João 6

A.T. Robertson · Citado em PreceptAustin

João 6

Robertson - Those in this discourse (I have just spoken, lelalēka), for they are the words of God (John 3:34; John 8:47; John 17:8). No wonder they "are spirit and are life" (pneuma estin kai zōē estin). The breath of God and the life of God is in these words of Jesus. Never man spoke like Jesus (John 7:46). There is life in his words today. Bob Utley on "the Spirit who gives life" This is one of many phrases that are used for both Jesus and the Spirit. the Spirit is life-giving water (John 7:38-39) Jesus is the living water (John 4:10-14) the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13) Jesus is the truth (John 14:6) the Spirit is paraclete (John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7) and Jesus is paraclete (1 John 2:1) Notice in this verse that "spirit" (pneuma) is used in two specialized senses. the Holy Spirit (cf. John 1:32,33; 3:34; 7:39; 14:17; 15:26; 16:13) spiritual (cf. John 4:24; 11:33; 13:21) In John 3:5,6,8 it is hard to know which is meant. Being John, possibly both. (See JESUS AND THE SPIRIT; SPIRIT (pneuma) IN THE NT) Spirit (breath, wind)(4151) pneuma has several nuances - (1) a movement of air (a gentle blast 1a) of the wind, hence the wind itself 1b) breath of nostrils or mouth. (2) the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated 2a) the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides 2b) the soul (3) a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting 3a) a life giving spirit 3b) a human soul that has left the body 3c) a spirit higher than man but lower than God, i.e. an angel 3c1) used of demons, or evil spirits, who were conceived as inhabiting the bodies of men 3c2) the spiritual nature of Christ, higher than the highest angels and equal to God, the divine nature of Christ (4) Of God 4a) God's power and agency distinguishable in thought from his essence in itself considered 4a1) manifest in the course of affairs 4a2) by its influence upon the souls productive in the theocratic body (the church) of all the higher spiritual gifts and blessings 4a3) the third person of the trinity, the God the Holy Spirit (5) the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one 5a) the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc. Gives life (2227) zoopoieo from zoos = alive + poieo = to make) means to revitalize, make alive, give life, quicken, vivify, reanimate, restore to life. Most of the NT uses refer to God's ability to give life to men, either by resurrecting them from physical death or by regenerating them from spiritual death. In 1Co 15:36 Paul uses zoopoieo figuratively to picture the sprouting of a seed in his defense of the doctrine of the resurrection. Profits (5623) opheleo from ophéllo = heap up or from ophelos = increase, profit) means to provide assistance, with emphasis upon the resulting benefit. To help, to be of benefit, to be of use, to be an advantage, to be advantageous. Passive sense - to have benefit from, to profit. To be useful or profitable. It is used usually with the sense of gain, profit in both a material and non-material sense. Louw-Nida - "To provide assistance, with emphasis upon the resulting benefit (Jn 6:63). To be successful in accomplishing some goal, with the implication that such might be useful." Vine - "in the Active Voice signifies to help, to succor, to be of service; in the Passive to receive help, to derive profit or advantage." Mounce - Opheleo denotes the basic idea of benefiting through a particular condition or situation, hence, “to gain, profit, value.” No one (nothing) (3762) oudeis from ou = not + dé = but + heis = one) Literally "but absolutely not one" no one, nothing, none at all; emphasizes not even one, not the least. Oudeis is used as a negating adjective (not even one) to negate a noun, denying absolutely and objectively (e.g., Lk 4:24) Note that oudeis differs from medeís which also is often translated "no one" as the negative particle ou differs from me. Thus ou = absolutely NOT and is objective while me = conditionally NOT and is subjective. For example Paul uses oudeis twice in 1 Cor 12:3+ "Therefore I make known to you that NO ONE speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and NO ONE can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit." Words (4487) rhema from verb rheo = to speak - to say, speak or utter definite words) refers to the spoken word, especially a word as uttered by a living voice. Laleo is another word translated speak but it refers only to uttering a sound whereas rheo refers to uttering a definite intelligible word. Rhema refers to any sound produced by the voice which has a definite meaning. It focuses upon the content of the communication. For example in Luke we read "And they understood none of these things, and this saying (rhema) was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend the things that were said." (Luke 18:34) In the plural rhema ("words"), means saying, speech or discourse. Rhema is used to refer to "the thing spoken of", an object, a matter, an affair or an event. D L Moody - JOHN 6:63. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life. You cannot read the Bible as you do other books. I visited Mr. Prang’s chromo establishment in Boston and saw the process of printing a picture of some public man. The first stone made hardly an impression on the paper. The second stone showed no sign of change. The third no sign. The fifth and sixth showed only outlines of a man’s head. The tenth, the man’s face, chin, nose and forehead appeared. The fifteenth and twentieth looked like a dim picture. The twenty-eighth impression stood forth as natural as life. It looked as though it would speak to you. So, carefully and prayerfully read the Word of God—read the same chapter again and again—and the twenty-eighth time Christ Jesus will shine forth. A C Gaebelein - John 6:63. "It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are life." After feeding the multitudes miraculously He spoke of Himself as the living bread come down from heaven. He taught again concerning eternal life and how it is obtained. "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, be shall live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Eating of Him means to believe on Him and become identified with Him. Those who hear His words and believe on Him are quickened by the Spirit. The word "quicken" means imparting life, so that our Lord teaches once more what He said to Nicodemus, that the work of the Spirit is to impart spiritual life in the new birth. And the words He speaks are Spirit and are life. The Spirit and Life is in them. Selwyn

João 6

Robertson - Herod Antipas A.D. 22 built the town of Tiberias to the west of the Sea of Galilee and made it his capital. (Word Pictures)

João 6

Robertson says followed is "Descriptive imperfect tense active, picturing the crowd, but without the details of the boat for Christ and the rapid race of the crowd on foot (Mark 6:32f+.=Matt. 14:13f+.)." (Word Pictures) J C

João 6

Robertson - The disciples, like us today, are quick with reasons for their inability to perform the task imposed by Jesus. (Word Pictures) Brian Bell - Christ can take our little and make it much. [Moses’ stick. David’s rock. Elijah’s mantle/cloak. Widows jar/oil. Samson’s donkey jawbone. A lil lad’s lunch... Your monthly missionary support check. Your prayer. Your individual tithe. Your prep time for your SS class] Our means, His power. . (This is a Test) Charles Spurgeon aptly declared: He it was who thought of the way of feeding them, it was a design invented and originated by himself. His followers had looked at their little store of bread and fish and given up the task as hopeless; but Jesus, altogether unembarrassed, and in no perplexity, had already considered how he would banquet the thousands and make the fainting sing for joy. The Lord of Hosts needed no entreaty to become the host of hosts of hungry men. THOUGHT - God’s way of provision always begins with what we already have. He wants us to use what we already have wisely. Don’t foolishly pray for more from God if you don’t use what He already has given you in a godly way. (Guzik) Brian Bell - A Lad with a Lunch! - If only like this lad we would also give Him our all. a) He will take it, break it, & use it to bless others! (1) Book: “If it Ain’t Broke, Break it!” by Robert Kriegel. Secular book on business. I love some of his chapter titles: Always Mess w/Success; Playing it Safe is Dangerous; Sacred Cows Make the Best Burgers; Take Risks not Chances. b) He’ll Take it (offer yourself & your resources to Him); He’ll Break it (allow yourself to be thoroughly broken); He’ll Use it (then & only then can He use it for His glory). (This is a Test) Steven

João 6

Robertson says "Surely it is easier to conceive that Jesus wrought two such miracles than to hold that Mark and Matthew have made such a jumble of the whole business." (Word Pictures) LEFTOVER LESSONS We can learn from the leftovers. God gives in abundance. He takes whatever we offer him in time, ability, or resources and multiplies its effectiveness beyond our wildest expectations. If we take the first step in making ourselves available to God, he will show us how greatly we can be used to advance the work of his kingdom. Most of us want to see a great work of God, but can we take the first step of sacrifice? (Life application study Bible, Gospel of John - Borrow) TAKING THE MIRACLE OUT OF A MIRACLE Our “scientific age” tries to explain everything in materialistic terms. In one way the very possibility of miracles threatens a simplistic view of science. After all, if the laws of nature are not absolute, we might have to admit that something or someone out there controls the universe. Those who believe that miracles can’t happen won’t be objective in studying Scripture. Scientific materialism removes the miraculous from the miracles. It would explain this miracle meal by suggesting that the boy’s generosity set in motion a wave of giving so that all the people brought out the food they had and shared it with each other. Such a view makes the “miracle” easier to swallow, but it downplays Jesus’ miraculous power. The miracles, however, demonstrated the same power that raised Jesus from the dead. Those who find it difficult to accept these miracles usually find it difficult to believe in the Resurrection. When we accept the Resurrection, miracles like the multiplying of fish and loaves become part of a day’s activity in the life of Jesus, the Son of God. (Life application study Bible, Gospel of John - Borrow) Gathered fragments remind us that: Another Day of Need Will Surely Come The Blessings of God Should Not Be Wasted Grateful Hearts Make Full Use of God’s Blessings (John Mayshack)

João 6

Robertson adds "It was not hard for Christ to read the mind of this excited mob." (Word Pictures) Of course it was not hard, because He was God and He knew what they were preparing to do! This event marks the pinnacle of Jesus' popularity with the people. In John 5 He had already become personna non grata with the Jewish religious leaders and after dispensing miracle bread His popularity would decline with the people (cf Jn 6:66+). R Kent

João 6

Robertson - There was a movement to start a revolution against Roman rule in Palestine by proclaiming Jesus King and driving away Pilate....He sent them hurriedly by boat to the western side (Mark 6:45f.= Matt. 14:22f.) because clearly the apostles were sympathetic with the revolutionary impulse of the crowd. (Word Pictures)

João 6

Robertson - It is late evening (real evening), not the early evening in mid-afternoon (Mt. 14:15). The disciples were in no hurry to start back to Bethsaida in Galilee (Mark 6:45), Capernaum in John (Jn 6:17). (Word Pictures)

João 6

Robertson adds it is "Inchoative imperfect, “they began to be willing.” (Word Pictures) THOUGHT - It is not enough to hear Jesus say "I Am" and command us to "Fear not." We must be willing (make a choice) to receive Him into the boat, into our life. The result is that His peace (cf Jn 14:27) replaces our fear and causes us to worship Him (see Mt 14:32-33+ ). We receive peace with God (Ro 5:1+) and can daily enjoy the peace of God (Php 4:6+) MacArthur describes the disciples' reaction to the wind stopping and their worshipping - The only appropriate response to Jesus Christ is to fall before Him in worship, as did the wise men at His birth (Matt. 2:11), a Canaanite woman (15:25), a blind man whom Jesus healed (John 9:38), the women who came to the tomb after the resurrection (Matt. 28:9), Thomas (John 20:28), and the rest of the eleven disciples (Matt. 28:17; Luke 24:52). Although they were amazed by Jesus’ miracle, the Twelve responded as all true followers of Jesus Christ do—with adoration and worship. (See John Commentary) And immediately (eutheos) the boat (ploion) was at the land to which they were going - Miracle number 4! (Jesus walking on water, Peter walking on water, storm ceasing Mark 6:51+). Some (Constable) think this was not a miracle but the word immediately took them from "in the middle of the sea," (Mk 6:47+) to the land! Sounds like a miracle to me! THOUGHT - The disciple's fleshly efforts were superseded by Jesus' supernatural sufficiency. They were learning the lesson that without Jesus they could do nothing but with Jesus they could do anything (in God's will)! Oh, how we all need to learn this lesson -- to abide in Him and Him in us, for He alone is the Vine and apart from Him we can do nothing of real value. All of our "rowing" (so to speak) will be futile, wasted effort, unless Jesus is in the boat! Kenneth Gangel - Let us not move too quickly over the word immediately in verse 21. With little fuss and no intent to make a point, John probably indicated another miracle which few count in numbering the miracles in John. Some interpreters opt for the natural explanation (they were already near shore). Or perhaps the remainder of the voyage seemed as nothing compared to what they had already been through. I stand with Godet’s interpretation: “One can scarcely imagine, indeed, that, after an act of power so magnificent and so kingly as Jesus walking on the waters, he should have seated himself in the boat, and the voyage should have been laboriously continued by the stroke of the oar. At the moment when Jesus set his foot in the boat, he communicated to it, as he has just done for Peter, the force victorious over gravity and space, which had just been so strikingly displayed on his own person” (cited in Morris, p. 351). (See Holman New Testament Commentary scroll up and down for more text) With Jesus on board we will arrive at our destination!

João 6

Robertson - So here Jesus terms belief in Him as the work of God. These Jews were thinking of various deeds of the Pharisaic type and rules. Jesus turns their minds to the central fact. “This simple formula contains the complete solution of the relation of faith and works” (Westcott). Note the present active subjunctive πιστευητε [pisteuēte], “that ye may keep on believing.” (John 6 Commentary) R Kent

João 6

Robertson adds that "The rabbis quoted Ps. 72:16 to prove that the Messiah, when he comes, will outdo Moses with manna from heaven. Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah and able to give bread for eternal life (Jn 6:27). Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, p. 152) says: “The key to the understanding of the whole situation is an acquaintance with the national expectation of the greater Moses.” They quote to Jesus Ex. 16:15 (cf. Nu 11:7; 21:5; Dt. 8:3). Their plea is that Moses gave us bread “out of heaven” (ek tou ouranou). Can Jesus equal that deed of Moses?" (John 6 Commentary) John Heading - The giving of the manna in the book of Exodus was something known to have taken place from heaven—it was something that the Lord had given men to eat (Exod 16:15). To their minds, this was really a sign, unlike the feeding of the 5,000....the children of Israel in the wilderness reacted in the same manner as did the people after the feeding of the 5,000, for in Ps 78:32+, we read, “In spite of all this they still sinned and did not believe in His wonderful works”. (What the Bible Teaches - John)

