Christ the King - Paradoxical Christological Juxtaposition: Condemned King and Victorious King

The feast  of Christ the King, marking the last Sunday of liturgical year,  is to joyously celebrate the returning of Christ as the King of the Universe at eschatos.  What this feast is celebrating is reflected in Revelation 19:5-16, where Christ is described as riding on a white horse, wearing a cloak that identifies him as the “Word of God” as well as “King of kings and Lord of lords”, as heaven opens.  This victorious event follows conquering all anti-Christ forces, as described from Revelation 6 – 18. This whole process leading to Christ’s victorious return as the King of kings and Lord of lords – the King of the Universe to reign the Kingdom of God reflects Zechariah’s prophecy of the coming of the Day of the Lord (Zechariah 14), echoing the prophecy of coming of the King of Zion, in juxtaposition to coming of the Lord, in Zechariah 9:9-17.

Contrary to the celebratory theme of the feast, the Gospel reading for the Solemnity of Christ the King of the Universe on Cycle C is taken from Luke 23:35-43. As this Gospel story is about the crucifixion of Jesus, it not seem fitting to celebrate the occasion. It is rather appropriate for Good Friday.

Why do we read a Gospel story about the Lord being described as a poor criminal, unjustly accused,  jeered, denigrated, condemned to most humiliating and agonizing death on the cross, when we are to celebrate the Lord as a victorious?

This is rather puzzling, isn’t it?

In fact, this Christological paradoxical juxtaposition between  – Christ the  victorious King of the Universe, who conquered all Satan’s forces, and Christ the condemned to death on the Cross – touches on the essence of the two-fold purpose of Christ the King.  First, he came to this world through Mary’s immaculate body and conquered death through his death on the Cross.  Then, through his second coming, he conquered Satan and all of his forces.  Conquering death and Satan is Christ’s two-fold mission in order to secure the Kingdom of God.

Comparing the Gospel reading for Christ the King Sunday on Cycle C (Luke 23:35-43) and the scripture texts relevant to Christ the King celebration, such as Revelation 19:5-16, Zechariah 9:9-17, 14, we can draw another Christological juxtaposition:  Jesus the king of the Jew and Jesus Christ the messianic King of kings.  In Luke 23:35-43, we are reminded that Jesus was unjustly accused and condemned to death as king of the Jews, while we celebrate the return of Jesus as the King of kings – the King of the Universe.  King of the Jews the “criminal” and the King of kings the victorious conqueror.   King of the Jews the powerless, who could not save even himself and the King of kings, who is the most powerful, conquering Satan.  Loser and winner.  All of these are integrated to characterize Christ the King.  Therefore,  Christology itself is a paradox: Christology of Jesus as king of the Jews and Christology of Jesus Christ the King of kings, and the paradox is resolved in the Christology of Christ the King.

As prophesized in Isaiah 53, Christ the King was to condemned to die to save God’s people, as the suffering Messiah.   Luke 23:35-43 is one of the fulfilling Gospel narratives to this prophesy.

When Jesus entered the City of Jerusalem, as reflected on Palm Sunday, people of Jerusalem had thought that he was the fulfillment of the prophesized king of Zion in Zechariah 9:9-13.  They had no king ever since the Babylonian seize of Jerusalem in 586 BC and became so delighted to have seem Jesus as the king, whom they had waited for more than 500 years, as prophesized by Zechariah.  However, the same people turned themselves against the king they had longed for and welcomed by waving palms within a week and condemned this king to death, as reflected during the Holy Week.  They condemned him as king of the Jews.

There is one important factor to understand why the people of Jerusalem, who celebrated the coming of the king of Zion, soon became a bunch of bitter accuser of him, as their enemy, with the serious criminal charge of being king of the Jew.

It was the evil conspiracy made by the religious establishment of Jerusalem to incite the Roman authority’s fear and to use it to kill Jesus.  As Matthew 27:18 indicates, it was the “φθόνος”(phthonos) of the religious establishment toward Jesus.  The Greek word, “phthonos” is understood as envy.  Thus,  the religious establishment became envious to Jesus, while feeling  that their position in religious authority was threatened by his astonishing teaching and miracles.  Because of this envy-insecurity feeling toward Jesus, they had to get rid of Jesus, by conspiring the Roman colonial authority, Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, and the people of Jerusalem.  For this purpose, the religious establishment made a false accusation of Jesus as a threat to Caesar by proclaiming him as king of the Jews.  At the same time, they must have conspired the people of Jerusalem by instilling their fear that the Romans would destroy them because of Jesus, who is seen as an enemy of Caesar , for he poses himself as king of the Jews.  In other words,  Jesus the Nazarene King of the Jews (Iēsus Nazarēnus, Rēx Iūdaeōrum), became the charge against Jesus, by the religious establishment’s conspiracy out of their envy-insecurity.

