《Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures – John (Ch. 4~Ch. 8》(Johann P. Lange) 04 Chapter 4

If any man eat of this bread.—Because Christ is the living bread, He offers Himself as bread, and communicates by the eating of this bread a living forever. Christ, therefore, now distinguishes Himself as life from the bread of life as a gift.

And the bread that I will give.—No longer: The bread which I am. The καί—δέ, [atque etiam] is to be noted [i.e, καὶ ὁ ἄρτος δέ, ὃν έγ. δ.: “And the bread, now, which I will give.”] See Tholuck.^[FN62] Is my flesh.—The bodily, finite, historical form of Christ, which He yields up for the world in His death, and thus gives to the world for its nourishment, John 2:19; John 3:14. Not only the sacrifice of Christ in His atoning death to procure the eternal life of the world (Meyer), but also the renewal and transformation of the world by its participation of the sacrificed life of Christ; as, in John 2:19; John 3:14, death and resurrection are combined. It seems strange that the second ἣν ἔγὼ δώσω [after ή σάρξ μου ἐστίν] should be wanting in Codd. B. C. D. L. T. [and א.], the Itala, the Vulgate, and three times in Origen; so as to be stricken out by Lachmann and Tischendorf [Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort—P. S.] Tholuck accordingly says, with Meyer: “A pregnance like this: The bread which I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world,—would be as contrary to the style of John as the repetition ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω is agreeable to it.” And he conjectures: “The omission may have been caused by the preceding δώσω.” But the addition, too, may very easily have been made for doctrinal elucidation, to make the sentence point more distinctly to the atoning death. If, therefore, we let the above manuscripts decide, the death and resurrection are united; the point of the sacrificial death by itself is not yet so distinctly brought, out in this place; and this seems more congruous with John 3:14 (and with the conception of the Jews in the sequel). Therefore: My flesh for the life of the world. The manifestation in the flesh is necessary to the full life. The flesh of Christ will be the life of the world. That Isaiah, the giving up of His flesh in death and the distribution of His flesh in the resurrection will be the life of the world. Yet in the giving up of His flesh, His sacrificial death is mainly intended, and in the eating of it, faith in the atonement; and as this element in the conception is to be distinguished, on the one hand, from the fact that Christ is the bread in His person, in His historical life itself, Song of Solomon, on the other hand, it is to be distinguished from the fact that Hebrews, in His flesh and blood, prepares His life, glorified through death, for a eucharistic meal for the world.

John 6:52. The Jews therefore strove among themselves.—Here a dispute arises concerning the sense in which the Lord could give men His flesh for the life of the world. And this dispute is described as a dispute of the Jews. Yet it is not a question of the interpretation of Christ’s word, but of the offensiveness of it, which here sets the Jews at strife. The skeptics and cavillers lead, saying: How can this Prayer of Manasseh, etc. They seem disposed to charge the word with an abominable meaning, taking it literally.

John 6:53. Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Prayer of Manasseh, and drink his blood.—Jesus recedes not for the offense, but with a verily, verily, He goes further, and now divides the flesh into flesh and blood, and to the eating adds drinking, which He had first introduced at John 6:35.

Mark further: (1) This truth, enforced with verily, verily, is now expressed in four different forms; four times the Lord speaks of eating and drinking His flesh and blood. (2) The first time in a conditional injunction on the Jews with reference to the Messiah, in the negative form of threatening: “Unless ye eat, etc, ye have no life in you.” The second time in a positive statement referring to Jesus Himself, in the form of promise. The third time, in a statement of the nature and substantial effect of the flesh and blood of Christ, on which the preceding practical alternative is founded: “For my flesh is meat indeed,” etc. The fourth time, in explication of all these three propositions: “He dwelleth in Me, and I in him.”

