Category Archives: Scripture

Miracle – fish and loaves

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 18th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Lectionary Cycle A. 

Taking the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he said the blessing, broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples. But there is more to this meal than physical sustenance; eating together is a symbol of unity. Instead of being dismissed and dispersed (v. 15), the crowds are welcomed into a new community. Once gathered Jesus takes on the role of the head of the family evident in the actions of blessing and giving. Blessed is the normal giving of thanks before a meal, the responsibility of the head of the Jewish family. The actions and words are the same as those in the meal at Emmaus (Luke 24:30), and no doubt in other meals where Jesus presided over the disciple ‘family’. It is striking that the four verbs ‘take’, ‘bless’, ‘break’ and ‘give’ occur with minor variations not only in all six accounts of the two miraculous feedings and in that of the Emmaus meal, but also in all four accounts of the Last Supper (including 1 Cor. 11:23–24). It was a daily Jewish ritual, but in Christian memory it became filled with fuller meaning, as both these experiences in the ‘lonely place’ and the last meal in the upper room pointed forward to that great feast at which Jesus would be host to all his people of every race.

Bread and fish were basic Galilean rations; it was a very ordinary meal. But the command to sit down (anaklinomai, literally ‘recline’), while it may only reflect the effect of being on the ground rather than at table, may also be a hint of the more formal banquet at which guests reclined on couches. This is not a casual snack, but a formal occasion. While a meal of bread and fish with no wine is hardly a ‘banquet’, it symbolizes the gathering of the people of God which will be consummated then. John clearly saw in this event a eucharistic element, and while this specific connotation belongs to the period after the Last Supper, it is not surprising that the incident came to be seen in the light of the Last Supper, itself a symbol of communion, and a foretaste of the Messianic banquet (26:29).

Image credit: James J. Tissot, ‘Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes’ (1886-94), Brooklyn Museum, NYC | PD-US

Compassion

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 18th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Lectionary Cycle A. 

When Jesus heard of it he withdrew (v.13). News of John’s imprisonment by Antipas and now the report of John’s death has the same effect. As in 12:15 and 15:21 the withdrawal takes him away from a place of danger or confrontation. A direct confrontation with Antipas would not advance Jesus’ mission and, in the light of what had happened to John, was a risk to be avoided, especially in view of Antipas’ view of Jesus as a new John.

Matthew makes it clear that Jesus is seeking not just safety but also solitude for himself and his disciples. The disciples are not mentioned at this point, but their presence is always assumed when Matthew speaks of Jesus traveling (not least by boat, which needed a crew), and they will be present in v.15 (“When the disciples approached”). In the meantime the “neighborhood wire” is active, passing along the news that Jesus of Nazareth is in the area – and the crowds gather. Despite Jesus’ desire for solitude, he is now too popular to escape notice.

his heart was moved with pity for them (v.14). Given the sense in which “pity” is used in American English, many translations are opting for the appropriate “compassion.” Remember that Jesus’ short term objective was solitude and prayer. Yet his response is compassion for the people who have come to see him (whatever their motives) and are without food. It is the response of God to his people, and perhaps as importantly, it is the response of the Good Samaritan, the one who discerns God’s call to carry out God’s will. It is the response to the very human situation.

“This is a deserted place and it is already late; dismiss the crowds so that they can go to the villages and buy food for themselves.” The disciples are right to be concerned. Few towns were nearby, and towns were generally small, at most accommodating only a few visitors in towns of a few hundred people. Further, most of the day’s bread would be consumed by evening (Mt 14:15). It would have been nearly impossible for roughly ten thousand people (five thousand men plus women and children-v. 21) to fend for themselves in the countryside.

Given the numbers involved, Jesus’ response, “You give them something to eat,” must have seemed like a hollow joke; cf. Elisha’s similar command to his servant, 2 Kgs 4:42–43. Even their own provisions of five loaves and two fish are not enough for a group of thirteen. So had they been expecting to find hospitality (as in 10:9–13) somewhere nearby, despite the isolation of the area? If so, the arrival of the large crowd had upset their calculations. To surrender even this meager provision to Jesus was either an act of reckless obedience or evidence of a more confident faith in Jesus than we have seen the disciples displaying elsewhere. 

Image credit: James J. Tissot, ‘Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes’ (1886-94), Brooklyn Museum, NYC | PD-US

More than inspirational

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 18th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Lectionary Cycle A. The miraculous feeding of a very large number of people in the wilderness is one miracle that is told in each of the four canonical gospels. Despite the consistency of the narrative there are, in every age, those who reject the miraculous offering that Jesus only inspired the people to share. Or they dismiss the narrative as apocryphal – or at best an altered memory of a large feast that imagined the coming banquet of the Kingdom. Keener (403) points out that nothing would be more memorable than a feeding miracle, especially in the context of the culture of their day. Keener offers four points:

  1. First, the disciples were right to be concerned about the people’s hunger but intended to solve the problem in a purely natural way (e.g. 1 Kings 17:16 and 2 Kings 4:43). Our expectations of what God can do often are too small; providing food in the wilderness was technically impossible, but God had used Moses, Elijah and Elisha for feeding miracles.
  2. Second, like God of the Hebrew scriptures, Jesus takes what his servants bring to him and multiplies it. (Ex 4:1-3; 2 Kings 4:1-7)
  3. Third, God does miracles only when his people need them – and the need is very evident in this wilderness area.
  4. Fourth, sharing is not the narrative thrust of Matthew’s writing. The ending points to thing outside and beyond the people present: (a) we are not to be intimidated by the magnitude of the problem because God is with us, and (b) the surprising leftovers point to the continuation of this miracle (greater than manna which had no leftovers) into the Apostolic Age.

Adding to Keener’s insight, there is also the clear Eucharistic intention in the use of four verbs ‘take’, ‘bless’, ‘break’ and ‘give’ which occur with minor variations not only in all six accounts of the two miraculous feedings and in that of the Emmaus meal, but also in all four accounts of the Last Supper. 

That being said, at the event itself, the Eucharistic foretaste would be unknown and so Keener’s understanding of the event in Old Testament terms is appropriate.

Image credit: James J. Tissot, ‘Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes’ (1886-94), Brooklyn Museum, NYC | PD-US

Imagery

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 18th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Lectionary Cycle A. Eugene Boring (323-4) notes that this miracles account appears six times in the NT gospels and incorporates a wide variety of imagery from Scripture, as well as the Jewish and Christian traditions. Looking to all the various accounts, Boring lists the prominent imagery:

  • the wilderness setting for the people of God en route from captivity to the promised land
  • recalcitrant Israelites / disciples, who doubt that food can be provided in the wilderness (Ex. 16:2-3);
  • God leads the people who are like sheep without a shepherd as the narrative calls to mind Ps 23 and its green grass;
  • the giving of manna (Ex 16, Nb 11);
  • Elisha’s miraculous provision of food (2 Kings 4:42-44) in which there are provisions left over;
  • Jesus, accused of being a glutton (Mt 11:19) provided table fellowship for all;
  • Jesus’ Eucharistic last meal with his disciples in which he takes on the role of the head of the new family, providing food and pronouncing the blessing; and
  • the messianic banquet as part of the gathering of all creation seen in the bread and sea creatures.

The imagery points across the full breadth of salvation history, pointing to Jesus’ fulfillment as the “great prophet like Moses” and the Exodus experience, keying upon the miraculous feeding by Elisha in 2 Kings, pointing forward to the Last Supper and institution of the Eucharist, as well as indicating the breaking in of the Kingdom of Heaven in the typology of the great banquet with so much food that everyone had their fill and there are still foods leftover.

On this mountain the LORD of hosts will provide for all peoples a feast of rich food and choice wines, juicy, rich food and pure, choice wines. (Isaiah 25:6)

Image credit: James J. Tissot, ‘Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes’ (1886-94), Brooklyn Museum, NYC | PD-US

From parables to miracles

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 18th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Lectionary Cycle A. From the several weeks of parables we have heard over the previous several Sundays, the Gospel of Matthew returns to the narrative in which Jesus’ miracles increasingly become the source of controversies. R.T. France outlines this section as follows noting the varying response to Jesus’ teaching and miracles (13:54–16:20)

  • Nazareth rejects Jesus (13:54–58) – questioning the source of his wisdom and deeds of power – and taking offense at him. “A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and in his own house.”
  • Herod Antipas thinks Jesus is John the Baptist revived (14:1–12)
  • Jesus feeds a large crowd (14:13–21) – our gospel reading this Sunday
  • Jesus walks on the water (14:22–33)
  • The popularity of Jesus as a healer (14:34–36)
  • Dispute with Pharisees and scribes over defilement (15:1–20)
  • A Gentile woman’s faith (15:21–28)
  • Healing ministry among the Gentiles (15:29–31)
  • Second feeding of a crowd (15:32–39)
  • Jesus’ repudiation of Pharisees and Sadducees (16:1–12)
  • Jesus is the Messiah (16:13–20)

Stories of the rejection of Jesus will be interrupted by three miracle stories, the first of which is the miraculous feeding of the 5,000. The narrative is introduced by Jesus’ suspicion concerning Herod’s interest in him causing him to depart to a deserted place, but the crowds follow. After curing some of the sick, Jesus provides enough food for five thousand men, plus women and children (vv. 15–21). There is a pattern to Matthew’s narrative in which miracle and confrontation ebb and flow – and in the midst are accounts of faith and disbelief. The narrative plays out the parables that preceded it: the net is indeed cast wide and all kinds of fish, wheat, weeds, and more are caught in the net of the Kingdom.

