46—54.
3. UN / ΡΕ} a “~ , mn 3 ἐγὼ δώσω ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ Kécpou ζωῆς. ἀλλήλους ot ᾿Ιουδαῖοι λέγοντες, “Mas δύναται οὗτος ἡμῖν δοῦναι τὴν
, Lal 133 σάρκα Φαγειν;
- lol lal A A λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, καὶ
737
1 52. Ἐμάχοντο οὖν " πρὸς w πρὸς τς I etc., ἐπὶ also used;
54. Εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς 6 ᾿Ιησοῦς, “’Apiy ἁμὴν commonly
the simple dative. xiii. 18
4 > ~ 9 > 3 Ν 3 ς 3. x= , x πίητε αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα, οὐκ έχετε ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. 54. *O τρώγων and Mt.
‘ µου τὴν σάρκα, καὶ πίνων µου τὸ αἷμα, ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον, καὶ ἐγὼ
1 Instead of η σαρξ pov .
. Xxiv. 38 only.
. . ζωης BCDL 33 read η σαρξ µου εστιν υπερ τ. τον
κοσµου ζωης, adopted by W.H.R. Tisch. adopts the reading of ΔΝ, υπερ της του
κοσμου ζωης, η σαρξ µου εστιν. unbedingt und zu streichen”’.
their want of apprehension, increased their difficulty. The first is ἐγώ εἰμι ..- ζωῆς. In giving this explanation He slightly alters the designation of Himself as the Bread: He now claims to be not “ the bread of life,” but 6 ἄρτος ὁ fav, ‘the living bread”. Godet says: ““The manna, as not itself living, could never impart life. But Jesus, because He Himself lives, can give life.” That is correct, but is not the full meaning. 6 ζῶν contrasts the bread with the βρῶσις ἀπολλυμένη; and as “living water” is water running from a fountain in per- petual stream, and not a measured quantity in a tank, so “living bread”’ is bread which renews itself in proportion to all needs like the bread of the miracle. The second fresh intimation now made is 6 ἄρτος bv ἐγὼ δώσω ἡ σάρξ µου ἐστίν ... This intimation is linked to the foregoing by a double conjunction καὶ 6 ἄρτος δέ, “and besides” indicating, ac- cording to classical usage, a new aspect or expansion of what has been said. The new intimation is at first sight an apparent limitation: instead of “I am the bread,” He now says ‘“ My flesh is tthe bread”. Accordingly some interpre- ters suppose that by “flesh” the whole manifestation of Christ in human nature is meant. Cf. 6 λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο. Thus Westcott says: ‘‘ The life of the world in the highest sense springs from the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ. By, His Incarnation and Resur- rection the ruin and death which sin brought in are overcome. The thought here is of support and growth, and not of Atonement.” To this there are two objections. (1) If σάρξ is equivalent to the whole manifestation of Christ in the flesh, this is not a new statement, but a repetition of what has already been said. And (2) the δώσω compels us to think of a giving yet wuture, Besides, the turn taken by the con-
%
Weiss is too positive in saying, ‘“‘ Die Worte sind T.R. gives the most intelligible sentence.
versation, vv. 53-57, seems to point rather to the atoning sacrifice of Christ. [So Euthymius: τὴν σταύρωσιν αὐτοῦ προσηµαίνει. τὸ δὲ, ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω, τὸ ἑκούσιον ἐμφαίνει τοῦ τοιούτου πάθους, So too Cyril: ᾿Αποθνήσκω, φησὶν, ὑπὲρ πάντων, ἵνα πάντας ζωοποιήσω δι’ ἐμαντοῦ, καὶ ἀντίλντρον τῆς ἁπάντων σαρκὸς τὴν ἐμὴν ἐποιησάμην. Bengel says: ‘‘ Tota haec de carne et sanguine Jesu Christi oratio passionem spectat’’, Beza even finds in δώσω the sense “offeram Patri in ara crucis”.] The giving of His flesh, a still future giving which is spoken of as a definite act, is, then, most naturally referred to the death on the cross. This was to be ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς, “ for the sake of the life of the world”. ὑπέρ when used in connection with sacrifice tends to glide into ἀντί; see the Alcestis of Eurip. passim and Lampe’s note on this verse. Here, however, the idea of sub- stitution is not present. It is only hinted that somehow the death of Christ is needed for the world’s life. This state- ment, however, only bewilders the crowd; and the next paragraph, wv. 52-50, gives expression to and deals with this bewilderment.—Ver. 52. ᾿Εμάχοντο ... The further explanations sprang from a fresh question put not directly to Jesus, but to one or other of the crowd. They differed in their judgment of Him. Some impatiently denounced Him as insane; others suggesting that there was truth in His words. The discussion all tended to the question πῶς δύναται . . . φαγεῖν. He had only spoken of “giving” His flesh for the life of the world: but they not unreason- ably concluded that if so, it must be eaten. Their mistake lay in thinking of a physical eating.—Vv. 53, 54. εἶπεν οὖν .. . ἡμέρφ. Instead of explaining the mode Jesus merely reiterates the statement. The reason of this is that