João 6

Robertson - Chrysostom observes that the manna gave nourishment (trophē), but not life (zōē). This is a most astounding statement to the crowd. (John 6 Commentary) As an aside, Jesus mention of life to the world, expands the purpose of the bread of God to the Gentiles and not just to the Jews. But clearly this nuance "flies over their head" for they are still thinking physical bread and thus they do not appear to be offended by His mention of world. Brian Bell - The manna came only to the Jews & sustained physical life; but Jesus came for the whole world & gives eternal life. The bread of God was a gift from the Father, whether it was shaped into Manna or the Messiah. Manna comparison: a) Manna came at night - Jesus came when men were in darkness; b) Manna met physical needs - Jesus meets spiritual needs; c) Manna a gift from God - Jesus God’s gift to the world; d) Manna had to be picked up & eaten - Jesus must be received & appropriated. Saint Augustine famously said, “You made us for yourself, and our hearts find no peace until they rest in you.” I want to keep the spirit of his statement but tweak the words just a bit. If he was reading this passage, he might say, “You made us to hunger for you, and our starving souls find no nourishment until they feast on you.” Only Jesus can fill the emptiness inside. Only Jesus can quiet the growling of your soul. Only Jesus can give you life. Exalting Jesus in John. James Smith - THE BREAD OF GOD “For the Bread of God is He which cometh down from Heaven, and giveth life unto the world” (John 6:33). The Bread of God is not only the bread of life, but the life-giving and life-sustaining bread from Heaven. God has in mercy reckoned up the real need of this poverty-stricken, starving-to-death world; and so gave His Son, as His gift of bread, for famished souls. The bread of fashion, of riches, or worldly preferment, soon becomes stale. There is no real soul-nutriment in the bread baked in the world’s oven. The life-giving bread must come from the life-giving God. Jesus Christ, the Bread of God—the Bread that delights the heart of God—and, oh, what grace that this Bread has come from Heaven to give life unto the world. Have you received it? Are you feeding on it? He that eateth this Bread shall live for ever. John 6:34 Then they said to Him, "Lord, always give us this bread." BGT John 6:34 εἶπον οὖν πρὸς αὐτόν· κύριε, πάντοτε δὸς ἡμῖν τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον. KJV John 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. NET John 6:34 So they said to him, "Sir, give us this bread all the time!" CSB John 6:34 Then they said, "Sir, give us this bread always!" ESV John 6:34 They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always." NIV John 6:34 "Sir," they said, "from now on give us this bread." NLT John 6:34 "Sir," they said, "give us that bread every day." NRS John 6:34 They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always." NJB John 6:34 'Sir,' they said, 'give us that bread always.' NAB John 6:34 So they said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always." YLT John 6:34 They said, therefore, unto him, 'Sir, always give us this bread.' GWN John 6:34 They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread all the time." BBE John 6:34 Ah, Lord, they said, give us that bread for ever! RSV John 6:34 They said to him, "Lord, give us this bread always." NKJ John 6:34 Then they said to Him, "Lord, give us this bread always." ASV John 6:34 They said therefore unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. DBY John 6:34 They said therefore to him, Lord, ever give to us this bread. NIRV John 6:34 "Sir," they said, "give us this bread from now on." RWB John 6:34 Then said they to him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. WEB John 6:34 Then said they to him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. Lord, always give us this bread: John 6:26 Jn 4:15 Ps 4:6 John 6 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passage: John 4:15+ The woman said to Him, “Sir, give (aorist imperative - Do it now!) me this water, so I will not be thirsty nor come all the way here to draw.” A GOOD REQUEST IF... THEY HAD UNDERSTOOD Then - (The Greek is "oun" which is often translated therefore, consequently). Based on their literal interpretation of the bread of God that brought life, they quickly responded with a request, much like the Samaritan woman who cried "Sir, give me this water." (Jn 4:15+). Did Jesus give her water? No, but instead He exposed her sinful past, which caused her to see Him as the Messiah (Jn 4:25, 26+) from Whom she received "spiritual water" (Jn 4:28, 29+) Unlike the Samaritan woman, the Jewish crowd failed to understand spiritual bread and instead saw their pantries forever filled with heavenly bread. Perhaps they thought that instead of 6/7 days of manna, Jesus would top Moses by giving bread 7/7 days! This is a paradoxical request because the Jews did not understand that what they were asking for was Jesus Himself! Of course, they still had no clue that Jesus Himself was the true Bread they were asking for and desperately needed! Clearly they were not asking to receive and believe in Him as their Savior, as He Himself makes clear in Jn 6:36! Once again we see their spiritual blindness. The Jews missed Jesus' deeper spiritual truth in Jn 6:33 and were still thinking of their stomachs, at the expense of their souls! They were thinking temporally, not eternally. Had they understood Jesus' offer, they would have asked Him for eternal life, not temporal bread. But as Paul said later "a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised (HOLY SPIRIT GIVES ILLUMINATION)." (1Co 2:14+) These Jews were natural men, who missed the supernatural significance of the Savior's statement and would soon declare Jesus' explanation was foolishness! A T Robertson on Lord (kurios) - Used now instead of Rabbi (Jn 5:25) though how much the people meant by it is not clear. (John 6 Commentary) COMMENT - Compare the Samaritan woman's request where kurios is translated "Sir" - "Sir (kurios), give me this water...." (Jn 4:15+). Note that several translations render kurios as "Sir" - NET, CSB, ESV, NLT, NRSV, NJB, NIV, NAB, YLT. Note that they call Jesus Lord (kurios), (which admittedly might convey the nuance of "Sir" rather than "Lord") and are like those individuals Jesus describes in Matthew 7:21+ declaring "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord , Lord (kurios, kurios)' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does (present tense = direction, NOT perfection, and direction, energized by the Holy Spirit [giving us the desire and power - Php 2:13NLT+], not fleshly efforts) the will of My Father Who is in heaven will enter." THOUGHT - How many today miss the eternal because they focus on the temporal? They ask what can Jesus do for me rather than focusing on what He has done for them! Even some modern choruses have more "I's" and "me's" in them them then pronouns referring to Jesus! Contrast these with the old hymns! If I name it and claim it, I will be healthy, wealthy and wise! That's a lie from the pit of hell. Jesus offers the supernatural Bread of God for eternal life which is far superior to the miraculous manna in the desert, which even rotted if you tried to hoard it!

João 6

Robertson adds unless the Father...draws (helko) him - Negative condition of third class with ean mē and first aorist active subjunctive of helkuō, older form helko, to drag like a net (John 21:6), or sword (John 18:10), or men (Acts 16:19), to draw by moral power (John 12:32), as in Jeremiah 31:3. Surō, the other word to drag (Acts 8:3; Acts 14:19) is not used of Christ's drawing power. The same point is repeated in John 6:65. The approach of the soul to God is initiated by God, the other side of John 6:37 (ED: AKA GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY - HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY). See Romans 8:7 for the same doctrine and use of oude dunatai like oudeis dunatai here. Steven

João 6

Robertson - With the eyes no one has seen God (Jn 1:18) save the Son who is “from God” in origin (Jn 1:1, 14; 7:29; 16:27; 17:8). The only way for others to see God is to see Christ (Jn 14:9). (John 6 Commentary) Bob Utley on Not (absolutely not) that anyone has seen the Father - Jesus' affirmation is that only through Him can one really understand and know God (cf. John 1:18; 14:6,9). Even Moses never truly saw YHWH (cf. note at John 5:32). R C H

João 6

Robertson - "The bread the living." Repetition of the claim in John 6:35, 41, 48, but with a slight change from zōēs to zōn (present active participle of zaō). It is alive and can give life. See John 4:10 for living water. In Rev. 1:17 Jesus calls himself the Living One (ho zōn). if anyone eats (esthio ~ believes in) of this bread (artos), he will live (zao) forever (aion cf Jn 6:47) - While His statement eats of this bread strikes us an enigmatic saying (if read literally), it is clear that it is figurative and conveys the fact that the "anyone" believes in Jesus. Why do I say that? Because the only way a person will live forever is by belief in Jesus Christ. Note also that the pronoun anyone opens up the door for everyone whether Jew or Gentile.

João 6

Robertson - For the life of the world (huper tēs tou kosmou zōēs). Over, in behalf of, huper means, and in some connexions instead of as in John 11:50. See John 1:30 for the Baptist's picture of Christ as the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. See also John 3:17; John 4:42; 1 John 3:16; Matthew 20:28; Galatians 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; Romans 5:8. Jesus has here presented to this Galilean multitude the central fact of his atoning death for the spiritual life of the world. MacDonald on My flesh - Here the Lord Jesus was pointing forward to His death on the cross. He would give His life as a ransom for sinners. His body would be broken, and His blood would be poured out as a sacrifice for sins. He would die as a Substitute. He would pay the penalty that our sins demanded (Borrow Believer's Bible Commentary) Warren

João 6

Robertson - Clear statement of Christ's pre-existence in his own words as in John 3:13; John 17:5 (cf. John 1:1-18). Guzik may take the interpretation a bit too far but it is interesting - Jesus is saying, “If all this has offended you, what will you think when you see Me in glory, and have to answer to Me in judgment?” Better to be offended now and to get over it, than to be offended then. Charles Swindoll - Jesus challenged the grumblers with a question. In effect, He asked, “You find yourself unable to accept my claim that I came down from heaven and that you must eat my flesh and drink my blood; so what will you think when I tell you that I will ascend to heaven? If you then believe, how will you literally consume my body?” To put it another way, “If this teaching has brought you to your end, you don’t stand a chance with later teaching.”(Borrow Insights on John)

João 6

Robertson - Jesus drew the line of cleavage between the true and the false believers. Withdrew - Aorist (ingressive) active indicative of aperchomai with eis ta opisō, "to the rear" (the behind things) as in John 18:6. The crisis had come. These half-hearted seekers after the loaves and fishes and political power turned abruptly from Jesus, walked out of the synagogue with a deal of bluster and were walking with Jesus no more. Jesus had completely disillusioned these hungry camp-followers who did not care for spiritual manna that consisted in intimate appropriation of the life of Jesus as God's Son. F F Bruce says "What they wanted, he would not give; what he offered, they would not receive" (BORROW The Gospel of John)

João 6

Robertson- Jesus puts it with the negative answer (mē) expected. See John 21:5 where Jesus also uses mē in a question. Judas must have shown some sympathy with the disappointed and disappearing crowds. But he kept still. There was possibly restlessness on the part of the other apostles. Brian Bell - DETERMINATION! (67-69) This is the 2nd group. Thinning crowds did nothing to thin the disciples determination! II. (67) The choice is always to follow the crowd or follow Jesus. Q Right now do you feel like going away? Is it too hot in your kitchen? Too stinky in your nursery? Too dry in your marriage? Too quiet in your relationship w/God? Q: Do you also want to go away? DECEPTION! (67-69) LL.This is the 3rd group. Standing right in the band of chosen men was one who looked & sounded like the most sincere disciple...but was a devil. Q: What category do you fall into? Like the crowd (open defection); or like Judas (subtle deception); or like the disciples (firm determination)? Illustration: Imagine a book on a shelf, never read. As long as it remains unread, it is external to you. One day you take it down & read it. You’re thrilled, fascinated, moved. The story sticks to you. The great lines remain in your memory. Now, when you desire you can take that wonder out from inside you & remember it, think about it, feed your mind & hear on it. Once the book was outside you & now that its inside, you can feed upon it. (adapted form William Barclay; Gospel of John; pg.224) If you’ve never taken Jesus into your life, assimilated His being into yours, then he is outside of your life! You are like a small child, with nose pressed up against a bakery window. Smelling bread, seeing, bread, knowing it’s there...but never tasting it. Oh, taste & see that the Lord is good; Blessed is the man who trusts in Him! Ps.34:8 C H

