Mark 8.27-end (NRSV) 

Peter’s Declaration about Jesus

27 Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say that I am?’²⁸And they answered him, ‘John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.’ ²⁹He asked them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Peter answered him, ‘You are the Messiah.’ ³⁰And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him.

Jesus Foretells His Death and Resurrection

³¹ Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. ³²He said all this quite openly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. ³³But turning and looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, ‘Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.’

³⁴ He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. ³⁵For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it. ³⁶For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life? ³⁷Indeed, what can they give in return for their life? ³⁸Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.’

It would appear that Mark starts a whole new section of the Gospel with this passage. Up to this point, Jesus has spent time saying and doing things; and it is all this that has caused people to ask the question: “Who is this man, who can teach as he teaches and do the things that he has done?” Jesus knows this and so puts the question to his closest disciples. Peter gets it right – and proclaims Jesus as the Messiah. One would expect Jesus to meet Peter’s answer with some enthusiasm, but we see in Mark’s account that Jesus’ response is ambiguous; he swears them to silence. It is also apparent that Jesus – at first – avoids using the word ‘Messiah’ for himself. This is probably because Jesus knew, all too well, that there were so many ideas about Messiahship going around that there was a real danger that many would have a misconceived idea of what this meant for him. There is a sense that – as most people expected the Messiah to be – Jesus was not willing to accept the title and so he forbids (indeed rebukes) the disciples from using it for him. Jesus chooses instead the title ‘Son of Man’. At the time, this would have been less militaristic or political. He also makes haste to define more closely what this meant: ignominy, defeat and suffering – indeed the opposite to what popular views of the Messiah were.

This leads the disciples to rebuke Jesus in return and they try to dissuade Jesus form speaking in this way. This leads to Jesus using even stronger rebuking language because it is vital that the disciples understand. Denis Nineham writes:

“The blistering severity of Jesus reply is evidence enough that what is at stake is a matter of quite central importance …”

In the first instance, what Jesus was predicting was something that ‘must’ take place; there was no choice in the matter. To persuade Jesus to try to avoid these things was to tempt Jesus just as Satan had done in the desert after his Baptism. In short, it was to tempt Jesus to disobey the will of God.

In the second instance, it would appear that the disciples did not want Jesus to suffer because they would feel embarrassed to be seen as a follower of a Messiah who suffers. (This was a time of many different ‘Messiahs’!) It would go against the grain. Spectacular victories would seem ‘better’; suffering brings no kudos and offends the pride of natural man who would ask: “What is the point?” Nineham suggests that the reaction of the disciples reveals that “… their minds and wills are governed by the standards of this world, of the unredeemed natural man …”

They need to be taught that “God thinks otherwise …” and in ways that are often in complete reverse of the standards of the world. This truth needs to be known by everyone, and so here, there is no need for secrecy. The path to true ‘life’ comes through trusting in God and being obedient to His will. This can imply suffering in this world – even death. Our behaviour will often not make sense to those in the world. But, while this life is precious, it is nothing compared with the life to come.

Jesus being the Messiah means him being the ‘Son of man’ and this implies redemptive suffering and death. The disciples’ failure to understand was a sign of their hardened hearts and their domination by the standards of this world. The purpose of this passage is not to explain what happened when Jesus was first recognised as the Messiah, rather, to show all what is involved and demanded whenever this recognition takes place. To see Jesus as he really is and to know how to respond “… is always a gift of God in Christ …”

We rejoice because our salvation is all of grace; unearned and undeserved, God’s gift to us. But as J C Ryle rightly suggests: “… all who accept this great salvation must prove the reality of their faith by carrying the cross after Christ.” Part of this means upholding the faith which the world despises and a lifestyle which the world ridicules as too strict and too ‘righteous’. We need to crucify the flesh, mortify the deeds of the body, to fight daily with the devil, to come out from the world, and ‘… to lose their lives, if needful, for Christ’s sake and for the Gospel’s …’ Ryle rightly understands that these are hard sayings (he was writing in the 19^th Century, it is even more so in our world of today). Or is it?

Our ‘credit crunch’ has made people realise that the so-called easy life is not that simple, and that having an abundance of ‘things’ is not the path to fulfilment and happiness. Our Lord knew that being one of his disciples would be difficult, but he also promises to give us the strength to life the life that will bring us blessing and fulfilment, beyond measure. Because what matters is not only the body, but also the soul – what the translators of the NRSV refer to as ‘… life …’ (verse 36)

Our ‘life’ is made up of more than things; it is made up of relationships – with others but especially with God. Being in relationship with others is sometimes going to mean facing difficulties, it is certainly going to require selflessness a denial of our selves; it is also going to mean sacrifice. Being in relationships - those that bring blessing and fulfilment to ourselves and others – certainly requires sacrificial living, a sense of giving of ourselves. When we do this, we discover what real living means. Mother Teresa discovered this, as did countless others. I prefer the translation ‘life’ rather than ‘soul’ in verse 26 as the latter sometimes distracts us thinking that what matters here is our eternal lives. Even Ryle suggests that these verses should be seen in the light of going through things becoming worth it because in the end our souls will live on in eternity. While this is all true, there is a danger of ‘living for eternity’ only and not ‘now’ also.  There is a sense that one might miss out on what it means to live ‘now’; to really live ‘now’ is living according to the way of Christ and not of the world.

