Giver of the New Manna. 6:1–71

THE SYNOPTICS ALSO REPORT the feeding miracle that appears in John 6:10–13, but John reports it in the special context of wilderness and Passover.⁵⁹⁶⁴ More than with some of the previous narratives, the discourse that follows the feeding of the five thousand interprets and applies it, bringing out the christological meaning of the event. Thus the feeding miracle in John points to a deeper christological interpretation: Jesus is not merely a new Moses providing a sample of new manna, but he is heaven's supply for the greatest need of humanity.

Here, as elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel, source critical questions are difficult and primarily speculative (though arguments for parallel discourses in this chapter bear a little more weight than elsewhere in the Gospel; but this may represent a deliberate literary pattern); thus we treat the chapter as a unity.⁵⁹⁶⁵ On the question of transposition, see our introduction to John 5.

Some scholars doubt the possibility of nature miracles like the feeding of the five thousand. Skepticism sometimes arises purely from antisupernaturalistic presuppositions (see «signs» in our introduction, ch. 6). In this case, however, it stems also from the relatively greater public impact of a smaller miracle (Mark 1:28); the magnitude of this sign seems incongruent with its response.⁵⁹⁶⁶ The former objection is an assumption rather than an argument, not debatable pro or con on purely historical grounds. The latter is more reasonable, but exhibits a significant weakness: in the Synoptics, the multitudes do not appear to know the origin of the food, hence that a miracle has taken place; nature miracles normally did evoke christological speculation (e.g., Mark 4:41). In John, where the recipients do know the origin of the food, in contrast, they want to make Jesus king (John 6:15).

Some commentators suggest that the feeding of the five thousand stems from genuine, albeit embellished, tradition.⁵⁹⁶⁷ That Matthew and Luke agree in some details against Mark may imply more than one early tradition, multiply attesting the account of the feeding.⁵⁹⁶⁸ Some have argued that John's version of the feeding is based on a tradition that is independent from the Synoptics,⁵⁹⁶⁹ which includes genuine historical material missing from the Synoptics,⁵⁹⁷⁰ and may even be more accurate than the Synoptics.⁵⁹⁷¹

Jesus withdraws from the intense conflict in Jerusalem (ch. 5) and encounters a different sort of response in Galilee (ch. 6). The «other side» of the lake (6:1) contrasts with Jesus» usual Galilean location on the west side of the lake (e.g., 2:1, 12; 4:45–46), though the exact location is uncertain.⁵⁹⁷² That crowds would flock to Jesus (6:2) fits the rest of the gospel tradition (e.g., Mark 9:15; Matt 4:24) and what we know about the response of crowds to popular teachers.⁵⁹⁷³

Johns mention of the «mountain» in v. 3 could reflect a minor allusion to the Moses tradition that will dominate the following discourse, especially given the repetition of the mountain in 6:15; probably Matthew had already employed the mountain image to this end (Matt 5:l).⁵⁹⁷⁴ Its primary literary function here, however, appears to be an inclusio with 6:15,⁵⁹⁷⁵ suggesting either that Jesus withdrew on both occasions from overzealous multitudes (6:2) or that Jesus withdrew from militant but uncomprehending followers (cf. 2:23–25) the way he had from active opponents (5:45–6:1).

The nearness of the Passover (6:4) explains the flourishing of grass (6:10), which was not always available in much of the «wilderness» (e.g., 1 En. 89:28). The grass already present in the gospel tradition (Matt 14:19)–especially the «green» grass (Mark 6:39)–suggests that the nearness of the Passover is a genuine historical reminiscence.⁵⁹⁷⁶ Grass could recall biblical images of abundant provision for livestock sometimes linked with God's provision for his people (Deut 11:15), but John's audience would probably not seek biblical allusions in this aspect of the setting.⁵⁹⁷⁷ The primary function of the grass in 6is probably simply to indicate that the ground was easier to sit on (e.g., Virgil Ed. 3.55). The mention of Passover and spring further suggests that at least a year has passed since 2in the story world, developing John's plot. The language of this verse probably alludes to the language of 2(especially εγγύς and «feast of the Jews»; cf. also 11:55; Tabernacles in 7:2), suggesting that one read both passages in light of the impending Passover; Jesus encounters rejection in both passages because he defies traditional expectations of his messianic role.⁵⁹⁷⁸ The most important function of John s mention of Passover is thus that it sets the rest of the chapter in the context of the paschal lamb, and perhaps in the context of the earlier gospel tradition's passion narrative. Just as Jesus» entire ministry becomes a transfiguration (1:14) and John places the temple cleansing before the public ministry (2:14–22) to bracket the whole, John again invites us to understand Jesus» whole ministry in terms of the passion leading to the cross. (See comments on eucharistic interpretations of the discourse, below.)

The most critical element of the setting, however, is the behavior of the crowds in 6:2. That they «follow» him (6:2) suggests the language of discipleship, though the narrative concludes by reinforcing a critical motif in Johannine soteriology: it is not those who begin to follow Jesus, but those who persevere who remain his disciples (6:60–71). Their initial faith is not fully adequate, for it is merely «signs-faith» (cf. comment on 2:23–24), based on his healings of the sick (6:2) similar to the examples John provides in 4:46–53 and 5:1–9. The rest of the narrative indicates that these would-be disciples never move beyond signs-faith, never moving from seeking what Jesus could do for them to what they could do for him (6:14,26, 30). Nevertheless, Jesus «lifting his eyes» and seeing the crowds (6:4) may recall 4:35: Jesus beholds a potential harvest (έπαίρω occurs with «eyes» elsewhere in John only in 17:1).

As the discourse will point out, the flesh can accomplish nothing; only the Spirit can give life (6:63). Mere human power was inadequate to feed such a crowd. Although John later informs us that Judas held the money bag (12:6; 13:29), Jesus directs his question to Philip (6:5), perhaps testing one of those who has already made a profession of faith in him (1:43–46; 6:6). Jesus» signs in the Gospel test the response of those who witness them, and here Jesus tests the faith of his disciples in advance.⁵⁹⁷⁹ It appears that other teachers also entrusted disciples with the funds to provide for their academy.⁵⁹⁸⁰ More to the point in this instance, people also sometimes tested the genuineness of others» resolve or understanding;⁵⁹⁸¹ teachers likewise sometimes put questions to their disciples purely to test them.⁵⁹⁸² In the larger context of John's Christology, an experienced reader of the Gospel might even recall God testing his people in the same way (e.g., Gen 22:1; Exod 15:25; 16:4; 20:20; Deut 13:3; Judg 2:22–3:1; 7:4; 2 Chr 32:31; Jer 17:10; 20:12). Jesus here tests his disciples» faith, to prepare them for larger tests to come (6:67–71).⁵⁹⁸³

The disciples respond in purely natural terms (6:7, 9).⁵⁹⁸⁴ In this period two hundred denarii would represent a single worker's wages for about two hundred (or possibly greater or fewer)⁵⁹⁸⁵ days» work.⁵⁹⁸⁶ Since in times of food shortages a day's wages might provide little more than food for a poor family (and even under normal circumstances it would not provide ten times that amount),⁵⁹⁸⁷ two hundred denarii could not begin to feed five thousand men plus some women and children (6:10),⁵⁹⁸⁸ and five barley loaves (6:9) would do even less.⁵⁹⁸⁹ As in John 2:5–9, the silent protagonist allied with the disciples is one of the people without significant social influence, with whom some Johannine Christians could perhaps identify, a «lad» (6:9).⁵⁹⁹⁰ Though the text does not emphasize this, that the lad shared his food (it can be safely assumed that the disciples did not force him to give it up) probably would have been seen as meritorious, or at least as the sort of incident that would be given this moral in later retellings.⁵⁹⁹¹ Barley was cheaper, hence accessible to the poor in larger quantity, than wheat (cf. Rev 6:6);⁵⁹⁹² the fish may have been dried.⁵⁹⁹³

That the multitudes must «recline» (6:10) may suggest an allusion to the Passover (6:4). For normal meals people sat on chairs, but they reclined at banquets and festivals in accordance with the Greek custom probably adopted during the Hellenistic period.⁵⁹⁹⁴

As noted in the introduction to this section (6:1–13), multiple attestation supports the probability that a massive feeding event occurred. But against what light would such an event be understood? Some find Hellenistic parallels more persuasive than Jewish ones.⁵⁹⁹⁵ Visiting Greek deities might prevent food from running out,⁵⁹⁹⁶ in ways similar to prophets in some biblical accounts (cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 17:14–16; 2 Kgs 4:3–6). Yet even were the original disciples or John's audience more attuned to the reports of Hellenistic divine men than to the biblical prophets, the Hellenistic parallels for divine men accomplishing such feats seem relatively few.⁵⁹⁹⁷ But given the importance of food to survival, it is hardly surprising that most traditions would emphasize divine intervention in providing it.⁵⁹⁹⁸ The biblical examples of multiplied food stand much closer; John actually contains some verbal reminiscences of 2 Kgs 4:42–44.⁵⁹⁹⁹ Early Jewish tradition also spoke of the miraculous multiplication of oil (cf. 2 Kgs 4:5–6)⁶⁰⁰⁰ and food (Exod 16:18).⁶⁰⁰¹ One wonders why an increasingly hellenized church would create a Hellenistic story about Jesus then introduce biblical allusions when incorporating them into the Gospels. A Jewish context for Jesus» miracle seems more likely from the start.

