When Jesus leaves Jerusalem in chapter six, he walks to the sea of Galilee, crosses it, and goes up into a mountain with his disciples. It is stated at that time that the Passover was near. It takes about three days to walk from Jerusalem to the sea of Galilee, and not very long to cross it. If there was no gap here, then the feast might have been Tabernacles in the fall. That would place a sizable gap in the storyline after the second miracle at Cana.
These possible gaps in the storyline – either after the healing in Cana or after the unnamed feast – must be addressed. It is expected that, along the way, there would have been some downtime. For an example of downtime, I refer to the twelve disciples being sent out in pairs to heal and preach. Jesus did not go with his disciples on that occasion but stayed behind. I, like many others, have no clear concept of just how long the disciples were away in their task. What did Jesus do while they were gone?
We must recall that, after a two-day stay in the city near Jacob's well, Jesus went into Galilee, apparently avoiding his “own country”. We must recall that Jesus led his first two disciples, those who followed him from the camp of John, to the place where he was staying. It was in the general Galilee area and may have either been in or close to the city of Bethsaida. When Jesus went to get baptized, it appears he was no longer living in his home town of Nazareth, which was quite close to Cana, he had a place in Bethsaida. Now, he was back in the general Galilee area, staying in Cana, where the wedding had been.
If the timeline gap is to be placed here, how do we interpret the downtime? The only event recorded here is the healing – after which, Jesus went to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews. Had he given his disciples time to be with their families, to conduct their business? He had just come north from a spring Holy Day in Jerusalem. Was that the time of year the fishermen needed to fish? Did Jesus stay at Cana, and if so, why? Why at the place of the wedding? If Jesus was a bonafide card-carrying Rabbi, as I have asserted, was he the keeper of the Cana Synagogue? And remember, according to local laws and traditions, a Rabbi was required to be a married man. What does it tell us that after the wedding, he and his whole family went to Capernaum (if going by the main road) by way of Magdala?
If the timeline gap is to be placed after the unnamed feast, in chapter six, what are we to make of it? Chapter five, in its entirety, covers the unnamed feast of the Jews. In it, Jesus performs one miracle and makes one speech to his accusers. It is assumed that Jesus left after the feast and again returned to Galilee. It is in the early spring conditions that we find Jesus and his disciples had crossed the sea to reach a mountain. It is in these conditions that a multitude is fed, some five thousand strong, who began in Jerusalem to follow him. From the fact that the name of the sea (sea of Galilee) is clarified to introduce or include the name (sea of Tiberias,) I get the impression that they launched from around that city.
Were they immediately in the mountains or was there also some downtime to be considered here? Had they returned to Bethsaida where the fishermen lived and worked? Was their time in the mountain meant as a final meeting before a break?
Now, as to the multitude of at least five thousand, let us consider the logistics. From John 6:2, we see that a multitude followed him. The reason given is that they had seen miracles performed, namely the healing of their sick. No such miracles are recorded in chapter five, only the healing of the man by the pool. Had Jesus and his disciples remained in Jerusalem healing the sick, if so, for how long? On the other hand, consider this scenario. Jesus parted company with his disciples and asked them to meet up later at the city of Tiberias. Either he lived in that area and healed the sick or he had gone back to Cana and there performed his miracles apart from any disciple who might have later remembered and recorded those miracles.
Perhaps the multitude coalesced from the general Galilee area and followed Jesus to Tiberias where he met with his disciples. The press was so dire in the city that they launched out from Tiberias going north along the coast. Had they crossed completely over, say to Bethsaida, the multitude would have had considerable difficulty following them – especially if they did not know the destination. They could, however, easily follow them along the coast if they could keep the ship in view. A crossing to the far north, around Bethsaida, would have given them a day or two to themselves before the crowd arrived – that is, if the crowd had been made aware of the destination. A mountaintop closer to the city of Tiberias, at least in my consideration, seems more likely. Mount Arbel might be a good candidate for the feeding of the five thousand.
Another scenario might be that they went to Bethsaida and wintered there. In the early spring, before the Passover, Jesus could have mounted a sea coast tour, traveling by ship to each city in turn, healing the sick, and by increments, gathering a following that grew and followed him along the coast until he reached the mountain upon which the five thousand were fed.
Verse five. When Jesus sees the five thousand in need of food, he turns to one of his disciples with a monetary question. 'Where shall we buy bread?' It stands to reason that, under such circumstances, Jesus would have turned to the person who managed the coin purse.
Certain details of the gospels lead most of us to assume that person was Judas Iscariot. While Judas may have been that person toward the end of Jesus' ministry, that may not have always been the case. It may well have been that in the early parts of Jesus' ministry, he entrusted the coin purse to Philip.
So, he asked Philip a monetary question and Philip answered in a very knowing manner. In other words, and in all likelihood, Philip's answer accounted for their entire net worth: two hundred pennies.
If, at that time, Philip was the go-to guy for money matters, what might have been the reasons he was so entrusted? According to Wikipedia, “he appears as a link to the Greek community. Philip bore a Greek name, may have spoken Greek, and may have been known to the Greek pilgrims in Jerusalem. ”
It may have been also true that the coin purse changed hands from time to time. In the beginning, Philip might have been the natural choice as community liaison.
Now, the author claims that Jesus asked such a question to prove Philip because he already knew he was going to perform a miracle. If that was the case, then Jesus turned to a random disciple with a random question related to the group's financial ability. To prove a man, such as in this case, Philip, one must prove a certain quality of the person or at least prove the person right or wrong in their assumptions or conclusions.
Philip heard the question 'where can we go to buy enough bread to feed this many people?' He immediately assessed their current bank and came to the conclusion that even if they spent all they had on bread, (two hundred pennyworth) their effort would not be sufficient. Another disciple added that they might also include the fish and loaves a boy had brought with him – and it still would not be enough. If two disciples came to the same conclusion, why did Jesus, according to the author, seek only to prove one of them?
What was the point of the proving? Was it 'where there is a will, there is a way?' Was it 'make do with what you have at hand?' Was it ''save your money, I got this? Was it 'watch and learn?' Was it 'only believe?'
The feeding of the five thousand is a stirring moment in the gospels. People have an inclination toward being 'moved.' Our emotional predispositions can, sadly, turn a blind eye to many telling details. You will not hear a preacher stray far from the swelling flood of emotional rhetoric that keeps a church audience seated and tithing. No – details are no part of the main program.
Yet, who is there among us who is ready to consider the very wording of a passage important and telling? Will you take a closer look?
John 6:13 through 18: Let's count baskets. At first, our attention is drawn to one basket belonging to a boy among the followers. In dividing the bread and fish, Jesus would necessarily need other baskets to put the pieces in. Question – who had all the empty baskets; did the empty baskets belong to the twelve disciples? Jesus and his crew were on the road more often than not. Did they start their journeys with baskets filled with provisions – if that was the case and all their baskets were empty, they must have been on the road for a while?
Each disciple had a basket with pieces of bread and/or pieces of fish. If the fish was divided separately, each disciple walked among the five thousand with a basket in each hand. What are the logistics of this scenario?
Jesus had been in a mountain when he spied the five thousand. That is not to say the five thousand were in the mountain with him. There are levels between the top of the mountain and the shore of the sea. Jesus and his disciples may have been on a bluff, outcropping, or overlook with a view of a lower grassy level. We are informed by the author that there was much grass in that place. I am thinking of a more or less level plain with grass somewhere between sea-level and the overlook.
The Gospel of John does not specify how the men sat down. It only states that there was enough room for five thousand men. Since we know there was at least one boy present, we may assume there were women and children present though uncounted. Another source states that they were instructed to sit in companies, some one hundred, some fifty: Mark 6:39 and 40.
That is a lot of people, a lot of grassy space. Room was necessary for the disciples to walk between the companies. (Perhaps that is how baskets should be used in church services, to give rather than take.) Finally, twelve baskets were taken back with fragments still within. Bread fragments are mentioned, fish fragments are not.
