John 6:71

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 John 13:26. In John 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 ” (John 4:45). And Jesus, with the same feeling, had said (John 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, John 6:34 with John 4:15; John 6:27 with John 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 (Matthew 16:13 ff.; Mark 8:27 ff.; Luke 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 (John 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 (Matthew 14:34 to Matthew 16:12; Mark 6:53 to Mark 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 (Luke 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 ”); and Westcott 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. Matthew 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.