Who is the “One Loaf” in Mark 8?

37 comments

1. Very interested in the podcast. Where will it be available? Website, SoundCloud, Podbean?

   Reply

2. Hi Joe,

   I guess I’m a little bit puzzled by this post, especially because you express so strongly the exact sentiment I would: it’s not about the bread.

   So there’s a clear little story in Mark 8: the disciples get in the boat, and they’ve only got one little loaf of bread with them. Jesus makes a metaphorical statement, using bread as his analogy… and the disciples miss it. They think he’s berating them for not bringing any food. And Jesus – and I think we can see the genuine human frustration of the Lord in this passage – says, “Do you guys not get it? Do you think I’m mad because we have nothing to eat? Do you not remember the whole thing where I’m not bound by how much physical bread there is – that I can, and will, supply your needs?”

   So if it’s not about the bread… what is it about? Reading through your post, it seems like that’s the thing that’s missing: what is Christ actually talking about in this passage?

   Well, he tells us: “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” And we actually know what he means by that, because we get a fuller expression of the same idea in Luke 12:1-2: “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known.” It’s not a Eucharistic sentiment; the point actually being discussed in Mark 8 is nothing to do with communion, and everything to do with hypocrisy.

   That’s the part that’s a little baffling to me, because surely the point Christ is actually trying to make should be central to our interpretation of this passage – and yet your reading seems independent of his actual comment. This seems like an exegetical problem!

   ***

   A related question, maybe: you read John 6 as Eucharistic in nature, with the references to “eating the bread” intended to be taken literally. I think that’s a pretty fundamental misread of the passage, and that Christ is clear that “eating” is a metaphor for belief. (Once again, it’s the people to whom he’s speaking who miss the boat and refuse to take his words anything but literally – as you say, it’s not about the bread!) And one of several arguments I’d point to there would be John 4, which uses almost the exact same metaphor:

   Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

   “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water?…”

   Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

   The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty…”

   It’s a pretty exact parallel, right? Jesus says, “Consume me, and I will become a source of life in you” – and his point is that the woman needs to believe in him, that she’s missing the point by focusing on physical water and not the spiritual analogy. I assume, perhaps in error, that neither of us would read this passage as Eucharistic, for the simple reason that communion uses wine rather than water. And yet it seems like the exact same interpretation here applies to the passage two chapters later. If Christ had used wine as his metaphor in John 4, I assume you would hold this up as further proof of a transubstantiationist view of communion, and yet, from his choice of water, we know that this isn’t his point: that he’s using the language of consumption to say something unrelated to it.

   Doesn’t that suggest that perhaps John 6 is using “eat” in the same sense as John 4 does “drink?” If, here, we see Christ using this exact structure without any sort of transformation-of-the-elements in view, doesn’t that suggest that it may not be implied in John 6, either?

   Reply

   1. Irked, good to see you on again. I am hoping the new arrival is well and sleeping through the night.

      Again, one must read the Scripture in it’s glorious entirety fully to understand the conversation. Numerous references to ‘living water’ in both OT and NT (Ezekiel 47:1, John 7: 37-38) all of which prefigures the postmortem water which came from His Side (John 19:34). In that sense it is both literal and metaphoric. Literal in that water of which Jesus spoke was foretold and prefigures the side-would of His sacrifice on the cross. “To drink” this water is the metaphor of humanity accepting the grace of His Sacrifice.

      Might also be a reference to the water of baptism, since water is life, and the water of sacramental baptism is the entrance point to the path to eternal life. I guarantee at my Orthodox baptism, which is a thrice-head-under-dunking, I swallowed a bunch and damn near drowned at the few weeks old I was.

      Now – and we have been over this a million times, but why not again – Jesus spoke a lot in metaphor, and He knew His Disciples needed to be reminded when He was not speaking in metaphor, but literally. John 6 is replete with hard assurances – “trogos: following “phagos,” the affirmative ‘truly, truly,’ that this was screed no metaphor, but literal.

      In short, just because Jesus speaks occasionally in metaphor doesn’t mean He **never** speaks literally, which is kinda your implication. Jesus makes very clear when he is metaphoric (as in parables) and when He is literal.

      Reply

      1. Hi AK,

         We’re working on that whole “sleeping” thing. Progress is being made – and it’s nice to have some time to be back. Thanks for asking; hope you’re well, too.

         Again, one must read the Scripture in it’s glorious entirety fully to understand the conversation.

         To be sure – that’s part of my argument: John 6, in the greater context of John 4, doesn’t say what y’all take it to say.

         Numerous references to ‘living water’ in both OT and NT (Ezekiel 47:1, John 7: 37-38) all of which prefigures the postmortem water which came from His Side (John 19:34).

         I don’t think there’s any indication in Scripture that this is true. There’s no special theological significance to the water that flowed in that passage – except that it indicates that the spear pierced Christ’s pericardium, where the blood had already separated by weight, proving that he was already dead (and had been for some time). We do not, in particular, drink that water.

         But more to the point, your citation shows what’s meant here: John 7 says that living water is the result of belief, not of baptism or communion or any other action, and that “living water” itself is the Holy Spirit. When we believe in Christ, our spiritual thirst is replaced by spiritual satisfaction, and the Spirit indeed overflows out of us. The interpretation is provided for us – we don’t need to speculate on what it means!

         And – critically – it’s the same language as John 6, which likewise says, “Whoever believes in me will never go thirsty.” Why will he never be thirsty? Well, because of the same reasons given in John 4 and 7: because the person has drunk of the living water and become a font of that water. The same language is used: belief is eating is drinking, and in multiple cases, is unambiguously not Eucharistic in nature.

         John 6 is replete with hard assurances – “trogos: following “phagos,” the affirmative ‘truly, truly,’ that this was screed no metaphor, but literal.

         Jesus’s words in John 6 are absolutely true. But these are the same affirmatives he uses to say things like:

         “Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” (John 8)

         or

         “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18)

         or

         “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” (John 3:3)

         In fact, let’s just talk about that last one, because that’s the exact construction – “Amen amen,” in the Greek – that he uses in John 6:53 to speak of eating his flesh. Is it an absolutely true statement, of paramount concern to the Christian? Yes, absolutely.

         Is it a metaphor? Yes, absolutely; or at least, it is no less a metaphor to describe “spiritual revival” as “birth” than it is to refer to “belief” as “eating.” Indeed, a moment later we seeNicodemus misunderstand by taking it literally, instead of understanding that Christ is using “birth” as a human approximation to the process of spiritual remaking. It is, in other words, the exact situation we see played out again three chapters later.

