New Thoughts (05/19/08-06/21/08)
Before I get started in earnest, I shall first make note of the issue that some bring up with regard to this passage. They are concerned that it seems to be a second description of the same event first told back around Mark 6:35 and its parallels. There are such similarities, these critics would maintain, and the events are so unlikely, that surely they are one and the same event! Of course, by maintaining such a position, they are also declaring Matthew and Mark to be outright liars on several accounts. On a most basic level, they would have to be liars to include two accounts of the same one event, particularly Mark, who makes it clear that he intends to describe a second case of miraculous feeding. “In those days again,” are the word he chooses to introduce the matter. Then, of course, there are the myriad details that differ, which would also require that our authors be not only liars, but particularly ineffectual ones.
Over against the skeptics are those who set out these differences as a fundamental proof that the events are not the same. They will then bring up the later rebuke of Jesus to His disciples, when He brings both the former and the latter feedings to mind. “Don’t you remember?” Now, for the Christian, these proofs would be more than enough. Indeed, for the Christian, the question really ought not to arise in the first place. The simple fact that these two events are described as being two events in the text of the inspired Scriptures, whose inspiration and development we hold as being in the hands of the Holy Spirit of God, the Spirit of Truth, should suffice to establish the veracity of the event.
For the skeptic, proofs such as this would be utterly useless. Of course, if the disciples were trying to boost Jesus’ credentials by doubling up the evidence, they would change details here and there to make the events look different. It would be quite beyond even the most gullible to suppose that two accounts that matched in every detail were describing different events! As for Jesus bringing up the two events, they might point out that the same gospels that repeat the feedings are those which include that rebuke, and it comes as part of essentially the same narrative. Neither Luke nor John bring up this second feast or that rebuke. Is this not also a certain weight of evidence against the uniqueness of the event? Luke, who was so concerned for accuracy, does not cover the event. Perhaps he, too, found it debatable? John, who had doubtless had opportunity to review both of these texts before writing his own account also skips over this, though he includes the first. Why? Did he consider them spurious accounts?
Well, I dare say if he had, he would have spoken out against them, even if they were given by the hands of Matthew and Peter. John’s writings make it clear enough that his commitment to the Truth of the kingdom devoid of all embellishments of man is near total. There, I think is an equal counterargument from silence, at least as worthy of consideration as the argument that silence supports doubts.
What I would say stands as perhaps the clearest support (were such support necessary) of the veracity of the text is simply the construction of both texts. As a lie, it would be most unconvincing. Indeed, one would be far more likely to fabricate something more clearly unique, more clearly a different event whose only relationship to the first lay in the presence of crowds, the rather necessary detail of Jesus being front and center, and food. Furthermore, were I fabricating this second testimony, I would be inclined to separate it from its counterpart as to the setting, both in the text and in the description. I would hardly place it so immediately after the first account, nor would I go out of my way to draw the reader’s attention back to that first account. Neither would I set it in the same region (and that region fairly local to the intended audience!)
Why not place the event up around Tyre and Sidon instead? It makes it more unique account and less verifiable, surely than having the second event practically on the same hillside as the first. True, the approach is by land this time, but it’s essentially the same region that is given as the setting for this second feeding. Was there something about these crowds that required His more immediate provision more than others? Was there some mystical quality to these hills that enabled Him to multiply bread here as He apparently could not do elsewhere?
Rather than looking for reasons to discount this second event as no more than a repetition of the first, we would be better served to consider why these two evangelists include the account at all. On the surface, it does not seem to do much to further the presentation of Messiah. Indeed, Luke the historian might well have set the text aside for just this reason. He is coming to the story from a later time, and is concerned for a different audience. One might suppose that he excluded the account from his writing simply to avoid its causing any doubts among his readers. He saw no further support of the claims of Jesus by including it, and could see how it would raise certain doubts among the intelligentsia back home. John, for his part, is quite clear that he has presented but a small portion of what he witnessed. Furthermore, the nature of his gospel seems to designed to fill in the blanks, as it were. He is not interested in writing just another account of the same details. He is remembering the things that Matthew and Peter have overlooked, and he is far more concerned with the ends of the story than with the middle.
So let me suggest that Matthew and Mark found something in these events that made them worthy of inclusion in their own writing. There was something about this second feeding, some lesson either learned or conveyed that led them to record it here in spite of the doubts it might cause among their readers.
Notice the overall flow of the story at this point. We begin back at that first event: Jesus and the disciples recovering from news of John’s death, yet coming to shore because the crowds weren’t departing. In spite of the spiritual exhaustion, Jesus sets to healing them and teaching them. The disciples are doubtless quite busy as well, but evening is falling, and they’re ready for a break. “Send them away to eat.” “No, you feed them.” This is indeed a momentous event, and the parallels between what Jesus has just done and what Moses did for wandering Israel are not lost on the crowds.
They follow Jesus and the disciples back to Capernaum, these hungry people. But, Jesus is not inclined to perform for them. Indeed, rather than give them more bread, He feeds them Truth and Wisdom. He makes it clear that He is the bread, He is the critical matter of Life. And, He has worded His message in such a way as to shake off all but the most earnest disciples. “You must eat My flesh.” Hard words, indeed.
With that, He has taken His disciples on a trip up to Tyre, only now returning to the region. Even with this, He has not come back to Galilee, but has side-stepped them to go down into the Decapolis. Notice: He has as much as told those folks back in Galilee that He’s not going into the restaurant business for them. He hasn’t come to give them ease by tossing them free food every day. That’s not what this is about. It’s about Life! But, let us be clear. It’s not that He cannot do this thing. It’s that He will not do it on the terms they seek to press upon Him. That is one thing this second feast makes clear. However, I would maintain that the primary purpose of including this event is a moral one – it is here for our edification, as is all of Scripture. So, let me turn my attention to the lessons that are here for us to learn.
Presumption vs. Earnest Prayer (05/21/08-05/23/08)
In a few translations bring out an interesting possibility from the beginning of Mark 8:7. While most translations have the simple statement that there were also some fish, these versions offer the suggestion that these fish were found at some point after the serving out of the bread had begun. Admittedly, Matthew’s account suggests otherwise, with the disciples noting both the loaves and the fishes in response to Jesus’ question. There remains, though, the curious fact that Mark has split the fish and the bread. The disciples, by his account, answer Jesus’ question with the minimum factual answer. He has asked how many loaves they have and they tell Him only that: seven. No mention of fish is made until after the crowds have been seated and served. Then we read, “They also had a few small fish.”
Well, now! Looking back at the earlier feeding of the masses, they had been in sufficient presence of mind to note the fish they had. His question had been much the same on that occasion. He hadn’t asked about fish, only bread. On this, it seems, those translations have hung their wording – the fish were found as the disciples were serving out what they had in their own possession. This is not unreasonable. The question that follows, then, is how were they found? I think the answer to that speaks volumes as to why Jesus felt compassion for this crowd as He had not for those who sought Him out in Capernaum. The difference in attitude is striking.
Those who had come looking for Him in that town were certainly hungry for something, and they had certainly shown some persistence in seeking Him out. Indeed, are we not told that those who seek Him will find Him? But, as the ensuing events show, they hadn’t really come seeking Him. They had come seeking the miracle, the bread. They had come seeking their idolatrous conception of Him, not the He that Is. Here, we are being shown a mass of people who, though it must be granted that they came to Him from a place of need, had not come with a demand. They had been with Him three days. They, too, had shown a persistence, but not a persistence in chasing Him down, rather a persistence in hearing Him out. Note this, as well: It was only because they had remained with Him so long that they had run out of food.
They had not come to Him unprepared. They had come expecting to be there for awhile, and had brought such food and drink as they thought would be necessary to carry them through. But, things had run long. The food had run out. Yet, rather than depart to refill their stores, they had remained to refill their soul. They had chosen His teaching over their physical need.
This is already one key difference. They had not come with presumption in their hearts. Those who went to Capernaum had come assuming He would see to their food. These had come prepared – at least, as prepared as they could reasonably be. Those in Capernaum had departed when it became clear that He wasn’t going to keep pulling bread from the sky for them. These remained to hear His teaching. They had already received from Him the physical healing they needed. They had got what the came for, in that sense, and yet they remained. They had come for more than just a miracle. They had come to learn from the Teacher. Their spirits hungered for this news of the kingdom of God.
Now, think about those fish that Mark brings up as a later fact. “They also had a few small fish.” Let us suppose they had not had them at the start. Somebody, perhaps multiple people, in this crowd still had a little food left, even after these three days, and they had been learning from the Teacher. They saw what He and His disciples were doing, and they followed suit. Jesus was moved by compassion, His disciples, perhaps by compassion or perhaps by duty. Either way, the serving out of that bread to this crowd, quite apart from the miracle of sufficing, displayed a selflessness on the part of Jesus and His team. The desert land was not going to turn up food for them any more than for anybody else. A land stripped of food is stripped of food no matter who you are. Yet, they gave up their stores to feed these who were essentially strangers!
That touched the heart of the crowd, for this was a crowd whose hearts were prepared for the kingdom. They saw this selfless act of compassion and responded in kind. Those who had something left gave it into the hands of the disciples to help with feeding the whole crowd. Isn’t this of a kind with what was seen in the founding of the Church? No needy person was found in their ranks, for any who owned property would sell it and bring the proceeds to the apostles to be distributed as needed (Ac 4:34-35). Not that this was passed down as a requirement of membership, but because the membership naturally moved with this heart of compassion and community.
Granted, this giving of the fish seems to have waited until the doling out of the bread had already shown that something beyond the bounds of nature was going on. Of course, that could as easily be attributed to this being the first opportunity those with the fish had had to speak with the busy disciples. Either way, the significance is in the giving, not the waiting. They gave what they had, manifesting a heart that cared for more than self; manifesting an interest in more than the show of miracles. They could happily have kept their fish and enjoyed them amongst themselves. Nobody was going to riot over such an act. But, they chose to give them to the disciples to be distributed to all. Their heart was bigger than self.
This also manifests a certain faith. If they had not the faith that Jesus could do more with these few fish than they could do themselves, they would simply have risen up and started doling out the fish to those around them. But, they have faith that Jesus can do with their small offering as He had done with the small store of bread. He Who had set the example could do with their small gift something far in excess of what that gift could do alone!
Well! There’s another lesson we can draw from this: a lesson on the Christian economy. However, this is not a lesson I choose to pursue here. There is more than enough financial focus in the church today without me adding to it.
I want to focus more on the attitudes here. There are two on display, one by its presence and the other by its absence. I say presumption is on display by its absence from the scene. That is, I suspect, a part of why this second meal is brought up. The first was a shock. It could not be expected or anticipated, and it spoke volumes about the Office of the Christ. The followup in Capernaum made great display of the presumption of the people. “You came to fill your stomachs, not your hearts.” “Hey, c’mon, Jesus! Moses fed our fathers. If You’re so hot, do the same for us!” Yes, and if He had done so, I’m sure their devoted response would not be much different from Israel in the wilderness. No, this was presumption. We are God’s people, and God must bless us.
This second feast provides the counterpoint. Here, there is not presumption, but compassion. Here, the hearts of the people are turned toward following the example of the Teacher, not toward demanding an encore. They have not come with any demand. They have come with hope, even a desperate hope, but no demand. Their entire attitude is one of, “as You will.” They have come prepared. They have also come with more than their need. Did they need healing? Yes. But, they stayed when that had been accomplished. They stuck around because they knew they needed something else far more than the healing, and they knew they were receiving it here.
But, they had not presumed upon God or His ministers. I have witnessed those who will come to the camp meeting, the revival meeting or what have you with this attitude of presumption. They will dress it up in clothes of moving under the leading of the Spirit, but the Spirit does not move one to presumption. So, they come with no plan as to how they might care for themselves. They spend their last cent to get to the meeting, so that they can see the miracle performance, but they have no idea how they’re going to get back home. Well, actually, they do have an idea. They’re pretty sure that somebody in the crowd will be sufficiently moved by their story to provide them with return fare. They are playing on the compassion of the faithful to provide for their own foolishness! They are operating from presumption.
This is the same attitude that moves even faithful believers to approach God with an attitude that demands He take action. “Oh, God! You have to do thus and so for me. You must heal my wife.” Now, I understand that sometimes the vehemence of such prayers is expressing something different. It’s not always presumption that brings forth such demands, but rather the depth of the hurt. We are not always carefully respectful when the need is great and the pain severe. I dare say, though, if we were face to face with a President or King in that moment, we would be more respectful than we are in dealing with God at that point. I say it to our shame, for it makes clear how little we truly esteem our rightful King.
This crowd did not come without food, counting on Jesus to cover their foolishness. They came prepared, but out-stayed their preparations. No fault in that. His message was just too important for them to interrupt it for their stomachs. If He had not moved to feed them, I have little doubt they would have gone home just as glad of His teaching, just as satisfied by what He had done and said.
On this note, it is interesting that the following message had come up in Table Talk as I was pursuing this passage. I quote from their message for 05/16/08. ‘Jesus will not “bark on command,” nor will He satisfy their whims (Mt 12:39). Matthew Henry comments, “Christ is always ready to hear and answer holy desires and prayers, yet he will not gratify corrupt lusts and humors.”’ When I first read that, I knew it was something to think upon, but I had not really thought it directly connected to what I’m studying here. It certainly wasn’t brought up with any intention of connecting to this miracle. Yet, the point is of a piece with what I am seeing in those fish that were found later, and it is indeed a point we do well to meditate on day and night.
This morning (05/22/08) I find another point from Table Talk that fits neatly with this subject. Discussing the matter of angels, reference is made to Joshua’s encounter (Josh 5:13-15). I should note that this was not a point of discussion in their text, but simply a reference ‘for further study’. In that passage, Joshua encounters an armed man outside Jericho, and his immediate concern is to determine whether this man is friend or foe. This man, however, responds that he is neither. “Rather, I indeed come now as captain of the host of the LORD.” Joshua’s reaction is as telling as the angel’s statement. Joshua, captain of the army of Israel, and as close to ruler over that people as exists at that moment, immediately submits himself to this one. He does not offer commands. He does not make demands. He seeks his own orders. “What has my lord to say to his servant?”
How different this is from the typical way believers think of angels today, if they even hold out the possibility of such things! There is such a tendency to think that they are our servants, to be commanded about as we see fit. Assuredly, we are told of the existence of guardian angels, and of angels appointed to certain peoples and regions. We hear Paul tell us that we shall judge angels (1Co 6:3), and figure that must mean we are in charge over them. But, what are we to say when Scripture also reminds us that we have been made – at least for the present – lower than the angels (Heb 2:6)? What are we to make of the Psalmist’s declaration that God gives His angels charge over us to guard us (Ps 91:11)?
The point of angelic guardianship is not to keep us amused and entertained. It’s not to see to it that our every least concern is addressed. Such a view of them makes them the servants and we the lords. This is entirely at odds with the teaching of the Bible, yet we cheerfully pursue it as our right. We have not right! We are the ones who have declared ourselves the bondservants of Christ, and these angels whom we feel we can order hither and yon are likewise His servants and not our own. Further, they are clearly beings of superior rank to ourselves, at least for this lifetime. If there are orders to be given, it is theirs to give them. If there are matters to be obeyed, they are ours to obey.
Yes, these are sent for our benefit. Yes, they have a protective position as regards us, being our guardians. But, this does not place them at our beck and call. This does not make them our servants. If they were merely servants to us, they would be no protection, for their commands would be given by ones of inferior wisdom – namely ourselves. As it is, they labor on our behalf, but at the command of Wisdom Himself – a far better arrangement!
We are not given permission to manipulate and wheedle and seek to get our way with these angels, and we certainly have no such right with the Lord Himself! We are blessed with the privilege of bearing our needs before Him, of petitioning Him for those things that we deem needful. We are in no position whatsoever to demand action on His part. Even the supposedly innocuous approach of reminding Him of His promises strikes me as a matter of presumption on our parts. Do we suppose He has forgotten? What sort of trust does it manifest to speak so to Him? “Lord, You said!” These are the petulant cries of spoiled children, not the prayers of saints!
I note as well the behavior of Elisha, which also showed up for further study this morning (2Ki 6:8-23). Surrounded by the armies of Aram, manifestly outnumbered as far as the eyes of flesh could see, he knew full well that he had the armies of heaven encamped round about. It was also clear that his servant could not see as he could, noted only the physical. So, Elisha prays. He does not so much as direct word or thought to the angelic host around him. He doesn’t command or even request that the army of that host make himself known to this servant. Rather, he prays to God, and this not in the form of a command, but in the form of a request – the only proper form for our prayers. “Lord, open his eyes to see.”
Note the motivation here. Elisha is not concerned with bolstering his reputation. There is no issue of pride here. His concern is for the fear and disquiet his servant is experiencing. In a word, his prayer is an expression of compassion, and as such, it is an expression of the heart of God. He sees the earnest need of his servant and knows it is not in his power or authority to address. It is within his power, though, to bring this before the One Who can address it, and this he does. But, he does so with no poison of presumption – only the expressed desire of a committed servant. Lord, if you will…
That is what distinguishes the crowds out on this hillside from those who came to Capernaum. Those in Capernaum came with an air of demanding. They came with the intent that their will should shape Jesus’ ministry. They came as the lords over this Servant, rather than acknowledging Him Lord over themselves. They came with pride. You want to lead us? You’d better be as good as Moses, and You’d better prove it to us. You young upstart! Feed us every day like You did yesterday, and maybe we can talk. Apart from that, though, You are but a curiosity to us.
How much of our modern worship falls into this same category, if not quite so blatantly? How many bless-me-babies do we know? How many will sing praises and worship this God of theirs so long as the blessings keep coming, but let things go south for awhile, let the least tragedy or ill wind touch them and God goes by the wayside. This is how the devil thought Job would turn out, but he was wrong. Today, we see so many who need no such efforts on the devil’s part to be turned away from heaven. He barely has to exercise himself. An illness here, a bit of financial disturbance there, maybe some hopes deferred and half the church walks away; decides they’ve been chasing a pipe dream, and return to the vomit of their former lives.
We have become all too ready to try and manipulate God into acting as we see fit. The evidence is in, though. Manipulation won’t work. It’s earnest need, the expression of an earnest heart, that moves Jesus, not carefully decorated expressions fraught with ulterior motives. Curiosity seekers need not apply themselves to prayer. What possible reason does He have to respond to the idle chatter of, “we want to see miracles!” Who cares what you want to see? What does this entertainment you seek have to do with the purposes of heaven? Does it really matter to you whether He is magnified by these events, or are you just curious to see what men of old experienced? You know the proper answer, and you will doubtless give it. But, it’s not the words and phrasings of mouth or mind that settle the matter, it’s the attitude and motivation of the heart – the feelings and character that move beneath our careful, conscious levels.
I am reminded of that which our guest speaker noted last Sunday. The things that bother us most about others are often, if not always, a reflection of our own failings. This is not some new revelation, I dare say, but it’s good to be reminded of it. It is good, as well, that one should consider his own estate when such matters of criticism arise.
So, I have to admit that I have seen these same tendencies in myself. As I have seen my wife’s illness continue, I have found myself trying to figure out how I might phrase my prayers such that God would see them as expressions of compassion and not expressions of frustration. As if this were a winning tactic! As if God was not fully aware of those thoughts that I was working through! I have fallen into the old trap of thinking it’s all about how I word the prayer, but this is just a somewhat more disguised use of the magic formula approach to prayer. Oh, you must include this phrase. Oh, you must make sure to say it right, else God will be mad and smite you rather than do your bidding.
God will not do your bidding, anyway. He is not at your beck and call. He is gracious to hear your pleas, when you call to Him, but He is in no way bound to answer according to your desire. He answers according to His love, His compassion, His wisdom. Quite frankly, He is not interested in how you phrased your prayer, nor how I phrased mine. He is interested in what moved us to pray in the first place. Is the prayer coming from a place of trust in Him as He truly Is? Is that prayer coming from a heart moved as His own heart moves? Regardless how the thought may have come out, was it compassionate concern for others that brought us to cry out to Him, or was it benighted, selfish, self-interest?
Clearly, I spend more energy on trying to make the right expression of my care than is necessary. If I could make any excuse for this, it would be that I seek to keep my sense of God’s holiness and His reign in mind. I could say that I am seeking to train my character to behave and to think as He wills it. I would be lying, in all likelihood, but I could try and clothe it so. Such efforts doubtless do more to satisfy my theological side than they do to satisfy God.
If I would express my sense of His holiness, I would do better to shape my every act, my every thought, my most accidental of words to reflect that sense. I would be lying through my teeth were I to suggest this is what I do. No, I’ve heard myself too often as I wrangle with some issue or another at work. The careless words reflect a heart that still has much work to be done.
On the other hand, the prayers that I have offered up on behalf of my wife, particularly of late, have been moved (I feel certain) by something more than self-interest. Through this trial, I am beginning to learn of that compassion which moves my God’s own heart. Yet, even in that compassion, I shall not lay a demand upon my Lord and King. I can only bear my pleas before Him and trust in His own compassion to answer.
This is my key, my lesson. The matter is not of demand but of trust. The matter is not how the words express it, but how the heart sees it. The prayer of a demanding heart is presumptuous and need not expect to receive its answer. The prayer of a trusting heart has already determined to leave the decision to God, knowing He will do what is best, and that He will work it to the good of His servant, even as He has promised.
Obedience (06/14/08)
Coming out of this lengthy side trip into compassion, it is so very fitting to emerge on the topic of obedience. For, we disciples of the Living Christ are surely called to be obedient servants to our Lord and King. As I have seen, a great part of that obedience is wrapped up in representing His name, His office properly and accurately, and Compassion is His name, every bit as much as Righteous and True. This, as I have seen, He declares Himself in proclaiming His name. Therefore, it is only fitting that by our own words and deeds, we ought also to proclaim the Compassion which is God. In doing so, we but obey His command, whether that command comes in explicit call to action, or merely as expressed desire.
Returning to the seen of the seven loaves, I find we are observing a case of expressed desire. This has not reached the level of that first feeding, where Jesus had to explicitly instruct His disciples to feed the crowds. He is but expressing His heart. “I am unwilling that they should go away hungry.” It is worthy of our observation that the disciples, hearing this desire of their Teacher expressed, hear it as a command. We will, most of us, have some echo in our heads at this point of the servant bowing before his sultan, murmuring, “Your will is my command.” It may be a caricature of that culture, and it may cause us a chuckle to think of it. But, it also expresses what ought to be our relationship to the King of kings. We, like Paul, like the rest of the apostles, lay claim to being servants of the Most High God. The servant’s place, though, is precisely that which we bring to mind with that image. “God, Your will is my command.”
There is no questioning of the order. There is no begging off because one feels he has more pressing duties. The one thing there is room for is a seeking of clarification. OK, God. You want this done, but how? How would You have me to go about it, for I see that in myself I am incapable of satisfying Your intent. This, to me, is what I see the disciples doing here. They are not balking at the suggestion. Why should they? They so recently went through a similar situation, and they are not so dense as to have learned nothing from it. They may not have grasped the full significance of what they have been part of, but they have learned something.
No, they are not rebelling against the suggestion. They are not, I suspect, trying to point out to Jesus the impossibility of what He seeks. They are just clarifying their orders. OK, Jesus. You want this done, but how? We have not the means ourselves. What, then, would You have us to do?
I tell you plain, this is not foolishness or stupidity. This is wisdom. The fool runs off to satisfy the wishes of the Master without really grasping what exactly those wishes are. He has heard the first bit of the request and run off before hearing the end of it. He is as likely to frustrate the true purpose God has in mind as to satisfy. Indeed, he is more likely to frustrate, for he has taken the matter into his own hands, not heard the counsel of Wisdom.