How feeling of envy-insecurity can do great evil is evident with the first murder by Cain (Genesis 4:1-8) and King Herod’s slaughtering of the innocent children (Matthew 2:1-18).  The execution of Jesus in the most humiliating and agonizing way on the Cross, was also prompted by the same evil of envy-insecurity feeling, and the false criminal charge against innocent Jesus, “king of the Jews” or “INRI - Iēsus Nazarēnus, Rēx Iūdaeōrum) reminds us of this evil conspiracy.

Because of the religious establishment’s evil feeling of envy-insecurity, Jesus was unjustly condemned to death, along with two criminals, who were justly condemned to death. However, the Christ the King Sunday Gospel reading on Cycle C, Luke 23:35-43, tells more than this.

In this Gospel narrative, while the one criminal contemptuously ridiculed Jesus as a “looser”, the other criminal not only rebuked him for being callous to God (callous to Jesus) and recognized Jesus as the messiah King, by humbly acknowledging his criminal charge and ask Jesus to remember him in the King of God.  To this,  Jesus indicated his salvation. Therefore,  in this Good Friday Gospel narrative (Luke 23:35-43), thanks to the criminal who recognized Jesus as the messiah King,  we can draw a Christological juxtaposition between two paradoxical kings: condemned king of the Jews  and messianic King, whose Kingdom is the salvific Paradise. Indeed, what saved the latter criminal is his insight to see the unjustly condemned king of the Jews as the messianic King, who reigns the Kingdom of God, as he revered God.  This criminal was not fooled by the conspiracy, which made most people of Jerusalem believe that Jesus was a dangerous criminal as he threatened Caesar.  This criminal was able to see the king of Zion, who entered Jerusalem, prophesized in Zechariah 9:9-13, on Sunday, was, indeed, the Lord (Zechariah 9:14-17) and the messiah King, whose Kingdom to come, prophesized in Zechariah 14.

The insight of the latter criminal to recognize the King of kings in the condemned king of the Jews on the Cross also echoes what Jesus reminds us in Matthew 25:31-46, in which the King speaks, “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me’” (Matthew 25:40), while fools, like the criminal who ridiculed Jesus, and the crowds of Jerusalem, who shouted to crucify Jesus,  only see Jesus as a “loser” whom they are callus to.

To better understand why Luke 23:35-43 is used to celebrate the Solemnity feast of Chris the King on Cycle C,  we must focus on the “wise” criminal, whose insight, and perhaps, faith, enabled to see unjustly condemned king of the Jews, as the messianic King – the King of kings – the King of the Universe, whose Kingdom is salvation.  This insight also enables us to better appreciate Jesus’ teaching on salvation – being welcomed into the Kingdom of the King of all kings – in Matthew 25:31-46.

Do we have a kind of Christological insight as that of the latter criminal, to whom Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise”(Luke 23:43)?  If we want to be welcomed into the same paradise, the Kingdom of God, then, we must cultivate a Christological insight to find the King of the Universe in those whom this world tends to reject and condemn,  as the latter criminal recognized Jesus as the messianic King, while the religious establishment, the Roman colonial authority, and the people of Jerusalem condemned as king of the Jews.  This Christological insight must be put into our practice of works of mercy, reaching out to Christ the King among those who have been rejected, condemned, and marginalized, as we close the Jubilee Year of Mercy.

There is Something Christologically and Soteriologically Special about Mary: Having Had the Feast of the Annunciation and Good Friday on the Same Day !

Without Mary accepting the impregnating the Holy Spirit as God’salvific will, there would not have been the Nativity of the Lord, no Word becoming flesh. Without the Nativity of the Lord as the incarnated Word, there would not have been the Passion and Death of the Lord. As Archbishop Fulton Sheen has said, without Good Friday, no Easter.  Therefore, without Mary’s “Yes” to the content of the Annunciation, in spite of her fear, there would not have been paschal mystery, including the Resurrection.

There is something very special about this year’s Good Friday. It is that Good Friday was also the Feast of Annunciation, March 25, in the year of 2016. How often would this happen, indeed?!

Is this a mere coincidence? Some may say so – but, theologicallym, in particular, Christologically and soteriologically, it is not a coincidence.  I believe that Buddhists would also agree that it is not a coincidence, based on the doctrine of pratitya-samutpada (緣起), which is understood as interdependent arising and causes.  The Buddhist concept of pratitya-samutpada makes sense to the Christian view, as well, for we can consider this as some sort of God’s intention, as a mutually interdependent arising to put the Feast of the Annunciation and the Good Friday on the same day this year to call our attention to something theologically important.