For the interpretation, we must remember that elsewhere flesh (σάρξ), by itself, denotes human nature in its full concrete manifestation ( John 3:6); hence the flesh (σάρξ) of Christ, likewise, is the manhood of Christ, His personal human nature. But flesh and blood (σὰρξ καὶ αἶμα) elsewhere denotes inherited nature; in Peter ( Matthew 16:17), for example, his old, hereditary Jewish nature, with its associations and views; in Paul ( Galatians 1:16), his Pharisaic descent, spirit, and associations; in Christians ( 1 Corinthians 15:50), the mortal, earthly nature and form, received from natural birth, which cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Accordingly the flesh and blood of Christ are the peculiar descent and nature of Christ in historical manifestation; the historical Christ. As the flesh and blood of historical mankind are reduced to the material and nutriment of its culture and development, its humanity; so the flesh and blood of the historical Christ are given to be the nutriment of mankind’s higher spiritual life, its divinity. And when the partaking of His flesh and blood is made the indispensable condition of salvation, the meaning is: The life of man proceeds only from the life of Christ completed in death; only by Christ’s actual person being made the especial vital element of mankind, the nourishment and refreshment of the real life of Prayer of Manasseh,—by this means alone does man receive true life.

The four sentences of this passage may be arranged in the following system:

(1) The flesh and blood of Christ are really the food and drink of man; i.e, the sacrifice and the participation of the actual, divine-human Christ are for mankind the only escape from death, and the only way to the higher, spiritual life.

(2) Because nothing but the full reception of the historical Christ can effect full communion with Him, consisting in the believer’s dwelling in Christ (justification), and Christ’s dwelling in the believer (sanctification).

(3) Therefore he that eats, takes the nutriment of eternal life, which works in him to resurrection.

(4) He who takes not this nourishment, has no true life, and can attain to none.

Note: (1) the phrase flesh and blood (σὰρξ καὶ αἶμα) in our passage differs from body and blood (σῶμα καὶ αἷμα) in the words of institution of the holy Supper: the former applying to the whole historical, self-sacrificing Christ, the latter simply to His individual person just coming forth from the sacrifice. (2) In the preparation of the σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα for food, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ are blended in one, the leading element being the death; as in σῶμα καὶ αἷμα the two are blended under the leading aspect of the new life.—Tholuck: “The addition of αἷμα to σάρξ abates nothing from the notion ( Matthew 16:7; Ephesians 6:11; 1 Corinthians 15:20), but only expresses still more definitely, that Isaiah, by its two main constituents, the sensible human nature.” This, therefore, in its earthly manifestation ( John 6:50; John 6:58), is to be spiritually received, and John 6:50, continuing to qualify the succeeding verses, shows that it is to be received especially in its atoning death, to which also the αἷμα may perhaps particularly point. The addition of αἷμα, however, denotes primarily the generic life in the individualized σάρξ. The flesh and blood of Christ are the historical Christ in His entire connection with God and man (as the “Son of God and of Mary”), as made by His death the eucharistic meal of the world;—certainly, therefore, a new point, with death as the most prominent aspect. [It should be added that the blood of Christ in the New Testament always signifies His atoning death for the sins of the world, comp. Romans 3:25; Colossians 1:14; Colossians 1:20; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 9:20; Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Peter 1:19; 1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5. It must refer to the same sacrifice here, and flesh must be interpreted accordingly. Flesh and blood are the whole human life of Christ as offered on the cross for the propitiation of the sins of the world, and thus become the fountain of life for all believers.—P. S.]

Various Interpretations:

1. The atoning death of Christ: Augustine,^[FN63] Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza, [Grotius, Calov.] Lücke, and many other modern expositors (see Meyer).^[FN64]

2. The entire human manifestation of Christ including His death (Paulus, Frommann, De Wette, etc.)

3. The deeper self-communication of Jesus, faith eating and drinking in the human nature of Jesus the life of God (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, [ΙΙ. 2, p245 ff.]. “Not the giving of His flesh, but His flesh itself Jesus calls food.” (Delitzsch).

4. A prophetic discourse in anticipation of the Lord’s Supper (Chrysostom, most of the fathers [Cyril, Theophyl, Euth. Zigab, Cyprian, Hilarius, perhaps also Augustine, but see p228,] and Roman Catholics [Klee, Maier], Calixtus [a moderate Lutheran, strongly opposed by the high Lutheran Calovius], Zinzendorf, Bengel, Michaelis, Scheibel, Olshausen, Kling, etc, Kahnis,^[FN65] Luthardt [Wordsworth]; according to Heubner, the Reformed Church [he should say the Reformed theology] with the exception of Calvin).

5. A mythical discourse here anticipating the Lord’s Supper, as John 3anticipates baptism. (The negative critics, Bretschneider, Strauss, Baur, etc.).

