Verses 5:16–30 offer interesting insights into who Jesus is, but also into who God the Father is. This passage reveals how Jesus humbled Himself to submit in full obedience to the Father.

It reveals that the Father:

• is always at His work (5:17);
• is the model for the Son's behavior (5:19);
• loves the Son and shows the Son all He does (5:20);
• raises the dead and gives them life (5:21);
• does not judge... but leaves that duty to the Son (5:22, 27);
• sent the Son (5:23–24, 30);
• has life in Himself and has granted the Son to have life in Himself (5:26).

AI-Expanded Reflection

Jim’s list comes from a passage that begins with a Sabbath controversy. Jesus had healed a man who had been disabled for thirty-eight years at the pool of Bethesda, and He did it on the Sabbath (John 5:1–16). His answer to His critics is short and startling: “My Father is working until now, and I am working” (5:17). Jewish teachers of the time generally recognized that God does not stop sustaining the world on the Sabbath; births and deaths still happen, and the world is still upheld. By claiming to share that ongoing work, Jesus was claiming a prerogative that belonged to God alone. That is why John reports that His opponents understood Him to be “making himself equal with God” (5:18).

What follows holds two truths together, and Jim’s list captures both. On one side, the Son “can do nothing of his own accord” but only what He sees the Father doing (5:19, 30). On the other, the Son gives life “to whom he will” (5:21), holds all judgment (5:22), and is to be honored “just as they honor the Father” (5:23). These are not competing claims. The Son’s dependence on the Father is not the dependence of a lesser being but the perfect unity of a Son who shares the Father’s life and will.

Historic Christian teaching, summarized in the Nicene Creed, affirms that the Son is “of one being with the Father” and at the same time sent by Him and obedient to Him in the work of salvation. Philippians 2:6–8 describes the Son who, being in the form of God, humbled Himself and became obedient to death on a cross. The comment’s emphasis on Jesus’s humble obedience fits that pattern. Theologians today discuss whether the Son’s submission belongs only to His incarnate mission or also reflects an eternal ordering of the relationship between Father and Son. Both sides affirm the Son’s full deity and His willing obedience.

Two items in Jim’s list are especially rich. The Father “loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing” (5:20). The relationship at the center of the universe is one of love and shared knowledge, not mere command. And the Father “has life in himself” and has granted the Son “to have life in himself” (5:26). This is what makes Jesus able to give life to others, both now, as those who hear His word pass from death to life (5:24), and at the last day, when “all who are in the tombs will hear his voice” (5:28–29).

The passage also shows why honoring Jesus cannot be separated from honoring God. “Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him” (5:23). To know the Father as Jim’s list describes Him, always working, loving, giving life, and sending, we look at the Son. As Jesus later tells Philip, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (14:9).

When they were filled, He said to His disciples, “Gather up the leftover fragments so that nothing will be lost” (John 6:12).

Jesus miraculously fed over five thousand people with a boy's five barley loaves and two fish. After everyone was satisfied, Jesus commanded His disciples to completely gather up the leftovers.

Why were the leftovers gathered up?

There have been any number of explanations and even spiritualizations of the command. The latter is simply folly, but perhaps there is at least one sensible explanation that Scripture seems to attest.

Some time after the miraculous feeding, in fact, two feedings (i.e. five thousand and four thousand), Jesus told His disciples to beware of the "yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod" (Mark 8:15). The disciples thought Jesus was indirectly rebuking them for not bringing bread with them on the boat (cf. Mark 8:16). But Jesus was not talking about their lack of bread. Yet, He takes the occasion to bring up the significance of the miraculous feedings, as well as the tremendous amount of leftovers they picked up:

Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?” “Twelve,” they replied. “And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?” They answered, “Seven.” He said to them, “Do you still not understand?” (Mark 8:17–21).

Jesus had twice demonstrated His power over creation. He could create bread. More than this, He could create a lot of it. Even more than this, He could create an overabundance, so that even after feeding so many, they still had many basketfuls of leftovers.

Here then is a possible explanation for the gathering up of the leftover fragments. When God did the miracle, it was not simply so that the people could subsist, but so that they would be satiated, so much so that they left a lot of fragments uneaten.

Consider Jesus' first miracle, when He turned the water into wine. Notice that the text explains that when He did so, it was not simply common wine, but the very best (cf. John 2:9–10).

