More

Commentary on Luke 9:51-56

We come today to a distinct turning point in Luke’s Gospel. It is marked by the opening words of today’s passage:

When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem.

The ‘taking up’ or the ‘assumption’ of Jesus refers to his passion and death leading to resurrection and ascension. It corresponds to the ‘glory’ that John speaks of and for whom the crucifixion is a ‘lifting up’ into ‘glory’.

At this point we have now come to the end of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee and we move on to a new section—the journey to Jerusalem, which ends at chapter 19:27 where we find Jesus in Jerusalem. The opening corresponds to Mark 10:1 where Jesus is seen entering Judea to preach there and which John more specifically describes as a journey to Jerusalem during the time of the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:1-10)

But Luke diverges from Mark’s story with very different material. He now follows Matthew’s source as well as using material of his own. The section consists almost entirely of teachings of Jesus to his disciples. It is all loosely organised within the framework of Jesus’ making his way to Jerusalem. The section we are entering is a time of preparation for the disciples for their future role as Messengers of the Kingdom.

Jerusalem is the place where it is all going to happen—the ‘exodus’ of Jesus, including his suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension—leading to the passing on of his mission to his disciples with the coming down of the Spirit of the Father and Jesus on the disciples. And it will be from Jerusalem that the new Church will be established and from Jerusalem it will spread gradually throughout the whole Mediterranean area until it reaches the empire’s capital in Rome, and from there to the ends of the earth.

As he set out, Jesus sent some messengers ahead to announce his coming. In order to go directly from Galilee to Judea, where the city of Jerusalem was situated, they would have had to pass through Samaria. Samaritans were particularly hostile to Jews, especially when they were on their way to a Jewish festival in Jerusalem (as Jesus and his disciples seem to be doing). It would take at least three days to cross Samaria and the Samaritans were refusing the disciples overnight shelter. Because of this situation, Jewish pilgrims and travellers often avoided confrontation by going down the east bank of the Jordan River. There is an irony here that, when the first Christians were persecuted in Jerusalem, they took refuge in Samaria, which became one of the first places to accept the Gospel. It is very likely that the evangelist is aware of the irony when telling this story.

Faced with this hostility, the brothers James and John, whom we described yesterday as hotheads (Sons of Thunder), suggested that fire from heaven be called down to burn them up. Their threat is reminiscent of the fire that Elijah brought down on the emissaries of an idolatrous king (1 Kings 18:38). They were indignant that their Master, the Messiah, should be treated in this way. There is a parallel here between Jesus’ negative reception in his home town of Galilee and his rejection by the people of Samaria.

But Jesus distances himself from those disciples and gives them a scolding. This was not Jesus’ way. Instead, they went off to another village where they hoped to find a better welcome. As we see in other parts of the Gospel, Jesus does not normally go out of his way to court trouble. On the other hand, he will not hesitate to speak his mind or do what he believes is right, even if certain kinds of people take offence at it.

It is never Jesus’ way to destroy his enemies. We will see that clearly after he reaches Jerusalem where far worse things are done to him. Jesus’ purpose always is to change people who are against him, to defuse their hostility and help them to see things in a better way. It is something we could try to do more often. It is not at all the “softy’s” approach. On the contrary, it requires great inner strength and security.

More

Commentary on Luke 12:8-12

Jesus continues to prepare his disciples for trials to come in the future. He encourages them to be faithful to their Christian commitment and to their faith in Christ as Lord. When we publicly acknowledge Jesus as Christ and Lord, Jesus too will acknowledge us as his faithful disciple.

Of course, it will be difficult during times of abuse and persecution, but disciples must always be ready to acknowledge their allegiance to Jesus. To deny that allegiance may win them a reprieve in this life, but not in the next. Jesus said on an earlier occasion:

For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. (Matt 16:25)

The word for ‘deny’ in today’s Gospel is the same word used in Peter’s denial and disowning of his Master (see Luke 22:34,61).

Then comes a saying which can cause difficulty for some:

…everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

Why should there be this one exception to the forgiveness of sin? And why is speaking against the Son acceptable, but not against the Spirit?

To speak against the Son is clearly wrong, but with repentance, there can be reconciliation. But to sin against the Spirit is to go against Truth itself. This was basically the sin of the Scribes and Pharisees. They not only criticised Jesus—that could be understood. But they locked themselves into a situation where they shut out any openness to the Truth—the Truth that others could so easily see present in Jesus. As long as they were in that situation, there was no possibility of reconciliation. To sin against the Spirit—the Truth—is to close the door on reconciliation.

