约6:52-59，新生命的法则、基督的肉与血
约6:52-59，新生命的法则、基督的肉与血
Godet, 1885. Commentary on The Gospel according to St. John vol. 2. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. pp. 244-253. Archive 链接
因此，犹太人彼此争论说：“这个人怎能把他的肉给我们吃呢？”耶稣说：“我实实在在地告诉你们，你们若不吃人子的肉，不喝人子的血，就没有生命在你们里面。吃我肉、喝我血的人就有永生，在末日我要叫他复活。我的肉真是可吃的，我的血真是可喝的。吃我肉、喝我血的人常在我里面，我也常在他里面。永活的父怎样差我来，我又因父活着；照样，吃我肉的人也要因我活着。这就是从天上降下来的粮。吃这粮的人就永远活着，不像你们的祖宗吃过吗哪还是死了。”这些话是耶稣在迦百农会堂里教训人说的。(约翰福音 6:52-59 和合本)
按语：本文摘录自Godet对约翰福音的注解。约翰福音 6:52-59 在救恩论中的地位至关重要，但这一点却常常为人所忽略。它的重要性在于，基督徒新生命的基本原则的运作机理是在这里最为清楚地得到说明；而这一父-子-圣灵的三一结构的核心，即基督的神人二性的重要性，也在此处作为重点得到论述。本段圣经自然不是教科书，也非灵命操作手册，但其已经将属灵生命的关节点全部提及并组织在一种言简意赅的形式中。明白此处的圣经就相当于掌握了新生命运作的骨架，而具体的实行上自然可以随各人的情况有所调整——欧文（John Owen）的《治死信徒身上的罪》或是倪弟兄的《正常的基督徒生活》都是相关涉及细节的论述，但二者的方法显见有巨大的差别。如果不掌握此处的圣经，则容易陷入教条主义，把个人的实行奉为圭臬，与圣经的教导就相违背了。约翰福音的这几节圣经不可谓不深邃，其需要人细细的揣摩才能得到其中的真义。我是借由巴文克（Herman Bavinck）的 Refromed Ethics 才读了Godet对此的注解，从而明白此处的价值。盼望神的话在此也同样能供应读者。
需要注意的是，Godet是亚米念主义者，因此他的一些解释是相当荒唐的。例如他设想基督可能是在地上有一天因为触景生情，决定设立圣餐。不过这些错误并不阻碍我们获取他的解经中宝贵的部分。
（文中的下划线是我所加，原文无）
全文
52节. “因此，犹太人彼此争论说：‘这个人怎能把他的肉给我们吃呢？’”——“争吵”(\(ἐμάχοντο\))一词，比41节的“议论”(\(ἐγόγγυζον\))更为激烈；这是继窃窃私语之后的公开争论。“彼此”(among themselves)这个词，似乎与同位的词“说”(saying)相矛盾，后者似乎暗示了他们异口同声。但同样的问题很可能出现在所有人的口中，而对其解答却未达成一致。有些人会很快得出结论，认为这是荒谬的；另一些人，仍然沉浸在昨天神迹所带来的印象以及我们主话语神圣而神秘的特质中，可能会不顾一切反对，坚持认为他就是弥赛亚。面对这场争论，耶稣不仅坚持他的陈述，而且通过赋予他所用的表达越来越字面的意义来加强它。他谈到吃他的肉、喝他的血，显然将这一行为作为生命的条件（53-56节）：吃他自己（57节），之后用一个最终的陈述总结了整个讲论。然后，传福音者指出了场景的地点（59节）。
53-55节. “耶稣就对他们说：‘我实实在在地告诉你们，你们若不吃人子的肉，不喝他的血，就没有生命在你们里面。吃我肉喝我血的人就有永生，在末日我要叫他复活。因为我的肉真是可吃的，我的血真是可喝的。’”¹——当耶稣说到要将他献祭的肉给人吃时（51节），他显然已经在暗指逾越节的筵席；但现在通过区分“肉”和“血”这两个词，他使这个暗指更加清晰。诚然，羔羊的血并未出现在这筵席中；但它在这次筵席所纪念的拯救中扮演了极其重要的角色。血洒在门楣和门框上，保护了百姓免受死亡天使的击杀。在圣殿宰杀羔羊的仪式中，血被洒在祭坛的角上，这取代了以色列人房屋的门。这里的肉对应于羔羊的身体，是逾越节筵席的基本要素。这个词的含义越来越具体。起初，它泛指耶稣整个人类的生命；现在，它明确指的是必须被擘开的身体，以便血可以流出并被饮用。流出的血向信徒保证了赦免，脱离定罪；肉是积极赋予他生命的食物；而这两个行动，即脱离死亡和生命的圆满，构成了完全的救恩。
那么，这句话的意思是：除非你们凭信心接受我的死（血）和我的生命（肉），你们就会死亡，因为你们既不能与神和好，也没有在他里面的生命。我们看到，耶稣没有直接回答犹太人的“如何？”(How?)，而是像对尼哥底母那样，间接地提供了所需的解释。在后一个例子中，他将“重生”的表达换成了“从水和圣灵生的”。在这里，他用“喝他的血”来补充“吃他的肉”的表达。他首先以否定的形式给出这个解释。除了这种吃喝，没有别的东西能给予生命。这是神圣的否定，与犹太人的抗议（52节）相对立。没有吃过耶稣肉和血的人，其内心深处就带有死亡。在54节，我们看到同样思想的肯定形式：这种吃喝确实能赋予生命。耶稣甚至将信徒的视野提升到这种生命交流的最高阶段——身体的复活。这些话之间的关系是：“并且我要叫他复活……”与前面的陈述关系如下：因此，这个人将拥有一种生命，凭此生命，我必在末日叫他复活。因此，身体的复活既不是与属灵生命无关的多余附加物，如鲁斯先生（M. Reuss）所认为的圣约翰的概念，也不是一个独立于更高生命的魔法行为，如人们常有的想法；而是属灵复活的高潮，是神圣工作的预定目标：它是被战胜罪恶的恩典所恢复和荣耀的自然。
55节 证实了否定和肯定的陈述。如果这肉和血是人生命的条件，那是因为它们是真正意义上的食物和饮料。批评权威的平衡倾向于读作 \(ἀληθῶς\)（“真是”），而非 \(ἀληθής\)（是真食物……真饮料）。西奈抄本（Sinaït.）、剑桥抄本（Cantabrig.）以及古译本（Vss.），连同拜占庭权威，都支持第一种读法，而且这更符合圣约翰的通常风格。正如吕克（Lücke）所观察到的，圣约翰通常使 \(ἀληθής\) 指的是与 \(ψεῦδος\) 相对的道德真实性，而他则自由地将 \(ἀληθῶς\) 与名词结合使用（一48：\(ἀληθῶς\) \(Ἰσραηλίτης\)；八31：\(ἀληθῶς\) \(μαθηταί\)）。两种读法的意义差别不大。无论如何，耶稣的意思是说，通过他的肉和血（54节），我们真正得到了支持和滋养，因此得以存活。副词或形容词表达了通过这些元素实现的生命交流的完全真实性。
¹ 原文的文本注释： IBT Itplerique 在 την σαρκα 之后添加 αυτου。 手稿在 εν τη 之间存在分歧。 DEHMSUV Mnn. Itplerique Vg. Syr. Or. (三次) : \(αληθως\); BCF KLT 11, 30 Mnn. Cop. Or. (五次): \(αληθης\). א 省略了 βρωσις... εστι 这几个词，并且读作 ποτον 而非 πόσις (我的肉是真饮料)。 D 省略了 και... πόσις 这几个词。
56, 57节 解释了它们赋予生命的能力，正如55节所肯定的。在这个解释中，耶稣假定住在他里面就是活着（56节），并解释了这个独特的事实（57节）。
56, 57节. “吃我肉、喝我血的人，常在我里面，我也常在他里面。正如永生的父差我来，我又因父活着；照样，吃我的人也要因我活着。”¹——如果耶稣的肉和血拥有55节所赋予它们的能力，那是因为它们是信徒与耶稣联合，并通过他与父联合的途径。信徒住在耶稣里包含两件事：放弃自己的一切生命——也就是说，放弃一切源于自身资源的功绩、力量和智慧，然后完全安息在基督里，因为只有他拥有能填补这空虚的宝藏。基督住在信徒里则表达了基督向信徒完全传递他所拥有的一切，甚至他所是的一切，即他整个位格（吃我的人，57节）。从这种相互关系中，信徒得到了生命。但是如何得到呢？这由57节解释。
如果与耶稣的交通能给予生命，那是因为耶稣自己能够接触到生命的源头。他的生命原则是完美意义上的“永活者”；耶稣从与父的这种交通中获得生命的确定性，自然延伸到以他为食、使他成为自己生命原则的人身上。这适用于耶稣，不是在他作为道（Logos）的状态下（参看26节），而是在他虚己的状态下（差我来，57节），并作为人子。问题是要解释一个人如何能以如此真实和排他的方式成为他人的生命原则，以至于吃他就是活着。因此，耶稣在这一节的前半部分揭示了他自己生命的奥秘，以便在后半部分从中推导出对信徒生命的解释。这前半部分包括两个相关的命题：神对耶稣而言是什么，以及耶稣对神而言是什么。理解这种双重关系，就是洞察耶稣最内在生命的秘密。永生的父差了他来；因此，耶稣的使命和工作的责任完全在于父。而父在绝对意义上是永活者，这种被父差来的条件，就为耶稣战胜一切形式的死亡提供了绝对的保证。但另一方面，这个结果要求耶稣持续地依赖父，并完全献身于他的使命。他要不断地因父而活。
词语 \(ζῶ\)（我活），不仅指存在的这个事实，在这里它意味着在各种身体和道德表现中活动的生命。像我们一样用介词 by 来翻译 \(διά\)（带宾格）并不完全正确。但翻译成 on account of（因为）又会显得迂腐，甚至不准确。耶稣想说的是，凭借他所意识到的父的这个使命，他不断地从父那里获得光、力量和一切。因此，他是在父里面找到他活动的法则和源泉——换句话说，他的生命原则。父通过差遣子，为他确保了这种关系；而子则一直严格地忠于此（17节）。
结果是什么呢？父的生命在地上一个人的生命中完美地再现出来——耶稣是由一个人活出来的神。由此产生了这一节的后半部分：吃耶稣的人，就是将永生的神融入自身，因此得以活着。这一节的后半部分，从语法上讲，只包含一个命题。但主语：吃的人，对应于前一陈述的第一个命题：正如父差我来；而谓语：他也要因我活着，对应于第二个命题：我又因父活着。第一个 \(καί\)（和，或更确切地说是也），是 \(καθώς\)（正如）的对应词，同时也是主句的标志。圣约翰使用 \(καί\) 而非 \(οὕτως\)（如此），因为这个类比并不完美。代词前的第二个 \(καί\) 有不同的含义，用于强调主语 \(κἀκεῖνος\)（他也），目的是为了强调这个思想：信徒通过吃耶稣，获得了与耶稣自己因与父的关系而享有的完全相同的生命保证。这句名言蕴含着深不可测的思想：只有耶稣能直接接触到至高的源头。他从那里获得生命，经过他位格中人性化的提炼和再现，通过他而为人类所能及。正如自然界无限的生命只有集中在水果或一块面包中才能为人类所吸收；同样，神的生命也只有在人子身上道成肉身，才被置于我们所能及的范围之内。因此，他对我们所有人来说都是生命的粮。但正如我们必须吸收和消化面包才能通过它获得生命；同样，我们也必须通过信心的内在行为，将人子的位格融入己身，这便是属灵咀嚼之道。通过这样吃那位因神而活的人，我们自己也因神而活，并从此像耶稣一样真实地活着。真神，永生的父，将自己只给一个人，但在这一个人里面，给了所有以这独一者为食的人。我们在这里找到了生命的秘密，救恩的奥秘，也就是圣保罗所说的（弗一10）万有在基督里同归于一。因此，拒绝这种食物就是剥夺自己的生命。
¹ 手稿在 \(ζησεται\) (ΓΔ, 等), \(ζησει\) (א B, 等), 和 \(ζη\) (CD) 之间存在差异。
58节. “这就是从天上降下来的粮。¹ 不像你们的祖宗吃过吗哪，还是死了；吃这粮的人，就必永远活着。”²——这个结束谈话的陈述，展现了一种直接呼吁的特质。接受或拒绝，全在于你们。我告诉你们，拒绝它就是死亡；吃它，就是生命。\(οὐ\) \(καθώς\)（不像）所依赖的主句，在我看来是（没有省略）：吃的人将活着；意思是：“与你们祖宗所发生的情况相反，……吃的人……将活着。”
有人可能会问，耶稣在这段经文中用“吃他的肉，喝他的血”这些表达究竟是什么意思？
