Moses said to the people:
Ask now about the days of old, long before your time, from the day God created man on the earth; ask from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything as great as this ever happened, or has anything like it ever been heard of? Has any other people heard the voice of God speaking out of fire, as you have, and lived? Has any god ever tried to take for himself one nation out of another nation, by trials, by miraculous signs and wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, or by great and awesome deeds, like all the things the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes?
Acknowledge now, and take to heart this day that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other. Keep his decrees and commands, which I am giving you today, so that it may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live long in the land the LORD your God gives you for all time.
Deuteronomy 4:32-34; 39-40
Those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by which we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our own spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
Romans 8:14-17
The eleven disciples then went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but they doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And be sure that I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Matthew 28:16-20
+++ +++ +++ +++
Today’s gospel, Jesus’ commission to the Eleven, takes place on a mountain, a symbolic place were mere mortals encounter the divine presence. These summits of encounter between humanity and divinity combine to evoke the memory of critical turning points in human history: Ararat, where Noah built the Ark; Moriah, where Abraham was sent on his journey from Arabia to the west bank of the Jordan; Sinai, where Moses received the tablets of the Law. Matthew, in keeping with this tradition, brings the story of God’s plan to its climax. He narrates the account of Jesus’ temptation, his inaugural sermon, and his transfiguration, placing all three critical events on mountain tops. Later, he tells of the testing of Jesus’ faith in a garden on the Mount of Olives, and brings the story to its climax with his crucifixion and death on Skull Mountain (mons calvariae), where Jesus suffers and die in obedience to the Father’s will, to achieve the redemption of the brothers and sisters who share his human nature.
Today, on yet another summit, God’s promise to Abraham and his descendants forever, after the test of his own faith on Mount Moriah, where he offered his son in sacrifice, has been fulfilled by the sacrifice of God’s only-begotten Son. Yet the salvation promised to Abraham is extended well beyond the descendants of Isaac and those of Ishmael, for God promised that from Abraham’s seed “all the nations of the earth will find blessing.” (Genesis 22:1-18)
Today, on yet another mountain top, Jesus sends forth the Eleven with three commissions: They are to make disciples of the people of all nations; they are to baptize them in the name of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; they are to teach them to observe the commandments (the same precepts which God gave to Moses on Sinai).
It is the mission of the Apostles to bring other people in contact with the God who brought us all into being, who took on human form and flesh in order to redeem us, and who fills us with the graces we need to do God’s will. [By the way, God’s will is not about avoiding wrong, but about doing right. There is nothing negative about God, and therefore there is nothing negative about doing God’s will!]
The primary responsibility of the disciples – the followers of Jesus – is to bring other people to become disciples – followers of Jesus. It is a responsibility we acquired when we were baptized, and which was confirmed in us when we received the gifts of the Holy Spirit (which is why the second sacrament is called Confirmation). If you are an adult, especially a parent, it is your mission. If you are a teen, or even a pre-teen, it is your mission toward your friends and your younger brothers and sisters. If you have been ordained as a deacon, a priest, or a bishop, it is your mission to the people of your parish or your diocese.
At this point, you may be wondering whether I’m delivering the right sort of message for this Sunday dedicated to the Holy Trinity. I believe I am! The text of today’s gospel is the clearest of references to the Trinity in all of scripture, and if you consult the commentaries, you will find that the scholars consider that this phrasing, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”, was an element of the form of Baptism even before Matthew inserted it into the text of his gospel.
Jesus never explicitly taught about the Trinity. He referred on many occasions to his Father, and to the closeness of their personal relationship. Moreover, he taught us to pray to His Father in the most intimate and personal manner, as Our Father.
Jesus also promises in the gospel to send us his Spirit, and in today’s gospel, when he promises to be with us until the end of time, we understand that it is through the Holy Spirit that Jesus is present to us always. As Paul writes in Romans, we have received a Spirit of adoption, through whom we are able to call “Abba, Father.” It is the Holy Spirit who bears witness together with our own spirit that we are children of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ to the joys of the eternal kingdom of Heaven. It may be, as Paul writes, that will we have to suffer as Jesus did in this life before we can be glorified with him in the next life. But that, dear sisters and brothers, is a topic for yet another meditation.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Jesus Said: Be Wary Of The Teachers Of The Law!
“Clothes make the man” – so the saying goes. These days, it would more “politically correct” to say "clothes make the person". Military personnel are distinguished by their uniforms, which tell us whether they are in the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the stripes on their sleeves or the badges on their shoulders reveal their rank. Members of religious orders – Dominicans, Franciscans, and others, can be recognized by their habits and the diocesan clergy by their black suits and clerical shirts or vests with Roman collars.
