Friday, July 7
Mark 6:45-52: The story of the Lord’s walking on the water is closely tied to the account of the multiplication on the loaves, not only sequentially (in Matthew, Mark, and John), but also (in Mark, at least) thematically. At the end of this story, the evangelist observes: “And they were greatly amazed in themselves beyond measure, and marveled. For they had not understood about the loaves, because their heart was hardened.”
Mark’s reference to the apostles’ hardness of heart, in this place, has no parallel in the other gospels; it represents a concern peculiar to Mark. This evangelist ascribes the wonderment of the apostles—“greatly amazed in themselves beyond measure”—to their failure to understand “about the loaves.” That is to say, they would not have marveled so much about the theophany on the lake if they had understood what had transpired, before their very eyes, in the multiplication of the loaves.
For Mark, this miraculous feeding of the multitude was supremely theophanic: It was the clear manifestation of the identity of Jesus. This thesis explains why, in Mark 8 and Matthew 15, the multiplication of the loaves is repeated: The apostles are given one more opportunity to understand.
Even then, however, the apostles will fail to grasp its significance. After the second multiplication comes the Lord’s frustrated interrogation of the apostles:
“Why do you reason because you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive nor understand? Is your heart hardened? Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments did you take up?”
They said to Him, “Twelve.”
“Also, when I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of fragments did you take up?”
And they said, “Seven.”
So He said to them, “How is it you do not understand?”
For Mark, then, the event of the loaves is entrance point of divine judgment. It manifests the apostles’ hardness of heart and failure to grasp the revelation conveyed in Jesus.
Acts 14.8-18: The very active Jesus continues to work His wonders within the body of believers (verse 3); however concealed from the view of the world, Jesus still walks among the candlesticks (Revelation 1:13; Matthew 28:20; Mark 16:17-20; 2 Corinthians 6:16). As the apostles flee from Iconium (verse 6), the Gospel is spread still farther. Lystra, whither they flee, is about twenty-five miles to the southwest. Here, Paul’s healing of the lame man parallels the miracle of Peter in 3:2-8; the similarities, even down to small details, is striking.
The response of the crowd in their own native tongue indicates what we might not otherwise have known, namely, that the apostles have been preaching through an interpreter. Inasmuch as a great deal “gets lost in translation,” the crowd has evidently missed some of the finer points in the apostolic message. Monotheism, for instance! Witnessing the miraculous healing, these enthusiasts promptly identify the apostles with pagan gods.
Their identification of Paul with Hermes, or the Latin “Mercury,” is explained in verse 12, where we learn that Paul did most of the talking. With respect to Barnabas, it is reasonable to think that his identification as Zeus, or the Latin “Jupiter” (“Zeus Pater,” or “Zeus the father”) probably had something to do with certain physical features (great height, large head, broad shoulders, and a majestic beard over a massive chest) and a more solemn presence. (Contrast this with Paul’s physical appearance in 2 Corinthians 10:10) So Paul is Hermes the messenger; Barnabas is the strong, silent Zeus, who commands by his presence.
Saturday, July 8
Wisdom of Solomon 16.5-14:
Even when the venomous rage of wild animals terrorized your people
and they were perishing from the bites of wriggling serpents,
your anger did not continue to the uttermost.
6 They were afflicted for a short time as a warning,
and they were then given a symbol of salvation to remind them of the precepts of your law.[d]
7 For he who turned toward it was saved,
not by what he beheld,
but by you, the Savior of all.
8 And by such means also you convinced our enemies
that it is you who deliver from every evil.
9 For they were slain from the bites of locusts and flies,
and no remedy was devised to save their lives
because their punishment by such creatures was well deserved.
10 However, not even the fangs of venomous snakes could overwhelm your people,
for your mercy intervened to heal them.
11 They were bitten so that they would be reminded of your decrees,
and then they were quickly healed
so that they would not fall into profound forgetfulness
and fail to respond to your kindness.
12 For it was neither herb nor poultice that cured them
but your all-healing word, O Lord.
13 For you have power over life and death,
bringing people down to the gates of the netherworld and then back again;[e]
14 whereas, man may slay in malice,
but he has no power to restore the breath of life
or to set free the soul imprisoned by death.
Sunday, July 9
Numbers 22: Numbers 22: Israel’s hosts now encamp on “the plains of Moab,” that Moabite territory north of the Arnon, territory which Israel had recently seized from the Amorites.
From this position, looking directly west, they have before them a wide and impressive vista. On their immediate right are the brown hills of Bashan, slightly to the left of which the viewers are able to trace the long, serpentine, green valley of the Jordan, on the opposite bank of which, but slightly to the right, stands the city of Jericho.
The same viewers, turning a bit to their left but still looking ahead, gaze on the northern fringe of the Dead Sea, the lowest geological point on the earth. It is at this point that the Jordan empties into the Dead Sea. A few degrees further right, on a clear day they can behold outlines of Jerusalem. Humanly speaking, everything would seem ready for Israel’s crossing of the Jordan, but other trials and an entire book of the Bible, Deuteronomy, sill precede that great event.
The first of these trials comes from the Moabites, whose settled territory Israel has assiduously refrained from entering. Moab sits to Israel’s immediate south, exactly ninety degrees to the left of those gazing over the Jordan (verse 1).
The Moabites, having recently been defeated by the Amorites, are rather impressed by Israel, the newcomer now victorious over those same Amorites (verses 2-3). Balak, the Moabite king, eager for a bit of help from on high, seeks the spiritual assistance of Balaam, evidently a well-known diviner, urging him to come and curse Israel (verse 6). He had to send some distance to summons Balaam, who lived far, far north at Pethor (called Pitru in Assyrian records), a city on the west bank of the Euphrates, some twelve miles south of Carchemish (verse 5).
Balaam, divinely instructed on the point, declines the summons to come and curse Israel (verses 7-14). The second invitation, however, Balaam accepts, again at divine instruction (verses 15-21). Nonetheless, the Lord may have sensed some inner infidelity in Balaam, because He becomes angry and sends an angel with a sword to convey one last warning message to Balaam (verse 22). There ensues one of the most humorous stories in Holy Scripture, the encounter of the angel with Balaam’s donkey, which seems to be the only talking animal in the Old Testament (verses 23-35). (When I first read this story to my little children many years ago, they immediately remarked on this fact, mentioning that the feature was something they more readily associated with fairy tales. Their remarks, I thought, showed considerable skill at literary criticism.)
Duly chastened by the encounter with the angel, and having acquired a new respect for his donkey, Balaam eventually arrives at Moab and is taken to a height from which he can gaze down on the assembled hosts of Israel (verses 36-41).
Monday, July 10
Acts 15.1-21: The time has come to address the question that has been nagging the Christian Church since the conversion of Cornelius in Chapter 10: Are Gentile Christians obliged to observe the Mosaic Law? Or, put another way, must one become a Jew in order to become a Christian? This is a question of great moment for those many Jewish Christians who gladly accept the Gospel as the fulfillment of the hopes of Israel, but who find in the Gospel itself no warrant for the abrogation of the Law.
It is the Law, after all, that separates God’s chosen people from the other peoples of the earth. It is the observance of the Law that makes Israel a holy people. If the Gospel involves the dissolution of the Law, then does it not simply subvert the notion of a chosen people? This is a very serious question for Jews who believe in Jesus. Are they now simply to be like everyone else in the world? Of course not, they know, but how is this distinctiveness and consecration of a chosen people to be reconciled with holding communion with Gentiles who do not observe the Law?
It is to address this dilemma in a practical way that this first “council” of the Christian Church is convened halfway through the Book of Acts. It is at this council that the Church takes a first official, formal step toward becoming an institution recognizably distinct from Judaism. In his description of this council, Luke mentions Peter and the original apostles for the last time. The council’s final voice will be that of James, “the brother of the Lord,” who pastors the Church at Jerusalem.
The rest of the Book of Acts will be devoted to the apostle Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles, which benefits from the council’s authorization. This authorization touches two practical questions in particular: circumcision and the dietary laws. In respect to both of these points the council decides that Gentile Christians are under no obligation of discipline. The decision is entirely practical. A more general and theoretical treatment of the Church’s relationship to Judaism will require more time and reflection.
Peter, guided by his own experience in the conversion of Cornelius and his friends, enunciates what will henceforth serve as the practical principle to be followed in the evangelization of the Gentiles; namely, that they will not be compelled to submit to the Mosaic Law. By way of response, James rises to give his own consent to this principle, which expresses God’s intention to draw even from the Gentiles “a people of His name.”
This evangelical principle now established, however, James reminds the rest of the council that a certain pastoral delicacy will be needed in its application. If all of the Mosaic Law is neglected by the Gentile Christians indiscriminately and right away, the result may be a considerable scandal, because Jewish sensitivities may be deeply (and unnecessarily) offended. If, James argues, the Gentile converts should not be disturbed (verse 19), neither should the Jewish Christians (verse 21). Therefore, he urges that four restrictions be placed on the Gentile converts with respect to the Mosaic Law (verse 20).
This is our first example of Christian pastors gathered together to make practical decisions for the Church. The impulse to have such meetings—which today we take for granted—did not come from a mandate of the Lord. It sprang forth from a source deep in the Christian soul.
