JOHN 6
John 6 introduces us to the Johannine theological perspective on the rite of Holy Communion. The first five chapters largely introduced us to who Jesus is and metaphorically discusses the initiation rite of Holy Baptism. We have heard a great deal about water; that the water of Baptism representative of the mundane turned into the richness and new life of wine, the blood of Christ, that washes away and keeps filling one with richness as intimated in the story of Wedding at Cana - In the story of Nicodemus, that one must be reborn again, as a chosen child of God. - That baptism is God's act of mercy and grace, regardless of one's background or past in the story of the Samaritan woman - That through Baptism one becomes a chosen vessel to bear the truth of God in Jesus - That once shown God's mercy, one is bound to Christ lest some worse thing should happen as intimated in the story of the healing of the paralytic.
The authors and editors of John take a unique approach in introducing Holy Communion. They use a story found in all four canonical gospels, the "Feeding of the Five Thousand." To fully appreciate John's telling of this story, one might read the other accounts found in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 14, Mark 6, and Luke 9).
Unlike the account in the Synoptic Gospels, John places this event near the feast of the Passover. This clues us that the authors and editors are making a point that their version of this story is about this new Passover Feast, Holy Communion. On the surface, this story is about the divinity of Jesus, but in all of the gospel accounts the reader and listener is confronted with images and information that most Christians have been indoctrinated to overlook, if not ignore or avoid.
ALLEGORY AND SYMBOLISM
There can be no denying the astrological, numerological, and mythological symbolism employed by the authors of all four gospels. Five loaves of barley, two fish, five thousand men, twelve baskets of left overs and the young boy bearing the five loaves and two fish. This is no mere miracle story. It is loaded with symbolic meaning. John gives this story a nuanced twist to its interpretation. But let's first get to allegorical and symbolic meanings presented. The five thousand men is symbolic of the multitudes gathered together by the mercy and grace of God - Five (numerologically symbol for grace and mercy ) multiplied a thousand times - the abundance of God's grace shown to the multitudes drawn to Jesus. The appearance of a young boy in all these accounts calls to mind the puer aeternus in Greek and Roman mythology and may reference a direct connection to the Eleusian mystery cult that suggests rebirth, resurrection, new life represented with the use and presence of grain and wine associated with Demeter and Dionysus. Five barley loaves another symbol of grace, but also a symbol of Christ's own body. Barley is associated with the feast of unlevened bread, the Passover. The two fish are a bit more ambiguous, but the number two is the symbol of unity - between Christ and the church - between Jesus and God the Father. The two fish is also the sign of Pices, the age of faith or symbol of faith. After all, the fish became a symbol for Christians throughout the Roman empire. The twelve baskets are obvious reference to the twelve tribes of Israel being gathered together to form a new kingdom who in turn offer sustenance to the world and the 12 disciples, the patriarchs of new tribes of chosen people. These symbols are present in all of the gospel accounts.
My reason for pointing this out is not to give this story a sense of mystery, but rather to explain that the writers and editors of John and the other gospel had no problem with utilizing allegory, imagery from Greek and Roman polytheism, numerology or astrology to get their point and meaning across to the audience of their day. Understanding their presence in these stories can provide one a deeper appreciation of the literary effort that went into creating these writings that reflect the mindset of the people of the time. Understanding them gives us a window into how early Christians viewed their world at that time.
In the other gospel versions, it is the disciples who show concern that the people will get hungry and have nowhere to obtain food. In John's version it is Jesus who asks his disciple, Philip, where they would buy enough bread to feed the crowd. John says Jesus did this to test Philip. I'm not sure what sort of test this was. A test to see if Philip was willing to feed them, a test to show how great a miracle would have to be performed in order to feed so many?
John goes on to point that Jesus knew exactly what he was going to do, which gives Jesus asking Philip the question a capricious, judgmental hue. Philip explains it would take six month's wages to pay for the amount of bread needed to feed so many people the bare minimum of bread. Andrew comes to the rescue and says there is a boy who has five barley loaves and two fish - problem solved.
