More

Commentary on Luke 19:1-10

Today we have one of the most delightful stories of Luke and indeed of the whole Gospel. It follows immediately—and not by accident—after the healing of a blind man as Jesus enters the city of Jericho, to the northeast of Jerusalem.

The central figure is Zacchaeus, who, Luke tells us, was a “chief tax collector” and a rich man. This is the only reference in Scripture to a ‘chief tax collector’. It probably means he was responsible for a district or region with other tax collectors answerable to him. The region at this time was prosperous, so more tax collectors were needed.

Knowing he was a chief tax collector, it was hardly necessary to mention that he was wealthy. Tax collectors were studiously avoided and despised by their fellow-Jews. They made contracts with the Roman authorities to collect taxes and made sure that they got from the public what today we might call generous ‘commissions’. After all, it was a business and they had to make a living. And if an ordinary tax collector could do well, it is easy to imagine how much a chief tax collector might earn.

Apart from forcing people to part with their hard-earned money, tax collectors were seen as traitors to their own people by taking their money and giving it to the pagan Roman colonialists occupying their country. One can see how Jesus could cause great offence to the religious-minded by sitting down and eating with such a despised person.

Zacchaeus heard that Jesus was in town and he was very curious to see what Jesus was like. Already we have here an echo of yesterday’s story, because Zacchaeus too wants to “see”. However, at this stage, it seems to be only a kind of curiosity. He just wanted to get a glimpse of a person of whom he undoubtedly heard people talk. Maybe he had even heard that Jesus had a name for mixing with people like himself.

Because he was a small man (in more ways than one?), he could not see over the large crowd of people surrounding Jesus. So he ran on ahead and climbed into the branches of a sycamore tree to get a better look. A sycamore tree can grow to a height of 10 to 15 metres, with a short trunk and spreading branches and hence easy to climb and easily capable of carrying a grown man.

Zacchaeus wanted to see Jesus, but he did not expect that Jesus would see him. He must have practically fallen out of the tree from surprise when he heard Jesus look in his direction and say:

Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today.

What beautiful words! And yet it is a self-invitation that Jesus constantly extends to us:

Listen! I am standing at the door, knocking; if you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in and eat with you, and you with me. (Rev 3:20)

Is my house ready? Is my door open to let him in?

Zacchaeus could hardly believe his ears. He rushed down and delightedly welcomed Jesus into his house. Immediately, those around began to grumble:

He has gone to be the guest of one who is a sinner.

Of all the people in Jericho, Jesus picks the house of the one person in the town who was regarded as a social and religious outcast.

But as usual, Jesus sees beyond the public image to the real person. Zacchaeus may be a chief tax collector, but he is ready to give half of his property to the poor and, if he has cheated anyone, he promises to pay them back four times what they lost. Fourfold restitution was demanded by Jewish law, but in one case only, for the theft of a sheep (Ex 22:1). Roman law demanded such restitution from all convicted thieves. Zacchaeus, however, promises to pay in any case of injustice for which he has been responsible.

Some commentators read the passage as saying that Zacchaeus has already been making these forms of restitution and sharing his wealth with the poor. If this is the case, it shows that Jesus is able to see beyond the stereotype that makes Zacchaeus the tax collector an outcast. He was not going to the house of an unrepentant sinner, but to that of a good man. Jesus always sees the real person and goes beyond the label. Can we claim to do the same?

Whatever the interpretation, we can see that, though Zacchaeus may have belonged to a discredited profession, his heart was in the right place, in the place of compassion and justice.

And so Jesus tells Zacchaeus that “salvation”, wholeness and integrity has come to his house. In spite of his despised profession, he is “a son of Abraham” because his behaviour is totally in harmony with the requirements of the Law, and in fact goes well beyond it. For Jesus, too, no social status closes the door to salvation. For this is what it means to be a “son of Abraham”, namely, to be a loving, caring person full of compassion, with a sense of justice, and not just a keeper of ritualistic observances.

Zacchaeus, who had originally just wanted to have an external glimpse of Jesus, has now come to ‘see’ Jesus in a much deeper sense. This ‘seeing’ changed his whole life as it did that of the beggar in yesterday’s story.

Further, in answer to the accusation that he has entered the house of a sinner, Jesus says:

…the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost.

As Jesus said on another occasion:

Those who are well have no need of a physician but those who are sick; I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. (Luke 5:31-32)

Jesus is the Good Shepherd leaving behind the well-behaved ninety-nine and going in search of the single one that has gone astray.

As we read this story, there are a number of things we could reflect on. We too want to see Jesus in the deepest possible sense. Only then can we truly become his disciples. We need to hear him saying to us: “I want to stay in your house today.” Let us open the door and welcome him in.

And we need to be careful in judging people from their appearance, or their social position, or their occupation. As a Church, we could spend a lot more time looking for those who are lost instead of concentrating on serving the already converted. In fact, Christ himself invites us to be active evangelisers, both through our actions and through our words.

More

TODAY’S FEAST is one which many preachers would prefer not to have to talk about.  What can one say that is meaningful about such an abstract concept as the Holy Trinity?  In one sense, of course, they are right.  It was the great St Thomas Aquinas who said that it was much easier to say what God was not than what he is.  In other words, every positive statement made about God has to be immediately denied.  If we say God is “good”, it is obviously true but our concept of “goodness”, however exalted, is so limited that God’s “goodness” cannot remotely correspond to our limited concept of it.  And so of every other attribute applied to God.

When it comes, then, to speaking of the meaning and inner relationship of three “Persons” in one God we are floundering in territory where ordinary human language is totally inadequate to express the reality.  Our God can only be reached in the “cloud of unknowing”, as Julian of Norwich so beautifully expressed it.  God is not any of the things we say he is.  It is, as Fr Anthony de Mello used to put it, something like trying to explain the colour green to a person who has been totally blind since birth.

No getting off the hook

However, we should not try to get off the hook too easily and decide to speak or think about something altogether different on this Sunday.  Provided we are aware of God’s basic unknowability by our limited minds, there are still many helpful things we can consider about our God and the inner relationships which are part of his* being.

While it is of the utmost importance that we realise this, there are many statements we can make which will help in our relationships with God.

To go back to Thomas Aquinas again, one of his basic principles was that “Behaviour is determined by the nature of things” (Agere sequitur esse).  From the way things act we know something about what they are.  We can thus distinguish the different natures of minerals and other non-living substances, plant life, bacterial and viral life, animal life, human life from the different ways in which each is able to function and react.  We normally will not confuse a cow and a horse, a bird or a bat, a shark or a whale, a gorilla or a human being.  It is not simply their appearances that are different.  We realise that each has certain capabilities and that those capabilities arise from the way they are essentially constituted in their inner being.  We don’t expect animals to talk as humans do, except in TV cartoons.  We don’t expect snails to run in the Derby or the Grand National or horses to fly.

And, in our daily rubbing shoulders with other people, the only way we can know them is by what they reveal of themselves through their behaviour and interactions.  We say they ARE kind, because they consistently behave in a way that is kind.  Or they ARE cruel, again because of what is perceived as consistently cruel behaviour.  “By their fruits you will know them,” said Jesus.  “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, or a bad tree good fruit” – because agere sequitur esse.

A level of unknowability

At the same time, while we may feel we can know a lot about people from their behaviour (and do not hesitate to pass judgement!), we can by no means know everything.  Every human being, indeed as science constantly discovers, every created thing is a mystery whose innermost reality is really impossible for us to penetrate totally.  And that even applies to our own selves.  We do not know ourselves totally.  We are a mystery to ourselves – and, a fortiori, to others!

If this is true of created reality, we should not be surprised to face the same dilemma with the Creator.  God, in his deepest being, is a mystery we cannot ever fathom.  This is not just a “cop out”; it is a fact.  Nevertheless on the basis of what God DOES we do get some very clear indications of what he IS.  Agere sequitur esse applies to God also.

What the Scripture tells us

And it is in the Christian (New) Testament especially that it has been revealed to us that there are three Persons in our one God.  What it means to have three Persons in one Being is something we do not even try to understand.  But we can get some inkling if we confine ourselves to seeing what each of the persons DOES as a clue to what they ARE.

In Greek classical drama in the time of Jesus and earlier, the actors put on a mask to indicate the role they were playing (not unlike the elaborate painting of the face in Chinese opera).  The Greek word for this mask was prosopon (proswpon, literally, ‘in front of the face’) and the Latin translation was persona (that through which the sound of the speaker’s voice came).

So, speaking analogically, we can say that in our God there are three masks, three personae, three roles pointing to three separate sources of action.  This is not an explanation.  It is a groping effort to get some understanding.  Those three roles are that of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit acting from one single Source.

Father

We see God as Father, a loving and compassionate Father.  Not a daunting patriarchal figure but one that is easily approached and who can be addressed by the familiar and intimate term Abba (Abba, compare the English ‘Papa’ or ‘Ah Ba’ in Chinese and other languages).  He is the creator and giver of all life.  Everything good that can be discerned in the world around us comes from him and through him.  In him, through him and with him all things exist.

He is the one who cares, the one who waits for the Prodigal to return and forgives completely and immediately.  He is the Father of truth, the Father of love and compassion, the Father of justice.  The whole of this beautiful world in which we lives is a testimony and, at the same time, only a faint indication of what he really is.  If we really look at the world he has made (and not at the one we have unmade), our hearts can only be overcome with praise and thanks.

Son

We see God as Son, who in an extraordinary way came to live among us, and whom, in a paradox beyond all understanding, we humans killed.

In the Son as a human being, we can see, hear and touch God.  We see something of the nature of our God as Jesus heals the sick, identifies with the weak and socialises with the sinful.  We see him challenge the dehumanising values that form the fabric of most of our lives and, in the process, he is rejected by those he loves.  Though he is God, he empties himself of all human dignity that he might open for us the way to true and unending life.

Spirit

We see God as Spirit, becoming, as it were, the soul of his people.  All the good that we do, all our evangelising work, our hospitals, schools, works of social development and social welfare, our care of the sick, the weak, the oppressed and the outcast – all are the work of God’s Spirit working in and through us.  Wherever there is genuine loving there is the Spirit of God at work.

Growing into his likeness

And yet, being aware of all this, we still cannot say that we know our God.  But there is enough here – if we pray and reflect on it – that is already overpowering in its significance.

We need to remember that we have been called to be and to grow into the image of God himself.  In what has been revealed to us through Jesus and the Scriptures, we have more than enough to challenge us and to help us to approach closer to our God.  Our ultimate goal, and it is the only goal for all living, is to achieve perfect union with him.  We do that, above all, by loving as he loved, by loving unconditionally and continuing to love where no love, and even hate, is returned.

For this we need the creative power of the Father, the compassion of the Son, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  They are all available to anyone who opens their heart to receive.

+++

*Although God has been referred to here in male terms, we need to remind ourselves that the three persons of the Trinity are sexually inclusive of both male and female.

We need also to remember that, although Jesus as the incarnate Son is male, our Creed professes that the Second Person of the Trinity became primarily a human being (et homo factus est).  The word ‘homo’, although grammatically masculine, refers to any human being: man, woman or child.

More

Commentary on Proverbs 31:10-13,19-20,30-31; 1 Thessalonians 5:1-6; Matthew 25:14-30 Read Sunday of Week 33 of Ordinary Time (Year A) »

More

Commentary on Wisdom 6:12-16; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; Matthew 25:1-13  Read Sunday of Week 32 of Ordinary Time (Year A) »

More

Commentary on Ephesians 4:1-6

Today and tomorrow we read a powerful call to unity in the Church. It is in two parts, and in today’s reading Paul speaks of the sources of unity, i.e. the elements in our Christian life which we have in common. Tomorrow he will speak rather of the variety that exists in the community.

Today, there is a general plea for unity in the church. Christians have been:

• fashioned through the Spirit into a single harmonious religious community (one body, also see Eph 4:12),
• belonging to a single Lord (in contrast to the many gods of the pagan world),
• and by one way of salvation through faith,
• brought out especially by the significance of baptism (see also Rom 6:1-11).

But Christian unity is more than adherence to a common belief. It is manifested in the exalted Christ’s gifts to individuals to serve so as to make the community more Christlike (Eph 4:11-16). This teaching on Christ as the source of the gifts is introduced in verse 8 by a citation of Psalm 68:18, which depicts Yahweh triumphantly leading Israel to salvation in Jerusalem.

According to the New American Bible

In Paul’s letter, it is understood that Christ, ascending above all the heavens, the head of the church, through his redemptive death, resurrection, and ascension, has become the source of the church’s spiritual gifts. The “descent” of Christ (Eph 4:9-10) refers more probably to the incarnation (see Phil 2:6-8) than to Christ’s presence after his death in the world of the dead. (edited)

Chapter 4 of Ephesians begins and ends with exhortations to love and forgive one another, which is part, of course, of the overall theme of unity in the Letter. In fact, the chapter lists three different threats to disunity in the community:

1. arguments between Christians (vv 1-3);
2. diversity of service in the church (vv 7-11); and
3. unorthodox teaching (vv 14-15).

Each of these threats can be dealt with by all being united together in Christ. We will see the first of these calls to unity in today’s reading.

So far Paul has taught that God brought Jew and Gentile into a new relationship to each other in the Church, and that he called on the church to give witness to his wisdom. Paul now shows how God made provision for those in the church to live and work together in unity, and to grow together into maturity.

Real unity can only be said to exist when there is a harmonious relationship between a variety of elements. It is not the same as uniformity; the last thing Paul wanted was to have a church of identical clones. The distinction between unity and uniformity is crucial in the life of the Church today.

Paul, speaking from his place of captivity (though it may not have been much more than house arrest), appeals to the Church to remain faithful to its original calling, that is, the call to be a follower of Christ. Implying that there are some divisions among them, he asks them to be more accepting and understanding of each other:

…with all humility and gentleness, with patience…

They can do this by:

…bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace…

That peace is the sign of the Spirit at work among them. And it is a truly inner peace and not just an external absence of conflict.

He then lists the gifts they all share in common. There are seven ‘unities’ listed, reflecting the Trinity, but in reverse order to normal:

• Spirit, Christ, Father
• Church, Spirit, hope
• Lord, faith in Christ, baptism
• One God

There is:

• one Body: that is, the Body of the Church with Christ as its unifying Head;
• one Spirit: the Spirit of the Father and the Son, given to them in baptism;
• one shared hope: a confident assurance that they will be called together one day to enjoy a glorious future of happiness without end, face to face with God;
• one Lord: Jesus Christ;
• one faith: faith in Jesus Christ and his Gospel;
• one baptism: referring most probably not just to a ‘baptism in the Spirit’, but to the external sacramental celebration by which one was publicly marked as a member of the community;
• one God: the Father of each one without exception, “who is above all and through all and in all”.

With such bonds linking the members together, both Jews and Gentiles, there can be no place for disunity and conflict. The links are both with the Persons of the Trinity and with the members of the community—all sharing in the one Divine Life.

Let us too remind ourselves that, today, we too as Christians have all these in common. Let us pray that we may grow more deeply aware of these common elements and they may help to bring us all closer together in a common faith, hope and love.

More

Commentary on 1 Samuel 24:3-21

Today’s First Reading is a truly majestic passage with much to say to us in these violent times. Saul has been continuously trying to put an end to David’s life. He is jealous of David and sees him as a threat to his throne, especially as Saul knows that because of his own behaviour, he has lost God’s support of him as king.

As our reading opens we find Saul with no less than 3,000 men trying to hunt down David. In some rocky terrain, Saul slips into a cave in order to “to relieve himself” (though some translations euphemistically say, “to cover his feet”). Little does he know that deeper inside the cave is David hiding with his men.

Seeing Saul’s very vulnerable position, David’s men urge him to kill Saul. After all God had promised that he would deliver David’s enemy into his hands:

Here is the day of which the Lord said to you, ‘I will give your enemy into your hand, and you shall do to him as it seems good to you.’

Here was the clear opportunity.

Actually, there is no previous record of the divine revelation here alluded to by David’s men. Perhaps it was their own interpretation of the anointing of David to replace Saul, or of assurances given to David that he would survive Saul’s vendetta against him and ultimately become king. It could also refer, not to a verbal communication from the Lord, but to the providential nature of the incident itself, which David’s men understood as a revelation from God that David should not ignore.

