John 6

John 6:1-71

The Gospel According to John John 6:1-21 John 6:1-21. In the ministry of our Lord, the central period commenced with the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and found its culmination in the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi. That period lasted for about two years; and it is the period to which John gives least attention. All he has to tell us about it is found in chapter six, running over into the first verse of chapter seven, which marks the end of the period. From this period John selected two signs in the realm of works, and one in the realm of words.

In this chapter we have the record of these three signs, and they are closely connected. The two signs in the realm of works followed each other in sequence; and the first sign in the realm of words, grew directly out of the sign wrought in the realm of works, when He fed the multitude.

In these twenty-one verses we have two signs in the realm of works; in the scheme of John the fifth sign, the feeding of five thousand; and the sixth, the stilling of the storm.

The importance of the sign of the feeding of the five thousand is evidenced by the fact that it is the only miracle of Jesus, using the common word, recorded by the four evangelists. ‘Mark, the writer of the first Gospel unquestionably from the standpoint of time, tells the story. Matthew who follows him, repeats it. Luke who came a little later, gives it; and now John, writing much later, records the story also. What its significance is, will be discovered when we consider the discourse that grew out of it. Now we look at the sign in itself; and at the first effects which were produced; and at the fact that it was immediately followed by another, the stilling of the storm, which had its relation so far as His disciples were concerned, to the sign of the feeding.

What was the occasion upon which Jesus wrought this sign? I ask the question, because John does not tell us. He simply says, “After these things,” and nothing is told us as to the occasion. Moreover he omits many details supplied by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. He omits nothing that is essential to the value of the sign, but only details which are helpful in our thinking about it. So I am going to refer to the other records, in order that we may see when it occurred.

Such reference shows first that this sign was wrought after the twelve returned from their first mission. We learn secondly that it occurred almost immediately after the death of John the Baptist. And finally we discover that the sign was wrought about the time when Herod had expressed his desire to see Jesus. Filled with fear after the death of John, he heard of Jesus and His wondrous doings. In all likelihood he had heard a good deal about Him before then, but had passed it off as having no particular value. Herod had passed under the influence of the preaching of John, and as I believe, at one moment had very nearly yielded his life to his preaching. It is a significant statement that Herod “had heard him gladly.” Then he had yielded to lust and passion.

Now John was dead, murdered at the behest of a dancing wanton; and Herod heard about Jesus, and he sought to see Him, for, he said, John Baptist was risen from the dead. That creates the atmosphere of this sign.

John does not give us particulars of the immediate circumstances. “After these things Jesus went away to the other side of the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias. And a great multitude followed Him, because they beheld the signs which He did on them that were sick.” Again this is a translation which misses the point a little. The tenses of the verbs are suggestive. Let us read it, slightly changed. “And a great multitude were following Him, because they were beholding the signs which He was doing.” It is not merely the record of an occasion, but of a constant thing. The time had now come when these people were constantly and habitually following Him. It was at that time that “Jesus went up into the mountain, and there was sitting with His disciples.” Thus the occasion is revealed from John’s standpoint. The hour had come when Jesus practically had no rest. The multitude was following Him. Wherever He went they were beholding the signs He did. Constant activity on the part of our Lord. Constant interest on the part of the crowd. Because of those conditions, “He went up into the mountain, and there He was sitting with His disciples,” seeking retirement, seeking rest. “The Word became flesh,” and entered into all the experiences of human life; among the rest, felt the weariness that comes from the pressure of the crowd.

In that connection John tells us, “The passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand,” thus emphasizing the greatness and eagerness of the crowds that were round about Him ; and continuing, says “Jesus therefore lifting up His eyes, and seeing that a great multitude cometh unto Him, saith unto Philip.”

Here again the narrative by John is condensed. Once more then, we refer to the other Gospels; and our reference here is pertinent and important. From them we learn that He had spent a whole day teaching those crowds. Luke tells us that He was teaching them concerning “the Kingdom of God.” John records the desire of Jesus to feed the crowd. He was teaching them concerning “the Kingdom of God”; and yet, understanding their hunger, He desired to satisfy it.

Then comes the story of the discussion with Philip and Andrew. Desiring to feed the crowd, the Lord turned to Philip, and He said, “Whence are we to buy bread, that these may eat?” What an amazing question. Five thousand, as the event turned out, of men; and Jesus said, Philip, where shall we buy bread to feed them? Philip did not answer the question, as to the “where.” He said in effect, What is the use of talking about “where” when we have no money to buy. Two hundred pennyworth of bread would not be sufficient for everyone to have a little.

In that connection John makes a revealing declaration; “He Himself knew what He would do.” It is sixty years ago that in the city of Bristol I was taken by my father to Bethesda to hear George Muller preach. I can see him yet, that wonderful old man. That was his text. “He Himself knew what He would do.” He could not pronounce it in good English; he had a quaint and picturesque German accent. Sixty years have gone, and I have never lost the effect of that sermon, for it helped me to understand the ways of my Lord.

