12
Pentecost proper 15 August 16, 2015
Proverbs 9:1-6
Psalm 34:9-14
Ephesians 5:15-20 John 6:51-58
When we write a history about George Washington we have to admit there are many things which we know that he didn't know; like things that happened after he left and outcomes which he did not perhaps foresee. We write history as an art of teaching us in the now about our heritage. We are always asking ourselves "Why are we who we are?" and "Why do we do what we do?" We have only the past to search for our own identity.
The writer and editors of the Gospel of John knew more about some things than Jesus did in his own lifetime on earth. The writers of John's Gospel used a highly constructed narrative of the life of Jesus to teach their communities for perhaps a span of 9 decades, . about the relationship between the church and its practices and the life of Jesus. They constructed in the narrative of Jesus the literary Jesus who is speaking as an oracle through the writer or preacher of the churches which produced the Gospel of John. A writer is a sort of ventriloquist; a writer makes letters upon the page into a speaker. But a ventriloquist writer was projecting in words of the Gospel of John the voice of Jesus who is addressing issues in the church long after Jesus has left this earth.
One of the things which the Gospel writer knew in first 9 decades after Jesus is that the church had a tradition of practicing Eucharist. It had become the normal custom to gather and have the church leaders repeat the words of Jesus over the bread and the wine and the community knew itself to be renewed in this event with an effervescent energy which they confessed to be the presence of the risen Christ. In a suffering and minority community Eucharist was practiced in privacy. There were no large gatherings. Secret rites would cause outsiders to speculate about what might be happening with people meeting in home churches behind closed doors.
But how did the writer of John's Gospel who knew what had happened in the practice of the church write about the life of Jesus who lived before the regular practice of Eucharist? How did the preachers in the churches after Jesus present Jesus as one who had something to say to affirm the validity of the practice of Holy Communion?
This is what is happening in the bread of heaven discourse found in the sixth chapter of John's Gospel. The writers of John's Gospel are Eucharistic Christians, Jesus was not a Eucharistic Christian, but he did begin the Eucharistic tradition with his alternative words offered at a meal with his disciples before or at the Passover meal.
What else did the writer of John know that Jesus did not specifically know? The writer of John knew that people were in disagreement about the practice and the meaning of the Holy Eucharist. Jesus certainly knew that his disciples often disagreed with each other. He knew of his own disagreements with members of the various Jewish religious parties. The writer of John knew that disagreements had arisen about the words of Jesus recited in the Eucharistic prayer: Jesus took bread and said, "This is my body." Jesus took the cup of wine and said, "This is my blood."
Opponents to the practice of Eucharist could easily characterize it as strange? The literal words seem to imply the practice of cannibalism. It sounds rather gory if such words are taken literally. One way in which metaphor is presented is by using the verb "to be." This bread right here now, "This is my body." This cup of wine, right here now, "This is my blood." This does not mean exact equivalence; it means bread and wine convey another meaning and the meaning conveyed can be so profound, so artistic, so re-creating that a new reality of presence is experienced.
The writers of the Gospel of John were confessing that they and many others had known the experience of the presence of Christ as they have gathered to share the bread of his body and the wine of his blood. They were confessing that the reality of their Eucharistic experience for so many people must have meant that Jesus intended it in that way otherwise such a continuing presence of Christ would not be happening.
The Gospel of John was presenting the words of Jesus in the bread of heaven discourse to establish the validity of the presence of Christ experienced in the liturgy of the people who gathered to pray and to say the words of Jesus over the bread and wine and stamp a clone of the former presence of Christ into a new occasion in time.
And once again, the writer of John is rebuking crass literalism. So, you really think that we are practicing cannibalism? Why would you be so foolishly literal? And why would you think that we are cannibals? Outsiders to the practice of Eucharist would easily be able to use the literal words as a reason to criticize the Christians as cannibals.
This is my body. Eat my flesh. This is my blood. Drink my blood. When such poignant metaphors are used they exhibit an highly exaggerated practice of speech. It is not meant to imply a meaning of empirical cannibalism; it is meant to strongly emphasize the enhanced sense of the continuing presence of Christ in the church, but not just a general presence but a specific recurring presence within the liturgy of the gathered church. In the experience of intimacy, endearment and love, people use exaggerated language. A parent may be overwhelmed by the love for one's baby, put the baby's toes in one's mouth and say, "you are so delicious, I could just eat you." Such metaphor of eating or consuming might be a metaphor of union which lovers too might use.
In this poignant metaphor, the physicality of implied cannibalism is used to say in a very exaggerated way, "People, something is happening here and it just keeps happening when we eat bread and drink wine under the conditions given to us by Jesus of Nazareth." Early Eucharist could be called Feasts of Agape or Love Feasts. The language of love gets exaggerated beyond literal meanings.
So one can interpret the practice of Eucharist as one who thinks the literal words makes it disgusting or just silly. Or one can understand this to be a profound metaphor of the experience of the connected presence of Christ that is and can be known in the Eucharistic liturgy.
The Word which creates human life as we know it is able to morph into the multi-dimensional liturgy of the Eucharist and evoke another kind of Presence which we can honestly recognize. The bread of heaven discourse is written by people who believe that the Risen Christ is validated through Eucharistic presence of Christ in the bread and the wine.
