57. In the Blessed Eucharist we are united to Christ, and His humanity remains in us until the sacred species become corrupted; His divinity, until mortal sin is committed, and He is expelled.58. Sicut misit me vivens Pater, et ego vivo propter Patrem: et qui manducat me, et ipse vivet propter me.58. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.58. The sacred union between Christ and the communicant is compared to the ineffable union between Him and His heavenly Father.The living Father.This is a unique instance of this title, but we frequently find:The Living God, Matt. xvi. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16, &c.And I live by(διὰ τὸν παπέρα)the Father. It is to be noted that διὰ is followed by the accusative, not the genitive. If, then, we are to regard it as meaning here what it ordinarily means when followed by the accusative, and as the Vulgate seems to take it, the sense would rather be: As the living Father hath sent Me, and I liveon accountof the Father, so he that eateth Me, the same also shall liveon accountof Me. This would mean that as complete devotion to the Father is the object of the life of the Incarnate Son[pg 129](the Sonas sent), so complete devotion to the Son shall be the object of the life of him to whom Christ shall have united Himself in the Blessed Eucharist. Others, however, think that διὰ is here equivalent tothrough, orby, as in our Rheims Version. The sense then is: as Christ lives through the eternal life communicated to Him in His eternal generation by the Father; so, in some way, the communicant shall live in virtue of the spiritual life communicated to him or sustained in him because of his union with Christ in the Blessed Eucharist.59. Hic est panis qui de coelo descendit. Non sicut manducaverunt patres vestri manna, et mortui sunt. Qui manducat hunc panem, vivet in aeternum.59. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.59. This verse concludes and unites the principal points of the discourse. Compare verses 32, 41, 49, 50, 52, 55. Hence it confirms the view we have followed regarding the unity of subject throughout the discourse.He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.With this encouraging and glorious promise, made not to any one people, nor to any class as such, not even to all believers, but to each one (note the change from the plural to the singular:your fathers ... He that eateth) who shall worthily receive, and duly profit by the Blessed Eucharist, the discourse ends.60. Haec dixit in synagoga docens, in Capharnaum.60. These things he said teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.60. Because of the solemn importance of the discourse, the place where it was delivered is noted. At Tell Hûm (see above onii. 12) the ruins of a large synagogue are still to be seen.61. Multi ergo audientes ex discipulis eius, dixerunt: Durus est hic sermo, et quis potest eum audire?61. Many therefore of his disciples hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?61. The effect of thediscourseupon many of the disciples is recorded.Hard(σκληρός),i.e., harsh, hard to accept.62. Sciens autem Iesus apud semetipsum quia murmurarent de hoc discipuli eius, dixit eis: Hoc vos scandalizat?62. But Jesus knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?62. The Evangelist notes, according to his custom, that their thoughts were known to Christ.[pg 130]63. Si ergo videritis Filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius?63. If then you shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?63.If then you shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?The sense according to some, is: If you shall see Me ascending into heaven, it will then be easier to believe My doctrine, seeing I am Divine; and you shall at the same time understand, that it is not in a bloody manner (as you suppose) that you are to eat My body. Thus He would correct their too carnal interpretation of His words, and point at the same time to a reason why the true sense, however difficult, was to be accepted. Others think that Christ's words increase the difficulty, the sense being, if you are scandalized now, because I say,while present with you, that I will give My body, how much more will you be scandalized when you see that body taken away into heaven, and are yet asked to believe that it is to be eaten on earth? It is argued in favour of this opinion, that the form of Christ's reply:“Does this scandalize you? Iftherefore,”&c., indicates that their difficulty would then be greater. So Mald., Tolet., Beel., Corl. We may remark, as against the Nestorians, that language could not signify more clearly than this verse signifies the unity of Person in Christ. The Son of Man will ascend to heaven where as Son of God He is from all eternity.“Filius Dei et hominis unus Christus ... Filius Dei in terra suscepta carne, Filius hominis in coelo in unitate personae.”St. Aug. on this verse.64. Spiritus est, qui vivificat: caro non prodest quidquam: verba quae ego locutus sum vobis, spiritus et vita sunt.64. It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.64. Many interpretations of this verse have been advanced. The following two are the most probable, intrinsically and extrinsically:—(1)The spiritis the spirit of man elevated and ennobled by grace;the flesh, the corrupt dispositions and weak thoughts of human nature unaided by grace (see Rom. viii. 5, 6); and the meaning of the verse is; it is the mind illumined by grace that quickeneth to faith and to a proper understanding of My words; the mind or human nature by itself is of no avail in such matters; the words which I have spoken to you areto be understood bythe mind quickened and illumined by grace. So St. Chrys., Teoph., Wisem., Perr., M'Ev. But there are serious difficulties against this view—(1)“caro”is then taken metaphorically in this verse, while throughout the[pg 131]context it has been taken literally of the flesh of Christ; (2) the explanation of the words“are spirit and life”is unnatural.