Recently a young sailor…

who was trying to break a record circumnavigating Australia in a six-and-a-half metre boat…

suddenly capsized in the Great Australian Bight…

more than six hundred kilometres west of Kangaroo Island…

amid heavy swells.

Almost twenty-four hours later he was rescued by a bulk-carrier.

Although the weather conditions hindered his rescue…

apparently, they were not responsible for his boat capsizing.

Rather, he claims that…

while surfing down a large wave…

his boat hit an object in the water…

which stopped it abruptly and caused it to flip.

While containers that have fallen off cargo ships are… 

apparently…

quite a hazard in the Southern Ocean—

he had not seen any floating debris before the collision.

Instead, he thinks he hit a Sunfish.

According to the chief Ichthyologist at the Australian Museum—

that’s entirely possible.

Sunfish, apparently, can reach over three metres in diameter…

and weigh more than two tonnes.

 

It’s a bizarre story—

who would have thought that Sunfish were a shipping hazard in the Southern Ocean—

but it’s not a story that’s beyond the bounds of credibility.

 

Our story from Matthew’s Gospel this morning, on the other hand—

if you excuse the pun—

is a different kettle of fish!

The story of the feeding of the multitude using five loaves of bread and two fish…

is completely and utterly implausible.

Of course, down the ages, there have been any number of people who—

based on a pre-critical naïveté—

have simply assumed that such an event happened just as the story is portrayed…

putting aside all of the scientific, historical, and common-sense issues that it raises.

But there have also been a number of attempts to try to explain it rationally. 

For example, Albert Schweitzer once suggested that…

maybe… 

Jesus gave out tiny morsels of bread to the crowd…

by way of a symbolic or sacramental meal—

a precursor to communion, if you like—

but, in its telling and retelling over the decades… 

that tradition was exaggerated and expanded like an old fisherman’s tale…

until we ended up with what we have here. 

Similarly, some have suggested that…

maybe…

Jesus and the disciples shared what little food they had… 

which shamed other people in the crowd to share what they had on them…

so that, with everything pooled together, there was enough to go around…

and that, too, was exaggerated and elaborated upon in the story’s telling and retelling. 

But all such explanatory attempts are ultimately futile.

Let’s be honest—

this never happened!

Indeed, that’s true of all of the so-called “nature miracles” in the Gospels.

It’s a mythic story— 

one that’s almost parabolic, and full of symbolism—

a story that’s trying to make some significant theological points.

Writing decades after Jesus’ death…

the Gospel authors reflected their beliefs about Jesus back into his life…

in an effort to demonstrate how extraordinary he was.

And they concocted this mythical story…

which has echoes and parallels to an apparently “miraculous” feeding event that was performed by Elisha.

So, on one level, the story is trying to equate Jesus with Elisha.

In other words, it’s claiming that Jesus stands in continuity with the great prophets of Israel.

In addition to that… 

it also recalls the apparently “miraculous” feeding of the Israelites in the wilderness…

following the Exodus out of Egypt.

So, the story is also comparing Jesus to Moses—

although, since Jesus did this himself, it’s portraying him as someone greater than Moses—

which was a favourite theme of Matthew’s Gospel.

And, in so doing, the story is also trying to make a point about God’s generous provision.

 

And yet, notwithstanding those symbolic echoes and parallels…

it’s also trying to say something profound to the Israelite people of the first century.

After all, this episode falls hot-on-the-heels of the Kingdom parables in chapter thirteen—

which we have heard the last few weeks.

As such, this story is meant to be a demonstration or outworking of the Kingdom of God.

First of all, the author suggests, Jesus had compassion on the crowd.

Now, in the ancient world, that was unusual.

Compassion wasn’t considered to be a universal emotion.

It was an emotion that one only showed towards one’s family and kin;

otherwise, it was only shown to those who deserved it.

It was certainly not something that the ordinary mass of people expected to receive from their political masters…

or, if you like, from the state.

In other words… 

what this parabolic, mythical story is doing… 

is drawing a marked contrast between the Roman Empire and the Kingdom of God.

In the imperial ideology, the Emperor—

in consort with the gods—

was responsible for blessing the empire with adequate food.

But the Empire was a top-down, trickle-down sort of economy.

It was intensely hierarchical and patriarchal.

Power and resources were concentrated in the hands of the small elite…

who hoarded what they had…

and who distributed their largesse as they saw fit…

to those whom they deemed worthy…

to those who had something to give in return.

It was a quid pro quo system.

And, despite the ideology, it was a system in which many did, indeed, go hungry.

In many respects, even Jesus’ disciples in the story have bought into all of that:

“This is a deserted place, and the hour is now late; send the crowds away so that they may go into the villages and buy food for themselves”.

They felt no compassion for these people—

after all, they weren’t family…

they were good-for-nothing “hangers-on”…

not deserving of pity or compassion.

It wasn’t their responsibility to feed them.

So it didn’t matter how absurd their suggestion was.

After all, at that time of day, the markets would be shut…

and, in any case, there would have been nothing left to sell…

let alone sufficient for such a crowd.

The disciples were simply mimicking the ethos of the empire.

Jesus’ response to them—

“You give them something to eat”—

places great stress on the “you” in the Greek.

He directly challenges them to show compassion—

to show familial-like concern—

towards those who had no claim to it.

As such, this symbolic, parabolic story is suggesting that—

in stark contrast to the Empire and its ethos…

and as an indictment of the attitudes and actions of the elite and the wealthy—

the Kingdom of God is marked by abundance…

and compassion…

and fairness.

This symbolic, parabolic story is suggesting that—

in the Kingdom of God—

when we take what we have and give it to Jesus…

everyone has enough.

 

In light of the war in Ukraine…

the effects of climate change and the start of an El Niño cycle…

the rising costs of food staples…

and the decisions of some countries— 

that are major exporters— 

to increase stockpiles for their domestic use… 

more people in the world face hunger than ever before.

And yet…

we also need to remember that… 

globally speaking… 

there is actually enough food to feed everyone on the planet.

When we do not hoard…

when we do not exploit…

when we look upon the hungry and the poor as kin…

when we act with compassion…

and when resources are distributed fairly…

there’s actually enough to go around.

That would still be a miracle—

but at least it’s not impossible.