Last week, I lamented that the meaning of a word changes over time. This week, a good example springs up. Let me give a few examples before taking up the key word today.
The most infamous example is the word "suffer" which nowadays refers to pains, discomfort and sorrows. However, in 9 out of 13 occurrences of "suffer" in KJV, it means "allow/tolerate" and only 4 of them mean "suffer" as we know it nowadays. The word "spell" meant an announcement/news and now a charm / incantation etc. Today, we will look at another S-word: scandal.
Let's begin in Latin!
Qui conversus dixit Petro: Vade post me Satana, scandalum es mihi: quia non sapis ea quæ Dei sunt, sed ea quæ hominum. (Vulgate)
Seeing some keywords such as Petro, Satana, Dei, hominum, I am sure you have guessed it right. Yes, it is Matthew 16:23 in which Jesus scolded Peter, calling him Satan when he tried to dissuade Jesus from suffering martyrdom. The Latin translation is a good approximation of the Greek original, which is
ὁ δὲ στραφεὶς εἶπεν τῷ Πέτρῳ Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου Σατανᾶ σκάνδαλον μου, εἶ ὅτι οὐ φρονεῖς τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (GNT)
How do the English translations go?
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. (KJV)
But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men." (RSV)
and he having turned, said to Peter, 'Get thee behind me, adversary! thou art a stumbling-block to me, for thou dost not mind the things of God, but the things of men.' (YLT)
What about the Chinese translations?
耶穌轉過來，對彼得說：撒但，退我後邊去吧！你是絆我腳的；因為你不體貼神的意思，只體貼人的意思。(和合本Union version)
耶穌轉身對伯多祿說：「撒殫，退到我後面去！你是我的絆腳石，因為你所體會的，不是天主的事，而是人的事。」(思高Catholic Version)
"Scandal" which causes public outrage nowadays was only a hindrance, a stumbling block in the age of the Apostles!
Let's do a little statistics.
σκάνδαλον appears 14 times in LXX and another 14 times in GNT (in various forms). However, scandalum appears 57 (17 in OT and 40 in NT) times in Vulgate. Within a short span of about 250 years, more things (from 14 to 40) were regarded as "scandalous"!
Now, is "stumbling-block" a proper rendering of σκάνδαλον?
Let us see how Matthew make use of the word (RSV).
The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers (13:41).
But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men." (16:23)
Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the man by whom the temptation comes! (18:7)
So Matthew restricts the usage to hindrance.
Paul does not apply σκάνδαλον to Peter. He applies it to Christ instead! E.g. the scandal/stumbling block of the Cross (1 Corinthians 1:23, Galatians 5:11). He also applies it to the Torah which caused some Israelites to reject the gospel (Romans 9:30, 11:9) and warns the believers not to become stumbling blocks to each other (Romans 14:13, 16:17).
Peter also refers to Jesus as the stumbling block of the Israelites (1 Peter 2:8).
John's use is similar to that of Matthew. σκάνδαλον is something upon which people would stumble. (1 John 2:10, Revelation 2:14).
Was Peter Satan?
Remember that Jesus once said that God allows Satan to attack Peter (Luke 22:31). Therefore, when Jesus scolded Peter, it sounds more like an exorcism to me than anything. Jesus chased Satan, not simply any other ordinary evil spirit, away from Peter in order to protect him. Then Jesus explains to Peter, and to us, that we should mind the things of God, not things of men. Satan will make use of our human weaknesses to hinder, to cause troubles to the redemptive project of Jesus. Let us be vigilant.
Dear Lord, exorcise the demons in us so that we will not be a stumbling block to our brethren. Amen.
Sunday 31 August 2014
Sunday 24 August 2014
Peter is the Rock on which Christ builds his Church
In all fairness, we should respect the views of each other. You must have received a lot of training and done your own research before you draw your conclusion. I have done mine too. Indeed, I have no intention to change your mind. You don't have to buy my ideas. We agree to disagree. OK?
Aramaic and Greek are not our languages. So, the bibles we use are translations and quite a lot of information and elegance of the prose is lost through translations. At the moment, the only verse I know which the Latin translation surpasses the Greek original is "Ego sum Via, et Veritas, et Vita" vs. "ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή" (John 14:6) The New Testament was written mostly in Greek, interspersed with Aramaic which Jesus and his disciples spoke. (Don't worry, in the 19th century, some brave scholars, Salkinson and Ginsburg, had already translated the New Testament back into Hebrew.) Therefore, we need to know a bit of Greek when we want to clarify some points of contention. Alas, even the meaning of the same word changes through time!
The verse in debate is Matthew 16:18. Before we proceed, let us keep one important point in mind and two. The Bible is not self-explanatory. It cannot speak for itself. It relies on human beings to interpret it. Using verses from other parts of the Bible to prove, to clarify the messages of another verse can be one of the many methods. Still, the choice itself depends also on the theology, the conviction of the scholars. Moreover, one single verse is not enough to build up a theological point. Articles of faith are historical products. There is a history in every theological idea such as the Trinity, communion of idioms and primacy of Peter etc. With the limitation of space and time, I can only touch on one microscopic linguistic point in the debate.
Let's begin.
There are a lot of wordplays in the Bible. Genesis gives us a lot of etymology examples. Why is this person/place given this name? For example, Jacob.
"And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob" (Genesis 25:26) In Hebrew, heel is 'aqeb and Jacob is Ya'aqob. The wordplay is lost through translation.
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (KJV)
Again, the wordplay is lost in English. Take one step back. Latin.
"Et ego dico tibi: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificabo Ecclesiam meam; et portæ inferi non prævalebunt adversum eam" (Vulgate)
Now, we can see that Jesus was playing on the words "petrus" which is masculine and "petram" feminine. The word petroleum immediately comes to mind. They share the same prefix "petro"
The more meticulous souls will not be satisfied and want to read the Greek original. Perhaps there is something more.
"κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς" (GNT) Again, πέτρος is masculine and πέτρᾳ feminine.
Many Protestants don't agree to the Roman Catholics' using this verse to support the primacy of Peter. For example, the CARM, gotquestion.org and many more. They argue that in Greek, petros is only a stone, a pebble while petra is a solid bedrock. Therefore, Jesus did not mean to build his Church on this unsteady pebble Simon Peter. Look at how he lost his faith when he tried to walk on the water towards Jesus, how he boosted to die with Jesus during the Last Supper and yet denied Jesus three times to save his skin! Very true indeed. But is it a correct interpretation?
First of all, Jesus might not be speaking in Greek to Simon Peter. Nowadays, many scholars believed that Mark wrote the first gospel, not Matthew. However, some other scholars still maintain the priority of Matthew because they believe that there was a lost Aramaic Matthew. The Greek Matthew we have today was translated from Aramaic. The clue comes from another word Cephas. Simon Peter was also known as Cephas in John, 1Corinthians and Galatians. Cephas is Peter in Aramaic. What would Matthew 16:18 be like in Hebrew? Here it is from Salkinson-Ginsburg translation.
