More

Commentary on Matthew 10:34—11:1

Today, we come to the final part of Jesus’ apostolic discourse in chapter 10. At a first reading, today’s passage could be puzzling, if not to say highly disturbing to some. Jesus seems to contradict everything that he has said and done so far.

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword.

But do we not call Jesus the Prince of Peace? Does Jesus not say during the Last Supper discourse in John’s Gospel (14:27) that he has come to give his peace to his disciples, a peace that no one will ever be able to take away from them?

And Jesus goes on to apply to himself a passage from the prophet Micah (7:6):

For I have come to set a man against his father,
and a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law,
and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.

It sounds a terrible thing for Jesus our Saviour to be saying. But it expresses, not what he wants to happen, but what he sees as an inevitable outcome of his message of love. It says more about us than about him.

Unfortunately, what Jesus says has only been confirmed again and again. We have mentioned before the paradox that the message of Jesus about truth, love, justice and freedom for people everywhere is seen by some as highly subversive and dangerous. And people who subscribe to this vision of Jesus and try to implement it in their lives are likely to run into headlong opposition with those who have a totally different vision of life and who see Jesus’ vision as a real threat to their interests. In a world of conflicting ideologies, philosophies, cultures, traditions, ethnic and religious identities, to declare that one is opting for the Way of Jesus is often to invite opposition, persecution and even death.

What Jesus says here is a fact—and was already a known experience when this Gospel was written. Christianity divided families and, in some places, it still does. But people who see and understand and accept the vision of life that Jesus offers know they have no choice but to follow it, even if close family members object. To go with Christ is to enter a new family, with new bonds—a family which, for its part, does not at all reject those who reject it. The Christian may be hounded and hated and expelled by family members, but that is not the way he or she is going to respond to them. On the contrary, the dearest wish of the new Christian is for family members to be able to see what he or she sees and, until they do, that new Christian will pray for them, bless them and love them.

Jesus then goes on to lay down the conditions necessary to be a genuine disciple.

Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me…

In many cultures this is a hard saying and seems to fly in the face of the filial piety and respect for the authority of elders which is at the heart of such societies.

It is not, in fact, a conflict. Love and respect for family members is a very high value for the Christian, but there are even higher values which may take precedence. Filial piety and parental authority can be very inward-looking, too centred on just this group of people. Racial, national and religious identity can also be very narrow and intolerant in its understanding.

Christianity is outward-looking and realises that there are people out there whose needs are even prior to those of my family. To the Christian, his blood family are only some among many brothers and sisters who have to be loved, served and cared for. One is also never bound to follow family requirements which would be against such values as truth, love, justice and honesty. As a Christian, I cannot obey a parent or other family member who practices dishonesty in business, who cheats, who sexually abuses, who practices racism or narrow-minded nationalism and the like and urges me to do the same.

Jesus, as the Word of God, stands for a level of truth and integrity and love which is the ultimate measure of all that I do and say. I cannot conform to the wishes of anyone, however close, who falls short of that measure. But my Christian love and concern for that person will not be diminished, in spite of how I may be treated.

To live like this can at time involve pain, separation, intense suffering and even death. This, I think, is what Jesus means when he says that I am not worthy of him unless I am willing to take my cross and walk with him. There is a price to be paid for being true and loving and just. This also is what he means by ‘finding’ life and ‘losing’ my life. To ‘find’ life is to take the easy way of accommodation and compromise, not to mention material gain and pleasure; to ‘lose’ is to let go and let Jesus take charge. Of course, as Jesus points out, in the long run it is the ‘losers’ who find and the ‘finders’ who lose.

The discourse ends with some advice about finding Jesus in other people, especially his own followers. Anyone who welcomes a follower of Jesus, whether that person is a ‘prophet’ (a missionary) or a ‘holy man’ (an ordinary Christian), welcomes Jesus himself and welcomes the Father also. Even giving a cup of cold water to someone who is a Christian will not go unrewarded.

The discourse is then clearly brought to an end by Matthew saying:

…when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and proclaim his message in their cities.

More

Commentary on Exodus 2:1-15

Having heard described the difficult situation in which the Hebrews were living in Egypt, we are now introduced to the hero of our story. Moses was born of parents who both came from the tribe of Levi. This tribe will also form the priestly caste in Israel through his brother Aaron, whom we will meet later on.