The seating of the people in ranks (6:10) may imply an eschatological army,⁶⁰⁰² as some have suggested;⁶⁰⁰³ what it clearly indicates is the value of organization for dealing with large numbers of people. The father or leader in traditional Jewish gatherings would bless the bread before breaking and distributing it at the beginning of a meal;⁶⁰⁰⁴ if our later evidence is representative, and in this case it probably is,⁶⁰⁰⁵ the blessing usually ran something like the later standard, «Blessed are you … who bring forth bread from the earth.»⁶⁰⁰⁶ Whether the custom was widespread or not in this period is unclear, but certainly in a later period a less formal grace after meals became standard,⁶⁰⁰⁷ and evidence suggests that it was also practiced in the Qumran community.⁶⁰⁰⁸ Johns particular expression here, εύχαριστήσας, is familiar from elsewhere in the Synoptic tradition (Mark 8:6; Matt 15:36);⁶⁰⁰⁹ in Johannine usage, however, it can precede a miracle as a way of demonstrating faith (11:41).⁶⁰¹⁰

That 6omits mentioning the «breaking» of bread may simply be part of Johannine style (21:13)–that he would break it before distributing it is obvious, so omission of explicit mention is not necessarily jarring–but if it holds any significance for the sacramental debate, either way it would not favor a sacramental reading of the passage.⁶⁰¹¹ Whereas the Synoptics report Jesus distributing the meal by means of the disciples (Mark 6:41), John writes as if Jesus distributed it himself (6:11). Although it was not unusual to attribute the work of agents to their sender, John's emphasis on Jesus» control of the situation fits his custom elsewhere (e.g., 13:26; 19:17).

The passage presents Jesus as a good host (6:12).⁶⁰¹² In an ancient Roman custom still practiced by some in the first century, a good host always had to have enough food for some to be left over at the end of the mea1.⁶⁰¹³ Probably this was more feasible for wealthier patrons and was not pervasive throughout the ancient Mediterranean, but it illustrates how positively the abundance of Jesus» provision would have appeared in an ancient Mediterranean context. Abundance can point to eschatological blessing (Joel 2:19–26; 3:18; Amos 9:13) but here probably alludes to 2 Kgs 4:44. It underlines the significance of the miracle.⁶⁰¹⁴

Interestingly, while some moralists of Jesus» day opined that it was good to allow some of one day's provision to remain over for another day,⁶⁰¹⁵ manna was not supposed to be left over for the next day (Exod 16:19–20), because God would continue his miraculous supply as long as Israel remained in the wilderness. As in the Synoptics, Jesus offers this sign on a special occasion of need rather than desiring disciples to depend on it continually (6:26)– just as the manna stopped once natural means of providing food became available (Exod 16:35; Josh 5:12).⁶⁰¹⁶ Thus Jesus instructs the disciples to gather the food that remains, to be used later (6:12). Although miserliness was regularly condemned,⁶⁰¹⁷ ancient moralists regularly exhorted against waste and squandering, preferring frugality; this was both a Jewish view⁶⁰¹⁸ and a broader Mediterranean one.⁶⁰¹⁹ The ideal was frugality coupled with generosity toward others.⁶⁰²⁰ Jewish teachers even instructed passersby to pick up food lying beside the roadside, which could be given to Gentiles for whom it would not prove unclean.⁶⁰²¹

One could argue that the bread symbolizes God's people, on the basis of the number twelve, the term «lost» (6:12; cf. 6:27, 39 in the ensuing discourse), or other terms here like «gathering.»⁶⁰²² But the following discourse plainly applies the symbol of bread to Christ alone (6:32–35, 41, 48, 50–51, 58). That the disciples filled twelve baskets (6:13) simply underlines afresh the abundance of the miracle; there is no need to allegorize the baskets.⁶⁰²³ Twelve is the maximum number that these disciples could reasonably carry. Guests who slipped out with leftover food in their baskets could be thought to be greedy, stealing the host's food, or at best ill-mannered; remains belonged to the host.⁶⁰²⁴

The narrative proper includes a christological climax (6:14–15), but the inadequacy of the confession will pave the way for the contrast between the Spirit and mere flesh in 6:63. Jesus» identity did include being a prophet (1:21, 25; 4:19,44; 7:40; 9:17) and a king (1:49; 12:13–15; 18:33,37), but such titles necessarily proved inadequate for him. Those who defined his prophetic and royal identity by the eschatological beliefs of their contemporaries sought a political or military leader (see introduction on Christology)–a fleshly role rather than one from the Spirit (6:63). In John's day the emperor cult demanded earthly worship (see introduction); Jesus was a higher sort of king (cf. Rev 5:13). But in contrast to the response to Jesus in Judea, the Galilean response, which affirms him to be a prophet and a king, is at least partly correct (cf. Mark 8:29–33).⁶⁰²⁵ In Galilee he is not altogether a «prophet without honor» (4:44).

Their faith is inadequate in part because it is merely signs-faith (6:14; cf. 6:2, 26, 30). Jesus» signs themselves are positive in the Gospel, among the works that testify of his identity (10:38; 14:10–11);⁶⁰²⁶ but they are not coercive. Their confession (6:14) fits the Johannine litany of confessions: «This is» resembles his language elsewhere (e.g., 1:15, 30, 33–34; 4:29, 42), as does, less frequently, «truly» (4:42; 7:26, 40; for disciples, 1:47; 8:31). On «the prophet,» see comment on 1:21; on «coming into the world,» see comments on 1:9, 15; cf. 1:27; 3:31; 11:27; 12:13.

Because the role of the coming prophet (6:14) probably alluded to «the prophet like Moses» of Deut 18(also in John 1:21, 25; 4:19; 7:40),⁶⁰²⁷ and because Jewish tradition emphasized Moses» role as «king» (Deut 33:5),⁶⁰²⁸ it is natural to see the crowds» perception of Jesus here as a new Moses.⁶⁰²⁹ Not only was Moses a great prophet;⁶⁰³⁰ his behavior was the standard for all subsequent prophets,⁶⁰³¹ and as in the Bible, he held great rank.⁶⁰³² Granted, «prophet» and «messiah» categories overlapped,⁶⁰³³ but in the context of giving bread from heaven (John 6:31–32), it is natural that the informed reader understands Jesus as the one greater than Moses, and the uninformed crowds understand him as a new Moses. This is not to deny that «king» in the Fourth Gospel usually refers to the Davidic ruler:⁶⁰³⁴ it is virtually equivalent with God's Son in 1and with messianic expectation in 12:13,15.

The Fourth Gospel's audience would recognize the designation as inadequate though true; Jesus is greater than Moses, as is the Torah which God delivered through Moses (1:14–18). John may have understood Deut 18 the way many readers of that text naturally would if not otherwise informed by tradition: Moses was the subsequent standard for all true prophets (Deut 18:10–22), and all prophets God raised up would be like Moses. But there might be only one more with whom God spoke face to face (Deut 34:10). Jesus is continually in the Father's presence (John 1:18; 6:46), and in this Gospel, all believers in Jesus share his relation with the Father (cf. 14:8–9), so every believer is like a new Moses (1:14; cf. 2Cor 3:6–18).

How historically likely is the crowd's desire to make Jesus king, which the Synoptics do not report? Against its likelihood, one must consider that, if crowds did attach political connotations to Jesus» miracle in the wilderness, word might have eventually reached Antipas, who would have then viewed Jesus as a political threat.⁶⁰³⁵ Yet in the whole context of Jesus» ministry, it is unlikely that he escaped political speculation in any case. Self-proclaimed prophets were ideal candidates for leaders of revolts in the pagan world,⁶⁰³⁶ especially if they could claim to work miracles.⁶⁰³⁷ Further, in first-century Palestine, wilderness prophets who promised signs like Moses usually gained large fallowings that lent themselves to political interpretations (Josephus War 2.261–263; Ant. 20.169–171 );⁶⁰³⁸ it is thus likely that at least some among the crowds understood Jesus in potentially political terms. Perhaps Jesus defused the crowd's political aspirations by dispersing them quickly (6:15); perhaps Antipas was not fully aware (the reports that reached him seem to have focused on Jesus» miracles–Luke 23:8) or his enmity (Mark 6:14–16; Luke 13:31–32) was not seriously enough aroused to take quick action. Titular acclamations after miracles were common in the Greco-Roman world, and not only in the NT.⁶⁰³⁹ John certainly has reasons (such as the emperor cult) in his own milieu to emphasize 6:14–15, but the desire to make Jesus king fits what we know of Jesus» milieu.⁶⁰⁴⁰ Writing closer to the time of the Judean-Roman war, Matthew and Luke, following Mark, may not have wished to emphasize how easily Jesus could have been misinterpreted by those with revolutionary sentiments.

Jesus» knowledge of the crowd's intentions (6:15) fits the Jesus tradition (Mark 2:8), but also fits John's picture of Jesus knowing the human heart (e.g., 2:25; 6:61). He was a prophet and coming one (6:14), a king (6:15; cf. 1:49; coming king in 12:13); but he was not the sort they expected, nor could he receive his kingship from merely human acclamation or support (18:36). Both those who wished to make him a king by «force» and those who forcibly arrested him on the charge of kingship (18:12, 33) misunderstood, failing to recognize that his kingdom was not «of this world» (18:36). He would be king only by continuing to be prophet–continuing to proclaim the truth (18:37), and ultimately by being lifted up on a cross (19:3, 12,14–19).

Jesus thus withdrew as he sometimes did in the Synoptic tradition (Mark 1:35). Privacy would be difficult to find, on the side of the lake of Galilee nearer Capernaum. Houses were built closely adjoining each other in villages and towns,⁶⁰⁴¹ and villages and towns were close to each other in the countryside.⁶⁰⁴² But Jesus is in a less populated area, and in any case the mountain provides refuge (6:15);⁶⁰⁴³ he presumably withdraws further up (6:3).

