Notes. John YI. 41 —
41. — [The Jews then murmured at him.] The verb is here in the imperfect tense. It seems to mean " the Jews were then murmuring, or beginning to murmur about Him," It was a murmuring that went on among themselves concerning our Lord, and was not openly expressed. "At Him," would be more literally rendered " about Him."
I venture to think there is a break, pause, or slight interval implied at this point of the conversation. The speakers called here " the Jews," do not appear to be the same who followed our Lord over the lake after being fed with the loaves and fishes, and began the conversation by saying, " Wlien earnest thou hither?" (Verse 25.) They would rather appear to be the principal people, or leaders, in the synagogue at Capernaum. They had probably heard our Lord's M'ords to the people who had followed Him over the lake, and were murmuring at them. — To my own mind it is by no means clear that there was not at this point a change in the pJace where the conversation was carried on. Up to this point it looks as if the conversation was carried on in the open air. At this point our Lord may have gone into the synagogue, and the rulers of it may have taken up the subject and been murmuring about it when He went in. — I throw out this theory with diffidence. It must at least be conceded, that the e:xpressions at verse 25, ''when they had found him at the other side of the sea,....when camest thou hither?" can hardly be supposed to mean that our Lord was then in the synagogue. On the other hand, it is perfectly clear from verse 59, that the latter part of His discourse, at any rale, was spoken " in the synagogue at Capernaum." Whore, then, I ask, does the slight break come in, which is necessary to reconcile these beginning and ending statements? I reply that it seems to me to come in here, at this very 41st verse. The language, I think, implies a slight pause in time, and a change in the speake- Stier, I am a^Yare, calls this idea "highly artificial" But I cannot see any force in the objection, and 1 see much difficulty in any other view.
Cyril remarks that a readiness to murmur seemed to be hereditary with the Jews. From the days when they murmured in the wilderness, it was always the same.
[Because he said I am the bread.... heaven.] It does not appear that our Lord had actually used these words. We must therefore suppose that the Jews constructed the saying out of three things that our Lord had said. One was, " I am the bread of life;" — another, "I came down from heaven;" — and another, "The bread of God is he (or it) which cometh down from heaven."
i2. — [Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph?] The word " this," in the Greek, has a latent sneer of contempt about it, which our English version cannot fully convey. It is as if they said, " Is not this fellow," etc.
The expression " the son of Joseph," shows what was the impression that the Jews commonly had about our Lord's birth. They believed Him to be the naturally begotten son of Joseph the husband of Mary. The annunciation by the angel Gabriel, the miraculous conception, the miraculous birth of our Lord, are matters of which the Jews apparently had not any knowledge. Throughout the whole of our Lord's ministry, we never find them mentioned. For some wise reason a total silence was observed about them until after our Lord's death, resurrection, and ascension. It was not probably till after the death of the Virgin Mary and all her family, that this great and deep subject was allowed to be much brought forward in the Church. We can easily see that an unhallowed curiosity might have arisen on questions connected with the incarnation, which would only have done harm.
[ Whose father and mother we know.] These words seem to show that Joseph was still living at this time. They could hardly have been used if Joseph was dead. They also show that Joseph and Mary were known at Capernaum, where this conversation was held. They had either removed there from Nazareth, or else were so connected with Capernaum and such frequent visitors there, that the inhabitants knew them.
[JIow is it then that he saith.] The^e words would have been more Hterally rendered, "How then does this fellow say?" Again, like the beginning of the verse, there is something scornful in the phrase.
[/ came down from heaven.] The thing that seems to have vexeil and angered the Jews was that our Lord should so openly declare His divine origin, by talking of " coming down trom heaven." They were oflended at the idea of one so lowly in dress, and circumstances, and position, taking on Himse'f to say, that He was one who had " come down from heaven." Here, as elsewhere, Christ's humiliation -was the great stumbling-block. Human nature would not so much object to a conquering Christ, — a Christ with a crown and an army, — a Christ with wealth to shower on aU His foUowc-rs. But a Christ in poverty, — a Christ preaching nothing but heart religiofi, — a Chiist followed by none but poor fishermen and publicans, — a Christ coming to suffer and die and not to reign, — such a Christ was always an offence to many in this world, and always will be.
Rollock remarks with great truth, that with many persons, " reasoning " (so called) is the grand obstacle to conversion.
i3. — [Jesus answered and said.] This phrase is almost the same as that used in chapter v, verse 19, when our Lord legan what many think was His formal defence of Himself before the Sanhedrim. It leads me to think, as I have already said, that there is a slight break at this point of the chapter, and a slight pause, if only of a few hours in time. Our Lord knew by His divine knowledge that the Jews w^ere murmuring and saying contemptuous things about Him, and He therefore took up their thoughts, and made a reply to them.
[Murmur not among yourselves!] This seems a mild hint that they need not waste their time in murmuring. It neither surprised our Lord, nor discouraged Him. It is as though He said, " Your muriimring is only what I am prepared to expect. I know what human nature is. I am not moved by it. Think not that your unbelief will shake my confidence in my divine mission, or prevent my saying what I do. I know that you cannot naturally understand- such things as I am speaking of, and I will proceed to tell you why. But cease from these useless murmurings, which neither surprise nor stop me."
Webster thinks that the idea is /the same as that in John iii. 7—12, " I have harder things still to say." (See v. 28.)
44. — [No man can come...except the Father draw him.] The connection between this verse and the preceding one is not clear. Like many passages in St. John's writings, the language is elliptical and the hnk must be supplied. But the precise link in the present case is not very evident. I believe it is something of this sort: — "You are murmuring among yourselves because I speak of coming down from heaven; and you are making njy apparently low origin an excuse for not believing on me. But all the timo the fault is not in my sayings, but in your want of grace, and yuur unbelief. There is a deeper and more solemn truth, to wliicli you seem totally blind: and that is, man's need of God's grace in order to believe on me. You are never likely to believe until you acknowledge your ovrn corruption, and ask for grace to draw your souls to me. I am aware that it needs something more than argument and reasoning to make any one believe in me. Your unbelief and murmuring do not surprise me or discourage me. I neither expect to see you or any one else believe until you are drawn by my Father." — This, or something like it seems to me the connecting link. One thing at any rate is certain. Our Lord did not mean to excuse the unbehef of His hearers. He rather desired to magnify their danger and guilt, and to make them see that faith in Him was not so easy an affair as they supposed. It was not knowledge of His origin alone, but the drawing grace of God the Father which they needed. Let them awake to see that, and cry for grace before it was too late.
The general lesson of the sentence, apart from the connection, is one of vast importance. Our Lord lays down the great principle,— " That no man whatsoever can come to Christ by faith, and really believe in Him, unless God the Father draws him so to come, and inclines his will to believe." The nature of man since the fall is so corrupt and depraved, that even when Christ is made known and preached to him, he will not come to Him and believe in Him without the special grace of God inclining his will, and giving him a disposition to come. Moral suasion and advice alone will not bring him. He must be " drawn."
This is no doubt a very humbling truth, and one which in every age has called forth the hatred and opposition of man. The favourite notion of man is that he can do what he likes, repent or not repent, believe or not believe, come to Christ or not come, — entirely at his own discretion. Li fact man likes to think that his salvation is in his own power. Such notions are flatly contradictory to the text before us. The words of our Lord here are clear and unmi^takeable, and cannot be explained away.
(a.) This doctrine of human impotence, whether man likes it or not, is the uniform teaching of the Bible. The natural man is dead, and must be born again, and brought to life. (Ephesians ii. 1.) He has neither knowledge, nor faith, nor inclination toward Christ, until grace comes into his heart, Man never of himself begins with God. God must first begin with man. And this beginning is just the " drawing " of the text.
(&.) It is the doctrine of the Church of England, as shown in the 10th Article, and of every Protestant confession of faith which dates from the 16th and 17th centuries.
