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:

• recognising Christ in the kindly stranger and playing that role ourselves;
• expressing our love and solidarity with each other through our celebration of the Eucharist and breaking bread together;
• working with the power of Jesus to fill the net that is the Kingdom, becoming truly fishers of people.

__________________________

*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. However, 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 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:

• The Hebraic Jews, who spoke the Aramaic and/or Hebrew languages of Palestine and kept strictly to Jewish culture and customs.
• The Greek speakers (or Hellenists), who were “overseas Jews”, scattered over the Mediterranean lands. They had often largely become culturally and linguistically Greek (in the same way, for instance, overseas communities become assimilated in the US or Western Europe). They would have had their own synagogues (which Paul used to visit on his missionary journeys) where the Bible would be read in Greek.  Not surprisingly, it was from this group that the main missionary initiatives would come, e.g. the Jews from Antioch rather than those from Jerusalem.

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 groups 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 been 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.

More

Commentary on Mark 16:9-15

This passage, known as the ‘Longer Ending’ of Mark’s Gospel, is a kind of summary of all that we have been reading during the past week. The end of Mark’s Gospel has verses many commentators believe are not part of the original text. Most commentators believe the original text ends with verse 16:8. However, this ending is so abrupt that many feel the original ending was somehow lost and this ending was put in its place.

Although the style shows it was not written by Mark, it has long been accepted as a canonical part of the Gospel, and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. It was known to Tatian and to Irenaeus in the 2nd century, and is found in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts.

The text consists of brief summaries of longer stories which appear in the other Gospels (Luke 24 and John 20), e.g. the appearance to Mary Magdalene, the disciples going to Emmaus, and Jesus’ appearance in the upper room.

The common theme is the incredulity of the disciples, who could not accept that Jesus was truly risen. Right to the very end of his Gospel, Mark continues to be harsh on the disciples’ lack of understanding. It is, of course, not about them he is writing, but about us.

The passage seems directed at many of the early Christians’ contemporaries who would not accept the message of Christ risen. But as we can see from the First Reading today, the disciples very soon not only found faith, but were more than ready to suffer and die for it.

In our times of doubt, let us remember their experience and their example and the fruits of their work. It is a work that still urgently needs to be done.

More

Commentary on Luke 20:27-40

Today we move on to the middle of chapter 20 of Luke’s Gospel. In previous passages which are not included in these readings, Jesus had rebutted a challenge to his authority and left his critics literally speechless (Luke 20:1-8). This was followed by his speaking a parable about tenant farmers (Luke 20:9-19). He was clearly referring to his questioners and identifying them with the wicked tenants who abused all the emissaries (the prophets) sent by the owner of the vineyard—an episode which culminated in the killing of his son. The identity of the tenants and of the Son is clear. This is followed by Jesus’ being confronted with a seemingly innocuous question about paying taxes to Caesar which again resulted in the silence of his critics (Luke 20:20-26).

Today another group, the Sadducees, thought they might do better. The Sadducees, among whom were numbered some of the most powerful Jewish leaders, including high priests, restricted their beliefs to the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, reputedly written by Moses and containing the essence of the Jewish Law.

For that reason, unlike the Pharisees, they did not accept some beliefs which occur only in later books of the Old Testament. Among these, for instance, were the existence of angels and the resurrection of the dead.

The Sadducees thought then they could stump Jesus with an unanswerable conundrum. They first quote a prescription from the Law of Moses by which a man was expected to marry the widow of his eldest brother, if there had been no children by the marriage. They then propose an imagined situation of seven brothers. The first brother married, but was childless when he died, so in accordance with the requirements of the Law the second married the widow, then the third and so on. Eventually, all seven brothers married the woman, but there were still no children.

The unanswerable question they proposed was that, if there really was a resurrection after death, which of the seven men would be the woman’s husband in the next life? For them, there was no problem; they did not believe in the resurrection. Death was the end of everything. For one who believed in the resurrection, it was an embarrassing difficulty—or so they thought.

Jesus quickly brushes the problem aside. To begin with, in the next life there are no marriage relationships:

Those who belong to this age [i.e. those who belong to this world] marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.