I highlighted "my Church" Qehilati in blue. Read them, Kepha', keph, qəhilati. Jesus was playing on the words "Peter", "rock" as well as "my assembly of Israel"! The wordplay was gradually lost through Greek/Latin, English and finally, totally lost in Chinese! So, it is worth the effort to learn some biblical language in order to appreciate the elegance of the text.
Let me put forth my interpretation. Even if Peter had been impulsive and unsteady before the resurrection of Jesus, it would not stop Jesus from transforming this feeble pebble into a robust rock later. In the Last Supper, Jesus had made it clear that Peter would be a prime target of attack by Satan. But Jesus had prayed for him so that later he would strengthen his fellow brethren (Luke 22:31-32). The gospels are silent on special prayer by Jesus for any other apostles. (Of course, that does not prove Jesus had not prayed individually for each and every apostle like Jacob on his deathbed in Genesis 49. Absence of evidence does not prove that the evidence is non-existent.) Therefore, attack on Peter is to be expected. That would not stop him from dying on the cross for the love of Jesus. (If you want to stick to sola scriptura, you can find the way Peter died hinted at in John 21:18.) When the Son of God decided to incarnate, he chose to become a human being, a weakling in comparison to the impeccable cherubim. In building his Kingdom of God on the feeble human nature, he demonstrates his compassion and power. This is his MO --- to raze the haughty but raise the lowly.
Dear Lord, I praise you for your unfathomable wisdom. May glory and honour be yours, forever and ever. Amen.
Aramaic and Greek are not our languages. So, the bibles we use are translations and quite a lot of information and elegance of the prose is lost through translations. At the moment, the only verse I know which the Latin translation surpasses the Greek original is "Ego sum Via, et Veritas, et Vita" vs. "ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή" (John 14:6) The New Testament was written mostly in Greek, interspersed with Aramaic which Jesus and his disciples spoke. (Don't worry, in the 19th century, some brave scholars, Salkinson and Ginsburg, had already translated the New Testament back into Hebrew.) Therefore, we need to know a bit of Greek when we want to clarify some points of contention. Alas, even the meaning of the same word changes through time!
The verse in debate is Matthew 16:18. Before we proceed, let us keep one important point in mind and two. The Bible is not self-explanatory. It cannot speak for itself. It relies on human beings to interpret it. Using verses from other parts of the Bible to prove, to clarify the messages of another verse can be one of the many methods. Still, the choice itself depends also on the theology, the conviction of the scholars. Moreover, one single verse is not enough to build up a theological point. Articles of faith are historical products. There is a history in every theological idea such as the Trinity, communion of idioms and primacy of Peter etc. With the limitation of space and time, I can only touch on one microscopic linguistic point in the debate.
Let's begin.
There are a lot of wordplays in the Bible. Genesis gives us a lot of etymology examples. Why is this person/place given this name? For example, Jacob.
"And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob" (Genesis 25:26) In Hebrew, heel is 'aqeb and Jacob is Ya'aqob. The wordplay is lost through translation.
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (KJV)
Again, the wordplay is lost in English. Take one step back. Latin.
"Et ego dico tibi: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificabo Ecclesiam meam; et portæ inferi non prævalebunt adversum eam" (Vulgate)
Now, we can see that Jesus was playing on the words "petrus" which is masculine and "petram" feminine. The word petroleum immediately comes to mind. They share the same prefix "petro"
The more meticulous souls will not be satisfied and want to read the Greek original. Perhaps there is something more.
"κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς" (GNT) Again, πέτρος is masculine and πέτρᾳ feminine.
Many Protestants don't agree to the Roman Catholics' using this verse to support the primacy of Peter. For example, the CARM, gotquestion.org and many more. They argue that in Greek, petros is only a stone, a pebble while petra is a solid bedrock. Therefore, Jesus did not mean to build his Church on this unsteady pebble Simon Peter. Look at how he lost his faith when he tried to walk on the water towards Jesus, how he boosted to die with Jesus during the Last Supper and yet denied Jesus three times to save his skin! Very true indeed. But is it a correct interpretation?
First of all, Jesus might not be speaking in Greek to Simon Peter. Nowadays, many scholars believed that Mark wrote the first gospel, not Matthew. However, some other scholars still maintain the priority of Matthew because they believe that there was a lost Aramaic Matthew. The Greek Matthew we have today was translated from Aramaic. The clue comes from another word Cephas. Simon Peter was also known as Cephas in John, 1Corinthians and Galatians. Cephas is Peter in Aramaic. What would Matthew 16:18 be like in Hebrew? Here it is from Salkinson-Ginsburg translation.
וְגַם־אַנִי אַגִּיד לְךָ כִּי אַתָּה הוּא כֵּיפָא וְעַל־הַכֵּף הַזֶּה אֶבְנֶה אֶת־קְהִלָּתִי וְשַׁעֲרֵי שְׁאוֹל לֹא יִגְבְּרוּ עָלֶיהָ׃
The word keph has a Strong number 3710. It appears in Job 30:6 and Jeremiah 4:29 only. In these two verses, keph is a rock, not a pebble. It also refers to a hollow of a rock to hide from enemies. Draw whatever conclusion you want from the Aramaic Matthew.I highlighted "my Church" Qehilati in blue. Read them, Kepha', keph, qəhilati. Jesus was playing on the words "Peter", "rock" as well as "my assembly of Israel"! The wordplay was gradually lost through Greek/Latin, English and finally, totally lost in Chinese! So, it is worth the effort to learn some biblical language in order to appreciate the elegance of the text.
Let me put forth my interpretation. Even if Peter had been impulsive and unsteady before the resurrection of Jesus, it would not stop Jesus from transforming this feeble pebble into a robust rock later. In the Last Supper, Jesus had made it clear that Peter would be a prime target of attack by Satan. But Jesus had prayed for him so that later he would strengthen his fellow brethren (Luke 22:31-32). The gospels are silent on special prayer by Jesus for any other apostles. (Of course, that does not prove Jesus had not prayed individually for each and every apostle like Jacob on his deathbed in Genesis 49. Absence of evidence does not prove that the evidence is non-existent.) Therefore, attack on Peter is to be expected. That would not stop him from dying on the cross for the love of Jesus. (If you want to stick to sola scriptura, you can find the way Peter died hinted at in John 21:18.) When the Son of God decided to incarnate, he chose to become a human being, a weakling in comparison to the impeccable cherubim. In building his Kingdom of God on the feeble human nature, he demonstrates his compassion and power. This is his MO --- to raze the haughty but raise the lowly.
Dear Lord, I praise you for your unfathomable wisdom. May glory and honour be yours, forever and ever. Amen.