(c.) Last, but not least, it is the doctrine of experience. The longer ministers of the GTospel live, the more do they find that theie is something to be done in every heart which neither preaching, teaching, arguing, exhorting, or means of grace can do. When all has been done, God must " draw," or there is no iTuit. — The more the holiest Christians are examined, the more general is their testimony found, that without grace they never would have been converted, and that God "drew" them, or else they never would have come to Christ. And it is a curious fact, moreover, that ms;y who profess to deny man's impotence in theory, often confess it in their prayers and praises, almost in spite of themselves. Many people are very low Arminians in print or in the pulpit, but excellent Calvinists on their knees.
When our Lord says, " No man can come unto me," we must carefully remember that it is moral inabihty and not physical inability that he speaks of. We are, not to suppose that any man can have a sincere and hearty wish to come to Christ, and yet be prevented by some mysterious impotence. The impotence lies in man's will. He cannot come because he will not come. — There is an Old Testament sentence which throws mnch Ight on the expression before us. It is said of Joseph's brethren, that " they hated him, and could not speak peaceably ur.to him." (Genesis xxxvii. 4.) Any one must see at a glance what this "could not" means. They " could not" because they would not.
When our Lord says, "Except the Father draw him," we roust not suppose that the " drawing " means such a violent drawing, as the drawing of a prisoner to a jail, or of an ox to the slaughterhouse, a "drawing" in short against a man's will. It is a drawing which a Father effects through the man's own will, by creating a new principle within him. By the unseen agency of the Holy Ghost, He works on the man's heart, witliout the man himself knowing it at the time, inclines him to think, induces him to feel, shows him his sinfulness, and so leads him at length to Christ. Every one that comes to Christ is so drawn.
Scott remarks, " The Father as it were cures the fever of the soul; He creates the appetite; He sets the provisions before the sinner; He convinces him that they are wholesome and pleasant, and that he is welcome; and thus the man is drawn to come and eat and live for ever."
The well-known quotation from Augustine, which seems so great a favourite with many commentators on this text, appears to me defective. He argues that God's drawing of men to Christ is so entirely a drawing through man's will, that it is like drawing the sheep by offering to it food, — like drawing and alluring a child by offering him nuts. — But there is this wide difference, that both the sheep and the child have a natural taste and inclination for the thing offered. Man, on the contrary, has none at all. God's first act is to give man a will to come to Christ. As the 10th Article of the Church of England says, we need '' the grace of Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will."
The theory that all members of the Church and all baptized people are " drawn by God," appears to me a most baseless theory, and practically a most mischievous one. It would reduce the " drawing" to nothing, and make it a thing which the majority of Christians resist. I beheve the drawing is a thing that belongs to none but God's elect, and is a part of the procedure by which their salvation is effected. They are chosen in Christ from all eternity, and then drawn to Christ in time.
There are several very important principles of theology connected with this remarkable sentence, which it may be useful to put down together, before we leave the passage.
(a.) We must never suppose that the doctrine of this verse takes away man's responsibility and accountableness to God for his soul. On the contrary, the Bible always distinctly declares that if any man is lost, it is his own fault. He " loses his own soul." (Mark viii. 36.) If we cannot reconcile God's sovereignty and man's responsibility now, we need not doubt that it will be all plain at the last day.
(b.) We must not allow the doctrine of this verse to make us limit or narrow the offer of salvation to sinners. On the contrary, we must hold firmly that pardon and peace are to be offered freely through Christ to every man and woman without exception. We never know who they are that God will draw, and have nothing to do with it. Our duty is to invite all, and leave it to God to choose the vessels of mercy.
(c.) We must not suppose that we, or anybody else, are drawn, unless we come to Christ by faith. Tliis is the grand mark and evidence of any one being the subject of the Father's drawing work. If " drawn," he comes to Christ, believes, and loves. Where there is no faith and love, there may be talk, selfconceit, and high profession. But there is no " drawing" of the Father.
(d.) We must always remember that God ordinarily works by means, and specially by such means as He himself has appointed. iSTo doubt He acts as a Sovereign in drawing souls to Christ. We cannot pretend to explain why some aie diawn and others are not drawn. Nevertheless, we must carefully maintain the great principle that God ordinarily draws through the instrumentality of His Word. The man that neglects the public preaching and private reading of God's Word, has no right to expect that God will draw him. The thing is possible, but highly improbable.
(e.) We must never allow ourselves or others to waste time in trying to find out, as a firsD question in religion, whether we are drawn of God the Father, elect, chosen, and the like. The first and indeed the main question we have to do with is, whether we have come to Christ by faith. If we have, let us take comfort and be thankful. None come to Him unless they are drawn. o
Augustine remarks: " If thou dost not desire to err, do not seek to determine whom God draws, and whom He does not draw; nor why He draws one man and not another. But if thou thyself art not drawn by God, pray to Him that thou mayest be drawn."
The words of the 17th Article of the Church of England are weighty and wise: — "We must receive God's promises in such wise as they are generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and in our doings, that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God."
Whether the "drawing" of God the Father is irresistible or not, is a point on which good men differ greatly. My own opinion is decided that it is irresistible. Those Avhom the Father draws and calls, always " obey the calling." (See 17th Article of the Church of England.) As Rollock truly remarks, there is often a great fight and struggle when the drawing grace of God first begins to work on the soul, and the consequence is great distress and depression. But when grace once begins it always wins the victory at last.
[/ will raise him up at the last day.] This is the same sentence that we have had twice already, and shall have once again. Whosoever does come to Christ, and has the great mark of faith, shall be raised by Christ to a life of eternal glory at the last day. None come but those who are "drawn;" but all who do come shall be raised.
45. — [It is written...prophets...taught of God.] Our Lord here confirms the doctrine of the necessity of divines teaching, by reference to the Scriptures. He had told the Jews nothing but wr.at their own Scriptures taught, and what they ought to have known themselves. It is not quite clear whether our Lord referred to one particular quotation, or to the general testimony of the prophetical Scriptures. The words of Isaiah (hv. 13) are most like the sentence before us: — " All thy children shall be taught of God." The Greek of the Septuagint version of that text rather favours the idea that our Lord referred to it. On the whole, however, I inchne to the opinion that no one particular text is referred to. It was the general doctrine of the prophets that in the days of the Gospel men should have the direct teaching of God.
The words do not mean that under the Gospel all mankind, or all members of the professing Christian Church, shall be " taught of God." It rather means that all who are God's children, and come to Christ under the Gospel, shall be taught of God. It is like " this is the true light that lighteth every man," (John i. 9,) where it does not mean that all are lighted, but that such as are lighted are lighted by Christ.
[Every man...heard...learned of the Father, cometh unto me.] The meaning of this sentence seems to.be — "Everyman that comes to me has first heard and learned of the Father." It is useless to talk of being taught by God, and of God being our Father, if we do not come to Christ for salvation.
Bishop Hooper remarks, "Many men understand the words, ' except the Father draws him,' in a wrong sense, as though God did require in a reasonable man no more than in a dead post, and do not mark the words that follow, ' every man that hath heard Christ,' God draweth with His Word and the Holy Ghost. Man's duty is to hear and learn: that is to say, receive the grace oflfered, consent unto the promises, and not refuse the God that calleth." — Hooper on Ten Commandments.
46. — [Not that any man hath seen the Father.'] This sentence seems put in, by way of parenthesis, to prevent mistakes in the minds of our Lord's hearers, both as to the kind of teaching He meant, and the person He intended when He spake of the Father. The Father was the eternal God whom no man had seen nor could see. The teaching was that inward teaching of the heart which the Father gave by His Spirit.