In Jesus’ time, the teachers of the law, also called the scribes, walked about in flowing robes, and they enjoyed being greeted in the marketplaces, and relished being escorted to the front seats in the synagogue and to the place of honor at banquets. But Jesus says, in today’s gospel, “They recite lengthy prayers for show, and foreclose the homes of poor widows. For this they will be punished most severely.”
The best way I can understand and explain what Jesus is saying is to consider my own experience. In nearly forty years of priesthood I have learned something about the respect that comes with wearing clerical clothes, being invited to the head table at banquets, and being escorted to the front of the line at dinners. But, what do I know about foreclosing on the homes of poor widows, or reciting lengthy prayers for show?
Let me tell you. When folks honor me because they recognize me as a priest, when I am invited to sit at the head table, or are invited to “cut the line” at the cinema, I take it personally, as a compliment not only to my priesthood, but to myself. I must admit that I don’t know anything about foreclosing homes, but my ministry has been in the Diocesan Tribunal, not in the Office of Financial Affairs.
But there’s another side of the story – there always is. In August 1995 the newly appointed Bishop of this diocese asked me if I would accept the office of Judicial Vicar, the presiding office of the Tribunal. From the day the appointment became effective, I was known as “Very Reverend”. But, nearly a decade later, my primary care physician recommended that it would be best for me to retire from administrative ministries, and the new bishop accepted my resignation.
Sometimes people who haven’t known me very long, and less frequently, folks who’ve known me for many years ask, “What do you miss most about being Judicial Vicar?” For the most part, there’s not that much I miss. I am still involved in Tribunal ministry, but I am no longer the chief judge. I still do parochial ministry, but I am no longer the administrator of a parish. My usual response to that question is this: “There is very little I miss about being the Judicial Vicar, or being the pastor of a parish. I am still involved in ministry, but no longer in administration.”
One of the sources I consulted before beginning this reflection raised an interesting question. “What use is a special hat if no one knows what it means?” I might add, “What good is a title, if the one who holds the title is not up to the responsibilities of the office that title represents?”
Sometimes it crosses my mind that folks who depend on robes and uniforms, on badges and insignia, must be rather unsure of themselves and rely on recognition from others as a measure of their self-worth. The Scribes considered that their knowledge of the Law was the only knowledge worth having. Yet their attitude was proved insecure when someone challenged their authority. History tells us that only happened once, and the challenger was Jesus of Nazareth! He challenged them, and silenced them in argument, though he had not graduated from rabbinical college. But they got even with him: they conspired with their arch-enemies, the Sadducees, who rejected most of the precepts of the Law of Moses, and the Romans, who had usurped authority in Judea, Samaria and Galilee – that is, in the land the LORD gave to his chosen people when they escaped from slavery in Egypt. But that is another story – earlier in the anthology.
Today’s gospel does point out one great casualty in the administration of the Temple treasury, and it must not be ignored: charity toward the poor.
Jesus sat near the place where the offerings were made, and watched the people putting money into the Temple treasury. Many rich people threw in substantial amounts; but a poor widow cam and put in two copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
Calling his disciples to gather around him, Jesus told them, “I tell you truthfully, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than any of the others. They contributed from their surplus, but she, in her poverty, put in everything she owned, all she had to live on.”
A widow, at this time in history, was the very image of poverty and helplessness. In that world, losing one’s husband was losing not only one’s livelihood, but one’s identity. This poor widow, who remains anonymous to this day, was being exploited by folks who were clinging to their robes, their positions, their badges. Identification, they had; identity, not so much!
In Jesus’ time, the teachers of the law, also called the scribes, walked about in flowing robes, and they enjoyed being greeted in the marketplaces, and relished being escorted to the front seats in the synagogue and to the place of honor at banquets. But Jesus says, in today’s gospel, “They recite lengthy prayers for show, and foreclose the homes of poor widows. For this they will be punished most severely.”
The best way I can understand and explain what Jesus is saying is to consider my own experience. In nearly forty years of priesthood I have learned something about the respect that comes with wearing clerical clothes, being invited to the head table at banquets, and being escorted to the front of the line at dinners. But, what do I know about foreclosing on the homes of poor widows, or reciting lengthy prayers for show?