Sunday 17 August 2014
The Jewishness of Jesus
In modern times, it is sometimes rather embarrassing to defend some actions of Jesus. They offend the sensibility of modern men. The rudeness of Jesus towards a Gentile woman in the district of Tyre and Sidon was one such case. (Matthew 15:21-28, Mark 7:24-30) Jesus was born a Jew. Though he is the Son of God and should be able to transcend the limitations of his humanity, his Jewishness was a reality of his human life, like his growth from a baby to an adult. To a certain extent, Jesus had to outgrow his Jewishness. How his divinity and humanity interact within the Person of the Son of God is a Christology topic. It is a hotbed of heresies and have to be handled carefully. Let me deal with an easier problem first and I will return to this issue later.
In the second reading today, we met another hard nut to crack. No translation of Romans 11:32 is satisfactory. Let me give just a few after the Greek original.
συνέκλεισεν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τοὺς πάντας εἰς ἀπείθειαν ἵνα τοὺς πάντας ἐλεήσῃ (GNT)
Conclusit enim Deus omnes in incredulitatem, ut omnium misereatur! (Vulgate)
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. (KJV)
For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all. (RSV)
因為天主把眾人都禁錮在背叛之中，是為要憐憫眾人。【思高】
因為 神將眾人都圈在不順服之中、特意要憐恤眾人 。【和合本】
The word συνέκλεισεν appears only 4 times in the New Testament and have been translated as "enclosed" (Luke 5:6), "concluded" (Romans 11:32, Galatians 3:22) and "shut up" (Galatians 3:33). Basically, it seems to suggest some kind of imprisonment. God imprisons all in some bad things so that he may have mercy on all! This is a very Jewish expression, reminds one of what God did to Pharaoh in Exodus. God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he refused to let the Israelites go so that God might punish the Egyptians by killing all their firstborns. Of course, this made sense from the perspective of the Israelites. In a pluralistic world we live nowadays, God's action is outrageous. Were the Egyptians not God's creation? Therefore, we should read this kind of Jewish expressions with suspicion. These expressions cannot be read literally.
When we try to read further back in time and search the LXX, the word συνέκλεισεν appears only once in Psalms.
καὶ οὐ συνέκλεισάς με εἰς χεῖρας ἐχϑροῦ, ἔστησας ἐν εὐρυχώρῳ τοὺς πόδας μου. (30:9 LXX)
And hast not shut me up into the hand of the enemy: thou hast set my feet in a large room.(31:8 KJV)
and hast not delivered me into the hand of the enemy; thou hast set my feet in a broad place (RSV)
Therefore, the word συνέκλεισεν is best understood as "allowed to be under the control of". God is autonomous. We are created in the image of God. Therefore, we are autonomous beings and God respects our autonomy. God did not harden Pharaoh's heart. He allowed Pharaoh to harden his heart. God does not imprison us in obedience. He allows us to disobey and go against his will. Later, he shall still forgive us and show us his mercy. This is not my ideas. It comes from John of Damascus (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Bk IV, Ch. 19)
Now, let me return to the interaction between Jesus and the Canaanite woman. Of course, her faith was great and commendable. She was an exemplar of faith for all Christians to follow. Her perseverance was admirable. However, I think Matthew had reworked and elaborated Mark's account to suit his Jewish community. Matthew's story is more elaborate in that at the beginning, the woman begged Jesus from the back and later moved to the front. In Mark, the woman simply begged Jesus without a clear indication of her location. When we make further comparison, we will find more curious things. It seems that Matthew's community was trying to deal with something inevitable: the admission of Gentiles into their community.
1) It was highly unlikely for the Canaanite woman to call Jesus, "Son of David". This was a highly charged Messianic title. If the Canaanite woman represented Gentiles who wanted to enter the Jewish Christian community, it seems that they had to accept Jesus as their Messiah as well.
2) In Mark's account, the story is completely between Jesus and the woman. In Matthew, the disciples (church leaders) came to the woman's aid (Matthew 15:23). It suggests that Matthew's community was trying to handle the issue of admitting Gentile believers.
3) Matthew states the mission of Jesus while Mark does not (15:24). This was the initial understanding of Jewish Christians in relation to Gentiles. God elected the Israelites first. They had the priority. All of Jesus' first disciples were Jews. In short, Jesus was very Jewish.
4) Agreeing with Paul, Matthew's Jesus praised the great faith of the woman while Mark's Jesus did not commend her faith. The Jews took it for granted that they were God's Chosen People. If you were born a Jew and kept all the commandments of covenant, you would be saved. Faith in Jesus in order to be saved was something new to most Jewish Christians. Paul was revolutionary in that he broke through the confines of rules and commandments and argued that faith is more essential than obedience for salvation. In Mark's community, they had no Torah and covenant. They had faith instead. Therefore, faith was taken for granted and was not mentioned.
In my previous blog, I argued that the Gentile woman was actually teasing Jesus instead of showing her humility. This peculiar reading of the story is clearer in Mark's version. The woman teased Jesus that his effort among the Jews had been futile. He had antagonized the Pharisees and fled from further confrontations. Jesus had to seek shelter in a Gentile land. In Matthew, the whole teasing undertone was drowned out by the loud voice of great faith. Remember, in Nazareth, Jesus had lamented that prophets were not welcomed in their home town. The reality of life can be harsh.
Dear Lord, help us outgrow our limitations. Amen.
In the second reading today, we met another hard nut to crack. No translation of Romans 11:32 is satisfactory. Let me give just a few after the Greek original.
συνέκλεισεν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τοὺς πάντας εἰς ἀπείθειαν ἵνα τοὺς πάντας ἐλεήσῃ (GNT)
Conclusit enim Deus omnes in incredulitatem, ut omnium misereatur! (Vulgate)
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. (KJV)
For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all. (RSV)
因為天主把眾人都禁錮在背叛之中，是為要憐憫眾人。【思高】
因為 神將眾人都圈在不順服之中、特意要憐恤眾人 。【和合本】
The word συνέκλεισεν appears only 4 times in the New Testament and have been translated as "enclosed" (Luke 5:6), "concluded" (Romans 11:32, Galatians 3:22) and "shut up" (Galatians 3:33). Basically, it seems to suggest some kind of imprisonment. God imprisons all in some bad things so that he may have mercy on all! This is a very Jewish expression, reminds one of what God did to Pharaoh in Exodus. God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he refused to let the Israelites go so that God might punish the Egyptians by killing all their firstborns. Of course, this made sense from the perspective of the Israelites. In a pluralistic world we live nowadays, God's action is outrageous. Were the Egyptians not God's creation? Therefore, we should read this kind of Jewish expressions with suspicion. These expressions cannot be read literally.
When we try to read further back in time and search the LXX, the word συνέκλεισεν appears only once in Psalms.
καὶ οὐ συνέκλεισάς με εἰς χεῖρας ἐχϑροῦ, ἔστησας ἐν εὐρυχώρῳ τοὺς πόδας μου. (30:9 LXX)
And hast not shut me up into the hand of the enemy: thou hast set my feet in a large room.(31:8 KJV)
and hast not delivered me into the hand of the enemy; thou hast set my feet in a broad place (RSV)
Therefore, the word συνέκλεισεν is best understood as "allowed to be under the control of". God is autonomous. We are created in the image of God. Therefore, we are autonomous beings and God respects our autonomy. God did not harden Pharaoh's heart. He allowed Pharaoh to harden his heart. God does not imprison us in obedience. He allows us to disobey and go against his will. Later, he shall still forgive us and show us his mercy. This is not my ideas. It comes from John of Damascus (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Bk IV, Ch. 19)
Now, let me return to the interaction between Jesus and the Canaanite woman. Of course, her faith was great and commendable. She was an exemplar of faith for all Christians to follow. Her perseverance was admirable. However, I think Matthew had reworked and elaborated Mark's account to suit his Jewish community. Matthew's story is more elaborate in that at the beginning, the woman begged Jesus from the back and later moved to the front. In Mark, the woman simply begged Jesus without a clear indication of her location. When we make further comparison, we will find more curious things. It seems that Matthew's community was trying to deal with something inevitable: the admission of Gentiles into their community.
1) It was highly unlikely for the Canaanite woman to call Jesus, "Son of David". This was a highly charged Messianic title. If the Canaanite woman represented Gentiles who wanted to enter the Jewish Christian community, it seems that they had to accept Jesus as their Messiah as well.
2) In Mark's account, the story is completely between Jesus and the woman. In Matthew, the disciples (church leaders) came to the woman's aid (Matthew 15:23). It suggests that Matthew's community was trying to handle the issue of admitting Gentile believers.
3) Matthew states the mission of Jesus while Mark does not (15:24). This was the initial understanding of Jewish Christians in relation to Gentiles. God elected the Israelites first. They had the priority. All of Jesus' first disciples were Jews. In short, Jesus was very Jewish.
4) Agreeing with Paul, Matthew's Jesus praised the great faith of the woman while Mark's Jesus did not commend her faith. The Jews took it for granted that they were God's Chosen People. If you were born a Jew and kept all the commandments of covenant, you would be saved. Faith in Jesus in order to be saved was something new to most Jewish Christians. Paul was revolutionary in that he broke through the confines of rules and commandments and argued that faith is more essential than obedience for salvation. In Mark's community, they had no Torah and covenant. They had faith instead. Therefore, faith was taken for granted and was not mentioned.
In my previous blog, I argued that the Gentile woman was actually teasing Jesus instead of showing her humility. This peculiar reading of the story is clearer in Mark's version. The woman teased Jesus that his effort among the Jews had been futile. He had antagonized the Pharisees and fled from further confrontations. Jesus had to seek shelter in a Gentile land. In Matthew, the whole teasing undertone was drowned out by the loud voice of great faith. Remember, in Nazareth, Jesus had lamented that prophets were not welcomed in their home town. The reality of life can be harsh.
Dear Lord, help us outgrow our limitations. Amen.
Sunday 10 August 2014
神蹟的象徵意義 Symbolic Meanings of Miracles
常年期第十九主日（甲年）
主題：神蹟的象徵意義
聖堂附近的輕鐵站以杯渡命名。據【高僧傳】所載，杯渡禪師是南北朝時期的一個不知名，行為怪異如濟顛和尚的一個神僧。稱得為神僧是因為他行過不少神蹟，最為人津津樂道的就是他經常踏在一隻木杯上，就可以渡過江河，飄洋過海了，故人稱「杯渡禪師」。據說他最後的落腳點就是今天的「青山禪院」。
除了杯渡禪師的故事之外，相信大家都聽過不少武俠小說中的所謂「登萍渡水」的絕頂輕功。雖然明知是小說，但是我們都很樂意接受這些幻想所帶來的樂趣。因此，在這種文化背景之下，對於今天福音所記載有關耶穌步水面的故事，我們就不會感到神奇，反而覺得不外如是。
的確，福音中耶穌所行的神蹟，例如變水為酒、治病驅魔、平息風浪，又或者是上星期的五餅二魚增餅神蹟，與中國文化之中的封神榜、西遊記或者其他的神仙故事比較，的確是小巫見大巫。其實，整部聖經所記載的神蹟，與世界各地的神話故事比較，一樣不及它們驚天動地。所以，今天想同大家分享有關「神蹟」的問題。
為甚麽耶穌行的神蹟並不驚天動地，鬼哭神號呢？這是因為文化上的差異。
第一，耶穌生為猶太人，故所行的神蹟就帶有以色列人的文化色彩。舊約中的先知，例如厄里亞、厄里叟，都被稱為「天主的人」。耶穌所行的治好痲瘋病人、復活死人和上星期讀到的增餅事蹟，都是厄里亞和厄里叟曾經行過的神蹟。故此，這些神蹟告訴當代的猶太人知道，耶穌是來自天主的人。
第二，【創世紀】告訴我們，創造天地萬物的天主使混沌變成有秩序。所以，耶穌平息風浪和今次步行水面的神蹟，是表示出耶穌是天主的身份。其他例如顯聖容，驅魔等都表示耶穌是天主。
最後，你們以為在那裡可以找到天主呢？在無堅不摧的龍捲風之中？在山崩地裂的地震中？在好像地獄一樣的一片火海之中？完全不是。根據今天第一篇讀經，【列王紀上】19章的記載，天主在高山上，在微風細語之中，在厄里亞先知面前經過。天主對祂所創造的宇宙，十分滿意，認為很好。如果天主的動作太大，恐怕會造成破壞。所以，如果你想看到驚天動地，鬼哭神號的神蹟，對不起令你失望，我們的天主是不會使用「過份的暴力」去行神蹟的。
其實我們應該關心的不是神蹟的轟動程度，而是神蹟對我們的得救更深層的意義。例如，在【出谷紀】天主行神蹟分開紅海，使以色列人獲得徹底的自由，今天過紅海的神蹟為我們的得救又有甚麽意義呢？一如經過了紅海的水，以色列人擺脫埃及人的奴役，進入福地。同樣，經過洗禮的水，基督徒擺脫了罪惡的奴役，加入教會，邁向永生的天國。所以過紅海是洗禮的象徵，亦表達出洗禮的必要性。又例如上星期的五餅二魚神蹟，就告訴我們天主對我們的慈愛，祂有決心、有能力照顧我們肉身和靈魂的飢渴；祂要以聖體聖事，滋養我們靈性及肉身的生命。
今天福音所載的步行水面事蹟，除了是一個神蹟之外，又有甚麽深層的意義呢?
首先，從挪亞方舟開始，「船」便象徵了教會。在上次平息風浪的神蹟中，耶穌由始至終都留在船上。有耶穌在，教會無論遇到怎樣大的風浪，仍是安全的。今次，耶穌不在船上，而是步行水面到船上，時間是四更時份。又是甚麽意義呢？
第四世紀教會的一位聖師聖希拉利認為第四更是黑夜的結束，是指末日。他解釋第一更象徵了梅瑟的法律時代，第二更象徵先知時代，第三更是耶穌在世傳福音的時代，第四更就是耶穌升天後開展的教會時代，直到末日。教父聖奧思定與另一位教會聖師金口若望亦同意這個觀點。耶穌雖然已升天到天父的右邊，留在天上，但他仍在聖言及聖體內時常與我們同在。不過他始終要放手，在驚濤駭浪之中，訓練考驗我們。到末日，他會再來，到時一切將會風平浪靜。
聖伯多祿的行為表現出他一貫愛主的熱誠。今次伯多祿跳入水中走向耶穌，日後他在最後晚餐誇下海口，不怕與耶穌一起受難一樣；耶穌被捕後，伯多祿勇敢地跟到大司祭府。今次伯多祿在大浪中下沉；日後他在大司祭府的後院被圍攻時，軟弱地三次否認耶穌來脫身一樣。今次伯多祿在千鈞一髮之際，向耶穌喊出「主！救我。」；在大司祭府的伯多祿就沒有這個機會了，因為眼前所見的耶穌，自身難保。所以，耶穌所指伯多祿的「小信德」，不單是今次步行水面所發生的事，更加是日後在大司祭府將會發生的事。在大司祭府，耶穌雖然沒有伸出手拉著伯多祿救他，其實，耶穌救了伯多祿。兩個出賣耶穌的門徒，一個猶達斯，一個伯多祿。猶達斯沒有向耶穌呼救，他自殺死了。但伯多祿最後沒有死，究竟當時他如何向耶穌呼救，又或者耶穌怎樣救了他呢？答案在路22:16.
近來發生了那麽多的疫症、戰亂、天災與人禍，我們除了為受到傷害的群眾祈禱之外，這些事件正好提醒我們，不要心硬，要有勇氣承認自己的不足，接受天主的國度，祈求天主的拯救。天主保佑。
19th Ordinary Sunday (Year A)
Theme: Symbolic Meanings of Miracles
The LRT station next to our Church is called “Pui To (cup ferry)”. According to “Biography of High Monks”, Pui To was an anonymous, eccentric monk in the 6th Century. He worked miracles and one of his most remembered fits was to cross rivers and lakes on a wooden cup. That is why he was remembered as Pui To, i.e. ferrying on a cup. His last known address was the Castle Peak Monastery in our neighbourhood.
Besides the story of Monk Pui To, I am sure you must have heard of the levitation skill “treading water on duckweed” in martial art novels. Though we know these are fantasies, we enjoy the fun they deliver. Therefore, with this cultural background, we might find Jesus’ walking on the water not impressive enough.
Truly, the miracles of Jesus in the gospels, such as turning water into wine, healings, exorcisms, calming the storm or even the multiplication of loaves we read last Sunday would be dwarfed by the spectacular scenes in Chinese classic novels such as “Creation of the gods”, “Journey to the West” or other fairy tales and legends. Indeed, compared with myths and legends in other parts of the world, the miracles recorded in the Bible are less powerful in shaking the foundation of the world. Therefore, I would like to share with you the topic of “miracles”.
Why were Jesus’ miracles not ground shaking and spirits wailing? It is because of cultural differences.
Firstly, Jesus was born a Jew. Therefore, his miracles bear Israelite cultural hues. Prophets of the Old Testament such as Elijah and Elisha were called “man of God”. Jesus’ miracles, such as healing lepers, raising the dead and the multiplication of loaves, had been miracles worked by Elijah and Elisha before. Therefore, Jesus’ miracles told his contemporaries that he was a “man of God”.
Secondly, Genesis tells us that during Creation, God brought about order out of chaos. Therefore, when Jesus calmed the storm and this time walked on the water, these miracles show the divinity of Jesus. Jesus is our God. Other miracles such as Transfiguration and exorcisms also convey the same message.
Lastly, where do you expect to find God? In the unstoppable, destructive whirlwinds? In mountain renting earthquakes? Or in a hellish sea of fire? Negative. According to 1Kings 19 we read today, God was in a still small voice (1Kings 19:12). God was happy with His Creation. He saw that it was good. If God’s action is too forceful, it might bring destruction to his good Creation. Therefore, if you want to see earth shaking, spirits wailing miracles, sorry to disappoint you. Our God shall not use “excessive violence” to work miracles.
Indeed, we should not pay attention to how impressive miracles are but rather to their deeper meanings for our salvation. For example, in Exodus, God split the Red Sea to assure the Israelites of irrevocable freedom. Today, what is the relevance of this miracle for our salvation? Just as the Israelites were able to shake off Egyptian slavery and entered the Promised Land after passing through the Red Sea, similarly, Christians today are able to shake off the bondage of sins and join the Church and proceed to the eternal Kingdom of God through baptism. Again, the 5 loaves and 2 fish miracle we read of last week, tells us of God’s compassion for us. He is determined and capable of taking care of the hunger and thirst of our physical as well as spiritual needs. He will make use of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist to nourish our bodily and spiritual lives.
So, besides being a miracle, what are the deeper meanings of the story we read today?
First of all, since Noah’s Ark, a ship/boat is a symbol of the Church. Last time in the calming of the storm, Jesus stayed in the boat all the time. As long as Jesus is with the Church, she is able to weather through all tribulations no matter how hazardous they are. She is safe. This time, Jesus was not on the boat, but walking towards the boat at the fourth watch. What did it mean?
St. Hilary of Poitiers (300-368) taught that the 4th watch is the end of night, the last day. He explained that the 1st watch is the age of Torah, the 2nd watch the Prophets, the 3rd the earthly ministry of the Lord and the 4th is the age of the Church inaugurated by the ascension of Jesus until the end of the world. St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom agreed. Though Jesus has ascended to the right hand of the Father, staying in heaven, he is still present in the Word and the Holy Eucharist to stay with us. After all, for our sake, he needs to let go of us, throw us into turmoil to train and test us. On the last day, he shall come and all shall be peaceful.
The action of St. Peter shows his typical intense love of the Lord. This time, Peter jumped into the sea to walk towards Jesus. Later, he boasted in the Last Supper to die with Jesus. After Jesus was arrested, Peter was rash enough to follow Jesus into the house of the High Priest. This time, Peter sank in view of the strong winds and waves. Later, when Peter was surrounded and interrogated in the courtyard of the High Priest, he cowardly denied Jesus three times. This time, at the most critical moment, Peter cried out “Lord, save me.” In the house of the High Priest, Peter did not have such a chance. The Jesus he saw could not even save himself! So, when Jesus said that Peter had little faith, not only did Jesus mean this sinking in waves, but also what would happen later in the courtyard of the house of the High Priest where, though Jesus did not reach out his hand to catch Peter, he had indeed saved Peter. Between the two disciples who had betrayed Jesus, Judas and Peter, Judas did not seek help but committed suicide. Peter survived. How and when did he cry to Jesus, or how did Jesus save him? The answer can be found in Luke 22:61.