         Reply

         1. I am well, sir, thank you. Had an interesting Thanksgiving and Christmas with #2 son repeatedly hospitalized with a bout of Crohn’s disease. After multiple surgeries and losing +30 pounds (5’8″ and 93 lbs at his lowest), he’s on the mend and back up to 108 now. After starving for months he has developed an obsession with cooking gourmet food. Mom shops for choice ingredients Whole Paycheck, and he does the rest. God brings something good out of the worst situations. 😉

            I would contend that ‘truly, truly,’ as applied eating and drinking in John 6 (not to mention the emphatic and Scripturally unique uses of trogo and phago, again) is just that…literal eating and drinking. Here’ why given your examples….

            ““Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” (John 8)”

            Of course he is speaking in terms that the audience can understand, and that is literal eternal life, not freedom from temporary physical death. We all understand that. And the Word includes the command to “eat My Flesh and drink My Blood…’

            ““Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18)”

            You’ll note he says “become like children” not “become children.” In other words, purposefully taking on the unquestioning faith of a child, not actually becoming a child. All, incidentally, tracks nicely with Matt 11:25.

            “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” (John 3:3)

            Yes, Jesus, like a good rhetorician, anticipates his incredulous audience’s next question:

            ‘4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born again?”

            And Jesus answers with the all important *qualifier* (probably grinning):

            5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again **of water and the Holy Ghost,** he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

            So the literality here is not re-entering the womb, but regenerative sacramental Baptism (that “living water” thing again), and is mixed in with the metaphor of birth.

            Reply

            1. Hi AK,

               Oof. He sounds like a tough kid.

               I would contend that ‘truly, truly,’ as applied eating and drinking in John 6 (not to mention the emphatic and Scripturally unique uses of trogo and phago, again) is just that…literal eating and drinking.

               So I’m game to move to that, but I just want to start by double-checking that we agree on this point: it is not only linguistically reasonable that Jesus might speak in metaphor after saying, “Truly, truly” – but we in fact have places where he does precisely that. Because I agree, it is clear from context what he means when he says “shall not taste death,” and he does expand on his comment to Nicodemus – but they’re also both still something other than literal truth; they’re using earthly or physical things to stand in for the kind of spiritual action required. It would be consistent with John’s presentation of Christ’s words – that is, with the parts of Christ’s words that John chooses to highlight and present – for Christ to using “eating and drinking” in the same way.

               Now, that isn’t proof that John 6 is, in fact, a metaphor – I’m getting there! I’m just arguing that, on the face of it, the “verily”s cannot and should not be read to preclude the possibility. Can we agree on that so far?

               ***

               That leaves the argument that trogoand phago are only used of literal physical eating. A couple of things there:

               1) I don’t feel this is a particularly compelling argument; sometimes there’s only one place in Scripture where a given piece of wordplay is found. To my knowledge, 2 Peter 1:1 is the only place where the particular Greek construction that renders “our God and Savior” appears, but it’s not any less a clear testament to the Trinity for all that. “Trogo” in particular barely appears in Scripture at all outside this passage; two additional uses is not a persuasive “never.”

               2) I’m not sure I accept the premise. When, in Revelation 17, John relates that the horns and the beast will devour the prostitute, he uses “phago” as the verb. It seems unlikely that’s a literal devouring, because it seems unlikely Babylon is a literal woman. Again, when James 5 says that the corrosion of the rich “will eat your flesh like fire,” that’s not a literal mastication – for that matter, fire doesn’t literally eat, either!

               But most clearly, John 4:32 – “I have food to eat (phagein) that you do not know about” – certainly isn’t literal, given that a few moments later Christ confirms that his “food” is obedience to the Father. (Amusingly, we see yet again that the disciples think he’s talking about physical eating when he isn’t. This is getting to be a pattern!)

               3) You don’t mention at all the verb used for drinking, “pino”, which is absolutely used in a nonliteral sense – most obviously, again, in John 4 and 7. So of the three “consumption” verbs here, two are unambiguously used in nonliteral/nonphysical ways by John, and the third is barely used in Scripture.

               Again, we haven’t touched John’s actual words in the passage yet. But suppose I said to you, “There are two commonly-used verbs that appear variously in John 4, 6, and 7; in two of those three chapters, they’re used metaphorically. Is it plausible that they might be used metaphorically in the third, as well?” I can’t see any standard of evidence that would deny that as a reasonable possibility, sight unseen.

               Again, nothing I’ve said yet actually touches John 6, and I want to do that next. But I think it’s important to deal first with the fact that at least on the basis of the language used, there’s no grounds to deny the possibility of a nonphysical rendering.

            2. Irked – the ongoing discussions in other threads reminded me I hadn’t answered here:

               “…it is not only linguistically reasonable that Jesus might speak in metaphor after saying, “Truly, truly” – but we in fact have places where he does precisely that.”

               I believe I proved that wasn’t the case with my response of 22 Feb @2:40.

               For your 7:40 response…just because ‘phago’ is used metaphorically in some places doesn’t mean that the usage wasn’t literal in John 6. Far from it. Does a metaphoric use of ‘eat’ in one place mandate that all other usages from here to eternity must also be metaphoric? In the case of John 6, the use of ‘phago’ was made literal by the overwhelmingly convincing context of the entire “truly, truly’ prefaced conversation – which at 2:40 I believe I have convincingly proven to be literal.

               “But most clearly, John 4:32 – “I have food to eat (phagein) that you do not know about” – certainly isn’t literal, given that a few moments later Christ confirms that his “food” is obedience to the Father.”

               Jesus is talking about **HIS** food – the food of obedience to His Father – not the Eucharistic food he will provide to all humanity. Disproving this metaphor assertion is getting to be a pattern! 😉

               (Amusingly, we see yet again that the disciples think he’s talking about physical eating when he isn’t. This is getting to be a pattern!)”

               Not really, but I understand your mileage varies.

            3. Hi AK,

               I believe I proved that wasn’t the case with my response of 22 Feb @2:40.

               I don’t believe you did – and to be frank, I don’t believe you can; “you must be born again” is a metaphor. (“You must become like little children” is technically a simile, sure.)

               For your 7:40 response…just because ‘phago’ is used metaphorically in some places doesn’t mean that the usage wasn’t literal in John 6.

