For the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Presbyterian Readings in the file for May 28, 2010, a week ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

Ecclesiastes 5:1-7

Reverence, Humility, and Contentment

5:1 Guard your steps when you go to the house of God; to draw near to listen is better than the sacrifice offered by fools; for they do not know how to keep from doing evil. 2 Never be rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be quick to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven, and you upon earth; therefore let your words be few.

3 For dreams come with many cares, and a fool's voice with many words.

4 When you make a vow to God, do not delay fulfilling it; for he has no pleasure in fools. Fulfill what you vow. 5 It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not fulfill it. 6 Do not let your mouth lead you into sin, and do not say before the messenger that it was a mistake; why should God be angry at your words, and destroy the work of your hands?

7 With many dreams come vanities and a multitude of words; but fear God. (Ecclesiastes 5:1-7, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here with some editing from June 6, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from June 9, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two):

Peter Machinist comments on this passage (Ecclesiastes 4:17-5:6 in the Hebrew Bible and the NJPS trans., 1985, 1999, but 5:1-7 NRSV, one verse number different): “This unit contains a set of warnings against various kinds of behavior that might at first seem acceptable to God and humans, but when carried to extremes, without a balanced sense of context, become objectionable and even dangerous, as they could provoke God’s anger” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, p. 1611, on Eccles. 4:17-5:6 Heb. = 5:1-7 NRSV). Here Solomon (Qoheleth) advises fidelity, consistency and reverence in the worship of God. According to Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, revised by Kent Harold Richards, “Though he wrestles with questions of God’s justice and knowability, Qoheleth here affirms traditional practices and views Right worship (including sacrifice and vows), wisdom, speech (see Jas 1:26), and living all belong together” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on eccles. 54:1-7). “Guard your steps when you go to the house of God,” says Qoheleth; “to draw near to listen is better than the sacrifice offered by fools; for they do not know how to keep from doing evil” (Eccl. 5:1 [Heb. 4:17]). Machinist comments on “the offering of fools” (Eccles. 4:17 JPS; ‘the sacrifice offered by fools’ 5:1 NRSV): “It [the passage] mentions first false sacrifice, which, as rabbinic commentary recognized, tries to cover up for sinful acts (cf. e.g., Amos 5:21-24)” (on v. 17 [5:1 NRSV]). Leong Seow comments on the same verse: “It is more acceptable to obey God than to show off one’s religiosity, as fools sometimes do (cf. Prov. 21:3; 1 Sam. 15:22; Am. 5:22-24; Hos. 6:6).” He adds, on the latter part of the verse, “They do not know how to keep from doing evil,” that “fools do not even know that they are doing wrong when they approach God frivolously” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Eccles. 5:1 NRSV).

Qoheleth’s next admonition relates to proper speech. “Never be rash with your mouth, nor let your heart (bl2, lēv)

be quick to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven, and you upon earth; therefore let your words be few” (v. 2 NRSV = v. 1 Heb, cf. v. 6 [5]). The NJPS translation says, “Keep your mouth from being rash, and let not your throat be quick to bring forth speech before God. For God is in heaven and you are on earth; that is why your words should be so few” (Eccl. 5:1 NJPS = Heb., = NRSV v. 2). The NJPS text note a says, “Heb. leb, lit. ‘heart,’ sometimes designates the organ of speech; cf. Isa. 33:18; 59:13; Ps. 19:15; 49:4; Job. 8:10.” “Uncontrolled speech,” says Machinist, “is a common motif in biblical and other ancient Near Eastern wisdom, where it is often juxtaposed to the virtue of silence; Rashbam here understands it as excessively long prayer” (op. cit., on Eccles. 5:1-2 NJPS = 5:2-3 NRSV). “Like Jesus,” says William P. Brown, “Qoheleth offers a terse theological rationale for guarding one’s speech,” and he quotes verse 2, with comparison to Matthew 5:34. “Perhaps more forcefully developed than most sages, Qoheleth’s theology avers that God is beyond human heart and mind, beyond human feelings and thoughts, beyond human expectations and desires” (Ecclesiastes, Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, 2000, p. 56, on Eccl. 5:1-7 [Heb. 4:17-5:6]).