The tradition behind this account is probably early.⁶⁰⁴⁴ The sequence of events is the same as in Mark (the sea crossing following the feeding), and contrary to what we might expect, connections with the Moses motifs of John's context are not very obvious,⁶⁰⁴⁵ though we should have expected John to perform at least his usual stylistic unification of the narrative. Some of John's adaptations of the tradition fit this sign into the pattern of his other six signs.⁶⁰⁴⁶ Nevertheless, John's tradition here, as in the feeding story, may be independent; his account is «the shortest and simplest» of the gospel accounts of this miracle,⁶⁰⁴⁷ and it may have simply followed the feeding of the five thousand in all the earliest forms of the tradition. Jewish Palestine was not involved in much trade on the Mediterranean (Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.60), but towns around the Lake of Galilee were involved in the fishing industry there. Crossing the sea in many small boats (6:23) fits what we know of the local setting (e.g., Josephus Life 163–164).⁶⁰⁴⁸ Having enough boats to transport everyone was a logistical matter that might be considered carefully.⁶⁰⁴⁹

The meaning of the encounter is another question, and different ancient audiences may have heard it differently. Various ancient figures reportedly walked on water: Orion, a son of Poseidon;⁶⁰⁵⁰ Xerxes, who thereby displayed a divine power;⁶⁰⁵¹ Pythagoras;⁶⁰⁵² and a Hyperborean magician.⁶⁰⁵³ Pythagoras and Empedocles reportedly calmed storms.⁶⁰⁵⁴ These parallels are informative, but we should note that they were not epiphany stories,⁶⁰⁵⁵ and in fact most do not appear in actual miracle stories as in the Gospels.⁶⁰⁵⁶ Stories of sages at sea who stilled storms usually date from long after the period of the sage, though another category of sages-at-sea stories, dealing with their calmness during a storm, addresses both ancient and contemporary sages.⁶⁰⁵⁷ Closer to the Jewish meaning of the story described below, Greeks often presented deliverance from death at sea as divine epiphanies.⁶⁰⁵⁸ The sea deity Poseidon could calm the seas with a word (Virgil Aen. 1.142; Valerius Flaccus 1.651–652).

Earliest Christianity, rooted in early Judaism and steeped in the LXX, would have heard the account differently. Early Jewish sources also report nature miracles; for instance, storms could be stilled through acts of repentance (Jonah 1:12–15) or through prayer.⁶⁰⁵⁹

Moses also parted the sea, and those who stepped into the Jordan in Joshuas day found it parted as well (Josh 3:13–16); some early rabbinic traditions attributed this event to the merits of the ancestors.⁶⁰⁶⁰ Yet stilling storms and parting the waters to walk through them, though relevant, are not exactly the same as walking on them.

Most significantly, hearers rooted in a Jewish framework⁶⁰⁶¹ would have recognized an epiphany of the one true deity: God was the one who walked on the waters (Job 9LXX).⁶⁰⁶² Some see an allusion to the exodus via Ps 77:16–19 (76:17–20 LXX), which speaks of God's paths in the sea (Ps 77[76LXX]).⁶⁰⁶³ Already in Mark, Jesus» self-revelation on the waters appears as a theophany (Mark 6:50);⁶⁰⁶⁴ it is thus not surprising that John, whether depending on the same source or an independent tradition, develops this theme further (John 6:20).⁶⁰⁶⁵ Some are uncertain or doubtful that «I am» in 6(cf. 4:26; 6:35; 13:19) implies a divine formula;⁶⁰⁶⁶ yet while it is admittedly less clear than texts like 8:58, it can be no less clear, in the context of the Fourth Gospel, than in Mark.⁶⁰⁶⁷ But for John as for the Synoptic writers, Christology had practical implications; the narrative emphasizes Jesus» power but shows that he employed that power out of concern for his followers.⁶⁰⁶⁸

Because the disciples were probably not crossing at the widest part of the lake but from the northeast to the northwest shores, the distance stated (6:19) suggests that they were most of the way across the lake.⁶⁰⁶⁹ That they have traveled only some three to three and one-half miles suggests that the winds have been difficult; the stirring of the sea (6:18) would also make it difficult for rowing to advance the boat (6:19). Sudden and harsh storms on the Lake of Galilee often force even modern power boats to remain on land until they subside.⁶⁰⁷⁰ Fishermen normally did not leave shore in storms,⁶⁰⁷¹ but the disciples were caught in a storm after setting out. Greeks praised philosophers who demonstrated consistency with their teaching by maintaining a serene attitude during a storm.⁶⁰⁷² Although the disciples» response to the storm itself is not narrated, their response to Jesus in 6suggests that they failed the test.

It is not surprising that seeing Jesus walking on the sea would frighten the disciples (6:19). In Mark's account, they are afraid because they assume Jesus to be a spirit, probably a night spirit⁶⁰⁷³ or a spirit of one drowned at sea,⁶⁰⁷⁴ which were thought particularly dangerous. On recognizing him (6:20), they «willed» to «receive» him (6:21), which makes sense on a purely literal level but in the context of the whole Gospel may imply some typical Johannine symbolism (see the comments on «received» in 1:11–12). It contrasts with Jesus» enemies» failure to receive him in 5:43.

As after the resurrection, Jesus provides a demonstration of the reality of his epiphany to the disciples (20:27).⁶⁰⁷⁵ Of the four canonical gospels, only John reports that the boat was immediately at land (6:21b); Mark reports instead merely that the wind ceased (Mark 6:51).⁶⁰⁷⁶ Immediacy often, though not always, characterizes miracle reports in antiquity (see also 5:9).⁶⁰⁷⁷ Bultmann compares a hymn in which a ship «reaches its destination with miraculous speed» once Apollo is on board.⁶⁰⁷⁸ Greek tradition could in fact do better than this: in one account, observers reported Pythagoras teaching simultaneously in two different cities!⁶⁰⁷⁹ Rapid teleporting (cf. Acts 8:39) also appeared in Jewish legends,⁶⁰⁸⁰ probably originally rooted in biblical traditions about Elijah (1 Kgs 18:12) and Ezekiel (Ezek 3:14; 8:3; 11:1, 24; 37:1; 43:5). Some have preferred parallels to the exodus event in which God brought his people through the sea,⁶⁰⁸¹ but, while this fits the Passover and exodus context of the chapter (hence what we should expect to find here), the parallel is not close and John provides at best few clues for this otherwise fertile interpretation. The most analogous phenomenon within the Fourth Gospel itself would be Jesus» sudden appearance in a room behind closed doors (20:19, 26), suggesting that John may close the miracle story proper by alluding forward (albeit not for first-time readers) to the resurrection appearance to the disciples, where Jesus again reveals his divine identity and ultimately is hailed as God by the most skeptical disciple (20:28).

The crowds want an earthly deliverer like Moses to supply food and bring political freedom. Jesus seeks to turn their attention from the physical food they seek to the spiritual food he is. Thus he is not merely, like Moses, the mediator of Gods gift; rather he himself is Gods gift.

Many scholars think that 6:35–50 and 6:51–59 are duplicates from John's tradition.⁶⁰⁸² But while such source theories are possible, they are impossible to prove, and in the text s present state the «duplicates» function as parallels developing a theme. Although John probably utilizes various sources, the discourse as we have it is a unity expounding the quotation in 6:31.⁶⁰⁸³ Suggestions concerning the exact structure vary,⁶⁰⁸⁴ but many scholars now support literary unity of most or all of the materia1. If some detect two summaries of results of the discourses (6:60–65, 66–71; this seems less than obvious, however), they should keep in mind Johns two preceding miracles (6:1–15, 16–21).⁶⁰⁸⁵ Further, several recurrent motifs appear in roughly identical sequence in the debates of 6:30–40; 8:25–35; and 10:24–28,⁶⁰⁸⁶ suggesting a common argument, perhaps one John s audience had been advancing, or John was urging them to advance, against their opponents.⁶⁰⁸⁷

Recognizing that Jesus had not left with his disciples but had nevertheless crossed the sea, the crowd wants to know how Jesus got to the other side (6:25). This inquiry, like Nicodemus's probe, «You must be a teacher from God» (3:2), invites a response that seems to change the subject but really confronts the condition of the questioners (3:3; 6:26). That they came «seeking» Jesus (6:24) does not imply any moral commitment to him (6:26; cf. 5:18; 7:1, 34), as the developing dialogue will demonstrate.⁶⁰⁸⁸ The Synoptics also testify to the crowd's characteristic persistence (on the preceding day, Mark 6:32–33).

Tiberias (6:23) was one of two Hellenistic cities in Galilee and was perhaps ten miles (a few hours» walk) from Capernaum; Herod Antipas had it built as a royal administrative city.⁶⁰⁸⁹ Probably to minimize interference from more conservative sectors of society,⁶⁰⁹⁰ Antipas had built Tiberias on a graveyard; traditional Jews thus regarded it as unclean,⁶⁰⁹¹ and only later did legends provide an excuse for more traditional Jews to conduct activities there.⁶⁰⁹² Although some scholars have suggested that Tiberias and Sepphoris, the Lower Galileés two cities, exerted a significant hellenizing influence in Lower Galilee, the cultural influences from these cities were probably minima1.⁶⁰⁹³ Although these cities remained largely religiously and culturally Jewish despite helleni-zation and the presence of some Gentiles,⁶⁰⁹⁴ most Galileans felt alienated from them (Josephus Life 375, 384).⁶⁰⁹⁵ Although Jesus visited many of the outlying villages and towns, the Gospels suggest that he scrupulously avoided these two cities. Boats (6:23–24; cf. the introduction to 6:16–21, above) could be leased, sold, or effectively sold in a long lease;⁶⁰⁹⁶ here it is not clear whether the people with the boats simply offered rides back to Capernaum or charged them a fare for transport, but the latter seems more likely. Other writers also sometimes provided parenthetical explanations of means of transport, though probably more as an afterthought than as a deliberate narrative technique (Xenophon Eph. 2.14).

The observers of the sign are willing to have faith in Jesus provided they can keep their Christology at the level of a prophet like Moses; but Jesus summons them to a higher level of commitment that ultimately alienates some of them (6:66; cf. 8:31–48). Their questions show that they repeatedly understand Jesus on a merely natural level because their quest is for merely natural bread (6:26). That is, they ignore the miracles» value as «signs» pointing to Jesus» identity, wanting instead free food (6:26). That many poor people might respond in such a manner fits what we know of ancient life; Roman emperors and other politicians kept the Roman people pacified with free food.⁶⁰⁹⁷ Like Roman clients, the crowds join Jesus» «entourage» just for «a handout of food»;⁶⁰⁹⁸ clients in return sought to advance their patrons» political ambitions (which makes sense of 6:15). It was also known that people commonly listened to famous speakers for leisure or entertainment, not with an intention to change.⁶⁰⁹⁹

They seek bread which «perishes» (6:27; cf. 6:12), so that those who depend on it alone likewise perish (cf. 6:39; 12:25). Jesus summons them to seek instead the bread which «endures» or «abides» (6:27; cf. 6:56) for eternal life (cf. 6:40; 10:28), which the Son of Man would give them (cf. 6:33; 10:28). In the beginning, their misunderstanding parallels that of the Samaritan woman (6:34; 4:15),⁶¹⁰⁰ though unlike her, most of them do not come to faith in Jesus within the duration of the narrative.

