Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Monday, February 10, 2014 Read John 6:1-15 At this point in John’s gospel we abruptly find ourselves once again in Galilee. There is a rift in the reading between the theological reflections in Jerusalem that we have just been considering and this story. It begins with the words, “After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee…” Clearly the reference implies that something has happened on this side of the Sea of Galilee, but that part of the story is never told. The reference to which the words, “after this” refers is missing. We have noticed these ragged edges in John’s gospel before and we will encounter them again. It is these ragged edges that lead many readers of John’s gospel to conclude that the work of an editor has been involved in the final form of the gospel as we have it today. I think that is a correct analysis. While it may complicate matters it does not hinder the authority of this gospel. We just need to know that when we are dealing with this gospel we are dealing with a very human product through which God chooses to work and speak. The concept of the inspiration of Scripture is made more complex but not invalidated. Upon further reflection, it ought to dawn upon readers of John’s gospel that we are now dealing with an episode that has also been reported in the synoptic gospels in the very same order. Two familiar stories are linked together – the story of Jesus feeding the five thousand and the story of Jesus coming to his disciples walking on the water. We can find this same pair of stories in this order in Mark 6:30-52, Matthew 14:13-33, and Luke 9:10-17, although Luke has omitted the part about Jesus walking on the water. Mark and Matthew will also tell another story about Jesus multiplying the bread to feed four thousand (Mark 8:1-10 and Matthew 15:32-39). Neither Luke nor John tells of this second feeding. Aside from the cleansing of the Temple narrative, we have for the first time all four gospels telling about the same incidents in the ministry of Jesus. What are we to make of this? Some have used this as evidence that John actually was aware of at least one of the synoptic gospels and most likely Mark or Matthew since Luke omits that story of walking on the water. Such a conclusion does not hold up very well. While there are many similarities there are also striking differences. A more likely explanation is that John and Mark were independently relying on a common older tradition in which these two episodes were already joined. As one reads John’s story carefully it becomes clear that he is using material from both of Mark’s two stories of the multiplication of the bread. The implication this leads to is that Mark has told the same story twice with minor modifications. In the older tradition that both Mark and John relied upon, there was only one story of the multiplication of the bread. That causes us to ponder why Mark did what he did, but that is a question that is better addressed in a study of Mark. That Luke only tells one story of the multiplication of the bread lends support to the theory that Mark has duplicated one story since the implication is that Luke knew there was only one story in the first place. While John’s story is quite similar to Mark’s there are a few differences we should notice. John uses his language of “signs” to talk about the event. John does not speak of miracles. He speaks of signs which often have the same meaning as a miracle though not always. We have already heard John’s contention that signs can lead to at least some measure of belief – though it may be inadequate. We have also heard of John’s skepticism about signs. They may or may not lead to proper belief. This is a sign that we shall see has something of both in it. The main difference between John’s story and Mark’s is that at the end of John’s story we are told that the people who saw the sign sought to make Jesus their King. Jesus is indeed the King, but they were seeking to understand him as king in the wrong way. And so Jesus withdrew from them. He will be King on his terms not theirs. The synoptic gospels really make no more of this story than the simple telling of it. John will make much more of the story – in fact, after relating the paired story of the walking on the water, John will spend the rest of the chapter reflecting on the meaning of the multiplication of the bread. John also connects this multiplication of bread with a second Passover festival. The first Passover had been when Jesus cleansed the Temple. Now a second Passover is arriving. One of the features of the Passover observance was the use of unleavened bread. This is a story about bread. John connects that multiplication of the bread with Passover with a purpose. Jesus will claim for himself that he is the bread of life – Jesus is the Passover Bread. When we compare this connection between the multiplication of the bread and Passover with the synoptic gospels we discover that they make no such connection. In fact, Jesus only celebrates one Passover in the synoptic gospels and that is at the end of his life and ministry. Before we leave the story of the multiplication of the bread we should notice the hint of language relating to the Lord’s Supper. “Jesus took the loaves and when he had given thanks …” The connection with the Lord’s Supper is far less than it is in the synoptic gospels, but nonetheless there is a connection. This is significant because John does not tell the story of the Lord’s Supper in the upper room. We will need to think more about that later.