\He which is of God, he hath seen the Father^ Our Lord plainly means Himself in this verse. It is like John i.l8. "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
I cannot but think that one object our Lord has in view, both here and in ch. v. 37, is to impress on the Jews' minds, that all the appearances of God which are recorded in the Old Testament, were appearances not of the First Person in the Trinity but of the Second. His object in both places, I suspect, was to prepare their minds for the great truth which as yet they were unable to receive, that, however unbelieving they now were, Christ who was now with them, was that very Person who had appeared to Abr&^ham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and Moses.
47. — [VeHIy, verily...He that helieveth on me...N/e.] In this vers* our Lord returns to the main tliread of his discourse, which had been interrupted at the 40th verse. He now speaks out much more clearly and plainly about Himself, dropping all reserve, and revealing Himself as the object of faith, openly and without figure. It is one of those great, broad, simple declarations of the Gospel way of salvation, which we can never know too welL
He that would have his sins pardoned and his soul saved must go to Christ for it. It is to " me," says Christ, that he must apply. — What are the terms held out? He must simply trust, lean back, rest on Christ, and commit his soul to His hand. In a word, he must "believe." What shall such a man get by beheving? He "hath everlasting life." The very moment he beheves, life and peace with God are his own. — (a.) Faith, (b.) the great object of faith, (c.) the present privileges to which faith admits a man, are three subjects which, however often repeated in the Gospel, ought never to weary the Christian's ear.
The frequent repetition of this doctrine of "believing," is a strong proof of its great necessity and importance, and of man's infinite backwardness to see, understand, and receive it. " We must believe, — we must believe," says RoUock, "is a truth that needs constant repetition."
48. — [Tarn that Iread of life.] Here our Lord distinctly proclaims to the Jews, that He himself is that "bread of Hfe," that soul-satisfying food, the true bread, the bread of God, of which He had spoken generally in the earher part of His discourse. He had awakened their curiosity by speaking of that bread as a real thing, and a thing worth their attention. He now unveils the whole truth to them, and tells them plainly, " I am that bread." — " If you ask what it is, and where it is, you have only to look at me."
49. — [Your fathers did eat manna... dead.] In this verse our Lord points out the inferiority of the manna which the Jews ate in the wilderness, to the bread which He himself offered. Tha manna not only could do nothing for the soul, but was unable to preserve from death those who ate it.
Here, as before, we shonld observe how our Lord speaks of the miraculous feeding of Israel in the wilderness, as an undoubted historical fact.
Piscator remarks, that our Lord here says emphatically, " your fathers," and not " our fathers." — He thinks it was intentionally done to remind the Jews how little lasting good their fathera got from the manna, and how unbeheving they were even while they ate of it; for they all died in the wilderness. It was a tacit caution to beware of doing like them.
50. — [This is the hread...heaven...eat..Mnd not die.'] The object of this verse is to show the superiority of the " true bread from heaven " to the manna. It is as though our Lord said, — " This bread that cometh down from heaven is bread of such a nature, that he that eateth of it shall never die. His soul shall not be hurt by the second death, and his body shall have a glorious resurrection."
I am not without doubt whether our Lord did not point to Himself in speaking the words of this verse: — " This person who now stands before you is that bread which came down from heaven, that any one eating of it should not die." But I throw out the conjecture with much diffidence. Lampe seems to favour the idea, — saying, "the pronoun ' this ' is here demonstrative and pointed to Himself." Trapp and Beza also take this view.
51. — [I am the living dread...heaven.] This sentence is a repetition of the idea that has been already given out in the 50th and 49th verses. The thought is repeated in order to impress it on the minds of the Jews, and make it impossible for them to misunderstand our Lord's meaning.
[If any man eat of this dread he shall live for ever.] The thought here is only an expansion of the one contained in the 35th verse. There it is said, '• He that comes to Christ shall never hunger." Here it is " The eater of the bread of life shall live for ever." The meaning is that the soul of the man who feeds on Christ by faith, shall never die and be cast away in hell. There is no condemnation for him. His sins are put away. He shall not be hurt by the second death.
[The hread...give is my flesh.] In these words our Lord goes e^ven further than he has gone yet, in explaining the great theme of His discourse. When He speaks of " my flesh," I beheve he means, " my body offered up in sacrifice on the cross, as an atonement for man's sins." It is our Lord's death that is specially meant. It is not merely His human nature. His incarnation, that feeds souls. It is His death as our substitute, bearing our sins and carrying our transgressions*
[ Which I ivill give for the life of the world.] These words appear to me to make it certain that the Lord meant " His ])ody offered in sacrifice as an atonement for sin," when He said "my flesh is the bread." For He does not say, "I have given," or, "I do give," but "I will give." That use of the future tense seems to me a conclusive proof that " my flesh " cannot mean only " my incarnation." The " giving " was about to take place, but had not taken place yet. It could only be His death.
When our Lord says, "I will give my flesh," it appears to me that He can only mean, " I will give it to die, to suller, to be offered up on the cross, as a sacrifice for sin."
When our Lord says, " I will give my flesh for the life of the world," I believe He means, " I will give my body to death, on account of, for the sake of, to procure, purchase, and obtain the life of the world." I will give my death to procure the world's life. My death shall be the ransom, the payment, and the redemption-money, by which eternal life shall be purchased for a world of sinners "
I hold strongly that the idea of substitution is contained in these words of our Lor J, and that the great doctrine of his vicarious death, which is so directly stated elsewhere (Rom v. 6 — 8) is indirectly implied in this sentence.
When our Lord says, " I will give my fle^h for the life of the world," I can only see one meaning in the word " world." It means all mankind. And the idea contained, I believe, is the same as we have elsewhere, — viz., that Christ died for all mankind, not for the elect only, but for all mankind. (See John i. 29, and iii. 16, and my notes on each text.) That all the world is not saved is perfectly certain. That many die in unbelief and get no benefit from Christ's death is certain. But that Christ's death was enough for all mankind, and that when He died He made sufficient atonement for all the world, are truths which, both in this text and others hke it, appear to my mind incontrovertible.
Let us note in this verse what a full and broad offer Christ holds out to sinners. He says, — " If any man, no matter who or what he may have been, if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever." Happy would it be for many, whose whole hearts are set on eating and drinking, and feasting their poor perishable bodies, if they would only look at these words I It is only those who eat this bread who shall hve for ever.
Let us remember how impossible it is for any one to explain the end of this verse wlio denies the sacrificial character of Christ's death. Once grant that Christ is only a great teacher and example, and that His death is only a great pattern of seifdenial, and what sense or meaning can be got out of the end of this verse? "I will give my flesh for the life of the woiid " 1 I unhesitatingly say that the words are unintelligible nonsense if wo receive the teaching of many modern divines about
Christ's ieath, and that nothinc? can make them intelligible and instructive but the doctrine of Christ's vicarious death, and satisfeiction on the cross as our Substitute.
drink eth my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I hve by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall hve for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us Ms flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Yerily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and
Few passages of Scripture have been so painfully wrested and perverted as that which we have now read. The Jews are not the only people who have striven about its meaning. A sense has been put upon it, which it was never intended to bear. Fallen man, in interpreting the Bible, has an unhappy aptitude for turning meat into poison. The things that were written for his benefit, he often makes an occasion for falling.
Let us first consider carefully, what these verses do not mean. The " eating and drinking " of which Christ speaks do not mean any literal eating and drinking. Above all, the words were not spoken with any reference to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. We may eat the Lord's Supper, and yet not eat and drink Christ's body and blood. We may eat and drink Christ's body and blood, and yet not eat the Lord's Supper. Let this never be forgotten.
The oj^inion here expressed may startle some who have not looked closely into the subject. But it is an opinion which is supported by three weighty reasons. — For one thing, a literal " eating and drinking " of Christ's body and blood would have been an idea utterly revolting to all Jews, and flatly contradictory to an often-repeated precept of their law. — For another thing, to take a literal view of " eating and drinking," is to interpose a bodily act between the soul of man and salvation. This is a thing for which there is no precedent in Scripture. The only things without which we cannot be saved are repentance ^nd faith. — Last, but not least, to take a literal view of " eating and drinking," would involve most blasphemous and profane consequences. It would shut out of heaven the penitent thief. He died long after these words were spoken, without any literal eating and drinking. Will any dare to say he had "no life" in Him? — It would admit to heaven thousands of ignorant, godless communicants in the present day. They literally eat and drink, no doubt I But they have no eternal life, and will not be raised to glory at the last day. Let these reasons be carefully pondered.
