Jesus As Second Moses (john 6.1-15)

1 After this Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiberias.

Jesus as second and greater mosesIf we read this gospel account carefully, we would be somewhat bewildered to discover a conversation that was started in John 5.17 in Jerusalem  ends on one of the shores of lake Kinneret – a third name for the Sea of Galilee or Sea Tiberias (see also John 5.1).

It has long been thought that John was either inaccurate or unconcerned about issues of chronology, geography and details in general; but was rather concerned with the larger theological view of Christ-related events. Since we have already walked together through first five chapters of the Gospel, we see that it is not the case. John is accurate. He writes knowing the nuanced geography and paying careful attention to details even if at times he provides a different chronological rendering to that of the synoptic gospels. This quality is characteristic of eyewitness accounts and it points away from a long held theory that the Gospels were written only 30 years after the events.

It is not clear why John tells us nothing about Jesus’ travel from Jerusalem to Galilee. A number of suggestions to solve this problem have been raised to answer it. However, all the suggestions seem to raise more questions than those they set out to answer. Rather than being a case of neglect, it is possible that this was the author’s intention and was part of his careful design that we saw earlier (Was the Gospel of John “simply” written or carefully designed?). One possibility is that John intentionally wanted us to know that conversations that began in Jerusalem always spread to other areas. Or, did this have a symbolic meaning ? (In the next section we will explore this possibility further and you may be surprised what you will see). But what is clear is that John expected it to be noticed. We know this because in the first centuries of the Common Era, the expectation (due to the absence of copy machines and printing press) was that his gospel would be read in communal settings and would be read out loud. Most probably the gospel would have been read completely or at lease read in large sections. Whatever the reason we give or allow for John’s omission it is to be likely found in his original design for this Gospel.

2 And a large crowd was following him, because they saw the signs that he was doing on the sick. Jesus went up on the mountain, and there he sat down with his disciples. Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.

CrowdVery soon in vs. 10 we will read that the “large crowd” was a crowd numbering approximately 5,000 people. Taking into consideration that in ancient times only men were counted, the number may been even higher. The point here is not whether there were 3000, 5000, or 7000 people. A large crowd of people followed Jesus and witnessed his miracles. At the time when the village of Nazareth had a population of no more than 200 people (according to reliable archeological data) one can rightfully see that 5000 was a very large number of people indeed. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that Jesus’ following transitioned from local to regional. We can also imagine the concern the crowds numbering in thousands following one charismatic leader would cause to the Jerusalem authorities who struggled to expand and secure their influence in Jewish Galilee. This would have been especially true if the Jesus movement was not losing, but gaining in momentum. Even more of a concern was that Jesus purposely recast himself as the Moses-like figure. In this case, like Moses, he gives his teachings from a mountain (vs.3) and provides his followers with food. We will look at this in a future blog post.

Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a large crowd was coming toward him, Jesus said to Philip, “Where are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?” He said this to test him, for he himself knew what he would do. Philip answered him, “Two hundred denarii worth of bread would not be enough for each of them to get a little.” One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him, “There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are they for so many?” 10 Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, about five thousand in number. 11 Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated. So also the fish, as much as they wanted. 12 And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, “Gather up the leftover fragments, that nothing may be lost.” 13 So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves left by those who had eaten. 14 When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!”

12 eteacherSince this commentary concentrates on some aspects of the text that usually are not addressed in other commentaries, there are few other things  worth mentioning. John is once again paying attention to details when he states that the place where the people gathered had a lot of grass. He was either highlighting the imagery of the shepherd pastoring his sheep, or simply mentioning this as an otherwise unconnected fact. This may then point to the fact that the memories were still fresh and vivid when he wrote the Gospel.

In vs.13 we see that Jesus has provided so much food that there were 12 large baskets of bread left when all the people had finished eating. The number 12 is significant and should not be overlooked or considered coincidental. Given the great importance of the number twelve in Israelite history – twelve tribes of Israel – the number of baskets is, therefore, a significant symbolic number. It indicates that Jesus’ provision is enough, not only for Galilean Jews plus those residing in Judea, but also for all Israel – for all twelve tribes. If I am correct that the Gospel of John understands the Israelite Samaritans as one of the major Jewish people groups to which it was addressed – this this reference to all the tribes of Israel would also make sense. In the mind of the author, they were part of the “people of Israel.”

15 Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

The mountain was a place away from people. It is a place where one could be together with God to commune with him in a personal way. All the activity, all the hustle and bustle of the nearby town was now silenced. The mountains were also often used by people for hiding. Perhaps, Jesus’ early statement, addressed in the previous section, is connected with this verse (Jn. 5.41I do not accept praise from people). Not only did Jesus not submit to the power-hungry authority of Jerusalem’s hoi Ioudaioi, but he also did not submit to the blind, but often misguided excitement of the Am Ha’Aretz (People of the Land), who in opposition to the hoi Ioudaioi wanted to make him king of Israel.

Both, hoi Ioudaioi and Galilean Jewish Am Ha’Aretz, failed to see who Jesus really was and what it was that he had come to do. If those who should have known, the hoi Ioudaioi and also Jewish Galileans although in different ways, missed the point entirely;  was it not also possible that Israelite Samaritan leaders and ancient Israelite lay people among others, would also miss it? That was the indirect question that John sought to put into the minds of Israelite Samaritans who were, as he was hoping, among those who would either read or listen to his Gospel when it was  read out loud.

To receive more information about learning Biblical Languages with Hebrew University of Jerusalem/eTeacher Biblical program online at affordable cost, please, click here.

© By Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg, Ph.D.

To sign up for weekly posts by Dr. Eli, please, click here. It is recommend by Dr. Eli that you read everything from the begining in his study of John. You can do so by clicking here “Samaritan-Jewish Commentary”.

About the author

Dr. Eli Lizorkin-EyzenbergTo secure your spot in our new course “The Jewish Background of New Testament” - CLICK HERE NOW

You might also be interested in:

Three Plus Four: Leah

By Julia Blum

Three Plus Four: Rebecca

By Julia Blum

Join the conversation (33 comments)

Leave a Reply

  1. RamonAntonio

    By the way, I have always read the feeding of the 5,000 as a multilocation miracle of Jesus, that is, he personally served the entire multitude divided in separate groups in a timeframe that made possible that when the people were still eating he already had the remnants in front of the apostles. If we read and re read carefully the narration even in diferent translations, eventually, the sense that something extraordinary happened in front of them is evident.
    I have always wanted to make a test with at least 10,000 seated persons divided in groups and take the time it takes to a single person to serve all of them personally. I bet it won’t be posible to finish before the first ones finish eating. And is that is the case, the sense of wonder disapears. For the sense of wander to exist all have to be eating at the same time and remember that Jesus himself was the one who delivered the meal. Some even may have noted that Jesus was present at the same time in different places serving the meal.
    I think that was the wonder.

  2. RamonAntonio

    Julian Jaynes, a Princeton University psychologist (1920-1997) launched more than 30 years ago a then revolutionary idea that consciousness is a human treat that only has been around for about 3,000 years. Interestingly, his case is built upon readings of Homer and the Bible as examples of the evolution of consciousness’s in the human being.

    Very generally, his theory is as follows, man had been operating as a bicameral being and collectively acted following “orders” from the right side of their brains. The connection between the hemispheres of the brain was either negligible or nonexistent. Thus, thought’s from the right side of the brain were “heard” as voices or orders by the left side, what we call today hallucinations or even squizofrenia. When the hippotalamus funtions were developed by cultural evolution, mankind “broke down” the bicameral mind and became a unified entity which developed the self, awareness and individual personality. The individual self that we now are was born approximately 3000 years ago, according to Jaynes. Curiously, some Jewish scholars have begun to inquire in this field and one of the most interesting writings is by Rabbi James Kohn, The minds of the Bible.

    Following Jaynes theory, my interpretation of this line you propose is that Jesus was the Son of God who came to speak to fully conscious human beings among a changing society of bicameral human beings coming from an unconscious society. Thus, the center of his message was that God’s Plan was directed to individual human beings with a self individual consciousness before God, what we now call a personal relation with God. Jesus wanted us not as unconscious human beings who simply followed orders from an unknown god, customs, laws and ways as means of relating to the divine. With Jesus incarnation God didn’t reside in the right or left hemisphere or in a hallucination. God was present as an objective person, a human being, literally in front of them, speaking, sitting, travelling and eating with them while being God. We may say, I’m Jesus while God, or vice versa, I’m God while Jesus. And that was revolutionary, unheard of.

    Moses was not needed now for orders were not what God wanted. God wants love, our love, my own personal love. Thus, when Jesus Son of God came directly speaking of the God the Father, His Own Father, to us individually, not to us (we) people as a group (herd?), he was rejected because people looked elsewhere for approval (they looked for a shepherd). (Under Jaynes theory they (hoi Ioudiaoi) either were unconscious human beings or in the process of being conscious but still not clear of what was that of being individuals apart from operating under the law which was what gave them sense of being. (Thus the likeness to a herd). On the contrary, if someone came speaking of himself on his own name (a “fellow” human being, i.e., another sheep) and spoke of things related or under the law, they would accept him because he would be speaking under the authority (framework) of that which made sense to them of who they were, children of the Alliance (thus, sheep under God within the corral of the Law).
    Thus the central message of Jesus Christ is to redefine to His people that they were loved “each one as himself individually” and that God wanted a direct relationship with them on a personal, conscious, level. That’s why HE always signaled that God knew everyone in their privacy and their individuality, and His Love is always with each one and for each one individually.

  3. […] of the problem is that we can only know with limited certainty where the miracle of feeding 5000 was performed. The most likely location is at the place where the travel of Jesus shown in color would have taken […]