Endnotes from John 6

 •  12 min. read  •  grade level: 9
 
116 Verses 5-9.―As to the close connection of Philip and Andrew with John, see Lightfoot on Colossians, p. 45 f.
“A lad.” On the baker’s “boy,” see Schor, “Palestine and the Bible,” pp. 32, 58.
117 Verse 11.―One miserable attempt to get rid of this miracle has been to suggest that JESUS and His disciples shared their provisions with some of the crowd, others following their example. From those who indulge in such explanations one may well ask for a reason why the people thought our Lord the Messiah, and wished to make Him King? That is significantly forgotten.
117a Verse 12 f.― “Fragments.” Or “broken pieces,” as R.V. The command is peculiar to this Gospel.
119 Verse 16 ff.―H. Holtzmann criticizes “withdrew again to the mountain,” because the Lord is not said previously to have left the mountain. And so Schmiedel and Heitmüller after him. One might well suppose that such writers are devoid entirely of imagination. A tract of hilly country is in question, into which Christ further penetrated. (So Weiss; cf. note 39 on Mark.) The “again” may suggest difficulty; but, as the critical note shows, that. to say no more, is a doubtful reading.
120 Verse 17 ff.―Cf. note 65 on Mark. For such power over sea and waves, cf. Ps. 107:23-31. Matthew’s parallel (14:33) shows that the disciples worshipped Him as Son of God. Are we to be told of an inter potation there?
120a Verse 19.― “On the sea.” The same Greek in 21:1 has been quoted for the meaning “at” (beside, on the bank of) the sea. But even there it may mean “on.” In either case it expresses loose connection. As to attempts made, as by Paulus, to explain it away, see Turton, p. 412. Taking the miracle and the discourse which follows it in connection with the Lord’s Supper (as do Catholics), certain critics have this notion so much on the brain that one of them―Schmiedel―will have it that the walking on the water was “intended to signify that exaltation of Jesus above the limitations of space necessary to render possible the presence of His glorified body at every celebration of the Eucharist!” (col. 2,521). Where “progress” ―for it is imagination―beyond ecclesiastical tradition comes in it is indeed difficult to discover.
121 Verses 22-24.―Unbelievers of today are not seldom at issue with sceptics in the time of the Evangelist; those of old could not understand the Lord’s walking along the shore within that short interval (verse 25). Some now, doubtless, would gladly discover differences in manuscripts here, so as to be able to suggest “accretions.”
122 Verse 27 ff.― “Son of man.” Not Christ, the Son of God, as Gnostics would have said: their Christ was not “Son of man” at all. Observe that, to meet their error, the Evangelist constantly speaks of our Lord as Jesus, and that here is the Son of man whom the Father has sealed, attested, as His Son.
The Rabbins said that the seal of God was אמח, the three letters of which are respectively the first, the middle, and the last of the alphabet (Edersheitn, ii. 29). Comparing verse 29 with Rom. 1:55By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: (Romans 1:5), may we not say that Paul’s words are an echo of our Lord’s here?
123 Verse 35.―The Lord here, for the first time, speaks of Himself as “the Bread,” so that some, as Alford and Govett, would in verse 33 render by “that which” rather than by “He who,” verse 34 indicating ambiguity. As to hunger and thirst, see on verses 51-56. For “ye believe not,” cf. 16:9. Above all else, faith is due to God (cf. Mark 16:1414Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. (Mark 16:14) ff.). No quarter is given here to hyper-Calvinism.
124 Verse 42.―Forcible words of Von Hartmann should lead some to pause: “If one sees in Jesus only the son of the carpenter Joseph and his wife Mary, this Jesus and His death can as little redeem me from my sins as, say, Bismarck can do it” (“Dissolution of Christianity,” p. 92). Critics would have had the Lord here disclose His supernatural birth. But with what propriety to nice in the state of mind that these were? It could but have excited their derision.