The plain truth is, there is a morbid anxiety in fallen man to put a carnal sense on Scriptural expressions, wherever he possibly can. He struggles hard to make religion a matter of forms and ceremonies, — ^^of doing and performing, — of sacraments and ordinances, — of sense and of sight. He secretly dislikes that system of Christianity which makes the state of the heart the principal thing, and labours to keep sacraments and ordinances in the second place. Happy is that Christian who remembers these things, and stands on his guard! Baptism and the Lord's supper, no doubt, are holy sacraments, and mighty blessings, when rightly used. But it is worse than useless to drag them in everywhere, and to see them everywhere in God's Word.
Ihe expressions they contain are, no doubt, very remarkable. Let lis try to get some clear notion of their meaning.-
The "flesh and blood of the Son of man" mean that sacrifice of His own body, which Christ offered up on the cross, when He died for sinners. The atonement made by His death, the satisfaction made by his sufferings, as our Substitute, the redemption effected by His enduring the penalty of our sins in His own body on the tree, — this seems to be the true idea that we should set before our minds.
The " eating and drinking," without which there is no life in us, means that reception of Christ's sacrifice which takes place when a man believes on Christ crucified for salvation. It is an inward and spiritual act of the heart, and has nothing to do with the body. Whenever a man, feeling his own guilt and sinfulness, lays hold on Christ, and trusts in the atonement made for him by Christ's death, at once he "eats the flesh of the Son of man, and drinks His blood." His soul feeds on Christ's sacrifice, by faith, just as his body would feed on bread. Believing, he is said to " eat." Believing, he is said to " drink." And the special thing that he eats, and drinks, and gets benefit from, is the atonement made for his sins by Christ's death for him on Calvary.
The practical lessons which may be gathered from the whole passage are weighty and important. The point being once settled, that " the flesh and blood " in these verses means Christ's atonement, and the " eating and drinking " mean faith, we may find in these verses great principles of truth, which lie at the very root of Christianity.
We may learn, that faith in Christ's atonement is a thing of absolute necessity to salvation. Just as there was no srifety for the Israelite in Egypt who did not eat the pass- over-lamb, in the night when the first-born were slain, so there is no life for the sinner who does not eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood.
We may learn that faith in Christ's atonement unites us by the closest possible bonds to our Saviour, and entitles us to the highest privileges. Our souls shall find full satisfaction for all their wants: — " His flesh is meat indeed, and His blood is drink indeed." All things are secured to us that we can need for time and eternity: — " Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
Last, but not least, we may learn that faith in Christ's atonement is a personal act, a daily act, and an act that can be felt. No one can eat and drink for us, and no one, in like manner, can believe for us. — We need food every day, and not once a week or once a month, — and, in like manner, we need to employ faith every day. — We feel benefit when we have eaten and drunk, we feel strengthened, nourished, and refreshed; and, in like manner, if we believe truly, we shall feel the better for it, by sensible hope and peace in our inward man.
Let us take heed that we use these truths, as well as know them. The food of this world, for which so many take thought, will perish in the using, and not feed our Bouls. He only that eats of " the bread that came down from heaven " shall live for ever.
52. — [The Jews therefore strove among themselves.] — This expression shows an increasingly strong feehng among the Jews. When our Lord tnlked of "coming down from heaven" they "murmured."— When He speaks of giving His "flesh to ent" they "strove." — It is the word rendered "ye fight," in James iv. 2. In what way the Jews strove it is not very clear to see. Wo cannot suppose that there were two contending parties, — one favourable to our Lord, and one opposed to Him. It probably weans thftt tU&y began to reason and argue among themselves in an angry, violent, and excited manner, such as St. Paul forbida when he says, " The servant of the Lord must not strive." (2 Tim. ii. 24.) The same word is used there as here.
[How can this man give...flesh to eat] The likeness should be observed between this question and that of Nicodemur, (John iii. 4), and that of the Samaritan woman. (John iv. 11.)
Cyril in commenting on this verse, points out the unreasonableness and inconsistency of the Jews, above all men, in raising difficulties and denying the possibihty of things, because they are hard to explain and preternatural. He summons the Jews to explain the miracles in Egypt, and those in the wilderness, and
He concludes, — " There are innumerable things, in which if thou inquirest 'how' they can be, thou must overthrow the whole Scripture, and despise Moses and the Prophets."
63. — [Jesus said... Verily, verily, I say.] We come now to one of the most solemn and important sayings that ever fell from our Lord's lips. Having brought the Jews step by step up to this point, He now declares to them the highest and most startling doctrine of the (jospel.
[Except ye eat the flesh... drink his blood...no life in you.] When our Lord uses this phrase " except" at the beginning of a sentence, we generally find something of more than ordinary importance in it. Thus, " Except a man be born again," — " Except ye be converted and become as little children," — "Except ye repent," (John iii. 3, Matt, xviii, 3, Luke xiii. 3.) Here He tells the Jews that they " have no life," — no spiritual life, no title to eternal Hfe, — that they are in fact dead, legally dead, spiritually dead, and on the way to the second death, if they do not "eat the flesh and drink the blood" of the Son of man, — that is, of Himself In a word. He lays down the principle that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is a thing not only possible but absolutely necessary to salvation — is a thing without which no man can go to heaven.
Considering that the Jewish passover was nigh at hand, and that many of our Lord's hearers were probably on their way to Jerusalem to attend it, it seems highly probable that our Lord desired to direct the minds of those He addressed to Himself as the true passover and sacrifice for sin.
The latent idea of the sentence, I firmly believe, is that first passover in the land of Egypt, which was kept on the night when the first-born was slain. The flesh and blood of the lamb slain that night were the means of life, safety, and deliverance to the Is^raelitcs. In like manner, I believCj our Lord meant the Jewa to understand that His flesh and blood were to be the means of life and deliverance from the wrath to come to smners. To a Jewish ear therefore there would be nothing so entirely new and strange in the sentence as at first S'gbt may appear to us. The thing that would startle them no doubt would be our Lord's assertion that eating His flesh and drinking His blood could be the means of hfe to their souls, as the flesh and blood of the passover lamb had been to their fathers the salvation of their bodies.
But what did our Lord mean when He spoke of " eating his flesh and drinking his blood," as things indispensably necessary to life? This is a point on which wide differences of opinion prevail, have prevailed in every age of the Church, and probably will prevail as long as the world stands.
(a.) Some think that our Lord meant a literal " eating and drinking " with the mouth of our bodies, and that the " flesh and blood " mean the bread and wine in the sacrament of the Lord's supper. This is the opinion of almost all the Fathers, though occasional passages may be pointed out in the w^ritings of some, which seem irreconcileable with it. It is the opinion of most Roman Catholic waiters, but certainly not of all. It is the opinion of some modern English divines, such as Wordsworth and Burgon.
(&.) Some think that the ''eating and drinking" here mean the eating and drinking of heart and soul by faith, not of the body, — and that the "flesh and blood" mean Christ's vicarious sacrifice of His body on the cross. They deny entirely that there is any reference whatever to the Lord's supper in the words. They consider that our Lord meant to teach the absolute necessity of feeding by faith on His atonement for sin on the cross. Except a man's soul lays hold by faith on Christ's sacrifice of His body and blood as the only hope of his Salvation, he has no title to or part in eternal hfe. This is the opinion of Luther, Melancthon, Zvvingle, Calvin, Ecolampadius, Brentius, Gualter, Bulhnger, Pellican, Beza, Musculus, Flacius, Calovius, Cocceius, Gomarus, Nifanius, Poole, Cartwright, Hammond, Rollock, Hutcheson, Lightfoot, Henry, Burkitt, Whitby, Leigh, Pearce, Lampe, Gifl, Tittraan, A. Clarke, Barnes, and most modern divines.
Among Romanist writers, this opinion is held by Cardinal Cajetan, Ferus, and Jansenius of Ghent. Even Toletus, one of the ablest Romanist commentators on John, admits that the opinions of writers are not unanimous.
(c.) Some Ihink that our Lord did not mean any literal eating and drir.king, and that He did not refer directly to the Lord's supper when He spake of His flesh and blood. But they do think that our Lord had the sacrament in view and prcispect, when He spoke these words, and that He did tacitly refer to that pecuhar communion with His flesh and blood, which He afterwards appointed the Lord's supper to be the means of imparting to beheving communicants. Tins is the opinion, apparently, of Trapp, Doddridge, Olshausen, Tholuck, Slier, Bengel, Besser, Scott, Alford, and some others.
I decidedly agree with those who hold the second of these opinions. I beheve that our Lord, botli in this text and all through this chapter, did not, either directly or indirectly, refer to the Lord's supper, — that by His flesh and blood He did not mean the bread and wine, — that by eating and drinking He did not mean any bodily act. I believe, that by "flesh and blood" He meant the sacrifice of His own body for us, when He offered it up as our Substitute on Calvary. I believe that by " eating and drinking," He meant that communion and participation of the benefits of His sacrifice which faith, and faith only, conveys to the soul. I believe His meaning to be,— " Except ye believe on me as the one sacrifice for sin, and by faith receive into your hearts the redemption purchased by my blood, ye have no spiritual life, and will not be saved." The atonement of Christ, His vicarious death and sacrifice, and faith in it, — these things are the key to the whole passage. I beheve this must be kept steadily in view.
It is easy to call the opinion to which I adhere ZwingKan, and low, and irreverent. Hard words are not arguments. It is easier to make such assertions than to prove them. I have already shown that many writers, wholly unconnected with Zwingle or Zwinglianism, maintain the opinion. But I submit that the following reasons are weighty and unanswerable: —
(1.) To say that our Lord meant the Lord's supper in this text is a most cruel and uncharitable opinion. It cuts off from eternal life all who do not receive the communion. At this rate all who die in infancy and childhood, — all who die of full age without conring to the communion, — the whole body of the Quakers in modern times, — the penitent thief on the cross, all — all are lost for ever in hell 1 Our Lord's words are stringent and exclusive. Such an opinion is too monstrous to be true. In fact, it was to avoid this pamful conclusion that many early Christians, in Cyprian's time, held the doctrine of infant communion.
Ferus, the Roman Catholic commentator, who considers the eating and drinking here to be only spiritual, and not to refer to the sacrament, sees this objection clearly and puts it strongh^
(2.) To?ay that our Lord meant the Lord's supper in this text, opens a wide door to formalism and superstition. Thousands would wish nothing better than to hear, — " He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, — that is, eats the sacrjimenta' bread and drinks the sacramental wine, — has eternal life." Here is precisely what the natural heart of man likes! He likes to go to heaven by formally using ordinances. This is the very way in w^iich millions in the Romish Church have made and are making shipwreck of their souls.
(3.) To say that our Lord meant the Lord's supper in the text, is to make a thing absolutely necessary to salvation which Christ never intended to be so. Our Lord commanded us to use the Lord's supper, but He never said that all who did use it would be saved, and all who did not use it would be lost. How many hundreds repent and are converted on their death-beds, far away from ministers and sacraments, and never receive the Lord's supper! And will any one dare to say they are all lost? A new heart and an interest in Christ's cleansing blood are the two things needful to salvation. We must have the Blood and the Spirit, or we have no life in us. Without them no heaven I But the Scripture never puts between a sinner and salvation an outward ordinance, over which the poor sinner may have no control, and may be unable to receive it, without any fault of his own.
Archbishop Cranmer remarks, in his " Defence of the True Doctrine of the Sacrament," — "The Romanists say that good
men eat the body of Christ and drink His blood, only at that time when they receive the sacrament: we say that they eat, drink, and feed on Christ continually, so long as they are members of His body. — They say that the body of Christ which is in the sacrament, hath its own proper form and quantity; we say that Christ is there sacramentally and spiritually without form or quantity, — They say that the fathers and prophets of the Old Testament did not eat the body nor drink the blood of Christ; we say that they did eat His body and drink His blood, although He was not yet born or incarnate."
Ferus says, — " We must take hold of Christ's flesh and blood, not with our hands, but with our faith. He therefore that believes that Christ has given up His body for us, and has shed His blood for the remission of our sins, and through this places all his hope and confidence in Christ crucified, that man really eats the body and blood of Christ."
Cardinal Cajetan, quoted by Ford, says,— "To eat the flesh
of Christ and to drink His blood is faith in the death of Jesus Christ. So that the sense is this: if ye use not the death of the Son of God, as meat and drink, ye have not the life of the Spirit in you."
The opinion which many hold, that although our Lord did not directly mean the Lord's supper in this text. He did refer to it iniirectly, and had it in view, seems to me very vague and unsatisfactory, and only calculated to confuse our minds.— Our Lord is speaking of something which He says is absolutely and indispensably necessary to eternal life. Where is the use of dragging in an ordinance wliich is not absolutely necessary, and insisting that He had it in view? — The truth of the matter, I believe, lies precisely in the opposite direction. I believe that afterwards, when our Lord appointed the Lord's supper, He had in view the doctrine of this text, and used words intended to remind the disciples of the doctrine. But here, I believe, He was speaking of something far higher and greater than the Lord's supper. — When He spoke of the lesser thing, I have no doubt that He intended to refer to the greater, and to turn the disciples' minds back to it. But when He spoke as He did here of the greater thing, I am quite unable to believe that He intended to refer to the lesser*
If our Lord did really refer to the Lord's supper when He spake of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, it seems impossible to understand how Roman Catholics can deny the cup to the laity. " Drinking Christ's blood " is distinctly said to be as necessary to eternal life as " eating Christ's body." Yet the Eomish Church will not allow the laity to drink Christ's blood I It is evidently the pressure of this argument which makes some Roman Catholic writers deny that this passage refers to the sacrament. It is a mistake to suppose that they are unanimous on the point.
Rollock starts the question, why our Lord did not plainly tell His hearers that by eating and drinking He meant not a bodily but a spiritual act, — viz., believing. He replies, that in this as in every case, our Lord did not strive so much to make men understand words, as to beget feeling and experimental acquaintance with things. When the heart really begins to feel, words are soon understood.
The distinction that Alford and some others draw between the ''flesh" and "blood" in this text, appears to me very doubtful. They think that " eating the flesh " refers generally to participation in the benefits of Christ's incarnation and ascension with a human body into heaven; and that " drinking the blood " refers specially to an interest in the benefits purchased by His death. — I am not satisfied that this is correct. At the 57th verse, our Lord, speaking briefly of the truth just before enunciated, only says, "He that eateth me, even he shall live by me." Surely "eating" there stands for participation in the benefits of Christ's death as well as life!
My own impression is that both " flesh and blood " are mentioned here by our Lord to make it certain to the Jews that He spoke of His death, and of the oflfering of His whole body in sacrifice on the cross. The body of the sin-offering was just aa essential a part of the sacrifice as the blood. (See Lev. iv. 1 — 12.) So also the body of the passover Iamb had to be eaten, as well aa the blood sprinkled. The " flesh and blood " are both mentioned here because our Lord had in view the oflering of Himself as a sin-offering, — and because he would make it sure that He meant the " death " of His body to be the hfe of man's soul. It is not Christ incarnate merely, but Christ crucifiied as our atonement and sin-offering, that man must feed upon if he would have life.