Per the Pharaoh’s decrees, all male Hebrew children were to be drowned at birth, but the baby—who does not yet have a name—was hidden by his mother for three months. However, the bigger he grew the more difficult it was to hide him, so she took the drastic step of waterproofing a basket and sent it floating down the river—the Nile or one of its branches.

The Hebrew word for ‘basket’ here means literally a ‘chest’ or an ‘ark’ and is the word used in Genesis for Noah’s ark. Unlike Noah’s ark, of course, this basket would have been made of papyrus stalks. Both ‘vessels’ were to be the source of salvation for God’s people, and it is not difficult to extend the image to the saving waters of baptism.

In a clearly providential happening, the Pharaoh’s daughter and her retinue had gone to the river to bathe. The floating basket and child are found and the the child was immediately recognised as Hebrew (perhaps he was he already circumcised?) and Pharaoh’s daughter was full of pity for the abandoned baby. Moses’ aunt who had been watching the whole affair innocently came forward and offered to find a Hebrew woman to wet-nurse the baby. She brought the child’s own mother who was appointed to nurse the child.

When the boy had grown, he was adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter. This probably happened when the child was weaned or a little later. Pharaoh’s daughter:

…named him Moses, “because,” she said, “I drew him out of the water.”

Actually, ‘Moses’ in Hebrew is mosheh, but the word translated ‘draw out’ is mashah. The words are not linguistically connected and it is rather a play on words (something we have frequently seen in one of the authors of Genesis). In fact, the name is probably derived from an Egyptian word for ‘has been born’, referring the birth to a god thought to be his sponsor.

Then we are suddenly brought to a time when Moses was already a grown man. In the Acts of the Apostles, Stephen during his trial states that Moses was 40 when he took leadership of his people (Acts 7:23) and, when he later was bargaining with the Pharaoh, Exodus says he was 80 years old (Exod 7:7). The ancient historians, Josephus and Philo, give legendary details of Moses’ education. Stephen in the same speech observes that:

…Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.
(Acts 7:22)

Obviously, too, Moses is fully aware of his Hebrew identity, which he no doubt learnt secretly from his mother who nursed him.

Moses could not but be aware of the way his people were being maltreated. Once on seeing an Egyptian strike—probably flogg, but perhaps even kill—a Hebrew, he killed the man and buried the body, hoping that he had not been seen.

Later he scolded two Hebrews who were fighting among themselves, telling them that was no way to win their freedom. They, however, turned on him and asked if he was going to kill them in the same way he had killed the Egyptian. Moses, aware that his secret was out and that it had even reached the Pharaoh’s ears (there was a warrant out for his execution) fled into hiding and stayed in the land of Midian.

Midian lies to the south of Edom and to the east of the Gulf of Aqaba in what is now the southern tip of Israel. The Midianites are connected in Genesis (25:1-4) with a group of Arab tribes descended from Keturah, one of Abraham’s wives. The Jerusalem Bible tells us:

“These nomads frequented the highways of Palestine, and of the Sinai peninsula; they raided as far afield as Moab, where they later came to blows with the Hebrews. They were to be soundly beaten by Gideon. At “the end of times” Midian will come and pay homage to Yahweh (Is 60:6).”

Later, Moses would indeed liberate his people, but in a very different and unexpected way.

More

Commentary on Matthew 11:20-24

After the apostolic discourse of chapter 10, Matthew goes back to narrative. In the passages preceding today’s Gospel reading, Jesus reassures the disciples of John the Baptist, saying to them:

Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, those with a skin disease are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them. (Matt 11:4)

In other words, he says that he is indeed “the one who is to come”, the Messiah and Saviour-King.

This is followed by a passage where Jesus complains of those who close their minds to God’s word. John the Baptist led the life of an ascetic in the wilderness, and they did not listen to him. Jesus socialised freely with all kinds of people, and they accused him of being a glutton and a drunkard.

So today Jesus warns three towns where he spent much of his time: Chorazin, Bethsaida and especially Capernaum. If Jesus had done in the pagan towns of Tyre and Sidon what he had done in these predominantly Israelite towns, they would have converted long ago. Even Sodom, the biblical image of the very worst in immorality, would have done better.

