1‐13. *Christ crosses with His disciples to the eastern shore of
the sea of Galilee, where He miraculously feeds a multitude with
five loaves and two fishes.*
14‐15. *The multitude, moved by the miracle, wish to make Him
King, but He withdraws.*
16‐21. *On the night of that same day, as the disciples are
crossing to the western side of the lake, a storm rises, and He
comes to them, walking upon the waters.*
22‐25. *The following day the multitude also cross to the western
side of the lake, enter Capharnaum, and find Him there before
them.*
26‐59. *Christ’s discourse to the multitude, in which He promises
the Blessed Eucharist.*
60. *The place where the discourse was delivered.*
61‐67. *Effect of the discourse—murmuring of many of the
disciples; His explanation, and their departure from Him.*
68‐70. *St. Peter’s noble confession in reply to a question of
Christ.*
71‐72. *Christ refers to the wickedness of one of the Apostles,
and the Evangelist states to whom He refers.*
1. Post haec abiit Iesus trans 1. After these things, Jesus
mare Galilaeae, quod est went over the sea of Galilee,
Tiberiadis: which is that of Tiberias:
1. The interval to be admitted between what is recorded in this chapter
and in the preceding depends upon the view we adopt as to what feast is
referred to in the first verse of the preceding. If that was the Feast of
Pasch, almost a year has elapsed, for we are told here, in verse 4, that
the pasch is again at hand. If that was the Feast of Lots, and this the
Pasch following, then the interval to be admitted is much less, only a
month. Those who, like us, admit the longer interval say that St. John
here passes over the events of that year, because they were already
related by the Synoptic Evangelists.
In the last chapter we left Jesus at Jerusalem in Judea, the southern
province of Palestine, and now, soon after the death of the Baptist (Matt.
xiv. 3, Mark vi. 17, Luke iii. 20) and the return of the Apostles from
their first mission (Mark vi. 30; Luke ix. 10), we find Him in the
northern province, by the shores of the Sea of Galilee. This sea or lake
(the Jews called every large body of water a sea), which lay to the east
of the province of Galilee, was called also the Sea of Tiberias, because
of the town built by Herod Antipas, on its western shore, and named after
the Roman Emperor Tiberius. It was also called sometimes the Lake of
Gennesareth, from the fertile plain of that name on its N.W. shore. It is
almost heart‐shaped, with the narrow end towards the south, and its extent
at present is 12‐½ miles from north to south, by 8 miles at its widest
part east to west. (Smith’s _B. D._, 2nd Ed.)
2. Et sequebatur eum multitudo 2. And a great multitude
magna, quia videbant signa followed him, because they saw
quae faciebat super his qui the miracles which he did on
infirmabantur. them that were diseased.
2. Jesus, accompanied by His disciples, having crossed the lake, a great
multitude follows Him. Comparing the Synoptic Evangelists (Matt. xiv. 13,
and foll.; Mark vi. 32, and foll.; Luke ix. 10, and foll.), we find that
the desert near Bethsaida (Julias) on the north‐eastern side of the lake
was the place to which Jesus repaired (Luke); that the multitude followed
by land (πέζη = on foot, Matt., Mark); that they arrived before Him
(Mark), and that He taught them for a considerable time.
3. Subiit ergo in montem 3. Jesus went therefore up
Iesus: et ibi sedebat cum into a mountain, and there he
discipulis suis. sat with his disciples.
3. *Jesus therefore went up into a mountain* (Gr., _the_ mountain);
_i.e._, the well‐known mountain range on that side of the lake. See too in
verse 15.
4. Erat autem proximum pascha, 4. Now the Pasch, the festival
dies festus Iudaeorum. day of the Jews, was near at
hand.
4. In the view we follow this was the third Pasch of our Lord’s public
life.
5. Cum sublevasset ergo oculos 5. When Jesus therefore had
Iesus, et vidisset quia lifted up his eyes, and seen
multitudo maxima venit ad eum, that a very great multitude
dixit ad Philippum: Unde cometh to him, he said to
ememus panes, ut manducent hi? Philip: Whence shall we buy
bread that these may eat?
5. In the Synoptic Evangelists the disciples are represented as asking our
Lord to dismiss the multitude, that they may go and procure food. We may
reconcile with St. John’s account thus. They make a suggestion, as in the
Synoptic Evangelists. He then turns to Philip, as in St. John.
6. Hoc autem dicebat tentans 6. And this he said to try
eum: ipse enim sciebat quid him: for he himself knew what
esset facturus. he would do.
6. *To try him.* “One kind of temptation leads to sin, with which God
never tempts anyone; and there is another kind by which faith is tried. In
this sense it is said that Christ proved His disciples. This is not meant
to imply that He did not know what Philip would say, but is an
accommodation to man’s way of speaking. For as the expression: _Who
searcheth the hearts of men_, does not mean the searching of ignorance,
but of absolute knowledge; so here, when it is said that our Lord proved
Philip, we must understand that He knew him perfectly, but that He tried
him in order to confirm his faith. The Evangelist himself guards against
the mistake which this imperfect mode of speaking might occasion, by
adding _For He Himself knew what He would do_” (St. Aug.).
7. Respondit ei Philippus: 7. Philip answered him: Two
Ducentorum denariorum panes hundred pennyworth of bread is
non sufficiunt eis, ut not sufficient for them, that
unusquisque modicum quid every one may take a little.
accipiat.
7. The denarius was a Roman silver coin, whose value differed at different
times. From the year 217 B.C. till the reign of Augustus (30 B.C. to 14
A.D.) it was worth 8‐½_d._; afterwards, and, therefore, in the time of
Christ, it was worth about 7‐½_d._ See Smith’s _Lat. Dict. Calendarium_,
Tables viii. and ix. Two hundred denarii, then would be equal to about £6
5_s._, and yet what bread this would purchase would not suffice to give
even a little to each, so great was the multitude.
8. Dicit ei unus ex discipulis 8. One of his disciples,
eius, Andreas frater Simonis Andrew, the brother of Simon
Petri. Peter, saith to him:
9. Est puer unus hic, qui 9. There is a boy here that
habet quinque panes hath five barley loaves and
hordeaceos, et duos pisces: two fishes: but what are these
sed haec quid sunt inter among so many?
tantos?
10. Dixit ergo Iesus: Facite 10. Then Jesus said: Make the
homines discumbere. Erat autem men sit down. Now there was
foenum multum in loco. much grass in the place. The
Discubuerunt ergo viri, numero men therefore sat down in
quasi quinque millia. number about five thousand.
10. Christ tells the disciples to bid the multitude be seated “on the
green grass” (Mark vi. 39); and about 5,000 men (“not reckoning women and
children,” Matt. xiv. 21) sat down in companies “by hundreds and by
fifties” (Mark vi. 40).