That is the only occasion on record when Jesus is said to have asked anyone for any kind of advice. We never find Him consulting with anyone except here; and here John by inspiration has written, “He Himself knew what He would do.” He asked the question to prove Philip. He did it to give Philip his chance. Philip’s answer was the answer of calculation, with no sense whatever of the significance of the question from the standpoint of the ability of his Lord.

There was one man who went a little further. It was Andrew. He said, “There is a little lad here, which hath five barley loaves and two tiny fishes.” The word for lad and the word for fishes are diminutive.

But observe the reaction in Andrew’s word, almost the reaction of amusement, “but what are these among so many?” Five loaves and two wee fishes. Andrew did make a venture of faith, and then half laughed at his own suggestion. Philip’s answer was an answer to a direct challenge, and was perfectly honest. Andrew, perhaps looking into the face of Jesus, said, Well, there is a wee bit of a laddie here who has five barley loaves, and two tiny fishes, but, what is the good? “What are these among so many?”

Thus the disciples around their Lord, interested and sincere and honest. Neither of them said, Thou canst deal with the situation. Why not? Because they did not see it. Such honesty is far preferable to making a profession of apprehension, while in the heart there is questioning.

Then the sign was wrought. He did not criticize either of His disciples. He had no unkind thing to say to them. He had asked and received from Philip an answer of perfect honesty. He had heard Andrew’s suggestion, and He fastened upon it. Our Lord said in effect, Very well, I will take your suggestion, Andrew, “Make the people sit down.” Mark says they were sitting in companies.

There was orderliness about it. John says it was on the grass. Look at that crowd. Then look at the supply. The lad and the Lord. As to the lad, the supply was absolutely inadequate; but as to the Lord, the lad s inadequacy is sufficiency, plus.

Plus? Yes, twelve baskets full presently. It is a revealing story in every way. Our inadequacy is patent. But He will take our five loaves, and two little fishes, and make them suffice

" ‘Twas spring time when He blessed the bread, And harvest when He brake." Mark tells us of the multitude that “they were all filled.” Philip said, If you spent two hundred pence you would not give everyone a little. But when Jesus gets down to the business, it is not a snack that tantalizes, but a meal that satisfies.

So the great sign was wrought. Its real significance we shall discover presently. It is well here to remember that Mark tells us concerning the disciples, “They understood not concerning the loaves, for their heart was hardened.” They were not yet keen and sensitive enough spiritually and emotionally to apprehend the real significance of what Jesus had done.

What were the immediate issues? These are revealed in verses fourteen and fifteen, and are most suggestive. “When therefore the people saw the sign which He did, they said, This is of a truth the prophet that cometh into the world.” In our course we have come across that expression before. They had asked John on a memorable occasion, “Art thou the prophet ? " We saw then that the reference was to that stupendous word of Moses that a day should come when a prophet should arise like unto himself. Now these people said of Jesus, “This is of a truth the prophet that cometh into the world.” Through Moses, God had fed the people in the wilderness with manna. Now here was Another, Who had fed them when there seemed to be no resource. They said, Surely this is that prophet.

In the discussion which followed they referred to the manna. Well now, if the prophet had appeared, what did the crowd propose to do with Him? They decided to make Him King. “They were about to come and take Him by force, to make Him King,” on the basis of this sign.

Thus we are brought into the atmosphere of the false materialistic conception these people had of Messiahship, and of the Kingdom of God. Their own thinking about their own Scriptures showed how completely they were at fault.

What happened? “He withdrew”; in other words, He declined Kingship on that basis. Matthew and Mark tell us that the first thing He did was to send His own disciples away. John does not tell us about their being sent. He simply referred to the fact that they went over the sea. Matthew and Mark tell us also that He dismissed the crowd, and then went to the mountain to prayer.

To summarize. He had fed the crowd. They were impressed by the wonder of that feeding. They were filled with food. I sometimes think that the biggest mistakes in the world are made when men and women get filled with food. They were filled; they were impressed. Why, they said, this must be the prophet. The time has come; we will take Him by force; we will compel Him to be King, He Who can, without labour, fill our bellies, must be Messiah.

Jesus got His group of disciples, and said, Get into that boat and go to the other side. And then, somehow, I am not told how He did it, but perhaps with some word of august authority, He dismissed the crowds. They went, and He went to the mountain to pray. He went for communion with His God. So it ended. The scattering crowds, the dismissed disciples, the retired Lord to the mountain side. And now we see the little boat making its way across, and when it is about twenty-five or thirty furlongs from the land, that is, quite literally, about half way across the sea, the storm broke upon them. Jesus had sent them there, out of the danger created by the popular movement to make Him King. What those disciples longed for above everything was to see Jesus King. Of course they did. Their love and loyalty made them desire it, and now the people were about to do it. They did not understand any better than did the crowd.

They knew more about Him, but they had not grasped the significance of His Messiahship. I can imagine the joy on the faces of the little band when there was a popular movement to make Jesus King. I have seen the same kind of look on the rapt faces of a crowd in this country when a speaker has told them of the wonderful fact that a man in Hyde Park flung his cap up in the air, and said, “Hurrah for Jesus!” Most likely the man who flung his cap up was making the same mistake about His Kingdom, that it is a Kingdom dealing first with material things, and bringing in a new social order on a bread basis. Jesus, the Incarnate Word, would have none of it. He sent His disciples out of the danger zone, and He went to the mountain for communion with His Father.

Then it was dark, and the sea was rising, and the disciples were at their wits’ end. There is much to be said for them. They were loyal. The wind was contrary. These men were accustomed to handle boats. They knew how to manage a boat from the standpoint of mere craftsmanship.

If the wind is contrary, there is only one thing to do from the craftsman’s point; put the boat about. A little dangerous perhaps. The moment of real peril occurs when the boat is broadside; but a skilful manipulator of a boat can do that, and then run with the wind, and the wind that before was contrary, now blows the boat back to safety. Why did they not go back? He had said the other side, and they never dreamed of going back. Though they were ignorant of the spiritual significance of the Master’s mission, they did not dream of going back.

They kept on, and then something happened, the sign was given.

They saw a Figure approaching them, walking, head against the contrary wind, for He was overtaking them. The wind which was holding them back, was not holding back that approaching Figure. The seas were raging, and threatening to engulf them; but this strange, mysterious Figure coming after them, seemed to be walking on adamant, was not sinking. What they saw-let us put it bluntly-was a ghost, an apparition; and the fear of the apparition was greater than the terror of the storm. It always is. We may say we do not believe in ghosts. No, but if we saw one, we should be frightened! And they really did see one. They saw this on-coming spectre, this apparition.

Then came a voice that was familiar, “It is I; be not afraid.” And the Lord was with them. They received Him into the boat, and the boat reached the other side in safety.

Now mark this carefully. None saw that sign but His own disciples. It was a sign for them only. Why? I can only answer suggestively. It seems to me that when He sent them in that boat across the sea, He knew the keenness of their disappointment, and their perplexity, that He would not be made King. Perhaps they wondered and questioned as to whether after all, He had Kingly power and authority. So He gave them a demonstration of His present Kingship, and that in the realm of Nature. It was as though He had said, I have refused to be crowned King upon the basis of bread, but make no mistake, I am King in every realm; King in the realm of Nature, contrary winds cannot hinder Me; the tossing sea cannot overwhelm Me. I am King.

Mark says, “They were sore amazed in themselves.” “They understood not concerning the loaves.” The connection is self-evident. “They understood not concerning the loaves.” The fineness of what He had done did not penetrate their understanding.

This statement of Mark should be closely linked to that of Matthew, who tells us that “they worshipped Him,” and they said, “Of a truth Thou art the Son of God.” There is no contradiction. Amazed, not understanding, yet they worshipped, and recognized that He was indeed the Son of God. It was a sign for His own, and so full of significance that we might deal with it for the comfort and correction of our own hearts, and the revelation of the glory of our Lord.

What do we find in these two signs? False and true ideas of Messiahship brought into sharp contrast. The false idea was that of a Kingship on a bread basis, a material basis. That was their conception of Messiahship, and of the Kingdom of God, of which He had been teaching them. It was that conception that put Him on His Cross. It was that conception that blasted the Hebrew people; and it seems to me, is still holding some people in thrall to-day.

Bread, and all material things, are within His Kingdom. But He will not begin there. He will not be made King on the basis of being a wholesale food provider. True Kingship must rest on a spiritual basis. Because the disciples understood not the loaves, in great tenderness He gave them the sign of His Kingly authority and power in the natural and the material realm. In so doing He certainly intended to strengthen them at the moment of their wonder and disappointment; and so eventually to lead them to the fuller understanding. John 6:22-40. Here once more, John introduces a very definite time note, “On the morrow,” thus linking the sign of the feeding of the five thousand, with the discussion which followed on the next day, and with the superlative claim that our Lord made in connection with that discussion.

This paragraph has three movements. First, the occasion is clearly revealed, that is, the occasion, leading to the uttering of the claim. At the commencement of our studies we saw that the scheme of John is the selection of signs, which he claims prove that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that the selection consists of eight signs in the realm of works, such things as we commonly designate miracles, and eight signs in the realm of words, the great central and superlative utterances of Jesus, all of them in the nature of personal claims, and every one introduced by the formula “I am.” The first of these now occurs. The occasion is revealed in verses twenty-two to twenty-five.

The second movement in verses twenty-six to thirty-four, records the way in which Jesus rebuked the crowds.

The final movement in verses thirty-five to forty, bring us to the great sign in words, consequent upon the miracle wrought in the realm of works, and the address which He had delivered to them in rebuke.

Verses twenty-two to twenty-five, revealing the occasion, are confessedly a little difficult to read. All expositors agree that the passage is a complicated passage. Nevertheless the sequence of events can be clearly stated. Two days are referred to; the day on which our Lord fed the five thousand, and the day following. On the day of the feeding of the five thousand, the people saw the disciples enter the boat, and start across the sea; and they saw that Jesus did not go with them in that boat. That was the first day.

The day after, the people who perhaps had scattered far and wide for the night, gathered together again, as they were so constantly doing in those days in the public ministry of our Lord. They found Jesus and His disciples still absent. They had seen the disciples go across the sea the previous evening, and they had seen that Jesus had stayed behind. In the meantime other boats had arrived, and some of the multitude entered into those boats, and went across where the disciples had gone. They did not at all know where Jesus was, but only that He had not gone with the disciples. Presumably He was still on this side of the sea.

When they arrived, they only found one boat there, that in which the disciples had gone, but they found Jesus there. The natural question was, How did He get there? So they came to Him and said, “Rabbi, when earnest Thou hither?” That is the setting of the story.

Then we come to our Lord’s answer. He began with that solemn formula, which He so often employed, when there was something He would specially emphasize:-

“Verily, verily I say unto you, Ye seek Me, not because ye saw signs, but because ye ate of the loaves, and were filled. Work not for the meat which perisheth, but for the meat which abideth unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give unto you; for Him the Father, even God, hath sealed.”

Notice first that He did not answer their question. They asked Him when He came there. He told them why they had come. He ignored their curiosity, and went straight to the business that was on His heart. He said, You are not seeking for Me because you saw signs. But they had seen signs. No, that is exactly what they had not done. They had seen the wonder wrought, and the power put forth; but they had not caught the significance of the thing. He said, You are not here because you have seen the sign. You ate of the loaves, and you were filled, and that is what brings you here; but you do not understand; you do not see the sign. He thus revealed and rebuked their false interest.

Because they ate and were filled, they had tried to make Him King, and He would have none of it. In what He now said He revealed the reason of His refusal. Their interest was not created by any understanding of His teaching concerning the Kingdom of God, but because they ate of the loaves, and were filled. He then made a great appeal to them in those wonderful words: “Work not for the meat which perisheth, but for the meat which abideth unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give unto you ; for Him, the Father, even God, hath sealed.” He rebuked the reason of their interest, and then appealed, and in so doing repeated claims He had already made, that He was the Son of God, that He was authorized by God, and sealed by God.

These words of Jesus were immediately followed by discussion. They first asked a question. “What must we do that we may work the works of God?” They fastened upon His word work. He had said, Do not work for the meat that perisheth. Do not make that the supreme thing. Do not condition life merely within the material. Work for that which is supreme, which the Son of man, sealed by God, is able to give you. They caught His word work, and they said, “What must we do that we may work the works of God?”

What did these people mean when they asked Him that question? They certainly had caught a moral intention, if not a spiritual significance, in what He had just been saying. To them the works of God simply meant the Law, and obedience to legal requirements. They saw that in what He had said there was a moral significance. I do not think they had caught the deep spiritual significance. I do not think that they understood, what many men do not yet understand, that the moral is rooted in the spiritual; that if we lose the sense of the spiritual nature of man, we have lost all sanctions of any kind for morality. They were not recognizing the fact that morality is rooted in the spiritual, but they had caught the drift of what He said so far as the moral was concerned, and they said, “What must we do that we may work the works of God?”

And yet look at it a little more carefully. Their question had a spiritual drift, even if they themselves did not recognize it. They did not say, What are the works of God that we are to do. What they did say was, What shall we do that we may work the works of God? In other words, it was as though they had said; Yes, we see what You mean, that the supreme matter in life, is that we should be moral and upright, and keep the law; but will You tell us how we are going to do it? Whether they realized it or not, that was the cry that came out of their spiritual nature.

That was the question. It is the question of sincere men to-day. Men are not asking what is right or wrong; but they are asking, if not in actual words, they are asking constantly: Will anyone tell us how we are going to do the right? That is what they asked Jesus. “What must we do that we may work the works of God?” Not, What are the works of God we are to do? but, How are we going to do them?

Then, “Jesus answered . . . This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him Whom He hath sent.” Just as astounding an answer, as the question was an arresting and startling one. “This is the work of God.” They had not asked Him what it was, but He declared it; because involved in the work was the reply to the enquiry as to how the works of God could be done. “This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him Whom He hath sent.” In other words, they asked a question which was in the realm of the moralities; and He said in reply, I will tell you of one spiritual act which, if it be performed, will include the dynamic of all the moralities, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on the Son Whom He hath sent.”

It will be remembered that later on when He was talking to His disciples, just under the shadow of the Cross, speaking of the coming of the Paraclete, He said, “He, when He is come, will convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment”; and then explaining, “Of sin, because they believe not on Me.” “This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him Whom He hath sent.”

Because of the coming of the Word in flesh, sin itself found a new centre and a new interpretation. They were asking how they were to do the works of the law. His answer was, Believe on Me. To do that is to find the dynamic of holiness, and the ensurance of morality.

