Rem. You have in mind that there was no moral fruit resulting in this man who received the benefit, as there was, for instance, in the blind man in chapter 9, but that the sovereign activities of God go on irrespective of the result.

J.T. I think that is one lesson in the chapter, that although there were no outward permanent results, divine Persons go on in their activities in grace.

• In chapter 9 we see there is a result in the blind man which leads through the flock in chapter 10 up to the family in chapter 11, which is an encouraging side, because it shows that if one act of divine grace in the public sphere may not result in anything for God, divine Persons go on until there is something. The exercise begun in the blind man has its culmination in the early verses of chapter 12.

The man in our chapter is not detached from the current religious system; the Lord finds him in the temple. There is no thought of his coming into suffering because of his witness for Christ.

• In that way it may be applicable to what has taken place in the profession leading up to the last days. The man remains attached to his system instead of suffering with Jesus, and so the Lord has to say to him,
  • "Sin no more, that something worse do not happen to thee".

• That is the position; something worse will come. But the sign is perfect in itself; the man was made thoroughly well.

H.E.S. Are you distinguishing between the public sphere and that which is produced, particularly later on, in the vessel?

J.T. I am distinguishing between what has taken place in the public body without result for God, although the work was perfect in itself, and what subsequently had result in something for God.

• That is, chapters 9 to 12 inclusive, contemplate something for God; so that I think we may regard it as indicating that this dispensation will finish up with something for God. However small, it will be there in quality;
  • but here there is nothing, and so divine Persons are seen acting by themselves.

• Even as to witness, the Lord appeals to His Father:
  • "The Father who has sent me himself has borne witness concerning me", verse 37.

Ques. Would it be at all like Sardis?

• "I have not found thy works complete before my God", Revelation 3: 2.

• There was nothing fruitful for God.

J.T. Just so. Certainly Sardis had "received and heard", but there was no result; but Philadelphia had result for God.

Ques. In what way would His glory shine out when there is no result as in this case?

J.T. In the perfection of the work done and the grace that led Him to think of the man.

• The public position is described in the first four verses, and then it says,
  • "There was a certain man there who had been suffering under his infirmity thirty and eight years. Jesus seeing this man lying there, and knowing that he was in that state now a great length of time, says to him, Wouldest thou become well? The infirm man answered him. Sir, I have not a man, in order, when the water has been troubled, to cast me into the pool; but while I am coming another descends before me. Jesus says to him. Arise, take up thy couch and walk. And immediately the man became well, and took up his couch and walked".

• That is certainly the shining out of glory; and the public profession today, indicated in Jerusalem here, has had the advantage of corresponding testimony.

Ques. The rich grace and power of God are there and available, whether it is received or not; it is what comes out from God in grace. So your thought is that the Father and the Son seen in their own immediate relationships, can handle the situation.

J.T. That is how the truth stands.

A.P.M. What is the application of this sign today?

J.T. Well, Sardis has been alluded to, but the revival a hundred years ago resulted publicly in disaster. What we are going on with now is, you might say, a remnant of a remnant.

• The great body of those affected by the light went off in independency and remained there. Others have gone off since, adding to the darkness.

• Thus in the many of those who were affected directly by the movement referred to, there was no result for God. Indeed there has been not only the opposition of imitation, but also, from time to time, direct attacks.

• They come back, knowing the place, with lanterns and torches and weapons. Compare John 18: 2-3.

Eu.R. What is the import of the pool here?

J.T. It is not running water. It alludes, I think, to the stationary character of Christendom.

• Running water requires scope; you cannot have running water in such an institution as Presbyterianism for example; you cannot have it in those enclosures.

• Whatever is of God is not sluggish; running water is the Spirit given scope; the way is made for Him, the saints being together in affection. Our meeting here today is on that principle, thank God!

H.M.S. And would this sign be in the nature of declaration, and not revelation in the way you have been speaking of it?

J.T. Somewhat. It is a public matter; God is seen here in the very centre of official religion. The evangelist tells us that

• "there is in Jerusalem, at the sheepgate, a pool".

• One has often wondered why it is in the present tense, Jerusalem doubtless having been destroyed at this time; I think it means that this state of things continues around us.

• God has not wholly abandoned the public profession; the symbol of mercy is still there. You have the idea of a pool and occasional interventions in the troubling of the waters, but no permanent result.

Ques. Would the river at Philippi "where prayer was wont to be made", Acts 16: 13, at the outset, and the Spirit's speaking at the close be in contrast to the pool?

J.T. I think that is right; a river is living. Rivers have power of self-purification. At the outset God brought in the rivers.

• In Genesis 1 the waters are gathered together into one place and the dry land appeared, but in chapter 2 you have a river going out of Eden to water the garden, and that is a thought that runs through Scripture.

Rem. Like Revelation 22.

J.T. Exactly, and it brings out the gold. Apparently the link is with the gold. It says of the land encompassed by the river Pison – where the river has free course – that "the gold of that land is good; bdellium and the onyx stone are there", Genesis 2: 12. They come into evidence in relation to the river.

H.E.S. Were you suggesting that, however stagnant established religion might be, God in His grace was in activity?

J.T. There is a pool in Jerusalem. I should not like to think that God had wholly abandoned the public body. I do not think He has.

Rem. I suppose we see the evidence of that in souls being brought into new birth and in evangelical work.

J.T. Yes. The work of God goes on, otherwise many of us would not be here today. There are angelic visitations, but the Lord comes in and acts entirely aside from these here. That is, He is not working on that principle.

• The yearly visitation is angelic; there is distance, whereas the Lord Jesus is operating aside from that altogether; He disregards the pool. He asks the man,
  • "Wouldest thou become well?"

• He had been there a long time, and that is how matters are in the systems; you have to wait. It is a question in the general profession of officialism and what it decides. Whatever God may do has to be held up until officialism moves, and, moreover, there is no power in yourself either. There is no man there; the principle of sympathy is not there.
  • "Sir, I have not a man", the infirm man says, "in order, when the water has been troubled, to cast me into the pool".

• Now, the Lord comes in in contrast to all that, and that is what I think we may see in the subsequent part of the chapter, how divine activities go on outside of all those things, and that they will go on.

• There is no thought whatever of divine Persons ceasing to operate. The Lord proceeds immediately to say,
  • "My Father worketh hitherto and I work".

• From the very outset the Father works.

H.F.N. Are we justified in regarding what underlies this sign, as indicating that the Lord's intent in the man walking, was that he might move in relation to the sphere where divine Persons are operating?

• In keeping with what was said as to the father and the son in the house (chapter 4), in this chapter you have the Father and the Son working together. Is there a link in any way?

J.T. That is very suggestive. The intent of the sign was to make the man superior to his circumstances. He carried his bed, and if he did that, he ought to be able to move in relation to divine operations, to move out of the limitations suggested in the pool.

• I think what is intended is to make him a son of light in relation to his circumstances, that his circumstances should not hold him, but that he should be free to move in relation to what divine Persons were doing.

• But he did not; he was found in the temple. He did not move spiritually at all.

H.F.N. In chapter 1 it says, "No man hath seen God at any time", John 1: 18, and then we have a reference here to the fact that there was no man to put him into the pool. Does the chapter supply the man?

J.T. I think so; the One in whom God is declared was ready to help the infirm man. We are here in the presence of one of the features of the declaration of God.

• It implies that we are made superior to our circumstances, which I think applies at the present time, because circumstances are very pressing. God would show us how we are to be superior to them, to carry them as it were, so as to move on with what is being done divinely.

• The great pressure that exists abroad today is a very serious matter, and it is a question whether we come into the good of this sign, and so are made superior to our circumstances – sons of light in relation to them – whether we may be able to carry them and move on.

• The sequel here, shows that divine Persons have to move on by themselves, and they will do so if we do not go on with them.

