelve.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Joh 6:66. Upon this many of his disciples. . (1) From this moment (Lcke, De Wette). (2) Meyer, more correctly, according to c. Joh 19:12 : On account of this discourse, which disappointed their carnal messianic hopes. And in addition had become the strongest positive offence.

Went back; .Comp. c. Joh 18:6; Joh 20:14.

Joh 6:67. Will ye also, etc.So Luther, Baumgarten-Crusius [and the English version], not accurately. Rather, But ye will not go away, will ye?91 Expressing confidence mingled with suspicion in reference to the traitor. Giving occasion for a volutary decision. [The Lord asked the question in order to test their faithfulness, to elicit their confession, and to attach them more closely to Himself, but not, as Alford suggests, for His own comfort and encouragement; for as He knew the future treason of Judas (Joh 6:64; Joh 6:71), so He foresaw also the faithfulness of the eleven. In this place, John first mentions the Twelve, without a word about their previous calling.a clear proof that he took for granted a general knowledge of the gospel history.P. S.]

Joh 6:68. To whom shall we go.So also Luthers version. More accurately: To whom shall we go over, go away from Thee? Meyer: , future, ever go away. [Denying the future possibility.P. S.] No second Messiah will appear. [Augustin: Da nobis alterum Te]. Prelude to the confession of Peter in Mat 16:16. [Peter quickly, resolutely and emphatically speaks and acts here as elsewhere in the name of the Twelve. He is the mouth-piece of the apostolic college. This gives him a certain primacy and priority down to the day of Pentecost and the calling of Paul, who was the independent head of Gentile Christianity by Christs own appointment. The Romish Church turns the temporary and personal primacy of Peter into a permanent and official supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. This, and the identifying of the church of Rome with the Kingdom of Christ, is the , the fundamental error and the fundamental sin of the papacy.P. S.]

Words of eternal life. And we.The objective and subjective grounds of cleaving to Him. Words which come forth from, possess, and lead to, eternal life. See Joh 6:63.And we: [ ] the answer of faith to the object of faith. Not excluding, of course, the other antithesis to the deserters. (Meyer.)

[Joh 6:69. And we have believed and have known.The perfect: , expresses the completed action and permanent result: assured faith and firm knowledge. Fides prcedit intellectum, faith precedes knowledge. This Augustinian and Anselmic maxim (which Schleiermacher also adopted; see the motto of his Dogmatics) may be derived from the order of and in this verse.92 But the reverse maxim: Intellectus prcedit fidem (Abelard), is also true, though not in a rationalistic sense, and is supported by the order, Joh 10:38 (that ye may know and believe) and 1Jn 5:13. We must first be made acquainted with Christ before we can believe in Him (faith comes by hearing, Rom 10:17), but we must believe in Christ in order to attain an experimental and saving knowledge of Him. Faith itself is an intellectual as well as a moral and spiritual act.P. S.]

The Holy One of God [see Textual Notes.] The One consecrated by and for God. Comp. Joh 10:36; Mar 1:24; Luk 4:34; Act 4:27; Rev 3:7. [The coincidence of the original text with the testimony of the demoniacs (Mar 1:26), who with ghostlike intuition perceived the higher character of Jesus, is remarkable.P. S.] More indefinite designation of the Messiah. The full, matured confession, born of the Spirit, we find first in Matthew 16;a fact mistaken by Weisse, when he makes this passage a variation of that in the Synoptical account.93 Peters answering here in this complete way for all the twelve could not be entirely of the Spirit, [as the later confession Matthew 16 was]. It unconsciously served to sustain Judas in his false and cold self-command, and to cover the aversion which was in him at the very time; and thus it gave occasion for the severe words of Jesus.

Joh 6:70. Did I not choose you the twelve?A more definite exposition of the words of Joh 6:67. Meyer: Not the language of reflection, but of sudden pain over the tragic result, in contrast with that joyful confession which Peter was convinced he could give in the name of all. It probably refers not to the tragic result, but to the moral alienation, the germ of apostasy, which from this time forth developed itself in Judas. The distribution of the emphasis is very significant. I is first; then you; then the twelve. I, as the Holy One of God; have chosen you, to the highest honors.

And now the fearful contrast: One of you is a devil!94Interpretations: An informer (Theophylact, [DeWette]); an adversary or betrayer (Kuinl, Lcke, et al.); devil, devilish, of a diabolical nature (Meyer).95 In New Testament designations, however, an ideal meaning is always lodged; the word is not a mere nomen; as Mat 13:39; Rev 12:10 prove. And this is the more sure to be the case in this figurative designation. In Mat 16:23 the term Satan is chosen, because Jesus intends to describe a tempter instigated by the devil; so here also devil denotes an actual traducer instigated by the devil. We must by all means abide by the term. The expression: sons, or children of the devil, (Joh 8:44; 1Jn 3:10), is not so strong. The mention of the number twelve shows that the brothers of the Lord also were by this time in the circle. [? See below, p. 241.P. S.]

Joh 6:71. He spoke of Judas.That is, He meant him. See the Textual Notes. On Judas Iscariot see the Com. on Matthew, John 10 [p. 182.] Not to be confounded with the other Judas (son of James), Joh 14:22.

For it was he that was about to betray him. is hard to translate. Traditurus erat.96 The betrayal germinated in him from this time forth. Meyer, groundlessly: Not that he was already meditating the betrayal, (see, on the contrary, Joh 13:2), but that the betrayal was the divinely appointed result. Joh 13:2 speaks of the final resolution; this passage of the first swerving of the temper and inclination. One of the twelve.Showing up the monstrous, diabolical character of this incipient infidelity. The silence of Judas is in keeping with his character. It now firmly lodges the seed. On the Lords choosing of Judas see Meyer [p. 285, 5th ed. See also the Literature quoted below in Doctr. and Ethical No. 3.P.S.]

[The call of Judas is only one of the innumerable mysteries in Gods moral government, which no system of philosophy can solve at all, and which even Christianity solves but in part, reserving the final answer for a higher expansion of our faculties in another world. It involves the whole problem of the relation of God to the origin of sin, and the relation of His foreknowledge and foreordination to the free agency of man. The question why Christ called and received Judas into the circle of His chosen twelve, is more dogmatical than exegetical, yet cannot be passed by unnoticed. It admits of three answers, none of which, however, is entirely satisfactory:

1. Christ elected Judas an apostle, not indeed for the very purpose that he might become a traitor (which no sensible divine ever asserted, at least not directly); but that, through his treason, as an incidental condition or a necessary means, the Scriptures might be fulfilled (comp. Joh 13:18; Joh 17:12), and the redemption of the world be accomplished. So Augustine (electi undecim ad opus probationis, electus unus ad opus tentationis), supralapsarian Calvinists, also Daub who (in his speculative treatise: Judas Iscariot) represents the traitor as an incarnate devil, predestinated to exhibit wickedness in its worst form in contrast with the highest manifestation of goodness in Christ. This view, although it contains an element of truth, seems after all to involve our blessed Lord in some kind of responsibility for the darkest crime ever committed.

2. Jesus foresaw the financial and administrative abilities of Judas (comp. Joh 12:6; Joh 13:29), which might have become of great use to the apostolic church, but not his thievish and treacherous tendencies, which developed themselves afterwards, and He elected him solely for the former. This explanation is rather rationalistic and incompatible with the prophetic foresight of Christ, as well as the express remark of John , Joh 6:64, and Joh 6:70-71.