               I agree! As I said, I’ve not yet established that it is used nonliterally in this passage; I’m just looking for us to agree first that we can’t say, “There’s no way phago could ever be used nonliterally” – that, indeed, John does use it nonliterally, just two chapters before.

               In the case of John 6, the use of ‘phago’ was made literal by the overwhelmingly convincing context of the entire “truly, truly’ prefaced conversation

               But again, we have to acknowledge that “truly, truly” can be followed by metaphorical claims, because that happens in John 3. So we have words that sometimes precede metaphorical statements, followed by verbs sometimes used in metaphorical statements; is it not at least possible that they could be used in combination, and the result could be a metaphorical statement?

               Again, that doesn’t mean that John 6 is metaphorical – but there’s no point in looking at the passage unless we agree that it’s at least possible. Perhaps his conversation as a whole – and not merely the use of these phrases – will then preclude that understanding, but one thing at a time.

               Jesus is talking about **HIS** food – the food of obedience to His Father – not the Eucharistic food he will provide to all humanity.

               Yes, precisely. Obedience to his Father is, in a metaphorical or non-physical sense, Christ’s food: not that he literally eats it, but that it is in obedience that he finds his spiritual life and sustenance.

               I do not understand why you say…

               Disproving this metaphor assertion is getting to be a pattern!

               … because I do not see that you have done this anywhere to this point. “I have food to eat” is a metaphorical or nonliteral claim. I obviously don’t think it’s metaphorical for the Eucharist (after all, I don’t think John 6 is metaphorical for the Eucharist, either) – but “obedience is my food” is still using eating to stand in for unfamiliar spiritual processes, and the disciples’ error is in parsing it too literally as having anything to do with real, physical food.

               Or, more briefly: I argue it is obviously a metaphorical or nonphysical use of phagein for Christ to say, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” Are you arguing it is not?

            4. Irked,

               I have to admit, you are very good at what you recently said was one of your intents – to create even a small doubt that might open the door to someone saying “maybe this Protestantism thing has a point…” and then open a door. Discussing a remote possibility is a philosophical gedanken that emphatically (to me, at least) is **not tantamount** to admitting the probability.

               I actually believe Jesus meant ‘rebirth of water and the spirit’ literally, thus in consonance with “truly, truly,’ as I said at 2:40. Don’t you believe that we are reborn at the Sacrament of Baptism? I do, perhaps in a sense more important than our first physical birth. I certainly believe Jesus did – truly, truly 😉

               Again, just because something is possible, doesn’t mean it’s probable, or reasonable. I believe I have pointed that out. And just because Jesus uses food as a metaphor in one place, doesn’t mean that the use of food as metaphor is a permanent mandate.

               Me: “Disproving this metaphor assertion is getting to be a pattern!”

               You are right to note this, and I saw it after I posted it….wish this blog had a ‘return and correct’ function. What the poster **meant to say** was:

               “Disproving this **universal** metaphor assertion – once used, likely always the same – is getting to be a pattern!”

               Again, I understand your mileage varies.

            5. Hi AK,

               I have to admit, you are very good at what you recently said was one of your intents – to create even a small doubt that might open the door to someone saying “maybe this Protestantism thing has a point…” and then open a door.

               Hee, thank you! (I, um, I think?)

               Discussing a remote possibility is a philosophical gedanken that emphatically (to me, at least) is **not tantamount** to admitting the probability.

               I’m not trying to argue probable yet – that has to (has to) come out of looking at the passage itself. (It would be ridiculous to say, for instance, “Well, this word is used metaphorically here, so obviously it’s metaphorical over there.”) I’m just trying to argue “not implausible” thus far – that is, that word choice alone doesn’t settle the conversation.

               And I would argue that, at least linguistically, the probabilities aren’t that remote!

               I actually believe Jesus meant ‘rebirth of water and the spirit’ literally, thus in consonance with “truly, truly,’ as I said at 2:40.

               So I was a little bit afraid we were going to run into this at some point: “literally” and “metaphorically” and so on are all kind of awkward words for what we’re trying to say, and it’s easy for you and I to read them differently just because of that awkwardness.

               Maybe let’s try this: can we agree that what Jesus is talking about is not the thing that we usually mean when we say “birth,” the physical action by which a baby moves from its mother’s body into the world? It’s still a real thing that he’s discussing, but “birth” in the traditional sense is something like the closest physical, everyday parallel to a miraculous spiritual remaking. Maybe that’s “really” birth, too, but it’s “birth” in a sense that does not involve the typical physical act, except as a parallel of some kind.

               That’s what I’m trying to say when I say “metaphor” or the other words. It’s not a denial of a real phenomenon, but someone who looked at the second birth and said, “Well, this must be a process involving a physical womb” would be mistaken. (In fact, that’s exactly the way Nicodemus is mistaken!)

               Because if we can agree to that, that’s the same meaning I have when I say, “Linguistically, it’s possible John 6 is metaphorical.” Again, I’m not trying to say that Jesus isn’t talking about a real thing – I’m just saying that perhaps that real thing isn’t meant to be connected at all to the physical action of eating, any more than the second birth is connected to the physical action of birth.

               Foreshadowing a little bit, there is a sense in which to believe in Christ is to “spiritually eat” him, to take him down deep into your inmost being, to ruminate on him and “chew” on his nature, to be filled with him, to take your sustenance from him, and to be provided with new life by him. I’m not trying to say that’s not “real” eating, just because it’s a spiritual action – I’m not even sure “That’s not ‘real’ eating” is a well-formed claim, because “eating” is just a word, and we can give it whatever definition we want. There is a profound intimacy in our union with Christ, and the way physical food gives us life and energy and, indeed, becomes us is perhaps as close to that intimacy as anything else might be. But whatever this is, it might not involve the physical action of consumption with my jaws and teeth in any way.

               Again, I haven’t actually shown that yet; I’m just trying to make sense of the words I’m using. Is that a more mutually agreeable description of John 3 than “metaphor?” Is there a word you’d prefer I use for this kind of reference?

               Don’t you believe that we are reborn at the Sacrament of Baptism?

               I don’t, no. I don’t believe in sacraments, for one thing – or at least, I would use the word to mean something so different from you that I think it would just confuse the issue. (Some Baptists will call baptism a “sacrament,” but they still don’t mean what you mean by the word – there’s no implication that sacraments are a means of transmission of grace, for instance.)

               So I believe baptism is commanded, but it’s a sign of a rebirth that has already taken place – it has no actual spiritual effect, except as an act of obedience. That’s the pretty standard Baptist position, labeling aside.

               I associate the Second Birth with God’s gift to me of saving faith: with the moment when he took out my dead heart and gave me a living one in its place, to make it even possible that I would cry out to him for forgiveness. There is, heh, a lot of theology bound up in the differing views here, though – maybe it’s not worth my going too far into that.

               Again, just because something is possible, doesn’t mean it’s probable, or reasonable. I believe I have pointed that out. And just because Jesus uses food as a metaphor in one place, doesn’t mean that the use of food as metaphor is a permanent mandate.

               I definitely agree.

               You are right to note this, and I saw it after I posted it….wish this blog had a ‘return and correct’ function. What the poster **meant to say** was:

               Preach it.

               “Disproving this **universal** metaphor assertion – once used, likely always the same – is getting to be a pattern!”

               Ah, okay. I hope I’ve clarified that this is not my assertion. Phago is not universally used as a metaphor, and it should not be automatically assumed to be one; it’s just sometimes used as one in John, and so it would not be on the face of it shocking to discover that it’s used as one in John 6.

   2. Irked,

      I haven’t had the chance to reply to your comments in a previous thread, will do when I can.

      Jesus was certainly making a point about hypocrisy from both insiders and outsiders, but if that was his primary point, why bring the multiplication stories back up? He purposefully uses the word “leaven” in describing the hypocrisy — he could have used 1,000 different analogies — to lead their minds to bread; word association of sorts.

      As to good exegesis, I’ll submit this on the Road to Emmaus text from St. Augustine’s Sermon 34:
      “I see that one may say, Explain to me; what did that signify, that “He made a pretence of going further”? For if it had no further meaning, it is a deceit, a lie. We must then according to our rules of exposition, and distinctions, tell you what this “pretence of going further,” signified; “He made a pretence of going further,” and is kept back from going further. In so far then as the Lord Christ being as they supposed absent in respect of His Bodily presence, was thought to be really absent, He will as it were “go further.” But hold Him fast by faith, hold Him fast at the breaking of Bread. What shall I say more? Have ye recognised Him? If so, then have ye found Christ. I must not speak any longer on this Sacrament. They who put off the knowledge of this Sacrament, Christ goes further from them. Let them then hold It fast, let them not let Him go; let them invite Him to their home, and so they are invited to heaven.”

      Reply

      1. Hi Shane,

         Jesus was certainly making a point about hypocrisy from both insiders and outsiders, but if that was his primary point, why bring the multiplication stories back up?

         I mean, I feel like this is about the easiest part: because it is asinine for them to think, in light of that miracle, that his big worry is that there’s not enough bread. Again, still, after all this time together, they fail to grasp the most basic lesson, or the simplest possible metaphor.

         He purposefully uses the word “leaven” in describing the hypocrisy — he could have used 1,000 different analogies — to lead their minds to bread; word association of sorts.

         Jesus uses variously as metaphors: seeds, treasures, pearls, fishing, salt, leaven, bread, water, birth, weddings, parties, vineyards, debts, trees, coins, sheep, and figs, among other things. That’s not quite a thousand different analogies, but it’s not too shabby. I don’t think it’s a fair standard to say that if he ever uses a metaphor that analogues to bread – to one of the most common features of their daily lives – that this is evidence for transubstantiation.

         Besides, the metaphor works well. “A little yeast works all through the dough”; hypocrisy infects all parts of your life, and it grows.

         As to good exegesis, I’ll submit this on the Road to Emmaus text from St. Augustine’s Sermon 34:

         With all due respect to Augustine (and Origen), I cannot see the symbolic mode of interpretation of Scripture as anything other than poison; it enables anything to be used to prove anything else. Begin with what ever position you like – orthodox, heretical, or outright nonsense – and you will find a symbolic interpretation to justify it.

         There’s an obvious reason why the passage says “he made a pretence of going further”: Jesus starts back for the road, and the disciples call him back. One can make broader application of that fact, if one wishes, but at the most fundamental and important level it’s not a great spiritual mystery; it’s a factual description of what happened in a real historical event.

         I would really prefer not to extend my part of the debate into this other passage for now, though, if that’s all right? My guess from past experience is that the passages around John 6 are going to keep us pretty busy.

         Reply

   3. Hah, Irked, you-are-persistent! If you ever run for President, let me know, you have my vote (provided our politics are in some consonance, which I suspect would be the case, unlike maybe some aspects of our theologies ;).

      On the ‘living water’ passage, I think (if my memory is faulty, I am old) I stated my feeling on this, that it is partially literal….the water that comes from the lance wound on Jesus’ side, foreshadowed in Ezekiel, is the (literal) living water of Divine Mercy which we (metaphorically) drink in our faith, and never again thirst, in the Augustinian sense of ‘no longer being restless, as now we rest in Thee.” I don’t see that John 4 and John 6 suggest each other’s literal or not-literal discourse. Especially given the absence of ‘truly, truly’ in John 4, which indicates the possibility of metaphor. As I said, I do believe that when He uses those words, He means what he say, literally.

      The two most salient things I pick up from this – for me anyway – are simple restatements of our fundamental (hah) theological differences on the sacraments and the solas, and how we see things based on those theological fundamentals. As you said, lots of theology tied up in these differences. We here will probably just have to agree to disagree, and I strongly suspect, we’ll be back here again, on this very blog. And you know what, I look forward to it because it sharpens my iron, and is quite enjoyable……

      Reply

      1. Hi AK,

         I ‘spect we might have some overlap politically, ayup. I’m pretty happy in my day job, though…

         On the ‘living water’ passage, I think (if my memory is faulty, I am old) I stated my feeling on this, that it is partially literal….the water that comes from the lance wound on Jesus’ side, foreshadowed in Ezekiel, is the (literal) living water of Divine Mercy which we (metaphorically) drink in our faith, and never again thirst,

         I remember you said that – but as I replied, I don’t see that there’s anything in the passage that suggests that reading. And, more to the point, we don’t need to guess; John tells us explicitly what “living water” is in 7:37-39:

         On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.” By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

         That’s the meaning of what he says to her – note how similar the statement is to that in 4:13-14, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” (Note, as well, the similarity to John 6:35, “Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.”)

         And that’s not just my opinion. Here’s, say, Aquinas’s commentary on John 4, from http://dhspriory.org/thomas/John4.htm: “We may begin with what is last, and we should know first what is to be understood by water. And we should say that water signifies the grace of the Holy Spirit. Sometimes this grace is called fire, and at other times water, to show that it is neither one of these in its nature, but like them in the way it acts… So according to this understanding, the grace of the Holy Spirit is correctly called living water, because the grace of the Holy Spirit is given to man in such a way that the source itself of the grace is also given, that is, the Holy Spirit.” This isn’t just my reading!