许多释经家认为它们仅仅是比喻，指信心与其对象在道德上联合的行为。一些人（如鲁斯 Reuss）认为这个对象是耶稣基督的历史位格，就像他呈现在听众眼前那样，并笼统地理解“我的肉和我的血”这些表达；肉和血，即人性。根据另一些人的说法，信心的对象不仅是活着的基督（肉），也是被献祭的基督（血）；耶稣在这里用这些术语来描述对祂圣洁生命的领受和对祂赎罪死亡的信心。这种解释，无论是在我们刚才提到的两种主要形式中的哪一种，确实适用于讲论的开头部分，因为通过信心进行的属灵吸收无疑是我们主出发的理念：“我就是生命的粮；到我这里来的，必定不饿；信我的，永远不渴”（35节）。但从这个角度来看，我们很难理解耶稣为什么要给这个纯粹属灵的理念一个越来越悖谬、物质化，从而让质问他的人越来越难以理解的表达。如果这就是他想说的全部，即使在这篇讲论的结尾，他难道不像是在玩文字游戏，故意冒犯犹太人吗？
这个非常现实的困难导致一些注释家将这些表达应用于主的晚餐，他们说，耶稣当时已经预见到了主的晚餐的设立，而主的晚餐随后将为他的门徒解开他话语中的奥秘。但这种解释引起了与前一种同样的困难。因为，对于一个无人能预见的制度，这种难以理解的暗示又有什么用呢？此外，耶稣的整个教导都以信心为救恩的唯一条件，他会把永生的获得依赖于一个外在的行为，比如主的晚餐吗？图宾根学派（Tübingen School）坚持这种解释，并由此推断出反对这卷福音书真实性的论据。如果这种解释有充分的理由，他们的推断也不无道理。但如果伪约翰在二世纪写作时，把对主的晚餐的暗示放在耶稣口中，他无疑会使用 \(σῶμα\)（身体），这个在设立圣餐的文本和礼仪形式中使用的词，而不是 \(σάρξ\)（肉）。一个证据是，在56节末尾的非正典增补中可以找到证明，该增补见于剑桥抄本（Cantabr.）、亚米亚丁抄本（Amiatinus）等：如果一个人接受人子的身体作为生命的粮，他里面就必有生命。
如果我们想发现我们主的真正含义，在我看来，有必要像耶稣自己所做的那样（27节），仔细区分这里所描述的神秘吃喝中的人的行为和神的恩赐。人的行为是信心，且唯有信心；就吃喝表示信徒在他与耶稣基督联合中的部分而言，这些术语并没有超越纯粹属灵解释所赋予它们的意义范围。吃肉是通过信心默观主的圣洁生活，被其深深渗透以至重现它；喝血也是默观他的暴死，使其成为我们自己的赎价，品尝其赎罪的功效。在此顺便说一句。我们不能像鲁斯（Reuss）那样，将“肉”和“血”这些在这里相互对立的表达，因其与“吃”和“喝”这些词语的结合，与通常用来指代人性的“肉和血”这个普通公式混淆。吕克（Lücke）（卷二，159页）很好地指出了其区别：“肉和血，”他说，“分开来看，分别表示人的生与死。”但如果人在神秘联合中的部分仅限于信心，那么关于赐予信徒的神圣恩赐的性质，就还没有确定任何东西。我们这里有一个递进。这个恩赐首先包括赦免（喝血）；然后，对被赦免的信徒，圣灵的降临，正如十四章至十六章将要显示的，圣灵使基督自己活在他里面，并在他的位格中重现那神圣的位格（吃他的肉）。但这还不是全部。我们已经看到，在前面的讲论中，耶稣是何等坚持不懈地反复提到身体复活的观念；在54节，他以一种更加意味深长的方式再次这样做。因此，他传给信徒的生命，不仅仅是道德性质的；这是他的全部生命，既是身体的也是属灵的，是他整个的位格。正如穗中的麦粒不过是种子神秘繁殖后的再现，同样，信徒在被圣化并从死里复活后，也不过是荣耀的耶稣在数百万活生生的样本中的再现。这种再现的原则无疑是属灵的：圣灵，他使基督活在我们里面；但这项工作的成果是物质的，即信徒荣耀的身体，是他自己形象的样式（林前十五49）。耶稣自己的肉身降生也是藉着圣灵的能力。穗中的麦粒是种子之实体的真实程度，不亚于荣耀的圣徒是他们元首属灵和属体之实体的真实程度。耶稣深深地感到，他身体和灵魂都属于人类。正是通过这种感觉，而不是为了取乐而冒犯他的听众，他才使用了在这段讲论中令我们如此惊讶的术语。除了“吃”和“喝”这两个表达方式外，没有别的修辞手法；但与他交通的身体层面是完全真实的，必须按字面意思理解。“我们是他身上的肢体，是他的肉、他的骨”（弗五30），一位不被怀疑为唯物主义的使徒说道；并且为了表明他所想的远非一个随便哪个学者都能理解的比喻，他补充说：“这是极大的奥秘，但我是指着基督和教会说的”（32节）。我们与他位格完全联合的这个奥秘，在这段讲论中用言语表达出来，正是耶稣在设立主的晚餐时打算用一个行动来表达的。我们不应该说在这段讲论中他暗示了圣餐，而应该说主的晚餐和这段讲论都指向同一个神圣的事实，在这里用一个比喻表达，在那里用一个象征表达。从这个角度来看，为什么耶稣在这里使用“肉”(\(σάρξ\))这个词，而在设立主的晚餐时使用“身体”(\(σῶμα\))这个词的微妙问题就很容易解决了。当他设立象征时，他拿起饼，擘开它。现在，与这擘开的饼相对应的是他作为有机体(\(σῶμα\))被擘开的身体。在迦百农(Capernaum)的讲论中，只涉及滋养的问题，与分饼的分析相符，耶稣更倾向于将他的身体呈现为物质(\(σάρξ\))而非有机体。这种术语的完美恰当性显示了两种形式的真实性和可靠性。
还剩下一个问题，即耶稣在此时是否已经想到了主的晚餐的设立？³ 但从我们现在达到的观点来看，这对释经家来说只是次要的。在我们看来，这是可能的。他知道自己即将死亡，施洗约翰被杀的消息刚在他心中重新唤起了对自己死亡的预感（太十四12）：当他的思绪停留在逾越节羔羊的献祭上时，他心中已经有了这个念头；因为他知道，这对于全世界的生命，将如同羔羊的献祭对于以色列民族的存在一样。那么，从这些前提出发，得出纪念他死亡的筵席的想法，就像逾越节迄今为止一直是纪念羔羊献祭的筵席一样，还有什么比这更自然的呢？因为主的晚餐的设立不可能是瞬间的灵感。耶稣必定长期以来在心中珍藏着这个计划。我们要问多久吗？也许自从那一天起，当他被剥夺了在耶路撒冷庆祝逾越节的喜悦，看到群众从四面八方涌向他，他为他们即兴举办了一场逾越节的筵席，与即将在圣城举行的筵席相媲美。这场作为 momentary 补偿提供给他的门徒的宴席，后来在主的晚餐中转变为一个永久的制度。这正是圣约翰从一开始就打算让我们站的观点，当他说（4节）：“那时犹太人的逾越节近了”；而且很可能正是这种相似性，启发了四位福音书作者使用那个与主的晚餐设立非常相似的表达方式，他们都用这个表达开始他们关于五饼二鱼神迹的记述：“他拿起饼来，祝谢了。”
