John 6:71

Joh 6:71. Σίμωνος, of Simon) The other evangelists are silent as to what name the father of the traitor bore: John supplies it. The article is opposed to the reading, Ἰσκαριώτην: for in that case it would be Ἰούδαν Σίμωνος τὸν Ἰσκαριώτην, not τὸν Ἰούδαν Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτην. The article is placed between the name and surname. I have mentioned at Mat 10:4, but not approved of, the derivation given by Ludovicus de Dieu. Both Judas and his father had the surname of Iscariot, [156][157][158] read ΤῸΝ ἸΟΎΔΑΝ ΣΊΜΩΝΟς ἸΣΚΑΡΙΩΤΟΥ: Rec. Text, ἸΣΚΑΡΙΏΤΗΝ. [159][160][161] has Σκαριωθ.]

[156] the Vatican MS., 1209: in Vat. Iibr., Rome: fourth cent.: O. and N. Test. def.

[157] Ephræmi Rescriptus: Royal libr., Paris: fifth or sixth cent.: publ. by Tisch. 1843: O. and N. T. def.

[158] Cod. Reg., Paris, of the Gospels: the text akin to that of B: edited by Tisch.

[159] Bezæ, or Cantabrig.: Univ. libr., Cambridge: fifth cent.: publ. by Kipling, 1793: Gospels, Acts, and some Epp. def.

[160] Vercellensis of the old ‘Itala,’ or Latin Version before Jerome’s, probably made in Africa, in the second century: the Gospels.

[161] Veronensis, do.

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

Joh 6:71 . Using the knowledge brought by subsequent events John explains that Judas was meant, ἔλεγε δὲ τὸν Ἰούδαν Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτην [better Ἰσκαριώτου , which shows that the father of Judas was also known as Iscariot], ἔλεγε with the accusative, meaning “He spoke of,” is classical, and see Mar 14:71 . The word “Iscariot” is generally supposed to be equivalent to אִישׁ קְרִיּו ̇ ת , Ish Keriyoth, a man of Kerioth in the tribe of Judah (Jos 15:25 ). Cf. Ishtob, a man of Tob (Joseph., Ant. , vii. 6, 1, quoted in Smith’s Dict. ). The name Judas now needs no added surname.

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

Verse 71. He spake of Judas-for he it was that should betray him] Οὑτος γαρ ημελλεν αυτον παραδιδοναι, He who was about to deliver him up. By referring to this matter so often, did not our blessed Lord intend to warn Judas? Was not the evil fully exposed to his view? And who dare say that it was impossible for him to avoid what he had so often been warned against? When the temptation did take place, and his heart, in purpose, had brought forth the sin, might he not have relented, fallen at his injured master's feet, acknowledge his black offense, and implored forgiveness? And surely his most merciful Lord would have freely pardoned him.

1. ON the subject of the disciples sailing off without Christ, and the storm that overtook them, it may be necessary to make a few observations, chiefly for the encouragement of the labourers in God's vineyard. It was the duty of the disciples to depart at the commandment of the Lord, though the storm was great, and the wind contrary. It was their duty to tug at the oar, expecting the appearing of their Lord and master. So it is the duty of the ministers of Christ to embark, and sail even into the sea of persecution and dangerous trial, in order to save souls. There may be darkness for a time-they must row. The waves may rise high-they must row on. The wind may be contrary-still they must tug at the oar. Jesus will appear, lay the storm, and calm the sea, and they shall have souls for their hire. The vessel will get to land, and speedily too. There are particular times in which the Lord pours out his Spirit, and multitudes are quickly convinced and converted. "Alas!" says one, "I see no fruit of my labour; no return of my prayers and tears." Take courage, man; tug on; thou shalt not labour in vain, nor spend thy strength for nought. What he does thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter. Great grace, and great peace await thee; take courage, and tug on!