Jesus has the disciples seat the crowd, whereupon Jesus is depicted as giving thanks and then has the disciples distributing it and the fish to the people. After having their fill, Jesus commands that his disciples take baskets and gather up the remnants of the bread. There is no mention of fish at this point, as there is in the other gospels. I would suggest that there is a possible reason in that the bread takes on a symbolic meaning as in gathering up the chosen from the twelve tribes, that are now bread to the world, that nothing is lost or wasted.
What happens next is that the crowd perceives Jesus to be a prophet and want to make him their king. This is the only account where people want to make Jesus their king after being fed. In most accounts it is presented as a miracle story whose meaning is revealed to Jesus's disciples, not the people who were fed by it. Only in John do the five thousand perceive that a miracle that took place in their midst. Jesus picks up on their intent to make him a king and removes himself from the scene, going up a mountain to pray
John uses this miracle story as something that amazed the crowd who followed him to the other side. John points out that the those who followed him commented there was only one boat that the disciples used when they set across the Sea of Galilee and Jesus was nowhere in sight. When they see Jesus on the other side by Capernaum, they question how he got there. John's interpretation of this story or lack of one stands in striking contrast to Matthew's and Mark's account where water takes on a symbolic meaning for both life and death and shows Jesus as Lord over both. John simply uses it as a miracle story that verifies his divine nature and gets him to the other side.
Unlike the account in the Synoptic Gospels, John places this event near the feast of the Passover. This clues us that the authors and editors are making a point that their version of this story is about this new Passover Feast, Holy Communion. On the surface, this story is about the divinity of Jesus, but in all of the gospel accounts the reader and listener is confronted with images and information that most Christians have been indoctrinated to overlook, if not ignore or avoid.
ALLEGORY AND SYMBOLISM
There can be no denying the astrological, numerological, and mythological symbolism employed by the authors of all four gospels. Five loaves of barley, two fish, five thousand men, twelve baskets of left overs and the young boy bearing the five loaves and two fish. This is no mere miracle story. It is loaded with symbolic meaning. John gives this story a nuanced twist to its interpretation. But let's first get to allegorical and symbolic meanings presented. The five thousand men is symbolic of the multitudes gathered together by the mercy and grace of God - Five (numerologically symbol for grace and mercy ) multiplied a thousand times - the abundance of God's grace shown to the multitudes drawn to Jesus. The appearance of a young boy in all these accounts calls to mind the puer aeternus in Greek and Roman mythology and may reference a direct connection to the Eleusian mystery cult that suggests rebirth, resurrection, new life represented with the use and presence of grain and wine associated with Demeter and Dionysus. Five barley loaves another symbol of grace, but also a symbol of Christ's own body. Barley is associated with the feast of unlevened bread, the Passover. The two fish are a bit more ambiguous, but the number two is the symbol of unity - between Christ and the church - between Jesus and God the Father. The two fish is also the sign of Pices, the age of faith or symbol of faith. After all, the fish became a symbol for Christians throughout the Roman empire. The twelve baskets are obvious reference to the twelve tribes of Israel being gathered together to form a new kingdom who in turn offer sustenance to the world and the 12 disciples, the patriarchs of new tribes of chosen people. These symbols are present in all of the gospel accounts.
My reason for pointing this out is not to give this story a sense of mystery, but rather to explain that the writers and editors of John and the other gospel had no problem with utilizing allegory, imagery from Greek and Roman polytheism, numerology or astrology to get their point and meaning across to the audience of their day. Understanding their presence in these stories can provide one a deeper appreciation of the literary effort that went into creating these writings that reflect the mindset of the people of the time. Understanding them gives us a window into how early Christians viewed their world at that time.
THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND
In John, the premise of the story is that a large crowd followed Jesus into the wilderness because they saw him heal people. This is a twist on the reason the others gospel give for people coming to see Jesus, which was to be healed and/or to hear him preach. Whereas the other gospels depict Jesus feeding the five thousand as a compassionate act, Jesus, in John, has a different reason for feeding them -to foster a discussion on his being the Bread of Life.In the other gospel versions, it is the disciples who show concern that the people will get hungry and have nowhere to obtain food. In John's version it is Jesus who asks his disciple, Philip, where they would buy enough bread to feed the crowd. John says Jesus did this to test Philip. I'm not sure what sort of test this was. A test to see if Philip was willing to feed them, a test to show how great a miracle would have to be performed in order to feed so many?
John goes on to point that Jesus knew exactly what he was going to do, which gives Jesus asking Philip the question a capricious, judgmental hue. Philip explains it would take six month's wages to pay for the amount of bread needed to feed so many people the bare minimum of bread. Andrew comes to the rescue and says there is a boy who has five barley loaves and two fish - problem solved.
Jesus has the disciples seat the crowd, whereupon Jesus is depicted as giving thanks and then has the disciples distributing it and the fish to the people. After having their fill, Jesus commands that his disciples take baskets and gather up the remnants of the bread. There is no mention of fish at this point, as there is in the other gospels. I would suggest that there is a possible reason in that the bread takes on a symbolic meaning as in gathering up the chosen from the twelve tribes, that are now bread to the world, that nothing is lost or wasted.
What happens next is that the crowd perceives Jesus to be a prophet and want to make him their king. This is the only account where people want to make Jesus their king after being fed. In most accounts it is presented as a miracle story whose meaning is revealed to Jesus's disciples, not the people who were fed by it. Only in John do the five thousand perceive that a miracle that took place in their midst. Jesus picks up on their intent to make him a king and removes himself from the scene, going up a mountain to pray
WALKING ON WATER
The source the editors of John used for "The Feeding of the Five Thousand" is likely the same source or version used by both Matthew and Mark because it is followed by another miracle story found in these two gospels, Jesus walking on water. It's almost as if the editors of John don't know what to make of it, other than to say it was one of Jesus' miracles that demonstrate his divine power of nature. John's use of the story is perfunctory, a means to get Jesus from one side of the Sea of Galilee to the other, and quickly, because once Jesus' disciple realize that it is Jesus walking on the water towards them, they let him in and the boat "immediately" makes it to the other side.John uses this miracle story as something that amazed the crowd who followed him to the other side. John points out that the those who followed him commented there was only one boat that the disciples used when they set across the Sea of Galilee and Jesus was nowhere in sight. When they see Jesus on the other side by Capernaum, they question how he got there. John's interpretation of this story or lack of one stands in striking contrast to Matthew's and Mark's account where water takes on a symbolic meaning for both life and death and shows Jesus as Lord over both. John simply uses it as a miracle story that verifies his divine nature and gets him to the other side.
I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE
John uses the above, well-known stories of the time to proclaim Jesus as the Bread of Life. Jesus's "I am the bread of life" soliloquy begins with Jesus's comment that the crowd has followed him not to seek signs (presumably about who Jesus is) but because he fed them the day before. This doesn't seem to be a rational response on Jesus's part, but, then again, the editors of John are not concerned about a reasoned intellectual understanding of what Jesus is saying, but rather a blind intellectual acceptance of whatever Jesus says in John because Jesus knows all, and if he says that these people are just out to get another free meal, you can/should believe it, even though the evidence contradicts that conclusion.
I sense that the editors had a difficult time trying to utilize what must have been a fairly universal story about Jesus to make the point they wished to make. They simply rely on the premise they have made all along in John that Jesus knows, which gives them a great deal of literary license to have Jesus say pretty much what they want him to say.
John uses Jesus's conclusion to admonish his audience "to work" for food that does not perish but gives them eternal life that Jesus will give them. This prompts the question, what work is required? The answer is "to believe" in Jesus as the one sent "from heaven."
[Notice the transition in John from pistis as faith which motivates one's every day functioning, one's work, as in Paul's version of faith that sees the working of Christ in all, to pistis as belief; as intellectual assent, a work in itself.]
The crowd then asks Jesus for a sign that he is who he says he is. Again, this shows some haphazard editing or multiple attempts of various editors to make sense of this story.
