THE GLORY OF THE SON OF GOD (4)
[p. 61] THE GLORY OF THE SON OF GOD (4)
JT The bearing of chapter 5 upon the end is of great moment, showing what the public profession is going on to. Divine Persons are seen as operating, incidentally bringing out the equality of the Son with the Father; and then that the operations of the Son go on to the final judgment, the resurrection of those who believe and those who are lost; and then the solemn fact that the one who is coming in his own name will be believed, which indicates the great importance of a clear testimony as to the Person of Christ in view of Antichrist. “The Father”, He says, “... has borne witness concerning me”, John 5:37. He receives not witness from man, but He recognises John; and the chapter shows at the end, the testimony of Scripture, and the validity of the writings of Moses as equal to the Lord’s words. The enemy is especially endeavouring to set aside Moses’ testimony; “But if ye do not believe his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:47).
Now chapter 6 contemplates a service in which the Lord includes His disciples. Chapter 5 is at Jerusalem and gives the general view of the public position, divine Persons operating to the end, and the public body becoming apostate; but chapter 6 is in Galilee, so that the position is changed and the disciples are associated with the Lord in this sign. It is a question of food; and the Lord may show us in our consideration of the chapter, that we have a part in the supply of food. The bearing of it is towards all; whatever we have in the way of food is for all. It says, “After these things Jesus went away beyond the sea of Galilee, or of Tiberias, and a great crowd followed him, because they saw the signs which he wrought upon the sick”. That is, we [p. 62] are away now from the scene of religious power and officialism, and special opposition to Christ, so that there is some interest; and interest even of this kind is not to be despised, even if occasioned by the signs. It is God approaching the profession from the standpoint of a remnant under reproach, but with food. It is not on the level of current religion, for the Lord goes up, as verse 3 says, “into the mountain, and there sat with His disciples”. The Jewish passover was near, but He was going on with His disciples in moral elevation, so that a new position is taken up and food is supplied, having a bearing towards all. The things said about spiritual food, are said in Capernaum, which is especially the sphere of testimony, and links on with the religious opposition. (Compare Matthew 11:23).
HES Are you calling special attention to the fact that nothing is said about the disciples in the previous incident, but they are specially mentioned in this one?
JT Yes. Chapter 5 contemplates an act of the Lord by Himself. It is a movement, as you might say, in Christendom, in the very heart of the system, and those in high places were reached. God began to move; it was not done in a corner, but in the very heart of the religious system. But there was no permanent result. But divine Persons go on, and now a new position is taken up in the place of reproach “away beyond the sea of Galilee”, but the bearing of it is towards the whole profession, and the disciples are associated with Him in it.
DLH Why is the “passover, the feast of the Jews”, referred to here at the outset, because the Lord was in Galilee with His disciples?
JT I thought it was just to denote that the current religious procedure goes on uninterruptedly, but He was going on too; as if we have to leave the fact that such religious procedure goes on, and not be hindered [p. 63] by it.
AFM In this scripture we have the disciples, as you were saying, and then at the end we have the twelve baskets gathered up. Is there a connection between the two thoughts of administration?
JT I think that is what we shall come to. The twelve baskets bring in the thought of the administration of food, and then, at the end, the Lord speaks to “the twelve” without saying more than that, as if the idea of administration is now coming into evidence. But if we have part with the Lord in this service from this moral elevation in the despised place, He will draw us on to His own side; there is obligation attaching to it. The number would denote that it is obligatory upon us, and that the service is to be carried on according to divine manipulation, each having his appointed part. It is very precious to be drawn to the Lord’s side, to sit down with Him; to start on this line and come into the idea of the twelve, which will go on into the heavenly city. Because there is nothing less before us now, and the great culmination of the administrative idea in the number twelve is in the new Jerusalem. The Lord, in referring to the apostles, does not go beyond “the twelve”, giving the idea that it may be taken up at any time. Where love is amongst the brethren, you come to recognise divine appointment, not perhaps exactly official, but nevertheless there is the recognition of divine appointment and ordering.