3. Jesus knew the whole original character of Judas from the beginning, before it was properly developed, and elected him in the hope that the good qualities and tendencies would, under the influence of His teaching, ultimately acquire the mastery over the bad. So Meyer, Park and many others. This implies that Jesus was mistaken, if not in His judgment at the time, at least in His expectation, and is likewise at war with His perfect knowledge of the human heart.
Alford despairs of solving the difficulty. Wordsworth and other English commentators pass it by in modest or prudent silence.
I must add that the fall of Judas does not necessarily interfere with the doctrine of the perseverance of saints. For by his election is evidently meant the external historical call to the apostleship which was confined to the twelve, ( , Joh 6:70), not the eternal election of the Father and the drawing of the Father to the Son, which applies to all true disciples who persevere to the end (Rom 8:28 ff.; Joh 10:28-29; Joh 13:18). With this important distinction we may endorse Bengels remark: There is therefore a certain kind of election from which man may fall away (Est igitur aliqua electio ex qua aliquis potest excidere), but we must add: there is another kind of election which is as certain and unchangeable as God.P. S.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The turning-point in the life of Jesus which John here brings to view is of the highest importance in the history. It accounts for the falling away of the majority of the Galilean followers of Jesus, and that in a way perfectly agreeable to the Galilean character, which was inclined to boisterous insurrectionary projects. Because Jesus refused Himself to the fanatical proposal of these people to make Him a king, and demanded in stringent terms an inward, submissive faith in His person, instead of an outward hoping for the things of an earthly kingdom, many began to fall back.

2. Undoubtedly also the first disaffection now formed itself in the mind of Judas; since after the explanation of Jesus, he must have felt that he had been deceived in his glowing expectations. How little the disciples in general noticed this, appears from the protestation of Peter. Yet, besides the all-seeing eye of Christ, the feeling of John seems also to have caught an impression of this alienation. (See Leben Jesu, II p. 609.)

3. On the calling [and character] of Judas, comp. Matthew, p. 183; Meyer in loco [5th ed. p. 285]; Lcke II p. 182. [Also Schaffs treatise on the Sin against the Holy Ghost (Halle, 1841), pp. 35 ff., the article Judas in Winer and in Smith, especially the analysis by Prof. Park of Andover in Hacketts edition of Smith, Vol. II pp. 14951503.P. S.]

4. The protestation of Peter forms a beautiful contrast to the sullen silence of Judas, in whose apostasy three periods are to be marked: 1. The beginning of alienation from this time forth; 2. The thought of betrayal and the dalliance with it after the anointing in Bethany; 3. The full purpose and the execution of it after the pass-over. And yet the beautiful contrast is not perfect, because Peter indiscreetly and without misgiving answered for the whole company, including Judas himself. Even the grand sentence: Thou hast the words of eternal life,does not fully reach the deep meaning of Jesus in His discourse, if it refers to it. The word of the disciple falls something short of the self-presentation of the Master. The confession in Mat 16:16 is an expression of purer and riper faith. Hence Jesus answers here with the stern word: One of you is a devil, while after that other confession he blesses him. Even in the latter case it is true, that the sharp rebuke, Get thee behind me, Satan,follows the benediction; for in that case also the divine enthusiasm of faith had not yet matured in Peter into a firm spirit of faith; Peter was not yet free from all sympathy with Judas in chiliastic ambition.

5. It is not to be supposed that the disciples in general received any definite idea as to whom the Lord meant. Least of all do they seem to have fixed on Judas, who, on the contrary, appears from the account of the anointing at Bethany in Matthew and Mark to have enjoyed high consideration among them. That Judas felt himself in some way hit, is very probable; and also that John was led to suspect who the forbidding fellow disciple was (see Johns account of the anointing). The stern word of Christ must therefore have burdened the minds of the disciples as a heavy riddle, giving them continuous warning, even amidst the great successes of His subsequent ministry.
The turn we here mark in the history of Jesus now comes fully to view in His subsequent conduct as depicted in the next chapter.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The first apostasy from Christ in its solemn and typical import: 1. Its motives; 2. Its extent; 3. Its consequences.The majestic calmness of the Lord in the apostasy of false disciples, as revealed in His stern dealing with those who remain.The deep grief of the Lord visible even through His free and tranquil conduct, 1. His calmness: He begs not, flatters not, makes no terms; He remains sure of Himself and of His word. 2. His grief: He sees a danger to all His disciples; seems even to miss hearing the fair words of Peter; declares with a shudder that one of the chosen twelve is a devil.The first apostasy, the first sifting of the hosts of Christs disciples, 1Jn 2:19.However great the apostasy may be, it never can be universal.The stages of apostasy: 1. Retention of the earthly mind in discipleship, Mat 13:5. 2. Development of unbelief, of rupture with Christ. 3. The actual apostasy itself.Apostasy: a total view of the mournful thing: 1. Its main features in the gospel history. 2. Its preludes in the Old Testament history. 3. Its development in the history of the Christian church. 4. Its final form as depicted in the prophecies of the Bible. The affinity of the apostasy in Galilee with the hostility in Judea.The apostasy of the Jews a prelude to the traitorous apostasy of Judas.The malignant silence of Judas a bad sign.Falsehood of the diabolical nature.

Nothing more grimly holds thee back
Than falsehood of thy being.

The silence of Judas and the out-speaking of Peter.The striking contrast in the circle of the twelve: Peter and Judas: 1. Honest loyalty and false adherence. 2. Fresh, clear openness and dark obduracy. 3. Happy confession and unhappy reserve.Peter, Judas and John.The declaration of Peter in its light and shade.Lord, to whom shall we go?We must continue with Jesus our Lord, because (1) no other Christ will come; (2) no one will bring a better word; (3) there remains no other faith; (4) there remains no brighter knowledge.The solemnity and dread with which Jesus answered the declarations of Peter.The fearful contrast: To be chosen to a higher service than angels, and to prove a devil.The terrible omen, that from among the twelve arose a traitor to the Lord, and a betrayer of the Lord Himself.The depravity germinates slowly, but ripens rapidly to judgment.The second turn in the life of Jesus (in Galilee), compared with the first (in Judea).Because Christ presented Himself to His disciples as the bread of eternal life, many feared they should starve, and fell away.They wish only things, things, things (worldly things, spiritual things, ecclesiastical things), and so come not to personal life in the beholding and partaking of the glorious personality of Christ.As a mans ideal is, so is he: he who wishes only idols and stocks, is like idols and stocks; he who wishes only creatures and things, is himself but creature and thing; and this leads to apostasy. [comp. Psa 115:8.Tr.]Hence apostasy is from Christianity to Judaism, from gospel to law.It needs courage to trust oneself to Christ, the focus of life, and let the world go; but a believing courage which the Lord gives to him who asks.

Starke: Quesnel: A preacher may lose his hearers through no fault of his own.Majus: As Jesus unkindly thrust no one away, so He will forcibly retain none. Let those go who wish not to stay. He who forsakes Christ, the Life, follows Satan to death.Canstein: Christ needed none, but no one can do without Him.It often fares with faithful teachers as with Christ (in the history here before us).There is hardly a company, but the devil finds one or another in it.Preachers may certainly rebuke the sins of their hearers, yet with care that they call no one by name; for this embitters without edifying.In unbelievers Satan so nestles, that they themselves are as it were the devil. Eph 2:2.Trouble thyself not and doubt not for the truth of the gospel, when one of the most distinguished ministers becomes a Mameluke and proves faithless to Christ.Osiander: Even those who are adorned with excellent gifts, may still forfeit the grace of God.Beware of presumptuous security! False brethren give more pain to the faithful servants of God, than open enemies.Bengel: Christ is concerned not for the number, but for the purity of His disciples.Gossner, on Joh 6:67 : By this He would show that He forces no one, but would have all voluntary disciples.Heubner: There is a gross apostasy from Jesus; this is rare; but there is also a subtle apostasy, which is the more frequent.The voluntary departure of spurious disciples is no loss, but a gain.

Joh 6:67 : Jesus pours out His whole heart in this question, His sorrow and His love.He still puts this question continually to all believers (i.e. in every solemn test) for the trial of their fidelity.Upon the least likelihood that Jesus might doubt their fidelity, Peter breaks out the louder; so the Christian will attach himself the more fervently to Jesus at the faintest trace of apostasy.Have believed and known. A hint that the believing, child-like posture of mind must precede the attainment of knowledge.Jesus still knows all the faithful and the faithless (The Lord knoweth them that are His).Christ bore with Judas; the hardest test of His love. Bear cheerfully with men, in whom thou canst not find thyself.Not to be upright towards the most upright One, betrays a wicked heart. The richest grace of intercourse with the most holy One can turn to perdition with a wicked heart. Judas wont out of the school of Jesus far worse than he went in.Besser: Unbelief towards this single article (the eating and drinking of His flesh and blood) brought on a complete renunciation of Christ. [More accurately: Offence at being required to find all salvation in His whole self-sacrifice and self-imparting person itself, led them to separate from His person. Offence also at the last utterance of Jesus, Joh 6:65, which runs as a companion thought through the whole discourse, must in some way come into the account. As the doctrine of the divine person of Christ and its impartation of perfect life through a sacrificial death which made it a sacrificial meal was an offence to them, so was the doctrine of a distinction made by a gracious spiritual drawing of God between the small election of the spiritual Israel and the mass of the theocratic Israelitish church.]Judas represents what is befallen to the Jewish people as a whole. How immeasurably deep must be the grief of love, that what was intended for Israels salvation became its hardening! He chose Judas. He turned upon him the full earnestness of His saving love, and He endured that one of the twelve should do the service of the devil to Him, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, Joh 17:12; Psalms 109Schenkel: Why we are resolved not to go away from Jesus Christ. We answer, with Peter, to the question of the Lord: 1. Whither would we go? 2. The Lord has the words of eternal life. 3. We have believed and known that He is Christ, the Son of the living God.

[Themes for discourses: The sifting power of truth. The sin of backsliding (Joh 6:66).Peter the Confessor.The first and fundamental Christian confession.Christ, the best of teachers, the truest friend, the only refuge of the sinner. Words of everlasting life.Christ and Peter,Christ and Judas.It is better, with Peter in regard to Judas, to err on the side of charity than severity of judgment.Christ, the purest of the pure, and the holiest of the holy, bore the traitor in His company to the close of His public ministry! What self-denial, what condescending mercy, what a rebuke to our intolerance and pride,The mercy and severity of Christ in dealing with Judas.The unknown sufferings of Christ in foreseeing the betrayal of one, and the treason of another disciple.Peter called Satan for his human weakness (Mat 16:23), Judas, a devil for his lurking treason.Christs wisdom and mercy in withholding the name of Judas, while giving him a clear hint of his danger.A hypocrite may for a long while deceive all men, but he cannot deceive Christ.Judas an involuntary instrument for the greatest good.The overruling power and wisdom of God.Christ, the true prophet of human nature who knows and reveals the secrets of the heart.P. S.]

Footnotes:

[49][For a somewhat similar division see Godet, II. 97.]

[50][Strauss unnecessarily creates this difficulty.P. S.]

[51][So Bengel Jesus singularem numerum opponit plurali Judorum, qui dixerant, opera Dei, Joh 6:28. Alford: Because there is but this one work, properly speaking, and all the rest are wrapt up in it,P. S.]

[52][Josephus called it .]

[53][Others regard the Scripture manna as wholly miraculous, and not in any respect a product of nature. So the writer of the article Manna in Smiths Dictionary of the Bible, who thus sets forth the difference between the natural and this supernatural manna: The natural products of the Arabian deserts and other oriental regions, which bear the name of manna, have not the qualities or uses ascribed to the manna of Scripture. They are all condiments or medicines rather than food, stimulating or purgative rather than nutritious; they are produced only three or four months in the year, from May to August, and not all the year round; they come only in small quantities, never affording any thing like 15,000,000 of pounds a week, which must have been requisite for the subsistence of the whole Israelitish camp, since each man had an omer (or three English quarts) a day, and that for forty years; they can be kept for a long time, and do not become useless in a day or two; they are just as liable to deteriorate on the Sabbath as on any other day: nor does a double quantity fall on the day preceding the Sabbath; nor would natural products cease at once and for ever, as the manna is represented as ceasing in the book of Joshua.P. S.]

[54][Alford: The words are the predicate of , and do not apply, in the construction of this verse, to Christ personally, however truly they apply to Him in fact, The E. V. is here wrong: it should be, The bread of God is that (not He) which Cometh, etc. Not till Joh 6:35 does Jesus first say, I am the bread of life, The manna is still kept in view, and the present participle, here used in reference to the manna, is dropped when the Lord Himself is spoken of. The note of Wordsworth on Joh 6:33 is a curious specimen of the wild allegorizing of this learned and devout patristic and Anglican antiquarian. He sees here everywhere allusions to the sacrament. Even the meaning of the word Manna, what is it, is made to indicate the wonderful double nature of Christ and the mystery of His presence in the eucharist.P.S.]

[55][So also Godet: Les deux termes, venir et croire, expriment, avec et sans figure, une seule et meme ide: le joyeux et confiant empressement avec lequel le cur affam et press de besoins spirituels sempare de laliment cleste qui lui est prsent en Jesus Christ. Coming to Christ is faith indeed, yet not in repose as mere trust and confidence, or as a state of mind, but in active exercise and motion from the service of sin to the service of Christ; comp. 37, 44, 45, 65; Joh 7:37-38.P. S.]

[56][In classical usage (see Khner, II. 443, 1, and Hermann Ad Viger., p. 746) but not in New Testament unless it be the in Joh 11:42.P. S.]

[57][Yet the absence of a connecting particle seems to indicate a pause of reflection intervening between the preceding reproof ( ), and the following description of the true children of God.P. S.]

[58][Bengels observation on is longer than is usual with this epigrammatic commentator, but well worth quoting: A most weighty word, and, in comparing with it those things which follow, most worthy of consideration; for, in the discourses of Jesus Christ, what the Father hath given to the Son Himself, that is termed, both in the singular number and neuter gender, all (omne): those who come to the Son Himself, are described in the masculine gender, or even the plural number, every one (omnis), or they (illi). The Father hath given to the Son, as it were, the whole mass, in order that all whom He hath given, may be a unit (unum): that whole (universum) the Son evolves individually (one by one), in the execution of the Divine plan. Hence that expression, Joh 17:2, that all which ( , omne quod) thou hast gives Him, he should give them (, eis) eternal life. In the Greek style of the New Testament, especially of John, wheresoever fastidious minds would say the construction was a solecism, an elegance truly divine, which to the Hebrews never seemed harsh, is usually found to lie beneath. That remark especially holds good of this passage.P. S.]

[59][Against this false interpretation of Reuss (Hist, de la thol. Chrtienne, II p. 462), comp. Godet 2 p. 114.P. S.]

[60][In Joh 6:37 Christ had declared that the totality ( which is to be taken collectively as of one integral whole) of those whom the Father giveth Him, shall come to Him; in Joh 6:44 He declares that no one can come in any other way except by the drawing of the Father. The effect follows in every case from a certain cause, but this effect will follow from no other cause.P. S.]

[61][Calvin, however, says before (ad loc.) that the efficient motion of the Holy Spirit first makes unwilling men willing (homines ex nolentibus et invitis reddit voluntaries). So also Augustine who expressly says that faith is inseparable from will (credere non potest nisi volens), and: Non ut homines, quod fieri non potest, nolentes credant, sed ut volentes ex nolentibus fiant. He quotes from Virgil: trahit sua quemque voluptas, to show that the drawing is that of choice not of compulsion. Calvin expressly guards in this connection against the abuse of his doctrine. They are madmen, he says ad. Joh 6:40, who seek their own salvation or that of others in the labyrinth of predestination, not keeping the way of faith which is proposed to them. Since God has elected us to this very end that we believe, we destroy the election if we set aside faith (tolle fidem, et mutila erit electio) If God calls us effectually to faith in Christ, it is of the same force to us, as if by an engraved seal He confirmed His decree concerning our salvation. For the testimony of the Spirit is nothing else but the sealing of our adoption. To every man, therefore, his faith is a sufficient attestation of Gods eternal predestination, so that it is impious and an insult to the testimony of the Holy Spirit to search beyond it.P. S.]

[62][Tholuck says: designates a more detailed statement, as in Joh 1:3, or a correction, as in Joh 15:27. Zwingli (as quoted by Tholuck), Dixi diu me panem esse vit, sed nondum quo facto id fiat, hoc jam aperiam. introduces here something of special importance. Comp. Meyer in loc.P. S.]

[63][On Augustines interpretation see note in the Excursus below, p. 228.P. S.]

[64][M*ver (p. 270) adds to the above names, as favoring this view, Tholuck, Neander, Jul. Mller, Lange, Ebrard, Keim, Weiss, Ewald, Kahnis, Godet. But Lange, Ewald, Kahnis, Hengstenberg and Godet should be classed with No. 6 below.P. S.]

[65][In his work on the Lords Supper, p. 104 ff., but later, in his Dogmatics, Vol. I. p. 624, Kahnis denies that John 6 refers directly to the Lords Supper, and explains the eating and drinking to be identical with believing for the reason that the same effect is made dependent on both, viz., eternal life. He should be classed with No. 6.P. S.]

[66][Latin dissertations on the difference between Luthers and Calvins views on the Lords Supper, 1853, now reproduced in German by Dr. Jul. Mller, of Halle, in his Dogmatische Abhandlungen, just published, Bremen, 1870, pp. 404467.P. S.]

[67][In the second Excursus to the second edition of his Commentary on John (which is omitted in the third edition), and in the third edition, Vol. II. pp. 149159.P. S.]

[68][Alford likewise makes this distinction, which is not sustained by the context. He says: What is eating and drinking? Clearly not merely faith; for faith answers to the hand reached forth for the food,but is not the act of eating. Faith is a necessary condition of the act: so that we can hardly say with Augustine, crede, et manducasti; but crede et manducabis. Inasmuch as faith will necessarily in its energizing lead to this partaking, we sometimes incorrectly say that it is faith: but for strict accuracy this is not enough. To eat the flesh of Christ, is to realize, in our inward life, the mystery of His Body now in heaven,to digest and assimilate our own portion in that Body. To drink His Blood is to realize, in our inward life, the mystery of His satisfaction for sin,to digest and assimilate our own portion in that satisfaction, the outpouring of that Blood. And both these definitions may be gathered into one, which is: The eating of His Flesh and drinking of His Blood import the making to ourselves and using as objectively real, those two great Truths of our Redemption in Him, of which our faith subjectively convinces us. And of this realizing of faith He has been pleased to appoint certain symbols in the Holy Communion, which He has commanded to be received; to signify to us the spiritual process, and to assist us towards it.P. S.]

[69][Meyer thinks that the change implies no intention of a stronger expression, since is used Mat 24:38 ( ), by Demosthenes, Plutarch and Polybius without perceptible difference from or . expresses the present of , which must be either or . So also Alford: The real sense is that by the very act of inward realization the possession of eternal life is certified. Wordsworth on the other hand presses the difference and, in fanciful sacramentarian exaggeration, says that presents the climax of the difficulty, and shows the need of coming to Christ in the holy communion with devout cravings and earnest longings of a famished soul for heavenly food.P. S.]

[70][Meyer: expresses in opposition to mere appearance the actual reality (1Jn 2:27; Act 12:9), which the Jews could not comprehend, Joh 6:52. Alford: is here not=, nor is the sense, My flesh is the true meat, etc., but My flesh is true meat, i.e., really to be eaten, which they doubted. Thus is a gloss, which falls short of the depth of the adjective. This verse is decisive against all explaining away or metaphorizing the passage. Food and drink are not here mere metaphors;rather are our common material food and drink mere shadows and imperfect types of this only real reception of refreshment and nourishment into being. Godet: Ladverbe () ou ladjectif () exprime la pleine ralit de la communication vitale opr par ces lments.P. S.]

[71][Per Patrem, as the fountain of life. So Beza, De Wette, Alford, etc.P. S.]

[72][As Meyer takes it: wegen des Vaters, d. i. weil Mein Vater der lebendige ist. He quotes Plat. Conv., p. 203, E.: .P. S.]

[73][Comp. also the , Joh 12:32. To make this interpretation at all plausible, the must be understood from the standpoint of Jesus whose death was a return to the heaven whence He descended, and to the glory which He had before the foundation of the world, comp. Joh 17:5. But the hearers could not have understood in this sense.P. S.]

[74][Aug.: Certe vel tunc videbitis, quia, non eo modo, quo putatis, erogat corpus suum; certe vel tunc intelligetis, quia gratia ejus non consumitur morsibus. Harless and Stier: Then you will understand that, and how my glorified heavenly humanity and corporeity can be food and drink. But this would make Christ speak of a future act. Meyer remarks against Harless: The glorified body of Christ is, as flesh and blood, inconceivable (1Co 15:49 f.)P. S.]

[75][Comp. against this assertion of Meyer Joh 3:13; Joh 20:17, where the ascension is clearly alluded to. Usually Jesus speaks of His death in John as a going to the Father or to Him that sent Me, Joh 7:33; Joh 13:3; Joh 14:12; Joh 14:28; Joh 16:5; Joh 16:28; Joh 17:11; Joh 17:13.P. S.]

[76][Mar 16:19; Luk 24:51; Act 1:9.P. S.]

[77][But Christ may have addressed here some of the apostles. Hengstenberg says, the witnesses of the resurrection were the representatives of all the disciples.P. S.]

[78][Aug. Tract, in Joh. 27, 13 (Opera III. 503): Caro non prodest quidquam quomodo illi intellexerunt quomodo in cadavere dilaniatur, aut in macello venditur, non quomodo spiritu vegetaturAccedat spiritus ad carnem, quomodo accedit caritas ad scientiam, et prodest plurimum. Nam si caro nihil prodesset, Verbum caro non fieret, ut inhabitaret in nobis. Similarly Bengel: Caro mera nil prodest: qualem scil. Judi putabant esse carnem illam, de qua loquebatur Jesus. Loquitur sub conditione eaque impossibili, si sola caro essetCaro est vehiculum virtutis divin omnis vivificantis, in Chris to et in credentibus: et Christus, carne mortificatus, spiritu vivificatus, virtutem suam maxime exseruit, 1Pe 3:18; Joh 12:24; Joh 16:7.P. S.]

[79][He and (colampadius regarded Joh 6:63 as a ferreus murus of their doctrine of the Lords Supper; yet Zwingli, like the other reformers, did not directly understand the passage, Joh 6:51-58, of the sacrament.P. S.]

[80][John uses here four times, once; Matthew, Mark and Luke, in the words of institution, use only, (which is employed as the second aorist of from an obsolete ). On the peculiar meaning of , manducare, see note on Joh 6:54. It cannot be essentially different here from , since John uses the latter, Joh 6:53, in the same sense.]

[81][I say perhaps, for Augustine is not clear and is sometimes (e. g., by Meyer) quoted in favor of the first, more frequently in favor of the second interpretation. In his Tract. 26 in Joh. Evang. 15 (ed. Bened. III. 500) he says, in expounding this passage, that the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ is received by some ad vitam, by others ad exitium (1Co 11:29), but he adds: res vero ipsa cujus sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicunque ejus particeps fuerit. Comp. 18 in the same homily (III. 501): Qui non manet in Christo et in quo non manet Christus, procul dubio nee manducat (some MSS. insert here spiritualiter,evidently a Romish correction) carnem ejus, nec bibit ejus sanguinem, licet carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi. In commenting on Joh 6:29 (Tract. 25, 12, Tom. III. 489) he identifies the eating with believing: Crede et manducasti. At all events, Augustine cannot be quoted in favor of either transubstantiation or consubstantiation. Comp. on his doctrine on the eucharist my Church History, Vol. II pp. 498 f.P.S.]