However, David refused to kill Saul. Instead he “stealthily cut off a corner of Saul’s cloak”. How he did this without Saul’s being aware is not clear, unless, after relieving himself, Saul had lain down to sleep. But almost immediately, David regretted what he had done. For the garment was, as it were, the man himself and even to touch it was to lay hands on the person. (Remember in the New Testament, how people just touched the clothes of Jesus or of his disciples to be healed.)

For all his wickedness, Saul was still the anointed king of Israel. Nor would David allow his men to attack Saul. Saul’s royal office carried divine sanction by virtue of his anointing. David will not seize the kingship from Saul, but leave its disposition to the Lord to whom it belongs.

Only after Saul had left the cave did David reveal himself. He called out to the king and “bowed with his face to the ground” in reverence to his king. Why should Saul think that David wished him harm when, just now, David had him totally at his mercy and refrained from doing anything? He says to Saul:

I will not raise my hand against my lord, for he is the Lord’s anointed.

Not only is Saul his king, but also his father-in-law.

He lets Saul know how close to death he had been. The evidence was in David’s hands; the piece of the cloak that he had cut off. David offered this as proof that he had no designs on Saul and there was no need for Saul to regard David as his enemy. In the end, it would be the Lord who would judge between them.

Saul, for all his faults, generously acknowledges the enormous dignity of David in behaving the way he did. Asks Saul:

…who has ever found an enemy and sent the enemy safely away?

In the culture of Israel in those days, the answer was definitely, “No!” And, in many situations in our own day, it is still “No!” There are many in our society who would not be able to understand the attitude of David.

For now, Saul feels great remorse for his wicked intentions against David, but it will not be long before he reverts to his former murderous plots. He realises that a person of such extraordinary dignity as David must surely replace him as king. He only begs David that he not do harm to his family and wipe out his family name. Jonathan will be killed in battle, but David will take another son, who is physically disabled, into the royal palace.

If David had killed Saul, he would have lowered himself to the same level as the king. David here can be seen as a patron for all those—and they are clearly a minority—who believe passionately in non-violent means for dealing with all problems, most of all problems which involve violence. This scene really shows the greatness of the man. It is a perfect example of the power (not the weakness) of turning the other cheek.

Two examples of non-violent heroes in our recent past have been Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr, but there certainly are many others. They would understand very well what David did. Let us try to understand too.

More

Commentary on Mark 3:1-6

Once again we see Jesus in confrontation with the religious leaders. It follows the same pattern as before between him and his critics, here simply referred to as “they”. But it is quite clear who “they” are.

The scene is in the local synagogue. Once again “they” were looking for evidence with which to convict Jesus. They were watching to see if Jesus would cure a man with a withered hand on a Sabbath day. There is every likelihood that the man was ‘planted’ as a ‘set up’. To use a person with some sort of illness or condition in this way was really despicable.

There is no doubt that Jesus is fully aware of what is happening. Unhesitatingly, he tells the man to come out and stand in the middle of the assembly. Then he puts his question:

Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?

His opponents are reduced to silence. They have neither the honesty nor the integrity to give the obvious answer to the question.

In another example of how Jesus shows his feelings, we are told that he was both grieved and angry at their stubborn attitude. Grieved because their attitude was so inappropriate for people who believed they were close to God. Angry because of the terrible injustice they were prepared to impose on this man. In their book, no suffering justified breaking the Law. But for Jesus, it is not a matter of keeping or breaking laws, but of doing good.

He tells the man to stretch out his withered arm and it is completely cured. The Pharisees—humiliated—immediately went out and began to plot with the Herodians to get rid of Jesus. The Pharisees needed the help of the Herodians (supporters of Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea), if they were to take action against Jesus. This strange alliance shows the extent of the Pharisees’ anger and blinding hatred. The Herodians represented everything the Pharisees despised.

The story once again highlights the difference between morality and law. It was against the Law to do healing work on the Sabbath. This was because, in normal circumstances, the attention of a doctor might involve extensive treatment. But here, the healing is instantaneous. Can it be called work? Can it be seen as a violation of the spirit of the Sabbath?