Ques Would that have an application in connection with the preaching, and the preachers of the gospel in a locality?
JT Well, somewhat, if we are dextrous enough to avoid officialism, to have the thing without the official garb. I think the word “twelve” just saves us from that. It is a select number, and the administrative idea is in it, so that the preaching of the gospel in our rooms partakes of this idea. Then that introduces another thing, that is, first principles in levitical service. We are told that Peter stood up “with the eleven”. Not only did he recognise that he was one of the twelve, not only did he look to them as supporters, but he owned, in that he stood up with them — not they with him — that there were others, that they also could preach. That would make room for all in the principle of it. If one stands up to preach he recognises that others can and do preach.
Ques You say if we are dextrous enough to avoid the official garb; do you think we are liable to fall into the danger of the official garb?
JT Yes. The number twelve has in mind that love exists underneath. If a new meeting is formed, there is the appointment of certain persons to look after different services. There is great danger of becoming official, whereas it is simply that the work has to be done, and the principle is that I am available and the brethren allow me to do it. But the Lord greatly modifies the use of the disciples here, because, according to the better rendering. He hands the food to the people Himself; He keeps us more or less out of view, and yet we are in view, because He speaks to Philip first about it, and says to him, “Whence shall we buy loaves that these may eat?” It is as if the Lord would say. Now I give you the opportunity, what will you do about this? He does not put any obligation upon Philip to provide, but it is simply to bring out where he was, which is an important and exercising thing.
SJBC Philip was occupied with what was needed, and Andrew was occupied with what they had, but neither of them seemed to have grasped the great truth of the sufficiency of Christ.
JT It is an important thing to have our weakness exposed. It is a source of strength just to know how weak and ignorant we are.
Ques Would not the fact of this being a little boy and the meagreness of the supply, encourage us in whatever conditions we may be found in a day of confusion [p. 65] and weakness like this? The Lord is always competent to take up what there is if it is taken up with Him. Is there that thought in it?
JT Quite so. He “knew what he was going to do”, and it would be done. Thank God for that! Things are going to be done, but what about those of us who are allowed of the Lord to take part in the service? The Lord would disclose to us just where we are.
AFM There is a suggestion here of two hundred denarii. Is it not better to own that we have nothing, in order that the Lord may come in for us?
JT This calculation of two hundred denarii worth is a question of mathematics; there is no spiritual touch in it at all. That is how things come out. However clever he may have been in calculating, there is the absence of a spiritual touch with Philip.
Ques Does the Lord expose the position in order that He may use what is there?
JT Exactly, so that we are discovered; and only He can disclose just how ignorant and weak we are. When that is done, the precious fact is present that “he knew what he was going to do”, but in doing it, He would have them with Him intelligently. If we are to be with Him intelligently He must disclose to us just how ignorant and weak we are.
EJMcB Do you think in the unspiritual view that Philip took of it, the Lord would indicate to us that when a new move is being made, you want to confine your exercises to what is spiritual, rather than view the situation from the wealth of the people in actual money? Is that in your mind?
JT Yes, because if we are not spiritual we shall come forward with our mathematics, or something else like it, mere knowledge that can be acquired according to man. It did not take a converted man to calculate as Philip did; it was not even levitical.
PL Does not John close his gospel with the suggestion that mathematics fail in the presence of this glorious Person? “I suppose that not even the world itself would contain the books written”, John 21:25.
JT Very good. A scientific man would scoff at it, and say it is absurd that the world could not contain the books, but it is a spiritual thing. We get mathematics in John in the Revelation, wonderful measurements governed by the number twelve, in the city, which are absurd to the natural mind, but we have to learn to think spiritually.
Ques What is the import of the Lord’s question, “Whence shall we buy loaves”? It seems to take in the idea that they had not bread, but of the possibility of buying it.
JT It was to bring out what was going on in Philip’s mind: “But this he said trying him”. If I have a mathematical mind, or a mind only able to compute on natural lines, when I should think spiritually, the Lord knows how to expose it. It was a matter of exposure. “He knew what he was going to do”, and He knew what was going on in Philip’s mind.