Then, what is the theological significance that relates Good Friday to the Annunciation?

In fact, reflecting and pondering upon this question will usher us to the realization that it is not just about the Annunciation and the Resurrection but something Christologically very important about Mary. Yes, there is something about Mary in deepening our understanding of Christ and salvation – our appreciation of paschal mystery.

John’s Gospel tells that there was the Logos (Word) in the beginning (John 1:1).  In juxtaposition to the Book of Genesis, the Logos may correspond to Ruah, which was blowing over the waters, in the beginning of the Creation (Genesis 1:2) , as in the very first reading for Easter Vigil Mass. John says that the Word was made flesh (John 1:14), meaning that the Word was incarnated, because God loves the word, us, so much (John 3:16). It means that God sent the Christ for our salvation, in spite of our deuteronomical cycle of sins. For this, Matthew’s Gospel and Luke’s Gospel describe, God sent the Holy Spirit to Mary (Matthew 1:18, Luke 1:35), as announced by Angel Gabriel. Therefore, the Feast of the Annunciation reminds us that Mary was the God-chosen immaculate human medium for the Holy Spirit to bring the Son to this world, incarnating the Logos. It is an announcement of God’s new creation for salvation.

Mary being full of grace, being immaculate, the fruit of her womb, the Son, Jesus, was born on Christmas, to bring not just glad tidings to the poor (Isaiah 61:1) and comfort to those who mourn (Isaiah 61:2) (Luke 4:14-21), but to suffer and die in order to satisfy God’s salvific will as the ultimate asham (Isaiah 52-53, as Isaiah 52:13-53:12 read for Good Friday First Reading), accomplished through the Crucifixion.  In this regard, the Annunciation is not only to announce the birth of the Savior as fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 for Isaiah 61:1-2, Luke 4:14-21, but for Isaiah 52-53 to be fulfilled.  Unbeknownst to her, this was also the announcement of Mary’s suffering of sorrows,  because the self-sacrifice was required of her son to satisfy God’s will for salvation and resurrection (i.e. Isaiah 53:10-12), as later Simeon prophesized at the presentation of baby Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2:34-35).

As John’s Gospel describes, Mary was with her Son, Jesus, at the foot of the Cross, bearing her sorrows to watch her son suffer and die.  In the presence of her at the foot of the Cross, Jesus indicated that Mary is not just the mother to him but to his disciples, as represented by John, who was also at the foot of the Cross with her (John 19:26-27).

The Scriptures remind us that Mary was present at the Annunciation to bring Jesus to the world and at time of the Crucifixion to watch the Son die, in fulfilling the prophecy in Isaiah 52-53.  As his mother, Mary had been fully present in Jesus’ earthly life from its conception in her womb all the way to his death on the Cross, perhaps, except some of his young adult years before his baptism and public ministry.

Imagine if Mary had not said, “Yes”, to God’s will to be impregnated to bear and to bring the Son of God.  There would not have been Christmas. There would not have been the Messiah as we know. Consequently, there would not have been Good Friday and Easter, as the Isaiah’s prophecy on the suffering Messiah and its relevant Old Testament prophecies would not have been fulfilled.

Imagine if Mary was absent at the foot of the Cross when Jesus was dying, simply because she could not bear her psychospiritual pain, which Simeon had prophesized when Jesus was about 40-day old.  Then, imagine how Jesus would have felt not to see his mother when he died.  Mary would not have been the mother of the disciples, now, us, the faithful, either.

In other words, if Mary had said “no” to God at the Annunciation, then, there would not have been our salvation through Christmas, Good Friday, and Easter.

Fortunately, in response to the Annunciation, Mary said, “Yes”, to God’s will, though she was frightened and did not understand.  Good Friday reminds that Mary’s “Yes” in response to the Annunciation resulted in the Crucifixion of the Son, in juxtaposition to Jesus’ “Yes” to the will of the Father, whom he called “Abba”, during the hour of agony, on the night before his death (Matthew 26:36-46//Mark 14:32-42//Luke 22:39-46).  Therefore, our salvation, as the fulfillment of Isaiah 52-53, began with Mary’s “Yes” in response to the Annunciation and completed as a result of Jesus’ “Yes” to the will of his “Abba”.

