More

Commentary on Romans 6:12-18

Today we move into chapter 6 of Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Even spreading this letter over four weeks, there are many wonderful passages which have to be omitted. The only solution is to go through the whole letter ourselves in our own time.

Having again spoken of the contrast between Adam and Christ and said some words about baptism, Paul goes on to say that goodness, not sin, must be in charge of our lives. Just before this, he had told the Romans:

The death he died, he died to sin once for all, but the life he lives, he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. (Rom 6:10-11)

And so, Paul continues in today’s reading:

Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal bodies, so that you obey their desires. No longer present your members to sin as instruments of unrighteousness…

Though baptism destroys sin in us, as long as we are still in this world and our body has not yet “put on immortality” (1 Cor 15:54), sin can still find a way to reassert itself in a ‘mortal’ body, where sensuality still has a hold. Instead, we are to surrender ourselves totally to God, as people who have been brought to life from the death of sin. We are to offer all our human capacities—spiritual, intellectual, emotional, social—to God so that they will become instruments leading us to goodness of life:

For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Paul conceived of sin as a power that enslaves, and so personified it. ‘Not under law’ means no longer under the regime of the Mosaic Law, whose external observance was the basis for the Jewish way of life.

He is certainly not saying that the Christian has been freed from all moral authority. Law, by itself, provides no enablement to resist the power of sin. On the contrary, violation of the Law only increases the awareness of sin. Grace, on the other hand, enables and liberates. Its only law is the law of love (agape-love).

Apparently some people were countering that, if we are no longer bound by the Law, but by ‘grace’, then people could do what they liked. “By no means!” thunders Paul. That seemed to be Luther’s position with his famous dictum of Pecca fortiter (Sin vigorously). Luther seemed to say that once we have committed ourselves in faith to Jesus as Lord, our sinfulness, which will inexorably continue, will be ‘over-looked’ or ‘covered over’ by Christ’s grace. We saw that Luther’s interpretation of Paul was partly influenced by his own apparent impotence in overcoming his lower appetites. He needed a way to be with Christ even in his sinfulness.

However, even this is not quite the same as saying that, once we are under grace, we can throw morality to the winds, that we can do what we absolutely like with impunity. No Christian could hold that position. We part company with Luther when he says that we are powerless to become better people, good people.

Paul totally rejects the idea that, with grace, we can forget about moral behaviour. To have committed oneself to Christ totally must result in an inner transformation which steers us in the direction of goodness and love. To be in Christ is to be free, not freedom to sin, but freedom not to sin. True freedom is the ability to choose the good. Sin, as a choice of evil, can never be an expression of true freedom; it is an abuse of freedom.

The Jerusalem Bible comments on the freedom that comes from Christ:

“Christ has freed human beings from evil so as to restore them to God. Paul develops the biblical ideas of ‘redemption’ and of liberation from death, and in order to bring out their implication makes frequent use of a metaphor that his contemporaries would find impressive: the slave redeemed and set free who can be a slave no longer, but must serve his new master freely and faithfully. Christ has paid for our redemption with his life; and he has made us permanently free. The Christian must be careful not to let himself be caught again by those who once owned him, i.e. by sin; the Law, with its ritual observance; the principles of the world; and corruption. He is a free man, son of a free mother, i.e. the spiritual Jerusalem. This liberty is not licence to sin. It means serving a new master, God, the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom the Christian now belongs, for whom he lives and dies; this obedient service is prompted by faith and leads to righteousness and holiness. This is the sort of freedom a son has, one who has been made free by ‘the law of the Spirit’. And, he must be prepared to surrender his own freedom to serve his neighbour in charity and respect if someone else’s scruples require it. Slavery as a social institution may be tolerated in a society that is, after all, transient. It has no real significance in the new order established by Christ: the Christian slave has been enfranchised by the Lord Christ, and the slave and his master are equally servants of Christ.” (edited and textual references omitted)

Paul then goes on to distinguish two kinds of slavery:

Do you not know that, if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

To become a slave is to be put under the will and control of another person. To be the slave of sin can only result in death, but to be truly obedient to righteousness leads to life.

The word ‘obedience’ contains the root of the verb ‘to hear’. To turn a deaf ear to goodness and submit to evil leads to sin and death. To listen to the voice of goodness and submit to it is the way to life.

We have a striking example in Jesus who, in obedience to his Father, offered up his whole body in life and in death for our liberation. In his Letter to the Philippians, Paul says that Jesus:

…emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, assuming human likeness. And being found in appearance as a human, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross. (Phil 2:7-8)

We, because of and through Christ, have exchanged one form of slavery for another:

But thanks be to God that you who were slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted and that you, having been set free from sin, have become enslaved to righteousness.

To “become obedient” implies willing submission and not an obedience that is forced, imposed or legalistic. Christians have changed masters. From being slaves to sin, they have become slaves to ‘righteousness’, to that inner goodness that results from opening oneself to the love of God that comes through ‘grace’.

On the other hand, being ‘under the law’ meant looking for personal salvation by obeying external rules and regulations. As we see in the case of many Pharisees, it led to arrogance and a very dangerous kind of inner corruption. Such a corruption can infect us Christians too, if we are not careful. When we surrender to a life of sin, we are headed for death. When we surrender ourselves to God it leads to justice, to goodness. Paradoxically, to become the slave of “justice”, or righteousness, is to become free.

Freedom, as we said, is the ability to identify totally with the good. To use one’s freedom to sin is a contradiction. True freedom enables us to choose the good and loving act at all times and in every situation.

Although some may not see it that way, there is no one who enjoys more real freedom than the one who is totally committed to the Way of Jesus. Because it is the Way, it is the Vision of life, to which we are called by the deepest needs of our being.

