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.

More

Commentary on Luke 24:13-35

Today’s Gospel is one of the great passages of the New Testament. It encapsulates, in a little over 20 verses, the whole Christian life. It is still Easter Sunday as the passage opens. In Luke, all the resurrection appearances take place in the vicinity of Jerusalem and on Easter Sunday.

It begins with two disciples on the road leaving Jerusalem. For Luke, the focal point of Jesus’ mission is Jerusalem. It was the goal to which all Jesus’ public life was headed, and from there the new community would bring his Message to the rest of the world.

They are on their way to a place called Emmaus, about 7 miles (11 km) from Jerusalem. Although the exact location is not now known, it does not really matter—and that is the point. They were on the ‘road’—they are pilgrims on the road of life. Jesus is the Way, the Road. The problem is that at this moment, they are going in the wrong direction.

The Risen Jesus joins them as a fellow traveller:

…but their eyes were kept from recognizing him.

Why was that? Was it their presumption that he was dead? Was it their pre-conceived idea of what Jesus should look like?

Seeing their obvious despondency and disillusionment, Jesus asks what they are talking about. With deliciously unconscious irony they say,

Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days?

Jesus plays them out a little more with a totally innocent-sounding, “What things?” He wants to hear their version of what happened. To them, the death was the failure of Jesus’ mission. They refer to him as a “prophet” as if, after the debacle of his death, they could not see in Jesus, the Messiah they had earlier acknowledged.

…we had hoped [Greek, elpizomen, sperabamus] that he was the one to redeem Israel.

Again, the delicious irony of their own words is lost on them. To them, “redeem Israel” meant liberation from the tyranny of foreign domination, and perhaps the inauguration of the Kingdom of God as they understood it.

They are puzzled also by the stories of the women describing an empty tomb and angels—but there is still no sign of Jesus. More irony—they are addressing these very words to Jesus!

Jesus then gives them a lesson in reading the Scriptures, and shows them that all that happened to him—including his suffering and death—far from being a tragedy, was all foreordained. Luke is the only writer to speak clearly of a suffering Messiah. The idea of a suffering Messiah is not found as such in the Old Testament. Later, the Church will see a foreshadowing of the suffering Messiah in the texts on the Suffering Servant in Isaiah.

This story emphasises that all that happened to Jesus was the fulfilment of Old Testament promises and of Jewish hopes. All through Acts, Luke will argue that Christianity is the fulfilment of the hopes of Pharisaic Judaism and its logical development. In many respects, Matthew’s Gospel has a similar theme.

As they reach their destination, Jesus makes as if to continue his journey. However, they extend their hospitality to the stranger. They say:

Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.

This echoes in Matthew’s Gospel:

…I was a stranger and you welcomed me… (Matt 25:35)

So Jesus goes in to stay with them—wonderful words. But it would not have happened if they had not opened their home to him.

As they sat down to the meal, Jesus, the visitor unexpectedly acting as host, took the bread, said the blessing over it, broke it and gave it to them. And in that very act, they recognised him. This is the Eucharist, where we recognise the presence of Jesus among us in the breaking of bread. Not just in the bread, but in the breaking and sharing of the bread, and in those who share the broken bread.

Then Jesus disappears, but they are still basking in the afterglow.

Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?

In the light of these experiences, they turn around (conversion!) and go back along the road to Jerusalem from which they had been fleeing. There they discover their fellow-disciples, excited that the Lord is risen and has appeared to Simon. And they tell their marvellous story and:

…how he had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

All the ingredients of the Christian life are here:

The scene is also a model of the Mass:

Those walking together on the Road gather together and meet Jesus. First, they meet him in the Liturgy of the Word as the Scriptures are broken open and explained. Second, he is present in the Liturgy of the Eucharist, where what Jesus did for us through his suffering, death and resurrection is remembered with thanksgiving. The bread that is now his Body, and the wine that is now his Blood, are shared among those who are the Members of that Body to strengthen their union and their commitment to continuing the work of Jesus.

More

Commentary on Luke 19:11-28

Immediately following the story of the tax collector Zacchaeus comes a parable about the use of what God has given to us.

Jesus and his disciples are near Jerusalem where:

…they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.

How right they were! It was indeed going to appear in Jerusalem, but not at all in the way they expected—with the political and military defeats of enemies. As the beginning of Acts reveals, they “were hoping” that Jesus was about to restore the political kingdom of Israel. In time, they would learn that a kingdom of far greater significance was coming into being and that they would play an important part in its inauguration.