6. The Lord does not speak here of the Supper itself, but expresses the idea on which the Supper is founded. (Here Meyer names Olshausen, Kling, Lange).

As to the first interpretation: Unquestionably the atoning death is in view, but in connection with its antecedent (the historical fact of Christ) and its effect (the historical gospel).

As to the second: The subject is no longer only the living person of Christ itself, but that which it will yield by its sacrifice of itself.

As to the third: The further pressing of the words themselves takes us to the very mode by which the life of Jesus is changed into the food and drink of mankind (death).

As to the fourth: The Lord’s Supper itself cannot be the subject. (Heubner quotes the Lutheran church as denying this hypothesis, especially Luther. Yet it is plain from the foregoing that this exegetical antagonism is not confessional.) (a) The discourse would anticipate too much, and be unintelligible. (b) John 6:53 would teach the absolute necessity of taking the communion rather than of evangelical saving faith. (“Even the Lutherans consider the Supper not absolute but only ordinarie necessary.”) (c) The expression σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα; is not equivalent to σῶμα καὶ αἷμα. (d) A manducatio spiritualis is here intended; for the partaker is assured of eternal life, which is only conditionally the case in the fruitio oralis. (e) The eating here described is perpetual.

As to the fifth: It is disposed of with the assumptions of that school of criticism in the Introduction. (The σὰρκα φαγεῖν of Ignatius and Justin can prove nothing. It has its origin here.)

As to the sixth: As the specific ordinance of baptism Isaiah, in chap3, lodged in germ in the general idea of baptism as already known to history, so the specific ordinance of the Lord’s Supper is here present in germ under the general idea and historical forms of the evening meal.

The hearers of Jesus were on their way to eat the paschal lamb; He says to them: Ye must eat Me, the real paschal lamb now offered in the history of the world. This then unquestionably contains a prophecy of the holy Supper, though it is not the Supper itself that is directly described.—The emphasizing of the person is the decisive point. Personal reception of the historical person of Christ in its communication and sacrifice of itself (through the medium of the word and sacrament) is the fundamental condition of personal eternal life.

Respecting the copious literature of this section, see Tholuck: Meyer [p273]. The dissertations of Kling, Müller,^[FN66] Tischendorf [De Christo pane vitæ, 1839], the works on the Lord’s Supper by Ebrard, Kahnis, Lindner, [Rückert, Nevin], Dieckhoff, the Excursus of Lücke,^[FN67] etc, are of mark.

John 6:53-54. Unless ye eat [φάγητε] … and drink. … He that eateth [τρώγων] my flesh and drinketh my blood.—Eating and drinking denotes full, actual faith, full, actual appropriation by faith. According to Hofmann, faith is not the thing directly in view, but is presupposed. The reception here meant is distinct from faith.^[FN68] Against this see John 6:40; John 6:47, and the many passages in which the πιστεύειν is represented as the sole condition of the ζωὴ αἰώνιος. Τρώγειν [to gnaw, to crack, to chew, repeated four times, 54, 56–58.—P. S.], though in its general meaning equivalent to φαγεῖν, is a stronger expression (De Wette, et al, against Tholuck);^[FN69] and to it πίνειν is added. The tropical phrase is interpreted not so well by Ephesians 3:17 and Sirach 24:21, as by the institution of the paschal lamb, and from the eating and the manna from which the discourse started. It is the strongest assertion of the personal aspect of salvation. In you, ἐν ἑαυτοῖς; see John 5:26.

[See Text. Notes.] Tholuck considers it the antithesis of the real to the pretended, and disputes the sense ἀληθινός [genuine, veritable] (Origen, Lücke, etc.). Rightly, if it be understood that the ἀληθινός, as opposed to the symbol (in this case, e.g, the manna), is strengthened to ἀληθής, and the symbol falls to nonentity and falsehood, the moment men put the symbol against, the reality for which it stands.^[FN70] And my blood, etc.—“The life of the flesh is in the blood,” says Leviticus 17:11. Here it is said, in ver John 63: “It is the Spirit that quickeneth;” and in 1 Corinthians 15:45. If, now, as we have said on John 6:53, the flesh denotes rather the individualized nature of Prayer of Manasseh, and the blood rather the general, then the blood of Christ also bears a reference to His generic life as Christ in distinction from His flesh, His personal manifestation in history. The connecting notion between His blood and His flesh is His life. We must eat His distinct historical form in believing, historical contemplation, but His life we must drink in spiritual contemplation and in the appropriation of fervent faith.

John 6:56. Dwelleth in me, and I in him.—A Johannean phrase ( John 15:4; John 17:23; 1 John 3:24; 1 John 4:16). Denoting personal community of life with Christ in its two correlative fundamental forms which appear singly in Paul: We in Christ, is the first ( Galatians 2:17); Christ in us, the second ( Galatians 2:20). From this effect of the heavenly food the reception of it may be more precisely defined: The vital appropriation of the whole person of Christ. This is not a unio mystica (Meyer, Tholuck) in the stricter theological sense, though the living faith contains the basis for it. That an effect like this cannot be claimed for the reception of the Lord’s Supper in and of itself, is plain. Yet the reception of the holy communion is the most efficient and copious medium, and the appointed seal; the believing participation is the highest specific act and form of this vital communion; and for this reason the unbelieving participation forms the most violent collision with this vital communion to judgment.

John 6:57. And I live by the Father.—Here also the vital correlation is the main thing; Christ lives in the Father; that Isaiah, by the contemplation of the living, almighty Father, who is life absolute, and pure life, Christ is living and is sent by the Father. The Father lives in Him; that Isaiah, Christ has His own life by the Father’s living in Him for the Father’s sake, i.e, He lives for the Father. (Διά with the accusative denotes not the cause: by the Father,^[FN71] and hardly the ground: because the Father has life;^[FN72] but the entire purpose and direction. “The Father will and must have such, He seeks such,” John 4:23. Angelus Silesius: “I am as much to Him as He is to me”). So he … shall live by me.—Here the eating is again the eating of Christ Himself. He to whom it is the nourishment of His life to sink Himself in the personal presence of Christ, as Christ has sunk Himself in the contemplation of the Father,—he is sent forth by the life of Christ, and lives for Him, as Christ is sent forth by the life of the Father, and lives for the Father. (“He shall divide the spoil with the strong” [German version: “He shall have the strong for a prey”]. Isaiah 53.

John 6:58. This is that bread. Conclusion of the whole matter. As Christ had passed from the bread which He in Himself presents, to the bread which He gives, He here returns to the bread which He Himself is. Yet not merely in the same sense as before is He now Himself the bread. There it was Christ in His historical manifestation; here it is the eternal Christ, by the eternal intuition (τρώγων) of whom we live forever.

John 6:59. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.—A historical note, accounting, in particular, for the fact that not only the Judaistic spirit in the popular mass which followed Him, but also many of His old adherents and disciples in Capernaum itself took offence at His words. From this locality of His discourse the sensuous construction of the eating of the body of Christ has been styled a Capernaitic eating.

John 6:60. Many therefore of his disciples, when they heard this.—Many of His adherents in Capernaum and the vicinity. Μαθηταί in the wider sense. See the woe of Christ on Capernaum, Bethsaida, and Chorazin, Matthew 11:20 ff. Hard; σκληρός, harsh, stern, rigorous; opposed to μαλακός, soft, tender, gentle. דִּבַר־עֶצֶב, Proverbs 15:1. Hard to solve, hard to do, hard to bear. The interpretation is contained in the next words: Who can hear it? i.e, bear it. Hence not: hard to understand (Chrysostom, Grotius, Olshausen). According to Tholuck and others: presumptuous, for its making life depend on a scandalous eating of His flesh and blood (on Prayer of Manasseh -eating). De Wette (Kuinoel, Meyer): Because they would not admit the thought of the death of the Messiah; not because they understood literally the eating of His flesh (Augustine, Grotius, Lücke). Unquestionably in the sequel, the suffering Messiah and His death on the cross were, as Meyer observes, the standing and specific σκάνδαλον of the Jews ( John 12:34; 1 Corinthians 1:23). This interpretation is further commended by the fact that on this occasion Judas seems to have conceived his first aversion. Yet the succeeding utterance of the Lord gives a still more distinct clew. Formally, they certainly stumbled at the idea of eating flesh and drinking blood, in consequence of their Jewish laws of purity in reference to such acts and in reference to the abomination of human sacrifice. But then, materially, the thought of His sacrifice for their salvation which shone out intelligibly enough, was most certainly hard to them. They sought the Messianic kingdom in a rain of miraculous manna and other blessings from heaven; He would have them find everything in His own person, and even in the sacrificial suffering of that person. And the more repugnant to them the suggestion of this idea, the more they inclined to stick to the letter in which it was expressed, and to find it hard.

