John 6:22-24

“ On the morrow, the multitude who stood on the other side of the sea and who had seen that there was no other boat there but one, that into which the disciples had entered, and that Jesus entered not with his disciples into this boat, but that his disciples went away alone 23 but there came other boats from Tiberias near to the place where they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks 24 when the multitude therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they themselves got into the boats, and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. ”

The carnal fanaticism of the multitude had constrained Jesus to separate His disciples from them and to separate Himself from the disciples very suddenly. He had now rejoined them, and the multitude set itself to seek after Him, still in the same spirit. The long and difficult sentence, John 6:22-24, has for its aim to bring out this idea: that the sole thought which occupied the minds of this company was that of Jesus (end of John 6:24: seeking Jesus). By examining attentively this complicated sentence, we can soon understand its true construction. Everything starts from the condition of the multitude on the following morning (on the morrow the multitude who stood, John 6:22), and looks to the resolution taken by them to set out for Capernaum (they got into the boats, John 6:24). The cause of this resolution is stated in the two determinative expressions: ἰδών, seeing, John 6:22, and ὅτε οὖν εἶδεν, when therefore they saw (John 6:24); then, indirectly, in the parenthesis, John 6:23, designed to explain the possibility of this resolution taken by the multitude. In this John 6:23 we find a form analogous to that which we met in John 1:10 and John 2:9.

It seems that the circumlocutions which characterize this passage are a symbol of the perplexity experienced by the crowd until the moment when the arrival of the boats inspired them with a sudden resolution. The first word: on the morrow, has already a bearing upon the last verb of the sentence: they got into the boats (John 6:24). The sense of the perfect participle ὁ ἑστηκώς, who stood there, is this: “who had remained since the previous evening and who were still on the shore at that moment.” It seems to me that the article ὁ before the participle must serve to limit the idea of the substantive: “the part of the crowd who...” They were the most persistent ones. It is very evident that the entire multitude of the preceding day, the five thousand, did not cross the sea in these few boats. The reading εἶδον or εἶδεν, adopted by Tischendorf (8th ed.), and by the latest commentators (Weiss, Keil), has in its favor the most ancient MSS. The reading ἰδών, having seen, is supported by fifteen of the later Mjj. (Γ Δ Λ etc.) and by the Curetonian Syriac; it is in my view the true reading. We must give to ἰδών the sense of the pluperfect which is rendered indispensable by the two ὅτι, that, which follow: “On the morrow, the multitude who had seen that there was only one boat there and that the disciples had gone away in this boat without Jesus.”

The limiting expression: who had seen, as well as the adverb of time: on the morrow, are in logical relation to the final act: they got into the boats (John 6:24). The aorist εἶδεν or εἶδον cannot have the sense of the pluperfect because, as a finite verb, it is necessarily determined by τῇ ἐπαύριον, on the morrow; but the expression: “on the morrow the multitude saw (sing. or plur.)” affords no reasonable meaning; for it was not on the day after the miracle, but on the same evening, that the crowds saw that there was only one boat there and that the disciples had entered into it without Jesus. It would be necessary therefore to translate: had seen, which the limiting expression on the morrow renders impossible. This reading cannot therefore be sustained, unless we take ἦν, was, in the sense of had been, which is much more inadmissible than our sense of ἰδών. The Alexandrian reading saw (sing. or plur.) was quite easily introduced by the mistaken idea that the ὅτε οὖν εἶδεν, when [the multitude] saw, of John 6:24 was the resumption of that of John 6:22, after the parenthesis John 6:23 (an error which is even at the present time found in Keil).

This, then, is the meaning, The multitude who were standing there had on the preceding evening discovered two things:

1. That there was only one boat there;

2. That the disciples had departed in this boat, and that Jesus had not gone with His disciples (the two ὅτι of John 6:22).

These two facts duly discovered held them back; for it seemed to follow from them that Jesus, whom they were seeking, must still be on that side of the lake. Consequently (οὖν, therefore, John 6:24) that is to say, by reason of the departure of Jesus during the night when, on the next morning, they saw neither Jesus nor His disciples (who might have come back to seek Him), they took the resolution of crossing the sea, availing themselves of the boats which had arrived in the interval, to endeavor to find Jesus again on the other side. The ὅτε οὖν εἶδεν, when therefore they saw, of John 6:24, is not, then, by any means a resumption of ἰδών, having seen, John 6:22. It serves to complete it, by indicating a new and even opposite sight. According to John 6:22, indeed, it seemed that Jesus must still be there; according to John 6:24, they discovered that He was no longer there. Hence the resolution to go into the boats. As to the parenthesis (John 6:23), it explains how they were able to think of doing it. The arrival of these boats has occasioned difficulties. Did they come, perhaps, because it was known on the other side that this assemblage was formed in this desert place and needed boats for their return? Westcott makes a very probable supposition when he supposes that it was the tempest of the night which had forced them to take refuge under the eastern shore. The words, that whereinto His disciples had entered, may be a gloss; yet they have in their favor the Sinaitic MS., and are very suitable. The particular which is so expressly brought to notice: after that the Lord had given thanks, and which is not demanded by the context, recalls the vivid impression which that solemn moment had produced on the spectators and the decisive importance attached by them to that act.