Verse 38 also poses an interesting challenge. Many believe that they need to bring Jesus into every situation and conversation for if they don’t it means that they are being ashamed of him. This, for me, leads to much embarrassment when this is wholly inappropriate, and in my view, brings our faith into ridicule especially when over-simplified solutions are suggested to complex problems – e.g. ‘… the Bible teaches …’

The bottom line for me is that this sort of behaviour has done so much harm, that people in Britain, i.e. those outside the faith, automatically switch off when they hear the words ‘Bible’ and ‘Jesus’ and so we need to opt for different tactics, indeed more challenging and even more costly ways. We need to live the life – walk the walk – in order to earn the right to talk the talk. Words can be easy, but I believe our Lord is calling us to carry of Cross of sacrificial living.

Words come easy, living the life is more of a challenge, but, especially in today’s world it is vital that people see how sacrificial living, the way of the cross, leads to fulfilment and real ‘life’. We need to show that we are not ashamed of Jesus’ words, by living them. As St Francis put it:

“Take every opportunity to preach the Gospel, and where necessary, use words!”

³⁶For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life? ³⁷Indeed, what can they give in return for their life? 

It is quite possible for a person to make a massive success of their lives but in another sense to be living a life that is not worth living; the difference lies where one puts one’s values. Barclay offers the following thoughts:

(i)                 A person can sacrifice honour for profit. This can happened when people desire material things and when one is not over over-particular about how we get them. People used false scales in the ancient past, but there are a number of different ways in which the same principal applies still today. The question is: “How does life’s balance sheet look in the sight of God?

(ii)               A man my sacrifice principle for popularity. Barclay writes: “It may happen that the easy-going, agreeable, pliable man will save himself a lot of trouble.” But in the end the question we will all have to face will be: “What does God think of it? It is not the verdict of public opinion, but the verdict of God that settles destiny.”

(iii)             A person may sacrifice the lasting things for cheap things. It is always easier to have a cheap success. Authors can sacrifice writing a real masterpiece for the sake of cheap success. There are many other examples. Barclay concludes: “But life has a way of revealing the true values and condemning the false as the years pass on. A cheap thing never lasts.”

We may sacrifice eternity for the moment. We can avoid all sorts of mistakes if we always looked at things in the light of eternity.

Barclay concludes: “There is many a thing pleasant for the moment, but ruinous in the long run. The test of eternity, the test of seeking to see the thing as God sees it, is the realist test of all.” If we see things as God sees them, we will never spend our lives on the things that lose our souls.

Live in the light of eternity.

Brother,

Here is the New Testament reading for next Sunday and my comments on verse 1.

James 3
Taming the Tongue

1Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. 2We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.
3When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. 4Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. 5Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. 6The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.
7All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, 8but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.
9With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. 10Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. 11Can both fresh water and salt[a] water flow from the same spring? 12My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

In the early Church the teachers were vitally important. Whenever they are mentioned it is with honour. The Apostles and Prophets were always on the move. They did not stay long in any one congregation. But the teachers worked within the congregation and it was to them that the converts to Christianity were handed over for instruction in the facts of Christian teaching and Christian living. What an awesome responsibility for ordinary sinful, fallible human beings!

In the New Testament we see glimpses of teachers who failed in their responsibility and who became false teachers. There were teachers who tried to turn Christianity into another kind of Judaism by introducing circumcision and others keeping of the law (Acts 15:24). There were teachers who taught others but lived out nothing of what they taught. Their lives were a contradiction of their own teaching and it brought nothing but dishonour on the faith they represented.

Then there were some who tried to teach before they themselves knew anything (1 Timothy 1:6,7). But James is saying here that teaching is a dangerous occupation for any person. The instrument is the tongue and the tongue is a dangerous organ.

2We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.

Here James lays down two ideas which were quite common in Jewish thought and literature. First, the idea that there is no-one in the world who does not sin in something. The word which James uses is to "slip up". Barclay quotes Lord Fisher, the great sailor, who said, "Life is strewn with orange peel". Sometimes, as we both know, sin is not deliberate but the result of a slip up when we are off guard.

The tongue is so powerful. We even speak of a "slip of the tongue". Which reminds me of this joke.

