OT-LAW.filter - rwp appropriation:

rwp@John:6:52 @{Strove} (\emachonto\). Imperfect (inchoative) middle of \machomai\, to fight in armed combat (Acts:7:26|), then to wage a war of words as here and strkjv@2Timothy:2:24|. They were already murmuring (41|), now they began bitter strife with one another over the last words of Jesus (43-51|), some probably seeing a spiritual meaning in them. There was division of opinion about Jesus in Jerusalem also later (7:12,40; strkjv@9:16; strkjv@10:19|). {How can?} (\Ps dunatai;\). The very idiom used by Nicodemus in strkjv@3:4,9|. Here scornful disbelief. {This man} (\houtos\). Contemptuous use pictured in verse 42|. {His flesh to eat} (\tn sarka autou phagein\). As if we were cannibals! Some MSS. do not have \autou\, but the meaning is clear. The mystical appropriation of Christ by the believer (Galatians:2:20; strkjv@Ephesians:3:17|) they could not comprehend, though some apparently were against this literal interpretation of "flesh" (\sarx\).

rwp@John:6:53 @{Except ye eat} (\ean m phagte\). Negative condition of third class with second aorist active subjunctive of \esthi\. Jesus repeats the statement in verses 50,51|. Note change of \mou\ (my) in verse 51| to \tou huiou tou anthrpou\ with same idea. {And drink his blood} (\kai pite autou to haima\). Same condition with second aorist active subjunctive of \pin\. This addition makes the demand of Jesus seem to these Jews more impossible than before if taken in a baldly literal sense. The only possible meaning is the spiritual appropriation of Jesus Christ by faith (verse 47|), for "ye have not life in yourselves" (\ouk echete zn en heautois\). Life is found only in Christ.

rwp@John:6:54 @{He that eateth} (\ho trgn\). Present active participle for continual or habitual eating like \pisteuete\ in verse 29|. The verb \trg\ is an old one for eating fruit or vegetables and the feeding of animals. In the N.T. it occurs only in strkjv@John:6:54,56,58; strkjv@13:18; strkjv@Matthew:24:38|. Elsewhere in the Gospels always \esthi\ or \ephagon\ (defective verb with \esthi\). No distinction is made here between \ephagon\ (48,50,52,53,58|) and \trg\ (54,56,57,58|). Some men understand Jesus here to be speaking of the Lord's Supper by prophetic forecast or rather they think that John has put into the mouth of Jesus the sacramental conception of Christianity by making participation in the bread and wine the means of securing eternal life. To me that is a violent misinterpretation of the Gospel and an utter misrepresentation of Christ. It is a grossly literal interpretation of the mystical symbolism of the language of Jesus which these Jews also misunderstood. Christ uses bold imagery to picture spiritual appropriation of himself who is to give his life-blood for the life of the world (51|). It would have been hopeless confusion for these Jews if Jesus had used the symbolism of the Lord's Supper. It would be real dishonesty for John to use this discourse as a propaganda for sacramentalism. The language of Jesus can only have a spiritual meaning as he unfolds himself as the true manna.

rwp@John:6:57 @{The living Father} (\ho zn patr\). Nowhere else in the N.T., but see strkjv@5:26| and "the living God" (Matthew:16:16; strkjv@2Corinthians:6:16|). The Father is the source of life and so "I live because of the Father" (\kag z dia ton patera\). {He that eateth me} (\ho trgn me\). Still bolder putting of the mystical appropriation of Christ (51,53,54,56|). {Because of me} (\di' eme\). The same idea appears in strkjv@14:19|: "Because I live ye shall live also." See strkjv@11:25|. Jesus Christ is our ground of hope and guarantee of immortality. Life is in Christ. There is no real difficulty in this use of \dia\ with the accusative as with \dia ton patera\ just before. It occurs also in strkjv@15:3|. As the Father is the fount of life to Christ, so Christ is the fount of life to us. See strkjv@1John:4:9| where \dia\ is used with the genitive (\di' autou\) as the intermediate agent, not the ground or reason as here.

rwp@John:6:66 @{Upon this} (\ek toutou\). Same idiom in strkjv@19:12|. "Out of this saying or circumstance." Jesus drew the line of cleavage between the true and the false believers. {Went back} (\aplthon eis ta opis\). Aorist (ingressive) active indicative of \aperchomai\ with \eis ta opis\, "to the rear" (the behind things) as in strkjv@18:6|. {Walked no more with him} (\ouketi met' autou periepatoun\). Imperfect active of \peripate\. The crisis had come. These half-hearted seekers after the loaves and fishes and political power turned abruptly from Jesus, walked out of the synagogue with a deal of bluster and were walking with Jesus no more. Jesus had completely disillusioned these hungry camp-followers who did not care for spiritual manna that consisted in intimate appropriation of the life of Jesus as God's Son.