Remember Pharaoh of Egypt. God said that He raised Him up and purposely hardened Pharaoh's heart so that He could multiply the plagues and demonstrate His greatness in delivering Israel from captivity. God could have simply destroyed Pharaoh all at once and brought the people out, but He didn't because He wanted to show His greatness and might through the ten plagues (cf. Exodus 9:15–16) and later through the dividing of the Red Sea.

The gathering up of the fragments was not so that they would have food to eat later. It was not to be frugal. It was not because God valued "broken" people. It was to show the greatness and power of Jesus, the Son of God. After the multitudes were fed by Jesus, they asked him, "What must we do to do the works of God?" Jesus answered them, "The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent" (John 6:28–29). The purpose of the miracle was to show them Jesus, the One Whom God had approved. The greatness of God was in the greatness of Jesus.

Friends, we do not need to spiritualize this text to draw a relevant application. If the point of the miracle was to demonstrate and remind of the greatness of Jesus, we can certainly apply this to our ministries. On the one hand, we recognize that the current claims to faith healing are shams and done by charlatans, for they always fall short of the greatness of the miracles of Jesus. On the other hand, our charitable works should not simply be done to meet "felt needs" but to exalt Christ.

AI-Expanded Reflection

John 6 presents the feeding as a sign whose significance the crowd does not fully grasp. Jesus provides for a real hunger, but the people’s response moves toward making him king on their terms (6:14–15). Later they seek him because they ate their fill, and he directs them toward the food that endures to eternal life (6:26–35). The original is therefore right to resist an interpretation concerned only with the meal’s practical benefit. The provision reveals the identity of the giver and calls for a response beyond continued consumption.

The fragments display abundance, especially when read alongside Jesus’ reminder in Mark 8:17–21. The disciples remember the number of baskets but have not understood what that memory implies about the One with them. Information about a miracle is not identical with trust in the person it reveals. Jesus asks them to connect what they have already witnessed with their present anxiety. The leftovers become a concrete reminder that his ability to provide was not barely sufficient for the occasion.

Nevertheless, John explicitly reports the instruction that nothing be lost. The text does not require us to exclude frugality, practical use, or care for the remaining food in order to recognize the sign’s theological meaning. Multiple aspects can coexist without arbitrary allegory. The original’s objection to turning every fragment into a symbol for broken people is understandable when the text offers no such identification. But rejecting an unsupported symbolism is different from declaring that only one inferred purpose could have been present.

John’s larger discourse also prevents abundance from becoming a prosperity formula. Many who welcome the food resist Jesus’ subsequent teaching, and some disciples withdraw (6:60–66). The decisive gift is not an unlimited supply of desirable circumstances but the life he gives through himself. His greatness cannot be measured merely by the scale of material results we can display. A ministry that feeds people genuinely serves them, yet it must not imply that attachment to Jesus guarantees freedom from every future shortage or suffering.

The application to contemporary healing claims should follow the same care with evidence. Extraordinary claims deserve truthful documentation, but the narrative alone does not establish that every claimed healing today is fraudulent. Christians disagree about the continuation of particular gifts, and discernment requires evaluating actual assertions rather than replacing investigation with a universal accusation. The constructive lesson is to direct attention to Christ while caring honestly for people. Charitable work should neither hide its Christian purpose nor treat recipients merely as instruments for publicity. Gathering the fragments can remind us that divine generosity and responsible care belong together. We honor the giver by trusting his sufficiency, attending to what he has provided, and refusing to turn a sign of his identity into a technique for securing our preferred outcomes.

The Jews were persecuting Jesus "because he was doing these things on the Sabbath" (John 5:16).

Let me ask a somewhat religiously incorrect question: why didn't Jesus heal on some other day than the Sabbath? There were six other days in the week. If He had healed on any of those days, wouldn't He have saved Himself unnecessary conflict with the religious leaders?

Yet the Gospel accounts suggest Jesus may even have gone out of His way to heal on the Sabbath. It was on the Sabbath that He healed a man's withered hand (cf. Luke 6:6–11). It was on the Sabbath that He cast out the unclean spirit in the synagogue (Mark 1:21–28). The woman who had been disabled for eighteen years was healed by His mercy on the Sabbath (Luke 13:10–17). It was on the Sabbath that He healed the man with dropsy (Luke 14:1–6). In today's passage, it was on the Sabbath that He healed the lame man at the pool of Bethesda (John 5:1–16). And it was on the Sabbath that He healed the man born blind (John 9:1–14).

It was as if Jesus deliberately sought confrontation with the religious rulers, or at least was not trying hard to avoid it. Today we temper our speech and activity based on our audience and setting. In this way we feel we are gently introducing Gospel truths without giving undue offense, hoping to be granted future occasions to be more direct. But this was hardly the method of Jesus — or of John the Baptist, Peter, or Paul. These are our primary biblical examples of evangelistic witness, and they were all quite confrontational.

One minister, Don Fortner, made an astute observation along these lines. He wrote that Christ deliberately confronted the Pharisees by both His words and His works, and always confronts sinners at the point of their rebellion, calling them to surrender to Him as Lord — as He did with the rich young ruler and the Samaritan woman. Gospel preaching, he argued, is always confrontational: God's servants are sent as His ambassadors not to coddle or bargain with His enemies but to confront them with the claims of the sovereign Lord, and there is no faith in Christ apart from surrender to Him as Lord (cf. Luke 14:25–33).

I made a similar observation in a previous post, noting that we live in a generation that teaches accommodation over confrontation. Rather than exposing error, many Christians and Christian leaders prefer compromise or "silent disagreement." They argue that this keeps the church unified, yet fail to see how it erodes the foundations of doctrinal integrity. This approach has bled into the preaching of the Gospel, so that there is hardly any confrontation of sin or call to repentance, but simply a tacit acceptance of God's forgiveness — just "accept Jesus into your heart." Thus the Gospel is neutered and emptied of its power. The crucifixion of Christ becomes simply an emotional drama that tugs at our heartstrings. There is no deep sense of dread before the holiness of God, for which the wrath of God was poured out on Christ for our sins.

What is more, many pastors today try hard to be politically correct and neglect their responsibility to provide salty discernment and correction where there is personal sin, doctrinal error, cultural immorality, and political wrongdoing. Granted, the church is not called to judge the world or unbelievers; but it does have the responsibility to exercise discernment and judgment among Christians (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:12–13).

Friends, I don't encourage anyone to go out and pick a fight, whether doctrinal, moral, or otherwise. But I would advise against the kind of evangelistic pandering I hear encouraged today. Don't simply preach the love of God; preach also His hatred of sin. Don't simply preach acceptance of God's forgiveness; help people understand their depravity and total moral bankruptcy apart from the grace of God. This is what Jesus did with the rich young ruler, the Samaritan woman, and Nicodemus. Preach the absolute necessity of repentance from sin along with faith in Christ. Let no one misunderstand: when they believe in Jesus, they are not simply trusting a Savior; they are surrendering to Him as Lord. It is the Lord Jesus Christ who saves, and it is by His sovereign choice and power that we are saved.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The healing in John 5 is significant not only because it happened on the Sabbath, but because of how Jesus defended it: "My Father is working until now, and I am working" (5:17). Jewish teachers of the time acknowledged that God Himself does not cease working on the Sabbath — He sustains the world, gives life, and judges. By claiming to share that Sabbath work, Jesus was claiming equality with God, which is exactly how His opponents understood it (5:18). The Sabbath healings were not only provocations; they were revelations of who He was.

Jesus also explained the Sabbath's purpose in positive terms: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27), and "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:12). Healing on the Sabbath fulfilled its meaning as a day of rest and restoration — Deuteronomy 5:15 ties the Sabbath to Israel's deliverance from slavery.

On the comment's call for confrontational evangelism, Christians agree that the gospel includes a call to repentance and that Jesus confronted sin directly. Many would add that Jesus and the apostles also adjusted their approach to their hearers: Jesus was gentle with the Samaritan woman while still exposing her life (John 4:16–18), and Paul began in Athens by acknowledging the Athenians' religiosity and quoting their poets (Acts 17:22–28), and told the Corinthians he became "all things to all people" for the gospel's sake (1 Corinthians 9:22). Faithful believers weigh these emphases differently; all agree with the comment that the gospel must not be emptied of repentance.

Later Jesus found him at the temple and told him that he was well again, and to stop sinning or something worse might happen to him (a reference to John 5:14). Because He was doing these things on the Sabbath, the leaders began to persecute Him; in His defense He said that His Father is always at His work to this very day, and He too is working — and for this reason they tried all the more to kill Him, since He was not only breaking the Sabbath but calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God (a paraphrase of John 5:16–18).