Which is it?
Earlier John has Jesus saying the crowd was not looking for a sign, but rather a handout. Now John has the crowd asking Jesus for a sign. John has the crowd responding that Moses fed the Israelites in the wilderness with manna.
What would Jesus do?
John goes on to have Jesus inform this Jewish crowd that it wasn't Moses that gave manna but Jesus's Father. This, too, is an editorial oddity. It would be obvious to any Jew that it was God, not Moses, who provided manna. They understood Moses to be a prophet and are trying to make a prophet of Jesus. It is conceivable that the editors are saying that Jesus is no prophet like Moses, but rather that there is a direct connection between Jesus and God; that the bread Jesus offers is far superior - that it is food for eternal life. The crowd's response is they want that bread always.
Jesus goes on to clarify that he is the Bread of Life, and later on in this chapter, Jesus states that this bread is his flesh for the world and that unless one eats his bread and drinks his blood, one cannot have eternal life. All of this takes place in the context of controversy with Jesus's audience in John. In some ways John 6 mirrors John 3, not in the context of the initiation rite of Baptism, but in the context of Holy Communion. Once again Jesus begins to refer to himself in the third person, as the Son. He restates that only those given to him by the Father can believe in him. In other words, only those chosen by the Father can "come to him."
CONTROVERSY
What I think the writers of John were doing was addressing a real time controversy that surrounded the practice of Holy Communion at time of their writing. It is well-known that the implied cannibalism of Holy Communion was not only repellent to the Judaic mindset but also to the Greek mindset. John is not written as an apologetic gospel defending Johannine theology. It is stating it as fact.
What the writers do in John 6 is to concretize the breach that existed between Judaic and Christian communities. John goes so far as to say that God cannot be understood without Jesus. Of course the writers have Jesus saying this himself. John makes Jesus his own authority and authenticator. John the Baptist disappears from the conversation.
According to John many of Jesus's disciples left after his Bread of Life soliloquy; in particular, the repellent notion of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Jesus then asks the faithful remaining twelve if they too will leave and Peter, speaking for the rest, asks where would they go, that only Jesus has the words of eternal life.
Peter is not an authenticator of Jesus, but speaks for the assenting believer. Peter's statement affirms for the Christians in John's audience that believing only Jesus has the words for eternal life is requisite for salvation. Faith as a willful action taken by individuals living in the ever uncertain present becomes synonymous with belief; where belief is an esoteric form of knowledge given by God to chosen individuals who are assured in the certainty of possessing eternal life.
I sense that the editors had a difficult time trying to utilize what must have been a fairly universal story about Jesus to make the point they wished to make. They simply rely on the premise they have made all along in John that Jesus knows, which gives them a great deal of literary license to have Jesus say pretty much what they want him to say.
John uses Jesus's conclusion to admonish his audience "to work" for food that does not perish but gives them eternal life that Jesus will give them. This prompts the question, what work is required? The answer is "to believe" in Jesus as the one sent "from heaven."
[Notice the transition in John from pistis as faith which motivates one's every day functioning, one's work, as in Paul's version of faith that sees the working of Christ in all, to pistis as belief; as intellectual assent, a work in itself.]
The crowd then asks Jesus for a sign that he is who he says he is. Again, this shows some haphazard editing or multiple attempts of various editors to make sense of this story.
Which is it?
Earlier John has Jesus saying the crowd was not looking for a sign, but rather a handout. Now John has the crowd asking Jesus for a sign. John has the crowd responding that Moses fed the Israelites in the wilderness with manna.
What would Jesus do?
John goes on to have Jesus inform this Jewish crowd that it wasn't Moses that gave manna but Jesus's Father. This, too, is an editorial oddity. It would be obvious to any Jew that it was God, not Moses, who provided manna. They understood Moses to be a prophet and are trying to make a prophet of Jesus. It is conceivable that the editors are saying that Jesus is no prophet like Moses, but rather that there is a direct connection between Jesus and God; that the bread Jesus offers is far superior - that it is food for eternal life. The crowd's response is they want that bread always.
Jesus goes on to clarify that he is the Bread of Life, and later on in this chapter, Jesus states that this bread is his flesh for the world and that unless one eats his bread and drinks his blood, one cannot have eternal life. All of this takes place in the context of controversy with Jesus's audience in John. In some ways John 6 mirrors John 3, not in the context of the initiation rite of Baptism, but in the context of Holy Communion. Once again Jesus begins to refer to himself in the third person, as the Son. He restates that only those given to him by the Father can believe in him. In other words, only those chosen by the Father can "come to him."
CONTROVERSY
What I think the writers of John were doing was addressing a real time controversy that surrounded the practice of Holy Communion at time of their writing. It is well-known that the implied cannibalism of Holy Communion was not only repellent to the Judaic mindset but also to the Greek mindset. John is not written as an apologetic gospel defending Johannine theology. It is stating it as fact.
What the writers do in John 6 is to concretize the breach that existed between Judaic and Christian communities. John goes so far as to say that God cannot be understood without Jesus. Of course the writers have Jesus saying this himself. John makes Jesus his own authority and authenticator. John the Baptist disappears from the conversation.
According to John many of Jesus's disciples left after his Bread of Life soliloquy; in particular, the repellent notion of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Jesus then asks the faithful remaining twelve if they too will leave and Peter, speaking for the rest, asks where would they go, that only Jesus has the words of eternal life.
Peter is not an authenticator of Jesus, but speaks for the assenting believer. Peter's statement affirms for the Christians in John's audience that believing only Jesus has the words for eternal life is requisite for salvation. Faith as a willful action taken by individuals living in the ever uncertain present becomes synonymous with belief; where belief is an esoteric form of knowledge given by God to chosen individuals who are assured in the certainty of possessing eternal life.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
With John 6 we readers of John move into a prolonged discussion on the rite of Holy Communion which is practiced in most Christian denominations. Most mainline Christian denominations have mitigated the Johannine theological perspective on Holy Communion; choosing to interpret it as less stringent, less exclusive than it really is. As I have said in past posts, I'm fine with that as long as one doesn't sweep what John is really saying under the theological rug.
John is a harsh gospel when it comes to describing those who do not or (more rightfully said)
cannot accept Jesus as the Only-begotten Son of God. What fascinates me about John and what I hope I am shedding some light on is that all theology is an evolutionary process - that the Gospel of John, itself, is work of theological evolution in response to the times, the environment in which it was written. As such, it possesses the patina of survivalism, of circling the theological wagons, to preserve the faithful few, which is why the sense of being chosen becomes essential to Johannine message.
Christianity was nascent at the time the Gospel of John was written. It's ability to survive (from the Johannine perspective) was premised on making belief (intellectual assent) in Jesus as God's only begotten Son an absolute necessity for obtaining eternal life.
At this juncture in time, the writers and editors of John could not afford to be too merciful, too gracious. They obviously felt that they could not afford to risk being too forgiving to those who were throwing them out of the synagogues of their once beloved Judaic religion.
Jesus becomes the judge who dispenses mercy according to the will of the Father to those chosen by Father. Given that situation, they turned their attention to breaking ties with the past in no uncertain terms. To that end, as we have seen here and will see in future posts, the writers and editors of John had no problem rewriting not only Jewish biblical history, but also reshaping the Christian story as found in the Synoptic Gospels.
At this juncture in time, the writers and editors of John could not afford to be too merciful, too gracious. They obviously felt that they could not afford to risk being too forgiving to those who were throwing them out of the synagogues of their once beloved Judaic religion.
Jesus becomes the judge who dispenses mercy according to the will of the Father to those chosen by Father. Given that situation, they turned their attention to breaking ties with the past in no uncertain terms. To that end, as we have seen here and will see in future posts, the writers and editors of John had no problem rewriting not only Jewish biblical history, but also reshaping the Christian story as found in the Synoptic Gospels.
Until next time, stay faithful.
No comments:
Post a Comment