[82][This third view which I have defended myself in the text, was first clearly brought out by that profound, acute and devout commentator, Bengel, in his Gnomon on Joh 6:51, where he says: Jesus purposely framed His words so skilfully that immediately at that time, and at all times subsequently they would indeed apply in their strict literal sense to the spiritual enjoyment of Himself (de spirituali fruitione sui); 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 the thing itself which is set forth in this discourse; and of so great moment is this sacrament, that it may be readily thought possible, that Jesus, as He foretold the treachery of Judas at Joh 6:71, and His own death in this verse, 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 one 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. The same view is substantially held by Olshausen, who says: The Saviour could indeed not with propriety speak of a rite before it was instituted, so that nobody could understand Him; but He might touch the idea, out of which the rite subsequently grew. This idea is that Jesus is the principle of life and nutriment to the new, regenerate man, not only for his soul and spirit, but also for his glorified body (which, according to Olshausen is prepared here in germ to appear in full bloom at the final resurrection). Kahnis (Luth. Dogmatik, Vol. I., p. 625): The discourse of Christ, John 6, does not treat directly of the Lords Supper, but of faith which unites us in living union with Christ. But He purposely veiled this faith in the image of eating and drinking His flesh and blood in order to express the mysterious idea embodied in the Holy Supper, just as Joh 3:5 expresses the idea of baptism. Alford says: 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. Webster and Wilkinson: What our Lord said at this time He afterwards expressed in a permanent form by the sacrament of His Body and Blood. He is not here alluding to that sacrament; but what He here teaches, and what He afterwards taught by it, are the same. Godet (II. p. 135): This mystery of our perfect union with the person of Christ (Eph 5:30-32) which in this discourse is expressed in words (en paroles), is precisely the same which Jesus desired to express by an act (par un acte) in the rite of the holy Supper. It is not necessary to say that in this discourse He alluded to the holy Supper; but we must say that the holy Supper and this discourse refer to one and the same idea, expressed here by a metaphor, there by an emblem. Hence in the institution of the Supper, holding and breaking one piece of bread, He used the term , body, which as an organism corresponds to the broken bread; in the discourse at Capernaum where He treats only of nourishment in adaptation to the miraculous multiplication of loaves of bread, He represents His body more as substance () than as an organism. This perfect propriety of terms proves the originality and authenticity of the two forms.]

[83][Luther, Melancthon and the orthodox Lutherans of the 17th century felt this, and for this reason (not, as Tholuck thinks, from fear of transubstantiation) they repudiated the sacramental interpretation altogether. Luther says: Eating in this passage means believing: he who believeth, eateth, and drinketh Christ. Melanchthon: I do not understand this discourse as referring to the Lords Supper or the ceremonial manducation, but as the words of Christ which preceded above were about faith, whereby we believe that Gods wrath was propitiated by the death of His Son, who offered His body and shed His blood for us,so I understand all the rest of the same faith. This interpretation was sanctioned by the Form of Concord, p. 743. When Calixtus came out in favor of the sacramental interpretation, he was charged with heresy by Calovius of Wittenberg.]

[84][Verkncherte Handwerksseelen.]

[85]Joh 6:66.[ is causal, and expresses, according to Lange and Meyer, the reason, not the time. Alford and Godet combine the temporal and causal meaning. Alford translates: Upon this. Noyes and Conant: From this time.P. S.]

[86]Joh 6:68.[The of the text. rec. is omitted by the best authorities.P. S.]

[87]Joh 6:69.[The text. rec. inserts from Mat 16:16 , which is wanting in the oldest sources, and is omitted by critical editors.The original text is simply, , that thou art the Holy one of God. This, however, is equivalent to Christ or the promised Messiah.P. S.]

[88]Joh 6:69.Codd. B. C.* D. L., etc., Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, read . The Recepta conforms to Mat 16:16. [Cod. Sin. supports the …, which also appears to have been a characteristic phrase with Peter; comp. Act 2:27; Act 2:31; Act 3:14; Act 4:27; Act 4:30.E. D. Y.]

[89]Joh 6:71.The reading is here supported by B. C. G. L. (Lachmann, Tischendorf), against . Also at c. Joh 13:26, by decisive authorities. On the other hand at c. Joh 14:22, after the treasonable decision, Judas himself is distinguished as . This evinces a historical delicacy, which Meyer misses when he proposes to read in all the places on the strength of c. Joh 14:22. [Stier and Theile adopt in this place and in Joh 13:26; while the Cod. Sin. has in the latter case , belonging to , and in our passage , also referring to .E. D. Y.]

[90]Joh 6:71.[The of the text. rec. after is wanting in the best authorities and probably inserted from Mar 14:43.P. S.]

[91][ . The interrogative looks to a negative answer (doch nicht?) comp. Joh 7:31; Joh 21:5; Rom 3:5, etc. and Winers Gr. p. 476. Godet, discarding this rule, wrongly explains: Si vous le voulez, vous pouvez aller.P. S.]

[92][So Bengel: Fidem sequitur cognitio, 2Pe 1:5. Perversi sunt qui cognitionem prius postulant.P. S.]

[93][Meyer justly remarks against Weisse that in the nature of the case a confession that filled the hearts of the apostles, must have been repeated on similar occasions.P. S.]

[94][The interrogation stops with , and what follows is an exclamation of holy sadness. So Meyer and Lange. Alford follows the wrong punctuation of the A. V.P. S.]

[95][So also Alford, and rightly, for Christ had in view the treason of Judas which was inspired by the Evil One. The strong term corresponds to the profound indignation at the hypocrisy of the traitor who covered himself under the confession of Peter.P. S.]

[96][It is more than the mere future (Alford), and yet not quite as strong as intended; it represents the future as an accomplished fact, the germ of which was already in existence at the time, and was detected by the penetrating eye of Christ.P. S.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him (67) Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? (68) Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. (69) And we believe, and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. (70) Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? (71) He spake of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

I beg the Reader to mark well the character of those who are here said to have gone back, and walked no more with Jesus. Not the Apostles. Not a single one whom the Father had given to Christ, and in whose hearts a saving work of God the Holy Ghost had been wrought. None of these are in the least hinted at. But the persons alluded to are the carnal and mere nominal disciples which followed Jesus, some, that they might eat of the loaves and fishes, and some which had hoped that Christ would set himself up as a king, to deliver the nation from the Roman yoke, under which they had long groaned. While these objects were in view, all such were ready to follow Christ. But when Jesus discountenanced all their hopes of a temporal kingdom, and in the stead of this world’s opulence, spake of a cross, and self-denial to all which would follow him, their Hosannahs became soon changed into the cry of Crucify him. Reader! Is it not to be feared, from what we see daily in common life, that such instances are not singular? Is this heavenly preacher in reality better loved, in the present day of much profession, when the exalting wholly of Christ, and levelling to the dust all sinners, are made the sole subjects of his salvation? Do not all modern Pharisees equally revolt at the doctrine of a spiritual life, in Christ, and a complete self-loathing in the consciousness of their own total depravity before God?

I have often paused to admire the very tender, sweet, and gracious words of our Lord, to his few faithful followers, in the question, will ye also go away? Not as if Jesus had the smallest apprehension of the departure of any, who, from the gift of his Father, and the grace-union in himself before all worlds, were secured in the covenant, and made willing in the day of his power. Eph 1:4 ; Joh 6:37-40 ; Psa 110:3 . And, as another blessed Scripture saith, Jesus well knew what was in man. Joh 2:25 and who should betray him. Joh 13:11 . But the words were sweetly expressive of the love and tenderness of the heart of Jesus to his own. It is as if Jesus had said, the departure of all that are gone is just as it should be. They none of them ever had any grace-union with me. Joh 17:9 . But ye are mine.

And I admire the fervent zeal, and love, and attachment of Peter, expressed in the few, but striking words, he uttered on this occasion. And he spake as the mouth of the rest, that is, all but the traitor Judas. For it is plain, that at this time, and for a considerable space after, not one of the faithful Apostles had the smallest suspicion of the infamy of this awful man. And how must they have been struck with the Lord’s answer to Peter: Have not I chosen you twelve? And one of you is a devil! Yes! chosen twelve to an outward office. But not the whole to inward grace. The whole twelve were indeed chosen to be Apostles. Luk 6:13 . But Judas obtained only part, as Peter afterward explained it, of this ministry. Act 1:17 . No part in the book of life. Never chosen in Christ by the Father, before the foundation of the world. Eph 1:4 . The only part of a mere office, without union or communion in grace. Oh! the awfulness of such a state! [See Heb 6:4 and Commentary there.]

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Ver. 66. Many of his disciples ] They stumbled at the word and fell backward. This is reckoned by St Peter a note of a reprobate, 1Pe 2:8 . And indeed few sins are more dangerous than that of picking quarrels at God’s word, taking up weapons against it, and snuffing at it, Mal 1:13 ; replying against it, Rom 9:19-20 ; casting reproaches upon it, Jer 20:8-9 ; enviously swelling at it, Act 13:45 ; gathering odious consequences from it, Rom 3:8 : such are in the ready road to apostasy, and so to perdition, Heb 10:39 .