Having had both the Feast of the Annunciation and the Good Friday on the same day this year, it is important that we, once again, reflect on Christological and soteriological significance of both Mary’s “Yes” and Jesus’ “Yes” to the will of God, in light of paschal mystery.  It is also important to remember that Mary was fully present to the will of God, when Jesus’ earthly life began with his conception in her womb, upon the Annunciation, and fully present when his earthly life ended up on the Cross, as she was at the foot of the Cross.  After all, she is the mother of Jesus. Mary, indeed, the Theotokos, who has faithfully served God to bring the Messiah as the incarnated Logos, so that God’s grand salvific scheme has been completed, as prophesized in Isaiah and other relevant Old Testament narratives.  Just before this prophetic  fulfilment of salvation, Jesus called his mother and also dedicated her as our mother. Therefore, Mary is essential to Christology and soteriology from an anthropocentric angle.

Now, Christ has been risen, as we rejoice in the Eastertide, as he has overcome sin and death on our behalf (i.e. 1 Corinthians 15: 55-57, Hosea 13;14).

Given Mary’s special Christological significance, as I have reflected in regard to the Feast of the Annunciation and Good Friday being on the same day this year, it makes sense to believe that the risen Jesus first appeared to Mary, the Theotokos, rather than Mary Magdalene.  Some Gospel narratives, John 20:14-16 and Mark 16:9, indicate that the risen Lord first appeared to Mary Magdalene. However, there is a possibility that he had appeared to his mother, Mary, before anyone else, including Mary Magdalene.

Remember, John indicates that there are much more about Christ than what has been written in the Gospels (i.e. John 21:25). Therefore, the absence of explicit description in the canonical Gospels does not necessarily nullify a possibility of Jesus first appearing to Mary – before appearing to Mary Magdalene.

In fact, unlike Mary Magdalene who tends to react impulsively and panicky , Mary the mother of Jesus is a woman who tends to respond to mysterious phenomenon contemplatively, as known from the way she responded to the nativity of the Lord (I.e. Luke 2: 13-19). This makes it possible that Mary did not necessarily tell everyone about seeing the risen son of hers. Rather, it is likely that she was contemplating on the Resurrection of her son, just as did so in response to his birth. The Resurrection of Jesus is a new birth – as the fruit of Mary’s womb is now becoming the firstfruit from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:20, 23). Mary always respond to a birth with her contemplation.  For some reasons, this could have been omitted by the evangelists in their Gospels or somehow, edited out later.

Nevertheless, because this undeniable possibility of Mary to be the very first one to encounter the risen Lord,  the Filipino Catholic tradition of Easter morning, “Salubong”, is a great way to illustrate Mary’s perpetual presence in the life of Jesus beyond his death and into his resurrected life.  “Salubong” is a procession, reflecting that Mary and the risen Jesus are coming to meet. “Salubong”, in Tagalog, means “welcoming” and “meeting”. So, it is like the risen Jesus, as the firstfruit from the dead, is meeting his mother, being welcomed – perhaps, as he, as the fruit of her womb, first met her when he was born.

If you are familiar with the Filipino Easter morning tradition of “Salubong”, I invite you to ponder upon Mary’s Christological and soteriological importance in putting the Annunciation (the First Joyful Mystery of the Holy Rosary) and the Crucifixion (the Fifth Sorrowful Mystery of the Holy Rosary) together, in conjunction with St. Pope John Paul II’s address to the general audience on May 21, 1997, as well as nos. 218-224 of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. Then, as St. John Paul II, said in this address, you will appreciate Mary’s presence and witness to the entire paschal mystery.  In his address to the general audience on April 3, 1996, St. John Paul II said that Mary alone remains to keep alive the flame of faith preparing to receive the joyful and astonishing announcement of the Resurrection.

Yes, there is something so special about Mary for us to appreciate Christ and his paschal mystery, which is essential to salvation.  There was Mary at the time of the annunciation of the incarnation of the Logos and the annunciation of the Resurrection.

What the risen Lord first announced to Mary, the Theotokos, is in the First Glorious Mystery of the Holy Rosary, and the Glorious Mystery concludes with the Crowning of Mary as the Queen of Heaven and Earth, following her Assumption.

Yes, there is, indeed, something about Mary, and how can we understand Jesus – Christology and Soteriology without Mary? How can we fully rejoice in the Resurrection without Mary, who is also our mother?

Mary’s Christological and soteriological significance – persistent presence to paschal mystery is a pratitya-samutpada behind the Feast of the Annunciation and the Good Friday to be on the same day this year to give us special appreciation and joy of the Eastertide for this Jubilee Year of Mercy.

