In these accounts Jesus answers questions that have not been asked and does not answer direct questions directly. When this happens the people who encounter this Jesus may appear thick headed and never "get" what Jesus is teaching them (with an added implication that Christians up to today understand the teachings of Jesus better). I normally don't think Jesus or the narrator would agree with this 'thick headed" assessment of the other but Jesus comes close here, In verse 30 of today's Gospel the crowd asks Jesus “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform?" Perhaps unreasonable questions from those who were taught and then fed the day before on the other side of the lake. Yet remember they ask this after Jesus has told them the reason he believes they have followed him.
The crowd's questions and the answers of Jesus particularly echo the dialogue between the woman at the well and Jesus. The talk here is of bread rather than water. Jesus speaks in both about valuing what is eternal in comparison to what perishes or is consumed. Both express their desire for the eternal and ask of Jesus. "Lord/Sir give me / us the eternal water / bread rather than the everyday water / bread" (John 6:34, John 4:15).
In this Gospel when the crowd finds Jesus they ask "Rabbi, when did you come here?" Jesus does not answer their question directly but, instead, observes "Very truly, I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves." and then comments, "Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For it is on him that God the Father has set his seal."
A first reaction to this text is to agree. The eternal may be preferable to the perishable. However this immediately becomes problematic. The choice between the eternal and the perishable are not mutually exclusive. Life in our world is mostly based on working for what is perishable. Working for the eternal alone is not a choice any living being can make and stay alive for long.
The crowd may, in fact, think they are working for the eternal. Last week's Gospel said they recognized "This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world.".There may be some who would argue they need to believe Jesus was God, not a prophet. However, considering Elisha fed 100 people with bread, this might be more the result of the ambiguity of the sign rather than the crowd's belief or unbelief in Jesus.
Others may suggest Jesus is teaching a lesson like Matthew 10:29 "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father's care.". Rather than worry and work for everyday food the crowd should trust God to provide. A counter argument to this is the crowd may have thought that Jesus would provide both perishable and eternal food. God could provide in this way. The crowd's presence here might well be considered "work" for the food that endures.
Indeed, the crowd asks, "What must we do to perform the works of God?" and Jesus answers, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." This is another moment where, like Nicodemus. Jesus won't directly answer a question that contains incorrect assumptions. Here the crowd want to know actions that are guaranteed to be works of God while other actions are not. They want to earn their wings. They want a transactional Jesus who, if they act in a particular way, will reward then. The answer Jesus gives restores God's and man's relationship without centering on judgment of human actions and allocating appropriate rewards or punishments.
The crowd asks, "What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing?" If Jesus will not detail what actions the crowd should take, then perhaps he will declare how he will reward them. They proceed giving what they feel is a historical reward as an example "Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, "He gave them bread from heaven to eat.' "
Now the crowd and Jesus both start to blur what is perishable and what is eternal bread. They bring in other descriptions. The crowd references bread from heaven. Jesus modifies this to the true bread from heaven. Manna was perishable bread. The crowd asserts that their ancestors received this perishable bread from God. Since bread was provided at the feeding of the 5,000, they see the multiplication as bread from heaven as well, and bread they can eat.
Jesus responds, "Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." The He in "He gave them bread" could be misconstrued as Moses but it is doubtful many in the crowd thought Moses, rather than God, gave their ancestors the bread.
Yet, by starting with this correction, Jesus addresses another of the crowd's assertions indirectly. Jesus denies Moses was the provider of the manna and, together with that, a potential indirect denial. Jesus may not consider that manna is true bread from heaven. In effect the crowd saying that the bread making of the first two barley loaves used in the bread distribution was a miracle that was also provided by God the day before. God certainly provides all bread, perishable and eternal, but that may confuse what Jesus is teaching. After addressing that confusion Jesus moves to calling eternal bread the true bread from heaven.
The crowd responds "Sir, give us this bread always." and Jesus says "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty" The crowd's response may mean they have understood this answer. It may be their prayer to God for manna forever. The poetry and metaphor in Jesus's answer moves me to reflect on the heart of communion. And these verses in John are more troubling than they have been for me in the past.
Starting with what Jesus directed at a crowd "Very truly, I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves." This hangs in the air - an accusation against the crowd and against generations to follow, including myself, and I truly feel on the other side of the lake from the 5,000 being fed. Last week I couldn't recognize the voice of Jesus relating the feeding of the 5,00 to someone else. I go over and over in my head how to make these words come out of the mouth of the compassionate Jesus I know.
This is Jesus acknowledging the crowd are bringing the mystery of God under human control. In the Gospel of John, “sign” is used to mean “miracle.” where the Word reveals himself to the world and to his own. If the Word is not revealed to the world as a sign, is the sign yet to happen? Jesus states the crowd ate their fill of the loaves and did not come to him because they saw the sign.
The day before this was the feeding of 5,000. In today's Gospel reading Jesus says "Whoever comes to me will never be hungry" He directs this to many in the crowd who were fed the day before. People that physically came to him on this side of the lake had a choice to go somewhere else to eat. Jesus apparently looks into the hearts of all those hearing him on this side of the lake and believed that none of them saw the sign.
This is a crowd that came to him like the crowd did the day before. On the other side of the lake there was no qualification to be part of the sign. Belief in Jesus was not required. All were fed with perishable bread. There is no suggestion that there were people there who were not fed or did not participate.
On this side of the lake there is also no qualification. Everyone who hears Jesus is told that they did not see the sign, Jesus speaks words at heart of Christian belief and yet when I look these particular words this encounter doesn't feel complete like it was on the other side of the lake. The compassion of Jesus is not shining through like it did the day before. Instead Jesus says, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry". This crowd came and no one is fed in John's account of this day.
"I am the bread of life." is the first of the "I am" statements of Jesus. Three of them reference life. They are:
I am the bread of life - John 6:35-48I am the light of the world - John 8:12 9:5
I am the gate - John 10:7
I am the good shepherd - John 10:11-14.
I am the resurrection and the life - John 11:25
I am the way, the truth and the life - John 14:6
I am the true vine - John 15:1-5
I drew some understanding of life and death as talked about here in what Matthew 8:22 means when stating, "Let the dead bury their own dead". I thought I had some understanding what Jesus meant with the three "I am" statements about life. Yet I don't think the life here can only be concerned with eternal life. Nor that it means Jesus will not show compassion for those who have physical hunger and thirst. Nor that it means the hunger and thirst for the eternal is more important than physical hunger and thirst.
The words of Jesus here "Very truly, I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves." and "Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."" are words. These words for me today obscure the compassion Jesus acted on in the feeding of the 5,000. If the only bread that concerned in this statement is eternal bread for eternal life what has changed from the day before where the crowd was fed?
"I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty" If what Jesus said here is about more than eternal life then our everyday world makes this "I am" statement suspect. Many in our world do hunger and thirst despite attempts to come to Jesus. That is the condition of our lives. Jesus knows this. And if we interpret his words instead to mean that Jesus is manna, the bread from heaven, how does he satisfy physical hunger like manna does?
Perhaps, once again, this is a reflection to illustrate "The mystery of God cannot be brought under human control". I am still searching, however, for why Jesus makes this harsh, and potentially spiritually degrading, judgment against a crowd that he fed or helped feed the day before.
OS - Look closely at the most embarrassing details and amplify them.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you're a little too good at following the Oblique Strategy of the day.
ReplyDelete