What was it, then, that precipitated this second bout of murmuring? There are three possible reasons for their reaction. Firstly, they may simply not have understood the ‘parable’ of the bread and the drink, the flesh and the blood – a parable ('parabole' in Greek) being not necessarily a story, but any kind of figurative comparison. After Jesus has told the parable of the sower in Mark 4, “those around him and the twelve” ask him to explain it. Before he does so, he explains the purpose of parables in general, making much the same distinction that we have seen here in John 6, between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’, true disciples and ‘the crowd’: “to you – the inner circle – the mystery of the kingdom of heaven has been given; but to those outside everything comes in parables, so that (quoting Isaiah) ‘seeing they may see and not see’ (i.e. ‘get the point’) ‘and hearing they may hear and not understand’" (vv.11-12). It seems that parables are used by Jesus as ‘stumbling-blocks’ or hurdles to discriminate between those who are genuine seekers after truth, and ‘hunger and thirst for righteousness’, and those who have merely jumped on the bandwagon, swept along by the enthusiasm of the moment – ‘Palm Sunday disciples’, one might call them. If that is what has happened here, it is not surprising that these Jews ‘murmur’ in protest at the idea of eating Jesus’ flesh, and even more so at ‘drinking his blood’: drinking blood was strictly forbidden by the Mosaic law. But supposing that, for once, they did ‘get the point’, the second possible cause of their murmuring may have been simply that they balked at this demand for personal commitment to Jesus. It was one thing to follow him round the lake in the hope of more free bread, but to follow him faithfully through life was a commitment too far – as, alas, it still is today for many who do not want their religion to ‘get too personal’. Thirdly, some of Jesus’ audience may have realised that he was prophesying his own death when he talked of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and to them, as to Peter in the passage we looked at earlier, the idea of a Messiah who came to suffer and die was unthinkably ‘scandalous’. In fact, the links between that passage (Matt 16.13-23), Peter’s confession of faith at Caesarea Philippi, and the last section of John 6 in Capernaum are quite striking. When the false disciples melt away, scandalized, Jesus asks the twelve: “Surely you do not want to turn back?” Inevitably, it is Peter who replies with a confession of faith: “Lord, to whom shall we go ? You have the words of eternal life – you are the holy one of God.” Jesus replies: “Did I not choose the twelve of you, and one of you is a devil?” – not Peter, this time, but Judas, his betrayer, the ‘son of the evil one’ sown by Satan in the middle of God’s harvest-field.
Tuesday, 10 January 2012
SKANDALON 4 (i): [iii] the stumbling-block of Jesus' parables
What was it, then, that precipitated this second bout of murmuring? There are three possible reasons for their reaction. Firstly, they may simply not have understood the ‘parable’ of the bread and the drink, the flesh and the blood – a parable ('parabole' in Greek) being not necessarily a story, but any kind of figurative comparison. After Jesus has told the parable of the sower in Mark 4, “those around him and the twelve” ask him to explain it. Before he does so, he explains the purpose of parables in general, making much the same distinction that we have seen here in John 6, between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’, true disciples and ‘the crowd’: “to you – the inner circle – the mystery of the kingdom of heaven has been given; but to those outside everything comes in parables, so that (quoting Isaiah) ‘seeing they may see and not see’ (i.e. ‘get the point’) ‘and hearing they may hear and not understand’" (vv.11-12). It seems that parables are used by Jesus as ‘stumbling-blocks’ or hurdles to discriminate between those who are genuine seekers after truth, and ‘hunger and thirst for righteousness’, and those who have merely jumped on the bandwagon, swept along by the enthusiasm of the moment – ‘Palm Sunday disciples’, one might call them. If that is what has happened here, it is not surprising that these Jews ‘murmur’ in protest at the idea of eating Jesus’ flesh, and even more so at ‘drinking his blood’: drinking blood was strictly forbidden by the Mosaic law. But supposing that, for once, they did ‘get the point’, the second possible cause of their murmuring may have been simply that they balked at this demand for personal commitment to Jesus. It was one thing to follow him round the lake in the hope of more free bread, but to follow him faithfully through life was a commitment too far – as, alas, it still is today for many who do not want their religion to ‘get too personal’. Thirdly, some of Jesus’ audience may have realised that he was prophesying his own death when he talked of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and to them, as to Peter in the passage we looked at earlier, the idea of a Messiah who came to suffer and die was unthinkably ‘scandalous’. In fact, the links between that passage (Matt 16.13-23), Peter’s confession of faith at Caesarea Philippi, and the last section of John 6 in Capernaum are quite striking. When the false disciples melt away, scandalized, Jesus asks the twelve: “Surely you do not want to turn back?” Inevitably, it is Peter who replies with a confession of faith: “Lord, to whom shall we go ? You have the words of eternal life – you are the holy one of God.” Jesus replies: “Did I not choose the twelve of you, and one of you is a devil?” – not Peter, this time, but Judas, his betrayer, the ‘son of the evil one’ sown by Satan in the middle of God’s harvest-field.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment