More

Commentary on Numbers 6:22-27; Galatians 4:4-7; Luke 2:16-21

In John’s Gospel, Mary is twice simply referred to as the “mother of Jesus”—at Cana when the water was turned into wine, and at the foot of the cross. John’s Gospel is also the one that emphasises most the origins of Jesus as the Word of God, existing before the beginning of time, and through whom all created things came to be. He does not really need to spell out the implications of the term “mother of Jesus”. But they are very extraordinary implications as we shall see.

Anti-climax
Today, the Gospel of Luke speaks of the earthly reality of Jesus and his mother. The shepherds, in great excitement after hearing the heavenly host sing the first “Gloria” ever sung say:

Let us go now to Bethlehem and see this thing that has taken place, which the Lord has made known to us.
(Luke 2:15)

Perhaps what they discovered must have seemed, at first, an anti-climax. Just a man, a woman—the mother—and a baby lying in a feeding box in a dark and smelly cowshed (not that shepherds would have been much bothered by farmyard smells).

We are told that they were amazed, and no wonder. Is this what the angels had to sing about? No words of Mary or Joseph are recorded, although they must have shared some words with their visitors.

In all of this time, Mary must have been trying to understand what was really going on. One imagines at this stage, that if she had been greeted as “Mother of God”, she would have been both alarmed and surprised, even shocked. So the Gospel says that during all this time:

Mary treasured all these words and pondered them in her heart.

This was perhaps a hint that Mary had shared these reflections later with the writer of the Gospel.

And that is what we also need to do as we kneel in front of the crib here in our church. Whatever was there, the shepherds, in their simple faith, saw something very special in that prosaic scene. Many others must have seen and just passed on. They might have thought or said: “Oh, another poor feckless couple expecting handouts.”

The shepherds went back to their fields and flocks, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen. They also told everyone around what they had seen. The shepherds were the very first heralds of the Good News, the gospel message, and they were the first evangelisers. They seem to be a strange choice, as they were regarded as sinful outcasts. Or, when we think about it a little more, was it so strange? For them, the joy of having met their Lord, of knowing Jesus, must of its very nature be shared and communicated with others. Would that we were so filled with the same experience and the same joy that we would go around sharing it with all! Yet, sometimes even our neighbours, or our colleagues at work, do not know we are Christians! It is not considered “politically correct” to speak of one’s religious convictions.

Then, after eight days, the Gospel says in conclusion, his pious Jewish parents had the child circumcised like any normal Jewish boy in accordance with the Law. Jesus always observed and had the deepest respect for the Law. What he criticised were its abuses. And Christianity is not a rejection of the Law, but a fulfilling of its promises and a shift to a deeper and wider level of serving God.

No special privileges
If John, in his Gospel, speaks of Mary simply as the “mother of Jesus”, St Paul, in today’s Second Reading says even less:

…when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman…

Mary’s name is not even mentioned. It has been suggested that this is in the spirit of the New Testament, where there is no privilege of class or individuals. People are distinguished by one thing only—by their service to the community in the name of Jesus the Lord. This applies as much to Mary as to any of the apostles—as well as to any other Christian disciple.

God’s Mother
Today’s feast, however, is called “Mary, the Holy Mother of God” and not just “Mother of Jesus”. For both Jews and Muslims who have the deepest respect for God and even his name, the idea that God could have a human being as his mother is totally preposterous and even blasphemous. It is a contradiction in terms for the Creator of all things to be mothered by a creature.

Yet we can take an example from human experience. The president of a country has a mother. Let us say the president’s name is John Smith. Mrs Smith, at some stage, became the mother of John Smith. But later, John was elected president of his country; he became President Smith. John and President Smith are one and the same person so Mrs Smith is the mother of John and also mother of the president of the country.

Mary gave birth to the human child that is Jesus. But that child is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Jesus is both human and divine: two natures, but only one Person. Mary, as the Mother of Jesus, is also the Mother of that Person, and that Person is God, one with the Father and Holy Spirit. Clearly we are not expected to be able to understand or explain this any further. The nature of God is quite beyond us. We need the simple and trusting faith of the shepherds.

Special relationship
Today, we honour the unique privilege of Mary, and her special relationship with God. But where does Mary’s real greatness lie? There is a scene in the Gospel where a woman shouts out from the crowd:

Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you! (Luke 11:27)

It was a cry of praise to Jesus himself, but also a compliment to the mother of such a Son who was doing such marvellous things for the sick and the needy. In today’s world, she might say: “God bless the mother that produced a son like you!”

To this, Jesus replied:

Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it! (Luke 11:28)

In other words, Mary’s greatness—and indeed the greatness of any person—was not in her birth, or her parents or her Son, but in her unconditional response to the call of God, in her hearing and obeying the word of God. This she did from the moment of saying ‘Yes’ at the annunciation, to her standing silently and in grief at the foot of the cross.

She was “full of grace” not only for being chosen to be God’s mother, but in her total openness to being filled with the love of God. We too are constantly ‘graced’, and we too can be full of grace, not simply because of our baptism into the Catholic community, but because of our own total, active identification with the way of Jesus, and our opening up to the call of God as it unfolds in the unique circumstances of our own lives. We do this through total and unconditional service to those around us. It is a formidable challenge, but it also brings untold joys. Christianity, contrary to the opinion of some, is not for wimps.

Unique relationship
Mary had a unique relationship with the Blessed Trinity as daughter of the Father, mother of the Son, and spouse of the Holy Spirit. Her feelings are beautifully expressed in the Magnificat, which she spoke during her visit to her cousin Elizabeth. She is filled with joy as the recipient of God’s love, and also of an awesome responsibility.

God has looked on this lowly girl. Through her ‘Yes’, Mary became a partner, a major contributor in the work of salvation. No wonder that all generations call her blessed, for the Almighty has done such great things for her—and she also, in her human nature, for him. She nurtured and reared Jesus, God’s own Son, and our Saviour.

For this, today we say a special Thanks to Mary. The Son is so often a reflection of the mother, as the woman in the Gospel so clearly realised. He is the one who will rout the “proud in heart”, but will “fill the hungry with good things”. We are, at the same time, among those who are hungry, and who are called on to feed others spiritually, emotionally and materially according to need.

Today’s feast is one of great joy for Mary herself as Jesus’ Mother and for us who owe so much to her total co-operation with God’s loving plan for us.

Thanks and Yes
As we leave the ‘old year’, there are two things we could remember:

• To look back at all the events, big and small of the past year and say thanks;
• To look forward with expectation and surrender to all that will come and say yes.

And finally, let us hear said to each one of us the beautiful blessing in today’s First Reading:

The Lord bless you and keep you;
the Lord make his face to shine upon you
and be gracious to you;
the Lord lift up his countenance upon you
and give you peace.

More

Commentary on Mark 2:13-17

Jesus certainly chose some very strange people to be his followers. Levi was a tax collector, one of a much despised group of people. The Romans did not collect taxes themselves from their subject people. Instead, a local person would pay a lump sum or deposit to the Romans to be designated a publican (tax collector) for a particular area. Along with the job, publicans were given the right to recoup their initial deposit from the taxes they collected. Since they also wanted to make a profit, this laid the system open to widespread abuse and corruption. Tax collectors were regarded as traitors to their own people in collecting taxes for Rome, the hated colonial power. They and their families were social outcasts. No self-respecting and observant Jew would have anything to do with such people.

Yet, here is Jesus offering one such person an invitation, “Follow me”. We need to know that Jesus never goes by stereotypes. Nor does he judge people by their past behaviour. He is only interested in what they can be in the now and in the future. There and then, Levi drops everything and goes after Jesus. That is what following Jesus means. It is what Peter and Andrew, and James and John had also done.

Later, when Jesus is dining at Levi’s house, several known sinners and tax collectors are at table with Jesus and his disciples. In some translations of the Bible, Jesus is said to be dining in “his” house, which is (deliberately?) ambiguous. Is it the house of Levi or the house of Jesus? In either case, it is very meaningful—Jesus eats in a sinner’s house, or he invites a sinner to eat in his house. Perhaps they are celebrating Levi’s becoming a follower. And who else could Levi have invited if not the only people who would mix with him—other tax collectors and outcasts? But in addition, the Gospel says that:

…many tax collectors and sinners were also sitting with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many [tax collectors and their like] who followed him.

