Friday, February 7
Matthew 14:13-21: The great significance of the multiplication of the loaves among the early Christians may be discerned from the fact that: (1) outside of the events of Holy Week, it is one of the very few scenes recorded in all four gospels; (2) aspects of it are depicted numerous times in the earliest Christian iconography; (3) normally recorded in language identical to, or at least reminiscent of, that of the Last Supper, it is clearly one of the events of Jesus’ life perceived to be weighted with the greatest theological significance. This is clearest in John, where it is accompanied by the lengthy and elaborate Bread of Life discourse.
This miraculous event brought to the minds of those present the expectation that the coming Messiah would renew the events of the Exodus, including the feeding of the people with miraculous bread in the wilderness. This sense of expectation and fulfillment accounts for the considerable emphasis on Messianic themes in early Eucharistic texts of the Christian Church.
Even as Matthew begins this story, we observe a significant way in which he alters the narrative in Mark. Whereas Mark (6:34), describes Jesus as “teaching” the people in the wilderness, Matthew says that Jesus “healed” them (verse 14). This change of perspective is consonant with Matthew’s other indications that Jesus had begun to withdraw from teaching the Jews in public and to concentrate, instead, on the immediate band of His disciples. Nonetheless, Jesus still expresses His messianic compassion through healing and feeding them.
Psalms 93 (Greek & Latin 92): Three psalms (93, 97, 99) begin with the line, “The Lord is King.” In each case the expression is actually a verb in both the Greek (ebasilevsen) and Hebrew (malak), but it is translated here as a noun in order to give clearer attention to the image of “king” (basilevs, melek) suggested in the underlying verbs. Proper English usage has no verb “to king,” and the usual substitution, “to reign,” fails to convey that image adequately.
The present psalm is a brief but rich composition, resonating large biblical themes in its every line: “The Lord is King; He is clothed with splendor. In might has the Lord adorned and girded Himself. The world He made firm, that it be not shaken. Your throne is prepared from everlasting; You are from all eternity. The rivers rise in flood, O Lord, the rivers lift their voices, with the voices of many waters. Marvelous these swellings of the sea; marvelous the Lord on high. Your testimonies have proved exceedingly faithful. Holiness befits Your house, O Lord, unto length of days.”
The waters that lift up their doxological voices are the baptismal waters of our rebirth. It is in these waters that God’s people are washed and made holy. The Holy Trinity, revealed in the Baptism of Jesus, is the mystery of our incorporation into the Church, for we are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. In these waters we become God’s very house, and holiness befits His house unto length of days.
Saturday, February 8
Matthew 14.22-36: It had already been late in the day when the miracle of the loaves took place (verse 15), and it was well into the night when Jesus finished praying. The apostles were out in the middle of the lake, rowing against the wind (verse 24). Sometime between three and six o’clock in the morning (verse 25), while it was still quite dark, they suddenly beheld Jesus walking to them <i>on the water</i>. Indeed, he was “strolling” (peripaton)! The disciples took Jesus for a ghost or mirage (phantasma) and reacted accordingly (verse 26).
Although Mark (6:45-52) and (John 6:16-21) record this story, only Matthew includes the detail of Simon Peter’s semi-successful efforts to do the same. Reassured by Jesus (verse 27), he stepped off the boat and placed his foot solidly on a wave. His attempt was brought abruptly to finish when, taking his eyes off of Jesus, the apostle did what no Christian should ever do: he looked down! (Peter’s name means “rock,” and it has been remarked that this is the only scene in the gospels where we see him displaying a truly rock-like quality—he sank.) After attempting this “stroll” (peripatesan—verse 29), Peter found himself reprimanded for his inadequate faith (verse 31).
Genesis 39: The story of Joseph is staged in various ways. For example, Joseph’s different changes of fortune are symbolized in his clothing. His famous and elaborate tunic, which focuses the hatred of his brothers in 37:3f, is dipped in blood in 37:23-32, thus symbolizing Joseph’s alienation from his family. Then, in verses12-18 of the present chapter his ill-fated encounter with Potiphar’s wife is imaged in the loss of the cloak used as evidence to imprison him. His eventual release from prison will again involve a change of clothing in 41:14, and finally a whole new wardrobe symbolizes his new state in 41:42.
Another element of staging and cohesion in the story is introduced by Joseph’s two dreams in 37:5-10, in each of which his brothers bow down before him. This double prostration is prophetic, inasmuch the brothers bow before him on each of their trips to Egypt (42:6; 43:26; 44:14; 50:18), and Joseph specifically remembers the dreams on the first of these instances (42:9).