Ques. What would you say was the real difficulty with this man seeing he did what the Lord wanted him to do?

J.T. He did not leave the system. He is not cast out; he bears no testimony that arouses any opposition to himself. He remains where he was, and the Lord finds him in the temple and says to him,

• "Behold, thou art become well; sin no more".

• I think that would mean that the Lord had no confidence in him. As with the woman in chapter 8, there is nothing to indicate much work in her either, so the Lord says to her, "Sin no more".

• But we do not get that with the woman at Sychar, nor with the man in chapter 9, nor with Lazarus, – he is let go; but here evidently the Lord has not much confidence in the man. If one comes into divine benefits and is not moving in relation to them, we lose confidence in him.

M.W.B. Do you think the work here would have in view believers being brought into the liberty of the house in chapter 8?

J.T. I think it would. If we move on from this point as the Lord intended, superior to our circumstances, we shall find ourselves in the liberty of the house.

• But he was in the temple, he was not detached from the system that served him so poorly, and he did not seek out the Man who served him so well.

Ques. The benefits brought in by Christ are enormous, but the great failing is there is no personal attachment to Christ? Is that the thing that comes out here?

J.T. People remain where they were, but the Lord may follow them up, even though there is no attachment to Him. So the Lord says,

• "Sin no more, that something worse do not happen to thee".

• What a solemn suggestion as to the public body today and anyone remaining in it.

Ques. Would this sign answer to the Lord standing at the door and knocking in Laodicea? The man being found in the temple would indicate that he had not opened the door to the Lord's knocking, so to speak – that he did not value the Lord's company.

J.T. That is right. There is no response personally to the Lord, and he is left with this solemn word of warning that something worse may happen to him.

Rem. Had he moved he would have answered to Philadelphia: "I know thy works", but here there was no work for the Lord to take account of.

J.T. Works that He approves are seen in those who are separate from evil. "Sin no more" is answered to by those who have the Spirit.

Rem. I wondered whether it would help to compare this chapter with chapter 4. In chapter 4 the Lord speaks of a fountain of water and the results are wonderful, but here it is a pool.

J.T. The man does not move out of the circumstances in which he was, although he had the power. It is a question of the word of Christ.

• There was no conversation with the man as in chapters 3 and 4. It is just the word of Christ and the perfect result of it, a man made thoroughly well, but no moral effect in him, so that he stays where he is and rather brings persecution on the Lord.

D.L.H. What is the force of the thirty and eight years, two years short of forty which is the full period of testing?

J.T. I suppose, applying it today, the two years remaining would be to finish the history of Christendom. Forty years is a tentative period.

• These thirty and eight years would indicate that nothing good was being worked out. Forty years would be the finish, so that Paul says,
  • "Wrath has come upon them to the uttermost", 1 Thessalonians 2: 16.

• I suppose the man comes into that in principle, for he did not leave the doomed system. Later the Lord says,
  • "Now is the judgment of this world", John 12: 31.

• Those who remain in it are judged with the world.

D.L.H. "Sin no more" would refer to the government of God.

J.T. Exactly; sinning again would imply that he remained in the old environment, and would come in for what was coming upon it.

Ques. The Lord here distinctly heals this man apart from the pool; why did He send the blind man to the pool?

J.T. I rather think the water was running in Siloam (compare Isaiah 8: 5-6). Anyway the word there is "sent". There is a moral process in that man.

Rem. The Lord discerned the work of God.

J.T. The Lord knew. "Neither has this man sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God should be manifested in him", John 9: 3.

• The works of God are manifested in him, but not in this man. "I have done one work", the Lord said – not works; the works bear on each other and include the whole of God's operations in a believer.

H.E.S. Is it a marked feature of John's gospel that divine results are permanent? The thought is to produce movement in us, but that movement is not reached in the public body.

J.T. That is right. The first sign indicated that the disciples believed on Him; there was permanent result. They went down to Capernaum, and they are mentioned last after His mother and His brethren, but there is nothing of that with this man; he does not seek the Lord at all.

Ques. Is it not important in chapter 8, in regard of the woman, that He says to her, "Sin no more", and immediately speaks of following?

• "He that follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life", John 8: 12.

• Is it not a question of attraction?

J.T. Yes; it was for her to follow. He did not ask her to do it, as He did others. As I said, she is another case where results are doubtful.

Ques. What relation has the sheepgate to the pool?

J.T. I suppose, professedly, it is where the sheep are cared for.

P.L. Would you say that the shepherd in chapter 10 and the door, are rather in contrast to the sheepgate and the five porches?

J.T. That helps. The gate involves an enclosure, a fold, as the pool implies a stationary thing. It was right so far to have an enclosure, but the time was coming when the shepherd's voice would be heard.

• The voice of Jesus was there. "Wouldest thou become well?" and the man is empowered to carry his bed, that is, he can move. There was no need to stay in what was stationary; there was a way out.

• The shepherd was there, but the man did not take advantage of the liberty He gives; he is not characteristically a sheep.

P.L. Would the five porches suggest the indefiniteness of what is connected with Christendom? There is no way defined; the Lord says, "I am the way", John 14: 6.

J.T. Five would be here not only ordinary human weakness, but impotency. "Having five porches" possibly alludes to the different sects, involving many ways, whereas the Lord is the one way that we are to follow.

Ques. Would the position of this man be in any way akin to the Galatians, in having received certain benefits and not continuing in them?

J.T. Exactly; they were going back to the limitations of the law which had served them so poorly. Paul speaks of the "beggarly elements", meaning the poverty of it, in contrast to sonship, which would be involved in the believer having power to carry his circumstances.

• The idea is that if I have been relieved from my circumstances I can follow the Lord. What better can I do than keep with the Lord who so benefits me?

F.W.W. Does the Lord raising the question of the sabbath suggest the idea of the Father working and He working with Him?

J.T. The sabbath had been broken (compare Zechariah 11: 10,11). You could not keep sabbath in the presence of sin. Christ is the sabbath of God.

• It is remarkable that the Lord does these things on the sabbath so as to bring out that there could be no sabbath in the presence of sin. The sabbath is in Himself, and the Father rests in Him, because, potentially, sin is dealt with in His becoming a Man, compare John 1: 29.

H.M.S. With regard to the effect of the great sign in this chapter. Is it that the dead hear the voice of the Son of God; whereas the result of the sign in chapter 9 is more the sheep hearing the voice of the shepherd?

J.T. I think we can understand the shepherd coming in in chapter 10, because the idea of sheep is suggested in the man who was an outcast.

• I think the figure of the shepherd is to bring in the care that we need, as believing on the Son of God. It is to bring out the tender care of the shepherd, so that the idea of unity should come in leading up to the family.

• But this man does not show himself to be a sheep, and so divine Persons proceed in their operations, leading up to the voice of the Son of God and persons living by that voice, not only by the word. He says,
  • "He that hears my word, and believes him that has sent me, has life eternal, and does not come into judgment, but is passed out of death into life",

• but then the voice is more than the word. We do not get anything more than the word mentioned in regard of this man, but you get the idea of the voice connected with John's sheep; and you get the idea of the voice in regard of the dead. It is not so much the word spoken, but the voice – the voice of the Son of God.

Ques. How is that distinction between the word and the voice realised now?

J.T. The word conveys the mind, also authority, without carrying so much the thought of His affections, what Christ is personally.

• The voice is the Person more than what is said. A person is known by his voice.

P.L. So that in Revelation you have the "Word of God" and then "I Jesus".

J.T. Just so. The latter is the Person. In chapter 1, John turns "to see the voice", but afterwards we get what the Lord said.

D.L.H. What would you say of the voice of the prophets?

J.T. That is in the sense of testimony. And of course there would be what the prophets are. The prophets were distinctive; so that Peter tells us what kind of men they were:

• "Holy men of God spake under the power of the Holy Spirit", 2 Peter 1: 21.