During this Eastertide, upon having had the Feast of the Annunciation and Good Friday on the same day, perhaps, we can be more like Mary, being a persistent primary other (what John Bowlby may regard as the primary attachment object, in his application of the object relations theory), to the life of Jesus, from the conception (the Annunciation) to the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and beyond, as reflected in the aforementioned portion of the Spiritual Exercises.   For this, it is worth reflecting these words of Mary, as the effect of the Annunciation sinks into her heart, as we let the effect of the Resurrection steep into our heart, because the announcement of the Resurrection is like a new Annunciation to us.

My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior. For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name. His mercy is from age to age to those who fear him. He has shown might with his arm, dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart. He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly. The hungry he has filled with good things; the rich he has sent away empty. He has helped Israel his servant, remembering his mercy, according to his promise to our fathers, to Abraham and to his descendants forever.  Mary’s “Magnificat” canticle – Luke 1:46-55

As Mary has said, it is God’s mercy (chesed – favor, eleos) that brought the Annunciation to Mary, impregnating her, for the Logos to be incarnated, in order to save us. It was God’s mercy to let the son of Mary, the Messiah, to suffer and die, to satisfy this God’s salvific plan, as prophesized in Isaiah 53. This salvific scheme completion with the death of Christ is followed by his Resurrection, to prepare us for the empowerment of the Pentecostal Holy Spirit, to complete the Easter effects on us.

Let us contemplate on God’s mercy as we are ready to celebrate the Divine Mercy Sunday, following the celebration of the Lord’s Resurrection now.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who in his great mercy gave us a new birth to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you who by the power of God are safeguarded through faith, to a salvation that is ready to be revealed in the final time. In this you rejoice, although now for a little while you may have to suffer through various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold that is perishable even though tested by fire, may prove to be for praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.  1 Peter 1: 3-7

Corporis et Sanguinis Christi and Buddhist Teaching of Alobha

Following the Trinity Sunday, which comes after the Pentecost Sunday, we celebrate the feast of Corpus Christi. In fact, we celebrate not only Corpus Christi (the Body of Christ) but also Sanguinis Christi (the Blood of Christ – Corporis et Sanguinis Christi.

Corpus Christi Sunday really focuses on the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as Eucharistic adoration marks an important part of this celebration.

For Cycle B year, the Liturgy of the Word for Corpus Christi Sunday takes us back to the Last Supper, as the Gospel reading (Mark 14:12-16, 22-26) describes Jesus instituting the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

 Though the Sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted by Jesus during the Last Supper, which is remembered on Holy Thursday, the Gospel reading (John 13:1-15 for Cycles A,B,C) for Holy Thursday is about Jesus washing the disciple’s feet.  There is no mentioning about the bread and the wine Jesus shared with the disciples in this Gospel narrative from John.

John’s Gospel does not describe how Jesus and the disciples ate the supper, while the Synoptic Gospels  (Matthew, Mark, Luke) do not describe feet washing and Jesus’ discourse. In fact, John’s Gospel does not even connect the Last Supper to Passover, while the Synoptic Gospels do, because the death of Jesus on Friday took place before the Passover sundown.  In contrast, the Synaptic Gospel narratives describe the Last Supper as Passover Seder dinner, and Jesus died after Passover, as the Feast of the Unleavened Bread already started.

This difference resulted from the different focuses of John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels in regard to the Last Supper and the death of Jesus.  John’s Gospel treats the death of Jesus as the Passover sacrifice lamb and emphasized on Jesus washing the disciples feet and giving the lengthy discourse to the disciples.  The Last Supper discourse of Jesus includes Mandatum Novum (the New Commandment) to love one another (i.e. John 13:34). On the other hand,  the Synoptic Gospels solely focus on how Jesus broke the bread, described it as his body, and commanded to eat in his memory – then, how Jesus pass the chalice of wine, identified the wine as his blood of the new covenant and asked the disciples to drink it in his memory.  Both Matthew’s Gospel and Mark’s Gospel describe that Jesus asked the disciples to eat the bread as his body and drink the wine from the chalice as his blood in his memory until the eschatological time of his reunion with them in the new Kingdom (Matthew 26:29,Mark 14:25).

My thought is that Corpus Christi Sunday Gospel reading for Cycle B (Mark 14:12-16, 22-26) compliments the Gospel reading for Holy Thursday (Maundy Thursday) (John 13:1-15).  Because  the Gospel reading for Corpus Christi Sunday is taken from Jesus’ bread discourse in John 6 (John 6:51-58) for Cycle A and from Luke’s narrative of Jesus feeding hungry five thousand (Luke 9:11-17) for Cycle C, these Gospel narratives further compliment the Gospel reading for Holy Thursday and Cycle B’s Corpus Christi Gospel reading on the institution of the Eucharist.

If you read the Gospel reading for Corpus Christi Sunday for Cycle B (Mark 14:12-16, 22-26), together with Corpus Christi Sunday Gospel readings for Cycle A (John 6:51-58) and for Cycle C (Luke 9:10-17), as well as the Gospel reading for Holy Thursday (John 13:1-15), you  can have a more comprehensive view on Corpus Christi – only  the Gospel readings for Cycle B (Mark 14:12-16, 22-26)  and for Cycle A (John 6:51-58) mention Sanguinis Christi . Only Cycle B Gospel reading for Corpus Christi Sunday (Mark 14:12-16, 22-26) reflects the Last Supper.

In fact, the Corpus Christi Sunday Gospel reading for Cycle A (John 6:51-58) alludes to Jesus’ institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as read in the Gospel reading for Corpus Christi Sunday in Cycle B (Mark 14:12-16, 22-26).

It is also helpful and interesting to note that Jesus’ bread discourse (John 6:25-59), which includes the Cycle A Corpus Christi Sunday Gospel reading (John 6:51-58), took place shortly after feeding the hungry five thousand on the other side of the Sea of Galilee (John 6:1-15). Not to mention, Luke’s description of the same event (Luke 9:10-17) is used for the Gospel reading for Cycle C Corpus Christi Sunday.  So, it is important to connect Jesus’ miraculous feeding of hungry five thousand men (Luke 10:10-17; John 6:1-15; Matthew 14:31-21 (cf. Matthew 15:32-38); Mark 6:32-44) to the Last Supper (Mark 14:12-26; Matthew 26:17-30; Luke 22:7-23; John 13:1-17:26) and Jesus’ bread of life discourse (John 6:25-59).

First, Jesus miraculously fed the hungry five thousand men out of five loaves of bread and two fish out of his compassion.  The bread and fish were offered to Jesus to do this miraculous act of compassion.  This echoes the offering of bread and wine for consecration at the altar during the Liturgy of the Eucharist at Mass.  Furthermore, the fact that Jesus looked up to heaven, gave thanks and broke the bread to distribute it to the five thousand men parallels how Jesus took the bread, gave thanks, and broke it to distribute to the disciples at the Last Supper, is reflected on  the way the presiding priest takes the offered bread at the altar, raises it as he looks up, and gives thanks in proclaiming as Jesus did, “Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my body, which is given up for you”, during the Eucharistic prayer at Mass.  In the Liturgy of the Eucharist, following the epiclesis, the offered bread on the altar has become transubstantiated through epiclesis by the time the priest fishes citing Jesus’ words of proclaiming it as his body.  This is ex opere operato for the bread and the wine to become the Body and the Blood of Christ, as the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

When Jesus miraculously fed the hungry five thousand, there was no indication to connect the bread to his body. The crowd had no idea what their miraculous experience with Jesus would entail to. But, they thought Jesus was a prophet to have demonstrated such a miraculous sign as feeding the five thousand out of only five loaves of bread and two fish. Furthermore, they were thinking to force Jesus to become their king, and Jesus had to withdraw himself from them because of this situation with the crowd he fed (John 6:15).

Later that evening, the disciple got on a boat, while Jesus was still on the mountain, where he withdraw from the crowd, and began to cross the Sea of Galilee to Capernaum. It was when the weather became stormy and terrified the disciples. Then, they saw Jesus walking on the water toward their boat. Next day, the crowds fed by Jesus chased him all the way to Capernaum and found him.

It was to this crowd, who kept chasing Jesus upon being miraculously fed, that Jesus addressed the bread of life discourse and began it with these words:

I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval (John 6:26-27).

Through his bread of life discourse (John 6:25-59), Jesus wanted the crowds to focus on the spiritual aspects of the bread given by him, rather than its material quality. As this opening statement of Jesus’ bread of life discourse shows, Jesus had to teach, what is understood as the spiritual discipline of detachment in Buddhism, to this crowds, who seemed obsessed with Jesus, who feeds miraculously.

Jesus knew that the crowds would go through vicious cycle of hunger, if their focus remains on physical or material aspects of the bread. Clearly, Jesus’ messianic and salvific mission on earth is not to keep feeding the hungry in this vicious cycle of hunger. In fact, his mission is to liberate us all from this vicious cycle of hunger, as well as the cycle of thirst, which is due to our attachment to material or physical aspect of the source of our sustenance.  The bread and the wine, consecrated and transubstantiated as Corporis et Sanguinis Christi and as the Sacrament of the Eucharist, are Jesus’ way to help us fee ourselves from our tendency to sustain ourselves only materialistically and earthly. This way, we can break free from the vicious cycle of hunger by attaining non-attachment to material and earthly matters.

So, here, we can see a common thread between Jesus’ teaching of focusing on spiritual factors and Shakamuni’s teaching of alobha (無貧) in terms of detachment from the material and physical matter.

As Jesus and the crowd moved from one side of the Sea of Galilee to the other side, to Capernaum, after being miraculously fed, there is a shift on focus: from material and earthy matters to a spiritual aspect, in order to guide us to the concept of the Eucharist and its institution by Jesus at the Last Supper. In this regard, the crossing the Sea of Galilee can be symbolically understood as a threshold to move from the realm of solely materialistic and earthly realm toward the more spiritual realm, where alobha-like non-attachment is practiced.

What Jesus meant by “miraculous signs” (John 6:25) in the above opening statement of his living bread discourse is the divine spiritual power that enabled scant amount of bread of fish to satisfy five thousand hungry men.

The miraculous sign of feeding the five thousands in Galilee is the divine spiritual power prototypical for the transubstantiation that turns the bread and the wine into Corporis et Sanguinis Christi. Unless we understand this, we sure do not understand why Jesus said, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me”(Luke 22:19, cf. Mark 14:22; Matthew 26:26), holding the broken bread, why he said, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” ( Mark 14:24, cf. Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20), holding the challis filled with wine, during the Last Supper .

Unless we truly understand what Jesus meant by the “miraculous signs”(John 6:26), we really cannot understand what Jesus meant by saying,  “I am the bread that came down from heaven”(John 6:41), “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world”(John 6:51), “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him”(John 6:53-56), in his living bread discourse in Capernaum.  Unless we really understand this, we remain unable to see the consecrated bread and wine at Mass being transubstantiated into true Corporis et Sanguinis Christi.  Also, unless our heart is in the state of grace, because of our inability to the alobha-like non-attachment to the material and earthly matters, we remain too ignorant to see the consecrated bread and wine as true Corporis et Sanguinis Christi in our eyes of the heart.

This aspect of Jesus’ bread of life discourse is similar to what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman by the Jacob’s well (John 4:4-26) and Jesus’ teaching on heavenly treasure vs. earthly treasure from his sermon on the mount (Matthew 6:19-24).  Interestingly, what follows Jesus’ teaching on non-attachment to earthly treasure (Matthew 9:19-24) leads to his teaching on overcoming anxiety (Matthew 6:25-34). In fact, this echoes Buddhism’s teaching on anxiety and attachment to material matter, as Buddhism teaches that anxiety is rooted in our attachment.  What Jesus wanted the hungry crowds to understand that the very purpose of his feeding miracle on the other side of the Sea of Galilee was not simply to feed the hungry but to teach them to overcome their anxiety from hunger by practicing non-attachment or alobha. 

In both Christianity and Buddhism, we are encouraged to detach ourselves from worldly and earthly objects. It is not only because these objects come and go but really because such earthly impermanent objects often mislead us into greed and addictive attachment. One form of this psychospiritual problem is idolatry. As repeatedly reminded throughout the Old Testament, idolatry has deadly consequences, for it is a reflection of our impure heart.

In Theravada Buddhism, to counter impure heart, which leads to addictive attachment and idolatry, the spiritual principle of alobha is addressed in Visuddhimagga (清浄道論), which means the path of purification. Thus, non-attachment, alobha, in Buddhist sense, means to attain pure heart, free from kleshas (煩悩), defilements.  The spiritual teaching of alobha in Visuddhimagga is certainly echoes in Jesus’ spiritual teaching that underlines Corporis et Sanguinis Christi, reflected in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, the Living Bread Discourse, and the Last Supper Discourse.

Let us understand that we must have the alobha-like non-attachment in order for us to receive the consecrated bread and wine as Corporis et Sanguinis Christi in the form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  This is why we must be in the state of sanctifying grace to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist (CCC *1415).

In Buddhism these are understood in terms of impermanence (無常). In Christianity, out of these impermanent worldly reality, God the Elohim, whom Jesus has called “Abba” (Mark 14:36), delivers us into the new transcendent reality, like what Jean Piaget’s psychological development concept calls “object permanence” , with Him by the Ascension of Christ (Luke 24:50-53; Mark 16:19-20), upon making Logos , who is God, flesh to dwell among us (John 1:1-14). For the Ascension to take place, the  Death and the Resurrection of Jesus had to take place.