Recently, there are plagues, wars, natural and human disaster etc. Besides praying for the victims, we should stay alert because of these incidents. Don’t harden our hearts. Have the courage to admit our inadequacy. Accept the Kingdom of God. Pray for God’s salvation. God bless.
主題：神蹟的象徵意義
聖堂附近的輕鐵站以杯渡命名。據【高僧傳】所載，杯渡禪師是南北朝時期的一個不知名，行為怪異如濟顛和尚的一個神僧。稱得為神僧是因為他行過不少神蹟，最為人津津樂道的就是他經常踏在一隻木杯上，就可以渡過江河，飄洋過海了，故人稱「杯渡禪師」。據說他最後的落腳點就是今天的「青山禪院」。
除了杯渡禪師的故事之外，相信大家都聽過不少武俠小說中的所謂「登萍渡水」的絕頂輕功。雖然明知是小說，但是我們都很樂意接受這些幻想所帶來的樂趣。因此，在這種文化背景之下，對於今天福音所記載有關耶穌步水面的故事，我們就不會感到神奇，反而覺得不外如是。
的確，福音中耶穌所行的神蹟，例如變水為酒、治病驅魔、平息風浪，又或者是上星期的五餅二魚增餅神蹟，與中國文化之中的封神榜、西遊記或者其他的神仙故事比較，的確是小巫見大巫。其實，整部聖經所記載的神蹟，與世界各地的神話故事比較，一樣不及它們驚天動地。所以，今天想同大家分享有關「神蹟」的問題。
為甚麽耶穌行的神蹟並不驚天動地，鬼哭神號呢？這是因為文化上的差異。
第一，耶穌生為猶太人，故所行的神蹟就帶有以色列人的文化色彩。舊約中的先知，例如厄里亞、厄里叟，都被稱為「天主的人」。耶穌所行的治好痲瘋病人、復活死人和上星期讀到的增餅事蹟，都是厄里亞和厄里叟曾經行過的神蹟。故此，這些神蹟告訴當代的猶太人知道，耶穌是來自天主的人。
第二，【創世紀】告訴我們，創造天地萬物的天主使混沌變成有秩序。所以，耶穌平息風浪和今次步行水面的神蹟，是表示出耶穌是天主的身份。其他例如顯聖容，驅魔等都表示耶穌是天主。
最後，你們以為在那裡可以找到天主呢？在無堅不摧的龍捲風之中？在山崩地裂的地震中？在好像地獄一樣的一片火海之中？完全不是。根據今天第一篇讀經，【列王紀上】19章的記載，天主在高山上，在微風細語之中，在厄里亞先知面前經過。天主對祂所創造的宇宙，十分滿意，認為很好。如果天主的動作太大，恐怕會造成破壞。所以，如果你想看到驚天動地，鬼哭神號的神蹟，對不起令你失望，我們的天主是不會使用「過份的暴力」去行神蹟的。
其實我們應該關心的不是神蹟的轟動程度，而是神蹟對我們的得救更深層的意義。例如，在【出谷紀】天主行神蹟分開紅海，使以色列人獲得徹底的自由，今天過紅海的神蹟為我們的得救又有甚麽意義呢？一如經過了紅海的水，以色列人擺脫埃及人的奴役，進入福地。同樣，經過洗禮的水，基督徒擺脫了罪惡的奴役，加入教會，邁向永生的天國。所以過紅海是洗禮的象徵，亦表達出洗禮的必要性。又例如上星期的五餅二魚神蹟，就告訴我們天主對我們的慈愛，祂有決心、有能力照顧我們肉身和靈魂的飢渴；祂要以聖體聖事，滋養我們靈性及肉身的生命。
今天福音所載的步行水面事蹟，除了是一個神蹟之外，又有甚麽深層的意義呢?
首先，從挪亞方舟開始，「船」便象徵了教會。在上次平息風浪的神蹟中，耶穌由始至終都留在船上。有耶穌在，教會無論遇到怎樣大的風浪，仍是安全的。今次，耶穌不在船上，而是步行水面到船上，時間是四更時份。又是甚麽意義呢？
第四世紀教會的一位聖師聖希拉利認為第四更是黑夜的結束，是指末日。他解釋第一更象徵了梅瑟的法律時代，第二更象徵先知時代，第三更是耶穌在世傳福音的時代，第四更就是耶穌升天後開展的教會時代，直到末日。教父聖奧思定與另一位教會聖師金口若望亦同意這個觀點。耶穌雖然已升天到天父的右邊，留在天上，但他仍在聖言及聖體內時常與我們同在。不過他始終要放手，在驚濤駭浪之中，訓練考驗我們。到末日，他會再來，到時一切將會風平浪靜。
聖伯多祿的行為表現出他一貫愛主的熱誠。今次伯多祿跳入水中走向耶穌，日後他在最後晚餐誇下海口，不怕與耶穌一起受難一樣；耶穌被捕後，伯多祿勇敢地跟到大司祭府。今次伯多祿在大浪中下沉；日後他在大司祭府的後院被圍攻時，軟弱地三次否認耶穌來脫身一樣。今次伯多祿在千鈞一髮之際，向耶穌喊出「主！救我。」；在大司祭府的伯多祿就沒有這個機會了，因為眼前所見的耶穌，自身難保。所以，耶穌所指伯多祿的「小信德」，不單是今次步行水面所發生的事，更加是日後在大司祭府將會發生的事。在大司祭府，耶穌雖然沒有伸出手拉著伯多祿救他，其實，耶穌救了伯多祿。兩個出賣耶穌的門徒，一個猶達斯，一個伯多祿。猶達斯沒有向耶穌呼救，他自殺死了。但伯多祿最後沒有死，究竟當時他如何向耶穌呼救，又或者耶穌怎樣救了他呢？答案在路22:16.
近來發生了那麽多的疫症、戰亂、天災與人禍，我們除了為受到傷害的群眾祈禱之外，這些事件正好提醒我們，不要心硬，要有勇氣承認自己的不足，接受天主的國度，祈求天主的拯救。天主保佑。
19th Ordinary Sunday (Year A)
Theme: Symbolic Meanings of Miracles
The LRT station next to our Church is called “Pui To (cup ferry)”. According to “Biography of High Monks”, Pui To was an anonymous, eccentric monk in the 6th Century. He worked miracles and one of his most remembered fits was to cross rivers and lakes on a wooden cup. That is why he was remembered as Pui To, i.e. ferrying on a cup. His last known address was the Castle Peak Monastery in our neighbourhood.
Besides the story of Monk Pui To, I am sure you must have heard of the levitation skill “treading water on duckweed” in martial art novels. Though we know these are fantasies, we enjoy the fun they deliver. Therefore, with this cultural background, we might find Jesus’ walking on the water not impressive enough.