54. — {^Whoso €ateih...drm]ceth... eternal life.] This verse is just the converse of the preceding one. As it had been said that without eating and drinking there was no hfe, so it is now said that he who eats and drinks has life. These words, as I have already remarked, appear to me to make it impossible to interpret the passage of the Lord's supper. Myriads are Communicants who have no spiritual hfe whatever. Every one, on the other hand, who by faith feeds his soul on Christ's sacrifice for sin, has even now everlasting hfe. " He that beheveth on Him is not condemned."— "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." (John iii. 18; vi. 47.)
The word " whoso " would have been more simply and literally rendered " he that."
The " presentness " of a true Christian's privileges should be remarked here again: — '' He hath eternal life."
The Greek word for " eateth," in this verse and 56th, is quite a different word from that used in the 53rd verse. The reason of the difference is not very clear, and no commentator has hitherto explained it. Leigh, Parkhurst, and Schleusner, all agree that the G-reek word used in this verse ordinarily denotes the eating of an animal, in contradistinction to that of a man. Leigh ob'Eerves that the word "noteth a continuance of eating, as brute beasts will eat all day, and some part of the night." I venture to suggest that the word is purposely used, in order to show that our Lord meant the habit of continually feeding on Him all day long by faith. He did not mean the occasional eating of material food in an ordinance.
The word is only used in this and the 56th, 57th, and 58th verses, and in Matt. xxiv. 38, and John xiii. 18.
[I will raise him up at the last day.] These words are a fourth time repeated, and purposely, in my judgment, to show who they are of whom Christ is speaking. He is not speaking of all who receive the Lord's supper, but of those persons who are " given to him by the Father," — " who see the Son and believe on him,"
— who " are drawn by the Father and come to Christ." (John vi. 39, 40, 4i.) These are the same persons who eat His flesh and drink His blood by faith. To them belongs the privilege of a part in that first and glorious resurrection, when Christ shall call aU His people from the grave at His second coming.
55. — [For my flesh is meat indeed, and my hlood is drink indeed.'] The word "indeed " here would be more literally rendered "truly; " and the word " meat" answers to our word "food." The meaning is, " My flesh is more truly food, and my blood is more truly drink, than any other food and drink can be. It is food and drink in the highest, fullest, noblest sense, — food and drink for the soul, food and drink that satisfies, food and drink that endures to everlasting life." (See 35th verse.)
Rollock remarks, that the best way to understand this verse is to make trial of Christ, and to feed on Him by faith. We shall soon discover how true the words are.
Ferus suggests, that there may be a latent reference here to the forbidden fruit which Satan promised should be " meat and drink indeed " to Adam and Eve. This stands out in contrast to that food. By eating the food Satan held out, came sin and death. By eating the food Christ holds out, comes life and heaven.
56. — [He that eateth my flesh and drinJceth my hlood.] — These words are precisely the same as those at the beginning of the 54th verse; and there is no reason why " whoso " there, should not have been "he that," as here. In the one case, the man who eats and drinks Christ's flesh and blood, is said to possess eternal life, and in the other, to be intimately joined to Christ. But it is the same person.
[Dwelleth in me and I in him.] This expression is meant to convey to our minds the close and intimate union that there is between Christ and a true Christian. Such a man is said to dwell, or abide in Christ, and Christ to dwell, or abide in him. Christ is the house, or home, or hiding-place, within which the believer's soul, as it were, resides; — and Christ dwells in the believer's heart by His Spirit, comforting, nourishing, and strengthening him. (See 1 John iii. 24, and iv. 15, 16.) See also John XV. 4, where " Abide in me and I in you," might have been equally well rendered, " dwell in me and I in you."
Just as " food and drink " received into a man's body become part of the man's self, and are incorporated into his system, and add to his health, comfort, and strength, — so when a man by faith feeds his soul on Christ's sacrifice for his sins, Christ becomes as it were part of himself, and he becomes part of Christ. In a word, there is as intimate an union between Christ and the believer's soul, as there is between a man's food and it man's body.
57. — [As the living Father, etc.] This verse explains the intimate union between Christ and the true believer, by a far higher and more mysterious figure than that of the union of our food and our body. The illustration used, is drawn from that unspeakable and inexplicable union which exists between the Two First Persons in the Trinity — Grod the Father and God the Son. — It is as though our Lord said, " Just as the Father sent me into the world, to be born of a woman, and take the manhood into God, and yet, though I am among you as man, I live in the closest union and communion with God, — even so the man that by faith feeds his soul on my sacrifice for sin, shall live in the closest union and communion with me." — In a word, the union between Christ and the true Christian, is as real and true and close and inseparable as the union between God the Father and God the Son. — While the Son was in the world, the carnal eye discerned little or nothing of His union with the Father. Yet it was a true thing and existed. Just so the carnal eye may see little or nothing of the union between Christ and tlie man who feeds by faith on Christ. Yet it is a real true union, — Just aa the Son, though equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, does live, in an ineffable and inscrutable way, through and by the Father, the Son never being without the Father nor the Father without the Son, — so in like manner the man that feeds on Christ enjoys spiritual life, only through and by Christ. Is not this St. Paul's thought: — "I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me."—" To me to live is Christ." (Gal. ii. 20. Phil. i. 21.)
Whether our Lord is here speaking of His human nature or of His Divine nature, is not quite clear. I incline to think with Cyril and Chrysostom, that it is the Divine nature.
RoUock" remarks, that we have three hving Ones spoken of here. (1.) The living Father. (2.) The hving Son. (3.) The living believer. As we are sure of the life of the Father, so we may be sure of the life of the believer. The three lives are linked together.
Hutchcson remarks, " Christ's living by the Father, is not only a pledge of our life, but our life holds also some proportion cr similitude to His. For as He hath life communicated by eternal generation, so by regeneration we are made partakers of the Divine nature."
Winer remarks, that the Greek preposition rend(.'red " by " in this verse, means literally " on account of; " and that the sentence m^ans, strictly and properly, *'I live owing to the Father: "
that is, " I live because the Father hves." Schleusner and Parkhurst say much the same.
The ^' hring- Father " is a remarkable phrase. It is hke th6 "Uving God." (John vi. 69. Acts xiv. 15. Rom. ix. 26. 2 Cor. xxxiii. 6, 9. 1 Thess. i. 9. 1 Tim. vi. 17) It must mean the Futher who is the source of life, who '* hath life in himself." (John V. 26.) i» f^. — [I his is that Iread, etc.] Here our Lord sums up the whole discourse. He reverts to the saying with which the Jews had begun, about the fathers eating manna in the wilderness, and repeats the main points He would have His hearers carry away. These points were as follows: — (1.) That He himself was the true bread which had come down from heaven, to feed the world by the sacrifice of Himself. (2.) That they must not cling to the idea that their fathers had ever eaten this true bread, for they all died in the wilderness, and their souls received no benefit from the manna. (3.) And that those, on the contrary, who would eat of the bread He had come down to give, should live for ever, have everlasting life, and their souls never die. — It is as though He said, — " This sacrifice of Myself is the true bread from heaven, of which I spoke at the beginning. The eaters of this bread are in far better circumstances than your fathers when they ate manna in the wilderness. Your fathers died in spite of the manna, and beside that received from it no spiritual benefit whatever. He, on the contrary, who by faith eats the bread of my sacrifice for sin, shall have everlasting life, and his soul shall never die." — All the expressions in the verse, we should remark, have been used frequently in the discourse, and now all are grouped together, and presented in one view.
59. — [These things said...synagogue...Capernaum.'] This verse is not sufficiently noticed, I venture to think. I ask any one to compare it with the beginning of the discourse in this chapter, at the 25th verse, — "When they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said," etc. Are we to suppose that they fjund Him in the synagogue? I cannot think it. To me it seems that there must have been a shght break or pause in the discourse. It began at the landing-place, or outside the city. It was resumed after a short interval, of a few hours perhaps, in the synagogue. And as I have said before, the break appears to me to be at verse 41.