Three vicars are at a ministers’ fraternal. They decide they need to be more open and vulnerable with each other, so they decide to share their weaknesses.

The first one says,

'Well, I have a problem with drink. I often slip and drink a whole bottle of port".

The second one says,

'Well, I have a problem with pornography. I often spend hours looking at it on the Internet".

One of the others asks the third one,

'Well, what is something that you have a problem with?'

The third preacher replies,

'Gossip, and I can't wait to tell everyone about you guys!'

The tongue can cause all sorts of problems! We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check. James’s emphasis on being mature – this time mature in what we say. We are what we eat, if a certain TV doctor is to be believed – but biblically we are what we say. Our words reveal who we are. It is from our heart that our words come – (Matthew 15:18)

James then goes on to give two illustrations:

3 When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal.4 Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go.

Why horses? Why ships? Remember, James is speaking to Christians dispersed around the Empire, many of them would have travelled by horse and by boat, so they were examples they were familiar with. What do bits and rudders have in common? Small, direction, who is controlling it directs the horse or the ship. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it boasts about great things.

Mark

Sermon for 2nd September 2012

Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23 (NRSV)

The Tradition of the Elders

7Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him, ²they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them.³(For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; ⁴and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles.) ⁵So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, ‘Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?’ ⁶He said to them, ‘Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written,
“This people honours me with their lips,
   but their hearts are far from me;
⁷in vain do they worship me,
   teaching human precepts as doctrines.”
⁸You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.’

¹⁴ Then he called the crowd again and said to them, ‘Listen to me, all of you, and understand: ¹⁵there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.’ 

²¹For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, ²²adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. ²³All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.’ 

It is difficult to understand fundamentalism! Even in Jesus day, it was a way of thinking that our Lord Himself strongly condemned, most especially in the Gospel reading for this week.

The Jews revered their Law or Torah. In shortest form it was the 10 Commandments, but also referred to the Pentateuch or first five books of the Old Testament. For most of their history, they saw the Torah as housing the great principles that people ought to interpret and apply to themselves. It was only in the 4^th and 5^th Centuries BC that a new legalism and fundamentalism took hold in some quarters, most notably through the work of the Scribes who had – in Barclay’s words – “… a passion for definition …”They broke down the laws into thousands of little rules and regulations governing every possible action and situation in life. “Life was no longer governed by principles, but by rules and regulations.” These were never written down until long after the life of Jesus and were originally an oral law or the ‘tradition of the elders’. Eventually they became known as the ‘Mishnah’.

In our reading the disciples of Jesus are challenged because they had not washed their hands – and there were definite rules for hand-washing – not in the interests of hygiene, but as part of religious ceremony. The water was kept in large stone jars (as was used by Jesus at Cana in Galilee).

The problem that Jesus is addressing here is profound: the religion of these people had become focused on the outward, based on precision of getting the ritual right, the ceremonial perfect and the rules and regulations – where at its heart true religion is about loving God and other people.

With reference to verse 5-8 ...

Jesus accuses the Scribes and Pharisees of hypocrisy – which in its original form – referred to one who answered, and went on to mean the words of an actor and then finally ‘… those whose life is a piece of acting without any sincerity behind it at all.’ Religious hypocrites are those who believe that they are good, if they merely follow outward observances no matter how they behave and speak toward others. The Scribes and Pharisees seemed to be condoning poor behaviour as long as people carried out handwashings and observed the correct laws about cleanness and uncleanness. Legalism takes account of outward actions, but it leaves out the most important part, our inner motives and intentions. Barclay comments:

“There is no greater religious peril of identifying religion with outward observance. There is no commoner religious mistake than in identifying goodness with certain so-called religious acts.”

Church-going, bible-reading, generous financial giving, regular and faithful prayer – all vitally important in our lives – but they do not make a person ‘good’. What is in a person’s heart is what matters and this is cleansed and purified by God, in Christ, through grace.

We need to listen to God and seek to find his voice as we study the Scriptures, interact with others and pray so that God can transform us and those whom we meet with His love and grace.

Barclay points out that this is one of the most revolutionary passages in the New Testament as Jesus is arguing with the authorities of the day about what mattered to them most – their Law. Jesus had shown the irrelevance of hand-washing and that rigid adherence to the Law can actually mean disobedience to the will of God. Now he is even more drastic because he is saying that nothing that goes into a person can possible defile them because what goes into the body also comes out again. No Jew of his day believed this. In Leviticus there are pages and pages of complex laws regulating what one could or could not eat, and these were taken very seriously indeed, many being willing to even die rather than defile themselves by breaking dietary laws> (This actually happened during the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes when he required them to eat swine flesh.) Some had had their tongues cut out, the ends of their limbs cut off and then they were roasted alive! But they would rather endure all this than eat anything forbidden by the Law. Now Jesus is saying that nothing that goes into a person can make them unclean. Barclay comments:

“He was wiping out at one gesture the laws for which Jews had suffered and died. No wonder they were amazed.”