In this particular case, where the situation was chronic and causing no immediate distress to the man, it is worth noting that the healing could easily have taken place on another day. But Jesus uttered two principles that transcend all positive law:

• It is always justified to do what is good, provided no greater good is denied.
• No truly loving act can ever be sinful even though it may violate a law.

All laws, except for the law of love, are relative. The Law about healing on the Sabbath had good intentions and was part of the observance of the Lord’s day, but it was being absolutised by the Pharisees. This is a tendency in our Christian life which we must also avoid. Even the law about being at Mass on Sunday can be absolutised. Sometimes there are pressing needs, e.g. the care of a sick person or a child, which can override the ‘law’ about Sunday Mass.

Christianity is about loving relationships, not about conformity to laws. Says St Paul:

…if I have all faith so as to remove mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. (1 Cor 13:2)

More

Commentary on 1 Samuel 16:1-13

With Saul rejected by God as king, Samuel is now told to look for a successor, whom God has already chosen. The episode, as described here, seems to come from the prophetic tradition and is not related to the later narrative in which David is anointed as king at Hebron by the men of Judah (2 Sam 2:4) and again by the elders of Israel (2 Sam 5:3); in contrast, there is no mention of the anointing described in today’s reading. In fact, in the next chapter (1 Sam 17:28), Eliab, David’s eldest brother, speaks to him as if he were still just a shepherd boy who had no place being with the Israelite army.

The reading today opens with the Lord scolding Samuel for grieving over Saul’s rejection as king. Instead he is sent to Jesse, the father of a large family of sons in Bethlehem. At first, Samuel is afraid to go because Saul may hear of it and kill Samuel out of anger and jealousy. The road from Ramah (where Samuel was) to Bethlehem passed through Gibeah, the region of Saul. Saul already knew that the Lord had chosen someone to replace him as king, and Samuel was afraid that jealousy would incite Saul to violence. Later incidents would confirm that Samuel’s fears were well-founded. So Samuel is told by God to tell Saul he is going to sacrifice a heifer to the Lord—which in fact he does. It was the truth, but not the whole truth.

When Samuel arrived in Bethlehem, he was met by the elders who asked if the prophet’s visit was a peaceful one. Samuel simply replied that he had come to offer a sacrifice to the Lord. Again, the truth, but not the whole truth about the real purpose of his visit. He orders them to make themselves ceremonially clean for the sacrifice by washing and putting on clean clothes, as required by the law.

Jesse and his family are also invited to the sacrifice during which Samuel is to choose the one who is to be anointed king. Samuel at first presumes that Eliab, the eldest son, is the obvious candidate because his appearance and height seem to indicate he is the one. These were the qualities which had been a factor in Saul’s being chosen earlier.

But the Lord tells Samuel he is not to judge by external appearances. The Lord is concerned more with a person’s inner disposition and character:

…the Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.

Eliab, then, is not the one.

The second son, Abinadab, and then the third, Shammah, come forward, but are also turned down. After seven sons had been presented and passed over, Samuel asks if there are any others.

Jesse says there is still one more, who was not present. He was away in the fields taking care of sheep. This was David. As we saw earlier, his role as one taking care of sheep is contrasted with Saul, who was earlier pictured searching after wandering and disobedient donkeys. And of course, the image of the shepherd is one that belongs to God. It is fitting that the king of his people will also be a shepherd (and we still call those who serve the community of the church ‘pastors’, i.e. shepherds).

Samuel says that the sacrificial meal cannot proceed until the boy is brought in from the fields. David:

…was ruddy and had beautiful eyes and was handsome.

He is the one that God has chosen:

The Lord said, “Rise and anoint him, for this is the one.” Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers…

This small circle of witnesses to David’s anointing assured its confidentiality, but also would provide ample testimony for the future that David had been anointed by Samuel and that he was not merely a usurper of Saul’s office.

From that day on:

…the spirit of the Lord came mightily upon David…

The spirit of God possesses David without any external manifestation and in close association with the anointing—this is the grace bestowed on one consecrated. The name ‘David’ is an ancient semitic word for ‘commander’, ‘military leader’.

