An Atheist Explores the Bible Part 204: Cannibalism and Buddhism, Dysentry and Sophistry (John 6-10)

John 6-10
Cannibalism and Buddhism, Dysentry and Sophistry.

Welcome to another instalment of An Atheist Explores Sacred Texts (Bible version).

In this series I work my way chapter-by-chapter through the King James Bible, commenting on it from the point of view of the text as literature and mythology.

For more detail, see the introductory post http://bit.ly/2F8f9JT

For the online KJV I use, see here http://bit.ly/2m0zVUP

And now:

John 6

“Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

This is a fairly lengthy chapter that skips over several incidents that have been covered in the other gospels. Jesus is teaching, and attracts a large crowd of five thousand people that are then fed with only five loaves and two fish. After this, the disciples sail across the Sea of Galilee in a boat, leaving Jesus behind, but He then walks out across the water to them. The people follow, eventually, after some muddled passages about boats (“The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone” – huh?).

The rest of the chapter revolves around a discussion with Jesus concerning the metaphor (we can hope) given in the chapter quote at the top, and continuing the theme from the previous chapter; that Jesus is a route to everlasting life, through “eating his flesh” which is also bread, but maybe His words are meant to be “bread” for the soul; again it’s really not very clear how many layers of metaphor there are. Jesus makes a comparison between His message and the manna from heaven in Exodus; the latter was a miracle from God but only nourished the body, His is greater than that. Or something like that.

Interestingly near the end of this chapter, some of the disciples leave, evidently considering that the way is too hard for them, leaving just the twelve, and Jesus drops some hints about the betrayal by Judas (“Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?”).

John 7

“If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?”

The majority of this chapter concerns discussions between Jesus and the Pharisees. In the previous gospels, these conversations have tended to run along the lines of the Pharisses trying to trap Jesus into saying something blasphemous, and Jesus evading. “Are you the Messiah,” they would ask. “Some people call me that,” Jesus would reply, neatly sidestepping making the claim HImself. Here in John, however, Jesus is a lot more forthright about His divinity; “But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me”. This leads to division amongst the listeners who quibble about where the Messiah will come from – “Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?”

There seems to be a lot more acceptance, sooner, in the gospel of John, of Jesus’s identity as the Christ, and also Jesus’s teachings so far are a lot more metaphysical, as I remember, concerning people achieving “eternal life” or “out of his belly shall flow living water” (dysentery?) for people that believe in Him.

John 8

“So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

The chapter starts with the incident of the “woman caught in adultery”. Here Jesus abuts against Mosaic Law, despite generally saying that He has no intention of overturning the old laws. The crowd want to stone the woman according to the old laws, but rather than simply saying, “sure, stone her. It’s what the law says”, Jesus turns the moral outrage of the crowd back upon them. He then also forgives the woman and tells her to be on her way.

The rest of the chapter concerns a repetitive conversation between the Pharisees and Jesus, where once again the Pharisees question by what authority Jesus speaks, and Jesus alludes to being sent by God the Father to teach His message. A couple of well-known phrases make their appearance here. “The truth shall set you free” is one (the “truth” in context here is that Jesus was sent by God). Another is where Jesus gives what is so far the most complete description of the devil in the Bible – “He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it”, which I guess is where the “Father of Lies” epiphet for the devil comes from.

A few lines from Jesus here concerning life after death made me think of something else. And also “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”. Now, this is probably meant to echo God’s claim to be “I Am”, and the “Alpha and Omega”, but it also brings to mind reincarnation. I’ve pondered before about Jesus being influenced by Buddhist philosophy (which could feasibly have been brought westwards into the Roman Empire) in His insistence that giving up all you own is a path to “righteousness”. Could the concept of everlasting life be more akin to a cycle of lives? And tell me, does this “Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed” not sound like being bound to the wheel of karma (sin) unless one manages to achieve nirvana? In Jesus’s philosophy, a person is bound to their sin, unless they achieve an enlightened state through belief in the Son, where upon they will become “free” (in spirit, it would seem to mean). In Vedic thought, a person is bound to their samsara, their “wandering” in the cycle of rebirth unless they can achieve enlightenment and become “free”. (and yes, I know I’m butchering the Buddhism here, the principles are even harder to summarise than some of Jesus’s more metaphysical musings)!

John 9

“And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?”

Jesus and the disciples come upon a blind beggar, and the disciples pose the moral question, that this man or his parents must have sinned for him to be blind. Jesus’s reply is that, no, it’s just the way of things, and He heals the man. There then follow further shenanigans with the Pharisees who try to entrap Jesus once more because this healing was done on the Sabbath.

The (former) blind man, dragged in as witness, makes the great point that “Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see”. In other words, to the blind man the truth about Jesus doesn’t matter, only His works. Some of the Pharisees still maintain that Jesus is a sinner for breaking Sabbath, but others argue that, since He performed miracles, He can’t be a sinner. They forget here that Pharaoh’s magicians matched miracle for miracle with Moses and Aaron, but never mind. They also make the erroneous argument from ignorance, that “Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing”. Or, perhaps, he’s a better healer than you’ve seen before?

But never mind, I quite like the questioning of established morals in this chapter – don’t look for sin, or good and bad, just do the job at hand if it helps people.

John 10

“I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.”

This chapter revolves around the parable of the good shepherd, to which Jesus likens himself. Sheep know their shepherd, they follow him willingly, and a good shepherd is willing to die to protect his flock, not a simple hireling (i.e. the priests who are in it for money, I’d guess). But Jesus also, in typical confusing fashion, likens Himself to the *door* to the sheepfold; not only is He the shepherd but He’s also the way for the sheep to get to the shepherd (and vice versa).

Now, part of me here wants to argue that, who wants to be a sheep? Who wants to blindly follow (with, one assumes, the usual end for most sheep awaiting). Perhaps that’s taking the metaphor at too much face value, but maybe it’s a thought worth considering.

Once again the Pharisees bandy words with Jesus and try to condemn Him for blasphemy. Here, it’s not so clear how much Jesus is glorifying Himself compared to other chapters. He doesn’t claim directly to be Messiah, and it’s possible that His claims of God as “Father” are meant more that God is the Father of all, and not specifically the Father of Jesus. In that respect, Jesus is only special because He listens more to the will of the Father compared to the Pharisees. Perhaps. As always, especially in John, the meaning isn’t clear.