| John 6 | |
|---|---|
 John 6:8–12 on therecto side ofPapyrus 28, writtenc. AD 250 | |
| Book | Gospel of John |
| Category | Gospel |
| Christian Bible part | New Testament |
| Order in the Christian part | 4 |
John 6 is the sixth chapter of theGospel of John in theNew Testament of theChristianBible. It records Jesus' miracles offeeding the five thousand andwalking on water, theBread of Life Discourse, popular rejection of his teaching, andPeter's confession of faith. The final verses anticipate Jesus' betrayal byJudas Iscariot.[1]
The author of the book containing this chapter isanonymous, but early Christian tradition uniformly affirmed thatJohn composed thisGospel.[2]
The original text was written inKoine Greek.This chapter is divided into 71 verses. Some earlymanuscripts containing the text of this chapter are:
Some writers place this chapter ahead ofJohn 5. Swedish-based commentatorRené Kieffer considers the case for this reordering unproven, but he does recognise that chapter 6 may have been inserted into a putative second edition of the gospel.[4] H. W. Watkins, inCharles Ellicott'sCommentary for English Readers (1905), considered whether "a portion of the Gospel between John 5 and 6 has been lost", but treats this as a "purely arbitrary supposition".[5]
Events recorded in this chapter refer to the following locations inGalilee:
Boats which had come fromTiberias and sail onwards to Capernaum are also mentioned (John 6:23–24).
Kieffer describes this chapter as "a well-defined unit".[4] TheNew King James Version organises it as follows:
Alfred Plummer, in theCambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, prefers not to break up the text fromJohn 6:26 to6:58, arguing that this text "forms one connected discourse spoken at one time in the synagogue at Capernaum".[8]
The events recorded inchapter 5 are set inJerusalem. As chapter 6 opens, the setting has moved to the Sea of Galilee, 100 miles (160 km) further north.[9]
Plummer observes that "the scene shifts suddenly fromJudaea to Galilee; but we are told nothing about the transit. 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."[8]
Jesus travels over, or beyond (Greek:πέραν), the lake: presumably from west to east. This isAlbert Barnes' view,[12] and that of Plummer.[8] A large crowd has followed Jesus, attracted by his healings, which the Gospel describes as "signs" (Greek:σημεια) - a distinctive word and theme in John's Gospel. Jesus ascends the mountain and sits with hisdisciples - a similar setting to the opening of theSermon on the Mount inMatthew's Gospel (Matthew 5:1), in contrast to theGospel of Luke, where the comparable event is known as theSermon on the Plain (Luke 6:17–49).
Watkins suggests that "the mountain" refers to "the hill-country" to the east of the lake, rather than to a specific mountain.[5] TheComplete Jewish Bible in like manner states that Jesus "went up into the hills".[14]
Not a mere chronological note,[16] but according to Watkins, a key to the interpretation of the passage.[5] For Kieffer, "the approach of Passover in chapter 6 anticipates the last Passover" in chapters 13-17.[4]
Jesus sees a multitude coming towards him, and wants to feed the crowd and to test his disciples, in this casePhilip andAndrew. Unlike the other Gospels, John does not present the feeding of the multitude in an 'evening' setting: inMatthew 14:15, "it was evening ... already late"; inMark 6:35, "the day was now far spent", and inLuke 9:12 "the day had begun to wear away". John advises his readers that "the Passover, a feast of the Jews, is approaching", but he does not refer to a journey toJerusalem for the feast (compareJohn 2:13). According to the narrative of chapters 6 and7, Jesus and his disciples did not visit Jerusalem for the Passover that year at all: they remain in Galilee untilJohn 7:1–6 relates a discussion as to whether they should go to Jerusalem for the subsequentFeast of Tabernacles.
In verse 5, Jesus asks Philip where they could buy sufficient bread for the crowd, assuming that the crowd (apart from one boy) had not brought their own provisions. Methodist ministerJoseph Benson suggested that Jesus "addressed himself to Philip particularly, because he, being a native ofBethsaida, was best acquainted with that country",[17] although according toJohn 1:44,Peter and Andrew were also from Bethsaida. Philip may have been the group member who looked after their money and "the care of the supply of provisions",[18] as he was aware that they held 200denarii between them (John 6:7), althoughJohn 13:29 attributes this responsibility toJudas Iscariot. The evangelist notes in verse 6 that the question was put to Philip "to test him":[19] theologianHeinrich August Wilhelm Meyer thinks this was not a test of faith: rather, "we might say" that "it was because Philip had to be tested according to his intellectual idiosyncrasy", noting Philip's train of thought inJohn 14:8ff, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us."[20][16] Conversely, some writers, includingErnst Wilhelm Hengstenberg[16] and Albert Barnes,[12] hold that the wording does indicate a trial of Philip's faith, whileEugene H. Peterson suggests that Jesus' intention is "to stretch Philip's faith".[21]
Philip "swiftly calculates"[22] that "two hundred denarii worth of bread is not sufficient for [the crowd], that every one of them may have a little". According toMatthew 20:2, the labourers in theparable of the labourers in the vineyard were paid one denarius per day, so 200 denarii would equate to 200 days' labour, hence theNew International Version translates Philip's reply as "It would take more than half a year's wages to buy enough bread for each one to have a bite" and in theNew Living Translation his words are "Even if we worked for months, we wouldn't have enough money to feed them!" In theKing James Version, 200 denarii was rendered as "200 pennyworth".
Andrew, one of Jesus' disciples, Simon Peter's brother, said to Jesus: "There is a lad here who has fivebarley loaves and two small fish, but what are they among so many?".[23] It is curious that Andrew is "introduced" here to the reader, "in apparent forgetfulness"[22] that an introduction has already been given inJohn 1:40, where he was the first ofJohn the Baptist's disciples to follow Jesus and where he himself went to find Peter. Some texts state that there was "one boy" (Greek:παιδάριον ἓν), but theGreek:ἓν ('one') "is rejected by modern editors".[22] Watkins notes that where it appears in some manuscripts, it conveys a sense of "One lad! What could he bear for so many?"[5] The wordGreek:παιδάριονoccurs only here in the New Testament, and inMatthew's account the disciples themselves "have only five loaves and two fish",[24] prompting theologianJohn Gill to suggest that the boy may have "belonged to Christ and his disciples, and was employed to carry their provisions for them".[25]
No-one suggests going to the nearby lake to catch extra fish, but Jesus' actions show that the small supply of bread and fish is sufficient: he instructs his disciples to "make the people sit down" and "having given thanks" (Greek:ευχαριστησας, 'eucharistēsas', from which the wordEucharist is derived) for the bread and likewise for the fish, he gave them to his disciples to distribute among the crowd.[26] TheCambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges suggests that giving thanks for the food was not only the customary thanksgiving for food but also "themeans of the miracle" taking place, because (1) all four [gospel] narratives notice it; (2) it is pointedly mentioned again inJohn 6:23:
They had eaten bread after the Lord had given thanks.[8]
After the meal, the fragments of the barley loaves which were left over were collected by the disciples and found to have filled twelve baskets. According to thePulpit Commentary, "the number 'twelve' naturally suggests that each one of thetwelve apostles had been employed in the collection of the fragments",[27] although at this stage in the Gospel, "the twelve" have not yet been mentioned.[28] Lutheran theologianChristoph Luthardt linked the twelve baskets to thetwelve tribes of Israel.[27]
The crowd recognise Jesus as "the prophet who is to come" (verse 14), foretold byMoses, whose witness Jesus had affirmed in the previous chapter of the gospel (John 5:45, compareDeuteronomy 18:18). Keiffer sees the whole of chapter 6 as "a concrete example of how Moses wrote about Jesus".[4] However, the crowd interpret thispolitically and come to make Jesus king "by force". This is not Jesus' intention, so he leaves "again" (verse 15) to spend time alone on the mountain (John 6:14–15), staying until evening. Some copies add "and he prayed there".Lutheran theologian Harold H. Buls considers that "this event must have been a great source oftemptation, and therefore He needed to pray. He needed to pray also for His disciples".[30] TheSyriac,Ethiopic, and Persic versions leave out the word "again"; and the latter, contrary to all others, renders it, "Christ departed from the mountain alone".[31]
St. Augustine suggests that in their desire to make Jesus king by force, they erred both in thinking of an earthly kingdom, and in thinking that the time for thekingdom of God had now arrived. "He was certainly not such a king as would be made by men, but such as would bestow a kingdom on men". Augustine notes that "He had come now, not to reign immediately, as He is to reign in the sense in which we pray,Thy kingdom come".[32]
The disciples set off by boat to cross back to Capernaum on the north-western side of the lake, leaving without Jesus (John 6:16–17):
[Jesus' disciples] got into the boat, and went over the sea towardCapernaum. And it was already dark, and Jesus had not come to them.[33]
This was a westward journey which should have allowed them to follow the coast, but for a north wind coming down from theupper Jordan valley, and the disciples are forced out into the sea. FromJohn 6:22 it seems that this boat carrying the disciples was the only one to make the journey across the sea and the crowd in general remained overnight on the eastern shore.
When the disciples had rowed about twenty five or thirtystadia (three or four miles), and were therefore in "the broadest portion of the lake", they saw Jesus walking on the sea and drawing near their boat. At its widest, the lake is about five miles broad.[36] The disciples "willingly receive Jesus into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land where they were going" (i.e. Capernaum) (John 6:21). TheologianJohn Gill, taking his lead from the 4th or 5th century poetNonnus, discusses whether this verse indicated an additional miracle of "immediate travel":
not only the wind ceased, but another miracle was wrought; the ship was in an instant at the place whither they intended to go.[37]
The wordGreek:ευθεως is translated as "immediately" in mostEnglish translations but "presently" in theDouai Rheims version. The Pulpit Commentary notes a number of occasions in the New Testament whereευθεως does not "meaninstantaneously, but simply that the next thing to notice or observe".[38]
The following day, the crowd, who had remained on the other side of the lake, noticed that only the one boat had been there, and that Jesus had not embarked on it with the disciples, but that they had in fact gone off by themselves.
Plummer considers that "We have here a complicated sentence very unusual in S. John (but compareJohn 13:1–4); it betrays a certain literary awkwardness, but greathistorical accuracy ... the structure of the sentence is no argument against the truth of the statements which it contains."[8] Boats arrive fromTiberias, the new city built byHerod Antipas on the western side of the lake, and the crowd use these boats to travel to Capernaum in search of Jesus. TheGeneva Bible and theKing James Version describe the boats as "shipping"; the Disciples' Literal New Testament describes them as "small boats";[40] andBengel's Gnomen identifies them as "small vessels".[18]
The crowd find Jesus "on the other side of the sea" (verse 25); they ask him, "Rabbi, when did You come here?" Jesus does not answer their question or satisfy their curiosity.[5]George Leo Haydock suggests that he does not answer their words, "but he replied to their thoughts".[41] Jesus comments inverse 26 that people had been looking for him, not because of the signs they had seen but because they had eaten of the loaves and werefilled, although inverse 14 the evangelist had testified that they had seen the sign that Jesus did and from this sign they had recognised Him as the prophet foretold by Moses. The Pulpit Commentary argues that the distinction reflects their superficial understanding:
you did not get beyond the outward seeming, the superficial phenomenon, you revealed, by thus rushing to the conclusion that I was your Prophet and King, that you did not really discern the sign I gave, and ye are seeking me now, not because you have really seen "signs" – but because ye ate of the (those) loaves, and were filled up by this temporary supply of your daily want, expecting today some new, some more impressive, characteristic of theMessianic kingdom than yesterday.[42]
_on_the_shore_of_the_Lake_of_Galilee%2c_Northern_Israel.jpg)
Verses 25 to 58 present a series of dialogues and discourses which are set within thesynagogue in Capernaum (cf.verse 59),[43] and comparable to Jesus' previous dialogues withNicodemus (chapter 3) and theSamaritan woman (chapter 4): Plummer calls the whole of this section "the Discourse on the Son as the Support of Life".[8]
The first section (verses 25 to 34) presents a dialogue between Jesus and the Jews:
The link between toil or painful labour (sorrow in theKing James Version,travail in theWycliffe Bible) and obtaining food was established inGenesis 3:17 and the writer ofEcclesiastes observed that "all the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled" (Ecclesiastes 6:7).William Robertson Nicoll noted in the Expositor's Greek Testament that even "the food which [Jesus] had given them the evening before He called 'food which perishes' (Greek:βρῶσιν ἀπολλυμένην): they were already hungry again, and had toiled after Him for miles to get another meal".[45] Instead Jesus promises a different type of food which his hearers should work for: the food which endures to everlasting life (Greek:βρωσιν την μενουσαν εις ζωην αιωνιον). Many English translations state that Jesus (the Son of Man) will provide the food which endures, but there are variant translations which suggest that the gift Jesus refers to is eternal life, rather than imperishable food.[46] Thus theLiving Bible's paraphrase reads:
You shouldn't be so concerned about perishable things like food. No, spend your energy seeking the eternal life that I, the Messiah, can give you.[47]
Meyer notes that the gift which Jesus gives is not being given without "striving and struggling" on the part of those who receive it.[16]Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette sees the match between "working" and "gift" as a "strange" combination.[16]
Also in verse 27, the evangelist refers again to the concept of aseal (Greek:σφραγίς) which he has previously mentioned inJohn 3:33:
John the Baptist declared that those who would accept the testimony of Jesus would thereby certify (Greek:εσφραγισεν) that God is true; Jesus here declares that God the Father has set His seal (Greek:εσφραγισεν) on Himself. The reformerJohn Calvin wrote of this declaration:
Theancient writers have misinterpreted and tortured this passage, by maintaining that Christ is said to be sealed, because he is the stamp and lively image of the Father. For he does not here enter into abstrusediscussions about his eternal essence, but explains what he has been commissioned and enjoined to do, what is his office in relation to us, and what we ought to seek and expect from him. By an appropriate metaphor, he alludes to an ancient custom; for they sealed with signets what they intended to sanction by their authority. Thus Christ – that it may not appear as if he claimed anything of himself, or by private authority – declares that this office was enjoined on him by the Father, and that this decree of the Father was manifested, as if a seal had been engraven on him.[49]
The distinction between "works" (Greek:τα εργα του θεου) and "work" (Greek:το εργον του θεου) in verses 28-29 provides one of the scriptural foundations for theProtestant doctrine,Sola fide ("faith alone"). Meyer comments:
Instead of the many ἔργα θεοῦ which they, agreeably to theirlegal standing-point, had in view, Jesus mentions only one ἔργον, in which, however, all that God requires of them is contained – the work (the moral act) offaith.[16]
The dialogue ends with the Jews asking Jesus, "Lord (or Sir) (Greek:κυριε), give us this bread always" (John 6:34).The Voice translation renders 'κυριε' as 'Master',[50] while Plummer argues that:
'Lord' is too strong [a translation], and makes the request too much like the prayer of a humble believer. Our translators wisely vary the rendering of Kyrie, using sometimes 'Lord', and sometimes 'Sir'. Here, as in the conversation with theSamaritan woman, 'Sir' would be better.[8]
In reply, Jesus makes a declaration:
I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
Coming to Jesus is equated to believing in Him. Although theGreek:εἶπεν generally means "said", the New International Version translates it more formally as "declared". This is the first of seven occasions in John's Gospel where Jesus makes a declaration in the form "I am ...". Lutheran theologianRudolf Ewald Stier counted 35 references to "I" or "me" by Jesus in the remainder of this discourse.[51]
At some stage, Jesus must have said to the Galileans, or possibly to others:
You have seen Me and yet do not believe.[52]
He refers back to that saying now, but there isno other record of this saying.[5] "Some have supposed it to refer to an unrecorded conversation (Alford,Westcott), or even to some written sentence which is now a lost fragment of the discourse".[53] The interplay between seeing and believing is often referred to in John's Gospel: for example, inJohn 6:30, the Jews ask for a sign, so that they may see and believe; after Jesus'resurrection, the "disciple who reached the tomb first" went into the tomb, "he saw, and he believed" (John 20:8); a week later,Thomas, called the twin, "believed because he had seen" (John 20:29, a), and Jesus commended all "those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29, b). According toJohn 6:40, it is the will of God that "everyone who sees ... and believes ... may have everlasting life".