João 6

Robertson- Peter is the spokesman as usual and his words mean that, if such a thought as desertion crossed their minds when the crowd left, they dismissed it instantly. They had made their choice. They accepted these very words of Jesus that had caused the defection as "the words of eternal life." Vance Havner - WONDERFUL WORDS OF LIFE Thou hast the words of eternal life. John 6:68. Peter advances to a second and better stage in his confession. Our Lord had already said, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" (John 6:53). When many of His disciples stumbled at this pronouncement, He explained it: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63). We feed on the living Word as we feed upon the written Word. There is something about His words that is different from all other words. They are living and when planted they sprout and grow. Peter did not understand all of them, did not always live up to what they required, but he never doubted their origin, their quality, and power. Hear them, hide them in the heart, heed them by being a doer of them, and we are made aware of a new life. Vance Havner - WHERE ELSE CAN WE GO? Lord, to whom shall we go? John 6:68. Peter gives three reasons for being a Christian. He begins with the poorest, but it will do to start. It is a matter of alternatives. If we do not take Jesus' way, what else can we do? What are the other options? Look up any other road and what do you see? It comes to this: it is Jesus Christ or else. There is only one Book that has the Answer and Jesus Christ is that Answer. I do not understand everything in the Book, but I stand on everything in it. I look every other direction and I see only depravity, despair, and death. Where could I go but to my Lord? A W Tozer - WHO HEARS THE CALL OF GOD? Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. John 6:68 Who can deny that there are certain persons who, though still unconverted, nevertheless differ from the crowd, marked out of God, stricken with an interior wound and susceptible to the call of God? In the prayer of Jesus in John 17:11, He said: “Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me.” Surely no man is ever the same after God has laid His hand upon him. He will have certain marks, perhaps some not easy to detect. First might be a deep reverence for divine things. A sense of the sacred must be present or there can be no receptivity to God and truth. Another mark is great moral sensitivity. When God begins to work in a man to bring him to salvation, He makes him acutely sensitive to evil. Another mark of the Spirit’s working is a mighty moral discontent. It does take a work of God in a man to sour him on the world and to turn him against himself; yet until this has happened he is psychologically unable to repent and believe! What Is the Alternative? John 6:68 - Archie Edwards Three Important things: I. The Choice of Salvation Is Not Optional. “… To whom shall we go? Thou hast …” II. The Form of Salvation Is Settled. “Thou hast the words …” III. The Result of Salvation Is Eternal Life. “Thou hast the words of eternal life.” Kenneth Osbeck - Borrow Amazing Grace - IN TIMES LIKE THESE Words and Music by Ruth Caye Jones, 1902–1972 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68) Wars, earthquakes, famines, violence, drugs, child abuse, humanism, the occult, New Age … When world events and ideologies like these seem ominous and unsettling to us or when personal sorrows or tragedies confront us, where can we go but to the Lord? How comforting it is to know that we can always flee to Him and rest securely on our “Solid Rock.” During the fearful days at the height of World War II, when the stress and strain of daily living seemed almost overwhelming, the comforting hymn “In Times Like These” was written. In the midst of a busy day as a housewife, Ruth Caye Jones felt a direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit. She stopped her work to quickly put down both words and music just as they were given to her by God. Since that day the hymn has been a blessing to countless Christians at special times of need. It has brought comfort during illness, has been used widely at funerals, has encouraged and challenged Christian workers, and has drawn many to salvation. Mrs. Jones experienced for herself the consolation the words of the song could bring as she spent time recovering form serious surgery a few years after it was written. The Scriptures warn that world conditions will continue to get worse as we approach the end of this age and the return of Christ. In addition, we must prepare ourselves for the difficult times that come to everyone as life progresses. We can only remain firm when we know with conviction that our God is in control and that all things are working out for our ultimate good. In the meantime, we simply grip the “Solid Rock!” In times likes these you need a Savior; in times like these you need an anchor; be very sure, be very sure your anchor holds and grips the Solid Rock! In times like these you need the Bible; in times like these O be not idle; be very sure, be very sure your anchor holds and grips the Solid Rock! In times like these I have a Savior; in times like these I have an anchor; I’m very sure, I’m very sure my anchor hold and grips the Solid Rock! Refrain: This Rock is Jesus, yes, He’s the One; this Rock is Jesus, the only One! Be very sure, be very sure your anchor holds and grips the Solid Rock! For Today: Job 13:13, 15; 19:25, 27; Psalm 56:11; Isaiah 26:3, 4 Whatever difficulties might surround you just now, be certain that you can sing with conviction this musical testimony— What Are Our Options? Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." —John 6:68 Today's Scripture: John 6:48-69 In a pre-election newspaper column, William Safire posed the question, “What do you do when the candidate you support takes a position you don’t like [or when] the candidate you oppose takes a stand that you admire?” Safire suggested three options: 1. Switch candidates. 2. Stay with your original choice and put on a button that says, “Nobody’s perfect.” 3. Be like the proverbial old woman who says, “I never vote. It only encourages them.” Now think about the spiritual parallel. What are our choices when Jesus, our Leader, takes a position we don’t like, or when the enemy we oppose takes a stand more to our liking? Some will switch and walk with Christ no more (John 6:66). But that’s not a valid option for those who know Him (v.68). Neither can we wear a button that says, “Nobody’s perfect.” Jesus is the Holy One of God. He is perfect. If we disagree with Him, it is because we are wrong. Furthermore, we can’t be like the person who never votes. Our Lord didn’t give us that option. We must choose whom we will follow. Some people follow Jesus Christ, And then they turn and walk away; But Jesus gives eternal life To those who trust Him and obey. —Sper No one can be neutral about Jesus. Running In The Right Direction Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” —John 6:68 Today's Scripture: John 6:53-69 One of the most difficult experiences in my years as a pastor was telling a member of our church that her husband, her son, and her father-in-law had all drowned in a boating accident. I knew the news would shatter her life. In the days following their tragic loss, I was amazed as she and her family responded with unusual faith. Sure, there was deep brokenness, haunting doubt, and confusion. But when nothing else made sense, they still had Jesus. Rather than deserting Him in the midst of their desperately difficult days, they ran to Him as the only source of hope and confidence. This reminds me of the reaction of the disciples to Jesus. After some of them “went back and walked with Him no more” because He was hard to understand (John 6:66), Jesus turned to His inner circle, and asked, “Do you also want to go away?” (v.67). Peter got it right when he responded, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (v.68). Whatever you face today, be encouraged by the words of Peter and by the example of a family who went through the fire with their faith intact. As long as you’re running in the right direction—to Jesus—you’ll find the grace and strength you will need. By: Joe Stowell Jesus is the One to run to When our lives bring grief and pain; He provides His strength and guidance With a peace we can’t explain. —Sper When all is lost, remember that you haven’t lost Jesus. Run to Him. Beyond Time “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” John 6:68–69 Today's Scripture & Insight: John 6:53–69 During 2016, theater companies in Britain and around the world have staged special productions to mark the 400th anniversary of the death of William Shakespeare. Concerts, lectures, and festivals have drawn crowds who celebrate the enduring work of the man widely considered to be the greatest playwright in the English language. Ben Jonson, one of Shakespeare’s contemporaries, wrote of him, “He was not of an age, but for all time.” While the influence of some artists, writers, and thinkers may last for centuries, Jesus Christ is the only person whose life and work will endure beyond time. He claimed to be “the bread that came down from heaven . . . whoever feeds on this bread will live forever” (v. 58). When many people who heard Jesus’s teaching were offended by His words and stopped following Him (John 6:61–66), the Lord asked His disciples if they also wanted to leave (v. 67). Peter replied, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God” (vv. 68–69). Lord Jesus, thank You for the gift of eternal life in fellowship with You today and forever. Jesus is the Son of God, the Man beyond time, who gives us eternal life. Words Of Life Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. — John 6:68 Today's Scripture: John 6:60-71 In his book Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, Neil Postman warns us of the danger of a world of information overload. He reminds us of a chilling futuristic vision—Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, which describes a world thoroughly flooded with information. But that data is manipulated so that none of it has any significance. A glance at the Internet or a magazine rack hints that we are living in just such a culture. We’re drowning in a sea of information often marketed by the unscrupulous. We need discernment to choose wisely whom we will listen to. In John 6, Jesus delivered His “I am the bread of life” message (v.35). It was a sermon so controversial that, at its conclusion, many of His followers went away and stopped following Him (v.66). They chose to stop listening to the voice of Christ. When Jesus challenged His disciples as to whether they would also walk away, Peter wisely responded, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (v.68). There's so much wisdom to be learned, So many ways for me to grow, Lord, I would listen like a child, And learn what You would have me know. —K. De HaanIf you want to be wise, listen to Jesus John 6:69 "We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God." BGT John 6:69 καὶ ἡμεῖς πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ. KJV John 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. (Textus Receptus has different description of Jesus) NET John 6:69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God!" CSB John 6:69 We have come to believe and know that You are the Holy One of God!" ESV John 6:69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." NIV John 6:69 We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God." NLT John 6:69 We believe, and we know you are the Holy One of God. " NRS John 6:69 We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God." NJB John 6:69 and we believe; we have come to know that you are the Holy One of God.' NAB John 6:69 We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God." YLT John 6:69 and we have believed, and we have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' (Textus Receptus has different description of Jesus) GWN John 6:69 Besides, we believe and know that you are the Holy One of God." BBE John 6:69 And we have faith and are certain that you are the Holy One of God. RSV John 6:69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." believed: John 1:29,41,45-49 11:27 20:28,31 Mt 16:16 Mk 1:1 8:29 Lu 9:20 Ac 8:37 Ro 1:3 1Jn 5:1,20 the Holy One: John 6:57 John 6 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passage: Ps 16:10 For You (GOD THE FATHER) will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You (FATHER) allow Your Holy One to undergo decay. Luke 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. DISCIPLES BELIEVED JESUS WAS THE HOLY ONE We (11 of the 12) have believed (pisteuo) and have come to know (ginosko) - This is an interesting verse. It seems to suggest that believing precedes knowing. In the next chapter Jesus declared "“If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself." What was God's will for the disciples? To believe in Messiah. The fruit of doing the will of God is knowing His teaching. THOUGHT - Dear believer, does the Word seem to be difficult to understand? Belief is intimately linked with obedience to what you have already read and believed. It follows that if you are not obeying in that which He has already shown you, might this explain why you are finding it difficult to understand the Word? A T Robertson- perfect active indicative of pisteuō, "We have come to believe and still believe" (John 6:29). Same tense (perfect) of ginōskō, "We have come to know and still know." Warren

