Each culture in the world has its staple food. For Pacific islanders it might be taro. For many Asians it’s rice, while for many Africans it’s maize or corn porridge. For those in the Middle East and through much of Europe the staple food is some form of bread, usually made from wheat.

So when Jesus is faced with a hungry crowd of people, the food on hand is five small loaves of bread and two salted fish. He gives thanks to God for the food, and then distributes it to the crowd. Everyone has enough to eat and there are basketfuls of left-overs. One lesson that we might take from this incident is that hungry people need practical help – they need food to eat. We might also learn to trust in what we have available and that God is able to provide what we need in abundance.

Next day the people come back for more free food, but Jesus engages them in a rather different way. He offers the people bread from heaven, the bread of life that God gives. If people eat this sort of bread they will never be hungry again. This bread is Jesus himself, which leads on to an interesting conversation about how they might ‘eat’ Jesus. We may well hear overtones or echoes of Communion in Jesus’ words. The people are both intrigued and repulsed.

The gist of what Jesus is saying is that if we want true and satisfying life, we need to take Jesus’ words deep inside ourselves and trust that God will nourish our soul or spirit with them. We might do this through some sort of contemplative prayer or meditation on Scripture, both good daily disciplines of faith.

There is a well-known line in the Lord’s Prayer that goes ‘Give us today our daily bread’. I wonder if this refers to God providing what we need to sustain us each day (food, drink, shelter, purpose) or whether it refers to the bread of life that Jesus talked about (a daily connection with God through prayer and Scripture). Perhaps Jesus had in mind both types of ‘bread’ – as both are important.

Crime shows and whodunit mysteries are among the most popular shows on TV. I’m not sure why. Perhaps we like the challenge of trying to piece together the clues and solve the mystery. Perhaps we are curious about how evil people think and how they hatch their plots. Perhaps we like the thrill of the chase and feeling afraid – but all observed from a safe distance.

Crime and subsequent court cases happen all the time in real life. These are often petty crimes but occasionally a high profile case stirs the public imagination, such as the recent Brittany Higgins rape trial or the impending case of a man accused of killing two campers in the Victorian Alps. In a court of law, witnesses are called to give evidence, the truth of statements made is weighed and the judge or jury must decide a verdict.

We may be surprised to find several public ‘trials’ of Jesus In the Gospel of John, starting with the one in chapter 5. Jesus’ crime is healing someone on the Sabbath day, a day designated to be free of work, including healing it seems. When confronted with his crime, Jesus defends himself by saying that he is just doing what he sees the Father (i.e. God) doing. This statement is interpreted by his opponents as a second crime, claiming equal authority with God. Jesus then calls on various witnesses – John the Baptist, the powerful signs he is performing (like the healing) and Scripture – to support his own claims.

Where is truth to be found? What verdict will we – the jury – come to in this case? Why does any of this matter two thousand years after the events in question? It matters if we want to get to the truth of who Jesus is and by implication, who God is. We each have to come to our own conclusion.

There seems little doubt from the stories we have of Jesus that his presence aroused curiosity, amazement and hostility, probably in equal measure. He became known as a healer and prophetic teacher but also became a controversial figure due to the company he kept. You see, Jesus seemed to be as comfortable mixing with suspicious tax collectors and prostitutes as he was hobnobbing with the upper classes of his society.

Early on in John’s Gospel an influential member of Jewish ruling council, Nicodemus, comes to Jesus at night in order to try and understand him better. He seems curious. He is polite rather than confrontational. But he is also puzzled by Jesus’ remarks that a person must be born from above if they are to see where God is at work in the world. Nicodemus hears that one must be born ‘again’ (the preposition in Greek can mean either ‘from above’ or ‘again’) and interprets this literally (how can anyone re-enter their mother’s womb and be born again, clearly a ridiculous proposition).

But Jesus is meaning something more subtle and spiritual … a person needs to be transformed by God’s presence in their life to open their eyes to God’s ways and this is like a new or second birth. Nicodemus doesn’t seem able to grasp the concept and leaves somewhat confused. He maintains his curiosity in Jesus, however, and appears twice more later in the story, including at the cross.

I am encouraged by two aspects of the story. First, it’s quite okay to have questions and doubts about our faith and about the person and message of Jesus. We may not always get a straight-forward answer to our questions, but it seems that Jesus is prepared to engage with anyone, right where they are at. Second, Jesus said some really puzzling things that don’t always make much sense to us. But the implicit invitation made to Nicodemus – and ourselves – is to keep grappling with what Jesus said and eventually we may gain greater insight and understanding … which may lead to further questions … and that’s okay too.