This impulse was one of many we find in the Acts of the Apostles. They sought expression as the Church came to grips with historical experiences. They manifested the dynamic life of the Church as she assumed her place in history, burdened with the responsibility to transform history.
Tuesday, Mark 7.24-30: Jesus first multiplies the loaves, as we have seen, in chapter 6. This scene is followed by the event of his walking on water, concerning which Mark tells us,
Then [Jesus] went up into the boat to them, and the wind ceased. And they were greatly amazed in themselves beyond measure, and marveled. For they had not understood about the loaves, because their heart was hardened
.
This remark is our first explicit indication that the bread Jesus gives his people in the desert is full of mystery, impossible for the hard of heart to understand. Little by little, Mark proceeds to expound on this theme. Thus, in our reading this past week, we considered what it meant that the disciples of Jesus are excused from the ritual washing of hands before eating bread.
That is to say, the bread given by Jesus is not subject to the strictures imposed by the Jewish rabbinic authorities. It is something new and unique. Jesus alone determines its meaning. It is not something understood from without. Believers receive this bread solely from the hands of Jesus and through the ministry of his apostles. This is a bread specific to the gathering of people Jesus leads out into the desert.
This gathering is the true qahal, or ekklesia, the desert people of God. The earliest Christians identified themselves in this way. Several years before Mark wrote his Gospel, Paul had written to the Corinthians:
Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But with most of them God was not well pleased, for they were scattered in the wilderness. Now these things became our examples (typoi), so that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted.
Observe that the Israelites in the desert served as a typos of the Christian Church. In Pauline catechesis, Christians are prompted to learn from that ancient history. Paul repeats himself a few verses later:
Now these things happened to them in a figurative way (typikos), and they were written for a warning (nouthesia) to us, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
In tonight’s reading, we learn something new and important about this Christian bread in our Lord’s conversation with the Syro-Phoenician woman:
But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw to the pups.” And she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, yet even the pups under the table eat from the children’s crumbs.
Jesus, in response to this profession of faith, grants the woman what she seeks. That is to say, he shares the children’s bread with her. Now she is not a Jew. This story, as Mark places it, tells us about the community that partakes of the Lord’s bread. It includes the Gentiles, who were not included before.
This story, then, complements our recent account about eating bread with unwashed hands. Not only is the Christian bread not subject to the expectations of the Jewish elders; non-Jews are permitted to share in it.
What is essential to participation in this bread is adherence to Christ. The apostles themselves participate in the dispensation of this bread. Consequently, it is extremely important that they should understand about the loaves.
At this point in Mark’s account, they don’t. Jesus, therefore, will multiply the loaves a second time.
Wednesday, July 12
Numbers 25: After the previous three chapters about Balaam, and especially in view of the latter’s enthusiastic prophecies regarding Israel’s great expectations, we may have anticipated immediate success for the Chosen People.
Alas, however, a serious moral lapse is going to delay even further Israel’s entrance into the Promised Land. More sadly this lapse seems to have befallen the younger people, the very ones who were to replace the generation that perished in the wilderness.
The incident in this chapter took place at Shittim, the Hebrew for “acacia groves,” a wooded area east of the Jordan. It was from there that Joshua would in due time send the spies to investigate the Holy Land (Joshua 2:1).
This moral lapse, following so suddenly on the oracles of Balaam and narrated immediately after his departure, is not related to Balaam in this text, but Balaam is certainly blamed for it a few chapters later: “Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord” (21:16). This moral depravity of Balaam is really the only context in which he is remembered in the New Testament (2 Peter 2:5; Revelation 2:14).
Israel’s failing in the present circumstance began as fornication with Moabite women and proceeded to idolatry with Moabite gods (verses 1-2). Indeed, in popular religion in this part of the world, the two were sometimes hard to keep separate.
The Lord’s reaction, to the surprise of no one who had been reflecting on recent events, was not favorable (Verse 3). Since the idol worship and sexual immorality of the Moabites were typical of the atmosphere into which Israel would soon be immersed, it was important that the problem be dealt with decisively. “Decisively,” in fact, is exactly the adverb we want here. Coming from the Latin de-cido, meaning “to cut off,” generally refers to the cutting off of discussion. Sometimes, nonetheless, cutting off discussion is more rapidly reached by cutting off the heads of those who continue the discussion. This was the approach adopted in the present instance (verses 4-5).