Now, this large group of people had followed Jesus because of miracles and healings they had witnessed. Jesus went along the coast, from town to town, healing the sick. The number of people who followed him grew from town to town. When they saw the miracle of feeding, they came to a consensus. It was that Jesus was “that prophet.” They wanted him as king. Why, and why would they be willing to take him by force? They wanted to present a face to Rome that was more than helpless. They wanted to use Jesus as a weapon against their oppressors.
When Jesus perceived they would take him by force, he slipped away back into the higher climes of the mountain. For some reason, his perception of the threat comes across as a last-minute thing. Were the men making overtures? Were they speaking their mind loudly enough to notice? Was the crowd turning into a mob, getting out of control? Why did Jesus not perceive this fact sooner?
Then again, had it been the case that Jesus knew from before the miracle, way back up the road when he began, he may not have changed a thing.
All of a sudden, Jesus was not there. The mob had to deal with the disciples. They may have wandered off in different directions, looking for Jesus. They may have become distracted by need and the late hour of the day, deciding instead to turn for home.
The evening was upon them, Jesus was not with them, the disciples packed up and walked down the hill to a ship. Was that the ship by which they had arrived? I see no evidence in their rowing that the ship was hired. They were headed for Capernaum and evening had turned into night. This was, perhaps, the city from which the journey began – it was, after all, the home town of Peter, James, Andrew, John, and Matthew. Jesus, himself, lived in Capernaum.
The disciples had rowed for about three miles, I am assuming, against the wind. I imagine them following the coast and its landmarks. I don't see them out in deep water. From the internet, we have this about the winds around that lake. “The sea's location makes it subject to sudden and violent storms as the wind comes over the eastern mountains and drops suddenly onto the sea. Storms are especially likely when an east wind blows cool air over the warm air that covers the sea. The cold air (being heavier) drops as the warm air rises. This sudden change can produce surprisingly furious storms in a short time, as it did in Jesus' day.”
Also, “From 1973–1976, research was performed around the Sea of Galilee, aimed at examining the wind regime in the area and whether the area develops a land-sea breeze despite its particular topographical location. During the summer mornings a lake breeze develops, blowing towards the shores of the lake. It ceases at the peak of its development when a westerly wind, originating in the development of a breeze along the Israeli Mediterranean coast, plunges towards the lake. Late at night, a wind flow develops from the land towards the lake, which combines with the katabatic winds that blow along the steep slopes surrounding the Kinneret.”
Notes on the remainder of chapter six: From our previous reading, we know that after Jesus departed, his disciples (the twelve) got into a ship and headed for Capernaum the evening of the miracle of the loaves and fish. They rowed toward Capernaum for approximately three miles; also, it was no longer evening but night. There was a storm at the same time which would have obscured the light of the moon and stars. At this point in our inquiry, I wish to ask these questions: by which visible landmarks had the disciples determined the distance of three miles? Did they make the assessment because of village lights seen from the ship?
Next comes an episode like something from the Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits. The disciples see Jesus walking to them on the storm-driven sea. They were afraid but that is all that is said on the matter. It is not said, for example, that they thought they saw a ghost. There is no account of Peter trying to walk on the sea. The disciples, despite their fear, willingly receive Jesus into the ship. Here is the spooky part. No sooner had they gotten Jesus into the ship than they looked around and discovered they were docked at their destination of Capernaum.
Let us consider the ship for a moment. Verses twenty-two through twenty-four tells us that on the following day, there were still people on the other side of the shore. They were still in the general area of the miracle. Some may have left the previous evening but many did not. This is the crowd that saw the disciples get into a ship and leave on the previous evening. This same crowd knew that Jesus had not gotten into the ship with them. Did they camp there overnight? Did they have tents? Did the storm affect them?
They had waited all night for Jesus to return. Were they still trying to take him by force? So there they were on the shore of the Kinneret; they saw that of all the ships present, along with some which had come up from Tiberius, only the disciple's ship was gone. This adds credence to the thought that Jesus employed his disciple's fishing ship from Capernaum to launch his shore-line town-to-town ministry that ended at the place of the miracle – a place between Tiberius and Capernaum.