More

Commentary on 1 Maccabees 6:1-13

We read today of the end of the reign of King Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who caused such sufferings to the Jews, as we have seen. Disasters now overtake him, resulting in his sickness and death. For the author of First Maccabees the reason is clear—his desecration of God’s holy city of Jerusalem.

In terms of strict chronology, this episode of the king’s death should really be recorded before the Dedication of the Temple which we saw in yesterday’s reading. The reading begins by telling us that Antiochus was making his way through the Upper Provinces of his empire, that is, inland to the east. Reports had reached him of a city called Elymais which was extremely wealthy with silver and gold. There was a temple there full of golden armour which had been left there by Alexander the Great, who was the son of Philip of Macedon, the first king of all the Greeks. This was the temple of Nanaea-Artemis.

In fact, there is no town of this name known. ‘Elymais’ is the Greek form of Elam, which refers to the country around Susa, the old capital of Persia, close to where the River Tigris runs into the Persian Gulf. The term more strictly refers to the mountainous region north of Susa.

Antiochus attacked the city, but was unable to take it because, as we are told, the inhabitants had forewarning of the attack. In Second Maccabees we read:

When the leader reached Persia with a force that seemed irresistible, they were cut to pieces in the temple of Nanea [a Persian counterpart of the Greeks’ Artemis] by a deception employed by the priests of the goddess Nanea.
(2 Macc 1:13)

First Maccabees does not mention this and may not know of it. The author says that the king was routed in battle and had to retreat to Babylon which lay some distance to the northwest on the River Euphrates.

On top of this, more bad news reached the king. His armies which had invaded Judaea had been routed, and one of his top generals, Lysias, in particular, who had advanced with massive strength, had been forced to flee before the Jews. The Jews, in turn, were now more powerful than ever thanks to the large amounts of weapons they had captured in their victories.

They had also pulled down the “abomination”—the altar to Zeus which Antiochus had erected in the Jerusalem Temple—and rebuilt the old walls which surrounded the sanctuary and fortified Beth-Zur, one of the king’s cities.

All of this was too much for Antiochus, who was shocked and profoundly shaken by the turn of events. These defeats—and perhaps the overthrow of the statue of all the all-powerful gods, Zeus and Baal (in whom he believed), filled him with grief and undermined his health. He took to his bed, fell sick with grief because things had turned out so badly for him. After spending some days confined to his bed, with recurrent attacks of melancholy and depression, he realised that his end was near. It was time for him to make his peace with his gods.

On his deathbed, he summons all his “Friends”, that is, his close associates and ministers, and makes a deathbed speech. He cannot sleep and he is overcome with anxiety about his fate. He wonders how he could have come to such a state of distress, considering how generous and well-loved he was in his heyday. He remembers only the favours he showered on those who were close to him, but seems to have been completely unaware of the depth of suffering that he had caused in the peoples he had conquered and over-run. How many other authoritarian tyrants have felt the same—that all they did was for the good of their people? Dictators come to believe their own propaganda.

However, Antiochus does remember now how wrongly he acted in Jerusalem, when he plundered the Temple of all its sacred vessels and ordered the extermination of the people of Judah “without good reason”. He is now convinced that this is the reason why so many misfortunes have overtaken him and why he is dying miserable, “perishing of bitter disappointment in a strange land”. It is the just punishment for all he did against God’s people. There is an element of true repentance in his words and for this he lays himself open to God’s mercy.

Technically speaking, he was not dying in a “strange land” because Persia still was part of his Seleucid Empire. This book says the king’s death was punishment for the pillaging of the Temple in Jerusalem, but Second Maccabees says it was for plundering the temple of Artemis. Second Maccabees also says, as we saw from the quotation above, that the king died in this temple, having walked into the trap set for him and his ‘Friends’ by the priests of the temple.

Actually, Antiochus must have died before all of this, but the author has to adapt his story to fit the time frame he has chosen. As we saw in speaking of the Dedication feast yesterday, it is likely that it was because the king was already dead that Judas Maccabeus was able to seize the Temple in Jerusalem. As far as we are concerned, it is not an important point because it does not alter the basic meaning of the story and what it might say to us.

How do we think our lives will be evaluated by those who have known us in life? Do we believe ourselves to be more kindly and compassionate than we actually are? What actions of ours in the past do we now see were very wrong and unjust? What amends can we make, for it is never too late to turn ourselves round. We cannot undo what has been done, but we can act to make a radical change in our lives and relationships from today on.

More

Commentary on Luke 18:35-43

Here we have Luke’s version of the story of the blind man, called by Mark, Bar-Timaeus—the son of Timaeus.

In Mark, the story is strategically placed at the end of a long teaching section where Jesus’ disciples are slowly deepening their understanding of Jesus and his mission. The story, full of symbols, sums up all that has gone before. It is like a mini-gospel (see the commentary for Thursday of Week 8 in Ordinary Time).

In Luke, the story has also a very significant positioning. It falls between two other stories, both about rich people. One was a highly religious man who was not able to accept Jesus’ condition that he share his wealth with the poor before becoming a disciple. The other is about a man who supposedly was anything but religious and yet, after meeting Jesus, gives away a large proportion of his wealth to the poor. Which of these was really blind?

In addition, the first story of a rich man is followed by the third prediction of Jesus’ suffering, death and resurrection, after which, says Luke, the disciples did not understand what Jesus was talking about:

But they understood nothing about all these things; in fact, what he said was hidden from them, and they did not grasp what was said. (Luke 18:34)

His Apostles—they too are blind.

As the story opens, we are told that Jesus was approaching Jericho. Jericho was already a very ancient city, located about 8 km west of the River Jordan and about 25 km north-east of Jerusalem. In Jesus’ time, the Jericho of the Old Testament was largely abandoned, but a new city, south of the old one, had been built by Herod the Great. It was the last main stop for Jesus before arriving in Jerusalem.