Jesus refers to hisincarnation as a mission to fulfil the will of his Father, who had sent him (John 6:38). His mission is 'conservative' in the sense that he is expected "not to lose anything from what he has been given", and 'eschatological' in that he is to raise up the gift of his Father on the last day (John 6:39). Several commentators have noted that "All that the Father gives the Son" (Greek:παν ο διδωσιν μοι ο πατηρ) (John 6:37) is a singular neuter noun:[54] "the whole mass, so to speak, is gifted by the Father to the Son as a unity".[55] Jesus' words about his Father's intention, that he should not "lose anything from what he has been given", may have been fulfilled at hisarrest (John 18:9) when he confirms that he is "Jesus of Nazareth", the one his arresters are looking for, and asks that "these others" be let go.[56] In hisHigh Priestly prayer, Jesus also confirms that "none of them is lost except the son of perdition".[57]
The Jews, including Jesus' disciples, complained among themselves (John 6:41, 43, 52, 60). The features of Jesus' teaching which were challenged were:
These sayings appear to have stimulated collective debate and intellectual difficulty. TheCommon English Bible portrays the Jewish community in 'debate' about Jesus' sayings, whereas the Disciples' Literal New Testament says they were 'fighting'.[58]John Wycliffe used the words 'grutched' or 'grumbled';[59] the word inGreek:ἐγγόγυζον was "constantly used in theSeptuagint of the murmuring of Israel in the wilderness".[60] John Gill's commentaries highlight the Jews' consistency: they grumbled "for want of bread"[61] in the desert, and they grumbled about Jesus' teaching "when they found that he spoke of himself as the true bread, the bread of God, and bread of life".[62] For Jesus' disciples, His teaching was challenging. The Disciples' Literal New Testament regards it as "not hard to understand, but hard to accept, offensive, harsh, objectionable".[63]
Jesus' claim to "have come down from heaven" is dismissed on the basis of local knowledge of Jesus and his parents:
"Is not this Jesus, the son ofJoseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, 'I have come down from heaven'?"
The Pulpit Commentary notes that the evangelist does not here make reference to thevirgin birth or thesynoptic gospels' accounts of the conception andbirth of Jesus:
The difficulty that besets this passage is rather the silence of John, both here and elsewhere, concerning the manner of the Lord's birth. He, who knew the mother of Jesus, and must have been acquainted with the language ofMatthew andLuke, says nothing in vindication of the words of the Lord. Here was an opportunity for putting the "Jews" in the wrong, by endorsing the synoptic account, which he did not embrace. ... his silence is remarkable. It is best accounted for by the fact that he was evermore looking to the moral, spiritual significance of all the miracles he records, as well as of those to which he vaguely refers. [John] is content with the words of Jesus. They are the surest explanation of the synoptic narrative. The Jews, on the basis of their general knowledge, are struck with consternation. How (now) therefore doth he say, I have come down out of heaven? This was not an irrational nor a malignant criticism. This question must have been asked by those who heard for the first time the stupendous claim.[64]
Nor does John's account make reference to thebrothers of Jesus, unlike comparable sections of the synoptic gospels:
"Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother ofJames,Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" So they were offended at Him.
