Misunderstanding Signs

Year B, 18th Sunday of Ordinary Time | John 6:24-35

Think of an engagement ring. What is better, the ring, or what that ring symbolizes? Certainly, the physical ring is good, but we would all probably agree that what the ring symbolizes is better. The most important thing is that an engagement ring is sign of the love and commitment of the couple. That said, it is easy focus on the good thing rather than on the better thing. In today’s Gospel (John 6:24-35), we find Jesus correcting people for focusing on the externals of a sign - the good thing - rather than what the sign represents - the better thing. It is as though they want the engagement ring and not what the ring symbolizes!

Jesus Teaches the People by the Sea, J. Tissot [public domain, Wikimedia Commons]

The concept of “sign” is of fundamental importance in the Gospel of John. A sign is some miraculous action of Jesus that reveals a heavenly truth Jesus has come to transmit. While the miraculous action is something good, the divine truth is something better(1). The importance of signs is evident in the very structure of the Gospel as it can be divided into two parts: the Book of Signs (1:19 to 12:50) and the Book of Glory (13:1 to 20:31). In the Book of Signs, we find seven miraculous actions of Jesus. In the Book of Glory, we find the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus, an event which, in its totality, is often viewed as the eight sign in the Gospel. In the Book of Signs, each sign follows a familiar pattern. The sixth chapter of John, from which today’s Gospel is taken, describes one such sign and follows the characteristic pattern neatly. First, Jesus works a miraculous action. This is the external, visible, aspect of the sign. It is something good. We heard about this last Sunday when Jesus multiplied loaves and fish and fed a multitude (John 6:1-15). Next, the people for whom Jesus worked the sign fail to understand its significance. They focus on the physical aspect of what Jesus has done only. This misunderstanding then gives Jesus the opportunity to enter into dialogue with the people and explain the significance of the sign that he has worked. Invariably, he tries to convince the people that what the sign represents is something better than the miraculous action he has worked.

In today’s Gospel, we find that the people have misunderstood the sign that Jesus performed and search after what is good while ignoring what is better. Going back to our previous analogy, the people want the engagement ring and not what the ring symbolizes. After Jesus feeds the people and departs, they go in search of him. When he is ultimately found in Capernaum, Jesus chastises the people for their lack of understanding. They followed him because they want more bread. They fail to grasp the divine truth the sign represents. We should not be too hard on the people in the Gospel. The physical bread that people want is something good. Since for many of us bread is a simple and easily available food, it is easy to lose sight of this fact.  An experience a few years ago helped me understand the importance of bread at the time of Jesus. At the time, I was spending a couple of months studying modern Hebrew in Jerusalem in a class of mostly Arab students, both Christian and Muslim. At the end of the program, we had a party and everyone brought in some food. One of my classmates, a young Muslim woman, brought flatbread that was freshly baked. It was warm and delicious! After we tried some of the bread, she proudly showed pictures of how the bread was made. Her mother had woken up at about 4 am to prepare and cook the bread over a charcoal fire. The class was struck by the act of the kindness the student’s mother had done for us. Her gift helps me understand the the action of the people in the Gospel. Bread took some work to make, even when the basic ingredients were on hand. If someone were to provide you with an abundance of bread, you would realize that they cared for you. It is only natural that they would come back to Jesus for more bread!

The bread!

Jesus’ miraculous feeding of the people, while a good thing, symbolizes a divine truth that is more important. In the Gospel, Jesus seizes upon the misunderstanding of the people and tries to convince them that the sign of the multiplication of the loaves represents something better: Jesus himself is the bread of life. Later in this chapter, Jesus will explain to the people two ways in which he is the bread of life. First, Jesus is the bread of life because his teaching nourishes and gives life like bread (6:35-50). Second, Jesus is the bread of life in the Eucharist, which is the very gift of himself (6:51-58). In today’s Gospel, Jesus tries to convince the people the people to come to him not because he can give them physical bread whenever they want, but because he is the bread of life. Going back to our analogy, this great truth is what the engagement ring symbolizes. It is the better thing.

The Gospel challenges us to come to Mass for the right reasons. This is because at every Mass, we receive Jesus the bread of life both in his teachings we hear in the readings and in the Eucharist. This is the better thing. Like the people in the Gospel that only want physical bread from Jesus, we can come to Mass for the lesser reasons and motivations, looking for something other than the bread of life. We can come because we feel obligated or because we like seeing certain people or simply out of a sense of habit. Although many of our reasons for coming to Mass are good and even though it is preferable to come to Mass for ambiguous motivations than not at all, if we come for the the better reason, namely, to receive Jesus the bread of life, we will probably get more out of Mass. Purifying our motivations for coming to Mass has the added benefit that it helps us put external and secondary things in their proper perspective. There is no Mass at any Church in the world that is done perfectly and according to everyone’s taste. We will always find something that makes the experience of the Mass less than optimal. Maybe the Church is too hot or someone beside us is singing out of tune or perhaps the music, liturgical style and preaching is not to our liking. When we get distracted by these considerations, it can be helpful to remind ourselves why we come to Mass. We are here to receive Jesus the bread of life in his word and in the Eucharist. It might be helpful to do some simple things to reenforce in ourselves a proper motivation for coming to Mass. For example, we could take a look at the readings of Mass before coming. We could try to pay especially close attention to the words and actions of the Mass or participate more in the singing and responses. Or, maybe we could say a simple prayer before Mass starts: “Jesus, I have come here for you”.

Just as the people in the Gospel are corrected by Jesus for focusing on the good, but external aspects of a sign (bread) rather than the better, divine truth it represented (Jesus is the bread of life), the Gospel today challenges us to ensure we come to Mass for the right reasons. Going back to our analogy, today is a chance to evaluate whether we we are focused on the engagement ring or what it represents. We would do well to ask ourselves two simply questions. Why are you here at Mass now now? What can you do to make sure the reason you come is to receive Jesus the bread of life in the word and sacrament?

Footnote:

1) For further discussion, see Brown, Raymond. An Introduction to the Gospel of John (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 80-81.

Jesus is the GOAT

Year B, 17th Sunday Ordinary Time | 2 Kings 4:42-44, John 6:1-15

Although I don’t follow much sports news or discussion, there is a term from this world that I find interesting: “goat”. Goat, spelt just like the animal, is an acronym that stands for the “greatest of all time”. In different sports, fans and commentators argue that a particular athlete is the “goat”. In basketball, some content that LeBron James is the goat. Who should be deemed the greatest of all time in a given sport is hotly debated. What is constant in these debates, however, is that whenever an athlete of extraordinary ability arises, people try to assess his or her talents by comparing the athlete to past stars. For example, LeBron James is compared to Michael Jordan. Some argue that the former is the goat, while other hold it is the latter. Early Christians followed a similar strategy. In trying to explain the life and mission of Jesus, they often compared and contrasted him to famous religious figures of the past.

Inside the Church of the Multiplication (Tabgha, Israel), which marks the place of the miracle described in the Gospel. Note the mosaic of the loaves and fish in front of the altar.

In the Gospels, Jesus is regularly likened to great historical leaders of Israel. In an attempt to describe his extraordinary life and mission, authors often compared Jesus to individuals with whom their audience were familiar. This method of comparison is often described as “typology”1. A kind of typology happens in sports. Remarkable athletes are compared to historic greats we can call “types”. This is only natural as current exceptional athletes share similar talents and skills with past stars. The same process happens in other fields. For example, we might say that because of her powers of deduction and reason, a certain journalist is like a new Sherlock Holmes (the type). Likewise, for the Gospel writers, comparing Jesus to other individuals must have come naturally since Jesus behaved in a way similar to religious figures from Israel’s past. At the same time, Gospel writers inserted certain clues or markers that made the comparison of Jesus with past religious figures more explicit. Unless we are familiar with the Old Testament, many of these typological cues pass by us unnoticed. Typological comparisons are quite common in the Gospels and help us better understand who Jesus is.

This Sunday’s Gospel, taken from John, in which Jesus performs a miracle and feeds the multitude (John 6:1-15), is an important example of typology. To help the reader better understand the person of Jesus and the significance of his actions, the Gospel draws out comparisons between Jesus and religious figures from Israel’s past. The Church gives us a hint at one such comparison with the choice of the First Reading (2 Kings 4:42-44). In the Gospel, Jesus is likely being compared to Elisha as both multiply barley loaves to feed a crowd. This comparison should provoke the reader to consider other ways in which Jesus is similar to Elisha. As a result, readers who know something about Elisha will get to know Jesus better. For example, both Elisha and Jesus are successors to other great figures (Elisha to Elijah and Jesus to John the Baptist). Both Elisha and Jesus are greater than their successors. Both are itinerant prophets who works miracles and have disciples. Both are single and acknowledged to be righteous. Another figure to whom Jesus is compared to in the Gospel is Moses (next Sunday’s readings make the connection explicit). A few clues point to this comparison. Just as Moses would often ascend a mountain to encounter God, at the start of today’s Gospel, Jesus went up the mountain. After the miracle, the people speculate that Jesus is truly “the prophet, the one who is to come into the world” (Jn 6:14). In this, the crowd is expressing the expectation that God would eventually send into the world a prophet who was like Moses (cf. Deuteronomy 18:15). Jesus' miracle happens at Passover, a feast associated with Moses. Like Moses fed the people with the gift of manna (via God’s intervention), in the Gospel, Jesus feeds the people with bread. This connection is made more explicit later in the chapter (Jn 6:30-32). Further, right after the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves, Jesus walks on the Sea of Galilee, an event which is reminiscent of the miraculous passage of the people of Israel through the Red Sea. The Gospel today clearly suggests to the reader that Jesus is a new Moses. Jesus brings a new law and works a New Exodus from sin and death. Assuming we catch the clues in the Gospel, the typological comparisons of Jesus to Elisha and Moses help us better understand who Jesus is and what he does for us.

For us Christians, the typology in which Jesus is compared to past religious figures is unlike typologies from sports and other fields in important ways. First, Christian typology is not just about making a comparison, like saying that some athlete has skills that are like those of a past star. Rather, it helps us describe the plan of God throughout history. For us, types in the Old Testament like Elisha and Moses, although of immense and lasting value in God’s plan, prefigure or prepare for Jesus. Who these figures were and what they accomplished is fulfilled in the life and mission of Jesus. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it, “typology indicates the dynamic movement toward the fulfillment of the divine plan when ‘God [will] be everything to everyone’” (CCC 130). Second, although Jesus is compared to various past religious figures, the Gospels make is clear Jesus cannot be adequately described by these types. The Gospel of today hints at this reality. Jesus is a prophet like Elisha but he is so much more. While Elisha fed 100 with 20 barley loaves, Jesus fed over 5000 with only 5 loaves. Jesus is a leader like Moses, but he is so much more. After the people recognize Jesus is a prophet, he withdraws because he knew they were going to make him a king. It does not seem that Jesus is rejecting the title of king. Rather, he withdraws because he does not want to be the kind of king that people expect. In John’s Gospel, Jesus’ brand of kingship is only made manifest on Golgotha. Jesus is a king who suffers and dies for his people. His crown is of thorns; his throne is the cross.

Through the use of typology, the Gospels convey the exceptional nature of Jesus. Unlike typological comparisons in sports, however, in which the identity of the “goat” is up for debate, among Christians there was no argument. Through its use of typology, today’s Gospel challenges us to hold the following truths close to our hearts: 1) Although Jesus is like figures from the past (Moses and Elijah), all comparisons come up short. 2) In God’s plan, Jesus fulfills all the types to which he is compared. 3) Jesus is truly the greatest of all time.

Footnote:

1 For a concise summary of the use of typology in the New Testament, see “Typology” in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, 783-784.