João 6

Robertson - Jesus does not say that Judas was a devil when he chose him, but that he is one now. In John 13:2, 27 John speaks of the devil entering Judas. How soon the plan to betray Jesus first entered the heart of Judas we do not know (John 12:4). One wonders if the words of Jesus here did not cut Judas to the quick. John MacArthur on did I Myself not choose you - He is not here referring to election to salvation, but rather selection to apostleship. He chose twelve men, one of whom was to slander Him in the most unthinkable way. After Judas had been dismissed from the Upper Room the night of the Last Supper, then the Lord spoke to the remaining eleven as being chosen for salvation. As He said to them, "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you" (John 15:16). His sovereign choice of them, both to salvation and apostleship, ruled out any pretentiousness or self-importance they may have otherwise felt. (See John Commentary - scroll up and down for more text) Technical Note - NET Note - Although most translations render this last phrase as "one of you is a devil," such a translation presupposes that there is more than one devil. This finds roots in the KJV in which the Greek word for demon was often translated "devil." In fact, the KJV never uses the word "demon." (Sixty-two of the 63 NT instances of [daimonion] are translated "devil" [in Acts 17:18 the plural has been translated "gods"]. This can get confusing in places where the singular "devil" is used: Is Satan or one of the demons in view [cf. Matt 9:33 (demon); 13:39 (devil); 17:18 (demon); Mark 7:26 (demon); Luke 4:2 (devil); etc.]?) Now regarding John 6:70, both the construction in Greek and the technical use of diabolos indicate that the one devil is in view. To object to the translation "the devil" because it thus equates Judas with Satan does not take into consideration that Jesus often spoke figuratively (e.g., "destroy this temple" [ John 2:19]; "he [John the Baptist] is Elijah" [Matt 11:14]), even equating Peter with the devil on one occasion (Mark 8:33). According to ExSyn 249, "A curious phenomenon has occurred in the English Bible with reference to one particular monadic noun, diabolos. The KJV translates both diabolos and daimonion as 'devil.' Thus in the AV translators' minds, 'devil' was not a monadic noun. Modern translations have correctly rendered daimonion as 'demon' and have, for the most part, recognized that diabolos is monadic (cf., e.g., 1 Pet 5:8; Rev 20:2). But in John 6:70 modern translations have fallen into the error of the King James translators. The KJV has 'one of you is a devil.' So does the RSV, NRSV, ASV, NIV, NKJV, and the JB [Jerusalem Bible]. Yet there is only one devil…The legacy of the KJV still lives on, then, even in places where it ought not." Choose (1586) eklego/eklegomai from ek = out, out of, out from + légo = select, choose) (see also word study on related word eklektos) means literally to select out, single out or choose out of. The idea in eklego speaks of the sizable number from which the selection is made. It implies the taking of a smaller number out of a larger. For example, in secular use, Virgil's Eclogues (from eklego) are short, selected excerpts taken from a larger collection of poems. Eklego means to choose out for oneself, but not implying rejection of those not chosen. A H Strong explained it this way - Election and sovereignty are only sources of good. Election is not a decree to destroy, it is a decree to save. When we elect a president, we do not need to hold a second election to determine that the remaining millions shall be non-presidents. Mal Couch on chose - there is no indication of any dislike towards those not chosen. It is not a rejection with disdain. The choice of Levi for the priesthood does not imply anything negative about the other tribes (ED: E.g. SEE Dt 18:5+ where same verb eklegomai is used and in same tense, voice, and mood as in Eph 1:4 with God as the subject in both uses!) When speaking of election, the Bible never contrasts it with reprobation. It only ever speaks of the ones who are chosen. It does not speak of those not chosen. (Galatians & Ephesians) John 13:18 “I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘HE WHO EATS MY BREAD HAS LIFTED UP HIS HEEL AGAINST ME.’ John 15:16 “You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you. John 15:19 “If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. Devil (1228) diabolos from diá = through, between + ballo = to cast, throw) means a false accuser, slanderer (one who utters false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another’s reputation), backbiting (malicious comment about one not present), one given to malicious gossip or a calumniator (one who utters maliciously false statements, charges, or imputations about, this term imputes malice to the speaker and falsity to the assertions). Diabolos is the noun form of the verb diaballō which describes not only those who bring a false charge against one, but also those who disseminate the truth concerning a man, and do so maliciously, insidiously and with hostility (A GOOD DESCRIPTION OF JUDAS ISCARIOT!) Diabolos) means "slanderer" (cf. 1 Tim. 3:11; 2 Tim. 3:3; Titus 2:3, where the plural form of the noun is rendered "malicious gossips"), or "false accuser," which would prove true of Judas Iscariot! There are only two other uses of diabolos in John John 8:44 “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. John 13:2 During supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him, QUESTION - Who was Judas Iscariot? ANSWER - Judas Iscariot is typically remembered for one thing: his betrayal of Jesus. He was one of the twelve disciples who lived with and followed Jesus for three years. He witnessed Jesus’ ministry, His teaching, and His many miracles. He was the treasurer for the group and used this trusted position to steal from their resources (John 12:6). Judas was a common name in that era, and there are several other Judases mentioned in the New Testament. One of the other disciples was named Judas (John 14:22), and so was one of Jesus’ own half-brothers (Mark 6:3). To differentiate, John 6:71 and John 13:26 refer to Christ’s betrayer as “Judas, son of Simon Iscariot.” Scholars have several ideas about the derivation of the surname. One is that Iscariot refers to Kerioth, a region or town in Judea. Another idea is that it refers to the Sicarii, a cadre of assassins among the Jewish rebels. The possible association with the Sicarii allows for interesting speculation about Judas’ motives for his betrayal, but the fact that he made a conscious choice to betray Jesus (Luke 22:48) remains the same. The surname Iscariot is useful, if for no other reason, in that it leaves no doubt about which Judas is being referred to. Here are some of the facts we glean from key verses about Judas and his betrayal: Money was important to Judas. As already mentioned, he was a thief, and, according to Matthew 26:13–15, the chief priests paid him “thirty silver coins” to betray the Lord. Jesus knew from the very beginning what Judas Iscariot would do. Jesus told His disciples, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (John 6:70). And at the Last Supper, Jesus predicted His betrayal and identified the betrayer: “Jesus answered, ‘It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.’ Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon” (John 13:26). Jesus said that Judas Iscariot was not “clean”; i.e., he had not been born again and was not forgiven of his sins (John 13:10–11). In fact, Judas was empowered to do what he did by the devil himself: “As soon as Judas took the bread [that Jesus had given him], Satan entered into him” (John 13:27). The other disciples had no clue that Judas Iscariot harbored treacherous thoughts. When Jesus mentioned a betrayer in their midst, the other disciples worried that it was they who would prove disloyal (John 13:22). No one suspected Judas. He was a trusted member of the Twelve. Even when Jesus told Judas, “What you are about to do, do quickly,” (John 13:27), and Judas left the Last Supper, the others at the table simply thought Judas had been sent to buy more food or to give something to charity (verses 28–29). Judas Iscariot betrayed the Lord with a kiss, perfectly in keeping with his brazen duplicity (Luke 22:47–48). After committing his atrocious act, Judas “was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders” (Matthew 27:3). But we learn that remorse does not equal repentance—rather than make amends or seek forgiveness, “he went away and hanged himself” (Matthew 27:5). Judas Iscariot fulfilled the prophecy of Psalm 41:9, “Even my close friend, someone I trusted, one who shared my bread, has turned against me” (cf. John 13:18). Yet Judas was fully responsible for his actions. Jesus said, “The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born” (Matthew 26:24). Matthew 27:6–8 reports that the chief priests took the “blood money” from Judas and bought a potter’s field as a place for burying foreigners (thus fulfilling the prophecy of Zechariah 11:12–13). Acts 1:18–19 continues the story of what happened after Judas’ death and gives some additional information. Luke reports, “With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.” The additional detail we learn from Luke is that, after Judas hanged himself, his dead body fell into the very field purchased with his ill-gotten gains. Given the fact of Judas’ close proximity to Jesus during three years of ministry, it is hard to imagine how he could follow through on such a dastardly betrayal. Judas’ story teaches us to guard against small, gradual failings that gain strength and power in our lives and that could open the door to more deadly influences. His story is also a great reminder that appearances can be deceiving. Jesus taught, “Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” (Matthew 7:22–23).GotQuestions.org QUESTION - Why did Jesus choose Judas? ANSWER - Jesus chose Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve disciples. Judas was “a devil” (John 6:70–71), “a thief” (John 12:6), an unbeliever (John 6:64), and spiritually unclean (John 13:10), yet he held a respected position within the group (John 13:29). Since Jesus “knew what was in each person” (John 2:25), it may seem puzzling that He would select Judas, the one who would later betray Him. Jesus chose Judas as a disciple because, ultimately, Judas fit into the plan of God. Jesus had come to earth to die for the redemption of sinners. That death, “the just for the unjust” (1 Peter 3:18, NKJV), was not an accident but was God’s intended purpose. When John the Baptist saw Jesus coming for baptism, he spoke of Jesus as a sacrifice: “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29, ESV). Jesus was not fooled by Judas. He knew exactly what Judas was like and what he was going to do: “Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him” (John 6:64). In Judas, we have a clear example of how a person can be religious, hear the Word of God taught, witness genuine miracles, and for all appearances seem to be saved, and yet not be born again. One of the reasons Jesus chose Judas was that prophecy had to be fulfilled. Speaking of His imminent betrayal, Jesus says, “The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him” (Matthew 26:24; cf. John 13:18). After Christ’s resurrection, Peter also points to fulfilled prophecy in relation to Judas: “Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus” (Acts 1:16, ESV). He also links Judas’s actions to Psalms 69:25 and 109:8 (Acts 1:20). Another reason that Jesus chose Judas was that God’s sovereign plan had to be accomplished. In Acts 2:23 Peter states in his sermon to the people of Jerusalem that “this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men” (Acts 2:23, ESV). Not only was the betrayal of Jesus foreknown by God, but it was part of His “definite plan.” So, Jesus chose Judas to fulfill prophecy and because the plan of God required someone to betray the innocent Son of Man. However, none of this means that Judas and others who condemned and crucified Jesus were without fault. Judas Iscariot bore the responsibility for what he chose to do. Jesus said, “The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born” (Mark 14:21). Peter also speaks about the sovereign plan of God and the guilt of those who act in sinful ways. In Acts 3:17 Peter says, “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. But what God foretold by the mouth of the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:17–19). Even though the people had “acted in ignorance” in the fulfilling of prophecy, and even though Christ had to suffer according to the plan of God, the people who brought about Jesus’ death were guilty and had to “repent.” Throughout the Bible, we see that God can use even the most wicked of mankind’s actions for good (see Genesis 50:20). Nothing could be more wicked than betraying and murdering the Son of God, yet in spite of that evil—even through that evil—God provided salvation and “disarmed the powers and authorities [and] . . . made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them” (Colossians 2:15). God does not create evil, but He does control it. God does not participate in sin, but, in His power and wisdom, God can and sometimes does use the sin already existing in our world to fulfill His purpose. Judas was chosen with the foreknowledge of God that he would betray Jesus, but his betrayal, rather than stop God’s plan for salvation, actually advanced it. GotQuestions.org John 6:71 Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him. BGT John 6:71 ἔλεγεν δὲ τὸν Ἰούδαν Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτου· οὗτος γὰρ ἔμελλεν παραδιδόναι αὐτόν, εἷς ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα. KJV John 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. NET John 6:71 (Now he said this about Judas son of Simon Iscariot, for Judas, one of the twelve, was going to betray him.) CSB John 6:71 He was referring to Judas, Simon Iscariot's son, one of the Twelve, because he was going to betray Him. ESV John 6:71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him. NIV John 6:71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.) NLT John 6:71 He was speaking of Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, one of the Twelve, who would later betray him. NRS John 6:71 He was speaking of Judas son of Simon Iscariot, for he, though one of the twelve, was going to betray him. NJB John 6:71 He meant Judas son of Simon Iscariot, since this was the man, one of the Twelve, who was to betray him. NAB John 6:71 He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve. YLT John 6:71 And he spake of Judas, Simon's son, Iscariot, for he was about to deliver him up, being one of the twelve. for: Ps 109:6-8 Ac 1:16-20 2:23 Jude 1:4 was going to betray Him.: John 18:2-6 Ps 41:9 55:13,14 Mt 26:14-16 27:3-5 John 6 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries JUDAS ISCARIOT THE DEVIL Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray (paradidomi) Him - In retrospect, writing long after Jesus' betrayal, John gives the parenthetical explanation that the one who was a devil was Judas Iscariot (Mt. 10:4; Mk. 3:19; Lk. 6:16). NET Note - At least six explanations for the name Iscariot have been proposed, but it is probably transliterated Hebrew with the meaning "man of Kerioth" (there are at least two villages that had that name). See The Gospel According to John (scroll up and down for more pages) - see page 304. A T Robertson - So his father was named Iscariot also, a man of Kerioth (possibly in Judah, Joshua 15:25, possibly in Moab, Jeremiah 48:24), not in Galilee. Judas was the only one of the twelve not a Galilean. The rest of the verse is like John 12:4. One of the twelve. The eternal horror of the thing. NET Note - This parenthetical statement by the author helps the reader understand Jesus' statement one of you is the devil in the previous verse. This is the first mention of Judas in the Fourth Gospel, and he is immediately identified (as he is in the synoptic gospels, Matt 10:4, Mark 3:19, Luke 6:16) as the one who would betray Jesus. Betray (hand over) (3860) paradidomi from para = alongside, beside, to the side of, over to + didomi = to give) conveys the basic meaning of to give over from one's hand to someone or something, especially to give over to the power of another. Paradidomi conveys the idea of handing over to or of conveying something to someone, particularly a right or an authority (Matthew 11:27+ Luke 4:6+) Paradidomi is used in legal parlance to describe handing someone into the custody of the police, authorities, etc. To deliver up one to custody, to be judged, condemned, punished, scourged, tormented, put to death. (Matthew 10:17+) Paradidomi can describe the "illegal", treacherous or unjustified handing of someone over to someone as in a betrayal. Thus it describes the delivering over of an individual to an enemy who will presumably take undue advantage of the victim. QUESTION - Why did Judas betray Jesus? WATCH THE VIDEO ANSWER - While we cannot be absolutely certain why Judas betrayed Jesus, some things are certain. First, although Judas was chosen to be one of the Twelve (John 6:64), all scriptural evidence points to the fact that he never believed Jesus to be God. He even may not have been convinced that Jesus was the Messiah (as Judas understood it). Unlike the other disciples that called Jesus “Lord,” Judas never used this title for Jesus and instead called him “Rabbi,” which acknowledged Jesus as nothing more than a teacher. While other disciples at times made great professions of faith and loyalty (John 6:68; 11:16), Judas never did so and appears to have remained silent. This lack of faith in Jesus is the foundation for all other considerations listed below. The same holds true for us. If we fail to recognize Jesus as God incarnate, and therefore the only One who can provide forgiveness for our sins—and the eternal salvation that comes with it—we will be subject to numerous other problems that stem from a wrong view of God. Second, Judas not only lacked faith in Christ, but he also had little or no personal relationship with Jesus. When the synoptic gospels list the Twelve, they are always listed in the same general order with slight variations (Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16). The general order is believed to indicate the relative closeness of their personal relationship with Jesus. Despite the variations, Peter and the brothers James and John are always listed first, which is consistent with their relationships with Jesus. Judas is always listed last, which may indicate his relative lack of a personal relationship with Christ. Additionally, the only documented dialogue between Jesus and Judas involves Judas being rebuked by Jesus after his greed-motivated remark to Mary (John 12:1-8), Judas’ denial of his betrayal (Matthew 26:25), and the betrayal itself (Luke 22:48). Third, Judas was consumed with greed to the point of betraying the trust of not only Jesus, but also his fellow disciples, as we see in John 12:5-6. Judas may have desired to follow Jesus simply because he saw the great following and believed he could profit from collections taken for the group. The fact that Judas was in charge of the moneybag for the group would indicate his interest in money (John 13:29). Additionally, Judas, like most people at the time, believed the Messiah was going to overthrow Roman occupation and take a position of power ruling over the nation of Israel. Judas may have followed Jesus hoping to benefit from association with Him as the new reigning political power. No doubt he expected to be among the ruling elite after the revolution. By the time of Judas’ betrayal, Jesus had made it clear that He planned to die, not start a rebellion against Rome. So Judas may have assumed—just as the Pharisees did—that since He would not overthrow the Romans, He must not be the Messiah they were expecting. There are a few Old Testament verses that point to the betrayal, some more specifically than others. Here are two: “Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me” (Psalm 41:9, see fulfillment in Matthew 26:14, 48-49). Also, “I told them, ‘If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.’ So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter’—the handsome price at which they priced me!' So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter” (Zechariah 11:12-13; see Matthew 27:3-5 for the fulfillment of the Zechariah prophecy). These Old Testament prophecies indicate that Judas’ betrayal was known to God and that it was sovereignly planned beforehand as the means by which Jesus would be killed. But if Judas’ betrayal was known to God, did Judas have a choice, and is he held responsible for his part in the betrayal? It is difficult for many to reconcile the concept of “free will” (as most people understand it) with God’s foreknowledge of future events, and this is largely due to our limited experience of going through time in a linear fashion. If we see God as existing outside of time, since He created everything before “time” began, then we can understand that God sees every moment in time as the present. We experience time in a linear way—we see time as a straight line, and we pass from one point gradually to another, remembering the past we have already traveled through, but unable to see the future we are approaching. However, God, being the eternal Creator of the construct of time, is not “in time” or on the timeline, but outside of it. It might help to think of time (in relation to God) as a circle with God being the center and therefore equally close to all points. In any case, Judas had the full capacity of making his choice—at least up to the point where “Satan entered into him” (John 13:27)—and God’s foreknowledge (John 13:10, 18, 21) in no way supersedes Judas’ ability to make any given choice. Rather, what Judas would choose eventually, God saw as if it was a present observation, and Jesus made it clear that Judas was responsible for his choice and would be held accountable for it. “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me” (Mark 14:18). Notice that Jesus characterizes Judas’ participation as a betrayal. And regarding accountability for this betrayal Jesus said, “Woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born” (Mark 14:21). Satan, too, had a part in this, as we see in John 13:26-27, and he, too, will be held accountable for his deeds. God in His wisdom was able, as always, to manipulate even Satan’s rebellion for the benefit of mankind. Satan helped send Jesus to the cross, and on the cross sin and death were defeated, and now God’s provision of salvation is freely available to all who receive Jesus Christ as Savior. GotQuestions.org The Training of the Twelve - THE STORM MATT. 14:24–33; MARK 6:45–52; JOHN 6:16–21 “In perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea,” wrote Paul, describing the varied hardships encountered by himself in the prosecution of his great work as the apostle of the Gentiles. Such perils meet together in this crisis in the life of Jesus. He has just saved himself from the dangerous enthusiasm manifested by the thoughtless multitude after the miraculous repast in the desert; and now, a few hours later, a still greater disaster threatens to befall Him. His twelve chosen disciples, whom He had hurriedly sent off in a boat, that they might not encourage the people in their foolish project, have been overtaken in a storm while He is alone on the mountain praying, and are in imminent danger of being drowned. His contrivance for escaping one evil has involved Him in a worse; and it seems as if, by a combination of mischances, He were to be suddenly deprived of all His followers, both true and false, at once, and left utterly alone, as in the last great crisis. The Messianic King watching on those heights, like a general on the day of battle, is indeed hard pressed, and the battle is going against Him. But the Captain of salvation is equal to the emergency; and however sorely perplexed He may be for a season, He will be victorious in the end. The Sea of Galilee, though but a small sheet of water, some thirteen miles long by six broad, is liable to be visited by sharp, sudden squalls, probably due to its situation. It lies in a deep hollow of volcanic origin, bounded on either side by steep ranges of hills rising above the water-level from one to two thousand feet. The difference of temperature at the top and bottom of these hills is very considerable. Up on the tablelands above the air is cool and bracing; down at the margin of the lake, which lies seven hundred feet below the level of the ocean, the climate is tropical. The storms caused by this inequality of temperature are tropical in violence. They come sweeping down the ravines upon the water; and in a moment the lake, calm as glass before, becomes from end to end white with foam, whilst the waves rise into the air in columns of spray. Two such storms of wind were encountered by the twelve after they had become disciples, probably within the same year; the one with which we are concerned at present, and an earlier one on the occasion of a visit to Gadara. Both happened by night, and both were exceedingly violent. In the first storm, we are told, the ship was covered with the waves, and filled almost to sinking, so that the disciples feared they should perish. The second storm was equally violent, and was of much longer duration. It caught the twelve apparently when they were half-way across, and after the gray of dusk had deepened into the darkness of night. From that time the wind blew with unabated force till daybreak, in the fourth watch, between the hours of three and six in the morning. Some idea of the fury of the blast may be gathered from the fact recorded, that even then they were still little more than half-way over the sea. They had rowed in all only a distance of twenty-five or thirty furlongs, the whole distance in a slanting direction, from the eastern to the western shore, being probably about fifty. During all those weary hours they had done little more, pulling with all their might, than hold their own against wind and waves. All this while what was Jesus doing? In the first storm He had been with His disciples in the ship, sweetly sleeping after the fatigues of the day, “rocked in cradle of the imperious surge.” This time He was absent, and not sleeping; but away up among the mountains alone, watching unto prayer. For He, too, had His own struggle on that tempestuous night; not with the howling winds, but with sorrowful thoughts. That night He, as it were, rehearsed the agony in Gethsemane, and with earnest prayer and absorbing meditation studied the passion sermon which He preached on the morrow. So engrossed was His mind with His own sad thoughts, that the poor disciples were for a season as if forgotten; till at length, at early dawn, looking seawards, He saw them toiling in rowing against the contrary wind, and without a moment’s further delay made haste to their rescue. This storm on the Sea of Galilee, besides being important as a historical fact, possesses also the si nificance of an emblem. When we consider the time at which it occurred, it is impossible not to connect it in our thoughts with the untoward events of the next day. For the literal storm on the water was succeeded by a spiritual storm on the land, equally sudden and violent, and not less perilous to the souls of the twelve than the other had been to their bodies. The bark containing the precious freight of Christ’s true discipleship was then overtaken by a sudden gust of unpopularity, coming down on it like a squall on a highland loch, and all but upsetting it. The fickle crowd which but the day before would have made Jesus their king, turned away abruptly from Him in disappointment and disgust; and it was not without an effort, as we shall see, that the twelve maintained their steadfastness. They had to pull hard against wind and waves, that they might not be carried headlong to ruin by the tornado of apostasy. There can be little doubt that the two storms,—on the lake and on the shore,—coming so close one on the other, would become associated in the memory of the apostles; and that the literal storm would be stereotyped in their minds as an expressive emblem of the spiritual one, and of all similar trials of faith. The incidents of that fearful night—the watching, the wet, the toil without result, the fatigue, the terror and despair—would abide indelibly in their recollection, the symbolic representation of all the perils and tribulations through which believers must pass on their way to the kingdom of heaven, and especially of those that come upon them while they are yet immature in the faith. Symbolic significance might be discovered specially in three features. The storm took place by night; in the absence of Jesus; and while it lasted all progress was arrested. Storms at sea may happen at all hours of the day, but trials of faith always happen in the night. Were there no darkness there could be no trial. Had the twelve understood Christ’s discourse in Capernaum, the apostasy of the multitude would have seemed to them a light matter. But they did not understand it, and hence the solicitude of their Master lest they too should forsake Him. In all such trials, also, the absence of the Lord to feeling is a constant and most painful feature. Christ is not in the ship while the storm rages by night, and we toil on in rowing unaided, as we think, by His grace, uncheered by His spiritual presence. It was so even with the twelve next day on shore. Their Master, present to their eyes, had vanished out of sight to their understanding. They had not the comfort of comprehending His meaning, while they clung to Him as one who had the words of eternal life. Worst of all, in these trials of faith, with all our rowing, we make no progress; the utmost we can effect is to hold our own, to keep off the rocky shore in the midst of the sea. Happily that is something, yea, it is every thing. For it is not always true that if not going forward we must be going backward. This is an adage for fair weather only. In a time of storm there is such a thing as standing still, and then to do even so much is a great achievement. Is it a small thing to weather the storm, to keep off the rocks, the sands, and the breakers? Vex not the soul of him who is already vexed enough by the buffeting winds, by retailing wise saws about progress and backsliding indiscriminately applied. Instead of playing thus the part of a Job’s friend, rather remind him that the great thing for one in his situation is to endure, to be immovable, to hold fast his moral integrity and his profession of faith, and to keep off the dangerous coasts of immorality and infidelity; and assure him that if he will only pull a little longer, however weary his arm, God will come and calm the wind, and he will forthwith reach the land. The storm on the lake, besides being an apt emblem of the trial of faith, was for the twelve an important lesson in faith, helping to prepare them for the future which awaited them. The temporary absence of their Master was a preparation for His perpetual absence. The miraculous interposition of Jesus at the crisis of their peril was fitted to impress on their minds the conviction that even after He had ascended He would still be with them in the hour of danger. From the ultimate happy issue of a plan which threatened for a time to miscarry, they might further learn to cherish a calm confidence in the government of their exalted Lord, even in midst of most untoward events. They probably concluded, when the storm came on, that Jesus had made a mistake in ordering them to sail away across the lake while He remained behind to dismiss the multitude. The event, however, rebuked this hasty judgment, all ending happily. Their experience in this instance was fitted to teach a lesson for life: not rashly to infer mismanagement or neglect on Christ’s part from temporary mishaps, but to have firm faith in His wise and loving care for His cause and people, and to anticipate a happy issue out of all perplexities; yea, to glory in tribulation, because of the great deliverance which would surely follow. Such strong faith the disciples were far enough from possessing at the time of the storm. They had no expectation that Jesus would come to their rescue; for when He did come, they thought He was a spirit flitting over the water, and cried out in an agony of superstitious terror. Here also we note, in passing, a curious correspondence between the incidents of this crisis and those connected with the final one. The disciples had then as little expectation of seeing their Lord return from the dead as they had now of seeing Him come to them over the sea; and therefore His re-appearance at first frightened rather than comforted them. “They were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.” Good, unlooked for in either case, was turned into evil; and what to faith would have been a source of intense joy, became, through unbelief, only a new cause of alarm. The fact of His not being expected seems to have imposed on Jesus the necessity of using artifice in His manner of approaching His storm-tossed disciples. Mark relates that “He would have passed by then,” affecting strangeness, as we understand it, out of delicate consideration for their weakness. He knew what He would be taken for when first observed; and therefore He wished to attract their attention at a safe distance, fearing lest, by appearing among them at once, He might drive them distracted. He found it needful to be as cautious in announcing His advent to save as men are wont to be in communicating evil tidings: first appearing, as the spectre, as far away as He could be seen; then revealing Himself by His familiar voice uttering the words of comfort, “It is I; be not afraid,” and so obtaining at length a willing reception into the ship.3 The effects which followed the admission of Jesus into the vessel betrayed the twelve into a new manifestation of the weakness of their faith. “The wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered.” They ought not to have wondered so greatly, after what had happened once before on these same waters, and especially after such a miracle as had been wrought in the wilderness on the previous day. But the storm had blown all thoughts of such things out of their mind, and driven them utterly stupid. “They reflected not on the loaves (nor on the rebuking of the winds), for their heart was hardened.”5 But the most interesting revelation of the mental state of the disciples at the time when Jesus came to their relief, is to be found in the episode concerning Peter related in Matthew’s Gospel. When that disciple understood that the supposed spectre was his beloved Master, he cried, “Lord, if it be Thou, bid me come unto Thee on the water;” and on receiving permission, he forthwith stepped out of the ship into the sea. This was not faith, but simple rashness. It was the rebound of an impetuous, headlong nature from one extreme of utter despair to the opposite extreme of extravagant, reckless joy. What in the other disciples took the tame form of a willingness to receive Jesus into the ship, after they were satisfied it was He who walked on the waters,2 took, in the case of Peter, the form of a romantic, adventurous wish to go out to Jesus where He was, to welcome Him back among them again. The proposal was altogether like the man—generous, enthusiastic, and well-meant, but inconsiderate. And yet that scene showed something more than the weakness of that disciple’s faith. It showed also what is possible to those who believe. If the tendency of weak faith be to sink, the triumph of strong faith is to walk on the waves, glorying in tribulation, and counting it all joy when exposed to divers temptations. It is the privilege of those who are weak in faith, and the duty of all, mindful of human frailty, to pray, “Lead us not into temptation.” But when storms come not of their inviting, and when their ship is upset in midst of the sea, then may Christians trust to the promise, “When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee;” and if only they have faith, they shall be enabled to tread the rolling billows as if walking on firm land. “He bids me come; His voice I know, And boldly on the waters go, And brave the tempest’s shock. O’er rude temptations now I bound; The billows yield a solid ground, The wave is firm as rock.” Alfred Edersheim CHAPTER 32 THE GREAT CRISIS IN POPULAR FEELING—THE LAST DISCOURSES IN THE SYNAGOGUE OF CAPERNAUM—CHRIST THE BREAD OF LIFE—‘WILL YE ALSO GO AWAY?’ (St. John 6:22–71.) THE narrative now returns to those who, on the previous evening, had, after the miraculous meal, been sent away' to their homes. We remember, that this had been after an abortive attempt on their part to take Jesus by force and make Him their Messiah-King. We can understand that the effectual resistance of Jesus to their purpose not only weakened, but in great measure neutralised, the effect of the miracle which they had witnessed. In fact, we look upon this check as the first turning of the tide of popular enthusiasm. Let us bear in mind what ideas and expectations of an altogether external character those men connected with the Messiah of their dreams. At last, by some miracle more notable even than the giving of the Manna in the wilderness, enthusiasm has been raised to the highest pitch, and thousands were determined to give up their pilgrimage to the Passover, and then and there proclaim the Galilean Teacher Israel's King. If He were the Messiah, such was His rightful title. Why then did He so strenuously and effectually resist it? In ignorance of His real views concerning the Kingship, they would naturally conclude that it must have been from fear, from misgiving, from want of belief in Himself. At any rate, He could not be the Messiah, Who would not be Israel's King. Enthusiasm of this kind, once repressed, could never be kindled again. Henceforth there was continuous misunderstanding, doubt and defection among former adherents, growing into opposition and hatred unto death. Even to those who took not this position, Jesus, His Words and Works, were henceforth a constant mystery. [3422] And so it came, that the morning after the miraculous meal found the vast majority of those who had been fed, either in their homes or on their pilgrim-way to the Passover at Jerusalem. Only comparatively few came back to seek Him, where they had eaten bread at His Hand. And even to them, as the after-conversation shows, Jesus was a mystery. They could not disbelieve, and yet they could not believe; and they sought both a sign' to guide, and an explanation to give them its understanding. Yet out of them was there such selection of grace, that all that the Father had given would reach Him, and that they who, by a personal act of believing choice and by determination of conviction, would come, should in no wise be rejected of Him. It is this view of the mental and moral state of those who, on the morning after the meal, came to seek Jesus, which alone explains the question and answers of the interview at Capernaum. As we read it: the day following the multitude which stood on the other (the eastern) side of the sea' saw that Jesus was not there, neither His disciples.' [3423] But of two facts they were cognizant. They knew that, on the evening before, only one boat had come over, bringing Jesus and His disciples; and that Jesus had not returned in it with His disciples, for they had seen them depart, while Jesus remained to dismiss the people. In these circumstances they probably imagined, that Christ had returned on foot by land, being, of course, ignorant of the miracle of that night. But the wind which had been contrary to the disciples, had also driven over to the eastern shore a number of fishing-boats from Tiberias (and this is one of the undesigned confirmations of the narrative). These they now hired, and came to Capernaum, making inquiry for Jesus. Whether on that Friday afternoon they went to meet Him on His way from Gennesaret (which the wording of St. John vi.25 makes likely), or awaited His arrival at Capernaum, is of little importance. Similarly, it is difficult to determine whether the conversation and outlined address of Christ took place on one or partly on several occasions: on the Friday afternoon or Sabbath morning, or only on the Sabbath. All that we know for certain is, that the last part (at any rate [3424] ) was spoken in Synagogue, as He taught in Capernaum.' [3425] It has been well observed, that there are evident breaks after verse 40 and verse 51.' [3426] Probably the succession of events may have been that part of what is here recorded by St. John [3427] had taken place when those from across the Lake had first met Jesus; [3428] part on the way to, and entering, the Synagogue; [3429] and part as what He spoke in His Discourse, [3430] and then after the defection of some of His former disciples. [3431] But we can only suggest such an arrangement, since it would have been quite consistent with Jewish practice, that the greater part should have taken place in the Synagogue itself, the Jewish questions and objections representing either an irregular running commentary on His Words, or expressions during breaks in, or at the conclusion of, His teaching. This, however, is a primary requirement, that, what Christ is reported to have spoken, should appear suited to His hearers: such as would appeal to what they knew, such also as they could understand. This must be kept in view, even while admitting that the Evangelist wrote his Gospel in the light of much later and fuller knowledge, and for the instruction of the Christian Church, and that there may be breaks and omissions in the reported, as compared with the original Discourse, which, if supplied, would make its understanding much easier to a Jew. On the other hand, we have to bear in mind all the circumstances of the case. The Discourse in question was delivered in the city, which had been the scene of so many of Christ's great miracles, and the centre of His teaching, and in the Synagogue, built by the good Centurion, and of which Jairus was the chief ruler. Here we have the outward and inward conditions for even the most advanced teaching of Christ. Again, it was delivered under twofold moral conditions, to which we may expect the Discourse of Christ to be adapted. For, first, it was after that miraculous feeding which had raised the popular enthusiasm to the highest pitch, and also after that chilling disappointment of their Judaistic hopes in Christ's utmost resistance to His Messianic proclamation. They now came seeking for Jesus,' in every sense of the word. They knew not what to make of those, to them, contradictory and irreconcilable facts; they came, because they did eat of the loaves, without seeing in them signs.' [3432] And therefore they came for such a sign' as they could perceive, and for such teaching in interpretation of it as they could understand. They were outwardly - by what had happened - prepared for the very highest teaching, to which the preceding events had led up, and therefore they must receive such, if any. But they were not inwardly prepared for it, and therefore they could not understand it. Secondly, and in connection with it, we must remember that two high points had been reached - by the people, that Jesus was the Messiah-King; by the ship's company, that He was the Son of God. However imperfectly these truths may have been apprehended, yet the teaching of Christ, if it was to be progressive, must start from them and then point onwards and upwards. In this expectation we shall not be disappointed. And if, by the side of all this, we shall find allusions to peculiarly Jewish thoughts and views, these will not only confirm the Evangelic narrative, but furnish additional evidence of the Jewish authorship of the Fourth Gospel. 