• That is what the prophets are, and the voice would be a testimony from such persons.

D.L.H. It seems like one voice; it is not the voices of the prophets, but the voice of the prophets.

J.T. That is important; it is their combined testimony. You get the voice from heaven too, in Revelation, without any mention of persons,

• but when you get the voice of the person distinctively mentioned, it is to call attention to the person.

E.S.H. When the Lord returns it is with voice of archangel; what is your thought as to that?

J.T. It is characteristic; it is supreme authority in Christ, not exactly an archangel speaking.

E.J.McB. The man, in this case, hears the Lord's word. He had the word of Jesus, but he did not know it. The idea of hearing His voice would be that he would know it.

J.T. That is the idea, and it comes out more fully in chapter 10, because the sheep know His voice, and follow Him on account of it.

P.L. The expression of John, to which you referred, in Revelation, "I turned back to see the voice", Revelation 1: 12, would suggest the Person?

J.T. No doubt he had the Person in mind.

Rem. The expression in the Song of Songs answers to it: "The companions hearken to thy voice, let me hear it", chapter 8: 13.

M.W.B. It is interesting that Saul speaks of the voice, and also Ananias:

• "To see the just one, and to hear a voice out of his mouth" Acts 2 : 14.

J.T. That supports what we are saying. It is very precious that the Lord's voice is known, but here it is the power that is in Him. It is that Person's voice, the voice of the Son of God.

I think we might see in our enquiry this morning the great bearing of the operations of divine Persons that comes out in the Lord working and Jesus saying,

• "My Father worketh hitherto".

• He might have said, Jehovah hath worked, but it is
  • "My Father worketh hitherto and I work".

• He is bringing in, in the most positive way, the nature of the relations between Himself and His Father in their operations. The passage brings out the equality of the Son, as Man with the Father; but He has assumed a relatively inferior position.

• I think the chapter is intended to regulate our minds in regard to divine Persons, in the mediatorial position into which They have come. "My Father worketh hitherto"; that is how this thing is going on; the Father works too.

• We have love in activity in the Father, but the Father is not presented to us as One remaining in the dignity and majesty of deity only, but as hitherto operating, and now the Son operates. "I work", He says.

• It is the beautiful relations between Them in Their work. The Jews understood fully what the Lord meant, and I think that is the thing the Lord would help us in, to see the meaning of things, to think as Scripture thinks.

• The Jews understood that what the Lord was saying implied that He was equal with God. He says, "My Father worketh hitherto and I work", and they say in effect, You are making yourself equal with God, and the Lord does not deny it. It is absolutely true.

• We can come into the knowledge of divine things, especially in relation to divine Persons, only by thinking in the terms of Scripture.

H.F.N. You referred last night to the Lord ascending up far above all heavens. Would you mind saying how that relates to what you are speaking of this morning? What is the relation of that, to the mediatorial sphere that is opened up here?

J.T. It serves to emphasise what is brought out here. It is equality between divine Persons. The Person who has taken the lowly place, goes above all heavens, that is, beyond the created sphere.

• The mediatorial service of Jesus obviously has allusion to the created sphere; He has come into it mediatorially. Outside of that we cannot follow Him, and Ephesians clearly intimates that He has gone beyond that,
  • "ascended up above all the heavens", Ephesians 4: 10.

• If we think in the terms of Scripture, we see that that means deity; it means a Person who has the right to go there, but what He is there, we cannot see.

• The Person is there, but we are limited. We must keep the word 'inscrutable' before us in dealing with these great matters.

H.D'A.C. That is beyond the creature.

Eu.R. Would you distinguish between that and what we have in John 20: 17

• "I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God"?

J.T. I would, for there the ascension is in relation to us, it is to His Father and our Father.

P.L. Would not the expression,

• "If then ye see the Son of man ascending up where he was before", John 6: 62,

• connect with deity, as distinct from
  • "I ascend to my Father and your Father", John 20: 17?

• I was thinking that the former goes beyond the mediatorial sphere.

J.T. You cannot limit that, I am sure, but I think the point of view there is, that having come down out of heaven. He goes up to heaven, but we cannot follow Him beyond the created sphere. We have to accept our limitations. Nor can we be too positive or too negative as to what is in that realm.

A.S.L. Is it not good to see also that, as you have just said, it is impossible for us to follow Him where He has gone far above all heavens, and it is equally impossible for us to know anything save what is declared, about what was before He came?

J.T. Exactly; the things revealed are for us, and not any more. I cannot even understand how the Lord moved about in the forty days after He rose. He was only occasionally manifested to His own.

• We have just to bow and say that while we do not understand fully, we worship the wonderful Person that could move about in that inscrutable way.

W.C.G. "I go to prepare a place for you", John 14: 2; would that refer to the new created sphere?

J.T. Yes. There is a new heaven and a new earth, but His going there has really prepared the place; there is a footing for men there; we have liberty as He has.

H.M.S. Would you help us a little more as to verse 17? We have thought when the Lord Jesus said, "My Father worketh hitherto", that He is referring to the past eternity.

J.T. I do not think that is the allusion, but to the breaking of the sabbath. That is, the rest of God was broken in upon by sin, and there had been no rest since, until Christ became Man.

• The first use of the word sabbath is in Exodus 16, linked with the manna, which is the idea of Christ as Man here. There was really no sabbath after sin came in until Christ came.

G.W.W. Is the thought that what we may know lies between the two points, when He came into the created sphere, and when He left it?

J.T. Yes.

G.W.W. You cannot travel back beyond the point where He came in and you cannot follow beyond the point where He went out.

Rem. Would that be qualified by what the Lord may be pleased to reveal or declare? One quite follows what was said, but then He has declared certain things.

J.T. Surely; what He has declared, existed before; but it is brought in in relation to the creation, and in Himself as in the likeness of flesh of sin, in the form of man, in such wise as to be intelligible to the creature.

• I think that is most important, because it shuts out the idea that we can look into what is there. It is the thing brought out so as to be intelligible to us, and that in a Man,
  • "the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father", John 1: 18.

• In saying that what is declared existed before, I do not, of course, include the relations taken in order that there should be a declaration.

A.F.M. Would it include the glory that the Lord asks to be glorified with in chapter 17: 5?

J.T. That is beyond the created sphere. Evidently it is so, because it was before the world, and so we have to leave it there. We know it is there, and He goes there, but we can say no more as far as I can see.

H.D'A.C. Why does it say He is "higher than the heavens"?

J.T. I think to show that He can go beyond the created sphere. How great He is!

H.D'A.C. I do not see how we come in there.

J.T. I think it is to show that our Priest is a divine Person, but a divine Person in humanity. The Son is our Priest, and so Melchisedec is assimilated to Him.

• God had in His mind a certain order of priest, and He brings a personage on the scene and mentions things about him which could only apply to a divine Person.
  • "Consider how great this personage was", Hebrews 7: 4.

Ques. Are there not certain features about the uncreated sphere that we are to understand, and which call for worship? I was thinking of glory and affection and equality.

J.T. We understand that they are there, as the divine Persons are, but what more can we say? What may be understood has come into our view in one of the divine Persons, in incarnation.

• I do not think we can speak of understanding anything else; the glory which He had with the Father is spoken of as existing before the world was, but the Lord does not ask that His own should see it.

Rem. I only meant in reference to understanding that they were there, and that knowledge would enter into the spirit of worship.

J.T. Quite so. That is to say, the inscrutable is there, and the very idea produces worship; but I must worship intelligently, and if I do that, I worship in relation to a God that is known to me. That is to say, He is brought within our understanding, in Christ as Man.

• I do not think the uncreated sphere enters into our worship beyond what we know is there. We are dealing with what we understand and so the worshippers are intelligent.

• We worship the Father in spirit and truth; that is, God, come within our range in a known way. We must ever bear in mind
  • "Whom no man has seen, nor is able to see", 1 Timothy 6: 16.

W.C.G. Does that lead us to honour the Son as the Father is honoured?

J.T. It does; that He can go beyond what is created. It is more than the liberty of the house (chapter 8: 35). The Son abides in the house for ever, that is where we are;

• but that He can go beyond the created sphere implies that He is on equality with God, and that is what this chapter stresses;

• although it stresses also, that He is subject and does not do anything of Himself, save whatever He sees the Father doing.

• Yet the spirit of the whole chapter is equality between divine Persons, and yet subjection in One of Them as Man.

G.W.W. So would it be right to say there was a moment when the Lord passed again into that which is inscrutable? We are confronted with the word 'inscrutability', as you said, and we cannot pass beyond it.

J.T. Undoubtedly, and we instinctively understand it must be so. We cannot restrict Him to limitations that He takes upon Himself. He may speak of Himself, as He does in the Psalms, in a way in which we could not possibly speak of Him; we have to leave that with Himself. If He says to Jehovah,

• "Take me not away in the midst of my days", Psalm 102: 24,

• and speaks in the most abject terms of Himself, the answer is,
  • "Thou art the Same, and thy years shall have no end", Psalm 102: 27.

• He made the heavens and all things; there is perfect balance in thinking of the Lord Jesus in that way.

• But we must not impose as obligatory on Him, what He takes on Himself; and when He humbles Himself in that way, as in the Psalm mentioned, God says,
  • "Thy years are from generation to generation, of old hast thou founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands … thou art the Same", Psalm 102: 24-25,27.

S.J.B.C. F.E.R. once said that we cannot think of Christ as God and Man at the same time.

J.T. That was a very good remark and has helped me. I cannot apply to Him, from the point of view of His deity, that He is a Bondman. He has come out from God and He is God:

• "Over all, God blessed for ever", Romans 9: 5.

• That is one thing. Then I look at Him in manhood, under God's eye, and I understand something of His bondmanship there. He has taken a Bondman's form in emptying Himself.

F.S.M. Is there blessing in accepting the limitations as suggested in Deuteronomy 29: 29

• "The hidden things belong to Jehovah our God; but the revealed things are ours"?

  And then 1 Corinthians 2: 10 "The Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God".

• We receive the Spirit that we may know the things freely given to us of God. There are things beyond us, but there are things given to us.

J.T. Quite so. The "depths of God" would be the sense in which He is known. But it has to be understood that the Spirit too, whilst a divine Person, has come from Jesus, received from the Father and shed forth. His operations are in that connection, so that we understand the things of God by Him, and He searches the depths of God.

• The Holy Spirit does not bring out to us the nature of the eternal relations of Jesus; He brings out what is intelligible to us. We are not fit to receive more. I am not able to take in the creation, much less the Creator!

Ques. What is the glory which He says we shall behold?

J.T. "The glory which thou hast given me", John 17: 22;

• I apprehend that is the glory that He has come into as a Man. There are glories attaching to Him as Man, which are intelligible to us.

J.J. Do you think the thought of quickening coming in here is absolutely necessary to the understanding of these things?

J.T. I am sure it is; by the "voice of the Son of God". So what would this man understand in whom the sign was wrought?

• He might become a theologian. I mean, if he were affected by the word of Christ, there was much that he might go in for, had he ability, but evidently he was not quickened in a spiritual sense. Quickening brings us into the realm of life.

• The man heard the word, but his affections were not touched. Quickening involves my being taken out of death, but it involves I am alive in my affections and intelligence, which is very wonderful.

• It enters into Colossians, where we are about to enter Canaan, where we begin to see divine Persons in the sphere in which They are, in relation to eternal purpose.

J.J. Is the thought of quickening in this chapter the continuation of what you said yesterday as to new birth in chapter 4?

J.T. They are distinct ideas, as already indicated. Quickening has a state of death in view.

W.C.G. Would you tell us the relation between what you have said, and verse 24, that is the development of eternal life in the saints?

J.T. What you get in these verses, where the Lord speaks of the Father's working and the Son's working, has in mind the work of God in us. It is the work of God in us now that is in view. This man is not in that.

• Divine Persons have to proceed, and they are proceeding on lines that will result in something for God, so that,
  • "He that hears my word, and believes him that has sent me, has life eternal".

• That person is a characteristic believer; not like the man raised up. The Lord is contemplating persons characterised by hearing His word and believing on Him that sent Him; meaning that you are recognising the economy of this book, the Father and the Son, and the Son coming as 'sent'.

• There is a moral work in the soul, and you, as believing, have eternal life; it is characteristic. It does not mean the person who is listening to you preaching the gospel, it means a person who hears characteristically.

• As it says, "Verily, verily …" Those "verilys" are landmarks in the book, and severally indicate some point the Lord would emphasise. So He says,
  • "Verily, verily, I say unto you, that he that hears my word, and believes him that has sent me, has life eternal";

• it is characteristic; he hears Christ's word and believes on the One who sent Him. It is characteristic; I am in the full light of the economy of the book, the Father and the Son, and my portion is eternal life.

E.J.McB. The man that was thoroughly well might afterwards hear the voice of one who came in his own name and be carried away by it, but the one that comes under the operations of the Father and the Son will abide for ever.

J.T. He is a characteristic hearer and believer.

A.S.L. Do you think there is a distinction to be seen and made between My Father and the Father?

J.T. Yes; My Father is the Father related to the Son.

A.S.L. "My Father" is the word He uses when we come into view. He does not say, I ascend to the Father, but My Father.

J.T. You do not get the Father named as our Father, except once in the whole gospel; that is in chapter 20. It is always the Father, or My Father. The Father is that Person, God acting in grace.

S.J.B.C. Do you think the Father, in the abstract, always refers to the revelation of God as the Father?

J.T. It is generally that Person in the deity. In John's gospel it is never your Father except in chapter 20, but in Matthew it is constantly that.

• John brings into evidence that God has taken up the attitude of grace expressed in that name; it is formally stated in this chapter that the Father judges no one. So we understand that it is grace; we are brought into an economy of grace. The Father dominates it, and the Son tells us here that He is not doing anything save what the Father does.

• Think of the marvellous sphere of things into which we are brought where the grace of the Father dominates and where there is all this blessed activity. The Father raises the dead and quickens them, and so does the Son, and we are brought into that realm as recipients of the grace of God.

Eu.R. Would you say one word on the verse in Corinthians, where it says,

• "To us there is one God the Father", 1 Corinthians 8: 6?

J.T. That is how we stand publicly, which 1 Corinthians treats of:

• "… there are gods many, and lords many, yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we for Him", 1 Corinthians 8: 6.

• "And one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him",

• showing that the title "Lord Jesus Christ" may be used to designate the Lord in the past, for it is by Him all things are made.

• I think it is the public position of Christianity in 1 Corinthians, in contrast to heathendom and Judaism.

• The Jews would say Jehovah, but the Christian says, "To us there is one God, the Father"; it is God revealed in grace; "And one Lord, Jesus Christ" who brings everything into existence, "and we by Him", 1 Corinthians 8: 6.

• which is very significant. Do you not think there it is the thought of the love of God coming out to us? It is the Father as that Person.

J.T. It is the Father Himself; the Father is emphasised.

G.W.W. Does not that word "My" in chapter 20 assume the fact that the Lord has assumed a position where He can definitely associate us with Himself? Does not that give special character and emphasis to that word "My" in chapter 20 which would not be present perhaps on other occasions?

J.T. I think that is important, because when He says "My Father" earlier, it is a question of divine Persons.

G.W.W. And that word has distinctly in view the thought of association in chapter 20.

J.T. It brings us in.

Now chapter 6 contemplates a service in which the Lord includes His disciples. Chapter 5 is at Jerusalem and gives the general view of the public position, divine Persons operating to the end, and the public body becoming apostate;

• but chapter 6 is in Galilee, so that the position is changed and the disciples are associated with the Lord in this sign.

• It is a question of food; and the Lord may show us in our consideration of the chapter, that we have a part in the supply of food. The bearing of it is towards all; whatever we have in the way of food is for all.
  • It says, "After these things Jesus went away beyond the sea of Galilee, or of Tiberias, and a great crowd followed him, because they saw the signs which he wrought upon the sick".

• That is, we are away now from the scene of religious power and officialism, and special opposition to Christ, so that there is some interest; and interest even of this kind is not to be despised, even if occasioned by the signs.

• It is God approaching the profession from the standpoint of a remnant under reproach, but with food. It is not on the level of current religion, for the Lord goes up, as verse 3 says,
  • "into the mountain, and there sat with His disciples".

• The Jewish passover was near, but He was going on with His disciples in moral elevation, so that a new position is taken up and food is supplied, having a bearing towards all.

• The things said about spiritual food, are said in Capernaum, which is especially the sphere of testimony, and links on with the religious opposition. (Compare Matthew 11: 23).

H.E.S. Are you calling special attention to the fact that nothing is said about the disciples in the previous incident, but they are specially mentioned in this one?

J.T. Yes. Chapter 5 contemplates an act of the Lord by Himself. It is a movement, as you might say, in Christendom, in the very heart of the system, and those in high places were reached.

• God began to move; it was not done in a corner, but in the very heart of the religious system. But there was no permanent result.

• But divine Persons go on, and now a new position is taken up in the place of reproach
  • "away beyond the sea of Galilee",

• but the bearing of it is towards the whole profession, and the disciples are associated with Him in it.

D.L.H. Why is the "passover, the feast of the Jews", referred to here at the outset, because the Lord was in Galilee with His disciples?

J.T. I thought it was just to denote that the current religious procedure goes on uninterruptedly, but He was going on too; as if we have to leave the fact that such religious procedure goes on, and not be hindered by it.

A.F.M. In this scripture we have the disciples, as you were saying, and then at the end we have the twelve baskets gathered up. Is there a connection between the two thoughts of administration?

J.T. I think that is what we shall come to. The twelve baskets bring in the thought of the administration of food, and then, at the end, the Lord speaks to "the twelve" without saying more than that, as if the idea of administration is now coming into evidence.

• But if we have part with the Lord in this service from this moral elevation in the despised place, He will draw us on to His own side; there is obligation attaching to it. The number would denote that it is obligatory upon us, and that the service is to be carried on according to divine manipulation, each having his appointed part.

• It is very precious to be drawn to the Lord's side, to sit down with Him; to start on this line and come into the idea of the twelve, which will go on into the heavenly city. Because there is nothing less before us now, and the great culmination of the administrative idea in the number twelve is in the new Jerusalem.

• The Lord, in referring to the apostles, does not go beyond "the twelve", giving the idea that it may be taken up at any time. Where love is amongst the brethren, you come to recognise divine appointment, not perhaps exactly official, but nevertheless there is the recognition of divine appointment and ordering.

Ques. Would that have an application in connection with the preaching, and the preachers of the gospel in a locality?

J.T. Well, somewhat, if we are dextrous enough to avoid officialism, to have the thing without the official garb. I think the word "twelve" just saves us from that.

• It is a select number, and the administrative idea is in it, so that the preaching of the gospel in our rooms partakes of this idea.

• Then that introduces another thing, that is, first principles in levitical service. We are told that Peter stood up "with the eleven".

• Not only did he recognise that he was one of the twelve, not only did he look to them as supporters, but he owned, in that he stood up with them – not they with him – that there were others, that they also could preach.

• That would make room for all in the principle of it. If one stands up to preach he recognises that others can and do preach.

Ques. You say if we are dextrous enough to avoid the official garb; do you think we are liable to fall into the danger of the official garb?

J.T. Yes. The number twelve has in mind that love exists underneath. If a new meeting is formed, there is the appointment of certain persons to look after different services.

• There is great danger of becoming official, whereas it is simply that the work has to be done, and the principle is that I am available and the brethren allow me to do it.

• But the Lord greatly modifies the use of the disciples here, because, according to the better rendering, He hands the food to the people Himself; He keeps us more or less out of view, and yet we are in view, because He speaks to Philip first about it, and says to him,
  • "Whence shall we buy loaves that these may eat?"

• It is as if the Lord would say. Now I give you the opportunity, what will you do about this? He does not put any obligation upon Philip to provide, but it is simply to bring out where he was, which is an important and exercising thing.

S.J.B.C. Philip was occupied with what was needed, and Andrew was occupied with what they had, but neither of them seemed to have grasped the great truth of the sufficiency of Christ.

J.T. It is an important thing to have our weakness exposed. It is a source of strength just to know how weak and ignorant we are.

Ques. Would not the fact of this being a little boy and the meagreness of the supply, encourage us in whatever conditions we may be found in a day of confusion and weakness like this? The Lord is always competent to take up what there is if it is taken up with Him. Is there that thought in it?

J.T. Quite so. He "knew what he was going to do", and it would be done. Thank God for that! Things are going to be done, but what about those of us who are allowed of the Lord to take part in the service? The Lord would disclose to us just where we are.

A.F.M. There is a suggestion here of two hundred denarii. Is it not better to own that we have nothing, in order that the Lord may come in for us?

J.T. This calculation of two hundred denarii worth is a question of mathematics; there is no spiritual touch in it at all. That is how things come out. However clever he may have been in calculating, there is the absence of a spiritual touch with Philip.

Ques. Does the Lord expose the position in order that He may use what is there?

J.T. Exactly, so that we are discovered; and only He can disclose just how ignorant and weak we are. When that is done, the precious fact is present that "he knew what he was going to do", but in doing it, He would have them with Him intelligently. If we are to be with Him intelligently He must disclose to us just how ignorant and weak we are.

E.J.McB. Do you think in the unspiritual view that Philip took of it, the Lord would indicate to us that when a new move is being made, you want to confine your exercises to what is spiritual, rather than view the situation from the wealth of the people in actual money? Is that in your mind?

J.T. Yes, because if we are not spiritual we shall come forward with our mathematics, or something else like it, mere knowledge that can be acquired according to man. It did not take a converted man to calculate as Philip did; it was not even levitical.

P.L. Does not John close his gospel with the suggestion that mathematics fail in the presence of thisglorious Person?

• "I suppose that not even the world itself would contain the books written", John 21: 25.

J.T. Very good. A scientific man would scoff at it, and say it is absurd that the world could not contain the books, but it is a spiritual thing. We get mathematics in John in the Revelation, wonderful measurements governed by the number twelve, in the city, which are absurd to the natural mind, but we have to learn to think spiritually.

Ques. What is the import of the Lord's question, "Whence shall we buy loaves"? It seems to take in the idea that they had not bread, but of the possibility of buying it.

J.T. It was to bring out what was going on in Philip's mind: "But this he said trying him". If I have a mathematical mind, or a mind only able to compute on natural lines, when I should think spiritually, the Lord knows how to expose it. It was a matter of exposure. "He knew what he was going to do", and He knew what was going on in Philip's mind.

H.D'A.C. A mathematician cannot deal with what is infinite. Christ was there, and what was infinite was there in Him, so there is no limit to His resources.

J.T. Exactly. Of course a mathematician could deal with the number of persons present, and that is how Philip calculated. But it is the absence of a spiritual touch that we should notice

• If Philip had been spiritual at that moment, he would have turned to the Lord and said. You are the One to answer that question. But his answer indicated that he had no true sense of the greatness of the Person who was speaking.

P.L. Is there a contrast at the end of this chapter between the cold mathematician Judas, who reasoned in figures in chapter 12, and Peter's love for Christ:

• "Lord, to whom shall we go", John 6: 68?