11. Accepit ergo Iesus panes: 11. And Jesus took the loaves:
et cum gratias egisset, and when he had given thanks,
distribuit discumbentibus: he distributed to them that
similiter et ex piscibus were set down. In like manner
quantum volebant. also of the fishes as much as
they would.
11. Having returned thanks for all the benefits of God, and particularly
for that which He was now about to bestow, Christ took and blessed the
loaves and fishes, and through His disciples distributed them to the
multitude (Matt., Mark, Luke). It is not said at what precise time the
loaves were multiplied or enlarged, whether in the hands of Christ, or of
the disciples. It may be, as Mald. supposes, that the increase began in
our Lord’s hands, and continued as far as necessary during the
distribution by the disciples. That it at least began in our Lord’s hands,
we think extremely probable, for thus He was more clearly shown to be the
author of the miracle.
12. Ut autem impleti sunt, 12. And when they were filled,
dixit discipulis suis: he said to his disciples:
Colligite quae superaverunt Gather up the fragments that
fragmenta, ne pereant. remain, lest they be lost.
12. The disciples are told to gather up the fragments—(1) to teach us not
to neglect the gifts of God; (2) that the fragments might serve as a proof
and a memorial of the miracle which had been wrought.
13. Collegerunt ergo, et 13. They gathered up
impleverunt duodecim cophinos therefore, and filled twelve
fragmentorum ex quinque baskets with the fragments of
panibus hordeaceis, quae the five barley loaves, which
superfuerunt his qui remained over and above to
manducaverant. them that had eaten.
13. “Observe how the four Evangelists use the word κοφίνους, _baskets_, in
narrating this miracle, thus distinguishing it from a like one recorded
elsewhere by Matthew and Mark, in which there were seven loaves, and 4,000
men, and seven _panniers_ (σπυρίδας) of fragments. It is difficult perhaps
to point out distinctly how σπυρίς differed from κόφινος, but certain it
is that they did differ, else they would never have been so nicely
discriminated by the sacred writers in every instance” (M’Carthy: Gosp. of
the Sundays, fourth Sunday of Lent).(54)
14. Illi ergo homines cum 14. Now these men, when they
vidissent quod Iesus fecerat had seen what a miracle Jesus
signum, dicebant: Quia hic est had done, said: This is of a
vere propheta, qui venturus truth the prophet that is to
est in mundum. come into the world.
14. *The prophet*, the Messiah, for whom their fathers and they had
yearned so long (Luke vii. 19).
15. Iesus ergo cum 15. Jesus therefore when he
cognovisset, quia venturi knew that they would come to
essent ut raperent eum, et take him by force and make him
facerent eum regem, fugit king, fled again into the
iterum in montem ipse solus. mountain himself alone.
15. Jesus, knowing their thoughts and intentions, withdrew to _the_
mountain, where He had already been earlier in the day (verse 3). And He
withdrew all alone, a circumstance which makes it extremely probable that
He rendered Himself invisible, else some of the crowd would have followed.
It may seem strange at first sight, how differently Christ treats the
Jews, on their recognising Him as the Messias, from the way He treated the
Samaritans in similar circumstances (iv. 42, 43). And yet His action in
the two cases is intelligible enough. The Jews looked for a Messias who
would improve their external condition, free them from subjection to any
foreign power, and set them up as a powerful nation. But the Samaritans
could have, and had, no such hope from the advent of a Jewish Messias.
With the Jews, as we see in the present instance, the intention was to
declare the Messias their King, and thus to throw off their allegiance to
Rome. The consequence, of course, would have been great political
excitement and rebellion, ending, doubtless, in the triumph of the Roman
arms. But no matter what the success of such a rebellion, it would have
prejudiced the Roman world against the teachings of Christ, and rendered
more difficult the recognition of the spiritual character of Christ’s
kingdom.
16. Ut autem sero factum est 16. And when evening was come,
descenderunt discipuli eius ad his disciples went down to the
mare. sea.
17. Et cum ascendissent navim, 17. And when they had gone up
venerunt trans mare in into a ship, they went over
Capharnaum: et tenebrae iam the sea to Capharnaum: and it
factae erant: et non venerat was now dark, and Jesus was
ad eos Iesus. not come unto them.
17. *They went over the sea.* Rather, *they were going*. From St. Matthew
we learn that Christ had told the disciples immediately after the miracle,
to go before Him across the lake, whilst He dismissed the crowd. St. Mark
adds that they were told to cross to Bethsaida; _i.e._, to the town of
this name, which was near Capharnaum. See above, i. 44. The direction of
the wind or some other motive may have induced them to go towards
Capharnaum, as St. John here tells us they did.
18. Mare autem, vento magno 18. And the sea arose by
flante, exurgebat. reason of a great wind that
blew.
19. Cum remigassent ergo quasi 19. When they had rowed
stadia viginti quinque aut therefore about five and
triginta, vident Iesum twenty or thirty furlongs,
ambulantem supra mare, et they see Jesus walking upon
proximum navi fieri, et the sea, and drawing nigh to
timuerunt. the ship, and they were
afraid.
19. The stadium, a Greek measure, was nearly equal to an English furlong,
so that the distance here indicated was, at the least, almost three miles.
The exact length of the stadium was 625 feet, that of the English furlong
is 660 feet.
20. Ille autem dicit eis: Ego 20. But he saith to them: It
sum, nolite timere. is I: be not afraid.
21. Voluerunt ergo accipere 21. They were willing
eum in navim: et statim navis therefore to take him into the
fuit ad terram, in quam ibant. ship: and presently the ship
was at the land, to which they
were going.
21. *They were willing therefore to take him into the ship.* ἤθελον here
is equivalent to an adverb (Kuin.), and the sense is: “They gladly took
Him into the ship” (boat), as St. Mark indeed tells us they did (Mark vi.
51). Or, if, with Winer, _Gr. Gram._, p. 586, it be admitted that θέλω
never has an adverbial force, except in the participle, then we would
explain that though at first afraid (verse 19), they were afterwards
willing to take Him into the ship, and took Him in.
22. Altera die, turba quae 22. The next day, the
stabat trans mare, vidit quia multitude that stood on the
navicula alia non erat ibi other side of the sea, saw
nisi una, et quia non that there was no other ship
introisset cum discipulis suis there but one, and that Jesus
Iesus in navim, sed soli had not entered into the ship
discipuli eius abiissent: with his disciples, but that
his disciples were gone away
alone.
23. Aliae vero supervenerunt 23. But other ships came in
naves a Tiberiade, iuxta locum from Tiberias, nigh unto the
ubi manducaverant panem, place where they had eaten the
gratias agente Domino. bread, the Lord giving thanks.
24. Cum ergo vidisset turba 24. When therefore the
quia Iesus non esset ibi, multitude saw that Jesus was
neque discipuli eius, not there, nor his disciples,
ascenderunt in naviculas, et they took shipping, and came
venerunt Capharnaum quaerentes to Capharnaum seeking for
Iesum. Jesus.
22‐24. On the following day, the crowd on the eastern shore seek for Jesus
(verse 24), thinking Him to be still on that side of the lake, inasmuch as
He had not left by the only boat that was there on the preceding evening
(verse 22). Not finding Him, they take boats which had just arrived on the
eastern shore, and cross to the western shore to seek Jesus in Capharnaum,
where He usually abode at this time.
25. Et cum invenissent eum 25. And when they had found
trans mare, dixerunt ei: him on the other side of the
Rabbi, quando huc venisti? sea, they said to him: Rabbi,
when camest thou hither?
25. When they found Jesus, they asked Him when He had come to Capharnaum,
being equally anxious, no doubt, to know _how_ He had come.
26. Respondit eis Iesus, et 26. Jesus answered them and
dixit: Amen, amen dico vobis: said: Amen, amen, I say to
quaeritis me, non quia you, you seek me, not because
vidistis signa, sed quia you have seen miracles, but
manducastis ex panibus, et because you did eat of the
saturati estis. loaves, and were filled.
26. Without answering their question, our Lord takes occasion from the
miracle of the preceding day to raise their thoughts to a higher and more
precious bread than that which He had miraculously given them. But first
He tells them that they followed Him, not because they had realized the
spiritual significance of His miracles, and believed Him to be God, but
merely, He implies, because they hoped for a gross material satisfaction,
such as they had experienced the preceding day. The Greek word, rendered:
_and were filled_, means literally; were satisfied with food, as animals
with fodder.
Having thus made known to them, that He knew their motive in following
Him, He goes on to tell them to labour not, that is to say, not so much,
for the food that perisheth as for that which endureth unto eternal life.
This food enduring unto eternal life (verse 27) we understand to be the
Blessed Eucharist.
But before giving our reasons for holding that reference to the Blessed
Eucharist begins here, and not merely at verses 48, 51, or 52, it is
desirable to indicate the Protestant interpretations of this discourse of
our Lord, and prove that they are untenable.
Most Protestants deny that there is any reference to the Blessed Eucharist
in this chapter; they hold that it refers merely to the reception of
Christ through faith; and through faith especially in the atoning efficacy
of His passion and death. It is of this faith in His passion that they
interpret the words: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and
drink His blood, you shall not have life in you,” (verse 54). Indeed they
are logically constrained either to deny that there is reference here to
the sacrament of the Eucharist, or else to abandon their teaching
regarding the nature and efficacy of the sacraments. On the one hand, if
they admit reference to the Eucharist, they see the difficulty of denying
the real and substantial presence of Christ in the sacrament; on the other
hand, holding, as they do, that the few sacraments which they retain,(55)
are not _causes_ of grace, as the Catholic Church teaches, but merely
signs or pledges of grace, and external notes of the Church, they find
themselves in direct conflict with our Lord, if His words are to be
understood of the sacrament of the Eucharist. For again and again
throughout this discourse He attributes salvation and grace to the eating
of His flesh and the drinking of His blood, in such a way as to leave no
room for doubt that whatever it is He speaks of, whether faith or the
sacrament of the Eucharist, it is the cause of grace. See, _e.g._, 27, 52,
55, 57, 59.
But besides those who deny that there is any reference to the Blessed
Eucharist in this chapter, there is a considerable number of Protestants
who take up even a more indefensible position. These admit the reference,
but contend that nothing more can be concluded from this or any other part
of Scripture than that Christ is _spiritually_ present in the Sacrament.
They will not admit that Christ is really and substantially present, much
less that the sacrament causes grace. Against the first class we shall
show that Christ refers, in this discourse, to the Blessed Eucharist; and
against the second, that His words prove that He is really and
substantially received in the sacrament.
I. CHRIST REFERS IN THIS DISCOURSE TO THE BLESSED EUCHARIST.(56)
We may premise that no more appropriate occasion could have been chosen by
Christ for promising this heavenly bread than the day following that on
which He had multiplied the bread in the desert; and we know that it was
Christ’s practice to explain His doctrines as they were suggested by
circumstances. Thus, after curing the _centurion’s_ servant, He foretells
the vocation of the _Gentiles_ (Matt. viii. 6‐13); after expelling the
unclean spirit, He describes the power of Satan (Matt. xii. 22‐45); after
asking for water, He speaks of the water of life to the Samaritan woman
(John iv. 10, and foll.); after healing the paralytic, He predicts the
general resurrection (John v. 28); and after curing the man born blind, He
denounces the blindness of the Pharisees (John ix. 41). It was quite in
accordance with Christ’s practice, then, to predict the Blessed Eucharist
on the present occasion: and that He did so is proved by the following
arguments:—
(1) If St. John did not mean to record here a reference to the Blessed
Eucharist, then he does not mention that sacrament at all, for he does not
allude, unless perhaps very obscurely (xiii. 1) to its institution. But it
is very improbable that our Evangelist omits all mention of this sacrament
in his Gospel. For if, as we shall prove, this sacrament contains the body
and blood of Christ, there was a reason why St. John should mention it in
order to confirm the faithful against the Docetae who denied the reality
of Christ’s human nature. Nor does it at all weaken this argument to say
that the Docetae who denied the reality of the body in which Christ had
walked and talked, would not be likely to be convinced by a reference to
His body present in the Eucharist. For St. John wrote, not to convert
heretics, but to confirm against heresy Christians who believed in the
real presence.
(2) Christ’s words (27, 52) can refer only to the Eucharist. For He speaks
of a food which was still to be given _in the future_, whereas His
_doctrines_, and His _Person_ as the object of faith, had been given
already.
(3) His words: “Amen, amen, I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of
the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you”
(verse 54), could be understood only in a literal sense, and so
understood, they must refer to the Blessed Eucharist. For, if Christ had
spoken in a figurative sense, it should be in that figurative sense which
was known and recognised among the Jews. Now, the recognised figurative
sense of eating a man’s flesh was to do him some serious injury,
especially by calumny.(57) Such a figurative sense, however, would be
absurd here; and hence Christ must have been understood, and must have
spoken, in the literal sense. See Wiseman’s _Lect. on the Euch._, pp.
77‐91.
(4) The disciples understood our Lord to speak of a real eating of His
flesh and blood, such as takes place only in the Eucharist, and understood
Him correctly. Their words (verse 61), and their departure for ever from
Him (verse 67), show that they understood Him of a real eating; otherwise
why should they be offended or desert Him? What had He said that was new,
or hard to take in, if He merely spoke of the necessity of faith in
Himself or His doctrines? Their action, then, shows in what sense the
disciples understood Him; and His action in permitting them to depart,
shows they understood Him correctly.
(5) The Jews understood Him of a real eating, which was quite different
from belief in His doctrines or in Himself, and which has no meaning
unless in reference to the Eucharist. “_How_ can this man give us _His
flesh_ to eat?” they said (verse 53); and His solemn asseveration,
negatively (verse 54), and positively (verse 55), shows that He is
inculcating the very truth which they had questioned, and which they were
bound to accept on His testimony, even though they could not see _how_ it
was to come to pass.
II. CHRIST SPEAKS OF A REAL, ORAL RECEPTION OF HIS BODY AND BLOOD, AND NOT
MERELY OF A SPIRITUAL RECEPTION THROUGH FAITH EXCITED BY THE SACRAMENT.
(1) The manna with which Christ compares the bread that He will give
(verses 49, 50, 59) was really eaten; therefore, also the bread, which is
His flesh (verse 52), is to be _really_ received.
(2) After the Jews had murmured, Christ declared His flesh to be _truly_
meat, and His blood to be _truly_ drink (verse 56), and therefore it must
be truly and really received.
(3) In any sense other than the literal, Christ’s meaning would be
obscure, and His words misleading; and our Evangelist, according to his
ordinary practice (i. 41, 42; ii. 21; iv. 2; xii. 33), would explain. But
he does not explain; therefore the language is not obscure, and therefore
the literal sense was meant.
(4) See arguments (3), (4), and (5) for the preceding proposition.
And now, having satisfied ourselves that there is reference to the Blessed
Eucharist in this chapter, and to a real, oral reception of Christ in the
sacrament, let us try to decide where that reference begins. Some (as
Wiseman, _Lect. on Euch._, p. 51, and foll.) say at verse 48; others, at
51; and others, at 52. But it seems much more probable that the reference
begins before any of these points; and Wiseman is certainly mistaken when
he states, on page 48: “That Protestants and Catholics are equally agreed
that the discourse, as far as the 48th or 51st verse refers entirely to
believing Christ. St. Cyril of Alex., Theophy., Toletus, Lucas of Bruges,
had held, before Wiseman’s time, that the reference to the Blessed
Eucharist begins in verse 27”; and since his time, Beelen, Perrone,
Corluy, Franzelin,(58) and others have held the same.
The most probable view seems to be that from verse 27, wherever there is
question of the bread (verses 27, 32, 33, 35, ... 59), the Blessed
Eucharist is meant. Christ began in verse 27 to promise the Blessed
Eucharist, but the Jews interrupted Him (verse 28), and their interruption
raised the question of faith in Him, so that He digressed for a time from
His main purpose to explain the necessity of faith, in order to ensure a
fruitful reception of the Eucharist. But though we admit this digression,
we hold that wherever Christ refers to the bread to be given, He means the
Blessed Eucharist, and that the reference to it begins in verse 27. For—
(1) In verse 27 He speaks of a food that was still _to be given in the
future_, just as in verse 52, where all Catholics admit there is question
of the Eucharist.
(2) This food was to be given by the Son of Man, Christ Himself; and
though in verse 32 the Father is said to give it, this is naturally
explained by saying that the Father gives us in the Incarnation what
Christ gives in a sacramental form in the Eucharist.
(3) The food in verse 27, is a food for which, as we shall see, faith is a
_preparation_; therefore, not itself faith.
(4) In verses 32, 33, there is question of a bread that cometh down from
heaven, and giveth life to the world, and in verse 59, of a bread to which
the very same properties are attributed; and in both cases this heaven‐
descended, life‐giving bread is contrasted with the manna. Is it not
natural, then, to conclude, remembering that both passages belong to the
same discourse, that the same bread is meant in both instances?
And now we have seen—(1) that there is reference to the Blessed Eucharist
in this discourse; (2) to a real reception of Christ in it; and (3) that
the reference most probably begins in verse 27. Having got so far, it will
not be very difficult to interpret the discourse, and to this we proceed
at once.
27. Operamini non cibum qui 27. Labour not for the meat
perit, sed qui permanet in which perisheth, but for that
vitam aeternam, quem Filius which endureth unto life
hominis dabit vobis. Hunc enim everlasting, which the son of
Pater signavit Deus. man will give you. For him
hath God, the Father, sealed.
27. *Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that ** which
endureth unto life everlasting.* As our Version indicates, the meat is the
object for the attainment of which they are exhorted to do their part. The
meaning cannot be that they are to _make_ the food by believing, as if the
food were faith; for they had not _made_ the bread in the desert the
previous day, nor were they thinking of making it now, but they were
trying, _striving to obtain it_. This sacramental food will endure _in its
effects_ unto eternal life. This food *the Son of Man will give*; _i.e._,
Christ as man will give us His flesh; but since the food is to endure in
its effects unto _eternal life_, mere man could not give such; and hence
it is added that the Father who is God has sealed with the impress of
Divinity (August., Tolet.) the Son of Man, who therefore, being God as
well as man, can give a food that will endure unto eternal life.
28. Dixerunt ergo ad eum: Quid 28. They said therefore unto
faciemus ut operemur opera him: What shall we do that we
Dei? may work the works of God?
29. Respondit Iesus, et dixit 29. Jesus answered, and said
eis: Hoc est opus Dei, ut to them: This is the work of
credatis in eum quem misit God, that you believe in him
ille. whom he hath sent.
28‐29. Some of His hearers now interrupt Christ, not however to inquire
what this food was, but to ask what they must do on their part in order to
perform the works which they take it for granted _God requires_, before
they may receive such food. Christ’s answer is, that in order to obtain
it, so that it may remain unto eternal life, they must believe in Himself.
So too is it even now; the sinner may sacrilegiously receive the Lord into
his breast, but it is only for Him who believes (and acts accordingly)
that the Sacrament endureth unto eternal life.
30. Dixerunt ergo ei: Quod 30. They said therefore to
ergo tu facis signum ut him: What sign therefore dost
videamus, et credamus tibi? thou show that we may see, and
quid operaris! may believe thee? what dost
thou work?
31. Patres nostri 31. Our fathers did eat manna
manducaverunt manna in in the desert, as it is
deserto, sicut scriptum est: written, _He gave them bread
Panem de coelo dedit eis from heaven to eat_.
manducare.
30‐31. Christ having declared the necessity of faith in Himself, they now
ask for motives of credibility, and point to the great standing miracle
wrought for their fathers in the desert. But whereas He had demanded faith
in Himself: “That you believe _in Him_ whom He hath sent” (verse 29), they
seem to miss the point, and speak not of believing in Him, but merely of
believing Him, believing what He may have to say to them. They did not
mention Moses, nor was the manna given by Moses; but our Lord’s reply
shows that the comparison between Himself and Moses was in their minds. It
is as if they said: You call upon us to believe you on the strength of the
miracle wrought yesterday in the desert, whereas Moses fed our _whole
race_ for _forty_ years with a bread _from heaven_. These people who speak
thus, are probably different persons from those who on the preceding day
recognised Christ as the Messias (verse 14).
32. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: 32. Then Jesus said to them:
Amen, amen dico vobis: Non Amen, amen, I say to you:
Moyses dedit vobis panem de Moses gave you not bread from
coelo, sed Pater meus dat heaven, but my Father giveth
vobis panem de coelo verum. you the true bread from
heaven.