It is important for us to realise that in this Gospel, Jesus is primarily speaking to us today. If many non-Christians had been given the opportunities that we have received through our membership in the Christian community, they could very well be living much more generously than we do.

To what extent are we listening to God’s word? How much of it do we try to understand? And how much of it is reflected in our lifestyle? Are we clearly and obviously followers of Christ and his Way?

More

Commentary on Exodus 3:1-6,9-12

Yesterday we left Moses lying low in Midian, a fugitive from the law. Then, one day, as he was seated by a well, the seven daughters of a priest of Midian came to draw water for the sheep’s drinking troughs. When the girls were driven away by some shepherds, Moses came to their defence and even watered their flock for them.

When they got home, they explained to their father, Reuel, how an ‘Egyptian’ came to their assistance and even drew the water for their flock (it is interesting that the daughters referred to Moses as an ‘Egyptian’ and not as a Hebrew). The father immediately told them to bring Moses to the house and share their hospitality. Moses ended up staying with them, and Reuel gave his daughter, Zipporah, in marriage to him…another example of a marriage resulting from an encounter at a well.

Moses and Zipporah then had a son who was named Gershom, because Moses had said:

I have been an alien residing in a foreign land. (Gen 2:22)

The name is explained as if it came from the Hebrew word ger, ‘stranger’ joined to the Hebrew word sham, ‘there’.

In the meantime, the Pharaoh died, but the sufferings of the Hebrews continued and, as they cried out to God for help, he remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And so we are led into the beginning of the Exodus story and of its protagonist, Moses.

Today’s reading begins by telling us that one day, as Moses was looking after the sheep of his father-in-law, Jethro (Jethro is another name for Reuel; in Judges he is called Hobab), he came to the mountain of God, Horeb. Horeb is called the “mountain of God” because of the divine apparitions which took place there, such as on this occasion and when the Israelites were there after they had left Egypt.

Suddenly an “angel of the Lord” appeared to him from the flames of a bush which was on fire. It is God himself who has become visible to human eyes. The visual form under which God appeared and spoke to humans is referred to indifferently in some Old Testament texts either as “God’s angel” or as “God himself”. Moses was surprised that, although on fire, the bush was not burning away. He was drawn to take a closer look at this strange phenomenon.

As Moses approached the bush, God called out from the centre of the bush: “Moses! Moses!” To which Moses replied: “Here I am.”

Moses is told not to come any nearer and to remove his shoes because he is on holy ground. The voice then identifies itself:

I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

Moses immediately hid his face because he knew he could not look face to face at God. The appearance of God caused fear and death, since it was believed that no one could see God and live.

We remember how Jacob, on the occasion of his wrestling with a strange man, later realised it had been God himself. Later, he exclaimed:

…I have seen God face to face, yet my life is preserved.
(Gen 32:30)

In the Gospel, Jesus will also use the term “God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” in contesting the Sadducees’ denial of life after death:

And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is God not of the dead but of the living. (Matt 22:31-32)

Of course, it may be that the term, when used at the time of the Exodus, was used to distinguish the God in whom the Hebrews believed from the gods of other neighbouring peoples. The concept of One God of the whole Universe had yet to develop at that time. But by the time of the Gospel, such a universal God was accepted by the Hebrews.

In verses omitted from our reading, God assures Moses that he is fully aware of the sufferings of his people in Egypt and of their treatment by Egyptian slave drivers. He will now come to their rescue and:

…bring them up out of that land to a good and spacious land, to a land flowing with milk and honey… (Exod 3:8)

The first step in this operation will be for Moses to go to the Pharaoh and to lead his people out of Egypt. Moses hears this assignment with great alarm; after all, although he grew up in the royal palace, he is now a man on the run because of a murder he committed. As a fugitive from the Pharaoh, he could hardly hope to carry out a mission to him. In addition, he must have remembered that on one occasion when he tried to intervene in a quarrel between two Hebrews, they challenged his authority.

But God guarantees his support and his protection, saying:

I will be with you, and this shall be the sign for you that it is I who sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God on this mountain.

In Egypt at the time of this story, that seemed a very remote possibility for the Hebrews.

Today, let us ask ourselves what mission we have been given by God as our contribution to building the Kingdom. And, if, like Moses, we are only too conscious of our shortcomings, let us remember that one of the greatest prophets of Israel was a man who had committed murder, even if that murder was in defence of fellow-Hebrews. God, unlike society, does not look at our past, but at our present and future potential.

More

Commentary on Matthew 11:25-27

Yesterday we saw Jesus severely chiding the people of three cities, where he had shown many signs of his divine origin, for their slowness to believe in and accept him. Today he speaks with warmth and praise of those who have become his followers.

He remarks, in a prayer he makes to his Father, that it is not the learned and clever, the Scribes and Pharisees, the religious experts, but “the infants”, his disciples, who have been graced with understanding the secrets of the Kingdom.  They are infants not only in their lack of learning and sophistication, but also in their openness to hear and learn, a virtue lacking in those who regarded themselves as intellectuals.

This was in fact a reflection on the actual development of the early Church.  It was a grassroots movement which spread most among the lower levels of society and among slaves.  It would not be until later that Christianity spread to the higher echelons and would become the faith also of the ruling elite and the intellectual classes.  As Jesus says today:

…yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.

In growing and spreading in this way, Christianity showed, first, that it was really the work of God.  It worked against powerful forces which tried very hard to obliterate it, but in the end the power of truth and love were too strong for even the strongest opponents.

Second, it revealed the truly catholic nature of the Christian faith.  It was never an exclusive domain of either the political or educated elite.  It has appealed, and continues to appeal, to people at every level of society from intellectual giants like Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and John Henry Newman to the totally illiterate.  Both can sit side by side and together hear the Gospel and celebrate the Eucharist.

Finally, Jesus suggests that knowing him and, through him, knowing the Father is a gift that he gives.  We can all, of course, open ourselves to that gift.  Why some of us do and others do not is something we cannot understand in this life.  It is a gift which is offered, never imposed, and again no one can know who are those who have been offered it and turned it down.

Let us today thank God that we have been among those who have listened and accepted and been graced. But we know we have a lot more listening and accepting yet to do.  Jesus stands at our door and knocks today and every single day.  It is my decision to what extent I open that door and let him come in.

More

Commentary on Exodus 11:10—12:14

We have skipped several chapters of Exodus to come to today’s reading. The sufferings of the Hebrews became intolerable and eventually God sent what we call the Ten Plagues on Egypt in order to persuade the Pharaoh to let the Hebrews leave. After each one, the Pharaoh’s heart hardened and he refused to the let God’s people go.

The Ten Plagues were as follows:

1. Water turned into blood (most likely caused by a plant which discoloured the water).
2. An infestation of frogs which penetrated every place and every home.
3. An infestation of gnats (mosquitoes?) on man and beast alike.
4. A plague of flies.
5. An epidemic which attacked all the livestock of the Egyptians, but not those of the Hebrews.
6. An epidemic of boils on humans and beasts.
7. A fall of hail, accompanied by thunder and lightning, which killed everyone and every animal that was in the open air.
8. A plague of locusts which devoured every plant which had survived the previous plagues.
9. Total darkness for three days.
10. The killing of all the first-born of the Egyptians, from the Pharaoh to the lowliest slave.

Most of these ‘plagues’ actually correspond to natural phenomena found in Egypt. But they are represented here as supernatural, at least in their greater intensity and in their occurring exactly according to Moses’ command. In each of the plagues, the Hebrews were not affected, another sign of God’s intervention in what would normally be natural calamities affecting everyone.

With these plagues we are coming to the great finale and the high point of the Exodus story. Nine plagues inflicted on Egypt have:

…hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his land.

The Hebrews are now told to prepare for the final catastrophe with which God will strike the Egyptians. As our reading opens, the Tenth Plague has not yet taken place. It is as if, in the eyes of the author, God wanted the Pharaoh to be hard-hearted so that eventually the situation would become so bad that he would have no alternative.

The passage we read today is not really a historical account of how the Hebrews actually prepared for that last night in Egypt. It consists rather of formal instructions to a later generation on how to celebrate the great event that is about to take place. The instructions are presented as coming from God to Moses and Aaron.

