JOHN 6 (1)
JOHN 6 (1)
FER In chapter 4 we noted the communication of the Spirit, and the well of water springing up into eternal life; then in chapter 5 we get the voice of the Son of God and what that voice implies, and now, in this chapter, we get living bread.
Ques And that is connected with the Son of man?
FER Yes, quite so. The contrast between chapters 5 and 6 lies in this — that in the former we have the Son of God’s part, as it were. He is there presenting God, but now in this chapter He comes within the range of man’s appropriation, on man’s part. In chapter 5 it was, “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live” — that is what I understand to be speaking on God’s part, but when He comes as living bread, He gives life to the world, that is on our side. Grace brings Him within the range of our appropriation — eating is appropriation in that way — grace brings the Son of God within the range of man’s appropriation. He has become the Son of man to that end. Hence the great idea in the chapter is food — that which sustains. It is not light, as in the previous chapter, but that which sustains and supports. “My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed”.
Ques It is more what He becomes, would you say?
FER Yes, quite so. It is not a mighty voice [p. 81] speaking as in chapter 5, bringing light to man from God — here it is quite the other side. So the chapter opens with the feeding of the multitude. The two miracles which introduce the two chapters are important — the palsied man raised up in a moment by the word of Christ, and here the feeding of the multitude.
Rem It is interesting to see how John illustrates, in that way, what he puts forth.
Rem This chapter supposes life, and brings in what is necessary to sustain it.
FER I think you must take these three chapters together, no one of them gives you the truth completely. Each one gives its own teaching, but you must take the three together.
Rem They do not repeat one another in any way.
FER No. And each one is essential, and you cannot do without it. It is not a question of the grace of God, or a man getting the forgiveness of his sins, but the point in these chapters is life.
Ques In what aspect is Christ Himself presented as the Bread? In what way is He the Bread?
FER It is Christ Himself the portion of man’s heart. There are two great ideas in the chapter: His death and His priesthood — that is, for the full support of man, of the believer. “He that eateth me, even he shall live by me” — that is priesthood. The people say, “This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world”, but then He goes up on high as a Priest, and then the word is, “He that eateth me, even he shall live by me”. That is where priesthood comes in. The Priest has reference to all that Christ is on our side. He is the Mediator on God’s side, but on our side He is the Priest.
Ques Then Mediator and Priest are two quite different ideas?
FER Oh, yes, totally different. Mediator is from God to man, while Priest is what He is on our [p. 82] side Godward.
Rem In the previous chapter He comes out as Apostle.
FER Yes. But He really comes out as last Adam. It is from God to man in life-giving power; so He raises the dead — it is the power of God acting upon man. But this chapter stands in the greatest possible contrast to that; here He has taken such a course as to put Himself within the range of man’s appropriation.
Rem I suppose the first step is incarnation, and then He comes into death — gives His life for the life of the world.
FER Yes.
Ques Does not this chapter give Christ as the manna?
FER Well, He uses the manna as a contrast. He is in contrast with the manna. “This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die”. He does not use the manna as a type, but rather in contrast. The whole question here is not the wilderness, for which the manna was suited, but life — that is, in the latter part of the chapter.
All the miracles in John are of very great moment. They are not introduced in the ordinary way of miracles at all, simply as an expression of the goodness of God to men, as in the other gospels — for instance, in Luke, “Who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him”. In the gospel of John they are undoubtedly “signs” — they all bear witness to the One who did the miracles. You lose the force of the miracles in John if you do not apprehend them in that light.
Rem When He turned water into wine, it says, “This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory”.
FER Yes, and undoubtedly the raising up of the man in chapter 5 has that same force.
[p. 83] Ques You would connect that principle with all the miracles in John?
FER Yes, I would. Take the raising of Lazarus — He says, “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby”. They were all reflective, they bore witness to the One who did the miracles.
Ques How do you reconcile the Bread and the Priest? The Bread came down out of heaven.
FER But if He had not become a Man, He could not be a Priest. Feeding is simply a figure of appropriation. You make the food your own. “The bread ... is he which cometh down from heaven”. You could not have an efficient priest except One come down from heaven. The fact is that the Priest must come down from heaven as well as the Mediator. Man has nothing at all for God, and even on man’s side all must come down from heaven.
One undoubted feature of the gospel of John is the complete ignoring of all that went before. It is a new point of departure, and not a part of anything that had been.
Ques He is still the living bread come down from heaven?
FER Yes; it is characteristic of Him. There are two expressions used: “cometh down from heaven” — that is characteristic, but “I came down from heaven” is historical. This is what actually occurred.
Rem That was because He alone could conduct us into eternal life.
FER Yes. It is not simply a man raised up down here, but He is going to lead you in; and in order to be led in, you must have what came down from heaven. “In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee”. Well, that comes down from heaven.
Rem The fact is, the Priest [p. 84] must die.
FER Exactly; eating His flesh and drinking His blood means that I die too — it is the appropriation of His death. It is my death experimentally, in the sense of deliverance. It has been pointed out that the miracle is a fulfilment of Psalm 132, “I will satisfy her poor with bread”.