33. Panis enim Dei est qui de 33. For the bread of God is
coelo descendit, et dat vitam that which cometh down from
mundo. heaven, and giveth life to the
world.
32‐33. They had asked for some great miracle (comp. Matt. xii. 38), but
since they had already had sufficient evidence to enable them to believe,
Christ does not gratify their desire, but proceeds to declare that it was
not Moses who gave the manna, but God (see Ps. lxxvii. 21‐24); so that
their tacit comparison of Moses with Himself is baseless. He then goes on
to declare that His Father giveth them the true bread from heaven. This
means, as we have already explained, that the Father gave us in the
Incarnation what Christ gives us in the Eucharist, namely, the Person of
the God‐man. That it is true or perfect bread, He proves from the fact
that it comes, not like the manna from the clouds, but from heaven itself,
and that it not merely _sustains_ the life of _one people_, but _gives_
life to the _world_.
34. Dixerunt ergo ad eum: 34. They said therefore unto
Domine, semper da nobis panem him: Lord, give us always this
hunc. bread.
35. Dixit autem eis Iesus: Ego 35. And Jesus said to them: I
sam panis vitae, qui venit ad am the bread of life: he that
me, non esuriet: et qui credit cometh to me shall not hunger;
in me, non sitiet unquam. he that believeth in me, shall
never thirst.
34, 35. They at once ask that He would give them this bread always. They
evidently think that He speaks of some excellent food like the manna,
which would support their corporal existence, and they desire to be
constantly supplied with it. But as they know not _what_ they ask, nor
_how_ they should be disposed to receive it, He tells them—(1) What the
bread is, namely, Himself; and (2) what is required for a proper and
fruitful reception of it, namely, faith in Himself. The words: *He that
cometh to Me*, mean the same thing as: *He that believeth in Me*. The
believer shall *never thirst*; because, if he act upon his belief, he will
receive Christ in the Eucharist, and be spiritually filled, never again to
thirst, except through his own fault.
36. Sed dixi vobis, quia et 36. But I said unto you, that
vidistis me, et non creditis. you also have seen me, and you
believe not.
37. Omne quod dat mihi Pater, 37. All that the Father giveth
ad me veniet: et eum qui venit me shall come to me; and him
ad me, non ejiciam foras: that cometh to me, I will not
cast out.
36, 37. Christ again, as in verse 26, reproves their want of faith, and
declares that those who believe in Him, do so through the grace of the
Father; and all such He receives and rejects not.
38. Quia descendi de coelo, 38. Because I came down from
non ut faciam voluntatem meam heaven, not to do my own will,
sed voluntatem eius qui misit but the will of him that sent
me. me.
39. Hac est autem voluntas 39. Now this is the will of
eius qui misit me, Patris: ut the Father who sent me; that
omne quod dedit mihi, non of all that he hath given me,
perdam ex eo, sed resuscitem I should lose nothing, but
illud in novissimo die. should raise it up again in
the last day.
40. Haec est autem voluntas 40. And this is the will of my
Patris mei, qui misit me: ut Father that sent me; that
omnis qui videt Filium, et every one who seeth the Son,
credit in eum, habeat vitam and believeth in him, may have
aeternam, et ego resuscitabo life everlasting, and I will
eum in novissimo die. raise him up in the last day.
38‐40. He declares the reason why He does not reject such: because He came
down on earth to do His father’s will; and that will is that all who
recognize in Him the Son of God and believe in Him as such (acting
according to that belief), should be raised up to a glorious life on the
last day.
41. Murmurabant ergo Iudaei de 41. The Jews therefore
illo, quia dixisset: Ego sum murmured at him, because he
panis vivus, qui de coelo had said, I am the living
descendi. bread which came down from
heaven.
42. Et dicebant: Nonne hic est 42. And they said: Is not this
Iesus filius Ioseph, cuius nos Jesus the son of Joseph, whose
novimus patrem et matrem? father and mother we know? How
Quomodo ergo dicit hic: Quia than saith he, I came down
de coelo descendi? from heaven?
43. Respondit ergo Iesus, et 43. Jesus therefore answered
dixit eis: Nolite murmurare in and said to them: Murmur not
invicem: among yourselves.
41‐43. The Jews, by whom the Scribes and Pharisees perhaps are meant, now
murmur because He claims celestial origin, whereas they fancy they know
Him to be an ordinary man, born in the ordinary way of an earthly father
and mother. He merely reproves their murmuring without replying to their
difficulty, and proceeds to declare the necessity of grace.
44. Nemo potest venire ad me, 44. No man can come to me,
nisi Pater qui misit me except the Father, who hath
traxerit eum: et ego sent me, draw him, and I will
resuscitabo eum in novissimo raise him up in the last day.
die.
44. No one can believe in Him, unless the Father draw him; _i.e._, by
preventing and assisting grace. We have here a clear proof against the
Pelagians, for the necessity of grace in order to faith. It must be borne
in mind that, though we are drawn by God, we are drawn by impulses of
grace which we are free to resist.(59)
45. Est scriptum in prophetis: 45. It is written in the
Et erunt omnes docibiles Dei. prophets: _And they all shall
Omnis qui audivit a Patre, et be taught of God_. Every one
didicit, venit ad me. that hath heard of the Father
and hath learned, cometh to
me.
45. Christ declares _how_ we are drawn by the Father, namely, by an
illumination of the intellect and motion of the will, so that we hear
(“audivit”) and obey (“didicit”). *It is written in the Prophets: And they
shall all be taught of God.* The Jewish Scriptures were divided into the
Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographers, and the reference here is to the
portion written by the Prophets. The phrase: *They shall all be taught of
God*, which is found substantially in Isaias, liv. 13, implies direct
Divine teaching through the influence of the Spirit upon the mind and
heart, and indicates not merely one Divine communication, but an
established relationship, for the faithful who allow themselves to be
drawn, are life‐long pupils in the school of God.
46. Non quia Patrem vidit 46. Not that any man hath seen
quisquam, nisi is qui est a the Father, but he who is of
Deo, hic vidit Patrem. God, he hath seen the Father.
46. *Not that any man hath seen the Father.* It is, says St. Augustine,
“as if He said: Do not when I tell you: Every man that hath heard and
learned of the Father, say to yourselves: We have never seen the Father,
and how then can we have learned from Him? Hear Him then in Me, I know the
Father, and am from Him.”
47. Amen, amen dico vobis: Qui 47. Amen, amen, I say unto
credit in me, habet vitam you: He that believeth in me
aeternam. hath everlasting life.
