FINDINGS VI By Harry T. Cook
 
Proper 16 - B - August 23, 2015
John 6: 56-69
(Joshua 24: 1-2a-14-18; Psalm 34: 15-22; Ephesians 6: 10-20)
   
 
Harry T. Cook
By Harry T. Cook
8/17/15

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.

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" -
ζωη here, psychic existence as opposed to βιος --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 CE 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 word is αγαπη 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 . . ."

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 that 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 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.   


Copyright 2015 Harry T. Cook. All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced without proper credit.
 

What do you think?
I'd like to hear from you. E-mail your comments to me at [email protected].