More

Commentary on Luke 16:9-15

Yesterday we saw Jesus give the example of a corrupt, but astute manager who took effective steps to guarantee his future employment. Today he goes on to warn us about our own use of material things.

We are to use “dishonest wealth” in such a way that we “make friends” for ourselves (our most important friend being God!). When this approach fails us (as it ultimately will), we hope that a “welcome…into the eternal homes” will be ours. We are reminded of how the crafty steward in the parable ensured his future.

In the mind of Luke, the friends we should be making are the poor and needy, who will be on our side before God’s judgement seat because we had “invested” our wealth in them. As we read in Matthew:

…I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did it to me. (Matt 25:40)

Earlier we saw a good example of a man who had made so much money out of his harvest that he sat back to enjoy the rest of his life—which ended that very night. That is not the way to ‘make friends’ with one’s material goods. In one sense, there is nothing wrong with having a lot of money. Rather, it is how we use those riches that is the question:

Whoever is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much…

In other words, if we can be trusted with the material goods that come into our lives, and use them to build the Kingdom of God, to create a more just and equitable society, then we can be trusted with something much greater, to live forever face to face with our God.

If, then, you have not been faithful with the dishonest wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches?

And again:

…if you have not been faithful with what belongs to another, who will give you what is your own?

And that reminds us that the material goods that come into our lives (no matter how they may have been acquired) do not belong absolutely to us. Everything on this earth belongs to all. We are only the stewards of what has come into our possession, and we will be judged on how we make use of it. On our use will depend to a large extent our receiving the one thing that will really become our own, the unending happiness that God wishes us to have in company with him.

That leads obviously to the next warning, that we cannot at the same time give ourselves totally to God and become slaves of money and the material. We saw that in the case of the rich man who wanted to follow Jesus. He was the slave of his possessions and so could not surrender his life to Jesus. Many of us think we can, and we try to compromise but, to give ourselves to God completely, we must become free of the lure of money and the acquisition of material things. It does not mean we do not have money or material things, but what we do have is ultimately used for God’s love and service and the love and service of our brothers and sisters.

On hearing all this, the Pharisees, whom Luke calls “lovers of money”, mocked Jesus for what they felt was unrealistic idealism.

There are many today who would echo their views, but those who have taken Jesus’ words to heart know that what he says is true. We have seen this in the lives of some people in our own time. And sadly, we have also seen the opposite. Some, with all their money, and fame and luxurious living, are missing something precious—the freedom to give and share their whole self with those who are destitute:

…for what is prized by humans is an abomination in the sight of God.

The opposite is also true. On which side do I find myself?

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, they are to “hand this man 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 paschal lamb”. 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, i.e. 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.

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 “the unmarried and widows” and answering a question about the desirability of a Christian’s 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’s Sermon on the Plain begins 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 speaking 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’s 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 being 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. This is 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 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 in 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 and 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? Paul says:

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, and 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.