In what follows there is an arresting unveiling of human nature. “They said therefore unto Him, What then doest Thou for a sign?” That, in spite of the sign of the day before in the feeding of the five thousand. As our Lord had said, they had not sought Him because they had seen the sign. They had not. This is proved as they now asked Him, “What then doest Thou for a sign, that we may see and believe Thee?” “See and believe”! It is still often affirmed that “Seeing is believing.” Well, it is never true. Seeing is seeing.

Believing is being sure without seeing. But they had not done. They were still thinking about yesterday, and that feeding. “Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.” They were really going back on what they had seen yesterday; and saying in effect, Yes, it was a wonderful thing that Thou didst yesterday, and we thought to make Thee King; but after all, it was not so much the feeding of five thousand on one occasion. Moses fed the people in the wilderness for forty years on manna. Can You do anything as big as that? That is what they meant.

They were going back upon their own experience. They had not seen the sign. They had not understood its significance. They did not definitely say that Moses had fed them in the wilderness, but that is what they meant, as we learn from our Lord’s reply. “Verily, verily I say unto you, It was not Moses gave you the bread out of heaven.” He did not go any further than thus to deny the suggested comparison between Moses and Himself. He simply dismissed it. And then continuing returned to the real significance of the sign of yesterday;” But My Father giveth you the true bread out of heaven.

For the bread of God is that which cometh down out of heaven, and giveth life unto the world." To that they replied, “Lord, evermore give us this bread.” Had they apprehended? I think not. The woman in Samaria had said, Give me to drink of this water that I come no longer hither to draw. Human nature is just the same, whether in a Samaritan woman or a crowd of Jews. The same blindness is manifest. They were still material in their thinking. They swung back, and puzzled, said, Moses fed the people for forty years, and You say that through You God is sending bread out of heaven. Let us have it. They are still on the level of the material.

So we reach the great word. “Jesus said unto them, I am the Bread of life; he that cometh to Me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst.”

Keep these things together. They said, “Lord, evermore give us this bread”; with a half tone of mockery, He replied, “I am the Bread of life, he that cometh to Me shall not hunger, he that believeth on Me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, that ye haves een Me, and yet believe not.”

No words of exposition of which I at least am capable, can do justice to that marvellous claim. He had warned them against thinking in the realm of the material; He had warned them against thinking of dust only; He had warned them against attempting to reach the deepest necessity of life through material things. He had told them to work for the bread out of heaven which will meet the deepest necessity of human life. And then He said; I am that; “I am the Bread of life; he that cometh to Me shall not hunger; he that believeth on Me shall never thirst.” All the craving of desire, the underlying clamant cry of human necessity, I am here to meet.

They had been talking about Moses. In the prologue, the writer of this Gospel had referred to Moses. Now He went back to the great call of Moses, to the day when, eighty years of age, he came in the wilderness upon a bush that burned with fire, and was not consumed, and heard the voice that bade him put his shoes from off his feet, that the place whereon he stood was holy ground; to the hour in which Moses spoke to the Dweller in the bush, and said, Tell me, what is Thy name? Moses had heard the answer, “I AM,” and as probably he was waiting for a further word, which would interpret the “I AM,” it recoiled upon itself in the declaration, without interpretation, “I AM THAT I AM.” Centuries had passed away. Moses did not send you the bread from heaven. That manna in the wilderness met your physical necessity, but it did not meet your deepest need.

Moses did not send you bread from heaven. God has now sent you bread from heaven. He took the name of the burning bush, and linked it with the symbol of perfect sustenance for human life. “I am the Bread of life.” Thus He employed the simplest of terms, with sublimest significance.

Then He uttered their condemnation in that He said to them, You have seen Me, and yet you have not believed on Me; and gave them this word of assurance, “All that which the Father giveth shall come to Me; and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out. For I am come down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me.”

Thus again He was insisting upon the thing that had been under discussion before. Having claimed to be the Bread of life, He uttered their condemnation in that they saw and did not see; having eyes they failed to see. They had not apprehended. They saw the wonder, the power, but did not get its significance. Now He made His great claim, and in great tenderness said, All that the Father has given Me shall come to Me, and the Father gives Me all who come; and him that cometh, I will in no wise cast out. Then again linking Himself with the Father, He said, “I am come down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me.” And what is that? “This is the will of Him that sent Me,” that everyone that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on Him, should have the age-abiding life, “and I will raise him up at the last day.” Strange, that last word? Yet not strange at all. The resurrection is the ultimate issue of eternal life; and so He said, “I will raise him up at the last day.” There is a sense in which at this point we arrive at the beginning of the deepest notes in this Gospel according to John. Not the signs in the realm of works were most wonderful and stupendous; but the signs in the realm of words. Not the things He did, marvellous as they were, arresting as they were, supreme as they were, but the things He said mark Him for evermore as either the supreme imposter of all time, or One Who is infinitely more than human.

Taking this whole narrative, notice again that as in the desire of the crowd to make Him King, and His refusal, there was a sharp contrast between a false conception of Messiah-ship, One Who shall provide for the material; and a true conception of Messiahship, One Who deals first with the spiritual, and then with the material; so here again we find a sharp contrast. The quest of the crowd and the mission of the Christ stand remarkably in contrast. What was the quest of the crowd? Life. What was the mission of the Christ? Life.

