John 6:51

Joh 6:51. I am the living bread — Because it was a matter of infinite importance to his hearers that they should form a just judgment of his ability to save them, and believe in him as the Saviour of the world, he affirmed a third time that he was himself the living bread, which came down from heaven to make and keep men alive to God. and render them immortal; and that all who did eat of it should live for ever, because he was about to give them his flesh to eat, by making it an expiation for the sins of the world. The intelligent reader will observe that there is a beautiful gradation in our Lord’s discourse. The first time that he called himself the bread of life, (Joh 6:35,) he assigned the reason of the name somewhat obscurely: He that cometh to me shall never hunger, &c. The second time he called himself the bread of life, (Joh 6:47,) he spake more plainly: He that believeth on me hath everlasting life; therefore, I am the bread of life. And by connecting this with the affirmation, (Joh 6:46,) that he was the only teacher of mankind that had ever personally seen, and conversed intimately with, the Father, he intimated that he gave life to men by his doctrine, being on that account also the bread of life. The third time he called himself bread, he added to the name the epithet of living; not only because he gives life to men by quickening their souls, raising their bodies from the dead, and making them eternally happy, but because he giveth them life in these senses, by means of his human nature, which was not an inanimate thing, like the manna, but a living substance. For he told them plainly, that the bread which he would give them was his flesh, which he would give for the life of the world — And spake of men’s eating it in order to its having that effect. But the meaning of this expression he had directed them to before, when, in calling himself the bread of life, he always joined believing on him as necessary to men’s living by him. Wherefore to eat, in the remaining part of this discourse, is to believe. See Macknight.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6:51 this bread . . . is my flesh: The gift that brings life is now unveiled. On the cross, Jesus offered his flesh for the life of the world.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Joh 6:51. Ὁ ζῶν, the living) This participle acts both as a means of giving increased weight to His speech, and as a declaration, by which it is shown that His speech is not concerning ordinary bread.—δώσω, I will give[150]) ought to be read.—ἡ σάρξ μου, My flesh) A new step in the discourse. The δὲ ἐπιτατικόν [intensive], indeed, and the I will give in the Future, are in accordance with this: for heretofore there had been no mention made in this discourse of flesh; then at Joh 6:53, also of blood. The Father giveth the true bread, Joh 6:32, which is Christ Himself: Joh 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” Christ giveth the living bread, His own flesh. The portion of the discourse concerning the bread is rather allegorical, in accommodation to the miracle that precedes it: that concerning the flesh and blood is literal.—ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς, for the life of the world) and so, for many, Mar 14:24, “This is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many.” Jesus framed His words so skilfully, that immediately at the time, and at all times subsequently, they would indeed apply in their strict literal sense to the spiritual enjoyment of Himself: and yet that afterwards the same words should by consequence be appropriate to express the most august mystery of the Holy Supper, when that should be instituted. For He applied to the Holy Supper[151] the thing itself which is set forth in this discourse; and of so great moment is this sacrament, that it may readily be thought possible that Jesus, as He foretold the treachery of Judas at Joh 6:71, and His own death in this ver., so also foretold, one year before, the institution of the Holy Supper, concerning which He most surely thought within Himself whilst speaking these words: and with this object, in order that the disciples might afterwards remember His prediction. The whole of these words concerning His flesh and blood have in view the passion of Jesus Christ, and along with it the Holy Supper. Hence arises the separate mention of the flesh and of the blood so invariably: for in His passion the blood was drawn out of His body, and the Lamb was thus slain.

[150] However both the margin of both Editions, and the Germ. Vers. imply that the reading ἣ ἐγὼ δώσω is of doubtful origin.—E. B. BCDTabc Vulg. omit it. Rec. Text has it, with Orig. l,244de: but Orig. elsewhere omits it.—E. and T.

[151] “Contulit in S. Cænam;” He conferred on the Holy Supper in the case of the worthy receiver the actual partaking of Himself spiritually.—E. and T.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_6:51. Continuation of the exposition concerning the bread of life, which He is. I am not only the life-giving bread (ὁ ἄρτος τ. ζωῆς, Joh_6:48); I am also the living bread; he who eats thereof shall live for ever, because the life of this bread is imparted to the partaker of it. Comp. Joh_5:26, Joh_14:19. Observe the threefold advance: (1) ὁ ἄρτος τ. ζωῆς, Joh_6:48, and ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν, Joh_6:51; (2) the universal καταβαίνων, Joh_6:50, and the historically concrete καταβάς, Joh_6:51; (3) the negative μὴ ἀποθάνῃ, Joh_6:50, and the positive ζήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, Joh_6:51.

καὶ ὁ ἄρτος δὲ ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω] Christ is the bread, and He will also give it (consequently give Himself); how this is to take place, He now explains. The advance lies in ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω; hence also the καὶ δέ which carries on the discourse, and the emphatic repetition of the thought, ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω. Translate: and the bread also which I (I on my part, ἐγώ) will give [instead now of saying: is myself, He expresses what He means more definitely] is my flesh, etc. Concerning καὶ … δέ, atque etiam, καὶ being and, and δέ expressing the idea on the other hand, see in particular Krüger, and Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 3; Bäumlein, Partik. p. 149. It often introduces, as in this case, something that is specially important. See Bremi, ad Dem. Ol. II. p. 173. Observe, moreover, that what Christ promises to give is not external to His own Person (against Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 142 f.).

