Was feeding of the 5,000 Jesus’ most political act?

This Sunday the lectionary invites us to ponder John 6:1-21. The English Standard Version supplies the passage with two headings. The first is “Jesus Feeds the Five Thousand.” The second is “Jesus Walks on Water.” I’ll discuss only the feeding of the 5,000.

When we read the Bible, we must always bear in mind that every page in it was written by people ruled by oppressive governments: we must read it like we read works written in Malaya in the 1940s, during the Japanese occupation. We must also ask why people wrote what they wrote.

In the case of the accounts of the feeding of the 5,000, we must ask why Jesus performed this miracle. Why do you think Jesus fed the 5,000?

Notice that the ESV heading doesn’t say 5,000 “people.” Notice that I’ve been careful not to say 5,000 “people.” Can you guess why?

It’s because the passage says 5,000 “men.” The use of the word “men” is even more impactful when you think about another fact. This miracle by Jesus is the only one recorded by all four of the Evangelists[1] Matthew, Mark, Luke[2] and John.

All four of them use the word “men.” Why?[3]

John provides two clues. If you read bearing in mind that the Bible was written by people under oppression, you’ll see the clues.

Before I get to the clues, I’ll point out five things which many miss.

First, Jesus didn’t invite the 5,000 to come to him. They crowded in upon him because stories about him and his disciples had come to their ears. They came to be healed and to see for themselves. The rules of hospitality didn’t apply. Jesus was not honour-bound to feed them.

Second, Jesus had compassion[4] on the thousands who were blind, deaf, lame, sick, hungry, exploited, uncared for by the state, and treated as disposable: like Indian and Chinese coolies who were brought into Malaya under British rule, only to be sucked like oranges and thrown away.[5]

Third, it seems even Jesus and his disciples hadn’t brought any food with them. Why else would the miracle be centred on a few tiny buns and salted fish in a small boy’s bag? I should note in passing that John tells us the bread was of barley, the bread of the poor.

Fourth, unlike Matthew, Mark, and Luke, John centres his gospel on Jerusalem. By including Jesus’ feeding of the 5,000, John “broke” his focus on Jerusalem.[6] This shows the importance of this gathering.

Fifth, such a mass movement and gathering of people – probably around 20,000 – would have raised alarms in the police and the military whose job was to watch out for potential rebellion.

Now for the clues.

The first clue is the word “Passover.” For most people, the word recalls the sacrificial lamb eaten on the feast day. Most people forget that it was the feast of liberation: of the Israelites being freed by God, under Moses, from slavery and oppression in Egypt.

Imagine Singapore invades the peninsula. Sets up a military government. 31st of August approaches. The day on which people remember the triumph of nationalism in 1957: independence, the departure of the British. Would the Singaporeans allow us to celebrate it? Of course not!

But the Romans allowed the Jews to celebrate Passover. They knew the danger. Passover was when rebellion and rioting against oppression was most likely. So, every year, in the days before Passover, they very visibly brought into Jerusalem the equivalent of today’s riot police.

The second clue is something not found in the synoptists. John alone tells us that Jesus rapidly withdrew from the crowd because he perceived that “they were about to come and take him by force to make him king.”

Now do you see why the accounts focus on the feeding of men?

Men were the soldiers and resistance fighters of the day. The people were desperate, oppressed, exploited, tired. They saw Jesus as a new Moses, a compassionate leader, liberator. Like Moses, Jesus had fed them with “bread from heaven,” in a desolate place. Like Moses, Jesus spoke from a mountain.

The people wanted to make him their commander. They expected his kingdom to be like the kingdoms they knew, kingdoms ruled by military force.

But King Jesus doesn’t use tools of oppression. We know, again through John, for John tells us what answer Jesus gave to Pilate:

“My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36)

Jesus wasn’t saying his kingdom has nothing to do with this world. He was saying God-pleasing kingship rejects violence and oppression. Carson, in his comment on that verse, says the struggle of those who believe in Jesus “cannot effectively be opposed by armed might.”

Passover, the feast of liberation. Feeding “men.” Searching for a new Moses. Kingship. Was feeding of the 5,000 Jesus’ most political act?

Peace be with you.

Added 28 July 2024: You may wish to read: Why did Jesus enact the miracle of 5 loaves and 2 fish?

---

[1] Matthew 14:21 And those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children. Mark 6:44 And those who ate the loaves were five thousand men. Luke 9:14 For there were about five thousand men. And he said to his disciples, “Have them sit down in groups of about fifty each.”

[2] Matthew, Mark and Luke are called “synoptists,” because much material which is common across them.

[3] Matthew and Mark tell us about another miraculous feeding by Jesus. According to Matthew, “Those who ate were 4,000 men, besides women and children” (Matthew 15:32-39). According to Mark, “there were about 4,000 people” in that feeding (Mark 8:1-10).

[4] I wrote about this last week under the title “What might Jesus say to our shepherds.”

[5] The Indian nationalist E V Ramasamy, better known as Periyar, used the term “sucked oranges” to describe the systematic exploitation of Indian labourers in British Malaya. This was pretty much the fate of Judeans and Galileans under Roman rule during the period of Jesus’ incarnation. For more about the exploitation of Indian labourers in Malaya, you can read Mangai Balasegaram’s article “Different Class: The Marginalisation Of Indians In Malaysia.”

[6] D A Carson, in his commentary on John, says “this is the only chapter in John that treats the Galilean phase of Jesus’ ministry with which the Synoptists are so concerned.”