David will become one of the outstanding and most human characters of the Old Testament, as both sinner and saint. In a very special way, he will be the ancestor, through Joseph, of Jesus. Jesus is the “root of Jesse” who comes from Bethlehem, the “city of David”, and it is in the royal city of his ancestor that he will be born.

A reading like this is an opportunity for us to reflect on our own vocation, our being chosen by God for a special task. And we may well wonder why God has chosen us, rather than others whom we might regard as far more qualified, to do the work he has given us to do.

And within the vocation or way of life in which we already find ourselves, we can still ask to what, in our present circumstances, God is further calling us or whether he may even be calling us to serve him in a different direction altogether. Let us listen to his call and ask him for the strength and courage to say ‘Yes’.

More

Commentary on Mark 2:23-28

Today we have a third confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees on the place of the Law in people’s lives. His disciples are accused of violating the Sabbath by picking ears of corn (“heads of grain”) as they walked through a field. Stealing was not involved, as ‘gleaning’, especially by the hungry poor, was tolerated. But the Law forbade reaping on the Sabbath. One could hardly call what the disciples were doing ‘reaping’, but with the casuistic mind of the Pharisees and teachers of the Law, the bias was on the side of safety. The perfect observer of the Law would not do anything that could even be regarded in the slightest as a violation.

Jesus solves the issue by appealing to the Hebrew Testament, which, of course, the Pharisees recognised as the word of God. He reminded them how King David and his followers, because they were hungry, went into the house of God and took the loaves of offering, even though only the priests were allowed to eat them. Jesus then enunciates two principles. The first was:

The Sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the Sabbath…

The second was that:

…the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.

The first principle is a very important one, namely, that all laws are for people and not vice versa. They are not ends in themselves, and moral perfection is not in their literal observance. The hunger of David and his men transcended a religious regulation (that only the priests could eat the bread of offering). For the Jews of Jesus’ time, virtue was in perfect observance of the Law. For Jesus, observance of the Law was only perfect when it was for the good of others and oneself.

The second principle was that Jesus, as the Son of God, was not bound by human laws, however lofty their motive. We would do well to remember those principles in the living out of our Christian faith.  It is possible to lead rule-centred Christian lives rather than love- and people-centred lives.

There is only one law in our faith:

Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. (John 13:34)

Even God will not violate that law because God is love. Any law which, in a particular situation, does not serve this overriding law can be set aside, and should be set aside. Positive laws are necessary for smooth functioning in society, but they are never absolute.

More

Commentary on Luke 7:11-17

This story is only found in Luke’s Gospel. It is one of only three stories in the Gospel where Jesus is described as bringing a dead person to life. The most dramatic is the story of Lazarus told in John’s Gospel. There is the also the story of the synagogue leader’s daughter (Luke 6:40-56; Mark 5:21-43; Matt 9:18-26), although it is not categorically certain that she had actually died. She might have been in a coma or catatonic state.

In the thinking of the time, today’s scene is particularly sad. A woman, who has already lost her husband, has now lost her only son—her only means of support. She is on the way to bury him.

The lot of the widow in those days—often a relatively young woman—was particularly difficult in a society where the married woman was no longer the responsibility of her own family, and who, after the death of husband and children, was no longer the responsibility of her husband’s family either. She was largely left to her own devices in a society where social welfare of any kind was unknown.

Jesus himself is deeply moved at her plight. At this point, for the first time, Luke refers to Jesus as “Lord”, a title reserved for God himself. He approaches the litter (not a coffin as we know it) carrying the dead man and touches it, causing the bearers to stop. He then says:

Young man, I say to you, rise!

As in other similar stories, the word used for “rise” is the same as that used when describing the resurrection of Jesus, for he:

…came that they may have life and have it abundantly.
(John 10:10)

The reaction of the people around is one of awe and admiration:

Fear seized all of them, and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has risen among us!” and “God has visited his people!”

They had no doubts about the origin of what they had seen taking place; it was the work of God. Not surprisingly, the story spread like wildfire all through Judea and beyond. The episode prepares the way for Jesus’ response to the disciples of John the Baptist a little later (not included in our Mass readings during this time).

This story should help us to look at our own situation and see, first of all, how alive we really are. Let us look around and see how many people need to be lifted up and helped to find new life. Maybe we can do something for them.