ἡ σάρξ μού ἐστιν] He promises to give His flesh, i.e. by His bloody death, to which He here, as already in Joh_2:19, and to Nicodemus, Joh_3:14-15, prophetically points. Σάρξ is the living corporeal substance; this His living corporeity Christ will give, give up, that it may he slain (ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω), in order that thereby, as by the offering of the propitiatory sacrifice,[237] He may be the means of procuring eternal life for mankind, i.e. ὑπὲρ (for the benefit of) Τῆς ΤΟῦ ΚΌΣΜΟΥ ΖΩῆς; comp. 1Jn_4:10; 1Jn_4:14. But as the atoning efficacy which this giving up of His flesh has, must be inwardly appropriated by faith, Christs σάρξ, according to the figure of the bread of life, inasmuch as He means to give it up to death, appears as the bread which He will give to be partaken of (ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω). In the repeated ΔΏΣΩ there lies the ἙΚΟΎΣΙΟΝ of the surrender (Euthymius Zigabenus). But observe the difference of reference, that of the first ΔΏΣΩ to the giving up for eating, and that of the second to the giving up to death.[238] That eating is the spiritual manducatio,[239] the inward, real appropriation of Christ which, by means of an ever-continuing faith that brings about this appropriation, and makes our life the life of Christ within us (Gal_2:20; Eph_3:17), takes place with regard to all the benefits which Christ carne sua pro nobis in mortem tradita et sanguine suo pro nobis effuso promeruit. Forma Concordiae, p. 744. On the idea of the life of Christ in believers, see on Php_1:8. On σάρξ, so far as it was put to death in Christ by His crucifixion, comp. 1Pe_3:18; Eph_2:14; Col_1:20 ff.; Heb_10:20. This explanation, which refers the words to Christs propitiatory death, is that of Augustine, Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Beza, Aretius, Grotius, Calovius, Wetstein, Lampe, and most others, also of Kuinoel, Lücke, Tholuck, Ammon, Neander, J. Müller (Diss. 1839), Lange, Ebrard, Dogma v. Abendm. I. p. 78 ff.; Keim, in the Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1859, p. 109 ff.; Weiss; comp. also Ewald, Kahnis (Dogmat. I. p. 624), Godet.[240] Others, following Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Basil, have understood by σάρξ the entire human manifestation of the Logos, which He offered up for the worlds salvation, including therein His death (so in modern times, in particular, Paulus, D. Schulz, Lehre vom Abendm., B. Crusius, Frommann, De Wette, Baeumlein; comp. Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 345, and Reuss). Not only is the future δώσω opposed to this view, but the drinking of the blood in Joh_6:53 still more distinctly points to Christs death as exclusively meant; because it would not be apparent why Jesus, had He intended generally that collective dedication of Himself, should have used expressions to describe the appropriation of it, which necessarily and directly point to and presuppose His death. That general consecration was already affirmed in ἐγὼ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος, κ.τ.λ.; the advance from being and giving now demands something else, a concrete act, viz. His atoning death and the shedding of His blood. This tells also against the profounder development of the self-communication of Jesus which is said to be meant here, and is adopted by Hengstenberg and Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 245 ff.), following Luther;[241] viz. that faith in the human nature of Jesus eats and drinks the life of God, or that His life-giving power is bound up in His flesh, i.e. in His actual human manifestation (Brückner). Others, again, have explained it of the Lords Supper; viz. Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, most of the Fathers (among the Latin Fathers, Cyprian, Hilary, perhaps also Augustine, etc.) and Catholic writers, also Klee and Maier, further, Calixtus too, strongly opposed by Calovius; and among moderns, Scheibel, Olshausen, Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 140 ff.; Lindner, Köstlin, Delitzsch in Rudelbachs Zeitschrift, 1845, ii. p. 29; Kaeuffer in the Sächs. Stud. 1846, p. 70 ff.; Kahnis, Abendm. p. 104 ff.; Luthardt; Richter in the Stud. u. Krit. 1863, p. 250; further, while also calling in question the genuineness of the discourse, Bretschneider, Strauss, Weisse, Baur, Hilgenfeld, and many others. Thus, as Joh_3:5 refers to baptism, we have now, it is said, a reference to the second sacrament. This explanation[242] has already this against it, that the eating and drinking is regarded as continuous (Joh_6:56); and, moreover, it can be maintained only by surrendering the authenticity of John. But if this be assumed, and the discourse be regarded as historical, Jesus could not Himself speak in the manner in which He here does of the Lords Supper. Had this been His reference, He would have spoken inappropriately, and in terms which differ essentially from His own mode of expression at the institution of the holy meal, irrespective of the fact that a discourse upon the Lords Supper at this time would have been utterly incomprehensible to His hearers, especially to the Ἰουδαίοι who were addressed. Moreover, there nowhere occurs in the Gospels a hint given beforehand of the Supper which was to be instituted; and therefore, that this institution was not now already in the thoughts of Jesus (as Godet, following Bengel and others, maintains), but was the product of the hour of the Supper itself, appears all the more likely, seeing how utterly groundless is the assumption based on Joh_6:4, that Jesus, in the feeding of the multitude, improvised a paschal feast. To this it must be added, that the promise of life which is attached to the eating and drinking could apply only to the case of those who worthily partake. We would therefore have to assume that the reporter John (see especially Kaeuffer, l.c.; comp. also Weisse, B. Crusius, Köstlin, etc.) had put this discourse concerning the Lords Supper into the mouth of Christ; and against this it tells in general, that thus there would be on Johns part a misconception, or rather an arbitrariness, which, granting the genuineness of the Gospel, cannot be attributed to this most trusted disciple and his vivid recollections; and in particular, that the drinking of the blood, if it were, as in the Lords Supper, a special and essential part, would not have remained unmentioned at the very end of the discourse, Joh_6:57-58; and that, again, the evangelist would make Jesus speak of the Lords Supper in terms which lie quite beyond the range of the N. T., and which belong to the mode of representation and language of the apostolic Fathers and still later writers (see the passages in Kaeuffer, p. 77 ff.; Rückert, p. 274 f.; Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 278).[243] This is specially true of the word σάρξ, for which all places in the N. T. referring to the Lords Supper (Mat_26:26 ff.; Mar_14:22 ff.; Luk_24:24 ff.; 1Co_11:23 ff.) have σῶμα; so that here accordingly there ought to have been stated the identity, not of the bread and the flesh (which Baur in particular urges), but of the bread and the body; while with reference to the blood, the element identified (the wine) ought also to have been mentioned. Further, the passage thus taken would speak of the literal eating and drinking of the flesh and blood, which is a much later materializing of the N. T. κοινωνία in the Lords Supper; and lastly, the absolute necessity of this ordinance,[244] which Joh_6:53 ff. would thus assert, is not once mentioned thus directly by the Fathers of the first centuries; whereas the N. T., and John in particular, make faith alone the absolutely necessary condition of salvation. Had John been speaking of the Lords Supper, he must have spoken in harmony with the N. T. view and mode of expression, and must have made Jesus speak of it in the same way. But the discourse, as it lies before us, if taken as referring to the Lords Supper, would be an unexampled and utterly inconceivable ὕστερον πρότερον; and therefore even the assumption that at least the same idea which lay at the root of the Lords Supper, and out of which it sprang, is here expressed (Olshausen, Kling, Lange, Tholuck, etc.; comp. Kahnis, Keim, Luthardt, Hengstenberg, Ewald, Godet), is only admissible so far as the appropriation of Christs life, brought about by faith in His death, which here is enjoined with such concrete vividness as absolutely necessary,[245] likewise constitutes the sacred and fundamental basis presupposed in the institution of the Supper and forms the condition of its blessedness; and therefore the application of the passage to the Lords Supper (but at the same time to baptism and to the efficacy of the word) justly, nay necessarily, arises. Comp. the admirable remarks of Harless, p. 130 ff.

According to Rückert (Abendm. p. 291 f.), the discourse is not intended by Jesus to refer to the Supper, but is so intended by John, through whose erroneous and crude method of apprehension the readers are supposed to be taught, whether they themselves believed in an actual eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood, or whether this was a stumbling-block to them. An interpretation this which is neither indicated by the text nor has any historical basis.

Upon the history of the interpretation of our text, see Lücke, ed. 2, App. 2; Lindner, vom Abendm. p. 241 ff.; Tischendorf, De Christo pane vitae, 1839, p. 15 ff.; Mack, Quartalschr. 1832, I. p. 52 ff.; Kahnis, p. 114 ff.; Rückert, p. 273 ff. The exposition which takes it to refer to faith in the atoning death forms the basis of Zwingles doctrine of the Eucharist. See Dieckhoff, evangel. Abendmahlslehre, I. p. 440.

[237] Not that by the death of Jesus the barrier of the independent individuality existing between the Logos and the human being is destroyed. See against this explanation (Köstlin, Reuss), so foreign to John, Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 65 ff.

[238] The words ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω are wanting in B C D L T א, a few cursives, several versions (following Vulg. It.), and Fathers (even Origen twice), and are rejected by Lachm., Ewald, Tisch., Baeumlein, Harless. The preponderance of testimony is certainly against them; and in omitting them we should not, with Kling, take ἡ σάρξ μου as in apposition with ὁ ἄρτος (see, on the contrary, Rückert, Abendm. p. 259), but simply render it: the bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world (the former is the latter for the life of the world). But this short pregnant mode of expression is so little like John, and the repetition of ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω is so completely Johannean, that I feel compelled to retain the words as genuine, and to regard their omission as a very early error, occasioned by the occurrence of the same words a little before. Following א, Tischendorf now reads, after κ. ὁ ἄρτ. δὲ: ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς, ἡ σάρξ μου ἐστίν. This is manifestly an arrangement resorted to in order to asssign to the words ὑπ. τ. τ. κ. ζωῆς the place which, in the absence of ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω, seemed to belong to them. Baeumlein supposes that ὑπ. τ. τ. κ. ζωῆς is an ancient gloss.

[239] The expression resurrection of the flesh cannot be justified from John 6, as Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 460 [E. T. p. 541], supposes. If it cannot be justified by anything in St. Paul, which Delitzsch admits, it can least of all by anything in St. John. When, indeed, Delitzsch says (p. 339), The flesh of Christ becomes in us a tincture of immortality, which, in spite of corruption, sustains the essence of our flesh, in order one day at the resurrection to assimilate also His manifestation to itself, we can only oppose to such fancies, Ne ultra quod scriptum est.