2. When a man forsakes the living God, and gives way to avarice, which appears to have been the case with Judas, he is fit for any thing in which Satan may choose to employ him. Beware of the love of money! The cursed lust of gold induced a disciple of Christ to betray his God: and has it not been the ruin of millions since? Few people love money merely for its own sake: they love it because it can provide them with the necessaries, conveniences, and comforts of life; those who have not God for their portion incessantly long after these things, and therefore are covetous. While a man watches unto prayer, and abides in the love of Christ Jesus the Lord, so long he is safe, for he is contented with the lot which God has given him in life. Reader, art thou like Judas (in his best state) put in trust for the poor, or for the Church of Christ. Do not covet; and take heed that thou grudge not; nor permit thy heart to be hardened by repeated sights and tales of wo. Thou art but a steward; act faithfully, and act affectionately. Because the ointment that prefigured the death of our Lord was not applied just as Judas would have it, he took offense; betrayed and sold his master; saw and wished to remedy his transgression; despaired and hanged himself. Behold the fruit of covetousness! To what excesses and miseries the love of money may lead, God alone can comprehend. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

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

71. He spoke of Judas Although Judas had a bad conscience, still we do not read that he was at all moved. Hypocrites are so stupid that they do not feel their sores, and in the presence of men they have such hardened effrontery, that they do not scruple to prefer themselves to the very best of men.

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.

(71) Judas Iscariot the son of Simon.—The best MSS. read, Judas, the son of Simon Iscariotes. On the name see the list of the Apostles in Mat_10:4. If we accept the most probable interpretation of Iscariot as Ish K’rîoth, a man of K’rîoth,—and this is supported by the variation of MSS. in this place, some of which read “from Kariotes,” and the best of which, as we see, apply the title Iscariot to Simon—then Judas belonged to the tribe of Judah (Jos_15:25), and is the only one of the Apostles who was not a Galilean (Act_2:7). This connects itself with the antagonistic position of the Jews from Jerusalem.

That should betray him.—Not indicating that Judas was then planning the betrayal. (Comp. Joh_13:2.) This remark is made by the writer to explain the strong words of the previous verse.

Being one of the twelve.—Or, although he was one of the Twelve, the exact shade of meaning of the participle being defined by the context. It marks, again, the tragic contrast between what might have been expected and what was actually realised. One of the Twelve, devil! one of the Twelve, the betrayer!

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

71. Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon] The better reading is; Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. If, as seems probable, the name Iscariot means ‘man of Kerioth,’ a place in Judah, it would be natural enough for both father and son to have the name. Assuming this to be correct, Judas was the only Apostle who was not a Galilean.

that should betray] That was to betray; not the same phrase as in Joh_6:64.

being one of the twelve] ‘Being’ is of doubtful genuineness. The tragic contrast is stronger without the participle: for he was to betray Him, one of the Twelve.

With regard to the difficulty of understanding Christ’s words in this sixth chapter, Meyer’s concluding remark is to be borne in mind. “The difficulty is partly exaggerated; and partly the fact is overlooked that in all references to His death and the purpose of it Jesus could rely upon the light which the future would throw on these utterances: and sowing, as He generally did, for the future in the bosom of the present, He was compelled to utter much that was mysterious, but which would supply material and support for the further development and purification of faith and knowledge. The wisdom thus displayed in His teaching has been justified by History.”

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.

71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Ver. 71. He spake of Judas Iscariot] Which some derive of the Syriac word signifying strangling, as if he were so named by an anticipation; like as our roaring boys will needs be so called now, by a woeful prolepsis, here for hereafter. But what a hard heart had Judas, and how fearfully was he satanized and transformed into a breathing devil, that could hear all this, and not be affected therewith! Hypocritis nihil stupidius, Nothing is more stupid or more stubborn than a hypocrite. David fitly compareth him to the deaf adder; which although by spitting out his poison he might renew his age, yet he stoppeth both his ears, lest he should hear the voice of the charmer.

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.

He spake of Judas ... - There is no evidence that Jesus designated Judas so that the disciples then understood that it was he. It does not appear that the apostles even suspected Judas, as they continued to treat him afterward with the same confidence, for he carried the bag, or the purse containing their little property Joh 12:6; Joh 13:29; and at the table, when Jesus said that one of them would betray him, the rest did not suspect Judas until Jesus pointed him out particularly, Joh 13:26. Jesus spoke of one, to put them on their guard, to check their confidence, and to lead them to self-examination. So in every church, or company of professing Christians, we may know that it is probable that there may be some one or more deceived; but we may not know who it may be, and should therefore inquire prayerfully and honestly, “Lord, is it I?”

Should betray - Would betray. If it be asked why Jesus called a man to be an apostle who he knew had no love for him, who would betray him, and who had from the beginning the spirit of a “devil,” we may reply:

1. It was that Judas might be an important witness for the innocence of Jesus, and for the fact that he was not an impostor. Judas was with him more than three years. He was treated with the same confidence as the others, and in some respects even with superior confidence, as he had “the bag” Joh 12:6, or was the treasurer. He saw the Saviour in public and in private, heard his public discourses and his private conversation, and he would have been just the witness which the high priests and Pharisees would have desired, if he had known any reason why he should be condemned. Yet he alleged nothing against him. Though he betrayed him, yet he afterward said that he was innocent, and, under the convictions of conscience, committed suicide. If Judas had known anything against the Saviour he would have alleged it. If he had known that he was an impostor, and had alleged it, he would have saved his own life and been rewarded. If Jesus was an impostor, he ought to have made it known, and to have bean rewarded for it.

2. It may have been, also, with a foresight of the necessity of having such a man among his disciples, in order that his own death might be brought about in the manner in which it was predicted. There were several prophecies which would have been unfulfilled had there been no such man among the apostles.

3. It showed the knowledge which the Saviour had of the human heart, that he could thus discern character before it was developed, and was able so distinctly to predict that he would betray him.

4. We may add, what benevolence did the Saviour evince - what patience and forbearance - that he had with him for more than three years a man who he knew hated him at heart, and who would yet betray him to be put to death on a cross, and that during all that time he treated him with the utmost kindness!

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

This he spake of Judas Iscariot, ( so called, as most think, from the name of the city where he lived), and to distinguish him from the other Judas, the brother of James, who wrote the Epistle that goeth by his name, and is a part of holy writ: for he

being one of the twelve, chosen and sent out with the rest to preach the gospel, and empowered by miraculous operations to confirm the truth of it; yet it was he that was to betray Christ, as we largely read in all the evangelists’ relation of the passion: to teach us, that no office to which God calleth us, no gifts (except those of special grace) with which God blesseth any man, can secure him of an eternal happy state; nothing can do that but a true saving faith in Jesus Christ, with the obedience of a holy life becoming the gospel of Christ.

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

71. Judas Iscariot the son of Simon—Alford adopts the reading, Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, that is, Simon of the town Kerioth. See note on Mat_10:4.

Should betray him—Literally, was about to betray him. Note on Joh_6:64. The temper or state of purpose by which he was ready for such an act, upon due temptation, is probably the ground of his being a

devil. Of the twelve—John has given no list of the twelve. Nevertheless, as he purposes to give a full history of this apostle’s betrayal of Jesus, he now, doubtless, says this as marking the aggravation of the deed.

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

Now he spake concerning Judas the son of Simon the Iscariotbeing one of the twelve. (For this use of elege , see Mar_14:71) Iscariot is most probably "of Kerioth," a town of Judah, mentioned in Jos_15:25, though Westcott cites another Kerioth in Moab. (Jer_48:44) If this Kerioth, which Simon and his son Judas have degraded, be the Kerioth-Hezron, then it would seem that Judas was the only Judaean among the apostles. For he it was that was about to betray him being one of the twelve (cf. ver. 64). O paradwswn gives a somewhat different turn of description to the futurity of the deed. Had it yet fully dawned on the soul of the traitor? Had he laid any plans to bring his Master to the point from which he turned so divinely? We know not.

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

71. Ἰσκαριώτου for Ἰσκαριώτην, with the earlier MSS. and best copies of the Vulgate.

We see more and more as we go on, that this Gospel makes no attempt to be a complete or connected whole. There are large gaps in the chronology. The Evangelist gives us not a biography, but a series of typical scenes, very carefully selected, and painted with great accuracy and minuteness, but not closely connected. As to what guided him in his selection, we know no more than the general purpose stated Joh 20:31, and it is sufficient for us. Those words and works of Jesus, which seemed most calculated to convince men that He ‘is the Christ, the Son of God,’ were recorded by the beloved Apostle. And the fact that they had already been recorded by one or more of the first Evangelists did not deter him from insisting on them again; although he naturally more often chose what they had omitted. In this chapter we have a notable instance of readiness to go over old ground in order to work out his own purpose. The miracle of feeding the Five Thousand is recorded by all four Evangelists, the only miracle that is so. Moreover, it is outside the Judaean ministry; so that for this reason also we might have expected S. John to omit it. But he needs it as a text for the great discourse on the Bread of Life; and this though spoken in Galilee was in a great measure addressed to Jews from Jerusalem; so that both text and discourse fall naturally within the range of S. John’s plan. Moreover by producing an outburst of popular enthusiasm (Joh 6:15) it shewed how utterly the current ideas about the Messiah were at variance with Christ’s work.

As in chap. 5. Christ is set forth as the Source of Life, so in this chapter He is set forth as the Support of Life. In the one the main idea is the Son’s relation to the Father, in the other it is the Son’s relation to the believer.

71. ἔλεγεν δέ. Now He spake, was meaning. For the accusative instead of περί c. gen. comp. Joh 8:54, Joh 9:19, Joh 1:15.

Ἰσκαριώτου. Here and in Joh 13:26 the true reading adds Iscariot not to the name of Judas (Joh 12:4, Joh 13:2, Joh 14:22), but to that of his father. If Iscariot means ‘man of Kerioth,’ a place in Judah (Jos 15:25), or possibly Moab (Jer 48:24), it would be natural for both father and son to have the name. In this case Judas was the only Apostle who was not a Galilean, and this would place a barrier between him and the Eleven.

ἔμελλεν. Was about to; Joh 12:4; Luk 22:23; comp. Joh 6:64. There is no need to include either predestinarian views on the one hand or the intention of Judas on the other. What has taken place, when viewed from a point before the event, may be regarded as sure to take place. εἷς ἐκ τ. δ. is in tragic contrast with what precedes; for he was to betray Him—one of the Twelve. “Clean and unclean birds, the dove and the raven, are still in the Ark” (S. Augustine).

With regard to the difficulty of understanding Christ’s words in this sixth chapter, Meyer’s concluding remark is to be borne in mind. “The difficulty is partly exaggerated; and partly the fact is overlooked that in all references to His death and the purpose of it Jesus could rely upon the light which the future would throw on these utterances: and sowing, as He generally did, for the future in the bosom of the present, He was compelled to utter much that was mysterious, but which would supply material and support for the further development and purification of faith and knowledge. The wisdom thus displayed in His teaching has been justified by History.”

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.

71.] On the name Ἰσκαριώτης (here applied to Simon, Judas’s father), see on Mat 10:4.

ἔμελλεν, not, ‘intended,’ see ch. 13:2: but simply future, = ἦν ὁ παραδώσων αὐτόν, see ver. 64; ch. 7:39; 11:51 al.

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

71. ἔλεγεν δέ κτλ., “but He was speaking of …,” a quite classical use of ἔλεγε. See on v. 65 above.

Ἰούδαν Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτου. ΝΓΔ support Ἰσχαριώτην of the rec. text, but אcBCLW give the genitive, “Iscariot” being the appellation of Simon, the father of Judas. For Ἰσκαριώτου, א*Θ and fam. 13 give the interpretative reading ἀπὸ Καρυώτου (see also 12:4, 13:2, 26, 14:22 in D). Judas was the son of Simon, who was a man of Kerioth, אִישׁ קְרִיוֹת, and thus both Judas (see 12:4, 13:2) and his father Simon (cf. 13:26) were called “Iscariot.” Kerioth may be the place called Kerioth-hezron (in Judah) at Jos 15:25, or may be Kerioth in Moab (Jer 48:24); but in any case it was not in Galilee, so that Judas was the only one of the Twelve who was not a Galilæan. This explanation of the surname “Iscariot” is suggested in Jn. only, there being no hint of it in the Synoptists.1

ἔμελλεν (אBCLNWΘ) is to be preferred to the rec. ἤμελλεν.