In the new life, all live face to face with God in a life that never ends. All are equally children of God—brothers and sisters to each other—taking their life and existence from him. That is now the focus of their relationship and it is through that relationship that they are bound together.

Jesus then goes on to challenge the Sadducees’ unbelief about life after death. He shrewdly quotes from a part of the Bible which they recognise as true. He reminds them of the scene where the voice from the burning bush identifies itself to Moses:

I AM the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. (Ex 3:6)

God, says Jesus, is the God of the living and not of the dead (i.e. of those who no longer exist). If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive, then the Sadducees’ argument fails. Perhaps we would not be convinced by such an argument, but it clearly worked in this case.

Some scribes who were listening in were delighted at the refutation of the Sadducees. Most of them were Pharisees and believed in the resurrection. At the same time, after these replies of Jesus to both the Pharisees and the Sadducees:

…they no longer dared to ask him another question.

We, of course, believe in the resurrection not so much because of Jesus’ arguments here, but because of his own resurrection and his promise to share his life with us forever.

More

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 2:1-5

Paul continues to explain the basis on which he was proclaiming Christ to the people of Corinth. When he first arrived among them from Athens about the year 51 AD, he did not come as a polished orator with convincing arguments. Perhaps Apollos, a Jewish exile from the sophisticated society of Rome who became one of the leaders of the community, had led the Corinthians to place more emphasis on eloquence and intellectual arguments. Paul more than once acknowledges his weaknesses in this area. Was this the “thorn in the flesh” which distressed him so much?

The only message Paul had to bring was that of Jesus Christ and him crucified. On the face of it, it did not look like a very encouraging message. This was not a message crafted to attract followers in large numbers, especially given Paul’s acknowledged weakness as a persuasive speaker.

No wonder, then that he had come among them “in weakness and in fear and in much trembling” (a common biblical expression), for he had none of the eloquence which they might have expected and to which they were accustomed from the intellectuals of the day.

All Paul had to offer was the persuasiveness that came:

…with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power…

He came to proclaim to them the “mystery of God”. ‘Mystery’ here is not so much something that is difficult to understand as it is a truth which had previously been hidden but is now made known to those who are ready to hear it. Greece at the time had its ‘mystery religions’, where the beliefs of the religion were only made known to initiates, something akin to some secret societies today. The ‘mystery’ here was the revelation about what God did for us through the life, death and resurrection of God’s Son made man—something that could never be discovered by the most sophisticated philosophers.

As Paul discovered in time, his deficiency was, in fact, his strength. All he had to offer was his personal knowledge and experience of Jesus as his crucified Lord and that was all that was needed. Paul was only the fragile “vessel of clay” through whom God did his work. As a powerful orator, the focus would have been more on himself and his arguments. His message proclaimed that:

…your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.

“The power of God” was clearly visible even in his weaknesses.

What Paul says here is of great importance to us in communicating our faith to others. There are those who try to convince non-believers or those who have fallen away by piling on apologetic arguments and proofs of God’s existence or the validity of the Church’s teaching. Ultimately, though, the only really effective way to lead people to Christ is by the sharing of our own experience of knowing him and by the witness of a life that is clearly influenced by the vision of the gospel.

It is also consoling for us to realise that the success of our evangelising does not depend on our own abilities. As Paul would say elsewhere:

…whenever I am weak, then I am strong. (2 Cor 12:10)

It is not a matter of intellectual power, but of our integrity, which allows God’s truth and love to shine through us.

At the same time, as one commentator reminds us, this does not give preachers a licence to neglect study and preparation. Paul’s letters reveal a great deal of knowledge in many areas of learning, and his eloquence is apparent in his address before the Areopagus in Athens (see Acts 17:22-31). Paul’s point is that unless the Holy Spirit works in a listener’s heart, the wisdom and eloquence of a preacher are ineffective. Paul’s confidence as a preacher did not rest on intellectual and oratorical ability, as did that of the Greek orators. Our communicating of Christ and his vision to others will also depend much more on the inner truth of our message than on our powers of persuasion.

