Time Immortal

John Sutherland writes, in response to this article:

Before you go too far with Origen you had best check out other of his views that the Catholic Church would have to condemn as heretical.

It is true that many of Origen’s teachings were later condemned as heretical — but, as I’ve said before, everyone gets it right sometimes (that article isn’t related to Origen, but it’s an example of me saying what I just said I’ve said before).

In fairness, though, the theological difficulties that Origen ultimately got into with the Church seem to have more to do with his followers, and the views later attributed to him. Though many of his teachings were ultimately condemned as being anathema, he remains a father of the Church, and many of his analytical and theological methods are still considered valid even today.

And if in the end it is what is true that matters, then whether other aspects of Origen’s teachings were condemned is irrelevant: if he is, in fact, right about the fact that to fully comprehend John, we cannot push the Blessed Virgin to the sidelines, then that is what is important, and at the heart of the matter. And in fact, he is quite correct about that: the Gospel of John, itself a heavily theological work, culminates with the image of Christ as the Tree of Life, with the beloved disciple and Mary attending to Him. And Christ gives Mary her son, and gives the beloved disciple — and, by extension, all of us who are in Christ — a mother. The whole of the Gospel must be approached with this final act of the Lord in mind.

Update: Welcome, Way of the Fathers readers!

Though it confirms the obvious, it never hurts to reflect that the more one explores early Christianity, the more one will find that the teachings and traditions of the early Church can only lead one in a single direction: toward Catholicism.

As anyone who has studied the New Testament or the Gospel of John knows, modern Biblical scholars love to quote the early Church Father Clement of Alexandria’s comment that the Gospel of John is a “spiritual Gospel.” It is interesting that you never see the similar comments of the great biblicist, Origen, who had this to say:

“No one can grasp the meaning of the Gospel (of John) unless he has rested on the breast of Jesus, and unless he has received from Him Mary, who becomes his mother also.” (Origen, Commentary on John, 1:6)

All truth, in and outside of Scripture, is found in the Church, and the degree to which we part with Rome is the degree to which we part from the fullest revelation of Christ.

Update: Welcome, Way of the Fathers readers!

So why does Mary matter to Catholics? Indeed, why should Mary matter to Christians, of any kind, at all? There is actually a very good reason, and it has quite a lot to do with Jesus‘ instruction to the beloved apostle at the foot of the Cross: “behold your mother.” It also has a lot to do with Mary herself, and her role in God’s plan of salvation. Because Mary is not just another human being — she is, for Christians, a special example, and also a marker.

Because Mary, you see, always points us to Christ. Mary glorifies Christ. And Satan is well aware of this, because historically, those heresies and false teachings which have sought to undermine the full divinity of Christ have often begun by attacking some aspect of the theology concerning Mary.

Let’s begin, though, by considering an objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary advanced by some Christians.

It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus’ mother Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Is this concept Biblical? Before we get into looking at specific Scriptures, it is important to understand why the Roman Catholic Church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Roman Catholic Church views Mary as “the Mother of God” and “Queen of Heaven.” Catholics believe Mary to have an exalted place in Heaven, with the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. Such a concept is nowhere taught in Scripture. Further, even if Mary did occupy such an exalted position, her having sexual intercourse would not have prevented her from gaining such a position. Sex in marriage is not sinful. Mary would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual relations with Joseph her husband. The entire concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based on an unbiblical teaching, Mary as Queen of Heaven, and on an unbiblical understanding of sex.

The key thing here to which I wish to draw attention is the isolation of the belief in Mary as the Theotokos — the God-bearer, the Mother of God — as a solely Catholic belief. Note the implied rejection of the belief in Mary being the Mother of God on the grounds that it is apparently unbiblical.

We’ve addressed the matter of the above author’s lack of understanding of sex in the Bible already, and nothing further needs to be said on that matter. But let’s look at the rejection of the Catholic belief that Mary is the Theotokos, the Mother of God. This sounds like something fairly new, but it is actually a very old fallacy indeed.