[240] Who, however, attaches great importance to the corporeal side of the real fellowship of believers with Christ, by virtue of which they will become at the resurrection the reproduction of the glorified Christ, referring to Eph_5:30. The eating and drinking alone are figurative, while the not merely spiritual, but also bodily appropriation, must, according to him, be taken literally. This, however, is not required by the ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν, κ.τ.λ., ver. 54, which we already had in ver. 39, and is not even admissible by ver. 63.

[241] Therefore one eats and drinks the Godhead in His human nature.This flesh does not carnalize, but will deify thee, i.e. give thee divine power, virtue, and work, and will take away sins, and so on (Pred. Dom. Oculi).

[242] A view which Luther decidedly opposed previous to the controversy regarding the Lords Supper. In the heading or gloss he says: This chapter does not speak of the sacrament of the bread and wine, but of spiritual eating, i.e. of the belief that Christ, both God and man, hath shed His blood for us.

[243] Hilgenfeld calls the passages in Justin, Apol. i. 66; Ignatius, ad Smyrn. 7, ad Romans 7, an admirable commentary upon our text. They would, indeed, be so if our evangelist himself were a post-apostolic writer belonging to the second century.

[244] Its limitation to the Contemtus sacramenti (Richter) is a dogmatic subterfuge which has no foundation in the text.

[245] He makes it so that it could not be plainer, in order that they might not think that he was speaking of something else, or of anything that was not before their eyes; but that He was speaking of Himself.LUTHER.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 6:51 . In Joh 6:51 Jesus adds two fresh terms in explanation of the living bread, which, however, through their want of apprehension, increased their difficulty. The first is ἐγώ εἰμι … ζωῆς . In giving this explanation He slightly alters the designation of Himself as the Bread: He now claims to be not “the bread of life,” but ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν , “the living bread”. Godet says: “The manna, as not itself living, could never impart life. But Jesus, because He Himself lives, can give life.” That is correct, but is not the full meaning. ὁ ζῶν contrasts the bread with the βρῶσις ἀπολλυμένη ; and as “living water” is water running from a fountain in perpetual stream, and not a measured quantity in a tank, so “living bread” is bread which renews itself in proportion to all needs like the bread of the miracle. The second fresh intimation now made is ὁ ἄρτος ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω ἡ σάρξ μου ἐστίν … This intimation is linked to the foregoing by a double conjunction καὶ ὁ ἄρτος δέ , “and besides” indicating, according to classical usage, a new aspect or expansion of what has been said. The new intimation is at first sight an apparent limitation: instead of “I am the bread,” He now says “My flesh is the bread”. Accordingly some interpreters suppose that by “flesh” the whole manifestation of Christ in human nature is meant. Cf. ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο . Thus Westcott says: “The life of the world in the highest sense springs from the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ. By His Incarnation and Resurrection the ruin and death which sin brought in are overcome. The thought here is of support and growth, and not of Atonement.” To this there are two objections. (1) If σάρξ is equivalent to the whole manifestation of Christ in the flesh, this is not a new statement, but a repetition of what has already been said. And (2) the δώσω compels us to think of a giving yet future. Besides, the turn taken by the conversation, Joh 6:53-57 , seems to point rather to the atoning sacrifice of Christ. [So Euthymius: τὴν σταύρωσιν αὐτοῦ προσημαίνει . τὸ δὲ , ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω , τὸ ἑκούσιον ἐμφαίνει τοῦ τοιούτου πάθους . So too Cyril: Ἀποθνήσκω , φησὶν , ὑπὲρ πάντων , ἵνα πάντας ζωοποιήσω διʼ ἐμαυτοῦ , καὶ ἀντίλυτρον τῆς ἁπάντων σαρκὸς τὴν ἐμὴν ἐποιησάμην . Bengel says: “Tota haec de carne et sanguine Jesu Christi oratio passionem spectat”. Beza even finds in δώσω the sense “offeram Patri in ara crucis”.] The giving of His flesh, a still future giving which is spoken of as a definite act, is, then, most naturally referred to the death on the cross. This was to be ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς , “for the sake of the life of the world”. ὑπέρ when used in connection with sacrifice tends to glide into ἀντί ; see the Alcestis of Eurip. passim and Lampe’s note on this verse. Here, however, the idea of substitution is not present. It is only hinted that somehow the death of Christ is needed for the world’s life. This statement, however, only bewilders the crowd; and the next paragraph, Joh 6:52-59 , gives expression to and deals with this bewilderment.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Appendix on Joh 6:51 b-58.

What does Jesus mean by the expressions: to eat His flesh, to drink His blood?

1. Many interpreters see here only a metaphor, designating the act by which faith morally unites itself with its object. According to some (de Wette, Reuss), this object is the historical person of Jesus Christ as it appeared before the eyes of His hearers. The expression My flesh and My blood is to be taken in the same sense as flesh and blood, that is, “the human person.” According to others, the object of faith is not only the living Christ (the flesh), but also the sacrificed Christ (the blood); and Jesus describes here at once the appropriation of His holy life and faith in His expiatory death. This interpretation, in one or the other of the two forms which we have just indicated, is easily connected with the beginning of the discourse; for spiritual assimilation by means of faith is certainly the idea from which the Lord starts:

“I am the bread of life, he that cometh to Me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst” (Joh 6:35). Only we cannot understand, from this point of view, with what aim Jesus gives to this altogether spiritual conception an expression which is more and more paradoxical, material, and, consequently, unintelligible to His interlocutors. If this is all that He means to say, even in the last words of the interview, does He not seem to be playing with words and to lay Himself out needlessly to cause offense to the Jews?

2. This very real difficulty has impelled many commentators to apply these expressions to the scene of the Holy Supper, which Jesus had already had in mind at this time, and which was later to solve for His disciples the mystery of His words. But this explanation gives rise to a still greater difficulty than the preceding one. To what purpose this incomprehensible allusion to an institution which no one could foresee? Then, Jesus cannot have made the possession of eternal life depend on the accomplishment of an external act, like that of the Lord’s Supper? In all His teaching, the sole condition of salvation is faith. The Tubingen School, which has attached itself to this interpretation, has derived from it an argument against the authenticity of the Gospel; and not without reason, if the explanation were well founded. But the pseudo-John, who should have wished, in the second century, to put an allusion to the Lord’s Supper into the mouth of Jesus, would not have failed to employ the word σῶμα, body, used in the text of the institution of the Supper and in the Liturgical formulas, rather than σάρξ, flesh. A proof of this is found in the unauthentic addition which we read in the Cambridge MS. the Amiatinus, etc., at the end of Joh 6:56 : “If a man receives the body of the Son of man as the bread of life, he will have life in Him.” On the passages fromJustin (Apol. I., 66) and Ignatius (ad Smyrn., 7), see Weiss. These Fathers may have founded their expression on our passage itself.

To discern the true thought of our Lord, we must, as it appears to me, distinguish carefully, in the mysterious eating and drinking here described, the act of man and the divine gift, as Jesus does Himself in Joh 6:27. The human act is faith, faith alone; and inasmuch as the eating and drinking designate the believer’s part in his union with Jesus Christ, these terms do not go beyond the meaning which the exclusively spiritual interpretation gives to them. To eat the flesh, is to contemplate with faith the Lord’s holy life and to receive that life into oneself through the Holy Spirit to the end of reproducing it in one’s own life; to drink the blood, is to contemplate with faith His violent death, to make it one’s own ransom, to appropriate to oneself its atoning efficacy. But if the part of man in this mystical union is limited to faith, this does not yet determine anything as to the nature of the divine gift here assured to the believer.