He has acted as Abraham acted. Abraham had heard the result God had in mind, but he wasn’t listening when it came to the means of getting there. So, when it seemed to him that things were taking too long, when his eyes were filled with his waning capacity to achieve that end, he took it upon himself to provide the means to God’s ends. Of course, we know how well that turned out.
We are not likely to have any better record if we follow that same course. And yet, so often, that is exactly what we do. We lay claim to obeying the will of God with alacrity. But, in reality, what we have done is run off without the least idea of what He really wanted done.
The truth is that we cannot obey without waiting for His complete instruction on the matter. This is nothing that need paralyze us into inaction completely. If we allow it to do so, we are but making excuses to disobey. Indeed, we may, thinking we know His plan, strike out on the path we feel we are to take. But, wisdom requires that we continually check in with the King. Is this really the road I am to be on? If I have detoured from Your purpose, Lord, correct my course.
Likewise, if the path of obedience seems to us impossible to pursue, our response ought not to be a rejection of the plan. It is no cause to say, “sorry, Lord. The thing is impossible, and I’m afraid I can’t help You.” No! The response that ought to be on our lips is, “Father, I confess this task is beyond my power. Show me, then, how You would have me proceed, that I may see You glorified.”
This is, to me, where the disciples are at. You want them fed, Jesus, and we can’t possibly handle that task. We haven’t the means, and we see no possible way that the greatest power of man could obtain them. So, how would You have us proceed? This is all the obedience, really, that was called for on this occasion.
Notice how the thing falls out. Jesus does not chide them. He does not set them to any new task to bring this thing to pass. He merely confirms by His question that indeed the thing is beyond them. Then, He takes charge. He seats the people. He does not call the disciples to do so. He takes the loaves, such as they are. He takes the impossibility. And in His hands, that impossibility is made possibility, for impossible does not apply to God! Only then are the disciples, who have thus far been standing idly by, given a hand in the task. Distribute. God has made the increase. You distribute it to meet the need.
And there is a message for today! God has made the increase, you distribute it to meet the need. That in itself is an expression of the will of God. If we prosper, it is at His hand. If we gain by our labors, it is because He has made the increase. This is nothing we need to chase after. We don’t need to become bless me babies. We don’t need a holy ATM. What we need is to understand the purpose of whatever God puts into our hands.
Seeking after gain, although so many today try to put some sort of holy face on it, is not holy. It is serving mammon. We can bleat all day long about how we’re only doing this to provide ourselves with an engine by which to do God’s work, but the truth of the matter is we’re only doing this to provide ourselves. Period. End of story. However neatly we paint this pig, it’s still all about us. It’s about money. It’s about not having to trust in our Provider, thank you very much. Far nicer, to the mind of man, to be so well situated that our giving to God’s work doesn’t strain our means.
And into that idolatrous adopting of capitalism as the worship of the Church, God says, no! The Federal Reserve is not your provider. I AM is your Provider. You are not here to be healthy, wealthy and wise. You are here to be satisfied in Me, whatever your lot. You are My betrothed, My bride. In sickness and in health, for richer for poorer, faithful ‘til death do us part. And death has been abolished! It is an eternal bond that takes no account of circumstance, only of the Love which has been covenanted between thee and Me. That is the command of God which we are called to obey. It is, as John said, both old and new. And in obeying that command as God leads us and instructs us, we have obeyed the whole of the Law.
Thankfulness and Blessing (06/15/08-06/16/08)
When all was prepared, we read that Jesus gave thanks for the bread, and somewhat later for the fish as well. Now, it might be stating the obvious, but really, to give thanks does imply that there is something for which to be thankful. I would propose that most of us, put in a similar situation would be giving apologies at best, expressing our complaints at worst. It just doesn’t really occur to us to offer thanks from a place of apparent need. Of course, Jesus was hardly giving thanks for the need that was apparently to go unsupplied. He was giving thanks because He had something to be thankful for.
He gave thanks because He knew Who God Is. Even when the picture His eyes presented to Him said otherwise, He could declare His thanks that God is He Who Provides. By faith, faith in this case being a certainty of God’s character, Jesus could thank the Father for His provision even before that provision came to light. That is, after all, what this giving of thanks is about: expressing gratitude. When it’s not mechanical ritual, that is what we are about as we pray before our meals. Often as not, we are no more earnest in this expression of gratitude than our children are in theirs, but the purpose remains.
It can be most difficult to remain mindful of God’s provision in times of plenty. When we have grown used to the steady supply of food for the table, clothing for our backs, and solid shelter from the elements, we rapidly lose sight of how it is we enjoy these things. We happily take credit for it all. It is due to our industry at work, our diligence in monitoring the finances. We might go so far as to associate it with our faithfulness in tithing. But, even then, our tendency is to make it about us. And all along, God is wondering when we will recall ourselves to our senses. Foolish man! Today it is required of you. Apart from Me you can do nothing. If I did not provide for you, you would have no provision. You would find the hand of every man turned against you, and gain nothing but weeds from your gardens. Can you now find some cause to give thanks?
When your needs have been provided for, but they are not quite up to par with your desires, can you then give thanks? Think upon Job! Here was a man who, granted, was still provided for, and yet, he suffered so! Family destroyed, health gone, all his worldly possessions stripped from him, and arguably devoid even of friendship, for all that his three friends sat with him. Yet, he held to his faith in the God Who Is. We, on the other hand, begin our complaints the moment the food is not to our liking. What? Hamburger again? Where’s the steak? These vegetables – they’re not fresh. They’re not organic. How long must we suffer this indignity, O God? Honestly, we are perhaps the whiniest generation of believers that has graced the earth. Suffering just isn’t in it for us, thank you very much. Is it any wonder that we’ve rather forgotten how to be thankful?
There is another side to this which deserves consideration. You see, we are bound to come across those who will instruct us to abstain from one thing or another. Let’s be careful here! In many cases this advice may well be wise counsel to us. Yet, the majority of it consists of the opinions of man and takes no direction at all from Scripture. There are yet, those who would insist that the man of God must abstain from marriage. And, yet, is it not God who has said that it is not good for man to be alone? There are those yet who insist that we must refrain from this food or that, that we must never allow the fruit of the vine to touch our lips. Or, if that much be accepted, then certainly not the taste of beer, or of strong drink.
Again, there may be, in some of this, a strong case to be made. Surely, the record shows that alcohol is a substance many subject to abuse. Surely, tobacco, which has become one of the great touchstones of Christian discussion, is likewise a substance abused and that to our physical detriment. Yet, it was not that many years ago that nothing was seen as wrong with the stuff. In some quarters coffee will come under the local church’s edicts, although perhaps not tea. Is the difference so very great? Not really. Both provide much the same degree of caffeine to the drinker. But, the one seems somehow more sinful than the other.
And again I will say that there are doubtless some, perhaps even many, in the house of God who would be well served to leave behind them the taste of coffee, and perhaps tea as well. There are many who might find their physical wellbeing improved by such concessions. And, with physical improvement, spiritual improvement may be expected as well.
But the general case bears considering: God created many of these things to be gratefully shared in by believers, by those who know the Truth. The very simple fact of the matter is that every thing God created is good. No thing is to be rejected, on this one condition: That it is received with gratitude. For by that gratitude towards God for providing, the provision is sanctified. By His Word and our prayer it is sanctified (1Ti 4:3-5). Indeed, in another place, Paul makes it more personal. “If I am thankful for what I partake of, what cause is there for slandering me because I did so?” (1Co 10:30).
Many have made this the test of their sin. If I can continue doing this and give thanks to God while doing it, then it must not be a sin. Many have suggested that by doing this, we may find ourselves freed of that sin we are trying to break with. Let us, for that matter, class it merely as habit. In any case, it is something that a part of our being has determined to be rid of, and yet there is that other part of our being forever conjuring up excuses to continue. Welcome to the fleshly battle zone!
The defensive flesh will latch onto a verse such as this to declare itself free of the need to let go. No, self, we can continue unchanged, see? Watch! Praise God, praise God! Thank You for this weed, for this grape. May Your blessings come with the consumption thereof! Across the divide, the other camp can be heard crying out, depart from me, you filthy, demonic influence. How dare this body of life partake of what can only bring death? What have we to do with one another?
Now, I would have to advise (and in this I advise myself) that where this voice of battle arises in the life of the Christian, we can be certain which side we ought to declare for! The side of life will be evident, and our allegiance, as children of the Living God is clearly with life. Oh, but how well I know the treachery of the opposition within! How many evenings have I gone to bed certain of my strength to stand, and arisen in the morning already plotting my own downfall? It is an agony which shadows my mornings, plagues my nights, leaves me in a near constant agitation against myself. And, the pain of that agitation spills over in dealing with others. Nerves are raw, patience short, perhaps nonexistent. This is no way to go about being an ambassador of God’s kingdom, and yet, here I am. I am me, and much of me is as I was before I met Him. Not as much as has been so before, perhaps, but more than enough. More than too much. And, I find myself once again in a losing battle with myself.
Yet, I can be thankful to God this morning. I cannot, in honesty, be thankful for the thing I fight so feebly. I cannot honestly be thankful for the damage I know it does me. But, I can be thankful for the God Who, however the present strains me, however the future eludes my preparations, Provides perfectly for my very present need. My eyes may not always see it. My bowels, that throne of compassion, may not always be moved to thankfulness for it. I may not always appreciate it when the Provision His Wisdom provides is not quite in line with the expectations I had in mind. But I can remain thankful that He has indeed provided most wonderfully for me. What I cannot see today, I will surely recognize tomorrow. What seems insufficient today, I will see unfold in greater glory in coming days, until I reach that day in which I can look back upon what the Lord has done, and stand amazed in the knowledge that truly, it is finished.
Blessed (06/17/08-06/18/08)
That description of Jesus giving thanks for the bread can also be translated as His blessing the bread. This is the sense that the Complete Jewish Bible prefers to give to the scene. He “made a blessing”. I have to say that as I look at the sense of this term blessing, I find we have really lost the point in our day. We bless our meals, but I don’t know that even in this case we think of the significance of our own words. We may think of the protective aspect, seeking God’s blessing on our food lest there be any impurities in it, but what does this say of our idea of God? Do we suppose Him some sort of divine food tester? Perhaps a holy health inspector?
What, then, when we so freely speak our blessings on one another. Honestly, I think a lot of it is just words. It means about as much as the answers we usually get to the question, “how are you?” “Fine.” “Great.” They are tossed off comments that are utterly content free, and both parties to the conversation are fully aware of it, and generally quite willing to leave it at that. That same emptiness can come to pervade our blessings and for that matter, our prayers.
Well, it’s time I remind myself of what it’s really about, all this blessing and such. Of course, the full sense of blessing must change somewhat depending upon who is offering and who receiving. In these matters of food, of inanimate objects, or livestock or crops or what have you, the point is to seek God’s blessing, for ours is pretty worthless. The point, more importantly, is to consecrate these things for His divine use. Now, this is something that I think would completely uproot our sense of the situation if we would but bear it in mind!
What would we do differently were we to replace every careless, “God bless you,” with “May God see fit to consecrate you for His exclusive use.”? How much more would it mean to us if, when we blessed our meals, instead of simply saying, “God, bless this food and drink,” we instead asked Him to consecrate that meal in such a way that it might be used to fulfill His divine purposes? For all that, how different this whole scene of the miracle becomes if we recognize that Jesus, pronouncing a blessing upon that meager supply of food is doing exactly that thing: He is consecrating that merest offering of food to God’s use. That is, it seems to me, the only proper way to seek God’s blessing on anything!
We may tend to pursue our own plans and goals, and inasmuch as we give any thought at all to God, it is to request that He might bless what we fully intend to do with our without His blessing. But this is nothing of Christianity. This is paganism at its worst. This is trying to find the right idol to put one’s offerings before. Oh, here is the god of the seas. Let us give him a little something lest he be angry and stir up the oceans against our journey. Oh, here is the god of commerce. By all means, make sure to give him his proper appeasement. We sure don’t want this deal to go sour because he’s displeased. Then, of course, there’s the almighty idol of popularity and growth! Must see to that one, lest we lose our audience, attendance drop off, and our bills go unpaid.
It may be an unconscious thing, but so much of our lives are spent in this fashion. So many of our thoughts about seeking God’s blessing are more in line with this ancient idolatry than with anything God is seeking after. No! If we would have His blessing upon our activities or upon our properties, it is only fitting that these should first be consecrated for His use, and His use alone! Our very lives ought to be counted among these devoted things, for His use only, no longer our own. Our pastor has rightly said that we ought to be about doing that which God is blessing rather than asking Him to bless whatever it is we happen to be doing.
So, look again at this present scene, particular as Mark relates it. He had blessed and served the bread, and then, a few small fish were also found. That is so significant to me, for it seems to reflect the effect His teaching was having upon this crowd. They saw how selflessly He had given that meager store of bread to serve the entire crowd, and those who still had a few scraps left after all these days in His company could do no less. Prior to this, they might have held onto it to satisfy their own hunger, or to provide one last bite to their family before heading home. Now, though, they had a better idea of God. Now, they had a better evidence of God. They had been fed by the lack of others. Now, they would provide for others from their own lack. But, clearly, this was nothing to be done in their own power. Apart from God, those fish could do nothing to touch the appetite of this crowd. So, they gave them into the hands of the Son, the One Who had already demonstrated the proper approach to the Father.
And Jesus, in His turn, blessed those few fishes to God’s use. He did not command a multiplying. He did not ask that God make sure that these fish, that had been laying out in the sun for the last three days, be miraculously purified so that He could safely eat them. He did not say, “OK, Dad, here’s what I have in mind. Help Me out.” He devoted them to Father’s use. Here’s what we have, and such as it is, we put it into Your service. Do with it what You will. Just so that Your will is done.
This is the horizontal aspect of blessing, if you will, or for that matter, the downward blessing; that which we seek to draw down to us. It is only proper that we should maintain this fullest sense of such blessings as we would pronounce. If we are going to mouth our ‘God bless you, brother,’ let it be with that idea that we pray our brother would be not only used by God, but wholly and completely dedicated to God’s use. If we are going to bless our meals, let it be with this intense and earnest desire that even the food we eat be bent, as it were, to His service. And, if we have the audacity to call down His blessing upon ourselves, let us be absolutely certain that we have left our ego and our plans out of it. Offer yourselves a living sacrifice, which is your proper service of worship (Ro 12:1)! The sacrifice does not lay out its demands. It does not bear a tag indicating the expected repayment. It is there to be consumed upon the altar, nothing left of it. It is there to aid and abet the plan and purpose of God in coming to fruition in this world. Devoted. That’s what it means to be devoted. Utterly given over to the All Consuming Fire of God. Nothing left of self. Nothing left for self. Only God of All and in All.
On the vertical, as God of His own accord determines to bless us, it must be understood that His blessing comes on the basis of His great Wisdom. In looking at His Name as I considered the matter of compassion, I had to accept that the punishments that He imposes on the children of His household are as much an expression of His Love as is the Mercy and Compassion we are more inclined to seek from Him. I rather doubt any of us has considered praying that He would punish our iniquities. Nor do I suppose that He seeks such prayers. If David is a man after God’s own heart, I do not think we would be far off in following his example when it comes to sin and repentance. “If You, Lord, were to mark our iniquities, who could stand? Oh! But, there is forgiveness with You, and therefore You are to be revered. I wait for the Lord, and hope in His Word” (Ps 130:3-4).
Sin may require punishment in God’s determination, and that punishment may well prove severe. Yet in this we have no cause to complain, and we have no cause to lose hope. Consider David, in the aftermath of obtaining Bathsheba for himself. There is forgiveness, sure, but there is punishment. There is consequence. Your firstborn, David, shall be taken from you in consequence of what you have done. But, does David complain of this? No. He prays that God might find cause to do differently, but when that punishment has been meted out, his first reaction is to make himself presentable and go before the Lord in worship. He does not come in bitterness. He does not come with recriminations. He comes to worship.
What I understand in this is that even this punishment, as terrible as it was, was a blessing. See, every good and perfect thing comes from God, and in Him there is no trace of evil. That punishment had come because it was needful for David’s restoration. It was needful for David to grow in righteousness. It was, in short, discipline. Discipline, as we well understand even without Scripture’s reminder, is not something we deem pleasant at the time. It is the fruit of discipline that is appreciated, and a wise man, looking back upon that discipline, will recognize that the good fruit could not have come apart from the good discipline that produced it.
So, we come to that great point that Zhodiates makes in regard to the blessing God bestows. “He blesses by interfering.” Now, often enough that interference comes in the form of frustrating the intentions of those who would oppose us, particularly as we earnestly pursue His purposes. But, just as often, that blessing comes in the frustration of our own plans. We like to plan our course, and there is wisdom in doing so, to be sure. We take counsel. We consider the possibilities laid before us, and chart our way as best we can. The key, though, is that we can only plan as best we can. We can only take things into account in the bounds set by our own limited wisdom. God, Wisdom Incarnate, has no bounds to His Wisdom. He does not just see the possibilities. He knows the certainties. He knows that the way that looks good to us according to our lights is in fact destructive and dangerous. So, He interferes. He interferes for our own good.
Now, I hear it said repeatedly by those who insist that free will must trump God’s will that He is a gentleman in all things, and will by no means force Himself upon us. By experience and by the clearest record of Scripture, I cannot possibly accept such a statement! How hopeless we should find ourselves if He did not, when necessary, force Himself upon us! Any parent must surely recognize that there are times in the life of their children that their free will cannot be allowed its exercise less they put themselves in the way of death. A mother seeing her child running out into oncoming traffic is not going to concern herself with what that child desires. She will stop the child. She will interfere.
We had that advertising campaign years ago. Perhaps it still runs, I don’t know. The gist of it was that friends don’t let friends drive drunk. Friends interfere. Friends intervene. Friends will gladly impose their own will upon our own for the preservation of life and friendship. We do not judge them any less the gentleman or good woman for having done so. If anything, we esteem them all the more for caring about us sufficiently to do something that prevented our self-destruction. In what universe does it make sense to say that God is more of gentleman for doing less? It can be nothing but prideful insistence on personal primacy to think this is how the Supreme Being must operate. It is, whether conscious or no, a claim that He is not the Supreme Being at all, but must remain subservient to us. Humanism in the disguise of Christianity. Or, giving the benefit of the doubt, Christianity corrupted by humanism’s philosophies.
God interferes. He blesses us by stopping us in our tracks when that becomes necessary. If we have a lick of sense, we pray for this, at least in our more lucid moments. Lord, this seems right to me, but what do I know? If I’m wrong, be so good as to stop me from proceeding, and then show me which way I was really supposed to go.
Our men’s group has been on the subject of David’s and Joseph’s examples in our last few meetings. Well, I wonder if Joseph, having had those dreams that lay at the beginning of his trials, had prayed such a prayer. God, I think I’ve heard what You were saying to me. I think this is what I am to do, and I shall endeavor to do it. But, Lord, if I’m wrong, stop me. Correct my course, and let it be true to Your counsel and Your purpose.
We almost dare not consider the actions of Joseph’s brothers as having anything to do with God’s blessing upon Joseph. It’s hard for us to look upon his imprisonment as a blessing. Now, Joseph, as he is presented to us, comes as near to being the perfect man of God as any example in Scripture, more constant even than Elijah. More steadfast than Moses. But, mark me. You can rest assured that he had his moments. He had moments of self-will, moments of doubt, moments of sin. But, he had submitted his course to the One Who knows the end from the beginning. Even in the darkest days of his life, even when all those dreams seemed as rubbish, even when he doubted that he had heard God right at all, yet his belief in God was unshaken. Yet, he insisted on faith in the God Who Is. He did not refashion God to match his preferences. He did not go off looking for some other god that was a better fit. And, he did not just give up on God and decide he’d better take matters into his own hands. No! He continued in earnest faith and an earnest effort to live as God commanded, in so much as it lay in his power to do so.
I honestly believe that he understood that even these setbacks, even these interferences in his life were a blessing. Even when he had no view to the outcome, he knew an unshakable hope, an unshakable certainty, that the outcome would be good, because he knew that God is good. He knew with certainty that the God Who created him, the God he served, works all things for the good of His people who serve Him (Ro 8:28).
Let me offer a fresh angle of insight on that great verse, that great Truth. Many today would like to believe that what is taught there is that God will make our lives a garden path. We shall be in perfect health, showered by material prosperity, everything rosy, so long as we maintain our attendance at church, spend our time in the Word, pray as often as ever we can. But, God promises nothing of the kind! He promises that, all who desire to live godly in Christ will be persecuted (2Ti 3:12). He tells us straight out that in the world we have tribulation (Jn 16:33). There’s no maybe in that. There’s not even so much as an ‘at some point.’ Just plain, “you have.” It’s your present, happening now, condition.
So, we must understand that God working all things for good includes those things which, to us, seem bad. It includes those things which just plain are bad. Fine. We can manage that step. We can look at all the bad things that happened to Joseph. We can see pretty clearly that those things were indeed bad. It wasn’t just that he felt like they were bad. They were. We can look at all that befell Job and acknowledge without the least concern about offending God that these, too, were just plain, out and out bad. Then we can follow the course of events and say, Ah! But, look. It all worked out in the end. Yes, there was a rough patch there, but God made it up to them later, and then some.
But we will not lay the cause of these things at God’s feet. No, no. It was Joseph’s brothers who did these things. Joseph makes it clear. “You meant it for evil, but God worked it for good” (Ge 50:20). No, actually, though we tend to recall it this way, Joseph is much more accurate. “God meant it for good.” See, here’s what he recognized that we all but refuse to look at. His brothers may have been the agents of the evils that befell him. Indeed, evil was their intent in doing as they did. But, like the devil’s actions against Job, willingly though they were committed and evil though they were, none of it happened outside of God’s direction.
Let’s be careful here! James is not off his doctrine when he says that God does not tempt anyone (Jas 1:13). He doesn’t. He does, however, allow us to face situations that have within them the potential for temptation. He does, in His infinite wisdom, set events moving which bring us into the path of tribulation and persecution. Why else do we suppose that Jesus would instruct us to include in our prayers, “lead us not into temptation” (Lk 11:4)? If it were impossible that God might consider doing just that, what reason would there be in asking Him not to? How would that express a faith in God and an understanding of God as He Is? Behold His own statement on the matter! “The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I AM the LORD who does all these” (Isa 45:7). If God is not ashamed to declare this ,why are we so chary of crediting Him with it?
Listen, though, for this is key: When God brings calamity, tribulation, persecution, into the life of the believer, It is already not only meant for good, it is for good! It is to discipline. It is to train. It is to strengthen. I tell you, although I know I am in such a period even now, although I hate to be in it and long for its end, it is good. He is interfering not to frustrate me, not to anger me and drive me away, but to train me up and make me strong. I tell you, as well, that He brings these things that we might have a visible measure of the progress we have made by His hand. Apart from the trials, how would we know our strength? Apart from revisiting things that used to utterly destroy us and discovering that they no longer do so, how do we recognize that He has indeed been working in us? Look! This is the stuff of certain hope! This is the stuff that gives us the confidence to say that He Who began the work can be trusted to complete it (Php 1:6)! Apart from these things that we would so much prefer never to face, we could not even be all that sure that He had begun the work.
How often we think upon situations that we hope never to face. We wonder how we would react, and we hope we would react well. Perhaps we have heard of somebody who has displayed truly heroic fortitude in the face of some terrible event and we hope we would do likewise. Perhaps we have heard of somebody whose character was shown to be abhorrent when put to the test and pray that we should do better in his shoes. But, the truth is that until we have faced the trial ourselves we have only our good opinion of ourselves, a fairly baseless hope. When we have come through, though, we are as likely as not going to discover depths of character, reserves of righteous strength that we never even suspected were in us.
It is only when the muscle has been put to the test that we have a measure of the muscle. It is only when character has been placed in the presence of temptation that we can know our capacity to resist temptation. For all that, it is only when we have had our noses rubbed in our inability to resist certain temptations that we are made willing to do something to improve the case. It is only when we have been brought to the end of our strength that we are recalled to trusting in His.
Oh, Lord! Indeed, I would pray that You would not lead me into temptation. But, should it be Your good and perfect purpose to do so, I will trust in Your assurance that You shall not allow that temptation to exceed my ability to stand! Oh, I shall doubtless tell you in that trial that I cannot do it, that it is beyond me. How many times, Holy Father, have I cried out that I can’t take any more? And yet, You have shown me again and again that indeed I can take more. You have shown me time and time again that because of the work You have been doing in me, because of the trials by which You have trained me, I am far stronger than I think. So, yes, my God. I will confess that You work all things for Good, that You allow all things for Good, for You are in all things Good. And once more, I will declare my willingness that You should interfere with me as You see fit that Your blessing may be upon me. I do not promise that I shall be pleased when such interference comes. I do not suggest that I am giving You a permission You don’t particularly need from me. But, I am willing, because I know Your yoke is easy, even when I don’t feel like it is. I know Your burden is light, for I know You are carrying it. Oh, that I might remain mindful of this, my God. If You could do one thing for me, that would be it: keep me mindful of the Good in the midst of my darkness.
Symbolism (06/19/08-06/21/08)
It is an amazing thing about this Bible of ours that I can come to this passage again today, having looked at it daily for over a month now, and still find something there that I had not yet seen. Had it not been for that lengthy sojourn into the topic of compassion, I doubt I would have seen it yet. Briefly, then, as I looked once more at Jesus’ express desire as Matthew records it, I find a certain parallel to a passage related to compassion.
Here, Jesus says that He doesn’t want to sent them away hungry, let they fail from exhaustion on their way home. In that other passage (which I am not going to try and locate just now) we are given cause to mourn with the mourning, to have manifest compassion upon them lest they fall away from a proper fear of the Lord. Now, I am working from memory there, so I have doubtless mangled the wording. But, the point remains. In times of trial and persecution and discipline, if we are held in isolation from our brothers, we are put in a greater danger than the trial itself. A man alone may faint away from proper worship, may find the present course too hard and turn away. Why is that? Because his faith has nothing to eat. That provision of faith, though most certainly from the Lord, is most often administered through the companionable fellowship of other men of faith.
We are all declared to be pilgrims sojourning in this strange land, pursuing a long journey that takes us back home. Apart from the constant provision of faith which God provides we will surely faint along the way. When the trial comes, if it were not for the intervention of our beloved Advocate, we should certainly be overwhelmed, destroyed. I will continue to find this concept tied up in the fellowship of believers which the Bible advises us to maintain. I will associate it with a regular and active membership in the local body of the church. For these, as much as personal study and prayer, are the means God has chosen by which to feed our hunger for faith.
Thus, after its fashion, I find a new symbolism in this miracle. Here I am, a man who has now been with Jesus some several years. In this present stage of life, the trials that have beset me have been a continual, throbbing grief for the last year or more. Far worse for my dear wife, who has been dealing with her particular malady for decades. I find for my own part that if I allow this thing to keep me in my isolation, faith is weakened. This holds however much I may continue my daily habit of study. This holds however much I may continue my physical attendance at our church. I will say that quite apart from these good habits, there has been a very strong sense of being within some sort of walls, in isolation, no longer terribly aware of anything outside these constraining circumstances.
It would be most easy and convenient to blame my brothers and sisters in Christ for constructing these walls, for neglecting me in my sorrows. That would, however, be a half-truth at best and probably far less. The truth is that I, like many others I am sure, construct those walls myself. It is like the callous that protects the sensitive finger from hard use, a thick protective skin built up to avoid further hurt. Except that in this case it is counter productive. It not only protects against further hurt, if indeed it does that much, but rather prevents the healing care of fellowship.
Seeing this message from the lips of my Teacher today, I am reminded to get some food. I must battle that attitude within which finds nothing but frustration in my brothers. I must do battle with this constructor of wall that is within me, lest I place myself in danger of fainting as I make my way home.
Jesus, my Savior, my Brother, my Faith, I thank You most heartily for revealing this insight to me today. I pray that this will indeed be the sledgehammer blow that shatters those walls I have been feeling. Yes, Lord! There is something left outside those walls! Yes, Lord! There is more than anger and frustration to be felt in this life. Restore unto me, my God, the joy of my salvation. Renew a right spirit within me, for this has gone on too long.
Oh, my Strong Tower, let me not faint away, but let me be wise to partake of this spiritual food which You have laid out before me. Indeed, You have set a table before me in the presence of my enemy, my foolish self. May I find in that which You have provided a new strength of belief, a new strength of compassion and mercy towards my fellows, a new strength of submission to the wisdom You speak through their lips. Soften the heart and open the ears of this poor man that he may answer you as Samuel did.
Speak, Lord, for Your servant listens.
One cannot help but wonder why this second feast is recorded. As I am sure I have noted before, it comes so soon after the first feeding of the five thousand that even those who had been there, those who were writing the record, must have wondered about the wisdom of mentioning it. From another stance, I wonder at it because it is not like God to act in such a frivolous fashion. In other words, if what is recorded here is about nothing more than healing the people and feeding the people then the event becomes almost pointless. I am not, I fear, phrasing my thought very well here. What I am attempting to say, though, is that it seems there must be some greater significance to this second feast (and perhaps to there having been two such feasts).
Well then, one factor which would seem significant is the number of symbolically important values that are noted in this passage. The crowd numbers four thousand. Four is, by the Jewish measure, the number representing completeness of range or extent. We might call it, then, the whole crowd. Then, there is the fact that they have been together for three days, three being the number of ordered or orderly completeness – everything as it should be, perhaps. Finally, there is the number of the loaves and of the baskets filled by the leftovers: seven. Seven is the number of all-ness, if I may. In fact, seven is so important a number in terms of Jewish imagery that even when it is not used symbolically, the symbolic sense will tend to be taken. Even when it is but the counting of one’s children, or the number of times a particular action happens to have been done, the presence of the number would tend to automatically bring the symbolic sense to mind. There is the all, the sum of four and three, the completeness of range and extent combined with the completeness of an ordered whole, all in all.
Seven is a number also associated with the Holy Spirit. Isaiah assigns seven titles or offices to the Holy Spirit, and this is no accident. It is an intentional numbering to indicate the completeness of Spirit. He is wisdom, understanding, counsel, strength, knowledge of the Lord and fear of the Lord, as well as being the Spirit of the Lord (Isa 11:2). Likewise, in the Revelation, the seven Spirits before the throne of God are to be taken as the Holy Spirit in fullest manifestation (Rev 1:4).
Any number of other examples of this almost incidental significance of seven can be drawn from the pages of Scripture. But, the point that stands out to me is that statement that even when there is not the written equivalent of the knowing look to mark the significance of a seven in the narrative, the reader would tend to mark that significance himself. Think of Peter’s question on forgiveness. How many times would suffice, Lord? Say seven? Seven is the all, after all, so it must be enough! The significance of the number was so powerful that it immediately suggested itself to Peter as the expression of full and complete forgiveness.
So, carry that symbolism back to this feast, this second feast. Seven loaves to feed the crowd, and it is felt to be complete, all that is needed. The fish, as Mark seems to imply being found later, are but a bonus. The need was already met in full by the loaves. So, too, the baskets gathered up in the end. In that first feeding, there had been twelve lunch baskets, as it were, significant for meeting the needs of those who had served, and for being the number of the tribes as well as the apostles. The measure of the leftovers on that occasion had been a deliberate, determined quantity, known to the Father before ever the doling out of the bread began. Likewise, the seven baskets on this occasion. This was not some accidental result, but the planned and certain purpose of God for the occasion. There is a reason.
Further considering the reason for this second miracle of food, I notice that Jesus is not the only one to have done this thing. There is an echo of His act in the record of Elisha. The story is related of a man bringing his first fruits to Elisha, and Elisha telling that man to serve it out to the people. The man is somewhat incredulous, but Elisha insists that his twenty loaves will suffice and more in serving the hundred or so who are there. And so it turned out (2Ki 4:42-44).
OK. So, quite apart from the similarities, consider: if twenty of these barely loaves seemed unlikely to satisfy a hundred, how much less likely were seven to satisfy four thousand, or five to satisfy five thousand? It may not compare to the manna that fed tens of thousands on nothing, but we can at least say that either of these two events outstrips what Elisha had commanded. Either might also have served to bring Elisha to mind, and with him, Elijah.
My initial thought, on noting this connection to Elisha, was to think in terms of the double portion that Elisha received of Elijah’s anointing. In this sense, John plays the part of Elijah, and one might take the feast as a clear declaration that one greater than John is here. This connection, though, would seem to remain hidden to most of the crowd. It is a point we might take from our historical perspective, but I’m not sure it would have registered with those who were experiencing the event.
What would be more likely to register with them was the simple fact that this did echo the scene from Elisha’s ministry. These are powerful things to have brought to mind. First, there is that semi-automatic symbolism of seven, that indication of completeness, of all-ness. Then, there is this shade of Elisha in the event. Of course, as far as Elisha’s shadow is concerned, that was just as evident in the first miracle of loaves. It gives no further reason for the second. However, the combined picture might suffice.
Consider. The first feast seemed to put folks more in mind of Moses and the manna in the wilderness. This had led to a certain amount of unrealistic expectation on the part of those present. OK, prophet. You’ve fed us once. Moses fed the people for years. So, why should we hear You, if You do not feed us constantly? Now, with this second, there is an implication of completion. This completes the feeding miracles. It has been brought to its full and orderly conclusion. Every aspect of prophetic fulfillment surrounding the event has been satisfied. There is no purpose in continuing to do these sorts of things because the point is made and the prophecy fulfilled. The very details of the event scream out that message, although it be in terms we moderns are less likely to hear.
We might also suppose that some in that crowd would recognize that sense of the seven in conjunction with the echoes of Elisha. What Elisha had commanded done by the power of God in his day, Jesus was bringing to perfection. I note, in this regard, that if we are to lay this miracle alongside that from Elisha’s ministry, Jesus does not stand in the role of Elisha but in the role of that one who brought the first fruits. Now look at the picture.
That man did not act of his own volition, but acted in response to the command of the man of God. Indirectly, then, he acted in response to the command of God, relayed to him through Elisha via the Holy Spirit. So, too, Jesus does not act of His own volition alone, but acts in response to the command of God, relayed via the Holy Spirit. It is in that obedience that the blessing of God comes, and through that obedience that the insufficiency of man becomes the superabundant provision of God.
So, too, we might read this second event, as we are not given cause to read the first, as a declaration that what Elisha (and all the prophets) foreshadowed is hereby completed, perfectly fulfilled. This fits neatly with the ministry of the Christ, Who Is the fulfillment of all prophecy. In His time here, He had certain purposes, certain tasks to fulfill. Primary in His purpose was, of course, the declaration and manifestly giving evidence of the kingdom of God breaking through. Along with this, it was necessary that He should, in the brief three years of His ministry, establish by all possible evidences that He Is indeed the promised Messiah. Consider His very great concern that all things necessary to satisfy the prophecies must be observed and completed. An action that would prevent Him from satisfying that necessity was rejected. His obedience to the Law and the purpose of God must be absolute, complete, and without fail.
One final thought I have as to the purpose of two such feasts is to wonder whether the intention is, perhaps, to put us in mind of two of the primary feasts established by the Old Covenant. Interesting to be reminded that there were seven such feasts, as I go back to some old notes of mine. I’m looking at those notes now, and noting certain ties another author has attempted to lay out between the Christ and the Feasts (as well as many other connections). If I list out those feasts in order, they begin with Passover, and proceed to the feast of Unleavened Bread. Then come First Fruits and Pentecost, followed by Trumpets and the Day of Atonement. Finally, there is the Feast of Tabernacles.
So, if I were to pursue something along the lines of associating the two feasts we have just seen with those of the religious calendar, we might suppose the first feast parallels the Unleavened Bread, and this second one the First Fruits. Why do I mark it so? Well, let us set, shall we say, the baptism by John, with the Spirit descending in the form of the dove, as the Passover event, the beginning of ministry. This other author I am referencing equates this with the new birth in man, the light into darkness of creation. There is a fitting parallel with those concepts and that of the dawn of the ministry of Jesus.
Following along that line of thought, the feast of Unleavened Bread is given an association with truth, with purified doctrine. Well, consider the fallout of that first feeding of the five thousand. Those who came chasing Jesus down afterwards, looking for more of the same found themselves fed the truth. Their doctrine was cleaned out of some foolish misconceptions, if they had ears to hear. Now, if I take this second feeding as the echo of First Fruits, it is of a piece with the episode from Elisha that we see replayed in what Jesus is doing. Shall we perhaps say that the feast of the First Fruits is completed in this event? Others would place that completion at the Resurrection of the Christ, the First Fruits of all creation. So, perhaps, this event is just to point folks toward that expectation. But, perhaps it is more, particularly if I bear in mind that the fish seem to have come up as a later offering from those who were being fed. In this sense, there is an idea that the ministry is bearing fruit. Those who are being ministered to are beginning to minister in turn.
Were I to continue down the course of feasts, I should place the Atonement at the Cross, which seems a rather obvious connection. In that ordering, I should have to association the Feast of Tabernacles, the sharing in God’s rest, with the Resurrection. For, this is that period in which Jesus could live in the knowledge that all He had been given to accomplish was now finished. These associations are at variance, of course, with that other material I am recalling. That leaves us, also to consider the remaining two feasts: those of Pentecost and Trumpets.
The fulfillment of Pentecost in the life of the Church is clearly identified in that day the Holy Spirit came down upon the disciples in wind and fire. It is this association that leads us to associate First Fruits with the Resurrection. But, this is to consider the feasts in association with the Church, not with the Christ of the Church. Pentecost, by this other author’s measure, is to be associated with the apparent Lord, the lighting of the heavens, and the presence of the Holy Spirit. Trumpets are associated with the fulfilled Word of God and with life.
Well, then, we might easily associate that Pentecost moment in the earthly ministry of Jesus with the Transfiguration, yes? I am not so satisfied with having an idea of where to set the Trumpets, but let us take as one possibility the resurrection of Lazarus. Here, certainly, was life, and a full evidence of the Word of Life. Perhaps that is satisfactory.
Of course, there are doubtless many other ways to lay the template of the seven feasts upon the ministry of Christ, the history of the Church, the progress of the Christian or any number of other aspects of faith. But, there is something at least a little satisfying in this progression through the three brief years of His ministry. There is, at least, some hint of the reasons for this second miraculous meal. I am not about to proclaim that I have understood what centuries of scholarship have missed. Nothing of the kind! Yet, it is an interesting perspective. And, it is well to bear in mind that nothing about those years that Jesus was among man was done by some accidental coincidence.
It is well to recall that, for instance, that woman at the well didn’t just happen to be there as Jesus was resting. She was the reason He had come. Likewise, the Syrophoenician woman. Why else do we suppose Jesus had wandered up there? On the off chance that there might be something to do? No! He went with purposeful intent, and He accomplished all His purpose! If we are to live as a people keenly aware that there is no such thing as coincidence in our own lives, surely we ought to be even more absolutely certain that there has never been a case of coincidence in God’s! He has never been taken by surprise, never set at a loss by circumstance. He is, and ever shall be, the One who knows the end from the beginning. This is He Who provides for you. This is He Who sets your feet upon His path. Whom shall you fear?