As Mark Shea notes, “in the fifth century there arose (yet again) the question of just who Jesus is. It was a question repeated throughout antiquity and, in this case, an answer to the question was proposed by the Nestorians. They argued that the mortal man Jesus and the Logos, or Second Person of the Trinity, were more or less two persons occupying the same head. For this reason, they insisted that Mary could not be acclaimed (as she had been popularly acclaimed for a very long time) as Theotokos, or God bearer. Instead, she should only be called Christotokos, or Christ bearer. She was, they insisted, the Mother of Jesus, not of God.”

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? But consider, O Reader: Nestorianism was a heresy that the Church had to address fairly early on in its life (indeed, it happened not long after the formal canonization of Scripture!). Something goes awry when we reject Mary as the mother of God, as the concerned Christian above has done.

Shea continues: “The problem with this was that it threatened the very witness of the Church and could even lead logically to the notion that there were two Sons of God, the man Jesus and the Logos who was sharing a room with Him in His head. In short, it was a doorway to theological chaos over one of the most basic truths of the Faith: that the Word became flesh, died, and rose for our sins.”

John 1 makes it very clear: the Logos (the Word) is God. Jesus is God. Only the es make the mistake of separating God and the Word, incorrectly modifying John 1 to read “the Word was a god.” For all intents and purposes, all Christians today accept it as a basic article of faith that Jesus, the Word, is God, one in being with the Father and the Spirit in the blessed union that is the Holy Trinity, which God ultimately is.

And all the Gospels make it equally clear: Mary is the mother of Jesus, the Word (who is God) made flesh. It’s right there in the Bible: Mary is the mother of God (the Word) made flesh; she is the Mother of God. And to deny this actually begins to deny the very divinity of the human person of Christ. And to this heresy, notes Shea, “the Church formulated its response. First, Jesus Christ is not two persons occupying the same head. He is one person possessing two natures, human and divine, joined in a hypostatic union. Second, it was appropriate to therefore call Mary Theotokos because she’s the Mother of the God-Man. When the God-Man had His friends over for lunch, He didn’t introduce Mary saying, “This is the mother of my human nature.” He said, “This is my mother.”

Why did the Church do this? Because, once again, Mary points to Jesus. The dogma of the Theotokos is a commentary on Jesus, a sort of “hedge” around the truth about Jesus articulated by the Church. Just as Nestorianism had tried to attack the orthodox teaching of Christ through Mary (by forbidding the veneration of her as Theotokos), now the Church protected that teaching about Christ by making Theotokos a dogma. That is a vital key to understanding Marian dogmas: They’re always about some vital truth concerning Jesus, the nature of the Church, or the nature of the human person.”

Jesus was fully human, and yet fully divine, and these two aspects of Him were, and remain, inseparable. He was born in a very human birth. He lived a very human life. He suffered through and died a very human death. And He rose again as a human, at all times the Word and flesh perfectly united, for the forgiveness of sins and the salvation of mankind.

It isn’t easy, at first, to see the machinations of the devil in the Nestorian heresy, but we can see the devil’s intent in looking at the implications of what seems, on the surface, to be a fairly innocuous teaching concerning a somewhat perplexing statement concerning Mary. For if we deny, as some Christians unfortunately continue to do (apparently in their zeal to condemn Catholicism), that Mary was the Mother of God, we must necessarily deny that she was not the mother of the Word, only of the flesh and blood in which the Word was clothed.

Which means that Jesus, the Logos, did not have a fully human birth.

Which means that Jesus, the Word, did not live a fully human life.

Which means that Jesus, the Christ who is God, did not suffer through and die a fully human death.

Which has, I submit to the Reader, disastrous implications for our salvation prospects as Christians. I believe Paul had something to say about us being most pitiable in just such a circumstance. And yet just such a circumstance arises out of what seems to be a straightforward rejection of a doctrine that doesn’t even directly concern Christ! But that is the devil’s cunning, for Satan knows that if the mother can be undermined, the Son can be undermined because of it.

Now, why is this important to Christians? Well, there’s two reasons. The first, of course, is that we are told we are to defend the faith against false teachings, and it behooves us to do so. Denial of Mary’s status as Theotokos is just one such false teaching, but it is a particularly vicious and odious one because of its far-reaching implications. But it is also important to us because we are commanded to honour our father and our mother. And that doesn’t just apply to our blood parents either, I might point out. We are to honour our Father in Heaven as well…and likewise, our Mother.

Possible Objection #7: wait, what? Our Mother in Heaven???!!

Response to Objection #7: yes indeed.

The author of the Gospel of John notes that he did not record everything that transpired in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ word-for-word, nor did he include every event in his account of Jesus. In John 20, he disclaims his work:

[30] Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;

[31] but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

John is giving us a bit of a hint here: not everything about Jesus or His life was recorded in the Gospel, but enough of significance was recorded, that we might believe. The author is suggesting to us that everything within his account of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ has significance above and beyond simply being a relating of who Jesus was, and what He did — every event in John’s Gospel has significant theological meaning.

So when Christ tells the beloved disciple “behold your Mother,” John doesn’t record it, as Mark Shea notes, “because he thought his readers might be curious about domestic arrangements for childless Jewish widows…For the Beloved Disciple is you and not merely John. Mary is your mother and you are her child. And so we are to look to her as mother and imitate her as she imitates Christ.”

The whole of the Gospel of John is written in an odd perspective; though it has been long-held by almost all Christian theologians that the term “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is used, in John’s Gospel, in a self-referential capacity, John’s choice of phrasing has always been understood to mean that what is true for the beloved disciple is true for all whom Christ loves, and who follow Christ. When Jesus tells John, the beloved, “behold your mother,” He tells us that as well. He entrusts care of Mary to us, and presents her to us as our mother, and our example.

In the normal family model, the mother is the principal example that children have to draw upon, especially at younger ages. Mom is the teacher, the witness, and the person whom young children should first begin to imitate when they begin to strive to behave morally. This is God’s “very good” design in action, O Reader, and it comes as no surprise that Christ would, in His desire that humanity continue to learn of and draw near to Him, present His mother to us to be our mother, to be our example, and for us to imitate in her surrender to (and participation in) the will of God, and in God’s salvific grace.

Because there is one thing Christ cannot do directly: he cannot show us what a follower of Christ looks like. And as Shea notes, “the first and best model of the disciple of Jesus is the one who said and lived “Yes!” to God, spontaneously and without even the benefit of years of training or the necessity of being knocked off a horse and blinded. And she continues to do so right through the agony of watching her Son die and the ecstasy of knowing Him raised again.”

The possibility exists for some interesting dialogue to emerge when one compares how different passages of the Gospels refer to Mary. And of course, we are a bit limited in our ability to discuss the marriage of Mary and Joseph, hampered as we are by the near-total absence of Joseph from the rest of the Gospel narratives, apart from what we learn of him during the accounts of Jesus‘ birth. And let’s be yet more honest, O Reader: can we, personally and individually, actually recall one word that Joseph has said which was recorded by the authors of the Gospels?

Anyhow, that wasn’t really a relevant comment, so let’s move on to the topic at hand. We’ve looked at the Annunciation to Mary, and we more or less ended that discussion with Luke 1:34, which is a rather pivotal Biblical verse in support of the idea that Mary remained perpetually virginal after bearing Christ. This is, of course, the verse in which she posed the question to the angel, “how can this be?”

We didn’t really move on to the angel’s response, though, did we?

[35] And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;
therefore the child to be born will be called holy,
the Son of God.