First, the month in which it is taking place is from now on to be regarded as “the first month of the year”. It is the month of Abib, meaning the month of ‘young corn’ or ‘ripe grain’. It occurred around the time of the spring equinox, in a period between March and April in our Gregorian calendar. After the Exile it came to be known by the Babylonian name of Nisan, the name used in later books of the Old Testament (Nehemiah 2:1 and Esther 3:7).

First, on the 10th day of that month each family is to procure for itself a lamb. If a family is too small to finish one lamb, then it can join with another family and they can share the lamb between them, including perhaps the cost of purchasing it. The lamb must be male, one year old and free from any blemish. It may be a sheep or a goat (sheep and goats are closely related animals).

The animal is to be kept until the 14th day of the month, then it is to be slaughtered in the presence of all the assembled Hebrews. This should happen “at twilight”. This was understood as either between sunset and darkness (the Samaritans) or between afternoon and sunset (the Pharisees and the Talmud).

In every house where the lamb is to be eaten, its blood is to be applied on the doorposts and lintel of the house. This, in a way, was the most important requirement. On the night of the 14th day of the month, the same evening on which it had been slaughtered, the roasted flesh of the lamb was to be eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. The animal was to be roasted, not to be eaten raw or boiled, and the whole animal, including head, limbs and internal organs roasted as one.

Nothing must be kept over till the following morning. Anything that is uneaten is to be burnt. This was to preclude any possible profanation of something regarded as ‘holy’. The Greek text adds:

You shall not break a bone of it.

This requirement is also mentioned in further instructions within the same chapter (12:46).

In John’s account of Jesus’ passion, he notes that the soldiers, seeing that Jesus was already dead, pierced his side with a lance, but did not break his legs, as they did with the other two men being crucified. And he says:

These things occurred so that the scripture might be fulfilled, “None of his bones shall be broken. (John 19:36)

This happened because Jesus was the Paschal Lamb of the New Covenant.

In Exodus, they are then told:

This is how you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand, and you shall eat it hurriedly.

In other words, the meal is to be taken like people preparing to make a hasty departure.

And it is to be called “the Passover of the Lord.” The origin of the word ‘Passover’ is disputed. The word pesah (Greek, pascha) means that Yahweh ‘leaped over’ the marked houses, as one might skip names on a list. The word may be originally from the Egyptian, pesach, meaning ‘the blow’, that is, the final plague which is about to happen. Both meanings, obviously, are applicable.

On this very night, the Lord would go through Egypt and strike down every first-born in the land, humans and animals alike, and thus pass judgement on all the gods of Egypt. But because the blood of the lambs has been painted on all the houses of the Hebrews, when the Lord sees the blood, he will pass over, or skip over, those houses and no harm will come to them. Hence the name of the feast.

Then comes the final instruction to Hebrews of every future generation:

This day shall be a day of remembrance for you. You shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord; throughout your generations you shall observe it as a perpetual ordinance.

This is an instruction which Jews continue to observe to this day.

For us Christians, all this has great meaning because we see in it a foreshadowing of another Passover which Jesus celebrated with his disciples. It took place at the same time as the celebration of the traditional Jewish Passover but, because of what immediately followed, it was seen as the sacramental anticipation of the new Passover in which Jesus is the Sacrificial Lamb whose blood poured out becomes the instrument of our salvation and liberation.

It is significant that, in the descriptions of the Last Supper, no Gospel mentions the lamb as the main dish. There is now a New Passover Lamb—Jesus himself. And in the eating of the Bread and the drinking of the Wine, those present had ‘eaten’ and ‘drunk’ of the Lamb.

This passage from Exodus is also the First Reading of the liturgy on Holy Thursday. It might be noted, too, that some Catholics now celebrate during the earlier part of Holy Week a ‘seder meal’ which is a reenactment of the Hebrew paschal supper, at which there will be cooked lamb, unleavened bread, wine and bitter herbs.

Finally, the Jerusalem Bible has the following comment on the feast:

The long section of the Passover and the feast of the Unleavened Bread (12:1—13:16) combines the Yahwistic and the Priestly traditions and some editorial additions the style of which is ‘Deuteronomic’. With this passage should be compared the liturgical calendars of Leviticus 23:5-8, Deuteronomy 16:1-8, and the legislation of Numbers 28:16-25. The two rites may have had separate origins: the Passover is primarily a pastoral feast, offering the first-fruits of the flock; the feast of Unleavened Bread is primarily agricultural, offering the first-fruits of the barley harvest. But they were both springtime festivals and became fused at a very early date. Once associated with a historical occurrence, that decisive event in the history of Israel’s election, the deliverance out of Egypt, these rites took on an entirely new religious significance: they recalled how God had saved his people (see also the explanatory formula accompanying the rite, Exodus 12:26-27; 13:8). The Jewish Passover hence becomes a rehearsal for the Christian Passover: the Lamb of God, Christ, is sacrificed (the cross) and eaten (the Last Supper) within the framework of the Jewish Passover (the first Holy Week). Thus he brings salvation to the world; and the mystical re-enactment of this redemptive act becomes the central feature of the Christian liturgy, organised round the Mass which is at once sacrifice and sacrificial meal. (edited)

More

Commentary on Exodus 3:11-20

We are still with Moses as he speaks with God at the burning bush. God has asked Moses to be the leader of his people to rescue them from their life of slavery and hardship in Egypt. And Moses has heard this with some alarm. He feels unsuited to such a huge task. He is wanted by the Pharaoh for the murder of an Egyptian and he had angry words with some of his countrymen, making his acceptance even by his own people not very likely.

But God assures Moses that he will be with him all the way, and the confirmation will come when the Hebrews will one day worship their God on Mount Horeb. However, Moses is still not at ease with the proposed mission. If he tells the people that the God of their fathers has sent him and they ask “What is his name?”, what is he to tell them?

He wants to know what credentials he can bring to justify his being leader and the truth of his message. He asks God to give his name as proof. To know a person’s name was to have a certain power over them; to know the name of a deity was to be sure of a hearing. By being able to give God’s name, Moses would be able to claim a certain authority.

God replies:

I AM who I AM.

And Moses is to say to the people:

I AM has sent me to you…the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you….This is my name forever.

In a sense God’s words say everything and they say nothing. The Israelites are being given a name they can use, but it does not give them, as thought with pagan gods, a power over God—that they cannot have.

Later philosophers, of course, were to see in the name the assertion of pure and infinite Being. God simply is and everything else that is comes from him. But it is not likely that the authors of Exodus had reached that level of insight.

The phrase “I AM who I AM” apparently is the source of the word Yahweh, the proper personal name of the God of Israel. Out of reverence for this name, the term Adonai, (Hebrew for “my Lord”) was later used as a substitute. The word ‘Lord’ in many translations represents this traditional usage. The word ‘Jehovah’ arose from a incorrect reading of this name as it is written in the current Hebrew text.

We do not hesitate to use the word ‘God’ in our speech, but we should avoid any disrespectful use of any name of God or any persons of the Trinity, something which is all too common nowadays. Often it betrays ignorance rather than malice. It is an ignorance of the deepest nature of God’s being. It was Thomas Aquinas who said:

“…because we cannot know what God is, but rather what He is not, we have no means for considering how God is, but rather how He is not.” (Summa Theologia)

Said more simply, we are only learning to know God when we realise that he cannot be known. And when we use his name blasphemously, it is ourselves we hurt, not him.

The Jerusalem Bible has a lengthy comment on the phrase “I AM who I AM”:

“According to the Yahwistic tradition, the worship of Yahweh went back to the days before the Flood. According to the Priestly tradition, Yahweh revealed himself to the patriarchs under the name El-Shaddai (See Gen 17:1 and Exod 6:2-3). In this passage which belongs to the Elohistic tradition, it is at this time that God reveals the name of Yahweh; by this name he wishes to be invoked in future by the children of Israel. This narrative, a peak of Old Testament revelation, presents two difficulties: the first is philological—the etymology of the name Yahweh; the second is exegetical and theological—the meaning of the narrative as a whole and the significance of the revelation that it conveys.

With Regard to the etymology, attempts have been made to explain the name Yahweh (abridged forms like Yaho, Yah, etc are found in both biblical and non-biblical texts) from various Hebrew roots, but there seems little doubt that it is an archaic form of the verb ‘to be’.