125 Verse. 47.―For the “verily, verily,” cf. 1 John. 5:11-13.
126 Verse 51. ―As to “living bread,” see Carson, “On Interpretation,” p. 81. Much use has been made of the passage in the interests of a theory of the Incarnation, by which Christ, as the Word made flesh, is supposed to be “joined to universal humanity.” Words of Irenæus (“Against Heresies,” 5:1) about “Christ’s raising humanity into God” by His incarnation, or of Athanasius, in his treatise “On the Incarnation,” where he speaks of our Lord’s having “become man that we might be made God” (liv.), seem to have originated this notion. And so, on the one hand, Bishop Gore (“Sermon on Sin,” p. 21), as, on the other, Mr. Scott (p. 208, etc.). But the Lord does not speak here of His taking, but of His giving His flesh for us (so H. Holtzmann, but misapplying it); and such passages as Eph. 5:3030For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. (Ephesians 5:30) and 2 Pet. 1:44Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. (2 Peter 1:4), which have been used in support of the theory, have nothing to do with the solidarity of, the human race, but concern Christian believers only. The last words of verse 51― “for the life of the world” ―are said, not of Christ’s life, but His death; and “Unless ye shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk His blood, ye have no life in yourselves” (verse 53) means that we cannot be so associated with the “historical Christ” as the theory requires. Redemption is needed for it) whilst bone fide children of God alone are united to Him, and that in resurrection. Out of the Patristic theory has, beyond all doubt, arisen the whole remedial system of ordinances developed in the “historical” Church. The comradeship of sacerdotalists and critics in this matter tells its own tale: different poles of error unite for mutual aid. As to the use made of this text by Annihilationists, see Turton, p. 525; and on the Incarnation in general, Green, iii., pp. 207-220.
127 Verses 52-59.―The Patristic application (as by Chrysostom and Cyril, etc.) of this passage to the Eucharist for the doctrine adopted by Wordsworth, Burgon, Williams, Sadler and Gore, as already stated, has the unwonted and by no means edifying support of seine critics, as H. Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, and Harnack, followed by Burkitt (p. 224 ff.), etc., from the difficulty which they experience of understanding it in its present context. But, long ago. Augustine took a healthier view of it, as, in recent times, Meyer, Hofmann, Weiss (“Life of Christ,” 3:71), Godet, and Westcott. Dr. John Lightfoot (cf. Bishop Boyd Carpenter, “Introduction to Scripture”) showed that “eating” and “drinking” were used by Jesus metaphorically a certain rabbi is recorded to have spoken of “devouring Messiah” (“Hor. Hebr.” iii. 307 ff., Oxford edition). One will tell you that the Evangelist aimed at checking sacramental theory (so Scott); another that he himself held “high sacramental doctrine” (Burkitt); whilst a third would have it that the Lord observed the Eucharist from the beginning of His ministry (Wright)! Horton agrees with none of these (p. 298).
127a That the words were spoken to the Jews (verse 58) is, amongst others, recognized by Heitmüller, one of the latest writers on this Gospel. The lesson which they had to learn (that of Egypt and the wilderness: Bellett, p. 57) is the primary thing.
128 The reference is to Cardinal Wiseman, in his “Lectures on Doctrines and Practices,” No. XIV.; also in his “Lectures on the Real Presence,” p. 40 f. Cardinal Manning’s note on verse 54 says: “is here promised to the worthy receiver.” There is not a word of qualification in the verse.
129 Verse 56 f.― “Abideth in Me, and I in him.” One of the passages turned to account by those who make much of John’s supposed dependence on Pauline doctrine (“in Christ,” “Christ in us”). Again, let it be said, it is a dead Christ who gives to the believer life, as it is a risen Christ in whom he abides. See, further, on chapter 15:4 ff. Observe the use of the present participle here, as in verse 54, and compare the present tense (πιστεύετε) in verse 29: “live the life of faith” (Horton, p. 257).
“Shall live by reason of Me.” See foot of p. 150, and cf. Rom. 5:1010For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (Romans 5:10); also note 192. For both the Apostles it is the resurrection life, not that of the Lord on earth.
130 Verse 62.―Cf. note 68 above. This refutes Swedenborg, who held that the Lord was always casting off HD manhood, so that at last only the Father remained; there was neither Son of God nor Son of man who could ascend! We are here told that Christ called Himself “Son of man,” in view of resurrection. Swedenborg, in keeping with his theory of the Lord’s earthly life, denied His bodily return from heaven― a negation which the Evangelist, in his Second Epistle, brands as a mark of Antichrist (verse 7; see R.V., and cf. John 4:22(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) (John 4:2)). For further reference to the Ascension in this Gospel, see 20:17. It is such passages as these that Wendt attributes to an “editor” (see note 2 on Introduction).
131 Verse 67 ff.― “The twelve.” The first time that, in this Gospel, the apostolic band is so described.
131a Paley: “slanderer” ―i.e., to the rulers (verse 70).