Truly, the miracles of Jesus in the gospels, such as turning water into wine, healings, exorcisms, calming the storm or even the multiplication of loaves we read last Sunday would be dwarfed by the spectacular scenes in Chinese classic novels such as “Creation of the gods”, “Journey to the West” or other fairy tales and legends. Indeed, compared with myths and legends in other parts of the world, the miracles recorded in the Bible are less powerful in shaking the foundation of the world. Therefore, I would like to share with you the topic of “miracles”.
Why were Jesus’ miracles not ground shaking and spirits wailing? It is because of cultural differences.
Firstly, Jesus was born a Jew. Therefore, his miracles bear Israelite cultural hues. Prophets of the Old Testament such as Elijah and Elisha were called “man of God”. Jesus’ miracles, such as healing lepers, raising the dead and the multiplication of loaves, had been miracles worked by Elijah and Elisha before. Therefore, Jesus’ miracles told his contemporaries that he was a “man of God”.
Secondly, Genesis tells us that during Creation, God brought about order out of chaos. Therefore, when Jesus calmed the storm and this time walked on the water, these miracles show the divinity of Jesus. Jesus is our God. Other miracles such as Transfiguration and exorcisms also convey the same message.
Lastly, where do you expect to find God? In the unstoppable, destructive whirlwinds? In mountain renting earthquakes? Or in a hellish sea of fire? Negative. According to 1Kings 19 we read today, God was in a still small voice (1Kings 19:12). God was happy with His Creation. He saw that it was good. If God’s action is too forceful, it might bring destruction to his good Creation. Therefore, if you want to see earth shaking, spirits wailing miracles, sorry to disappoint you. Our God shall not use “excessive violence” to work miracles.
Indeed, we should not pay attention to how impressive miracles are but rather to their deeper meanings for our salvation. For example, in Exodus, God split the Red Sea to assure the Israelites of irrevocable freedom. Today, what is the relevance of this miracle for our salvation? Just as the Israelites were able to shake off Egyptian slavery and entered the Promised Land after passing through the Red Sea, similarly, Christians today are able to shake off the bondage of sins and join the Church and proceed to the eternal Kingdom of God through baptism. Again, the 5 loaves and 2 fish miracle we read of last week, tells us of God’s compassion for us. He is determined and capable of taking care of the hunger and thirst of our physical as well as spiritual needs. He will make use of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist to nourish our bodily and spiritual lives.
So, besides being a miracle, what are the deeper meanings of the story we read today?
First of all, since Noah’s Ark, a ship/boat is a symbol of the Church. Last time in the calming of the storm, Jesus stayed in the boat all the time. As long as Jesus is with the Church, she is able to weather through all tribulations no matter how hazardous they are. She is safe. This time, Jesus was not on the boat, but walking towards the boat at the fourth watch. What did it mean?
St. Hilary of Poitiers (300-368) taught that the 4th watch is the end of night, the last day. He explained that the 1st watch is the age of Torah, the 2nd watch the Prophets, the 3rd the earthly ministry of the Lord and the 4th is the age of the Church inaugurated by the ascension of Jesus until the end of the world. St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom agreed. Though Jesus has ascended to the right hand of the Father, staying in heaven, he is still present in the Word and the Holy Eucharist to stay with us. After all, for our sake, he needs to let go of us, throw us into turmoil to train and test us. On the last day, he shall come and all shall be peaceful.
The action of St. Peter shows his typical intense love of the Lord. This time, Peter jumped into the sea to walk towards Jesus. Later, he boasted in the Last Supper to die with Jesus. After Jesus was arrested, Peter was rash enough to follow Jesus into the house of the High Priest. This time, Peter sank in view of the strong winds and waves. Later, when Peter was surrounded and interrogated in the courtyard of the High Priest, he cowardly denied Jesus three times. This time, at the most critical moment, Peter cried out “Lord, save me.” In the house of the High Priest, Peter did not have such a chance. The Jesus he saw could not even save himself! So, when Jesus said that Peter had little faith, not only did Jesus mean this sinking in waves, but also what would happen later in the courtyard of the house of the High Priest where, though Jesus did not reach out his hand to catch Peter, he had indeed saved Peter. Between the two disciples who had betrayed Jesus, Judas and Peter, Judas did not seek help but committed suicide. Peter survived. How and when did he cry to Jesus, or how did Jesus save him? The answer can be found in Luke 22:61.
Recently, there are plagues, wars, natural and human disaster etc. Besides praying for the victims, we should stay alert because of these incidents. Don’t harden our hearts. Have the courage to admit our inadequacy. Accept the Kingdom of God. Pray for God’s salvation. God bless.
Sunday 3 August 2014
Where did the baskets come from?
The miracle of 5 loaves and 2 fish is the only other event, besides passion and resurrection, recorded by all four canonical gospels, not even the institution of the Holy Eucharist which is not found in John. The major outline of the miracle is identical. After the death of John the Baptist, Jesus retired to the wilderness where he found thousands of people waiting for him. He taught them and healed them of diseases. When it was late, he did not send the crowd away. He told the disciples to feed them. But the disciples could only find 5 loaves and 2 fish. First of all, Jesus told the disciples to seat the crowd in groups of 50 and 100. Making use of the little amount of food the disciples found, Jesus blessed both the bread and the fish, broke them and fed the thousands of people. In the end, they collected 12 baskets of leftovers.
However, the gospels differ in minor details and these differences can be very meaningful. In this case, the differences show the different degree of closeness of the disciples with Jesus. But before I proceed to analyze, I want to make myself clear. In previous blogs, I have explained why I don't buy the idea that the crowd actually had brought along their food. The generosity of the little boy so moved the crowd that they were willing to share what they had brought. Therefore, the feeding of 5000 was not a miracle. This idea is a bad idea. Simply put, the evangelists intended to tell us a miracle. It is up to the readers to decide whether they would accept it as a miracle. I believe it is a miracle because I believe that Jesus is God. Period.
I am not going to lay out the minor differences. It can easily be done. Rather, I would like to explain the differences directly. Among the evangelists, Luke was a disciple of Paul who was not among the Twelve. Therefore, Luke's account of the miracle is only a bare skeleton, like the one I outlined above. Paul was not there when the miracle took place. Mark's information came from Peter. So, the account of Matthew, Mark and John should be on a par. In fact, they are not. We have to realize the fact that among the Twelve, there was an inner circle of Peter, James and John. Even within the inner circle, John seems to be the closest to the Lord. According to the gospel of John, Peter beckoned John to ask Jesus who the traitor was (John 13:23-24). Therefore, among the 4 canonical gospels, John's story seems to be an eye-witness account. It is from the gospel of John that we know the 5 loaves and 2 fish came from a little boy (John 6:9). In John's story, it was Philip who mentioned the size of the problem: they needed at least two hundred denariis to buy enough bread to feed the crowd (John 6:37). Mark also mentioned the two hundred denariis but failed to identify who brought up this idea to buy food for the crowd. In John's story, we find Philip and Andrew. Peter and James were nowhere mentioned. That explains why not only Matthew and Luke, but also Mark do not mention where the 5 loaves and 2 fish came from. They were not in the vicinity. Probably, Peter and Matthew were busy doing crowd controlling over a vast piece of grassland, accommodating perhaps 10,000 people. When they returned, they only saw Jesus took up 5 loaves and 2 fish, blessed them and broke them ...