Things cannot be either unclean or clean, only persons can be defiled and what defiles us is our actions because they are products of our hearts. This was new doctrine and it was strange and revolutionary.

In our world we need to be constantly aware of the possibility of being legalistically bound by laws that are of man’s creation and not from God – and there are always difficult to discern. In the debates that rage in our Churches, it seems that we can sometimes lose sight of the difference.

We now look at what Jesus lists as coming from the heart and making humankind unclean:

(i)Evil intentions: Every outward act of sin is preceded by an inward act of choice, so Jesus begins with the thought.

(ii) Fornication which refers to all kinds of traffic in sexual desire. It used to refer to sex outside of marriage, including sex before marriage. Today many Christians are willing to permit sex before marriage as long as a couple love each another and are on the path to marriage e.g. engaged to be married. I still believe that the harm that is done by allowing sex before marriage far outweighs the so-called benefits. I have seen too many people shattered when marriage does not happen and they have invested so much emotional capital in their sexual involvement.

(iii) Theft – which is pretty obvious, but specifically here refers to one who thieves out of a desire to gain rather than a thief who steals because he is desperate.

(iv) Murder and adultery need no elaboration.

(v) Avarice – wanting to have more and defined by some as ‘… the accursed love of having …’ or as Barclay suggests: “… the spirit which snatches at that which it is not right to take …”This is the spirit that snatches at things, not to hoard them like a miser, but to spend them in lust and luxury. Plato referred to this as: “The desire of man is like a sieve or pierced vessel which he ever tries to, and can never fill …” This sounds like a description of modern capitalism and that which makes our economy thrive – and which has failed and so has caused our present economic plight.

(vi) Wickedness and deceit – referring to the desire to cause harm through trickery and deceit. The word is used in explain the Greek deception with the horse at Troy.

Enough of this terrible list; but a sobering experience nonetheless. Barclay concludes with excellent advice (as always):

“It is a truly terrible list which Jesus cites of the things that come from the human heart. When we go into it and examine it a shudder surely passes over us. Nonetheless it is a summons, not a fastidious shrinking from such things, but to an honest self-examination of our own hearts.”

Blessed are the pure in heart – which we can be when we allow God’s grace in Christ to cleanse us from all sin.

Blessings to you all,

David Owen

John 6:56-69 (New International Version)
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" 61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[a] and they are life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." 66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. 67 "You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve. 68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

Many ancient people longed to take their god into themselves and take themselves into their god. They would not read phrases like eating Christ's body and drinking his blood in a crude and literal way. We should also remember here that John is giving meaning and drawing out the inner significance of the words of Jesus under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Barclay draws out two ways in which we can take this passage. 1) We could take it in the literal sense. Jesus speaks about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. We could think of the flesh of Jesus as his full humanity. We must grab hold of and feed our minds, our hearts and our souls on the fact that Jesus took on our human life with all its struggles, temptations, joys and sorrows. When we eat his flesh it is as though Jesus says to us, "When you are discouraged and in despair, when you are tired of life and beaten to your knees and and disgusted with life and living - remember I took that life of yours and these struggles of yours on me." And it is the great belief of the Greek Orthodox Christology that Jesus deified our flesh by taking it on himself.

Jesus said that we must drink his blood. In Jewish thought the blood stands for the life. It is easy to understand why. AS the blood flows from a wound life ebbs away. And to the Jew, the blood belonged to God. That is why to this day a true Jew will never eat any meat which had not been completely drained of blood. So when Jesus says we must drink his blood he is saying that we must take his life into the very centre of our being. And also that the life which is mine is also the life which belongs to God. Barclay gives and illustration of a book in a bookcase which someone has never read. Let's say it is the tragedies of Shakespeare. The person has bought the book but as long as it remains unread on the bookshelf it is external to him. It remains outside him/her. But then one day s/he takes it down and reads it. It is fascinating and moving! The story sticks and the great lines remain in the memory. Now, whenever the person wants to they can take that wonder out from inside them and feed on it and remember it and think about it. Once the book was external - upon the shelf. Now it is on the inside.

It is that way with any experience in life. Not long ago I knew nothing about sailing. It was something external to me. Now I am beginning to feel it part of my life. It is the same with Jesus. He is the life of God. As long as he remains a figure in a book he is external to us; but when he enters into our hearts he is within us and we can feed upon his life and strength. When Jesus says we must drink his blood he is saying "You must take my life inside you; stop thinking of me as a figure in a book and a subject for theological debate; you must take me into you and you must come into me; and then you will have real life.