The crowd wanted life. Christ was there to give them life. Wherein then is the contrast ? In the interpretation of life. Of course they wanted life, and so they wanted to crown Him. Life, they said, comes when we are fed, when the physical is satisfied; when our bellies are full we are living.

Many people think that to-day. Paul once with tears said of certain people, “Whose god is the belly.” We do not say that kind of thing very often to-day, and therefore the pulpit is weaker than it ought to be.

Some few years ago I heard an American preacher say things about the Parable of the Prodigal, which I will here repeat. He asked, Why did the prodigal leave home? He wanted life. How did he interpret life? If we may judge by to-day, he wanted clothes, and shoes, and jewellery, and plenty to eat and drink.

Life interpreted by the material. That is what these people were after. Christ came along, saying, I am come that you may have life, the very bread of life, that which meets the clamant cry of your human nature. Do not work for the meat that perishes. Do not make your life revolve around your belly. Work for the bread that cometh down from heaven, that which reaches the deepest necessity of your life.

And now to complete my reference to the American preacher’s interpretation of the prodigal. All the things he sought, he found when he got home. His father said. Bring forth the best robe and put it on him. He went to get clothes, and lost them, but the father had them. Put shoes on his feet. That is what he went to get, and he came back bare-footed. But his father found them. Put a ring on his hand. He wanted jewellery, but he lost his jewels when he was away, and found them when he returned. He wanted to have plenty to eat, and found starvation. It was his father who said, Bring forth the fatted calf and let us eat. He wanted a good time, and found misery. It was the father who said, “Let us be merry.”

And so all these things people are trying to get are really, in the last analysis, in the Father’s house; and if they get them apart from the Father’s house, they blast them, and damn them. They wanted life through bread. He was there to give them life through spiritual sustenance.

And so we close by listening to Him, as He uttered the supreme first claim, “I am the Bread of life.” From then until now, wherever and whenever humanity has found its hunger satisfied, its thirst quenched, it has been when it has come to Jesus, and at no other time, and in no other place. That first great sign in the realm of words, “I am the Bread of life “is a sentence that on the lips of any other than God manifest in flesh, would have been the supremest folly. John 6:41-71. This section is a continuation without break, in the story we were considering last. That is seen in the use of the word “Therefore.” “The Jews therefore murmured.” That is verse forty-one. In verse fifty-two, “The Jews therefore strove one with another.” And again in verse sixty, “Many therefore of His disciples . . . went back.”

As we read it, I wonder if we are not inclined to say what the disciples said, “This is a hard saying ; who can hear it?” not necessarily in the spirit in which they said it, to which I will come presently, and yet honestly. At this part of the Gospel we are face to face with that which is in some senses most difficult of understanding and interpretation. That does not mean we ought to shun it. It does mean that we cannot do more than gain a general impression of it.

Everything here grows out of the claim that Jesus made, “I am the Bread of life.” That claim caused difficulties in the minds of the people, and raised controversy; and it is that story which we have now read.

The paragraph again has two clearly defined movements; first an account of the controversy arising as the result of the making of the claim, verses forty-one to fifty-nine; and then that startling and revealing thing, the account of the effect that the claim and controversy had upon the disciples of Jesus.

The difficulties concerned His Person, and His declared Purpose. From verses forty-one to fifty-one we have the story of the difficulties concerning His Person; and then in verses fifty-two to fifty-nine, the difficulties concerning His Purpose.

As to His Person.

“The Jews therefore murmured concerning Him, because He said, I am the Bread which came down out of heaven.” As a matter of fact, He did not say that exactly in that form, but it was a perfectly fair summary of what He had said, that He was the Bread of life, and that He had come out of heaven.

“And they said, Is not this Jesus, the Son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how doth He now say, I am come down out of heaven?”

We see at once that their difficulty was created by their incomplete knowledge of Him. There is a sense in which it can be understood. The mystery of His Person had not been revealed, nor could be. As He moved amongst them, He was to them a Man, and nothing more. They thought they knew all about Him. They thought they knew His father and His mother. Seeing that they thought they had perfect knowledge, the problem of course presented itself at once as to how He could say that He had come out of heaven.

It was perfectly natural. I think very likely you and I would have said the same thing under the same circumstances. They could not know the mystery of His Person. If Mary had ever attempted to explain it, she would have been laughed out of court. I feel perfectly sure that one element of the sword that pierced her soul was the constant suspicion under which she lived.

But if we recognize that, let us recognize this also. They had no right to come to the conclusion that they knew all about Him. We never have any right, in our judgment of our fellow-beings, to say we know all about them. These men evidenced what our Lord had rebuked, a lack of spiritual apprehension and discernment of any kind. They said, We know all about Him, and therefore His claim cannot be true. It was a false method of approach.