Works (6:27–29) were central in Jewish ethics (e.g., Wis 9:12; see further below); John returns to this theme from a different angle in 8:39–41 (cf. also 3:21; 7:7). Some circles of early Christian polemic opposed faith and works to each other against traditional Jewish soteriology or some early Jewish-Christian soteriology (Rom 3:27–28; 9:32; Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5);⁶¹⁰¹ but John redefines the term «work» rather than disparaging it.⁶¹⁰² That he redefines it is fairly plain: rather than laboring for actual food (as most of them would do during most of the year), they should work for what the Son of Man would «give» them–the familiar sense of «giving» providing an image disjunctive with the familiar sense of «work» (except perhaps to servants).

Here Jesus» hearers, invited by him to work for eternal life (6:27), wish to know how Jesus defines «work» (6:28).⁶¹⁰³ Jewish tradition never isolated works from faith.⁶¹⁰⁴ Yet in contrast to their tradition (in which faith was often one work among many), Jesus defines the work essential for eternal life as faith in him (6:29); this proves to be the one work they are unwilling to do (6:30; cf. 6:41, 52, 66). With typical Johannine double entendre, they identify Jesus» «signs» with his «works» (6:30; cf. 5:17, 20, 36; 7:3) and put the burden of demonstration back on him.⁶¹⁰⁵ This is sheer dissembling, for they have already seen adequate signs–and desire another simply so they may have more free food (6:26).⁶¹⁰⁶ Elsewhere the Jesus tradition confirms that Jesus refused to grant a sign to those who demanded it after he had fed a multitude (Mark 8:11–12).⁶¹⁰⁷

God had attested Jesus with his own seal (6:27).⁶¹⁰⁸ Merchants and those executing legal documents used seals to attest the character of an item's contents before its sealing (see more fully comment on 3:33); rulers also conveyed their seals to those highest officials who would act on their behalf (Gen 41:42).⁶¹⁰⁹ In view of the aorist tense, Jesus» «sealing» by the Father may refer to a particular act, in which case it would probably point back to the Spirit descending on Jesus in 1:32–33.⁶¹¹⁰ In this context, however, the Father s sealing of Jesus probably refers to the signs by which God has attested him (6:2, 26; cf. 5:36).⁶¹¹¹ No one would dispute that God's seal would always attest matters accurately. Thus, for example, in Amoraic texts God's «seal,» indicating his identity and name, is «Truth,» which begins with the first letter and ends with the last letter of the alphabet, hence also signifies the «first and the last» (cf. «alpha and omega» in Rev 1:8).⁶¹¹²

Their question, «What shall we do … ?» (6:28), might function as a sort of early Christian shorthand for «How shall we be saved?» (Luke 3:10,12,14; Acts 2:37).⁶¹¹³ The «work of God» may suggest a typically Johannine double entendre (cf. 4:34; 17:4). The «works of God» (6:28) often refers to God's own works, his mighty deeds (9:3; Tob 12:6; 1QS 4.4; 1QM 13.9; CD 13.7–8; Rev 15:3),⁶¹¹⁴ which in Johannine theology is the source of other works (15:1–5; cf. Eph 2:10; Phil 2:12–13). But they can also indicate commandments (Bar 2:9–10; CD 2.14–15), as they do most obviously here; «works» can be ethical in John (3:19–21; 7:7; 8:39, 41).⁶¹¹⁵ Thus in a biblical text God's great «work» (Deut 11:7) could refer to his acts of judgment on the disobedient (11:2–6) which Israel had «seen» (11:7), inviting Israel therefore to keep God's commandments (11:8). That Jesus narrows the answer to a single work and that this «work» is faith (6:29) fits Johannine emphases (see discussion on faith in the introduction) and resembles some other early Christian polemic (Rom 4:2–5).

Incredibly, the crowd asks for a sign so they may believe, ignoring the previous sign (6:30); this repeats the Judean behavior in 2:18. Their behavior testifies that they do not wish to see and believe him as they claim, for they have already seen and now simply want more free food (6:26, 36)–that is, an earthly gift from a merely earthly messiah (6:27). They seek a political messiah who will bring political liberation, not liberation from sin (cf. 8:32–36). They place the responsibility for their faith on Jesus instead of on themselves; yet while seeing could lead to believing (20:8), such signs-faith was not the ultimate expression of faith (20:29), and in their case proved unsuccessful anyway, for they did see yet failed to believe (6:36).

Scholars dispute the specific biblical allusion in 6:31. John may have blended both Exod 16:4, 15 and Ps 78:24, being familiar with both the Hebrew and Greek texts.⁶¹¹⁶ The most obvious direct allusion is Ps 78, though it would be midrashically informed by the account of Exod 16 that stood behind it.⁶¹¹⁷ In any case, they cite a text which they invite Jesus to fulfill: if he is the prophet like Moses (see comment on 6:14–15), he should be able to provide them bread from heaven on a regular basis, as Moses did. Their proof-text, cited in the familiar Johannine style (Jesus and the narrator elsewhere employ γεγραμμένον; 2:17; 6:45; 10:34; 12:14),⁶¹¹⁸ becomes a foil for Jesus» ensuing discourse. («It is written» and similar formulas were common in early Judaism.)⁶¹¹⁹ Their «from heaven» stems from Exod 16or perhaps Ps 78:24⁶¹²⁰ and in any case was not unnatural (e.g., Mark 8:11), but will immediately remind the informed reader of Jesus (1:32; 3:13,31). Jesus understands his interlocutors» text quite differently from the way they do (6:32). They depend on their ancestors (6:31; cf. 4:12), but their ancestors have died (6:49), and Jesus wishes to address their need rather than that of their ancestors (6:32; cf. 8:39).

The following sermon is a rabbinic debate.⁶¹²¹ In the early 1960s Peder Borgen observed that the biblical quotation in 6is repeatedly paraphrased in midrashic manner throughout 6:32–58.⁶¹²² He argued that the discourse interprets the text in 6:31, following the homiletical form later known to us in midrashim. Because the broad pattern in Philo and the NT resembles the later rabbinic pattern, the pattern probably was common in early Judaism.⁶¹²³ Borgen also builds on the early Jewish interpretation of manna as Torah.⁶¹²⁴ So convincingly did Borgen array various sources that the shifts in methodology since that time have not undercut his basic argument, which has continued to retain support⁶¹²⁵ despite continued nuancing on details.⁶¹²⁶

In John the bread from heaven has been given the life-giving functions of Torah and wisdom. The presence of the bread is pictured with features from the theophany at Sinai and the invitation to eat and drink extended by wisdom. He who shares in the (preparatory) revelation at Sinai accepts the invitation and «comes to» wisdom/Jesus (John 6,45). The midrashic formula of «I am» receives in this context the force of the self predication of wisdom with overtones from Gods theophanic presentation of Himself. By combining ideas about the Torah, the theophany at Sinai and the wisdom, John 6,31–58 follows the lines suggested by the prologue (1,1–18) where the same combination has been made.⁶¹²⁷

In 6the crowds quote from the Bible, but Jesus interprets the text quite differently (6:32): the one who gives the bread from heaven is not Moses, but God himself (cf. Exod 16:4; Ps 78:19–20; Neh 9:15), as Moses himself openly acknowledged (Exod 16:4, 6–8, 15, 29, 32). Such a form of correction became a common enough exegetical method.⁶¹²⁸ The subject of Ps 78in the context is God. (For that matter, most early Jewish interpreters, even those who claimed that Moses» virtue merited the gift, would have sided with Jesus in declaring God the giver of manna.)⁶¹²⁹ Thus the real giver of bread from heaven is God, and what they should seek is not a wilderness prophet like Moses but the gift of God which is greater than the earthly manna in the wilderness.

Bread in the wilderness thus recalls the exodus (including for John s likely audience; cf. Rev 12:14); but it should also not surprise us that John intends a further symbolic level of meaning that his contemporaries would have understood.⁶¹³⁰ The most basic metaphorical function of comparing Jesus with bread (available even to the least-informed elements of Johns audience) is the suggestion that Jesus «sustains life,»⁶¹³¹ which in this Gospel suggests the life of the world to come, available in the present (cf. 3:16,36; 10:10). Because water and bread were primary necessities for life (Sir 29:21), it is not surprising that they often became emblems of other needs. Like water (see comment on 1:25–26, 31; 4:14), bread came to be widely employed as a symbo1.⁶¹³² Manna was «from heaven» (Josephus Ant. 3.32),⁶¹³³ and in some traditions the bread sent from (άπό) heaven was angels» food (Wis 16:20).⁶¹³⁴ If Joseph and Aseneth reflects pre-Christian ideas here,⁶¹³⁵ this bread may imply the «bread which gives eternal life.»⁶¹³⁶ (That document's emphasis on honey may also be relevant,⁶¹³⁷ though it probably draws on the Greek image of «nectar and ambrosia.») Thus bread, like water, is anevocative image, not meant to be «understood» in terms of background so much as embraced by the hungry and thirsty; John invites his audience to respond with faith more than with contemplation. Only those with such thirsty and hungry passion (Ps 42:1–2; 63:1; 73:25; 119:40,174; 143:6) will come to him and bear fruit.