(2) Others takethe Spiritof the Divinity of Christ,the fleshof His humanity considered apart from the Divinity; and the meaning of the verse then is: it is My Divinity that quickeneth, and maketh My flesh a meat enduring unto eternal life; the flesh if separated from the Divinity would profit nothing; the words which I have spoken to you regard My life-giving Divinity as united to My humanity. In this view, as Mald. explains it,“life,”by a Hebraism, is equivalent to an adjective signifyinglife-giving, as may be inferred from the beginning of the verse, where it is said that it is the Spiritthat giveth life.60Hence“Spirit and life”is equivalent tolife-givingSpirit, and the latter part of the verse means that Christ's words have reference to His life-giving Divinity in union with His humanity. So, too, St. Cyril of Alex., Beel., Corl. We prefer this view, and hold that Christ here gives the key to the solution of the difficulty on account of which His disciples had murmured (verse 62). He had closed His discourse with words attributing eternal life to the eating of His flesh (verse 59); they murmured accordingly, thinking it absurd or incredible that such effect could follow from such a cause as the eating of a man's flesh; and in verse 64 He explains that His flesh is the flesh of the Man-God, which therefore through the quickening influence of the Divinity with which it is united, is capable of producing such marvellous effects.There is not a shadow of probability in the interpretation put upon this verse by the Sacramentarians. They explained the verse to mean: that thefigurativesense of what He had said regarding the necessity of eating His flesh and blood profits, but that theliteralsense would profit nothing. Thus they professed to find in these words an assurance that Christ had not spoken of a real eating of His flesh in the Eucharist, but only of a spiritual reception of Himself through faith. In reply to this we say—(1) that throughout the rest of the Bible“spiritus”and“caro”are not even once used of a figurative and literal sense; (2) if[pg 132]Christ here gave the explanation which our adversaries suppose, how is it that, as we learn from verse 67, many of His disciples retired notwithstanding, and walked with Him no more? In such an explanation all their difficulty would be removed, and they would be taught that it was only of a figurative eating by faith that Christ had been speaking. How then account for their departure? But it was different in the explanation we have given above. In our view, Christ, still insisting on a real reception of His flesh, merely explains how it is that such real reception can lead to such glorious results.65. Sed sunt quidam ex vobis, qui non credunt. Sciebat enim ab initio Iesus qui essent non credentes, et quis traditurus esset eum.65. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe, and who he was that would betray him.65. In the view we hold regarding verse 64, the connection of this verse with it is: the fact that I am God explains what you find difficult in My words (verse 64); but some of you do not believe Me to be God; and hence your difficulty (verse 65). To indicate Christ's Divine knowledge, the Evangelist adds that He knewfrom the beginning, &c.66. Et dicebat: Propterea dixi vobis, quia nemo potest venire ad me, nisi fuerit ei datum a Patre meo.66. And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.66. Christ's words in this verse are to be connected closely with the beginning of the preceding, the intervening words of the Evangelist being parenthetical.Therefore did I say to you.The allusion is to what was said above (verse 44), which is substantially the same as what is said here, since to be drawn to Christ by the Father is nothing else than to be given grace by the Father to come to Christ. It might seem at first sight that these words excuse the incredulity of those whom Christ addresses; but it is not so. For, the reason they had not been drawn by the Father was because theywouldnot, because they had not followed the promptings of grace. See above on verse45.“Peccabant tamen qui nolebant venire, id est credere in Christum, tum quia habebant gratiam sufficientem, qua possent credere si vellent, etsi non haberent efficacem, qua reipsa et actu crederent; tum quia humiliter non petebant a Deo gratiam[pg 133]efficacem, qua actu crederent: tum quia sua superbia aliisque peccatis illa gratia se fecerant indignos, imo pervicaces Dei gratiam et fidem repellebant et refutabant”(A Lap. on this verse).67. Ex hoc multi discipulorum eius abierunt retro: et iam non cum illo ambulabant.67. After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.67. Had Christ in the preceding discourse spoken only of faith, surely, all-merciful and loving as He is, He would have made His meaning clear, before allowing many of His disciples to depart from Him for ever. It was only, then, because they understood Him correctly, and refused to believe Him, that He allowed them to depart.68. Dixit ergo Iesus ad duodecim: Numquid et vos vultis abire?68. Then Jesus said to the twelve: will you also go away?68.The twelve.These are spoken of as well known, though this is the first mention made of their number in this Gospel.Will you also go away?While the question implies that such desertion was to be feared, its form implies a negative answer, and suggests that in the case of the chosen twelve such conduct ought to be impossible.69. Respondit ergo ei Simon Petrus: Domine, ad quem ibimus? verba vitae aeternae habes:69. And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.70. Et nos credidimus, et cognovimus quia tu es Christus Filius Dei.70. And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ the Son of God.69-70. Peter replies for all the Apostles (not knowing the unbelief of Judas), and confesses the truth of Christ's doctrine, and, according to the Vulgate reading, the Divinity of Christ. It is very doubtful, however, whether the Vulgate reading here is correct. The oldest Greek MSS. read:“And we have believed and know that Thou art theHoly One(ὁ ἅγιος) of God.”Whether in the mind of St. Peter this latter form of the words meant a full confession of Christ's Divinity, or only that He was the Messias, it is difficult to say. It would seem indeed from the praise bestowed upon Peter by our Lord (Matt. xvi. 16) on an occasion subsequent to this, that then for the first time Peter fully confessed Christ's Divinity.[pg 134]71. Respondit eis Iesus: Nonne ego vos duodecim elegi, et ex vobis unus diabolus est?71. Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil?71. Peter had answered as he thought for all the Apostles, but Christ shows that He knows to the contrary.A devil, that is to say a sinner inspired by the devil (viii. 44), Judas was (est) even then.72. Dicebat autem Iudam Simonis Iscariotem: hic enim erat traditurus eum, cum esset unus ex duodecim.72. Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve.72. The Evangelist explains who was meant.“The name Iscariot has received many interpretations, more or less conjectural, but it is now universally agreed that it is to be derived from Kerioth (Josh. xv. 25) a city in the tribe of Judah, the Hebrew אישׂ קרִות 'īsh Kerīyoth passing into Ἰσκαριώτης”(Smith'sB. D., 2nd Ed.). In this view, Judas, unlike the other Apostles (Acts ii. 7), was from the Province of Judea.