It seems that in Luke’s context he may be applying the saying to those Christians who are under attack for their faith. If they deny the Spirit of Truth, they too lock themselves out from being reached by God. In times to come—even up through our own time—Jesus’ disciples will be dragged before civil and religious authorities. He is telling them they are not to be afraid or worried about how to defend themselves or about what they should say.

Again and again, people who have been in this position have attested that the words do indeed come and with them a certain peace and strength—provided one retains one’s integrity and wholeness. And it is the presence of that Spirit, the Spirit of God and of Jesus, that is at work.

Most of us will not have to suffer severely for our faith. But there will likely be times when we may find our religious beliefs and practices ridiculed and made fun of. We can be tempted at such times to go into hiding, to conceal our Christian identity. We may even fail to come to the support of people who are under attack, refuse to stand by them and refuse to stand up and be counted as committed followers of the Gospel.

If that has happened in the past, let us ask forgiveness. Let us pray that in future we may have the courage and integrity in word and deed to let people know who we are and what we stand for.

More

Commentary on Luke 12:1-7 Read Friday of Week 28 of Ordinary Time – Gospel »

More

Commentary on Luke 11:47-54

There are more strong words from Jesus against the Pharisaic mentality. Today the charge is of hypocrisy:

Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your ancestors killed.

The people build monuments to remember the prophets of old, but those same prophets were killed by their ancestors. On the one hand, they are building the monuments as an act of atonement, while they themselves have exactly the same attitudes as their ancestors. They do not listen to their own teaching.

Jesus utters words which he identifies as “the Wisdom of God”:

I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute…

It is not a quotation from the Old Testament or any other book known to us. It could refer to God speaking through Jesus (the Word, the Wisdom of God) or presenting, in quotation form, God’s decision to send prophets and apostles, even though they would be rejected.

Jesus is basically saying that the mission of the Church (his Apostles) is linked with the mission of the Old Testament prophets, who, like Jesus’ disciples, suffered and, in some cases, died at the hands of their contemporaries. Jesus, of course, himself will be one of them, the last and greatest Prophet.

Jesus says the scholars of the Law carry with them guilt for the killing of every good person and every prophet since the murder of Abel down to that of Zechariah. The murder of Abel by his brother Cain is recorded in Genesis (4:8), the opening book of the Old Testament, and that of Zechariah, son of Jehoiada in 2 Chronicles (24:20-22). This latter book is regarded as the closing of the Hebrew Testament by the Jews. It is like our describing the whole Bible in terms of ‘from Genesis to Revelation’. Jesus was referring to the history of martyrdom right through the whole of the Old Testament.

There is one final attack against the Scribes and their way of thinking and acting. They interpret the Law in such a way that they make it inaccessible to the ordinary person. And, what is worse, they do not observe it themselves:

For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.

They kept both themselves and the people in ignorance of the true way to salvation and wholeness. As it is put in Matthew’s Gospel:

But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 23:13)

One wonders how many of our Church leaders, teachers and theological and moral ‘experts’ have not done exactly the same thing over the years and down to the present day? How many Catholic parents and teachers have made the Christian message basically inaccessible to the young, and then we wonder why they have no interest in religion?

Not surprisingly, all these attacks only increased the hostility of the Pharisees and the religious leaders against Jesus. They were able to get him to speak on a multitude of religious questions hoping that he would convict himself out of his own mouth. As far as they were concerned, they were more than successful.

What they did not realise was that Jesus was operating from a completely different vision of what life is really about. His new wine could not fit into their old wineskins. The question for each one to ask is: Do I share the vision of Jesus? What does ‘Christianity’ mean to me?

More

Commentary on Luke 11:37-41

Jesus continues to highlight what is central to our relationship with God. We skip over a short passage which is about various aspects of light. In short, the Christian is to be a person full of light through and through—not like the kind of people Jesus now goes on to describe.

He had been invited to dinner by a Pharisee. Jesus apparently went straight into the dining area and reclined at the table prepared to eat. The Pharisee was quite shocked because Jesus had not first washed his hands before eating. Of course, we are strongly recommended to wash our hands before sitting down to eat. But here we are not dealing with a question of hygiene, but of ritual washing. Jesus had omitted to perform a religious ritual which was laid down by the stricter Jews, although not actually part of the Law. The rule probably had originally a hygienic purpose. By giving it a religious sanction, one made sure that it was carried out. Many other obligations, some of them contained in the Mosaic Law like those from Leviticus, seem to be of the same kind.

Most probably, Jesus, in the ordinary course of events, would have had no problem about performing this ritual, but it is likely that here he is deliberately making a point. It allows him to draw attention to what he sees as false religion. A person’s virtue is not to be judged by his performance or non-performance of an external rite.

As Jesus tells this man in a graphic image, the Pharisees concentrate on making sure that the outside of the cup is clean while inside it is full of all kinds of depravity and corruption (like the judgmental thoughts in this man’s mind and the sinister plotting that the Pharisees in general were directing against Jesus). God is as much, if not much more, concerned about the inside as the outside.

Instead, Jesus says:

So give as alms those things that are within and then everything will be clean for you.

When the inside is clean, there is no need to worry about the outside. Giving alms is a positive act of kindness to another person, an act of love and compassion. It neutralises the greed and rapacity of which he accuses them. It is not, like the washing of hands, a purely empty ritual which says little and is almost totally self-directed.

It is so easy to judge people, including our fellow-Catholics, by their observance or non-observance of certain Christian customs, which of themselves are of a non-moral nature. In the past, for instance, we might have criticised a woman for not wearing a hat in church, or a priest for appearing without his Roman collar. Today, some might be scandalised because a person goes to communion having had a huge meal well within the designated one hour of fasting, or for some still, eating meat on Friday, even though the ‘law’ does not require it. We need to recognize that most of the passages in the Gospel attacking the Pharisees are really directed against ‘pharisees’ in our Christian communities, not to mention the pharisee in our own hearts.

Elsewhere, Jesus has told us not to judge because it is very difficult for us to know what is going on within another person’s mind. What Jesus is really emphasising here is the inner spirit and motivation. Once that is right, everything else will be taken care of.

More

Commentary on Ephesians 1:15-23 Read Saturday of Week 28 of Ordinary Time – First Reading »

More

Commentary on Ephesians 1:11-14 Read Friday of Week 28 of Ordinary Time – First Reading »

More

Commentary on Ephesians 1:1-10

We begin today reading from the Letter to the Ephesians and we will continue with it until middle of Week 30. In our Bibles, this letter follows immediately on Galatians, but belongs to a later period in Paul’s missionary life.

It is useful to be aware that the Pauline letters, from Romans to Philemon, are arranged, not according to the date on which they were written, but according to their length. Early editors would not have been too clear on the chronological order of the letters. They did not have the editorial tools which are available to us now.

Because of the general nature of its contents, the Letter to the Ephesians is often thought to be a kind of ‘encyclical’ sent to several churches in the region. Many of the best manuscripts do not have the name “Ephesus” in the opening verse. Also, because of noticeable differences in style and language compared to letters regarded as definitely from Paul, doubts have been raised about the Pauline authorship of this letter. It is possible that it was written by a disciple familiar with Paul’s teaching and issued even after the Apostle’s death.

The letter is thought to date from late in the first century AD, and seems to be addressed to a predominantly gentile church which already has lost most of its links with Jewish traditions. Overall it is a letter extremely rich in its ideas and that is why we will stay with it over the next nine weekdays.

In commenting on the readings, for convenience we will attribute the contents to Paul, because, although he may not have penned the letter himself, it undoubtedly reflects his teachings.

In the opening sentence, the greeting is from Paul, who calls himself an Apostle of Christ Jesus appointed by Christ. An ‘apostle’ (apostolos, from the verb apo-stello) is someone who has been entrusted with handing on an official message—an ambassador or emissary. This responsibility has come directly from God and, later in the course of the letter, Paul will emphasise the role of God’s planning in the unfolding course of events.

The letter is addressed to the “saints” (hagioi), who are defined as those who are “faithful in Christ Jesus”. In fact, the word “saints” was used at this time for all the baptised members of the community. The word really denotes people who are set apart from others.

In our passage today we find the usual greeting, in words that we now use in our Eucharistic liturgy:

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Familiarity with such phrases can prevent us from fully savouring the content of the greeting, which asks for “grace” and “peace”.

These are both key words in this letter: “grace” is used no less than 12 times and “peace” occurs seven times. “Grace” (charis) is the unmerited love of God as experienced in our lives and “peace” (eirene) is that deep harmony between God, other people, our environment and ourselves. We could hardly wish people richer gifts than these.

The words “Blessed be God the Father…” now introduce a beautiful prayer of blessing which goes to the end of today’s reading and continues up to the end of tomorrow’s reading as well. In the Greek, it forms a single sentence (writers of classical Greek and Latin liked long sentences, but in our writing style they need to be broken up). The prayer is what we call a ‘doxology’ because it is a paean of worship and praise for all that God has done. The term comes from the Greek word doxa which means ‘glory’.

Paul speaks first of the blessings we have through the Father (v 3), then of those that come through the Son (vv 4-13) and finally of those through the Holy Spirit (vv 13-14). Today’s reading ends at verse 10 and the rest will be read tomorrow.

It begins with praise for the Father, who is the source of all the spiritual or “heavenly” blessings we have received through Jesus Christ. The terms “heavenly places” or “heavenly realm” occur five times in this letter; they emphasise that Christ is now in glory and they point to our future sharing in his life. Paul calls them the “every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places”. In other words, these blessings are not just recent. God had chosen us from the very beginning, long before our world came into existence. And the complete fulfilment of these blessings will only be experienced after our time on this earth. In the meantime we continue to experience them in this life, hopefully in ever-growing degrees.

These blessings come from the Father “in Christ”, a phrase which is used 12 times in this prayer alone and expresses our close union with him as members of his Body.

Why were we were chosen (why us…why me)? Paul now gives a number of reasons:

1. We are called to live “in Christ” and to be “holy and blameless”. Holiness is the result—not the basis—of God’s choosing. It refers both to the holiness imparted to the believer because of Christ and to the believer’s personal sanctification (see 1 Cor 1:2). It is both our vocation and God’s gift to us. Holiness is not our doing. And let us never say, “I don’t have a vocation”. Every baptised person has been called from all eternity, truly a sobering thought. The question each one of us needs to answer is: to what role in the community am I being particularly called? (We will see something of that later in the Letter.)
2. We are called—in a lovely phrase—to be “before him in love”. That phrase makes a perfect summary of a Christian life; everything is there and the rest is icing on the cake. ‘Love’ here is primarily the love God has for us (agape), and that leads him to ‘choose’ us and to call us to be ‘holy’. At the same time, this love does not exclude our reaching out in love for God which results from, and is a response to, his own love for us.
3. We are called to “adoption as his children”. In a sense every person is a child of God by virtue of creation, but through our baptism and our special relationship through Jesus, we become adopted children of God, to be in a special way brothers and sisters of Jesus and partners in his work to establish the Kingdom. Jesus Christ, the only Son, is both the source and the model of the way God has chosen for us to become holy, i.e. by adopting us as his heirs.
4. We are called “to the praise of his glorious grace”. God’s grace is the gift of being called to share God’s life through Jesus Christ. These are the two themes that run through this account of God’s blessings: their source is God’s liberality, and their purpose is to make his glory appreciated by creatures. Everything comes from him, and everything should lead to him.

   This we are to proclaim ‘from the housetops’ so that others too may open themselves to this gift. This is what Jesus meant in another context when he spoke of our being the “salt of the earth” and “the light of the world” so that people may come to be drawn to the love and service of the Lord (see Matt 5:13-16).

5. And lastly, by our being called to Jesus we have “redemption through his blood”. This means that by his suffering and death on the cross Jesus has, so to speak, bought back our freedom. The New International Version Bible explains:

   “The Ephesians were familiar with the Greco­ Roman practice of redemption: Slaves were freed by the payment of a ransom. Similarly, the ransom necessary to free sinners from the bondage of sin and the resulting curse imposed by the law (see Gal. 3:13) was the death of Christ.”

   This freedom comes through the forgiveness of our sins, which in effect means a total reconciliation with God through what Jesus has done for us. As we mentioned earlier when reading Galatians, the experience of freedom is an important element in our Christian life.

Summing up, Paul refers to all this as the “riches of his grace”, the abundance of freely-given love which has been “showered” on us in God’s unique wisdom and insight. The word ‘grace’ (charis) as it is used here, emphasises not so much the interior gift that makes a human being holy: rather, it refers to the gratuitousness of God’s favour and the way he manifests his glory. These are the two themes that run through this account of God’s blessings: their source is God’s liberality, and their purpose is to make his glory appreciated by creatures. Everything comes from him, and everything should lead to him.

All this happens because of God’s “wisdom and insight”. That wisdom is, in an extraordinary way, being shared with us:

[God]…has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ…

The word “mystery” is used here in a sense somewhat different from our contemporary usage, which usually refers to something we cannot understand. In Paul’s day, the Greek word mysterion was used in the context of certain cults whose inner workings were only revealed to the initiated. Paul uses the word here and in other letters to refer to truths which were formerly hidden or obscure, but now have been revealed by God for all to know and understand. For instance, it is used by Paul of the Incarnation, the death of Christ and its meaning in God’s plan and God’s intention for people everywhere—both Jews and Gentiles—to be his people.

The mystery or ‘hidden plan’ which he mentions here is God’s:

…plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

Paul uses a significant term here that not only has the idea of leadership, but also was often used of adding up a column of figures. A contemporary way of putting it might be to say that in a world of confusion, where things do not ‘add up’ or make sense, we look forward to the time when everything will be brought into meaningful relationship under the headship of Christ.

The main theme of this letter is how the whole body of creation, having been cut off from the Creator by sin, is decomposing, and how its rebirth is effected by Christ, reuniting all its parts into an organism with himself as the head, so as to reattach it to God. The human (both Jew and Gentile) and the angelic worlds are brought together again through the fact that they were saved by a single act.

Of course, this is all a mystery in the contemporary sense too, something we will never fully grasp on this side of the grave. What Paul is emphasising is the uncovering of an exciting aspect of God in his relationship with his creatures, of which even God’s people up to this time had hardly any inkling. The rest of this magnificent blessing-prayer will be concluded in tomorrow’s reading.

More

Commentary on Matthew 23:23-26

Today we continue reading the ‘Seven Woes’ listed in yesterday’s commentary. Today’s reading contains the fourth and fifth.

4. You tithe mint, dill, and cumin … (vv 23-24)

In continuing his attack on Pharisaism, Jesus touches on two issues which are certainly relevant to our Christian living today. First, he attacks the mentality of those who are sticklers for tiny details of ritual or doctrine while ignoring the fundamental issues of justice, compassion and good faith. The Mosaic Law levied a tithe on agricultural produce. Some rabbis scrupulously applied the law to the most insignificant of plants.

A strict Pharisee too would carefully filter his drinking water in case he might swallow a small insect, which would be regarded as unclean. But, in being so careful of such minutiae, he might well overlook matters of much deeper importance. Jesus is not criticising a conscientious carrying out of rules and regulations, but it is the attitude of hypocritical moral superiority which he attacks.

One can meet Catholics too who tie themselves in knots trying to observe the most petty regulations and can end up becoming the prisoner of scruples. What is more, they can be highly critical of others whom they regard as ‘lax’. An example might be people who are more worried about not having observed a full 60 minutes of fast before Communion than focusing on what the wider implications of participating in the Eucharist really mean.

5. You clean the outside of the cup and of the plate… (vv 25-26)

The second point that Jesus makes is to criticise those who concentrate on the tiniest details of external behaviour while totally ignoring the inner spirit. There are certain Christians who speak and write at length about all the things that are not being done right in the liturgy of the Catholic Church, and who claim for themselves a level of doctrinal and moral orthodoxy to which even Rome does not attain. Sometimes even the Pope does not come up to their expectations.

What is striking about these people is the almost total absence of a sense of love and compassion in their writings and actions. They are only interested in “truth” and “orthodoxy”, as if these things could exist outside of the nitty-gritty of human living. They can be more concerned about the tiniest rubrical details of the liturgy than about the Eucharist as truly a sacrament of a loving community prayerfully centred on the Person of Christ.

On the outside, the behaviour is impeccable, but inside there is a total lack of a true Gospel spirit—the spirit of love and integrity, of compassion and a sense of justice for all. Instead, there can be a heart full of self-righteousness, criticism, anger, resentment or contempt for those who do not think the same, all cloaked in this outer veneer of moral and ritual rectitude.

The two attitudes are closely related and all of us can be touched by them in one degree or another. Let him or her who has never criticised another fellow-Christian cast the first stone!

More

Commentary on 2 Thessalonians 3:6-10,16-18

We have our final reading today from 2 Thessalonians—a short work with only three chapters. The teaching is a warning against people who do not work and do not pull their weight in the community.

It seems that this was partly related to the expectation of the Lord’s imminent second coming among the very early Christians. They believed that Jesus would return while they were still alive. As time passed, this belief receded, and this is reflected in the later books of the New Testament.

If the end of the world was so near, what was the point in killing oneself working? Paul (or the anonymous author of 2 Thessalonians) will have none of that. Paul’s own behaviour is proposed as an example to follow.

Next to the question of the Second Coming, he pays more attention to this related issue than anything else. It seems to have worsened since the earlier letter to the Thessalonians. The Christians are even told to keep away from, and to have nothing to do with, those who will not work. The word Paul uses is strong, an authoritative word with a military ring about it. This would not imply a complete separation from people who were in effect brothers and sisters in Christ, but rather a total refusal to identify with their behaviour. Idleness is sinful and disruptive, but those guilty of it are still brothers. Such behaviour was not at all in accordance with the “traditions” that had been handed on to them.

Instead, the Thessalonians are called on to imitate Paul, to make him their model. The Jerusalem Bible comments:

By imitating Paul, Christians will be imitating Christ, who is himself the one that Paul is imitating. Christians must also imitate God, and they must imitate each other. Behind this community of life is the idea of a model of doctrine, that has been received by tradition. The leaders who transmit the doctrine must themselves be ‘models’, whose faith and life are to be imitated. (edited)

The New International Version makes this comment:

The order in Christian imitation is:

1. Believers in Macedonia and Achaia imitated the Thessalonians, just as the Thessalonians imitated the churches in Judea;
2. the Thessalonians imitated Paul, just as the Corinthians did and just as all believers were to imitate their leaders;
3. Paul imitated Christ as did the Thessalonians;
4. all were to imitate God. (edited)

In case of any misunderstanding, Paul spells out just what he means. Whenever he was with the Thessalonians, he always worked to support himself, and even paid for the food that he was offered. To “eat…bread” is a Hebraic term for ‘making a living’. Paul, of course, does not say he never accepted hospitality (in fact, he says below that it is the missionary’s right), but that he did not depend on others for his general living. He and his companions worked hard “with toil and labor” so as not to be a burden on any community. (We know from elsewhere that Paul was a tent-maker.) They did this, not because they had no right to expect some material support from those to whom they were preaching, but because they wanted to set a good example which they expected the Thessalonians to follow.

It is another example of Paul’s setting aside a principle – in this case, the community’s duty to support the missionary —for something he believed was more important: that each one pull their weight in the community. (Another example is his refraining from eating certain foods which the scrupulous might regard as ‘unclean’ or in having Timothy, who had a Jewish mother and a Gentile father, circumcised, even though he himself did not believe in the necessity of circumcision.)

Paul had even laid down a ruling with them that food was not to be given to those who refused to work. There was apparently a secular proverb in the form, “He who does not work does not eat”. Paul sets it down as a rule to be followed in the community. He clearly had no time for spongers and social parasites, however exalted their motives.

The reading ends with the final blessing of the letter, a prayer of blessing for peace “at all times in all ways”. He then signs off in his own handwriting. Although he normally dictated his letters (there are hints his sight was poor—was this the “thorn…in the flesh” he speaks about in 2 Cor 12:7-10?), he sometimes added a handwritten signature as a sign of the letter’s genuineness. Here he tells us that this practice was his distinguishing mark. And although he had had words of criticisms for his readers, he concludes with a typical prayer that the loving grace of the Lord Jesus be with them all.

We could perhaps reflect today on our attitudes towards work. On the one hand, there are the ‘workaholics’, those who are compulsive workers, irrespective of the need to do what they are doing, or of the rewards it produces. There are others who work very hard simply to earn more and more, often way beyond the needs of a modestly decent standard of living. In both cases, other personal, family and social needs are neglected and the individual, as a result, can suffer. Paul clearly would not approve of this.

On the other hand, there are those who have a strong aversion to work and who will do all they can to live off others, whether that be their family, friends or the state. Paul would not approve of them either.

There are others who work hard and make significant contributions to society, but whose work cannot always be quantified in monetary or economic terms. Two obvious examples are the full-time parent or the adult caregiver of an aging relative. As well, many of those who work for churches or social service organisations serve as volunteers or agree to accept a token salary. They certainly deserve that their needs (not necessarily all their ‘wants’) be provided by the parish or diocesan community. Surely Paul would give his approval here.

So I need to look at my life and see whether, given my various resources, I make an appropriate contribution to my society:

• Do I work too much?
• Do I work enough?
• Do I work as a service to others? Is that how I see the job or profession I am in?
• Do I work only for the material reward?
• Am I sufficiently and appropriately remunerated for the work I do?