More

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 7:25-31

Today’s reading comes from a longer passage in which Paul deals with various questions about marriage and celibacy which had been put to him by the Christians of Corinth.

In the full passage (the whole of chapter 7), Paul makes three main points:

1. In general, people should remain in the state of life they were in when they became Christians;
2. Celibacy is a higher call than marriage and spiritually more rewarding;
3. Marriage is acceptable for those who ‘cannot’ otherwise observe chastity.

In today’s reading Paul is speaking to virgins and widows and answering a question about the desirability of a Christian remaining celibate. In giving his reply, he makes it perfectly clear that here he is expressing his own personal opinion, and not giving Jesus’ or the Church’s teaching on the matter. He is not dealing with a matter of moral right or wrong. Even so, he believes he is writing under divine inspiration and that what he advises is the better course of action. Moreover, he speaks from the experience of one who is himself, with God’s help, faithfully observing a celibate life.

His general advice is first that, under the pressures of an immoral and hostile environment in which the Christians for the most part find themselves, people should remain in the state they are in now. His advice is to be understood as applying to the particular circumstances in which the Corinthians are at present living and is not to be understood as having a general application. So, men who are married should remain married; on the other hand, those who are not yet married should consider remaining single.

However, if a young man or woman does decide to get married, there is no wrong in that. At the same time, Paul warns them that he foresees trouble in their married life. This is not a reflection on the characters of those who got married, but a warning that a faithful married life might be difficult in the pagan and immoral environment in which they lived, and where they were liable to suffer persecution for their faith. Moreover, in times of persecution, it could be difficult for a couple to take care of each other or even to remain together.

It is not clear whether Paul himself was ever married, and it is possible his present celibate situation might have been due to a marriage which he found incompatible with his vocation as a wandering apostle. (It is more likely that he was married at some stage; celibacy was not an admired state among Jews and we need to remember, too, that Paul had been a Pharisee, setting an example for other Jews.)

“Time has grown short” says Paul. This may be a reference to the second coming of the Lord, or it may be just a general statement that there is not much time in which to do the Lord’s work, especially if there is a threat of persecution. (The early Christians found themselves constantly harassed by both Jews and Gentiles.) Attention should rather be focused on living the Christian life, on the love and service of the Lord, and the needs of the Christian community in its work of giving witness to the Gospel.

Everything else the Christians did should be subordinated to this primary concern of their Christian life.

So, putting it rather strongly, Paul urges

• the married to live as if they were not married,
• those who are grieving as if they were not grieving,
• those who are enjoying life to remember that it may not last,
• those who are tied up in acquiring ownership of things to realise that nothing really belongs to anyone,
• and those who have to deal with the world around them not to get too caught up in it.

It is a warning of the transitoriness of life. Paul reminds the Corinthians:

For the present form of this world is passing away.

In other words, we should not cling too tightly or give too much of our energies to relationships, activities and things which sooner or later we will have to let go of. They must never become ends in themselves.

Very generally speaking, Paul’s advice is still sound. People are still called both to celibacy and to marriage. Marriage responds to a need that most people have; nature, in its concern for the preservation of the species, has seen to that. Celibacy, for the majority, is not what they feel called to. Yet, apart altogether from those who adopt it for religious reasons, there are many who choose to remain celibate.

The Church—together with other religions—has seen the call to celibacy as allowing a more complete commitment to the direct service of God. In that sense, it is a ‘better’ or ‘higher’ calling in itself. It also indicates that it is possible to live a full and enriched life without being sexually active. This is less a matter of supreme sacrifice than an expression of a special freedom.

But that does not at all mean that the celibate is necessarily a ‘holier’ or better person than those who are married. Both are vocations and through both the Gospel can be lived to the full. Both bring their rewards and both at times require great sacrifices to be made.

The question is not which is better in itself, but to which way God is calling me to love and serve him.

Paul’s own life, and the witness of many religious priests, brothers and sisters as well as of many others who choose de facto celibacy makes it clear that celibacy offers a level of freedom for greater service to a larger number. As Thomas Merton put it, celibacy enables: “Belonging to all because belonging to none.”

