Catholic Thought discussion

From the introduction in NAB edition.

The position of the Gospel according to Matthew as the first of the four gospels in the New Testament reflects both the view that it was the first to be written, a view that goes back to the late second century A.D., and the esteem in which it was held by the church; no other was so frequently quoted in the noncanonical literature of earliest Christianity. Although the majority of scholars now reject the opinion about the time of its composition, the high estimation of this work remains. The reason for that becomes clear upon study of the way in which Matthew presents his story of Jesus, the demands of Christian discipleship, and the breaking-in of the new and final age through the ministry but particularly through the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The gospel begins with a narrative prologue (Mt 1:1–2:23), the first part of which is a genealogy of Jesus starting with Abraham, the father of Israel (Mt 1:1–17). Yet at the beginning of that genealogy Jesus is designated as “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Mt 1:1). The kingly ancestor who lived about a thousand years after Abraham is named first, for this is the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the royal anointed one (Mt 1:16). In the first of the episodes of the infancy narrative that follow the genealogy, the mystery of Jesus’ person is declared. He is conceived of a virgin by the power of the Spirit of God (Mt 1:18–25). The first of the gospel’s fulfillment citations, whose purpose it is to show that he was the one to whom the prophecies of Israel were pointing, occurs here (Mt 1:23): he shall be named Emmanuel, for in him God is with us.

You can read the rest here:
http://usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?...

Thanks so much, Manny.

Jeff Cavins at Ascension Press had an interesting take on Matthew's genealogy in Chapter 1. Matthew mentions four female ancestors (rather than their husbands): Tamar (1:3)); Rahab and Ruth (1:5); and "the wife of Uriah" (Bathsheba, 1:6.) All were, as he phrased it, "shady ladies," who found favor by being loyal to their families in the face of difficulties; each gave birth to Jesus' ancestor in unusual circumstances; none of their babies were born to their first husbands; all were "redeemed": three from the consequences of sexual immorality, and one (Ruth) from a childless widowhood. All were Gentiles, hinting that God's Kingdom is meant for the whole world and not just the Chosen People. It has also been pointed out elsewhere that Jesus's family history is far from spotless--as dysfunctional as they come, including murderers, adulterers, sexual deviants, all manner of treacherous types: the better to show that the King intends to redeem us all. So many layers of meaning here. I found the inclusion of these four amazing and Matthew a genius.

I've seen that too Madeleine. That seems to be standard reading of Matthew's genealogy. The "shady ladies" as you call them (LOL!) may suggest something about the Virgin birth. They are in contrast to the Blessed Mother, who is eternally pure, but in sympathy with them as well given the suspicions surrounding Christ's conception.

If I remember correctly, Joseph Ratzinger before he became Pope did a sermon on exactly your points, Madleine. I'll have to find it. It is very good.

Jeff Cavins, who narrates the videos for the Matthew study we're doing, used the term "shady ladies." I just think the parallels we can draw throughout Matthew show so clearly God's incredibly beautiful design. Blows the mind.

Hi. I'm reading Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives by Benedict XVI. In chapter 1, he talks about the genealogies of Matthew and Luke.

According to Ratzinger, Matthew's genealogy says these things: Joseph is not the father of Jesus (He comes from Heaven like Isaac or Samuel), the genealogy ends with Mary, from Her a new generation begins, Jesus is the new King David, the 4 Gentile women indicate the universality of the message.

Luke's genealogy has different names. But the main thing is that the structural position of Christ, is the same in both genealogies.

Finally, Ratzinger summarizes everything with the Gospel of John: Jesus is the Verb. He's the beginning, He is God. Genealogies are usually broken. So the true genealogy is faith in Christ. Whoever believes in Christ, receives a "new origin" through faith and baptism.

This is what I understood from Ratzinger's book. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

Jesús wrote: "Hi. I'm reading Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives by Benedict XVI. In chapter 1, he talks about the genealogies of Matthew and Luke.

According to Ratzinge..."

Thank you Jesús, I had forgotten about the Infancy Narratives. It's been a while since I read it.

I did find the homily I was thinking about. It was a meditation Ratzinger wrote while still Archbishop of Munich. It is in the book The Blessings of Christmas, a book I've been thinking of as a potential candidate for our Christmas reading anyway. Anyone who has access to FORMED can download it for free. I first read these meditations in the original German.
There is another compilation of his meditations/homilies I know of, and they center around Pentecost. I don't know if they have been translated. They are also fantastic.

I just re-read the meditation on Matthew's genealogy, and it deserves to be picked apart on its own, there is so much packed into it. So what I'm going to do is hold off for now, and I can post it after we finish Matthew regardless of whether we choose the book for our Christmas read or not.

The book club read Pope BXVI's Infancy Narratives and I just went through the comments and didn't find much of a discussion on the genealogies. But we also read Scott Hahn's Joy to the World and we did discuss the genealogies there. If you want to see what was said, here's the link:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

I’ve wanted to contribute more to the discussion on the early chapters of the Gospel of Matthew, but unfortunately I’ve been busy all week. But something must be said about the Sermon on the Mount. It’s one of my favorite parts in the entire New Testament.

It probably wouldn’t hurt to describe the structure of the Sermon. I see it as divided into six parts.

A. The introductory stage directions (5:1-2)
B. The Beatitudes (5:3-12)
C. The Similes (5:13-16)
D. The Teachings (5:17-7:23)
E. The Conclusion (7:24-27)
F. The concluding stage directions (7:28-29)

When I look at it in this summary way, I’m surprised to find that the Beatitudes are only nine lines. For some reason it felt like a lot more.

That introductory stage direction (as I call it) has Jesus sitting. I never really noticed that. In my imagining of the scene I had Jesus standing. Perhaps I got it from the movie, Jesus of Nazareth, where He is standing while delivering the sermon. You can see it here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDCbJ...

Before Jesus gets to His teachings, which are the bulk of the sermon, he provides two similes to describe His followers. Actually in the NAB translation they are not similes, they are metaphors. He doesn’t say, “You are like salt.” Nor “You are like light.” Those are similes. He says “You are salt” and “You are light.” Those are metaphors. I especially like the “You are the light of the world” metaphor. If you are a perfect follower of Christ, you just shine.

Then the teachings. I count twenty-two teachings across the three chapters. I think it’s worth listing them.

1. Teaching about the Old Testament law.
2. Teaching about anger.
3. Teaching about adultery.
4. Teaching about divorce.
5. Teaching about oaths.
6. Teaching about retaliation.
7. Teaching about your enemies.
8. Teaching about almsgiving.
9. Teaching about prayer.
10. Teaching about forgiveness.
11. Teaching about fasting.
12. Teaching about heaven.
13. Teaching about the eye as entry point of light.
14. Teaching about God and money.
15. Teaching about dependence on God.
16. Teaching about judging.
17. Teaching about the holy,
18. Teaching about prayers being answered.
19. Teaching about the golden rule.
20. Teaching about the narrow gate of heaven.
21. Teaching about false prophets.
22. Teaching about true discipleship.

If the beatitudes outline the ideal attributes of a follower of Christ, the teachings seem to show what one has to do to achieve those ideals. And Jesus wraps it all up in a concluding section with “Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock” (7:24). It is wisdom to follow Christ, because following Christ is what leads to heaven.

This is awesome Manny. Thank you for sharing this.

What I noticed reading it this time around, is how quickly in the Gospel of Matthew we get to these teachings. It is in the 5th chapter out of 28. No need for a big preamble, let's get to it!

All of these instructions are version of 'love thy neighbor as thyself.' And Jesus points out for us what this really entails. How comprehensive and all-permeating love is. We cannot cherry-pick and say this or that doesn't apply to me if I am sincere in being in right relationship with God.

Manny wrote: "I especially like the “You are the light of the world” metaphor. If you are a perfect follower of Christ, you just shine."

I like this one too. But it also tells us to whom the real glory belongs: God.

"Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father." NABRE

We are mere instruments. That's pretty humbling, and it challenges us every day. Not only that, but who recognizes a good or even holy deed in others and straight away praises God? We naturally commend the person (and often stop there) before we praise God. I only know of one person, a former priest, who would say, "Praise be to God!" when you expected him to say something closer to the ground first.

The Sermon on the Mount replaces prohibitions with positive directions. Instead of "Thou shalt not," He gives what we should do instead to keep our membership in His kingdom. If we could all do that , we would be living the kingdom here.

Kerstin wrote: "What I noticed reading it this time around, is how quickly in the Gospel of Matthew we get to these teachings. It is in the 5th chapter out of 28. No need for a big preamble, let's get to it!

All ..."

Yes, Matthew simplifies the narrative. Now here's the controversy on which Gospel came first, Mark or Matthew. Of the stories that are in both Mark and Matthew, Mark has more detail and are longer. If Mark came first, which is what modern scholars believe, Matthew compressed Mark's stories. If Matthew came first, which is the original Church position, then Mark expanded on Matthew's stories. Which is more likely, to expand on stories or to contract stories? For me, if Christ was the son of God, why would I eliminate any detail from a story? I would keep everything. So to me, it seems much more likely that Matthew came first.

When we did the Gospel of Mark two years ago, we got into a little argument over this. Maybe my position is more clear now. But to be up front, most scholars believe Mark came first.

Christine posted this article on Matthew's Gospel by Edward Sri from the St. Paul Center in a different thread. It should be discussed here. It's very insightful:
https://stpaulcenter.com/building-the...