Let us embrace the bread of heaven discourse as a way of confirming something which we know and when we know it, we feel it more than what we can exactly say what we know. And that is why we have the extremely literal words of Jesus. Eat my flesh. Drink my blood. "Folks, I am going to be closer to you than you are to yourself. I want my life to be so accessible, wonderful and delicious to you that you will be moved in love to consume the very essence of my life." Amen.
The writer and editors of the Gospel of John knew more about some things than Jesus did in his own lifetime on earth. The writers of John's Gospel used a highly constructed narrative of the life of Jesus to teach their communities for perhaps a span of 9 decades, . about the relationship between the church and its practices and the life of Jesus. They constructed in the narrative of Jesus the literary Jesus who is speaking as an oracle through the writer or preacher of the churches which produced the Gospel of John. A writer is a sort of ventriloquist; a writer makes letters upon the page into a speaker. But a ventriloquist writer was projecting in words of the Gospel of John the voice of Jesus who is addressing issues in the church long after Jesus has left this earth.
One of the things which the Gospel writer knew in first 9 decades after Jesus is that the church had a tradition of practicing Eucharist. It had become the normal custom to gather and have the church leaders repeat the words of Jesus over the bread and the wine and the community knew itself to be renewed in this event with an effervescent energy which they confessed to be the presence of the risen Christ. In a suffering and minority community Eucharist was practiced in privacy. There were no large gatherings. Secret rites would cause outsiders to speculate about what might be happening with people meeting in home churches behind closed doors.
But how did the writer of John's Gospel who knew what had happened in the practice of the church write about the life of Jesus who lived before the regular practice of Eucharist? How did the preachers in the churches after Jesus present Jesus as one who had something to say to affirm the validity of the practice of Holy Communion?
This is what is happening in the bread of heaven discourse found in the sixth chapter of John's Gospel. The writers of John's Gospel are Eucharistic Christians, Jesus was not a Eucharistic Christian, but he did begin the Eucharistic tradition with his alternative words offered at a meal with his disciples before or at the Passover meal.
What else did the writer of John know that Jesus did not specifically know? The writer of John knew that people were in disagreement about the practice and the meaning of the Holy Eucharist. Jesus certainly knew that his disciples often disagreed with each other. He knew of his own disagreements with members of the various Jewish religious parties. The writer of John knew that disagreements had arisen about the words of Jesus recited in the Eucharistic prayer: Jesus took bread and said, "This is my body." Jesus took the cup of wine and said, "This is my blood."
Opponents to the practice of Eucharist could easily characterize it as strange? The literal words seem to imply the practice of cannibalism. It sounds rather gory if such words are taken literally. One way in which metaphor is presented is by using the verb "to be." This bread right here now, "This is my body." This cup of wine, right here now, "This is my blood." This does not mean exact equivalence; it means bread and wine convey another meaning and the meaning conveyed can be so profound, so artistic, so re-creating that a new reality of presence is experienced.
The writers of the Gospel of John were confessing that they and many others had known the experience of the presence of Christ as they have gathered to share the bread of his body and the wine of his blood. They were confessing that the reality of their Eucharistic experience for so many people must have meant that Jesus intended it in that way otherwise such a continuing presence of Christ would not be happening.
The Gospel of John was presenting the words of Jesus in the bread of heaven discourse to establish the validity of the presence of Christ experienced in the liturgy of the people who gathered to pray and to say the words of Jesus over the bread and wine and stamp a clone of the former presence of Christ into a new occasion in time.
And once again, the writer of John is rebuking crass literalism. So, you really think that we are practicing cannibalism? Why would you be so foolishly literal? And why would you think that we are cannibals? Outsiders to the practice of Eucharist would easily be able to use the literal words as a reason to criticize the Christians as cannibals.
This is my body. Eat my flesh. This is my blood. Drink my blood. When such poignant metaphors are used they exhibit an highly exaggerated practice of speech. It is not meant to imply a meaning of empirical cannibalism; it is meant to strongly emphasize the enhanced sense of the continuing presence of Christ in the church, but not just a general presence but a specific recurring presence within the liturgy of the gathered church. In the experience of intimacy, endearment and love, people use exaggerated language. A parent may be overwhelmed by the love for one's baby, put the baby's toes in one's mouth and say, "you are so delicious, I could just eat you." Such metaphor of eating or consuming might be a metaphor of union which lovers too might use.
In this poignant metaphor, the physicality of implied cannibalism is used to say in a very exaggerated way, "People, something is happening here and it just keeps happening when we eat bread and drink wine under the conditions given to us by Jesus of Nazareth." Early Eucharist could be called Feasts of Agape or Love Feasts. The language of love gets exaggerated beyond literal meanings.
So one can interpret the practice of Eucharist as one who thinks the literal words makes it disgusting or just silly. Or one can understand this to be a profound metaphor of the experience of the connected presence of Christ that is and can be known in the Eucharistic liturgy.
The Word which creates human life as we know it is able to morph into the multi-dimensional liturgy of the Eucharist and evoke another kind of Presence which we can honestly recognize. The bread of heaven discourse is written by people who believe that the Risen Christ is validated through Eucharistic presence of Christ in the bread and the wine.
Let us embrace the bread of heaven discourse as a way of confirming something which we know and when we know it, we feel it more than what we can exactly say what we know. And that is why we have the extremely literal words of Jesus. Eat my flesh. Drink my blood. "Folks, I am going to be closer to you than you are to yourself. I want my life to be so accessible, wonderful and delicious to you that you will be moved in love to consume the very essence of my life." Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment