If you would like to catch up on some recent posts, here is a place where you can easily access some posts you might have missed. I hope it helps… enjoy.
Continue readingA quick look back
Featured
2
Controversies with the Pharisees
This coming Sunday is the 20th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Lectionary Cycle A. Between the 19th and 20th Sundays in Year A, Mt 15:1-21 are passed over. Jesus’ three acts of power in Mt 14 (feeding the 5,000; walking on water; and the healings at Gennesaret) are followed by a controversy with the Pharisees and scribes.
In order to provide a context let us briefly describe the events which lead us to Jesus’ encounter with the Canaanite woman. These verses describe Jesus’ teaching on how the purity laws of Leviticus are to be understood. In a way it is an extension of the Sermon on the Mount. Borrowing Jesus’ oft repeated phrase, “You have heard it said… by the Pharisees, but I say to you…this is what is at the heart of our purity laws received from God.”
The specific issue for debate is the disciples’ failure to observe the rules of ritual purity/cleanliness as exactly as the Pharisees did (v. 2). The Pharisees had received and built up a body of tradition designed to ensure the observance of the written Law. Their intentions were good: if one does not break the traditions then one will never break the commandment/Law and then God will never again punish the people by Exile. The people will remain a covenant people; at least so went the thinking. The Pharisees also saw the special Levitical (priestly) rules as having value and helping attain holiness and so they also wished to extend to all Israelites the rules that originally applied only to members of priestly families on the grounds that Israel is a priestly people. That is the background in Mt 15:2 where they expected Jesus and his followers to observe the rules of priestly purity spelled out in Lev 22:1–16.
The first part of Jesus’ response (15:3–9) attacks the Pharisees’ idea of tradition. Jesus argues that sometimes their tradition leads to breaking the clear commands of the law (vv. 3–6). The commandment about honoring one’s parents is stated in the law both positively (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16) and negatively (Exod 21:17). But the Pharisees’ tradition, according to Jesus, allows a person to place property under sacred vow as a means of preventing the parents from having access to it. Thus a pious fiction provides the excuse for disregarding and getting around a sacred obligation encouraged by the law. The words of Isa 29:13 are used to brand such behavior as hypocrisy. The tradition that claims to protect the law actually violates it.
The second part of Jesus’ response (Mt 15:10–20) concentrates on the specific issue of ritual purity. The statement in v.11 to the effect that there is only moral uncleanness is very radical, since large parts of the Old Testament law concern ritual uncleanness contracted by touching and by eating certain foods: “It is not what enters one’s mouth that defiles that person; but what comes out of the mouth is what defiles one.” Only a firm faith in Jesus as the authoritative interpreter of the law could allow Matthew and his community to accept such a revolutionary teaching.
The basic statements in verse 11 are joined with a very harsh judgment on the Pharisees (vv. 12–14) and an explanation for the disciples of Jesus (vv. 15–20). When informed about the Pharisees’ offense at his teaching, Jesus denies their spiritual roots (v. 13) and condemns them as blind guides leading others to destruction (v. 14). Peter’s request for an explanation of Jesus’ teaching in verse 15 assumes that “parable” means “mystery” or “riddle.” Jesus’ explanation in verses 17–20 merely expands and makes concrete the radical statement in verse 11: “…the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile. For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.” (Mt 15:17-20)
Image credit: Jean Germain Drouais, Christ and the Canaanite Woman, 1784, Louvre Museum | Public Domain
Leaks and All
As it happens we had the same gospel just this Tuesday. It is a familiar story in which we find the disciples battling against the tempestuous waves and howling winds. Amidst this chaos, they spotted Jesus walking on the water towards them. Filled with awe and faith, Peter cried out, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” Jesus responded, “Come.” And Peter, guided by faith, stepped out of the boat and began walking towards his Lord… and then he realizes he’s not in the boat. As an experienced fisherman he knows the danger of the wind and waves. Fear seizes him and he begins to sink into the chaos. Fortunately, Jesus seizes his hand, pulls him from certain death, and gets him back into the safety of the boat. The basic message on Tuesday was: “stay in the boat.” Afterwards someone emailed me to note that “sometimes the boat (Church) has leaks,” noting examples and so people “leave the boat.”