The ἀλλά, John 6:24, does not signify others; it is the adversative particle but; at least provided the δέ of T. R. is not authentic, in which case this ἀλλά must rather be taken as an adjective (others). The particle καί, also, before αὐτοί would mean: “they, as well as the disciples and Jesus Himself.” This word, however, is insufficiently supported by U Γ. The αὐτοί makes their persons prominent in contrast to those who had gone away before. They decided at last to do themselves what all the rest had done. The verb so long expected ἐνέβησαν, embarked, well brings out the final act which ended this long indecision. Thus there are described with an astonishing precision, in this long sentence, all the impressions, fluctuations, various observations of this multitude, up to the point of the decision which brings them to Capernaum, and gives occasion to the conversations of the next day. Let one imagine a Greek writer of Alexandria or of Rome, in the second century, narrating after this fashion! Nowhere, perhaps, does the defective and arbitrary character of the Sinaitic text betray itself as it does in this passage (comp. note 11, p. 14).

Although the idea which is predominant in the discourses, John 6:25-65, appears to be the same as that of chap. 5, namely, that of life, there is a difference between the teachings contained in these two Chapter s, which corresponds to that of the two miracles, the application of which they contain. In the healing of the impotent man, it is Jesus who acts; the sick man is receptive. In the repast in chap. 6, the food is simply offered by Jesus; if nutrition is to be accomplished, man must act in order to assimilate it. This is the reason why, while in the discourse of chap. 5 it is the person of Jesus that comes forward, in the conversations of chap. 6, it is rather the idea of faith which predominates. Without finding it necessary, as Baur does, to explain the composition of our Gospel by a systematic process, we may yet hold that John, in gathering up his recollections, was struck by the correlation between these two testimonies, which makes one the complement of the other, and that he designedly brought them together as presenting the complete description of the relation between divine and human agency in salvation.

Four phases can be distinguished in this conversation, determined in each instance by a manifestation of a portion of the hearers. The first (John 6:25 -

40) is brought on by a question of the Jews (εἶπον αὐτῷ, they said to him). The second (John 6:41-51) results from a serious dissatisfaction which manifests itself (ἐγόγγυζον, they murmured). The third (John 6:52-59) is marked by an altercation which arises among the hearers themselves (ἐμάχοντο, they strove among themselves). The last (John 6:60-65) is called forth by a declaration of the larger part of the earlier Galilean believers, who announce to Jesus their rupture with Him. Did all these conversations take place in the synagogue? This has little probability. John 6:25 would not lead us to suppose it. The remark of John 6:59 may be referred to the last phases only.

ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

Vv. 22-24. The main idea of these verses is sufficiently clear, but there is an irregularity in the sentence which it is, perhaps, impossible to explain with entire success. The simplest construction seems to be that which Godet, R. V., etc., give, and which makes John 6:23 a parenthesis. But this construction does not fully clear away the difficulties, for, if the reading εἶδον or εἶδεν is adopted in John 6:22, that verse states a fact to which nothing is added by a regular construction which may answer to it and complete the statement; or if, on the other hand, ἰδών is taken as the text, it would seem that the sentence ought to read, When the multitude (John 6:24), who had seen that there was only one boat there, etc. (John 6:22), saw that Jesus was not there (John 6:24), they got into the boats which had come from Tiberias since the preceding evening, and crossed over (John 6:24). The reason for the peculiar arrangement of the sentence may, not improbably, be this that the writer desired to picture the state of mind of the multitude just as it changed, from the beginning of the scene to the end. They first noticed the facts which would naturally lead them to conclude that Jesus was still on the eastern side of the lake; then, that boats had come from the other side in the late evening or early morning; then they thought that, as the disciples had not returned and Jesus was nowhere to be seen, it might be that He had followed them to the western side; then, that, by availing themselves of the newly-arrived boats, they might find Him again and thus successfully accomplish what they desired. The broken sentence gives thus a picture, not other than life-like, of the succession of thoughts or suggestions under such circumstances. It is, at the most, a sacrifice of grammatical regularity for the higher end of vivid description. It is, also, that sort of vivid description which points to a living knowledge of the facts on the part of the writer.