More

Commentary on Genesis 32:23-33

We jump a few chapters in our story of Jacob and come to an experience even more strange than the vision of the ladder/staircase going up to heaven. Jacob has been preparing to meet with his estranged brother Esau. He was not at all sure what kind of meeting it was going to be with the brother whom he had cheated out of his birth-right. Each one was now rich and powerful in his own domain.

As our reading opens we are told that Jacob takes his two wives (Rachel and Leah), his two slave-girls and his 11 children (the youngest, Benjamin, has been conceived but not born), together with all his possessions, across the River Jabbok to a safer place while he stays behind alone.

‘Jabbok’ is possibly a play on ‘Jacob’. (The author loves toying with names in this way—see below.) The river is an eastern tributary of the Jordan originating near present-day Amman. It is known today as the Wadi A-Zarqa and flows westwards into the Jordan about 30 km north of the Dead Sea.

Jacob is now alone and then, during the whole night until dawn, he wrestles with an unknown man. As is clear later on, this ‘man’ is a messenger of the Lord, if not the Lord himself, in human form. Is this to be seen as a ‘real’ experience or was it just another dream or some purely internal experience? ‘Wrestled’ in Hebrew (ye’abeq) is a play on ‘Jacob’ (ya‘aqob) and ‘Jabbok’ (yabboq).

Jacob has struggled all his life to prevail, first with Esau, then with Laban, his uncle who is the father of his wife, Rachel. Now, as he is about to re-enter Canaan, he is shown that it is with God that he must “wrestle”. It is God who holds his destiny in his hands.

When the ‘man’ sees that Jacob is getting the upper hand, he strikes Jacob on the hip and dislocates it. The hip socket is in the fleshy part of the thigh. There is a hint of injury to the sexual organs and, indeed, with Benjamin, his 12th and youngest son, already conceived, Jacob will have no more children. God came to him in such a form that Jacob could wrestle with him successfully, yet he also showed Jacob that he could disable him at will.

With the coming of morning the stranger says:

Let me go, for the day is breaking.

But Jacob will not let the man go without receiving his blessing. He seems to suspect the divine origin of his opponent. There is also an indication that Jacob is still having problems over their father’s blessing which he got by deceit. He wants now a direct blessing from God himself.

“What is your name?” asks the stranger. “Jacob” is the reply. Then, the stranger says:

You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with humans and have prevailed.

The probable meaning of the word ‘Israel’ is ‘May God show his strength’, but here it is understood as ‘He has been strong against God’.

At the very moment Jacob reaches full maturity as father and patriarch, his descendants acquire their national name. Later, Israel’s encounters with God will constantly entail intense struggle, with the divine and human alike. God will later confirm Jacob’s new name (Gen 35:10). The present incident, where the name Israel is alluded to, is referred to in a passage from Hosea (12:5) where the mysterious wrestler is explicitly called “the Lord”.

Jacob then asks the stranger his name but the only answer he gets is:

Why is it that you ask my name?

Given that the stranger is God himself, it is wrong to ask such a question and, in any case, it cannot be answered. The name of Yahweh could not be uttered by any observant Israelite, but the man does give Jacob his blessing.

Jacob, however, is now well aware of who the stranger is:

…I have seen God face to face, yet my life is preserved.

In the Hebrew Testament, to look upon the face of God spells instant death, except by special privilege. So in Exodus we read:

Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. (Exod 33:11)

After these encounters his face shone so brightly that he had to keep it veiled when speaking to his countrymen. But God also said to Moses:

…you cannot see my face, for no one shall see me and live. (Exod 33:20)

Only God’s ‘back’ or ‘feet’ or ‘form’, in a symbolic sense, were allowed to be seen.

So Jacob calls the place where he had his experience with the stranger “Peniel”, which means ‘face of God’. The word is a variant of ‘Penuel’, the name of a town on the north bank of the River Jabbok in Gilead.