But this commentary focuses on cultural context, hence it is particularly important for us to emphasize that bread often related to wisdom: Wisdom will feed a person with the «bread» of understanding (Sir 15:3); in words on which John 6almost surely depends (treated below), Wisdom declares that whoever eats and drinks from her will hunger and thirst for more (Sir 24:21). Philo affirmed wisdom and discourses of wisdom to be heavenly food (ούράνιον τροφήν).⁶¹³⁸ Philo also declared that the bread that God gave his people was the souls food, the heavenly, divine word.⁶¹³⁹ The law itself could be understood as comparing God s words with bread, declaring the former to be greater than the latter (Deut 8:3).⁶¹⁴⁰ Given the identification of wisdom and Torah in the rabbis (see also Sir 24:23; comment on John 1:1–18), it is not surprising that they employed bread as an emblem of the Torah.⁶¹⁴¹ Scholars often emphasize the connection.⁶¹⁴² Jewish tradition also emphasized that Wisdom descended from heaven (Wis 9:10) and that the law was «from heaven.»⁶¹⁴³ Jesus is not only greater than Moses; he epitomized the very wisdom or Torah that God sent through Moses. In one of the most «Johannine"-sounding passages in the Synoptics, Jesus invites people to «come» to him for rest (Matt 11:28).⁶¹⁴⁴

The manna could also prefigure God s eschatological provision for his people,⁶¹⁴⁵ and later rabbinic tradition promised eschatological manna.⁶¹⁴⁶ This picture is not unlikely; Jewish texts, at least from later rabbinic circles, spoke of an eschatological banquet.⁶¹⁴⁷ The later rabbis also expected a new exodus,⁶¹⁴⁸ but reflected a broader early Jewish expectation (see comment on 1:23),⁶¹⁴⁹ a hope rooted in the biblical prophets (e.g., Hos 2:14–15; 11:10–11; Isa 2:3; 12:2; 40:3)⁶¹⁵⁰ and emphasized in early Christianity.⁶¹⁵¹ Undoubtedly John's audience was familiar with the hope of eschatological manna (Rev 2:17). Some Jewish traditions emphasized that the final redeemer would bring down manna like Moses did,⁶¹⁵² as commentators on John 6 have long pointed out;⁶¹⁵³ these traditions do not seem to predate the third century but represent a natural midrashic assumption based on the new Moses and new manna motifs. An Amoraic tradition that connected the clouds with Aaron and the well with Miriam connected manna with Moses.⁶¹⁵⁴ The contrast with Moses» «gift» is explicit in 6:32; that Jesus is greater than Moses is important in this context (5:45; 7:19).⁶¹⁵⁵ The Father's supreme gift is what matters most (e.g., 3:16), and that is where the discourse is headed (6:37, 39; cf. the Son's gift in 6:27, 33–34, 51–52).

The bread Jesus announces is more essential than the manna given in Moses» day, for it is the "true bread» (6:32). The position of «true» or «genuine» in this sentence is emphatic.⁶¹⁵⁶ Calling this bread the «genuine» bread is characteristic of metaphors in this Gospel: Jesus, rather than John, is the «true light» (1:9); those who worship in the Spirit rather than merely in the temple are «true worshipers» (4:23); Jesus (perhaps in contrast to Israel) is the «true vine» (15:1). In the same way, God is true (7:28; 17:3), Jesus» judgment is true (8:16), and so is the beloved disciplés witness (19:35). In Platonic thought, the appearance was merely the symbol of the ideal reality behind it, but if such an idea is present here,⁶¹⁵⁷ it is only remotely so. The vertical dualism of apocalyptic thought blended this Hellenistic conception with analogous ancient Near Eastern ideas to emphasize the superiority of the heavenly mode1.⁶¹⁵⁸

Jesus declares that this bread gives life «to the world» (6:33),⁶¹⁵⁹ echoing familiar Johannine vocabulary for the object of God s salvation (1:29; 3:16–17; 4:42; 6:51) and to a lesser degree the crowd's own words in 6(cf. 4:42).⁶¹⁶⁰ Their request (6:34), similar to that of the Samaritan woman for water (4:15), allows Jesus to move the discourse further: he refers to spiritual bread and water, and is the object of their quest. (The attentive reader already knows from 4:32–34 that Jesus» spiritual food is doing the Father's wil1.)

Their request for the bread (6:34) parallels the Samaritan woman's request for the water Jesus described to her (4:15), though this story will turn out differently (6:66; cf. 4:28–30, 39–42). (The «always» may relate to the gift of life being «eternal,» 6:27; cf. 4:14.) Jesus now explains that he is the bread of life. The reader approaches Jesus» claims to be living bread (6:35, 41, 48, 51) in light of the revelation of 6:20, but the crowds in the story world are utterly unaware of that theophanic context for the saying.⁶¹⁶¹

In 6Jesus employs language that alludes directly to divine wisdom, just as when he promised the Samaritan woman that one who drinks from his water will never thirst (4:14; 6:35). The summons to «come» and to quench «thirst» (6:35; cf. 7:37–38) could stem from a sage emulating wisdom (Sir 51:23–24), but in the context of the Fourth Gospel (1:1–18) undoubtedly alludes to Wisdom herself: Wisdom invites hearers, «Come to me,» addressing their hunger and thirst (Sir 24:19–21).⁶¹⁶²

At the same time, Jesus is greater than Wisdom, for Wisdom promises that those who eat and drink from her will hunger and thirst for more (Sir 24:21), whereas Jesus emphasizes instead that one who comes to and believes in him will never hunger or thirst for anything else.⁶¹⁶³ When one follows Jesus, one gets all that is available. Numerous times in the Fourth Gospel Jesus declares «I am» with a predicate, three or four times here (6:35,48,51; cf. 6:41); also as the light of the world (8:12; cf. 9without the pronoun); the door (10:7, 9); the shepherd (10:11, 14); the resurrection and the life (11:25); the way, the truth and the life (14:6); and the vine (15:1, 5)–in all, thirteen or more sayings with seven predicative uses.⁶¹⁶⁴ On other occasions a predicate is lacking (4:26; 6:20; 8:24,28,58; 13:19; 18:5,6, 8), in at least some cases invoking Jesus» deity.

Seeing Jesus, like seeing the manna or the serpent in the wilderness (3:14), invited faith (6:36,40); perhaps it implies witnessing also his attesting works (10:37–38; 14:10–11). Nevertheless the «seeing» crowds fail to believe (6:36): seeking merely what Jesus could provide for them but not Jesus himself was not faith; further, the most genuine faith normally preceded signs (1:50; 4:48; 11:40; 20:25).⁶¹⁶⁵ That Jesus predicts his hearers» unbelief before they reveal it reflects his knowledge of their hearts (John 2:23–25; cf. 8:31–59). But the Father would insure that some had eternal life (6:37, 39), and this was his Father's purpose, for which Jesus had come into the world (6:38).⁶¹⁶⁶ Those who truly came to him would never be «cast out» (6:37), a fate delineated more graphically in 15as relevant to those who failed to persevere. In the whole of John's theology, true «coming» to Jesus implies more than initial faith, for it demands perseverance.⁶¹⁶⁷ Thus, whereas Jesus sought disciples among the Samaritans (4:23), these Galileans who sought Jesus for the wrong reason were not truly «coming» to him (6:37). People could come to Jesus only through the Father's will (6:37), just as they could come to the Father only through Jesus» work (14:6). Jesus obeys the Father's will (6:38–39) in saving those who come to him; he «came down» from heaven (6:38; cf. 3:13,31; 6:33, 41–12, 58) for this purpose, and he desired above all to fulfill the Father's purpose (5:30). Jesus» appeal to the resurrection at the last day here (6:39), as in 5:28–29, indicates that John has not abandoned future eschatology, though he emphasizes realized eschatology.⁶¹⁶⁸ The repetition of «raise it up on the last day» in 6and 6is emphatic.⁶¹⁶⁹ That the sentences each begin⁶¹⁷⁰ by speaking of God's will indicates a double repetition,⁶¹⁷¹ underlining the point no less than John's double αμήν but expanding the point in the second line (as, e.g., frequently in the psalms). That Jesus «himself» (the explicit pronoun εγώ was already implicit in the verb) will raise believers is also emphatic because, as in 5:21,24–25, Jesus» involvement in the resurrection indicates his participation in a divine prerogative (see comment on 5:24–30).

The response of confusion (6:40–41) stems from an inadequate hermeneutic; they knew Jesus according to the flesh but missed his genuine identity, which could be understood only by the Spirit (John 3:3, 11–12; cf. 2Cor 5:16–17; Matt 11:25; 16:17; Luke 10:21).⁶¹⁷² Their grumbling (6:41; cf. 6:61; 7:32) recalls the grumbling of Exod 16:2,⁶¹⁷³ but in that case Israel grumbled before receiving the manna, whereas these hearers complain after receiving bread and the invitation of the ultimate satiation for their hunger.⁶¹⁷⁴ Perhaps because of their attitude at this point, these Galileans finally receive the ironically pejorative title «Jews,» that is, «Judeans.»⁶¹⁷⁵ The rejection of Jesus based on familiarity with him (6:42) undoubtedly reflects historical tradition (Mark 6:1–6; Matt 13:53–58),⁶¹⁷⁶ while also serving John's particular emphasis (1:11). Johns readers probably know the virgin birth tradition, which is earlier than either Matthew or Luke (their testimonies appear in accounts independent from one another), and if John does know this tradition (see comment on 7:41–42), 6:42 may presuppose the reader's knowledge that the crowd's claim to knowledge reveals ignorance.⁶¹⁷⁷ But John is more interested in their ignorance of Jesus» ultimate place of origin. That other outsiders admit ignorance of his place of origin (7:27) makes the present inadequate claim to know his place of origin all the more ironic.

