John 6:61

Joh 6:61-65. When Jesus knew — Greek, ειδως δε ο Ιησους εν εαυτω, Jesus knowing in himself; that his disciples murmured at it — Though they did not speak out their objections and scruples; said, Doth this, which you have just now heard, offend you — And do you stumble at it as incredible? What if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up — Αναβαινοντα, ascending; where he was before? — How much more incredible will it then appear to you, that he should give you his flesh to eat? Or, will not that convince you of the truth of my having come down from heaven? Will it not show you, likewise, that I never intended you should eat my flesh in a corporeal manner? It is very probable that what Christ here says of his ascension, was, partly at least, intended to intimate to them the necessity of taking his discourse in a figurative sense, as it would so soon be evidently impossible to eat his flesh, which was to be received into heaven. It is the Spirit — The spiritual meaning of these words; that quickeneth — By which God giveth spiritual life. The flesh —

The bare, carnal, literal meaning; profiteth nothing. The words that I speak, the doctrines that I preach, unto you are spirit and life — Are to be taken in a spiritual sense; and when they are so understood and believed, or marked, learned, and digested, they are made the means of spiritual and eternal life to the hearers. There are some of you who believe not — And so receive no life by them; for Jesus knew from the beginning — Namely, of his ministry; who they were that believed not, and who should betray him — He knew the inward disposition of every particular person that heard him, and foresaw which of his disciples would be so base as to betray him. From this we infer with certainty that God foresees future contingencies:

“But his foreknowledge causes not the fault, Which had no less proved certain unforeknown.”

Therefore said I, &c. — Because I know perfectly the inward frame of your minds, that the prejudices of corrupt nature lie strongly against such a doctrine as I publish, and that nothing but divine grace can subdue them, therefore I told you plainly, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father — And it is given to those only who will receive it on God’s own terms. See the note on Joh 6:37; Joh 6:44.

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

Joh 6:61. Ἐν ἑαυτῷ, in Himself) without any external informant.—τοῦτο ὑμᾶς σκανδαλίζει; does this offend you?) Enallage [change of form of expression]: that is [He means], whether are ye offended at this truth? The passion of Christ was “to the Jews a stumbling-block.”

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

Joh_6:61-62. Ἐν ἑαυτῷ] In Himself, without communication; αὐτόματος, Nonnus.

γογγύζ.] as in Joh_6:41.

περὶ τούτου] concerning this harshness of His discourse.

τοῦτο ὑμ. σκανδ.] Question of astonishment: this, namely, which you have found so hard in my discourse (Jesus knew what it was), does this offend you? Are you so mistaken in your opinion and feelings towards me? Comp. Joh_6:66.

ἐὰν οὖν θεωρῆτε, κ.τ.λ.] Aposiopesis, which, especially in tam infausta re (Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 362), takes the place of the impassioned statement. See on Luk_19:41; Act_23:9; Rom_9:22. The completion of it must be derived solely from the context, and therefore is not τί ἐρεῖτε or the like (Nonnus, Euthymius Zigabenus, Kuinoel, and many); but τοῦτο ὑμᾶς οὐ πολλῷ μᾶλλον σκανδαλίσει (comp. Winer, p. 558 [E. T. p. 750]; Fritzsche, Conject. pp. 22, 31): Will not this impending sight serve to offend you still more? By ἀναβαίνειν ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον Jesus indicates His death; and, indeed, as Hein whom Daniels prophecy of the Son of man was to be fulfilled (comp. Joh_12:23; Mat_26:24)contemplated it in the consciousness of His heavenly origin and descent (Joh_3:13), of which He had already spoken in Joh_6:58. His death, therefore, so far as it would be to Him, by means of the resurrection and ascension therewith connected, a return to the δόξα which He had before His incarnation. Comp. Joh_17:5, and the ὑψωθῆναι ἐκ τῆς γῆς, Joh_12:32. To the spectators, who only saw the humiliating and shameful outward spectacle of His death, it served only to give the deepest offence. The concluding argument a minori ad majus which lies in οὖν, is like that in Joh_3:12. The interpretation of the ancient Church, which referred the words to the corporeal ascension in and by itself (so also Olshausen, Lindner, Maier, Ebrard, Kahnis, p. 120, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann, Hengstenberg, Baeumlein, Godet, Harless), would require us of logical necessity to supply, not the supposed increase of offence (Baeumlein), but a question expressing doubt or denial: would ye still take offence then? Comp. Joh_8:28. But this import of the aposiopesis, which even Ewald and Brückner adopt, though not explaining the words merely of the ascension, has the οὖν itself decidedly against it, instead of which ἀλλά would be logically required; and the reference to the ascension as such, as an event by itself, is totally without analogy in the discourses of Jesus, and quite un-Johannean.[247] So also the θεωρῆτε, in particular, is against this view; for, with the Present participle ἀναβαίνοντα, it would describe the ascension expressly as a visible event (in answer to Luthardts observations, who explains it of the ascension, but with Tholuck regards its visibility as a matter of indifference, so far as the present passage is concerned), though its visible occurrence is attested by no apostle, while in the non-apostolic accounts (Mar_16:19; Luk_24:51; Act_1:9) only the disciples in the narrower sense, the twelve, who are just those not meant by the ye in our text, are represented as the eye-witnesses. On the other hand, the opinion that there lies in θεωρ. only the possibility of those present being eye-witnesses (Kahnis, Hofmann)[248] is nothing more than a subtle evasion, unsupported by the ἐάν (comp. Joh_12:32, Joh_14:3, Joh_16:7), and no better than Hengstenbergs assertion (comp. Tholuck): those who were present at the ascension were the representatives of the collective body of the disciples. Parallel with ἀναβαίνειν is the designation of the death of Jesus as a going to God, Joh_7:33, Joh_13:3, Joh_14:12; Joh_14:28, Joh_16:5; Joh_16:28, Joh_17:11; Joh_17:13. That He here describes His death not according to its low and painful phase, but according to the essence of its triumphant consummation as present to His own consciousness, is therefore quite Johannean; comp. also Joh_17:5, Joh_12:23. The reference to the gift of the Spirit, the exaltation being intended as the medium of effecting this (Lange), is remote from the context, and is not indicated by any word in the sentence, for nothing is spoken of but the seeing with the eyes the future departure.