The parable which follows differs significantly from a similar one of the talents in Matthew (25:14-30). In Luke, too, there may be two parables fused into one—that of the coins and that of a disputed claimant to a royal throne (symbolising Jesus himself).

Jesus begins the parable by saying that a man of noble birth went to a far country to have himself appointed king and then return. This may have reminded his hearers of Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great, who went to Rome in the year 4 BC to get himself appointed king. On his return, he succeeded his father. It may seem a rather unusual procedure, but the Herods used to go to Rome in order to get appointed as rulers over the Jews.

Similarly, Jesus is soon to depart and in the future will return as King. During his absence, his servants are entrusted with their master’s affairs.

In the parable, the king, before leaving, gives ten units of money to each of ten servants and tells them to invest the money until his return. The coins are called ‘pounds’ (or minas in some translations) and were each worth about 100 drachmas, where a drachma was the equivalent of one day’s wages. Each coin then was the equivalent of about three months’ wages. This is a much smaller sum than those in Matthew’s parable. The other difference is that there are ten people and each one gets the same amount. Recall that in Matthew’s parable there are three people who get respectively 10, 5 and 1 talents.

In the parable, we are told that the people despised this man and did not want him as their king. In fact, a Jewish delegation had gone to Rome protesting at the idea of Archelaus becoming king. In the same way, Jesus was soon to go away and return some day as King and Judge. While he is ‘away’, his ‘servants’ will be entrusted to take care of their Master’s affairs. But others will reject him completely.

When he returned, the new king asked each of his servants to give an account of their trading, just as Jesus will do at the Judgement. One had made another ten pounds on his capital of ten, and he was rewarded by being put in charge of ten towns. Another had made five, and was rewarded with five towns. But a third came along with just the capital he had been given (i.e. the original one pound). He had not traded the money for fear of losing it, but kept it in a safe place. He was afraid of the king, of whom he said:

…you take what you did not deposit and reap what you did not sow.

The king became angry. He did not dispute his ruthlessness, but he said that the man could at least have lent the money and gotten some interest. He ordered the ten units be taken from him and given to the one who had already made ten—this man was obviously good at business. The lesson of the parable is then spelt out by Jesus:

I tell you, to all those who have, more will be given, but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.

The last sentence of the parable, in a way, describes a third set of people in the story. The first set consists of those who used their coin well and profitably. The second is the one who kept his one coin and carefully guarded it. But finally, there are those who did not want this man as king and these are executed:

But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to rule over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.

They are the greatest losers of all, and it probably points to those Jews who rejected Jesus as King and had their city destroyed, referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 AD. The punishment of those who rebelled and actively opposed the king was much more severe than that of the over-cautious servant.

The context of the whole parable is emphasised by the last sentence of today’s reading:

After he had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.

We are coming near the end of our story and the climax to which it is headed.

The parable points to all those who are being called by Christ. It is the final part of one large unit (Luke 18:18—19:28) which includes the story of a rich man with good intentions, but not able to respond to Jesus’ call; a prediction of Jesus’ passion not understood by the disciples; the story of a blind man who, after having his vision restored, becomes a follower of Christ; the story of another rich man who was willing generously to share his wealth with the poor; and ending with the parable of the proper use of what we have.

The first rich man claimed to follow the commandments (the Law), but wanted to keep his money safely in his own possession. He is like the man who buried his money and did not invest it in the love and service of his brothers and sisters, especially those in need. The other, Zacchaeus, generously shared his wealth with the poor. He had invested his money well—he had learned to see. Anyone who can really see where Jesus is has no alternative but to go his Way. Finally, there are those who totally reject Christ and all that he stands for. Their blindness is total.

Today we are asked to reflect on the special gifts that God has given to each one of us and how we are using them for the benefit of brothers and sisters in need. What are our attitudes to money, to property, to professional status, academic or other qualifications or other gifts with which we are endowed? Where do we invest our gifts and our talents, both inborn and acquired?

The message is clear: the more we invest, the more we will gain. We cannot stand still or just cling to what we have. The only way to gain is to let go, to give and to share. Good examples of this would be St Francis of Assisi or St Teresa of Calcutta (Mother Teresa). It is an attitude very foreign to many people’s way of thinking, who feel that life consists of amassing more and more, that security is in having.