Jesus notes that the Father draws some to him (6:43–44), using biblical language for God drawing Israel to himself in the wilderness or the exile (Jer 31:3; Hos 11LXX);⁶¹⁷⁸ the reader later learns that the Father draws such adherents through the proclamation of the cross (John 12:32–33).⁶¹⁷⁹ Only those whom the Father gives to Jesus «come» to him in faith (6:37, 44). Jewish prayers such as the fifth benediction of the Amidah recognized God's sovereignty even in granting repentance (cf. Rom 2:4).⁶¹⁸⁰ Like most of his Jewish contemporaries, John felt no tension between predestination and free wil1.⁶¹⁸¹ Antinomies were in any case standard fare both in Greco-Roman rhetoricians and in Jewish writings.⁶¹⁸² Because of increasing cosmic fatalism in late antiquity, philosophers had to begin defending a doctrine of free will previously taken for granted, and early Christian commentators likewise proved careful to emphasize that Jesus» statements do not deny free wil1.⁶¹⁸³

They could not come to Jesus without the Father's enabling, Jesus claims, because Scripture promised that God's eschatological people would learn directly from him (6:45). Yet Jesus» interlocutors here fail to «hear» him (cf. 5:37; 6:60; 7:51; 8:38,43,47; 10:3). Jesus claims the fulfillment of the promise that God's people in the time of restoration would learn from God (Isa 54:13; cf. 1 Thess 4:9);⁶¹⁸⁴ the Father's witness should therefore besufficient to bring those who are truly the remnant of Gods people to Jesus (John 6:45). Like other midrashic interpreters, Jesus is explaining the text from the Torah proper in light of a text from the prophets; indeed, allusions to the larger context of Isa 54–55 seem to be presupposed in the rest of the discourse.⁶¹⁸⁵ (The direct allusion to Isaiah obviates the need to appeal to other ancient claims to direct instruction by God, though they did appear.)⁶¹⁸⁶ That Jesus appears as the «teacher» from God par excellence in this Gospel is significant (3:2; 6:59; 7:14, 28, 35; 8:20; 18:20); Jesus learned from the Father (8:28; cf. 7:15–17; cf. 8:26, 40) and the Spirit would continue Jesus» ministry (14:26; cf. Luke 12:12; 1Cor 2:13). Again, Christology impacts ecclesiology (see our introduction, on background; and comment on 10:3–4). God had taught Israel at Sinai,⁶¹⁸⁷ and would teach them again at the eschatological giving of his Word (Isa 2:2–4). Here the Father, the great teacher, sends his disciples to Jesus, as John the Baptist had (l:36–37).⁶¹⁸⁸

Interpreters could debate the identity of the one who sees God in 6:46. On the one hand, Jesus could speak generically about all who see God in him (1:18; 14:7–9). Although that may seem out of place at this point in the Gospel, it fits the context quite well: those who learn from the Father (6:45) also see the Father's glory as reflected in the Son (6:46; cf. 1:51; 5:37; 11:40; 12:41; 15:24; 1 John 3:6; 3 John 11). These believers contrast starkly with Jesus» accusers, who never did see God, despite their claims about Sinai (5:37). On the other hand, and more likely, one could view the «one who has seen God» (6:46) as Jesus (cf. 8:38), the only one in the Father's bosom (1:18; cf. 1 John 4:20) and the one sent directly παρά God (7:29; cf. 1:6). In this case, Jesus as the only one from above (3:13) is the one who causes others to be born from above and see God's kingdom (3:3). John could therefore be providing an aside: «hearing» and «learning» from God (6:45) differs from «seeing» him (6:46).⁶¹⁸⁹ In either case, believers ultimately see God's revelation only by means of the Son. And in either case, this language may allude to the theophany at Sinai as in 1:14–18.⁶¹⁹⁰

That their ancestors ate manna in the wilderness and died (6:49, 58) would neither have shocked nor disturbed them (8:52); but that Jesus offered spiritual life that overcame spiritual death (6:27,47–48, 50; cf. 11:25; 14:19)⁶¹⁹¹–which they characteristically misunderstand literally (cf. 11:25–26)–made him greater than their ancestors (8:53) and greater than Moses who gave the manna. They preferred remaining alleged disciples of Moses though he testified of Jesus (5:45; 9:28–29); they sought earthly manna rather than the true bread that is Jesus himself. Yet 6indicates that Jesus would give (see comment on 6:32) his flesh (his life as an incarnate human–1:14; not for literal eating–6:63; cf. 3:6) on behalf of (υπέρ, 11:51) the world s life (6:33; cf. 1:29; 3:17; 4:42; 12:47; 1 John 2:2; 4:14), that is, for those he loved (3:16; cf. 1 John 4:9) but who at that point remained his enemies (1:10; 3:19; 7:7; 14:17; 15:18–19; 17:14–16; cf. 1 John 3:1,13; 4:4–5; 5:19). The future tense of «give» in 6(cf. 6:27) points forward to the passion; consistent use of past tense verbs for the passion begins in John 13, where the betrayal will set in motion the events of the passion. Verse 5 Ts claim that Jesus is «the bread of life» that has come down from heaven is surely emphatic, repeating language from 6:48, 50;⁶¹⁹² the crowd's response to this claim in 6advances the dialogue (like interlocutors in Platós dialogues).

Many scholars contend that 6:51–59 is either a later addition to the Gospel or a tradition on which the Gospel draws distinct from 6:35–50, usually partly because 6:51–59 appears more sacramenta1.⁶¹⁹³ But the differences need not support such a distinction; John may simply develop the earlier image in greater detail in this section. Regardless of his sources, the finished product provides its own structure and forms a literary unity.⁶¹⁹⁴

Granted, the discourse takes a more explicit and offensive turn after the hearers» dismayed confusion in 6(just as the conflict increases in the dialogue of 8:13–58). But this turn in the discourse is hardly an ill-fitting appendage to the previous section; it is anticipated already in 6:31. Because the discussion follows midrashic lines, it develops the rest of the verse quoted in 6:31: 6:32–51 explained the nature of the bread from heaven; now in 6:52–58 the discussion has come to the final words, «to eat.»⁶¹⁹⁵

Much of the remainder of the chapter addresses eating Jesus» flesh (6:52–65). When Jesus speaks of eating his flesh (6:51–53), he invites disgust from his contemporaries.⁶¹⁹⁶ The ancient Mediterranean world shared nearly universally a disgust for cannibalism.⁶¹⁹⁷ (It did, however, provoke pity rather than condemnation under extreme famine conditions.)⁶¹⁹⁸ Early followers of Dionysus were thought to have practiced omophagy (devouring raw flesh),⁶¹⁹⁹ and Greeks and Romans thought that some barbarians practiced cannibalism.⁶²⁰⁰ Some claimed that their patron deities, such as Isis and Osiris, put an end to an earlier practice of cannibalism.⁶²⁰¹ This disgust probably rose to one of its greatest heights in Judaism.⁶²⁰² It is known that second-century Christians faced accusations of cannibalism, based on a misinterpretation of the Lord's Supper;⁶²⁰³ possibly such accusations were already circulating when John was written.⁶²⁰⁴ Like other foils in the Gospel (e.g., 3:4; 4:15; 11:12), the «Jews» here understand Jesus more literally than they should, ignorant of his deeper meaning.⁶²⁰⁵ (For other cases of improperly literal understanding of Jesus» words about food, see, e.g., 4:32, 34; 6:27; outside John, cf. Mark 8:15–16.)

Yet others had employed this language symbolically for violent suffering.⁶²⁰⁶ Thus Enoch depicts Israel's suffering before the nations as the flesh of sheep being devoured by wild animals ( 1 En. 90:2–4).⁶²⁰⁷ In the context of Passover (6:4),⁶²⁰⁸ however, the image most naturally evoked is that of the paschal lamb. Thus, for example, rabbinic texts concerning the Passover speak of eating flesh (the lamb) and drinking the blood of grapes (cups at Passover), here perhaps applicable to Jesus as the true vine (15:1). Although the manna image is dominant, the paschal lamb is a sufficiently Johannine motif (1:19; 19:36) to be possible in the background, though «drinking blood» is a decisive reinterpretation of the Passover, probably by way of the early Christian Lord's Supper (cf. Mark 14:23–24). Here Jesus probably refers not to a sacrament in the modern sense, but to embracing his death;⁶²⁰⁹ thus the Gospel spoke earlier of zeal for God's house «consuming» him–leading to his death (cf. 2:17).⁶²¹⁰ One thinks also of the language of eating and drinking divine Wisdom (see comment above on 6:35).⁶²¹¹

Some think that John 6 (or often more specifically 6:51–58, which many regard as a separate source) addresses the Eucharist or reflects a mystic sacramentalism.⁶²¹² Early church fathers like Ignatius and Justin interpreted the text eucharistically,⁶²¹³ but, since their thought on other subjects like monarchical bishops is developed beyond known first-century models, we need not suppose that this tendency reveals John s intention any more than such other customs do.⁶²¹⁴ If the passage contains sacramentalism, John could add a eucharistie emphasis to challenge secret believers to identify openly with the Johannine believers.⁶²¹⁵ By contrast, in view of the absence of the Lord's Supper in the Passion Narrative of this Gospel, others suggest that John is antisacramental, or that he corrects abuse of the Lord's Supper in a sacramental manner (cf. 1Cor 10:16).⁶²¹⁶

Many think the passage is nonsacramental or that it does not address sacramentalism at al1.⁶²¹⁷ To avoid implications of materially eating Christ's flesh (cannibalism was a common early charge against Christians; see comment opening 6:52–58 above), some patristic writers like Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine interpreted eating Christ's flesh spiritually, in terms of eating by faith rather than in the Eucharist.⁶²¹⁸ Many scholars find here an emphasis on the necessity of faith rather than Eucharist per se.⁶²¹⁹ Perhaps 6:51–65 combats «a Jewish misunderstanding about the observance of «the last supper.»»⁶²²⁰ Others suggest that it responds to a docetic denial of Christ's fleshly crucifixion, manifested in rejection of a symbolic meal that points to it.⁶²²¹ If God can work through flesh as in the incarnation, then physical sacraments analogously challenge the Cerinthian or docetic worldview.⁶²²²

Dunn suggests that John omits the Lords Supper lest he accommodate Docetists» emphasis on the ritual;⁶²²³ he argues, «It is in the believing reception of the Spirit of Christ, the άλλος παράκλητος, that we eat the flesh and drink the blood of the incarnate Christ.»⁶²²⁴ As is particularly clear in 6and 6:63, John thus does not exalt the sacrament, but warns that «The eucharistie flesh avails nothing; life comes through the Spirit and words of Jesus.»⁶²²⁵ As in 3:5–6, mere fleshly ritual is inadequate, and the Spirit is necessary; as in 4:23–24, only worship by the Spirit is adequate worship.