Upon τὸ πρότερον, see on Gal_4:13. It refers to the period preceding His present form of being, when as to the divine part of His nature, i.e. as the Logos, He was in heaven;[249] comp. Joh_17:5; Joh_17:24, Joh_8:58.

[247] Appeal is made, but unreasonably, not only to Joh_3:13, but likewise to Joh_20:17 (see especially Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, 517, and Godet). Jesus there is speaking after His death, when that blessed end was still future, in reference to which before His death he was wont to describe that event as a departure and an ascension to the Father. There, accordingly, He could not avoid mentioning the ascension alone.

[248] For they would certainly see Him die, but they would see Him ascend only if they remained His disciples, Hofmann. The former is as incorrect as the latter. For Jesus is speaking to His Galilean disciples, and, indeed, to His disciples in the wider sense (ver. 67), of whom therefore we cannot say that they would certainly he present at His death in Jerusalem; while the witnesses of the ascension were not those who remained faithful to Him generally, but the apostles. According to Harless, Christ means to say that they must not think of His flesh and blood in His state of humiliation, but of both in His state of glory. But flesh and blood is the contradictory of δόξα. The glorified body of Christ in the form of flesh and blood is inconceivable (1Co_15:49-50).

[249] The meaning is not that we immediately substitute another subject (Beyschlag, Christol. p. 29); but, in harmony with the witness of Jesus regarding Himself elsewhere in John, we have given us a more definite mention of the state wherein the Son of man had His pre-existence in heaven. That He had this as the Son of man, as Beyschlag, p. 85, explains (understanding it of the eternal divine image, whose temporal realization Jesus, by an intuition given Him on earth, knew Himself to be), the text does not say; it says: the Son of man, i.e. the Messiah, will ascend up where He was before. There can be no doubt, if we will follow John, in what form of existence He previously was in heaven. Neither is there any doubt if we ask Paul, who speaks of the pre-existence of Jesus ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ. See on Php_2:6; comp. 2Co_8:8-9. He does not there mean that He pre-existed as Jesus, but as the υἱὸς τ. θεοῦ. For the rest, comp. ver. 46, Joh_8:58, Joh_7:5, Joh_1:8. If it be true, as Keim says (Geschichtl. Chr. p. 102, ed. 3), that not one particle of the self-consciousness of Jesus reaches back beyond His temporal existence, the fundamental Christological view not only of the fourth Gospel, but of Paul also, is based upon a great illusion. As to the Synoptics, see on Mat_11:27; Mat_8:20.