The pursuit of righteousness in this matter was exemplified by Phineas, the son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron. He was certainly a decisive sort of priest, with a pronounced tendency to executive decisions (a word also derived from de-cido, meaning “to cut off” (verses 7-8). Phineas reacted in response the sinful activity of a particularly flagrant nature (verse 6), undertaken by a couple who evidently thought that, because their families were well placed and well connected, they were exempt from the common discipline, the universal moral law, and the authority of the priesthood. Phineas decided (from de-cido, meaning “to cut off”) to clarify the situation for them (verses 14-15).
This reasonable and highly commendable action of Phineas determined that Israel’s priestly succession would pass to and through his own sons (verses 10-13); 1 Chronicles 5:30-34); Psalms 106 [105]:30; Sirach 45:23-26; 1 Maccabees 2:26,54).
Thursday, Mark 8.1-10
Mark 8.1-10: Like Matthew (15:32-39), Mark has a second account of the multiplication of the loaves. This account is often called “the multiplication for the Gentiles,” because of several elements in the story suggesting its transmission in a largely Gentile setting.
For example, in the multiplication story in chapter six, the Apostles want the hungry people to be send away to neighboring villages, so that they might purchase food for themselves. In the present case, this possibility is not even considered. Instead, there is emphasis on the isolation of the place, and the Lord’s reluctance to send the people away suggests that that have come “from afar.”
This is the same expression Mark uses with respect to the Gadarene demoniac: “When he saw Jesus from afar,” says Mark, “he ran and fell prostrate before him” (56).
Christians used the root makran, which indicates distance, when the spoke of the calling of the Gentiles. It appears in this sense in St. Peter’s sermon for Pentecost: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off (makran)—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
St. Paul uses the identical expression to distinguish the Gentile Christians from the Jewish Christians:
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off (makran) have been brought near by the blood of Christ. . . . And He came and preached peace to you who were far off (makran) and to those who were near. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father (Eph 2.13,17-18).
So Mark’s second account of the multiplication of the bread is sometimes called the feeding of the Gentiles. Mark places this story just seven verses after the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman. We recall that Jesus told this Gentile, “it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” And, we recall, she answered him, “Yes, Lord, yet even the puppies under the table eat from the children’s crumbs.”
Now, in the second scene after that one, Jesus multiplies bread for the Gentiles.
We also observe the eucharistic vocabulary used in Mark’s description of this event: “He took the seven loaves and gave thanks (eucharistesas), broke them and gave them to His disciples to set before them; and they set them before the multitude.” This format of activity is a paradigm of the Eucharistic rite of the Church, in which we perceive the importance of the apostolic ministry and mediation. These are the same men whom Jesus sends out to proclaim the Gospel.Friday, July 14
Numbers 27: This chapter is divided between two subjects, the ordinances governing inheritances in the Promised Land (verses 1-11) and the choice of a successor to replace Moses and lead God’s People to the west side of the Jordan (verses 12-23). Each section begins with a short story.
In the story introducing the first topic, five sisters, the only offspring of a man who had died a natural death in the wilderness, approach Moses and Eleazar to complain that, if the current laws, limiting the inheritance of real estate, were to obtain, their own father’s memory would be obliterated from Israel’s history (verses 3-4).
The resolution of this problem, by which these five women may obtain the inheritance of their dead father, was not prompted by an impulse to treat men and women equally in the inheritance laws. Had this been the case, their own treatment would not be regarded as an exception. On the contrary, the sole interest governing this decision was the preservation of the memory of these sisters’ father, not a concern for the women themselves. It would be widely off the mark, therefore, to interpret this account as some sort of early version of “women’s rights.”
The resolution of this individual case also provided the context for further legal determinations respecting the inheritance of property. In every instance considered here, the governing principle of inheritance was proximity in consanguinity (verses 8-11). The goal sought in this legislation was to maintain real estate attached to the family. That is to say, the major preoccupation in these rules was to guarantee that a family’s inheritance really meant something concrete. It meant solid, indestructible, landed property.
With regard to the five young ladies that brought the problem in the first place, we know from Joshua 17:3-6 that they really did inherit, in the name of their father, land west of the Jordan. At least two of these women left their names to cities in the Holy Land.
In this chapter’s second story the Lord tells Moses to climb the Abarim Mountains, in order to see the land that he will never enter. These heights, which Mount Nebo, rise on the western slopes of the plateau of Moab (verses 12-14).
In response Moses seeks from the Lord someone to succeed himself (verses 16-17). In implementing the Lord’s choice of Joshua, we may especially observe its reliance on the priesthood of Aaron’s family (verses 19,21,22). Like many successions in the bible, it is transmitted by the laying-on of hands (verses 18,23). Still, this succession is not hereditary but charismatic (verse 20).
Even the successor of Moses, Joshua did not receive the former’s full authority, much less his historical role. Strictly speaking, Moses was irreplaceable.