οὗτος γὰρ ἔμελλεν παραδιδόναι αὐτόν. Cf. 12:4 ὁ μέλλων αὐτὸν παραδιδόναι. μέλλειν may express simple futurity only (4:47), or it may connote intention (6:6, 14:22); but it may also carry with it the idea of predestined inevitableness, the thought of which is often present to Jn. (see on 2:4, 3:14). It would be quite in Jn.’s manner to describe Judas as he who was destined to deliver Jesus up to His enemies. Cf. Mat 17:22 μέλλει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοσθαι, where μέλλει certainly connotes inevitableness. For other instances of μέλλειν in Joh 7:35; Joh 7:39; Joh 11:51; Joh 12:33; Joh 18:32, the exact shade of meaning being not always certain.

εἷς ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα. After εἷς, א C2ΓDNWΘ ins. ὤν, but om. BC*DL. The Synoptists apply the phrase “one of the Twelve” to Judas only, and to him only in connexion with the Betrayal. But Jn. applies it also to Thomas (20:24), the description always indicating surprise that one so favoured as to be of the chosen companions of Jesus should be either incredulous or unfaithful (see on v. 67 above).

It has been pointed out on 1:40 that Jn. prefers the form εἷς ἐκ to εἷς only when followed by a gen. plur., whereas the Synoptists generally omit ἐκ. Westcott suggests that ἐκ in the present passage marks “the unity of the body to which the unfaithful member belonged.” But this is too subtle an inference from what is only a habit of style; cf. εἷς τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ (Joh 12:4).

A. Wright (Synopsis, p. 31) suggests that ὁ εἶς τῶν δώδεκα, applied to Judas (Mar 14:10), means “the chief of the Twelve,” and compares τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων (Mar 16:2). It is difficult to believe that ὁ εἷς; could be written for ὁ πρῶτος; or that an evangelist writing many years after the event, when the name of Judas had been held up to opprobrium for a generation, should call him “the chief of the Twelve,” without adding any qualifying words. See, for the precedence of Judas, on 13:23.

1 As it held thirteen persons, it must have been a large boat.

2 The supposition that there was another Bethsaida on the western shore lacks evidence, and is improbable. Cf. 12:21.

3 It is said that grass is found there at all seasons (W. M. Christie, D.C.G. ii. 589); cf. Rix (Tent and Testament, pp. 265 ff.) for the geographical problem.

1 Josephus (B.J. iii. 3, 5) has τῆς πρὸς Τιβεριάδα λίμνης, which Niese notes as having been altered in inferior MSS. to Τιβεριάδος.

אԠSinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v-vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14-20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (Dsupp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2-20 21:15-25 are missing.

N Purpureus Petropolitanus (ε 19). Dispersed through the libraries of Leningrad, Patmos, Rome, Vienna, and British Museum. vi. Some pages are missing. Edited by H. S. Cronin in Cambridge Texts and Studies (1899).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv-vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50-8:52 are missing.

Γ̠(ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix-x. Contains Son 1:1-13 8:3-15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ̠Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix-x. Græco-Latin.

Θ̠Koridethi (ε 050). Tiflis. vii-ix. Discovered at Koridethi, in Russian territory, and edited by Beermann & Gregory (Leipzig, 1913). The text is akin to that of fam. 13, fam. 1, and the cursives 28, 565, 700 See Lake and Blake in Harvard Theol. Review (July 1923) and Streeter, The Four Gospels. Cf. also J.T.S. Oct. 1915, April and July 1925.

1 See Introd., p. xcvi. Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 413, hazards the guess that the words ἀναβὰς εἰς τὸ ὄρος ἐκάθητο ἐκεῖ originally stood in the text of Mk.