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

66 71. ] Many of the disciples leave Him. The confession of the Twelve through Peter: and the Lord’s warning to them .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

66. ] upon this . The temporal meaning prevails, but does not exclude the causal .

, viz. of the : but not all.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Joh 6:66 . , “on this”; neither exclusively “from this time” (Euthymius), “from this moment onwards” (Lcke), nor exclusively “on this account,” but a combination of both. Cf. Joh 19:12 . Here the time is in the foreground, as is shown by the following. Lampe has: “Qui ab illo tempore Iesum deserebant, clare indicabant, quod propter hunc sermonem istud fecerint”. . Many of those who had up to this time been following Him and listening to His teaching, returned now to their former ways and no longer accompanied Jesus. [ , , , Euthymius.] occurs Joh 18:6 , Joh 20:14 ; also Mar 13:16 . But the most instructive occurrence is in Psa 44:18 , , where the literal sense passes into the spiritual meaning, apostasy, abandonment of God.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Joh 6:66-71

66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” 70Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” 71Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.

Joh 6:67 “the twelve” This is the first use in John of this collective term for the Apostles (cf. Joh 6:70-71; Joh 20:24). See Special Topic at Joh 6:13.

Joh 6:68 “Simon Peter answered” Peter is the spokesman for the Twelve (cf. Mat 16:16). This is not to imply they saw him as their leader (cf. Mar 9:34; Luk 9:46; Luk 22:24).

“You have the words of eternal life” Christianity is both (1) truth contained in a message, “words of eternal life,” and (2) truth expressed in a person, Jesus. The Gospel, then, is both a message and a person. The term pistis can relate to both (1) a message (cf. Jud 1:3; Jud 1:20) and (2) a person (cf. Joh 1:12; Joh 3:15-16). See special Topic at Joh 2:23.

Joh 6:69 “We have believed and have come to know” These are both perfect active indicatives. Salvation here is in perfect tense which means a past, culminated act has become a settled state of being. True salvation involves all the Greek verb tenses. See Special Topic: Greek Verb Tenses Used for Salvation at Joh 9:7.

NASB, NRSV,

NJB”You are the Holy One of God”

NKJV”You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”

TEV”You are the Holy One who has come from God”

There is a manuscript problem at this point. The shorter text (NASB, NRSV, NJB) is supported by the ancient Greek manuscripts P75, , B, C*, D, L, and W. Later scribes obviously inserted the additional words from Martha’s confession of Joh 11:27 or Peter’s of Mat 16:16. The UBS4 gives the shorter text an “A” rating (certain).

The phrase of “Holy One of God” is an OT Messianic title. It is alluded to in Luk 1:35 and Act 3:14. It is the title by which the demonic addressed Jesus in Mar 1:24; Luk 4:34. See Special Topic: at 1Jn 2:20. This is another confession of faith by the Twelve, similar to Matthew 16.

Joh 6:70 “Did I Myself not choose you” This is another emphasis on the divine election of the disciples (cf. Joh 6:44; Joh 6:65). Notice Jesus’ question of Joh 6:67. Divine election and human volition must remain in a biblical tension. They are two sides of a covenant relationship.

“and yet one of you is a devil” What a startling statement! It does not refer to one of the fringe disciples who turned back (cf. Joh 6:66), but to one of the twelve chosen apostles who claimed faith in Him. Many have linked this to Joh 13:2 or 27. There are several questions related to our understanding of this verse: (1) why did Jesus choose a devil? and (2) what does the term mean in this context?

The first question has to do with predictive prophecy (cf. Joh 17:12; Psa 41:9). Jesus knew what Judas would do. Judas is the ultimate example of the unpardonable sin. He rejected Jesus after hearing, seeing, and being with Him for several years.

The second question has two possible meanings.

1. some relate this to the devil (used with no article for Satan in Act 13:10 and Rev 20:2) entering Judas (cf. Joh 13:2; Joh 13:27)

2. possibly the term is being used generically (no article as in 1Ti 3:11; 2Ti 3:3; and Tit 2:3)

Judas was an accuser in the OT sense, as was Satan (see Special Topic at Joh 12:31). The Greek term implies a slanderer or tale-bearer. The Greek term is a compound, “to throw across.”

Joh 6:71 “Simon Iscariot” There are several theories concerning this word (the word is spelled differently in various Greek manuscripts). It could refer to

1. a man of Kerioth, a city of Judah

2. man of Kartan, a city of Galilee

3. the leather bag used to carry money

4. the Hebrew word for “strangling”

5. the Greek word for assassin’s knife

If #1 is true he was the only Judean in the Twelve. If #5 is true he was a zealot like Simon.

There has recently been written a book that interprets Judas in a positive light. The book is entitled Judas, Betrayer or Friend of Jesus? by William Klassen, Fortress Press, 1996. My problem with it is that it does not take the comments in John’s Gospel seriously.

“betray” This Greek term is widely translated and in most contexts is neutral. However, in connection with Judas handing Jesus over to the authorities, it takes on sinister connotations. See note at Joh 18:2.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

that time = this cause. It is the same cause to this day. back. Greek. eis ta opiso.

walked = walked about.

no more. Compound of ou. App-105.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

66-71.] Many of the disciples leave Him. The confession of the Twelve through Peter: and the Lords warning to them.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Joh 6:66. , many) By this means their number was cleared of the unworthy, and made the more select [and this, in the very place (Capernaum we may suppose) in which He had sojourned previously for the longest time.-Harm., p. 337]. A promiscuous multitude is not of so much consequence as is sincerity. [This was a most severe purification.-V. g.]

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Joh 6:66

Joh 6:66

Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.-Many who were his disciples followed him, learning of him and believing in him, but could not endure the difficulties presented. Their faith was not strong enough to lead them to endure the teaching he presented and turned back from following him.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

of his: Joh 6:60, Joh 8:31, Zep 1:6, Mat 12:40-45, Mat 13:20, Mat 13:21, Mat 19:22, Mat 21:8-11, Mat 27:20-25, Luk 9:62, 2Ti 1:15, 2Ti 4:10, Heb 10:38, 2Pe 2:20-22, 1Jo 2:19

Reciprocal: Lev 11:29 – creeping things that creep Jos 23:12 – go back Rth 1:14 – but Ruth 2Sa 15:15 – Behold 2Sa 15:21 – surely 2Sa 20:2 – the men 2Ki 5:11 – went away 2Ch 10:16 – So all Israel Job 23:12 – Neither Psa 80:18 – So will Isa 8:15 – stumble Isa 43:22 – thou hast been Eze 18:24 – when Mat 11:6 – whosoever Mat 24:10 – shall many Joh 5:35 – and ye Joh 6:41 – murmured Joh 20:24 – was Rom 2:7 – patient

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

6

The disciples who went back were not very much interested in spiritual matters. They were the kind described by Jesus in verse 26.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

THESE verses form a sorrowful conclusion to the famous discourse of Christ which occupies the greater part of the sixth chapter. They supply a melancholy proof of the hardness and corruption of man’s heart. Even when the Son of God was the preacher, many seem to have heard in vain.

Let us mark in this passage what an old sin backsliding is. We read that when our Lord had explained what He meant by “eating and drinking his flesh and blood,”-“From that time many went back and walked no more with him.”

The true grace of God no doubt is an everlasting possession. From this men never fall away entirely, when they have once received it. “The foundation of God standeth sure.” “My sheep shall never perish.” (2Ti 2:19; Joh 10:28.) But there is counterfeit grace and unreal religion in the Church, wherever there is true; and from counterfeit grace thousands may and do fall away. Like the stony ground hearers, in the parable of the sower, many “have no root in themselves, and so in time of temptation fall away.” All is not gold that glitters. All blossoms do not come to fruit. All are not Israel which are called Israel. Men may have feelings, desires, convictions, resolutions, hopes, joys, sorrows in religion, and yet never have the grace of God. They may run well for a season, and bid fair to reach heaven, and yet break down entirely after a time, go back to the world, and end like Demas, Judas Iscariot, and Lot’s wife.