There are two possible interpretations. First, it may be that Yahweh is used here to imply the impossibility of giving an adequate definition of God. In semitic thought, knowledge of a name gave power over the thing named; to know a god’s name was to be able to call on him and be certain of a hearing. The true God does not make himself man’s slave in this way by revealing a name expressive of his essence; this refusal to reveal is contained in the formula Ehyeh asher ehyeh (‘I am who I am’) which, in the third person, becomes Yahweh, ‘He is’. Understood in this fashion the name does not define God; nevertheless, for Israel it will always call to mind God’s great deliverance of his chosen people and the divine generosity, fidelity and power that prompted it. In Christian thought, this interpretation brings out the transcendence of a God for whom man can never find a worthy name.

Second, tradition, however, following the Septuagint, has commonly preferred to take Ehyeh asher ehyeh as meaning ‘I am the One who is’, ‘I am who I am’. The name Yahweh, ‘He is’, would then express not necessarily the absolute nature of God’s essence as a later philosophy and theology were to state it, but least God’s unlimited existence as opposed to the ‘nothingness’ of the gods (see Is 42:8 and following).”

Moses is then told the message he is to bring to the Hebrews. The elders of the people, as their representatives, are to be called together. They are to be told that the God of their ancestors has appeared to Moses. He has told Moses of his concern for the people’s sufferings and has decided to lead them out into:

…the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, a land flowing with milk and honey.

God assures Moses that the people will heed his message. Moses and the elders are to approach the Pharaoh and tell him that their God has sent the Hebrews a message. They are to say to the Pharaoh:

The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us; let us now go a three days’ journey into the wilderness, so that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God.

But God tells Moses that he knows the Pharaoh will not give his permission for this unless his hand is forced. In that case. God says:

I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all my wonders [a reference to the Ten Plagues] that I will perform in it; after that he will let you go.

Over the centuries, philosophers and theologians have led us to very deep understanding of the nature of God. We also learn much about God from the revelation that comes to us through Jesus Christ. Much of what Jesus reveals goes far beyond what we might come to know by reason alone. To know our God ever more deeply and become closer to him and his way of seeing life is really the only thing that matters.

More

Commentary on Matthew 11:28-30

The Gospel in many of its passages is very demanding and requires an unconditional commitment to the following of Christ.  We have seen that clearly in the contrast Jesus made between the demands of the Law and what he expected from his followers.  But again and again, that is balanced by the other side of God—his compassion and his understanding of our weakness and frailty.

Today Jesus invites:

Come to me all you who are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest.

He seems to be referring to the burden of the Law and the many other legalistic observances which had accumulated over the generations.  In fact there was a common rabbinic metaphor which spoke of the ‘yoke of the Law’.  We will see some of this in the two remaining readings of this week.  Jesus did not have much time for this kind of religion.  He invites us to come to him instead, and experience comfort and consolation.

Jesus invites us to take on his yoke instead.  A yoke can be heavy, but it makes it easier for an ox to pull a cart or a plough.  Jesus’ yoke is the yoke of love.  On the one hand, it restricts us from acting in certain ways, but at the same time it points us in the right direction.  In the long run, it has a liberating effect.  It is not unlike the idea of the “narrow gate” which Jesus invites us to go through rather than follow the wide road to nowhere (Matt 7:13-14).

Jesus asks us to learn from him in his gentleness and humility.  This was in stark contrast to the severity and arrogance of other religious leaders.  Not only are we to experience the gentleness of Jesus, we are also to practise it in our own dealings with others.

Another lovely idea that has been expressed arises from the observation that it was quite common for farmers to use double yokes, with two animals pulling a cart together. The thought is that Jesus is offering to share his yoke with me, so that Jesus and I will pull together and thus split the work. In any case, Jesus assures us that his yoke is easy and his burden is light.

Jesus expects us to give all of ourselves to him but, when we do so, we discover that what he asks is absolutely right for us.  To follow Jesus is not to carry a great weight, but to experience a great sense of liberation. If we have not found that experience yet then we are not yet carrying the yoke of Jesus.

More

Commentary on Matthew 12:1-8

Today’s story follows immediately on yesterday’s words of Jesus inviting those carrying heavy burdens to come to him for comfort and relief.  Those burdens were understood to be the yoke of the Law which could weigh so heavily on the ordinary person. Today we see what kind of burdens it entailed.