J.T. Quite so; the end of the chapter brings out that the Lord was making headway with His disciples, but not with the public; it says that many were going away from Him in spite of the signs.

• They wanted to make Him a king; that was the effect upon them, because He could feed them. There is the absence of a spiritual touch on their side all through. But when you come to Peter's reply, you have a spiritual touch.

Ques. I suppose we may have to learn that what is committed to a few, will prove to be sufficient to fill a universe?

J.T. Quite so, if it is connected with Christ; a spiritual link is the solution. So that Philip makes his statement, and then,

• "One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother", speaks.

• Notice those two men, because of what is said of them elsewhere. They are the two that tell the Lord when the Greeks come up; they represent a certain element in this gospel.

• Both of them are soul-finders. Philip was a soul-finder, and so was Andrew; they were both worthy men according to chapter 1, but they miss this.

• They are brethren who serve well, but miss at a critical time. They miss the spiritual touch, they do not make allowance for the presence of Christ and what He can do; so that Philip magnifies the need, and Andrew minimises the supply.

H.E.S. Is the teaching of John that every fact and circumstance that comes before us is to teach us some spiritual lesson?

J.T. Yes. The great objective is John 20, where we are brought into the spiritual realm, and all this instruction is to lead up to that.

• But it has a special application at the present time: that if the Lord gives us anything in the way of food, the bearing of it is general. However little it is, if it is connected with Christ it will be enough.
  • So that it says, "One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, says to him, There is a little boy here who has five barley loaves and two small fishes; but this, what is it for so many?"

• Before you have the actual food supply brought forward, there is exposure, and one feels the importance of it. The Lord alone can expose us to ourselves; and how ignorant and unbelieving we are after all.

J.T. He had a good start; he found Nathanael, and knew just what to say to him, and brought him to Jesus, but he is defective here.

A.F.M. Would you mind indicating to us how it is that we may miss the point at such a valuable moment?

J.T. It is a question of state, which is the most difficult thing to discern. What can you say about a man's state? You can only go by what comes out. But it is a question of state in relation to Christ.

• The Lord probes us in this way; He is going to do a wonderful thing and He wants us with Him in it, but He will have us with Him thoroughly probed and exposed, so that we know just where we are as to intelligence and faith.

Ques. Why is he called Simon Peter's brother?

J.T. I suppose to bring out who the person was; there was to be no doubt as to this. He would be a very weak link in the chain if he were not exposed; and we want to be quite sure who he is.

• He has an important place, because he was the one who brought Simon to the Lord. You might think he would never do any thing wrong, but we want to be on our guard. However distinguished a man may be, whatever weakness there may be in him must be exposed, at least to himself.

W.C.G. A past act of faith does not prove that a man is in faith now.

J.T. That is true; it must be continuous.

H.M.S. Do you attach any importance to the fact that this long chapter is largely answers to unbelieving questions, until you come to Simon's great question at the end:

• "Lord, to whom shall we go?", John 6: 68.

J.T. I think that helps to the understanding of it. Peter is the great result in the chapter. I think he is a son of light in relation to the testimony, he is true to his position as one of the twelve.

• I suppose we find all these questions in our own histories. The chapter helps us as to what the flesh is in its many forms. It must have been very refreshing to the Lord to find one man right:
  • "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast words of life eternal", John 6: 68.

H.D'A.C. Andrew little knew that there was One there who could feed a starving world.

J.T. The Lord would bring us into this at the present time, that this food, though it may seem very small, is to be linked up with Him, and hence the importance of chapter 5, to build us up in the knowledge of His Person.

• Here it is not so much the Son of God, as the Son of man, as He tells us,
  • "Work not for the food which perishes, but for the food which abides unto life eternal, which the Son of man shall give to you; for him has the Father sealed, even God", verse 27.

M.W.B. Do you think they were truly followers here? They were not delivered from circumstances as is suggested in the previous chapter.

J.T. That suggestion is very good. The man who is able to carry his bed, ought to be able to carry these circumstances. Every emergency that arises is met as we understand the Person of Christ.

• He takes them up to the mountain, and they sit down with Him. What a wonderful position after all the light of chapter 5! You feel as you are sitting down with Him, that you would like to listen as He would disclose to you about Himself and about His Father.

• Philip and Andrew show that they had missed all that.

J.J. Does verse 9 suggest that the Lord was looking beyond the supply from the twelve to Paul's day?

J.T. Just so. It is some one who has very little distinction. Andrew minimises him and calls him a "little boy", some one of no consequence, but still he has got something. That is the next point.

• Possibly it may make room for Paul and all his ministry, but the moral idea of the teaching is he is some one of no consequence but he has got something, small though it be:
  • "There is a little boy here who has five barley loaves and two small fishes".

• I think the effect of chapter 5 is to make you very small. If you think of the greatness of the Person who is operating, you feel very small, however great you may be really.

• It came out in the apostle Paul: "who also is Paul", Acts 13: 9, which means small, but he had something. The moral teaching is that we should be on the look-out for persons who have something.

A.F.M. Is that not where the substance is, in one who is small enough to take in all the great thoughts of God, as exemplified in Paul?

J.T. Yes. As you dwell upon the greatness of Christ, it tends to make you little in your own eyes; people do not regard you as a person who is very great and consequential.

• But keep your eye on the man that has something of value. It was to Andrew's credit that he knew the boy had it, and just what he had.

• To apply it, he must have heard him give 'a word' in a meeting, or pray; he knew that little boy's measure, but he did not think he was equal to the emergency. Andrew would not think this little boy could 'give an address' or 'take a reading', but he knew he had some food.

J.J. So that the Lord could say. He is "an elect vessel to me", Acts 9: 15, when Paul was in view. It says, "he knew what he was going to do".

J.T. That helps us as to the application of it as to Paul, because the Lord must have taken counsel, so to say, in regard to him: he is "an elect vessel to me"; he had been in the Lord's mind and He knew what He was going to do with him.

Ques. Would the little boy normally develop into the grown man at the end of the chapter?

J.T. I do not think he was morally little. He was a bigger man than Andrew. That was Andrew's estimate of him.

• The truly spiritual man is little; he does not think of himself in any other way, and so he does not give out that he is some great one. Very often people who do are taken on their own valuation, whereas people may not think much of one who has a small estimate of himself.

• It very often takes the Lord to value us rightly. Andrew would never forget this, nor would any of the disciples present, I am sure, forget it.

J.J. Would Andrew be something like Barnabas going to seek out Saul?

J.T. Well, you are putting him in good company, because Barnabas understood thoroughly. He did not minimise; he knew that Saul was the man for the work at Antioch, and he brought him there. They worked together for a year, and there was a wonderful result at Antioch.

Ques. Is there anything special in their being barley loaves?

J.T. I think the barley was not very valuable. It has another meaning, it is the first-fruits of the harvest, but I doubt if that is the force of it here.

• It was rather to minimise what was there, that it was not wheat; it would have been more valuable if it had been wheat. It was a common cereal, and, I believe, the cheapest kind of bread you could get.

M.W.B. Rather like the barley loaf that tumbled into the camp of Midian, Judges 7.

H.M.S. Do you think this little boy was just the right vessel for the moment, just as the little maid in 2 Kings?

J.T. Just so. Also like Jonathan and Ahimaaz in David's day when he was fleeing from Absalom, and the maid that carried to them the news. She was a link in the chain.

H.F.N. What would be the contrast between the little boy here and the man from Baal-shalishah who brought to the man of God "bread of the first-fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of corn in his sack", 2 Kings 4: 42?

J.T. That is a very interesting comparison. In the first place he is a man; and he comes from a certain place, the name of which signifies that it was ruled by a lord, and then he has a large supply.