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 6:61 . This apparently was said out of the hearing of Jesus, for Joh 6:61 says εἰδὼς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν ἑαυτῷ , “Jesus knowing in Himself,” that is, perceiving that they were murmuring, He intuitively understood what it was they were stumbling at, and said τοῦτο ὑμᾶς … πρότερον ; “Does this saying stumble you? If then ye see the Son of Man ascending where He was before ” What are we to supply? Either, Will you not be much more scandalised? Or, Will you not then be convinced? According to the former, the sense would be: If now you say, how can this Man give us His flesh to eat? much more will you then say so when His flesh wholly disappears. But the second interpretation gives the better sense: You will find it easier to believe I came down from heaven, when you see me returning thither. Cf. Joh 3:13 ; Joh 13:3 . You will then recognise also in what sense I said that you must eat my flesh. τὸ πνεῦμα ἐστι τὸ ζωοποιοῦν , ἡ σὰρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν . It was therefore the spirit animating the flesh in His giving of it which profited; not the external sacrifice of His body, but the spirit which prompted it was efficacious. The acceptance of God’s judgment of sin, the devotedness to man and perfect harmony with God, shown in the cross, is what brings life to the world; and it is this Spirit men are invited to partake of. It is therefore not a fleshly but a spiritual transaction of which I have been speaking to you. [Bengel excellently: “Non sola Deitas Christi, nec solus Spiritus sanctus significatur, sed universe Spiritus , cui contradistinguitur caro ”.] τὰ ῥήματα … ἐστιν , His entire discourse at Capernaum, and whatever other sayings He had uttered, were spirit and life. It was through what He said that He made Himself known and offered Himself to them. To those who believed His words, spirit and life came in their believing. By believing they were brought into contact with the life in Him.

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

Doth this offend . . . What and if, &c.--that is, "If ye are stumbled at what I have said, how will ye bear what I now say?" Not that His ascension itself would stumble them more than His death, but that after recoiling from the mention of the one, they would not be in a state of mind to take in the other.

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 61. Jesus knew in himself] By giving them this proof that he knew their hearts he also proved that he was God; that he could not be deceived himself, and that it was impossible for him to deceive any; consequently, that the doctrine he taught them must be the truth of God.

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

61. But Jesus knowing. Christ knew indeed, that the offense which the reprobate had taken up could not be removed; for, to tell the truth, the doctrine does not so much wound them as it exposes the putrid ulcer which they inwardly nourished in their hearts. But he wished by all methods to try if there were not one of those who were offended that was not yet beyond the reach of cure, and to stop the mouths of the rest. By putting the question, he means that they have no reason to be offended, or, at least, that the ground of offense does not lie in the doctrine itself. Thus we ought to repress the wickedness of those who, urged on by nothing but the rage of mastiff dogs, slander the word of God; and thus too we ought to chastise the folly of those who inconsiderately attack the truth.

Knowing in himself. He says that Jesus knew in himself, because they had not yet declared openly what gave them uneasiness, but secretly murmured and groaned within themselves, and, therefore, he anticipates their open complaints. If it be objected, that the nature of those complaints was not difficult to understand, because in express terms they rejected the doctrine of Christ, I acknowledge that the words which John has formerly related are plain enough; but still I say that, like persons who are disgusted at any thing, they whispered those words to each other in low murmurs. For if they had spoken to Christ, there would have been better ground of hope, because the way would have been opened up for teaching them; but now, when they indulge in secret murmurings, they shut up against themselves the way to gain instruction. So then, when we do not immediately perceive the Lord’s meaning, there is nothing better than to go straight to him, that he may solve all our difficulties.

Doth this offend you? Christ appears here to increase the offense instead of removing it; but if any person examine very closely the ground of offense, there was in the following statement what ought to have pacified their minds.

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.

(61) When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured.—The tenses in the original describe the scene in the present: Jesus as knowing, the disciples as murmuring. The knowledge is in Himself, uninformed by them, and His teaching is addressed to the thoughts of their hearts. They were placing themselves in the position of the Jews (Joh_6:41), and were making the stepping-stone of spiritual knowledge, up which faith would have walked, into a rock of offence over which blindness fell.

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

61. knew in himself] Again He appears as the reader of the heart. Comp. Joh_1:42; Joh_1:47, Joh_2:24-25, Joh_4:18, Joh_5:14; Joh_5:42, Joh_6:26, &c. More literally the verse runs: Now Jesus knowing in Himself that His disciples are muttering about it: see on Joh_6:41, Joh_7:12. They talked in a low tone so that He could not hear: but He knew without hearing.

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.