But the Gospel way is really the only way that makes sense. It is not in collecting, but in sharing that generates wealth, the wealth that really matters—freedom, security and peace.

More

Commentary on Acts 5:27-33

After having been miraculously released from jail and returned to the Temple to continue their preaching in the name of Jesus, the Apostles were re-arrested and brought again before the 71-member Sanhedrin, the ruling council of the Jews.

They were accused of two things:

The Apostles were not in the least fazed by these accusations.  The men who were so fearful at the time of Jesus’ death, and immediately after, now spoke out boldly. They told their judges:

We must obey God rather than any human authority. The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.

Their accusers were undoubtedly accomplices in the death of Jesus; their motives a mixture of religious narrow-mindedness and political self-interest.  But the Apostles believed that Jesus was now in glory as Ruler and Saviour:

God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israel [i.e. all their fellow-Jews] and forgiveness of sins.

The title they give to Jesus corresponds to ‘Prince and Redeemer’. It was applied to Moses (as a prefiguring of Christ) by Stephen in his address to the Sanhedrin, where he said that Moses too was rejected by his people (Acts 7:35).  There is an implicit comparison here of Jesus with Moses, something that the Apostles’ judges would certainly not have liked.

But the Apostles were witnesses to all that they were saying.  They could not say or do otherwise, no matter what others might tell them.  And the Holy Spirit was with them.  Their testimony was directed and confirmed by the:

…Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.

It reminds one of Thomas More in England who refused to recognise King Henry VIII as head of the Church in England.  “The king’s good servant but God’s first,” he said.  For refusing to compromise his faith and integrity, he lost his life.  For Thomas More, too, there was no other choice. And there have been many others like him down the ages.  Many Christians today languish in jails and camps for no other reason.

Not surprisingly, the stance of the Apostles infuriated their judges who wanted them put to death for what seemed blasphemous language. Tomorrow we will see the completion of this story.

More

Commentary on Luke 24:35-48

We pick up from yesterday’s story of the disciples going to Emmaus. Back in Jerusalem they share their experience of the risen Jesus with their comrades who have also heard that Jesus has appeared to Simon Peter.

Suddenly, Jesus himself appears in their midst. The fact that he comes suddenly, although the doors were locked, indicates that his presence is now of a different kind.

He wishes them peace. It is the ordinary Jewish greeting of Shalom, but one which has special meaning in this Easter context. Before his Passion Jesus had told his disciples,

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. (John 14:27)

The peace of the Risen Jesus is fully a Messianic blessing.

In spite of what they had heard, they are terrified and think they are seeing a ghost. Jesus asks them:

Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?

He shows them his pierced hands and feet. The Greeks mocked the idea of bodily resurrection, but Luke emphasises the physical reality of Christ’s risen body, that is, the wholeness of the person of the risen Jesus.

He invites them to come and touch him. Ghosts do not have flesh and bones. As he shows them the wounds in his hands and feet, their fear turns to a mixture of joy and utter astonishment. They can’t believe their eyes. Jesus has to ask them to give him something to eat. Ghosts don’t eat and Jesus is no ghost; he is no disembodied soul. There is also an emphasis that death is not an ‘escape’ from the body, but that the whole person goes into the next life.

Jesus then goes on to explain, as he did with the Emmaus disciples, how all that had happened to him was fully in harmony with, and the fulfilment of, the Law, the prophets and psalms. Mentioning the three constituent parts of the Old Testament, Jesus indicates that the Messiah was foretold through the whole of the Hebrew scriptures.

And out of Christ’s suffering, death and resurrection comes the mission to proclaim reconciliation with God through Jesus to the whole word. Jesus tells them:

You are witnesses of these things.

It is their mission to carry on the establishment of the Kingdom throughout the world. Or, as it is put here:

…that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in [the Messiah’s] name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

The Kingdom is being realised when people go through that process of radical conversion and change of life (i.e. ‘repentance’—metanoia) which brings about a deep reconciliation of each one with God, with all those around them, and with themselves—when all divisions fall away, when fear and hostility are replaced with a caring love for each other.

If we have not yet done so, let us become part of that great enterprise today.