57. In the Blessed Eucharist we are united to Christ, and His humanity remains in us until the sacred species become corrupted; His divinity, until mortal sin is committed, and He is expelled.58. Sicut misit me vivens Pater, et ego vivo propter Patrem: et qui manducat me, et ipse vivet propter me.58. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.58. The sacred union between Christ and the communicant is compared to the ineffable union between Him and His heavenly Father.The living Father.This is a unique instance of this title, but we frequently find:The Living God, Matt. xvi. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16, &c.And I live by(διὰ τὸν παπέρα)the Father. It is to be noted that διὰ is followed by the accusative, not the genitive. If, then, we are to regard it as meaning here what it ordinarily means when followed by the accusative, and as the Vulgate seems to take it, the sense would rather be: As the living Father hath sent Me, and I liveon accountof the Father, so he that eateth Me, the same also shall liveon accountof Me. This would mean that as complete devotion to the Father is the object of the life of the Incarnate Son[pg 129](the Sonas sent), so complete devotion to the Son shall be the object of the life of him to whom Christ shall have united Himself in the Blessed Eucharist. Others, however, think that διὰ is here equivalent tothrough, orby, as in our Rheims Version. The sense then is: as Christ lives through the eternal life communicated to Him in His eternal generation by the Father; so, in some way, the communicant shall live in virtue of the spiritual life communicated to him or sustained in him because of his union with Christ in the Blessed Eucharist.59. Hic est panis qui de coelo descendit. Non sicut manducaverunt patres vestri manna, et mortui sunt. Qui manducat hunc panem, vivet in aeternum.59. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.59. This verse concludes and unites the principal points of the discourse. Compare verses 32, 41, 49, 50, 52, 55. Hence it confirms the view we have followed regarding the unity of subject throughout the discourse.He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.With this encouraging and glorious promise, made not to any one people, nor to any class as such, not even to all believers, but to each one (note the change from the plural to the singular:your fathers ... He that eateth) who shall worthily receive, and duly profit by the Blessed Eucharist, the discourse ends.60. Haec dixit in synagoga docens, in Capharnaum.60. These things he said teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.60. Because of the solemn importance of the discourse, the place where it was delivered is noted. At Tell Hûm (see above onii. 12) the ruins of a large synagogue are still to be seen.61. Multi ergo audientes ex discipulis eius, dixerunt: Durus est hic sermo, et quis potest eum audire?61. Many therefore of his disciples hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?61. The effect of thediscourseupon many of the disciples is recorded.Hard(σκληρός),i.e., harsh, hard to accept.62. Sciens autem Iesus apud semetipsum quia murmurarent de hoc discipuli eius, dixit eis: Hoc vos scandalizat?62. But Jesus knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?62. The Evangelist notes, according to his custom, that their thoughts were known to Christ.[pg 130]63. Si ergo videritis Filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius?63. If then you shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?63.If then you shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?The sense according to some, is: If you shall see Me ascending into heaven, it will then be easier to believe My doctrine, seeing I am Divine; and you shall at the same time understand, that it is not in a bloody manner (as you suppose) that you are to eat My body. Thus He would correct their too carnal interpretation of His words, and point at the same time to a reason why the true sense, however difficult, was to be accepted. Others think that Christ's words increase the difficulty, the sense being, if you are scandalized now, because I say,while present with you, that I will give My body, how much more will you be scandalized when you see that body taken away into heaven, and are yet asked to believe that it is to be eaten on earth? It is argued in favour of this opinion, that the form of Christ's reply:“Does this scandalize you? Iftherefore,”&c., indicates that their difficulty would then be greater. So Mald., Tolet., Beel., Corl. We may remark, as against the Nestorians, that language could not signify more clearly than this verse signifies the unity of Person in Christ. The Son of Man will ascend to heaven where as Son of God He is from all eternity.“Filius Dei et hominis unus Christus ... Filius Dei in terra suscepta carne, Filius hominis in coelo in unitate personae.”St. Aug. on this verse.64. Spiritus est, qui vivificat: caro non prodest quidquam: verba quae ego locutus sum vobis, spiritus et vita sunt.64. It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.64. Many interpretations of this verse have been advanced. The following two are the most probable, intrinsically and extrinsically:—(1)The spiritis the spirit of man elevated and ennobled by grace;the flesh, the corrupt dispositions and weak thoughts of human nature unaided by grace (see Rom. viii. 5, 6); and the meaning of the verse is; it is the mind illumined by grace that quickeneth to faith and to a proper understanding of My words; the mind or human nature by itself is of no avail in such matters; the words which I have spoken to you areto be understood bythe mind quickened and illumined by grace. So St. Chrys., Teoph., Wisem., Perr., M'Ev. But there are serious difficulties against this view—(1)“caro”is then taken metaphorically in this verse, while throughout the[pg 131]context it has been taken literally of the flesh of Christ; (2) the explanation of the words“are spirit and life”is unnatural.