The next admonition (5:3), a separate paragraph in the NRSV, is incorporated within a longer paragraph by the NJPS translation (5:1-6 Heb. & NJPS = 5:2-7 NRSV): “For dreams come with many cares, and fool’s voice with many words” (v. 3 NRSV). “Just as dreams come with much brooding, so does foolish utterance come with much speech” (v. 2 NJPS). Related is another verse, also a separate paragraph in the NRSV, but included within 5:1-6 [NRSV vv. 2-7] by the NJPS: “With many dreams come vanities and a multitude of words; but fear God” (5:7 NRSV). Of “fear God,” Seow says, “respect and awe before God are central values in wisdom literature (Job 28:28; Prov. 1:7). In the recent Jewish translation, the verse says, “For much dreaming leads to futility and to superfluous talk” (5:6 NJPS [= Heb]). The NJPS text note d says, “Meaning of verse uncertain. Emendation yields ‘Much brooding results in dreams; and much talk in futilities’; cf. v. 2.” According to Machinist,

The reference to dreams may stand as a negative image for anything ephemeral and unstable (e.g., Job 20:8 and ancient Egyptian literature). Alternately, the reference may be to the widespread Near Eastern, including biblical, appeal to dreams as a form of divine communication, here warning against undue reliance on them because they could be vague and misleading (cf. dreams of false prophets in Deut. 13:2, 4, 6; Jer. 23:25, 27, 28, 32; 27:9; 29:8; Zech. 10:2). (op. cit., on vv. 2, 6 [NRSV vv. 3, 7])

Seow essentially agrees. “In the ancient near east, dreams are regarded as illusory, and sometimes deceptive (cf. Job20:8; Isa. 29:7-8; Sir. 34:1-3). As dreams are illusory and unreliable, so are the words of loquacious fools (Prov. 10:8)” (Seow on v. 3 NRSV).

The next (NRSV) paragraph warns against failing to fulfill one’s religious vows. “When you make a vow to God, do not delay fulfilling it; for he has no pleasure in fools. Fulfill what you vow. It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not fulfill it. Do not let your mouth lead you into sin, and do not say before the messenger that it was a mistake; why should God be angry at your words, and destroy the work of your hands?” (5:4-6 = vv. 3-5 Heb. & NJPS). Machinist explains verses 3-5 (NJPS, 4-6 NRSV) as “Making rash vows that cannot, or are not intended to be paid (cf. Deut. 23:22-24; Prov. 20:25; Sir. 18:21)” (on vv. 3-5 [4-6 NRSV]). “Vows must be taken seriously,” says Seow, adding:

Cf. Deut. 23:21-22; Sir. 18:2. The text warns against the lack of restraint in speech, for the mouth may bring condemnation to the entire person (cf. Lev. 5:4; Prov. 10:19). It is unclear who the messenger in v. 6 refers to; perhaps the author has in mind the Temple priest to whom people went to confess that they have erred (see Num. 15:22-31; Lev. 4:2, 22, 27-30). The confession would be useless, however, because God would still be angry at the foolish utterances. (op. cit., on Eccl. 5:4-7)

On the concluding verse (v. 7 NRSV), see above, with the comments on verse 3 (NRSV).

Galatians 3:15-22

The Promise to Abraham (Cp Gen 12.1-3)

15 Brothers and sisters, I give an example from daily life: once a person's will has been ratified, no one adds to it or annuls it. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, "And to offsprings,"as of many; but it says, "And to your offspring," that is, to one person, who is Christ. 17 My point is this: the law, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from the promise; but God granted it to Abraham through the promise. (Galatians 3:15-18, NRSV)

The Purpose of the Law

19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained through angels by a mediator. 20 Now a mediator involves more than one party; but God is one.

21 Is the law then opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law. 22 But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. (Galatians 3:19-22, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from January 30, 2009 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when comments were repeated from June 6, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing from January 26, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when comments were repeated with some revision and supplement from June 9, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two), when some use was made of earlier comments, as noted there.

Paul continues to support his thesis (Gal. 2:15-21). The fourth argument, the “example from daily life” (Gal. 3:15) turns on the double meaning of the Greek word diaqhvkh (diathēkē), translated as “will” (i.e. “last will and testament”) in Gal. 3:15, but as “covenant” in verse 17. This understanding is combined with the reference to “offspring” (spevrma, sperma, literally “seed”) to show that the promise, is to (and through) Christ. The promises “were made to Abraham and to his offspring [seed]; it does not say, ‘and to offsprings,’ as of many, but it says, ‘And to your offspring,’ that is, to one person, who is Christ” (v. 16). Sheila Briggs points out that “Paul uses the same Greek word as the Septuagint text of God’s promises to Abraham in Genesis (Gen. 12:7; 15:5; 17:8; 22:17). Paul contrasts the singular seed in the text with the common (and in his view mistaken) interpretation of it as plural seeds” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Gal. 3:16).

Paul is then prepared to conclude that the Law of Moses, “which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise” (Gal 3:17). He explains: “For if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from the promise; but God granted it to Abraham through the promise” (v. 18). Paul anticipates certain questions, the first, “Why then the law? (v. 19a). The first answer is that the law “was added because of transgressions, until the offspring [Christ] would come to whom the promise had been made” (v. 19b). It further counts against the law that it was “ordained through angels by a mediator” (v. 19c), a view which, according to Bruce M. Metzger and John Reumann, was “according to later Jewish belief”(NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Gal. 3:19-25). Paul adds that, “a mediator involves more than one party; but God is one” (v. 20). This verse is called “obscure” by Briggs, who says that it “links monotheism with there being no need for a mediator of God’s promise” (op. cit., on v. 20). After referring to many interpretations of this verse, Ronald Y. K. Fung favors the view which

regards the plurality implied in “not . . . of one” as a duality of parties and understands the verse as emphasizing the one-sided nature of the promise. Here the thought is that while the very idea of mediation involved in the giving of the law indicates that it is of the nature of a contract between two parties, both of whom have to fulfill its terms for it to be valid, the promise is a unilateral disposition dependent solely on God’s sovereign grace. . . .

Thus far, then, in his answer to the question regarding the purpose of the law Paul has pointed to its negative function, its limited validity, its mediated communication, and its conditional nature–all of which show, by implication if not by explicit statement, that the later dispensation of law is inferior to the original covenant of promise. (The Epistle to the Galatians, NICNT, 1989, pp. 161-162, on Gal. 3:20)

The second question, “Is the law then opposed to the promises of God?” (v. 21a), is answered in the negative. “Certainly not!” For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law” (v. 21b). The law is not opposed to the promises of God. It is about righteousness even though it cannot “make alive.” The true remedy for the power of sin is “faith in Jesus Christ.” “But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.” (v. 22). Faith works, of course, when it is placed in someone who is trustworthy, when it is placed in God. Karl Barth has described faith as faith (pivstiV, pistis) in the faithfulness [pivstiV, pistis (same word)] of God (commenting on Romans 1:17, “through faith [pivstiV, pistis] for faith [pivstiV, pistis]”).

From faithfulness the righteousness of God reveals itself, that is to say, from His faithfulness to us. The very God has not forgotten men; the Creator has not abandoned the creation. . . . though the manifestation of what cannot be made known be the impossibility before which only the thoughtless are not terrified; yet, the faithfulness of God to men still abides.” (The Epistle to the Romans, trans., Edwyn C. Hoskyns, 1965, p. 41, on Rom. 1:17).

Barth adds: “Unto faith is revealed that which God reveals from His faithfulness. . . . Those who honestly allow themselves to be set to wait know thereby that they ought, must, and can, await the faithfulness of God” (ibid.). “In them is fulfilled the prophecy–The righteous shall live from faithfulness! (Hab. ii.4). . . . He shall live. He has the expectation of true life, for, recognizing that this life is naught, he is never without the prospect of incorruption in that which is passing to corruption” (ibid.). “He shall live of the faithfulness of God. Whether we say of the faithfulness of God or ‘of the faith of men’, both are the same” (ibid., p. 42).

Matthew 14:22-36

Jesus Walks on the Water (Mk 6.45-52; Jn 6.15-21)

22 Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. 23 And after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up the mountain by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, 24 but by this time the boat, battered by the waves, was far from the land, for the wind was against them. 25 And early in the morning he came walking toward them on the sea. 26 But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, saying, "It is a ghost!" And they cried out in fear. 27 But immediately Jesus spoke to them and said, "Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid."