• I understand he represents one from heaven, as it were, with the full knowledge of what was needed at the moment. The supply of food was brought to the man of God, and according to the word of Jehovah through him, there was enough and to spare.

Rem. Perhaps like John himself, coming at the end of everything with his gospel, and epistles, and Revelation.

J.T. Well, just so, coming in on the heavenly side.

H.F.N. I only wanted to get a little help as to the difference between the thought of the boy, and the way the man comes into view.

J.T. I think Ephesians brings out the latter, the apostle is in full keeping with what he is presenting. He would have them to understand his knowledge of the mystery, and what he has in the way of intelligence.

H.F.N. I had in mind what you said, that Ephesians contemplates the full grown man.

• The word 'boy' is used several times in the New Testament. You have the reference to it in Matthew, and then you have the Lord Himself so designated in Luke, then Eutychus in Acts 20, and here you have John's boy. Would there be any teaching in regard of it?

• Matthew is the only one who says the boy was demon possessed (chapter 17). Then in connection with Eutychus when Paul embraced him it is said, "they brought away the boy alive", Acts 20: 12; and then you have the holy "boy Jesus", Luke 2: 43.

J.T. If you take the "boy Jesus", it is the Spirit of God speaking of Him in that way; that is to say, He was perfectly normal. I think the one here is just a boy in the mind of Andrew – insignificant.

Ques. Would he suggest some one who had an apprehension in measure of what came out in the Lord's Person in the previous chapter?

J.T. I think that is the meaning of it. He is a sort of product of what had gone on. He was not minimising what he had; he had some food.

• Then as to Eutychus, he is called a "youth" at the first, which is more undefined, but at the end it says, "they brought away the boy alive", Acts 20: 12. I think the spiritual meaning is, that Eutychus was a potential man.

• But that is not the case here; it is that Andrew was minimising what was there. The "boy Jesus" is the normality of His growth as in incarnation.

H.D'A.C. Was not the little boy a pattern to the whole company? He had brought enough food for them, and if each of them had brought as much, the need for the miracle would not have been so great.

Rem. As regards Eutychus, the passage in Acts 20 says the saints "were not a little comforted", verse 12.

J.T. If you have a potential man there will be comfort. Eutychus would be this, through the extraordinary experience he had.

F.S.M. Would there be a willingness on the part of the boy to surrender what he had into the hand of Jesus so that there might be wealth for the company?

• I was thinking of the way the true Joseph is seen here. Pharaoh recognised the greatness of Joseph and said, "there is none so discreet and wise as thou", Genesis 41: 39.

• I wondered whether if they had recognised the greatness of Christ here, that would have been their answer: "there is none so discreet and wise as thou", Genesis 41: 39.

J.T. Exactly; whereas the cup-bearer of Pharaoh minimised Joseph; he referred to him as a Hebrew servant in the prison, but if he had profited spiritually by what had passed before his eyes in Joseph, he would never have alluded to him in that way.

• He never met a man like him, even Pharaoh was not his equal, but he minimised Joseph in his mind, which is very often the case with ourselves.

• Pharaoh never minimised Joseph; he always speaks of him according to what he is.

H.E.S. Was it a calculation of an unspiritual mind in regard to this little boy?

J.T. I think Andrew's calculation is unspiritual.

Rem. It is singular for he had abode with the Lord "that day", John 1: 39.

H.F.N. Does what you have been referring to in connection with an unspiritual touch, raise the whole question of the chapter as to our spiritual constitution, and food forming it? Is that really what will bring about the spiritual touch?

J.T. Exactly; you must have a constitution in keeping with the light you are brought into.

• What is remarkable in the history of Israel is, that when they arrive at the Jordan they are to provide themselves victuals. God had been doing that for them in the wilderness for forty years.

• In John it is a question of passing out of death into life, as we get in chapter 5; and chapter 6 is the food that is necessary for that. It is a question of the supply which arises whether you have it or not; this little boy had it.

J.T. I think they had disqualified themselves; He still has to go on doing the needful things Himself. We may think we are doing a good deal, but the Lord gives us to understand that He is doing the work.

D.L.H. Does that not correspond with the Psalm which says,

• "I will satisfy her needy ones with bread", Psalm 132: 15?

J.T. I think it does. He is doing that here, and He would take us on in it.

• In the other gospels He does use them, but not here; nor does He use them to find the ass in this gospel; He finds it Himself.

• Well, I think all that is to remind us how weak things are, so that we should think soberly so as to be wise. So that if the Lord does the thing Himself when He might have used them, why is it? It was surely a challenge to them.

A.F.M. The only part they have in this is to gather up the fragments; is there some point in that?

J.T. Yes. He says to His disciples,

• "Gather together the fragments which are over and above, that nothing may be lost".

• That surely is an important service showing that we should value all the Lord gives. Nothing should be lost.

• The idea is that it is to be kept for administrative purposes; the time will come when it will be needed. If we undervalue or discredit what the Lord gives so bountifully, the supply may slacken or cease entirely.

P.L. Would that be like Joseph during the seven lean years when the food was stored up in the cities?

J.T. Very much.

Ques. Do you think our brethren in the time to come will profit by the ministry that is carried over?

J.T. I doubt if they will understand it; the setting of things is so different.

A.F.M. Would the value of gathering up the fragments be that we may have it now in the form of written ministry, in a permanent form, to be used at times when oral ministry is not so abundant?

J.T. There is the principle here of food being kept. I think the primary thought of the faith was what was kept in the hearts of the saints.

• Writing seems to have come in later. Baskets are vessels in which things are preserved and carried. Written ministry may be included here, but the truth must be held in faith if it is to be handed on.

J.O.S. Why is it men? "Make the men sit down". In the other gospels it is them.

J.T. They would be the more responsible. There were women and children, as we learn elsewhere, so I suppose men would be the responsible element.

Ques. In regard of the baskets and the gathering up, would it be what was said of Mary the mother of the Lord, that she "kept all these things in her mind, pondering them in her heart", Luke 2: 19? Would that be similar?

J.T. That was the principle. There is the idea of preserving and carrying things forward, that nothing of previous ministry is lost.

P.L. I wondered if John himself, writing so many years later, did not represent the fragments gathered up.

J.T. It is very interesting to think of how matured he must have been in writing of these things, as an old brother and apostle. I suppose the Lord took him up specially and prepared him to deal with these weighty matters.

F.W.W. Do you look at the second sign in this chapter as the complement of the first?

J.T. The first is food by which the constitution of the believer is built up, and the second is the Lord's supremacy as outside of and above all evil here.

• It says, "But when evening was come, his disciples went down to the sea, and having gone on board ship, they went over the sea to Capernaum".

• Capernaum in this chapter is a special place of testimony. I think the second sign is the complement of the first. They went across the sea to Capernaum. It is a question of leading on in the education of the disciples.

• In the first sign they were exposed and humbled, although allowed to gather up the fragments. I apprehend the presence of the fragments would be a rebuke to their unbelief; but now they are to have a further lesson.

We must notice Capernaum, for what the Lord said later was in the synagogue in Capernaum, verse 59, and His references to Capernaum elsewhere – the mighty works done there – would show it was a special place of testimony.

• He is going to call it to account presently, and He would have before us the importance of testimony, as He said to the cleansed leper, "… for a testimony to them", Luke 5: 14.

• However small it may be, testimony is of immense importance.
  • It says, "And it had already become dark, and Jesus had not come to them, and the sea was agitated by a strong wind blowing. Having rowed then about twenty-five or thirty stadia, they see Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the ship; and they were frightened. But he says to them. It is I: be not afraid. They were willing therefore to receive him into the ship; and immediately the ship was at the land to which they went".

• This is an important sign. The sign in chapter 5 would enable us to carry our circumstances, that they should not carry us;
  • but here we have the Lord walking on the water – and agitated water – that is to say, it is a situation directly affected by Satan. Can I walk on that? That is the next lesson.