This is a real source of scandal for the scribes and Pharisees. If Jesus really was a Rabbi, he would have had nothing to do with such people. To sit down and eat with such ‘unclean’ people was to be contaminated oneself. Jesus replies:

Those who are well have no need of a physician but those who are sick; I have not come to call the righteous but sinners.

As we have already seen, Jesus’ whole mission is one of salvation and redemption of restoring people to wholeness. And how is he to help sinners change unless he is in direct contact with them? By being with sinners, Jesus is not approving or condoning or turning a blind eye to their behaviour. He describes them as “sick”; they are in need of healing and rehabilitation. This can only be done by reaching out to them.

Of course, one can ask if those judging Jesus were not also sick and in need of healing themselves. The difference was that the ‘sinners’ approached Jesus, while the Pharisees could not see or acknowledge their particular kind of sin and consequent need of healing.

Perhaps our Church should look more closely at this passage. So much of our Church work involves serving the already converted or the semi-converted. We are often not present where people are most in need of hearing the gospel message. We tend to side with the Pharisees and feel we should keep away from the ‘sinful’ and the ‘immoral’. We also need to learn the ways by which the gospel message and the gospel vision can most effectively be communicated to those who have lost touch with God and the meaning of life.

More

Commentary on 1 Samuel 9:1-4,17-19; 10:1

Today we hear about the choice of Saul as Israel’s first king. Here, in contrast to yesterday, the attitude towards monarchy is much more positive and represents the royalist view. Today’s narrative has, in fact, nothing to do with yesterday’s where we saw a negative view of monarchy. Saul, the king-to-be, is the central figure. Samuel is presented as a prophet whom Saul meets apparently by chance.

Here, the monarchy is seen as something willed by God, and Saul is clearly God’s choice as the first king. 
We are introduced to Saul as the son of Kish and belonging to the tribe of Benjamin, the smallest of the tribes and named after Jacob’s youngest son. His name means “asked for [from God]”. He is presented as having qualities suitable to his future role: young, handsome and a commanding figure, well above average in height.

The hand of God is now seen as events unfold. The donkeys of Saul’s father, Kish, had wandered off somewhere and Saul was sent by his father to bring them back. It is perhaps symbolic that Saul is presented as a handler of donkeys, which tended to stray far from home. He is, after all, going to be the king of a rebellious people. On the other hand, David will be introduced as a shepherd, taking care of his father’s flock and will later, as king, be pictured as the shepherd of the Lord’s flock. As such, David will be a prototype of Jesus.

The apparently accidental encounter between Saul and Samuel is presented (in the full text) as something clearly planned by God. When they first meet, Saul does not recognise the prophet. Samuel, for his part, has already been told by God that this Benjaminite has been specially chosen to lead God’s people and save them from the hands of the Philistines.

On the morning of the following day, at a designated rendezvous, they meet and go to a place outside the city. Then, having dismissed Saul’s servants, Samuel pours oil on Saul’s head and kisses him. At the same time he gives Saul his mandate:

The Lord has anointed you ruler over his people Israel. You shall reign over the people of the Lord, and you will save them from the hand of their enemies all around.

The Lord’s “heritage” includes both the people and the land.


After departing from Samuel, Saul will receive three signs (in the passage immediately following the end of today’s reading) to authenticate the prophet’s words and to assure him that the Lord has indeed chosen him to be king.


In our lives, too, we can see apparently chance events leading us into certain, sometimes very unexpected, situations. While we should not see God as simply manipulating events in an arbitrary way, we can say that in every experience we have, in every person we meet, God is communicating something to us. Let us recall some of those events today and how we responded (or did not respond) to them.

It is for us to discern what God is saying and where he wants us to go and what choices he wants us to make arising out of every experience. It calls for a pro-active and not simply a re-active response.

More

Commentary on Mark 2:1-12

After some days, Jesus returns to Capernaum from his refuge in the desert. Immediately the crowds gather in and around the house where he is staying. It is so crowded that there is no room to get in or out. The ‘house’ is not identified and it is not important. In the early Christian communities, they gathered in one house to celebrate the Eucharist. Jesus was there among them. Some people are inside the house with Jesus; others are still on the outside.