(2) Others takethe Spiritof the Divinity of Christ,the fleshof His humanity considered apart from the Divinity; and the meaning of the verse then is: it is My Divinity that quickeneth, and maketh My flesh a meat enduring unto eternal life; the flesh if separated from the Divinity would profit nothing; the words which I have spoken to you regard My life-giving Divinity as united to My humanity. In this view, as Mald. explains it,“life,”by a Hebraism, is equivalent to an adjective signifyinglife-giving, as may be inferred from the beginning of the verse, where it is said that it is the Spiritthat giveth life.60Hence“Spirit and life”is equivalent tolife-givingSpirit, and the latter part of the verse means that Christ's words have reference to His life-giving Divinity in union with His humanity. So, too, St. Cyril of Alex., Beel., Corl. We prefer this view, and hold that Christ here gives the key to the solution of the difficulty on account of which His disciples had murmured (verse 62). He had closed His discourse with words attributing eternal life to the eating of His flesh (verse 59); they murmured accordingly, thinking it absurd or incredible that such effect could follow from such a cause as the eating of a man's flesh; and in verse 64 He explains that His flesh is the flesh of the Man-God, which therefore through the quickening influence of the Divinity with which it is united, is capable of producing such marvellous effects.There is not a shadow of probability in the interpretation put upon this verse by the Sacramentarians. They explained the verse to mean: that thefigurativesense of what He had said regarding the necessity of eating His flesh and blood profits, but that theliteralsense would profit nothing. Thus they professed to find in these words an assurance that Christ had not spoken of a real eating of His flesh in the Eucharist, but only of a spiritual reception of Himself through faith. In reply to this we say—(1) that throughout the rest of the Bible“spiritus”and“caro”are not even once used of a figurative and literal sense; (2) if[pg 132]Christ here gave the explanation which our adversaries suppose, how is it that, as we learn from verse 67, many of His disciples retired notwithstanding, and walked with Him no more? In such an explanation all their difficulty would be removed, and they would be taught that it was only of a figurative eating by faith that Christ had been speaking. How then account for their departure? But it was different in the explanation we have given above. In our view, Christ, still insisting on a real reception of His flesh, merely explains how it is that such real reception can lead to such glorious results.65. Sed sunt quidam ex vobis, qui non credunt. Sciebat enim ab initio Iesus qui essent non credentes, et quis traditurus esset eum.65. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe, and who he was that would betray him.65. In the view we hold regarding verse 64, the connection of this verse with it is: the fact that I am God explains what you find difficult in My words (verse 64); but some of you do not believe Me to be God; and hence your difficulty (verse 65). To indicate Christ's Divine knowledge, the Evangelist adds that He knewfrom the beginning, &c.66. Et dicebat: Propterea dixi vobis, quia nemo potest venire ad me, nisi fuerit ei datum a Patre meo.66. And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.66. Christ's words in this verse are to be connected closely with the beginning of the preceding, the intervening words of the Evangelist being parenthetical.Therefore did I say to you.The allusion is to what was said above (verse 44), which is substantially the same as what is said here, since to be drawn to Christ by the Father is nothing else than to be given grace by the Father to come to Christ. It might seem at first sight that these words excuse the incredulity of those whom Christ addresses; but it is not so. For, the reason they had not been drawn by the Father was because theywouldnot, because they had not followed the promptings of grace. See above on verse45.“Peccabant tamen qui nolebant venire, id est credere in Christum, tum quia habebant gratiam sufficientem, qua possent credere si vellent, etsi non haberent efficacem, qua reipsa et actu crederent; tum quia humiliter non petebant a Deo gratiam[pg 133]efficacem, qua actu crederent: tum quia sua superbia aliisque peccatis illa gratia se fecerant indignos, imo pervicaces Dei gratiam et fidem repellebant et refutabant”(A Lap. on this verse).67. Ex hoc multi discipulorum eius abierunt retro: et iam non cum illo ambulabant.67. After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.67. Had Christ in the preceding discourse spoken only of faith, surely, all-merciful and loving as He is, He would have made His meaning clear, before allowing many of His disciples to depart from Him for ever. It was only, then, because they understood Him correctly, and refused to believe Him, that He allowed them to depart.68. Dixit ergo Iesus ad duodecim: Numquid et vos vultis abire?68. Then Jesus said to the twelve: will you also go away?68.The twelve.These are spoken of as well known, though this is the first mention made of their number in this Gospel.Will you also go away?While the question implies that such desertion was to be feared, its form implies a negative answer, and suggests that in the case of the chosen twelve such conduct ought to be impossible.69. Respondit ergo ei Simon Petrus: Domine, ad quem ibimus? verba vitae aeternae habes:69. And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.70. Et nos credidimus, et cognovimus quia tu es Christus Filius Dei.70. And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ the Son of God.69-70. Peter replies for all the Apostles (not knowing the unbelief of Judas), and confesses the truth of Christ's doctrine, and, according to the Vulgate reading, the Divinity of Christ. It is very doubtful, however, whether the Vulgate reading here is correct. The oldest Greek MSS. read:“And we have believed and know that Thou art theHoly One(ὁ ἅγιος) of God.”Whether in the mind of St. Peter this latter form of the words meant a full confession of Christ's Divinity, or only that He was the Messias, it is difficult to say. It would seem indeed from the praise bestowed upon Peter by our Lord (Matt. xvi. 16) on an occasion subsequent to this, that then for the first time Peter fully confessed Christ's Divinity.[pg 134]71. Respondit eis Iesus: Nonne ego vos duodecim elegi, et ex vobis unus diabolus est?71. Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil?71. Peter had answered as he thought for all the Apostles, but Christ shows that He knows to the contrary.A devil, that is to say a sinner inspired by the devil (viii. 44), Judas was (est) even then.72. Dicebat autem Iudam Simonis Iscariotem: hic enim erat traditurus eum, cum esset unus ex duodecim.72. Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve.72. The Evangelist explains who was meant.“The name Iscariot has received many interpretations, more or less conjectural, but it is now universally agreed that it is to be derived from Kerioth (Josh. xv. 25) a city in the tribe of Judah, the Hebrew אישׂ קרִות 'īsh Kerīyoth passing into Ἰσκαριώτης”(Smith'sB. D., 2nd Ed.). In this view, Judas, unlike the other Apostles (Acts ii. 7), was from the Province of Judea.
57. In the Blessed Eucharist we are united to Christ, and His humanity remains in us until the sacred species become corrupted; His divinity, until mortal sin is committed, and He is expelled.58. Sicut misit me vivens Pater, et ego vivo propter Patrem: et qui manducat me, et ipse vivet propter me.58. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.58. The sacred union between Christ and the communicant is compared to the ineffable union between Him and His heavenly Father.The living Father.This is a unique instance of this title, but we frequently find:The Living God, Matt. xvi. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16, &c.And I live by(διὰ τὸν παπέρα)the Father. It is to be noted that διὰ is followed by the accusative, not the genitive. If, then, we are to regard it as meaning here what it ordinarily means when followed by the accusative, and as the Vulgate seems to take it, the sense would rather be: As the living Father hath sent Me, and I liveon accountof the Father, so he that eateth Me, the same also shall liveon accountof Me. This would mean that as complete devotion to the Father is the object of the life of the Incarnate Son[pg 129](the Sonas sent), so complete devotion to the Son shall be the object of the life of him to whom Christ shall have united Himself in the Blessed Eucharist. Others, however, think that διὰ is here equivalent tothrough, orby, as in our Rheims Version. The sense then is: as Christ lives through the eternal life communicated to Him in His eternal generation by the Father; so, in some way, the communicant shall live in virtue of the spiritual life communicated to him or sustained in him because of his union with Christ in the Blessed Eucharist.59. Hic est panis qui de coelo descendit. Non sicut manducaverunt patres vestri manna, et mortui sunt. Qui manducat hunc panem, vivet in aeternum.59. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.59. This verse concludes and unites the principal points of the discourse. Compare verses 32, 41, 49, 50, 52, 55. Hence it confirms the view we have followed regarding the unity of subject throughout the discourse.He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.With this encouraging and glorious promise, made not to any one people, nor to any class as such, not even to all believers, but to each one (note the change from the plural to the singular:your fathers ... He that eateth) who shall worthily receive, and duly profit by the Blessed Eucharist, the discourse ends.60. Haec dixit in synagoga docens, in Capharnaum.60. These things he said teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.60. Because of the solemn importance of the discourse, the place where it was delivered is noted. At Tell Hûm (see above onii. 12) the ruins of a large synagogue are still to be seen.61. Multi ergo audientes ex discipulis eius, dixerunt: Durus est hic sermo, et quis potest eum audire?61. Many therefore of his disciples hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?61. The effect of thediscourseupon many of the disciples is recorded.Hard(σκληρός),i.e., harsh, hard to accept.62. Sciens autem Iesus apud semetipsum quia murmurarent de hoc discipuli eius, dixit eis: Hoc vos scandalizat?62. But Jesus knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?62. The Evangelist notes, according to his custom, that their thoughts were known to Christ.[pg 130]63. Si ergo videritis Filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius?63. If then you shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?63.If then you shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?The sense according to some, is: If you shall see Me ascending into heaven, it will then be easier to believe My doctrine, seeing I am Divine; and you shall at the same time understand, that it is not in a bloody manner (as you suppose) that you are to eat My body. Thus He would correct their too carnal interpretation of His words, and point at the same time to a reason why the true sense, however difficult, was to be accepted. Others think that Christ's words increase the difficulty, the sense being, if you are scandalized now, because I say,while present with you, that I will give My body, how much more will you be scandalized when you see that body taken away into heaven, and are yet asked to believe that it is to be eaten on earth? It is argued in favour of this opinion, that the form of Christ's reply:“Does this scandalize you? Iftherefore,”&c., indicates that their difficulty would then be greater. So Mald., Tolet., Beel., Corl. We may remark, as against the Nestorians, that language could not signify more clearly than this verse signifies the unity of Person in Christ. The Son of Man will ascend to heaven where as Son of God He is from all eternity.“Filius Dei et hominis unus Christus ... Filius Dei in terra suscepta carne, Filius hominis in coelo in unitate personae.”St. Aug. on this verse.64. Spiritus est, qui vivificat: caro non prodest quidquam: verba quae ego locutus sum vobis, spiritus et vita sunt.64. It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.64. Many interpretations of this verse have been advanced. The following two are the most probable, intrinsically and extrinsically:—(1)The spiritis the spirit of man elevated and ennobled by grace;the flesh, the corrupt dispositions and weak thoughts of human nature unaided by grace (see Rom. viii. 5, 6); and the meaning of the verse is; it is the mind illumined by grace that quickeneth to faith and to a proper understanding of My words; the mind or human nature by itself is of no avail in such matters; the words which I have spoken to you areto be understood bythe mind quickened and illumined by grace. So St. Chrys., Teoph., Wisem., Perr., M'Ev. But there are serious difficulties against this view—(1)“caro”is then taken metaphorically in this verse, while throughout the[pg 131]context it has been taken literally of the flesh of Christ; (2) the explanation of the words“are spirit and life”is unnatural.