¹ א 省略了 \(ουτος\)，并读作 \(καταβαινων\) 而非 \(καταβας\)。 ² Cop. Or. 在 \(πατερες\) 后省略 \(υμων\)。D 同样省略了 \(το\) \(μαννα\) (在 \(υμων\) 之后)。读法在 \(ζησει\) 和 \(ζησεται\) (57节) 之间存在差异。 ³ 关于圣约翰对这一制度的沉默，见第十三章。
59节. “耶稣在迦百农(Capernaum)的会堂里教训人，说了这些话。”——会堂里固定的聚会日子是每周的第二天、第五天和第七天（星期一、星期四和星期六）。在公元29年，逾越节的日子必定落在4月18日星期一（见 Chavannes, Revue de théol., 3d series, vol. i. p. 209 sq.）。如果五饼二鱼的奇迹发生在逾越节前一晚，那么第二天，也就是耶稣发表这篇讲论的那天，因此必定是这个星期一，一个有聚会的日子。但我们的福音书作者插入这条注记的目的是什么呢？很难相信他只是想提供一个历史细节。托卢克（Tholuck）认为他的意图是为后面叙述所暗示的众多听众作解释（因此，50节）。但这样的想法不是太牵强了吗？在我们看来，更有可能的是，在记述了如此庄严的讲论之后，福音书作者感到有必要永远地确定这个非凡场景的地点（参看八20）。要体会到他的意图，我们必须首先注意到 \(συναγωγῇ\) 前面没有冠词，不是：在那个会堂里，而是在一个会堂聚会中；然后将定语在一个聚会中归于教训，将定语在迦百农归于他说，并如此释义：他如此说，在迦百农的全体会堂聚会中教训人。术语 \(διδάσκων\)（教训），指代一种名副其实的教导，使人回想起耶稣解释和讨论经文的方式，在31和35节，并与场景的庄严性相符。
听众们曾质问、议论、争辩，现在他们当中较为开明的人，甚至一些耶稣的长期门徒，也成了普遍不满的代言人。
Original Text
Ver. 52. "The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can he give us his flesh to eat?" — The term \(ἐμάχοντο\), strove, goes beyond \(ἐγόγγυζον\), murmured, ver. 41; it was a loud contention which succeeded the stifled murmuring. The words, among themselves, seem to contradict the word in apposition, saying, which appears to imply that the saying was unanimous. But the same question might easily be found in all mouths, without any agreement as to its solution. Some would quickly arrive at the conclusion that it was absurd; others, still under the impression produced by yesterday's miracle, and by the sacred and mysterious nature of our Lord's sayings, might maintain, in spite of all opposition, that He was the Messiah. In face of this altercation, Jesus not only persists in His statement, but strengthens it by giving a more and more literal meaning to the expressions He uses. He speaks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, manifestly making this act the condition of life (vv. 53-56): of eating Himself (ver. 57), and afterwards sums up the whole address in a final statement. The evangelist then indicates the locality of the scene (ver. 59).
Vv. 53-55. "Jesus then said unto them, Verily, 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. Whoso cateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life, and I will raise Him up at the last day. For my flesh is truly meat, and my blood is truly drink."