More

Commentary on Matthew 13:31-35

Today we have two short parables which both reflect the experience of the early Church and also highlight features of the Kingdom. Considering when they were written, they exude an extraordinary level of trust and confidence in God’s power, a trust which was not disappointed although the results were not seen for generations.

The first is the parable of the mustard seed. The mustard seed is not actually the smallest seed known today, but it was the smallest seed used by Palestinian farmers and gardeners. Nor did it, strictly speaking, produce the largest of trees, but under favourable conditions, it could reach some 10 feet (or 3 metres) in height, big enough to provide shelter for birds.

The early Church, scattered in tiny communities largely cut off from each other and all over the Mediterranean area, must have felt very small and very vulnerable. The idea that in time it would become the central cultural influence all over Europe, Roman and barbarian, must have been beyond the wildest dreams of those early Christians. But that tiny seed did become a large tree providing shelter and comfort to millions and, from the Mediterranean, spread to every corner of the world.

The second parable about yeast in the dough is similar, but with a different nuance. In the Bible, yeast is usually a symbol of that which is evil and corrupt. Jesus warned his disciples about the yeast of the Pharisees (Mark 8:15). Similarly, at the Passover, the Jews eat unleavened bread, that is, bread free from leaven or yeast. In this parable, however, yeast is presented as a symbol of growth.

A tiny amount of yeast put into a large batch of dough produces striking results. (The 3 measures would produce enough to feed 100 people!) A dough batch, over a matter of hours, can swell to twice its original size as the process of fermentation takes place. The effects of the yeast, quite invisible, reach to every corner. Again, when this was written, that was not yet the case. The Church had made very little impact on its surrounding societies. But over the years, its influence grew until Christianity became the prevailing faith and cultural influence of the whole of Europe and then continued to spread out to other parts of the world.

This second parable points to a very important element in the life and work of the Church. It only exerts its influence when it is totally immersed in the society it wishes to reach and influence. And it can do this while still being only a small part of the whole. While never identifying itself with many of the prevailing ideologies and values of our societies, Christian communities must at the same time never separate themselves from their surroundings. There is a danger that we become inward-looking and spend most of our energies on the already converted. There is a strong evangelising element in this parable which cannot be ignored.

We need to remember that these are primarily parables of the Kingdom and not just of the Church, which is the imperfect sign of the work of the Kingdom going on in our world. And what these parables say applies first of all to the work of building the Kingdom in our world—it is a work which will go on inexorably, because it is based on truth, love and justice, and which slowly penetrates every corner of every society.

We can become aware to the point of depression at the amount of evil that we see around us and yet there is a gradual forward movement at all levels. But as the previous parable reminds us, the wheat has always to co-exist with the weeds—both inside and outside the Church, both inside and outside the Kingdom.

Today’s reading concludes with a repetition of the statement that Jesus only spoke to the crowds in parables. And Matthew sees this as the fulfilment of a prophetic text from the Old Testament. It is in fact a quotation from Psalm 78:

I will open my mouth to speak in parables… (Ps 78:2)

More

Commentary on Exodus 32:15-24,30-34

Before we actually look at today’s reading, we need to see the context in which it takes place. We have skipped several chapters in which God gives instructions to Moses on the design and furnishings of a sanctuary which is to accompany the Israelites on their journey, as a sign of God’s continuing presence among them. Central to this sanctuary was the Ark of the Covenant which contained the tablets of the Law which Moses had brought down from Mount Sinai after his dialogue with God.

The instructions cover items like the Ark, the table on which it is placed, the seven-branched lampstand, the altar of holocausts, oil for the lamps, the priestly vestments, consecration of priests, ordination sacrifices, altar of incense, anointing oil and incense. Much of what is described seems to apply more to the situation that existed in the Temple after it was built at a much later date.

In the meantime, while Moses was getting these instructions from the Lord up on the mountain, the people below began to become impatient. They say to Aaron:

Come, make gods for us, who shall go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him. (Exod 32:1)

So Aaron told the men to gather all the jewellery from their wives, sons and daughters and to bring it to him. From these offerings Aaron made a golden calf. The ‘golden calf’, a term of contempt, was in fact the statue of a young bull—a common symbol of divinity in the ancient east.

It seems that a group in competition with Moses’ group, or a dissident faction of his own group, had or wished to have the figure of a bull to symbolise the presence of God, instead of the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark is not, however, an idol in the strict sense because it represents Yahweh, the Yahweh who brought Israel out of Egypt.

The people then cried out with enthusiasm: “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt!” The bull was not even intended to be an image of Yahweh; like other Eastern parallels, it was regarded as the footstool of the unseen deity, which was also the role played by the Ark of the Covenant.