• But as soon as they receive Him into the ship they are at the land, which I think means solid and known ground; we know where we are.

• This, added to the first sign in the chapter, would greatly enhance the Lord's greatness in the minds of the disciples. There is no need to fear any more with a Person who can do these things. It says,
  • "They were willing therefore to receive him into the ship".

Rem. This is another side to Matthew 14.

J.T. I have no doubt it is the same incident, but another aspect of it; Peter is not seen walking on the water here.

• It is rather reserved for the end of the chapter to tell us of Peter's progress:
  • "thou hast words of life eternal", John 6: 68.

• This, in a way, is more than walking on the water.

H.M.S. Referring to the first sign in the chapter, they recognise Jesus as the prophet, but why do they wish to make Him king?

J.T. Is it not the disposition of men to appropriate Christ in relation to their needs here? The whole of Christendom has done that; it is not a question with them of going outside the world;

• and so, when they come to make Him king, the Lord said it was because they had eaten of the loaves and the fishes; but they were totally blind to the position.

• Christendom even in its most favourable aspect, is blind to the moral import of what is professed. The Lord says,
  • "Work not for the food which perishes, but for the food which abides unto life eternal, which the Son of man shall give to you; for him has the Father sealed, even God", John 6: 27.

• That is, they would make Him king, but He would bring in the economy of grace, which is a much greater thing. Then He said,
  • "It is not Moses that has given you the bread out of heaven; but my Father". John 6: 32.

H.E.S. Is your thought that in chapter 5 the gain of His being present was not received, but His activities in this chapter bring gain to the disciples?

J.T. There is gain and much greater general interest, which is in keeping with Galilee. Even interest in the crowds is not to be despised.

• But it is an interest that tends to appropriate Christ in relation to this world, and for material gain, which is utter darkness to the position; and so He brings in the sealing of Himself as the Son of man by His Father, even God, and then He says,
  • "It is not Moses that has given you the bread out of heaven; but my Father gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world", John 6: 32-33.

• He brings us into the economy of Christianity, and presents the food afforded there.

A.F.M. I suppose it would change all their thoughts if they had

• "eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk his blood", John 6: 53;

• they would not have aspired to make Jesus king in this world.

J.T. Showing that eternal life stands outside the realm of nature, not only outside the realm of this world in its bad sense, but the whole realm of flesh and blood.

• It is a dead Christ that is food for eternal life, a Christ whose blood is separate from His body – that is, the end of human conditions as they are now. He that eats His flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life.

• One may seek to appropriate Christ for material gain, whereas eternal life is outside of that altogether; and the food for it is a dead Christ in that sense.

• As having given His flesh for the life of the world His blood is separate from His body, and that is the end of human condition in flesh and blood; a lesson perhaps of which we know little.

• I confess I know very little of John 6, but I see that the food is the flesh of Christ, and the drink is the blood of Christ. Eating is a figure used for appropriation.

• Eating is appropriation, in the power of the Spirit, of the great fact that Christ as here in flesh and blood is here no longer. He has died, it is the end of all flesh and blood conditions.

W.C.G. Does it correspond with the quickening of the Spirit in verse 63?

J.T. That helps as to this chapter – the spirit of it. The Spirit quickens; we have to understand that the Lord is not thinking of actual flesh and blood; it is spiritual.

• He wants us to understand what is signified in appropriating Him as dead, that it is the end of flesh and blood conditions.

• But there is the eating of Himself as He is now, as it is said in verse 57:
  • "he also who eats me shall live also on account of me".

Ques. Could you help us as to the different ways in which the Lord speaks of Himself in this chapter, such as the "bread of life"?

J.T. "The bread of God is he who comes down out of heaven", verse 33.

• That is its source; it is coming down, not simply come down from heaven, but coming down. Then, the "bread of life", verse 49, is the bread which sustains life.

S.J.B.C. What is the distinction between the bread of life and the manna?

J.T. The manna is a living Christ here on earth in everyday life; the Lord was in ordinary circumstances as we are; manna is how He acted in those circumstances. That is, I think, what the manna means. It came down from heaven too; it was rained down.

S.J.B.C. Are the living bread and the manna synonymous?

J.T. I do not think so at all. The manna was for sustenance in the wilderness; this food is for going over Jordan.

• It is very like the 'victuals' that were required in Joshua 1: "Prepare yourselves victuals". The word denotes strong meat; it is stronger meat than the manna.

• So it does not appear they go over Jordan in the power of the manna merely, although it did not cease till after they went over. Evidently there was other food required. It is another word, something taken in hunting, something strong, needed for the passage over Jordan.

J.T. It is appropriating Him as He is now.

G.W.W. Does not the suggestion that they would come by force and make Him king, indicate that they had no true sense of who they were, nor of who He was, but for the believer the feeding produces moral suitability in the soul for association with Christ?

J.T. That is right; so that we go over Jordan in the power of this food. 'Victuals' denote strong meat, something to build up a constitution equal to the crossing of the Jordan.

• For, after all, if it be the article of death, perhaps if we challenge ourselves we are not ready to face it, but it is a question of being fed to face it, so that it is no surprise to us when it comes.

J.J. What is the reason for the change in the title? It is the Son of God in chapter 5 and the Son of man in chapter 6.

J.T. The Son of God is generally what He is on God's side towards us; but this is a lowly Man coming down here, giving His flesh and blood for the life of the world.

• It is Christ on our side, and He goes up on our side – the Son of man going up where He was before.

• It is wonderful to travel the road indicated here and see Him go up, so to speak, for it is the building up of a spiritual constitution in us, culminating in Peter's remark. In answer to the Lord's question,
  • "Simon Peter answered him. Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast words of life eternal; and we have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God", John 6: 68-69.

• It is what they had believed and known. It is not a revelation from the Father here. The point is to show that there was development, that some one is getting on, and that is our salvation in the testimony. If some one gets on, others will follow.

• Peter is the leader in this confession. He speaks for the others, but obviously the light he conveys is in his soul. There is somebody getting on, and so he says, "we have believed and known".

• The faith and knowledge extend back, and are continuous, and there is this beautiful speech:
  • "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast words of life eternal; and we have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God", John 6: 68-69.

D.L.H. Is it not important to notice that the eating in this chapter is connected with eternal life, whereas the eating of the manna is never so connected?

J.T. Never; the manna is to sustain us here in our life of flesh and blood.

Ques. What is the significance of the expression, four times repeated,

• "I will raise him up at the last day", John 6: 40?

J.T. That is very comforting as to the resurrection. The "last day" is the last day, and so the victory is sure; whatever happens in the interval does not affect it.

H.D'A.C. Why does Peter say, "the holy one of God"? It seems rather disappointing. You would have thought he might have used a greater term like "the Son of the living God".

J.T. That is what some theologians thought he should have said. The Textus Receptus has these very words, but the New Translation has the former.

H.D'A.C. It seems to be somewhat of a drop.

J.T. It is a drop; but I think the point is that Peter says just what he believes. He has reached a very important point as knowing that Jesus is "the holy one of God".

S.J.B.C. He does not go beyond his measure.

J.T. No. Matthew 16 is, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God", verse 16, but that is revelation.

• This is distinct progress founded upon what he had observed in Christ, because he says, "we have believed and known", John 6: 69.

Ques. Does the first epistle of Peter work this out experimentally?

• "To whom coming, a living stone, cast away indeed as worthless by men, but with God chosen, precious, yourselves also, as living stones …", 1 Peter 2: 4-5.

J.T. That is right. It is growth, constituting believers living stones, so that they come to Christ as the Living Stone. He could speak of it feelingly, for that is what is indicated here.

• Jesus had words of eternal life, and He was the Christ, "the holy one of God". The thought of holiness at this juncture is most significant.