More

Commentary on Acts 4:13-21

Today’s passage from Acts continues from yesterday’s First Reading and describes the second half of the ‘trial’ of Peter and John before the members of the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin are astonished at the self-confidence of the two Apostles, considering that they are uneducated fishermen. They had no training in rabbinic schools, nor did they have any standing in recognised religious circles. They were, in the eyes of their judges, ‘only’ lay people.

It is important to remember that faith and convictions do not depend on learning. It is also clearly implied that the source of their strength and confidence is Jesus. The rulers, elders and scribes:

…when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and realized that they were uneducated and ordinary men…were amazed and recognized them as companions of Jesus.

Our Church consists of the highest intellectuals as well as people who are completely illiterate; all have equal access to knowing and loving God, and all have equal access to the highest levels of contemplation, mysticism and sanctity.

The Apostles’ judges in this case are obviously intellectual snobs, a kind not unknown in Christian circles. Because they could not deny the extraordinary cure that had taken place in the full view of a large number of people, the Jewish leaders could only tell the Apostles not to speak any more about Jesus. In matters of this kind it seems that the accused, unless they were rabbis, could not be jailed except for a second offence.

We can never be stopped from preaching the Gospel. Nor can we ever obey such an order. As Peter told his judges:

Whether it is right in God’s sight to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge; for we cannot keep from speaking about what we have seen and heard.

It reminds one of St Thomas More’s words to his accusers: “The King’s good servant, but God’s first.” The judges felt obliged to implement the law, but there are situations where the law cannot be followed.

Of course, we have to be careful that it is not our own interpretation of the truth that we proclaim. At the same time, we are bound to follow our conscience and follow the truth as we know it. If we are wrong, it will be exposed. Eventually, real Truth will always come to the surface.

More

Commentary on Revelation 11:4-12

Today’s reading seems at first sight to be very obscure in meaning. After the eating of the scroll, it is a second digression by the author and describes two rather mysterious ‘witnesses’. They are referred to as “two olive trees and the two lampstands”, and they had been given authority to prophesy for 1,260 days or three and a half years, a conventional period for eschatological distress.

These titles originally were applied by the prophet Zechariah to Joshua and Zerubbabel, the religious and civil leaders respectively, who restored the Temple and the city of Jerusalem after the return from the Babylonian Exile. Here it is possible they represent the leaders of the New Temple and the New Jerusalem, namely Peter and Paul.

The descriptive images which follow link them to Moses and Elijah, representatives of the Law and the Prophets who appeared at the Transfiguration along with Jesus, endorsing his mission, suffering, death and resurrection. Anyone who attacks them will be consumed by fire. The fire that consumes enemies reminds us of how King Ahaziah’s emissaries to Elijah were twice destroyed by fire brought down on them by God through his prophet (see 2 Kings 1).

And the power to shut up the sky refers to the great drought that came on Israel in the days of Elijah (1 Kings 17). Their ability to turn water into blood and bring other plagues recalls how Moses brought the plagues to Egypt to make the Pharaoh repent and release the Israelites (Exodus 7).

But after they have completed their task of giving witness to Christ and the Gospel, the “beast” comes from the Abyss, overcomes and kills them. Their killer is the Antichrist. His coming from the Abyss indicates his demonic origins. Some see the beast as Nero, the emperor traditionally thought to have martyred both Peter and Paul. In any case, he stands for a ruler opposed to God’s people. The death of these prophets parallels that of their Master and Lord.

Leaving their bodies to lie in the street of a “great city” was a serious violation of all decency for people in the Middle East (see the burial of Jesus himself).

The “great city” may be either Jerusalem or Rome. Jerusalem is sometimes called Sodom by the prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel) for its moral wickedness, and Egypt for its idolatry and oppression. It is also, of course, the city where Jesus was crucified. However, Jesus could have been said to have been executed in Rome in so far as Jerusalem was under Roman rule and crucifixion was a Roman form of execution (the Jews preferred stoning). The two “witnesses” or prophets, if they are Peter and Paul, would have died in Rome.

The outrage against them is repeated as they are left lying unburied for three and a half days because the “nations” will not allow their burial (in the Middle East and generally in the Muslim world people are buried very soon after death).

Their death, however, is celebrated by the ”inhabitants of the earth” (the world), who found the teaching of these prophets a scourge. This, of course, was only to fulfil the teaching of Jesus about the fate that would await those who preached his Gospel (see Matt 10:16-23). Things have not changed in our own day.

However, this was not the end. After three and a half days, God gave them new life. They stood up (i.e. they ‘rose’, ‘resurrected’), and all who saw this were terrified. The killing of Christians, i.e. the making of martyrs, in the whole history of the Church has only brought new life, new energy and new courage. A striking example in modern times was the assassination of Bishop Oscar Romero while he was saying Mass in El Salvador. The Church thrives most of all in time of persecution.

At the end of today’s passage, the two prophets are called up to the very presence of their Lord and, like him, ascend in a cloud, the very symbol of God’s presence.

Let us hope that we, too, will be able to follow them. For that, we need to give witness to our faith, even in times of difficulty or when faced with opposition. Those are not times to hide our light under a bushel basket or to bury our talent in the ground. As a risen people, we are called on to stand up. How else can the Gospel message of truth and love be seen and heard?

More

Commentary on Luke 5:1-11

Today we read Luke’s version of the first call of Jesus’ disciples. It differs significantly from the parallel versions in Mark and Matthew and is a combination of passages from Mark and John.

We are told that Jesus was standing by the shore of the “Lake of Gennesaret”. The other Gospel writers call it the Sea of Galilee and John twice refers to it as the Sea of Tiberias.

Because of the large crowds pressing in on him to hear the word of God, Jesus was forced to borrow one of two boats moored near the shore where their owners were washing their nets:

He got into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon*, and asked him to put out a little way from the shore. Then he sat down and taught the crowds from the boat.

As we saw in the synagogue at Nazareth (and also in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s Gospel), sitting was the usual teaching position. From a practical point of view, by preaching from the boat Jesus could avoid the pressure of the crowd and yet be close enough to speak to them.

It is a simple, straightforward statement and yet there is a symbolism here. Jesus gets into Simon’s boat and teaches from it. In the Gospel, the boat is frequently a symbol of the church community. It is very meaningful to say that Jesus stepped into that boat, that it was Simon’s boat, and that he taught from there. It is a symbol of what is to come in the near future.

Now comes the lesson and the revelation. At the end of the teaching, Simon is told to go out into the deep water and start fishing. Simon says in response:

Master, we have worked all night long but have caught nothing. Yet if you say so, I will let down the nets.

Perhaps one can sense something of the condescension of the expert towards the amateur in Simon’s response, i.e. “we know there are no fish there but, just to make you happy, we’ll put out the nets.”

But their nets were hardly in the water when they were so full of fish that they were on the point of breaking. They (Simon and those others with him in the boat) had to call their companions in the other boat to come to their help (they do not seem to have caught any fish; only Simon’s boat does). The two boats together were now so full of fish that they were on the point of sinking.

Simon, just before, so arrogant and all-knowing, is now totally overcome. He knew there were no fish there. So there was only one explanation. The man standing before him was someone very special:

Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!

It is the reaction of a person in the presence of God’s overwhelming power and goodness. We see similar reactions by Abraham (Gen 18:27), Job (42:6) and Isaiah (6:5).

Simon—the ‘expert’—realises he is nothing in the presence of this man. Instead, he becomes aware of his shortcomings. Paradoxically, it is the saints who are most ready to acknowledge their sinfulness. And his companions, James and John, were equally amazed. There is no mention of Andrew in this version of the story because he would have been in his brother Simon’s boat. The passage indicates that Simon was not alone in the boat (“we have worked hard all night…”).

Some commentators feel that Luke may have borrowed this story from John’s account of the disciples going fishing at the end of that Gospel. It has been noted that Simon calls Jesus ‘Lord’, a post-resurrection title, and refers to his sinfulness, which makes more sense after his triple denial during the Passion. The story also looks forward to Peter’s leadership (his name is changed by then), which is confirmed in the same chapter of John.

Jesus then reassures Simon and his companions:

Do not be afraid…

These are words they will hear again because he is calling them to be his partners in the work of building his Kingdom. The huge catch of fish made by the boat carrying Jesus and Simon is a sign of a much greater catch of people to be made by the new community led by the Spirit of Jesus and under the leadership of Peter.

Unlike the other Gospels, Luke has a period of teaching and miracles preceding the call of the disciples. This makes their unhesitating response less surprising and more plausible.

They heard the message, they accepted the call and:

When they had brought their boats to shore, they left everything and followed him.

In Mark and Matthew, they left their nets and boats. In Luke’s Gospel especially, the following of Jesus is understood as absolute—one must leave everything and throw in one’s lot totally with Jesus wherever that will lead. Those boats and nets were the security on which the lives of Simon, his companions and their families depended. But they left them and everything else. This is faith; this is trust. Without it, the mission cannot succeed.
_______________________________________________
*He will not be called Peter until Luke’s next chapter.

More

Commentary on Acts 4:23-31

After they had been released by the Jewish leaders following their arrest and interrogation, and had been given strict warnings not to continue what they were doing, Peter and John went back to their community and related all about their experience.  This was possibly the same ‘upper room’ where the Apostles had met before and where the community may have continued to assemble.

The whole community then prayed.  They recalled the words of the psalmist who asks why the Gentiles and the princes of the world conspire against the Lord and his anointed.  Here we see in the unbelieving Romans the ‘Gentiles’, and Herod and Pilate represented by the ‘kings’ and ‘princes’.  They have gathered against the Lord and his anointed.  The word ‘anointed’ in Greek translates as ‘Christ’ (christos).  The Herod in question is Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Perea from 4 BC to AD 39.  He was the one who executed John the Baptist and before whom Jesus appeared during his trial.  Acts will later describe his rather gruesome death.  Pontius Pilate, of course, was the same Roman procurator who had Jesus crucified.

Yet they recognise that all of this had been foreseen by God. About Jesus’ enemies, Scripture says:

…Have you not heard
that I determined it long ago?
I planned from days of old
what now I bring to pass… (Is 37:26)

It was not that God forced them to act as they did, but that their freely chosen decisions were foreseen by God and would become part of his plan of salvation.

They beg the Lord, as persecution is also extended to them, that God will be with them through:

…signs and wonders…performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.

It is good for us too to be aware that, when as individuals or communities, we are true to the living out of our Christian faith, we can expect to face criticism, opposition, abuse and ridicule. Then we must also pray for the Lord’s assurance, protection and guidance. We do not necessarily expect those against us to change their minds, but we ask for the strength to continue being faithful to our convictions and the search for truth and goodness.

Then, suddenly, the place where the community is praying begins to shake and they are filled with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father and Jesus. Their prayer for strength and courage has been heard. Jesus had said:

Very truly, I tell you, if you ask anything of the Father in my name, he will give it to you. (John 16:23)

It is a mini-Pentecost and enables them to go out and proclaim the Good News with renewed confidence, unafraid of the threats and dangers that await them.

More

Commentary on Matthew 28:8-15

The women who had come to the tomb early on Sunday morning to embalm the dead body of Jesus were amazed to find the stone rolled back from the entrance and the tomb empty. Their reactions are a mixture of anxiety and joy. They are anxious that the body may have been stolen, but there is also an expectant joy. Could it be that he is alive? This is in contrast with the Gospel of Mark (16:8) where he tells us that the women “said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.”

And, while still wondering what could have happened, they run to tell the news to the disciples with “great joy” (obviously they were having optimistic thoughts) and, at that point they encounter Jesus, who greeted them with an Easter greeting of “Peace!” (Shalom!).

As they cling to Jesus’ feet (like Mary Magdalene in John’s Gospel, they do not want to lose him again), they are told not to be afraid, an admonition that will be heard frequently during these days, but to go to the disciples and instruct them to go to Galilee where they will see Jesus.

There are various, and to some extent, mutually conflicting versions of the resurrection story and of how and where the Risen Jesus was seen and by whom. There are basically two types of experiences. Appearances to individuals (Mary Magdalene, the Emmaus disciples, Peter and Thomas) help prove the fact of the resurrection. Appearances to several disciples together are accompanied by a mandate to continue the work of Jesus.

In today’s reading, the women are to instruct the disciples that they will see Jesus in Galilee, their own place. Galilee is their home ground, the place where they were born, grew up and worked. That is where the Risen Jesus is to be found. And, it is in our ‘own place’ we will expect to see him, too.

Jesus is saying the same thing to us. We do not have to go to Jerusalem or Rome or Lourdes or Fatima to find him. If we cannot find him in the place where we live and work, we won’t find him in those other places either.

As well as the distinction between individual and collective post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, there are two other distinct traditions: 1) those appearances that take place in Galilee (in the north) and 2) those in Judea (at Jerusalem, in the south). Commentators have pointed out that these seeming inconsistencies provide a better witness than any artificial uniformity to the antiquity of the evidence and its historical value. The physical details are not that important; it is the meaning that is all-important.

Meanwhile, the leaders of the Jews put another twist on what is happening. They also are reporting that the tomb is empty. All sides agree that the tomb was empty; the disagreement was over the why. Obviously, they are wondering what could have happened, but cannot accept the possibility of resurrection. The guards are bribed and told to say that the disciples stole the body while they were asleep. Guards who sleep on the job would be punished, not bribed. And, if they were asleep, how did they know what happened?

But when people do not want to believe something, reason and logic can often go out the window. We see such rationalisations frequently in those who find it inconvenient to continue living a Christian life.

Those who take the Gospel seriously and try to live according to its vision have all the confirmation they need that it is the recipe for a happy and fulfilled life.

More

Commentary on Luke 5:33-39

The call of the first disciples is followed in Luke by the cure of a leper and then of a paralytic. Then there is the call of Levi (who is called Matthew in Matthew’s Gospel) and the discussion with Jesus about his mixing with sinful and unclean people. It is the first of many confrontations between Jesus and the Jewish leaders.

We then come to today’s reading. Some scribes and Pharisees want to know why, when their disciples and those of John the Baptist regularly fast, Jesus’ disciples freely eat and drink. We know that John grew up in the desert and lived on an austere diet of locusts and wild honey. He also preached an austere penitential message and lived a highly disciplined life. The Pharisees also led a highly regimented and strict lifestyle. Jesus, however, together with his disciples, is frequently seen eating at the tables of Pharisees, tax collectors, and in the houses of friends. But while Jesus rejected ostentatious fasting, we know he fasted (once for 40 days) and praised it together with prayer and almsgiving, provided it was done discreetly and not for display.

Jesus gives two answers to the question. First, he says that it is not appropriate for guests to fast when the bridegroom is still around. A Jewish wedding was and is a specially joyous occasion (plenty of wine needed, as we saw in Cana) and it could last for a week. It would be unthinkable to fast at such a time. Here Jesus is the bridegroom. There will come a time when he is not physically with his disciples, and then they will fast.

The second reason goes deeper and is presented in the form of a parable. One does not use a new piece of cloth to patch an old garment. At the first sign of stress, the new cloth will be stronger and the old cloth will tear out. Nor does one put new wine into old wineskins. The new wine is still fermenting and expanding. The old wineskins, made of goatskins, are already stretched and no longer flexible. When the new wine expands, the old wineskins will not be able to stretch any more and will burst. The result is lost wine and ruined wineskins. So new wine has to be poured into new wineskins.

In this Jesus is clearly saying that his whole vision of religion is new, and that it can only be accepted and adopted by people who are prepared to see things in a new way. His teaching, his vision cannot be grafted on to the old religion. The old religion emphasised externals like observance of legal and ritual regulations and fasting; Jesus emphasises the interior spirit, which is the real measure of a person’s value.

This parable may also be read in conjunction with John’s account of the wedding feast at Cana, where Jesus produced new and better wine from the water in the ritual washing jars.

Jesus knows the difficulties his adversaries face:

No one after drinking old wine desires new wine but says, ‘The old is good.’

Those who had grown up with the ‘old wine’ of the Mosaic Law would find it difficult to switch to the ‘new wine’ that Jesus was offering.

Even in our Church today there are some who still hanker for the ‘old wine’ of the pre-Vatican II days. They have not made the inner shift which is necessary. They have not understood that Vatican II was much more than a change of external practices (such as have taken place in the liturgy). They nostalgically long for the Tridentine Mass in Latin and proclaim it preferable to the ‘new’ liturgy which they find superficial and lacking in reverence. But they do not seem to have grasped the thinking which is behind the liturgical changes. The new patch does not fit their old cloth. “The old wine is better,” they say.

Going forward, this thinking will not likely disappear because “the world writes the agenda for the church” and there will no doubt be other changes. The new wine will not be appreciated until the wineskins are also changed; otherwise we are in the same situation as the Pharisees were with Jesus.

More

Commentary on Acts 4:32-37

Today’s reading from the Acts is one of three portraits of the early Christian community. It is probably more the expression of an ideal than a historic description, but it is no less valid for all that. The passage emphasises the communal ownership and mutual responsibility of the community members for each other.

We Christians are sometimes accused of being ‘socialists’. Perhaps it is not an accusation of which we should be altogether ashamed. The ideal of socialism as popularised by Marx is “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. If this were the essence of socialism, then it is hard to see how any follower of Christ could disagree with it.

However, what people often do is to confuse this stated ideal of socialism (and communism) with the way in which it was implemented, as well as the atheistic materialism which it proclaimed. As we saw so clearly during communism and Marxism at their height, an attempt to achieve justice without love does not work. We Christians must also remember that there cannot be true love without justice.

Four elements are mentioned in the first sentence of today’s passage:

There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.

This was a voluntary sharing to provide for those who did not have enough for the essentials of living. Each one’s aim was to ensure that the needs (not necessarily the wants) of the others were met rather than each one looking only to their own needs.

It is important to note that this was possible because:

…the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul…

Their material sharing was simply an expression of the care which they felt for each other at a much deeper level.

The passage concludes with a striking example:

There was a Levite from Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

It is known that Jews had been living in Cyprus since the time of Maccabees. Generally, Levites did not own inherited land in Palestine, but the rule may not have applied in other areas. Or, the property may have belonged to his wife. Barnabas will later become a missionary partner with Paul.

Barnabas’ action will contrast with another couple, Ananias and Sapphira, who claimed to be doing the same, but who in fact only gave part of their possessions and kept the rest for themselves. They were severely punished. One after the other, they both dropped dead. Their story is told in the following chapter of Acts, but is not part of our Easter readings.

Do we find such sharing communities in our Church today? One obvious example are the many different communities of religious life whose misleadingly named “vow of poverty” is primarily, not a vow of destitution, but one of total sharing of resources coupled with a life of material simplicity. Clearly, some communities live this life more effectively than others. Additionally, we have to admit that many Christians, including religious, can be caught up in the individualism, hedonism, consumerism and materialism that dominates so many of our prosperous societies today.

Perhaps today we could reflect on our own attitudes to material goods: how we acquire them, how we use them, to what extent we share our material blessings with those in genuine need, and not just that of our surplus. This is something we need to reflect on as individuals, as families, and in our parish community. There should not be any people in real need in our parish communities; if there are, how can we speak of ourselves as a parish community?

More

Commentary on John 20:11-18

After going off to tell Peter and the other disciples about the empty tomb, it seems that Mary of Magdala went back there to grieve over her lost friend and master. She sees two angels sitting inside the tomb and asks where her Lord has been taken. When asked why she is weeping, she replies:

They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.

Then, as she turns round, there is Jesus standing before her, but she does not recognise him. This is a common experience with those who meet Jesus after the resurrection. He is the same, and yet he is not the same. In this transitional period they have to learn to recognise Jesus in unexpected forms and places and situations. He asks the same question as the angels:

Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?

This is a question we need to ask ourselves constantly. Like Mary, we may say we are looking for Jesus—but which Jesus?

She thinks the person in front of her is the gardener! How often we jump to conclusions about people, about their character and personality and true identity. Maybe this man has taken Jesus away and knows where he is.

It is also another lovely example of Johannine irony. First, that the one she took to be the gardener should know where Jesus was to be found. Second, it is John who tells us that the tomb of Jesus was in a garden (19:41). All the world’s pain and sorrow began with the sin of the Man and the Woman in a garden (Eden) and now new life also finds its beginnings in a garden. Mary was unwittingly right—Jesus is the Gardener, the one who produces life from the earth, and is the Word of his Father, the Gardener of Eden.

Then Jesus speaks: “Mary!” Immediately she recognises his voice, the voice of her Master. It reminds us of the passage about Jesus the Shepherd:

He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out…and the sheep follow him because they know his voice…I know my own, and my own know me… (John 10:3-4,15)

Immediately she turns and says to him in Hebrew, Rabbouni! This is a more formal address than just Rabbi and was often used when speaking to God. In this case, Mary’s exclamation is not unlike that of Thomas in the upper room:

My Lord and my God! (John 20:28)

We should also note that earlier she had already turned to face Jesus, so this turning is different. It is an interior turning from strangeness to recognition, from sadness to joy, from a sense of loss to a close bonding, from doubt to faith.

With a mixture of joy and affection and partly out of fear of losing him again, she clings on to him tightly. But Jesus tells her to let him go, because:

…I have not yet ascended to the Father

Perhaps it is possible that this sentence be better read as a rhetorical question: “Have I not ascended to my Father?”

In John, the glorification of Jesus takes place on the cross at the moment of death. At that moment of triumph, Jesus is raised straight to the glory of the Father. In that sense, it is the glorified Jesus who now speaks with Mary, not the Jesus she knew earlier. This Jesus cannot be clung to. In fact, there is no need. From now on:

I am with you always. (Matt 28:20)

Next, he says:

I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

This phrase echoes a sentence in the Book of Ruth (1:16):

…your people shall be my people
and your God my God.

The Father of Jesus now becomes the Father of his disciples as they are filled with the Spirit that is both in the Father and the Son. Thus they will be re-born (John 3:5) as God’s children and can be called “brothers and sisters” by Jesus.

Mary, and all the others, have to learn that the Risen Jesus is different from the Jesus before the crucifixion. They have to let go of the earlier Jesus and learn to relate to the ‘new’ Jesus in a very different way.

So she is told to do what every Christian is supposed to do: she goes and tells the other disciples that she has seen the Lord and she shares with them what he has said to her. And so:

Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and she told them that he had said these things to her.

She is not just passing on a doctrine, but sharing an experience. That is what we are all called to do.

It is significant that it is a woman who is the first person in John’s Gospel to see and to be spoken to by the Risen Jesus. Not only that, if she is the same person mentioned by Luke as one of Jesus’ women followers (Luke 8:2), she was formerly a deeply wounded woman from whom seven demons had been driven out.

Often no one is closer to God than someone who has been converted from a sinful past. We think of people like St Augustine or St Ignatius Loyola. We remember the example of the sinful woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:36-50). Of her Jesus said:

Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven loves little. (Luke 7:47)

So Mary, (who with Mary, Jesus’ Mother, stood by the cross of Jesus to the very end—unlike the men disciples), is now rewarded by being the first to meet him risen and glorified. She is truly a beloved disciple.

More

Commentary on Luke 6:1-5

Yet another confrontation between Jesus and some Pharisees is described in today’s Gospel. Following immediately, as it does, after the parable about the patch and the wineskins (Luke 5:33-39), it confirms what Jesus said about the gap between the traditionalists and his vision.

He and his disciples were walking through a cornfield and it was a Sabbath day. The disciples were plucking heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands and eating them. The Sabbath did not forbid walking short distances. And custom did not forbid “gleaning”, that is, taking grain left over by reapers. It did forbid reaping and threshing. Only a very narrow-minded interpretation could have described plucking as reaping and rubbing between the hands as threshing, but that seems to be what is happening here.

The disciples are asked:

Why are you doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?

Jesus answers very quickly and to the point. He makes no reference to the narrow-minded legalism that his critics reveal, the “old wineskin” mentality. Instead, he throws at them an incident from the past. David and his men were hungry so they went into the house of God and, with his approval, ate the holy bread of the Presence which only the priests were allowed to eat (1 Sam 21:6). Each Sabbath, 12 loaves of fresh bread were set on a table in the Holy Place. The stale bread was eaten by the priests.

As king, David put himself above the law. Both David’s and the disciples’ actions involved godly men doing something forbidden by law. However, it is never a violation of a law to do what is good and to save life (eating for survival). In that sense both David and the disciples were within the spirit, though not the letter, of the law.

And Jesus, too, is above the law:

The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.

Jesus has the authority to overrule man-made laws concerning the Sabbath, particularly as interpreted by the Pharisees. This does not mean, of course, that Jesus (or even God for that matter) will do anything he feels like doing. Jesus will never go against anything that involves the True or the Good; with his Father he is the Source of all that is true and good.

But many of the Jewish laws (like civil laws) are positive law. In themselves, they involve matters which are neither good nor bad. In itself, it is neither good nor bad to stop at a green light or go through a red one. It is neither good nor bad of itself to abstain from work on the Sabbath. What makes these acts good or bad is the deeper good of which they are a sign. That deeper good may sometimes involve their non-observance. Hunger and survival may over-ride a rule to fast. In a matter of extreme urgency it may be necessary to drive (safely) through a red light. The letter of the law is violated, but not the good it intends.

As noted in the Jerusalem Bible, “some manuscripts of Luke contain a very pertinent [but likely spurious] saying at this point”:

On the same day, seeing a man working on the Sabbath day, Jesus said to him: ‘Friend, if you know what you are doing, you are blessed; but if you do not know, you are accursed as a breaker of the Law’.

That is a sentiment that goes with new wine and new wineskins. If truth and goodness are not violated by doing or not doing something, can we say there is sin or evil there?

More

Commentary on Acts 5:17-26

In the passage immediately preceding today’s reading we are told that many signs and wonders were being performed by the Apostles and more and more people joined their community.  Even Peter’s shadow falling on the sick was enough to heal them.  All this was causing great alarm among the religious leadership who saw these men acting on the basis of a faith (a Saviour risen from the dead) which they regarded as heretical. During the next three days (Wednesday, Thursday and Friday) we will be hearing a description of the leaders’ efforts to put a stop to the Apostles’ work.

Specifically, those upset were the high priest and the Sadducee party to which he belonged.  As we saw earlier, Caiaphas was the high priest recognised by Rome, but the Jews considered his father-in-law Annas still the high priest because it was an office held for life.  The Sadducees only accepted the first five books of the Bible (the Pentateuch) as inspired, and rejected later teachings accepted by others.  Nor did they believe in a personal Messiah, but only in a Messianic age. They also were seen to some extent as collaborators with the Romans, and it was partly because they feared the reaction of the Romans that they wanted to get rid of this new ‘movement’ which could arouse the suspicions of the Roman authorities. Caiaphas had said during Jesus’ trial:

You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed. (John 11:50)

Here was a similar situation.

We are told that the main motive for their displeasure was jealousy.  The Apostles were attracting large crowds, apart from the fact that they were disseminating a doctrine which the Sadducees denounced.  So they had the Apostles arrested and thrown into the public jail.

But during the night an “angel of the Lord” opened the gates for them and told them to go back and continue preaching in the Temple.  The phrase “angel of the Lord” appears four times in Acts: Stephen, during his address to the Sanhedrin, tells of an angel speaking to Moses near Mount Sinai (7:30-38); an angel guides the deacon Philip to seek out the Ethiopian eunuch (8:26); an angel frees Peter from prison (12:7-10); and it is an angel who strikes down Herod when he accepts being addressed as a god (12:23).

In today’s reading, was it really a divine intervention, or was it the work of a secret but influential supporter?  It does not matter; it is clear that Jesus is with his Apostles.  So the dawn finds them back in the Temple preaching about Jesus.

The same morning, the Sanhedrin, the ruling council of the Jews, was convoked and the prisoners summoned.  The Sanhedrin was the supreme Jewish court, consisting of 70 to 100 men (the proper number was 71).  They sat in a semi-circle, backed by three rows of disciples of the “learned men”, with the clerks of the court standing in front.

The temple guard found the jail locked and the guards at their posts, but there was no sign of the Apostles.  They were dumbfounded and could not explain the situation.  Then the council was amazed to hear that the Apostles were back in the Temple teaching the people.  They were re-arrested, but with no show of force because the leaders feared the opposition of the crowd.

We have here again a pattern that recurs throughout the history of the Church and indeed among all those who fight in this world for truth and justice. Untold numbers of Christians in every part of the world have found themselves in jail for their faith.  Across the world, there are Christians in detention and labour camps right now.  They have experienced the protection of God who gives them courage and peace and a sense of liberation (even if they are not always miraculously released).

As in today’s case, those in power are aware that they often do not have the people on their side.  Their only weapon is their power, but not truth or justice.  To keep their power and all that goes with it, they will not hesitate to suppress truth and act unjustly and often violently.

As with the Apostles, we cannot acquiesce in a situation where truth and justice are being attacked.  There must be dialogue and even resistance, but never violence.  Our own dignity and that of our opponents must be deeply respected.  We oppose, not them, but their ideas and their actions.  We might pray today to have even a modicum of the Apostles’ integrity and courage. Tomorrow, we will continue with this story.