28 Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water." 29 He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came toward Jesus. 30 But when he noticed the strong wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, "Lord, save me!" 31 Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?" 32 When they got into the boat, the wind ceased. 33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

Jesus Heals the Sick in Gennesaret (Mk 6.53-56)

34 When they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret. 35 After the people of that place recognized him, they sent word throughout the region and brought all who were sick to him, 36 and begged him that they might touch even the fringe of his cloak; and all who touched it were healed. (Matthew 14:22-36, NRSV)

Today’s reading from Matthew and the parallel texts in Mark and John are presented in the following table:

The following comments are repeated here from November 7, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 2, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from June 6, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two), when comments were repeated from November 10, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 2, Year One), when comments were repeated from June 9, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two), when comments were repeated with some editing and supplement from November 5, 2005 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 2, Year One).

For recent comments on these passages from the perspective of Mark’s version, see the Archive for March 12, 2010 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday of Lent, Year Two); for recent comments from the perspective of John’s version, see the Archive for January 30, 2010 (Saturday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two).

At this point in a parallel version of the Gospels such as Aland’s (see the table above), it is remarkable to find parallel versions of events in Matthew, Mark and John, but not in Luke. In general, the narratives of Jesus’ public ministry in Mark and Luke run parallel up to and including the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Mk. 1:14-6:44 and Lk. 4:14-9:17) and, after a gap in Luke, the pattern continues (Mk. 8:27-9:41 and Lk. 9:18-50; Mk. 10:13 to the the Passion Narrative and Lk. 18:15 to the Passion Narrative). There are, of course, a number of incidental differences within these overall narratives, but two significant variations in the pattern stand out. The first has been called Luke’s major omission: on the assumption that Mark is one of his sources, he omits Mark 6:45-8:26, beginning with the account of Jesus Walking on the Water (Mk. 6:45-52). The second is Luke’s “Travel Narrative,” the account of Jesus final journey from Galilee to Jerusalem (Lk. 9:51-18:14).

John, however, who often goes his own way, presents a sequence of events at this point that has been compared to the Synoptic tradition, that is, a block of material with a common sequence is shared by the Mark-Matthew tradition (or the “pre-Markan” tradition, if you will) and the Johannine tradition. Vincent Taylor says of Mark’s account of “the Landing at Gennesaret” (Mk. 6:53-56):

This section is a narrative composed by Mark on the basis of tradition. [In other words, he did not find it in its present form in one of his sources.] In this respect it resembles iii. 7-12. Cf. Dibelius, 224; Bultmann, 366. It is not, however, a purely literary and imaginative sketch. There are good reasons for this view. The connexion with the preceding story of the Crossing is good, and there is reason to believe that the Feeding of the Five Thousand, the Crossing, and the Landing, attested twice over by Mark (vi. 30-56 and viii. 1-10) and by John (vi. 1-25), formed a fixed series in the earliest tradition. (The Gospel According To St. Mark, 1959, p.331 on Mk. 6:53-56; cf. pp. 628-632)

For John, these events essentially bring the period of Jesus’ Galilean ministry to a close–most of the activity beginning with John chapter 7 (and some of the earlier material in chapters 2, 3 and 5 as well) is located in Judea. The note about Jesus’ withdrawal when “they were about to come and take him by force to make him king” (Jn. 6:15) is one indication of this transition.

After being present at the feeding of the five thousand, you would think the disciples would begin to understand–but they did not (Mk. 6:52). “Immediately,” says Matthew, “he made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds” (Mt. 14:22; cf. Mk. 6:45). In Mark the disciples’ destination is Bethsaida. “After he had dismissed the crowds,” says Matthew, “he went up the mountain by himself to pray” (Mt:14:23a; cf. Mk. 6:46). John, who closed his report of the feeding of the five thousand by saying, “When the people saw the sign that he had done, they began to say, ‘This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world’ ” (Jn 6:14), continues, saying, “When Jesus realized that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, he withdrew again to the mountain by himself” (v. 15). “When evening came,” says Matthew, “he was there alone, but by this time the boat, battered by the waves , was far from the land, for the wind was against them” (Mt. 14:23b, 24; cf. Mk. 6:47, 48; Jn. 6:16-18). Mark describes the disciples’ difficulty: “they were straining at the oars against an adverse wind” (Mk. 6:48a). John says, “The sea became rough because a strong wind was blowing” (Jn. 6:18). “When he saw that they were straining at the oars against an adverse wind, he [i.e., Jesus] came towards them early in the morning, walking on the sea” (Mk. 6:49a). Matthew simplifies this a little. “And early in the morning he came walking toward them on the sea” (Mt. 14:25). John’s version includes the distance traveled by the disciples in their boat. “when they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat and they were terrified” (Jn. 6:19). “He intended to pass them by,” says Mark, “But when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought it was a ghost (favntasma, phantasma) and cried out; for all saw him and were terrified” (Mk. 6:48b-50a). That “he intended to pass them by” (v. 48) is explained as describing “the way Jesus appeared to his disciples” (Elwyn E. Tilden and Bruce M. Metzger, NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Mk. 6:48). Matthew omits the intention to pass the disciples by (Mk.), but says, “But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, saying, ‘It is a ghost (favntasma, phantasma)!’ And they cried out in fear” (Mt. 14:26). The word translated “ghost” occurs only here in the New Testament (Mk. 6:49; Mt. 14:2) and as a variant reading (ms. D) at Luke 24:37. It means “apparition, especially ghost,” and appears in classical and Hellenistic writers, including the Septuagint (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. favntasma, phantasma). In Luke’s account of the Lord’s post-resurrection appearance to the disciples (Lk. 24:36-43), when Jesus “stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a ghost (pneu:ma, pneuma [favntasma, phantasma, ms. D])” (Lk. 24:36b, 37). Jesus explains, “Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost (pneu:ma, pneuma [no variants listed, Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 26^th ed., 1979, 4^th printing 1981, ad loc.]) does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have” (v. 39).

In the present account, we are told, “But immediately Jesus [‘he’ Mk.] spoke to them and said , ‘Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid’ ” (Mt. 14:27 = Mk. 6:50b; cf. Jn. 6:20). Some manuscripts of Matthew’s text omit the name Jesus (x* D 084 892 and others, and there are other minor differences in the Greek form of Matthew’s and Mark’s version, but the words of Jesus, “Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid” (Qarsei:te, ejgwv eijmi` mh; fobei:sqe, Tharseite, egō eimi: mē phobeisthe), are the same in Matthew and Mark. John has the last four words, omitting Qarsei:te (Tharseite, “Take heart”). Apparently they were still lacking in faith, for “they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened” (Mk. 6:52). But the next scene, when many were healed (vv. 53-56), ought to have been an encouragement to their faith. How easy it is to let our own faith dwindle when we face “an adverse wind” (Mk. 6:48).

So far, the story is closely parallel to the versions of Mark (Mk. 6:45-52) and John (Jn. 6:16-21, briefer, but basically the same so far). The most dramatic feature of the story–found only in Matthew–is Peter’s attempt to come to Jesus on the water. “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water” (Mt. 14:28). When Jesus said, “Come,” Peter “got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came toward Jesus. But when he noticed the strong wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, ‘Lord, save me!’” (vv. 29-30). We know that Jesus “reached out his hand and caught him” (v. 31a), but we may ponder Jesus’ words, “You of little faith ( =Oligovpiste, Oligopiste, adjective, vocative [direct address] case, singular]), why did you (second person singular verb ending) doubt?”

For Mark and John the point of the story is the miracle itself. Here is “the man who walks on water.” We borrow the phrase, “So and so can walk on water!” But with Jesus it is amazing. For John it is one of the signs (shmei:a, semeia) that he begins to enumerate: Water to Wine as the first sign (ch. 2), Healing the Official’s Son as the second (ch. 4), after which the enumeration breaks off. But he summarizes the book, or a significant part of it, as a selection of signs (Jn. 20:30-31). In the three accounts Jesus says “It is I” (Mt. 14:27; Mk. 6:50; Jn. 6:20) but the words (ego eimi) could be translated “I am” (cf. NRSV notes in Mark & John), alluding to the divine name given to Moses (Ex. 3:14).

As for the Walking on the Water miracle, if we believe that “all things came into being through him [i.e. the Logos = Jesus]” (Jn. 1:3), that he is one with the Father, of whom the Psalmist said:

When the waters saw you, O God,

When the waters saw you, they were afraid;

The very deep trembled.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Your way was through the sea,

Your path, through the mighty waters;

Yet your footprints were unseen. (Ps. 77:16, 19, NRSV)

why can’t we believe that Jesus really did walk on water? But there are respectable and responsible scholars who are generally traditional and “conservative” in their approach to controversial issues of biblical criticism who nevertheless give consideration to other explanations. Taylor says:

For the modern reader the point of difficulty is the walking on the water. A not negligible objection is the fact that it cannot be said that the intervention of Jesus meets a desperate need. The disciples are distressed by the wind, but they are not in jeopardy of their lives. . . . Most difficult of all is the objection that a docetic view of the person of Christ appears to be implied. (op. cit., 326-327, on Mk. 5:45-52).

William Barclay, whose conclusion is less decisive against the miracle, suggests that the key phrase in Matthew 14:25, ejpi; th;n qavlassan, epi tēn thalassan, can equally mean either “over the sea” or “towards the sea,” and that ejpi; th:V qalavsshV, epi tēs thalassēs (v. 26), “on the sea” is used in John 21:1 for “at the sea,” that is, “by the seashore, of Tiberias” (The Gospel of Matthew, Daily Study Bible, rev. ed., 1975, p. 105 on Mt. 14:22-27), which he interprets as “a real difficulty in knowing what happened,” since “there are two perfectly possible interpretations of this passage. He adds:

But, whatever interpretation of the Greek we choose, the significance is perfectly clear. In the hour of the disciples’ need Jesus came to them. When the wind was contrary and life was a struggle, Jesus was there to help. No sooner had a need arisen, than Jesus was there to help.

In life the wind is often contrary. There are times when we are up against it and life is a desperate struggle with ourselves, with our circumstances, with our temptations, with our sorrows, with our decisions. At such a time no man need struggle alone, for Jesus comes to him across the storms of life, with hand stretched out to save, and with his calm clear voice bidding us take heart and have no fear. (op. cit., pp. 105-106)

“When they got into the boat, the wind ceased,” says Matthew (Mt. 14:32; cf. Mk. 6:51a). For Mark’s description of the disciples’ astonishment and misunderstanding (Mk. 6:51b, 52), Matthew has, “And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God’ ” (Mt. 14:33). Dennis C. Duling, commenting on Jesus’ question, “You of little faith, why did you doubt?” (v. 31), says “Their doubt is apparently reversed in v. 33; see 28:17” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mt. 14:31).

When Peter stepped out of the boat to come to Jesus, Jesus’ words to him come to us as well, especially when we face challenges that seem insurmountable in human terms. “Come. . . . You of little faith, why did you doubt” (Mt:14:29, 31). But after reflection on this event, and perhaps in his preaching, Matthew thought about Peter’s actions as typical of many Christians. They make a good beginning, but doubt overcomes faith, and they falter. They need to learn to sing:

When the storms of life are raging / Stand by me / When the storms of life are raging / Stand by me

When the world is tossing me / Like a ship out on the sea / Thou who rulest wind and water / Stand by me.

            (Stand by Me, by Charles A. Tindley)

This hymn, Stand by Me, by Charles A. Tindley, is on the Internet, at a site called cyberhymnal.org,

complete with music, at http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/s/t/standbym.htm, accessed again June 4, 2010).

In the concluding paragraph of today’s reading, we are told, “When they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret” (Mt. 14:34; cf Mk. 6:53, which adds, “and moored the boat”). “Gennesaret,” says J. Andrew Overman, was “a district on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee (which was sometimes called the Lake of Gennesaret)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 14:24). It was about two or three miles southwest of Capernaum along the shore of the Sea of Galilee (cf. the scale of Map 13, NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007), and thus close to Jesus’ home and headquarters, so to speak (cf. Mt. 4:13). “After the people of that place recognized him,” says Matthew, “they sent word throughout the region and brought all who were sick to him” (Mt. 14:35). Mark’s version (Mk. 6:54-56a is more detailed and elaborate, but concludes, as does Matthew’s with people wanting to touch Jesus’ clothes; they “begged him that they might touch even the fringe of his cloak; and all who touched it were healed (Mt. 14:36; cf. Mk 6:56b). John’s version, though with a rather different emphasis, has crowds looking for Jesus as well (Jn. 6:22-25).

As noted above, for the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Presbyterian Readings in the file for May 28, 2010, a week ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net