He tells them not to think He will accuse them before the Father — their accuser is Moses, on whom their hopes are set; if they believed Moses they would believe Him, since Moses wrote about Him (a paraphrase of John 5:45–47).

When He said He was the bread that came down from heaven, they grumbled, asking whether this was not Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother they knew — how could He now say He came down from heaven? He answered that no one can come to Him unless the Father who sent Him draws them, and He will raise them up at the last day (a paraphrase of John 6:41–44). When they argued about how He could give His flesh to eat, He told them that unless they eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood they have no life in them (a paraphrase of John 6:52–53). From that time many of His disciples turned back and no longer followed Him, and He asked the Twelve whether they also wanted to leave (a reference to John 6:66–67).

John 6 provides an interesting snapshot of Jesus's evangelistic method. It is one of challenge and confrontation.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The observation about method is the valuable one. Jesus responds to a crowd that has just tried to make Him king by saying something that empties the room, and then asks the remaining twelve whether they intend to leave as well. Whatever else this is, it is not an attempt to retain an audience.

A note on translation is worth making here, since this passage uses the phrase repeatedly. John's Greek hoi Ioudaioi is rendered "the Jews" in many older translations, and a number of modern ones use "the Jewish leaders" or "the Judeans" depending on context — because the flat rendering has a documented history of being read as a description of a people rather than of the specific opponents John has in view. John was himself Jewish, writing about Jewish people, and the crowd that grumbles in chapter 6 is the same crowd that had wanted to crown Him in the same chapter. The dispute throughout is internal to first-century Judaism, over a claim about who Jesus was, and the participants on both sides are Jews.

The drawing language in 6:44 is one of the strongest statements of divine initiative in the Gospels and has been read both ways this project has noted before. Worth adding that twelve verses later Jesus says that when He is lifted up He will draw all people to Himself (John 12:32), using the same verb — which is why the debate is not easily settled from John alone.

Two passages from today's reading stood out. At the pool, a great number of disabled people lay — the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. One had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there and learned he had been in that condition a long time, He asked whether he wanted to get well (a paraphrase of John 5:3–6).

The phrasing made me think Jesus had more than one motive in asking. Obviously a disabled man would want to be healed, so why ask? We get a hint later when Jesus tells the man to stop sinning (a reference to John 5:14). When we accept Christ as Savior we receive His grace for our sins, but first we repent — we turn away.

I often think non-believers are less concerned with evidence about God's existence than with what they would have to give up to follow Him. The recognition of a moral Creator brings an unsettling question: am I good enough to be loved and accepted by God? If they only knew that God loves them no less before they accept Christ, and that nothing they have done makes God love them less — and nothing they do afterward will make Him love them more. If they focused less on what they give up and more on what they gain, it might be easier to take that step.

In the following chapter Jesus calls Himself the bread of life, comparing it to the manna that fell as God led Israel out of Egypt (a reference to John 6:32–35).

AI-Expanded Reflection

The pastoral observation in the middle of this comment is the strongest thing in it, and worth restating because it corrects a genuinely common misunderstanding in both directions: nothing done before conversion makes God love a person less, and nothing done after makes Him love them more. That is not a minimizing of obedience — it is the ground that makes obedience something other than anxious performance.

On the question Jesus asks: a thirty-eight year condition had become the man's entire arrangement, including his place by the pool and whatever livelihood attached to it. His answer is notable for what it isn't. He does not say yes. He explains why it has never worked — he has no one to put him in the water, and someone else always goes down first. That is an answer about obstacles rather than about desire, and Jesus responds by removing the frame entirely: get up, take your mat, walk. No pool required.

Friends, John 6 is both a sobering and comforting passage. It is sobering because there is every indication in this chapter that God only enables some to be saved. Yet, if you are among those who believe, you can be absolutely comforted that you are saved and will remain so until heaven. Consider the following verses.

Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” (John 6:28, 29 NKJV)

This is an interesting verse because it carries two meanings (i.e. a double entendre in literature). Many commentators have astutely observed that John uses this literary device often in His writings. First, it answers the people's question about the "works of God." It is to believe in Jesus. But it also answers a question that they did not ask. What they must do is not in them to do. It is the "work (singular) of God." God must create faith in them, so that they can believe in Jesus. The following verses confirm this understanding:

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. (John 6:37, 39 NKJV)

This verse clearly shows that God "gives" people to Jesus. People do not just come to Him on their own. But remarkably, and as a great comfort for those chosen by God, Jesus says repeatedly that those given to Jesus by God will be secure. He says, "I will by no means cast out" and "I should lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day."