132 Verse 68.― “To whom shall we go away?” Govett “Before we leave what we hold, we should see what better can replace it” (p. 290). Cf. note 59, and see 17:8.
133 Verse 69. ―Cf. note on v. 466 above. Note the force of the perfect: “We have been believing” ―i.e., they had acquired the habit in their hearts of thinking so of Him. For the disciples it was not a question of mere opinion, for which there is no assured permanence. Cf. Browning’s “Bishop Blougram’s Apology” “With me faith means perpetual unbelief.” A necessary element in it is knowledge of the truth, to which the Apostle Paul says some ever learning never attain (2 Tim. 3:77Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Timothy 3:7)).
Martineau has well said: “Nothing so marks the degradation of our modern Christianity as the notion that faith is only opinion―that a man may have it or not without affecting his moral worth; that it is the result of intellectual accident or opportunity, for which God will never call him to account.... Want of faith is the hypothesis of a coward, unaspiring heart.... This presumption in favour of sanctity in human life is faith” (“Hours of Thought,” vol. ii., p. 90). See also Bishop Gore’s “Creed of the Christian,” p: 53, and “Sermon on Sin,” p. 7. It should be remembered that in Lessing’s “Nathan,” referred to by him, none of the three characters was a really typical representative of his own creed.
Weiss has written (“New Testament Theology,” ii. 364) that the doctrine of John on Faith in this connection, in distinction from the Pauline view, as that in the Epistle to the Hebrews, means the conviction of the truth of the fact that Jesus is the Christ, and not a trust in the love of God in Christ (cf. McGiffert, p. 498). This has, happily, been pronounced by Beyschlag (“New Testament Theology,” ii. 455 ff.) as “the greatest possible mistake”; for the Halle theologian, passages such as 14:1 set before us “a personal surrender to Christ, leading to personal communion of life with Him” (cf. note on verse 46 above). Again, as he says: “The confident apprehension with the heart has to precede the deliberative apprehension with the mind.” Scott’s view (p. 52, etc.) is very much that of Weiss, for the British writer at one time treats faith and knowledge as identical (an intellectual assent: “acceptance of a given dogma,” p. 267, as to which see note 374); but also because of passages in the First Epistle in particular (e.g., iv. 16) he treats knowledge as emphatically antecedent to faith, in which he seems to confound one element of faith which precedes knowledge with another which gives place to knowledge. Acquaintance with God and Christ certainly grows out of continued trust, for John as for Paul (“I know in whom I have believed”). The “act of belief” which, Scott says, “comes at the end of a religious experience” (p. 268), is the same with each Apostle. When this writer says, “The original demand for a simple childlike faith was no longer sufficient in a theology which had allied Christianity with a metaphysical doctrine” (p. 274), one wonders how he would attempt to make this tally with the classical passage in the First Epistle of this Evangelist (2:12-14), written subsequently to the Gospel, a knowledge of which is supposed throughout the Epistle. In singular, satisfactory contrariety to Scott’s view is that of the late Dr. Martineau: “Religious faith is rather the first root of life than the last blossom of thought” (of. cit.). “As to what faith is psychologically,” says Dr. McCosh, “no two metaphysicians explain alike” (“Gospel Sermons,” p. 73). This need cause no surprise.
133a “The Holy One of God.” The writer referred to in the Exposition is Hengstenberg.
134 Verse 70.― “Chosen.” Here, again, the Evangelist supposes knowledge of the earlier Gospels. The choice referred to is different from that spoken of in 13:18. In the present passage it is the appointment to apostleship (Mark 3:1313And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him. (Mark 3:13) f.; Luke 6:1313And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; (Luke 6:13) f.). We have here an early disclosure of the character of Judas, but the rest of the Apostles seem not to have apprehended it at the time.
“Devil.” See note 131a.
135 Verse 71.― “Judas, son of Simon Iscariot.” This seems to mean, of Kerioth (Josh. 15:2525And Hazor, Hadattah, and Kerioth, and Hezron, which is Hazor, (Joshua 15:25)), in Juda. He probably became a follower of the Lord during the early Judæan ministry. The question of his fate has been discussed lately in the Interpreter in his favour; but whatever may have been the belief of Judas as to the Lord’s extrication of Himself, such a notion could only be fruit of unbelief in Christ’s own words.
Besides the betrayer, we meet in the Gospels with (a) Judas, the Apostle otherwise called Lebbæus, or Thaddæus, and (b) Judas, brother of the Lord.