Chapter VI.
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 mare Galilaeae, quod est Tiberiadis: | 1. After these things, Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, 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 [pg 109] 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 magna, quia videbant signa quae faciebat super his qui infirmabantur. | 2. And a great multitude followed him, because they saw the miracles which he did on 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 Iesus: et ibi sedebat cum discipulis suis. | 3. Jesus went therefore up into a mountain, and there he 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, dies festus Iudaeorum. | 4. Now the Pasch, the festival 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 Iesus, et vidisset quia multitudo maxima venit ad eum, dixit ad Philippum: Unde ememus panes, ut manducent hi? | 5. When Jesus therefore had lifted up his eyes, and seen that a very great multitude cometh to him, he said to Philip: Whence shall we buy bread that these may eat? |
5. In the Synoptic Evangelists the disciples are [pg 110] 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 eum: ipse enim sciebat quid esset facturus. | 6. And this he said to try him: for he himself knew what 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: Ducentorum denariorum panes non sufficiunt eis, ut unusquisque modicum quid accipiat. | 7. Philip answered him: Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one may take a little. |
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 8-½d.; afterwards, and, therefore, in the time of Christ, it was worth about 7-½d. See Smith's Lat. Dict. Calendarium, Tables viii. and ix. Two hundred denarii, then would be equal to about £6 5s., and yet what bread this would [pg 111] purchase would not suffice to give even a little to each, so great was the multitude.
| 8. Dicit ei unus ex discipulis eius, Andreas frater Simonis Petri. | 8. One of his disciples, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, saith to him: |
| 9. Est puer unus hic, qui habet quinque panes hordeaceos, et duos pisces: sed haec quid sunt inter tantos? | 9. There is a boy here that hath five barley loaves and two fishes: but what are these among so many? |
| 10. Dixit ergo Iesus: Facite homines discumbere. Erat autem foenum multum in loco. Discubuerunt ergo viri, numero quasi quinque millia. | 10. Then Jesus said: Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. The men therefore sat down in 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: et cum gratias egisset, distribuit discumbentibus: similiter et ex piscibus quantum volebant. | 11. And Jesus took the loaves: and when he had given thanks, he distributed to them that were set down. In like manner 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, dixit discipulis suis: Colligite quae superaverunt fragmenta, ne pereant. | 12. And when they were filled, he said to his disciples: Gather up the fragments that 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 impleverunt duodecim cophinos fragmentorum ex quinque panibus hordeaceis, quae superfuerunt his qui manducaverant. | 13. They gathered up therefore, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above to them that had eaten. |
13. “Observe how the four Evangelists use the word κοφίνους, baskets, in narrating this [pg 112] 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 vidissent quod Iesus fecerat signum, dicebant: Quia hic est vere propheta, qui venturus est in mundum. | 14. Now these men, when they had seen what a miracle Jesus had done, said: This is of a truth the prophet that is to 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 cognovisset, quia venturi essent ut raperent eum, et facerent eum regem, fugit iterum in montem ipse solus. | 15. Jesus therefore when he knew that they would come to take him by force and make him king, fled again into the 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 [pg 113] 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 descenderunt discipuli eius ad mare. | 16. And when evening was come, his disciples went down to the sea. |
| 17. Et cum ascendissent navim, venerunt trans mare in Capharnaum: et tenebrae iam factae erant: et non venerat ad eos Iesus. | 17. And when they had gone up into a ship, they went over the sea to Capharnaum: and it was now dark, and Jesus was 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 flante, exurgebat. | 18. And the sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew. |
| 19. Cum remigassent ergo quasi stadia viginti quinque aut triginta, vident Iesum ambulantem supra mare, et proximum navi fieri, et timuerunt. | 19. When they had rowed therefore about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking upon the sea, and drawing nigh to 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 [pg 114] of the English furlong is 660 feet.
| 20. Ille autem dicit eis: Ego sum, nolite timere. | 20. But he saith to them: It is I: be not afraid. |
| 21. Voluerunt ergo accipere eum in navim: et statim navis fuit ad terram, in quam ibant. | 21. They were willing therefore to take him into the 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 stabat trans mare, vidit quia navicula alia non erat ibi nisi una, et quia non introisset cum discipulis suis Iesus in navim, sed soli discipuli eius abiissent: | 22. The next day, the multitude that stood on the other side of the sea, saw that there was no other ship there but one, and that Jesus had not entered into the ship with his disciples, but that his disciples were gone away alone. |
| 23. Aliae vero supervenerunt naves a Tiberiade, iuxta locum ubi manducaverant panem, gratias agente Domino. | 23. But other ships came in from Tiberias, nigh unto the place where they had eaten the bread, the Lord giving thanks. |
| 24. Cum ergo vidisset turba quia Iesus non esset ibi, neque discipuli eius, ascenderunt in naviculas, et venerunt Capharnaum quaerentes Iesum. | 24. When therefore the multitude saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they took shipping, and came to Capharnaum seeking for 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 trans mare, dixerunt ei: Rabbi, quando huc venisti? | 25. And when they had found him on the other side of the 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 dixit: Amen, amen dico vobis: quaeritis me, non quia vidistis signa, sed quia manducastis ex panibus, et saturati estis. | 26. Jesus answered them and said: Amen, amen, I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the 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 [pg 116] 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.); [pg 117] 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 [pg 118] 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 [pg 119] 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 perit, sed qui permanet in vitam aeternam, quem Filius hominis dabit vobis. Hunc enim Pater signavit Deus. | 27. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed. |
27. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that [pg 120]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 faciemus ut operemur opera Dei? | 28. They said therefore unto him: What shall we do that we may work the works of God? |
| 29. Respondit Iesus, et dixit eis: Hoc est opus Dei, ut credatis in eum quem misit ille. | 29. Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him 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 ergo tu facis signum ut videamus, et credamus tibi? quid operaris! | 30. They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou show that we may see, and may believe thee? what dost thou work? |
| 31. Patres nostri manducaverunt manna in deserto, sicut scriptum est: Panem de coelo dedit eis manducare. | 31. Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. |
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 [pg 121] 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: Amen, amen dico vobis: Non Moyses dedit vobis panem de coelo, sed Pater meus dat vobis panem de coelo verum. | 32. Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you: Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. |
| 33. Panis enim Dei est qui de coelo descendit, et dat vitam mundo. | 33. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from 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 [pg 122] 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: Domine, semper da nobis panem hunc. | 34. They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. |
| 35. Dixit autem eis Iesus: Ego sam panis vitae, qui venit ad me, non esuriet: et qui credit in me, non sitiet unquam. | 35. And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger; 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 vidistis me, et non creditis. | 36. But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. |
| 37. Omne quod dat mihi Pater, ad me veniet: et eum qui venit ad me, non ejiciam foras: | 37. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him 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, non ut faciam voluntatem meam sed voluntatem eius qui misit me. | 38. Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. |
| 39. Hac est autem voluntas eius qui misit me, Patris: ut omne quod dedit mihi, non perdam ex eo, sed resuscitem illud in novissimo die. | 39. Now this is the will of the Father who sent me; that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again in the last day. |
| 40. Haec est autem voluntas Patris mei, qui misit me: ut omnis qui videt Filium, et credit in eum, habeat vitam aeternam, et ego resuscitabo eum in novissimo die. | 40. And this is the will of my Father that sent me; that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day. |
38-40. He declares the reason why He does not reject such: [pg 123] 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 illo, quia dixisset: Ego sum panis vivus, qui de coelo descendi. | 41. The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said, I am the living bread which came down from heaven. |
| 42. Et dicebant: Nonne hic est Iesus filius Ioseph, cuius nos novimus patrem et matrem? Quomodo ergo dicit hic: Quia de coelo descendi? | 42. And they said: Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How than saith he, I came down from heaven? |
| 43. Respondit ergo Iesus, et dixit eis: Nolite murmurare in invicem: | 43. Jesus therefore answered and said to them: Murmur not 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, nisi Pater qui misit me traxerit eum: et ego resuscitabo eum in novissimo die. | 44. No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day. |
44. No one can believe in Him, unless the Father draw him; i.e., by preventing and assisting grace. We have here [pg 124] 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: Et erunt omnes docibiles Dei. Omnis qui audivit a Patre, et didicit, venit ad me. | 45. It is written in the prophets: And they all shall be taught of God. Every one 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 quisquam, nisi is qui est a Deo, hic vidit Patrem. | 46. Not that any man hath seen the Father, but he who is of 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 credit in me, habet vitam aeternam. | 47. Amen, amen, I say unto you: He that believeth in me 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 [pg 125] 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 manducaverunt manna in deserto, et mortui sunt. | 49. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. |
| 50. Hic est panis de coelo descendens: ut si quis ex ipso manducaverit, non moriatur. | 50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die. |
| 51. Ego sum panis vivus, qui de coelo descendi. | 51. I am the living bread, 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 hoc pane, vivet in aeternuum: et panis, quem ego dabo, caro mea est pro mundi vita. | 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will 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 [pg 126] 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 [pg 127] possible for Him who was God to suffer.
| 53. Litigabant ergo Iudaei ad invicem, dicentes: Quomodo potest hic nobis carnem suam suam dare ad manducandum? | 53. The Jews therefore strove among themselves saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? |
| 54. Dixit ergo eis Iesus: Amen, amen dico vobis: Nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis, et biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. | 54. Then Jesus said to them: 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. |
| 55. Qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam: et ego resuscitabo eum in novissimo die. | 55. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. |
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 [pg 128] 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 cibus: et sanguis meus, vere est potus. | 56. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed; |
| 57. Qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet, et ego in illo. | 57. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth 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 Pater, et ego vivo propter Patrem: et qui manducat me, et ipse vivet propter me. | 58. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth 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 [pg 129] (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 descendit. Non sicut manducaverunt patres vestri manna, et mortui sunt. Qui manducat hunc panem, vivet in aeternum. | 59. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for 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 docens, in Capharnaum. | 60. These things he said 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 discipulis eius, dixerunt: Durus est hic sermo, et quis potest eum audire? | 61. Many therefore of his disciples hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who 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 semetipsum quia murmurarent de hoc discipuli eius, dixit eis: Hoc vos scandalizat? | 62. But Jesus knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to 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 hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius? | 63. If then you shall see the son of man ascend up where he 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 vivificat: caro non prodest quidquam: verba quae ego locutus sum vobis, spiritus et vita sunt. | 64. It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are 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 [pg 131] 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 [pg 132] 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, qui non credunt. Sciebat enim ab initio Iesus qui essent non credentes, et quis traditurus esset eum. | 65. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not 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 vobis, quia nemo potest venire ad me, nisi fuerit ei datum a Patre meo. | 66. And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given 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 [pg 133] 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 eius abierunt retro: et iam non cum illo ambulabant. | 67. After this many of his disciples went back; and 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 duodecim: Numquid et vos vultis abire? | 68. Then Jesus said to the twelve: will you also go away? |
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 Petrus: Domine, ad quem ibimus? verba vitae aeternae habes: | 69. And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. |
| 70. Et nos credidimus, et cognovimus quia tu es Christus Filius Dei. | 70. And we have believed and have known that thou art the 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 ego vos duodecim elegi, et ex vobis unus diabolus est? | 71. Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and 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 Simonis Iscariotem: hic enim erat traditurus eum, cum esset unus ex duodecim. | 72. Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to 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.