HD'AC A mathematician cannot deal with what is infinite. Christ was there, and what was infinite was there in Him, so there is no limit to His resources.
JT Exactly. Of course a mathematician could deal with the number of persons present, and that is how Philip calculated. But it is the absence of a spiritual touch that we should notice. If Philip had been spiritual at that moment, he would have turned to the Lord and said. You are the One to answer that question. But his answer indicated that he had no true sense of the greatness of the Person who was speaking.
PL Is there a contrast at the end of this chapter between the cold mathematician Judas, who reasoned in figures in chapter 12, and Peter’s love for Christ: “Lord, to whom shall we go” (John 6:68)?
JT Quite so; the end of the chapter brings out that the Lord was making headway with His disciples, but not with the public; it says that many were going [p. 67] away from Him in spite of the signs. They wanted to make Him a king; that was the effect upon them, because He could feed them. There is the absence of a spiritual touch on their side all through. But when you come to Peter’s reply, you have a spiritual touch.
Ques I suppose we may have to learn that what is committed to a few, will prove to be sufficient to fill a universe?
JT Quite so, if it is connected with Christ; a spiritual link is the solution. So that Philip makes his statement, and then, “One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother”, speaks. Notice those two men, because of what is said of them elsewhere. They are the two that tell the Lord when the Greeks come up; they represent a certain element in this gospel. Both of them are soul-finders. Philip was a soul-finder, and so was Andrew; they were both worthy men according to chapter 1, but they miss this. They are brethren who serve well, but miss at a critical time. They miss the spiritual touch, they do not make allowance for the presence of Christ and what He can do; so that Philip magnifies the need, and Andrew minimises the supply.
HES Is the teaching of John that every fact and circumstance that comes before us is to teach us some spiritual lesson?
JT Yes. The great objective is John 20, where we are brought into the spiritual realm, and all this instruction is to lead up to that. But it has a special application at the present time: that if the Lord gives us anything in the way of food, the bearing of it is general. However little it is, if it is connected with Christ it will be enough. So that it says, “One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, says to him, There is a little boy here who has five barley loaves and two small fishes; but this, what is it for so many?” Before you have the actual food supply brought forward, there is exposure, and one feels the importance of it.
[p. 68] The Lord alone can expose us to ourselves; and how ignorant and unbelieving we are after all.
ER I thought the reason why Philip was selected was because of what he confessed in chapter 1: “We have found him of whom Moses wrote”,(John 1:45) but he was not true to what he knew.
JT He had a good start; he found Nathanael, and knew just what to say to him, and brought him to Jesus, but he is defective here.
AFM Would you mind indicating to us how it is that we may miss the point at such a valuable moment?
JT It is a question of state, which is the most difficult thing to discern. What can you say about a man’s state? You can only go by what comes out. But it is a question of state in relation to Christ. The Lord probes us in this way; He is going to do a wonderful thing and He wants us with Him in it, but He will have us with Him thoroughly probed and exposed, so that we know just where we are as to intelligence and faith.
Ques Why is he called Simon Peter’s brother?
JT I suppose to bring out who the person was; there was to be no doubt as to this. He would be a very weak link in the chain if he were not exposed; and we want to be quite sure who he is. He has an important place, because he was the one who brought Simon to the Lord. You might think he would never do any thing wrong, but we want to be on our guard. However distinguished a man may be, whatever weakness there may be in him must be exposed, at least to himself.
WCG A past act of faith does not prove that a man is in faith now.
JT That is true; it must be continuous.
HMS Do you attach any importance to the fact that this long chapter is largely answers to unbelieving questions, until you come to Simon’s great question at the end: “Lord, to whom shall we go?”(John 6:68)
JT [p. 69] I think that helps to the understanding of it. Peter is the great result in the chapter. I think he is a son of light in relation to the testimony, he is true to his position as one of the twelve. I suppose we find all these questions in our own histories. The chapter helps us as to what the flesh is in its many forms. It must have been very refreshing to the Lord to find one man right: “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast words of life eternal”, John 6:68.