But John must have meant more than this. He was writing as an old man. The Lord's supper was already central to the early Church. John must have been thinking of the experiences of Jesus in the old Galilean days and making them real to the Christians he was writing for.

When John was writing this, Barclay suggests, he was quite certainly thinking of the Lord's Supper. He was saying, "If you want life, you must come and sit at the table where you eat that broken bread and drink that poured out wine which, somehow, in the grace of God, brings you into living contact with the love and the life of Jesus Christ." We must also note that John has no account of the Last Supper. John brings his teaching about it, not in the Upper Room but, interestingly, in the story of a picnic meal on a hillside near Bethsaida. There is no doubt what John is saying - he is saying that for all Christians every meal has become a sacrament. And I am aware that there are some who are profoundly irritated when we insist on saying grace before meals because they happen to be unbelievers.

John seems to be refusing to limit the presence of Christ to an ecclesiastical environment or a correctly liturgical service. It is almost as though John is suggesting that in any meal we can find again that bread which speaks of the humanity of Jesus and that wine which speaks of the blood which is life. It is a wonderful thought that the communion table and the dinner table and the picnic on the seashore or on the hillside are all the same in that at all of them we can taste and touch and handle the bread and the wine which brings us to Christ. Christianity would be very much poorer if we locked Christ up in our churches. It is John's belief that we can find Christ anywhere in Christ's world. And of course this is not belittling the sacrament of the Eucharist. It is actually an expansion of the Sacrament, so that we find Christ at the table in church and then we go out to find him everywhere where people meet together to enjoy the gifts of God.

John 6.51-58

John 6:51-58 (NRSV)

⁵¹I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ ⁵² The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ ⁵³So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. ⁵⁴Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; ⁵⁵for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. ⁵⁶Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. ⁵⁷Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. ⁵⁸This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live for ever.’

The further we delve into the depths of John chapter 6, the more I am reminded of why it is one of my favourite passages in all of Scripture.

I am interested in the way fundamentalists – those who insist on taking the Bible literally, word for word – stop here and see this passage as being allegorical. Why? And why do they not see the wonderful depths of allegory that – for me – is so obvious elsewhere in Scripture. If fundamentalism if correct, then, according to this passage, they should believe that something distinctive happens to the elements of bread and wine at the Eucharist and that it actually becomes the body and blood of Christ.

Once more, our mentor – William Barclay – provides some useful insights. I do believe that his emphasis on discovering what a passage meant for the first audience is of great significance, and he is superb in doing this.

Many modern, western people, struggle with this passage because we are so conditioned by a literal scientific way of thinking of proofs that can be empirically verified – “Prove it …” is what we always want to say. For the people of Jesus’ day what Jesus was talking about would have made perfect, even easy, sense.

At this time, animal sacrifice was common practice. A token of the slaughtered animal was burnt as an offering to a god. Part of the flesh was given to the priests and part to the worshipper to make a feast for himself and his family and friends – at which the god would be present. Once the flesh had been offered to the god, it was believed that he had entered into it, so when the worshipper ate the meat, they were literally eating the god. When the people then left the feast, they believed that they were god-filled. To people who were accustomed to this, what Jesus said would have posed little difficulty at all – if they accepted that he was a god.

Mystery religions also abounded at this time. They were essentially passion plays, stories of a god who had lived and suffered terribly and who died and rose again.

Barclay concludes:

John is ‘… not giving, or trying to give, the actual words of Jesus. He has been thinking for 70 years of what Jesus said; and now, led by the Holy Spirit, he is giving the inner significance of the words …’

While I accept this, I do not believe that they are too far off what Jesus said, or else there is a chance of fabrication on the part of the Gospel writer. I like to think of it as John just expanding on the actual words Jesus used in order to explain them.

Having looked briefly into the historical context, today I am going to look into the insights Barclay gives us into the meaning of aspects of this passage. Today I focus on the meaning of the ‘flesh’. This is a reference to the complete humanity of Jesus as mentioned in 1 John 4:2-3:

²By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, ³and every spirit that does not confess Jesus^* is not from God.

The Apostle (I have no difficulty in accepting that the author of the Gospel and the Epistles was the same person!) wants to stress the full humanity of Jesus for Jesus was “… the mind of God become a person … God taking human life upon him, facing our human situation, struggling with our human problems, battling with our human temptations, working out our human relationships.”

Barclay suggests that Jesus is saying here – with reference to his ‘flesh’:

“Feed your heart, feed your mind, feed your soul on the thought of my manhood. When you are discouraged and in despair, when you are beaten to your knees and disgusted with life and living – remember I took that life of yours and these struggles of your on me.”