The reason that I put this verse in this section of my analysis, rather than in the section pertaining to the Annunciation, is that this verse actually references a concept that can be found in the Old Testament. The concept of being “overshadowed” is a less-commonly used euphemism for sex, but to Jews living 2,000 years ago the word would have had that meaning. It’s a little like how we say people are “sleeping together”, when we really mean that they are doing something else that typically involves a) a bed, and b) not sleeping, at least not at the time.

But more than that, the concept of overshadowing — or, alternatively, spreading a cloak or a wing over someone — would have been understood by the Jews to refer, more specifically, to marital sexual relations, not just to sex in general. Consider Ruth 3:

[7] And when Bo’az had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain. Then she came softly, and uncovered his feet, and lay down.
[8] At midnight the man was startled, and turned over, and behold, a woman lay at his feet!
[9] He said, “Who are you?” And she answered, “I am Ruth, your maidservant; spread your skirt over your maidservant, for you are next of kin.”
[10] And he said, “May you be blessed by the LORD, my daughter; you have made this last kindness greater than the first, in that you have not gone after young men, whether poor or rich.
[11] And now, my daughter, do not fear, I will do for you all that you ask, for all my fellow townsmen know that you are a woman of worth.
[12] And now it is true that I am a near kinsman, yet there is a kinsman nearer than I.
[13] Remain this night, and in the morning, if he will do the part of the next of kin for you, well; let him do it; but if he is not willing to do the part of the next of kin for you, then, as the LORD lives, I will do the part of the next of kin for you. Lie down until the morning.”

The astute Reader will catch the meaning of Ruth’s statement concerning Boaz being “next of kin” (and if not, the Reader should look up Mark 12:18-27, in which Jesus is tested on a curious aspect of marital law in Judaism). Her meaning, in saying what she does, is that she desires Boaz to take her as his wife.

So let’s come back to Mary, overshadowed by the Spirit. The angel’s choice of words is, as I said, no accident, for it communicates a very important truth not only about the conception of Christ, but also concerning Mary’s sexuality as well. In essence, Mary became the spouse of the Holy Spirit — of God — when the Spirit overshadowed her; moreover, having been overshadowed by the Spirit, Joseph was actually forbidden to approach Mary sexually (c.f. Genesis 49:3, 2 Samuel 20:3).

For Joseph to have later had any sexual relationship with Mary which was legitimate and non-sinful in nature according to Mosaic Law (the extant covenant between God and mankind at that time, which both Mary and Joseph would have observed), Mary’s husband would either have had to divorced her or died. And since we know, from Jesus, that divorce is immoral in God’s eyes, and since we likewise know that God is not dead…it only makes sense to conclude that Joseph never approached Mary sexually. Consequently, we are again pointed in the direction of the conclusion that Mary remained perpetually virginal.

Possible Objection #5: but Scripture mentions the brothers and sisters of Jesus! “Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Later, in Galatians 1:19, it mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood siblings.”

Response to Objection #5: it should be noted that in Hebrew, there aren’t really notions of extended family; even distant relatives will get lumped under the general category of “brothers and sisters” (or “bretheren”, which might be a more accurate translation of the Biblical text).

Possible Objection #6: you silly Catholic! The Gospels were written in Greek, not Hebrew.

Response to Objection #6: quite correct. But the writers of the Gospels were themselves Hebrews, and would have imprinted their cultural biases onto the text they were writing, regardless of the language they were writing in.

Consider: if I am a priest standing before a congregation, and I greet “my brothers and sisters” in English, I am going to greet them in the same way if I switch to French. More importantly, just because I have switched to French does not mean I am in any way obligated to now be more specific in referring to the assembled people according to more precise descriptions of my relationship to them.

The fact that the Gospels were written in Greek is likewise meaningless, as far as this objection is concerned. The authors were Hebrews, and would have written as Hebrews, but in Greek. They would have used modes of speaking common to Hebrews, transliterated into Greek. And indeed, the Greek word adelphos, which is the relevant word here, does not always refer to same-womb siblings. Indeed, as Randall notes, the phrase adelphos “can mean same nationality (Acts 3:17; Rom 9:3), any man, or neighbor (Mt 5:22; Lk 10:29), persons with like interests (Mt 5:47), distant descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23,26; Heb 7:5), persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9), mankind in general (Mt 25:40; Heb 2:17), the disciples (Mt 28:10; Jn 20:17), [and] all believers (Mt 23:8; Acts 1:15; Rom 1:13; 1 Thess 1:4; Rev 19:10). In other words, just because certain people are referred to as brethren of Jesus, this certainly does not automatically mean that they were His first-degree siblings.”

And in fact, there are other parts of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life which further suggest that he had no brothers and sisters by Mary’s womb. Consider, for example, Luke 2:

[41] Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover.

[42] And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom;
[43] and when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it,
[44] but supposing him to be in the company they went a day’s journey, and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances;
[45] and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking him.
[46] After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions;
[47] and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.
[48] And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.”
[49] And he said to them, “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?”
[50] And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them.
[51] And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.

The context here suggests that Jesus was still an only child at age 12. If memory serves, it is commonly held that Jesus was in his mid-30s when he went up to be crucified, so it would stand to reason that if he had had any adult siblings present during portions of his ministry (which, again, the text of the Gospels would seem to imply), then one would expect that there might be early mention of such siblings, that some confirmation would exist that Mary and Joseph had given rise to additional offspring. This is especially true of the Gospel of Luke, which pays closest attention to the Holy Family.

Instead, we hear nothing of it. And coming back to what I noted before, about the objection that some have to the perpetual virginity of Mary based on the difficulty of believing that a Jewish woman 2,000 years ago could have been married and yet remained celibate, I might note that if we accept that objection as being true, we must also think it strange that Jesus had no siblings — at least, none that are mentioned — unto his 12th year of age.

Indeed, it would also appear that the residents of Jesus’ home town of Nazareth had not heard of Mary giving birth to and additional children even when Jesus had reached adulthood and begun His ministry. From Mark 6, we hear of this exchange:

[1] He went away from there and came to his own country; and his disciples followed him.

[2] And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands!
[3] Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
[4] And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.”
[5] And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them.
[6] And he marveled because of their unbelief.

At first, Mark 6:3 would appear to imply that Jesus has direct familial siblings. But look at the text closely. Jesus is “the” son of Mary and Joseph, not “a” son of Mary and Joseph. We’ve already discussed how “brothers and sisters”, even in Greek, can refer to people of the same town or region, more distant relatives, and other people of familiarity to, but not necessarily directly related to, a person. But what’s really telling is how Jesus is singled out as the son of the Holy Family, not one son out of many.

But what really clinches the argument against Jesus having siblings born out of Mary’s womb is the scene at the foot of the Cross, in the Gospel of John. From John 19, we hear this:

[25]…standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

[26] When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
[27] Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

The description of who is assembled at the foot of the Cross is paralleled in Mark 15:

[40] There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo’me,

[41] who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him; and also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem.

This is echoed in Matthew 27:

[55] There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him;

[56] among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb’edee.

From John, we learn that Mary (Jesus’ mother) was at the foot of the cross, along with her sister (Clopas’ wife), and Mary Magdalene. From Matthew, we actually don’t hear whether Jesus’ mother is present or not; we see again Mary Madgalene, as well as the mother of the sons of Zebedee (whose name, we learn from Mark, is Salome). And we also see “the other Mary”, the wife of Clopas, who is actually the mother of James and John (who are elsewhere referenced as ‘brothers’ of Jesus).

In other words: the Bible itself confirms that the ’siblings’ of Jesus are actually not direct siblings of his, but rather are children of a sibling of his mother’s. This is also confirmed, for those who know a thing or two about Jewish familial customs, in Jesus’ handing over care of His mother to the beloved disciple. Had she had any extant, living children apart from Christ, they would have been charged with her care. Since, however, Jesus had no blood siblings, He gave care of His mother over to the disciple whom He loved.

Now, the Reader may be beginning to wonder why all this really matters. It’s a fair question, and a part of the answer is given by Christ directly when he gives care of Mary over to John, the beloved. “Behold your mother,” Christ instructs. It turns out that this is not just a commandment given to one man.

I’m going to take a day’s break from all the brouhaha that normally percolates through the blog here. It’s Friday, and it’s a good time to turn my thoughts away from the matters that trouble the world which I inhabit, and the orbits I find myself in. It would be nice to start preparing myself for Sunday, for Mass, and for yet another encounter with the Lord.

I’m talking, of course, about Eucharist, the source and summit of Christian faith. And also, both inside and outside of Catholicism, one of the most misunderstood aspects of the faith.

Catholicism makes what seems, initially, to be a very bold claim: that Christ Jesus literally becomes present in the breaking of the bread at each and every Mass, that the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine, retaining only the “accidental” (to use the Aristotelean term) of qualities of each — the bread and wine still look like bread and wine, and still taste like it. But, contrary to the “if it quacks like a duck” thinking of the rest of the world around us, Catholics nevertheless boldly assert that despite the fact that the bread and wine seem, by all appearances, to still be bread and wine, they are in fact anything but.

It’s a bold declaration of complete faith…faith not in the Church (as an institution), nor faith in the priest, nor faith in the wafer itself. No, it is a declaration of faith in Christ, an affirmation of the Catholic belief that Christ really is Lord and King of all creation, and the He does so love the world — and everyone in it — that He desires to draw to Him those who profess their need for Him.

Equally, it is a declaration of faith in a Christ whose love and desire to be in communion with those who profess their need for His promise of salvation and forgiveness of sin that He will make Himself present to them, in keeping with His promise that He would be in the midst of any number who gather in His name. We all must die in due course and will, in so doing, end up before the Lord. But prior to that, Christ — out of love — elects to come into our presence too. His love for humanity is so great, and His desire to be in communion with us so powerful, that He will step down, but for a moment, to be with us in our present-tense reality, appearing before us in a guise at once hidden and yet obvious, as surely as He appeared to the disciples walking on the road to Emmaus.

It’s a powerful belief. But then, Christ is Lord and King of all creation — it is proper that a teaching pertaining to the direct intersection of Christ and the world is powerful.

Within Scripture, the first hints of the Eucharist are presented in the Gospel of John, in chapter 6. The close association between the Eucharistic revelation and the Paschal Meal is at once obvious.

[4] Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.
[5] Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a multitude was coming to him, Jesus said to Philip, “How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?”
[6] This he said to test him, for he himself knew what he would do.
[7] Philip answered him, “Two hundred denarii would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little.”
[8] One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him,
[9] “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are they among so many?”
[10] Jesus said, “Make the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place; so the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
[11] Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted.
[12] And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, “Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost.”
[13] So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten.
[14] When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!”
[15]Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

These are not usually the verses cited in any apologetic concerning the Eucharist, but I would like to preface my analysis by noting the significance of the event within them. A large multitude has gathered to see and hear the teachings of Jesus, and Jesus — deeply moved — worries after the need of the people to eat. There is precious little food available to achieve that end, of course — to feed five thousand, two loaves and five fishes would amount to mere crumbs per person.

And so Jesus effects a miracle, both as a sign to the people and as a test of faith for the disciples. I’ve always thought the scene’s portrayal in Jesus of Nazareth captured the mood of the disciples perfectly, and I am still struck by the image of the apostle John holding forth an empty basket, apologizing that what little is in it is all he has. And yet, when the camera pans back to the basket, it is overflowing.
Read the rest of this entry »