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 or herself, does not know very much and depends on their teacher. But once the disciple is fully trained and has learnt everything it is possible to discern from the teacher, then the learner becomes an extension of the teacher. At that point, the disciple shares the teacher’s knowledge and wisdom 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 or sister 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 designed 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

Paul today returns to the problem of Christians eating food offered to idols, while also participating in the Christian Eucharist.

He first warns them to stay away from all forms of idolatry. This is no empty warning. Most of the Corinthian Christians were recent converts from paganism and their old customs, coupled as they likely were with superstitions, could still attract them. In their daily lives they were surrounded by reminders of the paganism they had left: temples to Apollo, Asclepius, Demeter, Aphrodite and other gods and goddesses. The worship of Aphrodite, with its huge numbers of sacred prostitutes, would still have been a strong temptation.

But he points out that the Christians have not been left with nothing to replace these former practices. They now have what we call the Eucharist.

There is the “cup of blessing” from which all the gathered community drinks and which is “a sharing in the blood of Christ”, the blood poured out on the cross and something far more meaningful than the blood of sacrificed animals.

The original blessing cup was drunk at the Jewish Passover. At the Passover meal which was the Last Supper, Jesus had said over this cup as he gave it to his table companions:

Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
(Matt 26:27-28)

And he had told his disciples to continue doing this in memory of his suffering, death and resurrection.

There is the bread that is broken, which is a communion with the body of Christ. Again, at the Last Supper, Jesus had taken a loaf of bread from the table, had said a blessing over it and, as he broke and distributed it to his disciples, had said:

Take, eat; this is my body. (Matt 26:26)

Paul emphasises the significance of the one loaf which is broken and shared out among the celebrating community saying:

Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

It is again a communion in the Body of Christ, of which this community is now a part. It is a sacramental act of total identity of the community with Christ and of the members of the community with Christ and with each other. This is the source of their nourishment and Life.

This eating together of the Body and Blood of Christ under the forms of bread and wine is the Christian sacrifice which more than replaces what the Corinthians have left behind in the pagan temples.

Paul indicates that what the Christians do is in many ways not unlike the Jews who also ate the meat of the animals offered in the Jerusalem Temple to God. It was also a form of communion with the Lord in the old covenant. The sacrificial rites in the pagan temples were also a form of ‘communion’ with the deity, but meant little because those deities were no more than the wood or stone images from which their images were made.

Paul is warning the Christians that if they do eat meat sacrificed to idols, they should not eat it as part of the pagan worship. He tells them:

You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

His words imply that some of the Christians who shared the Eucharistic table were also visiting the temples and even involving themselves in immoral behaviour there.

Comparing his words earlier, he makes a clear distinction between eating food offered to idols as a sharing or ‘communion’ with the imagined god and eating that food when separated from the act of worship. He forbids the first because it involves idolatry, and he allows the second because the food has no sacred value whatever—given that the object of worship is non-existent.

Paul’s warnings against involvement in idol worship might seem fairly irrelevant to many Catholic communities in the West, but it can still be a real problem in parts of Africa, Asia, and even the Caribbean.

However, in the West too there have been several movements, loosely labeled ‘New Age’ and the like, which attract many Christians, especially those on the fringes of church life, and which do not seem compatible with the gospel and participation in the Eucharist. Discernment is needed to judge which ones can be grafted into Christianity and which are opposed to it.

Paul’s words about the sharing of the cup and the one loaf also highlights an aspect of the Eucharist which is often lost by many, where ‘going to Mass’ and ‘receiving Communion’ are seen all too often as the private and devotional acts of an individual.

The Eucharist has no meaning except as a community and sharing celebration. It is not just a ‘receiving’ of Jesus into ‘my soul’. It is a “partak[ing] of the one bread” and a shared eating which emphasises the real presence of Christ not only in the bread and wine, but even more importantly, in the celebrating community. In the passage subsequent to today’s reading, we will see that to neglect the community during the celebration of the Eucharist is a kind of sacrilege.

More

Commentary on Luke 6:43-49

In our final reading from Luke’s version of the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus speaks of the qualities of a genuine disciple. The goodness of every disciple comes from within and is not to be measured merely by one’s external behaviour:

No good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; for each tree is known by its own fruit.

At the same time, consistently good behaviour is a sign of a healthy interior:

The good person out of the good treasure of the heart produces good, and the evil person out of evil treasure produces evil, for it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks.

We need to focus our energies on our interior spirit. If that is good, the rest will take care of itself.

Another measure of the good disciple is how he or she listens and acts on the words of the Master. To ‘listen’ includes hearing, understanding, accepting, and assimilating into one’s self the Master’s teaching and vision. The behaviour then follows naturally, spontaneously and, to a large extent, effortlessly.

Such a person is compared to a man who has built his house on a strong foundation. When floods came, the house stood firm. On the other hand, the one who listens, but does not take in and so does not act on what has been heard is like a man who built his house on a poor foundation. When the floods came, it collapsed.

This parable needs to be read in the context of the early Church where, in time of persecution, some stood firm because their faith was deeply rooted, while others fell away at the first sign of pressure.

Even if there is no overt persecution of the Christian faith where we live, we live in times which are very threatening to a genuinely Christ-centred life. Without a sure foundation, it is very easy to be enticed away to a life of materialism, consumerism, hedonism, and individualism. Because of their superficial attractiveness and their being indulged in by so many around us, these things are often far more insidious than outright attacks on our faith.

In fact, experience shows again and again that nothing strengthens people’s faith more than open persecution. Most of us live in a much more dangerous environment, an environment not of torture and imprisonment, but of advertising and media hype promising untold happiness and pleasure, where the vision of the gospel is ignored, irrelevant or actively rejected. We need to have very sure foundations to live in such a world.

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.

More

Commentary on Hebrews 10:11-18

We take up from yesterday’s reading where the author continues to show the superiority of Jesus’ single sacrifice over the many sacrifices of the old dispensation. In the old order, the priest stood day after day at his service, offering again and again the same sacrifices which were really ineffectual in taking away sin.

Christ, on the other hand, offered for all time just one sacrifice, not of the fruits of the earth, but of himself as a perfect offering in total union with his Father.  Quoting Psalm 110, Paul tells us that because of this, he now sits “at the right hand of God”—his work is complete—and he waits:

…until his enemies would be made a footstool for his feet.

The ‘sitting’ of Jesus is contrasted with the Levitical priest who always stood, implying his sacrificing role was never finished.

The waiting period is that between the enthronement of Jesus at his resurrection-ascension and his Second Coming.  The identity of the “enemies” is not specified.  Writing to the Corinthians (and quoting from Psalm 8:6), Paul had said:

…he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” (1 Cor 15:25-27)

In his one offering, Christ has made perfect all those “who are sanctified”.  This is confirmed by the words of Scripture in a passage which the author adapts from Jeremiah (31:33), where Yahweh says that he will make a covenant with his people:

I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds…

And using another passage from Jeremiah (31:34), he adds:

I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.

In a concluding remark, Paul says:

Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

Again, it is for us to open ourselves totally to the forgiving and healing power of Jesus Christ and to unite ourselves fully with his self-offering.  Along with Paul, let us pray to God:

See, I have come to do your will. (Heb 10:9)

More

Commentary on Hebrews 10:1-10

In a final reflection, Hebrews continues by pointing out the inadequacy of the Law to take away people’s sins. The old dispensation was only a shadow of, and a prefiguration for, what was to come.  It could not, through sacrifices repeated year after year on the Day of Atonement, bring about the lasting  reconciliation of God with his people.

Otherwise, if the people really had no consciousness of being any longer in sin, why would they have come year after year to make the sacrificial offering?  On the contrary, the repetition of the same sacrifice was only a confirmation of an ongoing sense of guilt for their sinfulness.  The simple fact of the matter is that the blood of bulls and goats is quite incapable of taking away sin, of bringing out about a lasting reconciliation with God.

The author then quotes words from Psalm 40 (vs 6-7) as a foretelling of what was really needed to bring about this reconciliation.  He puts the words of the psalmist on the lips of Christ himself at his incarnation, when he “came into the world”.  The author follows the Septuagint (Greek text of the Old Testament), which is somewhat different from the original Hebrew, but is more suited to his argument.

It is not sacrifices and other offerings that the Father wants.  Instead he has provided his Son with a body, a body that will be offered in sacrifice for all of us.  The Father takes no pleasure in “sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings”. These four things, mentioned in Psalm 40, are probably indicating the four principal types of Old Testament sacrifices: peace offerings; cereal offerings; burnt offerings or holocausts; and sin offerings (including guilt offerings mentioned in Lev 5:14-26).

Jesus acknowledged that the Old Testament sacrifices did not remit the sins of the people and so, perceiving the will of God, offered his own body for this purpose.  Jesus then, through the Psalmist, says:

See, I have come to do your will.

The highest form of sacrifice is our total union with the will of God.

The former dispensation is now abolished, and the offering of Jesus takes its place in a new dispensation.  So now, it is by God’s will, carried out by Jesus in his death, that we become:

…sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

It was the total surrender of the Son to the Father that effectively and forever interceded for the removal of our sin. Each one of us has to mirror that surrender in our own lives, making the will of God our own. Only then we will experience the total liberation that God wants for us as we become united as one with him.

More

Commentary on Hebrews 9:15,24-28

We begin our third and last week with the Letter to the Hebrews.  We continue showing the superiority of Christ’s sacrifice over that of the old covenant. The death of Christ alone is effective in wiping out sins which were committed under the old covenant.

Here we see how Jesus seals the new covenant with his blood. The passage shows that the death of Christ was essential for him to act effectively as mediator.  It does this by a play on words: the Greek word diatheke can mean ‘pact’ (covenant) as it does in the opening sentence of today’s reading or ‘last will and testament’, as it does further down in the passage (not included in our reading; Heb 9:16-17).  So the author can argue that a ‘pact’ or covenant also suggests the death of a ‘testator’.

All pacts at the time were sealed with the shedding of blood.  In signing the covenant between Yahweh and the Israelites at Sinai, we read in Exodus:

Moses took half of the blood [from the sacrificial animals] and put it in basins, and half of the blood he dashed against the altar…Moses took the blood and dashed it on the people, and said, “Here is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
(Ex 24:6,8)

The similarity with our words of consecration in the Eucharist is not accidental. Hence, it is argued that Christ needed to die in founding the New Covenant (or ‘Pact’) between God and the human family.

Jesus is, in fact, the mediator of a new covenant, a new solemn and mutual bonding between God and the world.  This covenant brings the promise of an “eternal inheritance”, as was announced by Jesus during his public life.  This has been brought about by the death of Jesus, saving us from the sins which the old covenant could not remove.  It brings about deliverance from sins committed under the old covenant, which the Mosaic sacrifices were incapable of effacing.  Until this happened, the “eternal inheritance” promised by God could not be obtained.

As High Priest, Jesus did not enter a sanctuary erected by human hands, like that of the Temple in Jerusalem, which was only a distant copy of the true sanctuary where God dwells.  Jesus entered that sanctuary—Heaven itself—standing in the very presence of God on our behalf.

And in contrast to the Levitical high priest, Jesus did not need to offer himself again and again, as the high priest did each year when he entered the Holy of Holies in the Temple to make the same sacrifice and offered “blood that is not his own”, the blood of some slaughtered animal.  If Jesus’ sacrifice had not been once for all, he too would have had to offer himself in sacrifice again and again.

As it is, he offered himself just once for all mankind “at the end of the ages”, and took away our sin by the sacrifice of himself.  Jesus is both Priest and Victim in this unique sacrifice.

In using the term “the end of the ages” the author is reflecting Jewish Christian eschatology which speaks of the “present age” and the “age to come”.  Saying that the sacrifice of Christ is unique, because it is being offered at “the end of the ages”, is to say that it, in a way, marks the end of human history and has no need to be repeated.

Jesus’ sacrifice wipes out sin, not with ‘other’ blood, but with Christ’s own blood; it is a once and for all act.  Jesus’ coming has ushered in the great Messianic era, towards which all history has moved. 

He was destined before the foundation of the world but was revealed at the end of the ages for your sake.
(1 Peter 1:20)

And just as it is our destiny to die once and then face our God in judgement, so Christ, having offered himself and given his life just once to bear the “sins of many”, will appear just once more to take with him to the Father all those who await him at his Second coming, the parousia.

Then Jesus will appear “a second time”, as the high priest reappeared on the Day of Atonement, emerging from the Holy of Holies, which he had entered “to bear the sins of many”.  This scene is described dramatically and poetically in Sirach (50:5-11).  It was a high point in the Jewish calendar.

The reference to the taking away of sin is to a passage in Isaiah about the Suffering Servant:

… he poured out himself to death
and was numbered with the transgressors,
yet he bore the sin of many
and made intercession for the transgressors. (Is 53:12)

Since the Greek verb anaphero can mean both “to take away” and “to bear”, the author no doubt intended to play upon both meanings: Jesus took away sin by bearing it himself. John the Baptist says:

Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29)

The “sins of many” is used in the Semitic meaning of “all” in an inclusive sense, as, for instance, in Mark’s Gospel:

[Jesus] said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. (Mark 14:24)

In the Eucharistic Prayer the celebrant says:

…this is the chalice of my Blood…
which will be poured out for you and for many
for the forgiveness of sins.

The old Latin translation was pro multis, literally meaning “for many”.

Christ has died once and for all for our sins—every sin we have ever committed, and those we have yet to commit.  But to experience his forgiveness and be fully reconciled with him, we need constantly to express our repentance and turn back to our Father, as the prodigal son did in the parable.

More

Commentary on Acts 11:19-26

The results of the early persecution were to scatter the Jewish Christians to places like Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch. Phoenicia was a country about 15 miles wide and 120 miles long stretching along the northeastern Mediterranean coast (corresponding to modern Lebanon). Its important cities were Tyre and Sidon, which are mentioned in the Gospels.  The Phoenicians were legendary seafarers.

Cyprus is an island in the northeastern Mediterranean and was the home of Barnabas the Apostle. Antioch, on the river Orontes, was the capital of the Roman province of Syria, and the third largest city of the empire after Rome and Alexandria. It was 25 km (15 miles) inland from the northeast corner of the Mediterranean.  The first mainly gentile local church was located here.  In many ways, it would become the headquarters for the mission to the Gentiles, and from here, Paul (in today’s reading still called “Saul”) would launch his three missionary journeys—more about them later.

Today we have the story of the Church being founded in Antioch in Syria.  Chronologically, it was an immediate sequel to the martyrdom of Stephen and the savage persecution which followed and scattered the Jerusalem Christians in many directions.  However, in between these readings, we have been looking at the work of the deacon Philip and Peter’s involvement with the Gentiles.  We also saw the conversion of Saul, which is presumed to have already taken place.

At first the refugees only evangelised their fellow-Jews.  But then Jewish Christians from places like Cyprus and Cyrene, on the north coast of Africa, who were used to more pluralistic societies, also began to approach “Hellenists”, i.e. Greeks who were not circumcised—in other words, non-Jews.  These people responded very well and many became disciples of the Lord Jesus.

They used the term “Lord” Jesus rather than “Christ”, which was a title more suited to Jewish audiences with messianic expectations.  With the non-Jews, Jesus was more usually called “Lord”.  He is “Lord” because, elevated to God’s right hand, he now rules over the Kingdom which he inaugurated:

The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number became believers and turned to the Lord.

This showed God’s approval and blessing on their work, sometimes indicated by signs and wonders.  It was the beginning of the ‘church’ at Antioch, one of many ‘churches’ to be set up in the following years.

When all this came to the ears of the people in Jerusalem, who were still thinking primarily in terms of Christians only as Jews, they sent Barnabas to investigate.  Jerusalem, where the Apostles were centred, had a right of supervision over other churches.  And so, the sending of Barnabas was in keeping with Jerusalem’s policy of sending leaders to check on new ministries coming to their attention.  As a Hellenistic Jew from Cyprus, Barnabas was an obvious choice for this mission.

It is clear that Barnabas was very happy with what he found:

When he came and saw the grace of God, he rejoiced, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast devotion…

He saw clearly that the gentile converts were very genuine, and encouraged the local church to continue what it was doing. About Barnabas, Luke comments in Acts:

…he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith.

Similar words had also been used to describe Stephen.

Then, Barnabas went off to Tarsus, a city in the province of Cilicia, in what is now the southeastern corner of Turkey, and brought Saul back to Antioch. Saul had been forced to return to Tarsus after his conversion because the Christians would not believe in its genuineness.  They believed he was simply trying to infiltrate the Christian communities with the intention of destroying them. In Antioch, this resulted in even greater numbers joining the church community under the leadership and formation of Saul and Barnabas, who stayed on for a whole year in the city.

Once again we see innovation and new ground coming from the fringe rather than from the centre and how, after discernment, it is seen to be a valid development.  In our Church today, it is still the fringe which pioneers, while the role of Rome is to consolidate.

It is also an example of the phrase: “The world writes the agenda for the Church.”  It was the influence of a local situation which led to the new insights that were seen as a valid development of the Christian vision.

It was here, too, we are told that the “disciples”, that is, the followers of Jesus’ Way, were first given the nickname “Christians”. This also indicates that those who first coined the term took ‘Christ’ to be a personal name rather than a title.  It is not certain whether the followers adopted the name themselves, or whether it was used by enemies as a term of contempt.

In either case, it is a fitting title for those who attach themselves to Jesus and his Way, and we too should be proud of this nickname. It is not something we should hide, nor is it a name that we should dishonour by our behaviour—and still less wear lightly.

More

Commentary on John 10:11-18

Jesus gives two images of himself connected with sheep.  Earlier in this chapter, he calls himself “the ‘Gate’ for the sheep.”  Only true shepherds pass through this Gate to reach the sheep.  In today’s passage, he speaks of the second image, identifying himself solemnly as the true Shepherd of his people:

I am the good shepherd.

This is the third ‘I AM’ statement.  Jesus’ assertion that he is the Good Shepherd is tantamount to identifying himself as the Messiah.

Of course, the image of God as shepherd of his people is found many times in the Old Testament. For instance, in the much-loved Psalm 23, “The Lord is my shepherd…” or in Ezekiel 34 where God speaks of himself as the shepherd of his people.

Jesus now takes that role on himself.  He is the “good” shepherd because he is willing to lay down his life for his sheep.  In this he is totally unlike a hired hand who, at the first sight of danger (such as the appearance of a wolf or robbers) will abandon the sheep.  He is only being paid to do the job and has no personal commitment to the sheep.  It seems that some of the religious leaders are having a finger pointed at them here.  They are more interested in the literal observance of the Law than in the spiritual well-being of the people.

Jesus, on the other hand, is a good shepherd:

 I know my own, and my own know me…And I lay down my life for the sheep.

His death on the cross is the clear proof of that.  This is what makes him stand out from other ‘shepherds’.  And the ‘knowledge’ here is not mere acquaintance or recognition, but a deep mutual understanding of each other.  A knowledge that is the fruit of experience and an intimate personal contact leading to love.

But not all sheep belong to Jesus’ flock and it is his deep desire that they too should belong to his fold.  This, first of all, points to the Gentiles who were not yet among God’s people.  For us today, it points to all those who have not yet come to know the Way of Christ as pointing to life.

Jesus’ goal is that there be “one flock and one shepherd”.  It should be the dream of all Christians too.  The Father loves Jesus because of his readiness to die for his sheep.  But Jesus’ death is his own free choice, an act of pure love for his sheep.  He has the power to lay down his life and to take it up again.  Our Shepherd will die, but will rise again in glory to take his sheep with him to the life that will never end.

But though Jesus the Good Shepherd will die for his sheep, he does so in perfect freedom.  This is what gives his sacrifice such value.  He willingly surrenders his life into the hands of his Father, and in doing so, guarantees his presence with his sheep for all time and in every place.