In general, the Evangelist John considered it necessary only to supplement the narrative of the first three Evangelists. In his Gospel he either says nothing at all about what the other Evangelists recount in detail, or he speaks briefly. His aim is to add some detail or establish a connection with a subsequent event about which the first Evangelists say nothing.
So it was in the present case. The discourse of Jesus concerning the bread of life that followed is transmitted only by the Evangelist John. Since this discourse had to be connected with the preceding miracle of feeding the people, John also gives a brief account of it.
Otherwise, he would not have repeated what the three Evangelists before him had already told in detail. Since he had to narrate this miracle, he supplements the account of the three Evangelists with a detail omitted by them, the people's desire to proclaim Jesus king.
Having thus established the connection between the miracle of feeding the people and the discourse on the bread of life, and having supplemented the accounts of the other Evangelists by mentioning the people's desire to proclaim Jesus king, he no longer concerns himself with retelling what others had said.
Therefore they wanted to proclaim Jesus king, that is, the Messiah. He is indeed the Messiah whom the prophets proclaimed. Why, then, did He withdraw from this? Why did He not wish the people openly to acknowledge Him as Messiah at that very time?
It was because not only the people, but even the closest disciples of Jesus, even the Apostles, still had distorted notions about the Messiah. They all imagined that the Deliverer-Messiah promised to the Jews would be an earthly king, a conquering king, and would subdue the whole world to the Jews.
No one could yet free himself from these prejudices. No one even allowed the thought that the Kingdom of the Messiah could be a Kingdom not of this world.
Therefore, with such notions among the people concerning the Kingdom of the Messiah, the proclamation of Jesus as king would have been nothing other than an open revolt of the people against the authority of the Roman emperor.
During the so-called liberation movement in Russia, speakers at various popular assemblies tried to convince the crowd that Jesus Christ Himself was a revolutionary. But this blasphemous slander is refuted by the accounts of the holy Evangelists.
The crowd that had been miraculously fed, in which there were about five thousand adult men alone, offered Jesus royal power. They even wished, apart from His desire, to lead Him to Jerusalem and there proclaim Him King of Israel.
Undoubtedly, on the way to Jerusalem countless crowds of people would have joined them. They passionately desired to overthrow the Roman yoke and begin fulfilling the people's dreams of the Jews subduing the whole world.
The people were so prepared for an uprising, a revolution, that Jesus Christ only needed to agree to declare Himself King of Israel. Then almost all the Jews, to a man, would have followed Him. But Christ refused such an offer.
Which revolutionary would not have used such an occasion to stand at the head of a popular movement and carry out his revolutionary designs?
Was this the only occasion? Every day Christ could have created such occasions for proclaiming Himself king. What of the raising of Lazarus, when many even from the party hostile to Jesus believed in Him?
What of Jesus' solemn entry into Jerusalem, when all the people met Him as the desired King of Israel and cried the triumphant hosanna? Which revolutionary would not have used such a favorable moment to rouse the people and declare himself king?
Christ, however, accepted the honor offered Him as the true Messiah, promised by God and foretold by the prophets. Yet He did not accept the authority of an earthly king.
The people were so stirred at that time that they would have followed Jesus wherever He led them. The people were sure that the Son of David, solemnly entering the capital of His Kingdom, would immediately take the scepter that belonged to Him.
But in fact, Christ inspected the temple and saw it again turned into a marketplace. Because the hour was late, He undertook nothing and went on foot with His Apostles to Bethany for the night.
On the next day the Lord healed all the sick who were in the temple. On the third day He denounced the Pharisees and scribes. Yet concerning His royal authority He not only said not a word, but even commanded that what is Caesar's be rendered to Caesar.
This refusal of the offered royal authority, joined with the incitements of the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees, produced a reversal in the people's opinions about Jesus.
If He did not accept authority and did not proclaim Himself King of Israel, then He was not the Messiah. Undoubtedly, this is how the people reasoned. It was painful for them to recognize that their dreams had not come true.
It was painful to descend from the clouds of a worldwide Jewish kingdom to the unattractive earth, guarded by the swords of merciless Roman soldiers. Disappointment in a man often entails terrible malice against him.
If Jesus is not the Messiah, then crucify Him, crucify Him. The Lord knew that all this would happen. Yet even so, He did not stand at the head of the nascent revolution. He rejected from Himself the scepter of the King of Israel.
Therefore let no one dare call Him a revolutionary. Let them not mislead simple-hearted people who have a confused notion of Christ, the Son of God.
THEOSIS