More

Commentary on Luke 14:25-33

Luke’s Gospel is noteworthy for its extremes.  On the one hand, it shows the radical and uncompromising demands that Jesus makes on those who would be his followers and, at the same time, emphasises as none of the other Gospels do, the gentleness and compassion of Jesus for the sinful and the weak. Both pictures have always to be kept simultaneously in view and they are in no way contradictory. Today and tomorrow we will see both of these images of Jesus back to back.

In today’s passage we see Jesus, as was often the case, surrounded by a huge crowd of people. They are full of enthusiasm and expectation, but Jesus very quickly pulls them up short. Jesus says:

Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.

This is a very shocking demand, especially for a society where people’s whole lives were centred on their families.  Luke is alone in asking that even the wife, too, be abandoned, but this is just an example of the totality of our commitment to following Jesus.

However, we have to make two qualifications.  First, the word ‘hate’ is a Semitic expression not to be taken literally.  It could not be so taken, as the whole of Jesus’ teaching is based on love, not only of blood relatives, but of strangers and even enemies.  It is rather a dramatic way of saying that anyone who puts any person, even those closest to them, before total commitment to Christ and his mission is not ready to be a disciple. There can be no compromise here—it is all or nothing.

Second, we also have to say that Jesus is not recommending a literal abandonment of one’s family. That could be highly irresponsible and a violation of that commandment of universal love. But it is clear that, for those who want to be part of Jesus’ work, they have to give themselves completely and unconditionally.  And, where there is a choice between the clear call of the Gospel and personal attachments, they have to let go of the latter.

It is important for the crowd to hear this. Following Christ is not just like football fans stalking their favourite player or ‘groupies’ following a pop star from city to city.  There is a price to be paid, and they need to know that there is one, and what it is. That price is the cross, a level of sacrifice and suffering—perhaps even of one’s life—that each one must be prepared to undergo for the sake of the Gospel and the building of the Kingdom.

So, to illustrate this Jesus gives two examples. The first is of a man who had a plan to build a tower. Before he started, he made sure that he had all the necessary resources. Otherwise he might find that, after laying the foundations, he could not finish the work and he would become the laughing stock of others. “Ha! Ha! He began to build what he could not finish.”

In the second example Jesus speaks of a king with 10,000 soldiers who finds he is going to war with another king who has 20,000. If he thinks there is no way he can win, he will send an emissary to negotiate the best peace terms he can get. Similarly, says Jesus, no one can be a disciple of his who is not ready to let go of everything he has.

Following him has to be absolute and unconditional. How many of the crowd listening were ready for that?  How many of us are ready for that?  Am I ready?  What are the things I am clinging to?  What are the things I cannot let go of?  And why is that?

To be a disciple of Jesus means being absolutely free.  It reminds one of Francis of Assisi leaving his family and taking off all his rich and fancy clothes to replace them with a beggar’s rags, and being filled with a tremendous sense of joy and liberation.  Do I want to be a disciple of Jesus?  To what extent?  Am I ready to pay the price he asks?

The paradox, of course, is that once I pay the price, I will get so much in return. Just ask St Francis or St Teresa of Calcutta (Mother Teresa) about this.

More

Commentary on Philippians 3:3-8

Paul has already mentioned divisions and arguing among the Philippian community. Today he indicates one source of the problem, namely, the agitation of the Judaisers (those who believed that Levitical Law should be binding on Christians). We already saw this problem when reading the Letter to the Galatians. Clearly it was a fairly widespread phenomenon. Perhaps it was less expected in Philippi, where there were not many Jews and apparently, not even a synagogue (see Acts 16:13).

The first Christians were all Jews and in the beginning they naturally followed many of their traditional customs. But once non-Jews began to be accepted as full members of the Christian community, many of these traditions and the place of the Mosaic Law were seen in a different light. It gradually became clear that the teaching of Jesus transcended this Law. It was not that the Law was abolished, but rather that the demands of the Gospel included and went far beyond the Law. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is quoted as saying:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
(Matt 5:17)

One of the most basic marks of identity for the Jews was circumcision. The Jews were not the only people to practise it (Muslims did also), but for them it had a very special religious significance as God’s people. Soon after non-Jews, ‘pagans’, began to be admitted to baptism, it became clear that the custom of circumcision should not be extended to them. (It would have been a very painful operation for adults, who formed the bulk of converts, to undergo.)

However, in many places, especially in more outlying areas of the Jewish diaspora*, there were Jewish converts who felt that traditional Jewish customs should be preserved, in particular, the custom of male circumcision. As we saw, Paul has much to say about this in his letter to the Galatians.

But in Philippi, too, he was faced with this problem. After attacking his critics and referring to them contemptuously as “dogs” and “evil workers”, he claims that the Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, were the real people of the circumcision. ‘Dogs’ was a highly insulting term, often applied to Gentiles, because of their ritual uncleanness. As scavengers that would eat anything, dogs were regarded as very unclean. Even Jesus used the term about Gentiles, indicating their ‘uncleanness’ (Matt 15:26). Paul is suggesting that the Judaisers are also, in a sense, unclean.

He sees circumcision in a spiritual sense. The truly ‘circumcised’ are those who are inwardly united with God through his Spirit, not those who have had a physical operation on a part of their body. The cutting of the body by itself is no guarantee of true allegiance to God. (We might say the same of the purely external observance of a sacramental ritual, e.g. pouring water and saying some words in Baptism.)

In some translations of the Bible, Paul contemptuously calls his critics ‘cutters’. Paul is using a term (Greek, katatome, literally ‘cutting down’) as a contemptuous pun on ‘circumcision’ (peritome, literally ‘cutting around’). By doing so, he is implying a comparison between physical circumcision and the self-inflicted gashes in pagan cults, as described in the famous ‘competition’ between Elijah and the priests of Baal, who slashed themselves in their frenzy (see 1 Kings 18:28).

Instead, it is the Christians who “are the circumcision”. They are the ones who worship through the Spirit of God and whose boast is in Christ Jesus, and who do not put their confidence in the flesh—that is, merely outward observances of the Old Law, or weak human nature.

And Paul does not speak as a gentile ‘outsider’. On the contrary, Paul claims he is more qualified than most other Jews, especially those in the Greek-speaking diaspora. He then proceeds to present his Jewish credentials, credentials that probably none of his Judaising opponents could match:

• Even though born in Tarsus, Paul is a true Hebrew, belonging to the tribe of Benjamin. His Jewish roots are deep and unambiguous. Jerusalem, the Holy City, lay on the border of the tribal territory of Benjamin.
• Both his parents were Hebrew (unlike some of the diaspora Jews or those converted to Judaism) and Pharisees too, as he says elsewhere. We know also that, unlike Hellenist Jews who would have spoken Greek, Paul knew Aramaic (Acts 21:40).
• He was physically circumcised at eight days after his birth, as laid down by the Law (Gen 17:12).

When it came to observing the Mosaic Law, Paul was a Pharisee. Nothing more needed to be said about his orthodoxy. As we know from the Gospels, the Pharisees made a point of observing the Law in its tiniest details. As for working for his religion, Paul was one of the most zealous in persecuting the infant Church. If observing the Law could make a person perfect, then Paul was absolutely without fault.

But that all changed when Christ came into his life. All those things he formerly believed brought him closer to God, he saw now as barriers. The former advantages were seen now as grave disadvantages; the former profits seen now as losses. For him now, everything is outweighed by the knowledge of Christ Jesus his Lord. And this is not knowledge about Christ, but a personal, intimate, and mutual knowing which colours every facet of his life.

It is not that the Law is wrong; it is just not needed—it has been superseded. Union with God is now seen not as the external and perfect observation of laws, regulations and traditions, but the establishment of a close, personal relationship with God through Jesus. This relationship allows God to work in a person and bring about a complete transformation in one’s thinking and behaviour.

Unfortunately, there are still Christians today who measure the quality of Christian life by strictness in keeping rules and regulations, and these tend also to be very critical of those they see as less observant than themselves. Obviously, for the sake of good order, the Church, like any other society, needs a certain number of laws and regulations.

But we must never forget that, ultimately, we will be measured not by our keeping of these regulations, but by the depth of our relationship with God in Christ, and our living out of the Gospel in relationship with others. It is the level of our loving that will be the criterion:

By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)

___________________________________
*It is not unusual for ethnic or religious groups living overseas and surrounded by “outsiders” to be more conservative and more concerned with preserving traditional marks of identity than those who are at the centre.

More

Commentary on Luke 15:1-10

The previous Gospel passage seemed to show Jesus at his most radical:

Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.

Today we see Jesus’ compassionate and understanding side. These two views are not contradictory.

The Gospel says that tax collectors and sinners were gathering round to listen to Jesus. To some of the Pharisees and scribes this was quite scandalous. They say: “This fellow [Greek, houtos; and one can hear the contempt in the phrase] welcomes sinners and eats with them.” As far as they were concerned, any God-fearing person, not to mention a rabbi-teacher, would have absolutely nothing to do with such people.

It was bad enough socialising with them, but to share their food was unthinkable. They were unclean, and one became unclean by sitting at the same table with them. To eat with people was a sign of recognition and acceptance. As far as the Pharisees were concerned, these were contemptible, unclean sinners. It only confirmed the opinion of the Pharisees and scribes that Jesus was a person to be removed.

In reply, Luke gives us three separate parables, each touching on the same theme. We have two of them today. The third and most famous—the Prodigal Son—appears elsewhere in the liturgical readings (24th Sunday in Year C). Each one is a picture of God’s attitude towards the sinner, and it is very different from that of the Pharisee.

The first is of a shepherd who has lost one of 100 sheep entrusted to his care. The theme of the sheep and the shepherd is common in the Old Testament. We think of the famous Psalm 23 (“The Lord is my shepherd…”) and a beautiful passage in Ezekiel (34:11-16). Without hesitation, the good shepherd leaves the 99 ‘good’ sheep and goes off looking for the stray. When he finds it, he puts it on his shoulders and comes back in jubilation, inviting all his friends and neighbours to celebrate:

Rejoice with me, for I have found my lost sheep.

Similarly, concludes Jesus, there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who sincerely repents and comes back to God than over many (self-) “righteous” people who have no need to repent, or who think they have no need to repent. There seems to be an ironic and sarcastic tone here. Who does not need to repent of something at some time? Jesus presents a totally different attitude to the repentant sinner, and he gives it as God’s own attitude.

The second parable is similar. A housewife who has “10 silver coins” (drachmas)—probably the sum total of her wealth—has lost one of them. Will she not turn the whole house upside down looking for it? A house like this would typically have no windows and rough earthen floors (and, of course, no electricity!), making a search quite difficult. But when she does eventually find it, she will call in all her friends and neighbours to share her joy:

Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.

Again Jesus says there will be even more joy than this in heaven over one sinner who repents. ‘In heaven’, of course, means ‘with God’.

We need to remember that these stories were told as Jesus’ response to the criticism of some scribes and Pharisees. He had absolutely no reason to apologise for his mixing with tax collectors, sinners and other social and religious outcasts. He was like the shepherd or the housewife. He was looking for people who were lost so that he could bring them back.

He spent time in their company, not because he did not mind what they did; on the contrary, his whole purpose was to change them. But he could not do that at a distance.

The mind of the Pharisee was different. These people with whom Jesus was associating were sinful and unclean, and the ‘good’ person had to have no contact with them of any kind or they too would become unclean.

Notice the different motivation. The Pharisee was only thinking of his own spiritual and ritual purity. Jesus was thinking of the person who was lost and needed to be brought back to a world of truth and love. And so he reached out. He went to where the sinner was. A Pharisee thought he was spiritually and morally strong, yet his avoiding the sinner showed he was afraid of contamination. Jesus was not afraid of such contamination—he was the really strong one. He could be with the sinners without becoming one of them.

Much of this is highly relevant for our Christian life today. There is probably a lot more of the Pharisee in our Christian hearts than we are prepared to admit. ‘Good’ Catholics tend to keep away from ‘immoral’ situations and the people who are there. ‘Good’ Catholics do not like to be seen in certain places which do not have a ‘good’ reputation. They even call them “occasions of sin”.

We tend to live in enclosed enclaves (we may hardly be able to call them ‘communities’), taking care of our own spiritual welfare. But that is not the Church that Christ founded. We are called to proclaim the Gospel. We are called to reach out to the sinner. To do so, we have to welcome them and eat with them. Instead of living in sanitised suburbs, we should be down in the poor sections of our cities, in our pubs and clubs, in our “red light” districts reaching out and listening and, where possible, bringing back a sheep that is lost and does not know where it is going.

More

Commentary on Luke 16:1-8

After the three wonderful parables about God’s mercy and longing for the reconciliation of the sinner, Luke swings back again in chapter 16 with two parables and related teaching about our use of material possessions, and he puts some of the responsibility for our salvation back on ourselves.

The first is a story about a rather dishonest steward or manager. His responsibilities were to handle all the business affairs of his employer. However, he had been mishandling his employer’s funds and was about to be fired. In this context, one may also think of the prodigal son who utterly wasted the inheritance his loving father had given him.

Immediately the steward begins to think of his future. He does not have the strength to do manual labour, and to go begging would be a terrible loss of face. So he thinks of a strategy by which he calls in all his employer’s debtors and reduces the amounts they owe.

The debts incurred were considerable. One hundred measures of olive oil was equivalent to about 800 gallons or the yield of 450 olive trees. One-hundred measures of wheat was equal to about 1,000 bushels or the yield of 100 acres. Very few farmers would have had anything like that kind of land in Jesus’ time.

By doing this favour, the steward hopes to be able to find alternative employment with one of them. Surprisingly, his employer, far from being angry, praises the farsightedness of his corrupt steward.

Some commentators question whether the steward was actually acting dishonestly. Was he actually denying his employer money which he was really owed, or was he rather writing off the ‘commission’ which he was usuriously charging, thus inflating the proper amount owed? The Mosaic law forbade taking interest on loans from fellow Jews, so one way of getting round this was to overcharge debtors. By reducing the debts to the proper level, the steward was correcting an injustice and, at the same time, making these debtors favourably disposed towards him. Whatever the interpretation, the point Jesus is making is the same: the steward acted with shrewdness and intelligence to guarantee his future.

Jesus concludes by pointing out that the worldly (“the children of this age”) are far more astute in providing for their future than are those who are regarded as spiritual (”the children of light)”. Jesus is in no way condoning the steward’s dishonest and corrupt behaviour. What he does praise is his clear-sighted preparation of his future.

The lesson for us should also be clear. If a man can do that for his earthly career, what about our future in the life to come? If we want to guarantee our future life with God then we, too, need to take the necessary steps. Those steps are clearly laid out in the Gospel. In general, they involve a life which is built on truth and integrity, and on love, compassion and justice with regard to the people around us. Our task is to work with God in making his will our own and in building up the Kingdom. If we do this on a daily basis, then we have nothing to worry about and our future is assured.

More

Commentary on Philemon 4:10-19 Read Saturday of Week 31 of Ordinary Time – First Reading »

More

Commentary on Luke 16:9-15 Read Saturday of Week 31 of Ordinary Time – Gospel »

More

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 5:1-8

Expel the immoral brother! We now enter a part of the letter where Paul speaks of various moral disorders prevalent in the Christian community of Corinth. Here Paul justifies his criticism of the ‘unspirituality’ and moral immaturity of the Christians in Corinth.

First, he tackles a problem of incest. He has been told that one of the Christians is cohabiting “with his father’s wife”. Such a relationship is explicitly forbidden in the Mosaic law (see Leviticus 18:8-18) and indeed in nearly every society.

Even pagans hardly stoop to such levels, says Paul. We know, for instance, that the famous Roman writer and orator Cicero said that incest was practically unheard of in Roman society, although it is not certain whether that applied to Corinth, a city notorious for its sexual liberties.

With examples like this, Paul asks how the Corinthian Christians can have such a high opinion of themselves. Did they really think that such behaviour was a boastful expression of freedom? On the contrary, they should be in deep mourning for their sins.

Paul wrote that such a person should not be tolerated in the community, and should be expelled from it. Paul, in fact, urges the church (with which he is spiritually united, though physically absent) to do so in the name of the Lord Jesus. As we are told in Matthew’s Gospel (18:20), whenever the community gathers together in the name of Jesus, he is with them and they have authority to speak and make decisions in his name.

Not only that, the man is to be “handed over to Satan”. This may mean that he is to be left unprotected against the power of Satan. This would follow from his being left to fend for himself, without the support of his community, in a pagan and highly immoral society. Jesus says:

If that person [the offending member] refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church, and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a gentile and a tax collector. (Matt 18:17)

In effect, the person is to be excommunicated.

The purpose of this punishment is twofold: it is hoped that the afflictions he will experience from his being ostracised will destroy his misguided sensuality and bring him back into the saving arms of Christ on the day of judgement. The purpose is to heal both the community and the sinner—Jesus came to save and not to condemn.

With examples like this, Paul tells the Corinthians there is not much for them to boast or be proud about. Although he has been speaking of only one person, he says they should realise that even a tiny amount of yeast can leaven a large batch of dough. Generally in the Bible, yeast is taken as a symbol of corruption and sin. The example is something like our saying that one bad apple can spoil a whole barrelful. The community here is being called on to get rid of the yeast of sin, represented by this wrongdoer, because they are called to be an unleavened batch of dough—new creations in Christ (2 Cor 5:17).

Paul then links the image with Jesus as “our Passover”. Jesus is now the paschal Lamb of God who was sacrificed and his blood poured out on the cross. Through his actions the new covenant was sealed, replacing the old Pasch in which a lamb was sacrificed and eaten. Christ, the Lamb of God, was crucified on Passover day, a celebration that began the evening before the Passover meal was eaten (see Ex 12:8). By his death on the cross, Christ fulfilled the true meaning of the Jewish sacrifice of the Passover lamb (Isaiah 53:7; John 1:29) and introduced an unending Passover.

“Let us celebrate the festival”, says Paul. He is referring to the Feast of the Unleavened Bread, which followed the Passover. In the Jewish calendar, Passover was followed immediately by the festival of Unleavened Bread. In preparation for this feast all traces of old leavened bread were removed from the house and, during the festival, only unleavened bread was eaten. The sequence of these two feasts provides Paul with an image of Christian living: Christ’s death (the true Passover celebration) is followed by the life of the Christian community, marked by newness, purity and integrity (a never-ending feast of unleavened bread). It meant living their life in total dedication to God, removing from their lives all corrupting behaviour, wickedness and incestuous relationships. Paul may actually have been writing around Passover time, so his words can be taken as a small Easter homily, the earliest in Christian literature.

Expelling someone from our community is something that rarely happens, except where the Church officially excommunicates some person according to the norms of Church Law. This can happen by formal declaration or automatically, depending on the offence committed. We may have some difficulties with the idea of excommunication although there are clear precedents in the Old and New Testaments. We may feel it contradicts Jesus’ command to forgive 70 times 7 times. However, we must not confuse two issues.

It is true that we must always be ready to forgive and be reconciled with the truly repentant person no matter how many times he or she falls. On the other hand, a Christian community, e.g. a parish, is called on to give witness to the Gospel message and to be an agent in the building up of the Kingdom of God. It is difficult for a community to do this if there is a member or a number of members who are repeatedly acting in ways which are diametrically opposed to the way of life that the Gospel represents and who, after this has been pointed out to them, still refuse to change.

The community lives by certain standards with which it cannot in conscience compromise. It would seem that, in certain (hopefully rare) cases, the only option the community has is to ask these people to separate themselves from the community as long as they continue doing what they are doing. Of course, if they change and sincerely ask for reconciliation, they will be welcomed back with open arms. Sadly, we do see a form of semi-excommunication in our churches when we see people, known to be baptised Catholics, staying away from the Communion table.

It is probably true to say that in many places we Catholics (and other Christians too) have a poor awareness of the importance of corporate witness to the Gospel. We tend to think that being a ‘good Catholic’ is a purely personal affair and that the ‘Church’ is the place where we get the help we need. As a result, we may at times be too tolerant of “bad apples” among us and thus greatly weaken the witness we are called to give.

More

Commentary on Luke 6:6-11

Immediately following the incident of Jesus’ disciples plucking the grains in the cornfield, we have another confrontation with religious leaders also on a Sabbath day. This one is even more sinister as it involves what is called in some police movies a ‘set up’ or ‘entrapment’.

Jesus had gone into the local synagogue, as was his practice on the Sabbath, and began to teach. Right in front of him was a man “whose right hand was withered”—no doubt a condition he was born with. There were scribes and Pharisees in the congregation and, we are told, they “were watching him” to see whether he would heal the man on a Sabbath day so that they could accuse him of breaking the Law.

Medical work was forbidden on the Sabbath because it normally took time. Jesus, of course, healed with just a word, but even if he did not, could one say that healing was against the spirit of the Sabbath? At the same time, it is also worth noting that the man was suffering from a chronic and probably non-painful disability. There was no need for him to be cured on the spot; it could easily have waited until the next day.

That gives further point to Jesus’ argument. The poor man had clearly been ‘planted’ by the religious authorities. He was being used as bait for their malicious ends. For the Pharisees and their co-conspirators, the man and his plight were secondary. Their goal was to prove their point and the man was seen as a useful tool.

Jesus, of course, is fully aware of what is going on. He speaks directly to the man with the withered hand:

Come and stand in the middle.

In some translations, the word “come” is stated as “Rise up” and is used as an indication of what is going to take place; the man is going to be given new life. Nor is there any secrecy. What Jesus is going to do will be seen by all.

But first he puts a question to the whole congregation, scribes and Pharisees included:

I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to destroy it?

There is really no question because the answer is so obvious. But it was not the way these Pharisees were thinking.

Their question would be very different: “Is it right to obey the Law or to violate it?” For them the Law—every letter of the Law—was paramount. There is an irony in Jesus’ question because Jesus is planning to bring healing into a man’s life, while they were preparing to bring about his destruction. Who was really breaking the Sabbath?

In contrast to the Pharisees’ perspective, for Jesus the Law was relative to the true and the good. No implementation of a law can offend the true and the good. And sometimes the following of the true and the good may have to go against the letter of the law. What is legal is not always moral. It can be immoral, that is, evil, to obey a law in certain circumstances. What is moral sometimes transcends the law and may even contradict the law.

Jesus, hearing no dissenting answer, and:

After looking around at all of them…said to him, “Stretch out your hand.” He did so, and his hand was restored.

The scribes and Pharisees:

…were filled with fury and began discussing with one another what they might do to Jesus.

Their plans had been brought to nought. They showed no pleasure that a crippled man had been made whole. Their interpretation of the Law had been shown to be wanting and they had to get back at Jesus.

Such situations are by no means unknown in our Christian life and in our Church. We will run into situations where doing good may be in conflict with traditional regulations and legal formulae.

We will find ourselves in situations where contemporary Pharisees will try to put the Church into a straitjacket of narrow-mindedness and fundamentalism whether it involves our understanding of the Scripture or the liturgy or morality or something else. These are people who put the letter of the laws, regulations and rubrics before love. For them it is more important to observe the externals of rules than to be a loving person. Let us pray that we are not such people.

More

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 6:1-11

Today we hear of Christians at Corinth suing one another before pagan judges in Roman courts. A barrage of rhetorical questions betrays Paul’s anger over this practice, which he sees as an infringement upon the holiness of the Christian community. It seems that he is speaking of civil cases involving property, rather than criminal cases which would rightly be dealt with by the state.

He refers to the secular courts as the “court before the unrighteous”. He is not actually accusing these courts of corruption, but saying that the judges, who were pagans, had not, like the Christians, been “justified” by baptism in Christ. How then could “unjustified” people pass judgement on those who were “justified” (i.e. the “saints”), the members of the Christian community?

The Corinthians should take their property cases before qualified Christians for settlement. In Paul’s day, the Romans allowed the Jews to apply their own law in property matters, and since the Romans did not consider Christians as a separate class from the Jews, Christians no doubt had the same rights.

Those who have the vision of life that Christ gives are in a position, together with him, to “judge the [pagan] world” rather than be judged by it, especially in “trivial cases”. Paul is appealing to an eschatological prerogative promised to Christians: they are to share with Christ in the judgement of the world. Even more so, they should be able to judge minor cases within their own community. And they will evaluate such situations from a different standpoint, namely, that of the Gospel. As discussed previously, moral reasoning and law can come to very different conclusions.

Instead, these cases are being brought before people whose moral views the Church cannot, and does not, respect—namely, pagan judges. Or, to put it in another way, the most insignificant members of the church community would be in a better position to solve these cases among Christians. Paul says:

I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one person wise enough to decide between brothers and sisters? Instead, brothers and sisters go to court against one another, and this before the unbelievers.

In fact, adds Paul, it is bad enough that they are having recourse to the law courts at all. Is it so bad to be cheated in relatively small matters when there are much more serious moral issues at stake (which will never find them before a court of law)? On the contrary, the real problem is that Corinthian Christians are cheating and committing moral wrongs against their brothers in the faith. And no one who does wrong can inherit the Kingdom of God, which is a Kingdom of love and justice, of compassion and forgiveness.

Paul gives a list of some of the things he is referring to: people who practise idolatry (especially where it is done to avoid persecution or to accommodate pagan family and friends); those who engage in illicit sexual behavior; thieves and (almost the same thing) usurers (‘loan sharks’); drunkards; slanderers (destroying the good name of others even when the accusations are true); cheats of all kinds.

Before their conversion, the Corinthian “saints”, Paul says, were all like this once, but now they have been “washed” clean by baptism, sanctified (made ‘saints’) by the Spirit, and justified, put right with God. This has been done—and here Paul uses a Trinitarian phrase:

…in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Today we are living in an age when people more and more are having recourse to the courts to ‘get justice’. Such cases so often end up in terrible bitterness and recrimination. This is especially true in the breakdown of marriage relationships or in other family disputes. All too often the ultimate goal is not justice, but (sometimes enormous) financial gain.

The Gospel recommends that, where possible, such problems should be worked out between the persons involved or at least within the Christian community. The ultimate goal should be, first of all, that true justice be done to all parties concerned, followed by reconciliation and a healing of wounds. Courts should only be a last resort. And, where Christians are concerned, courts are not to be turned into instruments of punishment and recrimination.

More

Commentary on Luke 6:12-19

In today’s Gospel, we move on now to a different phase in Luke’s story and some very crucial sayings of Jesus. We are told that Jesus went up into the mountains to pray and spent the whole night there in prayer to God. Some might wonder what Jesus would have to pray about. Such a question may reveal a limited concept of what prayer is. It is not just a question of asking for things. It is even less a question of fulfilling a religious duty, i.e. ‘saying our prayers’.

Prayer is ultimately making contact with God, the beginning and end of all things. It makes a lot of sense that Jesus would have wanted to be in intimate contact with his Father and to spend long periods with him. One of Jesus’ main concerns was that he do the will of his Father. Prayer was one way of making sure that there was complete harmony with that will.

Luke’s Gospel shows Jesus at prayer more than any of the others. He shows Jesus praying before all the important stages in his public life.

As soon as this period of prayer was over, he called together his disciples and from them he chose twelve as apostles. We know that among those who came to hear Jesus was a group, comprising both men and women, who regularly followed him and were committed to his teachings. Elsewhere we know of 72 such disciples who were sent out on a mission to do what Jesus was doing. After the Ascension, we are told of 120 believers waiting for the coming of the Spirit. It is from these that Jesus chooses 12 to be Apostles, with a special mandate to continue his mission for the Kingdom. Although the order of names varies in the different Gospels, the list is always headed by Peter while Judas is placed last.

We can sometimes be rather casual in our use of the terms ‘disciples’ and ‘apostles’, but they have very distinct meanings. The word ‘disciple’ is applied to any person who commits himself to be a follower of Jesus. The word ‘disciple’ comes from a Greek word which means ‘to learn’ (discere). There is a passive element present, in the sense of the disciple sitting at the feet of the guru and learning from him. Jesus’ disciples regularly called him ‘Rabbi’ or teacher. The word ‘apostle’ (Greek, apostolos) however has a much more active meaning. It refers to a person who goes out as an emissary, delegated to pass on information or commands or instructions to others on behalf of some authority.

In the Gospel, the word ‘apostle’ first applies to the twelve people who were especially chosen by Jesus to hand on his message. They would, after the departure of Jesus, become the foundation stones of the new community. In them would be invested the integrity of the original message and it would be up to them to interpret its acceptable developments. They were the beginnings of what we call today the ‘magisterium’, the teaching body of the Church responsible for the maintenance of the integrity of the Gospel message.

In this, as in all the lists of the Apostles, the first person listed is Simon, whose name is now changed to Peter. In Matthew, the change is made at Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah (Matt 16:18). There are variations of the Apostles’ names in all the lists. Bartholomew here seems to be the same as Nathanael in John (1:45) and is associated with Philip. Matthew seems to correspond to Levi (Mark 2:14). James, son of Alphaeus, is probably the same as James the younger, not the brother of John (Mark 15:40). The other Simon is called a Zealot. This could be either to describe his religious zeal or indicate his original membership in the party of the Zealots, a Jewish revolutionary group violently opposed to Roman rule. Judas, the son of James is another name for Thaddaeus (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18). He is also known as Jude to distinguish him from the other Judas, who always appears last in the lists. ‘Iscariot’ may mean that Judas came from Kerioth. The town Kerioth Hezron was about 19 km south of Hebron and appears in the Old Testament (Josh 15:25; Jer 48:24).

We know, of course, that one of the chosen failed utterly and betrayed his Master. He was replaced by Matthias. Later, too, Paul—who never saw the pre-resurrection Jesus—would be called to be an Apostle. The term would also be applied to others in the New Testament, e.g. Barnabas, a missionary colleague of Paul.

Secondly, however, the word ‘apostle’ applies to every baptised Christian. All of us, one way or another, are called to pass on the Gospel message so that others can hear and respond. There are many ways we can do this. One thing, though, is clear—it is not enough for us simply to be disciples, passive followers.

Immediately following the call of the Twelve comes what is really Luke’s version of the Sermon on the Mount. Significantly, for him it is going to take place in a plain, down on the ground in the midst of all the people. Luke’s version is sometimes known as the “Sermon on the Plain”. It somehow indicates the humility of Jesus and his closeness to the people, while Matthew uses the more biblical concept of a mountain as the place where God reveals himself.

Jesus is surrounded by all his disciples, his newly chosen Apostles, and a huge crowd from Judea and Jerusalem, from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, including both Jews and non-Jews. They all came to listen to Jesus, and to be healed. And they were all eager to touch him physically, because a certain power went out from Jesus and brought healing to all.

Let us then hear today the call of Jesus, first to be his disciples, totally committed to accepting and assimilating his message. As well, let us accept the responsibility to spread the Gospel actively through the way we live our lives, through the way we speak, and through the relationships we establish with people. Finally, let us also reach out and touch Jesus so that we may experience his healing wherever we need it.