(2) Others takethe Spiritof the Divinity of Christ,the fleshof His humanity considered apart from the Divinity; and the meaning of the verse then is: it is My Divinity that quickeneth, and maketh My flesh a meat enduring unto eternal life; the flesh if separated from the Divinity would profit nothing; the words which I have spoken to you regard My life-giving Divinity as united to My humanity. In this view, as Mald. explains it,“life,”by a Hebraism, is equivalent to an adjective signifyinglife-giving, as may be inferred from the beginning of the verse, where it is said that it is the Spiritthat giveth life.60Hence“Spirit and life”is equivalent tolife-givingSpirit, and the latter part of the verse means that Christ's words have reference to His life-giving Divinity in union with His humanity. So, too, St. Cyril of Alex., Beel., Corl. We prefer this view, and hold that Christ here gives the key to the solution of the difficulty on account of which His disciples had murmured (verse 62). He had closed His discourse with words attributing eternal life to the eating of His flesh (verse 59); they murmured accordingly, thinking it absurd or incredible that such effect could follow from such a cause as the eating of a man's flesh; and in verse 64 He explains that His flesh is the flesh of the Man-God, which therefore through the quickening influence of the Divinity with which it is united, is capable of producing such marvellous effects.There is not a shadow of probability in the interpretation put upon this verse by the Sacramentarians. They explained the verse to mean: that thefigurativesense of what He had said regarding the necessity of eating His flesh and blood profits, but that theliteralsense would profit nothing. Thus they professed to find in these words an assurance that Christ had not spoken of a real eating of His flesh in the Eucharist, but only of a spiritual reception of Himself through faith. In reply to this we say—(1) that throughout the rest of the Bible“spiritus”and“caro”are not even once used of a figurative and literal sense; (2) if[pg 132]Christ here gave the explanation which our adversaries suppose, how is it that, as we learn from verse 67, many of His disciples retired notwithstanding, and walked with Him no more? In such an explanation all their difficulty would be removed, and they would be taught that it was only of a figurative eating by faith that Christ had been speaking. How then account for their departure? But it was different in the explanation we have given above. In our view, Christ, still insisting on a real reception of His flesh, merely explains how it is that such real reception can lead to such glorious results.65. Sed sunt quidam ex vobis, qui non credunt. Sciebat enim ab initio Iesus qui essent non credentes, et quis traditurus esset eum.65. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe, and who he was that would betray him.65. In the view we hold regarding verse 64, the connection of this verse with it is: the fact that I am God explains what you find difficult in My words (verse 64); but some of you do not believe Me to be God; and hence your difficulty (verse 65). To indicate Christ's Divine knowledge, the Evangelist adds that He knewfrom the beginning, &c.66. Et dicebat: Propterea dixi vobis, quia nemo potest venire ad me, nisi fuerit ei datum a Patre meo.66. And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.66. Christ's words in this verse are to be connected closely with the beginning of the preceding, the intervening words of the Evangelist being parenthetical.Therefore did I say to you.The allusion is to what was said above (verse 44), which is substantially the same as what is said here, since to be drawn to Christ by the Father is nothing else than to be given grace by the Father to come to Christ. It might seem at first sight that these words excuse the incredulity of those whom Christ addresses; but it is not so. For, the reason they had not been drawn by the Father was because theywouldnot, because they had not followed the promptings of grace. See above on verse45.“Peccabant tamen qui nolebant venire, id est credere in Christum, tum quia habebant gratiam sufficientem, qua possent credere si vellent, etsi non haberent efficacem, qua reipsa et actu crederent; tum quia humiliter non petebant a Deo gratiam[pg 133]efficacem, qua actu crederent: tum quia sua superbia aliisque peccatis illa gratia se fecerant indignos, imo pervicaces Dei gratiam et fidem repellebant et refutabant”(A Lap. on this verse).67. Ex hoc multi discipulorum eius abierunt retro: et iam non cum illo ambulabant.67. After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.67. Had Christ in the preceding discourse spoken only of faith, surely, all-merciful and loving as He is, He would have made His meaning clear, before allowing many of His disciples to depart from Him for ever. It was only, then, because they understood Him correctly, and refused to believe Him, that He allowed them to depart.68. Dixit ergo Iesus ad duodecim: Numquid et vos vultis abire?68. Then Jesus said to the twelve: will you also go away?68.The twelve.These are spoken of as well known, though this is the first mention made of their number in this Gospel.Will you also go away?While the question implies that such desertion was to be feared, its form implies a negative answer, and suggests that in the case of the chosen twelve such conduct ought to be impossible.69. Respondit ergo ei Simon Petrus: Domine, ad quem ibimus? verba vitae aeternae habes:69. And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.70. Et nos credidimus, et cognovimus quia tu es Christus Filius Dei.70. And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ the Son of God.69-70. Peter replies for all the Apostles (not knowing the unbelief of Judas), and confesses the truth of Christ's doctrine, and, according to the Vulgate reading, the Divinity of Christ. It is very doubtful, however, whether the Vulgate reading here is correct. The oldest Greek MSS. read:“And we have believed and know that Thou art theHoly One(ὁ ἅγιος) of God.”Whether in the mind of St. Peter this latter form of the words meant a full confession of Christ's Divinity, or only that He was the Messias, it is difficult to say. It would seem indeed from the praise bestowed upon Peter by our Lord (Matt. xvi. 16) on an occasion subsequent to this, that then for the first time Peter fully confessed Christ's Divinity.[pg 134]71. Respondit eis Iesus: Nonne ego vos duodecim elegi, et ex vobis unus diabolus est?71. Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil?71. Peter had answered as he thought for all the Apostles, but Christ shows that He knows to the contrary.A devil, that is to say a sinner inspired by the devil (viii. 44), Judas was (est) even then.72. Dicebat autem Iudam Simonis Iscariotem: hic enim erat traditurus eum, cum esset unus ex duodecim.72. Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve.72. The Evangelist explains who was meant.“The name Iscariot has received many interpretations, more or less conjectural, but it is now universally agreed that it is to be derived from Kerioth (Josh. xv. 25) a city in the tribe of Judah, the Hebrew אישׂ קרִות 'īsh Kerīyoth passing into Ἰσκαριώτης”(Smith'sB. D., 2nd Ed.). In this view, Judas, unlike the other Apostles (Acts ii. 7), was from the Province of Judea.
57. In the Blessed Eucharist we are united to Christ, and His humanity remains in us until the sacred species become corrupted; His divinity, until mortal sin is committed, and He is expelled.
58. The sacred union between Christ and the communicant is compared to the ineffable union between Him and His heavenly Father.
The living Father.This is a unique instance of this title, but we frequently find:The Living God, Matt. xvi. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16, &c.And I live by(διὰ τὸν παπέρα)the Father. It is to be noted that διὰ is followed by the accusative, not the genitive. If, then, we are to regard it as meaning here what it ordinarily means when followed by the accusative, and as the Vulgate seems to take it, the sense would rather be: As the living Father hath sent Me, and I liveon accountof the Father, so he that eateth Me, the same also shall liveon accountof Me. This would mean that as complete devotion to the Father is the object of the life of the Incarnate Son[pg 129](the Sonas sent), so complete devotion to the Son shall be the object of the life of him to whom Christ shall have united Himself in the Blessed Eucharist. Others, however, think that διὰ is here equivalent tothrough, orby, as in our Rheims Version. The sense then is: as Christ lives through the eternal life communicated to Him in His eternal generation by the Father; so, in some way, the communicant shall live in virtue of the spiritual life communicated to him or sustained in him because of his union with Christ in the Blessed Eucharist.
59. This verse concludes and unites the principal points of the discourse. Compare verses 32, 41, 49, 50, 52, 55. Hence it confirms the view we have followed regarding the unity of subject throughout the discourse.
He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.With this encouraging and glorious promise, made not to any one people, nor to any class as such, not even to all believers, but to each one (note the change from the plural to the singular:your fathers ... He that eateth) who shall worthily receive, and duly profit by the Blessed Eucharist, the discourse ends.
60. Because of the solemn importance of the discourse, the place where it was delivered is noted. At Tell Hûm (see above onii. 12) the ruins of a large synagogue are still to be seen.
61. The effect of thediscourseupon many of the disciples is recorded.Hard(σκληρός),i.e., harsh, hard to accept.
62. The Evangelist notes, according to his custom, that their thoughts were known to Christ.
63.If then you shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?The sense according to some, is: If you shall see Me ascending into heaven, it will then be easier to believe My doctrine, seeing I am Divine; and you shall at the same time understand, that it is not in a bloody manner (as you suppose) that you are to eat My body. Thus He would correct their too carnal interpretation of His words, and point at the same time to a reason why the true sense, however difficult, was to be accepted. Others think that Christ's words increase the difficulty, the sense being, if you are scandalized now, because I say,while present with you, that I will give My body, how much more will you be scandalized when you see that body taken away into heaven, and are yet asked to believe that it is to be eaten on earth? It is argued in favour of this opinion, that the form of Christ's reply:“Does this scandalize you? Iftherefore,”&c., indicates that their difficulty would then be greater. So Mald., Tolet., Beel., Corl. We may remark, as against the Nestorians, that language could not signify more clearly than this verse signifies the unity of Person in Christ. The Son of Man will ascend to heaven where as Son of God He is from all eternity.“Filius Dei et hominis unus Christus ... Filius Dei in terra suscepta carne, Filius hominis in coelo in unitate personae.”St. Aug. on this verse.
64. Many interpretations of this verse have been advanced. The following two are the most probable, intrinsically and extrinsically:—
(1)The spiritis the spirit of man elevated and ennobled by grace;the flesh, the corrupt dispositions and weak thoughts of human nature unaided by grace (see Rom. viii. 5, 6); and the meaning of the verse is; it is the mind illumined by grace that quickeneth to faith and to a proper understanding of My words; the mind or human nature by itself is of no avail in such matters; the words which I have spoken to you areto be understood bythe mind quickened and illumined by grace. So St. Chrys., Teoph., Wisem., Perr., M'Ev. But there are serious difficulties against this view—(1)“caro”is then taken metaphorically in this verse, while throughout the[pg 131]context it has been taken literally of the flesh of Christ; (2) the explanation of the words“are spirit and life”is unnatural.