Then he leaves, limping because of his damaged hip. Limping is a frequent motif in myth and legend (Oedipus, too, limps), suggesting a maturing in his relationship with God, who is the real Lord of his life. It parallels in some ways the experience of Abraham at Moriah where he was told to sacrifice his only son. Although less whole physically, it is precisely through his experience that he becomes more spiritually complete. He is now Israel and not just Jacob.

And, the reading tells us, to this day Jews will not eat the sciatic nerve which runs near the hip, because that is where God had struck Jacob. Although mentioned nowhere else in the Hebrew Testament, this dietary prohibition is found in the later writings of Judaism. Jacob retained in his body, and Israel retained in her dietary practice, a perpetual reminder of this fateful encounter with God.

Finally, the Jerusalem Bible comments on this scene:

“This enigmatic story, probably Yahwistic, speaks of a physical struggle, a wrestling with God from which Jacob seems to emerge victor. Jacob recognises the supernatural character of his adversary and extorts a blessing from him. The text, however, avoids using the name of Yahweh and the unknown antagonist will not give his name. The author has made use of an old story as a means of explaining the name ‘Peniel’ (‘face of God’) and the origin of the name ‘Israel’. At the same time he gives the story a religious significance: Jacob holds fast to God and forces from him a blessing; henceforth all who bear Israel’s name will have a claim on God.

It is not surprising that this dramatic scene later served as an image of spiritual combat and of the value of persevering prayer (e.g. St Jerome and Origen). It was advice that Jesus himself gave, and also St Paul.

More

Commentary on Romans 15:14-21

We begin today the reading of the epilogue to Paul’s rather long letter.  As he comes to the end of his message, he makes some general remarks about issues touching on his evangelising work.

He begins by saying that he is sure they will understand the reason for his writing to them even though the Roman church is not one founded by him, and even though they are:

…full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another.

But he wants to refresh their memories on a few points.  Does this mean that he had written to them earlier, or that he is just referring to general points of Christian teaching known to all?

He reminds them that he had been given a special grace to proclaim the gospel of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, so that they:

…may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

He always sees this as his special calling.  He sees this apostolic calling almost as a liturgical function in which the offerings are those people whom he has brought to Christ and offers to God.  Paul’s priestly function differed from that of the levitical priesthood which involved sacrifices in the Temple.  Paul’s apostolate was to bring Gentiles into the Christian family through preaching the gospel and making the gentile churches an offering in Christ to God.

He then reminds the Romans of what he has achieved:

In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to boast of my work for God.

He is not bragging, for he knows that all he has done has been done through the power of Christ working in and through him:

For I will not be so bold as to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to win obedience from the gentiles, by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit…

Some of these ‘signs and wonders’ are described in the Acts of the Apostles. Paul was not the only evangelist and there were, of course, all those who consolidated the work which he began in each place.

His evangelising extended all the way from Jerusalem to Illyricum—these were the two extremes of his missionary journeys at the time of writing this Letter.  Jerusalem was the home of the Mother Church, from where the preaching of the gospel originated.  It is not certain whether he actually entered Illyricum because there is no mention in Acts of Paul being there.  Illyricum was at this time a Roman province, north of Macedonia (where Paul certainly had gone) in what is now Albania and the former Yugoslavia.

In saying that he has “fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ” in the eastern Mediterranean does not mean that evangelising work has been completed, but only that he has fulfilled his personal mandate which will, of course, have to be continued by the new Christians resident in each place.