Many of the people who attended the miracle also arrived by ship. Shortly, we will see something of the makeup of that crowd. When we read that the crowd wanted to take Jesus by force, we should be aware that the same area – from the upper Galilee to the lower Galilee – was a hotbed of Zealot activity and recruiting. So they say to themselves, 'Hey! Jesus is not here. Let's go look for him in Capernaum.' What does it say to us that they knew to look for him in that town? If some of them were fishermen, they well could have known the whereabouts of Jesus' disciples who were also fishermen. It could have been that Jesus was known to have solid ties to the town of Capernaum. As to the latter, let us take a clue from verse fifty-nine, “These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.”
It is a verse that opens possibilities to our 'Seeker Sensibilities.' It is possible, and likely, as I see it, that Jesus was the Rabbi of the Capernaum synagogue. I add to my argument, that when the crowd found him, they addressed him by the title of 'Rabbi'. In other words, Jesus was a Rabbi teaching in the synagogue of a town in which he was known to have solid ties. If Jesus was the ordained and regular Rabbi for the synagogue of Capernaum, that should tell us something more – namely that his shore-line ministry was approximately a week long, that he left expressly to be in Capernaum on the Sabbath, and that the miracle of the five-thousand occurred on a Friday.
The remainder of the chapter is the conversation Jesus had with the crowd that followed him to Capernaum. It is a give-and-take exchange between five separate parties. These include Jesus as he teaches in the synagogue, the Jews (which were the Pharisees and other church elders), Jesus' core twelve disciples, the general crowd (which may have included Zealots), and an eye-opening surprise element of the crowd which is rarely considered – by which I mean disciples of Jesus who were not the core twelve.
I wish to approach this exchange topically, so I will divide the elements as such: what the crowd says, what the Jews say, what the non-core disciples say, what the core twelve disciples say, and finally what Jesus says.
First of all, we have to know that the people who got in ships to chase Jesus could not have been the full five thousand. Neither could that many people stand talking with Jesus in the synagogue. The people from the towns and villages went back to them. They had laws that set the distance one could walk on the Sabbath, so they had to be home for the Sabbath.
The crowd that catches up to Jesus is a much-abridged representation of the multitude from the previous day. The dialogue in the synagogue seemed normal enough; there was no more indication of a mind to take Jesus by force, therefore, if there had been a Zealot component to the multitude, it was, at this point, negligible. This abridged crowd were people who knew Jesus well enough to, at least, know where he should be on a Sabbath.
As there were rules and traditions that restricted women in synagogue services, the general crowd, we may be sure, were only men. This crowd was composed of, as I see it, only the Pharisees and church elders who kept an eye on the ministry of Jesus, and from among that group, primarily, self-proclaimed disciples that Jesus had not specifically called.
What the general crowd says: “Rabbi, when did you get here? What must we do to do the works God requires? What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ Sir, always give us this bread.”
The people who chased Jesus seem surprised to find him in the Synagogue. Their surprise at actually finding him there was, I think, a matter of their belief that he had not gotten on the boat with his disciples, but that is where they find him; that is the setting in which the dialogue takes place. It was the Sabbath, after all, and the synagogue was, for men of that faith, the place to be. All of them had an interest in the issues their discourse followed, however, it seems that in their hearts, they stood at a distance, unwilling to commit without broad and sweeping assurances. They wanted to believe as long as the new truths justified their old predilections.
What the Jews said: “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’? How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
As predilections go, you might say, that for 'the Jews', those biases were chiseled in stone. It was all about the law. For them, the law was set; the law could not be re-rendered. All their mental constructs adhered to well-worn, deeply entrenched patterns. While they definitely looked for a messiah, that messiah could not be just another man. If they could not even bring themselves to utter the name of God, you know their general predisposition would not permit a man to call himself the Son of God. That would be sacrilege. Besides which, reason dictated that flesh and blood could not come down from heaven, usurping the providence of God and angels, especially the flesh and blood of a local man whose father and mother were well known. Please also note that the manner in which they express their familiarity with the parents of Jesus gives no indication that Joseph was past tense.
What many disciples said before they quit Jesus: “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
Among those men who fit inside the synagogue, conversing with Jesus as he taught, there were a number of non-core disciples. These men had taken it upon themselves to follow Jesus, to be a part of his ministry. We may imagine they had many different reasons for attaching themselves to his movement. A prominent consideration would be the Zealot frame of mind. It was common. Even the priests desired to be free from the yoke of Rome. These non-core disciples might have included Zealots and Pharisees. Something in their conversation disappointed them to the extent that they could not see their agendas being advanced by Jesus, therefore they quit him that day and no longer followed him as disciples.
What the core twelve said: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
The difference between the disciples that went away and the twelve that stayed is that Jesus personally called his twelve. They were the ones, minus one, who were taught of God, who were drawn by God, who had heard the Father and learned from him. They were very close. As Peter said, perhaps as the spokesmen, they had come to know the nature and character of Jesus; they were assured, they were convinced that Jesus was, indeed, the Holy One of God.
What Jesus said: (Warning! These verses are not in order but have been rearranged topically and thematically.)
“Truly, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Yet there are some of you who do not believe. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.”
Jesus is teaching in the Synagogue when a group of men burst in and seem surprised to see that he had arrived before them. These men were all present just the day before when Jesus performed the miracle that fed five-thousand plus people. They had been looking for him and Jesus, who knew their motives, responded to their inquiries. He told them, flat out, that even though they followed him, had attached themselves to him as so-called disciples, they did not truly believe. In fact, the only thing that really worked for them was the free meal.
“The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
When they inquired about the work of God, what they must do, Jesus told them it was the very thing they did not have in them to do – to believe. He told them, many of them trained in the law, that he evinced God's seal of approval – the seal they should have known well and believed through the study of the law and prophets. He brought up a matter many of them were very keen to see, that is redemption. He brought up eternal life. He threw them a curveball for, whereas they longed for national salvation in a physical manner, Jesus spoke to them on a spiritual level. Jesus spoke of the individual who believed on the Son of God. In a legal sense, Jesus told them four times that the Son of God would raise said individual up on the last day. The witness of two or three legally settled a matter. He gave them four. The requirement for those who believed and who obtained eternal life was that they had to wait for the 'last day'. His claim was bold, it alarmed them. His claim was that he came down from heaven. He also explained that the people who came to him and believed on him as the Son of God who had come down from heaven were the people that God enabled to do so. His claim was also a challenge to their self-image.
“Stop grumbling among yourselves. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. Truly, the one who believes has eternal life. This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. ”
Of course, they complained. The claim that Jesus made challenged everything they held dear, especially their positions within the religious hierarchy. Since some of them were trained in the law, he told them something they should have known by heart – he quoted scripture to them. They probably could have stated chapter and verse, but again, Jesus was speaking on a spiritual level. He did not approach national concerns; he did not approach legalistic or doctrinal concerns. Jesus spoke of the individual whose spirit was led by the Father to the Son – the individual who through faith will obtain eternal life. He presented eternal life as something that abolished neither death nor occupation.
“I am the bread of life. I am the bread of life. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. This bread is the giving of my flesh for the life of the world. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever. Truly, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.”
Jesus spoke of himself. He called himself the Son of Man but in a way that suggested the Son of Man was the Son of God. In response to the Jew's nationalistic and genealogical claim that the chosen of God had been given the sign of manna from heaven, as well as to their demand for a sign from Jesus, Jesus also called himself the bread. He used several applications, but in all, each is equal to the others. Jesus called himself the “bread of life”, not once but twice. He used the expression “bread of God” as being the very same thing as the bread of life. Referring to himself specifically, he twice said “this bread.” This bread to which he referred, was also “the bread that came down from heaven”, “the living bread that came down from heaven”, “the bread that comes down from heaven”, “the bread from heaven”, and “the true bread from heaven” – used to suggest the true manna. It is interesting to note that while the employment of the word “came” suggests a specific point in time, the employment of the word “comes” suggests a continuing process.