To taste pardon, to live again by the Spirit the life of Christ—is this all? We cannot think so. We have seen with what emphasis Jesus returns, at different times in the foregoing discourse, to the idea of the bodily resurrection; He does so again at Joh 6:54, and in the most significant way. The life which He communicates to the believer is not, therefore, only His moral nature; it is His complete life, physical as well as spiritual, His entire personality. As the grains which the ear contains are only the reappearing of the grain of seed mysteriously multiplied, so believers, sanctified and raised from the dead, are to be only the reproduction, in thousands of living examples, of the glorified Jesus. The principle of this reproduction is undoubtedly spiritual: it is the Spirit which causes Christ to live in us (ch. 14-16); but the end of this work is physical: it is the glorious body of the believer, proceeding from His own (1Co 15:49). Jesus knew, Jesus profoundly felt that He belonged, body and soul, to humanity. It was with this feeling, and not that He might wantonly give offense to His hearers, that He used the terms which are surprising to us in this discourse.

The expressions: to eat and drink, are figurative; but the corporeal side of communion with Him is real: “We are of His body,” says the apostle who is least to be suspected of religious materialism (Eph 5:30); and to show us clearly that there is no question here of a metaphor intelligible to the first chance scholar, he adds: “This mystery is great, I speak in respect to Christ and the Church” (Joh 6:32). This mystery of our complete union with His person, which in this discourse is expressed in words, is precisely that which Jesus desired to express by an act, when He instituted the rite of the Lord’s Supper. We need not say, therefore, that this discourse alludes to the Lord’s Supper, but we must say 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. From this point of view, we understand why Jesus makes use here of the word flesh and in the institution of the Lord’s Supper, of the word body. When He instituted the ceremony, He held a loaf in His hand and broke it; now, that which corresponds with this broken bread, was His body as an organism (σῶμα) broken. In the discourse at Capernaum where the question is only of nourishment, according to the analogy of the multiplication of the loaves, Jesus was obliged rather to present His body as substance (σάρξ) than as an organism. This perfect propriety of the terms shows the originality and authenticity of the two forms.

There is one question remaining which, from the point of view where we have just taken our position, has only a secondary importance as related to exegesis;—namely, whether already at this period, Jesus thought of instituting the ceremony of the Lord’s Supper. He was aware of His approaching death; the news of the murder of John the Baptist had just reawakened in Him the presentiment of it (Mat 14:13), He connected it in His thought with the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb, He knew that this death would be for the life of the whole world what the sacrifice of the lamb had been for the existence of the people of Israel.

From these premises He might naturally enough be led to the thought of instituting Himself a feast commemorative of His death and of the new covenant, in order thus to replace the feast of the Paschal lamb, the sacrifice of which was the figure of His own. This thought might certainly have arisen on the day when, being deprived of the joy of celebrating the Passover at Jerusalem, and seeing the multitudes flocking towards Him from all sides, He improvised for them a Passover, instead of that which was about to be celebrated in the holy city. It was this feast, offered to His disciples as a momentary compensation, which Jesus afterwards transformed, in the Lord’s Supper, into a permanent institution And is not this precisely the point of view at which St. John desired to place us, when he said at the beginning, Joh 6:4 : “Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near.” This near approach was not altogether foreign to the thought of the other evangelists; it explains the expression, so similar to that of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, with which they all begin the narrative of the multiplication of the loaves: “He took the bread, and gave thanks.”

ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

Vv. 51b-59. 1. In Joh 6:51 b a new thought is presented—that the bread of which the discourse is speaking is the flesh of Christ. That the reference in these words is to the participation by faith in Christ as dying for the world’s salvation, and not to the Lord’s Supper, is proved, first, by the fact that union with Christ by faith is the main thought of the whole discourse; secondly, by the fact that the life of the believer through Christ is placed in correspondence with that of Christ through the Father; thirdly, by the entire subordination of the idea of the blood to that of the bread—the former comes in, apparently, only in an incidental way, and the thought returns to the bread alone in Joh 6:58.

The blood has, therefore, no such relation to the bread here as the cup has to the bread in the Supper; fourthly, because no similar representation of the participation in the Supper as related to the life of the soul is given elsewhere; fifthly, because no allusion to the Supper is made in the Gospels, in any other place, until it was instituted, and its institution seems to have had such reference to the closing hours of Christ’s life and to the future of the disciples after His death as to make an allusion to it beforehand improbable, and especially at this time and in the presence of an audience of this character. So far as we can judge, the apostles had no such understanding of its meaning and import, when it was instituted, as must have been the case, it would seem, if, as they heard this discourse or thought of it afterwards, they supposed it to refer to a physical eating or to any special rite.

The purpose of the Lord’s Supper is given by Paul in connection with the words of the institution of it, in 1Co 11:25, “This do in remembrance of me;” it would be strange, indeed, if such a more complete unfolding of the idea should have been presented to a company of murmuring and unbelieving Galilean Jews. Weiss ed. Mey. says: “It cannot even be said that at least the same idea out of which the Lord’s Supper sprang is here expressed (Olshausen, Kling, Tholuck, etc.; comp. Kahnis, Keim, Hengstenberg, Ewald, Godet), or that the appropriation of Christ’s life, brought about by faith in His death, which is here demanded as absolutely necessary, forms also the sacred fundamental idea of the institution of the Supper and the condition of its blessedness, from which the application of the passage to the Lord’s Supper (but also at the same time to baptism and the efficacy of the word) necessarily arises (Meyer, with a reference to Harless, p. 130ff.), but, at the most, that a like symbolism to that which is here used lies at the basis of the institution of the Supper.” This statement is to be regarded as containing (as Weiss remarks) the most that can properly be said.

The difficulty which is suggested by Godet on page 40, that Jesus, instead of explaining His spiritual conception (if the view above given is adopted), only adds “an expression which is more and more paradoxical, material, and, consequently, unintelligible to His interlocutors,” seems to the writer of this note to have no real foundation. It was not the design of Jesus, in these spiritual discourses with His adversaries, to make explanations on the low level of their thought, but rather by repeating His ideas in their boldest and loftiest form to challenge their minds to wrestle with them. He wished to force them to see how far removed they were from the life of which He was speaking, by the very difficulty they found in comprehending the terms in which it was described. He would compel disciples and enemies alike to think, and would give them words and truths which might become seeds for future growth, for the very reason that they were, at the beginning, hard to be understood.

The affirmation of Joh 6:51 a is the summing up of all that precedes, with the design of passing to a new idea (51b). The epithet ὁ ζῶν, the living bread, declares even more clearly than the expression bread of life (Joh 6:48), that Jesus is not only the bread which gives life, but that He is Himself the divine life realized in a human person; and it is for this end that He gives life to him who receives it within himself.

Vv. 51b. The second part of the verse is connected with the first by the two particles καί and δέ, which indicate an idea at once co-ordinated (καί, and) and progressive (δέ, now) with reference to all that precedes: “And moreover;” or: “And, finally, to tell you all.” Jesus is now resolved to make them hear the paradox even to the end; for it is here indeed that, as Weiss says, the hard saying begins (Joh 6:60). At first Jesus had spoken in general of a higher food of which the miraculous bread of the day before was the image and pledge.

Then He had declared that this bread was Himself, His entire person. And now He gives them to understand that He will be able to become the bread of life for the world only on condition of dying, of giving Himself to it as sacrificed. This is the reason why, instead of saying me, He from this time onward uses the expression, my flesh. How can His flesh be given as food to the world? Jesus explains this by this new determining phase: ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω, “(my flesh) which I will give.” These words are rejected, it is true, by the Alexandrian authorities, but no doubt because of the apparent tautology which they present with the words which precede: ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω, “(the bread) which I will give.”