They were completely bewildered. Their problem arose because of their ignorance, an ignorance in which they were content to rest, instead of investigating what He was saying. They had sought Him, not because they had seen the sign. They had seen the wonder, but they had not seen the sign, had not caught the significance. In order to direct their minds to the level of the spiritual He had spoken at length to them, and made His claim. They still saw nothing.

Now how did our Lord answer their difficulty? First of all it is to be observed that He did not correct their blunder. He did not say to them, No, you are wrong at that point. I am not the Child of Joseph and Mary. He ignored it. But He did that which was equivalent in another way. He first of all told them the reason why they could not understand Him.

“Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to Me, except the Father Which sent Me draw him.”

Then He flung in again that little sentence which He had already used, and which He repeated later, with regard to the ultimate,

“And I will raise him up in the last day.” Thus in another way, in different words, He was saying to those people exactly what He had said to Nicodemus in the first year. Nicodemus had said, We know Thou art a teacher come from God; and Christ in effect had said to him, You cannot know anything, you cannot see, you cannot enter into the realm over which God is reigning, the Kingdom of God, unless you are born again. So to these people He said, The reason why you do not apprehend is to be found in the fact that no man can know all about Me, and reach Me in fellowship, except the Father Which sent Me, draw him.

Then notice particularly that while relationship with Jesus Christ depends upon God’s action, it is equally true that it depends upon our response. He quoted here this remarkable word,

“It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God.” Mark the significance. You cannot come to Me, said Jesus, except you are drawn; but that is no excuse for your ignorance, because God is drawing you; “They shall all be taught of God.”

Then what follows is full of significance;

“Everyone that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto Me.” Mark the two things; the drawing of God, and learning by man, which means that on his part there must be response. So, in language full of mystic value, He told these people that the real reason for their blindness was found in the fact that they were not learning, were not responsive to the Divine drawing; and until they were, there could be no apprehension, " Except a man be born anew, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.”

Then going on concerning Himself,

“Not that any man hath seen the Father, save He Which is from God, He hath seen the Father.” He was referring to the claim that He had made, that He had come down from heaven. In this connection He said, “He that believeth hath eternal life,” and repeated His claim, “I am the Bread of life. Your fathers did eat the manna in the wilderness, and they died.” He thus went back to their own reference to the manna, and contrasted it with Himself. “This is the bread which cometh down out of heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.” Again, reiterating His claim, He said,

“I am the living Bread Which came down out of heaven; if any man eat of this Bread, he shall live for ever; yea, and the Bread which I will give is My flesh, for the life of the world.”

Mark the significance of this. What did He mean when He spoke of “My flesh”? I think we must interpret that by going back to the beginning of the Gospel, to the great central declaration of the Prologue, “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.” “The Word became flesh”; was another way of saying, that when He came into the world, God created a new humanity, grafted on to the old by an immaculate conception and virgin birth. His flesh was a new humanity. That is the living Bread, “the Word was made flesh.” His flesh was thus given for the life of the world; and the sustenance and satisfaction of human life can only be found as that life, that new human life, typified under that great word “flesh,” because revealed in flesh, is taken, assimilated, and enters into human experience.

And so we come to the second difficulty, growing out of His answer to the first, that of His purpose.

“The Jews therefore strove one with another, saying, How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”

This again was a quite understandable question, because they were thinking only in the realm of the physical and the material; while all the time our Lord was using these things in order to illustrate the realm of the eternal and the spiritual. Spiritual blindness characterized them still. How can a Man impart His own humanity to another man, so that other man shall assimilate it, and find the life of that humanity dominating his own? How can this be? It was a pertinent suggestion on their level. They had not caught the significance. They had not understood that He was speaking of His entire personality.

And so we pass to His answer to them. He introduced it again with that formula He used when He would re-arrest attention.

“Verily, verily, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, ye have not life in yourselves.”

The term “flesh,” standing, as we have said, for the whole fact of His human nature, the term “blood” was at least a suggestion of His death. He was using figurative language, and He said, Unless you eat that flesh, unless you partake of that humanity ; and unless you drink of that blood, unless you enter into the experience that comes by the way of the shedding of blood, you have no life in yourselves.

Then He made again His positive claim:

“He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal life”; and again the reference to the ultimate,-

“I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, an dl in him.” The result of that feeding and that drinking, of that assimilation of that new human nature through the mystery of blood, is that of vital union. Thus our Lord, under these confessedly startling figures of speech, all growing out of His claim to be the Bread of life, claimed that humanity can find in Him that which will sustain and satisfy all its deepest need.

And so we come to the record of the results among His disciples of this teaching. “Many therefore of His disciples, when they heard this, said, This is a hard saying.”

I said at the beginning of this study that if any of us had been inclined to say in the presence of these mystic words and teachings of Jesus-in which through illustration He was endeavouring to lift men out of their materialized thinking into the realm of spiritual truth, of the essential fact of human nature-that it was a hard saying, I hoped that we had not said it, as they meant it. As a matter of fact the word “hard” (skleros), means harsh, rough, objectionable. Hard there does not mean obscure, but offensive. Many of His disciples said, This is a hard saying. Now, we cannot go any further with Him. They did not mean that what He said was obscure.