         As I said, I do believe that when He uses those words, He means what he say, literally.

         But John 3:3 cannot be a literal statement, under the meaning of “literal” I tried to give above. That’s the exact mistake that Nicodemus makes in 3:4: conflating “born again” with literal physical birth.

         Or, if you like, go to John 10. In verse 1, Jesus says, “Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber.” In verse 7, he says, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep.” Those are both “Amen, Amen” statements in exactly the same way as chapters 3 and 6. Aren’t these meant in an analogical sense? (Is Jesus a literal, physical sheepgate?)

         I really don’t think there’s any way around this. Jesus regularly (not always, not even usually, but regularly) uses figurative language following an “Amen, Amen” statement. The statements are not any less emphatically true for all that he uses the earthly to analogize the spiritual.

         And you know what, I look forward to it because it sharpens my iron, and is quite enjoyable……

         Indeed!

         Reply

         1. Irked:

            You went a long way to let me know I could have bolstered with the term “grace,” my Divine Mercy or in my previous post, Baptism narratives. Omission on my part, but it’s what I meant. The flood from His Side and the waters of Baptism both bring us grace. I see no conflict in this metaphor, in the John 4 context. Matter of fact, I had a slide on the manifestations of the Holy Spirit in my RCIA presentation this Sunday, which included fire (as in grace delivered in tongues of fire), and water.

            “(Is Jesus a literal, physical sheepgate?)”

            We are the sheep and Jesus is the Shepherd, agreed? And if He is the only way to Heaven, then He is acting as a literal “gate” for us, his sheep, even if He doesn’t have, y’know, hinges. I don’t see this as a problem for the emphatic Eucharistic narrative of John 6 (undeniably reinforced by the Synoptic Last Supper narratives). Just as, in the Eucharist, we are consuming the ‘accidents’ of bread and wine rather than a piece of red human meat. Since St. Tom is a favored referential source of yours, let him speak to this – I know you won’t mind:

            Q. 75, Art. 5. “It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ’s flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine.”

            A Jesus who acts as a literal Gate, and who feeds us His Flesh in the form of literally transubstantiated bread. Makes sense to me.

            Your mileage may vary – matter of fact, I am betting it does 😉

            Reply

            1. For me, and pretty much all of Christianity up to 1517, Synoptic Last Supper narratives brought full understanding and closure to the Eucharistic nature of the John 6 narrative. To use your own words, with respect, I “don’t see any way around this.”

               More simply put, He can be Bread, and He (verily) can act as a Gate. Why not? He’s God – He said it, and it’s His rules.

            2. Hi AK,

               The flood from His Side and the waters of Baptism both bring us grace. I see no conflict in this metaphor, in the John 4 context.

               But in your own words here, in this view, John 4 is a metaphor, and that’s the relevant fact. I do not see that either of your readings are suggested by the passage, beyond the simple fact that the word “water” appears in them, but regardless of that, we have a metaphorical reading.

               If you read “the grace of the Holy Spirit” in different fashion than I do (that is, to be graced with the Holy Spirit, in the sense that the giving of the Spirit is itself grace), I’ll suggest Augustine’s commentary on John 4 instead, which says simply that the water is the Holy Spirit, without reference to grace: “If you knew, says He, the gift of God. The gift of God is the Holy Spirit… Of what water, then, is He to give, but of that of which it is said, With You is the fountain of life? For how shall they thirst, who shall be drunk with the fatness of Your house? What He was promising them was a certain feeding and abundant fullness of the Holy Spirit: but the woman did not yet understand.”

               Or here’s John Chrysostom: “But this, says John, spoke He of the Spirit, which they should receive. So also conversing with the woman, He calls the Spirit water”

               Or, again, John 7, which says simply that living water is the Holy Spirit. I don’t see that there’s much room for interpretation here.

               We are the sheep and Jesus is the Shepherd, agreed?

               Metaphorically, yes! But we are not, in fact, literal sheep with wool and hooves; heaven is not a literal physical sheep pen; Jesus is not a literal physical gate (yes, with hinges); the Pharisees were not literally crawling over the walls of heaven. If I asserted that any of these things were physically true, or that Christ must have meant them in a literal physical sense because he said “Truly, truly,” I would be in error. Right?

               Are you arguing that it’s unreasonable to describe John 10 as an extended metaphor – a metaphor describing a real thing, but a real thing that is not in fact an actual pen for actual sheep?

            3. Irked, you’re missing – or ignoring – my point. Jesus at times spoke metaphorically to make a point – usually clearly identified as a parable. when he says “truly” he is speaking emphatically – He is a literal gate, through which is the only way to Heaven. His Flesh is real Flesh, which He had, in the absence of instituting actual cannibalism, to present in a consumable form to humanity – transubstantiated bread and wine. Jesus was stretching appoint to make a point, but the point was the same and literal.

               Interesting in one post you first quoted Aquinas, who said water is the grace of the Spirit:

               “And we should say that water signifies the grace of the Holy Spirit.”

               And then you quote the earlier Chrysostom and Augustine, who say simply that water is the Spirit. Which is it?

               I believe they are referring to the same thing, and like me earlier, Chrysostom and Augustine **really meant** infused salvific grace. Consider the words of Augustine in his essay “On Continence:

               “….they live not under Grace, which gives through the Holy Spirit what is commanded through the Law: ”

               Consider also:

               “And the Savior, to signify this inexhaustible gift of grace, calls it a spring and a torrent; He also calls it gushing water, to indicate its force and impetus.” – St John Chrysostom

               You yourself said, this is not water we actually drink – that metaphor thing for the infusion of spirit and grace through the water both of Baptism and from the wounds suffered during the sacrifice of the Cross. Again, I have no problem with that. Again, I think we’re arguing human semantics in an arena where human rules don’t apply. The Spirit can assume any form the Spirit wants, to infuse the grace that changes human lives. After all, He’s God. Jesus can assume any form to infuse life within us, per John 6; that includes the form of bread and wine. So….