They should be retained in the text, as Meyer has acknowledged, notwithstanding his ordinary prepossession in favor of the Alexandrian readings, and whateverWeiss, Keil, Westcott, etc., may say. The limiting words for the life of the world cannot be directly connected with the words my flesh; what would the expression: “my flesh for the life of the world” mean? A participle like given orbroken would be necessary. 1Co 11:24 is cited: “This is my body [broken] for you.” But there, there is at least the article τό which serves as a basis for the limiting word. Weiss so clearly perceives the difference that he proposes to make the limiting phrase: for the life of the world, depend, not on the words my flesh, but on the verb ἐστίν, is, and to make my flesh an appositional phrase to the bread: “The bread which I will give, that is to say, my flesh, is for the life of the world.” But even if it were possible to allow such an apposition and so harsh a use of the verb ἐστίν (the passage Joh 11:4 is too different to prove anything), would not the future δώσω, I will give, require that the verb to be should also be placed in the future: “The bread which I will give, my flesh, shall be for the life of the world?” His flesh will not be able to serve for the life of the world except after it shall have been given. The reading of theSinaitic MS. is an unhappy attempt to restore the text after the omission of the words ἥν ἐγὼ δώσω had made it intolerable.

The first which I will give, applied to the bread, is to be paraphrased thus: “which I will give to be eaten;” it sums up the preceding conversation. The second, applied to my flesh, signifies: “which I will give to be sacrificed;” it forms the transition to the following passage (my flesh and my blood). It is in view of this double relation and this double sense that the words: which I will give, had to be repeated. In fact, the flesh of Jesus cannot be eaten asfood by each believer, until after it shall have been offered for the world as a victim. This expression: my flesh, especially in connection, as it is here, with the future I will give, which points to a fact yet to occur, can only refer to the sacrifice of the cross. The interpreters who, like Clement and Origen, de Wette, Reuss, Keil, etc., apply the term give to the voluntary consecration which Jesus makes of His person during His earthly life, take no account of the καὶ δέ, and moreover, which indicates a different idea from that which precedes, and of the future I will give, which permits us to think only of a gift yet to come. In this verse is betrayed more and more distinctly the preoccupation with the Paschal feast which filled the soul of Jesus from the beginning of this scene, which was one of the grandest in His life. The expression: “the life of the world” shows that the new Passover, of which Jesus is thinking, will have an altogether different extent from the old one: it is the entire human race which will be invited to it as soon as the victim shall have been offered and the feast of sacrifice can be celebrated.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Christ being sent from the Father, is the selfsame unto us for the getting and keeping of everlasting life, that bread and flesh, yea meat and drink are to the use of this transitory life.

That is to say, whosoever is partaker of Christ indeed, who is our food.

Which giveth life to the world.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

I am, &c.--Understand, it is of MYSELF I now speak as the Bread from heaven; of MEif a man eat he shall live for ever; and "THE BREAD WHICH I WILL GIVE IS MY FLESH, WHICH I WILL GIVE FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD." Here, for the first time in this high discourse, our Lord explicitly introduces His sacrificial death--for only rationalists can doubt this not only as that which constitutes Him the Bread of life to men, but as THAT very element IN HIM WHICH POSSESSES THE LIFE-GIVING VIRTUE.--"From this time we hear no more (in this discourse) of "Bread"; this figure is dropped, and the reality takes its place" [STIER]. The words "I will give" may be compared with the words of institution at the Supper, "This is My body which is given for you" (Luk 22:19), or in Paul's report of it, "broken for you" (Co1 11:24).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 51. Is my flesh, which I will give, c.] Our Lord explains his meaning more fully, in these words, than he had done before. Having spoken so much of the bread which feeds and nourishes the soul, and preserves from death, the attention of his hearers was fixed upon his words, which to them appeared inexplicable and they desired to know what their meaning was. He then told them that the bread meant his flesh, (his life,) which he was about to give up; to save the life of the world. Here our Lord plainly declares that his death was to be a vicarious sacrifice and atonement for the sin of the world; and that, as no human life could be preserved unless there was bread (proper nourishment) received, so no soul could be saved but by the merit of his death. Reader, remember this: it is one of the weightiest, and one of the truest and most important sayings in the book of God.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

51. I am the living bread. He often repeats the same thing, because nothing is more necessary to be known; and every one feels in himself with what difficulty we are brought to believe it, and how easily and quickly it passes away and is forgotten. We all desire life, but in seeking it, we foolishly and improperly wander about in circuitous roads; and when it is offered, the greater part disdainfully reject it. For who is there that does not contrive for himself life out of Christ? And how few are there who are satisfied with Christ alone! It is not a superfluous repetition, therefore, when Christ asserts so frequently that he alone is sufficient to give life. For he claims for himself the designation of bread, in order to tear from our hearts all fallacious hopes of living. Having formerly called himself the bread of life, he now calls himself the living bread, but in the same sense, namely, life-giving bread. — Which have come down from heaven He frequently mentions his coming down from heaven, because spiritual and incorruptible life will not be found in this world, the fashion of which passes away and vanishes, but only in the heavenly kingdom of God.

If any man eat of this bread. Whenever he uses the word eat, he exhorts us to faith, which alone enables us to enjoy this bread, so as to derive life from it. Nor is it without good reason that he does so, for there are few who deign to stretch out their hand to put this bread to their mouth; and even when the Lord puts it into their mouth, there are few who relish it, but some are filled with wind, and others — like Tantalus — are dying of hunger through their own folly, while the food is close beside them.

The bread which I shall give is my flesh. As this secret power to bestow life, of which he has spoken, might be referred to his Divine essence, he now comes down to the second step, and shows that this life is placed in his flesh, that it may be drawn out of it. It is, undoubtedly, a wonderful purpose of God that he has exhibited life to us in that flesh, where formerly there was nothing but the cause of death. And thus he provides for our weakness, when he does not call us above the clouds to enjoy life, but displays it on earth, in the same manner as if he were exalting us to the secrets of his kingdom. And yet, while he corrects the pride of our mind, he tries the humility and obedience of our faith, when he enjoins those who would seek life to place reliance on his flesh, which is contemptible in its appearance.

But an objection is brought, that the flesh of Christ cannot give life, because it was liable to death, and because even now it is not immortal in itself; and next, that it does not at all belong to the nature of flesh to quicken souls. I reply, though this power comes from another source than from the flesh, still this is no reason why the designation may not accurately apply to it; for as the eternal Word of God is the fountain of life, (John 1:4,) so his flesh, as a channel, conveys to us that life which dwells intrinsically, as we say, in his Divinity. And in this sense it is called life-giving, because it conveys to us that life which it borrows for us from another quarter. This will not be difficult to understand, if we consider what is the cause of life, namely, righteousness. And though righteousness flows from God alone, still we shall not attain the full manifestation of it any where else than in the flesh of Christ; for in it was accomplished the redemption of man, in it a sacrifice was offered to atone for sins, and an obedience yielded to God, to reconcile him to us; it was also filled with the sanctification of the Spirit, and at length, having vanquished death, it was received into the heavenly glory. It follows, therefore that all the parts of life have been placed in it, that no man may have reason to complain that he is deprived of life, as if it were placed in concealment, or at a distance.

Which I shall give for the life of the world. The word give is used in various senses. The first giving, of which he has formerly spoken, is made daily, whenever Christ offers himself to us. Secondly, it denotes that singular giving which was done on the cross, when he offered himself as a sacrifice to his Father; for then he delivered himself up to death for the life of men, and now he invites us to enjoy the fruit of his death. For it would be of no avail to us that that sacrifice was once offered, if we did not now feast on that sacred banquet. It ought also to be observed, that Christ claims for himself the office of sacrificing his flesh. Hence it appears with what wicked sacrilege the Papists pollute themselves, when they take upon themselves, in the mass, what belonged exclusively to that one High Priest.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(51) I am the living bread.—The words are again repeated (comp. Joh_6:35; Joh_6:48), but with a new fulness of meaning. He spoke before of bread which was “of life,” characterised by life, producing life. He now speaks of this bread as “living,” containing the principle of life in itself. (Comp. Joh_4:13-14; Joh_5:26). Once again, too, He answers their demand for bread “from heaven” (Joh_6:31). The lifeless manna fell and lay upon the ground until they gathered it, and passed to corruption if they did not. Each day’s supply met the need of each day, but met that only. He is the bread containing life in Himself, coming by His own will and act from heaven, living among men, imparting life to those who eat by coming to and believing on Him, so that it becomes in them a principle of life, too, which cannot die, but shall live for ever.