But here’s the thing… As any blue water sailor will tell you, boats inevitably have leaks. As any serious student of church history will tell you, the Church was never this pristine Church that somehow deteriorated into its present condition. As long as humanity is part of the Church, it will have leaks. Look at the original crew. Peter denies Jesus. Thomas refuses the testimony of the others. James and John argue about who is greatest. The apostles abandon Jesus at Gethsemane. Judas betrays him. And in today’s gospel those in the boat, the chosen Apostles, are frightened and confused. The Church has always been a community of flawed people. The boat has always had leaks. Leaks that need repair, major and minor – it is simply life afloat. Discovering a leak should not surprise us into abandoning ship. Thanks be to God, the holiness of the Church has never depended upon the perfection of her crew. It depends upon Christ.
Folk might complain about popes, bishops, pastors and priests, but we’re not the Captain of the ship. We are more like watch officers entrusted with the vessel, trusted to carry out the Captain’s orders. Some watch officers are excellent. Some mediocre. Some fail badly. But they don’t command the ship. Command has always been Jesus Christ. Our faith is not ultimately faith in church management. It is faith in Christ.
The Church survived Peter. It survived bad popes. It survived corrupt bishops. It survived schisms, sin, scandals, wars, and terrible human decisions. Not because leadership doesn’t matter. It matters enormously, but because Christ remains faithful even when his servants aren’t.
Peter discovers something important: the storm exists inside and outside the boat. Leaving the Church because Christians disappoint us does not transport us into a world without human failure. Every human institution leaks. Families leak. Governments leak. Businesses leak. Universities leak. And every one of us springs a leak from time to time. The question isn’t: “Can I find a community without flaws?” There isn’t one. The question is: “Where is Christ?” He is in the boat.
What should be the response when the boat springs a leak? A crew member who discovers flooding doesn’t say: “”Well, there it is, the darn ship leaks.” They report it, find the source, control the flooding and begin to repair the damage. Staying aboard doesn’t mean tolerating abuse, corruption, incompetence, or injustice. Sometimes fidelity to the Church means challenging precisely those things. Saint Catherine of Siena stayed in the boat—and challenged popes. Saint Francis stayed in the boat—and helped renew the Church. Reformers, saints, religious founders, theologians, and ordinary faithful Catholics have repeatedly repaired leaks from within. There is a difference between criticizing the boat because you hate it and repairing the boat because you love it.
And the crew turns over. Commanding officers, executive officers rotate. Department heads change. Young sailors report aboard; veterans transfer. But the ship has an identity extending beyond any particular crew. And yet the vessel continues its mission. The Church has experienced two thousand years of crew changes. Don’t confuse the current crew with the ship.
What I love about this gospel account is that Peter is both the problem and the promise. Peter gets out of the boat, sinks, and cries out: “Lord, save me!” Jesus rescues him and then brings Peter back into the boat. Problem and Promise.
And notice that Jesus doesn’t say: “Peter, clearly boats aren’t working for you. Let’s start something else.” Jesus takes Peter back to the boat … with the frightened disciples. The Church contains frightened disciples and sinking Peters – there in the boat with Christ in the center of it all.
Boats aren’t built for harbors; they’re built for setting out on the water. The Church isn’t a pleasure boat. It doesn’t exist to provide us with a pleasant religious environment. It exists to carry the Gospel across dangerous waters where the whole Church experience might not meet one’s expectations. But that was never the point. The real point is “What mission has Christ entrusted to us?” A leaking ship still has a mission. And sometimes repairing the ship is part of the mission.
Repairs are made underway. You don’t abandon a seaworthy ship in the middle of the ocean because you discovered water where water shouldn’t be. You repair and keep sailing. You stay in the boat. Why?
Not because the Church’s leaders or fellow believers will never disappoint us. Not because the institution always gets everything right. We stay because Christ has chosen to meet us in this boat: in his Word, in the Eucharist, in reconciliation, in the communion of believers, and in the mission he entrusted to the apostles.