1. The question: [3433] Rabbi, when camest Thou hither?' with which they from the eastern shore greeted Jesus, seems to imply that they were perplexed about, and that some perhaps had heard a vague rumour of the miracle of His return to the western shore. It was the beginning of that unhealthy craving for the miraculous which the Lord had so sharply to reprove. In His own words: they sought Him not because they saw signs,' but because they ate of the loaves,' and, in their coarse love for the miraculous, were filled.' [3434] What brought them, was not that they had discerned either the higher meaning of that miracle, or the Son of God, but those carnal Judaistic expectancies which had led them to proclaim Him King. What they waited for, was a Kingdom of God - not in righteousness, joy, and peace in the Holy Ghost, but in meat and drink - a kingdom with miraculous wilderness-banquets to Israel, and coarse miraculous triumphs over the Gentiles. Not to speak of the fabulous Messianic banquet which a sensuous realism expected, or of the achievements for which it looked, every figure in which prophets had clothed the brightness of those days was first literalised, and then exaggerated, till the most glorious poetic descriptions became the most repulsively incongruous caricatures of spiritual Messianic expectancy. The fruit-trees were every day, or at least every week or two, to yield their riches, the fields their harvests; [3435] the grain was to stand like palm trees, and to be reaped and winnowed without labour. [3436] Similar blessings were to visit the vine; ordinary trees would bear like fruit trees, and every produce, of every clime, would be found in Palestine in such abundance and luxuriance as only the wildest imagination could conceive. Such were the carnal thoughts about the Messiah and His Kingdom of those who sought Jesus because they ate of the loaves, and were filled.' What a contrast between them and the Christ, as He pointed them from the search for such meat to work for the meat which He would give them,' not a merely Jewish Messiah, but as the son of Man.' And yet, in uttering this strange truth, Jesus could appeal to something they knew when He added, for Him the Father hath sealed, even God.' The words, which seem almost inexplicable in this connection, become clear when we remember that this was a well-known Jewish expression. According to the Rabbis, the seal of God was Truth (AeMeTH),' the three letters of which this word is composed in Hebrew ({hebrew}) being, as was significantly pointed out, respectively the first, the middle, and the last letters of the alphabet. [3437] Thus the words of Christ would convey to His hearers that for the real meat, which would endure to eternal life - for the better Messianic banquet - they must come to Him, because God had impressed upon Him His own seal of truth, and so authenticated His Teaching and Mission. In passing, we mark this as a Jewish allusion, which only a Jewish writer (not an Ephesian Gospel) would have recorded. But it is by no means the only one. It almost seems like a sudden gleam of light - as if they were putting their hand to this Divine Seal, when they now ask Him what they must do, in order to work the Works of God? Yet strangely refracted seems this ray of light, when they connect the Works of God with their own doing. And Christ directed them, as before, only more clearly, to Himself. To work the Works of God they must not do, but believe in Him Whom God had sent. Their twofold error consisted in imagining, that they could work the Works of God, and this by some doing of their own. On the other hand, Christ would have taught them that these Works of God were independent of man, and that they would be achieved through man's faith in the Mission of the Christ. 2. As it impresses itself on our minds, what now follows [3438] took place at a somewhat different time - perhaps on the way to the Synagogue. It is a remarkable circumstance, that among the ruins of the Synagogue of Capernaum the lintel has been discovered, and that it bears the device of a pot of manna, ornamented with a flowing pattern of vine leaves and clusters of grapes. [3439] Here then were the outward emblems, which would connect themselves with the Lord's teaching on that day. The miraculous feeding of the multitude in the desert place' the evening before, and the Messianic thoughts which clustered around it, would naturally suggest to their minds remembrance of the manna. That manna, which was Angels' food, distilled (as they imagined) from the upper light, the dew from above' [3440] - miraculous food, of all manner of taste, and suited to every age, according to the wish or condition of him who see ate it, [3441] but bitterness to Gentile palates - they expected the Messiah to bring again from heaven. For, all that the first deliverer Moses had done, the second - Messiah - would also do. [3442] And here, over their Synagogue, was the pot of manna - symbol of what God had done, earnest of what the Messiah would do: that pot of manna, which was now among the things hidden, but which Elijah, when he came, would restore again! Here, then, was a real sign. In their view the events of yesterday must lead up to some such sign, if they had any real meaning. They had been told to believe on Him, as the One authenticated by God with the seal of Truth, and Who would give them meat to eternal life. By what sign would Christ corroborate His assertion, that they might see and believe? What work would He do to vindicate His claim? Their fathers had eaten manna in the wilderness. To understand the reasoning of the Jews, implied but not fully expressed, as also the answer of Jesus, it is necessary to bear in mind (what forms another evidence of the Jewish authorship of the Fourth Gospel), that it was the oft and most anciently expressed opinion that, although God had given them this bread out of heaven, yet it was given through the merits of Moses, and ceased with his death. [3443] This the Jews had probably in view, when they asked: What workest Thou?'; and this was the meaning of Christ's emphatic assertion, that it was not Moses who gave Israel that bread. And then by what, with all reverence, may still be designated a peculiarly Jewish turn of reasoning - such as only those familiar with Jewish literature can fully appreciate (and which none but a Jewish reporter would have inserted in his Gospel) - the Saviour makes quite different, yet to them familiar, application of the manna. Moses had not given it - his merits had not procured it - but His Father gave them the true bread out of heaven. For,' as He explained, the bread of God is that [3444] which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.' Again, this very Rabbinic tradition, which described in such glowing language the wonders of that manna, also further explained its other and real meaning to be, that if Wisdom said, Eat of my bread and drink of my wine,' [3445] it indicated that the manna and the miraculous water-supply were the sequence of Israel's receiving the Law and the Commandments [3446] - for the real bread from heaven was the Law. [3447] [3448] It was an appeal which the Jews understood, and to which they could not but respond. Yet the mood was brief. As Jesus, in answer to the appeal that He would evermore give them this bread, once more directed them to Himself - from works of men to the Works of God and to faith - the passing gleam of spiritual hope had already died out, for they had seen Him and yet did not believe.' With these words of mingled sadness and judgment, Jesus turned away from His questioners. The solemn sayings which now followed [3449] could not have been spoken to, and they would not have been understood by, the multitude. And accordingly we find that, when the conversation of the Jews is once more introduced, [3450] it takes up the thread where it had been broken off, when Jesus spake of Himself as the Bread Which had come down from heaven. Had they heard what, in our view, Jesus spake only to His disciples, their objections would have been to more than merely the incongruity of Christ's claim to have come down from heaven. [3451] 3. Regarding these words of Christ, then, as addressed to the disciples, there is really nothing in them beyond their standpoint, though they open views of the far horizon. They had the experience of the raising of the young man at Nain, and there, at Capernaum, of Jairus' daughter. Besides, believing that Jesus was the Messiah, it might perhaps not be quite strange nor new to them as Jews - although not commonly received - that He would at the end of the world raise the pious dead. [3452] Indeed, one of the names given to the Messiah - that of Yinnon, according to Ps. lxxii.17 [3453] - has by some been derived from this very expectancy. [3454] Again, He had said, that it was not any Law, but His Person, that was the bread which came down from heaven, and gave life, not to Jews only, but unto the world - and they had seen Him and believed not. But none the less would the loving purpose of God be accomplished in the totality of His true people, and its joyous reality be experienced by every individual among them: All that (the total number, pn ) which the Father giveth Me shall come unto Me (shall reach Me [3455] ), and him that cometh unto Me (the coming one to Me) I will not cast out outside.' What follows is merely the carrying out in all directions, and to its fullest consequences, of this twofold fundamental principle. The totality of the God-given would really reach Him, despite all hindrances, for the object of His Coming was to do the Will of His Father; and those who came would not be cast outside, for the Will of Him that had sent Him, and which He had come to do, was that of the all which He has given' Him, He should not lose anything out of this, but raise it up in the last day.' Again, the totality - the all - would reach Him, since it was the Will of Him that sent Him that everyone (ps) who intently looketh [3456] at the Son, and believeth on Him, should have eternal life;' and the coming ones would not be cast outside, since this was His undertaking and promise as the Christ in regard to each: And raise him up will I at the last day.' [3457] Although these wonderful statements reached in their full meaning far beyond the present horizon of His disciples, and even to the utmost bounds of later revelation and Christian knowledge, there is nothing in them which could have seemed absolutely strange or unintelligible to those who heard them. Given belief in the Messiahship of Jesus and His Mission by the Father; given experience of what He had done, and perhaps, to a certain extent, Jewish expectancy of what the Messiah would do in the last day; and all this directed or corrected by the knowledge concerning His work which His teaching had imparted, and the words were intelligible and most suitable, even though they would not convey to them all that they mean to us. If so seemingly incongruous an illustration might be used, they looked through a telescope that was not yet drawn out, and saw the same objects, through quite diminutively and far otherwise than we, as gradually the hand of Time has drawn out fully that through which both they and we, who believe, intently gaze on the Son. 4. What now follows [3458] is again spoken to the Jews,' and may have occurred just as they were entering the Synagogue. To those spiritually unenlightened, the point of difficulty seemed, how Christ could claim to be the Bread come down from heaven. Making the largest allowance, His known parentage and early history [3459] forbade anything like a literal interpretation of His Words. But this inability to understand, ever brings out the highest teaching of Christ. We note the analogous fact, and even the analogous teaching, in the case of Nicodemus. [3460] [3461] Only, his was the misunderstanding of ignorance, theirs of wilful resistance to His Manifestation; and so the tone towards them was other than to the Rabbi. Yet we also mark, that what Jesus now spake to the Jews' was the same in substance, though different in application, from what He had just uttered to the disciples. This, not merely in regard to the Messianic prediction of the Resurrection, but even in what He pronounced as the judgment on their murmuring. The words: No man can come to Me, except the Father Which hath sent Me draw him,' present only the converse aspect of those to the disciples: All that which the Father giveth Me shall come unto Me, and him that cometh unto Me I will in no wise cast out.' For, far from being a judgment on, it would have been an excuse of, Jewish unbelief, and, indeed, entirely discordant with all Christ's teaching, if the inability to come were regarded as other than personal and moral, springing from man's ignorance and opposition to spiritual things. No man can come to the Christ - such is the condition of the human mind and heart, that coming to Christ as a disciple is, not an outward, but an inward, not a physical, but a moral impossibility - except the Father draw him.' And this, again, not in the sense of any constraint, but in that of the personal, moral, loving influence and revelation, to which Christ afterwards refers when He saith: And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Myself.' [3462] Nor did Jesus, even while uttering these high, entirely un-Jewish truths, forget that He was speaking them to Jews. The appeal to their own Prophets was the more telling, that Jewish tradition also applied these two prophecies (Is. liv.13; Jer. xxxi.34) to the teaching by God in the Messianic Age. [3463] [3464] But the explanation of the manner and issue of God's teaching was new: Everyone that hath heard from the Father, and learned, cometh unto Me.' And this, not by some external or realistic contact with God, such as they regarded that of Moses in the past, or expected for themselves in the latter days; only He Which is from God, He hath seen the Father.' But even this might sound general and without exclusive reference to Christ. So, also, might this statement seem: He that believeth [3465] hath eternal life.' Not so the final application, in which the subject was carried to its ultimate bearing, and all that might have seemed general or mysterious plainly set forth. The Personality of Christ was the Bread of Life: I am the Bread of Life.' [3466] The Manna had not been bread of life, for those who ate it had died, their carcasses had fallen in the wilderness. Not so in regard to this, the true Bread from heaven. To share in that Food was to have everlasting life, a life which the sin and death of unbelief and judgment would not cut short, as it had that of them who had eaten the Manna and died in the wilderness. It was another and a better Bread which came from heaven in Christ, and another, better, and deathless life which was connected with it: the Bread that I will give is My Flesh, [3467] for the life of the world.' 5. These words, so deeply significant to us, as pointing out the true meaning of all His teaching, must, indeed, have sounded most mysterious. Yet the fact that they strove about their meaning shows, that they must have had some glimmer of apprehension that they bore on His self-surrender, or, as they might view it, His martyrdom. This last point is set forth in the concluding Discourse, [3468] which we know to have been delivered in the Synagogue, whether before, during, or after, His regular Sabbath address. It was not a mere martyrdom for the life of the world, in which all who benefitted by it would share - but personal fellowship with Him. Eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of the Son of Man, such was the necessary condition of securing eternal life. It is impossible to mistake the primary reference of these words to our personal application of His Death and Passion to the deepest need and hunger of our souls; most difficult, also, to resist the feeling that, secondarily, [3469] they referred to that Holy Feast which shows forth that Death and Passion, and is to all time its remembrance, symbol, seal, and fellowship. In this, also, has the hand of History drawn out the telescope; and as we gaze through it, every sentence and word sheds light upon the Cross and light from the Cross, carrying to us this twofold meaning: His Death, and its Celebration in the great Christian Sacrament. 6. But to them that heard it, nay even to many of His disciples, this was an hard saying. Who could bear it? For it was a thorough disenchantment of all their Judaic illusions, an entire upturning of all their Messianic thoughts, and that, not merely to those whose views were grossly carnal, but even to many who had hitherto been drawn closer to Him. The meat' and drink' from heaven which had the Divine seal of truth' were, according to Christ's teaching, not the Law,' nor yet Israel's privileges, but fellowship with the Person of Jesus in that state of humbleness (the Son of Joseph,' [3470] ), nay, or martyrdom, which His words seemed to indicate, My Flesh is the true [3471] meat, and My Blood is the true drink;' [3472] and what even this fellowship secured, consisted only in abiding in Him and He in them; [3473] or, as they would understand it, in inner communion with Him, and in sharing His condition and views. Truly, this was a totally different Messiah and Messianic Kingdom from what they either conceived or wished. Though they spake it not, this was the rock of offence over which they stumbled and fell. And Jesus read their thoughts. How unfit were they to receive all that was yet to happen in connection with the Christ - how unprepared for it! If they stumbled at this, what when they came to contemplate [3474] the far more mysterious and un-Jewish facts of the Messiah's Crucifixion and Ascension! [3475] Truly, not outward following, but only inward and spiritual life-quickening could be of profit - even in the case of those who heard the very Words of Christ, which were spirit and life. Thus it again appeared, and most fully, that, morally speaking, it was absolutely impossible to come to Him, even if His Words were heard, except under the gracious influence from above. [3476] And so this was the great crisis in the History of the Christ. We have traced the gradual growth and development of the popular movement, till the murder of the Baptist stirred popular feeling to its inmost depth. With his death it seemed as if the Messianic hope, awakened by his preaching and testimony to Christ, were fading from view. It was a terrible disappointment, not easily borne. Now must it be decided, whether Jesus was really the Messiah. His Works, notwithstanding what the Pharisees said, seemed to prove it. Then let it appear; let it come, stroke upon stroke - each louder and more effective than the other - till the land rang with the shout of victory and the world itself re-echoed it. And so it seemed. That miraculous feeding - that wilderness-cry of Hosanna to the Galilean King-Messiah from thousands of Galilean voices - what were they but its beginning? All the greater was the disappointment: first, in the repression of the movement - so to speak, the retreat of the Messiah, His voluntary abdication, rather, His defeat; then, next day, the incongruousness of a King, Whose few unlearned followers, in their ignorance and un-Jewish neglect of most sacred ordinances, outraged every Jewish feeling, and whose conduct was even vindicated by their Master in a general attack on all traditionalism, that basis of Judaism - as it might be represented, to the contempt of religion and even of common truthfulness in the denunciation of solemn vows! This was not the Messiah Whom the many - nay, Whom almost any - would own. [3477] Here, then, we are at the parting of the two ways; and, just because it was the hour of decision, did Christ so clearly set forth the highest truths concerning Himself, in opposition to the views which the multitude entertained about the Messiah. The result was yet another and a sorer defection. Upon this many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him.' [3478] Nay, the searching trial reached even unto the hearts of the Twelve. Would they also go away? It was an anticipation of Gethsemane - its first experience. But one thing kept them true. It was the experience of the past. This was the basis of their present faith and allegiance. They could not go back to their old past; they must cleave to Him. So Peter spake it in name of them all: Lord, to whom shall we go? Words of Eternal Life hast Thou!' Nay, and more than