On the following day, having seen the reaction of the people, Aaron built an altar before the calf and proclaimed:

Tomorrow shall be a festival to the Lord. (Exod 32:5)

It is clear from this that the golden calf was intended as an image, not of a false god, but of the Lord himself, his strength being symbolised by the strength of a young bull. The Israelites, however, had been strictly forbidden to represent the Lord under any visible form. It was part of the First Commandment:

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth. (Exod 20:4)

Early in the morning, the people offered holocausts and brought peace offerings before the calf and then celebrated with food and drink.

Meanwhile, up on the mountain, God began to tell Moses what was going on. He was not at all pleased. The Lord said to Moses:

Now let me alone so that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them, and of you I will make a great nation. (Exod 32:10)

In saying, “Let me alone”, the Lord anticipates the remonstration Moses is going to make. And indeed, Moses, immediately pleaded on his people’s behalf. Moses is regularly presented as the great mediator: at the time of the plagues; on behalf of his sister Miriam; and especially on behalf of the people on their journey through the desert.

Moses gave two reasons why God should not take vengeance on his people. First, the Egyptians will say that the Hebrews were led out into the desert just so that their God could exterminate them. Second, he reminded the Lord of the sacred promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Israel that their descendants would be as numerous as the stars in the sky. So the Lord relented and held back his anger against his people and it is at this point that our today’s reading begins.

Moses leaves the presence of God and comes down the mountain bringing with him the two stone tablets on which the Law was written. They were written on both sides and had been engraved by God himself. When Joshua heard the noise in the Israelite camp, he thought there was a battle going on. Moses replied that they were neither the sounds of victory or defeat, but of pure revelry, people having a good time.

As Moses got near to the camp, he saw the calf and the people dancing around it. He became so angry at the sight that he threw down the two tablets which were smashed into pieces. He took the golden calf and ground it to powder, scattered it on the water of the stream that flowed down the mountainside and forced the Israelites to drink it.

Moses then asked his brother, Aaron, what the people could have done to him that he should lead them into such a terrible sin. Aaron very blandly passed the responsibility to the people, who were so prone to evil. He told Moses what they asked him to do and how he had asked them to offer their jewellery, saying:

…they gave it to me, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!

Just like that!

The next paragraph is omitted from our reading and it is not pleasant reading. When Moses saw the situation he immediately challenged all those who were for the Lord to stand by him. All the Levites rallied round him (Moses himself was from the tribe of Levi). He then gave them instructions to go round the camp and put to the sword even their kinsmen, friends and neighbours. Their kinsmen would have been Levites and hence especially guilty of idolatry. Altogether about 3,000 people were killed in the operation.

Moses tells those who had sided with him that, by their action, they are specially dedicated to the Lord and have brought a blessing on themselves. And, because of their zeal for the true worship of the Lord, the Levites were chosen to be special ministers of ritual service.

Finally, we go back to the last paragraph of our reading. Moses tells the people that they have committed a very serious sin, but that he is going back up to the Lord to ask forgiveness for them:

…perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.

Then in the presence of the Lord, Moses acknowledges the seriousness of the people’s sin and begs forgiveness for them:

…if you will only forgive their sin—but if not, please blot me out of the book that you have written.

This ‘book’ is the list of God’s intimate friends. If it will save his people from destruction, Moses is willing to be excluded from this book. Paul speaks in a similar vein when expressing his grief that so many of his fellow-Jews have not accepted Christ:

I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own brothers and sisters, my own flesh and blood. (Rom 9:3)

And we know how passionately close to Christ Paul was.

In reply, the Lord says he will strike from his book only those who have sinned against him. In the meantime, Moses is to continue leading his people according to the Lord’s instructions. God’s protecting angel will be with them, and God says:

Nevertheless, when the day for punishment comes, I will punish them for their sin.

The Chosen People are full of goodwill. They ratify the most solemn covenants with the Lord with sacrifices and holocausts. Yet they can so easily fall away. It is not for us to blame them. For we, by and large, are no better. We have so many aids in our Christian faith for leading good lives and yet we fail so often. Let us renew once more our promises to be faithful. It is something, of course, that we can only do with His help.

More

Commentary on Jeremiah 13:1-11

Today’s passage presents the symbol of the “linen loincloth”. It describes, not something that actually happened, but a symbolic vision. The meaning is clear: Israel, whom Yahweh had fastened as close to himself as a loincloth round his waist, had broken away and contracted the corruption of Babylonian idolatry. Not infrequently the prophets like to present the Lord’s message in the form of symbolic images, something like parables.