HD'AC Andrew little knew that there was One there who could feed a starving world.
JT The Lord would bring us into this at the present time, that this food, though it may seem very small, is to be linked up with Him, and hence the importance of chapter 5, to build us up in the knowledge of His Person. Here it is not so much the Son of God, as the Son of man, as He tells us, “Work not for the food which perishes, but for the food which abides unto life eternal, which the Son of man shall give to you; for him has the Father sealed, even God”, verse 27.
MWB Do you think they were truly followers here? They were not delivered from circumstances as is suggested in the previous chapter.
JT That suggestion is very good. The man who is able to carry his bed, ought to be able to carry these circumstances. Every emergency that arises is met as we understand the Person of Christ. He takes them up to the mountain, and they sit down with Him. What a wonderful position after all the light of chapter 5! You feel as you are sitting down with Him, that you would like to listen as He would disclose to you about Himself and about His Father. Philip and Andrew show that they had missed all that.
JJ Does verse 9 suggest that the Lord was looking beyond the supply from the twelve to Paul’s day?
JT Just so. It is some one who has very little distinction. Andrew minimises him and calls him a “little boy”, some one of no consequence, but still he [p. 70] has got something. That is the next point. Possibly it may make room for Paul and all his ministry, but the moral idea of the teaching is he is some one of no consequence but he has got something, small though it be: “There is a little boy here who has five barley loaves and two small fishes”. I think the effect of chapter 5 is to make you very small. If you think of the greatness of the Person who is operating, you feel very small, however great you may be really. It came out in the apostle Paul: “who also is Paul”,(Acts 13:9) which means small, but he had something. The moral teaching is that we should be on the look-out for persons who have something.
AFM Is that not where the substance is, in one who is small enough to take in all the great thoughts of God, as exemplified in Paul?
JT Yes. As you dwell upon the greatness of Christ, it tends to make you little in your own eyes; people do not regard you as a person who is very great and consequential. But keep your eye on the man that has something of value. It was to Andrew’s credit that he knew the boy had it, and just what he had. To apply it, he must have heard him give ‘a word’ in a meeting, or pray; he knew that little boy’s measure, but he did not think he was equal to the emergency. Andrew would not think this little boy could ‘give an address’ or ‘take a reading’, but he knew he had some food.
JJ So that the Lord could say. He is “an elect vessel to me”(Acts 9:15), when Paul was in view. It says, “he knew what he was going to do”.
JT That helps us as to the application of it as to Paul, because the Lord must have taken counsel, so to say, in regard to him: he is “an elect vessel to me”; he had been in the Lord’s mind and He knew what He was going to do with him.
Ques Would the little boy normally develop into the grown man at the end of the [p. 71] chapter?
JT I do not think he was morally little. He was a bigger man than Andrew. That was Andrew’s estimate of him. The truly spiritual man is little; he does not think of himself in any other way, and so he does not give out that he is some great one. Very often people who do are taken on their own valuation, whereas people may not think much of one who has a small estimate of himself. It very often takes the Lord to value us rightly. Andrew would never forget this, nor would any of the disciples present, I am sure, forget it.
JJ Would Andrew be something like Barnabas going to seek out Saul?
JT Well, you are putting him in good company, because Barnabas understood thoroughly. He did not minimise; he knew that Saul was the man for the work at Antioch, and he brought him there. They worked together for a year, and there was a wonderful result at Antioch.
Ques Is there anything special in their being barley loaves?
JT I think the barley was not very valuable. It has another meaning, it is the first-fruits of the harvest, but I doubt if that is the force of it here. It was rather to minimise what was there, that it was not wheat; it would have been more valuable if it had been wheat. It was a common cereal, and, I believe, the cheapest kind of bread you could get.
MWB Rather like the barley loaf that tumbled into the camp of Midian, Judges 7.
HMS Do you think this little boy was just the right vessel for the moment, just as the little maid in 2 Kings?