               ..when Jesus says ‘truly’ or ‘verily’ – or in command, as in the Synoptic Last Supper ‘do this’ – whether He speaks of Himself as ‘bread’ or as a ‘gate,’ he is **for our human, salvific purposes** being very literal. Again, I don’t see any way around this, given the emphatic wording especially of John 6 and the Last Supper Synoptics. I most assuredly don’t see John 6 as a ‘just have faith in me’ narrative – given the wording and again, the Synoptics, to me that (metaphoric) interpretation is simply outré and “print to fit” a post-1517 narrative, in the same way you have stated you feel about, say, Catholic promulgation of Marian dogmas. We’ll agree to disagree.

               I know we will also disagree on infusion vs imputation, the interpretation and/or value of metaphor vs literality, etc. etc….so having made pretty much the arguments I have to make, I will give you the last word here.

            4. Hi AK,

               I fear these are ballooning past the point where we can readily deal with them, in any event, so let me cut down to three points. I understand if you don’t want to address them here, given the length of the conversation, but perhaps we could begin with them if we ever return to this point.

               1)
               And then you quote the earlier Chrysostom and Augustine, who say simply that water is the Spirit. Which is it?

               These are not two separate options. To give someone the grace of the Holy Spirit is to give them the Holy Spirit, in the same sense as “to grace someone with your presence” is to give them your presence. The grace being given is the Spirit, the bestowing of whom is an act of grace. Surely – surely – our primary guide here should be John himself; which phrasing does he use?

               2)
               when Jesus says ‘truly’ or ‘verily’ – or in command, as in the Synoptic Last Supper ‘do this’ – whether He speaks of Himself as ‘bread’ or as a ‘gate,’ he is **for our human, salvific purposes** being very literal. Again, I don’t see any way around this, given the emphatic wording especially of John 6 and the Last Supper Synoptics.

               Surely this is circular: John 6 is literal, because all other “truly truly” passages are literal, because John 6 is literal. The argument rests upon its own conclusion.

               One can argue that John 6 must be read literally. That’s fine! But one cannot argue that John 6 must be read literally because the “truly truly” is always literal elsewhere, and then argue that “truly truly” must be read literally elsewhere because it is literal in John 6.

               3)
               Again, I think we’re arguing human semantics in an arena where human rules don’t apply. The Spirit can assume any form the Spirit wants, to infuse the grace that changes human lives. After all, He’s God. Jesus can assume any form to infuse life within us, per John 6; that includes the form of bread and wine.

               But of course, we aren’t debating what Christ can do; we’re debating what he does.

               I think you’re right that this is becoming a semantic debate, though. I tried to head that off earlier, with my discussion of how I was using the word metaphorical, and I don’t think my question at the end of that attempt really went anywhere.

               So let me end by trying one more time, and simplifying. Consider the nonhuman animal known for having white, fuzzy wool; for wandering about and eating grass; and for saying baaaa. Is there any sense in which that animal is a sheep, and I am not? If so, what word could we use for that sense?

               I’m saying the animal is literally a sheep, and I’m metaphorically a sheep. If you don’t like that, what would work? Because we need a mutually agreeable word for this.

         2. Thinking on it, let me turn that last post around a little bit.

            If you want to say that Jesus is literally a gate, or that we are literally sheep, or that heaven is literally a sheep pen – well, that’s not how I would use the word, but I don’t want to quibble about definitions. But I think we’d have to agree that these things can be entirely disconnected from physical actions. I do not need to grow wool to be one of Jesus’s sheep. Jesus does not need to turn on hinges to serve as the one true gate to eternal life. I don’t have to reenter the womb to be born again.

            And if you would use “literal” in a sense that permitted all of those, I think we’d have to say that sense also permits me to say that we can use “eat” literally without using my jaws and teeth and esophagus: that under that meaning of the word, I can say, “Belief is literally eating Chirst,” without there being any implication of the ordinary physical act of digestion being at all involved in the process. Is that fair?

            Reply

            1. “I can say, “Belief is literally eating Chirst,”

               Irked, m’friend, you are free to do that as a choice. I don’t see it as a choice, but as a clear command to *eat,* AND believe.

3. Joe,
   thank you very much for the insight. Your analysis is very interesting; I quite agree that it’s well supported by the many other Eucharistic passages in Scriptures, especially 1 Corinthians.

   Reply

4. Joe,
   I love a quest, so I looked and found Ratzinger (on Augustine) (on Paul on Christ) at 1Corinthians 10. From God Is Near Us, p. 114, Ignatius Press, 2003. Ratzinger quotes Augustine who first recites 1 Cor 10:17 in a sermon at an Easter Vigil for the newly baptized. Augustine then says, “…I have told it to you quickly; but weigh these words, do not count them!”

   Benedict expounds, “…the Eucharist is instrumental in the process by which Christ builds himself a Body and makes us into one single Bread, one single Body…the uniting of Christians…from their state of separation into the unity of the one Bread and the one Body….the Church’s activity of becoming the Church takes place.”

   Wow. True Ratzinger. True Augustine. True apostles. Praise God.

   Reply

   1. Thank you, Margo!

      Reply

5. In the context of the whole story I would agree that there might be a Eucharistic lesson regarding the one loaf, due to the fact that the main Eucharistic lesson had been given just days before the sailing event with the multiplication and feeding of the seven loaves to the four thousand. But concerning this event in the boat, I think there are other important lessons that Jesus needed to teach or impress upon His disciples, and this seems to be Jesus’ warning to His disciples of the many tricks and deceptions that they might encounter in the future while preaching the gospel to the world; lessons that would be necessary for their very physical survival, such as Jesus’ other saying : “And when they shall persecute you in this city, flee into another.” [Matthew 10:23]

   Such a lesson was very important for the Apostles, and they were being taught here to be very suspect of people who who come to them as ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’, even as just occurred with the Pharisees and Saduccees before they entered the bot. We note that Jesus and the disciples left the scene, at the southern most end of the Sea of Galilee very abruptly, which was a new and unusual experience for the apostles. And, it is for this haste, that the Apostles only brought one loaf, because they intended to stay a while at that location as was customary when they traveled by boat, but were rushed out of there unexpectedly by Jesus, not having the time to go buy provisions in the local markets. This rushed departure was actually a type of escape, and it is the reason why it is written they sailed towards the middle of the lake, so that none might determine the direction that they intended to land. As we know from other such accounts, the people could often be quick to guess the location of the boats intended destinations, but the middle of the lake made that assessment more difficult. So, this detail indicates they were trying to conceal their planes, or escape, in one way or another.