The Joseph narrative is one of the Bible’s first examples of a story happening in two places at once. The introduction of the Judah episode in chapter 38, right after Joseph’s departure for Egypt, serves to suggest a lengthy passage of time, but it also establishes what will become a mounting “geographical” tension between dual centers of activity, Canaan and Egypt. The journeys of the brothers to Egypt and their returns to Canaan will eventually provide the setting for the two conflicting aspirations of Joseph and Jacob, the former resolved to bring Benjamin to Egypt, and the latter determined to keep him in Canaan.
Sunday, February 9: Joseph is in jail. Indeed, that gifted man is pretty much running the place after a while (39:23), when two other prisoners are brought in (verses 1-4). Already introduced to the reader as a man of dreams in Genesis 37, Joseph now appears as an interpreter of dreams (verses 4-8).
A royal cupbearer was a great deal more than a table servant. He was, rather, a high official of the court, normally ranking right after the royal family itself.
Such men were obliged to be very careful, for they served very autocratic masters and were perpetually in danger of offending them (cf. Nehemiah 1:11—2:6). Somehow or other, this cupbearer had managed to offend Pharaoh. Thrown into prison, he had done a lot of brooding, and this brooding led to a dream about his fate (verses 9-11).
Joseph’s interpretation of the dream, however, is rather encouraging (verses 12-13). In this instance, to “lift up the head” means to exalt, to restore to honor. Even as Joseph gives the cupbearer his interpretation of the dream, he senses that this gentleman may someday provide his own way out of prison (verses 14-15).
Encouraged by Joseph’s interpretation of the cupbearer’s dream, the royal baker decides to tell his own dream (verses 16-17). The images in each dream are related to the professions of the dreamers, pressed grapes and cup for the first man, baskets of bakery goods for the second. In each case, the number “three” is important. This second dream, nonetheless, introduces a disturbing note: Birds come and peck at the baked goods. This is an alien element, a common symbol of frustration in dreams.
Joseph sees right away that this is not a good sign (verses 18-19). There is a rather grim play on words here. “Lifting up the head” no longer means restoration and exaltation. It now assumes a disturbing literal sense; the baker’s head will be “lifted up” when he is impaled on a tall stake, perhaps. The meaning of the metaphor could also be that the man will be hanged, crucified, or beheaded. All three forms of punishment were known, and the metaphor could cover any of the three. We observe that the baker neglects to thank Joseph for his interpretation!
The important point is that Joseph’s interpretations of the two dreams are prophetic (verses 20-23). The next chapter will tell us, however, that the cupbearer will not remember Joseph for another two years (Compare Acts 24.27).
Monday, February 10
Genesis 41: We now come to the third discussion of dreams in the Joseph story. Pharaoh has a dream. Indeed, it becomes something of a nightmare, causing Pharaoh to wake up, which is perhaps why he can recall the dream so vividly (verses 1-4). Going back to sleep, he has another dream (verses 5-7).
It is interesting that Herodotus (2.136) provides us with a story that parallels the present instance. It concerns the dream of an Ethiopian pharaoh named Shabaka, of the 25th Dynasty (725-667). Egyptian literature itself is full of such dreams. In antiquity dreams were regarded as among the ways that gods revealed practical truths to kings and other leaders. We find another instance of it in the case of Solomon (1 Kings 3; 2 Chronicles 1).
Pharaoh’s two dreams have left him very upset, and at last the cupbearer remembers Joseph (verses 8-13). After all, kings could become very upset if no one could be found to interpret their dreams (cf. Daniel 2:1-6). Evidently the cupbearer sensed danger, since Pharaoh’s dream had not yet an interpreter. The fear serves to jog his memory; he recalls how he himself had gotten out of jail two years earlier. At this point he apparently does not even recall Joseph’s name (verse 12).
Joseph is summoned (verses 14-16). We note that this is the third reference to a change in Joseph’s clothing.
Joseph has no doubt that this dream comes from God. God speaks to man in dreams (compare Job 33:15-18; Numbers 12:6). Pharaoh, then, tells his dreams (verses 17-24). We observe that these dreams are not predictions; they are a diagnosis and a warning. Thus, Joseph is able, not only to interpret the dreams, but to instruct Pharaoh what to do about them. His wisdom, in other words, is not just speculative, but practical (verses 25-32).