The disciples had thought that the physical presence of Jesus was gone with his death and burial, because they did not understand the Resurrection (John 20:9), though Jesus had already taught about it (i.e. John 2:18-22, 10:17-18; Matthew 16:21, 27:62-63). So, they were quite anxious in encountering the Resurrection.  So, the risen Jesus helped the disciples understand all of his teaching in retrospect, and they came to terms with the meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection.  Unbeknownst to them, however, Jesus’ repeated appearances to help the disciples better understand his teaching after his resurrection was to prepare them psychologically and spiritually for his departure, Ascension, and for them to receive the Holy Spirit, so that they can be commissioned to go and proclaim the Good News in building the Kingdom of God on earth.

It was his Ascension and Pentecost that remind us that even the physical presence of Jesus, the Son, in this world is impermanent. However, what is important in Christianity is that the presence of Christ, the Son, is permanent, as the Triune God is the permanent being.  That is why that Christ always remains with us through the Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 28:20, John 14:26). Thus, the Triune God – One God in Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is the permanent being, while everything else in the universe is impermanent. Because the reciprocity of God and the Word (Logos) (John 1:1), the Word of God through Jesus, especially in his kerygma , is permanent (Matthew 24:34-35). This permanence of God is very important to appreciate “object permanence” in our mature spiritual object relation with the Triune God so that we can truly appreciate transubstantiation from the bread of life into the Corpus Christi and from the chalice of wine into the chalice of Christ’s saving blood – the Sanguis Christi.

As reflected in the bread of life discourse (John  6:25-59), Jesus wanted us to really understand the spiritual aspect of his body and blood, so that we can overcome our tendency for attachment to their material aspects.  That was a problem that these five thousand people, who were miraculously fed, had, as they kept chasing Jesus and as they became hungry again. They could not overcome hunger because they did not see the bread Jesus gave was his body yet and did not yet approach the bread with the heart of alobha.

This spiritual teaching in the bread of life discourse (John 6:25-59) on non-attachment or alobha is also found in the last supper discourse (John 14:1-16:33), as the latter discourse of Jesus is essentially to prepare the disciples for non-attachment or alobha to the physical aspect of himself – to prepare them for his Ascension and for them to fully appreciate the coming of Parakletos on Pentecost. For this, Jesus said:

“Unless I go away, Parakletos will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him (Parakletos) to you…..I am going to the Father where you can see me no  longer…….I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth (Parakletos) comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take what is mine and make it known to you”(John 16:7, 10, 12-15 ). 

“In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me”(John 16:16).

“Are you asking one another what I meant when I said, ‘In a little while you will see me no more and then after a little while you will see me’? I will tell you the truth, you will weep and mourn while the world rejoiced. You will grieve but your grief will turn to joy. A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world. So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy. In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete”(John 16:19-24).

“Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving he world and going back to the Father” (John 16:25-29).

Now,  juxtapose the above words of Jesus from his Last Supper Discourse in John’s Gospel to the below narrative of Luke  on Jesus  instituting the Sacrament of the Eucharist at the Last Supper:

“I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.  For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God. Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 2In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:14-20).

You notice that the Institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, transubstantiating the bread and the wine into Corporis et Sanguinis Christi by the power of the Holy Spirit, as reflected in this Last Supper scene (Luke 22:14-20) and the aforementioned excerpt from Jesus’ Last Supper Discourse (John 16:7-20), as well as Jesus’ Bread of Life Discourse (John 6:25-59), is relevant to the departure of Jesus from this world, the Ascension. Because of the Ascension is the necessary condition for the Pentecostal Holy Spirit to be poured upon us and to the bread and the wine offered to the alter of God at Mass, we truly need to be in alobha , which enables us to appreciate our transcendental permanent object relationship with the Triune God, as in what Jean Piaget argues as “object permanence”.  Otherwise, we would have difficulty with the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as some of those who heard Jesus’ Bread of Life Discourse deserted Jesus (John 6:60-66), because of their inability to appreciate the bread of life as the body of Christ and the wine as the saving blood of Christ.

After all, Chinese and Japanese Buddhists describe alobha as “無貧“, which suggests “no poverty”. It indicates that the Chinese and the Japanese Buddhists view the concept of alobha, non-attachment, as a way to overcome poverty. Of course, poverty here is not about material poverty, but spiritual poverty. This echoes Jesus’ teaching: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3), Jesus’ teaching on humility as the first and foremost factor for the beatitudes (blessedness, rather than “happiness”).  In following this statement in his Sermon on the Mount, it is clear that Jesus, like Shakamuni, teaches us that alobha is indispensable to live a blessed life, transcending anxieties and fear. 

This is what we must reflect and ponder every time we bring ourselves to the alter to receive Corporis et Sanguinis Christi. Amen.

*CCC - Catechism of the Catholic Church