John 6:61. Knew in himself.—Ἐν ἑαυτῷ. Bengel’s sine indicio externo is too strong. There were indications, no doubt, of their aversions; but He also knew how to interpret them as the searcher of hearts. Doth this offend you?. Σκανδαλίζει. The Jewish idea of offence, σκάνδαλον; i.e, the taking offence or occasion of falling (see σκάνδαλον, מוֹקֵשׁ et מִכְשׁוֹל in Bretschneider; (comp. Romans 9:33; 1 Corinthians 1:23; Galatians 5:11; 1 Peter 2:8).

John 6:62. What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascending where he was before?—Aposiopesis [from ἀπο-σιωπᾶν, to be silent]. That the form of the broken sentence may be completed by What shall ye say then? (τί ἐρεῖτε; according to Euthym. Zig, Kuinoel, and others) is groundlessly disputed by Meyer. The only question is whether the meaning then would be: shall ye then still take offence? (ἔτι τότε σκανδαλισθήσεσθε;) or shall ye then not he more offended? (οὐχὶ μᾶλλον δκανδαλισθήσεσθε;) Opposite interpretations:

1. Meyer, after De Wette: The ἀναβαίνειν, etc, denotes the dying of Jesus (comp. John 7:33; John 13:3; John 16:5; John 16:28),^[FN73] and to the beholders, who saw only this humble, ignominious fact of the death of Jesus, this amounted to the highest offence (so Beza, Semler, etc.; the οὖν also is adduced in support).

2. Olshausen [Hengstenberg, Godet, Alford] and others, after the expositors of the ancient church: Ἀναβαίνειν denotes (as in John 20:17) the ascension of Christ, and with this, or with His exaltation, offence must cease. Thus the question is: Will ye then still be offended? Augustine, et al.: Then will a deeper insight into the φαγεῖν τὴν σάρκα come.^[FN74] Calvin: Then will the offence which they took at His sensuous manifestation, be done away. Lyser: Then, by His glorification, the glorification of His flesh for food will also be provided for. Luthardt: The glorified state of existence will take the place of the fleshly.

Meyer groundlessly urges, that the ascension, as a visible occurrence, is not attested by any apostle,^[FN75] and in the unapostolical accounts^[FN76] none but disciples in the narrower sense are mentioned as eye-witnesses.^[FN77] The fact itself was nevertheless a visible one.

Meanwhile it is doubtless no more the ascension exclusively which is here in view, than it was exclusively the atoning death a little while ago. There the death includes the life and the exaltation; here the exaltation includes the death, chaps3,12But it is evidently the exaltation viewed especially as produced by the Spirit, of which the next verse speaks. Hence in the same general sense as in Matthew 26:64. It must also be considered, that Christ throughout gives to the Jews not only His death, but with it also carefully His resurrection, for a sign ( John 2:19; Matthew 12:39; Matthew 16:3, the sign of Jonah). The resurrection destroyed the offence of the cross itself for the believing; and therefore for such it does away also the offensive word. At the same time it glorified the personal life of Jesus by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost for the world’s believing participation. Nevertheless the Judaists continued to be offended, and perhaps for this reason the word of Christ remained an aposiopesis. [ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον clearly implies the pre-existence of Christ; comp John 1:1; John 8:58; John 17:5; John 17:24; Colossians 1:17; Revelation 1:8.—P. S.]

John 6:63. It is the Spirit that maketh alive, the flesh profiteth nothing.—[Christ does not say My Spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα μου), and My flesh (ἡ σάρξ μου); the sentence is general and contains a hermeneutical canon which applies not only to this, but to all the discourses of Christ, and the proper mode of apprehending and appropriating Him. It must not be understood so as to conflict with the preceding declaration concerning His flesh. The flesh without the Spirit, or the flesh as mere matter and materially eaten, is worthless; but the flesh with the Spirit is worth much, most of all the flesh which the Logos assumed for our salvation ( John 1:14) and which He sacrificed on the cross for the sins of the world.—P. S.] Interpretations:

1. Of the holy Supper: spiritual participation [πνεῦμα], as opposed to Capernaitic or material [σάρξ]. So Tertullian, Augustine,^[FN78] Rupert v. Deutz, Calvin, [Grotius] Olshausen, Kahnis [Lehre vom Abendmahl, p122]: “That which imparts to the eater of My flesh the virtue of eternal life, is not the flesh as such, but the Spirit.”