¹—Jesus, when He spake of giving His sacrificed flesh to be eaten (ver. 51), was already evidently alluding to the Paschal feast; but by now making a distinction between the two terms: flesh and blood, He renders this allusion still clearer. It is true that the blood of the lamb did not appear in this feast; but it had played a most important part in the deliverance which this feast commemorated. Sprinkled upon the lintels and door-posts, the blood had secured the people from the stroke of the angel of death. In the ceremony of slaying the lamb in the temple, the sprinkling was made upon the horns of the altar, which took the place of the doors of the Israelitish houses. The flesh here corresponds with the body of the lamb, which was the essential element of the Paschal feast. This word assumes an increasingly concrete signification. At first it designated the whole human life of Jesus, generally speaking; now it is expressly the body which must be broken that the blood may flow and be drunk. The shed blood assures to the believer pardon, deliverance from condemnation; the flesh is the food which positively imparts to him life; and these two acts, deliverance from death and the consummation of life, constitute full salvation.
The meaning of this saying then is: Unless by faith you appropriate my death (blood) and my life (flesh) you will die, because you will possess neither reconciliation with God nor life in Him. Jesus does not, as we see, give a direct answer to the How? of the Jews, but supplies indirectly, as He did to Nicodemus, the explanation required. In the latter case, He exchanged the expression "born again" for "born of water and of the Spirit." Here He completes the expression "eat His flesh" by "drink His blood." He gives this explanation first under its negative form. Nothing except this eating and drinking can give life. This is the divine denial opposed to the Jewish protest (ver. 52). The man who has not fed upon the flesh and blood of Jesus carries death in his inmost being. In ver. 54 we have the same idea in its affirmative form: This eating and drinking assuredly impart life. Jesus even raises the view of the believer to the highest stage of this communication of life—the resurrection of the body. The relation between these words: and I will raise him up... and the preceding statement, is as follows: And thus this man shall possess a life, in virtue of which I shall not fail to raise him up at the last day. The resurrection of the body is then neither a useless superfetation with relation to the spiritual life, according to the notion with which M. Reuss credits St. John, nor a magical act, independent of that higher life, according to the idea often formed of it; but the climax of the spiritual resurrection, the intended goal of the divine work: it is nature restored and glorified by grace victorious over sin.