(2) Others takethe Spiritof the Divinity of Christ,the fleshof His humanity considered apart from the Divinity; and the meaning of the verse then is: it is My Divinity that quickeneth, and maketh My flesh a meat enduring unto eternal life; the flesh if separated from the Divinity would profit nothing; the words which I have spoken to you regard My life-giving Divinity as united to My humanity. In this view, as Mald. explains it,“life,”by a Hebraism, is equivalent to an adjective signifyinglife-giving, as may be inferred from the beginning of the verse, where it is said that it is the Spiritthat giveth life.60Hence“Spirit and life”is equivalent tolife-givingSpirit, and the latter part of the verse means that Christ's words have reference to His life-giving Divinity in union with His humanity. So, too, St. Cyril of Alex., Beel., Corl. We prefer this view, and hold that Christ here gives the key to the solution of the difficulty on account of which His disciples had murmured (verse 62). He had closed His discourse with words attributing eternal life to the eating of His flesh (verse 59); they murmured accordingly, thinking it absurd or incredible that such effect could follow from such a cause as the eating of a man's flesh; and in verse 64 He explains that His flesh is the flesh of the Man-God, which therefore through the quickening influence of the Divinity with which it is united, is capable of producing such marvellous effects.
There is not a shadow of probability in the interpretation put upon this verse by the Sacramentarians. They explained the verse to mean: that thefigurativesense of what He had said regarding the necessity of eating His flesh and blood profits, but that theliteralsense would profit nothing. Thus they professed to find in these words an assurance that Christ had not spoken of a real eating of His flesh in the Eucharist, but only of a spiritual reception of Himself through faith. In reply to this we say—(1) that throughout the rest of the Bible“spiritus”and“caro”are not even once used of a figurative and literal sense; (2) if[pg 132]Christ here gave the explanation which our adversaries suppose, how is it that, as we learn from verse 67, many of His disciples retired notwithstanding, and walked with Him no more? In such an explanation all their difficulty would be removed, and they would be taught that it was only of a figurative eating by faith that Christ had been speaking. How then account for their departure? But it was different in the explanation we have given above. In our view, Christ, still insisting on a real reception of His flesh, merely explains how it is that such real reception can lead to such glorious results.
65. In the view we hold regarding verse 64, the connection of this verse with it is: the fact that I am God explains what you find difficult in My words (verse 64); but some of you do not believe Me to be God; and hence your difficulty (verse 65). To indicate Christ's Divine knowledge, the Evangelist adds that He knewfrom the beginning, &c.
66. Christ's words in this verse are to be connected closely with the beginning of the preceding, the intervening words of the Evangelist being parenthetical.
Therefore did I say to you.The allusion is to what was said above (verse 44), which is substantially the same as what is said here, since to be drawn to Christ by the Father is nothing else than to be given grace by the Father to come to Christ. It might seem at first sight that these words excuse the incredulity of those whom Christ addresses; but it is not so. For, the reason they had not been drawn by the Father was because theywouldnot, because they had not followed the promptings of grace. See above on verse45.“Peccabant tamen qui nolebant venire, id est credere in Christum, tum quia habebant gratiam sufficientem, qua possent credere si vellent, etsi non haberent efficacem, qua reipsa et actu crederent; tum quia humiliter non petebant a Deo gratiam[pg 133]efficacem, qua actu crederent: tum quia sua superbia aliisque peccatis illa gratia se fecerant indignos, imo pervicaces Dei gratiam et fidem repellebant et refutabant”(A Lap. on this verse).
67. Had Christ in the preceding discourse spoken only of faith, surely, all-merciful and loving as He is, He would have made His meaning clear, before allowing many of His disciples to depart from Him for ever. It was only, then, because they understood Him correctly, and refused to believe Him, that He allowed them to depart.
68.The twelve.These are spoken of as well known, though this is the first mention made of their number in this Gospel.
Will you also go away?While the question implies that such desertion was to be feared, its form implies a negative answer, and suggests that in the case of the chosen twelve such conduct ought to be impossible.
69-70. Peter replies for all the Apostles (not knowing the unbelief of Judas), and confesses the truth of Christ's doctrine, and, according to the Vulgate reading, the Divinity of Christ. It is very doubtful, however, whether the Vulgate reading here is correct. The oldest Greek MSS. read:“And we have believed and know that Thou art theHoly One(ὁ ἅγιος) of God.”Whether in the mind of St. Peter this latter form of the words meant a full confession of Christ's Divinity, or only that He was the Messias, it is difficult to say. It would seem indeed from the praise bestowed upon Peter by our Lord (Matt. xvi. 16) on an occasion subsequent to this, that then for the first time Peter fully confessed Christ's Divinity.
71. Peter had answered as he thought for all the Apostles, but Christ shows that He knows to the contrary.A devil, that is to say a sinner inspired by the devil (viii. 44), Judas was (est) even then.
72. The Evangelist explains who was meant.“The name Iscariot has received many interpretations, more or less conjectural, but it is now universally agreed that it is to be derived from Kerioth (Josh. xv. 25) a city in the tribe of Judah, the Hebrew אישׂ קרִות 'īsh Kerīyoth passing into Ἰσκαριώτης”(Smith'sB. D., 2nd Ed.). In this view, Judas, unlike the other Apostles (Acts ii. 7), was from the Province of Judea.