Both the discourse of this chapter, and that of the preceding one, have this point in common, that they seem to have been delivered before formal assemblies of Jews.
In concluding the notes on this very important passage, T take occasion to express my entire dissenfr from the common opinion held by many, that the sixth chapter of John was inteuded to teach the true doctrine of the Lord's supper, as the third was intended to teach, the truth about baptism. — My own opinion is flatly contrary. I hoM that in neither chapter are the sacraments referred to at all. I beheve that the third chapter was intended to counteract erroneous views about baptism, by teaching the far higher truth of spiritual regeneration; and I believe that the sixth chapter was intended to counteract erroneous views about the Lord's supper, by teaching the far higher truth of the necessity of feeding on Christ's sacrifice by faith. — In fact, the true antidote to wrong views of baptism and the Lord's supper, is a right understanding of the 3d and 6th chapters of St. John's Gospel, and the whole of St. John's first Epistle. Writing, as St. John did, the last of all the inspired writers, I believe he was divinely inspired to record things which the Church of Christ needed most to know. And I regard it as a most striking fact, that while he altogether omits to describe the institution of the Lord's supper, and says little or nothing about baptism in the G-ospel, he dwells at the same time most strongly on these two mighty truths, which he foresaw were in danger of being forgotten, — viz.: the new bu-th, and faith in the Atonement.—Surely it is possible to honour baptism and the Lord's supper, without thrusting them in everywhere in our interpretation of Scripture.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 "When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them. Doth this oflfend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
eth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that beUeved not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said. Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
We learn from these verses that some of ChrisVs sayings seem hard to flesh and blood. We arc told that " many " who had followed our Lord for a season, were offended when He spoke of " eating his flesh and drinking his blood." They murmured and said " This is an hard saying; who can hear it?"
Murmurs and complaints of this kind are very common. It must never surprise us to hear them. They have been, they are, they will be as long as the world stands. To some Christ's sayings appear hard to understand. To others, as in the present case, they appear hard to believe, and harder still to obey. It is just one of the many ways in which the natural corruption of man shows itself. So long as the heart is naturally proud, worldly, unbelieving, and fond of self-indulgence, if not of sin, so long there will never be wanting people who Avill say of Christian doctrines and precepts, " These are hard sayings; w^ho can hear them?"
Humihty is the frame of mind which we should labour and pray for, if we would not be offended. If we find any of Christ's sayings hard to understand, w^e should humbly remember our present ignorance, and believe that we shall know more by and bye. If we find any of His sayings difficult to obey, we should humbly recollect that He will never require of us impossibilities, and that what He bids us do, He will give us grace to perform.
We learn, secondly, from these verses, that we must beware of putting a carnal Tneaning on spiritual loords. We read that our Lord said to the murmuring Jews who stumbled at the idea of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, " It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the w^ords that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life."
It is useless to deny that this verse is full of difficulties. It contains expressions " hard to be understood." It i3 far more easy to have a general impression of the meaning of the whole sentence, than to explain it word by word. Some things nevertheless we can see clearly and grasp firmly. Let us consider what they are.
Our Lord says, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth." By this He means that it is the Holy Ghost who is the special autlioi* of spiritual life in man's souL By His agency it is fir&t imparted, and afterwards sustained and kept up. If the Jews thought He meant that man could have spiritual life by bodily eating or drinking, they were greatly mistaken.
Our Lord says, " The flesh profiteth nothing." By this He means that neither His flesh nor any other flesh, literally eaten, can do good to the soul. Spiritual benefit is not to be had through the mouth, but through the heart. The soul is not a material thing, and cannot therefore be nourished by material food.
Our Lord says, "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life." By this He signifies that His words and teachings, applied to the heart by the Holy- Ghost, are the true means of producing spiritual influence and conveying spiritual life. By words thoughts are begotten and aroused. By words mind and conscience are stirred. And Christ's words especially are spirit-stirring and life-giving.
The principle contained in this verse, however faintly we may grasp its full meaning, deserves peculiar attention in these times. There is a tendency in many minds to attach an excessive importance to the outward and visible or " doing " part of religion. They seem to think that the sum and substance of Christianity consists in Baptism and the Supper of the Lord, in public ceremonies and forms, in appeals to the eye and ear and bodily excitement. Surely they forget that it is " the Spirit that quickeneth," and that the "flesh profiteth nothing." It is not so much by noisy public demonstrations as by the still quiet work of the Holy Ghost on hearts that God's cause prospers. It is Christ's words entering into consciences, which " are spirit and life."
We learn, lastly, from these verses, that Christ has a perfect hnowledge of the hearts of men. We read tkat
" He knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him."
Sentences like this are found so frequently in tlie Gospels that we are apt to underrate their importance. Yet there are few truths which we shall find it so good for our souls to remember as tlint which is contained in the sentence before us. The Saviour with whom we have to do is one who knows all things I
What light this throws on the marvellous patience of the Lord Jesus in the days of His earthly ministry! He knew the sorrow and humiliation befoi'e Him, and the manner of His death. He knew the unbelief and treachery of some who professed to be His familiar friends. But " for the joy that was set before Him" he endured it all. (Heb. xii. 2.)
What light this throws on the folly of hypocrisy and false profession in religion! Let those who are guilty of it recollect that they cannot deceive Christ. He sees them, knows them, and will expose them at the last day, except they repent. Whatever we are as Christians, and however weak, let us be real, true, and sincere.
Finally, what light this throws on the daily pilgrimage of all true Christians! Let them take comfort in the thought that their Master knows them. However much unknown and misunderstood by the world, their Master knows their hearts, and will comfort them at the last day. Happy is he who, in spite of many infirmities, can say with Peter: *' Lord, thou knovvest all things; thou knowest that I love thee." (John xxi. 1*7.)
60. — [Many, therefore of his disciples.] It is plain that tliese were not true believers. Many who followed our Lord about, and were called His " disciples," had no real pfrace in their hearts, and followed Him from carnal motives. We must expect to see the same thing in every age. Not all who come to church, nor all who profess to admire and follow popular preachers, are real Christians. This is far too much forgotten.
[This is an hard saying.] This does not mean "hard" in the sense of being " difficult to understand." It is not so much " h;ird to the comprehension," as " hard to the feelings." Parkhurst defines it as " shocking to the mind." It is the same word that is used in the parable of the talents: "Thou art an hard man " (Matt. xxv. 24): and in the Epistle of Jude: " the hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." (Jude 15.)
Some think that the " hard saying " means the whole discourse. My own opinion is, that it refers specially to our Lord's concluding words about eating His flesh and drinking Hi^ blood,
61. — [JesUrS knew in himself.] This means, that He knew by that divine knowledge, through which He always " knew what was in man." (John ii. 25.)
[Ris disciples murmured at it] This would be more literally rendered " His disciples are murmuring about this." He spoko at the very moment of their murmuring.
[Doth this offend you f ] This means, " Is this saying of mine a stumbling-block to you? Is the doctrine of eating my flesh and drinking my blood, too humbling a doctrine for your hearts to receive? "
62. — [ What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend.] This means, " What will ye think and say of my ascension into heaven? " " What will your feelings be, if you behold this body of mine going up to that heaven from whence I came down? Will you not be much more offended? " (See John iii. 12.)
The first thing, we must remember, that the Jews " nmrmured " about, was our Lord's saying that He " came down from heaven." The second thing was, His saying that He would."give them His flesh to eat." Both times our Lord's human body was the subject. — Here our Lord asks them what they would think, if they saw that same body " ascending up " into heaven. Even then, after his ascension, they would have to " eat His flesh, and drink His blood," if they desired eternal life. What would they think of that? Would they not find it even more difiicult to receive and believe?