Jesus came to tear down walls

Year B, 16th Sunday OT | Ephesians 2:13-18

During the past US elections, a certain slogan became popular. It was often chanted during political rallies and met with cheers. The slogan is this: “Build a wall! Build a wall!” Although the particular wall in question was to be located between the United States and Mexico, the desire to build walls in general is ingrained within us. We appear to be very good at walling-off others from us, whether it be in the literal or metaphorical sense.

In the Church too there is a tendency to build walls between individuals and groups. Although we rarely state it aloud, we can separate others from us, thinking that they are somehow “less Catholic” than us, or not quite as worthy to be in the Church. We may wall-off people in the Church because they don’t think like us. Maybe they have different political views. Perhaps they have different tastes in Church music or liturgy. Another reason we may create a wall to divide others from us is because they are not part of the right group. In the Church, we are blessed to have so many communities and movements that contribute greatly to the life and mission of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, however, people can separate themselves from those who participate in groups they do not like, often viewing them with suspicion. In addition, those who are members of groups can at times divide themselves from others in the Church who are not part of their particular community. Finally, we may create walls and divide ourselves from others because we perceive that they have wronged us. Perhaps this is the most common reason for building walls in the Church. Unfortunately, we are all too good at creating divisions in the Church.

Through his life, death and resurrection, Jesus tore down the walls that divide his followers. In the second reading today, we heard a wonderful passage from the Letter to the Ephesians (2:3-18). This letter was written to a community in which there existed some significant divisions. It is likely that part of the division was between followers of Jesus who came from a Jewish background and followers of Jesus who came from a Gentile, or non-Jewish, background. The main message of the passage is that neither group should consider itself superior or separated from the other. The two groups, which were divided before the coming of Christ, have now become one. Both are God’s beloved children and are part of the same family. The letter vividly describes the end of separation between Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus when it explains that Jesus “has broke down the dividing wall of enmity”. Although there is some debate as to what specific wall the letter has in mind, it is likely that the wall in question referred to the dividing barrier that was in the Temple. When the Temple in Jerusalem was in operation, there was a barrier that separated the Court of the Gentile from the inner courts. Although all could visit the former location, only Jews could pass further than the barrier. Therefore, many were excluded from the holiest places of the Temple, where God was thought to be most present. In an an archaeological dig, an inscription from the temple barrier was found. It reads  as follows: “No man of another race is to enter within the fence and enclosure around the Temple. Whoever is caught will have only himself to thank for the death which follows”. For those early Christians who were aware of the barrier within the Temple, the message of the Letter to the Ephesians would have been especially strong. Because of Jesus, now all had equal access to God. In Christ, all are to be united.

Jerusalem Temple Warning Inscription (source)

Because Jesus came to destroy walls that separate his followers, we should actively work to overcome divisions in the Church. It is only too easy to separate ourselves from those who have hurt us and those who think differently than us. St. Ignatius of Loyola gives some helpful advice for maintaining unity among Christians. This saint experienced first hand what it was like to be walled-off from the rest of the Church community. When he was beginning his community, his work was met with suspicion and even outright hostility. Over time, however, his teaching was enthusiastically accepted by the Church. In his Spiritual Exercises, St. Ignatius gives a powerful principle that can help us maintain unity with our fellow Church members. Namely, we should assume the best possible intent in other people. For example, if someone treats us in a way we think is unfair, instead of assuming that they are motivated by malice towards us, we can assume that we have perhaps misunderstood them, or that they are simply having a bad day. If our fellow Christians behave in a way we find puzzling or think differently than us, rather than immediately thinking they are misguided, we should try to assume that they are motivated by love of the Church. When we are tempted to wall-off and separate ourselves from some individual or group in the Church, our first step should be to always assume that they are motivated by the best intentions rather than the worst. By assuming the worst, we quickly build walls in the Church and cause division. By assuming the best, unity is maintained.

Who is some individual or group in the Church that you have difficulty accepting or getting along with? Today, try assuming that their actions are motivated by the best possible intentions. Jesus’ mission included tearing down the walls that divide us. Let us make sure that we never work against him and build up new walls within the Church.