In Mark’s version, Jesus is leaving Jericho, but here Luke has Jesus approaching the city. Mark has Jesus leaving Jericho on the way to Jerusalem and his passion, and the blind man becomes his follower. Luke has Jesus going into and through Jericho on the way to Jerusalem because he wants to bring in Zacchaeus (a rich man whose eyes are opened by Jesus), a story not mentioned by either Mark or Matthew.

Luke’s story begins with a blind man sitting beside the road begging (in Matthew’s account, there are actually two blind men; see Matt 20:29-34). As we have mentioned before, the ‘road’ is the Way to Jerusalem on which all of Jesus’ disciples must walk together with him. When the beggar hears that Jesus is passing by he begins to call out in a loud voice:

Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!

By addressing Jesus as ‘Son of David’, he implies Jesus’ role as Messiah-King.

The people tell him to keep quiet. A useless beggar like him has no right disturbing the Master. But the man ignores them and keeps crying out (in this he reminds us of the persistent widow we read about the other day). Then, Jesus stops. If the man had not kept calling out, Jesus might not have heard him and might have passed forever out of his life. How often does that happen to us?

Jesus orders the man to be brought to him. Again, it is always through other people that we come to know Jesus—and sometimes it will be through me, and only through me, that others will come to know him. I may be the only link that a person has with Jesus—something to think about. On the other hand, I may be the one person who blocks someone approaching Jesus and his Way. We saw earlier what happens to those who are a ‘scandal’, a stumbling block to Jesus.

Jesus asks:

What do you want me to do for you?

It is a question that he keeps asking me. How do I answer? Have my answers changed over the years? Today let me reflect on what I really want from him. And ask him for it.

Now listen to this man’s response to Jesus’ question:

Lord, let me see again.

Of course, one might think, it was a natural response from a person who was blind. But in a wider sense, so is each one of us. We all need to see. It is our poor sight that prevents us from knowing Jesus and seeing where he wants us to go. We could hardly make a better request.

Jesus immediately responds:

Receive your sight; your faith has saved you.

If only we too had the faith that would help us to see clearly!

And what did the man do when he could see? He became a follower of Jesus and gave glory to God. No longer blind, no longer a beggar, no longer by the road, but on the road with Jesus. On the road—and Jesus is the Road, the Way—to Jerusalem and all that it means. That is the natural response for those who can really see.

Just before this (not part of our readings), the rich man who wanted “eternal life” was not able to “see” and so could not accept Jesus’ invitation. In contrast, tomorrow we will meet someone who did have his eyes opened and responded generously.

The story also applies to Jesus’ disciples who gradually will have their eyes opened too, and then they will understand why Jesus had to suffer and die on his way to glory. They will understand that it was the uttermost proof of God’s love for each one of us.

More

Commentary on Luke 10:21-24

As Christmas and all it means approaches, the Gospel reminds us of the tremendous privilege that has come to us through our knowing Jesus Christ:

Blessed are the eyes that see what you see! For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see but did not see it and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

These words were spoken by Jesus just after seventy-two of his disciples had returned from their mission of proclaiming the Kingdom and doing the same work as he was doing. They echo words he had spoken to them earlier:

To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but to others I speak in parables, so that
‘looking they may not perceive and
hearing they may not understand.’ (Luke 8:10)

These words imply, not that only the disciples are offered insight and understanding, but rather that the disciples are, by definition, those who open themselves to hear and to see and to understand the message.

So for us, today is a day of special thanksgiving for being so blessed. But with privilege comes responsibility. It is for us to see more clearly who Jesus really is, and to have a deeper understanding of his vision and of his ways. It is for us to listen ever more acutely to the Word of God so that it really penetrates our consciousness and is absorbed into our very being.

More

Commentary on Colossians 3:12-17

Today we have the final reading from this Letter and it is a continuation of yesterday’s reading. After warning against some negative behaviour in yesterday’s passage, Paul makes some beautiful statements today on the kind of people the Colossian Christians should be.

The Colossians are “God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved” and, because of that, they are to be clothed in “compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience.” When they ‘clothed’ themselves with Christ at their baptism, all these qualities also needed to be part of what they ‘wore’.

Israel was the original Chosen People, but now the Christian community shares this name. Being chosen by God is a constant theme in Paul’s letter, but the Scriptures never teach that our being chosen frees us from being responsible for our behaviour. We will not be saved against our will.

On the contrary, as Paul says here, it is precisely because Christians have been chosen for eternal salvation that they must exert every effort (with God’s grace) to live a life in harmony with the example set by Christ. For Paul, divine kingship and human responsibility go hand in hand.

They are, he says, God’s “chosen ones, holy and beloved” (Greek, hagioi meaning ‘set apart’ or ‘saint’). In saying this, he does not mean that they are all canonisable; that was clearly not the case. The term ‘saint’ was applied to the Christians in general. Their holiness was less a matter of their own efforts than their having been sanctified through Baptism and their incorporation into the Christian community. They were ‘holy’ by reason of their being called, being chosen. As Jesus told his disciples at the Last Supper:

You did not choose me, but I chose you. (John 15:16)

The word hagios also implies someone who is different, set apart from the common crowd. Christians, by their lifestyle, are called to act as a counter-witness to the prevailing values of most societies—the salt of the earth, the leaven in the dough.

Frictions, divisions and disunity can never be totally avoided, but Paul says they must be dealt with by a high level of tolerance and acceptance of others and a readiness for forgiveness and reconciliation. The reason is simple:

…the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.

The Gospel has much to say on this. Examples include Peter being told to forgive 70 times 7 times, the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt 18:21-35), and the command to love our enemies, to pray for them and bless them (Matt 5:44).

And so, the most important, the all-enveloping article of clothing must be love:

…which binds everything together in perfect harmony.

Love (Greek, agape) is the central commandment. The ‘new’ commandment is that we love each other as Christ has loved us and the greatest love is to give one’s life for one’s friends. With this in place, everything else—absolutely everything else—is taken care of.

If all this is done, then the next prayer is likely to become a reality:

And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body.

Once we are totally united with Christ and his way of living, then we are where we belong; we are responding to the deepest needs of our being—the result can only be a sense of inner peace and harmony, even if all round us there are storms. (That surely is the meaning of the story of the disciples in the boat with Jesus in a stormy sea. With Jesus in the boat, there came a great calm.)

And when that peace comes, let us also be thankful. Gratitude is a sentiment that must surface constantly in the Christian heart as gifts are piled on us one after the other, beginning with the very gift of life and the gift of the Good News about Jesus. Our most important act together is the celebration of the Eucharist. The word eucharistia is Greek, meaning ‘thanksgiving’.

In the final part of the reading, Paul speaks about how the Colossians should pray and worship together:

• Let the Word of Christ, in all its richness, find a home in you.
  This refers especially to Christ’s teaching, which in the time of the Colossians was still being transmitted orally. By implication and, especially for us, it includes the Old and the New Testaments. It is a sad fact that, for so many Catholics, the Word of Christ in the Scriptures does not find a home in their lives. For so long the teaching Church was so wary of ‘private interpretation’ that Catholics were discouraged from reading even the Gospels. It is a situation which urgently needs to be remedied and these commentaries on the daily Mass readings are intended to be a small contribution in that direction.
• Teach and admonish one another in all wisdom.
  What we need is not just knowledge or information about our faith, but the wisdom which comes from deep insight into its meaning for our lives. There is also a wisdom in the whole group, which individuals do not have.

Again, for so many Catholics, ‘teaching’ is what goes on in school under the heading of ‘religious knowledge’, but long experience has shown that it all too often does very little to build up a deep faith and sense of belonging in the Christian community. It is often totally divorced from both family and parish life. In more recent times, there have been movements towards more ‘faith sharing’ and ‘Bible sharing’. The whole of the liturgical experience, too, and not just the homily, should be a mutually teaching experience of what it means to belong to a Christian community.

• With gratitude in your hearts sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God.
  Some of the most important doctrines were expressed in Christian hymns preserved for now only in Paul’s letters. “Psalms” could also describe a song newly composed for Christian worship (for example, see 1 Cor 14:26, where ‘hymn’ is written as ‘psalm’ in the Greek text). A “hymn” was a song of praise, especially used in a celebration, much like the Old Testament psalms that praised God for all that he is. A “song” recounted the acts of God and praised him for them, much like the Old Testament psalms that thanked God for all that he had done. “Spiritual songs” could be charismatic improvisations suggested by the Spirit during liturgical assembly.

Paul here is expressing our need to come together to pray and share our faith and to praise and give thanks to our God and Jesus his Son. Again, this is something to be done in a genuinely communal spirit of celebration and prayer and not merely as the carrying out of a command or obligation by an individual. For us, it concerns the way we conduct our liturgies, especially that of the Eucharist.

For congregations where the vast majority could not read or write, songs were an important part of worship and prayer and that is probably the same in some parts of the world today. Literacy has had the very negative effect, again in mainly Catholic circles, of reducing the role of music and song in our worship, especially where the active participation of the congregation is concerned. Yet, someone said very truly that “he who sings prays twice”. One has only to attend Masses where there is no music and those where the whole congregation sings (and even dances) to appreciate the difference. It is time we took Paul’s advice more to heart.

Paul sums up his exhortation by urging that:

…whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

In our liturgies, every prayer we make to the Father is made:

…through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Every single thing we Christians do is done for him. All is for the greater glory of God. We try to seek and find and respond to him in every experience, in every person we meet. We wish that our every thought, intention, action and response be directed solely to the praise and service of our Lord. Let us learn to be aware that every moment, every happening of our day is a sacred point of contact with God.

So there are two short prayers we might make at the beginning of every day:

• Grant, Lord, that all my thoughts, words, actions and responses may be directed solely to your love and service this day,

and

• Help me, Lord, to seek, to find and to respond to you in every person and in every experience of this day.

And, of course, these prayers can be repeated as a reminder during the day. At the end of the day it is a good custom to make a brief review of where we met Christ during the past day and how we responded to his presence. It will be a time for praise, repentance, discernment and thanksgiving.

More

Commentary on 1 John 3:11-21

Today we have a very rich passage on the centrality of love in our Christian life. All our Christian living can be summarised in the opening sentence:

…that we should love one another.

It is all we need, all the rest is icing on the cake. And so, we are not, for instance, to follow the example of Cain who killed his brother simply out of jealousy and spite:

And why did [Cain] murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous.

And so, we should not be in the least surprised if the world, that is, the world of sin and self-centredness, hates us and wants to do us harm. It is, of course, happening all the time. As loving Christians, we would like to be loved in return. We might think that, as a loving people, it should be people’s natural reaction to return our love. But the example of Cain is still to be found everywhere—even inside the Church at times. People are hated so often, not because they are bad, but because they are good. Goodness for some people can be very threatening. Countless Christian martyrs have lost their lives simply because of this.

At the same time, the only valid sign that we are truly alive is the love that we show for our brothers and sisters, irrespective of the response we may get. Anyone—and not just any Christian—who hates a brother or sister is already a murderer and is himself dead. The life of God is not in that person. As the letter will say later on:

God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them. (1 John 4:16)

Without love, I am as good as dead.

Like Jesus himself, we have to love others to the point of being ready even to lose our lives for them. And on a very practical level, we block God’s love from working in us if we refuse to share what we have with those who are in need (see James 2:14-17). God’s love can only work in us when we allow it to pass through us to others. In fact, it is that sharing of love which is the outward sign that we are united to the love of God.

Genuine love is found in actions and in truth and not in mere pious-sounding words. We might, however, observe that there can be times when expressing love through words is both more difficult and more effective than by doing what we regard as a loving act. For example, it may be easier to send a gift to someone anonymously than to say, face to face, “I love you” or “I forgive you from the bottom of my heart”. It is in this transparent love for others—including those we do not know or who are against us—that we know we are living Truth and will experience peace.

We are not necessarily living in truth simply because we adhere to orthodox teaching. No one was more orthodox than the classical Pharisee, and no one further away from the love and compassion of God. ‘Truth’ in the New Testament, and especially in John, means much more than being in possession of right ideas. It includes our whole way of living as being in total harmony with the Way of life presented to us in the gospel and the New Testament. It embraces not only the way we understand God and life, but also how we live our lives in relation to God and every other person.

Finally, the reading says:

God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.

God is greater than our conscience. That is to say, he sees far more deeply into the truth and goodness of things than we ever can and, at the same time, his love and compassion will go far beyond anything we could expect for ourselves. The extent of God’s Truth and Love will always be totally beyond our grasp.

But the passage ends with a statement that should be writ large in our lives as an unquestioned and unquestionable principle:

Beloved, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have boldness before God…

There is no higher court of appeal than an honest following of our conscience (“our hearts”). That is not to say that our conscience is always right. But if we are honest, we are always ready to learn more, to have a second look and to see things in a different way. If we look at our lives, we will see that our grasp of truths and values constantly changes. The Church itself constantly changes according to the phrase, Ecclesia semper reformanda—a Church that always needs to see and do things in a new way. Truth is not a given; it is discerned at the end of a long search, a search that will never end until we come face to face with Truth.

At any given time, then, we have no other choice but to follow, as honestly as possible, what our conscience tells us is true and good. Even the gospel and the solemn teaching of the Church (magisterium) cannot transcend the final court of conscience. If I do decide always to follow the gospel or the magisterium, that is ultimately my decision, and one that no one else can make for me. But I must maintain that openness and readiness to see that, what I once thought was true and good, may need to be revised.

More

Commentary on Matthew 5:43-48

We come to the last of the six examples that Jesus gave in his Sermon on the Mount as illustrations of how he brings the teaching of the Law to a higher and more perfect plane. In today’s Gospel, Jesus says to his disciples:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

This saying is not found as such in the Hebrew Testament. Rather we find in the book of Leviticus that it says:

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself… (Lev 19:18)

The wording here would seem to condone, however, acts of revenge against strangers and outsiders. And in practice, as indeed is the case in many communities throughout the world, the saying of Jesus reflects the way many people feel is a justified way of acting. And as we saw earlier on where Jesus spoke about anger, at least limited revenge was condoned in the phrase “an eye for an eye”.

Again, Jesus turns things on their head with a saying which many people would find quite unrealistic, if not downright stupid. He tells us actually to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us. How can we be asked to do such a thing?

Yet, if we would only reflect a little, the advice of Jesus makes a great deal of sense and, in fact, is really the only way to go for our own happiness and peace. Otherwise, as Jesus says, his listeners were no different from “tax collectors”, a group who, because they worked for the occupying power, were held in special contempt—or pagans, that is, people who lived godless lives.

To understand what Jesus is saying we need to clarify two words, ‘love’ and ‘enemies’. Who are our enemies? They can be either the people that we are hostile towards, or the people who are hostile to us.

The practising Christian who takes on board the teaching of Jesus will want to have positive attitudes to people in general, and will not marginalise anyone on the basis of race, nationality, colour, class, gender or other personal characteristics. Such a person will not want to act in a way to create hostility in others unnecessarily.

However, simply because we try to look and act positively towards others is no guarantee that they will act in the same way towards us. Through no objective fault of our own, we may become the object of their dislike, resentment, hatred, jealousy, anger and even violence. These are our enemies, and we are to love them.

But what does ‘love’ mean here? The word that the Gospel uses is a verb from the Greek noun agape. Agape is a unilateral way of loving by which, irrespective of the actions or attitudes of another person, I desire their well-being. It is the love which God extends to every one of his creatures, irrespective of how they respond to him. In this it is quite different from the love which involves sharing, intimacy, affection and a strong element of mutual giving.

We are not being asked to love our enemies with the love of affection—to be ‘in love’ with them, or even to be fond of them. That would not make sense and they would not want it. But we are asked to reach out and desire their well-being. This can be done when we focus our attention and our concern more on them than on ourselves.

When we are the objects of other people’s hostility we tend to go on the defensive and to generate negative attitudes towards the other. Our inner security (or insecurity) is under attack. Instead, Jesus is asking us to respond to the real situation rather than to react to spontaneous feelings.

When someone hates me, attacks me or is angry with me for no reason that I can think of, instead of feeling sorry for myself, I can choose to ask, “What is wrong with that person? Why is that person acting in that way? What is bothering that person? Is there any way I can help to dissolve this person’s negative behaviour, which is probably a sign of some inner self-hating or insecurity on their part?”

And certainly when I begin to think in this way, it becomes perfectly natural to pray for that person, to pray for their inner healing, for a restoration of peace and inner security. To hate someone who hates me, to be violent with someone who is violent with me, simply means that there are twice as many problems as there were at the beginning. By responding in the way that Jesus suggests, we end up with no problem at all!

And Jesus gives us another motive for acting in this way—it is the way God himself acts. He causes the hot, merciless sun to shine on the good as well as the bad; the cool, refreshing rain falls equally on the bad as well as the good. What Jesus is saying is that God’s love, his agape, reaches out indiscriminately to every single person, irrespective of their behaviour. The passage ends with Jesus saying:

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Perfection here refers to that unconditional agape love that God extends to every single person. If we are to grow into the likeness of God and give witness to his presence in the world, we need to act in exactly the same way. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if people followed Jesus’ advice? Far from being impractical, it is the only way to go.

More

Commentary on Matthew 7:6,12-14

Today’s passage from the Sermon on the Mount contains three apparently unrelated teachings of Jesus. Verses 7-11 about prayer, which intervene, are omitted. We need to remind ourselves that the Sermon on the Mount is not a verbatim record of a ‘sermon’ preached by Jesus. It is a highly edited collection of sayings on the general theme of the qualities to be found in a true disciple of Jesus.

First, Jesus says:

Do not give what is holy to dogs…

That is, consecrated meat from animals sacrificed in the Temple should not be given as food for dogs. We need to remember that for the Jews (as for the Muslims) dogs are unclean animals, so that is an extra reason for not giving them meat consecrated for purposes of divine worship. We may remember the remark of Jesus to the Syro-Phoenician woman about not giving the food of children to dogs, a reference to Gentiles who were also thought to be unclean. Or the humiliation of Lazarus in Luke’s parable, who was so helpless that he could not prevent dogs licking his sores.

Similarly, as the passage continues, something as precious as pearls should not be given to pigs, another unclean animal. Again we remember in the parable of the Prodigal Son, how after hitting rock bottom, the only job he could find was to feed pigs and he was so hungry he would have eaten the pigs’ food.

In other words, Jesus is advising his followers not indiscriminately to expose their beliefs to all and sundry. While, in one sense, the Christian Way is for all, there are people who are not ready to hear it and will not just reject it, but subject it to ridicule. This would especially apply to certain Christian practices such as the celebration of the Eucharist or other sacraments. We do not accept people into the Catholic community except after a long period of formation and initiation. Faith in Christ is a gift and not everyone receives it at once.

The second saying in today’s Gospel is the famous ‘Golden Rule’, which is not exclusive to Christianity or the Gospel—it is known in other cultures. What might be emphasised here is its being expressed in positive terms. There is also a negative form which states, “Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you”. There is a difference between the two. You can observe the negative maxim by doing nothing at all. The positive can only be observed by doing some good action to others and is therefore much more in line with the general teaching of Jesus.

In the third saying today, Jesus contrasts the narrow gate with the wide road. To follow the wide road is to do just about anything you feel like doing. It is to follow your likes and dislikes, your instincts and whims wherever they lead you. That is going to include following roads of greed and self-centredness, of lies and deceit, perhaps even of violence and hurt. It is clearly not a way of life.

The narrow gate is not to be narrow-minded. It is rather to be very clearly focused on certain very specific ways of thinking and acting, having one’s life guided by a clear set of truths, principles and values—those truths, principles and values which form the core of the Gospel’s teaching. In other words, the Way of Christ. It is a way that leads to life.

It is a hard road only in the sense that it requires discipline, and it is true that relatively few people find it. But in the long run, it is the easier way because it conforms more to the deepest needs and desires of the human person. The Way of Jesus is not an eccentric choice of lifestyle, one religion among many; rather it is in total harmony with all that human life is meant to be. But there is no doubt that the wide undisciplined road is the easier one to follow—even though in the long run it does not bring happiness.

More

Commentary on Mark 6:45-52

Today’s Gospel follows immediately on yesterday’s account of the feeding of the 5,000. We are told that Jesus “made” his disciples get into the boat and precede him to the far side of the lake. Jesus himself sent the crowd away. The use of the word “made” implies that they did not go very willingly.

From John’s version of this story we know that the people were very excited about what had happened and wanted to make Jesus king. One can imagine that the disciples too were basking in the reflected glory and popularity of their Master.  Jesus would have none of it. He, first of all, packed off his disciples in the boat, and then sent the crowds away. He himself retired to the mountains to pray. Was Jesus himself tempted by the enthusiasm of the crowds? Here was the crowd, literally eating out of his hand. What a wonderful opportunity to win them over to his Way! But he knows that that is not the way it is going to happen. He retires to the remoteness of the mountains and renews his closeness to his Father and his desire to do only his Father’s will.

In the meantime, a storm had come up on the lake and the disciples’ boat was being tossed about dangerously. (It is known that sudden storms are a feature of the Sea of Galilee.) The disciples were in big trouble. Jesus sees them and comes to them walking on the water, but makes as if to pass them by. They thought he was a ghost and were even more afraid. Then he spoke to them:

Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.

As soon as Jesus got into the boat, the wind died down. They were utterly “astounded”, because, says the Evangelist:

…they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.

In reading this story we need to go beyond merely a manifestation of God’s power in Jesus, a power that can even control the elements. The story has strong symbolic overtones. Here, as elsewhere, the boat with the disciples on board is a symbol of a Christian community. The sea surrounding it is the world. Sometimes that world gets very stormy and seriously threatens the very existence of the community.

Jesus suddenly appears and seems to be passing by. He is never far away, but he does need to be called. The disciples’ reaction, far from being comforted, was one of terror. All they saw was a ghost. They did not believe it could really be him—they thought him far away, still on land.

Then Jesus speaks: “It is I”. Literally, in Greek, ego eimi, translated, “I AM”—God’s own name—and he tells them to “not be afraid”. With Jesus, there is never anything to fear, because perfect love casts out all fear.

As well, as soon as Jesus steps into the boat, there is a calm. Is the calm just in the sea or is the deeper calm in the hearts of the disciples, knowing that Jesus is with them? Jesus is the source of true peace.