The prophet is told by Yahweh to purchase a linen loincloth and put it round his waist and he does so. Linen was the material from which the robes of the priests were made and was symbolic of Israel’s holiness as a “priestly kingdom” (Exod 19:6). So the linen loincloth or belt was a symbol of the formerly close relationship between God and his people. Jeremiah is also told not to put the loincloth in water, a symbol perhaps of the sinful pride of Judah, which did not want to be washed clean.

Later Jeremiah is told to take the loincloth around his waist and to hide it in a hole in a rock near the Perath, another name for the River Euphrates. The river Euphrates, which flowed through Babylonia, is here a symbol of the corrupting Assyrian and Babylonian influences, which began during the reign of Ahaz and which brought about Judah’s abandonment of Yahweh for the idols of their conquerors.

The Perath may, however, refer to the town of Parah (see Joshua 18:21-24), which was near the modern Wadi Farah, three miles northeast of Anathoth (Jeremiah’s birthplace). Since in other contexts the Hebrew for Perath refers to the river Euphrates, it serves as an appropriate symbol of the corrupting Assyrian and Babylonian influence on Judah that began during the reign of Ahaz. It is more likely that Jeremiah would have been told to put the loincloth in a place easily accessible to him. In any case, the symbol has the same connotation.

Jeremiah hides the loincloth, as instructed. After a considerable length of time, Yahweh tells the prophet to retrieve the loincloth. The hiding of the loincloth for a long time beside the river represents the period of exile of the Jewish people in Babylon.

When Jeremiah found it, it had become filthy dirty and was fit for nothing, least of all to be worn. Clearly it had become dirty from contamination with the place where it was concealed. The meaning of the symbol of the loincloth is then spelt out clearly. The people of the southern kingdom of Judah and its capital Jerusalem are going to be punished for their arrogance and pride:

Thus says the Lord…I will ruin the pride of Judah and the great pride of Jerusalem. This evil people, who refuse to hear my words, who stubbornly follow their own will and have gone after other gods to serve them and worship them, shall be like this loincloth, which is good for nothing.

That had not been God’s idea originally. He had wanted the whole House of Judah to be in a close and intimate relationship with him, just as a loincloth clings to a man’s waist. God says they were to:

…be for me a people, a name, a praise, and a glory.

Unfortunately, in their arrogance and pride, they refused to listen. Now they will pay the price for their infidelity. They will be carried away by the very creators of the idols they worshipped.

Once again we are being asked to reflect on the idols in our own lives. What are the things, the desires and the ambitions which come between us and our relationship with God? Do we try to compromise, to sit on the fence, to try to have our cake and eat it? Do we try at the same time to serve God and ‘mammon’—something Jesus said was impossible?

Where your treasure is, there your heart is too, Jesus said on another occasion. Where and what is my treasure in life? How close am I to my God and his ways?

More

Commentary on Mark 12:38-44

We come today to the end of our readings from Mark’s Gospel. We stop just on the threshold of prophecies about the end of Jerusalem, the final coming of Jesus and the story of his passion and resurrection. There are two related passages today serving as entry points for this last phase of Jesus’ life and mission among us.

First, Jesus hits out at some of the scribes, the expert interpreters of the law. As such, they feel that they are expected to be perfect models of that law down to its smallest details. Jesus says they go around in long, flowing robes (the working poor could not afford to dress like that) and that they expect to be:

…greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets!

Sadly, such behaviour, we have to confess, is still not unknown among Christian clergy and other religious leaders.

At the same time, Jesus says, these leaders were rapacious hypocrites. They did not hesitate to “devour widows’ houses” while at the same time making a show of lengthy prayers. They were the opposite of everything that Jesus was proposing as the way to love and serve God. They emphasised the external appearance rather than the inner spirit; they were concerned about being served rather than serving others; they thought only of what they could get through their privileged position rather than what they could share, especially with those in need.

Jesus warns that, precisely because of their greater knowledge of the law, their responsibilities in not keeping its real spirit will be all the greater—to whom more is given, more is expected.

The mention of widows leads on to the second part of the reading. Jesus was sitting facing the treasury of the Temple and watching the people putting in their offerings. A poor widow—and at the time, widows were almost by definition poor and, because they could no longer produce children, regarded practically as non-persons—rejected by their husband’s family. They were often reduced to poverty. Yet, it is a poor widow who approaches the treasury box and drops in two coins of negligible value.

Jesus draws the attention of his disciples who were with him and points out that the poor woman had put in more than all the others combined. They were contributing what they could easily spare while she put in her whole livelihood. It was an act of total trust in God’s providence and care for her.

It has been pointed out that she put in two coins. In other words, given her situation and under the law, she would have been more than justified in putting in just one. Compare her to the rich man who could not part with his wealth to follow Jesus.

It has also been pointed out that this anonymous woman is, in a way, a symbol of Jesus himself. He also will “empty himself”, give away everything, including his life, out of love for his Father and for us. It seems no accident that the story is placed just here as Jesus enters on his final days.

Today’s two incidents both provide matter for us to reflect on. Do we wear our Christianity just on our sleeve? Do we tend to assert our “rights” over others and expect due deference from them, e.g. in our working place? How much of what we have are we willing to share with others? Let us pray as St Ignatius prayed:

Teach us, Lord, to be generous.

More

Commentary on Exodus 1:8-14,22

Immediately following the end of Genesis, we move into reading the next book of the Pentateuch, the book of the Exodus (Greek, Exodos) or the ‘Going Out’. The ‘Going In’ was partially realised by the crossing of the Jordan River into the Promised Land, but only fully completed with the resurrection and ascension of the crucified Jesus the Christ.

The book tells of the departure of the Israelites from a life of slavery in Egypt. We saw that the last word in Genesis was “Egypt.” However, a long period has passed since the death of Joseph and the present plight of God’s People under the Pharaohs. Exodus recounts the oppression by the Egyptians of the ever-increasing descendants of Jacob followed by their miraculous deliverance by God through Moses, who led them across the Red Sea to Mount Sinai where they entered into a special covenant with the Lord.

These events were of prime importance to the Chosen People, who became an independent nation having a unique relationship with God. Through Moses, God gave to the Israelites at Mount Sinai the “Law”: the moral, civil and ritual legislation by which they were to become a holy people, in whom the promise of a Saviour for all mankind would be fulfilled.

We will spend the next three weeks going through this book. There are two central themes:

1. the slavery and the deliverance from slavery in Egypt (Exod 1:1—15:21) and
2. the Covenant on Sinai (Exod 19:1—40:38).

Connecting these two is the secondary theme of the Journey through the Wilderness (Exod 15:22—18:27).

The central figure is Moses, arguably Israel’s greatest prophet. It is he who will lead his people out of the bondage in Egypt to the foot of Mount Sinai. There, in a majestic and dramatic setting, God makes a solemn alliance with his people and hands down his law, the law which is at the heart of Israel’s life, and around which the whole of the Old Testament revolves.

At the end of Genesis we saw how Joseph had brought his people to live in Egypt under very favourable conditions. The opening paragraph of Exodus makes the link between that time and the present. The 11 brothers of Joseph, the sons of Jacob-Israel, had settled in Egypt and we are told that altogether, Jacob had 70 direct descendants (literally, ‘coming from the loins of Jacob’), presumably by a multiplicity of wives.

Now, some 400 years later the situation has changed:

…a new king arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph.

Pharaoh, in Egyptian, is Per-aa, meaning ‘the great House’ and was the usual designation of the Palace or the Court, but from the 18th Dynasty onwards, referred to the king’s own person.

He resented the growing numbers and the increasing power of the Hebrews in his kingdom:

He said to his people, “Look, the Israelite people are more numerous and more powerful than we. Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, or they will increase and, in the event of war, join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land.”

The implication is that an important source of slave labour would be lost. Ironically, they would in fact leave the country, but with the help of an ally the Pharaoh had not taken into account.

It was the beginning of the long and sad story of antisemitism and of all kinds of racial and ethnic discrimination—by no means a thing of the past now, some 3,000 years later.

The Pharaoh took two steps to subjugate the Hebrews: first, they were reduced to doing forced labour under Egyptian taskmasters. For their massive undertakings the kings of this time in general always used forced labour. In Israel, David was to do so (2 Sam 20:24) and Solomon even more so in his building of the Temple. The Hebrews were involved in major construction projects, specifically, the building of the supply or store cities of Pithom and Rameses. Rameses was the residence in the Nile Delta of Pharaoh Rameses II. It is now identified with either the contemporary town of Tanis or Qantir.

Yet, the greater the oppression, the more the Hebrew population increased. As a result, the working conditions became even more severe, and the Hebrews were virtually reduced to slavery and doing the most difficult work.

It is not part of our reading, but it is interesting to note that the Pharaoh told the Hebrew midwives:

When you act as midwives to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live. (Exod 1:16)

The midwives, however, “feared God” and disobeyed the ruling. When called to account, they replied:

…the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them. (Exod 1:19)

Finally though:

Pharaoh commanded all his people, “Every son that is born to the Hebrews you shall throw into the Nile, but you shall let every daughter live.”

The stage is being set for the birth of one particular boy—Moses—and God’s intervention on behalf of his suffering people.

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 Jesus’ message of 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, members of his or her 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 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 child was immediately recognised as Hebrew (perhaps he was 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 flog, 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; this is 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 “the 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.