Let me tell you. When folks honor me because they recognize me as a priest, when I am invited to sit at the head table, or are invited to “cut the line” at the cinema, I take it personally, as a compliment not only to my priesthood, but to myself. I must admit that I don’t know anything about foreclosing homes, but my ministry has been in the Diocesan Tribunal, not in the Office of Financial Affairs.
But there’s another side of the story – there always is. In August 1995 the newly appointed Bishop of this diocese asked me if I would accept the office of Judicial Vicar, the presiding office of the Tribunal. From the day the appointment became effective, I was known as “Very Reverend”. But, nearly a decade later, my primary care physician recommended that it would be best for me to retire from administrative ministries, and the new bishop accepted my resignation.
Sometimes people who haven’t known me very long, and less frequently, folks who’ve known me for many years ask, “What do you miss most about being Judicial Vicar?” For the most part, there’s not that much I miss. I am still involved in Tribunal ministry, but I am no longer the chief judge. I still do parochial ministry, but I am no longer the administrator of a parish. My usual response to that question is this: “There is very little I miss about being the Judicial Vicar, or being the pastor of a parish. I am still involved in ministry, but no longer in administration.”
One of the sources I consulted before beginning this reflection raised an interesting question. “What use is a special hat if no one knows what it means?” I might add, “What good is a title, if the one who holds the title is not up to the responsibilities of the office that title represents?”
Sometimes it crosses my mind that folks who depend on robes and uniforms, on badges and insignia, must be rather unsure of themselves and rely on recognition from others as a measure of their self-worth. The Scribes considered that their knowledge of the Law was the only knowledge worth having. Yet their attitude was proved insecure when someone challenged their authority. History tells us that only happened once, and the challenger was Jesus of Nazareth! He challenged them, and silenced them in argument, though he had not graduated from rabbinical college. But they got even with him: they conspired with their arch-enemies, the Sadducees, who rejected most of the precepts of the Law of Moses, and the Romans, who had usurped authority in Judea, Samaria and Galilee – that is, in the land the LORD gave to his chosen people when they escaped from slavery in Egypt. But that is another story – earlier in the anthology.
Today’s gospel does point out one great casualty in the administration of the Temple treasury, and it must not be ignored: charity toward the poor.
Jesus sat near the place where the offerings were made, and watched the people putting money into the Temple treasury. Many rich people threw in substantial amounts; but a poor widow cam and put in two copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
Calling his disciples to gather around him, Jesus told them, “I tell you truthfully, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than any of the others. They contributed from their surplus, but she, in her poverty, put in everything she owned, all she had to live on.”
A widow, at this time in history, was the very image of poverty and helplessness. In that world, losing one’s husband was losing not only one’s livelihood, but one’s identity. This poor widow, who remains anonymous to this day, was being exploited by folks who were clinging to their robes, their positions, their badges. Identification, they had; identity, not so much!
Friday, June 5, 2009
"How Do They Claim That The Messiah Is The Son Of David?" Jesus Asked.
Mark 12:35-37
While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: "'The Lord said to my Lord:"Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."
David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?" The large crowd listened to him with delight.
+++ +++ +++ +++
On Tuesday of this week, we read about the Pharisees and Herodians who tried to trap Jesus by asking him whether it was lawful to pay the Roman census tax or not. On Wednesday, it was the Sadducee’s turn to post a tricky question to Jesus, about a woman who married seven brothers in succession, but conceived offspring with none of them: whose spouse will she be in the next life. It seems a strange question coming from people who did not believe in life after death. On Thursday, a scribe asked Jesus a straightforward question: Which is the greatest of the commandments? The answer: Love God and love your neighbor. That is the entire law summed up in one precept.
Today, it is Jesus turn to ask a tricky question: While he was teaching in the temple courtyard, he asked, “How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? Doesn’t David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declare:
The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand,
until I place your enemies
beneath your feet.”
Now, David himself calls the Messiah Lord. So how can he be David’s son?”
The crowd listened to Jesus with delight. How the Pharisees, Sadducees and Teachers of the Law reacted is not written in Mark’s gospel.
Today’s gospel is puzzling for Bible scholars. It is subject to many different interpretations. The people who were listening to Jesus believed the scripture that said the Messiah would be a descendant of David. There were texts in the Hebrew Scriptures to prove it: “I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (2 Samuel 7:13) Now Jesus comes along and confuses the issue. Is he saying that the Messiah will not be a descendant of David? Or is he saying that the Messiah would be much more than a descendant of David?
In the gospel of John, Jesus says to the people “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." They answered “We are children of Abraham, and have never been slaves to anyone. How can you say that we will be set free?”