Then, four men arrived carrying a paralytic friend. They were anxious to get to Jesus. Seeing no way in, they went up by the outside staircase and on to the flat roof, removed a few tiles, and let the man down right at the feet of Jesus.

Jesus is touched by their faith, trust and confidence in him—all essential conditions for healing. Jesus says to the paralysed man:

Child, your sins are forgiven.

This must have been a surprising statement to the paralytic. He had come for healing, not forgiveness. Some scribes who were also present were not only surprised, they were deeply shocked, thinking contemptuously to themselves:

Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?

They are perfectly right, but their eyes are closed to drawing the obvious conclusion. They don’t see because they do not want to see, because—even worse—they think they can see. Even today, we meet Christians like that, who are convinced they and they alone are in sole possession of the ‘truth’.

Jesus, knowing their thoughts then challenges them:

Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and take your mat and walk’?

Then he tells the man:

I say to you, stand up, take your mat, and go to your home.

Of course, telling a person their sins are forgiven is certainly easier, but does the fact that Jesus could heal the paralytic instantly also mean that his sins were forgiven?

We need to realise the close links the Jews of the time made between sin and sickness. Many kinds of sickness were seen as punishment for personal sin or even the sins of parents (see also the story of the man born blind in John’s Gospel, chap 9). The man in this present story was understood to be paralysed because of some sin in his life. If Jesus could clearly remove the illness, then the cause of the illness was also being taken away. In so doing, Jesus makes it clear that in forgiving the man’s sin, he was not blaspheming. He was what he claimed to be.

In our time, we realise that there can be a link between physical illness and the way we act and relate with people. We know that there is a mutual influence between our thinking and our attitudes, feelings and behaviour. Some sicknesses can be psychosomatic, or might result from stress or an imbalance in our relationships with others, our work or our environment. The words holiness, wholeness, health and healing all have a common root. The whole person, one in whom all parts are in perfect harmony, is the truly holy person.

That wholeness is something we need to pray and work for. The paralysed man represents all those who are paralysed in other ways, those who are not able to behave with the freedom that a well-integrated person has. And that integration and wholeness concerns our relations with others, with ourselves, with our environment and, of course, with God.

More

Commentary on 1 Samuel 8:4-7,10-22

We begin reading today about Samuel and his involvement with Saul and the institution of the monarchy in Israel. The institution of the monarchy was a major turning point in Israel’s political and religious history. The sanctuary of the Ark of the Covenant in Shiloh had been destroyed and unity was in danger as the Philistine threat increased. Some of the people began asking:

…appoint for us, then, a king to govern us, like other nations.

Others held the opposite view that Yahweh, Israel’s only lord, should be left to provide leaders as circumstances required, as he had done in the days of the Judges.

These two schools of thought find a voice in anti-royalist (see chaps 8, 10:17-24, and 12) and royalist (chaps 9:1-10:16 and 11) versions of the institution of the monarchy, here placed side by side.

While the royalist view (which we will see in tomorrow’s reading from Samuel) will ultimately prevail, Saul, the first king, is scarcely distinguishable from the Judges who preceded him. The monarchy will only achieve its full development with David. He is one of the outstanding characters of the whole Bible, and in him the religious and civil functions of the Israelite monarchy will be harmoniously combined. David will be able to combine his political responsibilities with his service of the Lord. However, none of his successors will achieve this ideal. David, and really David alone (in spite of his serious weaknesses), remains the model of the future King through whom God is to bring about the salvation of his people, namely the Messiah, the Christ, the Anointed of the Lord.

As today’s reading opens we find the elders of the people approaching Samuel and telling him that, in view of his old age (and, it might be added, the corrupt behaviour of his sons), they should have a king. It soon becomes apparent, however, that the more basic reason for their request was a desire to be like the surrounding nations—to have a human king as a symbol of national power and unity who would lead them in battle and guarantee their security. As a loose conglomerate of tribes, they would never be able to deal effectively with their enemies (who had kings). Israel had suffered a number of calamitous defeats at the hands of its old nemesis, the Philistines, and the people saw that what was needed was a powerful leader as a strong unifying and rallying point.

There were two reactions to this innovation of having a king—one against and one in favour. Some would say they were forgetting that they were not like other nations. By their desire to appoint a human king they were, in a way, setting aside their real Lord. Israel had always been a theocracy where only God was its King and Lord, and where the idea of a human king seemed almost blasphemous. On the other hand, there were those who, for political reasons and even for the people’s survival, emphasised the need for a single, strong ruler.

In today’s reading we see the anti-royalist view. The misgivings of the anti-royalists are seen in Samuel’s displeasure at the people’s asking for a king. God is not happy, but he tells Samuel to let the people have their way:

Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.

The sin of Israel in requesting a king did not rest in any evil inherent in kingship itself, but rather in the kind of kingship the people envisioned and their reasons for requesting it.

Their desire was for a form of kingship that denied their covenant relationship with the Lord, who himself was pledged to be their saviour and deliverer. In requesting a king “like all nations” they broke the covenant, rejected the Lord who was their King, and forgot his constant provision for their protection in the past.

In a rather sarcastic tone, Samuel proceeds to tell the people all the ‘advantages’ they will accrue by having a king. His description reflects not so much what happened under Saul or David, but in a later period beginning with Solomon, and reflects the bitter experience of the writer’s own generation. Later on, we will see how terrible some of those kings really were.

Samuel warns them that virtual slavery will be upon them, saying:

These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you:

-He will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots.

-He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots.

-He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.

-He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers.

-He will take one-tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and his courtiers.

-He will take your male and female slaves and the best of your cattle and donkeys and put them to his work.

-He will take one-tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves.

Then, and only then, will the people complain to God, but it will be too late:

And on that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you on that day.

They have made their own bed and will have to sleep in it. Only the king will enjoy rights; the people will have duties and obligations. In fact, the demands of the king would parallel all that Israel was expected to consecrate to the Lord as her Great King (persons, lands, crops, livestock)—even the whole population. But now it is going to be given to a very fallible and sometimes wicked human being.

For now, the people will not listen to Samuel’s arguments. They are determined to have a king like their neighbours who will lead them to war and fight their battles. And God said:

Listen to their voice and set a king over them.

Samuel then tells the people to go back to their own cities and towns.

We, too, can be very insistent in asking God to give us something we feel we really need. Yet, when it comes we may bitterly regret the consequences. Sometimes what we take to be the answer to a prayer may only be the fruit of our own persistence. But whatever happens, wherever our choices have led us, God is always there. It is always in our present situation, in the here-and-now, that we must learn to respond to his call. Even our mistakes can become moments of grace and enlightenment.

More

Commentary on Mark 1:40-45

Today’s healing story does not actually belong to that ‘day in the life of Jesus’ on which we reflected over the past two days.

Lepers were among the most piteous of people in scriptural times. Although little was understood of the origin of the sickness, it was clearly known to be contagious, and therefore greatly feared. The only solution was to isolate the victim and not allow him or her to approach people. So, apart from the appalling physical disintegration of body and limbs, there was the social ostracism, the contempt, and the fearfulness of others which the victim suffered.

What was probably even more tragic was that many who were branded as lepers were likely suffering from some other ailment, which may not have been contagious at all—such as ulcers, cancer or other skin diseases (and perhaps some of them even psychosomatic). The signs for diagnosis are given in chapter 13 of the Book of Leviticus and, by our standards today, are rather primitive indeed. The room for a wrong diagnosis was huge. It was a question of being safe rather than sorry.

The leper in the story indicates his great faith and trust in Jesus, a necessary and sufficient condition for healing in the Gospel. He says:

If you are willing, you can make me clean.

He knows this because he has undoubtedly seen or heard about what others have experienced.

Jesus is filled with a deep sense of compassion for the man’s plight. Highlighting the emotions of Jesus is a characteristic of Mark’s Gospel and is seldom found in Matthew. What Jesus feels is compassion, not just pity. In pity we feel sorry for the person, but in compassion, we enter into the feelings of the other; we empathise with their experience. And, in doing so, Jesus does the unthinkable—he reaches out to touch the leper. This must have been a healing act in itself. The leper was by definition untouchable. Jesus says to him:

I am willing. Be made clean!

But that is not the end of the story because the man has still to be reintegrated into the community—this is the second part of the healing process. He is told to go to the priests to make the customary offering of thanksgiving. They will examine him and then pronounce him fit to reenter society.

He is also told not to say anything to anyone about it. Jesus wanted no sensationalism. But how could the man refrain from telling everybody about his wonderful experience of coming in contact with the whole-making power of Jesus? He becomes an ardent evangeliser, a spreader of good news—something we are all called to be.

What is the outcome of our experience of knowing Jesus? Why do we not have the enthusiasm of this man? It is worth noting that the experience was the result of his first having been the victim of a terrible cross. It is often in our crosses that grace appears.

Once again, Jesus goes out into the desert to avoid the enthusiastic crowds. Jesus was not interested in having ‘fans’, only genuine followers. He would not be ready until his full identity was recognised. That would only happen as he hung dying on the cross (see Mark 15:39).

Before we leave this story, we should ask who are the lepers in our society today? Sadly, there are many marginalized groups—undocumented immigrants, those who are homeless, individuals struggling with addiction to drugs, alcohol, pornography or other harmful substances or activities; indeed, we have many lepers among us. Let us examine our attitudes today and revise them as necessary.

More

Commentary on 1 Samuel 4:1-11

Today’s story digresses somewhat with this reading, which is really centred on the Ark of the Covenant. It is linked with what we have read so far from Samuel by the mention of Shiloh and Eli and his sons. Samuel does not appear. The overall context, including the Philistines, is more like that of the Samson story.

It introduces the Philistines as the ‘bad guys’ who are having it all their own way—at this stage. Although, as usual, there is an implication that the Israelites are only getting their deserts for their infidelities before Yahweh.

The passage begins by our being told that the Israelites had encamped at Ebenezer to repel a planned attack on them by the Philistines who were encamped at Aphek. The location of Ebenezer (the name means ‘stone of help’) is not now known, but it is presumed that it was probably not very far to the east of Aphek. This is not to be confused with the place of a stone, called Ebenezer, erected by Samuel to commemorate a victory over the Philistines (see 1 Sam 7:12). Aphek was in the northern Philistine territory, about 20 km (12 miles) northeast of the coastal city of Joppa (Jaffa). Philistine presence this far north suggests they were attempting to spread their control over the Israelite tribes of central Canaan.

A fierce battle between the Philistines and the Israelites near Aphek ended in a disastrous defeat for the Israelites in which thousands were killed. The leaders immediately see in the defeat a message from God:

Why has the Lord put us to rout today before the Philistines?

The elders understood that their defeat was more an indication of God’s displeasure than it was of Philistine military superiority. Israel’s pagan neighbours also believed that the outcome of battle was decided by the gods. Things—both good and bad—never happen simply by chance in the Bible.

In an attempt to secure the Lord’s closer presence with them in the struggle against the Philistines, the elders sent for the Ark of the Covenant. They were correct in thinking there was a connection between God’s presence with his people and the Ark, and no doubt they remembered the presence of the Ark at notable victories in Israel’s past history. But they incorrectly believed that the Lord’s presence within the Ark would also produce the results they wanted. They reflected the pagan notion that the deity was fully identified with the symbol of his presence and that God’s support could automatically be guaranteed by manipulating the symbol.

The Ark of the Covenant was brought from the sanctuary in Shiloh:

…ark of the covenant of the Lord of hosts, who is enthroned on the cherubim.

We know that on each end of the atonement cover of the Ark were golden cherubim with their wings spread upward over the Ark (see Exod 25:17-22). In the space between these cherubim God’s presence with his people was localised in a special way, so that the atonement cover of the Ark came to be viewed as the throne of Israel’s divine King (see 2 Sam 6:2; Ps 80:1; 99:1).

The Israelites carried the Ark with them into battle. They were fully confident that with God’s presence among them, they would not be defeated this time. It did not actually help that the Ark was accompanied by the two wicked sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas. Among other misdemeanours, these had been in the habit of appropriating sacrificial offerings in the Temple for themselves (1 Sam 2:12-17). Here too, they are using the Ark in a way which reduced it to the level of a pagan charm. For such desecrations they would pay a high price.

When the Ark arrived among them, the people sent up such a war cry that the Philistines were alarmed. Such a war cry was, in fact, part of the Ark ritual. And when the Philistines realised that the Ark was actually present, they were even more afraid and said:

…gods have come into the camp….Woe to us!

Like the Israelites, they identified the Ark with the actual presence of a god. They knew well that it was the God of Israel which had brought on the plagues in Egypt and rescued the Israelites from slavery:

Woe to us! Who can deliver us from the power of these mighty gods?

Their only hope was to fight with everything they had. If they lost, they would become the slaves of the Israelites as the Israelites had once been their slaves. In spite of the presence of the Ark, there was another disastrous defeat for the Israelites in which 30,000 died (probably an inflated figure to emphasise the calamity of the defeat). And, what was worse, the Ark of the Covenant was carried off by the victors. This phrase, or a variation of it, occurs five times in the full story, making this the focal point of the narrative. Both this and the deaths of Hophni and Phinehas, the wicked sons of Eli, were cryptically foretold to Samuel (1 Sam 3:11-12). It is perfectly clear that the defeat was punishment for sins which even the presence of the Ark could not avert.

There is a frankness about this story that is refreshing. The expected, stereotyped, triumphalistic ending does not materialise. Perhaps the mistake of the Israelites was to identify the presence of God with the Ark itself so that they used it as a kind of charm or talisman to scare their enemies. Superstitious though they were—the Israelite’s ruse nearly worked—the Philistines in desperation set aside their superstitious fears, used the resources they had and won the victory.

It is possible for us Christians (and especially Catholics) to behave like the Israelites. We can identify the statue, or the picture, or the medal with the person they represent and endow them with a kind of magic power by which we think we can manipulate not only events and other people, but even God himself. But God must always remain utterly free. It is not for us to manipulate him, but to know what his will is and to accept it, on the principle that God always wants what is best for us (although it may not, in the short term, seem like that).

We pray to Our Lady and the saints, not to tell them to twist God’s arm on our behalf, but to help us to be like them and to accept God’s will in all things.

More

Commentary on Mark 1:29-39

We continue following a day in the public life of Jesus. It was still the Sabbath and, after the synagogue service, Jesus now goes to the house of his two disciples, Simon and Andrew, in Capernaum. Remember that, as it was the Sabbath, people could not go very far or do anything which could be labelled ‘work’.

In the house, Jesus finds Peter’s mother-in-law confined to bed because of a fever. When he is told about it, he immediately goes to see her, takes her by the hand, lifts her up and heals her. Immediately, she gets up and begins to serve them. This is not simply because that is the role of a woman in the home. Rather, it is a way of saying that it is the role of any Christian—man or woman—to serve. Healing is not just to make one well, but to enable one to become again an active, serving member of the community.

In the evening, once the Sabbath was over, people were free to move around. So large numbers come seeking out Jesus to be healed of their sicknesses and to be freed from the power of evil spirits:

That evening, at sunset, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed by demons. And the whole city was gathered around the door.

That is, they were at the door of the house where Jesus was. Many times we will see a reference to the ‘house’ where Jesus is. It seems to be a symbol of the place where Jesus is gathered with those who are close to him, a symbol of a Christian community or of the Church. When the poor and the sick and ‘un-free’ no longer come to the doors of our community seeking healing and wholeness, we need to reflect on the quality of our Christian witness.

The following morning, Jesus leaves and goes to the hills to be alone and to pray. His disciples find him and say:

Everyone is searching for you.

Although there are many demands being made on him by the people of Capernaum, Jesus:

• needs time for himself to renew his spiritual energy and be in contact with his Father, and
• has to think of the needs of other people as well.

Jesus may have been the Son of God, but in his humanity could only be in one place at a time. And during those three years of public life, he really only reached a small number of people. To reach the rest, he needed, and still needs our help.

When Jesus returns from his prayer, he does not go back to Capernaum, although there were certainly more people to be healed and helped there. Instead he went on to synagogues all over Galilee, proclaiming his message of the Kingdom, and making it a reality by healing the sick and liberating those controlled by evil forces.

This scene brings up the importance for us of availability. We do need to be available to all those who are in genuine need. At the same time, there is what we might call the ‘poverty of availability’. No matter how generous and self-giving we are, we can only give so much. We need to find a balance between people’s needs and our limited resources. We do not help people by working ourselves to the point of ‘burnout’. We also need ‘quality time’ to be with God, to pray, and to reflect on our priorities. Jesus gives us an excellent example here.

More

Commentary on 1 Samuel 3:1-10,19-20

Today’s First Reading is about the call of Samuel as prophet. Samuel is now a young boy, serving the priest Eli in the sanctuary at Shiloh. The Jewish historian Josephus places his age at 12 years, though he may have been older. What follows is heightened by the statement that revelations and visions of God were at that time very infrequent. The book of Judges (which covers this period) indicates that very few prophets or messengers of God appeared. During the entire period of the Judges, apart from the anonymous prophet mentioned in chapter 2 (not covered in the liturgical readings), we are told of only two prophets and of five revelations.

We are told that one day Eli was asleep in his usual place in the sanctuary:

Eli, whose eyesight had begun to grow dim so that he could not see, was lying down in his room; the lamp of God had not yet gone out…

The reference is to the golden lampstand, which stood opposite the table of the bread of the Presence in the Holy Place. It was still night, but the early morning hours were approaching when the flame grew dim or went out. For the lamp to be permitted to go out before morning was a violation of the Pentateuchal regulations.

It is at this moment when God calls Samuel. Samuel, in his sleep, hears his name being called. Still inexperienced in recognising the presence of the Lord, he thinks that Eli is calling him. Twice he hears the call and twice Eli denies that he called. Eli’s own failure not at once to recognise God’s voice may be indicative that he was not very close to God. In fact, and sadly, he was not very effective as a prophet (see 1 Sam 2:22-26).

But at the third call, Eli begins to realise that something special is going on. He sends the boy back to bed and tells him that the next time he hears a call he is to answer:

Speak, Lord, for your servant is listening.

And the Lord does call a third time and Samuel responds as he was told. Now the Lord reveals his presence, but what the Lord said to him at that time is not recorded. However, by this first revelation, Samuel is consecrated a prophet. It was not a dream because the voice awakened Samuel. Nor was it a ‘vision’ except in the wide sense, since Samuel heard, but did not see Yahweh.

We are told that, from then on, the Lord was with Samuel and his words were always spoken and listened to with effect. He was a true and reliable prophet who faithfully transmitted the word of the Lord. Throughout the country from Dan to Beersheba, that is, from the very north to the south, Samuel was recognised as a prophet of the Lord.

There are two possible reflections for us in this reading. We might ask ourselves how often has the Lord called us and we have mistaken it for something else or not heard it at all? Yet, through people and experiences in our daily life, God is constantly calling us to his love and service and to come close to him. Let us be alert this day to any calls he may make.

Second, by our baptism we, too, are in a special way called to be prophets, i.e. to be bearers of the gospel message through our words and actions. How will people come to know Christ and the gospel if not through us?

More

Commentary on Mark 1:21-28

Today’s passage is the first part of a day in the life of Jesus in which he carries out the main activities of his mission—teaching and healing. He goes to Capernaum, the centre of much of his work, on a Sabbath day and like every observant Jew, goes to the synagogue. And, like any Jew who wishes to do so, he addresses the congregation.

He begins to teach the people. Much of Jesus’ work will consist of teaching and communicating his message and his vision of life. People are deeply impressed because, unlike the scribes, he speaks with authority. The scribes could only interpret or give the meaning of the Scripture. Jesus spoke in his own right. Jesus speaks in the best tradition of the great prophets. But there is more. Jesus’ authority is empowering and liberating; it is not oppressive or subjugating. He will say in John’s Gospel:

…you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. (John 8:32)

Right there in the synagogue was a man possessed by an “unclean” spirit. It was called ‘unclean’ because of its basic resistance to the holiness of God. This was a world where many unexplained symptoms in people were attributed to evil powers and were often believed to be the punishment for sinful behaviour. The spirit resented the presence of Jesus and said:

I know who you are, the Holy One of God.

It was believed that, by giving a hostile spirit its exact name, one could have power over him. But Jesus silences the evil spirit and tells it to come out of the man, who experiences a kind of fit and cries out.

Again the people are amazed at the power and authority of this man Jesus. He has new teaching and can give orders to evil spirits. The question is being asked: “Just who is this man?” This question is the underlying theme of the first half of Mark’s Gospel.

It for us to submit ourselves to the same empowering authority of Jesus, to listen to his teaching by steeping ourselves in his Gospel message and experiencing his healing and liberation in our lives.