this, as the result of what they had learned: And we have believed and know that Thou art the Holy One of God.' [3479] [3480] It is thus, also, that many of us, whose thoughts may have been sorely tossed, and whose foundations terribly assailed, may have found our first resting-place in the assured, unassailable spiritual experience of the past. Whither can we go for Words of Eternal Life, if not to Christ? If He fails us, then all hope of the Eternal is gone. But He has the Words of Eternal life - and we believed when they first came to us; nay, we know that He is the Holy One of God. And this conveys all that faith needs for further learning. The rest will He show, when He is transfigured in our sight. But of these Twelve Christ knew one to be a devil' - like that Angel, fallen from highest height to lowest depth. [3481] The apostasy of Judas had already commenced in his heart. And, the greater the popular expectancy and disappointment had been, the greater the reaction and the enmity that followed. The hour of decision was past, and the hand on the dial pointed to the hour of His Death. The Training of the Twelve - A B Bruce THE SERMON JOHN 6:32–58 The task now before us is to study that memorable address delivered by Jesus in the synagogue of Capernaum on the bread of life, which gave so great offence at the time, and which has ever since been a stone of stumbling, a subject of controversy, and a cause of division in the visible church, and, so far as one can judge from present appearances, will be to the world’s end. On a question so vexed as that which relates to the meaning of this discourse, one might well shrink from entering. But the very confusion which prevails here points it out as our plain duty to disregard the din of conflicting interpretations, and, humbly praying to be taught of God, to search for and set forth Christ’s own mind. The sermon on the bread of life, however strangely it sounds, was appropriate both in matter and manner to the circumstances in which it was delivered. It was natural and seasonable that Jesus should speak to the people of the meat that endureth unto everlasting life after miraculously providing perishable food to supply their physical wants. It was even natural and seasonable that He should speak of this high topic in the startling, apparently gross, harsh style which He adopted on the occasion. The form of thought suited the situation. Passover time was approaching, when the paschal lamb was slain and eaten; and if Jesus desired to say in effect, without saying it in so many words, “I am the true Paschal Lamb,” what more suitable form of language could He employ than this: “The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world”? The style was also adapted to the peculiar complexion of the speaker’s feelings at the moment. Jesus was in a sad, austere mood when He preached this sermon. The foolish enthusiasm of the multitude had saddened Him. Their wish to force a crown on His head made Him think of His cross; for He knew that this idolatrous devotion to a political Messiah meant death sooner or later to one who declined such carnal homage. He spoke, therefore, in the synagogue of Capernaum with Calvary in view, setting Himself forth as the life of the world in terms applicable to a sacrificial victim, whose blood is shed, and whose flesh is eaten by those presenting the offering; not mincing His words, but saying every thing in the strongest and intensest manner possible. The theme of this memorable address was very naturally introduced by the preceding conversation between Jesus and the people who came from the other side of the lake, hoping to find Him at Capernaum, His usual place of abode. To their warm inquiries as to how He came thither, He replied by a chilling observation concerning the true motive of their zeal, and an exhortation to set their hearts on a higher food than that which perisheth.2 Understanding the exhortation as a counsel to cultivate piety, the persons to whom it was addressed inquired what they should do that they might work the works of God, i.e. please God. Jesus replied by declaring that the great testing work of the hour was to receive Himself as one whom God had sent.4 This led to a demand on their part for evidence in support of this high claim to be the divinely missioned Messiah. The miracle just wrought on the other side of the lake was great, but not great enough, they thought, to justify such lofty pretensions. In ancient times a whole nation had been fed for many years by bread brought down from heaven by Moses. What was the recent miracle compared to that? He must show a sign on a far grander scale, if He wished them to believe that a greater than Moses was here. Jesus took up the challenge, and boldly declared that the manna, wonderful as it was, was not the true heavenly bread. There was another bread, of which the manna was but the type: like it, coming down from heaven;2 but unlike it, giving life not to a nation, but to a world, and not life merely for a few short years, but life for eternity. This announcement, like the similar one concerning the wonderful water of life made to the woman of Samaria, provoked desire in the hearts of the hearers, and they exclaimed, “Lord, evermore give us this bread.” Then said Jesus unto them, “I am the bread of life: he that cometh unto me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” In these words Jesus briefly enunciated the doctrine of the true bread, which He expounded and inculcated in His memorable Capernaum discourse. The doctrine, as stated, sets forth what the true bread is, what it does, and how it is appropriated. 1. The true bread is He who here speaks of it—Jesus Christ. “I am the bread.” The assertion implies, on the speaker’s part, a claim to have descended from heaven; for such a descent is one of the properties by which the true bread is defined. Accordingly we find Jesus, in the sequel of His discourse, expressly asserting that He had come down from heaven.5 This declaration, understood in a supernatural sense, was the first thing in His discourse with which His hearers found fault. “The Jews then murmured at Him, because He said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that He saith, I came down from heaven?” It was natural they should murmur if they did not know or believe that there was any thing out of course in the way in which Jesus came into the world. For such language as He here employs could not be used without blasphemy by a mere man born after the fashion of other men. It is language proper only in the mouth of a Divine Being who, for a purpose, hath assumed human nature. In setting Himself forth, therefore, as the bread which came down from heaven, Jesus virtually taught the doctrine of the incarnation. The solemn assertion, “I am the bread of life,” is equivalent in import to that made by the evangelist respecting Him who spoke these words: “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.” It is, however, not merely as incarnate that the Son of God is the bread of eternal life. Bread must be broken in order to be eaten. The Incarnate One must die as a sacrificial victim that men may truly feed upon Him. The Word become flesh, and crucified in the flesh, is the life of the world. This special truth Jesus went on to declare, after having stated the general truth that the heavenly bread was to be found in Himself. “The bread,” said He, “that I will give is my flesh, (which I will give) for the life of the world.” The language here becomes modified to suit the new turn of thought. “I am” passes into “I will give,” and “bread” is transformed into “flesh.” Jesus evidently refers here to His death. His hearers did not so understand Him, but we can have no doubt on the matter. The verb “give,” suggesting a sacrificial act, and the future tense both point that way. In words dark and mysterious before the event, clear as day after it, the speaker declares the great truth, that His death is to be the life of men; that His broken body and shed blood are to be as meat and drink to a perishing world, conferring on all who shall partake of them the gift of immortality. How He is to die, and why His death shall possess such virtue, He does not here explain. The Capernaum discourse makes no mention of the cross; it contains no theory of atonement, the time is not come for such details; it simply asserts in broad, strong terms that the flesh and blood of the incarnate Son of God, severed as in death, are the source of eternal life. This mention by Jesus of His flesh as the bread from heaven gave rise to a new outburst of murmuring among His hearers. “They strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” Jesus had not yet said that His flesh must be eaten, but they took for granted that such was His meaning. They were right; and accordingly He went on to say, with the greatest solemnity and emphasis, that they must even eat His flesh and drink His blood. Unless they did that, they should have no life in them; if they did that, they should have life in all its fulness—life eternal both in body and in soul. For His flesh was the true food, and His blood was the true drink. They who partook of these would share in His own life. He should dwell in them, incorporated with their very being; and they should dwell in Him as the ground of their being. They should live as secure against death by Him, as He lived from everlasting to everlasting by the Father. “This, therefore,” said the speaker, reverting in conclusion to the proposition with which he started, “this (even my flesh) is that bread which came down from Heaven; not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live forever.”2 A third expression of disapprobation ensuing led Jesus to put the copestone on His high doctrine of the bread of life, by making a concluding declaration, which must have appeared at the time the most mysterious and unintelligible of all: that the bread which descended from heaven must ascend up thither again, in order to be to the full extent the bread of everlasting life. Doth this offend you? asked He at His hearers: this which I have just said about your eating my flesh and blood; what will ye say “if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before?” The question was in effect an affirmation, and it was also a prophetic hint, that only after He had left the world would He become on an extensive scale and conspicuously a source of life to men; because then the manna of grace would begin to descend not only on the wilderness of Israel, but on all the barren places of the earth; and the truth in Him, the doctrine of His life, death, and resurrection, would become meat indeed and drink indeed unto a multitude, not of murmuring hearers, but of devout, enlightened, thankful believers; and no one would need any longer to ask for a sign when he could find in the Christian church, continuing steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking bread and in prayers, the best evidence that He had spoken truth who said, “I am the bread of life.” 2. This, then, is the heavenly bread: even the God-man incarnate, crucified, and glorified. Let us now consider more attentively the marvellous virtue of this bread. It is the bread of life. It is the office of all bread to sustain life, but it is the peculiarity of this divine bread to give eternal life. “He that cometh to me,” said the speaker, “shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me, shall never thirst.” With reference to this life-giving power He called the bread of which He spake “living bread,” and meat indeed, and declared that he who ate thereof should not die, but should live forever.2 In commending this miraculous bread to His hearers, Jesus, we observe, laid special stress on its power to give eternal life even to the body of man. Four times over He declared in express terms that all who partook of this bread of life should be raised again at the last day. The prominence thus given to the resurrection of the body is due in part to the fact that throughout His discourse Jesus was drawing a contrast between the manna which fed the Israelites in the desert and the true bread of which it was the type. The contrast was most striking just at this point. The manna was merely a substitute for ordinary food; it had no power to ward off death: the generation which had been so miraculously supported passed away from the earth, like all other generations of mankind. Therefore, argued Jesus, it could not be the true bread from heaven; for the true bread must be capable of destroying death, and endowing the recipients with the power of an endless existence. A man who eats thereof must not die; or dying, must rise again. “Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.” But the prominence given to the resurrection of the body is due mainly to its intrinsic importance. For if the dead rise not, then is our faith vain, and the bread of life degenerates into a mere quack nostrum, pretending to virtues which it does not possess. True, it may still give spiritual life to those who eat thereof, but what is that without the hope of a life hereafter? Not much, according to Paul, who says, “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” Many, indeed, in our day do not concur in the apostle’s judgment. They think that the doctrine of the life everlasting may be left out of the creed without loss—nay, even with positive advantage, to the Christian faith. The life of a Christian seems to them so much nobler when all thought of future reward or punishment is dismissed from the mind. How grand, to pass through the wilderness of this world feeding on the manna supplied in the high, pure teaching of Jesus, without caring whether there be a land of Canaan on the other side of Jordan! Very sublime indeed! but why, in that case, come into the wilderness at all? why not remain in Egypt, feeding on more substantial and palatable viands? The children of Israel would not have left the house of bondage unless they had hoped to reach the promised land. An immortal hope is equally necessary to the Christian. He must believe in a world to come in order to live above the present evil world. If Christ cannot redeem the body from the power of the grave, then it is in vain that He promises to redeem us from guilt and sin. The bread of life is unworthy of the name, unless it hath power to cope with physical as well as with moral corruption. Hence the prominence given by Jesus in this discourse to the resurrection of the body. He knew that here lay the crucial experiment by which the value and virtue of the bread He offered to His hearers must be tested. “You call this bread the bread of life, in contrast to the manna of ancient times:—do you mean to say that, like the tree of life in the garden of Eden, it will confer on those who eat thereof the gift of a blessed immortality?” “Yes, I do,” replied the Preacher in effect to this imaginary question: “this bread I offer you will not merely quicken the soul to a higher, purer life; it will even revivify your bodies, and make the corruptible put on incorruption, and the mortal put on immortality.” 3. And how, then, is this wondrous bread to be appropriated that one may experience its vitalizing influences? Bread, of course, is eaten; but what does eating in this case mean? It means, in one word, faith. “He that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.” Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood, and, we may add, drinking the water of which he spake to the woman by the well, all signify believing in Him as He is offered to men in the gospel: the Son of God manifested in the flesh, crucified, raised from the dead, ascended into glory; the Prophet, the Priest, the King, and the Mediator between God and man. Throughout the Capernaum discourse eating and believing are used interchangeably as equivalents. Thus, in one sentence, we find Jesus saying, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life: I am that bread of life;” and shortly after remarking, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: If any man eat of this bread he shall live forever.” If any further argument were necessary to justify the identifying of eating with believing, it might be found in the instruction given by the Preacher to His hearers before He began to speak of the bread of life: “This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent.”4 That sentence furnishes the key to the interpretation of the whole subsequent discourse. “Believe,” said Jesus, with reference to the foregoing inquiry, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?—“Believe, and thou hast done God’s work.” “Believe,” we may understand Him as saying with reference to an inquiry, How shall we eat this bread of life?—“Believe, and thou hast eaten.” Believe, and thou hast eaten: such was the formula in which Augustine expressed his view of Christ’s meaning in the Capernaum discourse. The saying is not only terse, but true, in our judgment; but it has not been accepted by all interpreters. Many hold that eating and faith are something distinct, and would express the relation between them thus: Believe, and thou shalt eat. Even Calvin objected to the Augustinian formula. Distinguishing his own views from those held by the followers of Zwingli, he says: “To them to eat is simply to believe. I say that Christ’s flesh is eaten in believing because it is made ours by faith, and that that eating is the fruit and effect of faith. Or more clearly: To them eating is faith, to me it seems rather to follow from faith.”2 The distinction taken by Calvin between eating and believing seems to have been verbal rather than real. With many other theologians, however, it is far otherwise. All upholders of the magical doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation contend for the literal interpretation of the Capernaum discourse even in its strongest statements. Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood are, for such, acts of the mouth, accompanied perhaps with acts of faith, but not merely acts of faith. It is assumed for the most part as a matter of course, that the discourse recorded in the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel has reference to the sacrament of the Supper, and that only on the hypothesis of such a reference can the peculiar phraseology of the discourse be explained. Christ spoke then of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, so we are given to understand, because He had in His mind that mystic rite ere long to be instituted, in which bread and wine should not merely represent, but become, the constituent elements of His crucified body. While the sermon on the bread of life continues to be mixed up with sacramentarian controversies, agreement in its interpretation is altogether hopeless. Meantime, till a better day dawn on a divided and distracted church, every man must endeavor to be fully persuaded in his own mind. Three things are clear to our mind. First, it is incorrect to say that the sermon delivered in the Capernaum synagogue refers to the sacrament of the Supper. The true state of the case is, that both refer to a third thing, viz. the death of Christ, and both declare, in different ways, the same thing concerning it. The sermon says in symbolic words what the Supper says in a symbolic act: that Christ crucified is the life of men, the world’s hope of salvation. The sermon says more than this, for it speaks of Christ’s ascension as well as of His death; but it says this for one thing. A second point on which we are clear is, that it is quite unnecessary to assume a mental reference by anticipation to the Holy Supper, in order to account for the peculiarity of Christ’s language in this famous discourse. As we saw at the beginning, the whole discourse rose naturally out of the present situation. The mention by the people of the manna naturally led Jesus to speak of the bread of life; and from the bread He passed on as naturally to speak of the flesh and the blood, because he could not fully be bread until He had become flesh and blood dissevered, i.e. until He had endured death. All that we find here might have been said, in fact, although the sacrament of the Supper had never existed. The Supper is of use not so much for interpreting the sermon as for establishing its credibility as an authentic utterance of Jesus. There is no reason to doubt that He who instituted the mystic feast, could also have preached this mystic sermon. The third truth which shines clear as a star to our eye is,—that through faith alone we may attain all the blessings of salvation. Sacraments are very useful, but they are not necessary. If it had pleased Christ not to institute them, we could have got to heaven notwithstanding. Because He has instituted them, it is our duty to celebrate them, and we may expect benefit from their celebration. But the benefit we receive is simply an aid to faith, and nothing which cannot be received by faith. Christians eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man at all times, not merely at communion times, simply by believing in Him. They eat His flesh and drink His blood at His table in the same sense as at other times; only perchance in a livelier manner, their hearts being stirred up to devotion by remembrance of His dying love, and their faith aided by seeing, handling, and tasting the bread and the wine. The Training of the Twelve A B Bruce THE SIFTING JOHN 6:66–71 The sermon on the bread of life produced decisive effects. It converted popular enthusiasm for Jesus into