47. Having pointed out the necessity of faith (verse 29), its sufficiency
(verse 35), and the necessary condition to it, namely, the grace of God
and correspondence therewith (verses 44, 45), He now solemnly repeats what
He had declared in verses 35 and 37, that he who believes in Him shall
have eternal life. The present tense, *hath everlasting life*, need create
no difficulty here: for he who believes will receive the Blessed
Eucharist, the food “that endureth unto everlasting life,” (verse 57); and
the present tense is so used to indicate the certainty with which the
result will follow.
48. Ego sum panis vitae. 48. I am the bread of life.
49. Patres vestri 49. Your fathers did eat manna
manducaverunt manna in in the desert, and are dead.
deserto, et mortui sunt.
50. Hic est panis de coelo 50. This is the bread which
descendens: ut si quis ex ipso cometh down from heaven: that
manducaverit, non moriatur. if any man eat of it, he may
not die.
51. Ego sum panis vivus, qui 51. I am the living bread,
de coelo descendi. which came down from heaven.
48‐51. Before quitting this portion of His discourse, and going on to
declare _how_ He is the bread of life, Christ sums up what He has said,
repeating again the proposition laid down in verse 35: “I am the bread of
life;” again comparing and preferring the Blessed Eucharist to the manna
(49, 50 compared with 32, 35); and combining in one the two propositions
contained in verses 35 and 38, namely, that He is the bread, and that He
came down from heaven. In verse 50 where it is declared that he who eats
this bread shall not die, the meaning is, that the Blessed Eucharist, _of
its own nature_, is calculated to save us from the death of the soul, and
to secure even for our bodies a glorious resurrection. Sin, of course, may
rob it of its glorious effects.
52. Si quis manducaverit ex 52. If any man eat of this
hoc pane, vivet in aeternuum: bread, he shall live for ever:
et panis, quem ego dabo, caro and the bread that I will
mea est pro mundi vita. give, is my flesh for the life
of the world.
52. Having summed up the preceding portion of His discourse, Christ now
proceeds to declare _how_ He is the bread of life. Till now He had
contented Himself with declaring that He is that bread, and with pointing
out the chief disposition necessary to receive Him worthily; now He goes
further, and points out _how_ He will be the bread of life; namely, by
giving His flesh, that is, His whole human nature (i. 14), to which the
Divine nature is inseparably united, to be received in the Blessed
Eucharist. Thus He gradually unfolds the mystery, reserving till the last
supper the further knowledge, that this reception of His body and blood
was to take place in a sacramental manner.
*And the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.*
Many Greek MSS. read: “And the bread that I will give is My flesh, _which
I will give_ for the life of the world.” If the words “which I will give”
be genuine, we would explain them not in reference to the sacrifice of the
cross, but in reference to the sacrifice of the Eucharist, in which Christ
is given for us and to us. Compare St. Luke: “This is My body, which is
_given for you_” (Luke, xxii. 19), and especially Luke xxii. 20, where the
Greek text shows that it is the blood _as in the chalice_ (and not as on
Calvary) that is said to be offered in sacrifice. But the words more
probably are not genuine; they are omitted by Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Tregelles, Westcott, and Hort, and by the Revised Version, as well as by
the Vulgate.
Though not merely Christ’s flesh, that is, His humanity (i. 14), but also
His Divinity, is received in the Blessed Eucharist, His human nature is
specially mentioned, lest it should be thought that He is the living bread
only as God, or merely spiritually. “Dixerat enim,” says St. Thomas on
this verse. “Quod erat panis vivus; et ne intelligatur quod hoc ei esset
in quantum est Verbum, vel secundum animam tantum, ideo ostendit quod
etiam caro sua vivificativa est: est enim organum divinitatis suae: unde,
cum instrumentum agat virtute agentis, sicut divinitas Christi
vivificativa est, ita et caro virtute Verbi adjuncti vivificat; unde
Christus tactu suo sanabat infirmos.” Besides, as St. Thomas adds, since
this Sacrament is commemorative of our Lord’s Passion (“For as often as
you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death
of the Lord,” 1 Cor. xi. 26), His “flesh” is mentioned to remind us of the
weakness of that human nature wherein it was possible for Him who was God
to suffer.
53. Litigabant ergo Iudaei ad 53. The Jews therefore strove
invicem, dicentes: Quomodo among themselves saying: How
potest hic nobis carnem suam can this man give us his flesh
suam dare ad manducandum? to eat?
54. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: 54. Then Jesus said to them:
Amen, amen dico vobis: Nisi Amen, amen, I say unto you;
manducaveritis carnem Filii Except you eat the flesh of
hominis, et biberitis eius the son of man, and drink his
sanguinem, non habebitis vitam blood, you shall not have life
in vobis. in you.
55. Qui manducat meam carnem, 55. He that eateth my flesh,
et bibit meum sanguinem, habet and drinketh my blood, hath
vitam aeternam: et ego everlasting life: and I will
resuscitabo eum in novissimo raise him up in the last day.
die.
53‐55. The Jews *therefore* (_ergo_, not enim), because of what He had now
said, disputed among themselves, evidently taking different views of what
He had said; but Jesus, far from retracting, solemnly insists upon what He
had just said, and declares negatively (verse 54), and positively (verse
55), not only the possibility, but the _necessity_ of receiving His body
and blood. It does not follow from verse 54, as the Utraquists falsely
contended, that Communion under both kinds is necessary; for Christ is
received whole and entire under either species. Under the species of bread
only the body is present _in virtue of the words of consecration_, and
similarly under the species of wine only the blood; but since Christ’s
body is now a _living_ body, it follows that in the Blessed Eucharist,
where the body is, there also are the blood and the soul _in virtue of the
natural connection_ between the parts of a living body, and there, too,
the Divinity, _in virtue of the hypostatic union_. See Decrees of the
Council of Trent, sess. xiii., ch. 3. The precept is to receive both body
and blood, but not necessarily under both species. For, as the Council of
Trent (sess. xxi., cap. 1) points out, Christ attributes the same effects
to eating in verses 55, 58, 59, as He does here to eating and drinking.
See also 1 Cor. xi. 26, where he who eats _or_ drinks unworthily, is said
to be guilty of _both_ body and blood. The precept of Christ, then, is
obeyed whether one or both species be received, and it is a disciplinary
matter entrusted to the care of the Church, whether the faithful are to
receive under one or both species.
Seeing, then, that there is no obligation for the faithful to receive the
Blessed Eucharist under both species, it may be asked why does Christ
mention both species? We reply, that He does so to signify that in the
Blessed Eucharist there is a perfect repast, which ordinarily supposes the
presence of both meat and drink; and, perhaps, also to indicate that this
sacrament is commemorative of His death, in which His body and blood were
separated.
Nor do verses 54 and 55 afford any proof that the Blessed Eucharist is
necessary, _necessitate medii_ unto salvation, like Baptism (John iii. 5).
For—(1) Baptism is declared to be absolutely necessary for all, “unless a
man be born again;” here the Blessed Eucharist is declared necessary only
for those who are capable of receiving a precept, “Unless you eat,” &c.