The parables that are especially notable in Matthew 13 (a day of parables) are focused and revolve around the phrase, “the kingdom of heaven is like…”, making clear it is in contrast to the kingdom of this world. That contrast between the two kingdoms continues and this time using the setting of the banquet. In the passage immediately preceding our gospel, King Herod presides over a banquet whose excess results in the death of John the Baptist. Herein Jesus presides over a banquet, not in a palace but in the wilderness, not among the powerful but rather the weak and poor, and results in life.

Image credit: James J. Tissot, ‘Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes’ (1886-94), Brooklyn Museum, NYC | PD-US

Understanding Parables

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time.  The opening description in 13:3 and the concluding transitional comment at 13:53 indicate that Matthew considers everything in between to be parables, including v. 52. Thus, although commentators have liked to find exactly seven parables in the chapter, Matthew apparently considered the concluding picture of the scribe to be a parable as well, a parabolic concluding picture on the use of parables.

The picture comes as an elaboration of the disciples’ affirmative response to Jesus’ question. They claim to understand. These words added to Mark are to make clear that, for Matthew, understanding is not an optional element of discipleship.

Matthew understood that parables were constructed from a “treasure”  of conventional metaphors, in which, for example, “king” or “father” customarily point to God, “harvest” or “accounting” to eschatological judgment, and such.’“ Both Jesus and Christian scribal teachers did this. The uniqueness of Jesus does not consist in the invention of radically new images, but in the surprising use to which they put the repertoire of familiar images. Vocabulary and style, as well as theology, indicate that

Matthew affirms both the old and the new (see 9:17). Like a skilled scribe, he brings out of his storehouse the treasures of his Jewish past (Scripture, stock of traditional imagery, perspectives, and concerns), as well as older Christian tradition (Mark). But he does not merely repeat the past. Alongside the old but introduces the new, presenting the old in a new light. Reclaiming it for the new situation in which he finds himself, seeing all things in the light of the Christ event and the coming of the kingdom.  Even the unexpected order of “new and old” may be important: it is the new that provides the key to the appropriateness of the old, not vice versa.

Image credit: The Pearl of Great Price, by Domenico Fetti, 17th century |Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Bilddatenbank | Public Domain

The Net Cast Widely

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time. “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net thrown into the sea, which collects fish of every kind.” The net pictured here is a large dragnet, usually about six feet deep and up to several hundred feet wide, positioned in the lake by boats and requiring several men to operate (hence the plurals of v. 48). The picture is realistic, portraying an ordinary event with no surprising twists: The net brings in “every kind” of both good and bad fish, which are then sorted, the good being kept and the bad thrown out.

Whatever the original meaning of the parable, Matthew’s own ecclesiastical application already appears in the telling of the parable itself. The bad fish are called “bad” (rotten, sapra). Clearly the fish are fresh-caught so “rotten” seems inappropriate. The same word was used four times previously in Matthew’s description of bad “fruit” (works) presented by Christians. There it is easier to assess.

It is likely that “bad” refers to fish that lack the fins and scales noted in Leviticus 11:9-12. If the fish caught were eels or the Galilee catfish (eel-like in appearance), they would be forbidden fish. Of course, the fish could be too small or simply considered poor in taste. Hence the need for the sorting.

This parable then, like that of the “Wheat and Weeds.,” is one of judgment. It echoes not only the separation and destruction of the wicked, but also the motif of a mixture of good and bad until the time of final separation. The dragnet is inevitably indiscriminate in what it catches. As long as the fish remain in the lake, and indeed in the net, they remain undifferentiated. It is only when they come up for final scrutiny that some will be preserved and others destroyed

The Parable of the Net Explained

This interpretation is very like that of the parable of the weeds, vv. 36-43. Like the preceding interpretation, it concentrates entirely on the fate of the wicked, whose destiny is to be cast into the furnace of fire, with weeping and gnashing of teeth—all typical Matthean language for eschatological judgment, but not appropriate to fish, which are buried or thrown back into the water, not burned. The interpretation, allegorical as it is, does not represent the net to be the church, the fishers to be evangelists, etc. Matthew seems intentionally to forego the obvious opportunity to relate the parable to the story of the call of the fishers in 4:18-22. The parable is not a picture of evangelism, “fishing for people,” but a parable of final sorting and separation. [Boring, 1994, 314]

Image credit: The Pearl of Great Price, by Domenico Fetti, 17th century | Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Bilddatenbank | Public Domain

Two Parables

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time. “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant searching for fine pearls. When he finds a pearl of great price, he goes and sells all that he has and buys it. Matthew apparently intends the parable of the treasure to be interpreted together with the parable of the pearl, which immediately follows. The two parables do have common features: (I) In each case only a brief vignette of a crucial situation is given, without enough details to evaluate them as realistic stories. The interpreter should, therefore, be wary of filling in the gaps from pious imagination, but concentrate on what the parable does, in fact, portray.

(2) The primary common feature is surely central to the meaning of each: The protagonist goes and sells everything for the sake of the one thing. This is the action of both the plowman and the merchant. This movement of the story as a whole is to be compared with the kingdom of God, for the kingdom is “like” neither the “treasure” of v. 44 nor the “pearl” of v. 45, but in each case somehow like the story as a whole. In each case, the protagonist acts with the single-minded response of the “pure in heart.” From the story in Mark 10:17-31, Matthew and his community had long known of the kingdom’s demand of “all,” and of one who had failed (cf. esp. Mark 10:21, where selling everything and giving it to the poor is connected with true “treasure”).

R.T. France [France, 2007, 541] notes that the two parables are also different: (1) The plowman is doing his regular work, not looking for or expecting anything special, when he comes upon the treasure quite by accident. The merchant is actively seeking, knows what he is looking for, and still finds something beyond all his expectations. The kingdom can become real in either way (cf. 9:2, 22). (2) The great joy of the plowman is emphasized, but is altogether absent from the merchant. This does not mean that the merchant’s selling everything in order to obtain the pearl was joyless, but it does mean that (subjective) joy is not the main point of either parable. (3) What the merchant did, although it may not have measured up to everyone’s understanding of common sense, was unquestionably legal. The same cannot be said of the plowman, whose action may have been questionable, both legally and morally (we are not given enough details to know for sure). The disposition of buried treasure found on someone else’s property was widely discussed in Roman legal discourse. Some of Matthew’s readers may have expected a law-abiding plowman to have reported his find to the owner of the field rather than cashing in on it himself. Sensitive contemporary readers may wonder about the ethics of cheating the owner of the field out of his treasure, even if it was perfectly legal. The story does not legitimize the man’s actions. Jesus was certainly able to use questionable actions of characters in his parables to picture the urgency of acting to gain the kingdom while the opportunity is there (cf. Matt 12:29’s use of breaking-and-entering imagery, and more subtly, Luke 16:1-13).

In the story of the pearl, there is no moral or legal question at all, but still a surprising and provocative action. In the first-century Mediterranean world, the pearl was often a symbol of the highest good (as diamonds sometimes are in modern Western culture). Thus salvation is pictured in the Gnostic “Hymn of the Pearl” as the finding and safe return of a pearl lost in an alien land. Some scholars see both the parable of the treasure and the parable of the pearl as advent/reversal/action, expressed in the parallel sets of verbs in vv. 44 and 45-46: finds/sells/buys.” The advent of the kingdom, sought for or not, brings about a reversal of values, leading to the crucial action that obtains the new. This action, puzzling and out of step with those who live by the old values, is central in each of these parables. [France, 2007, 541]

Image credit: The Pearl of Great Price, by Domenico Fetti, 17th century |Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Bilddatenbank | Public Domain

Hidden Treasure

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time. “The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure buried in a field, which a person finds and hides again, and out of joy goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.” Buried treasure is the stuff of popular stories in every age and while out “pirates” no longer sail the Seven Seas we seem content with stories of lottery winners. Given Israel’s location at the crossroads of major powers to the north and east and to the south (Egypt) there is a long history of wars and rumors of war playing out upon the promised land.

“Buried treasure” was a realistic possibility. Before banking was generally established, to hide wealth in the form of coins, metals or jewels in a jar or box in the ground was a recognized way of securing it, especially in times of crisis; the famous Copper Scroll from Qumran Cave 3 lists the locations of huge caches of precious metals and other buried treasure. But consider Mt 25:25, where a talent of gold is buried. The “talent” was equivalent to almost 20 years of daily wages and would have been a “treasure” worth finding.