Jesus and his disciples are walking through a cornfield.  The disciples were feeling a little hungry so they began plucking ears of corn to eat…nothing wrong with that.  Gleaning, especially where the poor were concerned, was not regarded as stealing:

If you go into your neighbor’s standing grain, you may pluck the ears with your hand, but you shall not put a sickle to your neighbor’s standing grain. (Deut 23:25)

Yet the Pharisees criticised the disciples’ behaviour before Jesus.  They were not upset by the plucking of the corn, but because it was done on a sabbath day.  Most manual work was forbidden on the Sabbath, including for instance, reaping.  So we read in Exodus:

Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even in plowing time and in harvest time you shall rest.
(Exod 34:21)

The question that would come immediately to the legalistic mind would be what exactly constituted harvesting.  In the minds of the Pharisees, who would put the strictest interpretation in order to be on the safe side, what the disciples were doing contravened the Sabbath requirements.

Jesus would have none of this nonsense.  He gave two examples which the Pharisees would find difficult to criticise. First, David’s soldiers, because they were hungry, went into the house of God and ate the ”bread of offering”, that is, bread which was laid out as an offering to God.  According to the Law, only the priests were allowed to eat this bread.

Second, he pointed to the priests on temple duty who not only worked on the Sabbath, but did more work than usual on that day (like priests today!).  Yet no one found fault with them.

Jesus has two further and more powerful arguments. First, He calls his accusers’ attention to a saying paraphrased from the prophet Hosea:

I desire mercy and not sacrifice… (Hos 6:6)

What this means is that the measure of our behaviour in God’s eyes is not our observance of law, but the degree of love and compassion we have for our brothers and sisters.  Laws are for people; people are not for laws.  That is why a truly loving act always transcends any law.  If the Pharisees had fully understood the meaning of Hosea’s words, they would not have “condemned these innocent men”.

Second, Jesus simply says,

…the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.

Jesus as Lord is not bound by even the God-given laws of Israel.  If, in the eyes of Jesus, his disciples are innocent, then they are innocent.

Every time we read texts like this we have to look at how we as Christians behave both individually and corporately.  Legalism and small-mindedness can very easily infect our Catholic life.  We can start measuring people—including ourselves, but especially others—by the observance or non-observance of things which really have little to do with the substance of our Christian faith.  Of course, we can also go to the other extreme of having no rules at all.

There is a very demanding law to which we are all called to subscribe and that is the law of love.  It allows of no exceptions.  But its practice can only benefit both the giver and the receiver.

More

Commentary on Exodus 12:37-42

Yesterday’s reading about the celebration of the Passover is followed by instructions on the feast of Unleavened Bread and other instructions on the observance of the Passover. After this, the book then goes back to the narrative and, considering its climactic role, gives a rather brief account of the Tenth and most terrible Plague, the killing of all the first-born Egyptian children and animals. However, Pharaoh has now had enough and ordered Moses and Aaron to leave with all their people, their herds and their possessions.

Today’s passage describes the beginning of the long journey out of Egypt to the Promised Land by way of Mount Sinai. The journey began in the city of Rameses in the very north of Egypt, where the Hebrews had been employed virtually as slaves in the Pharaoh’s great construction works. They set off for Succoth which lay to the southeast about half way between Rameses and the Sea of Reeds.

Their numbers were estimated to be 600,000 men, “not counting their families.” There was also a crowd of “people of various sorts” with them. These were probably the result of mixed marriages between the Hebrews and the native Egyptians. They also brought with them numerous flocks of sheep and goats and herds of cattle.

However, they had left in such a rush that the flour they had with them had no time to be leavened, so they made bread with the unleavened flour. This is another tradition of the origin of the use of unleavened bread as part of the Passover celebration. They left in such a rush that they did not even have time to prepare any proper food for their journey.

It was the end of a long sojourn in Egypt—estimated by the Bible as 430 years—from the time Joseph had first invited his family to settle there. The day they left was said to be the exact anniversary date of their arrival. It was seen as the greatest event in the history of Israel.

They had also started on their journey by night, so future celebrations of the event were forever more to be observed by a vigil. The passage ends with:

That was for the Lord a night of vigil, to bring them out of the land of Egypt. That same night is a vigil to be kept for the Lord by all the Israelites throughout their generations.

And as we have seen, it will be the foreshadowing of a much greater Passover, a more significant vigil to come—the Christian Easter Vigil.