More

Commentary on Luke 19:41-44

Jesus is now on the last stage of his mission. He approaches Jerusalem, which will be the scene for the last great act of his life—his passion, death and resurrection. From here too, will rise up the new community founded in his name, commissioned to continue the work he had started.

As he approaches the city he weeps over its tragic end. He implies that, if the city had received him as Lord and King, it might not have met the fate that was in store for it:

If you, even you, had only recognized on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.

The second half of the word ‘Jerusalem’ (i.e. -salem means ‘peace’—in Hebrew it is shalom). The city had not known the “the things that make for peace” which, of course, was the path that led to Jesus—the Prince of Peace and the source of all peace in our lives. Jerusalem has hardly known peace since that time—neither for the Jewish nor the Palestinian people.

The rest of the passage is a prophecy of what in fact is going to happen to the city. We know that it was besieged by the Emperor Titus in the year 70 AD. However, Jesus’ words are built up from many Old Testament references and seem to refer rather to the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC as much, if not more, than that brought about by the Romans. And as none of the distinctive features of the Roman siege are mentioned, the words seem to date from before that time.

But of course, subsequently, it was the Romans who destroyed the city and its huge Temple. One of the wonders of the ancient world was reduced to ruins. The Temple was ransacked and its most precious ornaments, including the seven-branched candlestick, were carried off. All of this is sculpturally recorded in the triumphal Arch of Titus erected in Rome to commemorate his victory, and which can be seen in the Forum to this day.

All this will take place, Jesus says:

…because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God.

So many failed to recognise Jesus as Messiah, as God coming to visit them—they rejected him.

With the destruction of the Temple, the Jewish faith was dealt a serious blow, and from which it may be said, it has never fully recovered. No temple has ever taken its place, for it is believed it can only be on the same sacred site in Jerusalem. But unfortunately for the Jews, the Al-Aqsa mosque stands on the site today and is not likely to be removed. All that is left of Herod’s temple is the Wailing Wall, where Jews go to pray and lament their lost glory.

For us Christians, there is no exclusively holy place, although certain places are of special significance. But as Paul reminds us, each baptised person is a Temple of the Spirit and is to act as such and be respected as such:

For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them. (Matt 18:20)

Such a gathering may be at a solemn papal Mass in the magnificent basilica of St Peter’s in Rome, or it may be oppressed Christians gathering secretly in prayer in a labour camp—it does not matter. It is the closeness to Christ and to each other that matters and not the place.

More

Commentary on Acts 5:34-42

At the end of yesterday’s reading we saw that the members of the Sanhedrin were so infuriated by the boldness of Peter and his companions that they wanted to put them to death.

It was at this point that Gamaliel, a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin, stood up and ordered that the accused disciples be put out of the chamber for a short time.  Gamaliel was a teacher of Paul and belonged to the school of Hillel; he may have actually been a grandson of Hillel.  He was a leading exponent of a more liberal and humane interpretation of the Law, and was respected by the council members.  What he was urging here was in line with the teaching of the Pharisees.

As soon as the Apostles had left the chamber, he addressed the assembly.  He warned his fellow council members not to be too hasty in their judgements.  He gave two examples of leaders—Theudas and Judas the Galilean—who started rebellious movements and in both cases attracted quite a large following of supporters.

The Jewish historian Josephus mentions the revolts of Theudas and of Judas the Galilean.  They must have taken place about the time Jesus was born.  Judas apparently led a revolt against paying tribute to Caesar—a contentious issue, as we know from the Gospel.  Although his revolt was crushed, it is possible that it lived on in the party called the Zealots. As we also know from the Scriptures, one of the Apostles, Simon, is described as a Zealot (Mark 3:18 and Luke 6:15). However, in both cases the leaders died or were killed and then their movements fell apart and their followers scattered.

Gamaliel suggested that, on the basis of these experiences, this ‘Jesus movement’ should be left alone.  Their leader had also died and what was happening now might be just a flash in the pan. He said:

So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!

These are wise words. This kind of phenomenon occurs constantly and is frequently seen in our Church, and like Gamaliel, we should have confidence in the principle that, in the long run, the truth will always prevail.  We sometimes get very concerned about new ideas or new movements that surface in our Christian communities, but the same principle applies.

In current debates about married priests and women priests, as well as problems about marriage and sexuality, we should be confident that in the long run truth and justice here too will win out, whatever decisions are made.

The Sanhedrin was persuaded by Gamaliel’s argument, but they still had to express their anger and—quite unjustifiably—had the Apostles flogged.  This would have been according to Jewish law, which meant 40 lashes minus 1 (the Romans, who scourged Jesus, had no such limitations).  It reminds one of what happened to their Master.  Although declared innocent by Pilate, he was still subjected to the scourging.  The Council then repeated their orders for the Apostles to stop preaching.

Far from being cowed or depressed, Peter and his companions left the court and:

…they rejoiced that they were considered worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name.

They were experiencing the blessedness that Jesus had spoken of in the Sermon on the Mount:

Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:10)

and

Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matt 5:11-12)

Since that time, many have been happy and proud to suffer for the sake of the Gospel and its message.  One remembers the civil rights activists beaten and subjected to attacks from savage dogs, joyfully singing “We shall overcome” as they were carted away to jail in paddy wagons.

More

Commentary on John 21:1-14

Today we have a resurrection story which is unique to John and is in his final “extra” chapter, which may be a kind of appendix added on later by another author following the Johannine tradition. The text contains some peculiarities which are closer to Luke’s style, but others which are Johannine. It bears close resemblance to a similar story about a catch of fish in Luke (5:1-11), and another in Matthew (14:28-31) where Peter gets out of the boat to go to Jesus. Although it seems added to the original text, the chapter appears in all extant manuscripts of John.

Like most of John’s accounts, it is a story full of symbolism. We see a group of disciples, seven altogether, seemingly at a loose end with nothing to do. The seven are Simon Peter, Thomas the Twin, Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, Zebedee’s sons (James and John) and two other disciples.

Nathanael, who is only mentioned in John’s Gospel, appears in chapter 1 of John as one who was called by Philip. This is the only mention of James and John in John’s Gospel, although they have a central role in the other three Gospels. Some speculate John may be the second of the two disciples called by Jesus in John 1 (the one named is Andrew), but he could also be the ‘Beloved Disciple’ (the “disciple whom Jesus loved”), not yet ready to be so called.

Of the two other disciples in the boat, one is presumed to be the Beloved Disciple who appears very soon in the story. The number seven suggests the fullness of the community. John likes the number seven—he records seven signs performed by Jesus, and seven ‘I AM’ statements.

Peter, the leader, decides to make a move and says, “I am going fishing.” It is what he knows best, and the others go along with him. Is there an implication that the great enterprise that Jesus began is over and they return to their old way of living?

After a whole night on the lake they get nothing. (Aristotle tells us that night-time was favoured for fishing.) Is there also an echo of words spoken at the Last Supper, “apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5)?

As the light of dawn breaks Jesus is standing on the shore but, as usually happens in these post-resurrection scenes, they do not recognise him. He asks the question fishermen do not like to be asked:

Children, you have no fish, have you?

Reluctantly they have to admit, “no”. He then gives them some suggestions. On a natural level, it is possible he could see a movement of fish that was not visible from the boat, but the real meaning is deeper. He will lead the fish to them as he will lead people to them later on.

After following Jesus’ instructions, they make a huge haul of fish, so many that they cannot be brought into the boat. The exact number is given: 153. Is that an actual memory or is there a special symbolism in the number? St Augustine thought the latter and made his own speculations. St Jerome saw it as an expression of the universalism of the Christian mission, saying that the Greeks believed there were altogether 153 kinds of fish. The number is also the sum of the first 17 digits: 1+2+3…

However, that aside, the main point is to emphasise God’s generosity, recalling, for example, the amount of water changed into wine at Cana, the amount left over after feeding the crowds in the desert, the abundance of life that the Good Shepherd gives, the fullness of the Spirit, and the life-giving water that guarantees we are never thirsty. As well, the net was not broken. The net itself is, as in other texts, a symbol of the Kingdom of God.

This is all clearly a parable, a symbol of their future work as fishers of people, a work whose success will originate in the power of Jesus behind them and in their following what he tells them to do.

A similar incident had happened during Jesus’ earthly life and the “disciple whom Jesus loved” immediately saw the connection. He is the one with deeper insight into the presence and the ways of his Master. “It is the Lord!” he exclaims.

But if the “other disciple” was the one whom Jesus loved, Peter was the one who loved Jesus. And it is Peter, the impetuous one, who reacts first. He “put on his outer garment, for he had taken it off”* and jumps into the water to get to Jesus, leaving the others to bring the boat and fish to the shore. Such is his anxiety to be close to his Lord.