It is the Spirit that quickeneth,.... It is the spirit of man that quickens him; or which being breathed into him, he becomes a living soul; for the body, without the spirit, is dead; it is a lifeless lump: and it is the Spirit of God that quickens dead sinners, by entering into them as the spirit of life, and causing them to live: and it is spiritual eating, or eating the flesh, and drinking the blood of Christ in a spiritual sense, which quickens, refreshes, and comforts the minds of believers; it is that by, and on which they live, and by which their spiritual strength is renewed: unless, by spirit, is meant the divine nature of Christ, by which he was quickened and raised from the dead, and ascended up into heaven, and was declared to be the Son of God with power:

the flesh profiteth nothing; the human nature of Christ, though profitable, as in union with the Son of God, to be given for the life of his people, and to be an offering, and a sacrifice for their sins, yet not as alone, or as abstracted from the divine nature; nor would his flesh and blood, corporeally eaten, could, or should it be done, be of any avail to eternal life; nor is any other flesh, literally understood, profitable of itself for life; for man lives not by bread, or meat, or flesh alone, but by the word and blessing of God upon it, and along with it; nor flesh, in a figurative sense, as creature acts and performances, self-righteousness, obedience to the ceremonial law, carnal descent, and birth privileges:

the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life; the doctrines which Christ had then been delivering concerning himself, his flesh and blood, being spiritually understood, are the means of quickening souls. The Gospel, and the truths of it, which are the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, are the means of conveying the Spirit of God, as a spirit of illumination and sanctification, into the hearts of men, and of quickening sinners dead in trespasses and sins: the Gospel is the Spirit that giveth life, and is the savour of life unto life, when it comes not in word only, or in the bare ministry of it, but with the energy of the Holy Ghost, and the power of divine grace.

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

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

Ver. 61. When Jesus knew in himself] For they had not yet discovered what pinched them; but only muttered it among themselves, aversantium more, in a discontented manner. They had done much better if they had opened their minds to Christ and sought satisfaction. But men will sooner talk against a preacher by "the walls and in the doors of their houses," Eze 33:30; (taking everything with the left hand, and by the left handle), than either candidly interpret, or let him be his own interpreter.

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.

If Christ had wished to say nothing else than that his disciples should be filled with his doctrine, that being his flesh and blood, it would not have been a hard saying; neither would it have shocked the Jews. He had already said as much in the former part of his discourse: but he goes on in still stronger terms, notwithstanding their complaints; and, as they were ignorant how he would fulfil his promise, they left him, (Calmet) and followed the example of the other unbelieving Jews, as all future sectarists have, saying: how can this be done?

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).

Christ, though clothed with our flesh, yet being also the eternal Son of God, knew by virtue of his Divine nature, personally united to the human nature, what was in the heart of man; hence is this phrase,

knew in himself; which is opposed to a knowledge from the hearing of his own ears, as man heareth, whether more immediately from the sound of their words, (for we read of nothing they spake audibly), or from the relation of others, as what they had heard: he knew in himself their thoughts by his Divine prerogative and property of searching the hearts, and trying the reins, and discerning the thoughts of men afar off. Knowing their thoughts, he saith, Doth this give you occasion of stumbling?

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

61. Offend you—It is the you which is here emphatic. Are you too offended, who have professed to be my pupils, (for such is the meaning of the term disciples,) and who have learned by many a miracle that I am the Son of man, and that my word, however mysterious, cannot be less than divine?

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

But Jesus, knowing in himself not necessarily by supernatural penetration, for many signs of impatience may have been manifestedthat his disciples murmured (see ver. 41, note) concerning this hard argument, said unto them, Doth this cause you to stumble? (see note on Joh_16:1)

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

61. ἐν ἑαυτῷ. They talked in a low tone, but He knew without hearing; see on Joh 6:41 and Joh 2:24. As in Joh 1:42; Joh 1:47, Joh 4:18, Joh 5:14; Joh 5:42, Joh 6:26, &c., Jesus reads men’s hearts. For σκανδαλίζει see on Joh 16:1.

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.

61.] ἐν ἑαυτῷ, by His divine knowledge.

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

61. εἰδὼς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν ἑαυτῷ. See on 2:25 for the insight of Jesus into men’s thoughts.

For γογγύζουσιν, see on v. 41 above, where the murmurers were “the Jews”; here they include some of the disciples of Jesus.

τοῦτο ὑμᾶς σκανδαλίζει; “Does this offend you?” σκανδαλίζειν occurs in Jn. again only at 16:1, but it is a common Synoptic word.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Offend [οκανδαλιζει] . Rev., cause to stumble. See on Mt 5:29. Wyc., slandereth you.

