Crowds surrounded Jesus, eager to hear his every word. The breeze from the nearby lake cooling them down as they lap up the wisdom on offer. The two boats which were nearby were filled with fishermen who were cleaning the nets. This may have been a really smelly, disgusting and exacting ritual to ensure that the nets were effective, but also time consuming and tiring.
Jesus wants the boats to push out from the shore, and for them to drop their nets. Is this a gimmick? What does he know about fishing? This is not even a qualified fisherman, merely the son of a handyman from Nazareth : and what good comes from Nazareth?. The fishermen may not have even heard of the village near to Sepphoris.
But upon those nets hitting the water, as if on cue, the fish leap into the nets. The fishermen struggle to pull the nets back on the boats. They ask other fishermen to give them a hand. Not more boats are needed, but pairs of hands, so they wade in.
Simon Peter, James and John (the sons of Zebedee) were all there, seeing everything. They apparently dropped everything and followed Jesus, after the nets were ashore. Not even trying to get a mouthful of this giant catch, they follow Jesus as he walks off, on his way. So, just after one big catch, that’s enough for Simon Peter and the lads to give up everything?
Note that Simon had had prior experience with Jesus (Luke 4). Jesus had entered Simon’s Mother-in-Law’s house because of reports she was unwell. He had then healed her and also many more after that. News would have spread faster than the price of eggs reducing, inflation falling to nigh on zero, or an agreement on a supposed tariff that went the President’s way.
This wasn’t a Damascus Road incident. This was a considered decision based upon what Simon had seen, heard, experienced: and he followed.
Jesus hadn’t promised him wealth, fame or any form of new cryptocurrency, Simon Peter would lose his primary income from the fishing, sacrifice his life at home with his wife (and nearby mother-in-law) and go with Jesus, on his way. You wonder whether Simon’s wife accompanied Simon; otherwise how might she live? I suppose Zebedee could have taken care of her and her mother. That’s mercy and compassion etc.
This was woke personified.
But seeing an opportunity to find a life that brought purpose and value, Simon chose that. He didn’t sign up to a particular denomination, just to follow in the way of Jesus.
I invite you to listen again to the words of Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde, and to hear all that she said that day after the inauguration at the Washington National Cathedral. What is so frightening about the words she says? What if Jesus had said them, would that change our opinion?
What do you think?
My thoughts:
I understand that Simon followed Jesus, leaving his family, seeing an opportunity to find a life that brought purpose and value. Did he leave his family forever? Couldn’t he have achieved his goal by still maintaining a family relationship?
Mathew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.
Does that mean the Catholic Priests and nuns are wiser by not even getting married in the first place?
There’s thought that Peter’s wife was around but not mentioned as following Peter on his travels. Mark 1:30 suggests that Peter had a wife but sadly she is unnamed. (Only in a film was she given the name Eden). Tradition, that is not always in reality, suggests that Simon Peter’s wife was crucified for her faith by Roman authorities during the Neronian persecution in Rome. Recall that Peter had his own Gospel account albeit not accepted within the Bible.
His Mother in Law was healed by Jesus and so, his wife may have remained with her Mother.
As I mentioned in the Blog, Zebedee may have supported them after Peter leaves.
Could he have ventured for months on his journey with Jesus through Cana, Capernaum and then down to Jerusalem without his family? Who knows?
What we do know is, thanks to the misogynistic leanings of the Bible, women were rarely mentioned nor named. I think the verse may not correlate with your question as it pertains to the context in that it was given – and that’s the author of Matthew’s Gospel not solely Jesus.
The wisdom of a priest remaining celebate, I think, stems from Mary being not tainted by sex, and ascetics also sought not to be ‘distracted’ by sex.
Does it help in ministry? IMO, no.
Mark 10: 29
Then Peter spoke up, “We have left everything to follow you!”
29 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”
And you are citing the verse that Matthew copied in ‘his’ Gospel. What might be interesting is to see what additions or omissions did ‘Matthew’ give to that passage from’Mark’.
Do you think there is a purpose of writing this verse ?
Oh yes, when read in context.
I’m going to start with Mark 10:29, as it is widely considered that both Matthew and Luke, whoever the authors were, used Mark’s text when writing ‘their’ Gospels.
However, by starting at Mark 10:29, I would be making a mistake. I need to go further back to discern the actual context. Albeit Chapters were never emphasised in the actual text, Chapter 16 focusses upon the roots of problems within social power and family. This is a new bit of teaching. Jesus has moved from the Jordan area to Judea, as ‘Mark’ starts the journey towards Jerusalem. From Mark 10:17 onwards we have a story of a man running up to Jesus and asking about the necessary conditions for eternal life. That’s not a life that is forever, for the Greek word for eternal is αιώνιος, which means ‘lasting for an age’.
Note that in Mark we have a ‘man’; whereas in Matthew he is a young man, and in Luke he is a ruler. I suppose he could be all three.
Jesus responds and says ‘You know the Commandments’. Interestingly, then Luke manages to get ‘Do not commit adultery’ BEFORE ‘Do not kill’, whilst Mark manages to include ‘Do not defraud’ (which isn’t even in the ’10 Commandments’!, whilst Matthew adds ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’. This is suggestive that we may need to read the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) as one to get a better picture of the emphasises of the authors.
Jesus then tells the man to ‘go, sell what you have and give to the poor and you will have treasure (θ𝜂𝜎𝛼𝜐𝜌𝜍) in heaven’. Treasure not only means a deposit of wealth but where that can be stored. A place for what is good to be kept?
The man is not well happy with this. And Jesus concludes this metaphorical story with ‘How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kin_dom of God’. ‘riches’ is χρήματα which means ‘a thing one uses or needs’. Not as clear as it might be seen in English – but there’s more…
After the peasant humour about a camel and a needle, and too much time is spent trying to discern the accurate meaning when it is a moment of irony, Peter says that ‘we have left everything and followed you’.
So we have a rich man who is struggling and Peter, possibly with the backing of the other disciples, seeking to get Jesus to say that they’ll be alright. We start with eternal life, and return to it. This type of Biblical writing is called chiastic. It is where there’s an opening line, then one statement, then a middle explanation, then a corresponding statement, then we return to eternal life. They usually have an odd number of points.
A. Eternal life (v17)
B. Rich man unable to leave possessions behind
C. Jesus explains, the disciples react – the key part
D. Disciples left possessions
E. Eternal life
Note the symmetry.
Jesus’ response then, to which you asked about (Mark 10:29), is in multiple parts:
‘there is no one who has left house’ – so, community is a key facet here, not money, but the focus of our life around our home;
‘or brother or sisters, or mother or father, or children or fields’ – if you dare to abandon possessions, you may then focus upon what gives real joy to our lives, again, in their context “community”;
‘for my good news’ (translated often as Gospel) ‘who will not receive one hundredfold…, with persecutions – oops;
‘and in the age to come, ‘eternal life’. I wonder why after receiving 100-fold, they added ‘eternal life’ after that? If it isn’t about prosperity, richness, wealth, but community, we can receive that now today. Perhaps, ‘Mark’ is also saying that with blessings can come persecutions; he was writing just after the Temple was destroyed and the Romans, and some Jews, were making the lives of Christians particularly hard.
So, Peter’s response is tied inextricably with the story of the young/rich/man/ruler and how they were flummoxed with what Jesus said that they needed to do to have eternal life – which the latter isn’t what many believe it is. Jesus isn’t talking about the absolute cost for someone to follow Jesus, but a message for those struggling with faith and putting it into practice. Which sounds like most of us, I suppose.
‘There is no one who has left the house’ – so, community is a key facet here, not money, but the focus of our life around our home;
Does this mean that a person who is single, can be more available to the community? If yes, then it would justify the celibacy practiced by Catholic priests / nuns.
Perhaps this is not about leaving our home, but to look beyond our home – to also focus our life around our home, as you say. I wonder if this is possible during our working phase of life, where we are trying to balance our career with our relationships.
‘For my good news’ (often translated as Gospel) who will not receive one hundredfold…, with persecutions – oops;
Hundred-fold of what? Perhaps a hundred folds of whatever someone gave up for community. If eternal life is not forever, and it’s for an age, then does a hundred folds mean that someone will remarry and again form a family that he gave up earlier?
Perhaps not. Maybe it means that this the community becomes like his/her extended family, which looks possible. This suggestion also looks similar to some non-Christians in India having a joint family system – which unfortunately lacks individual growth.
I think the 100-fold is a throwaway term meaning a lot.
The key part I think to Jesus’ saying is that community is a positive attribute; what it didn’t comment about is relationships. I wonder whether we dig deep into the Bible to find pointers for us today for this aspect or that circumstance when what we are reading – in the Gospels – is a collection of sayings in a narrative form written 2000 years ago to a different audience.