Ver. 55 justifies both the negative and the positive statement. If this flesh and blood are the conditions of life to man, it is because they are meat and drink in all reality. The balance of critical authority is in favour of the reading \(ἀληθῶς\), "is truly," instead of \(ἀληθής\), is true meat ... true drink. The Sinaït., the Cantabrig., as well as the ancient Vss., are, together with the Byzantine authorities, on the side of the first reading, which is, moreover, more in conformity with the usual style of St. John. As Lücke observes, St. John generally makes \(ἀληθής\) refer to moral veracity in opposition to \(ψεῦδος\), while he freely unites \(ἀληθῶς\) with a substantive (i. 48: \(ἀληθῶς\) \(Ἰσραηλίτης\); viii. 31: \(ἀληθῶς\) \(μαθηταί\)). There is not much difference in the meaning of the two readings. Jesus means in any case to say that by His flesh and blood (ver. 54) we are really supported and nourished, and consequently live. The adverb or the adjective expresses the full reality of the vital communication effected by these elements.
¹ Textual notes from original: IBT Itplerique add αυτου after την σαρκα. The Mss. are divided between and εν τη. DEHMSUV Mnn. Itplerique Vg. Syr. Or. (three times) : \(αληθως\); BCF KLT 11, 30 Mnn. Cop. Or. (five times): \(αληθης\). א omits the words βρωσις... εστι, and reads ποτον instead of πόσις (my flesh is drink indeed). D omits the words και... πόσις.
Vv. 56, 57 explain their life-giving virtue, as affirmed ver. 55. In this explanation Jesus assumes that to abide in Him is to live (ver. 56), and accounts for this unique fact (ver. 57).
Vv. 56, 57. "He that cateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so He that cateth me, he shall also live by me."¹—If the flesh and blood of Jesus possess the virtue attributed to them ver. 55, it is because they are the means by which the believer is united to Jesus, and, through Him, to the Father. The believer's dwelling in Jesus comprises two things: the renunciation of all life of his own—that is to say, of all merit, strength, and wisdom emanating from his own resources, and then absolute resting in Christ as in Him who alone possesses the treasure capable of filling this void. The dwelling of Christ in the believer expresses the full communication on the part of Christ to the believer of all that He has, and even of all that He is, of His entire personality (he that eateth me, ver. 57). From this mutual relation the believer has life. But how? This is explained by ver. 57.
If communion with Jesus gives life, it is because Jesus has Himself access to the source of life. His vital principle is the Living One in the perfect sense of the word; and that certainty of life which Jesus derives from this communion with the Father, naturally extends to the man who feeds upon Him, and makes Him the principle of his own life. This applies to Jesus, not in His condition of Logos (comp. ver. 26), but in His state of renunciation (hath sent me, ver. 57), and as Son of man. The question is to explain how a man can become the vital principle of other men in a sense so real and exclusive, that to feed upon him is to live. Hence it is the mystery of His own life which Jesus reveals in the first part of the verse, to deduce from it, in the second, the explanation of the life of the believer. This first part includes two correlative propositions: what God is to Jesus, and what Jesus is to God. To understand this double relation, is to penetrate the secret of the inmost life of Jesus. The living Father hath sent Him; hence the responsibility of the mission and work of Jesus rests entirely upon the Father. And the Father being in an absolute sense the Living One, this condition of being sent by the Father involves an absolute guarantee to Jesus of victory over death in all its forms. But, on the other hand, this result assumes on the part of Jesus a continuous dependence with respect to the Father, and an entire consecration to His mission. He is incessantly to live by the Father.
The word \(ζῶ\), I live, denotes not merely the fact of existence, it here signifies life acting in its various physical and moral manifestations. It is not quite correct to render \(διά\) (with the accusative), as we have done, by the preposition by. But it would be pedantic, and even inaccurate, to translate it: on account of. Jesus would say that in virtue of this mission of the Father, of which He is conscious, He is incessantly deriving light, strength, everything from Him. Hence it is in the Father that He finds both the law and the source of His activity—in other words, His vital principle. The Father by sending the Son secured to Him this relation; and the Son, on His part, continues scrupulously faithful thereto (ver. 17).
And what is the result? That the life of the Father is perfectly reproduced on earth in a human life—that Jesus is God lived by a man. And thence results the second part of the verse: that he who feeds on Jesus incorporates into himself the living God, and consequently lives. This second part of the verse contains, grammatically speaking, only one proposition. But the subject: he that eateth, corresponds with the first proposition of the preceding statement: As the Father hath sent me; and the predicate: even he shall live by me, with the second: and I live by the Father. The first \(καί\), and, or rather also, is the correspondent of \(καθώς\), as, and at the same time the sign of the principal proposition. St. John uses \(καί\), and not \(οὕτως\), so, because the analogy is imperfect. The second \(καί\) before the pronoun has a different meaning, being used to give prominence to the subject \(κἀκεῖνος\), he also, and that for the purpose of emphasizing this idea: that the believer by feeding on Jesus obtains exactly the same assurance of life as that which Jesus Himself enjoys by the fact of His relation to the Father. A thought of unfathomable profundity is contained in this saying: Jesus alone has direct access to the supreme source. The life which He thence derives, elaborated and reproduced in human fashion in His person, becomes through Him accessible to men. As the infinite life of nature can only be appropriated by man so far as it is concentrated in a fruit, or a morsel of bread; so the divine life is only put within our reach so far as it is incarnate in the Son of man. It is thus that He is to us all the bread of life. But as we have to appropriate and assimilate bread to obtain life through it; so also must we incorporate the Person of the Son of man by an inward act of faith, which is the way of spiritual manducation. By thus feeding on Him who lives by God, we live by God Himself, and henceforth actually live as Jesus does. The true God, the living Father, gives Himself to one alone, but in Him to all who feed upon this only One. We have here the secret of life, the mystery of salvation, what St. Paul calls (Eph. i. 10) the gathering together of all things in one. Hence to reject this food is to deprive oneself of life.