And Matthew’s Gospel ends the episode with something especially important. Once Jesus and Peter enter the boat: “Those who were in the boat did him homage, saying, ‘Truly, you are the Son of God.’” (Mt 14:33). And there’s the point of the gospel account. Not toward confidence in Peter’s seamanship. Not toward praise of the crew. Toward worship of Christ. That is the deepest reason to stay in the boat.
The Church is not the object of our faith. Christ is. The Church is the vessel in which Christ has chosen to gather a very imperfect crew and carry them together toward him. And when we find a leak – and we will – the faithful response is neither denial nor immediate abandonment. Grab a bucket. Find the leak. Help repair the boat. And keep your eyes on Christ.
Image credit: Jesus and Peter on the water – Gustave Brion, oil, 1880 | Public Domain
Just saying….
In 2024 the Chicago White Sox set a record for the most losses in modern Major League Baseball history. One month into the 2025 season, things were about the same. The were firmly in control of last place in the AL Central Division and home game attendance was dismal at best. And then miracles of miracles.
Cardinal Robert Prevost, a lifelong White Sox fan, was selected as Pope. Since then the White Sox have had “miraculous” turnaround. They are now in first place in their division. And yes, they have added new pitching and hitting, but I think we know what is the deeper more relevant change.
June 26th, the White Sox catcher, Drew Roman (…appropriately a Catholic!) while being interviewed in the dugout for broadcast TV, implored Pope Leo: “If you’re watching this game right now, say a quick prayer for a Jacob Gonzalez homer right now.” Seconds later Gonzalez knocked it out of the park.
Just saying…
The Canaanite Woman
A few days ago, a friend and former parishioner wrote/emailed and asked me about the passage of Jesus and the Canaanite Woman that was the gospel from Wednesday and, as it happens, the upcoming 20th Sunday, Year A gospel on August 16th.
21 Then Jesus went from that place and withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.22 And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out, “Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is tormented by a demon.”23 But he did not say a word in answer to her. His disciples came and asked him, “Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us.”24 He said in reply, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”25 But the woman came and did him homage, saying, “Lord, help me.”26 He said in reply, “It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.”27 She said, “Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters.”28 Then Jesus said to her in reply, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed from that hour. (Matthew 15:21–28)
Pretty harsh to the modern ear. What is going on in this passage? The discussion around these verses raise questions of both Christology (who is Jesus) and biblical interpretation. Was Jesus being rude, reflecting a Jewish bias against Canaanites in general? Was Jesus being intentionally provocative as a means to get the woman to express her faith as a lesson for the Apostles who had remarked: “Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us.” Was Jesus operating out of his human nature and the woman provides a corrective to refocus Jesus on his divine mission? There is a lot going on in this passage.
Continue readingBack in the Boat
This coming Sunday is the 19th Sunday in Ordinary Time.
32 After they got into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Those who were in the boat did him homage, saying, “Truly, you are the Son of God.”
At last – back in the boat.
Back in the community we see the only genuine response possible: “Those who were in the boat did him homage, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” While such actions may or may not have happened by the disciples in a small boat on a lake in Galilee, such responses should happen in every generation from a grateful church that experiences the impossible presence of Christ with it in its mission.
This confession comes as part of a longer discourse about Jesus’ identity that begins in 13:54. In vv. 54-58 Jesus is in his hometown and they understand him to be “the carpenter’s son.” Ch. 14 begins with Herod wondering if Jesus is John the Baptist raised from the dead. Matthew 14:33 reveals the answer to “who is Jesus” – He is the Son of God. And it shows the response of the true disciple: worship Jesus with the community of believers.
….A small thing to consider
Why did the disciples cross the lake (v.22)? To get to the other side – not always a joking matter. What’s on the other side of the lake? What’s so important on the other side, that Jesus, literally, “immediately” (eutheos) “forces” (anagkazo) the disciples to get into the boat and head that direction? When disciples first cross the lake through a storm, they land on the Gentile/unclean side (Mt 8:23-34). With this boat trip, Jesus had sent them to “the other side” (14:22, see also 16:5), was that meant to be the Gentile side? In Mark, Jesus had sent the disciples to Bethsaida (Mk 6:45), which is on the Gentile side of the Jordan, but they didn’t make it. They end up in Gennesaret (Mk 6:53; Mt 14:34) which is on the Jewish side of Lake Galilee. Can storms at sea (and “little faith”) keep disciples from reaching the destinations where Jesus has sent them? It is a question we can all ask of ourselves and our communities of faith.
This issue of “other” and “clean/unclean” is the issue Jesus takes up in Mt 15
Image credit: Jesus and Peter on the water – Gustave Brion, oil, 1880 | Public Domain
Taking up the cross
In today’s gospel when Jesus says: “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Mt 16:24-25) – what did you hear? Because of the way we use the expression in everyday language, I think a tendency to think of “our cross” is to focus on nagging health concerns, local traffic, or difficult coworkers or relatives, and similar events in our lives. Bit of a metaphor.
For Jesus’ first hearers, the cross was not a metaphor at all. It was a horrifying public reality. It represented Roman power at its most brutal: humiliation, shame, and a death reserved primarily for slaves, rebels, and those the empire wanted to make examples of. When Jesus first spoke these words, no one in the crowd would have thought of daily travails, church steeples, or even salvation. They would have imagined a more horrific end. After the Resurrection, Christians saw the cross in an entirely new light: the place where God’s love conquered sin and death.
We are modern people, believing people and these words appear in an ongoing dialogue about discipleship. While suffering can certainly become part of discipleship, that is not what Jesus primarily means. Notice the context. Immediately before this saying, Peter has rebuked Jesus for speaking about his coming suffering and death. Jesus replies: “You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” (Mt 16:23) Only then does he say: “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.” The cross is not simply something that happens to us. It is something we choose because we are following Christ.
Continue readingIf it is you…
This coming Sunday is the 19th Sunday in Ordinary Time.
28 Peter said to him in reply, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” 29 He said, “Come.” Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus. 30 But when he saw how (strong) the wind was he became frightened; and, beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!” 31 Immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, and said to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?”
Given other stories we know about Peter, there is a bias for us to assume Peter is just being Peter here in this story, impetuously acting before considering the bigger picture. But we should remember that this story is likely grounded in saying something about ekklesia (church). Eugene Boring (328) points out that this is no longer a story about what Jesus alone can do:
The Christ who speaks with authority (chaps. 5-7), acts with authority (chaps. 8-9), and then confers this same authority on his disciples (chap. 10) here shares his power and authority with his disciples. The figure of Peter should not here (or elsewhere in Matthew) be psychologized as impetuous, but later failing. We do not have a psychological profile, but a character in a story representing all the disciples, portraying the theological meaning of discipleship as such. Peter addresses Jesus as a believer would, “Lord” (non-believers in Matthew use other titles). He has the right christological title and shows great personal faith, but he leaves the boat and the community.
At first things go well, but alone, outside the boat/community he has only his own faith to rely upon and he soon discovers he is of little faith (v.31). But the core question Jesus asks is “why did you doubt?” Peter is the first among the disciples, and the typical one, but he can become the agent and voice of Satan (16:33). Is Peter’s walking on the sea a sign of faith or lack of faith? Is he being like the Tempter who asked, “If you are the Son of God, ….” when he asks, “If it is you, ….” and he seeks proof that Jesus is really present? Is he putting God to the test?
Boring writes (328):
For Matthew, Peter’s problem was not only that he took his eyes off Jesus, but that he wanted proof of the presence of Christ, and so left the boat in the first place. . . . The gentle rebuke identifies Peter as the typical disciple in Matthew; ‘little faith’ is the dialectical mixture of courage and anxiety, of hearing the word of the Lord and looking at the terror of the storm, of trust and doubt, which is always an ingredient of Christian existence, even after the resurrection. The last point is underscored by the peculiar word used here for ‘doubt’ (distazō), which connotes vacillation, not skepticism. It is used elsewhere in the NT only in Matthew 28:17 of the disciples in the presence of the risen Lord.
Boring concludes (329-30):
The message is not “If he had enough faith, he could have walked on the water,” just as the message to us is not “If we had enough faith, we could overcome all our problems in spectacular ways.” This interpretation is wrong in that it identifies faith with spectacular exceptions to the warp and woof of our ordinary days, days that are all subject to the laws of physics and biology. This is wrong because when our fantasies of overcoming this web are shattered by the realities of accident, disease, aging, and circumstance and we begin to sink, this view encourages us to feel guilt because of our “lack of faith.”
What if the message of this text were “If he had had enough faith, he would have believed the word of Jesus that came to him in the boat as mediating the presence and reality of God”? Faith is not being able to walk on the water – only God can do that – but daring to believe, in the face of all the evidence, that God is with us in the boat, made real in the community of faith as it makes its way through the storm, battered by the waves.
What happened to Peter (the “Rock”) with his little faith and his doubts? One answer is, “He sank into the sea like a rock.” Another answer is, “He was saved by Jesus.” For most of us whose faith is unable to move mountains and thus must be smaller than mustard seeds (cf 17:20); we are assured that even our microscopic faith is sufficient for salvation. It is the person of faith who cries out to Jesus in time of need. Martin Luther’s observation described the human condition well: simul justus et peccator (simultaneously saint and sinner).
Image credit: Jesus and Peter on the water – Gustave Brion, oil, 1880 | Public Domain
Walking on the Water
This coming Sunday is the 19th Sunday in Ordinary Time. In biblical thought, only God walks on the sea (Job 9:8 – “He alone stretches out the heavens and treads upon the back of the sea”; Ps 77:20 – “Through the sea was your way; your path, through the mighty waters, though your footsteps were unseen.”). But by treading on the sea, Jesus now takes a role that the Hebrew Bible had reserved for God alone.
25 During the fourth watch of the night, he came toward them, walking on the sea. 26 When the disciples saw him walking on the sea they were terrified. “It is a ghost,” they said, and they cried out in fear.
(An unnecessary note: many translations offer “early in the morning” vs. “fourth watch of the night” an ancient nautical term and still used in navies even today. Go Navy!)
Remember that the Apostles had left Jesus on shore. Apparently, it had not occurred to them that Jesus could know their plight, walk on water to come to them, or catch up with them in a storm! To their credit, however, the fear issue seems to be solved once they recognize that their teacher is with them. They knew him enough to know that if he was there, he would bring them through their storm.
Jesus responds: “At once (Jesus) spoke to them, “Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid.” Precisely in the midst of this story, Jesus is already doing what only God can do, and now speaks with the voice of God, saying ego eimi, literally “I am.” The formula is first one of simple identification, “It is I” – not a ghost as you fear. But the phrase also evokes the self-identification of God, Yahweh (YHWH) the one who says absolutely “I am” (see Exod 3:13-15). Scholars argue whether this means that Matthew here claims that Jesus is Yahweh given that he had just pictured Jesus as praying to God. Some argue “either or” and hold that Matthew only intends that the divine presence and assurance is mediated by Jesus, as promised in 1:23. Others adhere to a “both-and” view and hold that Matthew intends both.
Image credit: Jesus and Peter on the water – Gustave Brion, oil, 1880 | Public Domain
“Ukranianization” of the Gulf
In a previous post I discussed the development of Ukraine from a nation dependent on foreign military supplies to a nation on the leading edge of an evolving age of battle space engagement with what Brig Gen de Czege called the “Second Precision Revolution.” I noted that Ukraine signed a 10-year agreement with Gulf State countries for joint production of battlefield innovations developed during the war with Russia. That naturally leads to the question of were Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Oman to acquire genuinely Ukraine-like capabilities what would become of the Persian Gulf region?
With Ukrainian technology, innovation, and experience – coupled with Gulf States funding, the Persian Gulf would become one of the world’s most densely observed, electronically contested, and difficult operating environments. Virtually a transparent battlespace.
Continue readingThe boys in the boat
This coming Sunday is the 19th Sunday in Ordinary Time. In this post we catch up with the disciples who have shoved off into the Sea of Galilee at Jesus’ command. With apologies to the writer Daniel James Brown, I have borrowed the title to his 2013 book on the nine young men from the University of Washington and their epic journey through the Great Depression seeking a gold medal at the 1936 Berlin Olympics. If you have not read it, put it on your “must read” list.
22 Then he made the disciples get into the boat and precede him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. 23 After doing so, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray. When it was evening he was there alone.
This is the only place after the initial period in the wilderness (4:1–11) where Matthew specifically mentions that Jesus chose to be truly alone, sending his disciples away. This pericope (scholar language for “story”) is the first time in the Gospel according to Matthew that Jesus is pictured as praying. Even in Gethsemane he will keep three of the disciples with him (26:37). Matthew does not elsewhere mention Jesus’ habit of praying alone, as in Mark 1:35; Luke 5:16; 6:12; 9:18, though he has of course recorded his instruction to his disciples to pray in this way, 6:5–6.
It would be possible therefore to read this unusual note as indicating a particular crisis at this point in Jesus’ ministry. But that would be an argument from silence, and Matthew gives us no indication of the subject of Jesus’ prayer. In the narrative context the solitary prayer in the hills serves rather to explain how Jesus comes to be so far away from his disciples on this occasion when they find themselves in difficulties. (France, 569)
Meanwhile the boat, already a few miles offshore, was being tossed about by the waves, for the wind was against it. From Jesus praying alone in the hills the spotlight shifts to the disciples in trouble (again) on the lake—and this time without Jesus in the boat to rescue them. This account is not the first time that the disciples have been in a storm-tossed boat with Jesus (see 8:23-27) – even then he asked why they had such little faith. But this account is the first time the apostles have been without Jesus – and this is a foreshadowing of the mission after the Resurrection.
If the disciples are rowing from somewhere in the region of Bethsaida (suggested by 14:13–21) to Gennesaret (v. 34) it is surprising to find them so far from the shore, but presumably they have been driven off course by the contrary wind. The situation seems to be similar to the storm in 8:24, though the focus in this narrative is on the wind (vv. 24, 30, 32) rather than the waves. The disciples’ predicament this time is the inability to make headway rather than an imminent danger of sinking.
Possible symbols in Matthew’s narrative. Many scholars have noted that Matthew reworks the parallel account in Mark 4:35-41. Matthew’s rewriting of Mark emphasizes the separation between Jesus and the disciples; Jesus was “by himself…alone ” and the disciples are “a few miles offshore.” Is it perhaps this idea of being sent forth alone that should receive the narrative focus? The disciples are in the storm-tossed boat, symbolic of the church’s stormy missionary journey through history, sent forth alone, and Jesus, who represents the presence of God, is not with them. At the level of Matthean understanding, this may be the meaning of Jesus’ “made” them (v.22) to depart (anankazō – to compel [EDNT 1:77]).
We should be mindful that each Sunday we sit in the “nave” of the church, a word whose origins come from the Latin navis which means “boat” or “ship”. The “ship” we are in was not intended to stay tied up to the dock. The boat/church symbolism of 8:23-27 (calming of the storm at sea) is strengthened by representing the boat as “being tortured” (basanizō) by the waves (not the disciples laboring at rowing, as in Mark). This verb is normally used for people (Mt 8:6, 29) rather than a boat. In both cases, Matthew allows his symbolism to shape his description, for in both cases he is thinking of the suffering the church will experience during its mission on which it is sent forth “alone” (i.e., without the Jesus who promised to always be with them, 28:20).
The picture is not limited to its ecclesial and missionary symbolism, however. The sea itself in biblical thought connotes the forces of chaos, held at bay in the creative act of God, but always threatening (Gen 1 : 1-10; 7:1 I ; Pss 1 8:1 5-1 6; 69:1-3; 107:23-32; 144:5-8). To the biblical mind, being on the sea is itself a threat, representing all the anxieties and dark powers that threaten the goodness of the created order. To be at sea evokes images of death, the active power that threatens the goodness of life. The sea is here a barrier that separates the disciples from Jesus, who represents the presence of God. In the midst of the chaos of the world, they are left alone in the boat/church, with only their fragile craft preserving them from its threat, buffeted by the stormy winds of conflict and persecution, mentioned three times (vv. 24, 30, 32).
Image credit: Jesus and Peter on the water – Gustave Brion, oil, 1880 | Public Domain
friarmusings 