Pharaoh’s dreams have to do with the Nile River, the annual flooding of which is essential to Egyptian agriculture. The Nile’s failure to flood over a seven years period would be catastrophic indeed. In fact, there is a stone inscription found near the first cataract of the Nile, on the island of Siheil, which indicates that a seven years’ drought was not unthinkable.
Joseph does not even pause (verses 33-36). He immediately supplies the practical remedy for the problem, not even waiting for Pharaoh to question him. One has the impression that he has already worked out the details in his mind, while he gave Pharaoh the interpretation. There is no time to be lost (verse 32). The work will require centralized control. This is no work for a committee, and there is no time for a discussion. The only efficient course will require a strong, swift, executive hand (verse 33).
We have already seen Joseph as a take-charge kind of fellow, managing Potiphar’s estate as soon as he arrived, put in direction of the jail as soon as he became a prisoner, and so forth. Pharaoh knows that he has before him the right man for the job (verses 37-43), recognizing that this wisdom comes from the Holy Spirit (verses 38-39).
Joseph again changes clothes (verse 42) and starts a new life (verses 44-46), with new responsibilities (verse 47-49). His plans are successful (verses 53-57).
Joseph becomes the father of two Israelite tribes (verses 50-52). According to Origen and other interpreters, he is now about thirty years old.
Tuesday, February 11
Matthew 15:21-31: Jesus now turns from the Jewish unbelievers to a Gentile whose faith will bring about the healing of her daughter. It is significant that in both Mark and Matthew this story follows the discussion about ritual uncleanness, a preoccupation of the Jews.
Matthew began his gospel by drawing attention to Jesus as “the son of David” (1:1). It was the name by which he was invoked by the blind men (9:27). Now it is by this title that the Canaanite woman addresses him (verse 22). Later on, this messianic designation will come more into evidence. It is the title by which He will be greeted in Jericho (20:29) and Jerusalem (21:9). The Lord’s acceptance of this title will rankle his enemies (21:15; 22:41-45). If it is striking to find “son of David” on the tongue of a Gentile, we should bear in mind Matthew’s earlier citation from Isaiah with respect to that Galilean border with Phoenicia (4:13-15; Isaiah 9:15).
In Matthew’s version of this story, the accent lies on faith: “Great is your faith” (verse 28; contrast Mark 7:9). The woman’s “great faith” is reminiscent of the earlier Gentiles in Matthew, such as the Magi and, more explicitly, the centurion in 8:10. This woman thus becomes a kind of first-fruits of Jesus’ final Great Commission to “all nations.”
Indeed, like the Magi at the beginning of this gospel and the disciples at the end of it (2:11; 28:17), this woman is said to adore Jesus (proskynein—15:25).
The symbolism of the future universal calling is also foreshadowed in verse 30, where the “great multitudes” come to the Lord with their various needs and distresses. This detail, too, is proper to Matthew. (Compare 10:1; 12:15; 14:13-14).
Genesis 42: The predicted famine also hits the land of Canaan, at which point the Joseph story is tied back to its earlier period (verses 1-5). We learn right away that Jacob, having lost Joseph, has become excessively protective of his youngest son Benjamin. This detail is inserted early in the narrative sequence, because it will become an important component in the development of the story.
These next few chapters will be sustained by a tension between Egypt and Canaan, between Joseph and Jacob, with Joseph trying to get Benjamin down into Egypt, while Jacob endeavors to keep him in Canaan.
Without knowing who he is, the brothers prostrate themselves before Joseph (verses 8-17), who recognizes in their act the fulfillment of dreams he had shared with them two decades earlier.
Even while deceiving his brothers, Joseph manages to catch up on the news back home. He learns that Jacob and Benjamin are still alive. He plays his big card when they mention Benjamin; on the pretense of checking out their story, he insists that Benjamin be brought down to Egypt. He then throws them all into jail for three days to think about it.
Wednesday, February 12
Genesis 43: Eventually the family again runs short of food, so Jacob asks his sons to return to Egypt to procure some. The old man appears to be in a state of denial, giving the order as though there were no complications involved (verses 1-2). It will be up to one of the older sons to remind him that things will not be so easy.
In the previous chapter it was Reuben who served as spokesman for the brothers, both to Joseph and to Jacob. As we saw, he had not been terrible successful, so this time Judah takes over the task. Judah gives Jacob an ultimatum: Either risk Benjamin or the whole family will starve.
In response, Jacob goes from denial to blame. His line of argument is, of course, futile. The point of no return was long ago reached. Jacob is dealing with a situation that no longer exists. Like many older people whose memories of the past are far more pleasant than the realities of the present, Jacob resists being reminded of the facts.