The disciples are “astounded” because they did not yet understand what had happened during the feeding of the 5,000. Jesus will bring this up again with them later on (see Mark 8:17-21). They only saw a miraculous multiplication; they missed, as probably most of the crowd did, the deeper meaning of the event as a tangible expression of God’s love and care for his people. The same care was at work in the boat. And this message is clear for every Christian community today.

More

Commentary on Exodus 20:1-17

Yesterday we saw Moses go up Mount Sinai at the invitation of Yahweh. God repeated his warnings about the people not approaching the mountain, but made an exception when he told Moses to go down to the people and then return with his brother Aaron.

Immediately after this and with no introduction, we are given the Ten Commandments and the Book of the Covenant, a book of laws dealing with matters of worship and moral behaviour. These are clearly developed documents and not to be understood as words literally dictated to Moses. They have been artificially inserted into the narrative here.

The Decalogue is the core of the Mosaic Law and hence is put at the beginning. In Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes hold an analogous position in the New Law of the New Moses. As instruction and deterrent, the Decalogue is still valid in the New Law, but Jesus pushes its interpretation to a much deeper level. St Paul’s attack on the Law in Romans and Galatians, is not directed against the essential teaching of these commandments, but rather at the way they were being interpreted.

There is a dispute in the actual listing of the Ten Commandments, as Catholics follow one listing and many Protestants another. The First Commandment of Catholics is divided into two by Protestants. It is possible that each of the commandments was originally as short as the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th and the enlargements for the other commandments may be due to editors.

We also normally divide the list into two sections—the first three dealing with God and the second seven dealing with the neighbour. Let us deal briefly with each one:

1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.
This is a clear call to the Israelites to believe only in their God, who was greater than all other gods, and to have nothing to do with any of the gods with whom they often came in contact through surrounding peoples. Only later will it be understood as a call to believe in a monotheistic God as the sole Cause of all, the Source of all being and the ultimate Goal and Meaning Centre of all our lives. In both understandings, there is no place for any “other gods” nor are such gods needed as intermediaries with the One God. 

The passage continues with God saying:

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them…

The prohibition against the carving of any idols meant that for the Jews—and for the Muslims after them—there could never be any image made of God himself, still less of anything else which could be made an object of worship. Both synagogue and mosque are totally free of any such image. However, from the earliest times, Christians did not interpret these words in such a strict fashion. In the catacombs we already see images of Christ (e.g. as the Good Shepherd). And, soon after that, images of even God the Father, the Holy Spirit, as well as of Mary, the martyrs and other saints. 

With the coming of the Reformation and its theology about justification by faith alone and the rejection of sainthood, there was a return to the strict Jewish interpretation. Unfortunately, this resulted in the wholesale destruction of some of Europe’s most beautiful works of art. Even today, Catholics may be challenged by other Christians on the presence of images in their churches. It needs to be explained that these images have absolutely nothing in common with the idols mentioned in Exodus. They are not seen as gods, they are not worshipped. They are reminders of Christians who set an example which we could follow and be inspired by. They represent people who were and are still greatly loved. We do not pray to these statues or images, but rather we pray before them.

We do ask those whom they represent to pray for us, but they are not at all put on the same level as Jesus, the one and only Mediator. Catholics agree with all their Christian brothers and sisters about the unique mediatorship of Christ. But we also believe in the effectiveness of prayer of both the living and the dead on behalf of others. And we do believe in the inherent goodness, the result of grace, which these people enjoyed. It is good to know that the Catholic Church has come very close to a common understanding with some Reformation churches on the nature of ‘justification’.

The last part of this commandment from our reading today sometimes causes difficulties for people:

…for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

To our ears this sounds terribly vindictive. It is certainly not the kind of language we are used to from the Gospel of Jesus. We have to remember that it reflects the harsher thinking of a much earlier society. In many parts of the Bible, God is spoken of in very anthropomorphic terms, that is, he is pictured as having the same kinds of feelings that people would have. To speak of God being jealous simply means that he does expect—as is his right and is for our good—that we give our whole selves to him unreservedly. And if children down to the third and fourth generation suffer because of the wickedness of their forebears, this is less the direct act of God than the result of those forebears’ behaviour. It is most common that bad parents cannot produce good children. We see this constantly where children of dysfunctional families themselves produce dysfunctional families unless there is an intervening agent that can turn things round.

2. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
This commandment follows naturally on the first. If God is seen as the Source and Goal of all being, if we see in him the Lord of our lives, if we believe in his transcendence and immanence, then we will approach him with the greatest respect. It would be unthinkable to use his name in a glib, disrespectful and insulting way. Not that such behaviour affects God in any way—we ourselves are the losers. To speak or act blasphemously towards God says a lot about me and the kind of person I am.

We often include under this commandment all kinds of foul language and the use of distorted names for God and other holy people and things. There is never any need to use such language, but in parts of our society it has become almost de rigeur to make it part of every utterance. ‘F…’ words, ‘S…’ words and divine names are thrown around as a sign of being ‘tough’, ‘macho’ and ‘cool’. There is no need for us to be part of any of that. But however objectionable, ‘bad’ language is not really intended by this commandment. 

3. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
The biblical texts expressly connect the term “sabbath” with a root meaning ‘to desist, to stop work’. The Sabbath is a weekly day of rest dedicated to Yahweh who rested on the seventh day of creation. But while it does homage to God, it also benefits man. The Sabbath is of very ancient origin, but its observance gained particular importance after the Exile and became a distinctive mark of Judaism. A legalistic outlook took the joy out of the observance, leaving only a burden which Jesus was to remove—and which some puritanical Christians put back.

The observance of this commandment is another way by which we acknowledge the sovereignty of our God. We put aside the labours and concerns of six days each week and devote one to God. It is a sign of trust in his providential care for us. It is a time to pause and reflect on the direction and quality and meaning of our lives. It is a time to rest in the best sense of the word and not in the sense of dissipation.

Of course, in our Christian life the sabbath has become Sunday and its centre is the community celebration of the Eucharist, when, on the day of resurrection, we remember what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. It is also the weekly gathering of the Christian community when, through the rich symbolism of the liturgy, we remember who we are for each other and for the world in which we live.

As Exodus indicates, for the Hebrews it was a day of no physical work. In time, however, this ordinance became surrounded by a forest of casuistry as legal experts defined what and how much or how little came under the term ‘physical work’. We saw in a recent gospel reading how Jesus disciples were charged with ‘reaping’ when they plucked some ears of corn as they walked through a field of grain on a sabbath day (Luke 6:1-2). 

In the not so distant past, Catholics, too, were careful not to do unnecessary physical (called ‘servile’) work on Sundays. There was a certain level of casuistry here too. Sewing was wrong on Sundays, but for some reason, knitting was all right. Gardening was out, but spending long hours in writing was acceptable. Now, in our urban societies it is often difficult to separate Sunday from the other days of the week. Maybe we should—where it is possible—try to make Sunday a quieter day, a contemplative day, a ‘re-creation-al’ day.

We now come to the second set of seven commandments which are directed towards our relationships with other people. Except for one, they are all expressed in the negative, telling us what not to do.

4. Honour your father and your mother.
As givers of life and the people responsible for our nurturing through the years of infancy, childhood and adolescence, we owe a great deal to our parents, who may have had to work very hard to provide a living and prepare us to make our own way in the world. Honour is the very least that they should be able to expect from us. 

The problem is that some families are today what we call ‘dysfunctional’. The parents are ill-equipped to carry out their responsibilities as they should, or do so in an irresponsible manner. The children suffer in consequence. The observance of this commandment can become a problem.

In our day, too, I think we would also say that parents should honour their children. A good family can only be based on mutual respect, an acknowledgment of mutual rights and responsibilities. An easy flow of communication in both directions is essential. The dictum of “Do as I say, not as I do” is not appropriate. Children are very sensitive to double standards. And in the long run, parents will get the honour they deserve. Quoting commandments will not help very much.

5. You shall not murder [kill].
It is stated so succinctly with no modifications. Taking another person’s life is wrong. Is all killing included or only intentional killing, i.e. murder? The age of the person is not indicated: the unborn baby, the dying elder, the terminally ill, even the serial killer. Are there any extenuating circumstances? Is self-defence one of them? When is my life worth more than someone else’s? Taken literally, this commandment does not affect the lives of most of us although, with issues like abortion and euthanasia, more and more people are involved in decisions over the lives of others. Jesus, as with many of the other commandments, will extend the meaning of the commandment to a much deeper and interior level.

6. You shall not commit adultery.
Is this the only sexual sin? It is the only one mentioned. In many older societies, the real objection to adultery was in the possibility of unrecognised, illegitimate children being born by the mother—hence the much more severe penalties for the adulterous wife. Purity of line was everything. And sex was not really the issue. Is it, in fact, a sexual sin? Is it not much more a sin of injustice, the stealing of what belongs, by sacred contract, to another and the violation of that contract by the adulterous married partner (or partners, if both are married). What pains a partner most when discovering that a partner has had sexual relations with a third party is not the sexual act, but the unfaithfulness, the breach of trust.

For us, the commandment is now primarily seen as covering all kinds of ‘sexual’ sins. What constitutes a ‘sexual’ sin is now becoming more and more a matter of discussion and debate in all the churches and in our societies.

7. You shall not steal.
To steal is to take what rightfully belongs to another. The key word here is ‘rightfully’. Simply because something is in my possession does not mean that I am the rightful owner. Does the starving man has a right to the surplus bread in my house? Much of what we call ‘mine’ should be called ‘ours’. The obscene imbalance between haves and have-nots (not to mention the ‘have lots’) in our societies and in the world generally points to wholesale stealing on a vast scale.  It is a sin not only of individuals, but of whole societies and whole communities.

8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
A person’s good name is another form of property of which he should not be deprived. The commandment speaks about “false” witness, that is, saying things about someone which are simply not true or are misleading. I think that today we would also want to include the unnecessary, but harmful dissemination of facts which are true. Sadly, gossip of both kinds is among our favourite pastimes.

9 and 10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, male or female slave, ox, donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
These two commandments can be put together. These commandments are against all forms of greed, simply wanting to have people or things just because they are there even though I have no right to or any real need for them. It was not covetousness for the beggar Lazarus to look longingly at the groaning table of food at which the rich man was dining. He had a right to and a need for that food. It seems that much of our marketing industry is based on arousing our covetous instincts, leading us buy things that we can well do without.

For us Christians the Decalogue is to be understood in the light of the Gospel, where Jesus calls for a much wider and more sensitive understanding of our relationship with God and with others. Over the centuries, the Church has refined, in the light of what has been revealed to us in Christ, the full meaning of the Decalogue. I think we need to say that in itself there is nothing particularly Jewish or Christian about the Decalogue. It reflects values that can be found in all societies, especially those having a religious basis. Therefore, by themselves the commandments do not express fully the Christian vision of life. Yet we often hear Christians (including Catholics) point to the Decalogue as the basis of their faith. But it is not enough. 

As mentioned when discussing the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes really supplant and go far beyond what the Decalogue asks of us. Anyone who consciously lives the Beatitudes can simply forget about the Decalogue; those commandments will be taken care of without further thought. The Decalogue follows a concept of religion primarily based on the observance of law; the Beatitudes are based on a concept of religion based on love. The word love is never mentioned in the Decalogue. It is more concerned with conformity. Many of the Ten Commandments can be observed by doing nothing—not killing, not stealing, not committing adultery. Christian witness and the building of the Kingdom expects much more than that.