2. The Spirit is put for the spiritual apprehension of the word of Christ, the body representing the carnal apprehension (Chrysostom and many others, Lampe).

3. The πνεῦμα is the human soul, which animates the body (Beza, Fritzsche).

4. Not His bodily manifestation, the approaching dissolution of which was so offensive to them, but His Spirit is the life-giving thing. His bodily substance merely of itself profits nothing towards the ζωοποιεῖν. Under the figure of physical life, in which the spirit animates the flesh, Christ expresses the truth that the historical side both of His life and of His word, needs to be animated and glorified by His Spirit. This they should and might see clearly in His very words. The substantives assert: They are pure spirit, pure life.

How Luther and Zwingle contended over the sense of these words, see in Heubner, p 321 sqq. Zwingle appealed to these words against the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper^[FN79]; Luther distinguished the flesh and My flesh, and explained “the flesh” as the carnal, corrupt mind of man. The verse no more supports Zwingle against a bodily presence of Christ, than it speaks, according to Luther’s interpretation, of the corrupt flesh of the sinner.

John 6:64. For Jesus knew from the beginning.—Ἐξ ἀρχῆς means not, metaphysically from the beginning of all things (Theophylact), nor from the beginning of His acquaintance with each one (De Wette, Tholuck), nor from the beginning of His collecting of the disciples around Him, or the beginning of His Messianic ministry (Meyer; comp. John 16:4; John 15:27), nor from the very murmuring (too special: Chrysostom, Bengel), but from the first secret germs of unbelief. So also He knew His betrayer from the beginning. [On Judas see note to John 6:71.]

John 6:65. Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me.—That Isaiah, He expressly gives them again to understand that He had spoken that sentence not as a mere theoretical proposition, but with reference to the faith and the unbelief towards Him which was forming itself in particular persons.

[Excursus on the Sacramental Interpretation of this discourse.—The relation of the passage, John 6:51-58, to the Lord’s Supper involves two questions: 1. Whether the flesh and blood (σὰρξ καὶ αἶμα) of Christ here spoken of, are the same as His broken body and shed blood (σῶμα καὶ αἶμα) in the words of institution of that sacred ordinance ( Matthew 24:26-28 and parallel passages), or the living humanity of Christ (comp. the meaning of σάρξ in John 1:14, and the note there); 2. Whether eating and drinking (τρώγειν or ἐσθίειν^[FN80] and πίνειν) signify, literally, sacramental fruition (manducatio oralis), or, figuratively, the spiritual appropriation of Christ by faith. If the discourse had been preceded by the institution of the sacrament a reference to it could not be mistaken; but as it was spoken long before the institution of this ordinance, and to hearers who as yet knew nothing of it, such a reference is made doubtful. This doubt is strengthened, first by the use of the term flesh instead of body; secondly by the substitution of Me, i.e., the living Person of Christ ( John 6:57 ὁ τρώγων με, comp. the ἐγώ in35, 40, 51) for His flesh and blood, as the object of appropriation; and thirdly and mainly by the fact that Christ presents here the eating of His flesh not as a future, but a present Acts, and as the essential condition of spiritual and everlasting life, which, if understood sacra-mentally, would cut off from the possession of this life not only the disciples present on that occasion, but also all the saints of the old dispensation and the large number of Christians who die before they receive the holy communion (infants, children, death-bed converts, Quakers, and all unconfirmed persons). If participation in the Lord’s Supper were a necessary prerequisite of salvation, Christ would undoubtedly have said so when He instituted the ordinance. But throughout the Gospels, and especially in this discourse (comp. John 6:40; John 6:47), He makes faith the only condition of eternal life. He first exhibits Himself as the bread of life, and promises eternal life to every one who eats this bread, i.e., who believes in Him. He then holds out the very same promise to all those who eat His flesh and drink His blood, which, consequently, must be essentially the same act as believing. The discourse, therefore, clearly refers to a broader and deeper fact which precedes and underlies the sacrament, and of which the sacrament is a significant sign and seal, viz, personal union of the believing soul with Christ, and a living appropriation of His atoning sacrifice. This union culminates in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper and is strengthened by it; and so far the discourse had, in the mind of Christ who looked at the time forward to His death ( John 6:51 : “My flesh which I shall give for the life of the world,” comp. John 6:60; John 6:70), a prospective bearing on the perpetual memorial of His sacrifice, and may be applied to it indirectly, but not directly, or in a narrow and exclusive sacramentarian sense. We must distinguish between a spiritual manducation of Christ by faith, and a sacramental manducation; the former alone is essential to everlasting life, and is the proper subject of the discourse. John omits an account of the institution both of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which was known to his readers from the gospel tradition and the Synoptists, but he gives those profound discourses of Christ which explain the spiritual meaning of the sacraments, namely the idea of regeneration which is signed and sealed in baptism (chap3), and the idea of personal communion with Him, which is celebrated in the Lord’s Supper (chap6). This suggests a very important doctrinal inference, viz., that the spiritual reality of regeneration and union with Christ is not so bound to the external sacramental sign that it cannot be enjoyed without it. We must obey God’s ordinances, but God is free, and we should bless whom He blesses. High sacramentarianism is contrary to the teaching of Christ according to St. John.