Says the New International Bible:

“It is curious that he put on this garment (the word appears only here in the New Testament) preparatory to jumping into the water. But Jews regarded a greeting as a religious act that could be done only when one was clothed.”

Peter is responding to the call “It is the Lord” and hears it as pointing to Jesus as someone special.

On the shore they find that Jesus has lit a fire. There is bread and some fish cooking. (Where did these fish come from? This is the kind of question we do not need to ask when reading a symbol-full passage like this.)

Jesus says to the Apostles:

Bring some of the fish that you have just caught.

“You”? Yes, literally they had pulled the fish in, but where had they originally come from? The same goes for much of what we claim to do. It is important to acknowledge God’s role in our actions, especially our “successes”.

In response to the command, it is Peter, the leader—now and in the future—who alone brings in the huge catch from the boat by the water’s edge. Peter alone dragging the net in is an image of the Kingdom coming (compare the parable beginning in Matt 13:47). His action also signifies the special position of Peter in the mission of the Apostles. Just now the whole group together could not haul the net into the boat.

Jesus then invites them to come and eat with him the meal he has prepared for them. Here, too, there are Eucharistic overtones. Now as they stand close to the friendly stranger, no one dares to ask “Who are you?” because they know quite well it is the Lord, the risen Jesus. Again we are being taught to find the presence of the Lord in all those who are kind to us, who do good to us in any way, and especially in those who share the Eucharistic meal with us. In the same way, we are called to be Jesus to everyone that we encounter.

If there were any questions remaining, Jesus’ identity is now confirmed by his taking the bread and the fish and giving it to them to eat. He broke bread; he celebrated a Eucharist with them.

We have here, then, some central pillars of our faith:

__________________________

*That is, he was naked. Some of our translations use all kinds of euphemisms (e.g. ‘lightly clad’, New American Bible) to express this. Does it shock us that the first pope could go around like this? Male nakedness was much more acceptable in Peter’s society. A redeemed people should have no problem with an unclothed body. It was only after their sin that Adam and Eve became ashamed of their nakedness. Jesus reversed that by dying naked on the cross. We need to remember, too, that Peter is still under a cloud after denying his Master three times. Nakedness is only for the innocent. So, the moment he hears the person on the shore is his Lord, perhaps it is shame and guilt that make him cover himself. It is possible that all the others were naked also, but had no reason to cover themselves. Very soon, however, there will be a reconciliation between Jesus and Peter.

More

Commentary on Luke 19:45-48

Luke tells us very briefly of the scene where Jesus, now in Jerusalem, drives the traders from the courts of the Temple. Says Jesus quoting from Isaiah (56:7) and Jeremiah (7:11), respectively:

My house shall be a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of robbers.

The trading took place in the outer court, also known as the Court of the Gentiles, and, as is not unusual in such situations, prices could be grossly inflated. John speaks of a cleansing at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (2:13-25), but in the other three Gospels it takes place at the end. Two possible explanations have been given. Either there were two cleansings or, more likely, John moved the story to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry for theological reasons. He wanted to show Jesus as Messiah right from the beginning, whereas in the Synoptics, Jesus’ identity as Messiah is only gradually revealed. There are also some differences in the various accounts. John mentions cattle and sheep and that has Jesus use a whip made of cords. Matthew (21:12-17) and Luke seem to indicate that the event took place on what we call Palm Sunday, but for Mark it was on the following day (see Mark 11:15-17).

Those coming to the Temple needed to buy animals for the sacrifices and they needed to change their Roman coins into acceptable Jewish currency (shekels) to make their contributions to the Temple. Jesus had no problem about that. What he objected to was that this business was being carried on inside God’s house when it could just as well have been done outside.

We all know how street traders try to get as close to the action as they can. However, there may be hints that priests in the Temple connived at this business and hence would certainly have profited from it as well. But Jesus (and probably others as well) felt that such business was not appropriate in a place dedicated to the worship of God.

It would be hard for us to imagine hawkers being allowed to set up stalls inside our churches, although where Sunday papers are still sold, the vendors still do try to get pretty close to the church doors.