But it cannot be overemphasised that the married couple also makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to both society and the Christian community through the family life it nurtures and its contribution to the future of our society. Let us ask God today that each one of us be faithful to the particular way in which he has called us to serve him.

More

Commentary on Luke 6:20-26

Today we begin what is known as Luke’s ‘Sermon on the Plain’ which more or less parallels Matthew’s ‘Sermon on the Mount’. Luke’s is much shorter, but both begin with the Beatitudes and end with the parable of the house builders. Some of what is found in Matthew’s Sermon is found elsewhere in Luke, because Matthew’s Sermon consists of disparate sayings of Jesus gathered into one place. Luke also omits Matthew’s specifically Jewish material which would not have been relevant to his gentile readers.

Luke’s Sermon can be summarised as follows:

• An introduction of blessings and woes (vv 20-26)
• The love of one’s enemies (vv 27-36)
• The demands of loving one’s neighbour (vv 37-42)
• Good deeds as proof of one’s goodness (vv 43-45)
• A parable on listening to and acting on the words of Jesus (vv 46-49)

Similar to Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, Luke begins the Sermon on the Plain with his version of the Beatitudes. But there are striking differences. Whereas Matthew has eight (some would say seven) Beatitudes, Luke has four “Blesseds” and four contrasting “Woes”. As is typical of his uncompromising style when it comes to following Jesus, the language of Luke is much more direct and hard-hitting, and it may well be closer to what Jesus actually said.

Matthew’s Beatitudes propose a set of attitudes which reflect the spirit of the Kingdom—qualities to be found in the truly Christian and human life. Luke, on the other hand, speaks of material conditions in this life which will be overturned. Later in this Gospel, this is illustrated graphically in the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-30).

Luke also has Jesus speak in the second person: “Blessed are you” and “Woe to you” rather than in the third person as Matthew does (“Blessed are those who…”). Nor does he speak of the “poor in spirit” but of “you who are poor”, and he certainly means the materially poor.

He goes on to say how blessed too are:

…you who are hungry…you who weep…you when people hate you and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man.

Undoubtedly Matthew’s Beatitudes can be read to consider just spiritual poverty and a hunger for righteousness, which in fact are also a form of real poverty and real hunger. In contrast, Luke is a Gospel for the materially poor and distressed, and we must be careful not to turn our focus away from them. That is why he has Jesus born in poverty and dying naked and destitute (of even his ‘friends’).

Jesus tells those who are poor and hungry and abused to:

…Rejoice on that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven, for that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

And this is the way Jesus the Prophet will also be treated.

In a first read, it seems like a classical example of religion as the ‘opium of the people’: Be happy that you are having such a hard time now because there is a wonderful future waiting for you in the next world (as was mockingly described by the atheist Karl Marx).

The second part is not likely to go down well in our contemporary developed world:

• But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
• Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry.
• Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

How are we to understand these sayings which turn our common worldview upside down? They have to be seen in the light of the Kingdom, in the kind of society that Jesus came to set up, a society based on mutual love and sharing and support. A Kingdom for this world and not just the next. The coming of such a society could only be good news for the poor and destitute (material and otherwise), for those suffering from hunger (physical and otherwise), for those depressed by deep sorrow and for those abused and rejected for their commitment to Jesus and his Way.

On the other hand, it would not be good news for those self-focused people who amass material wealth at the expense of others, who indulge in excessive consumption of the world’s goods, who live lives centred on personal hedonism and pleasure, and who feed off the envy and adulation of those around them. They are really not part of that Kingdom. To enter fully into the Kingdom, they have to unload all these concerns and obsessions and let go. Instead of focusing on what they can get, they will have to focus on what they can share of what they have.

A clear example is of the rich young man in the Gospel. How rich he was—and yet how sad he was! Compare him with Zacchaeus, whom we will be meeting later on.

More

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 8:1-7,11-13

Paul now moves on to another local problem for the Christians of Corinth—the question of eating food offered to idols.

The New American Bible has a useful note on the issues which are at stake:

“The Corinthians’ second question concerns meat that has been sacrificed to idols; in this area they were exhibiting a disordered sense of liberation that Paul here tries to rectify. These chapters contain a sustained and unified argument that illustrates Paul’s method of theological reflection on a moral dilemma. Although the problem with which he is dealing is dated [namely, eating food offered to idols], the guidelines for moral decisions that he offers are of lasting validity.”

Essentially Paul urges them to take a communitarian rather than an individualistic view of their Christian freedom. Many decisions that they consider pertinent only to their private relationship with God have, in fact, social consequences. Nor can moral decisions be determined by merely theoretical considerations; they must be based on concrete circumstances, specifically on the value and needs of other individuals and on mutual responsibility within the community. Paul here introduces the theme of “building up” (Greek, oikodome)—i.e. of contributing by individual action to the welfare and growth of the community. (See also 1 Cor 14; Rom 14:1-15)

The topic—meat sacrificed to idols—is immediately introduced. This refers to meat which had been offered in pagan temples to idols. Meat left over from a sacrifice might be eaten by the priests, as well as by the offerer and his friends at a feast in the temple or sold in the public meat market. (At the site of ancient Corinth, archaeologists have discovered two temples containing rooms apparently used for pagan feasts where meat offered to idols was eaten; to such feasts Christians may have been invited by pagan friends.) Some Christians felt that if they ate such meat, they participated in pagan worship and thus compromised their testimony for Christ. Other Christians did not feel this way.

Today’s passage begins with a rather abstract and vague statement which makes one wonder where Paul is leading us. In fact, he is enunciating a principle of the very greatest importance for our living together as Christians and one that we neglect at our peril.

Paul opens with an apparently well-known slogan: “all of us possess knowledge.” In Greece, knowledge was felt to be everything, but Paul says that it can make people arrogant. What really builds people up, he says, is love (a central theme of this letter). Knowledge without love is barren. People equipped with much knowledge may not have a real understanding of what life is about.

The truly wise person (like Socrates) above all knows what he does not know. One is reminded of those people on some TV programmes who may have encyclopaedic knowledge about all kinds of things, but as persons may have been quite inadequate in coping with life. Pure knowledge can lead to arrogance and a feeling of superiority; love, on the other hand, builds up. Better a person filled with genuine love and theologically ignorant than a topnotch theologian without a trace of love.

The person who loves and, in particular, the person who loves God, “is known by him”, that is, has direct experiences of God’s love and thus knows how to relate with others. This is the only knowledge really worth having.

Today’s passage serves as an introduction to a question which was very relevant to the Christians of Corinth, namely, the eating of food which may have been offered to idols. In itself, this is clearly not a problem for people in most of the Western world, but it can still be a matter of conscience some countries of Asia and Africa.

The questions for the Corinthians then were: Should Christians eat such food or not? Would they be compromising their Christian faith by taking this food? Could they accept invitations to eat such food in a pagan house or temple?

Some Christians, especially converts from a former pagan life, felt that by eating this meat they were taking part in idol worship and were compromising their Christian faith. Others, however, including Paul and perhaps others with a Jewish background, did not feel that way at all.

Paul gives a very nuanced answer, but one which we should read carefully. He says that, in principle, enlightened Christians are completely free to decide for themselves, but they must avoid leading astray other Christians who are not yet liberated from their pre-conversion ideas. In other words, as he has already said, knowledge alone is not enough for a good decision; love of neighbour must also be taken into account.

In the reading, Paul first enunciates some of his own convictions about the issue. He says there is really no need to worry about food offered to idols because idols do not represent anything. There is only one God. The rest are pure fakes. Indeed there seem to have been many so-called gods in the Greek and Roman pantheons which were worshipped by thousands of people, but the Christian knew that they had no real existence whatever.

For Paul, and for us:

…there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

These statements are found in different formulations throughout Paul’s letters.

Nevertheless, continues Paul, the Corinthian Christians have to acknowledge that among them there are many converts who have not completely shaken off their old superstitions. While they have abjured the worship of idols, they still have a feeling that they are somehow real. And they are inclined to think that the food they see offered to idols is being offered to something real. If, during a feast following worship in a temple, they are invited to share in the food, they feel they are taking part in idol worship and have sinned.

As mentioned, others, like Paul himself, do not feel this way at all. They know that the idol has no existence and that for them there is no real worship involved with a statue in a temple. The meat, whether it is at a temple feast or on sale in the market place, can be eaten with impunity by Christians.

However, Paul warns that those who, like Paul himself, feel ‘liberated’ in this matter must be careful not to become a stumbling block, a source of scandal to their more sensitive brothers and sisters. If the latter see a brother or sister dining together with people in a temple and eating food that has just been offered to an idol, may they not be tempted to think that it is alright to eat this meat when, in their weakness, they still attribute some reality to these idols? If this is the case, they may further be led to believe that worshipping idols is acceptable. In this way one could bring about the spiritual destruction of a weaker brother or sister. The weak Christian could be influenced by the example of the stronger Christian and, even though he or she would feel it to be wrong, would go ahead and eat the meat offered to an idol.

The weaker brother or sister may be persuaded to eat, but afterwards would be filled with guilt for doing something he or she believed was quite wrong and against the Christian faith. What is worse, if they did this often enough, they might blunt their consciences and continue to do something they still felt in their heart of hearts was not right.

In such a situation, it is the ‘stronger’ person who has sinned. A weak conscience is wounded by eating meat offered to idols. The result may be moral tragedy. There is a sin against Christ, who is present in the ‘weaker’ person, and it could break the unity of the members of the body (the church).

So Paul has made his own decision in this matter. Even though he himself has no problems about eating such meat, he has resolved never to eat meat again rather than be a source of scandal to a weaker member of the community. Paul says he will not hurt their feelings and he will abstain from something which in itself has nothing to do with his loving and serving his Lord.

There is a very important lesson for all of us here. Certainly principles, laws and rules are very important and in general they should be observed. But there is one over-riding principle—and Paul mentions it—the principle of agape-love, that is, a sensitive and empathic caring for the well-being of the brother or sister. The not-eating of meat on such occasions was a small price to pay for a brother’s or sister’s peace of mind.

In our Church today, for instance, there are people who still have not fully come to terms with changes, new ways of seeing things, which were introduced by the Second Vatican Council years ago. To take one small example, there are people who still feel they must eat fish on Fridays, even though they know it is no longer compulsory to abstain from meat. There are also those who feel they must receive Communion on the tongue and kneeling down. For many others, receiving in the hand and standing makes much more sense, and frankly it is closer to the ancient customs of the Church.

In the long run, though, it is not an issue to be fought over (though certainly it may be discussed). By being adamant over not eating fish on Friday or taking Communion in the hand, we may drive a brother or sister away who still feels scruples about touching the Eucharistic bread, something they were sternly warned about in the past.

Yet, this does not mean that we should adopt an attitude of indifference that one way is as good as another. People do need to be formed to help them understand the mind of the Church in such matters.

In the meantime, we must carefully distinguish matters where we can in no way compromise. On marginal issues, however, we need to follow Paul’s example of being flexible*. The ultimate aim is to bring all together in union with Christ present in each one.
_____________________________

*This particular issue is dealt with at greater length in Paul’s Letter to the Romans (chap 14), a passage, that for some reason is not read in our liturgy.

More

Commentary on Luke 6:27-38

For many people, even those who identify themselves as Christians, this may be one of the most difficult passages in the Gospel. It seems to express an idealism that is totally unrealistic and unattainable.

We live today in a world of terrible violence, of murder, of terrorism—the horror of attacks on the innocent, of vicious vendettas often stirred up in the press (especially the tabloids) and internet media, of rampant litigation—suing and counter-suing. Are these things not to be avenged?

Where do Jesus’ words fit in? It is worth noting that the passage begins:

I say to you who are listening…

In order to understand what Jesus is really saying to us, we have to put aside our prejudices and assumptions and really listen to what he is saying. This passage, in particular, is one where we are likely to react emotionally.

Jesus says:

Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you; bless those who curse you; pray for those who mistreat you.

We may feel that to follow this teaching is to try something which is totally beyond our capacity, that it would require a tremendous amount of will-power, and that it would only encourage those people to behave even worse. In the Old Testament, hatred of evildoers is presumed to be the right attitude to have. But Jesus is extending love to the enemy and the persecutor.

This is the core of Jesus’ teaching, which he himself practised. The Golden Rule, which is sometimes expressed as “Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you”, is expressed here in positive terms.

The first big hurdle is the word “love”. For us, it is a very emotional word, implying both affection and intimacy. For us, in English, to ‘love’ is most often associated with to ‘be in love with’, to ‘be attracted to’, to ‘desire’. But Jesus is not telling us to be in love with our enemies. He is not even telling us to like them. The Greek verb which the Gospel uses is agapao from which the noun agape comes. Agape [pronounced ‘ah-gah-pay’] is a special kind of love. It is not the physically-expressed love of lovers, nor is it the love of close friends. It is rather an attitude of positive regard towards other people by which I wish for their well-being.

This, in fact, is the love that God has for us. It is a one-sided love in the sense that a return is not expected. God reaches out in infinite love to every single person without exception. God wishes every person to experience that love; God wishes the fullest well-being of every single person. That love of his is often not returned; it is often rejected or ignored.

But it continues unabated, like the father in the story of the prodigal son waiting for his boy to come back. The father continued to love his son even in his lowest moments of debauchery and degradation. It was the same with the people who were nailing Jesus to the cross. He prayed for them—for their being forgiven—and that they might come to a realisation of just what they were doing. In this sense, loving our enemies seems altogether reasonable. And not only not impossible, but really the only thing to do.

Who are our “enemies”? First of all, they are not our enemies in the sense that we hate them or want to harm them. In that sense, a Christian should have no enemies. Rather, enemies are people who are hostile to us. They want to harm us, take revenge on us, even destroy us. There are two ways we can deal with such people. We can set out to do more harm to them, to take revenge on them, or try to wipe them out completely. Or we can try and work to turn them round.

Our problem is that we tend to focus too much on ourselves and our own immediate needs, and overlook the needs of others. To love as God loves is to focus more on others. We can only do this if we have a strong inner sense of security and self-acceptance. Then we are not too worried about what people say about us or do to us.

And then, too, we can turn our attention much more to the one who is hating or harming. We will begin to ask why do they have to act in this way. What is hurting inside them that drives them to such behaviour? Already we are, just by thinking in this way, beginning to care for our enemy and beginning to love him or her. And is not this a much better solution to the problem? Is it not better to bring peace back into that person’s life and initiate a healing process in them and between them and us?

Jesus is not at all asking us to do something ‘unnatural’. We do not naturally want to hate or be hated. We want to love and to be loved. We see many parts of the world where, for years, there has been a process of hatred and retaliation in a never-ending spiral of vengeance and loss of life. The only way to break this cycle is to follow Jesus’ advice. It is not a lose-lose or lose-win situation; it is a win-win situation where everyone benefits.

Perhaps words of the late St Teresa of Calcutta (Mother Teresa) are appropriate here:

“Love, to be true, has to hurt. I must be willing to give whatever it takes not to harm other people and, in fact, to do good to them. This requires that I be willing to give until it hurts. Otherwise, there is no love in me and I bring injustice, not peace, to those around me.”

To put Jesus’ teaching into effect is not a matter of strengthening our will to do something very difficult, but to change our conventional thinking at the deepest level, to see things his way. Once we do that, it becomes much easier.

Jesus’ application of this teaching has also been the subject of much mockery:

If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt.

We think that in a world where macho reigns, this is just too much! Only wimps would follow Jesus’ advice because they are afraid to do anything else! Our movie ‘heroes’ know what to do in such cases: mow them down, knock them out, blow them up!

Again, it is a question of seeing things from Jesus’, that is, God’s viewpoint. Turning the other cheek, as it is presented here, is not at all an act of weakness. It requires great courage and great inner strength and an awareness that the one who strikes is the one who is really weak. It is easy to lash out at another person by word or act. It is easy to hit back; it is almost an instinctive reaction, but it is not the truly human response.

To hit back is to reduce oneself to the same level as one’s attacker, and it solves nothing in the long run. Deliberately and calmly not to hit back is to refuse (in the words of Canadian-born psychiatrist, Eric Berne) “to play the other person’s game”. It is to break the cycle and change the level of the playing field and move it to a higher level—the level of mutual respect and human dignity.

Jesus set the example when he was struck on the face during his trial. During the whole degradation of the Passion his dignity shines out, in contrast to the pathetic posturings of his judges and tormentors. This was the spirit that guided some leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr, and which is behind all movements devoted to active non-violence.

Jesus lived the example of the principle: ‘Treat others as you would like them to treat you’. You do not want to be hated or struck so you refuse, no matter what happens, to hate or strike another person. He also said:

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.

So no, we will not react simply in the way others deal with us. As followers of Christ, we see things in a completely different way and we want to behave differently. We believe that not only do we personally benefit from following Jesus’ way, but that others too will benefit and may even come to our point of view.

Finally, Jesus calls us to follow the model of God himself:

Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

In Matthew’s Gospel it is written:

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
(Matt 5:48)

The meaning is the same: our perfection consists in our empathetic reaching out in compassionate agape to every single person. And, through us, the compassion of God can then be experienced by people.

We are not to judge or condemn persons. (This is not the same as being asked and required to give an objective and discerned evaluation of a person’s behaviour or fitness for some task or position; behavior does have consequences.) And we are to forgive. Then we will not be condemned, and we will in turn receive forgiveness.

The emphasis is on reaching out to others rather than gathering for ourselves, being turned in on our little, insecure selves. Jesus says:

Forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you.

Jesus put this graphically when he told us to give not only our cloak to someone asking for it but our tunic as well. Given that the poor in those days only had two garments, that would leave the donor totally naked!

But that is the point—the one filled with the spirit of Christ has nothing to lose, nothing of which to be ashamed. Life consists in what we are able to give and not what we can get. Jesus says to us:

…the measure you give will be the measure you get back.

And that, above all, applies to agape-love. Everyone can give an endless supply of that.

More

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 9:16-19,22-27

Paul speaks today of his calling to be an Apostle of the Gospel. It is not a privileged position he boasts about because it is a commission he has received from the Lord. Paul says:

…and woe to me if I do not proclaim the gospel!

It is not a task which he has taken up of his own accord in order to get some personal gain. Rather, it is a responsibility that has been given to him. It is a call to serve, not to dominate.

Is there no reward then?

Just this: that in my proclamation I may make the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my rights in the gospel.

Paul’s reward in preaching is not material gain of any kind, but the claim that he has preached to the Corinthians without charge and has not taken advantage of the rights he deserves as a missionary.

Those rights were understood to include food and drink, shelter and some monetary recompense for bringing the Gospel message. But he does not see his reward in these things and foregoes them. Earlier he had argued eloquently for the right as an Apostle to be supported by the community and, even like Peter and other Apostles, to have a wife accompanying him. But he has set aside all these rights and supported himself by working with his own hands (as a tent maker).

So, while on the one hand, he is not beholden to anyone, on the other:

I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might gain all the more.

His goal was to win as many as possible over to the Gospel. Paul chose not to use his right to material support in preaching the Gospel, he also deprived himself—curtailing his personal privileges and social and religious rights—in dealing with different kinds of people. He had only one goal in mind: bringing people to the knowledge and love of Jesus Christ and to hearing the Good News.

In a famous phrase he says:

I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some.

Immediately before this he had said:

To the weak I became weak, so that I might gain the weak.

By ‘weak’ he meant those who were religiously and morally weak. Hence, as we saw yesterday, he declined to eat meat offered to idols so as not to upset or scandalise those still immature in their Christian faith. And his only motive for doing this is “for the sake of the gospel”, so that by sharing it with as many people as possible, he himself might also share in its promises—the fullness of life promised by Jesus.

In the final paragraph, Paul uses images from contemporary athletics to describe his work as an Apostle. The Corinthians were very familiar with the athletics in the local Isthmian games, which were held in Corinth every second year and were second only to the Olympic games.

So Paul compares himself to a runner going all out to be the winner in a race where only one can win the wreath of victory. Athletes go into strict training and make all kinds of sacrifices just to win a laurel wreath which will wither in a few days; the prize the Christian pursues lasts forever. He does not mean to imply that in the Christian race there is only one winner, but that one should go all out as if that were the case. He has a definite goal—he does not beat the air aimlessly, but severely disciplines himself so that his bodily self will serve the goals he wants. It would be tragic, he says, if having been a proclaimer of the Good News, he did not live up to its requirements himself and so would be “disqualified” at the end.

We, too, each in our own way, have been called to proclaim the Gospel through our station in life. It is an inbuilt element of our being Christian—not something that is an optional accessory. We do it both by word and action, and we do it all the time wherever we are, with whomever we find ourselves to be.

We do not do it for monetary gain or for some other motive of personal profit. The only reward—and that is what makes it worthwhile—is to become more like Christ every day. There is nothing else in life that will bring greater satisfaction, peace and joy. Paul had this experience—let us pray that we also have it.

More

Commentary on Luke 6:39-42

In Matthew, the parallel passage today is addressed to the Pharisees, but in Luke it is addressed to the disciples, and Jesus makes two points.

First, the blind cannot lead the blind. The disciple, left to himself, does not know very much and depends on his teacher. But once he is fully trained and has learnt everything he can from his teacher, then he becomes an extension of his teacher. He shares the knowledge and wisdom of his teacher and can, in turn, be a guide to others.

This is something we all have to do: to listen carefully to what Jesus tells us and make it part of our own lives. Only then can we effectively lead others to him.

Second, we have to be very careful about sitting in judgement on others. Jesus uses a graphic image of someone trying to remove a speck of dust from another person’s eye while there is a large “log” in their own. How can we see properly to correct the vision of our brother when our own vision is so distorted?

The faults we so easily see in others are often trivial in comparison with our own shortcomings. Of course, much of the energy we exert in putting down others (the main staple of gossiping sessions!) is sub-consciously to compensate for the shortcomings we are all too aware of in ourselves. Instead of lifting ourselves up by changing our ways, we try to drag others down.

And so often our judgements are based purely on external behaviour. We usually have no idea of the inner motives or intentions of other people, or an awareness of their inability to behave otherwise than they do.

And, while we can be very ready with criticism behind people’s backs, we do not dare to say such things to their face. Yet, there may be times when we will be asked to give—as far as is possible—an objective evaluation of a person’s behaviour or their fitness for some responsibility. And, not infrequently, we sadly shy away from this responsibility.

More

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 Read Saturday of Week 23 of Ordinary Time – First Reading »

More

Commentary on Luke 6:43-49 Read Saturday of Week 23 of Ordinary Time – Gospel »

More

Commentary on Daniel 13:1-9,15-17,19-30,33-62 or Daniel 13:41-62

The last two chapters of the Book of Daniel are not part of the Jewish canon of Scripture. The short stories in these two chapters may have originally been about some other Daniel or Daniels, different from the hero of the main part of the book. The texts exist now only in Greek, but probably were originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic. They do not appear in non-Catholic bibles, but the Catholic Church has always included them among the inspired writings.

The chapters contain two famous stories, one of Susanna, who was falsely accused of adultery, and the other of the events which led to Daniel’s being thrown into the lions’ den.

A certain prudery has often led to the Susanna story’s being dropped or substituted by a more innocuous text (or worse, is dropped because of its length by those celebrants who think that the only good liturgy is a short one!). But as Cardinal Newman once said:

“We cannot write a sinless literature about sinful man.”

This applies very much to the Bible. It is only in the context of our sinful weakness that we can fully appreciate the greatness and the compassion of our God.

Susanna’s situation needs a little explanation since, depending on the verses chosen for the First Reading, the first part of the story may not be in our reading. It is about two lecherous men and an innocent married woman (Susanna) who is led into a clever trap from which there seems no escape. However, the woman defends her integrity at the risk of being falsely accused of being unfaithful to her husband, and in a society that was even less forgiving in these matters than our own. In fact, the whole community, after hearing the evidence from the two men, was ready to stone her for her adultery and indicated this by laying their hands on the woman’s head.

She would certainly have been executed by stoning if the “young lad named Daniel” had not come on the scene. The rest of the story is a description of his integrity, his sense of justice and insight. Through his clever and separate examination of the woman’s accusers, he proves them liars and the sharp contrast between the two trees mentioned—one being quite small and the other very tall and majestic—only made clearer the inconsistency of the two men’s evidence. According to the law, they end up receiving the punishment originally intended for the woman.

The focus of this long and dramatic story is really on Daniel, on his perception and wisdom, and on him as a champion of justice. In contrast, the liturgy of John’s Gospel (John 8:1-11, read yesterday on Sunday of Week 5 of Lent in Year C and today in Years A and B), tells the story of another and very different case of adultery. That is a situation where the woman is clearly guilty, and yet wins Jesus’ total forgiveness.)

On reading both stories, we might reflect on how often we stand in judgement of others, especially in the area of sexuality. Adultery is a very common theme that runs through many stories in the Bible, as well as the fatal punishment meted out. We might do well, however, to remember that one does not commit adultery alone, and this should not be overlooked.

More

Commentary on Hebrews 10:19-25

We pick up today where we left off yesterday, but there is a more practical turn to today’s reading.  There is a call to persevere in our following of Christ and our living out of the Gospel message.

The passage has been summarised by the New American Bible as follows:

Practical consequences from these reflections on the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ should make it clear that Christians may now have direct and confident access to God through the person of Jesus (v 19-20), who rules God’s house as high priest (v 21).  They should approach God with sincerity and faith, in the knowledge that through baptism their sins have been remitted (v 22), and remind themselves of the hope they expressed in Christ at that event (v 23).  They are to encourage one another to Christian love and activity (v 24), not refusing, no matter what the reason, to participate in the community’s assembly, especially in view of the parousia (v 25). (edited)

Once again we are reminded that, through Jesus, we have special access to God.  The symbols used are taken from the Temple rituals but applied to Christ:

…we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus…

The sanctuary is the very presence of God and not just some man-made structure, and we enter by the blood of Jesus and not the blood of animals as in the old dispensation.

We enter:

…by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain (that is, through his flesh)…

Jesus is the Way and, in the Acts of the Apostles, the Christians are called “followers of the Way”.  The high priest of old used to enter into the presence of Yahweh by passing through the curtain or veil protecting the Holy of Holies.  He alone could enter and then only once a year.  All of the baptised, however, can now pass continually into the presence of God through the blood of Jesus, our perfect and only High Priest, whose death has permanently removed the barrier of sin.

Symbolically, at the moment of Jesus’ death:

…the curtain of the temple veil [separating the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies] was torn in two, from top to bottom.
(Mark 15:38)

God’s presence had moved from the sacrifices of the Temple to the sacrifice offered on the Cross.  (This is another reason for the ‘Hebrews’ not to go back to the old dispensation.)

There now follow five exhortations of a practical nature: let us…

1. approach [God] with a true heart.
2. hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering.
3. consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds.
4. not [neglect] to meet together.
5. [encourage] one another.

The author urges the ‘Hebrews’ (and us) as they enter into the presence of God to have:

…our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

This is surely a reference to the water of Baptism.

In the old dispensation there was an external sprinkling of water and a cleansing of the body before entering the sanctuary.  For us, it must be a cleansing of the inner being, of our thoughts, attitudes and intentions, so that they are totally in harmony with God and committed to following the Gospel. There is an echo here of a passage from the prophet Ezekiel:

I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you, and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
(Ezek 36:25-26)

We are told to remain steadfast in our hope that God will take care of us because we have confidence in the fidelity of our God to his promises.

Finally, we are to be vigilant in our relationships with our brothers and sisters. We are to provoke each other not to anger or hostility, but to love and good deeds.  As part of this, we must not neglect attending the gatherings of the community (the Eucharist?), as some apparently were doing.  The Greek term here suggests abandoning the community and not just a physical absence.  Instead, we are to be a constant encouragement to each other, especially as we see “the Day aproaching” (the parousia)—Jesus’ final coming.

There is matter here for us to reflect on—our faith and hope in God, our commitment to Jesus and his Gospel and, especially, on how that affects our relationships with both our fellow Christians and all the people who impinge directly or indirectly on our lives.

Let us learn to appreciate and value our Eucharistic gatherings, which are not just the observance of some regulation, but a real coming together of people who share the same vision and who wish to support each other in giving an effective witness to the vision of life Jesus has left to us.