disgust; like a fan, it separated true from false disciples; and like a winnowing breeze, it blew the chaff away, leaving a small residuum of wheat behind. “From that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him.” This result did not take Jesus by surprise. He expected it; in a sense He wished it, though He was deeply grieved by it. For while His large, loving human heart yearned for the salvation of all, and desired that all should come and get life, He wanted none to come to Him under misapprehension, or to follow Him from by-ends. He sought disciples God-given, God-drawn,2 God-taught, knowing that such alone would continue in His word.4 He was aware that in the large mass of people who had recently followed Him were many disciples of quite another description; and He was not unwilling that the mixed multitude should be sifted. Therefore He preached that mystic discourse, fitted to be a savor of life or of death according to the spiritual state of the hearer. Therefore, also, when offence was taken at the doctrine taught, He plainly declared the true cause, and expressed His assurance that only those whom His Father taught and drew would or could really come unto Him.6 These things He said not with a view to irritate, but He deemed it right to say them though they should give rise to irritation, reckoning that true believers would take all in good part, and that those who took umbrage would thereby reveal their true character. The apostatizing disciples doubtless thought themselves fully justified in withdrawing from the society of Jesus. They turned their back on Him, we fancy, in most virtuous indignation, saying in their hearts—nay, probably saying aloud to one another: “Who ever heard the like of that? how absurd! how revolting! The man who can speak thus is either a fool, or is trying to make fools of his hearers.” And yet the hardness of His doctrine was not the real reason which led so many to forsake Him; it was simply the pretext, the most plausible and respectable reason that they could assign for conduct springing from other motives. The grand offence of Jesus was this: He was not the man they had taken Him for; He was not going to be at their service to promote the ends they had in view. Whatever He meant by the bread of life, or by eating His flesh, it was plain that He was not going to be a bread-king, making it His business to furnish supplies for their physical appetites, ushering in a golden age of idleness and plenty. That ascertained, it was all over with Him so far as they were concerned: He might offer His heavenly food to whom He pleased; they wanted none of it. Deeply affected by the melancholy sight of so many human beings deliberately preferring material good to eternal life, Jesus turned to the twelve, and said, “Will ye also go away?” or more exactly, “You do not wish to go away too, do you?” The question may be understood as a virtual expression of confidence in the persons to whom it was addressed, and as an appeal to them for sympathy at a discouraging crisis. And yet, while a negative answer was expected to the question, it was not expected as a matter of course. Jesus was not without solicitude concerning the fidelity even of the twelve. He interrogated them, as conscious that they were placed in trying circumstances, and that if they did not actually forsake Him now, as at the great final crisis, they were at least tempted to be offended in Him. A little reflection suffices to satisfy us that the twelve were indeed placed in a position at this time calculated to try their faith most severely. For one thing, the mere fact of their Master being deserted wholesale by the crowd of quondam admirers and followers involved for the chosen band a temptation to apostasy. How mighty is the power of sympathy! how ready are we all to follow the multitude, regardless of the way they are going! and how much moral courage it requires to stand alone! How difficult to witness the spectacle of thousands, or even hundreds, going off in sullen disaffection, without feeling an impulse to imitate their bad example! how hard to keep one’s self from being carried along with the powerful tide of adverse popular opinion! Especially hard it must have been for the twelve to resist the tendency to apostatize if, as is more than probable, they sympathized with the project entertained by the multitude when their enthusiasm for Jesus was at full-tide. If it would have gratified them to have seen their beloved Master made king by popular acclamation, how their spirits must have sunk when the bubble burst, and the would-be subjects of the Messianic Prince were dispersed like an idle mob, and the kingdom which had seemed so near vanished like a cloudland! Another circumstance trying to the faith of the twelve was the strange, mysterious character of their Master’s discourse in the synagogue of Capernaum. That discourse contained hard, repulsive, unintelligible sayings for them quite as much as for the rest of the audience. Of this we can have no doubt when we consider the repugnance with which some time afterward they received the announcement that Jesus was destined to be put to death. If they objected even to the fact of His death, how could they understand its meaning, especially when both fact and meaning were spoken of in such a veiled and mystic style as that which pervades the sermon on the bread of life? While, therefore, they believed that their Master had the words of eternal life, and perceived that His late discourse bore on that high theme, it may be regarded as certain that the twelve did not understand the words spoken any more than the multitude, however much they might try to do so. They knew not what connection existed between Christ’s flesh and eternal life, how eating that flesh could confer any benefit, or even what eating it might mean. They had quite lost sight of the Speaker in His eagle flight of thought; and they must have looked on in distress as the people melted away, painfully conscious that they could not altogether blame them. Yet, however greatly tempted to forsake their Master, the twelve did abide faithfully by His side. They did come safely through the spiritual storm. What was the secret of their steadfastness? what were the anchors that preserved them from shipwreck? These questions are of practical interest to all who, like the apostles at this crisis, are tempted to apostasy by evil example or by religious doubt; by the fashion of the world they live in, whether scientific or illiterate, refined or rustic; or by the deep things of God, whether these be the mysteries of providence, the mysteries of revelation, or the mysteries of religious experience: we may say, indeed, to all genuine Christians, for what Christian has not been tempted in one or other of these ways at some period in his history? Sufficient materials for answering these questions are supplied in the words of Simon Peter’s response to Jesus. As spokesman for the whole company, that disciple promptly said: “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and know that Thou art that Christ, the son of the living God,” or, according to the reading preferred by most critics, “that Thou art the Holy One of God.”2 Three anchors, we infer from these words, helped the twelve to ride out the storm: Religious earnestness or sincerity; a clear perception of the alternatives before them; and implicit confidence in the character and attachment to the person of their Master. 1. The twelve, as a body, were sincere and thoroughly in earnest in religion. Their supreme desire was to know “the words of eternal life,” and actually to gain possession of that life. Their concern was not about the meat that perisheth, but about the higher heavenly food of the soul which Christ had in vain exhorted the majority of His hearers to labor for. As yet they knew not clearly wherein that food consisted, but according to their light they sincerely prayed, “Lord, evermore give us this bread.” Hence it was no disappointment to them that Jesus declined to become a purveyor of mere material food: they had never expected or wished Him to do so; they had joined His company with entirely different expectations. A certain element of error might be mingled with truth in their conceptions of His Mission, but the gross, carnal hopes of the multitude had no place in their breasts. They became not disciples to better their worldly circumstances, but to obtain a portion which the world could neither give them nor take from them. What we have now stated was true of all the twelve save one; and the crisis we are at present considering is memorable for this, among other things, that it was the first occasion on which Jesus gave a hint that there was a false disciple among the men whom He had chosen. To justify Himself for asking a question which seemed to cast a doubt upon their fidelity, He replied to Peter’s protestation by the startling remark: “Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” as if to say: “It is painful to me to have to use this language of suspicion, but I have good cause: there is one among you who has had thoughts of desertion, and who is capable even of treachery.” With what sadness of spirit must He have made such an intimation at this crisis! To be forsaken by the fickle crowd of shallow, thoughtless followers had been a small matter, could He have reckoned all the members of the select band good men and true friends. But to have an enemy in one’s own house, a diabolus capable of playing Satan’s part in one’s small circle of intimate companions:—it was hard indeed! But how could a man destined to be a traitor, and deserving to be stigmatized as a devil, manage to pass creditably through the present crisis? Does not the fact seem to imply that, after all, it is possible to be steadfast without being single-minded? Not so; the only legitimate inference is, that the crisis was not searching enough to bring out the true character of Judas. Wait till you see the end. A little religion will carry a man through many trials, but there is an experimentum crucis which nothing but sincerity can stand. If the mind be double, or the heart divided, a time comes that compels men to act according to the motives that are deepest and strongest in them. This remark applies especially to creative, revolutionary, or transition epochs. In quiet times a hypocrite may pass respectably through this world, and never be detected till he get to the next, whither his sins follow him to judgment. But in critical eras the sins of the double-minded find them out in this life. True, even then some double-minded men can stand more temptation than others, and are not to be bought so cheaply as the common herd. But all of them have their price, and those who fall less easily than others fall in the end most deeply and tragically. Of the character and fall of Judas we shall have another opportunity to speak. Our present object is simply to point out that from such as he Jesus did not expect constancy. By referring to that disciple as He did, He intimated His conviction that no one in whom the love of God and truth was not the deepest principle of his being would continue faithful to the end. In effect He inculcated the necessity, in order to steadfastness in faith, of moral integrity, or godly sincerity. 2. The second anchor by which the disciples were kept from shipwreck at this season was a clear perception of the alternatives. “To whom shall we go?” asked Peter, as one who saw that, for men having in view the aim pursued by himself and his brethren, there was no course open but to remain where they were. He had gone over rapidly in his mind all the possible alternatives, and this was the conclusion at which he had arrived. “To whom shall we go—we who seek eternal life? John, our former master, is dead; and even were he alive, he would send us back to Thee. Or shall we go to the scribes and Pharisees? We have been too long with Thee for that; for Thou hast taught us the superficiality, the hypocrisy, the ostentatiousness, the essential ungodliness of their religious system. Or shall we follow the fickle multitude there, and relapse into stupidity and indifference? It is not to be thought of. Or, finally, shall we go to the Sadducees, the idolaters of the material and the temporal, who say there is no resurrection, neither any angels nor spirits? God forbid! That were to renounce a hope dearer than life, without which life to an earnest mind were a riddle, a contradiction, and an intolerable burden.” We may understand what a help this clear perception of the alternatives was to Peter and his brethren, by reflecting on the help we ourselves might derive from the same source when tempted by dogmatic difficulties to renounce Christianity. It would make one pause if he understood that the alternatives open to him were to abide with Christ, or to become an atheist, ignoring God and the world to come; that when he leaves Christ, he must go to school to some of the great masters of thoroughgoing unbelief. In the works of a well-known German author is a dream, which portrays with appalling vividness the consequences that would ensue throughout the universe should the Creator cease to exist. The dream was invented, so the gifted writer tells us, for the purpose of frightening those who discussed the being of God as coolly as if the question respected the existence of the Kraken or the unicorn, and also to check all atheistic thoughts which might arise in his own bosom. “If ever,” he says, “my heart should be so unhappy and deadened as to have all those feelings which affirm the being of a God destroyed, I would use this dream to frighten myself, and so heal my heart, and restore its lost feelings.” Such benefit as Richter expected from the perusal of his own dream, would any one, tempted to renounce Christianity, derive from a clear perception that in ceasing to be a Christian he must make up his mind to accept a creed which acknowledges no God, no soul, no hereafter. Unfortunately it is not so easy for us now as it was for Peter to see clearly what the alternatives before us are. Few are so clear-sighted, so recklessly logical, or so frank as the late Dr. Strauss, who in his latest publication, The Old and the New Faith, plainly says that he is no longer a Christian. Hence many in our day call themselves Christians whose theory of the universe (or Weltanschauung, as the Germans call it) does not allow them to believe in the miraculous in any shape or in any sphere; with whom it is an axiom that the continuity of nature’s course cannot be broken, and who therefore cannot even go the length of Socinians in their view of Christ and declare Him to be, without qualification, the Holy One of God, the morally sinless One. Even men like Renan claim to be Christians, and, like Balaam, bless Him whom their philosophy compels them to blame. Our modern Balaams all confess that Jesus is at least the holiest of men, if not the absolutely Holy One. They are constrained to bless the Man of Nazareth. They are spellbound by the Star of Bethlehem, as was the Eastern soothsayer by the Star of Jacob, and are forced to say in effect: “How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed? or how shall I defy, whom the Lord hath not defied? Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and He hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.” Others not going so far as Renan, shrinking from thoroughgoing naturalism, believing in a perfect Christ, a moral miracle, yet affect a Christianity independent of dogma, and as little as possible encumbered by miracle, a Christianity purely ethical, consisting mainly in admiration of Christ’s character and moral teaching; and, as the professors of such a Christianity, regard themselves as exemplary disciples of Christ. Such are the men of whom the author of Supernatural Religion speaks as characterized by “a tendency to eliminate from Christianity, with thoughtless dexterity, every supernatural element which does not quite accord with current opinions,” and as endeavoring “to arrest for a moment the pursuing wolves of doubt and unbelief by practically throwing to them scrap by scrap the very doctrines which constitute the claims of Christianity to be regarded as a divine revelation at all.” Such men can hardly be said to have a consistent theory of the universe, for they hold opinions based on incompatible theories, are naturalistic in tendency, yet will not carry out naturalism to all its consequences. They are either not able, or are disinclined, to realize the alternatives and to obey the voice of logic, which like a stern policeman bids them “Move on;” but would rather hold views which unite the alternatives in one compound eclectic creed, like Schleiermacher,—himself an excellent example of the class,—of whom Strauss remarks that he ground down Christianity and Pantheism to powder, and so mixed them that it is hard to say where Pantheism ends and Christianity begins. In presence of such a spirit of compromise, so widespread, and recommended by the example of many men of ability and influence, it requires some courage to have and hold a definite position, or to resist the temptation to yield to the current and adopt the watchword: Christianity without dogma and miracle. But perhaps it will be easier by and by to realize the alternatives, when time has more clearly shown whither present tendencies lead. Meantime it is the evening twilight, and for the moment it seems as if we could do without the sun, for though he is below the horizon, the air is still full of light. But wait awhile; and the deepening of the twilight into the darkness of night will show how far Christ the Holy One of the Church’s confession can be dispensed with as the Sun of the spiritual world. 3. The third anchor whereby the twelve were enabled to ride out the storm, was confidence in the character of their Master. They believed, yea, they knew, that He was the Holy One of God. They had been with Jesus long enough to have come to very decided conclusions respecting Him. They had seen Him work many miracles; they had heard Him discourse with marvellous wisdom, in parable and sermon, on the divine kingdom; they had observed His wondrously tender, gracious concern for the low and the lost; they had been present at His various encounters with Pharisees, and had noted His holy abhorrence of their falsehood, pride, vanity, and tyranny. All this blessed fellowship had begotten a confidence in, and reverence for, their beloved Master, too strong to be shaken by a single address containing some statements of an incomprehensible character, couched in questionable or even offensive language. Their intellect might be perplexed, but their heart remained true; and hence, while others who knew not Jesus well went off in disgust, they continued by His side, feeling that such a friend and guide was not to be parted with for a trifle. “We believe and know,” said Peter. He believed because he knew. Such implicit confidence as the twelve had in Jesus is possible only through intimate knowledge; for one cannot thus trust a stranger. All, therefore, who desire to get the benefit of this trust, must be willing to spend time and take trouble to get into the heart of the Gospel story, and of its great subject. The sure anchorage is not attainable by a listless, random reading of the evangelic narratives, but by a close, careful, prayerful study, pursued it may be for years. Those who grudge the trouble are in imminent danger of the fate which befell the ignorant multitude, being liable to be thrown into panic by every new infidel book, or to be scandalized by every strange utterance of the Object of faith. Those, on the other hand, who do take the trouble, will be rewarded for their pains. Storm-tossed for a time, they shall at length reach the harbor of a creed which is no nondescript compromise between infidelity and scriptural Christianity, but embraces all the cardinal facts and truths of the faith, as taught by Jesus in the Capernaum discourse, and as afterwards taught by the men who passed safely through the Capernaum crisis. May God in His mercy guide all souls now out in the tempestuous sea of doubt into that haven of rest! John 6:1-15 How Christ Meets Needs Steven Cole Over 36 years ago when I began as a pastor (at age 30), I was extremely unsure about whether I could do the job. I didn’t know whether I could come up with new sermons week after week without running dry. I wasn’t sure about whether I could adequately shepherd God’s flock or fulfill the other demands of the position. So I told the Lord, “I’ll try it for three years and see where I’m at.” Although many weeks I still feel so overwhelmed with inadequacy that I think about quitting, by God’s grace alone, I’m still serving as a pastor. No text in the New Testament has helped me do what I do as much as the story of Jesus’ feeding of the 5,000. It might better be called the feeding of the 20,000, because there were 5,000 men, plus women and children. It’s not just a literal miracle witnessed by thousands of people. It’s also a parable with many lessons about the all-sufficiency of Jesus Christ to meet the vast needs of the world through His inadequate disciples. Although they were completely inadequate to meet the needs of this hungry crowd, they gave the little that they had to the Lord, who blessed it and multiplied it so that they could distribute it to the people. That’s been my experience for 36 years now. This is the only miracle recorded in all four gospels, which shows its significance. C. H.