   So, the thrust of the lesson here, I believe, is the symbolism of ‘leaven’ even as Jesus says to His dull witted apostles: “Why do you not understand that it was not concerning the bread I said to you: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees?”
   [Matthew 16:11]

   The ‘leaven’ itself that Jesus was referring to is exemplified in the attitude of the Pharisees and Sadducees that came to Him asking, apparently sincerely, for a sign, even though in their hearts they would never actually accept one, even if given. And this is because these same Pharisees and Sadducees had already had sufficient evidence provided them with their encounters with Jesus. So, in reality, they already had such hatred for Him that nothing would convince them. The ‘peace’ and ‘friendliness’ that they falsely exhibited was noting but ‘leaven’, a mask that they intended to use to entrap Jesus and followers in one way or the other. And Jesus in this story wanted to impress upon the Apostles to be aware about this false type of spirit, this false piety that they might encounter also in their future missions. This is why He said to them: “Beware”.

   He would not have His Apostles to be so naive as to be real ‘dummies’ and ‘dimwits’ regarding the many mortal threats that they would encounter from men in the future; People might come to them with smiling faces,and exterior friendliness, but in reality they would be no more than deceptive wolves, seeking to do them damage.

   So, regarding an allusion to the Eucharist, I think this is not the primary message of this story. Maybe a secondary theme. But, I’m opened to be further convinced.

   Reply

   1. Hi Al,
      Why, I believe you and Joe are both right. The “Beware” is certainly a warning, and that warning is given and needed BECAUSE the disciples of Jesus will become the Eucharistic people, the Church, His body. The two themes are virtually identical and synonymous, wouldn’t you say?

      Reply

      1. Yes, Margo, I agree that the “Eucharistic people” you describe… the Church, must be like their “Master”, who is certainly not a man of ‘leaven” or hypocrisy, as you describe, but a man of love, truth and humility, which is commonly symbolized by the term ‘unleavened”. So, yes, I think you are correct in this context. And this also applies to your next comment that you posted as well.

         But the particular focus in Joe’s post is not merely concerning ‘bread’ (symbolic or literal) in general, but rather the “One Loaf” of bread in this very particular sailing account. Joe asked “What is this One Loaf of Mark 8?”

         To figure this out, I think we need to look at all there components of the story, and also the motives involved, beginning with the ‘Feeding of the Four Thousand’.

         1. It all begins with motive, and that is Jesus’ compassionate desire that the multitude be provided sufficient food for their journey home after 3 days with Jesus: “I have compassion on the multitude, for behold they have now been with me three days, and have nothing to eat.” So, compassion is the motive for the miracle of multiplication accomplished.

         2. The previous miracle of the feeding of the 5000 is also mentioned by Jesus in this story, and also has the same motive of providing ‘compassionate sustenance’ for the multitude for their necessary journey home.

         3. Getting back to the sailing trip, it is written: “they took up that which was left of the fragments, seven baskets. …. And IMMEDIATELY going up into a ship with his disciples, he came into the parts of Dalmanutha.” the highlighted word IMMEDIATELY signifies that they probably had no time to purchase any extra loaves for the sailing trip, but they might have indeed stored some of the miraculous ‘leftover fragments’ (both fish and bread) and taken them with them, as Jesus said on the other account of the miraculous feeding of the multitudes: “Gather up the fragments that remain, LEST THEY BE LOST.”

         4. This saving of the miraculous ‘Bread’ is also an allusion to the the ‘Manna’ that was saved by Moses and stored in the Tabernacle in the Desert in this saying: “Moses said to Aaron: Take a vessel, and put manna into it, as much as a gomor can hold: and lay it up before the Lord to keep unto your generations, As the Lord commanded Moses. And Aaron put it in the tabernacle to be kept. And the children of Israel ate manna forty years, till they came to a habitable land”.

         5. As scripture says that all of the loves available were multiplied for the 4000, it is highly doubtable that any were saved for their sailing journey to Dalmanutha. And also, “Lest the Leftovers be Lost”….it is highly probable that the apostles brought these on board the boat for their trip to Dalmanutha. Moreover, as no time was available to buy FRESH BREAD, one of the apostles must have acquired the “ONE LOAF” that Joe describes, when they actually arrived on shore and when the Pharisee’s confronted Jesus asking for Him to show them a sign. Amazingly, the apostles themselves could have probably produced some of these fragments to the Pharisees, as a proof of the recent miracle, and which the multitudes could confirm for them later on when they questioned them regarding the miracle.

         6. After Jesus and the apostles hastily leave the Pharisees to themselves, the apostles argue with themselves privately concerning the ONE LOAF of bread that they had in their possession. It doesn’t say why they were so concerned, but speculatively it might be because one apostle might have(maybe Judas), bought only one loaf for the return trip; and this will probably always remain an intriguing mystery, the question: “Where did the apostles acquire this ONE LOAF that they had on board the boat for their return trip north?

         7. Jesus reprimands the apostles severely concerning the ONE LOAF for NOT remembering the recent event and miracles(cited by Joe). Jesus reminds the apostles not only of the details regarding the miraculous multiplication, but also of the details of the “gathering of the fragments” which is given important attention in all of multiplication stories.

         8. Could Jesus have been upset that the apostles had forgotten about, or neglected to consume when needed, the miraculous fragments that they still had on board their ship; and consequently, in this forgetfulness, had also bought the additional FRESH LOAF without His request of doing so? When Jesus walked to Samaria, He commanded His disciples to go out and buy food for them; and we know that Jesus was particularly concerned for the welfare of His often hungry disciples and followers (…even to the transubstantiation of water into wine!), and so, it seems that there indeed might have been THE HOLY AND MIRACULOUS LEFTOVERS that were still in the boat, but that the apostles FORGOT about these. Maybe they had a human consideration that such ‘left overs’ make for some pretty lousy human cuisine and especially because these ‘leftovers’ included fragments of old fish, as well,…miraculous or not? If true, they were thinking more of their stomachs than the miraculous gift given from God. 🙁

         9. Conclusion. This whole story probably relates to the Eucharist due to the fact that it is placed right in the middle of the “Bread of Life” stories in the Holy Gospels. It relates to Manna and the saving of Manna in the Tabernacle according to the O.T. stories. It relates also to the nourishment of God’s chosen people so that they might survive in very difficult times. It relates also to Elijah who was provided ‘miraculous bread’ by an angel as sustenance on his 40 day journey to Mt. Carmel. So, it seems that Jesus was concerned that the Apostles (or maybe only one of them) had concern only for regular or ordinary bread which could feed only very few of the apostles, and had ignored the abundant fragments that were produced out of the abundant compassion and charity of their Lord Jesus Christ?