And the bread that I will give is my flesh.—The following words, “which I will give,” should be, probably, omitted, and the whole clause should be read—And the bread that I will give is My flesh for the life of the world. The words are in every way full of meaning, and the history of their interpretation is a long chapter in the history of Christian doctrine. Their connection with the words used at the institution of the Lord’s Supper will be dealt with in Excursus C: The Sacramental Teaching of St. John’s Gospel. Their meaning for the immediate hearers is to be found in the thoughts which led up to them, and which they would suggest to a spiritually-minded Jew. They are, indeed, to be spiritually interpreted (Joh_6:63), and many, even among the disciples, feel it is a hard saying which they cannot hear (Joh_6:60); but the elements of the interpretation are to be sought in the Jewish mind. They have followed Him after a miracle which multiplied a few common barley loaves and fishes, and made them more than enough for thousands (Joh_6:22-24); He has rebuked the mere bread-seeking spirit, and declared to them the true food (Joh_6:26; Joh_6:29); they have demanded a sign from heaven like the manna (Joh_6:30-31); He has answered that the manna was the Father’s gift, and that He is the true bread from heaven (Joh_6:32-35); He has shown parenthetically the real ground of their unbelief (Joh_6:36-46), and again returned to the thought of the bread of life which they have murmured at (Joh_6:41-42), and which He has more fully explained (Joh_6:47-51). He now identifies the bread of which He has spoken with His flesh, and says that He will give that for the life of the world. This form of human flesh is, as bread, the means by which life is conveyed; it is the word by which the Eternal Spirit speaks to the spirit of man. (Comp. Joh_1:14, which is the only other passage in this Gospel, and Luk_24:39, of the resurrection body, which is the only other passage in the New Testament, where the word “flesh” is used of the person of Christ.)

These are the thoughts which have immediately led to these words; but many a chord in the Jewish mind ought to have vibrated to them. The emphatic “I will give,” whether it is repeated or not, refers perhaps to the contrast with Moses (Joh_6:32), but certainly to a gift in the future, and, therefore, not to the Incarnation, but to the Crucifixion. The great Teacher, whom many of them had heard, realised that the human form they now looked upon was the “Lamb of God” of Isaiah’s prophecy (Joh_1:36, Note). It was now the time of their Paschal Feast (Joh_6:4), when Jewish families were assembling to eat the flesh which told of the deliverance from Egyptian bondage and the birth of the nation’s life. Every day of Temple service told of flesh given in sacrifice for sin, and eaten in maintenance of the individual life. His words, uttered at this Passover, and fulfilled at the next, announce a gift of His own flesh as the true Paschal Lamb, as the sacrifice for the sins of the world, and as the sustenance of the true life of mankind.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

51. the living bread] Not merely the Bread of life (Joh_6:48), the life-giving Bread, but the living Bread, having life in itself, which life is imparted to those who partake of the Bread.

which came down] At the Incarnation. Now that the Bread is identified with Christ, we have the past tense of what took place once for all. Previously (Joh_6:33; Joh_6:50) the present tense is used of what is continually going on. In one sense Christ is perpetually coming down from heaven, in the other He came but once: He is ever imparting Himself to man; He only once became man.

he shall live for ever] Just as ‘living Bread’ is a stronger expression than ‘Bread of life,’ so ‘live for ever’ is stronger than ‘not die.’

and the bread that I will give] The precise wording of this sentence is somewhat uncertain, but the best reading seems to be: and the Bread that I will give is My Flesh for the life of the world. That in Christ’s mind these words looked onwards to the Eucharist, and that in thus speaking to believers throughout all time He included a reference to the Eucharist has already been stated to be highly probable. (See above, Introduction to 26–58). But that the reference is not exclusively, nor even directly, to the Eucharist is shewn from the use of ‘Flesh’ (sarx) and not ‘Body’ (sôma). In all places where the Eucharist is mentioned in N.T. we have ‘Body,’ not ‘Flesh;’ Mat_26:26; Mar_14:22; Luk_22:19; 1Co_11:24 ff. Moreover the words must have had some meaning for those who heard them at Capernaum. Evidently they have a wider range than any one Sacrament. Christ promises to give His Flesh (by His bloody death soon to come) for the benefit of the whole world. But this benefit can only be appropriated by the faith of each individual; and so that which when offered by Christ is His Flesh appears under the figure of bread when partaken of by the believer. The primary reference, therefore, is to Christ’s propitiatory death; the secondary reference is to all those means by which the death of Christ is appropriated, especially the Eucharist. Not that Christ is here promising that ordinance, but uttering deep truths, which apply, and which He intended to apply, to that ordinance, now that it is instituted.

51–58. Further definition of the identification of the Spiritual Bread with Christ as consisting in the giving of His Body and the outpouring of His Blood

In Joh_6:35-50 Christ in His Person is the Bread of Life: here He is the spiritual food of believers in the Redemptive work of His Death.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Then Jesus said unto them,.... The Jews, who were litigating this point among themselves:

verily, verily, I say unto you; or you may assure yourselves of the truth of what follows,

except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you: by "the son of man", Christ means himself; under which title he often speaks of himself; because it was a title of the Messiah under the Old Testament; and was expressive of the truth of his human nature, though as attended with weakness and infirmities. The "flesh" and "blood" of Christ do not design those distinct parts of his body; much less as separate from each other; nor the whole body of Christ, but his whole human nature; or Christ, as having united a perfect human nature to him, in order to shed his blood for the remission of sin, and to offer up his soul and body a sacrifice for it: and the eating of these is not to be understood of a corporeal eating of them, as the Capernaites understood them; and since them the Papists, who affirm, that the bread and wine in the Lord's supper are transubstantiated into the very body and blood of Christ, and so eaten: but this is not to be understood of eating and drinking in the Lord's supper, which, as yet, was not instituted; and some, without participating of this, have spiritual life in them now, and will enjoy eternal life hereafter; and all that partake of that ordinance have not the one, nor shall have the other: and besides, having a principle of spiritual life in the soul, is previously necessary to a right eating of the supper of the Lord. These words, understood in this sense, once introduced infants to the Lord's supper; as misinterpretation of Joh 3:5 brought in the baptism of them. But the words design a spiritual eating of Christ by faith. To eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, is to believe that Christ is come in the flesh, and is truly and really man; that his flesh is given for the life of his people, and his blood is shed for their sins, and this with some view and application to themselves: it is to partake of, and enjoy the several blessings of grace procured by him, such as redemption, pardon, peace, justification, &c. and such a feeding upon him as is attended with growth in grace, and in the knowledge of him, and is daily to be repeated, as our corporeal food is, otherwise persons have no life in them: without this there, is no evidence of life in them; not such live as feed on sinful pleasures, or on their own righteousness; only such that believe in Christ are living souls; and without this there is nothing to support life; everything else that a man eats tends to death; but this is what will maintain and preserve a spiritual life; and without this there is no just expectation of eternal life; but where there is this, there is good reason to expect it, and such shall enjoy it: some copies and versions read, "ye shall not have life in you"; eternal life. Now, though the acts of eating and drinking do not give the right to eternal life, but the flesh, blood, and righteousness of Christ, which faith lays hold, and feeds upon; yet it is by faith the right is claimed; and between these acts of faith, and eternal life, there is an inseparable connection.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Ver. 51. If any man eat, &c.] Hic edere est credere, Here to eat is to believe, saith Augustine; faith being the soul’s hand, mouth, stomach, &c. The Fathers commonly expounded this part of our Saviour’s sermon as spoken of the sacrament of the Lord’s supper; and so fell into that error, that none but communicants could be saved; wherefore also they gave the sacrament to infants, and put it into the mouths of dead men, &c. We are not to think that either our Saviour spake here properly, and ex professo, from the declaration of the sacramental eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood; or that this discourse pertains nothing at all thereunto. The Papists have expunged a great part of Origen’s commentary upon this chapter, as directly making against their monster of transubstantiation. And Cardinal Campeius affirmed against Luther, that faith is not necessary to him that receiveth the sacrament. As for Bellarmine, although we believe, saith he, that all virtues are found in the Church, yet that any man may be absolutely said to be a member of the true Church, we do not think that any inward virtue is required, but only an external profession of the faith, and such communion of the sacraments, as is received by the outward man. {a} This mark very well agrees to the Church of Rome, wherein if any be truly virtuous, it is by mere accident, as Cicero wittily said of the epicures, that if any one of them were good, he was merely overcome by the goodness of his nature; for they taught a licentious looseness, Si quando viri boni sint, vinci bonitate naturae.

{a} Bell. iii. 2, de Eccles. milit.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The bread that I will give is by flesh - That is, his body would be offered as a sacrifice for sin, agreeably to his declaration when he instituted the Supper: “This is my body which is broken for you,” 1Co 11:24.

Life of the world - That sinners might, by his atoning sacrifice, be recovered from spiritual death, and be brought to eternal life. The use of the word world hero shows that the sacrifice of Christ was full free ample, and designed for all men, as it is said in 1Jo 2:2, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” In this verse Jesus introduces the subject of his death and atonement. It may be remarked that in the language which he used the transition from bread to his flesh would appear more easy than it does in our language. The same word which in Hebrew means “bread,” in the Syriac and Arabic means also “flesh.”

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Christ now no longer calls the belief in him, or the preaching of the gospel, the bread that he will give them; but he declares that it is his own flesh, and that flesh which shall be given for the life of the world. (Calmet) --- This bread Christ then gave, when he gave the mystery of his body and blood to his disciples. (Ven. Bede)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: See Poole on "Joh 6:33". See Poole on "Joh 6:35". Our Saviour’s so often inculcating this, and what follows, lets us see both how necessary this is to be known, and also how difficult the work of believing is.

Those words,

he shall live for ever, expound those that went before in the Joh 6:50, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. His saying that the bread which he giveth is his flesh, expounds what he said before, viz. how he is the bread of life, viz. by giving his flesh, that is, his life, for the life of the world, that many might be saved; hereby showing us, that the object of our faith is a Christ crucified, 1Co 2:2.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

51. My flesh—Up to this word the unbelieving perverts could allow our Lord’s figure its true interpretation. He literally means, they would allow that faith in him secures eternal life. But this eating bread which is flesh, at once opens a divine mystery to his faithful hearers, but a terrible handle for perversion by the perverts.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I am (not only the "Bread of God," the "Bread of life," the life-giving Personality, but) the living Bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of thisBread, he will liveforever. With this verse We see, instead of monotony, a threefold advance.

(1) In place of the life-giving Bread, he declares himself to be as Bread, yet a living Person, possessing therefore in himself the essential principle and energy of life.

(2) Instead of coming down, used characteristically or universally, he points to a definite, concrete, historic fact has come down out of heaven.

(3) Instead of saying, "he may not die," we find the glorious assertion, "he will live forever." The kind of eating of which he speaks becomes clearer; the kind of food, the kind of death, the kind of life, all burst into light which points back to the first great word of this discourse, viz. "Labour tot that food which endureth unto eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you, for this one the Father, even God, hath scaled." "The miraculous feeding of yesterday was but the metaphor by which I was conveying this thought, that I was providing an inexhaustible supply for the eternal life of that humanity which I have assumed." In the last clause of the verse he made a yet further advance: Yea, and the bread which I shall give is my flesh (which I shall give) for the life of the world. The kai ... de of the commencement of the clause show a continuation of the thought with a new departure, coordination, and progress, "Yea, and the bread which I shall give is my flesh." Though the word "flesh" is often described by some of its frequent characteristics and qualities, and might be and has been regarded as the bodily and sensuous nature, and also as the seat of sin, it is, both by Paul and John, used for the nature of man as a creature its totality regarded on its earthly side, the entire "humanity" which Christ assumed, the common antithesis to "spirit" viewed as the Divine supernatural gift to man. He was (1Ti_3:16) "manifest in the flesh," in "the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom_8:3) in a flesh free from all sin. He came "in the flesh". (1Jn_2:16 1Jn_4:2) This humanity of his he gives, or rather, when he spake these words, he would give, to be eaten, to be assimilated by faith; and, having reached this point, he added (i.e. if we retain the questioned clause, which, with Meyer and Godet, we see no sufficient reason for discarding), which flesh, which humanity of his, he will further give to be slain and sacrificed for the sake of, or on behalf of, the world. This clause, which the Vatican Codex, etc., reject, proceeds clearly on the supposition that Christ advances here to the prediction and promise of his death. It is so worded as all the more to justify the emphasis he subsequently lays upon the death itself as essential to a full participation in himself. In this verse and closing utterance he prepares for further disclosures, and the flesh of Christ receives explanation from the rich and varied reference to it in the final words of the discourse, where the flesh is the great metaphor of his Divine humanity, and the blood is the expressive description of his awful sacrifice. He, the Life-giver, the Living One, the Bread of life, the living Bread, will give himself to what men call death, that they, apprehending fully, adequately accepting the greatness of the Divine gift, may, like himself, transform death (so called death) into the portal of eternal life. These words are the new starting point for this great disclosure. The very inner thought of Jesus seems to shape itself as we read. The Paschal sacrifice, eaten at that season as the sign that the theocratic nation had been chosen to covenant and eternal relation with Jehovah, must have been present to his mind. His own approaching death and sacrifice, by which he would bind those who receive him into an eternal covenant with himself, his relation to the whole world, the gift of the Father to him, the gift of himself to the world by the Father, all are presented to him, and the movements of his great heart reveal themselves as he proceeds.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If any eat of this bread - That is, believe in me: he shall live forever - In other words, he that believeth to the end shall be saved. My flesh which I will give you - This whole discourse concerning his flesh and blood refers directly to his passion, and but remotely, if at all, to the Lord's Supper.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

world

kosmos = mankind. (See Scofield "Mat 4:8").

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

51–58. Further definition of the identification of the Spiritual Bread with Christ as consisting in the giving of His Body and the outpouring of His Blood.

In Joh 6:35-50 Christ in His Person is the Bread of Life: here He is the spiritual food of believers in the Redemptive work of His Death.

51 Omit ἥν ἐγὼ δώσω after ἐστίν, with אBCDLT against the mass of later MSS. A is defective here.

51. ὁ ζῶν. Τῆς ζωῆς referred to its effects, like the Tree of Life, which was a mere instrument; ὁ ζῶν refers to its nature; not merely the Bread of life (Joh 6:48), the life-giving Bread, but the living Bread, having life in itself, which life is imparted to those who partake of the Bread.

ὁ ἐκ τ. οὐρ. καταβάς. At the incarnation. Now that the Bread is identified with Christ, we have the past tense of what took place once for all. Previously (Joh 6:33; Joh 6:50) the present tense is used of what is continually going on. In one sense Christ is perpetually coming down from heaven, in the other He came but once. He is ever imparting Himself to man; He only once became man.

ζής. εἰς τ. αἰῶνα. Just as ὁ ζῶν is stronger than τῆς ζωῆς, so ζής. εἰς τ. αἰῶνα is stronger than μὴ ἀποθάνῃ. With ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ἐκ τ. οὐρ. κ., ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω comp. γευσαμένους τ. δωρεᾶς τ. ἐπουρανίου, Heb 6:4.

ἡ σάρξ μου ἐστίν. The Sinaiticus transfers these words to the end of the verse to avoid the harsh construction. Later MSS. insert ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω between ἐστίν and ὑπέρ, with the same object. Both are corruptions of the true text, which is quite in S. John’s style, ὑπὲρ τ. τ. κ. ζωῆς being an expansion of what is expressed in the main sentence. Note the καὶ … δὲ … But, moreover, or Yea and indeed (He will tell them this startling truth right out to the end) the Bread which I will give you is my Flesh,—for the life of the world. Comp. Joh 8:16-17, Joh 15:27; and esp. 1Jn 1:3. Note also the emphatic ἐγώ; ‘I, in contrast to Moses.’ That in these words Christ looked onwards to the Eucharist, and that in thus speaking to believers throughout all time He included a reference to the Eucharist, has already been stated to be highly probable. (See above, Introduction to 26–58.) But that the reference is not exclusively nor even directly to the Eucharist is shewn from the use of σάρξ and not σῶμα. In all places where the Eucharist is mentioned in N.T. we have σῶμα, not σάρξ; Mat 26:26; Mar 14:22; Luk 22:19; 1Co 11:24 ff. Moreover the words must have had some meaning for those who heard them at Capernaum. Evidently they have a wider range than any one Sacrament. Christ promises to give His Flesh (by His bloody death soon to come) for the benefit of the whole world. But this benefit can only be appropriated by the faith of each individual; and so that which when offered by Christ is His Flesh appears under the figure of bread when partaken of by the believer. The primary reference therefore is to Christ’s propitiatory death; the secondary reference is to all those means by which the death of Christ is appropriated, especially the Eucharist.

ἡ σάρξ. Human nature regarded from its lower side (see on Joh 1:14): here it is Christ’s perfect humanity given to sustain the spiritual life of mankind. He proceeds to state (53–58) how it is given.

τοῦ κόσμου. The true Paschal Lamb is for the whole human race: contrast, ‘There shall no stranger eat thereof’ (Exo 12:43-45).

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

51.] ὁ ζῶν, ‘containing life in itself,’ not merely supplying the waste of life with lifeless matter: see on ch. 4:13, 14.

καὶ ὁ ἄρτος.…] From this time we hear no more of ἄρτος: this figure is dropped, and the reality takes its place.

Some difficult questions arise regarding the sense and reference of this saying of our Lord. (1) Does it refer to His Death? and, (2) is there any reference to the Ordinance of the Lord’s Supper?

(1) In treating this question I must at once reject all metaphorical and side-interpretations, as, that the teaching of Christ is the Bread, and to be taught by Him is feeding upon it (so Grotius, and the modern rationalists): that the divine Nature of Christ, or His sending of the Holy Spirit, or His whole life of doing good on earth, can be meant: all such have against them the plain sense of the words, which, as Stier observes, are very simple ordinary words; the only difficulty arising, when we come to enquire into their application to His own Person. The Bread of Life is Himself: and, strictly treated, when we come to enquire what, of that body, soul, and spirit, which constituted Himself, this Bread specifically is, we have His answer that it is His Flesh which He will give (for this will be the meaning, whether the words ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω are to be regarded as part of the text or not) on behalf of the life of the world. We are then specifically directed to His Flesh as the answer.

Then, what does that Flesh import? The flesh of animals is the ordinary food of men; but not the blood. The blood, which is the life, is spilt at death, and is not in the flesh when eaten by us. Now this distinction must be carefully borne in mind. The flesh here, (see ver. 53,) and the eating of the flesh, are distinct from the blood, and the drinking of the blood. We have no generalities merely, to interpret as we please: but the terms used are precise and technical. It is then only through or after the Death of the Lord, that by any propriety of language, His Flesh could be said to be eaten.

Then another distinction must be remembered: The flesh of animals which we eat is dead flesh. It is already the prey of corruption; we eat it, and die (ver. 49). But this Bread is living Bread; not dead flesh, but living Flesh. And therefore manducation by the teeth materially is not to be thought of here; but some kind of eating by which the living Flesh of the Son of God is made the living sustenance of those who partake of it. Now His Flesh and Blood were sundered by Death. Death was the shedding of His precious Blood, which He did not afterwards resume: see ch. 20:27, and Luk 24:39. His Flesh is the glorified substance of His Resurrection-Body, now at the right hand of God. It is then in His Resurrection form only that His Flesh can be eaten, and be living food for the living man. I cannot therefore see how any thing short of His Death can be here meant. By that Death, He has given His Flesh for the life of the world: not merely that they who believe on Him may, in the highest sense, have life; but that ὁ κόσμος may have life. The very existence of all the created world is owing to, and held together by, that Resurrection-Body of the Lord. In Him all things are gathered together and reconciled to God: τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν, Col 1:17.

(2) The question whether there is here any reference to the Ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, has been inaccurately put. When cleared of inaccuracy in terms, it will mean, Is the subject here dwelt upon, the same as that which is set forth in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper? And of this there can surely be no doubt. To the ordinance itself, there is here no reference; nor could there well have been any. But the spiritual verity which underlies the ordinance is one and the same with that here insisted on; and so considered, the discourse is, as generally treated, most important towards a right understanding of the ordinance.

On the history of the exegesis of this passage, see Lücke ii pp. 149-159 (3rd edn.), and Excursus ii., in his 2nd edn. (omitted in his 3rd);—also Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc. To attempt to recount the various opinions, would exceed the limits of a note in an edition of the whole Testament: for the present subject is one in which the manifold dogmatical variations of individual belief have influenced Commentators to such an extent as to render accurate classification impossible. I may roughly state, that three leading opinions may be traced: that of those who hold (α) that no reference to the Holy Communion is intended,—among whom are Origen and Basil, of the ancients; and of the moderns, the Swiss Reformers, Zwingle and Calvin (the former however not very decidedly, see Olsh. ii. 173 note), Luther, Melanchthon. (β) That the whole passage regards exclusively the Holy Communion,—among whom are Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius, the Schoolmen, and the Roman Catholic expositors, with a few exceptions. (γ) That the subject and idea of the Holy Communion, not the ordinance is referred to: to which class belong the best modern Commentators in Germany, e.g. Lücke, Tholuck, Olshausen, Stier. Bengel’s note to the same effect is important: “Jesus verba sua scienter ita formavit, ut statim et semper illa quidem de spirituali fruitione sui agerent proprie; sed posthac eadem consequenter etiam in augustissimum S. Cœnæ mysterium, quum id institutum foret, convenirent. Etenim ipsam rem hoc sermone propositam in S. Cœnam contulit; tantique hoc sacramentum est momenti, ut facile existimari possit, Jesum, ut proditionem Judæ ver. 71, et mortem suam hoc versu, ita etiam S. Cœnam, de qua inter hæc verba certissime secum cogitavit, uno ante anno prædixisse, ut discipuli possent prædictionis postea recordari. Tota hæc de carne et sanguine J. C. oratio Passionem spectat, et cum ea S. Cœnam. Hinc separata carnis et sanguinis mentio constanter. Nam in passione sanguis ex corpore eductus est, Agnusque mactatus.”

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The living bread [ο αρτος ο ζων] . Literally, the bread the living (bread). Wyc., quick bread.

I will give. The ejgw, I, is emphatic, in contrast with Moses (ver. 32).

Flesh. See on 1 14.

Which I will give. The best texts omit. Read, as Rev., my flesh for the life of the world.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.