Ques Is there a difference between “He that eateth me, even he shall live by me”, and eating His flesh and drinking His blood?
FER They are manifestly two distinct ideas, but we are a little anticipating. You see, His death is deliverance to the one who appropriates it. It results in the deliverance of the soul from the whole course and system of things in which the flesh lives, but then that is only one side. Deliverance must come in, but you also want someone to conduct you into what is heavenly, and that is where the Priest comes in.
Ques I thought the verse referred to Christ as incarnate — “the living bread which came down from heaven”?
FER Yes, quite so. But the question of place does not come in. I think the prominent idea in the passage is not the place, but the Person. If you come to the question of place, as Paul would look at it, He is at the right hand of God, but John does not look at it in quite the same way. Of course you could not take up priesthood officially on earth, but you get the principle. The Lord was a Priest to those about Him, that is, His disciples, not officially, perhaps, but He was so virtually. He was their stay and support, and I think He is that to us now.
Rem When He prayed for Peter, that was a priestly act.
FER Yes, quite so. You get the principle of the thing there. I have said that you could not understand the assembly at all if you do not see what Christ was here upon earth in the midst of His own, and yet, of course, you do not get the assembly before Pentecost — [p. 85] no one would pretend that for a moment. I think it comes out very markedly in the Lord’s supper. The very first participation of the Supper was when the Lord was in the midst. You have to distinguish between a position taken and what He was morally.
Rem That is interesting to me, for it had often been a point to me His having prayed for Peter.
Rem And He speaks of Himself as the Comforter — at least He speaks of “another Comforter” as though He Himself were one.
FER Yes, He does. And you must bear in mind that John does not recognise the old system — everything is completely new; nothing that went before is recognised.
Ques You mean He does not recognise the old Levitical law?
FER Yes; everything is new. In the previous chapter He says, “The hour is coming, and now is”. He gives a present application to what had not yet strictly come in.
Rem That clears up many difficulties, I feel.
FER Well, people have tried to construe the thing in a kind of literal way, but they only mar it.
Now this passage is introduced with the testimony of the feeding of the multitude. It is a witness to Christ as a divine Person. All that God had predicted with regard to Israel was really there, and, just as in the previous chapter, this had been witnessed to by the raising of the palsied man, so here you get another principle testified to, that is, perfect administration. He uses the bread that was there, and His disciples share with Him in the distribution of it to the people. It is a picture of perfect administration.
Ques It is a picture of millennial times?
FER Yes, I think so. I often think if I were not a Christian I should be a really awful man. When I see the inequalities of the world, the dark contrast between the intense poverty and great luxury — dreadful [p. 86] poverty, grinding poverty — it afflicts me tremendously, and if I had not the sense that God knows better than I do, if I had not the check of being a Christian, I should just be an out-and-out radical. But I have no doubt that God knows how to modify things in reference to people. With the world as it is I have not a vestige of sympathy. What I mean is that, with the Lord in His rightful place, you will get perfect administration coming in, and you will not have these inequalities. When He was here, they had “bread enough and to spare”, and when He comes to administer things, you will not have the enormous inequalities which exist now.
Rem It could not be, for we read that every man is to sit under his own vine and fig-tree.
FER I believe that God will strike a fatal blow at all the great commercial system, as we see it growing now. It is as evident as possible, from the prophets, that God will strike a blow at Tyre — the symbol of commercial activity. The proper function of ordinary government here is to protect life and property, but if they were to attempt to equalise things now, they would bring about only the direst confusion. It is beyond man — only God can effect it.
Ques Why did not the Lord allow them to make Him a king?
FER Well, He would not allow Himself to be made a king by the will of man; and, besides, man was not to be trusted. The very same people that would have made Him a king today would crucify Him tomorrow. There will be no question of His right to be king when He comes again. They would not accept Him as the Son, and they could not, therefore, receive Him in any other way, “He received from God the Father honour and glory”. His glory is that He is Son, and it was not even the Father conferring anything upon Him, but recognising what belonged to Him. I think it was a mere momentary impression [p. 87] with these Jews. They were affected by the miracle for a moment, but it was the mere conviction of the human mind.
Rem And depended a good deal upon the fact of their appetite being satisfied.
FER Yes, quite so.
Ques Is there any special reason for connecting this with Psalm 132?
FER Well, it shows the fulfilment of that psalm, or, more correctly, a sample of the fulfilment of it, and not only that, but it contained in it a much more general idea. It really refers to millennial good, but the power was in the Person — it was a testimony to the Person. It is not only the miracle, but the manner of the miracle, the way in which the miracle was carried out, that was a testimony to the Lord. He connected it all with heaven, teaching that heaven was the real source of blessing and good for man.
Ques Was His position on a mountain alone a figure of His present position?
FER Yes, I think so. He refuses to be made a king by the will of man, but then He goes up on high, a figure of the priestly place He now occupies.
Rem I suppose the kingdom could not be on a stable foundation except by death.
FER No. Death was essential, and so it is said, “He tasted death for everything”. His death is a most wonderful thing to me, not simply in the sacrificial aspect of it, but in that it was the great testimony of God. It was that which ruined Satan; it is the testimony of God come into death. Man, with his genius and abilities, might have thought it a strange thing that he should be under death. He might have said, Here am I, with ability and genius, and yet liable to death; but the great answer God gives to that is Christ come into death. In the presence of that you could not have any doubt as to the love of God — it is God’s answer to Satan, too.
[p. 88] Rem It is the voice of the Son of God come into death.
FER Yes, quite so. He speaks from the place of death — He brings in the testimony of God’s love.
Ques Would you say that that was a greater voice even than His life?
FER Yes, in one sense it was. “God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us”. He went about doing good, but His death was the greatest proof of His love. He brings the testimony of God’s love into death, and in the presence of the death of Christ, could you have any doubt or question about God’s love?
Ques Would you say a little more as to that point? I do not quite understand your thought.
FER Well, we were speaking of it last week; the voice of the Son of God is heard because He comes into the place of death, and it is there His voice is heard.
Ques Is it to the morally dead?
FER Yes. But then “all were dead” before God’s eye. Christ comes into death, and what I understand by His “voice” is that which His voice speaks, it is what is peculiar to Himself.
I think what comes out here is a kind of dispensational picture. He goes up on high, and comes down again. It is the same scene as that which comes before us in Matthew 14, but here you get that, as soon as He came into the ship, they were at the land whither they went, and you do not get the incident as to Peter.
Rem But, practically, appropriating the death of Christ is, in a way, like Peter walking on the water.
FER Well, it is; you might well connect them. The Lord gave witness to His being King when He rode into Jerusalem. He was Zion’s King, but everything here, as I understand it, was in the way of testimony. Everything had to be taken up really on [p. 89] the ground of divine righteousness, but the Lord was here in testimony to everything.
Ques I suppose His death was the one great thing He did for us?
FER Yes. He died for us really that we might receive sonship. “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law; that we might receive the adoption of sons”.
Now we come to the didactic part of the chapter, but first you get the sea, a picture of the whole scope of moral death down here, agitated by Satanic influences (verses 18 - 22). It is a picture of what will be when the Lord comes into things again in connection with the Jews upon earth, and so “He bringeth them unto their desired haven”. He makes Himself known to them, and, I think, comes into what is, in a kind of way, suitable to men down here, that is, the ship.
Ques Do you think they brought this trouble upon themselves, in a way, by going without Jesus?
Rem In Matthew 14 it was Jesus who constrained them to go into a ship.
FER Yes, and it was necessary for the purpose of God. I think it was typical of what they will enter into in the future in a very real way. They will know then what the agitation of the winds and the waves really means actually. They will get the sea then, and no mistake, acted on by Satanic influence.
Ques This represents the Jewish remnant?
FER Yes; in the future, clinging to the boat which God had given them, but feeling the agitation of the winds and waves. They will be exposed to the activities and energies of Satan. We get in Revelation that when Satan is cast down from heaven, he turns to persecute the seed of the woman, to make war with the remnant of her seed.
Ques That would represent the nation, or rather [p. 90] the remnant?
FER Yes, the remnant. I think the Lord will appear, as I understand it, for their salvation, and faith will recognise Him then. The true remnant will be counting on it. I suppose there is no one living who would deny, even now, that the influences of Satan act upon the world. No one would have imagined how things are affected by Satanic influences. Masses of people today are influenced in a way that they cannot account for.
Ques What is meant by the words, “Except those days should be shortened ... for the elect’s sake” — does He really limit the time?
FER Yes. He really limits it to the three and a half years. He puts that limit upon it.
Ques In verse 27 (John 6), what is “sealing” there?
FER Well, I suppose, as Son of man, He had been sealed. It refers to the sealing of the Holy Spirit.
Ques What is the force of “sealing” in His case?
FER Well, it is marking Him out as God’s — that is, as Man, He is marked out as God’s. He could not be sealed in the same way as Son of God. God puts His seal on Him. After the same manner the Holy Spirit is the seal in regard to Christians.
Ques Would you say that we appropriate Him who is Heir of all things in the mind of God — the Son of man?
FER Yes, I think so. It is in contrast to what comes out in the preceding chapter. In chapter 6 it is the Son of man, but in chapter 5, if I might use the expression, He is in touch with God, in concert with the Father, acting in concert with Him. When you come to chapter 6, He is in touch with man, so He says, “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed”.
Ques What do you understand is the meaning of their question, “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?”
FER He answers them, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent”. He does not leave much to be done on their part.
Rem How very much it is like what they said to Moses, “All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient”.
FER Yes, indeed, and you find the very same thought in man’s mind to this day — “Teach us how to work the works of God” — that is their thought. But what they want is light. “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent”. Man does not appreciate his need of light, he seeks direction as to how to work, but what he really wants is the first principle of all, and that is light. How can a man work in darkness?