(2) From the nature of the case, Baptism, being a new _birth_, is
absolutely necessary for all who are to live the new spiritual life; and
as many as are born, must be _born again_ in order to live the higher
life; but the Blessed Eucharist is not the introduction to a new life, but
a means of nourishing the life already acquired. Hence for children who
have already acquired that spiritual life in Baptism, and cannot lose it
because incapable of sinning, the Blessed Eucharist cannot be necessary to
salvation, nor even for adults can it be absolutely necessary as a means,
if there be, as there are, other means of retaining the life already
acquired.
56. Caro enim mea, vere est 56. For my flesh is meat
cibus: et sanguis meus, vere indeed: and my blood is drink
est potus. indeed;
57. Qui manducat meam carnem, 57. He that eateth my flesh
et bibit meum sanguinem, in me and drinketh my blood, abideth
manet, et ego in illo. in me, and I in him.
57. In the Blessed Eucharist we are united to Christ, and His humanity
remains in us until the sacred species become corrupted; His divinity,
until mortal sin is committed, and He is expelled.
58. Sicut misit me vivens 58. As the living Father hath
Pater, et ego vivo propter sent me, and I live by the
Patrem: et qui manducat me, et Father: so he that eateth me,
ipse vivet propter me. the same also shall live by
me.
58. The sacred union between Christ and the communicant is compared to the
ineffable union between Him and His heavenly Father.
*The living Father.* This is a unique instance of this title, but we
frequently find: _The Living God_, Matt. xvi. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16, &c. *And
I live by* (διὰ τὸν παπέρα) *the Father*. It is to be noted that διὰ is
followed by the accusative, not the genitive. If, then, we are to regard
it as meaning here what it ordinarily means when followed by the
accusative, and as the Vulgate seems to take it, the sense would rather
be: As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live _on account_ of the
Father, so he that eateth Me, the same also shall live _on account_ of Me.
This would mean that as complete devotion to the Father is the object of
the life of the Incarnate Son (the Son _as sent_), so complete devotion to
the Son shall be the object of the life of him to whom Christ shall have
united Himself in the Blessed Eucharist. Others, however, think that διὰ
is here equivalent to _through_, or _by_, as in our Rheims Version. The
sense then is: as Christ lives through the eternal life communicated to
Him in His eternal generation by the Father; so, in some way, the
communicant shall live in virtue of the spiritual life communicated to him
or sustained in him because of his union with Christ in the Blessed
Eucharist.
59. Hic est panis qui de coelo 59. This is the bread that
descendit. Non sicut came down from heaven. Not as
manducaverunt patres vestri your fathers did eat manna,
manna, et mortui sunt. Qui and are dead. He that eateth
manducat hunc panem, vivet in this bread shall live for
aeternum. ever.
59. This verse concludes and unites the principal points of the discourse.
Compare verses 32, 41, 49, 50, 52, 55. Hence it confirms the view we have
followed regarding the unity of subject throughout the discourse.
*He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.* With this encouraging and
glorious promise, made not to any one people, nor to any class as such,
not even to all believers, but to each one (note the change from the
plural to the singular: _your fathers ... He that eateth_) who shall
worthily receive, and duly profit by the Blessed Eucharist, the discourse
ends.
60. Haec dixit in synagoga 60. These things he said
docens, in Capharnaum. teaching in the synagogue, in
Capharnaum.
60. Because of the solemn importance of the discourse, the place where it
was delivered is noted. At Tell Hûm (see above on ii. 12) the ruins of a
large synagogue are still to be seen.
61. Multi ergo audientes ex 61. Many therefore of his
discipulis eius, dixerunt: disciples hearing it, said:
Durus est hic sermo, et quis This saying is hard, and who
potest eum audire? can hear it?
61. The effect of the _discourse_ upon many of the disciples is recorded.
*Hard* (σκληρός), _i.e._, harsh, hard to accept.
62. Sciens autem Iesus apud 62. But Jesus knowing in
semetipsum quia murmurarent de himself, that his disciples
hoc discipuli eius, dixit eis: murmured at this, said to
Hoc vos scandalizat? them: Doth this scandalize
you?
62. The Evangelist notes, according to his custom, that their thoughts
were known to Christ.
63. Si ergo videritis Filium 63. If then you shall see the
hominis ascendentem ubi erat son of man ascend up where he
prius? was before?
63. *If then you shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?*
The sense according to some, is: If you shall see Me ascending into
heaven, it will then be easier to believe My doctrine, seeing I am Divine;
and you shall at the same time understand, that it is not in a bloody
manner (as you suppose) that you are to eat My body. Thus He would correct
their too carnal interpretation of His words, and point at the same time
to a reason why the true sense, however difficult, was to be accepted.
Others think that Christ’s words increase the difficulty, the sense being,
if you are scandalized now, because I say, _while present with you_, that
I will give My body, how much more will you be scandalized when you see
that body taken away into heaven, and are yet asked to believe that it is
to be eaten on earth? It is argued in favour of this opinion, that the
form of Christ’s reply: “Does this scandalize you? If _therefore_,” &c.,
indicates that their difficulty would then be greater. So Mald., Tolet.,
Beel., Corl. We may remark, as against the Nestorians, that language could
not signify more clearly than this verse signifies the unity of Person in
Christ. The Son of Man will ascend to heaven where as Son of God He is
from all eternity. “Filius Dei et hominis unus Christus ... Filius Dei in
terra suscepta carne, Filius hominis in coelo in unitate personae.” St.
Aug. on this verse.
64. Spiritus est, qui 64. It is the spirit that
vivificat: caro non prodest quickeneth: the flesh
quidquam: verba quae ego profiteth nothing. The words
locutus sum vobis, spiritus et that I have spoken to you, are
vita sunt. spirit and life.
64. Many interpretations of this verse have been advanced. The following
two are the most probable, intrinsically and extrinsically:—
(1) *The spirit* is the spirit of man elevated and ennobled by grace; *the
flesh*, the corrupt dispositions and weak thoughts of human nature unaided
by grace (see Rom. viii. 5, 6); and the meaning of the verse is; it is the
mind illumined by grace that quickeneth to faith and to a proper
understanding of My words; the mind or human nature by itself is of no
avail in such matters; the words which I have spoken to you are _to be
understood by_ the mind quickened and illumined by grace. So St. Chrys.,
Teoph., Wisem., Perr., M’Ev. But there are serious difficulties against
this view—(1) “caro” is then taken metaphorically in this verse, while
throughout the context it has been taken literally of the flesh of Christ;
(2) the explanation of the words “are spirit and life” is unnatural.