Not surprisingly, the chief priests and the scribes—especially those who might have been involved in what must have been a lucrative business—were plotting how to get rid of Jesus who was upstaging their authority and accusing them of hypocrisy, greed and corruption. The chief priests, as members of the ruling Jewish council, the Sanhedrin, wielded great authority. But it was not going to be easy as the ordinary people continued to flock to Jesus and, as Luke tells us:

…all the people were spellbound by what they heard.

Jesus is an example of the true prophet. He speaks as a messenger of God and is indeed God’s own Son. He stands as a counter-witness to all that is against truth, love and justice. As such, he inevitably incurs the anger and hostility of those who have power, power based on falsehood, on self-interest, corruption and injustice.

Our Church, in its communities and through individuals, is called on to continue that mission of counter-witness. It will win us the support and admiration of some, but also hostility, anger and perhaps even the violence of others. This is something we should not at all be surprised at, nor something we should try to avoid. Our only concern must be always to speak the truth in love. God will take care of the rest. Because, ultimately, truth, love and justice will prevail.

More

Commentary on Acts 6:1-7

As the new community grew, so did its need to develop new structures.  With its growth came a more complex membership.  It is likely that some time had elapsed between today’s passage and those we were reading during the past week.

For the first time, the word ‘disciples’ is used to describe those who had become believers in Christ; up to this, it had only been applied to those who had actually been with Jesus during his public ministry.

The issue in today’s reading is that the Greek-speaking Jewish members began complaining that their needs were being neglected by the Hebrew-speaking Palestinian members, from which the founding core came.

At this stage of its development, the Church was still entirely Jewish in its membership.  However, they were divided into two distinct groups:

However, it is possible that the Hellenists were not Jews from the diaspora, but Palestinian Jews who only spoke Greek. The Hebrews were Palestinian Jews who spoke Aramaic/Hebrew, but may also have known some Greek. Both belonged to the Jerusalem Jewish Christian community.

In either case, it is possible that the Greek speakers were to some extent looked down on by Aramaic/Hebrew speakers. Even at this early stage in the life of the Church, we can see the ugly head of ethnic-cultural divisions surfacing.

From its very beginnings, the Church has consisted of flawed human beings. It should never cause us any surprise and it does not weaken the central message of the Good News.

In general, however, the purpose of the passage seems to be to introduce Stephen as a prominent figure in the community.  We will meet him again in the readings of Monday and Tuesday next week.

In particular, the Hellenists complained about the neglect of the widows in their group.  Widows were among the most pitiable group of people in Jewish society at that time.  They were not necessarily old, but they had lost their husbands, and remarriage for nearly all of them was out of the question.  In the absence of any kind of social welfare, their only means of support was the charity of their community.

The Apostles felt that this kind of material responsibility was not really theirs.  In the beginning, the Apostles were responsible for church life in general, which included both the ministry of the word (evangelising) and the care of the needy in the community.  As the community grew, this clearly became more and more difficult a responsibility for such a small number of leaders.  It was time for delegation and applying the principle of subsidiarity!

So it was suggested that the Greek-speaking community choose carefully selected people from among themselves to take care of these needs.  This met with general approval and seven men were chosen.  Not surprisingly all of them have Greek names and all, except for one, Nicholas of Antioch, who was a convert, were born Jews.  It is significant that a proselyte was included in the number, and that Luke points out his place of origin as Antioch, the city to which the Gospel was soon to be taken and which was to become the “headquarters” for the forthcoming Gentile missionary effort.

It is also worth noting that it was the community who chose the seven men, but it was the Apostles who ‘ordained’ them by prayer and a laying on of hands.  These are the first recorded ‘ministers’ appointed in the Christian community and the pattern of their formal initiation will become the norm: the Apostles prayed and laid their hands on them—as we see in Acts and the letters of Paul.  This still is done in the conferring of ministries today. At this stage they are not actually called ‘deacons’, but the word diakonia, meaning ‘service’ is used twice in the passage.

Finally, as was mentioned, we will be hearing more about Stephen next week and, later on, Philip also.

In the meantime, the number of Christians continued to increase enormously.  Now, even some of the priests, probably Sadducees, were being converted to faith in the Risen Jesus.  They were prepared to give up the temple sacrifices and rituals around which their lives up to now had centred, and replace them with a new liturgical celebration centred on the community Eucharist, celebrated wherever Christians gathered together.

Given the limited human and material resources of the early community, it is amazing how its message was wholeheartedly accepted by so many.  The finger of God was certainly there.