Which position best represents the logic of the discourse in its Johannine context and Sitz im Leben? It is difficult to miss some eucharistie language in the background;⁶²²⁶ unfortunately, it is more difficult to know what to make of it. Not all the language is distinctly eucharistie. For instance, bread and wine were the basic components of any Jewish meal signified in the standard blessings, with bread standing for all food. Thus even if the text mentioned both bread and wine, eucharistie connotations need not be supposed; and in any case (and perhaps most damaging to the eucharistie argument) wine is nowhere mentioned here (though this is what one might expect of an unanticipated meal in the wilderness). In the first century the usual eucharistie term is not σαρξ (as here) but σώμα (Mark 14:22; 1Cor 11:24).⁶²²⁷ Yet John probably wishes to stress that Jesus is the one who became flesh (1:14; 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7); this term also has more natural sacrificial connotations.⁶²²⁸ «Flesh» and «blood» show the believer's absolute dependence on Christ's death; life was held to be in the blood,⁶²²⁹ which had to be poured out before sacrifice.

John not only omits the final paschal meal in his Passion Narrative (contrast Mark 14:22–25); he makes Jesus» actual death the real Passover. The Lord's Supper initially pointed to Jesus» death and understood it in light of paschal imagery. If some early Christians had begun looking to the Supper more than the event to which it pointed, it is possible that John could have rearranged the Passover chronology to redirect their attention to the event itself. For whatever reason, John plainly moves the Passover from the Last Supper to the crucifixion. In the context of the entire Gospel, John's eucharistie language thus applies directly to Jesus» death; the way one partakes is through faith and the Spirit (6:27–29, 35, 63). John's words invite his audience to look to Christ's death itself, not merely those symbols which point to his death.⁶²³⁰

Given the language of divine wisdom earlier in the chapter (see esp. comment on 6:35) and the book (see comment on 1:1–18), Jesus» death is «the supreme revelation of God's wisdom,» and one embraces this by «coming to» and «believing in» him.⁶²³¹ John clarifies this point further in 6(see comment). That early Christians would experience and articulate this in terms of their remembering Jesus» death at the Lord's Supper (1Cor 11:26) is only natural, but should not be held to delimit John's intention.

Their arguing among themselves (6:52) reflects the motif of division Jesus introduces into the synagogue community (7:43; 9:16; 10:19); they interpret him overliterally (6:52b), like most others in the Gospel (3:4; 4:15; 11:12), but Jesus makes no effort to clarify his parabolic language for the crowds.⁶²³² «How can…?» (Πώς δύναται, 6:52) will remind the attentive reader of earlier objections, particularly of Nicodemus (3:4, 9; cf. 9:16). Both to Nicodemus and to the present interlocutors Jesus responds with the prerequisite for eternal life.⁶²³³

«Life in yourselves» (6:53) refers not to self-generating life (5:26) but to having in them the life Christ brings (cf. 5:40–42; 6:25, 33, 35, 40, 47–48, 51; 8:12), like branches on the vine. He refers, as in the parable of the vine (15:1–8), to abiding in him and he in the believer (6:56). But though Christ is self-existent in 5(see comment on 5:26), he is also dependent on the Father in 5:26; the believer likewise depends continually for life on Jesus, the believer's source (6:57; cf. Rev 7:17; 22:2).

The remaining lines of this section develop further the theme already established by this point: ingesting Jesus is a prerequisite for eternal life (6:54; cf. 4:12–14). This eternal life includes the resurrection at the «last day» (6:54), an eschatological image (6:39–40, 44; 11:24; 12:48). (The repetition of «raising up» from 6in 6and the repetition of 6in 6make the thoughts emphatic; see note on repetition at 6:51.) As he is the «true» light (1:9) and «true» vine (15:1), so is he «true» bread (6:32) and «true» food (6:55).⁶²³⁴ John uses «true» here not in the Platonic sense of a heavenly prototype or pattern for the earthly counterparts; he may instead use it in the sense of that which is fully genuine as opposed to other figurative uses of such phrases (perhaps applied in the case of light and bread to Torah) that were incomplete without him.⁶²³⁵ The one who eats– probably, who continues to subsist (τρώγων, present active participle)–"abides» in Jesus and the reverse (6:56); this is Johannine language for perseverance (6:27; 8:31; 15:4–7).⁶²³⁶ In 6:57, Jesus» dependence on the Father for life (5:26) becomes the model for disciples» dependence on him (cf. 15:4–5).

Jesus» own teaching provokes a crisis that drives away some and confirms the commitment of others. Sometime in the decade in which this Gospel was written some Johannine communities experienced similar division over what the author of the First Epistle believed was the truth of Jesus» teaching (1 John 2:19–20). For those who heard Jesus through the grid of their cultural presuppositions rather than allowing his parabolic language to challenge their preunderstanding, Jesus» words proved too incompatible with their beliefs. Jesus explains the nature of his metaphor (6:63), but only those who persevere as his disciples will ultimately comprehend his teaching (16:25–30).

The misunderstanding Jesus» words allow perpetuates John's misunderstanding motif (cf. comment on 3:4). Jewish sages, like other ancient Mediterranean sages, often spoke in riddles; the historical Jesus, like other Palestinian Jewish sages, employed parables.⁶²³⁷ His audience in this Gospel, however, proves incapable of understanding, just as those who heard his parables without persevering into his inner circle for the interpretations often failed to understand. The language used for the dispute it provokes as it divides Jesus» hearers (such division being frequent in responses to Jesus–cf. 7:43; 10:19) could even suggest that the disputants came to blows (6:52).⁶²³⁸ If so, such blows could well préfigure also the times of violent conflict in which John was writing.

Although narratives more frequently open with a setting, John concludes Jesus» discourse by informing us of its specific setting (6:59): a synagogue in Capernaum.⁶²³⁹ While John reports little about Capernaum (2:12; 4:46), members of John's audience familiar with the Jesus tradition will probably recall that Jesus received a significant hearing in Capernaum (e.g., Mark 2:1–2)–but may also recall that it proved inadequate for widespread salvation, given the measure of revelation Jesus offered there (Matt 11:23/Luke 10:15).⁶²⁴⁰ If some of them recalled the opening scene from the body of Mark's Gospel, they would also recall that Jesus encountered conflict with a demon in that synagogue (Mark 1:21–28).

That Jesus taught in synagogues is not to be doubted (John 18:20; Matt 4:23; 9:35; 12:9; 13:54; Mark 1:21, 39; 3:1; 6:2; Luke 4:15–16, 33,44; 6:6; 13:10). Although supplanted by a more elaborate structure in the late second century, evidence remains for the first-century synagogue in Capernaum.⁶²⁴¹ Synagogues were community centers⁶²⁴² the use of which was hardly restricted to particular days; especially in seasons when work in the fields was slower or in areas where the sick congregated, Jesus could have easily drawn large numbers of people to local synagogues. These buildings were also used for study and teaching of Scripture.⁶²⁴³ But John may have a special reason for mentioning the synagogue here: it is a place of division, controlled by those less receptive to the message of Jesus (9:22; 12:42; 16:2). Thus it becomes, for this story and for much of John's own audience, the occasion for misunderstanding Jesus, and deciding between stumbling and perseverance (6:60–71). That Jesus «taught» there might recall 6:45, where those who genuinely heard him were those already taught by God.

Many of Jesus» hearers considered his statement «difficult» (σκληρός, 6:60). The term connotes harshness and difficulty in following rather than merely difficulty in understanding:⁶²⁴⁴ «not hard to understand, but hard to accept.»⁶²⁴⁵ Nevertheless, it was hard to accept because they misunderstood it, as is characteristic of those who hear Jesus without faith. For John's implied audience, the rhetorical question of 6(«Who is able to hear?») is answered by 6and 6(no one is able unless the Father draws them) and 6(whoever hears comes).⁶²⁴⁶ Even his disciples did not always understand initially, but they would in the end because they persevered (16:25,29–30). Most of Jesus» hearers in 6:60, however, would fail to persevere (6:66). That the saying was difficult for them to «hear» (6:60) may recall 6or the «heed» sense of «hear» (cf. 5:24), further developed later in the book (cf. 8:43,47; 10:3).

In the context of John's Gospel, Jesus» knowledge of their murmuring (6:61; cf. Mark 2:8) confirms his identity (cf. 6:15, 64; 2:25); on the murmuring see comment on 6(cf. 7:12). Jesus warns these halfhearted disciples against «stumbling» (6:61), which refers to «falling away» from faith in him (16:1; cf. προσκόπτω in 11:9–10).⁶²⁴⁷ Christians did not originate the metaphor; the term and its synonyms had a long history of figurative use before and after John's time.⁶²⁴⁸ This term and synonymous ones already applied to apostasy in early Jewish texts;⁶²⁴⁹ the image in fact appears in the Hebrew Bible as well (Ezek 14:3,4,7; 18:30; 33:12; 44:12).⁶²⁵⁰ It appears frequently in the Jesus tradition⁶²⁵¹ and early Christianity.⁶²⁵² But just as Jesus promised greater cause for faith to Nathanael who believed with a small sign (1:50–51), now he promises greater cause of stumbling for those who doubt him. The «disciples» were no longer believing and submitting to their teacher (6:60),⁶²⁵³ and, perhaps like some temporary converts to John's circle of Christians (1 John 2:19), were in danger of becoming opponents. Jesus thus challenges his hearers with a question.⁶²⁵⁴

The proof of Jesus» identity would come in his ascent back to the Father (6:62; cf. 3:13; 20:17)⁶²⁵⁵–though in this Gospel he is lifted up first of all by way of the cross, which hardly seems like compelling evidence to such opponents as these. Yet on some level, as in 8:28, even his opponents are confronted with the truth in the cross; Jesus draws humanity to himself through the cross, and those confronted with his truth may deny his claims, but no longer have a cloak for their sin of unbelief (15:22; 16:9). The witness of the Spirit makes Jesus dynamically present in the proclamation about him (15:26–27; 16:8–15). Then again, the point may be: If the cross causes you to stumble, how much more will the resurrection? If the «coming down» of the Son of Man, how much more the «ascending» back to the Father?⁶²⁵⁶ The ascent may also imply the same thing as Wisdom's departure from the earth in the wisdom tradition (see comment on 3:13): rejection by the world (see comment on 1:10–11).⁶²⁵⁷

It is in 6that Jesus explains the nature of his metaphors, explicitly defining the character of «the words I spoke to you.» Others consistently misinterpret Jesus» figurative pronouncements literally (3:4; 6:52; 11:12). It is not the literal flesh (cf. 6:51) that brings life, but the Spirit,⁶²⁵⁸ a point also underlined in 3:6.⁶²⁵⁹ The Spirit thus joins the Father and Son (5:21; cf. Rom 4:17; 1Cor 15:22) in giving life (6:63; cf. Rom 8:11; 2Cor 3:6; 1Pet 3:18; perhaps 1Cor 15:45).⁶²⁶⁰ One may also note that flesh cannot comprehend divine truth adequately (cf. 3:12); elsewhere in the Jesus tradition as well, this comprehension requires a revelation from the Father (Matt 16:17; cf. ll:25–27/Luke 10:21–22). A merely human, «fleshly» perspective on Jesus and his words is inadequate (2Cor 5:16).⁶²⁶¹ Thus disciples must imbibe his Spirit, not his literal flesh (cf. 20:22); his life is present also in his words (6:68; cf. 15:7).