It must never surprise us to see and hear of such cases in our own days. If it happened in our Lord’s time and under our Lord’s teaching, much more may we expect it to happen now. Above all, it must never shake our faith and discourage us in our course. On the contrary, we must make up our minds that there will be backsliders in the Church as long as the world stands. The sneering infidel, who defends his unbelief by pointing at them, must find some better argument than their example. He forgets that there will always be counterfeit coin where there is true money.

Let us mark, secondly, in this passage, the noble declaration of faith which the Apostle Peter made. Our Lord had said to the twelve, when many went back, “Will ye also go away?” At once Peter replied, with characteristic zeal and fervor, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and art sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.”

The confession contained in these words is a very remarkable one. Living in a professedly Christian land, and surrounded by Christian privileges; we can hardly form an adequate idea of its real value. For a humble Jew to say of one whom Scribes, and Pharisees, and Sadducees agreed in rejecting, “Thou hast the words of eternal life; thou art the Christ,” was an act of mighty faith. No wonder that our Lord said, in another place, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” (Mat 16:17.)

But the question with which Peter begins, is just as remarkable as his confession. “To whom shall we go?” said the noble-hearted Apostle. “Whom shall we follow? To what teacher shall we betake ourselves? Where shall we find any guide to heaven to compare with thee? What shall we gain by forsaking thee? What Scribe, what Pharisee, what Sadducee, what Priest, what Rabbi can show us such words of eternal life as thou showest?”

The question is one which every true Christian may boldly ask, when urged and tempted to give up his religion, and go back to the world. It is easy for those who hate religion to pick holes in our conduct, to make objections to our doctrines, to find fault with our practices. It may be hard sometimes to give them any answer. But after all, “To whom shall we go,” if we give up our religion? Where shall we find such peace, and hope, and solid comfort as in serving Christ, however poorly we serve Him? Can we better ourselves by turning our back on Christ, and going back to our old ways? We cannot. Then let us hold on our way and persevere.

Let us mark, lastly, in this passage, what little benefit some men get from religious privileges. We read that our Lord said, “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil.” And it goes on, “He spake of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.”

If ever there was a man who had great privileges and opportunities, that man was Judas Iscariot. A chosen disciple, a constant companion of Christ, a witness of His miracles, a hearer of His sermons, a commissioned preacher of His kingdom, a fellow and friend of Peter, James, and John,-it would be impossible to imagine a more favorable position for a man’s soul. Yet if anyone ever fell hopelessly into hell, and made shipwreck at last for eternity, that man was Judas Iscariot. The character of that man must have been black indeed, of whom our Lord could say he is “a devil.”

Let us settle it firmly in our minds, that the possession of religious privileges alone is not enough to save our souls. It is neither place, nor light, nor company, nor opportunities, but grace that man needs to make him a Christian. With grace we may serve God in the most difficult position,-like Daniel in Babylon, Obadiah in Ahab’s court, and the saints in Nero’s household. Without grace we may live in the full sunshine of Christ’s countenance, and yet, like Judas, be miserably cast away. Then let us never rest till we have grace reigning in our souls. Grace is to be had for the asking. There is One sitting at the right hand of God who has said,-“Ask, and it shall be given you.” (Mat 7:7.) The Lord Jesus is more willing to give grace than man is to seek it. If men have it not, it is because they do not ask it.

==================

Notes-

v66.-[From that time.] It is doubtful whether the Greek words here might not have been better translated, “Upon this,”-“After this conversation.”

[Many of his disciples.] This expression shows that the number of persons who followed our Lord about, and professed themselves His disciples, must have been large.

[Went back.] This is a metaphorical expression, signifying “retreat, desertion, forsaking a position once occupied.” It is the same that is rendered in the account of the Jews coming to take our Lord in the garden, “they went backward, and fell to the ground.” (Joh 18:6.)

[Walked no more with him.] The simplest view of this expression is, that these deserters from our Lord walked no longer in His company as He went about teaching, as they had done, but returned to their own homes. No minister of the Gospel should feel surprised if the same thing happens to him.

Not a few of these very “disciples,” probably, had been forward in wishing to make our Lord a “king,” the day before. Such is popularity, here to-day and gone to-morrow!

v67.-[Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?] We cannot suppose that our Lord asked this, as if He did not know what the Apostles were going to do. We may be sure that He who “knew from the beginning who they were that believed not” (Joh 6:64), knew the hearts of His Apostles. The question was evidently asked to prove His chosen followers, and to draw forth from them an expression of feeling. (See Joh 6:6.)

The word “will” here, would be more accurately rendered, “Do you wish?” “Have you a will?”

We should note that this is the first time John speaks of “the twelve.” We know from the other Gospels, that “the twelve” were employed in distributing the loaves and fishes to the five thousand. (Luk 9:12, Luk 9:17.)

v68.-[Then Simon Peter answered him.] The fervour and impetuosity of Peter’s character come out here, as in other places in the Gospels. He is the first to speak, and to speak for his brethren as well as himself. Only the night before this very scene, he had been the first, in the storm on the lake, to say, “Lord, if it be thou, bid me to come unto thee on the water.” (Mat 14:28.) And here, in like manner, he is the first to profess loudly his determination not to go away, and his faith in Christ.

[To whom shall we go?] This question is a strong burst of feeling. “To what teacher, to what master, to what leader shall we go, if we leave thee? Where are we to find any one like thee? What could we gain by leaving thee?” The question was one which might well be asked, when we remember the state of the Jewish nation, and the universal prevalence of Pharisaism or Sadduceeism. But this is not all. It may always be asked by true Christian men, when tempted to give up Christ’s service. True Christianity undoubtedly has its cross. It entails trial and persecution. But to whom shall we go, if we give up Christ? Will Infidelity, Deism, Socinianism, Romanism, Formalism, Rationalism, or Worldliness give us anything better? There is but one answer! They cannot.

[Thou hast the words of eternal life.] This would be more literally rendered, “thou hast words of eternal life.” “Thou possessest instruction about everlasting life, such as we can hear nowhere else, and such as we find soul-comforting and edifying. The sayings that fall continually from thy lips, about eternal life, are such as we cannot leave.” Our Lord’s expression should be remembered, “I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me.” (Joh 17:8.)

v69.-[And we believe and are sure.] This would be more literally rendered, “we have believed and have known.” Moreover, the “we” is emphatic.-“Whatever others may please to think, however many may go away and forsake thee, after following thee for a little, it is not so with us. We have believed and known, and do believe and know.”

[Thou art that Christ, the son of the living God.] This might equally well have been rendered, “Thou art the Christ.” The sentence is a noble confession, when we remember the time in which it was made, and the universal unbelief of the leaders of the Jewish nation. We may remember, that it is precisely the same confession that is recorded to have been made by Peter, after our Lord said to him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” (Mat 16:17.)

We must not, however, misunderstand the extent of Peter’s confession. He declared his faith that our Lord was the Anointed Messiah, the Son of the living God. The Messiahship and divinity of Christ, were the points on which he and the other apostles laid firm hold. But the sacrifice and death of Christ, and His substitution for us on the cross, were not things which he either saw or understood at present. (See Mat 16:22-23.)

(a.) We should notice, that a man’s heart may be right towards God, while he remains very ignorant of some great doctrines of the Christian faith. It certainly was so with Peter and the apostles, at this time.

(b.) We should also notice, that there is nothing man is so backward to see, as the sacrifice of the death of Christ, the substitution, and the atonement. It is possible to be right about Christ’s divinity and Messiahship, and yet be in the dark about His death.

(c.) We should notice how ignorant Christians often are of the state of others’ souls. Peter never suspected any one of the twelve to be a false apostle. It is a fearful proof that Judas must have been, in all outward demeanour and profession, just like the rest of the apostles.

v70.-[Have not I chosen you twelve?] I do not think that the “choosing” here spoken of, means anything more than selection for office. The word is evidently used in this simple sense, in Luk 6:13,-“Of them he chose twelve, whom he called apostles;” Act 6:5,-“They chose Stephen, a man full of faith;” Act 15:22,-“It pleased the apostles,-to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch.” I say confidently, that in each one of these cases, the Greek word rendered “chosen,” the very same word that is used here, can mean nothing more than “chosen or selected for an office.” This I believe, with Poole, Henry, and Hutcheson, is the meaning here.

I disagree with Alford’s remark, that “the selection of the twelve, was the consequence of the giving of them to Him by the Father,” and that Christ’s “selecting, and the Father’s giving, and the Father’s giving and drawing, do not exclude final falling away.”-This remark is built on the gratuitous assumption, that Christ’s “choosing” here spoken of is the same as that “choosing unto salvation,” which is the special privilege of believers. Of that “choosing unto salvation,” our Lord speaks in another place, where He carefully draws the distinction between the true disciples and the false:-“I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen.” (Joh 13:18.) Of that choosing unto salvation, Judas was not a partaker. Of the other choosing unto office, as in the verse before us, undoubtedly he was a partaker.

Burgon, and many others, agree with Alford, and dwell on the expression before us, as an apparent proof, that men “chosen to salvation” may fall away. But their reasoning appears to me inconclusive.

Even Quesnel, the Romanist commentator, remarks, “The being duly called to the ecclesiastical office is not sufficient, if a man live not suitably to that holy vocation.” Toletus, the Spanish Jesuit, says much the same.

[One of you is a devil.] This is a singularly strong expression, and gives an awfully vivid impression of the wickedness of Judas. Of course, he was not literally and really “a devil,” but a man. The meaning is, “one out of your number is so completely under the influence of the devil, such a servant of the devil, that he deserves to be called nothing less than a devil.” Our Lord, in another place, says of the wicked Jews, “Ye are of your father, the devil.” (Joh 8:44.) So Paul says to Elymas, “Thou child of the devil.” (Act 13:10.) When we read at a later period, “The devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, to betray him” (Joh 13:2), it must mean the final working out of a wicked purpose, which, under the influence of the devil, Judas had long had in his heart.

Let us note, that even now, Judas is called “a devil,” long before our Lord’s betrayal and crucifixion. This helps to show that he never was a faithful disciple, even from the first.

Let us note, that the only other expression of our Lord’s, which at all approaches the one before us in strength is the one which, on another occasion, our Lord applies to His zealous apostle Peter,-“Get thee behind me, Satan.” (Mat 16:23.) While we condemn the wickedness of Judas, let us not forget that even a true-hearted apostle may so far err and be mistaken, that he needs to be sharply rebuked and called “Satan.” A thoroughly bad man is “a devil;” but even a good man may need to be called “Satan”!

Rollock observes, that Jesus never used so strong an expression about His open enemies who went about to slay Him. It was a hypocrite and a false apostle, whom he called “a devil.” Nothing is so wicked as false profession.

v71.-[He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon.] The word “Iscariot,” according to some, means “a man of Kerioth.” Kerioth was a town of Judah. (Jos 15:25.)-According to others, it means “a man of lssachar.”-According to Lampe, and others, it is a Syriac word, meaning “the bearer of the purse.”-We are told that “He had the bag.” (Joh 13:29.)

It is remarkable, that John, four times in his Gospel, calls Judas “the son of Simon.” We do not exactly know why, unless it is that Simon was a person well-known by name, or that John wished to make it quite clear, that Judas Iscariot was not Jude, the faithful apostle and cousin of Christ, by naming his father. There is no proof whatever, that Judas was the son of “Simon the Canaanite,” the apostle; though it is somewhat curious, that in the list of apostles given by Matthew and Mark, Simon and Judas Iscariot are named in close juxta-position. (Mat 10:4; Mar 3:18-19.)

[He it was that should betray him.] This would be more literally rendered, “He was about to betray Him.” The expression seems to imply, that to betray such a master as Christ, was so eminently a work of the devil, that the betrayer ought to be spoken of as “a devil.”

The frequency of our Lord’s warnings and hints, addressed to Judas Iscariot, is very remarkable. Rollock observes, what an awful proof it is of the hardness of the heart, that a man so warned should not be conscience-stricken and repent.

Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

Joh 6:66. Upon this many of his disciples went beck, and walked no longer with him. Another sad reflection, as in Joh 6:64 : the Evangelist cannot but record the repelling influence which the light exerted on those who were not of the light. These disciples seemed to have left all that they might be followers of Christ, but now they return to the homes and the occupations they had forsaken. (The usual rendering walked no more is in itself perfectly correct, but may be possibly understood in the sense of never more, a sense certainly not designed.)

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Joh 6:66-69. From that time many of his disciples went back This discourse of our Lord was, in all its different branches, so offensive to many, who till now had followed him, and professed to be his disciples, that, from this time, they ceased to attend on or hear him. So that he now began to purge his floor: the proud and careless were driven away, and those only remained who were meet for the Masters use. Then said Jesus unto the twelve Jesus, perceiving this defection to be very general, asked the twelve if they were going to leave him with the rest. Then Peter With his usual zeal; answered, Lord If we were really disposed to quit thee; to whom shall we go? Or, what advantage could we expect by it? Thou hast the words of eternal life Thou, and thou alone, speakest the words which show the way to life everlasting; and hast even now been directing us therein; and God forbid that any other hopes and views should ever be preferred by us to these! And However others may be governed by their carnal prejudices, and a deluded multitude may treat thee with contempt; we firmly believe, and assuredly know, on the most convincing evidence, that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God On which persuasion we are determined to cleave to thee, to continue to learn of thee as thy disciples, to confide in thee for salvation, present and eternal, and to hazard all in thy service. So that Peters implicit faith in our Lords doctrine was founded, as it was right it should be, on his faith in him as the Messiah, the Son of God.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

Vv. 66-71.

1. The design of the discourse of this sixth chapter, so far as the apostles were concerned, was undoubtedly to strengthen their faith by calling their thoughts to the mystery of the union of the soul with Christ. We have in this chapter the two kinds of evidence, that of the works and that of the words. The dependence of the latter on the former, and the higher character of the latter, are strikingly exhibited here. In this regard the chapter is a central one of this Gospel.

2. The evangelist gives in Joh 6:68-69 a new declaration of the apostles’ faith. Peter and his associates did not fully understand the words of Jesus, but, in connection with the growth of their love and faith in the progress of their life with Him until now, they found in them no hard saying, as the others did, but only a new utterance of truth which was to be received and studied in the time to come. They believed that He was the Holy One of God, and that He had the words of eternal life, and so, in the presence of these profound thoughts and sayings, they were ready to listen and wait for greater light. It cannot be supposed that, at the time of the first miracle at Cana, their minds could have opened at all to such sayings. There had been a steady and continuous development since then.

3. As related to the evidence for the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (Joh 20:31), this chapter carries the reader’s thought into the region of His life-giving power the inward union of His life with that of the believer as essential to the eternal life of the soulmore fully than the chapters which precede. There is no mere repetition of what goes before, but a suggestion of a new thought, and of a thought which belongs here in the natural order of the growth of the apostles’ own inner life and of the proof of the truth for other minds. The Holy One of God as the source of eternal lifethe words of Peter’s confessioncontain the thought of the discourse and the belief of the Twelve as it was now moving forward.

4. The explanation of the difficulties connected with the choice of Judas is to be found in the fact that Jesus acted in accordance with the providential plan of the world’s life. We carry back the difficulty thus to the region of the Divine counsels, and there it is only to be placed with the mysteries of other human lives. The case of Judas was a remarkable one, because of the conspicuous position which his betrayal of Jesus gave him. But the wonder of all living, as related to moral discipline, losses and victories, is beyond the limit of our earthly vision.

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

6:66 {15} From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

(15) Such is the malice of men, that they bring about their own destruction, even in hearing the very doctrine of salvation, but there are a few who believe through the singular gift of God.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The response of the Twelve 6:66-71

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

Jesus lost many of His followers because of the Bread of Life discourse (cf. Joh 6:60). His explanation to them following the discourse did not change their minds. He had made no concessions. They had understood Him correctly the first time. The Greek phrase ek toutou can mean "from this time" or "for this reason." Both meanings fit here.

In this passage we see four responses to Jesus: seeking (Joh 6:22-40), murmuring (Joh 6:41-51), striving (Joh 6:52-59), and departing (Joh 6:60-71). [Note: Wiersbe, p. 311.]

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



Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles