FINDINGS II
Proper
16- B - August 23, 2009
John 6: 56-69
(Joshua
24: 1-2a-14-18; Psalm 34: 15-22; Ephesians 6: 10-20)
 By Harry T. Cook
8/17/09
RUBRIC
If I were having regularly to prepare homilies these days, I
would be very glad to know that, with the reading from John chapter 6 for this
coming Sunday, I would finally be done with this four-week detour into the
fourth gospel and its repetitious attempt to make John's version of the Jesus
figure into the flesh and blood of an uncreated deity. It is as if the
evangelist decided to beat the concept into the ground, or beat his audience
over the head with it again and again until it became a creed -- which in due
course it did some centuries on.
Withal, we will set forth to mine the Johannine passage and
its accompanying readings as best we can for perhaps more novel material.
WORKSHOP
John has "the bread of life" declare once again that he is
the key to living forever, a thematic departure from the sense of the term used
earlier ("eternal life," referring to the quality of depth and breadth rather
than length or permanence.) Here the idea is that eating the bread which is the
flesh (or the flesh which is the bread) is the key to life beyond death. It is
no wonder that some of Jesus' followers are depicted as shaking their heads in
wonderment and grumbling about a "difficult teaching" that they are not
disposed to believe. How else could John deal with the outlandishness of the
bread-flesh-live-forever progression, even as he had set forth to establish its
credibility?
Ah, but there is a path back to reason with the recurrence
of the word "life" -- "zōay" here, psychic existence as opposed to "biōs,"
physical existence. Twenty-first century readers and ponderers of this text
will want to tend to metaphor in attempting to deal with it. To "ingest Jesus"
would be to internalize what with some degree of certainty can be traced to a
First Century C.E. itinerant sage (as the type is called by J.D. Crossan),
namely a string of ethical wisdom teachings that may have originated with the teaching
of the likes of Hillel the Great centering on the idea of treating others as
one would wish to be treated. The concepts include the love of enemy, and here
the verb is "ahgahpay," as in the kind of regard that puts other before self.
Internalizing such wisdom with the self-encouragement to
live it out has the potential, if not to lengthen life beyond a natural end, to
imbue it with the qualities and characteristics of an existence the source and
ordering of which one could metaphorically attribute to something greater than
the sum of its parts -- something that would transcend the more base instincts
of the human animal.
If that is a possible spin on the idea of "living forever,"
it can serve as the basis for homilies on or discussions about the gospel
passage appointed for liturgies on this coming weekend.
The question of unbelief or disbelief also is raised in this
passage, and already betrayal or "handing over" is in the wind. (Note: The
Greek words for "betrayal" and "tradition" have a common root: "to deliver.")
In v. 64, unbelief is connected to betrayal. Then almost in a nod to what would
become the doctrine of election, Jesus is depicted as saying, "For this reason
[he knew who would deliver him over to the authorities], no one can come to me
unless it is granted by the Father." Whereupon, it is said, people left his
following and went away -- all but Simon Peter and presumably those of the "in
crowd." Peter is depicted as saying he has no place to go because he believes
Jesus had "the words of eternal life" (his teachings of ethical wisdom?) and
was "the Holy One of God."
The Joshua reading includes the oft-quoted "choose ye this
day whom you will serve . . . as for me and my house, we will serve Yahweh."
Almost a Hobson's choice: this horse or no horse, because the options other
than Yahweh are the discredited and therefore non-existent gods of the hated
Amorites.
The reading from Ephesians picks up on that theme: "Be
strong in Yahweh and in the strength of his power. Put on the whole armor of
God, so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil . . . Take
the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit . . ."
HOMILETIC COMMENTARY
The last few verses of the gospel passage convey a sense of
desperation. The Great Teacher has taught a thing impossible to accept. One who
apparently cannot buy the idea is thought to be the one who will hand over The
Teacher to the authorities. A number of former disciples say, "Enough, already.
We're out of here. We're not welcome anyway because The Teacher said his father
did not invite us in the first place."
Only Peter, as we have seen, representing perhaps a small
minority of disciples, is depicted as sticking with Jesus because he (Peter) is
said to have been convinced that he (Jesus) was the real thing. Never mind that
many of Jesus' followers have deserted him over an incredible and therefore
unacceptable teaching. Peter, in the tradition of Joshua, has "chosen" and will
now "be strong in Yahweh" and take up arms against "the evil one."
Dear me, this sounds like so much contemporary
ecclesiastical saber-rattling that goes on every night on church television -
perfervid evangelists calling down divine thunderbolts against sinners of every
kind, including often Democrats and those who support women's reproductive
rights, gay marriage and sufficient taxation to run the country.
The odor of election -- the setting apart of the faithful
remnant -- is strong in these passages. It is what gives Christianity a bad
name among thoughtful people. Incredible and therefore unacceptable teachings
analogous to the Queen of Hearts' six impossible things before breakfast,
embraced by the zealous, end up coloring the whole of Christianity making it a
laughingstock among those who value critical thinking.
A homily based on these texts (and the discussions that may
precede and follow the giving of it) might take the tack of skepticism as to
their prima facie nature, mining them for metaphorical clues as to the
contemporary relevance of biblical Christianity.
One could begin by asking just what it may have been about
John's version of Jesus' teaching that was found unacceptable, and why anybody
thinks John found it necessary to report that "many of [Jesus'] disciples
turned back and no longer went about with him." That may be an important datum
from early church history.
One might further inquire about the statement attributed to
Simon Peter and wonder why he was made to accept, apparently without question,
the teaching others found unacceptable and incredible.
Finally, a homilist or discussants before or following the
homily, might want to explore what they perceive about their own local
community and its inclination concerning such teachings, and whether its
members have actually "chosen" to go beyond the confines of conventional belief
systems in seeking meaning for their lives.
|
READERS WRITE
Harvey H. Guthrie, Jr.: Fillmore, CA: As to the endless John 6 readings in Year B, my observation
has been that terse, straightforward Mark walks the walk so well that we'd be
finished way before Year C begins if we didn't let John talk the talk for five
weeks!
|
|