(2) Others take *the Spirit* of the Divinity of Christ, *the flesh* of His
humanity considered apart from the Divinity; and the meaning of the verse
then is: it is My Divinity that quickeneth, and maketh My flesh a meat
enduring unto eternal life; the flesh if separated from the Divinity would
profit nothing; the words which I have spoken to you regard My life‐giving
Divinity as united to My humanity. In this view, as Mald. explains it,
“life,” by a Hebraism, is equivalent to an adjective signifying _life‐
giving_, as may be inferred from the beginning of the verse, where it is
said that it is the Spirit _that giveth life_.(60) Hence “Spirit and life”
is equivalent to _life‐giving_ Spirit, and the latter part of the verse
means that Christ’s words have reference to His life‐giving Divinity in
union with His humanity. So, too, St. Cyril of Alex., Beel., Corl. We
prefer this view, and hold that Christ here gives the key to the solution
of the difficulty on account of which His disciples had murmured (verse
62). He had closed His discourse with words attributing eternal life to
the eating of His flesh (verse 59); they murmured accordingly, thinking it
absurd or incredible that such effect could follow from such a cause as
the eating of a man’s flesh; and in verse 64 He explains that His flesh is
the flesh of the Man‐God, which therefore through the quickening influence
of the Divinity with which it is united, is capable of producing such
marvellous effects.
There is not a shadow of probability in the interpretation put upon this
verse by the Sacramentarians. They explained the verse to mean: that the
_figurative_ sense of what He had said regarding the necessity of eating
His flesh and blood profits, but that the _literal_ sense would profit
nothing. Thus they professed to find in these words an assurance that
Christ had not spoken of a real eating of His flesh in the Eucharist, but
only of a spiritual reception of Himself through faith. In reply to this
we say—(1) that throughout the rest of the Bible “spiritus” and “caro” are
not even once used of a figurative and literal sense; (2) if Christ here
gave the explanation which our adversaries suppose, how is it that, as we
learn from verse 67, many of His disciples retired notwithstanding, and
walked with Him no more? In such an explanation all their difficulty would
be removed, and they would be taught that it was only of a figurative
eating by faith that Christ had been speaking. How then account for their
departure? But it was different in the explanation we have given above. In
our view, Christ, still insisting on a real reception of His flesh, merely
explains how it is that such real reception can lead to such glorious
results.
65. Sed sunt quidam ex vobis, 65. But there are some of you
qui non credunt. Sciebat enim that believe not. For Jesus
ab initio Iesus qui essent non knew from the beginning who
credentes, et quis traditurus they were that did not
esset eum. believe, and who he was that
would betray him.
65. In the view we hold regarding verse 64, the connection of this verse
with it is: the fact that I am God explains what you find difficult in My
words (verse 64); but some of you do not believe Me to be God; and hence
your difficulty (verse 65). To indicate Christ’s Divine knowledge, the
Evangelist adds that He knew _from the beginning_, &c.
66. Et dicebat: Propterea dixi 66. And he said: Therefore did
vobis, quia nemo potest venire I say to you, that no man can
ad me, nisi fuerit ei datum a come to me, unless it be given
Patre meo. him by my Father.
66. Christ’s words in this verse are to be connected closely with the
beginning of the preceding, the intervening words of the Evangelist being
parenthetical.
*Therefore did I say to you.* The allusion is to what was said above
(verse 44), which is substantially the same as what is said here, since to
be drawn to Christ by the Father is nothing else than to be given grace by
the Father to come to Christ. It might seem at first sight that these
words excuse the incredulity of those whom Christ addresses; but it is not
so. For, the reason they had not been drawn by the Father was because they
_would_ not, because they had not followed the promptings of grace. See
above on verse 45. “Peccabant tamen qui nolebant venire, id est credere in
Christum, tum quia habebant gratiam sufficientem, qua possent credere si
vellent, etsi non haberent efficacem, qua reipsa et actu crederent; tum
quia humiliter non petebant a Deo gratiam efficacem, qua actu crederent:
tum quia sua superbia aliisque peccatis illa gratia se fecerant indignos,
imo pervicaces Dei gratiam et fidem repellebant et refutabant” (A Lap. on
this verse).
67. Ex hoc multi discipulorum 67. After this many of his
eius abierunt retro: et iam disciples went back; and
non cum illo ambulabant. walked no more with him.
67. Had Christ in the preceding discourse spoken only of faith, surely,
all‐merciful and loving as He is, He would have made His meaning clear,
before allowing many of His disciples to depart from Him for ever. It was
only, then, because they understood Him correctly, and refused to believe
Him, that He allowed them to depart.
68. Dixit ergo Iesus ad 68. Then Jesus said to the
duodecim: Numquid et vos twelve: will you also go away?
vultis abire?
68. *The twelve.* These are spoken of as well known, though this is the
first mention made of their number in this Gospel.
*Will you also go away?* While the question implies that such desertion
was to be feared, its form implies a negative answer, and suggests that in
the case of the chosen twelve such conduct ought to be impossible.
69. Respondit ergo ei Simon 69. And Simon Peter answered
Petrus: Domine, ad quem him: Lord, to whom shall we
ibimus? verba vitae aeternae go? thou hast the words of
habes: eternal life.
70. Et nos credidimus, et 70. And we have believed and
cognovimus quia tu es Christus have known that thou art the
Filius Dei. Christ the Son of God.
69‐70. Peter replies for all the Apostles (not knowing the unbelief of
Judas), and confesses the truth of Christ’s doctrine, and, according to
the Vulgate reading, the Divinity of Christ. It is very doubtful, however,
whether the Vulgate reading here is correct. The oldest Greek MSS. read:
“And we have believed and know that Thou art the _Holy One_ (ὁ ἅγιος) of
God.” Whether in the mind of St. Peter this latter form of the words meant
a full confession of Christ’s Divinity, or only that He was the Messias,
it is difficult to say. It would seem indeed from the praise bestowed upon
Peter by our Lord (Matt. xvi. 16) on an occasion subsequent to this, that
then for the first time Peter fully confessed Christ’s Divinity.
71. Respondit eis Iesus: Nonne 71. Jesus answered them: Have
ego vos duodecim elegi, et ex not I chosen you twelve; and
vobis unus diabolus est? one of you is a devil?
71. Peter had answered as he thought for all the Apostles, but Christ
shows that He knows to the contrary. *A devil*, that is to say a sinner
inspired by the devil (viii. 44), Judas was (_est_) even then.
72. Dicebat autem Iudam 72. Now he meant Judas
Simonis Iscariotem: hic enim Iscariot, the son of Simon:
erat traditurus eum, cum esset for this same was about to
unus ex duodecim. betray him, whereas he was one
of the twelve.
72. The Evangelist explains who was meant. “The name Iscariot has received
many interpretations, more or less conjectural, but it is now universally
agreed that it is to be derived from Kerioth (Josh. xv. 25) a city in the
tribe of Judah, the Hebrew אישׂ קרִות ’īsh Kerīyoth passing into
Ἰσκαριώτης” (Smith’s _B. D._, 2nd Ed.). In this view, Judas, unlike the
other Apostles (Acts ii. 7), was from the Province of Judea.