¹ Mss. vary between \(ζησεται\) (ΓΔ, etc.), \(ζησει\) (א B, etc.), and \(ζη\) (CD).
Ver. 58. "This is the bread which came down from heaven.¹ It is not as with your fathers, who did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."² —This statement, which closes the interview, exhibits the character of a direct appeal. It is for you to accept or reject it. I tell you, that to refuse it is death; to eat it, life. The principal proposition on which \(οὐ\) \(καθώς\), not as, depends, seems to me to be (without ellipsis): he that eateth shall live; the meaning being: "In opposition to what happened to your fathers, ... he who eateth ... shall live."
What, it may be asked, does Jesus mean throughout this passage by the expressions: eating His flesh, drinking His blood?
Many expositors regard them only as metaphors, designating the act by which faith morally unites with its object. Some (Reuss) make this object to be the historical person of Jesus Christ as it was present to the eyes of His hearers, and take the expressions: my flesh and my blood in a general sense; flesh and blood, i.e. the human nature. According to others, the object of faith is not only the living Christ (the flesh), but the sacrificed Christ (the blood); and Jesus here characterizes by these terms both the appropriation of His holy life, and faith in His atoning death. This interpretation, under one or other of the two principal forms to which we have just alluded, applies indeed to the beginning of the address, for spiritual assimilation by means of faith is certainly the idea from which our Lord starts: "I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger; he that believeth on me shall never thirst" (ver. 35). But at this point of view we cannot well see for what purpose Jesus should give to this purely spiritual idea an expression increasingly paradoxical, material, and consequently unintelligible, to those who were questioning Him. If this were all He meant to say, even in the closing words of this address, does He not seem to be playing upon the words, and setting Himself to give needless cause of offence to the Jews?
This very real difficulty has led some commentators to apply these expressions to the Lord's Supper, whose institution, they say, Jesus had already in view, and which was subsequently to solve the mystery of His words for His disciples. But this explanation gives rise to the same difficulty as the preceding. For what could be the use of this incomprehensible allusion to an institution which none could foresee? Besides, would Jesus, throughout whose teaching faith is the sole condition of salvation, make the possession of eternal life depend on an external act, like that of the Lord's Supper. The Tübingen School, which adhered to this interpretation, deduced from it an argument against the authenticity of this Gospel. And not without reason, if there were good grounds for this explanation. But if the pseudo-John, writing in the second century, had put into the mouth of Jesus an allusion to the Lord's Supper, he would undoubtedly have employed the word \(σῶμα\), body, used in the text of the institution and in liturgical forms, rather than \(σάρξ\), flesh. A proof whereof is furnished by the non-authentic addition at the end of ver. 56, found in the Cantabr., the Amiatinus, etc.: If a man receives the body of the Son of man as the bread of life, he shall have life in him.
If we would discover our Lord's real meaning, it will be necessary, as it seems to us, carefully to distinguish, as Jesus Himself does (ver. 27), between the human act and the divine gift, in the mysterious eating and drinking here described. The human act is faith, and faith alone; and, inasmuch as eating and drinking denote the part of the believer in his union with Jesus Christ, these terms do not surpass the extent of the meaning given them by the exclusively spiritual interpretation. To eat the flesh is to contemplate by faith the holy life of the Lord, to be so penetrated thereby as to reproduce it; to drink the blood is also to contemplate His violent death, to make it our own ransom, to taste its atoning efficacy. And here a word in passing. We must not, as Reuss does, confound these expressions, flesh and blood, opposed as they here are to each other, by their combination with the terms eating and drinking, with the ordinary formula flesh and blood, employed to designate human nature. Lücke (vol. ii. p. 159) well brings out the difference: "Flesh and blood," he says, "regarded separately, denote human life and death." But if the part of man in the mystic union is limited to faith, nothing is as yet determined concerning the nature of the divine gift bestowed upon the believer. We have here a gradation. The gift includes, first, pardon (drinking the blood); then, to the pardoned believer, the coming of the Holy Spirit, who, as ch. xiv.-xvi. will show, makes Christ Himself to live in him, and reproduces in his person that holy personality (eating His flesh). But this is not all. We have seen with what persistence Jesus, during the preceding discourse, continually recurred to the idea of the resurrection of the body; doing so again ver. 54, in a still more significant manner. The life, then, which He communicates to the believer is not simply of a moral nature; it is His whole life, corporeal as well as spiritual, His entire personality. As the grains contained in the ear are but the reappearance of the grains of seed mysteriously multiplied, so will believers, when sanctified and raised from the dead, be but the reproduction, in millions of living specimens, of the glorified Jesus. The principle of this reproduction is undoubtedly spiritual: the Holy Spirit, who makes Christ to live in us; but the issue of this work is physical, viz. the glorious body of the believer, the image of His own (1 Cor. xv. 49). The physical birth of Jesus Himself was by the power