The problem is that he is the one who must make the decision. Jacob’s sons are powerless to do anything apart from his authority. They too, once again accused, become defensive. Joseph had outwitted them; how could they have known? We readers understand, of course, but none of the participants up in Canaan have a clue.
Judah puts his foot down. Enough of this guilt, denial, and blame! In his executive action, we perceive the attitude and skills of the kings to whom Judah will become the father.
Judah obliges Jacob to give in, and the latter makes very practical suggestions about taking gifts to the Egyptian official and returning the money. Judah also assumes responsibility for Benjamin. Finally, he prays, not really knowing what he is praying for (though the reader knows), and not knowing that his prayer has already been answered!
The brothers return to Egypt. In their prior trip, Joseph had been rough with them. Now he is kind. What can it mean? So long receptive of bad news and not expecting anything different, the brothers are disposed to put an evil interpretation on the circumstances.
The author of this story is obviously relishing this description of their mounting anxiety. The brothers have wandered into the “big leagues,” as it were. Faced with the grandeur of the Egyptian court, they fairly come undone. This “man” in Egypt is by far the most powerful person with whom they have ever dealt. They take their case to the head-steward who can speak to them in their own native tongue. They never imagine that Joseph has understood everything they said before.
Once again, when the brothers meet Joseph, the prophecy in the ancient dream is fulfilled. Two dreams, two fulfillments. The reader begins to wonder how long Joseph can sustain this ongoing farce. He controls himself, however, for he still has one big test in mind, a final test. For a second time, nonetheless, Joseph is overcome with emotion.
During the meal, Joseph goes from this pathos to some more light kidding, placing his brothers at the table according to their ages, a fact that causes them some more consternation. Could this be an accident? This “man” in Egypt is most uncanny and mysterious. He holds them in the palm of his hand.
Thursday, February 13
Romans 1.16-32: In order to assess the “power” (dynamis) of the Gospel, Paul now describes the human state without the Gospel. Neither Judaism nor classical paganism, the Apostle argues, whatever their other accomplishments, have been able to attain or preserve moral integrity. If the Jew, enlightened by God’s Law, has been unable to do this (as Paul will argue in chapter 2), much less could the Greek or Roman.
Paul begins with these pagans, providing a stunning description of the depravity of his age. This description is colored by Paul’s perception as a Jew (indeed, we note his interjection of a standard Jewish doxology in verse 25), because his comments coincide with the assessment that other Jews of antiquity rendered with respect to paganism. In these lines of the epistle, we hear the voice of the Maccabees two and a half centuries earlier. Paul, like most Jews of his time, regarded the pagan world as “abandoned,” “handed over,” “forsaken” by God (verses 24,26,28).
The moral depravity of the age was a revelation (apokalyptetai) of the divine wrath against idolatry (verse 18; Isaiah 30:27-33). Following the argument in the Book of Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon) 13:1-9, Paul insists that “something” about God is knowable in the works of Creation (verses 19-20). Indeed, this something is not only knowable, it is also “known” (to gnoston), so that man is inexcusable in not recognizing it.
Paul is not talking here about a personal knowledge of God, which requires faith (cf. Hebrews 11:3,5-6; 1 Corinthians 1:21), but a factual knowledge of God’s existence and certain of his predicates (verse 20; Acts 14:15-17). Such factual knowledge about God is ineluctable, he says, except to those who have completely blinded their hearts (verse 21; Ephesians 4:17). These latter refuse to acknowledge what they cannot help knowing. Therefore, they decline to praise God or to thank him, turning instead to false gods (verse 23; Psalms 106 [105]:20; Deuteronomy 4:16-18). These are gods of their own making, to whom, their makers are aware, they will never have to render an account. These are non-judgmental gods.
This idolatrous darkening of the heart begins with the entertainment of deceptive thoughts (verse 21), but it soon finds expression in man’s very body. It leads directly to sexual immorality (verse 24; Wisdom 14:22-27). That is to say, the mendacity and illusions of the human mind produce mendacity and illusion in the human flesh, and this corporeal untruthfulness, this fleshly illusion, is the very essence of the homosexual vice. Those unable to recognize the intelligent design of nature can hardly be expected to honor the most elementary markings of the human body (verses 26-28). This particular sin, then, is not just one sin among others; it is symptomatic of a much deeper spiritual problem.