I don't think I ever realized this, but Sri makes a profound point toward the end. Let me quote it.

So when we look upon Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel, we must remember we are encountering the face of God. Indeed, the story in Matthew’s Gospel is the story of the God who is with us in his Son, Jesus Christ. At the start of the Gospel, Jesus is introduced as “Emmanuel.” And the kingdom that Jesus is establishing throughout the Gospel of Matthew is all about bringing people back into union with God—not just the faithful Jews of his day but also the sinners, the outcasts, the suffering, and even the gentiles, the non-Jewish people from all the other nations. God will be with his people again through Christ’s kingdom that is breaking down the barriers, going out to the peripheries, calling people to repentance, and reconciling all humanity to the Father.

It’s not surprising, therefore, that we’ll see this theme again at the very close of Matthew’s Gospel. After his death and Resurrection, Jesus commissions the apostles to go make disciples of all nations and he promises, “I am with you always, even to the close of the age” (Matt 28:20). So from beginning to end, the theme of Emmanuel—the theme of God with us—radiates through Matthew’s Gospel in the kingdom Jesus is building.

So God with us at the beginning of the Gospel is still God with us at the end of the Gospel and Matthew projects God with us for eternity. The Gospel is nicely framed that way.

Here's an interesting question. In chapter one, Matthew writes, " “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means “God is with us.” (Matt 1:23). But he's not named Emmanuel. He's named Jesus, which means "God Saves." I would have to look it up in Pope BXVI's Infancy Narrative or Scott Hahn's Joy to the World, but I'm at a loss to explain how they can be the same thing. I bet it's mentioned in both books, but I can't remember.

Benedict XVI explains the question on "Emmanuel" (Is 7,14), in chapter 2.4 (Conception and birth of Jesus according to Matthew) of Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives. On his point of view, basically 2 possibilities: it is an "on-hold word", an unfulfilled prophecy so far, because a historical correspondence cannot be found. Or it is a promise fulfilled in Christ. Christ always is the Emmanuel, the"God with us".

Jesús wrote: "Benedict XVI explains the question on "Emmanuel" (Is 7,14), in chapter 2.4 (Conception and birth of Jesus according to Matthew) of [book:Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives|1..."

Thanks Jesús. I would say the latter of the two options makes the most sense.

As the introduction in the NAB mentions, Matthew’s Gospel is structured around five discourses that Jesus says. A discourse is a fancy way of saying a sermon. We discussed the Sermon on the Mount. That was the first. Chapter ten comprises the second discourse. It is sometimes identified as the Discourse on the Apostle’s Missions.

Some striking things in that discourse. Jesus instructs them to not “go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town” (Matt 10:5). Their mission is to preach to “the lost sheep of Israel” (6). The Gospel of Luke I think had a more international outlook. Matthew is much more concerned with the Jewish people.

Verse seven (“As you go, make this proclamation: ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’”) is the mission, and I believe it is the same in all the Gospels, though I’m not sure if it’s explicitly stated in John. And does is the kingdom of heaven comprise of? For Matthew: “Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons” (8). Now this is supposed to be all our missions, though my skill at raising the dead is a bit lacking.

The first half of the discourse considers the mission. The second half considers the reactions the apostles will have to face.

Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves.
But beware of people, for they will hand you over to courts and scourge you in their synagogues,
and you will be led before governors and kings for my sake as a witness before them and the pagans. (16-18)

There seems to be a disconnect for me between the first and the second half of the discourse. If the mission is to cure the sick and the like, why would they be persecuted? Who would persecute anyone that is cleaning lepers and chasing out demons? Now is Jesus predicting his own persecution? Everything He mentions is what will happen to Him.

So why would anyone want to go through these persecutions? In the Sermon on the Mount discourse, people were “blessed” by God if you followed Christ. In this discourse you will tortured. Why would anyone want to do this? Christ tells us: “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (39). And He further explains it with “Whoever receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever receives a righteous man because he is righteous will receive a righteous man’s reward” (41). While it’s not spelled out here, that reward will be salvation.

But then the last verse again seems disconnected from something. “And whoever gives only a cup of cold water to one of these little ones to drink because he is a disciple—amen, I say to you, he will surely not lose his reward” (42). I don’t understand the context. Does anyone?

Heavenly reward and human reaction, that's the distinction. In other words, following Christ will earn you eternal reward, but don't expect worldly humans to approve.

Kerstin wrote: "Heavenly reward and human reaction, that's the distinction. In other words, following Christ will earn you eternal reward, but don't expect worldly humans to approve."

Yes, but how this "little one" suddenly come into the picture? And why cold water? I understand the reward but the child and water seems to connect to something that is missing. It confuses me.

Explanation from Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament:

10:42 these little ones: i.e., the apostles. They must rely on the hospitality of others for daily necessities during their mission (10:9 - 11). Service rendered to them is service to Jesus himself (10:40; 25:34 - 36). Children are elsewhere used as examples in Jesus' teaching on the faith in 18: 1 - 4 and 19: 13 - 15).

Oh, I forgot the verse is translated a little differently:

Mt 10:42: "And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he shall not lose his reward."

Kerstin wrote: "Explanation from Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament: 10:42 these little ones: i.e., the apostles. They must rely on the hospitality of others for daily necessities during..."

I never knew that. I'm actually shocked. I took "little ones" for children. OK, that makes sense. Thanks Kerstin.

PS, that is a strange phrase for apostles. Did anyone know this on their own?

Manny wrote: "PS, that is a strange phrase for apostles. Did anyone know this on their own? "

No, LOL! I wonder though, if it is some kind of endearment.

Kerstin wrote: "Manny wrote: "PS, that is a strange phrase for apostles. Did anyone know this on their own? "

No, LOL! I wonder though, if it is some kind of endearment."

In searching around, I think it means lowly. Children were considered the lowest on a ladder of hierarchy. They essentially had no power or wealth. If that is so, I think a better translation in today's diction would be, "these lowly ones..."

Chapter 13 comprises the third discourse in Matthew’s Gospel, this on the nature of parables. It’s a very active chapter. By my count there are fourteen sections to the chapter of a chapter of 58 verses. I’m amazed at how compressed each section is, averaging a little over four verses per section. Here’s how I see the chapter divided.

1. Introductory stage directions.
2. The Parable of the Sower.
3. Why He speaks in parables.
4. The privilege granted to disciples.
5. The explanation of the Parable of the Sower
6. The Parable of the Weeds and Wheat.
7. The Parable of the Mustard Seed.
9. The Parable of the Yeast.
10. The fulfillment of prophesy in parables.
11. The explanation of the Weeds and Wheat.
12. Four parables on the nature of heaven.
13. Jesus concludes his discourse.
14. Jesus is rejected in His home town.

Jesus here too as in the Sermon on the Mount sits as He delivers His discourse. Interestingly here He sits twice, first by the sea and then in a boat. I imagine the boat is docked or grounded and He uses the boat as a sort of pulpit while the large crowd gathers up to Him.

The discourse alternates between a parable and an explanation, either explanation of a parable or an explanation of why He speaks in parables. We always speak about how vivid a parable is or how memorable because it’s in story form, but that doesn’t seem to be the reason. Jesus explains that it has been prophesied in Isaiah that those converted will understand and those not will not (13-15).

The simplest of parables are nothing more than a simile. “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast” (33) or “like a buried treasure” (44). One step up in parable complexity from a simile is an allegory. The Parable of the Weeds and Wheat is an example. A parable that is a straight allegory. The weeds represent the damned and the wheat represent the saved. On earth the two are intermixed but in heaven they will be sorted out.

Still another step in complexity from an allegory is a story that seems to alter reality or dislocates the focus. The parable of the sower is such a complex parable. For instance there are two dislocations in focus. At first you think the story is about the sower, and then you think the story is about the seeds, but in fact it’s about the soil. Could we set up an allegorical equation? The sower would be a preacher, the seeds are the Word, and the soil would be general population. In some the seed (the Word) will grow and some not. The story also alters reality, pushing the conceit to a contortion of sorts. In this case we could ask, why would a sower of seeds randomly spread seeds about in unknown soils? A farmer would never do that. If anything one prepares the soil or even grows seeds in a seedling pack with perfect soil. The twist in these complex parables are enough to make them startling, mysterious, and perhaps even impenetrable. These fulfill Isaiah’s prophesy.

But even the simple similes are in a way dislocating as a means of communicating. I count about eight parables in chapter thirteen, and they are in one way or another about the nature of heaven. Now if I were to describe the nature of an island in the south pacific, which could be as close to heaven as we might imagine, I would tell you about the ideal temperature, the pleasing breeze, the fresh sea air, the wonderful trees, and such. You would get some sort of an idea. But in these eight parables or so, I don’t see any real sense of what heaven is like. It’s a pearl, it’s yeast, the weeds won’t exist, it’s like a fishing net. Frankly I don’t have a clue what heaven is like. And yet when Jesus asks them do they understand, they say yes.

“Do you understand all these things?” They answered, “Yes.”
And he replied, “Then every scribe who has been instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like the head of a household who brings from his storeroom both the new and the old.” (51-52)

Do they really understand? I think they’re just “yessing” Him as one does a teacher you don’t want to disappoint. And for good measure, Jesus gives them one last parable. A scribe (which is a teacher) who has been instructed on heaven who as allegory teaches the new (Christ’s Word) and the old (Torah) is compared to “the head of a household.” How is that?

Manny wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "Explanation from Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament: 10:42 these little ones: i.e., the apostles. They must rely on the hospitality of others for daily nece..."

Yes, I knew that "little one" was an image fore disciple in Matthew who refers to the disciples around Jesus as "those of little faith".

I don't believe that these parables are about heaven, but about the Kingdom of God which Matthew calls the Kingdom of Heaven because it is impermissible to use the name of God for his Jewish readers. The Kingdom of God/Heaven is unfolding among us here on earth. It is not simply a future reality in another realm. Reading these parables that way makes them more accessible for me.

Manny wrote: "But in these eight parables or so, I don’t see any real sense of what heaven is like. It’s a pearl, it’s yeast, the weeds won’t exist, it’s like a fishing net. Frankly I don’t have a clue what heaven is like. And yet when Jesus asks them do they understand, they say yes."

Again, in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament are the following explanations:
1) the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl of Great Value...underscore the same point. Both stress that the kingdom's value is inestimable and surrendering earthly attachments is required to obtain it.
2)The parable of the Dragnet envisions the Day of Judgment when the righteous are separated from the wicked.

Now, I don't think the apostles were just "yessing." Earlier in verse

13:11 And he answered them,, "to you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.

Explanation of 'Secrets of the kingdom': The inner circle of disciples accept Jesus with faith and are privileged to know God's mysteries.

So their knowledge of what Jesus says and does goes deeper than everyone else's and it is quite possible they understood what Jesus was saying there.

Irene’s comment sent me on a wonderful search for the distinctions between the “Kingdom of God” and the Kingdom of Heaven.” It never dawn on me that Christ was referring to the earthly kingdom here, the kingdom we are supposed to establish. I found those that support Irene’s position, but there were others that disagreed.

For me I don’t know. Irene’s point is well taken and fits every single parable except the one with fish and nets. Here’s that entire parable:

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net thrown into the sea, which collects fish of every kind.
When it is full they haul it ashore and sit down to put what is good into buckets. What is bad they throw away.
Thus it will be at the end of the age. The angels will go out and separate the wicked from the righteous
and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth. (47-50)

Clearly there Christ is speaking about a time of judgement, which would be in the afterlife.

But then the Parable of the Weeds and Wheat actually makes most sense using Irene’s reading. While yes the harvest is at a judgement time, and therefore in celestial heaven, the sowing occurs prior, and would seemingly only make sense at an earthly time.

The other parables can go either way.

The one thing that undermines Irene’s point is that according to Wikipedia entry “Kingdom of heaven (Gospel of Matthew)” a certain Robert Foster is quoted as claiming that Matthew uses “kingdom of God” and “God” in several places, so why would he be adverse here? Here’s quote in Wikipedia:

Robert Foster rejects this view. He finds the standard explanation hard to believe as Matthew uses the word "God" many other times and even uses the phrase "kingdom of God" four times. Foster argues that, to Matthew, the two concepts were different. For Foster, the word "heaven" had an important role in Matthew's theology and links the phrase especially to "Father in heaven," which Matthew frequently uses to refer to God. Foster argues that the "kingdom of God" represents the earthly domain that Jesus' opponents such as Pharisees thought they resided in, while the "kingdom of heaven" represents the truer spiritual domain of Jesus and his disciples.

I tried to follow the link to Foster’s essay but it was not open to the public. I’m just going to remain neutral on this. I can see both being correct. Perhaps Irene can offer an opinion on why Matthew would use “God” elsewhere but not here. Either way, I want to thank Irene for enlightening me on this.

Here's the link to that Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom...

Kerstin wrote: "So their knowledge of what Jesus says and does goes deeper than everyone else's and it is quite possible they understood what Jesus was saying there."

It's quite possible they understood Kerstin. It's possible Jesus explained in detail every single parable as He did two in this chapter but was not recorded to prevent redundancy. I have this image of the apostles as not very bright, and I would think it would take some explanation for them to get it.

Manny wrote: "I have this image of the apostles as not very bright, and I would think it would take some explanation for them to get it."

Why?

For the most part we don't know much about them, and we don't get to meet them as Jesus did. Jesus must have known that each of them had the potential for greatness otherwise it makes no sense he chose them. Upon them the entire enterprise of the Church rested, from what is humanly possible.

When I look at the apostles while they were still with Jesus, I see a group of men whose entire world had shifted dramatically, who saw miracles on a daily basis and confrontations that Jesus handled in very unorthodox ways. Seriously, how would I react if I experienced I was walking on water? I'd be so shocked by the realization the waves would roll over me in no time flat. One has to absorb these experiences, come to terms with them, and ultimately understand what it all means. When the apostles seem dense I wonder if being overwhelmed, of not being able to absorb one more "irregularity" in that moment had something to do with it. And still Jesus pushed them.

Why? There are a number of instances where their response is rather silly. Peter wanting to build booths at the transfiguration for instance. Peter trying to walk on water. He sinks. There are others. You're right. They are probably overwhelmed.

Manny, I think most of us have had — at some moment in our lives — an experience of such rare beauty, or deep love, or other profound emotional experience, that we were seized by a feeling that we wanted to last for ever. That overwhelming joy seems to me to be — on a human level — what Peter was expressing at the Transfiguration.

In his marvelous work, The Case for Jesus, Brant Pitre singles out in the Synoptic Gospels three deeds of Jesus in which he acts as if he is the God described in the Jewish Scriptures. They are the stilling of the storm, the walking on water, and the Transfiguration. “In other words, in a first-century Jewish context, Jesus’ act of walking on the water is nothing less than a theophany —an appearance of God — the same God who appeared to Moses on Sinai.” (Pitre, The Case for Jesus, page 129)

In regard to the Transfiguration, notice that it occurs on Mount Sinai, the mountain of divine revelation. “In Jesus of Nazareth, the one God now has a human face.” (IBID, page 133) Of course, Jews as Peter and James and John were, would have understood the monumental significance of beholding Jesus with Moses and Elijah, and been overwhelmed with awe and fear: “ ‘What matters is not that Jesus has done the seemingly impossible but that he has performed actions which the Old Testament associates with YHWH alone.’ “ (Brant Pitre quoting other scholars)

I highly recommend Pitre’s book because it goes with depth into so many of the issues we’re discussing. Bishop Rober Barron invited Pitre to produce the book and writes an informative afterword for it.

Unlike us, the angels were given perfect knowledge at their creation, which is one reason Satan and the devils didn't get the second (or third, etc.) chance that we mortals get when we make bad choices. Some human beings, like prophets, mystics, and numerous others throughout history, including some unbeatified saints among us, have been gifted with supernatural knowledge (protestants call it "word of knowledge" and the nones might call it esp or psychic)--can we assume that the twelve apostles were eventually so gifted once their faith became strong enough to handle it? Most likely not all at once, I think, just from their conduct in the Gospels. The apostles were simple working class people, without the education in the sacred writings that St. Paul and Luke had, and maybe Matthew. Remember the response of the Temple scholars when twelve-year-old Jesus sat down with them for three days, and how Jesus's home boys in Nazareth could not accept that the son of a carpenter could be the promised Messiah and were ready to kill him. Education was permitted, I think, only in and through the Temple. Many of the apostles, no doubt were naturally bright and were good in their day jobs, and likely all the evangelists were literate. But they all eventually were gifted with knowledge beyond their station.

And the Gospels do quote Jesus as saying, when the crowds had left after his sermons with parables, only to them was it given to understand what the parables meant. At least right then.

I need to correct a mistake I made in Message 36: The Transfiguration of Jesus occurred on Mount Tabor and not Mount Sinai.

In regard to the term Kingdom of God (please see Irene's comment in Message 30), I want to refer to the remarks of two scholars: Brant Pitre and the Anglican theologian N.T. Wright (who comes to us with excellent credentials, recommended by Bishop Robert Barron).

In The Case for Jesus, Pitre writes: "If there's anything Jesus loves to talk about in the Gospels, it is the coming of the kingdom of God -- or, in Matthew's Gospel -- the kingdom of heaven.

"Now, the question is: What does Jesus mean when he refers to the kingdom of God? And what does he mean when he says that it is 'at hand?' He seems to assume that his Jewish audience will understand what he's talking about. Today, many people think that the kingdom of God is another way of talking about 'life after death.' And while it's certainly true that the kingdom of God is tied to eternal life, there's more going on here. The very fact that Jesus can talk about the kingdom as 'coming' makes clear that he can't simply referring to what happens after a person dies. So what does he mean when he speaks of the time being fulfilled and the coming of the kingdom being 'at hand?'

"In this case the key to unlocking the meaning of Jesus' otherwise mysterious words can be found by going back to the Old Testament." (Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus, pp. 104-105)

Now, I'm switching to N.T. Wright, quoting from his book The Day the Revolution Began:

"Among the things that Matthew is saying in his Gospel, it seems clear that he is highlighting the point that the kingdom agenda set out in chapter 5 is not simply an outline for a bracing ethic for Jesus's followers to attempt; it is the dramatic outline of Jesus's own vocation. . . The long story of Israel, sketched by Matthew in terms of the genealogy from Abraham to David, through the exile, to the Messiah, has come to its fulfillment. . . He would stand there unresisting as people slapped and mocked him. He would be compelled to carry his burden to Golgotha. He would find his clothes stripped from him and divided up. . .

How remarkable it is that the Western church so easily embraces self-discovery, self-fulfillment, and self-realization as if they were the heart of the Gospel! Following Jesus will mean disappointment, failure, frustration, misunderstanding, pain, and sorrow -- and those are just the 'first-world' problems. Some Christians, even while I have been working on this book, have been beheaded for their faith; others have seen their homes bombed, their livelihoods taken away, their health ruined. Their witness is extraordinary, and we in the comfortable West can only ponder the ways in which our own compromises have shielded us from the worst things that are happening to our true family only a plane ride away. . .

"But the first generations of Christians, with the New Testament writers at their head, would remind us that these are not simply horrible things that may happen to us despite our belief in the victory of Jesus. They are things that may come, in different ways and at different times, because this is how the kingdom comes . . .

"The Gospels invite us to make the Christian story our own, to live within the narrative in all its twists and turns, to see ourselves among the crowds following Jesus and witnessing his kingdom-bringing work, to see ourselves in the long range continuation of that narrative. . . The Gospels give to those who read them the energy and the sense of direction to be Beatitude people for the world. . . "
(N. T. Wright, The Day the Revolution Began)

It just struck me from today's Mass readings, that the good thief on the cross tells Jesus, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom." So clearly he is referring to the kingdom of heaven there. In front of Pilate, Jesus says "my kingdom is not of this world." So where is the kingdom of God? How do those two references to a kingdom that is outside the earth fit with the references from Matthew chapter 13? If the kingdom of God is at hand, where is it?

Manny, would this help? I’m going to quote from two completely unrelated sources. First, from N.T.Wright:

“For Jesus, the kingdom was coming not in a single move, but in stages, of which his own public career was one, his death and resurrection another, and a still future consummation another. Note that kingdom of heaven is Matthew’s preferred form for the same phrase, following a regular Jewish practice of saying heaven rather than God. It does not refer to a place, but to the fact of God’s becoming king in and through Jesus and his achievement.”

My second reference is from a scholar we don’t ordinarily turn to, but a good one, the late Mircea Eliade who was a distinguished professor of religious studies at the University of Chicago. His History of Religious Ideas was a classic when I was working on my master’s in theology. Here is what Eliade said about the term “kingdom of God”:
“The kingdom of God has already been inaugurated; it is not automatically universally obvious, just as the Messiah, incarnated in the historic personage of Jesus, was not obvious to the majority of Jews — and the divinity of Christ still is not so for nonbelievers. In short, there is here the same dialectical progression that is well known in the history of religions: the epiphany of the sacred in a profane object is at the same time a camouflage: for the sacred is not obvious to all those who approach the object in which it has manifested itself. This time the sacred — the kingdom of God — manifested itself in a human community that was historically circumscribed: the Church.” (Mircea Eliade, A history of Religious Ideas, Volume 2, University of Chicago Press. 1982)

Last, another quotation from Wright: “Jesus announces the kingdom and summons his followers to share in the work of announcing and inaugurating it. Yet the kingdom confounds their expectations; they don’t understand what is going on, and they fail to pick up the significance of his strange stories and powerful deeds. . . The two disciples on the road to Emmaus were still shocked and sad because, in spite of the rumors of the resurrection, as far as they were concerned the crucifixion of their friend and master meant the dashing of all their hopes. ‘We were hoping that he was going to redeem Israel.’ (Luke 24:21). Part of the meaning of the kingdom, in the four gospels, is precisely the fact that it bursts upon Jesus’s first followers as something so shocking as to be incomprehensible. That is why Jesus told so many parables. His kingdom vision was so unlike that of his contemporaries that this was the only way to get through, to launch his followers upon the strange new vocation that would continue, energized by Pentecost, after his death, resurrection, and ascension. And part of the meaning of the kingdom is that the launching itself involved the death of Jesus, something again for which his first followers were completely unprepared. . . The suffering of Jesus’s followers is, like Jesus’s own suffering, not just the inevitable accompaniment to the accomplishment of the divine purpose, but actually itself part of the means by which that purpose is to be fulfilled.”
(N.T. Wright, How God Became King, Harper One)

I interpret all of this — all of our readings and questionings — to be answered very simply. Yes, the kingdom came. It came with him, and it is being lived out through human history by us, his humble followers.

Yes Frances it really helps. All excellent quotes. Apparently Wright agrees with Irene on Matthew's use of the Kingdom of heaven as really referring to the kingdom of God. However, wouldn't it be more precise to say instead of "the kingdom came" with Christ that the kingdom was started with His coming? At least that's what I take from the first NT Wright quote you provided. It wasn't complete. There's more to come.

My take on the Kingdom is from the prayer Jesus gave us: "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven..." We become members of the Kingdom by submitting to God's will. " The first phrase can mean the "Kingdom to come" or, keeping in mind that we just celebrated Christ's kingship once again on this earth, wherever there is a gathering of saintly believers, do we not have a piece of God's kingdom available to us now?

I just discovered a novena to St. Matthew. Here is the link: thevalueofsparrows.com/prayer-a-noven...

One of my favorite verses ever: "You are worth much more than many sparrows."

Manny, I can't not think of the 4 places in Matthew's Gospel where he uses "Kingdom of God", so I can't address your question. Maybe as we read through this Gospel we will discover them. I have not heard of the author cited by your wikapedia article. As to your question about the parables that clearly point to a final judgment, I don't think that the kingdom is either earthly or heavenly, either present or future. I understand it to be both. The Kingdom of God/Heaven is wherever God's will is reigning surpreme. Obviously, that is in Heaven. But, it has also been enaugerated on earth and is unfolding through the Church, through Christ's disciples. A parable about final judgment or about its miraculous growth, are equally appropriate, for all is part of the Kingdom.

Frances, thank you for those quotes. They are very thought provoking.

Irene wrote: "As to your question about the parables that clearly point to a final judgment, I don't think that the kingdom is either earthly or heavenly, either present or future. I understand it to be both. The Kingdom of God/Heaven is wherever God's will is reigning surpreme. Obviously, that is in Heaven. .."

Irene, that's absolutely brilliant. But of course. It is both! Why didn't I think of that!

We're about half way through the Gospel with only one week scheduled to go, and I am getting so much out of this that want to extend it an extra week rather than rushing through it. I hope you don't mind. We'll start the Christmas reads December 8th and City of God in early January. I'll update the schedule shortly.

Madeleine wrote: "I just discovered a novena to St. Matthew. Here is the link: thevalueofsparrows.com/prayer-a-noven..."

That's fantastic. Thanks Madeleine.

You’re welcome, Irene. Isn’t it great to have a place where we can come together to discuss these deep spiritual truths?

I think Brant Pitre’s comment is important: that, in speaking of the kingdom of God, Jesus assumed his Jewish audience understood what he was talking about. That “the key to unlocking the meaning of Jesus’s otherwise mysterious words can be found by going back to the Old Testament.” (Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus)

So, then, N.T. Wright adds: “Jesus’s way of combining present and future sayings about God’s kingdom has long baffled scholars who were trying to understand him without reference to his Jewish context. Once we put him back in that world, the problem vanishes. Of course he believed that God’s kingdom had already begun. And he wasn’t teaching his followers how to rise above the mess of the world. He was teaching them to be kingdom-bringers. . . In first-century Christianity, what mattered was not people going from earth into God’s kingdom in heaven. What mattered, and what Jesus taught his followers to pray, was that God’s kingdom would come on earth as in heaven. . . I have become convinced, the more I have read and studied and prayed the story of Jesus, that somehow, Jesus’s death was seen by Jesus himself, and then by those who told and ultimately wrote his story, as the ultimate means by which God’s kingdom was established. The crucifixion was the shocking answer to the prayer that God’s kingdom would come on earth as in heaven. It was the ultimate Exodus event through which the tyrant was defeated, God’s people were set free and given their fresh vocation, and God’s presence was established in their midst in a completely new way for which the Temple itself was just an advance pointer. . . “
(N. T. Wright, Simply Jesus)

“For Jesus, the kingdom was coming, not in a single move, but in stages, of which his own public career was one, his death and resurrection another, and a still firmer consummation another. Note that ‘kingdom of heaven’ is Matthew’s preferred form for the same phrase, following a regular Jewish practice of saying ‘heaven’ rather than ‘God.’ It does not refer to a place, but to the fact of God’s becoming king in and through Jesus. . . “
(N. T. Wright, Matthew For Everyone, Part 2, Glossary)

I love the last lines of the above book. There N.T. Wright says this:

“We come back to the Lord’s Prayer once more. Bread, forgiveness and deliverance are, of course, always going to be needed as long as the present world continues. But there will come a time when those needs are swallowed up in the life of the new age: when God’s will is done on earth as in heaven, because heaven and earth have been joined together in the new creation; when God’s kingdom, established by Jesus in his death and resurrection, has finally conquered all its enemies by the power of divine love; and when, in line with the ancient hopes of Israel, and now with the central intention of Jesus himself, the name of God is honored, hallowed, exalted and celebrated throughout the whole creation. Every time we say the words ‘Our father. . . ‘ we are pleading for that day to be soon, and pledging ourselves to work to bring it closer.”

Madeleine, the value of sparrows, the novena to Saint Matthew is absolutely beautiful. Thank you so much.