He mentions another principle which he strictly observed.  He only preached the gospel in places where it had not been already preached:

I make it my ambition to proclaim the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on someone else’s foundation…

We know that there were other evangelisers and they are mentioned by Paul in his letters.  Paul was guided by a saying from the prophet Isaiah:

…for that which had not been told them they shall see, and that which they had not heard they shall contemplate.
(Is 52:15)

It is something that we might seriously reflect on in our own Church and in our own parishes today.  We would have to admit that a great deal, if not nearly all, of our pastoral energies are directed at the already converted.  Yet there are growing numbers of people even in so-called ‘Catholic’ countries who have never heard the gospel proclaimed.  And, as Paul says earlier in this Letter:

But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? (Rom 10:14)

We too could reflect profitably on some of Paul’s words in today’s reading. We too have been called to be evangelists, to share the gospel message with others. Whatever we accomplish in bringing others to Christ will be his work and not ours alone.  Yet we may be the necessary instruments he needs to use. As well, there are places and people which will never hear the gospel message unless we speak and act. It may even be in our home, in our working place or with our friends.  Let us not deprive them of this grace which could transform their lives.

Two questions we might ask are: How many adults are baptised in our parish every year?  How many ‘lapsed’ members have been brought back in the past year?

More

Commentary on Matthew 23:13-22

We continue with the attack of Jesus on the mentality of the scribes and Pharisees. Keep in mind (as we mentioned last Saturday) that first, we are dealing more with a state of mind than a blanket condemnation of a whole group of people, and second, that the words are mainly to be heard as providing reflection for our own Christian communities and the way we behave.

Today and for the next two days we read of the seven ‘Woes’ that Jesus hurls against corrupt religious leaders. We have seen already how the number seven is a favourite of Matthew.

The Seven Woes are:

1. …you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. (v 13)
   [and] …you devour widows’ houses…(v 14). (This verse is not included in some texts.)
2. …you cross sea and land to make a single convert…(v 15)
3. …you, blind guides who say, ‘Whoever swears by the sanctuary is bound by nothing…’ (vv 16-22)
4. …you tithe mint, dill, and cumin…(vv 23-24)
5. …you clean the outside of the cup and of the plate…(vv 25-26)
6. …you are like whitewashed tombs…(vv 27-28)
7. …you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous…(vv 29-32)

Today we read the first three Woes.

1. …you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven…(v 13) and (not included in some texts) …you devour widows’ houses…(v 14).

Jesus accuses the leaders of closing the entrance to the Kingdom, thus preventing others from going in and not going in themselves either. On the one hand, this can be a reference to their rejection of Jesus who was himself the embodiment of the Kingdom, was preaching the Kingdom and who, by his presence, had made the Kingdom accessible to all who came to him. On the other hand, it can also mean that they made the observance of the Law impossibly difficult by their complex interpretations of what was and was not allowed.

Whether we are parents, or teachers, or priests or religious, we can also by our behaviour both block people’s access to Jesus and be far from him ourselves.

Included here is verse 14, left out of some texts, where Jesus accuses the Pharisees of saying long prayers, but not hesitating to take money (for the Temple, of course) from widows, the poorest of the poor. Considering that widows were among the most destitute and insecure of people in Jewish society, this was exploitation of the most base kind. A comparison in our own day would be with the ways in which some “televangelists” were known to extract money from poor and gullible people who should be receiving rather than giving.

2. …you cross sea and land to make a single convert…(v 15)

While the religious leaders try to prevent people from approaching Jesus, they themselves zealously go to great lengths to make even a single convert, only to make that person even worse than themselves. They do this by corrupting them with false ideas of what true religion is. They fill them with ideas about ritual purification and thus create a false sense of security about what really brings about salvation. At this time, Jewish proselytisation was very active in the Greek and Roman world. Parallels can be found in our own days among Christian groups.

3. …you, blind guides who say, ‘Whoever swears by the sanctuary is bound by nothing’…(vv 16-22)

Here Jesus’ attack is directed at the leaders’ greed and their corruption of religion for material gain. They persuade people to swear by the gold of the Temple and make them pay. People are told not to swear by the altar, but by the gift they have put there. Which is more holy, Jesus asks, the Temple or the gold which the Temple makes holy, the altar or the gift which the altar sanctifies? Again, in the name of holiness, the Pharisee-types are exploiting the poor.

Sadly, today we also see abuse of authority and power—whether in the Church, in government, in business or other arenas—leading to all kinds of greed and corruption which undermine the very fabric of societies. Positions of service are turned into instruments of personal gain, often at the expense of the weakest and the most needy. Countries which long ago should have become rich and prosperous and provided a high quality of life for their people are bankrupt, in every sense of the word, while a small elite live lives of shameless luxury.

The Church, too, can find itself over-concerned with matters of money at the expense of its pastoral mission. A diocese, a parish, a bishop or priest who is rich while living in a world of poverty and need is a major stumbling block to the hearing of the Gospel.

More

Commentary on Matthew 12:46-50

Just before we enter the third of the great discourses on the parables of the Kingdom, we have today’s short passage on who really belongs to Jesus. As Jesus was speaking to the crowds his mother and other family members arrived:

While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him.

Matthew does not say what their words were, but we know from another context (Mark 3:21) that they were embarrassed by what he was doing, probably because of the way he was earning the displeasure of the authorities. In later times, many who opted to follow Christ have been a source of embarrassment and displeasure to their families, especially in situations where being Christian or Catholic was a violation of state law or religious affiliation.

When Jesus is told they are looking for him he stretches out his hands to his followers and says that they are his “mother and brothers”. And then he defines how one becomes one of his brothers and sisters:

…whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.

It is significant that Jesus’ own blood relatives are spoken of as being “outside”; Jesus’ disciples, those who really listen to him, are those who are ‘inside’. This is not to say that Jesus is rejecting his family; to do so would be to contradict his own teaching of loving all unconditionally. But he uses the situation to make a very important point—that relationship to Jesus is based on one thing only, total commitment through Jesus to the Father.

To be a Christian, a disciple, is to enter into this new relationship with God and with others. All other bonds, including those of blood, take a second place or are to be understood in the light of this bonding to God first of all and above all.

It would be wrong to conclude that Jesus was rejecting his own mother here. Yet what he says applies to her as much as to anyone else. Mary is measured by her commitment to the Father and the Son, who is also her Son. That commitment was clearly made when she accepted to be the mother of Jesus:

Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word. (Luke 1:38)

It was a commitment that was still being kept as she stood in grief at the foot of her Son’s cross. Mary was certainly on the ‘inside’. Let us ask her today that we too may always be ‘insiders’.

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 15:1-10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus concludes:

…there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.

“In the presence of angels”, of course, means ‘with God’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

More

Commentary on Hebrews 7:1-3,15-17

We now continue to reflect on the meaning of Jesus Christ as our priest. Today’s reading tells us that Jesus belongs “to the order of Melchizedek”, and discusses both the similarities and differences between the Old Testament figure and Christ.

The author explores the significance of applying Psalm 110 to Christ:

You are a priest forever,
according to the order of Melchizedek. (Ps 110:4)

He relies on the only reference to Melchizedek, a mysterious king-priest, in the Old Testament, where he is described as meeting with Abraham (Gen 14:17-24). The author presumes that he belonged to the beliefs of Israel and not to some other religious group.

As that reading affirms, he is the “king of Salem” and a priest of the Most High God. He encountered Abraham, who was returning from a battle, and blessed him. In return, Abraham gave him “one-tenth of everything”, suggesting that Melchizedek was superior to him. While so doing, we are told that Melchizedek “brought out bread and wine”, and perhaps it is this, in the mind of the author, that partly links Christ’s priesthood and that of Melchizedek, with overtones of the Eucharist.

We are told that Melchizedek means ‘king of righteousness’ and Salem means ‘peace’. Salem, of course, is part of the name of Jerusalem. The messianic blessings of righteousness and peace are foreshadowed in these two names. In modern Arabic, the word for ‘peace’ is salaam.