This vice, which is “against nature” (para physin, contra naturam—verse 26), is the social and cultural progeny of an engendering idolatry. Other sexual sins, such as fornication, at least show deference to the structure of nature. The homosexual vice, however, by refusing to show that deference, is particularly vile. It is the very embodying of a lie, a physical falsehood.
Besides sexual turpitude, idolatry leads to all sorts of their sins, which the Apostle proceeds to enumerate (verses 29-31). Paul is not speculating here. Having traveled through the cities of the Greco-Roman world, having heard the confessions of his converts (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11), he is immediately familiar with these sins.
We should bear in mind that Paul, in his assessment of the world of his time, is speaking of society as a whole, not every single individual within it. He is not saying that every single pagan in the world is morally depraved. He is saying, rather, that pagan society is morally depraved.
Nor, when he speaks of the sins of homosexual sinner, does Paul mean that in each case that person’s sins are the result of his own personal sin of idolatry. He is saying, rather, that the homosexual vice, regarded as a social phenomenon, is the symptom of a deeper, truly radical sin, the sin of idolatry. An idolatrous culture is what spawns this disposition to regard the homosexual impulse as normal and homosexual behavior as licit.
Consequently, it is precarious to use Paul’s arguments here as applying directly to individuals that may be struggling with temptations to this particular vice; this struggle does not mean that these individuals are personally guilty of idolatry. When he treats the homosexual vice as a symptom of idolatry, Paul is describing the manifest state of pagan society without the Gospel, not each individual’s state of soul.
In addition, the divine condemnation is deserved, not only by those who do these things, but also by those who approve of them, those non-judgmental types who embrace the pale, flaccid I-will-not-impose-my-morality-on-others theory. God’s judgment falls, then, not only on the malefactors themselves, but also on the society and individuals that condone, excuse, permit, or approve such malefaction.
Friday, February 14
Matthew 16.5-12: We observe Matthew’s inclusion of the Sadducees among the enemies of Jesus (verses 1,6,11,12). Once again Matthew’s text here reflects certain concerns that arose in Judaism (and consequently among Jewish Christians) after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Foremost among the Jewish groups who lost credibility in the aftermath of that event was the party of the Sadducees. This group, it was generally believed, had been excessively compliant with the Roman powers for over a century, too compromising, too little disposed to speak up for the people as the Pharisees had done. Consequently, after the year 70 the Sadducees came into bad odor among rank-and-file Jews.
Moreover, this party was bound to lose power, because their power had been concentrated in the temple priesthood, which was put out of business by the destruction of the temple. In Matthew we observe (three times in these verses, and elsewhere in 3:7; 22:34) explicit criticisms of the Sadducees not found in the other gospels. Mark (12:18) and Luke (20:27) mention the Sadducees only once each.
Genesis 45: The tension has been mounting for several chapters, as Joseph has, step by step, put to the test the spiritual state of his brothers. He has now utterly reduced them, forcing them to face their guilt and to assume responsibility for their plight. They are completely hopeless and limp before him.
At the same time, Joseph has been obliged to place very tight, unnatural restraints on his own emotions, and now the latter have mounted to flood stage behind the restraining wall of his will. Then time has come, then, to bring everything out into the open. Now further good will be served by further delay. Joseph speaks.
The brothers are not able to come to grips with the situation. This powerful stranger has suddenly started speaking to them in their own language. The veil is removed. If the brothers were vulnerable and despairing in the previous chapter, now things have become infinitely worse. They are now faced with a reality that they had not even slightly suspected.
Joseph must repeat who he is, and for the first time he mentions a little incident that happened in Dothan many years before. This reference can hardly provide comfort for the bewildered brothers, and Joseph must attempt to lessen their stark terror and anxiety, for God’s providence works even in sin (Philemon 15). God commands us always to meet evil with good, and God Himself models that commandment. Anyone can bring good from good. Divine activity is chiefly manifest in bringing good out of evil. Joseph must repeat the lesson to be learned.
Joseph alternates between practical concerns and more emotion stirred by the moment. If the brothers actually said anything at this point, it was probably incoherent. They become extremely passive and obedient. As long as they are in Egypt, Genesis 45 will record not a single word from them. The entire impression from this chapter will be bewilderment to the point of stupefaction.
Joseph’s single question to them has to do simply with his father. Like Judah in the previous chapter, Joseph’s concern is with his father. This is entirely proper, because Jacob, on learning what had transpired, is overwhelmed with emotion. Some news is just too good to believe (Cf. Luke 24:37-38; Mark 16:9-13).