What was given to the crowd?
Matthew does not mention giving the fish (Matthew 14:19); Mark and John specifically mention both bread and fish (Mark 6:41, John 6:11); Luke is naturally ambiguous (Luke 9:16). We can imagine that not all people had a share of the fish. So, some people were given both bread and fish by the inner circle disciples and some bread only. When people had eaten enough, only John gives the reason why they gathered the left over (John 6:12). Since Matthew did not give out any fish, naturally only bread fragments were collected (Matthew 14:20). Again, Peter distributed both bread and fish. Naturally, both types of leftover were collected (Mark 6:43). Luke must be ambiguous but John was enigmatic. John collects the bread fragments only (John 6:13)! What happened to the fish? Had they eaten all the fish? Or fish was not significant in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and John did not bother to mention it?
I am curious about where the 12 baskets came from. Perhaps the boy carried the 5 loaves and 2 fish in a basket. He could not have carried the food in both hands because he was only a lad and there were 7 items of food. But I cannot imagine a boy carrying two baskets, each containing one type of food only. Then where came the remaining eleven?
Now, why should a boy carry a basket of bread and fish to join the crowd to listen to Jesus? Was he following his kinsmen? Or was he a hawker, doing business among a large crowd? This hawker idea is not far-fetched. Mark and John mentioned about Jesus telling the disciples to buy food to feed the crowd. Of course, the disciples could go into the villages to buy. But I suspect the villagers had seen the crowd and a market potential out there ... If the boy was a hawker, there might be many more hawkers doing business in a crowd of 5000 men. Then, it would be possible to account for the existence of the 12 baskets. Now, if there were hawkers, there might be more food than 5 loaves and 2 fish. Even if there were more food than 5 loaves and 2 fish in the region, only the 5 loaves and 2 fish of this hawker boy were offered, blessed, multiplied and shared. In the end, all the hawkers had earned more than they had brought along. Their previously half-filled baskets were now bursting! When we put our problems before Jesus, he would surely make for us a happy ending!
Dear Lord, may I offer up my meagre worthless effort. Bless it and multiply it so as to bring us salvation and bring you greater glory. Amen.
However, the gospels differ in minor details and these differences can be very meaningful. In this case, the differences show the different degree of closeness of the disciples with Jesus. But before I proceed to analyze, I want to make myself clear. In previous blogs, I have explained why I don't buy the idea that the crowd actually had brought along their food. The generosity of the little boy so moved the crowd that they were willing to share what they had brought. Therefore, the feeding of 5000 was not a miracle. This idea is a bad idea. Simply put, the evangelists intended to tell us a miracle. It is up to the readers to decide whether they would accept it as a miracle. I believe it is a miracle because I believe that Jesus is God. Period.
I am not going to lay out the minor differences. It can easily be done. Rather, I would like to explain the differences directly. Among the evangelists, Luke was a disciple of Paul who was not among the Twelve. Therefore, Luke's account of the miracle is only a bare skeleton, like the one I outlined above. Paul was not there when the miracle took place. Mark's information came from Peter. So, the account of Matthew, Mark and John should be on a par. In fact, they are not. We have to realize the fact that among the Twelve, there was an inner circle of Peter, James and John. Even within the inner circle, John seems to be the closest to the Lord. According to the gospel of John, Peter beckoned John to ask Jesus who the traitor was (John 13:23-24). Therefore, among the 4 canonical gospels, John's story seems to be an eye-witness account. It is from the gospel of John that we know the 5 loaves and 2 fish came from a little boy (John 6:9). In John's story, it was Philip who mentioned the size of the problem: they needed at least two hundred denariis to buy enough bread to feed the crowd (John 6:37). Mark also mentioned the two hundred denariis but failed to identify who brought up this idea to buy food for the crowd. In John's story, we find Philip and Andrew. Peter and James were nowhere mentioned. That explains why not only Matthew and Luke, but also Mark do not mention where the 5 loaves and 2 fish came from. They were not in the vicinity. Probably, Peter and Matthew were busy doing crowd controlling over a vast piece of grassland, accommodating perhaps 10,000 people. When they returned, they only saw Jesus took up 5 loaves and 2 fish, blessed them and broke them ...
What was given to the crowd?
Matthew does not mention giving the fish (Matthew 14:19); Mark and John specifically mention both bread and fish (Mark 6:41, John 6:11); Luke is naturally ambiguous (Luke 9:16). We can imagine that not all people had a share of the fish. So, some people were given both bread and fish by the inner circle disciples and some bread only. When people had eaten enough, only John gives the reason why they gathered the left over (John 6:12). Since Matthew did not give out any fish, naturally only bread fragments were collected (Matthew 14:20). Again, Peter distributed both bread and fish. Naturally, both types of leftover were collected (Mark 6:43). Luke must be ambiguous but John was enigmatic. John collects the bread fragments only (John 6:13)! What happened to the fish? Had they eaten all the fish? Or fish was not significant in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and John did not bother to mention it?
I am curious about where the 12 baskets came from. Perhaps the boy carried the 5 loaves and 2 fish in a basket. He could not have carried the food in both hands because he was only a lad and there were 7 items of food. But I cannot imagine a boy carrying two baskets, each containing one type of food only. Then where came the remaining eleven?
Now, why should a boy carry a basket of bread and fish to join the crowd to listen to Jesus? Was he following his kinsmen? Or was he a hawker, doing business among a large crowd? This hawker idea is not far-fetched. Mark and John mentioned about Jesus telling the disciples to buy food to feed the crowd. Of course, the disciples could go into the villages to buy. But I suspect the villagers had seen the crowd and a market potential out there ... If the boy was a hawker, there might be many more hawkers doing business in a crowd of 5000 men. Then, it would be possible to account for the existence of the 12 baskets. Now, if there were hawkers, there might be more food than 5 loaves and 2 fish. Even if there were more food than 5 loaves and 2 fish in the region, only the 5 loaves and 2 fish of this hawker boy were offered, blessed, multiplied and shared. In the end, all the hawkers had earned more than they had brought along. Their previously half-filled baskets were now bursting! When we put our problems before Jesus, he would surely make for us a happy ending!
Dear Lord, may I offer up my meagre worthless effort. Bless it and multiply it so as to bring us salvation and bring you greater glory. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)