The more obvious link of Melchizedek with Christ is that Melchizedek has no father, mother or ancestry. His life has no recorded beginning or ending—something rather unusual for a personage in the Old Testament. In this he is seen as similar to the Son of God, one who “remains a priest forever”. The rabbis maintained that anything not mentioned in the Torah does not exist. Consequently, since the Old Testament nowhere mentions Melchizedek’s ancestry, birth, or death, the conclusion can be drawn that he “remains…forever”.

This, says the Letter, is even more obvious when “another priest arises”, resembling Melchizedek in many ways. Like Melchizedek, Christ did not become our priest through the legal requirement of belonging to a particular priestly family (as in the case of the Levitical priesthood). Jesus actually belonged to the non-priestly tribe of Judah.

Christ became priest “through the power of an indestructible life”, brought about by his resurrection. It is his being “raised up” that makes him our priest, rather than his divine nature.

The reading concludes with a repetition of Psalm 110:

You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.

Jesus, then, is our High Priest, but on a totally different level from the priests of the Jerusalem Temple. Again, the writer is emphasising to his Jewish readers the very different status of Jesus compared to the old order to which they are tempted to return.

Sometimes in our Church, we find people who hanker for the past and fail to understand the necessary changes which an incarnated Church needs to make if it is to be able to communicate effectively with a rapidly changing world.

(Note: In our own liturgy, Melchizedek is mentioned, together with Abel and Abraham, in the First Eucharistic Prayer.)

More

Commentary on Romans 1:1-7

Today we return to the New Testament and begin reading Paul’s Letter to the Romans.  This is one of the most important of his letters and one of the key books of the New Testament.  It is listed first among the Pauline letters not only because of its importance, but because it is also the longest (the Pauline letters are listed according to their length and not in chronological order). 

We will spend the whole of the next four weeks on this letter, up to the end of Week 31. The letter seems to have been written in Corinth or nearby Cenchrea (in southern Greece) about the year 57 AD.  By this time, the Christians in Rome were mainly Gentile with Jewish Christians in a minority.

Apparently, Paul was planning a missionary journey to Spain (then a Roman colony) with the intention of using Rome as his headquarters.  He had not yet been to Rome, but must have been informed about the Christian situation there and he must have been known to them. The principal theme of the Letter is the relationship between Christianity and Judaism, a question which is also dealt with in the Letter to the Galatians.  While there is a more urgent tone in the Galatian letter, the Letter to the Romans treats the question in a more measured way. 

Paul was a strong advocate of the freedom from the Law which Christianity brought, and constantly opposed the efforts of some Jewish Christians to re-impose the requirements of the Law, including circumcision.  It is under this heading that the great issue of “justification by faith” is discussed and whose interpretation became the great dividing issue during the Reformation.

In the usual way of the time, the letter begins with greetings—with Paul identifying himself and the church to which he is writing.  But as is usual with Paul, his words are always much more than the banalities that normally accompany the beginnings of letters (including our own).  The very opening words are almost a battle cry: 

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God…

• As a “servant” (Greek, doulos)—The word literally means a ‘slave’, someone who belongs completely to his owner, but it also means ‘servant’, someone who willingly chooses to serve a master.
• As someone “called to be an apostle”—The word ‘apostle’ means someone sent on a special mission. It is used in the Gospel narratives for the Twelve followers Jesus chose to continue his mission.  Paul regarded himself as an Apostle because, like the Twelve, he had seen the risen Christ (on the road to Damascus), and had been given a special mission to bring the gospel to the Gentiles.
• As someone “set apart for the gospel”—His mission was not something he had decided on himself.  Jesus had specially chosen him for a special mission to proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom.  Every one of us is called in this way.  How would I describe my vocation?

In a way, every baptised Christian can say the same in some degree. We are all servants of Jesus, putting ourselves totally at his disposal for his work.  We are all called to be apostles, in the sense that each of us has a mission in our own particular way to proclaim the gospel message. We have all been set apart for the gospel of God, that is, the euanggelion, or “good news” that God brings to the world through Jesus Christ and through each one of his members.  How would I describe my unique vocation?  In what way can I share the gospel with others?

It is interesting that Paul uses the word “gospel” because the four Gospels in the form in which we know them were not yet in existence.  But the idea was already present.  The ‘Good News’ about Jesus was already being proclaimed.  It is a gospel, as Paul implies, which did not just drop out of the sky, but which had long been prepared for by the prophets and teachers of the Hebrew Testament (remember the words of Jesus to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus as he explained the Old Testament to them). In his opening greeting Paul often adds in his own Christian point of view and even anticipates some of the themes of his letter.  In Romans, these themes are:

• God’s freedom to choose his people;
• the connection between faith and being made ‘holy’;
• salvation through Christ’s death and resurrection;
• the harmony of the two Testaments—the Old and the New.

He now describes the gospel he is going to write about:

…the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord…

Here we have the elements of the Incarnation described and the link between Old and New Testaments.

In human terms, Jesus was born a descendant of David, but because God raised him to life through the Holy Spirit, Christ is established in glory as Lord (Kyrios), and meriting in virtue of his work as Messiah-Redeemer King the name he had from all time—the “Son of God”.

And it is through Jesus Christ that:

…we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the gentiles for the sake of his name…

To be with and under Christ is both a ‘grace’, a totally unmerited gift, and a responsibility to be partners with Jesus in bringing peoples everywhere to faith and personal commitment to Christ and the gospel he proclaims.  This is where life in its truest form is to be found.

The Christians of Rome, to whom Paul is writing, are included among these ‘graced’ ones called to live and proclaim the gospel because:

…for the sake of his name…you who are called…belong to Jesus Christ…

Our mission, too, is to spread his name to all those who do not know him, inviting them to submit themselves in faith and trust to Jesus as Lord, as the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Then there comes the end of the initial salutation:

To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

In calling them God’s “beloved” people and “called to be saints”, he is saying that they are ‘holy’, not that they are ready for canonisation.  The word ‘holy’ (hagios) really means ‘set apart’ and is applied to the Christians in general.  All Christians are ‘saints’ in that they are ‘set apart’ by God and are experientially being made increasingly holy by the Holy Spirit working in them.  This ‘setting apart’ is not to be understood as removing themselves from surrounding society; on the contrary they are to be fully inserted in society as Jesus was. 

Only in this way can they be the “salt of the earth” or “the yeast in the dough” or “the light of the world”. And Paul wishes them “grace” and “peace”—grace and peace that only God and his Son can give.  “Grace” can be understood as the tangible experience of God’s love in my life and “peace” is that inner sense of wholeness and harmony with God, with other people, with oneself and one’s whole environment. Could one have more precious gifts or could one wish more precious gifts on another person?

Let us remember today our calling as servants, as apostles and as a people set apart for a very special work, witnessing to Christ and his gospel through the particular circumstances of our lives.

More

Commentary on Isaiah 49:8-15

The reading is part of a celebration of the people’s joyful return from their exile in Babylon to their home in Jerusalem. It comes from Second Isaiah, a book full of hope and consolation which looks forward to the end of the exile and the people’s going home again.

The Hebrews are still in exile, and though their lives are led in hardship and bitterness, the prophet assures them that better times are on the way. In response to the cry of God’s people:

Thus says the Lord:
In a time of favor I have answered you;
on a day of salvation I have helped you.

The reference is probably to the year of jubilee, but the return from exile will bring about the same restoration of land for the people as the jubilee did for those who, because of debt problems, may have had to sell their land.

So the Lord now calls on his people:

…to establish the land,
to apportion the desolate heritages,
saying to the prisoners, “Come out,”
to those who are in darkness, “Show yourselves.”

It is a time for the restoration of justice to all. The end of their sorrows is symbolised in phrases like:

…they shall not hunger or thirst,
neither scorching wind nor sun shall strike them down…

Their God is with them:

…he who has pity on them will lead them
and by springs of water will guide them.

The way will be made clear for their return:

I will turn all my mountains into a road,
and my highways shall be raised up.

He will give them back their land, seized by the foreign invader. He will bring freedom to the prisoners and light to those in darkness. They will be surrounded by fertile lands, untouched by heat or thirst, and will luxuriate in springs of fresh water. The ways to the homeland will be cleared and exiles will return from as far away as the “land of Syene” (or Sinim—now known as Aswan, the first cataract on the River Nile in Egypt).

It is a time for great rejoicing, in which the whole of nature should take part:

Sing for joy, O heavens, and exult, O earth;
break forth, O mountains, into singing!

Yet, Zion is still sceptical:

The Lord has forsaken me;
my Lord has forgotten me.

But they are wrong—utterly wrong. God does not forget his people. He is full of tenderness and compassion, as gentle as that of any mother, expressed in those extraordinarily gentle and affectionate words:

Can a woman forget her nursing child
or show no compassion for the child of her womb?
Even these might forget,
yet I will not forget you.

In our darkest moments, let us not forget the unchanging intensity of God’s love for us.

More

Commentary on Mark 3:1-6

Once again we see Jesus in confrontation with the religious leaders. It follows the same pattern as before between him and his critics, here simply referred to as “they”. But it is quite clear who “they” are.

The scene is in the local synagogue. Once again “they” were looking for evidence with which to convict Jesus. They were watching to see if Jesus would cure a man with a withered hand on a Sabbath day. There is every likelihood that the man was ‘planted’ as a ‘set up’. To use a person with some sort of illness or condition in this way was really despicable.

There is no doubt that Jesus is fully aware of what is happening. Unhesitatingly, he tells the man to come out and stand in the middle of the assembly. Then he puts his question:

Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?

His opponents are reduced to silence. They have neither the honesty nor the integrity to give the obvious answer to the question.

In another example of how Jesus shows his feelings, we are told that he was both grieved and angry at their stubborn attitude. Grieved because their attitude was so inappropriate for people who believed they were close to God. Angry because of the terrible injustice they were prepared to impose on this man. In their book, no suffering justified breaking the Law. But for Jesus, it is not a matter of keeping or breaking laws, but of doing good.

He tells the man to stretch out his withered arm and it is completely cured. The Pharisees—humiliated—immediately went out and began to plot with the Herodians to get rid of Jesus. The Pharisees needed the help of the Herodians (supporters of Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea), if they were to take action against Jesus. This strange alliance shows the extent of the Pharisees’ anger and blinding hatred. The Herodians represented everything the Pharisees despised.

The story once again highlights the difference between morality and law. It was against the Law to do healing work on the Sabbath. This was because, in normal circumstances, the attention of a doctor might involve extensive treatment. But here, the healing is instantaneous. Can it be called work? Can it be seen as a violation of the spirit of the Sabbath?

In this particular case, where the situation was chronic and causing no immediate distress to the man, it is worth noting that the healing could easily have taken place on another day. But Jesus uttered two principles that transcend all positive law:

• It is always justified to do what is good, provided no greater good is denied.
• No truly loving act can ever be sinful even though it may violate a law.

All laws, except for the law of love, are relative. The Law about healing on the Sabbath had good intentions and was part of the observance of the Lord’s day, but it was being absolutised by the Pharisees. This is a tendency in our Christian life which we must also avoid. Even the law about being at Mass on Sunday can be absolutised. Sometimes there are pressing needs, e.g. the care of a sick person or a child, which can override the ‘law’ about Sunday Mass.

Christianity is about loving relationships, not about conformity to laws. Says St Paul:

…if I have all faith so as to remove mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. (1 Cor 13:2)