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 and 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 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:

• The believers form a community, a “group of believers”;
• They are of “one heart and soul”, deeply united with each other;
• “No one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common”;
• They gave “testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus” with great power, through signs and healings “and great grace was upon them all”.

The reading tells us:

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, twelve 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.

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:

• Running away from where Christ is to be found—we do it all the time.
• Meeting Jesus in the unexpected place, or person, or situation. How many times does this happen and we do not recognise him, or worse, mistreat him?
• Finding the real meaning and identity of Jesus and his mission in having the Scriptures fully explained. Without the Scriptures we cannot claim to know Jesus. Yet, how many Catholics go through life hardly ever opening a Bible?
• Recognising Jesus in the breaking of bread, in our celebration of the Eucharist. The breaking and sharing of the bread indicates the essential community dimension of that celebration, making it a real ‘comm-union’ with all present.
• Responding to the central experience of Scripture and Liturgy by participating in the work of proclaiming the message of Christ and sharing our experience of it with others, that they may also share it.
• Recognizing the importance of hospitality and kindness to the stranger. “I was hungry… and you did/did not feed me…” Jesus is especially present and to be found and loved in the very least of my brothers and sisters.

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:

• They had continued to preach in “this name” (their accusers could not bring themselves even to mention the name of Jesus) all over Jerusalem, even though they had been strictly forbidden to do so;
• They were blaming the Jewish leadership for Jesus’ death (although we do need to remember that the Apostles were themselves all devoutly religious Jews whose Lord and Saviour was also a Jew).

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. More said, “The king’s good servant, but God’s first.”  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, 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.