In John, the «flesh» includes the best of human religion (see comment on 3:6), which, as here, profits nothing (ώφελεί ούδέν; cf. 12:19). (Philosophers used «profit» as a moral criterion,⁶²⁶² though this provides merely a specialized example of the more general use.) Only religion birthed from the Spirit of God himself proves adequate for true worshipers (4:23–24). Jesus» words are from the Father (3:34; 12:47–50; 14:10; 17:8), like those of Moses (5:47), and only those taught by the Father would embrace them (6:45; 8:47). It is Jesus» message, his «words,» rather than his literal flesh, that communicates the life he has been promising through the heavenly bread (6:27, 33, 35, 40, 47–48, 51, 53–54, 57); it is those who «come» and «believe» whose hunger and thirst will be quenched (6:35; 7:37–38).

They «stumbled» (6:61) and could not understand (6:60) because they did not believe (6:64), hence proved to be not from those the Father gave to Jesus (6:65; see comment on 6:37). Their unbelief or apostasy as uncommitted, unpersevering seekers of Jesus» gifts was of a piece with Judas's apostasy (6:64), on which see comment on 6:71. (The designation of Judas as «the one who would betray him» appears to be antonomasia, a familiar form of periphrasis.)⁶²⁶³ That Judas could therefore typify unfaithful professors of Christ suggests the distaste John holds for such persons, people undoubtedly known to John's audience; ( 1 John 2:18–26). Their very failure to believe confirmed Jesus» warning that only those whom the Father drew would come to him (6:44,65). While this claim would not have qualified as an argument among ancient rhetoricians much better than it would today,⁶²⁶⁴ the Johannine Jesus intends it not as an argument but as a warning in obscure language, the sort of riddles found among Mediterranean sages and assumed among sectarian interpreters like those at Qumran, intelligible only to those already inside the circle of understanding.⁶²⁶⁵

That many of his disciples no longer «walked» with him is a straightforward enough way of saying that they ceased to be his disciples (cf. 8:31); some ancient teachers literally «walked» with their disciples while lecturing them.⁶²⁶⁶ On a symbolic Johannine level, however, it recalls biblical phraseology about God's servants who «walked» with him (e.g., Gen 5:24; 6:9) and Israel's call to walk according to the commandments (according to proper halakah).

A teacher derived status from the success and loyalty of his disciples; hence abandonment by his disciples invited dishonor in the broader community.⁶²⁶⁷ By discouraging the less committed disciples with parabolic language, Jesus prepared a nucleus of disciples who should persevere. Yet even after their initial perseverance, their ultimate perseverance was not settled beyond all doubt (6:70–71 );⁶²⁶⁸ yet some of these who would abandon him temporarily (16:32–33; 18:17, 25–27) would return when they understood (20:19–29; 21:15–29). Jewish tradition also acknowledged that providing knowledge to an evil disciple was an evil act;⁶²⁶⁹ Jesus trains primarily those apt to make use of his teaching in the long run.

Sometimes ancients saw personality as fixed, hence the emergence of bad character as simply an end to masquerading (Livy 3.36.1–2).⁶²⁷⁰ But the case for this pattern can be overstated, and ancients certainly did understand the concept of lapsing from practice of a faith. Early Judaism commented frequently on apostasy,⁶²⁷¹ but was divided in its opinion as to whether apostates could be forgiven if they repented.⁶²⁷² Greco-Roman paganism knew many who had become Christians only to reconvert to paganism.⁶²⁷³ Some apostates proved hostile toward Christianity,⁶²⁷⁴ and others (Pliny Ep. 10.96) did not.

By providing even his close disciples the opportunity to depart (6:67), Jesus tests them (cf. 6:6). The gospel tradition reports Jesus testing the commitment of would-be disciples at many points (e.g., Mark 10:21), reflecting behavior also known among some other radical sages.⁶²⁷⁵ But whereas the disciples of 6fail the test, most of those of 6:67–69 will pass it, because they have already been «remaining» with him (8:31). Even in their case, however, perseverance was not settled from the human perspective until the end; not all of them would persevere (6:70–71). The repeated emphasis on apostasy in this section suggests that it was a live issue for John's audience (cf. 1 John 2:15–28; Rev 2:5,7,11,17,25–26; 3:5,11–12,21). When Jesus asks if they «want» to go away (6:67), he appeals to their volition (6:21; 7:17; cf. 8:44; 9:27; 12:21), perhaps implying the commitment of their heart rather than merely their remaining presence.

The focus of this passage is Peter s christological confession, which replaces the «Christ» confession of Markan tradition (Mark 8:29).⁶²⁷⁶ John may prefer the «Holy One of God» title (cf. Rev 3:7; Acts 3:14; applied to Jesus in earlier gospel tradition by beings with superhuman knowledge–Mark 1:24) to convey a diversity of christological titles and roles (cf. John 1:1,9, 18, 34, 36), just as Matthew may add «Son of the living God» in Matt 16:16. The Holy One was especially a title for God himself in the OT⁶²⁷⁷ and in early Judaism (cf. also 17:11; 1 John 2:20; Rev 4:8; 6:10).⁶²⁷⁸ It nevertheless could function as an acceptable title for one of Gods servants when conjoined with «of God.»⁶²⁷⁹ Acknowledging that Jesus has the «words of life» (6:68) responds to Jesus» claim in 6:63, «the words that I speak are … life.»

Peter s confession in this context is significant. As Judas models apostasy throughout the Fourth Gospel (6:70–71; 12:4; 13:2, 26, 29; 18:3, 5), Peter sometimes models a level of discipleship in the context (although often deficient in understanding; 13:6–9, 24, 36–38; 18.—10—18).⁶²⁸⁰ His role is somewhat ambiguous, but clearly not negative.⁶²⁸¹ Undoubtedly reflecting knowledge of historical tradition, Peter plays a role similar to that preserved in the Synoptic tradition, as a spokesman for the disciples.⁶²⁸² In this first mention of Judas the betrayer, Peter confesses Jesus» identity on behalf of the other disciples. The text thus presents apostasy and confession of faith as alternatives.⁶²⁸³

That Judas appears here as a «devil» (6:70) may recall the Markan tradition in which Peter appears as «Satan» in the context of Peter's confession (Mark 8:33).⁶²⁸⁴ Because Judas would act as a direct agent of Satan (13:2, 27), John may feel the title applies better to him as a son of the devil (8:44). John's audience is probably familiar at least with Judas's role in the passion tradition, but perhaps because John will mention a different Judas (the name was common among Jews,⁶²⁸⁵ for their ancestor Judah for whom they as a people were named), he must carefully note that he means here Judas Iscariot, son of Simon Iscariot.⁶²⁸⁶

By the criterion of embarrassment, Jesus» betrayal by Judas (6:71) is surely historica1. Knowledge of abandonment by one close to a person could generate scandal and mass abandonment.⁶²⁸⁷ Perhaps due to outside polemic against the tradition, the evangelists seem embarrassed by it and have «to explain that Jesus knew all along, or at least in advance, that Judas would betray him (Matt. 26.25; John 6.64,71 and frequently in John).»⁶²⁸⁸ John may amplify this emphasis in response to polemic from the synagogue: some, aware of Judas's role in the passion tradition (Mark 14:10; cf. perhaps 1Cor 11:23), may have used it to contest Jesus» omniscience (cf. 2:23–25).⁶²⁸⁹ Then again, John could simply anticipate such a charge;⁶²⁹⁰ in any case, it is not an unlikely charge. It could be seen as dishonorable to fall prey to others» deception and treachery. Thus Josephus stresses that he released his opponents unharmed when they promised to stop opposing him–even though he knew that they would break their promises (Josephus Life 263).⁶²⁹¹

But John may also emphasize Judas to emphasize the danger of apostasy to disciples who appear to have persevered so far; at some point the Johannine community faced a large number of defectors whose secession shook the confidence of others ( 1 John 2:19).⁶²⁹² The emphasis on «the Twelve» would increase the heinousness of his betrayal⁶²⁹³ but would also increase this sense of warning.⁶²⁹⁴ Twelve was associated with a variety of symbols in antiquity,⁶²⁹⁵ including astrological ones,⁶²⁹⁶ but these prove far less relevant than a nearer context. Historically, Jesus probably chose «Twelve» disciples to symbolize the remnant of Israel,⁶²⁹⁷ much as the Qumran community did.⁶²⁹⁸ (Many other teachers had more disciples than twelve, especially over the course of time. Rabbinic tradition, e.g., emphasizing the small immediate circle of Johanan ben Zakkai, may emphasize mainly the brightest students who became great teachers in their own right.)⁶²⁹⁹ That one of those «chosen» in some sense is here lost (6:70; cf. 6:44) sounds a firm warning to members of John's audience who trusted too securely in their salvific status, although Jesus ultimately foreknew those who would persevere (cf. 13:18; 15:16, 19). (Compare Mark 13:22: false prophets would lead astray even the «elect,» if that proved possible.)