of the Holy Ghost. The grains in the ear are not more truly the substance of the grain of seed, than glorified saints are the spiritual and corporeal substance of their Head. Jesus felt profoundly that He belonged body and soul to humanity. It was through this feeling, and not to give offence to His hearers, for amusement, that He employed the terms which so astonish us in this discourse. There is no figure of speech except in the expressions: eat and drink; but the corporeal side of communion with Him is perfectly real, and must be taken literally. "We are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones" (Eph. v. 30), said an apostle who is not suspected of materialism; and to show that he was thinking of something very different from a metaphor intelligible to the first chance scholar, he adds: "This is a great mystery: I speak concerning Christ and the church" (ver. 32). This mystery of our complete union with His Person, expressed in this address in words, is precisely that which Jesus designed to express by an action when He instituted the Lord's Supper. We must not say that in this discourse he alludes to the Holy Supper, but that the Lord's Supper and this discourse refer to one and the same divine fact, expressed here by a metaphor, there by an emblem. In this point of view, the delicate question why Jesus here made use of the word flesh, and in the institution of the Lord's Supper of the word body, is easily solved. When He instituted the emblem, He took bread, and brake it. Now it is His body, as an organism (\(σῶμα\)) broken, which corresponds to this broken bread. In the address at Capernaum, where only nourishment was in question, it was agreeable to the analysis of the multiplication of the loaves that Jesus should rather present His body as substance (\(σάρξ\)) than as an organism. This perfect propriety of terms shows the genuineness and authenticity of both forms.
There is one question left, namely, Whether Jesus at this juncture had already in mind the institution of the Lord's Supper?³ But this, from the point of view we have now reached, is but of secondary importance to the exegete. To us this seems probable. He knew of His approaching death, the news of the Baptist's murder had just revived within Him the presentiment of His own (Matt. xiv. 12): and it was present to His mind when His thoughts were dwelling on the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb; for He knew that it would be for the life of the whole world what the sacrifice of the lamb had been for the existence of the nation of Israel. And what was more natural than to arrive from these premises at the idea of a feast commemorative of His death, as the Passover had hitherto been of the sacrifice of the lamb? For the institution of the Lord's Supper could have been no inspiration of the moment. Jesus must, for a long period, have cherished this design in His heart. Do we ask how long? Perhaps ever since the day when, deprived of the joy of celebrating the Passover at Jerusalem, and seeing multitudes flocking to Him from all sides, He had improvised for them a Paschal feast, the rival of that which was about to be celebrated in the holy city. This banquet, offered to His disciples as a momentary compensation, was subsequently transformed, in the Holy Supper, into a permanent institution. This is exactly the point of view at which St. John designed from the first to place us, when he said (ver. 4): "Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was nigh;" and it was probably this similarity which inspired the four evangelists with the expression, so resembling that of the institution of the Lord's Supper, with which they all begin their accounts of the miracle of the loaves and fishes: "He took bread, and gave thanks."
¹ א omits \(ουτος\), and reads \(καταβαινων\) instead of \(καταβας\). ² Cop. Or. omit \(υμων\) after \(πατερες\). The same with D omit \(το\) \(μαννα\) (after \(υμων\)). Readings vary between \(ζησει\) and \(ζησεται\) (ver. 57). ³ On St. John's silence with respect to this institution, see ch. xiii.
Ver. 59. "Jesus said these things, teaching in the synagogue, at Capernaum." — The regular days of assembly in the synagogue were the second, fifth, and seventh days of the week (Monday, Thursday, and Saturday). The day of the Passover must, in the year 29, have fallen on Monday, April 18 (see Chavannes, Revue de théol., 3d series, vol. i. p. 209 sq.). If the multiplication of the loaves and fishes took place the evening before the Passover, the next day, viz. that on which Jesus delivered this address, must consequently have been this Monday, a day on which an assembly took place. But what is our evangelist's purpose in interpolating this notice? It is difficult to believe that he designed only to give an historical detail. Tholuck thinks that his intention was to account for the numerous audience which the narrative following implies (therefore, ver. 50). But is not such a notion far-fetched? To us it seems more probable that, having given an account of so solemn an address, the evangelist felt the need of fixing for ever the locality of this remarkable scene (comp. viii. 20). To feel that such was his intention, we must first observe the absence of the article before \(συναγωγῇ\), not: in the synagogue, but in a synagogal assembly; and then refer the regimen, in an assembly, to teaching, and the reg. at Capernaum, to He said, and paraphrase thus: He spake thus, teaching in full synagogue, at Capernaum. The term \(διδάσκων\), teaching, denoting a teaching properly so called, recalls the manner in which Jesus had explained and discussed the texts from Scripture, vv. 31 and 35, and accords with the solemnity of the scene.
The hearers had questioned, murmured, contended, and now the better disposed among them, and even some of the permanent disciples of Jesus, become the organs of the general discontent.