As to the history of interpretation we may distinguish three views:

1. The discourse has no bearing either direct or indirect on the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. So Tertullian, Clement of Alex, Origen, Basil among the fathers, Cardinal Cajetan, Ferus and Jansen among Roman Catholics, Luther, Melanchthon, Calov, Lücke, Tholuck (wavering) among the Lutherans, Calvin, Zwingli (doubtful), Beza, Bullinger, Grotius, Cocceius, Lampe (tom. II, 258 sq.), Hammond, Whitby, Barnes, Turner, Owen, Ryle among the Reformed, Paulus, Schulz, De Wette among the rationalists.

2. It refers, by prophetic anticipation, directly and exclusively to the Lord’s Supper. This interpretation has consistently led to the introduction of infant communion in the early Catholic and in the Greek church. So Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact among the fathers, the Schoolmen and Roman Catholic expositors with a few exceptions, Calixtus, Zinzendorf, Scheibel, Knapp among Lutherans, Wordsworth among Anglicans, Bretschneider, Strauss and Baur among the Skeptics.

3. It refers directly to the spiritual life-union of the soul with the Saviour by faith, and indirectly or inferentially to the sacramental celebration of this union in the holy Supper. So Augustine (perhaps),^[FN81] Bengel, Doddridge, Kling, Olshausen, Stier, Lange, Luthardt, Alford, Godet.^[FN82]

It cannot be said that the question has a denominational or sectarian interest. The sacramental interpretation has been both opposed and defended by divines of all confessions and in the interest of every theory of the Lord’s Supper, the Roman, the Lutheran, the Calvinistic, and the Zwinglian. The Romanists (Cardinal Wiseman, e. g., who wrote an elaborate treatise on John 6) urge the literal meaning of the very strong language used repeatedly and without explanation by our Lord, as an argument for the dogma of transubstantiation; and even Tholuck is of the opinion that the Catholics have the advantage of the argument if the discourse be understood of the sacrament. But it seems to me that both transubstantiation and consubstantiation are clearly excluded1) by the canon of interpretation laid down in John 6:63; John 2) by the declaration of our Lord concerning the effect of the fruition of His body and blood which is in all cases eternal life, John 6:54; John 6:56-58; while Romanists and (symbolical) Lutherans agree in teaching that unbelievers as well as believers may sacramentally eat the very body and drink the very blood of Christ, the one unto judgment, the others unto life. No such distinction has any foundation in this passage, but is at war with it.^[FN83] Moreover the Romish withdrawal of the cup from the laity is (as was already urged by the Hussites) incompatible with John 6:54-56 where the drinking of Christ’s blood is made as essential as the eating of His body. As far as the discourse bears a sacramental interpretation at all, it favors the Reformed theory. But by this I mean not the now widely-prevailing Zwinglian view, which is hardly compatible with the strong and mysterious language of our Lord, but the Calvinistic, which acknowledges the mystery of a spiritual real presence and a communication of the vital power of Christ’s humanity (σάρξ) to the believer by the Holy Spirit.—P. S.]