It was perhaps obscure, but they did not mean that. They meant it was offensive, the idea of eating His flesh, and drinking His blood. They broke with Him there. I am quite content to leave that without any lengthy comment, save to say that attitude towards that kind of teaching, which is central to the record of the earthly ministry of our Lord, has often raised that kind of objection. It has been said that the hymn,

“Not all the blood of beasts On Jewish altars slain,”

represented a “religion of the shambles.” Horrible phrase, but revealing the same attitude. Now what had our Lord to say to them?

“Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples were murmuring at this, said unto them, Doth this cause you to stumble? What then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending where He was before?”

What did He mean? Is what I am saying to you about eating My flesh and drinking My blood, causing you to stumble? Is there something objectionable in that? What if you see the Son of man ascending where He was before? Did He mean, If this caused you to stumble, how will you be caused to stumble presently when I go back whence I came? That is certainly what He meant; but involved in it was His recognition of the fact that He was moving ultimately to a Cross, a shameful and ignominious death, the Cross that was to the Jew a stumblingblock, and to the Greeks foolishness.

He was about to ascend where He was before, but by the way of the Cross. A little later on, in chapter twelve, He said, “I if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Myself.” “From the earth “is too weak. Ek is the Greek word, “I if I be lifted up out of the earth.” How was He lifted up out of the earth? By the way of the Cross. Yes, but it was not the Cross alone. It was the Cross, followed by the resurrection, and the ascension.

He was going back, but He must go that way; and He was telling them that if they stumbled when they listened to language which they could not perfectly apprehend, how would they do in that dark hour, to human seeming, that was coming to them when He thus ascended?

And now, right in the midst, occurs His statement which illuminates everything;

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life.”

They were listening to what He said about eating His flesh, and drinking His blood, wholly on the level of the material. Then He said, “the flesh profiteth nothing.” As though He had said to them, Do not be blinded by the dust of the physical and the material. See through the things I am saying to you. The flesh, as you are thinking of it, profits nothing; the words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. It was His appeal to them to recognize that the ultimate was not the flesh, but the spirit. But the flesh was definite and positive.

It was. Yet the Incarnation itself was of value, and of value only, because through it men are brought to God Who is Spirit. Not even the material in the actuality of the flesh of Jesus was of any value save as it was the means by which men apprehended, and were drawn nearer to God. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . and the Word became flesh . . . and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father. . . . No man hath seen God at any time, but the Son, . . . hath declared Him.” God declared through Incarnation is the ultimate value of Incarnation. The moment we take this chapter of John, or take any of these things, and make them the ultimate in our thinking and our religion, we are out of touch with the spiritual. It is only as we pass through them, it is only as we recognize that when we come to the Table of the Lord, the material is nothing at all, save as it may be a suggestion of that which lies behind it, that we find its true value. “The flesh profiteth nothing.” He Who had just said, You must eat My flesh, and drink My blood, now distinctly said the flesh as flesh alone, profiteth nothing; it is the spirit which is life.

That is to say that what is suggested by the flesh, is of supreme value, not the flesh. And then come these startling words, “Upon this, many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him.” John has written that as strongly as it can be written. That kind of thing sifted the ranks of His disciples, and there was a definite break with Him on the part, not of a few, but of many.

“Many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him.” Jesus said therefore unto the twelve, Would ye also go away?” that is, Do you also want to go?

Then was given Peter’s great answer: “Lord, to whom shall we go?” That declared the uselessness of going. “Thou hast the words of eternal life.” That revealed the reason for staying. Peter had caught something of the significance of the teaching, and the statement, “The words that I have spoken are spirit, and are life.” “Thou hast the words.” By them we know that “Thou art the Holy One of God.” But the sifting took place. “Many went back, and walked no more with Him.” Hard sayings, They were only thinking on the level of the material. He had fed the multitude, and they had wanted to make Him King. He had rebuked them for working for the meat that perished; and then had taken the figure of the Bread of life; claiming to be able to satisfy all the needs of human nature. He had figuratively revealed the method, eating His flesh, sharing in His humanity; drinking His blood, entering through the gate of sacrifice into life. It was a hard saying, offensive to the carnally minded; and yet the saying which introduces us to the deepest mystery of spiritual life and religion.

I think the best place to close this meditation is with Peter’s question. Jesus said, Would you also go away? Do you wish to leave Me? And Peter said, “To whom shall we go?” Exactly. If we turn our back upon Him, because our intellect is baffled, because we cannot grasp at first all the spiritual significance of what He says, and perhaps never shall on this side of the Glory come to perfect apprehension; are we to go back, and part company with Him, and leave Him? To whom shall we go? Who else would be able to meet our deepest need?

“Now none but Christ can satisfy, None other name than His.”

Mystic, strange, even to us in this hour; and yet snrelyf with that central light burning in the chapter, “It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing,” we may enter into the meaning of His teaching, and hear Him saying again, “I am the Bread of life,” and find experimentally the truth of the claim.