More

Commentary on John 3:1-8

Today we go back to the early part of John’s Gospel and begin reading chapter 3.  In the coming Easter weeks we will be going through John’s Gospel more or less in order.

Today we see the encounter between Jesus and the Pharisee, Nicodemus, who was also a member of the Sanhedrin—the governing council of the Jews.  He was, then, a very highly placed official.

Nicodemus came to Jesus at night.  This, on the one hand, indicates his fear of being seen by others, but on the other, probably also has a symbolic meaning.  Religious man though he was, when he came to Jesus he was in a kind of spiritual darkness.  But his virtue is that he comes to seek light.  Jesus, of course, is the Light of the World. On the other hand, in the next chapter, the Samaritan woman will meet Jesus in the full blaze of the midday sun. It is interesting to contemplate the underlying meaning of this as well.

Nicodemus begins by praising Jesus.  No man, he says, could do the things that Jesus did if he did not come from God.  Given the fact that at this stage of John’s Gospel Jesus has hardly begun his public life, it is odd that Nicodemus can make this statement.  But it shows that the events described in this Gospel are not to be taken with a strict chronology.  This Gospel is rather a set of themes about the role of Jesus for us and the world.

Nicodemus sees in Jesus a prophet, a man of God, but has yet to recognise the full identity of Jesus.  Jesus counters by saying that no one can see the Kingdom of God “without being born from above” (or ‘born again’—both readings are possible, and the meaning is basically the same).  Though very common in the other Gospels, the term ‘Kingdom of God’ is only used here in John (vv 3 and 5).  Its equivalent in the rest of John’s Gospel is ‘life’.  To be truly in the Kingdom of God, i.e. to be fully integrated in the Reign or Rule of God, is to be fully alive.

Nicodemus hears Jesus literally, and asks:

How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?

His misunderstanding gives Jesus the opportunity to lead Nicodemus to a deeper understanding.  To be born again is to be born of “water and the Spirit”, a clear reference to Christian baptism.  Flesh only produces flesh (as in natural birth), but the Spirit gives birth to spirit and that is the second birth we all need to undergo:

You must be born from above.

The Greek word for “you” in this statement is plural and therefore directed to all, not just to Nicodemus.

And once we are reborn in the Spirit, we let ourselves be led to where God wishes:

The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

The “wind”, the ‘breath’ of the Holy Spirit, is the sole Guide for our lives.  He brings about our renewal in his own way.  The word for “wind” here is a word which also means ‘breath’ and ‘spirit’ (in Greek, pneuma).

Once we are guided by the Spirit, we have put ourselves totally in God’s hands, ready to be led wherever God wants us to go. This is the message being given to Nicodemus.  He must be ready to move in a different direction from that which has guided his life up to this point.  This readiness will lead him to see in Jesus the Word of God. We, too, wherever we happen to be right now, must ever be ready for God, through his Spirit, to call us in a new direction and to follow his lead.

More

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 2:10-16

In today’s passage, Paul discusses the true nature of the genuinely spiritual person. Not surprisingly, the source of his spirituality is the Spirit of God:

…the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.

The Spirit does this, not in order to know them better—for the Spirit knows all things. But rather, he understands fully the depth of God’s nature and so is fully competent to reveal them to us. And just as only a person alone knows what is going on in the depths of his or her heart, so only the depths of God can be known by God’s own Spirit.

What distinguishes the true followers of Christ is that they are not imbued by the spirit of the world around them. The “spirit of the world” is that “wisdom of this age” which is alienated from God and all he stands for (1 Cor 2:6). It is the attitude of ‘sinful nature’ as described in the Letter to the Romans (8:6-7). Instead, true followers have received the gift of God’s Spirit which helps us to understand the gifts and the love that is constantly being showered on us. So Paul’s teaching is not, as he said before, based on philosophical speculations, but comes in the way the Spirit communicates, that is, straight to the heart and not just in the mind.

In the verses which follow (including some which are not part of today’s reading) Paul explains why many fail to grasp true wisdom. It is because such wisdom is perceived by the spiritual (i.e. mature) Christian. The Corinthians, however, were unspiritual, worldly (infant) believers (1 Cor 3:1-4), and the proof of their immaturity was their division over their human leaders (1 Cor 3:3-4).

The unspiritual person is described as one who is closed to the working of the Spirit. The Greek term here is psychikos, a person who depends on his own natural resources:

…who walk…according to the flesh… (Rom 8:4)

This person is dominated by the physical, worldly or natural life.

Such a person—and we have surely met such individuals often—rejects the gospel teaching as nonsense. In fact, he or she does not understand it because understanding only comes through being open to the promptings of the Spirit.

Persons who are spiritual, on the other hand:

…discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny.

The Spirit gives the follower of Christ deep insights into the meaning of life, and a vision of what is really important. Paul himself, as a ‘spiritual’ man, is not to be judged by the Corinthians who are ‘sensual’ and immature, only able to be:

…fed…milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food. (1 Cor 4:2)

Many a truly Spirit-guided person will, as Jesus and Paul were, be frequently criticised. Such individuals may be rejected and even removed altogether by exile or death. But as long as they remain true to the guidance of the Spirit, they do not feel effectively judged by such people.

Christians must never be arrogant or contemptuous of others. At the same time, they must not fear or hesitate to be in opposition to the conventional wisdom of their environment. In order to make sure of their integrity, they must constantly discern the voice and the leading of God in all that he says and does.

Paul ends by asking a question posed by Isaiah:

For who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?

Paul answers by saying that, while we may not know the mind of God, and still less dare to teach him, he does claim that he and many of the baptised are those who have:

…the mind of Christ.

To have the “mind of Christ” is to see things the way Jesus sees them, to value things the way he values them, and to totally share his vision of the meaning and goal of our lives. What exactly that mind of Christ is can be found in the lovely hymn that Paul quotes in his letter to the Philippians (2:6-11). Let us pray today that we may be truly spiritual people who share and understand the mind of Christ.

More

Commentary on John 3:7-15

We continue today Jesus’ night-time dialogue with the Pharisee Nicodemus.  Nicodemus, while accepting in principle what Jesus has said about being born again in the Spirit, now wants to know how it can be brought about.

Jesus accuses Nicodemus and his fellow-leaders of a lack of spiritual insight and a refusal to accept his testimony as coming directly from God:

If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?

Jesus does not speak simply on his own initiative.  He speaks of what he shares with the Father. It is the Father’s words and teaching that he passes on to us—he is the Word of God. His is not just a speaking Word; it brings all things from nothing, calls the dead to life, hands on the Spirit, the source of unending life, and makes us all children of God. To experience all this we need to have faith in Jesus as truly the Word of God and to live our lives in love.

But the Word is not always easy to understand and it requires, above all, an openness to be received and witnessed.* It is this openness that Jesus is challenging Nicodemus to have. People respond to the Word in so many ways. Some believe fully; others go away disappointed in spite of the many signs.  One is reminded of the parable of the sower. To which group do I belong?

And up to now, only the Son has been “into heaven,” that is, with God:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

It is from there that:

…the Word became flesh and lived among us. (John 1:14)

He is in a position, therefore, to speak about “heavenly things”, that is, to speak of everything that pertains to and comes from God.

The only solution is to put all our focus on Jesus:

And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

This is a reminder of the incident in the book of Numbers (21:6-9) where, as a punishment for their sins, the Israelites were attacked by serpents.  God told Moses to erect a bronze serpent on a pole and all who looked at the serpent were saved.

Jesus, in a much greater way, will also be “lifted up” both on the cross and into the glory of his Father through the Resurrection and Ascension.  And he will be a source of life to all who commit themselves totally to him.  Only then will we be washed clean by the water from the pierced side (see John 19:34 and Zech 13:1).

To what extent are we ‘looking at’ Jesus?  Is it merely a sideways glance when we think about him, or at certain fixed times (e.g. Sunday Mass), or is he the centre of our attention in all that we do and say?

Let our constant prayer be:

Lord, grant that all my thoughts, intentions, actions and responses may be directed solely to your love and service this day and every day.

­­­­­­­­­­_________________________________________________

*For numerous references about vv 11-12 of this passage, see the footnote in the New Jerusalem Bible.