         10. Last thought. The Eucharist today is consecrated as Jesus taught his disciples to do in remembrance of Him at every sacred Liturgy throughout the world. The motive of this is the compassion of Jesus for the multitudes so that they have “The true Bread that comes down from Heaven” available for them for their sustenance on their earthly journey towards the Kingdom of Heaven. When there are ‘leftovers’ of this bread from the Liturgy, it is saved in a ‘tabernacle’ and distributed to the sick in times and hospitals. I myself have many times unlocked a tabernacle in our parish Church to acquire the ‘Consecrated Hosts’ for this very purpose as an EMHC for the homebound.
         So, this can be also a point to consider as to what might be the meaning of the ONE LOAF.

         But, of course, this is also some ‘pius speculation’. But it is still plausible considering the various scriptures provided to us.

         Best to you Margo, and to all.

         Reply

         1. Al,
            I don’t find a single item to dispute. You cover all facets thoroughly and quite well. Amen!

            Thank you.
            Best to you and to all too.

            Reply

            1. Apparently, one loaf was left in the boat. I guess it was part of the multiplication remnants? Or, was this loaf always in the boat and therefore not a part of the multiplication. And if so, why not?

               Too many questions.

               But at least we get to study such great and holy history! I think the gospel authors left such mystery for this very purpose…so that we might keep on chewing on it, and marveling at the same time how great are these accounts and words of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

               Best to you.

            2. Al,
               It may be unlikely that the loaf in this boat was a remnant from the multiplication. Between that miracle and this “boat trip”, Jesus and the Twelve went to the district of Dalmanutha (Mark 8:10), where the Pharisees asked Jesus for “a sign from heaven”, and then back “across to the other side”. Perhaps this bread was purchased in Dalmanutha. Regardless, its meaning and importance is clear: there is only “one” loaf of bread in the boat, Jesus, and we get to partake of it at the Eucharistic table.

            3. Hi LLC,

               Before addressing illogical details I always like to understand the literal details, which is why I am interested in the origin of this loaf of bread. And since it is the topic of the thread, I thought it good to take a close look at it, first with a literal view point then with a Eucharistic view point.

               One problem I see is that even if the ONE LOAF was bought in Dalmanutha, why then was only ONE loaf bought, and not 10? It doesn’t make sense. It would have been a completely negligent error considering that they were already at a market place and had the ability to buy enough for all.

               But, I think you are right about it not being part of the leftover fragments, because on closer inspection of the Gospel narratives it says “taking the seven loaves, giving thanks, he broke, and gave to his disciples for to set before them”. If the original loaves were broken then they wouldn’t be considered ‘loaves’ anymore, such as the ONE LOAF on the boat is described as. So, basically, we have ONE LOAF on board the boat during the return trip north. And the Gospel text says:

               “And they forgot to take bread; and they had but one loaf with them in the ship.”

               So, the origin of this ONE LOAF is a mystery. As they left immediately from the feeding the 4000 location, they would not have had time to purchase it, and also, they were already filled the multiplied bread fed to the 4000. If it was held back in the boat for some reason and was not brought forth at the time of the ‘multiplication’, this might account for its presence during the sailing voyage.

               Maybe one of the apostles had his ‘secret stash’, so to say, and this loaf was what the Disciples were discussing about when Jesus addressed them about the ‘yeast of the Pharisees’?

               Again, we don’t really know the answers, but can at least analyze the different scenarios possible. And, in the end, as I mentioned earlier, the ‘feeding of the 5000 and 4000’ were certainly connected with the ‘Bread of Life’ discourses of Jesus that occurred during this time of the Gospel narratives.

               If anyone has an idea on where literal/physical ONE LOAF, described in the story, might have originated from, please give your opinion on it.

               Best to all.

            4. Auto correction error above: “illogical” in the first sentence,above, should be “Allegorical”.

   2. The leaven of the Pharisees and Herodians puffs one up with pride and vanity versus the leavening of Christ who humbles himself to become one with His church, one with us through His own unhypocritical presence within humble “bread.” This is not dissimilar to God becoming man.

      Irked above cites Luke 12:1-2: “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known.” Jesus’ words are not hypocritical. What appears to some to be bread will be known and revealed to be light and truth and life, and that is not hypocrisy.

      Reply

      1. Hi Margo (and LLC),

         The quote you provide from Luke 12 is definitely pertinent to the ‘loaf and sailing’ story. And I think this is the PRIMARY lesson to be learn’t here, both concerning the deadly and infectious hypocrisy of Pharisaical type hypocrisy, as well as the future truth and nature of the Eucharist.

         I have a new theory as to the origin of the ONE LOAF. It is considered to be both ‘bread’ and ‘no bread’ at the same time by the apostles. And here, I think, is a reasonable possibility why:

         After multiplying/replicating the desired amount of bread miraculously, and distributing it to the 4000, there was still left the last loaf from which most of the fragment pieces of broken bread came from. That is to say there was ‘ONE TORN LOAF’ left that had not been completely broken into parts; so even though one piece might be torn from it, still it might be considered as a full LOAF due to it’s volume and size. This might have been put aside as a sort of ‘SHOW BREAD’ and was not meant to be consumed as NORMAL bread; and so, this might be why both of these Gospel sayings in the story might be considered true: 1. “And they forgot to take bread; and they had but one loaf with them in the ship.” AND 2. “And they reasoned among themselves, saying: Because we have no bread.”

         It seems that if there was the ‘last loaf’ from which all the ‘feeding’ and ‘basket collections’ came from in the boat, the apostles did not think it one to be used or eaten in the normal fashion, as it was the holy bread used for the great miracle. So, they considered that they ‘have no bread’ as it was excluded from their though or consideration.

         Best to you both.

         Reply

         1. Of course, that’s just one possible ‘accounting’ for the presence of the ‘one loaf’ in the boat. Mysterious indeed. 🙂

            Reply
6. Pingback: SATVRDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

7. The one loaf was the Bread of Life, Christ, by whom the multitudes would be fed, everywhere and forever. There had to be one loaf to begin. Christ could easily have produced that first loaf too, but He did not.

   An interesting echo of the text quoted elsewhere here recently where the saint asks the widow what she has, and when she says a pot of oil, he tells her to go out and gather empty vessels, and proceeds to fill them miraculously. But first the pot oil she had to provide that he could multiply it.

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.