JT Just so. Also like Jonathan and Ahimaaz in David’s day when he was fleeing from Absalom, and the maid that carried to them the news. She was a link in the chain.
HFN What would be the contrast between the little boy here and the man from Baal-shalishah who brought to the man of God “bread of the first-fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of corn in his sack”, 2 Kings 4:42?
JT That is a very interesting comparison. In the first place he is a man; and he comes from a certain place, the name of which signifies that it was ruled by a lord, and then he has a large supply. I understand he represents one from heaven, as it were, with the full knowledge of what was needed at the moment. The supply of food was brought to the man of God, and according to the word of Jehovah through him, there was enough and to spare.
Rem Perhaps like John himself, coming at the end of everything with his gospel, and epistles, and Revelation.
JT Well, just so, coming in on the heavenly side.
HFN I only wanted to get a little help as to the difference between the thought of the boy, and the way the man comes into view.
JT I think Ephesians brings out the latter, the apostle is in full keeping with what he is presenting. He would have them to understand his knowledge of the mystery, and what he has in the way of intelligence.
HFN I had in mind what you said, that Ephesians contemplates the full grown man. The word ‘boy’ is used several times in the New Testament. You have the reference to it in Matthew, and then you have the Lord Himself so designated in Luke, then Eutychus in Acts 20, and here you have John’s boy. Would there be any teaching in regard of it? Matthew is the only one who says the boy was demon possessed (chapter 17). Then in connection with Eutychus when Paul embraced him it is said, “they brought away the boy alive”;(Acts 20:12) and then you have the holy “boy Jesus”, Luke 2:43.
JT If you take the “boy Jesus”, it is the Spirit of God speaking of Him in that way; that is to say, He was perfectly normal. I think the one here is just a boy in the mind of Andrew — insignificant.
[p. 73] Ques Would he suggest some one who had an apprehension in measure of what came out in the Lord’s Person in the previous chapter?
JT I think that is the meaning of it. He is a sort of product of what had gone on. He was not minimising what he had; he had some food. Then as to Eutychus, he is called a “youth” at the first, which is more undefined, but at the end it says, “they brought away the boy alive”, Acts 20:12. I think the spiritual meaning is, that Eutychus was a potential man. But that is not the case here; it is that Andrew was minimising what was there. The “boy Jesus” is the normality of His growth as in incarnation.
HD'AC Was not the little boy a pattern to the whole company? He had brought enough food for them, and if each of them had brought as much, the need for the miracle would not have been so great.
Rem As regards Eutychus, the passage in Acts 20 says the saints “were not a little comforted”, verse 12.
JT If you have a potential man there will be comfort. Eutychus would be this, through the extraordinary experience he had.
FSM Would there be a willingness on the part of the boy to surrender what he had into the hand of Jesus so that there might be wealth for the company? I was thinking of the way the true Joseph is seen here. Pharaoh recognised the greatness of Joseph and said, “there is none so discreet and wise as thou”, Genesis 41:39. I wondered whether if they had recognised the greatness of Christ here, that would have been their answer: “there is none so discreet and wise as thou”, Genesis 41:39.
JT Exactly; whereas the cup-bearer of Pharaoh minimised Joseph; he referred to him as a Hebrew servant in the prison, but if he had profited spiritually by what had passed before his eyes in Joseph, he would never have alluded to him in that way. He never met a man like him, even Pharaoh was not his equal, but he minimised Joseph in his mind, which is very often the [p. 74] case with ourselves. Pharaoh never minimised Joseph; he always speaks of him according to what he is.
HES Was it a calculation of an unspiritual mind in regard to this little boy?
JT I think Andrew’s calculation is unspiritual.
Rem It is singular for he had abode with the Lord “that day”, (John 1:39).
HFN Does what you have been referring to in connection with an unspiritual touch, raise the whole question of the chapter as to our spiritual constitution, and food forming it? Is that really what will bring about the spiritual touch?
JT Exactly; you must have a constitution in keeping with the light you are brought into. What is remarkable in the history of Israel is, that when they arrive at the Jordan they are to provide themselves victuals. God had been doing that for them in the wilderness for forty years. In John it is a question of passing out of death into life, as we get in chapter 5; and chapter 6 is the food that is necessary for that. It is a question of the supply which arises whether you have it or not; this little boy had it.
JHT Why does the Lord pass over the disciples in verse 11, in the distribution of the food?
JT I think they had disqualified themselves; He still has to go on doing the needful things Himself. We may think we are doing a good deal, but the Lord gives us to understand that He is doing the work.
DLH Does that not correspond with the Psalm which says, “I will satisfy her needy ones with bread”, Psalm 132:15?
JT I think it does. He is doing that here, and He would take us on in it. In the other gospels He does use them, but not here; nor does He use them to find the ass in this gospel; He finds it Himself. Well, I think all that is to remind us how weak things are, so that we should think soberly so as to be wise. So that if the Lord does the thing Himself when He might [p. 75] have used them, why is it? It was surely a challenge to them.
AFM The only part they have in this is to gather up the fragments; is there some point in that?
JT Yes. He says to His disciples, “Gather together the fragments which are over and above, that nothing may be lost”. That surely is an important service showing that we should value all the Lord gives. Nothing should be lost. The idea is that it is to be kept for administrative purposes; the time will come when it will be needed. If we undervalue or discredit what the Lord gives so bountifully, the supply may slacken or cease entirely.
PL Would that be like Joseph during the seven lean years when the food was stored up in the cities?
JT Very much.
Ques Do you think our brethren in the time to come will profit by the ministry that is carried over?
JT I doubt if they will understand it; the setting of things is so different.
AFM Would the value of gathering up the fragments be that we may have it now in the form of written ministry, in a permanent form, to be used at times when oral ministry is not so abundant?
JT There is the principle here of food being kept. I think the primary thought of the faith was what was kept in the hearts of the saints. Writing seems to have come in later. Baskets are vessels in which things are preserved and carried. Written ministry may be included here, but the truth must be held in faith if it is to be handed on.
JOS Why is it men? “Make the men sit down”. In the other gospels it is them.
JT They would be the more responsible. There were women and children, as we learn elsewhere, so I suppose men would be the responsible element.
Ques In regard of the baskets and the gathering up, would it be what was said of Mary the mother of the Lord, that she “kept all these things in her mind, pondering them in her heart”?(Luke 2:19) Would that be similar?
JT That was the principle. There is the idea of preserving and carrying things forward, that nothing of previous ministry is lost.
PL I wondered if John himself, writing so many years later, did not represent the fragments gathered up.
JT It is very interesting to think of how matured he must have been in writing of these things, as an old brother and apostle. I suppose the Lord took him up specially and prepared him to deal with these weighty matters.
FWW Do you look at the second sign in this chapter as the complement of the first?
JT The first is food by which the constitution of the believer is built up, and the second is the Lord’s supremacy as outside of and above all evil here. It says, “But when evening was come, his disciples went down to the sea, and having gone on board ship, they went over the sea to Capernaum”. Capernaum in this chapter is a special place of testimony. I think the second sign is the complement of the first. They went across the sea to Capernaum. It is a question of leading on in the education of the disciples. In the first sign they were exposed and humbled, although allowed to gather up the fragments. I apprehend the presence of the fragments would be a rebuke to their unbelief; but now they are to have a further lesson.
We must notice Capernaum, for what the Lord said later was in the synagogue in Capernaum (verse 59), and His references to Capernaum elsewhere — the mighty works done there — would show it was a special place of testimony. He is going to call it to account presently, and He would have before us the importance of testimony, as He said to the cleansed leper, “... for a testimony to them”, Luke 5:14. However small it may be, testimony is of immense importance. It says, “And it had already become dark, and Jesus had not [p. 77] come to them, and the sea was agitated by a strong wind blowing. Having rowed then about twenty-five or thirty stadia, they see Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the ship; and they were frightened. But he says to them. It is I: be not afraid. They were willing therefore to receive him into the ship; and immediately the ship was at the land to which they went”. This is an important sign. The sign in chapter 5 would enable us to carry our circumstances, that they should not carry us; but here we have the Lord walking on the water — and agitated water — that is to say, it is a situation directly affected by Satan. Can I walk on that? That is the next lesson. But as soon as they receive Him into the ship they are at the land, which I think means solid and known ground; we know where we are. This, added to the first sign in the chapter, would greatly enhance the Lord’s greatness in the minds of the disciples. There is no need to fear any more with a Person who can do these things. It says, “They were willing therefore to receive him into the ship”.
Rem This is another side to Matthew 14.
JT I have no doubt it is the same incident, but another aspect of it; Peter is not seen walking on the water here. It is rather reserved for the end of the chapter to tell us of Peter’s progress: “thou hast words of life eternal”, John 6:68. This, in a way, is more than walking on the water.
HMS Referring to the first sign in the chapter, they recognise Jesus as the prophet, but why do they wish to make Him king?
JT Is it not the disposition of men to appropriate Christ in relation to their needs here? The whole of Christendom has done that; it is not a question with them of going outside the world; and so, when they come to make Him king, the Lord said it was because they had eaten of the loaves and the fishes; but they were totally blind to the position. Christendom even in its most [p. 78] favourable aspect, is blind to the moral import of what is professed. The Lord says, “Work not for the food which perishes, but for the food which abides unto life eternal, which the Son of man shall give to you; for him has the Father sealed, even God”, John 6:27. That is, they would make Him king, but He would bring in the economy of grace, which is a much greater thing. Then He said, “It is not Moses that has given you the bread out of heaven; but my Father”. John 6:32 Is your thought that in chapter 5 the gain of His being present was not received, but His activities in this chapter bring gain to the disciples?
JT There is gain and much greater general interest, which is in keeping with Galilee. Even interest in the crowds is not to be despised. But it is an interest that tends to appropriate Christ in relation to this world, and for material gain, which is utter darkness to the position; and so He brings in the sealing of Himself as the Son of man by His Father, even God, and then He says, “It is not Moses that has given you the bread out of heaven; but my Father gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world”. John 6:32,33. He brings us into the economy of Christianity, and presents the food afforded there.
AFM I suppose it would change all their thoughts if they had “eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk his blood”;(John 6:53) they would not have aspired to make Jesus king in this world.
JT Showing that eternal life stands outside the realm of nature, not only outside the realm of this world in its bad sense, but the whole realm of flesh and blood. It is a dead Christ that is food for eternal life, a Christ whose blood is separate from His body — that is, the end of human conditions as they are now. He that eats His flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life. One may seek to appropriate Christ for material gain, whereas eternal life is outside of that altogether;
[p. 79] and the food for it is a dead Christ in that sense. As having given His flesh for the life of the world His blood is separate from His body, and that is the end of human condition in flesh and blood; a lesson perhaps of which we know little. I confess I know very little of John 6, but I see that the food is the flesh of Christ, and the drink is the blood of Christ. Eating is a figure used for appropriation. Eating is appropriation, in the power of the Spirit, of the great fact that Christ as here in flesh and blood is here no longer. He has died, it is the end of all flesh and blood conditions.
WCG Does it correspond with the quickening of the Spirit in verse 63?
JT That helps as to this chapter — the spirit of it. The Spirit quickens; we have to understand that the Lord is not thinking of actual flesh and blood; it is spiritual. He wants us to understand what is signified in appropriating Him as dead, that it is the end of flesh and blood conditions. But there is the eating of Himself as He is now, as it is said in verse 57: “he also who eats me shall live also on account of me”.
Ques Could you help us as to the different ways in which the Lord speaks of Himself in this chapter, such as the “bread of life”?
JT “The bread of God is he who comes down out of heaven” (verse 33). That is its source; it is coming down, not simply come down from heaven, but coming down. Then, the “bread of life” (verse 49) is the bread which sustains life.
SJBC What is the distinction between the bread of life and the manna?
JT The manna is a living Christ here on earth in everyday life; the Lord was in ordinary circumstances as we are; manna is how He acted in those circumstances. That is, I think, what the manna means. It came down from heaven too; it was rained down.
SJBC Are the living bread and [p. 80] the manna synonymous?
JT I do not think so at all. The manna was for sustenance in the wilderness; this food is for going over Jordan. It is very like the ‘victuals’ that were required in Joshua 1: “Prepare yourselves victuals”. The word denotes strong meat; it is stronger meat than the manna. So it does not appear they go over Jordan in the power of the manna merely, although it did not cease till after they went over. Evidently there was other food required. It is another word, something taken in hunting, something strong, needed for the passage over Jordan.
HWS Is there a difference between eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and what is said in verse 57, “he also who eats me”? Is that a further thought?
JT It is appropriating Him as He is now.
GWW Does not the suggestion that they would come by force and make Him king, indicate that they had no true sense of who they were, nor of who He was, but for the believer the feeding produces moral suitability in the soul for association with Christ?
JT That is right; so that we go over Jordan in the power of this food. ‘Victuals’ denote strong meat, something to build up a constitution equal to the crossing of the Jordan. For, after all, if it be the article of death, perhaps if we challenge ourselves we are not ready to face it, but it is a question of being fed to face it, so that it is no surprise to us when it comes.
JJ What is the reason for the change in the title? It is the Son of God in chapter 5 and the Son of man in chapter 6.
JT The Son of God is generally what He is on God’s side towards us; but this is a lowly Man coming down here, giving His flesh and blood for the life of the world. It is Christ on our side, and He goes up on our side — the Son of man going up where He was before. It is wonderful to travel the road indicated here and see Him go up, so to speak, for it is the building [p. 81] up of a spiritual constitution in us, culminating in Peter’s remark. In answer to the Lord’s question, “Simon Peter answered him. Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast words of life eternal; and we have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God”, John 6:68,69. It is what they had believed and known. It is not a revelation from the Father here. The point is to show that there was development, that some one is getting on, and that is our salvation in the testimony. If some one gets on, others will follow. Peter is the leader in this confession. He speaks for the others, but obviously the light he conveys is in his soul. There is somebody getting on, and so he says, “we have believed and known”. The faith and knowledge extend back, and are continuous, and there is this beautiful speech: “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast words of life eternal; and we have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God”, John 6:68,69.
DLH Is it not important to notice that the eating in this chapter is connected with eternal life, whereas the eating of the manna is never so connected?
JT Never; the manna is to sustain us here in our life of flesh and blood.
Ques What is the significance of the expression, four times repeated, “I will raise him up at the last day”, John 6:40?
JT That is very comforting as to the resurrection. The “last day” is the last day, and so the victory is sure; whatever happens in the interval does not affect it.
HD'AC Why does Peter say, “the holy one of God”? It seems rather disappointing. You would have thought he might have used a greater term like “the Son of the living God”.
JT That is what some theologians thought he should have said. The Textus Receptus has these very words, but the New Translation has the former.
HD'AC It seems to be somewhat of a drop.
JT It is a drop; but I think the point is that Peter says just what he believes. He has reached a [p. 82] very important point as knowing that Jesus is “the holy one of God”.
SJBC He does not go beyond his measure.
JT No. Matthew 16 is, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”,(verse 16) but that is revelation. This is distinct progress founded upon what he had observed in Christ, because he says, “we have believed and known”, John 6:69.
Ques Does the first epistle of Peter work this out experimentally? “To whom coming, a living stone, cast away indeed as worthless by men, but with God chosen, precious, yourselves also, as living stones ...”, 1 Peter 2:4,5.
JT That is right. It is growth, constituting believers living stones, so that they come to Christ as the Living Stone. He could speak of it feelingly, for that is what is indicated here. Jesus had words of eternal life, and He was the Christ, “the holy one of God”. The thought of holiness at this juncture is most significant.