2 Most explicitly by Hort, Select Readings, p. 77.

3 See Introd., p. xviii.

1 Burkitt (Ev. da Mepharrsshê, ii. 313) shows that the Syriac tradition is against omitting τὸ πάσχα.

1 See Introd., p. xcvii.

1 About 100 a.d., cited by Milligan, Vocab.

2 xvi. c. 2, § 45, quoted by G. A. Smith, Hist. Geogr. of Holy Land, p. 454. who adds, “The pickled fish of Galilee were known throughout the Roman world.”

1 Cf. Swete, J.T.S., Jan. 1902, p. 163.

1 Hor. Hebr., iii. 302.

1 Turner (J.T.S., Jan. 1925, p. 148) suggests that it may have been this incident which attracted the attention of Herod (cf. Mar 6:14).

1 Cf. Introd., p. cxx.

1 See Introd., p. cxi.

2 This is the only place, as Wendt points out, where the word σημεῖα is placed in the mouth of Jesus by Jn.

T Borgianus (ε 5). Rome. v. Græco-Sahidic. Contains cc. 6:28-67 7:6-8:31.

1 Midrash Koheleth, p. 73, quoted by Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr., in loc.

2 J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 152; cf. p. 25.

1 The phrase occurs Ignatius, ad Rom. vii.; cf. vv. 51, 53.

1 Wetstein gives the reference “Isaacus Arama in Akodas Jizhac.”

1 Cf. Introd., pp. xciii, cxl.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

1 Cf. introd., pp. cix, cixii.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.-X. (1900-1915).

1 Cf. Introd., p. clxvii.

2 For the sacramental bearing of vv. 51-58, see Waterland, Doctrine of the Eucharist, c. vi.

1 See Introd., p. clxxiv.

2 Chase traces it to Syriac influence (Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels, p. 21).

1 At 4:34 Christ’s “food” is the doing the Father’s Will. Here the thought is rather that the Son “feeds” on the Father’s Life, assimilating and sharing it.

1 Recent excavations at Tell-Hum have disclosed the remains of a large building which its discoverers identify with this synagogue.

1 For patristic comments on this passage, see Gore, Dissertations, P. 303 f.

2 Cf. Introd., p. 34.

1 Cf. Introd., p. 33.

2 See Moulton-Milligan, Vocab. of N.T., s.v. ἐκ.

3 Fragm. on The Seventy Apostles.

1 Cf. Introd., p. 134.

1 See Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 143; Chase, Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels, p. 102; and the art. “Judas Iscariot” in D.C.G.

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

Judas Iscariot the son of Simon (Ioudan Simwnov Iskariwthn). The correct reading is Iskariwtou, Iscariot, agreeing in the genitive case with Simwnov, of Simon. Render, as Rev., Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. Iscariot denotes the name of Simon 's town : a man of Kerioth. See on Mt 10:5.

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

Ver. 71. At the moment, no one of the disciples, unless perhaps John and Judas himself, understood to whom these words applied. The almost certain etymology of the word ᾿Ισκαριώτης is Ish-Kerioth, man of Kerioth; this was the name of a town in the tribe of Judah (Jos 15:25). According to all appearance, the apostle was the only one who was a native of Judea, that country hostile to Jesus. Hengstenberg prefers the etymology אִישׁ שְׁקָרִים, man of falsehoods. John would thus anticipate the use of a name which could have been given him only after his crime; a supposition which is unnatural. The Alexandrian reading makes this surname an epithet of the father of Judas; the same is the case in Joh 13:26. In Joh 14:22, this word is without any variant and applies to Judas himself. It might be applied to the father and the son. The verb ἤμελλεν simply means, starting from the point of view of the accomplished fact: “He it was to whom it should happen...” The last words bring out the monstrous contrast between his position and his conduct.

From the beginning, a gnawing worm had been fastened to the root of the Galilean faith. John had characterized this evil by the words: πάντα ἑωρακότες ...“having seen all that he did” (Joh 4:45). And Jesus, with the same feeling, had said (Joh 4:48): “Unless ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.” The sixth chapter brings before our eyes the premature falling of the fruit of this tree, which had for a time presented such fair appearances. If one wishes to understand this crisis, it is enough for him to cast a glance at the Christianity of to-day. It declares and thinks itself Christian, but material instincts have, more and more, the preponderance over religious and moral needs. Soon the Gospel will not answer any longer to the aspirations of the masses. The words: “You have seen me and believe not,” will have their application to them on a still vaster scale; and the time will come when the great defection of Christendom will, for a time, reproduce the Galilean catastrophe. Our epoch is the true commentary on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of St. John.

Objections have been made to the authenticity of these discourses. Critics have alleged their unintelligibility for the hearers (Strauss, Leben Jesu, vol. I., 2d part, pp. 680, 681) and the similarity of the dialogue to the one in chap. 4 (Ibid. p. 680). Comp. especially, Joh 6:34 with Joh 4:15; Joh 6:27 with Joh 4:13-14. With reference to this second point we answer. 1. That the ever-renewed collision between the heavenly thought of Jesus and the carnal minds which it was trying to elevate even to itself must, at each time, introduce analogous phases; and 2. That it is not difficult to point out characteristic differences between chap. 4 and chap. 6. The chief one is this: While the Samaritan woman suffers herself to be transported to the celestial sphere whither Jesus would attract her, the Galileans, elevated for a moment, soon fall again to the earth, and break decisively with Him who declares that He has nothing to offer them for the satisfaction of their gross religious materialism.

As to the first point, we think that we have here an excellent opportunity to convince ourselves of the authenticity of the discourses of the fourth Gospel. If there is any one of them which can be accused of presenting the mystical character to which the name Johannean is often given, it is certainly this one. And yet, how without this discourse can we explain the great historical fact of the Galilean crisis which is connected with it in our narrative.

This decisive event in the history of Jesus’ ministry is not called in question by any one, and yet it is inseparable from the discourse which caused it! This discourse, moreover, is naturally connected with its starting point and has a clearly graduated progress. Jesus here declares to the Jews: 1. That they must seek after a higher food than the bread of the day before; 2. That this food is Himself; and 3. That, in order to appropriate it to oneself, one must go so far as to eat His flesh and drink His blood. This gradation is natural: it presents itself as historically necessary, the fact being given which served as its point of departure. Even the incomprehensibility of the last part for the mass of the hearers becomes one of the factors of the double result which Jesus desired to attain; the purification of the circle of His disciples and even of that of His apostles, and the radical rupture with the Messianic illusions on which the multitudes gathered around Him were still feeding.

As to the relation of the profession of the apostles, ch. 6, to that of Caesarea Philippi (Mat 16:13 ff.; Mar 8:27 ff.; Luk 9:18 ff.), it seems to me that it is difficult to imagine two questionings of Jesus, as well as two responses of the disciples, so similar to one another nearly at the same time. There is nothing to prevent our placing between the scene at Capernaum and the confession of Peter in our chapter an interval of some weeks. The ἐκ τούτου, from this time (Joh 6:66), easily allows it. and we have thus the necessary time for locating the matter contained (in Matt. and Mark) between the multiplication of the loaves and this solemn conversation of Jesus with His disciples (Mat 14:34 to Mat 16:12; Mar 6:53 to Mar 8:26). As for Luke, he is still more easily put in accord with John, since omitting all the intermediate passages, he directly connects the conversation of Jesus and Peter’s profession with the multiplication of the loaves (Luk 9:17-18). No doubt, the answer of Peter is somewhat differently expressed in Matthew (“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”) and in John (“Thou art the Holy One of God”); andWestcott finds in this difference a sufficient reason for distinguishing the two scenes. But in the Synoptics also the answer differs (Mark: “Thou art the Christ;” Luke: “Thou art the Christ of God”), a proof that we should not fasten our attention here on the terms, but on the sense: the Messianic dignity of Jesus (in opposition to the function of a simple prophet or a forerunner; comp. Mat 16:14 ff.). For myself, I cannot comprehend how Jesus, after having obtained from the mouth of Peter either the profession reported by Matthew, or that of which John speaks, should almost at the same time have also asked a new one.

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.