Our human lives have – since then – taken on a special glory because, God coming in human form in Jesus, has given human life a special dignity – it has been touched by God – or as Barclay puts it ‘… Jesus deified our flesh by taking it upon himself …’

To eat Christ’s body is to feed on the thought that he became one of us and to reflect on this is to be strengthened, encouraged and blessed as we seek to imitate His life.

Now I want to focus on ‘… drinking the blood …’

To modern ears, this seems bizarre; the notion of drinking blood borders on the disgusting, but the biblical context provides the much needed perspective.

In Jewish thought, blood stands for ‘life’: if it flows out from a wound, the patient dies. For Jews, blood is therefore sacred and the reason why they will not eat flesh that has not been drained of blood. Barclay suggests that Jesus is, in effect, saying here:

“You must drink my blood – you must take my life into the very centre of your being – and that life of mine is the life which belongs to God. When Jesus said we must drink his blood he meant that we must take his life into the very core of our hearts.”

What does this mean?

Jesus can be a very important person of history, he can be just a figure in a very important book (and indeed many books) and this will all that he is, but when he enters our hearts we become part of him. Again, Barclay puts it well, writing:

“He is saying: ‘You must stop thinking of me as a subject for theological debate; you must take me into you, and you must come into me; and then you will have real life.’”

This is what Jesus means by abiding in him and he abiding is us.

At the Eucharist we ‘feed on him in our hearts by faith and with thanksgiving.’

So we eat the flesh and drink the blood we feeding our hearts and our souls on the humanity of Jesus, we revitalise our lives with his life and we are filled with the life of God.

Until I read Barclay’s commentary, I am sad to have to admit that it had never dawned on me before that John has no account of the Lord’s Supper in his Gospel. So, while John’s writing here obviously seems to have a reference to the Eucharist, he is also implying much, much more. John therefore writes this vitally important section not within the context of the special meal, ‘… but in the story of a picnic meal on a hillside near Bathsaida Julius by the blue waters of the Sea of Galilee …’ and this implies that, for the Christian, every meal has become a sacrament. It seems possible that John was making this point to some who might have been making too much of  the Sacrament, making ‘magic’ of it, implying that it was the ‘only’ place where we might encounter the real presence of Jesus in our lives. John is therefore saying that even meals in the humblest of homes or the richest palaces – all can become sacraments, as Barclay writes: “ … he refused to limit the presence of Christ to an ecclesiastical environment and a correctly liturgical service …’

In John’s mind, the altar and the dinner table and the picnic mat are all alike in that at all of them ‘… we may taste and touch and handle the bread and the wine which brings us Christ …’

Jesus is not confined to the Churches; we can find Christ anywhere, if we open ourselves to look using the eyes of faith. John expands the sacrament with the truth that Jesus is everywhere, probably especially in the ordinariness of our lives.

Live sacramentally and be blessed.

Sermon thoughts for 12th August 2012

John 6:35, 41-51 (NRSV)

35 Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

41 Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven.’ ⁴²They were saying, ‘Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, “I have come down from heaven”?’ ⁴³Jesus answered them, ‘Do not complain among yourselves. ⁴⁴No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day. ⁴⁵It is written in the prophets, “And they shall all be taught by God.” Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. ⁴⁶Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. ⁴⁷Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. ⁴⁸I am the bread of life. ⁴⁹Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. ⁵⁰This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. ⁵¹I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.’

This passage is all about why some people rejected Jesus (and probably still reject him today).

Some of the people of Jesus’ time rejected him because they were judging things by human and purely external standards. They said that he was just a carpenter’s son and they had seen him grow up in Nazareth, a rather insignificant village. They could not understand how a person with a background like this could possibly be a messenger from God.

But is it not true that we often get messages from God from the most unlikely people. Mother Teresa used to say how she found Christ in the poor and destitute in Calcutta; others speak of finding God in the most unlikely of places and from the least expected people. Barclay uses the following illustration from the experience of T S Lawrence (of Arabia) to make an important point.

Lawrence was a great friend of Thomas Hardy. Lawrence began his military career as a private in the RAF. When on leave, he used to visit Hardy in his uniform. On one occasion Lawrence’s visit coincided with a visit to the Hardy’s by the Mayoress of Dorchester. She was offended to have to be in the presence of a mere private aircraftman. In French she complained to Mrs Hardy that ‘… never in all her born days had she had to sit down to tea with a private soldier. No one said anything: then Lawrence said in perfect French: “I beg your pardon Madame, but can I be of any use as an interpreter? Mrs Hardy knows no French!”’

We are God’s children not because of who we are or what we have done, but because of Jesus and what he has done for us. It is all of grace. All are one in Christ Jesus our Lord, St Paul reminds us in the letter to the Galatians. The New Testament speaks of the priesthood of all believers.

We must take special care that we never neglect a message from God because we do not care for the messenger. Barclay concludes:

“God has many messengers. His greatest message came through a Galilean carpenter, and for that very reason some Jews disregarded it.”