In the face of a rumor of war or war itself, a family might well bury their valuables. If no one survived the battles or sieges, there was indeed buried treasure to find. There were also rabbinic guidelines for what one did when finding such treasures. Even if you were the rightful owner of the land, you were obligated to make a reasonable search for the rightful owner of the buried valuables. Failing to find the original owners, the land owner could rightfully take possession of the treasure.

Presumably in this story the current owner of the field was unaware of it. The finder (presumably a worker employed by the land-owner) really has no immediate rights to the treasure even after he legally purchased the land. But he understands what is at stake and sells all that he may obtain the treasure. Many commentators have noted that it is the same with humanity – we have no right to salvation – it is an unmerited gift from God – so when it comes, grab it without hesitation or qualm.

It seems that the man’s action is dictated by pure self-interest, as would be the person who opts for the kingdom of heaven. The “sacrifice” of all that is sold is no hardship: it is done out of “delight,” not out of a sense of obligation. Once the kingdom of heaven is truly understood, nothing else can compare with it in value. One should also noted the OT theme of wisdom as being like hidden treasure (Prov 2:4; Job 28; cf. with a rather different twist, Sir 20:30). [France, 2007, 541]

Image credit: The Pearl of Great Price, by Domenico Fetti, 17th century |Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Bilddatenbank | Public Domain

More Parables

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 17th Sunday of Ordinary Time. We continue to listen to more parable from the Gospel of Matthew. Again we are presented with a doublet: the hidden treasure and the pearl of great price.

Matthew 13:44-52 44 “The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure buried in a field, which a person finds and hides again, and out of joy goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. 45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant searching for fine pearls. 46 When he finds a pearl of great price, he goes and sells all that he has and buys it. 47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net thrown into the sea, which collects fish of every kind. 48 When it is full they haul it ashore and sit down to put what is good into buckets. What is bad they throw away. 49 Thus it will be at the end of the age. The angels will go out and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth. 51 “Do you understand all these things?” They answered, “Yes.” 52 And he replied, “Then every scribe who has been instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like the head of a household who brings from his storeroom both the new and the old.”

These two parables are unique to Matthew, following immediately upon the parables of the mustard seed and the yeast, and, in some cases, a narrative about Jesus’ use of parables.

Parable of the SowerMatthew 13:1-9Mark 4:1-9Luke 8:4-8
Reason for ParablesMatthew 13:10-15Mark 4:10-12Luke 8:9-10
Interpreting the SowerMatthew 13:18-23Mark 4:13-20Luke 8:11-15
Purpose of ParablesMark 4:21-25Luke 8:16-18
Parable of the WeedsMatthew 13:24-30
Parable of the Mustard SeedMatthew 13:31-32Mark 4:30-32Luke 13:18-19
Parable of the YeastMatthew 13:33Luke 13:20-21
Jesus’ Use of ParableMatthew 13:34-35Mark 4:33-34
Interpreting the WeedsMatthew 13:36-43
Parables of Hidden Treasure and Pearl of Great PriceMatthew 13:44-46
Parable of the NetMatthew 13:47-50
Parable of Treasure New and OldMatthew 13:51-52

There is some discussion among scholars whether these parables were shared publicly or only given in private to the disciples. There is some support that since these unique parables follow a private explanation of the Parable of the Weeds without indication of a change of scene or audience, the simplest explanation is that somewhat a change of pattern, Jesus is preaching to the disciples. Many scholars also point to the similarities between these parables with that of the Weeds and the Net, then suggesting they are doublets meant to drive home Jesus’ point.

In any case, our gospel continues the themes of the kingdom parables which began with the start of Chapter 13. The first two parables (Hidden Treasure and the Pearl) continue the development of the theme of whole-hearted response with which the parable of the sower concluded. The third parable (the Net) is closely related to the parable of the weeds, and emphasizes again the division which the preaching of God’s kingdom brings.

The “day of parables” ends with a saying that expresses well the ideal to which the evangelist aspired: “Then every scribe who has been instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like the head of a household who brings from his storeroom both the new and the old.” The disciples need to understand the radically new act of God in Christ in the light of the Old Testament tradition. Such a person understands the relation between the new (Christ) and the old (Jewish tradition).

Image credit: The Pearl of Great Price, by Domenico Fetti, 17th century |Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Bilddatenbank | Public Domain