Socinian can explain. It is a clear assertion of the " pre-existence " of Christ.
Some think, as Oishausen and Tholuck, that our Lord only means generally, ''If you are offended and unbelieving, ever, now, while I am with you, how much more will ye be, when I go away." But this is a frigid and unsatisfactory interpretation.
It is fair to say that Stier thinks, with Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, and others, that our Lord did not mean that His ascension would be a greater difficulty to His disciples, but that, on the contrary, it would remove their doubts and weaken the oflfence which they now felt. Hutcheson and Alford seem to agree with this. But I cannot see it. Stier thinks our Lord implied, " Then, after my ascension, it will be disclosed to you how, and in what way, my human corporeity, become heavenly and glorified, may be given to be eaten, and to be drunk." (Compare John viii. 28.)
63. — [It is the Spirit, &c.] This text is, perhaps, one of the most difficult in the Grospel of St. John. It is easy to slur it over, and be satisfied with a vague impression that it means " We are to put a spiritual sense on our Lord's words." That, no doubt, is a true idea. But when we come to a close examination of the words which compose the verse, I think no one can be satisfied with such a loose interpretation of Scripture. That our Lord's words " are to be taken spiritually," may be very true. But to say so is not to explain the verse.
What is meant by the expression, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth "?
(a.) Some think that " the Spirit " here means, " the divine nature of Christ " (as Rom. i. 4; 1 Pet. iii. 18), in contradistinction to His human nature, here called, His " flesh." (See 1 Cor. XV. 45.) They consider our Lord to mean, "It is my divine nature, as Grod, which is the means of communicating spiritual benefit to men. My human nature, as flesh, could of itself do no good to souls. It is not, therefore, any carnal eating of my flesh, that could be of use to you, and I did not mean any such eating."
(&.) Some think that " the Spirit " here means " the Holy Spirit," the Third Person of the Trinity. They consider our Lord to mean, "It is the Holy Spirit who alone can convey spiritual fife to the soul of man. The mere eating of flesh, whether my flesh, or any other flesh, cannot do good to the inner man. When, therefore, I spoke of ' eating my flesh,' I did
(c.) Some think that " the Spirit" here means, "the sp'rituai doctrine, or sense," as opposed to 'Hbe letter," or literal sense of scriptural language. (2 Cor. iii. 6.) They consider the sentence to mean, " It is the spiritual sense of my words, and not the literal, wliich is quickening, or liie-giving to the soul. When I spoke of ' my flesh,' I did not mean my flesh literally, but my fle^h in a spiritual sense. My flesh literally could be of no use to any one." This seems to be the opinion of Chrysostom, Tiieophylact, Euthymius, Brentius, Beza, Ferus, Cornelius ^ Lapide, Schotrgen, Pearce, Parkhu; st, A. Clarke, Faber, Barnes, Webster. But it is not easy to make out clearly, in every instance, what is the precise meaning put on the words, " the Spirit," by the interpreters who take this third view. There are not a few shades of variety in their opinions.
I must acknowledge, that I find it d fficult to give a decided opinion on the comparative merits of these three views of the expression before us. Tliere is ^oraething to be said for each of the three. On the whole, I think the second and third are more satisfactory than the first; and I incline to prefer the second to the third. But I say this with much hesitation.
Rollock, who holds strongly that " the Spirit " means Christ'a divine nature, maintains, that " the flesh," means the whole human nature of Christ. He thinks that the meaning of " the flesh profiteth nothing " is, that all the works of our Lord's bodr, whether in life or death. His fulfilling the law, His sufferings on the cross, derive their whole efficacy from the union of the two natures — " It is the divine nature that is life-giving. The human nature, alone and separate from the divine, is useless and unprofitable."— He holds, therefore, that to eat the human nature of Christ alone, i. e.. His flesh, could do us no good; as, unless we could eat His divine nature also, it would be unprofitable. He concludes, therefore, that the only eating of Christ that can be useful to the soul, must, of necessity, be the spiritual eating of faith, and not any car; al eatin- of the Lord's Supper. Hutcheson agrees with this view.
The expression, " the words that I speak imto 5''0u, they are spirit and they are life," is jusc as difficult as the former part of the text. The word "spirit,'' hei'e, at any rate, caimot mean the divine nature of Christ. IC it were so taken, the sentence would be unmeaning. — The word Spirits must either mean the " Holy Spirit," or " the spiritual sense," as opposed to the letter. The
Bentence then might be paraphrased in either of the following ways: — (1.) " The words that I speak to you, received into your hearts and beheved, are the Spirit's influence, the ministration of the Spirit, and the Spirit's means of giving you hfe." This ia RoUock's view. Or else, (2.) " The words that I speak unto you, are to be taken m a spiritual sense; or, are spiritual words, and, taken in that sense, are Ufe-giving to the soul." — Tiiis is Augustine's view.
I must honestly confess that neither of these explanations ia quite satisfactory; but they are the nearest approach I can see to a satisfactory interpretation. The sentence is evidently a concise elliptical one, and it seems impossible to convey it in English, without a paraphrase.
Alford paraphrases the sentence thus: " The words that I have spoken, viz., the words 'my flesh and blood,' are spirit and life, • — spirit, not flesh only, — living food, not carnal and perishable." I venture to think, that this explanation is not more precise, or satisfactory, than either of those I have suggested.
The expression "the words that I speak unto you," must probably be confined to the words our Lord had spoken about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and not referred to the whole discourse.
After all, however difficult and elhptical the sentence before us may be, there is a truth which throws light on it, with which every true Christian must be familiar. It is the words of Christ brought home to the hearts of men by the Spirit, which are the great agents employed in quickening and giving spiritual life to men. The Spirit impresses Christ's words on a man's conscience. These words become the parent of thoughts and convictions in the man's mind. From these thoughts springs all the man's spiritual life. The soul is not benefited by bodily actions, such as eating or drinking, but by spiritual impressions, which the Holy Spirit alone can produce. In producing these spiritual impressions the Spirit specially employs the agency of Christ's " words," and hence comes the great principle, that '' His words are spirit and life."
64. — [I here are some of you that believe not.] The connection of this sentence with the preceding verses seems to be this: — " The true account of your murmuring and thinking my sayings 'hard' is your want of faith. You do not reaUy believe me to be the Messiah, though you have followed me and professed yourselves my disciples. And not really believing in me, you are ofiended at the idea of eating my flesh and drinking my blood."
[Jesus knew from the beginning who...beIieved not] This is one of the many places which declare our Lord's Divine knowledge of all hearts and characters. He was never deceived by crowds and apparent popularity, as His ministers often are. When it says " from the be^^inning," it pi-obably means "from the beginning of His ministry, and from the time when the unbelieving ^ many ' before Him first professed to be His disciples." Of course our Lord, as God, knew all things "from the beginning" of the world. But it does not seem necessary to suppose that this is meant here.
Rollock remarks our Lord's example of patient teaching and preaching to all without exception, though He knew that many did not and would not beUeve. He poinis out what a pattern it is to ministers. Christ knew exactly who would beUeve. Ministers do not know.
[ WJio should hetray him.] We should not fail to notice in this expression our Lord's marvellous patience in allowing one whom He knew to be about to betray Him to be one of His Apostles. It was doubtless meant to teach us that false profession must be expected everywhere, and must not surprise us. How much we ought to tolerate and put up wit^h, if our Lord tolerated Judas near him! The pain and sorrow which the foreknowledge of the conduct of Judas must have caused to our Lord's heart, is a circumstance in our Lord's sufferings which ought not to be forgotten. 65. — [And he said. Therefore said I, etc., etc.] The connection of this verse seems to be as follows: — " There are some of you that believe not, and that is the reason why I said to you, that no man can come to me unless the Father gives him grace to come, and draws his heart to me. The Father has not given you grace, and drawn you to me, and therefore you do not believe."