Some of the people rejected Jesus and his message because they were arguing among themselves. They were so taken up with their arguments that they failed to do what matters most and take the matter to God. They were all too eager to have their point of view made known, but did not seem to care to deeply about what God had to say.

This is so much part of human experience. Quite often, arguments abound because people are not really listening to each other. When they are not speaking, they are thinking of their reply rather than what the other person is trying to say. Often, what is needed is a time for quiet and reflection on what has been said.

There are arguments and debates abounding in the Church around issues of unity and leadership and sexuality (to name but a few). I wonder how much listening to God comes into things sometimes? For me, the issue of sexuality proved particularly difficult because I find homosexuality so repulsive as a sexual act. I struggled to see how it could ever be something good and uplifting – until I met some wonderful, holy and obviously Spirit filled homosexual Christians. I still have difficulty with the act, but am less concerned about the how and the why and more open to be accepting and affirming because some obviously have the Spirit of Christ within them. Was it not this – the presence of the Spirit – that made Peter see the importance to accept Gentiles?

Perhaps in our Churches, we need to have fewer debates and discussions and seek rather to discover the voice of God in the silence?

Perhaps the secret is to talk less and listen more?

Barclay adds that one needs more than just listening, one needs also to hear and learn. He suggests that there are different kinds of listening; there is the listening of:

(i) resentment

(ii) criticism

(iii) superiority

(iv) indifference

(v) the person who is only silent for the moment because they cannot get a chance to speak

Barclay concludes: “The only listening that is worth while is that which hears and learns; and that is the only way to listen to God.”

Barclay reminds us that the word John uses here is ‘helkuein’ and is the Greek word for the Hebrew word used by Jeremiah when he speaks of God speaking to the prophet and the KJV translates the experience as God saying: “With loving-kindness have I drawn thee …” There is an implication of resistance because it is the same word used for drawing to shore a heavily laden net filled with fish. (John 21:6 and 11) It is used when explaining how Paul and Silas were brought before the Magistrates in Philippi (Acts 16:19) Barclay gives other examples as well.

What is interesting is the fact that God can draw us, but our resistance can ‘… defeat God’s pull …’ This is another reminder of why I originally lost patience with Barclay, because as a young Calvinist, I was of the view that no human could thwart the will of God. But we know that – especially in the shorter term – this is not only possible, it is the default setting. It is probably true that the ultimate purposes of God cannot be thwarted – but this side of the grave – we will never know.

For me the big issue here is the question: “Are we allowing God to draw us to Him?” If we do, then we are blessed beyond measure. Other questions follow: “In what ways are we resisting God?” and “What is God saying to us?”

This goes back to some earlier reflections where I have contended that the Bible is vital and essential, but it is just part of the process. We need to use our reason, we need to confer with others in study, fellowship and prayer, and this ignites the intuitive meeting of Spirits, God’s Spirit with our spirits and the conviction, the peace and the joy that results.

This is too rare an experience for me and the busyness of life so often takes over and I do not find time to allow myself to be drawn to God. This is especially true as we go through the frantic time of packing and setting up accounts for water and gas and electricity and telephone and e-mail and …. the list seems endless. To make matters worse, there is a problem with our plumbing in Moffat and so repairs have needed to be in place (the plumber has owned up that it is his responsibility as he installed it! and so the cost ought not to be too great.)  In addition, a disturbing noise in the front of our car seems to be £1500 worth of repairs – but then I purchased an extended warranty and so this too ought to be covered. But the things of this life can be the resistance that strops us from being drawn to the presence of God where we receive our deepest nourishment.

Be still, for the presence of the Lord, the Holy One is near …

Jesus referred to himself as – ‘the bread of life …’ In the days of Jesus, bread was the staple food and so Jesus is saying that He is essential for life and as Barclay adds: “… to refuse the invitation and command of Jesus is to miss life and die …”

John links this famous saying with a reference to the experience of the Israelites during the Exodus (as recorded in the book of Numbers). The people did not need to wait 40 years before entering the Promised Land, they just refused to face the dangers after the reports of the returning scouts so they were condemned to wander in the wilderness – so they missed all the blessing that was waiting for them.

To reject Jesus is to miss out on life – in this world and the next but to accept Jesus and his ways means to find real, meaningful and blessed life in this world and glory in the next.

John 6.24-35 - Sunday 5th August

John 6:24-35 (NRSV)

²⁴So when the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum looking for Jesus. ²⁵ When they found him on the other side of the lake, they said to him, ‘Rabbi, when did you come here?’ ²⁶Jesus answered them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. ²⁷Do 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.’ ²⁸Then they said to him, ‘What must we do to perform the works of God?’ ²⁹Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.’ ³⁰So they said to him, ‘What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing? ³¹Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, “He gave them bread from heaven to eat.” ’ ³²Then Jesus said to them, ‘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. ³³For the bread of God is that which^* comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.’ ³⁴They said to him, ‘Sir, give us this bread always.’