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. (John 6:44, 45 NKJV)

Again, these verses clearly show that God must draw a person for them to be able to come to Jesus. And what is this drawing? Jesus says that they must have heard and learned from God. In other words, the draw of God is not simply a common grace that applies to every person. It is a very particular communication and instruction from God given to those chosen by God. And once again there is that comforting confirmation: "I will raise him up at the last day."

But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” (John 6:64, 65 NKJV)

Here we have a clear linkage between people's faith and God the Father's role. Also, "coming to Jesus" is here related to "believing in Jesus." So Jesus is teaching that no one can believe unless God grants them the faith to believe. This should silence all those who presumptuously think that people are saved by a faith that is grounded in human free will. Faith is granted by God. Further, since there are people who do not believe, we can surmise that God does not grant faith to everyone.

Finally, we are told that Jesus' strong words caused many disciples to leave Him. This leaving is comparable to the rich young man's leaving Jesus on account of his riches. Like the rich young man, they could not accept Jesus' words. God had not granted this to them (John 6:65–66). But then Jesus turns to the Twelve:

Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?” But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” (John 6:67–70 NKJV)

As was his custom, Jesus tested His disciples with these words. Would they follow the defecting disciples and leave Him? Of course not. Why not? Is it because they truly believed? Yes. But even more, it is because Jesus chose them: "Did I not choose you..." Later, when Jesus is nearing His death, He prays for His disciples:

“I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. (John 17:6, 12 NKJV)

The disciples did not choose Jesus. He chose them (John 15:16). Further, they were given to Jesus by God, as John 17 reveals. Just as an aside, in both John 6 and 17 we are told that all the disciples were chosen for faith except for Judas Iscariot. Why? God had left him for destruction. He was destined for perdition (i.e. hell). The Scriptures prophesied this fate for him. Jesus never once tried to dissuade Judas from his awful fate. In fact, on one occasion Jesus even hurries him along (John 13:27). Now, in John 6:70 Judas was among those chosen, for Jesus signifies "the twelve," which included Judas. So in what way was he chosen? He was chosen to be the one to betray Jesus. He was chosen for destruction.

Friends, John 6 is a sobering reminder of the sovereignty of God. Yet, to us who have believed, it is a comforting word that God, who began this good work of salvation in us, will Himself bring it to completion (Philippians 1:6).

AI-Expanded Reflection

John 6 places the promise of security inside a conversation with people who have eaten miraculously supplied bread but struggle to receive Jesus' claim to be the bread of life. The contrast is between seeking another satisfying sign and coming to the person who gives life. The Father's giving and drawing are not abstract topics inserted into an unrelated scene; they explain why recognition of Jesus requires more than physical proximity to his works.

The original identifies a possible double meaning in “the work of God”: the work God requires and the work God brings about. The direct answer to the crowd's question is to believe in the one God sent. The wider chapter supports divine initiative, but the phrase alone does not prove that both meanings are equally intended. Similarly, the description of being taught by God in verses 44–45 connects drawing with hearing and learning, giving the metaphor a personal and revelatory character. Read John 6:26–45, 60–71.

The repeated promise to raise believers on the last day gives assurance a concrete destination. Christ's keeping is not merely protection of a present religious feeling; it reaches resurrection. The promise not to cast out the one who comes should be heard as a genuine welcome. A person troubled by election need not first discover a hidden decree before approaching Jesus. The stated invitation and promise direct that person toward him.

Judas introduces a distinction between selection for the apostolic circle and saving union with Christ. John 6:70 names him among the chosen Twelve while identifying his betrayal. It therefore cautions against assuming that every use of “choose” has the same object and purpose. The original's further account of his selection for destruction is a theological interpretation; the verse expressly speaks of choosing the Twelve. Jesus' foreknowledge does not make Judas' acts innocent or turn the other disciples' confession into an unreal response.

Peter's answer models perseverance without complete comprehension. He knows where the words of eternal life are found even when the teaching is difficult. Assurance grows as believers remain directed toward that Savior, grateful that their hope is sustained by his fidelity rather than by their ability to resolve every difficulty immediately.