— Mark 6:3
Verse 59 implies a break in the narrative: the preceding verses represent Jesus' teaching to the Jewish community in the Capernaum synagogue, whereas the following verses portray his private discussions with the disciples struggling to grasp the meaning of his teaching. These followers were "the disciples in the wider sense; those who more or less fully were accepting His teaching, and were regarded as His followers"[5] but their reaction was now to think:
This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
This teaching was "not merely harsh, but insufferable".[66] TheologianAlbert Barnes commented that "The word 'hard' here means 'offensive, disagreeable' – that which they could not bear. Some have understood it to mean 'difficult to be understood', but this meaning does not suit the connection. The doctrine which he delivered was opposed to their prejudices; it seemed to be absurd, and they therefore rejected it."[12] Jesus' response, "Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? (John 6:60–61) could be interpreted as:
Does this saying stumble you? Will you not be much more scandalized if you see the Son of Man ascending where He was before?
or it could mean
Will you not then be convinced?
William Robertson Nicoll suggests that "the second interpretation gives the better sense: you will find it easier to believe I came down from heaven, when you see me returning thither".[67] In John's Gospel, Jesus' ascension "to where he was before" takes place through His death andresurrection: theAscension on theMount of Olives 40 days after Jesus' resurrection is not recorded in John's Gospel.
The evangelist notes that Jesus lost some of his following from that [time][68] or "at this point"[69] or "for this reason".[70] The text makes clear that "many left Him" and "no longer walked with Him". Jesus then asks "the twelve" whether they would also walk away (John 6:67). This is John's first reference to "the twelve": they have not previously been mentioned as a group or as the "twelve apostles", nor have twelve named disciples yet been introduced. (InJohn 1, Andrew and Simon Peter,Philip andNathaniel were named;Judas, son of Simon Iscariot is here named as one of the twelve whom Jesus had "chosen"). On behalf of the twelve, Simon Peter replies:
Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
TheNew International Version adopts the alternative translation found in some texts:
You are the Holy One of God.[71]
Peter's acclamation concludes a journey of learning and faith: "we have come to believe and to know ...". Buls instead translates "we have realized ..."[72]The disciples "[take] Peter's answer to [Jesus'] question as delivered in the name of them all, and as expressing their mind and sense".[73]
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" (John 6:70).
Verse 71 appears to have been added by an editor: "the editor seeks to rescue Peter from the rejection saying of the Lord in verse 70. Jesus can't have called Peter 'a devil'; he must have meant Judas, the obvious traitor – so the editor appears to have reasoned".[74] The final verse of the chapter is written in the third person style with reference to Jesus because the Evangelist explains the meaning of the previous Word of God. Despite the latter statement and as it was said before,John 6:70 has also a possible secondary reference to theCefa' temporary betrayment of Jesus again predicted inJohn 13:31–38.
At this point, the division of the text into chapters (attributed toStephen Langton) brings chapter 6 to its close. Chapter 7 starts with the decision of Jesus to avoid travelling inJudea, "because the Jews sought to kill Him".[75]
If the belonging tribe of Judas the Iscariot and of Peter aren't specified, Nathanael's words "can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:46) show the Tribe of Judas had a bad reputation among the other tribes. The same kind of reputation can reasonably be extended to Judas Iscariot, whose unusual epithet was chosen by God ignoring his father's patriarchal right to the lineage, and anyway in order to be distinguished by the most common name of his native and purportedlynamesake tribe. Moreover, some Christian authors affirmedSaint Matthias, who replaced Judas Iscariot among the Twelve after the death of the betrayer, came from the same Tribe of Judah,[76] probably the unique tribe remained without a councilor member in the highest organism governed by the prophesied King of Israel. We don't know the number of the members who in the Old Testament ruled on the Twelve Tribes of Israel together with the patriarchs, but other biblical passages suggest the patriarch (the King of Israel before entering in the Promised Land) was recommended by God to systematically consult them (Proverbs 15:30) and that they were twelve in many relevant moments of the life of Israel (Numbers 13:1 andNumbers 1:1–15). Going back to the New Testament, the King of Israel fully reconfirmed the whole Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17–20), even in the never interrupted and divine election of the governing system of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. It is a textual comment linking John 6 to other parts of the Old and New Testament, needing a more accurate and complex evaluation of the Holy Scripture.[according to whom?]
Alcuni lo ritengono nato a Betlemme da una famiglia della tribù di Giuda.
| Preceded by John 5 | Chapters of the Bible Gospel of John | Succeeded by John 7 |