35 Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

My text is written in John 6.34:

³⁴They said to him, ‘Sir, give us this bread always.’

The reading from John’s Gospel is once again so rich in its deeper meanings. The crowds were fascinated by Jesus – but according to Jesus himself – for the wrong reasons because they had seen (and others probably heard) of the feeding of the five thousand (and probably other miracles). The same would be true today I am sure. But this is to miss the point.

The people had experienced a miracle, but had failed to see the sign. This is another way of saying that they had focused on the literal and failed to move on to the allegorical and the spiritual. As Barclay writes, paraphrasing the sentiment of Jesus:

“Your thoughts ought to have been turned to God who did these things; but instead all that you are thinking about is bread … It is as if Jesus said ‘…You cannot think about your souls for thinking of your stomachs.’”

By focusing exclusively on the things of this life, we miss out on what it really means to live. I understand how difficult this is. The Scriptures seem quite clear that if I am doing things responsibly, God will provide. And we know the truth of this. If we are living in according to the ways of God, we can trust him to provide for everything else. In Matthew 6:33 Jesus exhorts us to “Seek first his kingdom and righteousness and then all things shall be added unto you.”

The recurring theme is that there is a deep spiritual hunger in every human being – it is part of that which separates us from other species – although animals have it to a very limited extent. Meeting our physical needs is just the beginning; we also need emotional hunger satisfied and so we need other people to love us (and this is where animals’ needs end). But even this is not all; we have a deep spiritual hunger that also needs to be met. Without it we flounder. People try to meet this deep inner hunger by doing many things, not least living lavish lifestyles. And this is nothing new. Roman society – after AD 60 – was one where luxurious living was unparalleled. They had feasts of peacock brains and nightingale tongues – costing the equivalent of thousands of pounds. They clothed themselves in garments costing the equivalent of over £400,000. Barclay suggests that …

“… the reason was a deep dissatisfaction with life, a hunger that nothing would satisfy. They would try anything for a new thrill, because they were both appallingly rich and appallingly hungry …”

So what happens today is still nothing new. Poor Michael Jackson had everything money could buy and yet it turns out that he was deeply unhappy and felt empty.

Jesus exhorts us not to be interested only in physical satisfaction. The people had experienced an unexpected meal and they wanted more. There are other hungers that only God can satisfy – hunger for truth, hunger for life and hunger for love because it is only on Jesus that God has ‘… set his seal …’ (verse 27). In the days of the writing of John’s Gospel it was the seal more than the signature that was the guarantee. This is why only Jesus can satisfy the human hunger of the soul. He is sealed by God, he is God’s truth, God’s love and God’s life within each and every one of us and ‘… it is God alone who can truly satisfy the hunger of the soul which He created.’

²⁸Then they said to him, ‘What must we do to perform the works of God?’ ²⁹Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.’

What does it mean to believe? To ‘believe’ in Jesus’ day did not mean give intellectual assent to. This does not mean that the people committed intellectual suicide and just blindly accepted everything. Certainly not, once the Temple was destroyed, the focus of worship for the Jews was the synagogues, where they certainly wrestled with the Scriptures and sought meaning in them for their present time. They argued with each other and God, but found that in the process, they received a word for themselves as individuals and for the community as a whole. This ‘method’ was adopted by the early Church and they developed rituals and liturgies to aid the process. Karen Armstrong explains:

“The carefully devised rituals evoked an ‘ekstasis’ – a stepping out of their accustomed modes of thought. As Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia  (392-428) … explained to his catechumens:

… when you say I believe you say I engage myself before God, you show that you will remain steadfastly with him, that you will never separate yourself from him and that you will think it higher than anything else to be and to live with him and to conduct yourself in a way that is in harmony with his commandments. “

‘Belief’ in our modern sense, did not come into it. Even though Theodore saw the importance of a literal understanding, this was only a part of the process. Armstrong concludes that faith was a matter of commitment and practical living.’

We need to live in a way that realizes that what we experience physically in this world is not all that there is – in fact it is the least – that which we share with mere animals. It can be lovely and enjoyable, but it can also be a great challenge – as all of us who have experienced serious illness can testify. However, even in times of serious physical testing, we can know the depth of real existence – peace, and even joy when we know that our real hunger and thirst have been satisfied as we are united with God in Jesus Christ our Lord. As Tom Wright concludes. Verse 34 can be used to this day, as it stands, as the prayer that we will need to pray if our deepest needs are to be met:

‘Sir, give us this bread always.’

Amen.