“For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Truly, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”
Let us immediately zero in on the word “real.” Everyone did and still does understand the concept of physical flesh and blood as real. To deliberately delineate from the commonly held 'real' by using the same word suggests something above and beyond the common concept. The Jews balked at the thought of consuming human flesh or blood of any kind. The law forbade such things. Again, Jesus spoke of something spiritual rather than solid flesh. If one considers “the giving of my flesh for the life of the world” as the sacrifice Jesus made for the spirit within mankind, then one must understand faith in the work of Christ, the Son of God, as the consumption of the bread of life. One must absorb the spirit of Christ into one's own spirit. Yes, and not only the flesh, as that would represent a holding back. One must accept the whole thing, for the flesh and the blood are parts of the same package. We must understand that when Jesus spoke of life, he spoke of the life of the spirit rather than the temporary existence of the flesh.
“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.”
This sentence is presented in halves, the second half being dependent upon the first half for its meaning. The second half, which presents the individual feeding on the flesh of Christ, suggests that, in like manner, Christ fed upon the flesh of God (who is a spirit.) Christ once told them (John 4:34) that his meat, or flesh, or food, or substance was to do the will of the one who had sent him, to finish the work that the spirit had ordained for him. The life of the son of God was the internalized substance of God. The life of Christ was the spirit. In turn, the life within a believer is the internalized substance of Christ, which is the substance of the Father God, who is spirit rather than flesh. Turns out the more ethereal quality is actually the more substantial quality.
“Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! Will you also go away? Have I not chosen you twelve and one of you is a devil?”
I wonder if Jesus was a little put out when he spoke these words. Perhaps he was angry. The author, or perhaps the transcriber – no matter, it found its way into the sentence – thought it needful to place an exclamation mark at the end rather than simply adding a period. Sentences with exclamation marks strike us as being said with more force of emotion. To present himself to well-versed scripture readers as ascending to heaven in the power of God was not a thing that would have been taken casually. Since this was still relatively early in his ministry, Jesus' appellation of 'Son of Man' might be a little slippery to all but the most studied. To say the least, it was a definite tie-in to the prophet Ezekiel. The well-read among the Jews would have known that God called Ezekiel 'son of man' some ninety times. Ezekiel was born into a priestly line and his message was resisted and rejected by some listeners. More striking, in regard to going back up the way one came down, would be the reference to the vision of Daniel, who saw one like a son of man coming in the clouds.
Just a note, here, to investigate the ratio of one in twelve. There are, for example, twelve notes in an octave. One note among the twelve is a perfect fifth. The Biblical number 5 symbolizes God's grace, goodness, and favor toward humans and is mentioned 318 times in Scripture. The perfect fifth is the note of 'G' and is seven semitones above the note of 'C'. G is the first letter of God and C is the first letter of Christ. Christ chose a devil as a disciple. Why? This demands our attention. Was he giving him a chance? The one he called a devil, here, he called 'friend' in Matthew 26:50.
“Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.”
This is the spirit in Jesus speaking. We know that the body of Jesus ate and drank; Jesus was a flesh and blood man, after all. We also know that Jesus was born of the spirit. The matter of spirituality singularly occupied his thinking and is prominent in many of his teachings. Jesus indicates a point in the development of the sons of men where the mind must make a clean break from the body, a point where the flesh is no longer the taskmaster of the spirit but the spirit knows freedom and may, with a sense of surety, move forward in its journey.
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are Spirit and life.”
The promise of God to the faithful is eternal life. Eternal life is a matter of the spirit rather than the flesh. Flesh will always die. To one born of the spirit, to one spiritually-minded, the flesh counts for nothing. The merit of the flesh, in the bigger picture, is like a scorecard in a ball game where the card keeps falling off the scoreboard. The spirit, that is to say, the mind is the thing that remains and accrues. This is not something that any seeker makes up. In the very words of The Word, life and spirituality were defined as mentality when Jesus said “The words I have spoken to you—they are Spirit and life.”
No comments:
Post a Comment