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

Vv. 61-63. “But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them: Does this word offend you? 62. And if you shall see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63. It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words which I speak unto you are spirit and life.”

As Lange remarks, the words “in himself” do not exclude the perception of any external signs, but they signify that Jesus had no need of questioning any one of them in order to understand these symptoms. The word offend, is to be taken here in the gravest sense, as in Luk 7:23 : to cause to stumble with respect to faith.

The words ἐὰν οὖν (Joh 6:62), which we have translated by and if, do not depend upon any principal proposition. One must, therefore, be supplied. We may understand, “What will you then say?” But this question itself may and must be resolved into one of the two following ones: “Will not your offense cease then?” or, on the contrary: “Will you not then be still more offended?” This last question is the one which is understood by de Wette, Meyer andLucke . According to Weiss, this second view is absolutely required by the οὖν, therefore; the first would have required but: “But will not your present offense cease?” True; nevertheless, this second form of the question, if one holds to it, cannot be any more satisfactory.

What purpose indeed would it serve to refer them to a coming fact which would offend them still more? We must come to a third supposition which unites the two questions, by passing from the second so as to end with the first. “If therefore, one day, after you have heard this saying which is so intolerable to you, an event occurs which renders it altogether absurd, will you not then understand that you were mistaken as to its true meaning?” The apostle calls this event an ἀναβαίνειν, ascending.A whole class of interpreters find here the indication of the death of Jesus as the means of His exaltation to the Father (Lucke, de Wette, Meyer, Reuss, Weiss). “It is then indeed, Jesus would say, that your Messianic hopes will be reduced to nothing!” But are the ideas of suffering and disappearing identical, then, with that of ascending? When the idea of death on the cross is united with that of the heavenly exaltation of Jesus (Joh 3:15; Joh 12:34), the apostle uses the passive term, ὑψωθῆναι, to be lifted up. When he desires to present this death from the point of view of the disappearance which will follow it, he says ὑπάγειν, to go away (to the Father) but not ἀναβαίνειν.

When John applies this last term to the exaltation of Jesus Joh 20:17, he does not mean to speak of His death; for it is after His resurrection. How could the term ascend designate the moment of His deepest humiliation? and that in speaking to Jews! Still more, according to all these interpreters, it is the death of Jesus with its consequences which is the hard saying at which the disciples are offended;—and yet the new offense, a still greater one, which should form the consummation of the first, is again the death! Weiss perceives this contradiction so clearly that, in order to escape it, he supposes that the mention of the death contained in Joh 6:53 was imported by the evangelist into the discourse of Jesus; the allusion to the great separation of death could have occurred only in this passage. This is to make over the discourse, not to explain it. The only natural and even possible interpretation is that which applies the termascend to the ascension. It is objected that the fact of the ascension is not related by John and that the words: if you shall see, do not apply to this fact, since the apostles alone were witnesses of it.

But the omission of the ascension in John is explained, like that of the baptism; his narrative ends before the first of these facts, as it begins after the second. Nevertheless John alludes to the one and the other (Joh 1:32 and Joh 20:17). And as to the word see, it is not always applied to the sight of the eyes, but also to that of the understanding; comp. Joh 1:51 “you shall see the angels ascending and descending;” Joh 4:19 : “I see that Thou art a prophet;” but especially Mat 26:63 : “Henceforth you shall see the Son of man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds.” This last passage is altogether analogous to ours. In the visible facts of Pentecost and the fall of Jerusalem, the Jews beheld, whether they would or no, the invisible ones, the sitting of Christ on the right hand of God and His return in judgment. As to believers, they have seen and still see through the eyes of the apostles. Jesus Himself, if He foretold these facts, must have clearly foreseen the ascension which is the condition of them. Various details confirm this meaning. In the first place, the present participleascending, which forms a picture (see Baumlein); then, the opposition between this term and the term descending from heaven which, throughout this whole chapter, has designated the incarnation, as well as the words: where he was before, on which, as Keil observes, lies precisely the emphasis of the sentence; finally, the parallel in Joh 20:17. It is evident that this meaning is perfectly suited to the context: “You are offended at the necessity of eating and drinking the blood of a man who is here before you. This thought will seem to you much more unacceptable, when you shall see this same man ascend again into heaven from which He descended before, and His flesh and blood disappear from before your eyes. But at that time you also will be obliged to understand that the eating and drinking were of an altogether different nature from what you at first supposed.” The following verse fully confirms this explanation.

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.