How can these descendants of Abraham not remember that once their ancestors were slaves in Egypt, until Moses led them to the Land of Promise? Is it because their minds are clouded by “concrete thinking”? If a Teacher of the Law has firmly in mind that the Messiah will be a descendant of David, he will be put off by the citation Jesus makes of 2 Samuel, which suggests that the throne of David will not last forever – a prophecy that has long since been fulfilled, since the rulers of the Land of Promise are now a Roman procurator named Pontius Pilate and a Idumaean satrap named Herod Antipas.
Sometimes we believe that understanding a concept clearly is proof that it is true. But the truth is that a concept can be both clear and false. To make matters even more complex, sometimes a statement can be true in one sense and untrue in another. Or, even more amazing, sometimes two notions that appear contradictory can be true at the same time (but not in the same respect).
This is the case with Jesus. In the flesh, he is the son of Mary, a descendant of the house of Aaron, the high priest; and according to the Law of Moses, he is the son of Joseph, of the House of David, who received Mary into his home without acknowledging his paternity of the yet unborn child. On the other hand, Jesus is the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, who is, who was, and who will be in all eternity.
The Jews who were listening to Jesus did not understand what he was saying, because their minds were clouded by what they believed to be the truth. The high school pupil poring over a mathematical formula in the text book cries out “I’ve got it!” The university student in conference with his professor says, “Thank you for explaining that concept; I’m beginning to grasp it.” The words we commonly use to express understanding speak of truth as an object, and the human mind as a strong box in which the precious object is kept.
But that is far from the truth about our relationship with God’s truth. Jesus, in John 7, says to the Jews, “The truth will set you free.” But they, especially their leaders, refused to accept a truth they could not grasp, that Jesus, the rabbi from Galilee, was at the same time son of Mary and Son of God.
It is not for us to grasp the fullness of the truth, which is far beyond our reach. Rather, we should extend our hands upward and outward in the universal gesture of prayer and supplication, and allow the One who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, to lead us, to teach us, and to grant us eternal life.
While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: "'The Lord said to my Lord:"Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."
David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?" The large crowd listened to him with delight.
+++ +++ +++ +++
On Tuesday of this week, we read about the Pharisees and Herodians who tried to trap Jesus by asking him whether it was lawful to pay the Roman census tax or not. On Wednesday, it was the Sadducee’s turn to post a tricky question to Jesus, about a woman who married seven brothers in succession, but conceived offspring with none of them: whose spouse will she be in the next life. It seems a strange question coming from people who did not believe in life after death. On Thursday, a scribe asked Jesus a straightforward question: Which is the greatest of the commandments? The answer: Love God and love your neighbor. That is the entire law summed up in one precept.
Today, it is Jesus turn to ask a tricky question: While he was teaching in the temple courtyard, he asked, “How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? Doesn’t David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declare:
The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand,
until I place your enemies
beneath your feet.”
Now, David himself calls the Messiah Lord. So how can he be David’s son?”
The crowd listened to Jesus with delight. How the Pharisees, Sadducees and Teachers of the Law reacted is not written in Mark’s gospel.
Today’s gospel is puzzling for Bible scholars. It is subject to many different interpretations. The people who were listening to Jesus believed the scripture that said the Messiah would be a descendant of David. There were texts in the Hebrew Scriptures to prove it: “I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (2 Samuel 7:13) Now Jesus comes along and confuses the issue. Is he saying that the Messiah will not be a descendant of David? Or is he saying that the Messiah would be much more than a descendant of David?
In the gospel of John, Jesus says to the people “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." They answered “We are children of Abraham, and have never been slaves to anyone. How can you say that we will be set free?”
How can these descendants of Abraham not remember that once their ancestors were slaves in Egypt, until Moses led them to the Land of Promise? Is it because their minds are clouded by “concrete thinking”? If a Teacher of the Law has firmly in mind that the Messiah will be a descendant of David, he will be put off by the citation Jesus makes of 2 Samuel, which suggests that the throne of David will not last forever – a prophecy that has long since been fulfilled, since the rulers of the Land of Promise are now a Roman procurator named Pontius Pilate and a Idumaean satrap named Herod Antipas.
Sometimes we believe that understanding a concept clearly is proof that it is true. But the truth is that a concept can be both clear and false. To make matters even more complex, sometimes a statement can be true in one sense and untrue in another. Or, even more amazing, sometimes two notions that appear contradictory can be true at the same time (but not in the same respect).
This is the case with Jesus. In the flesh, he is the son of Mary, a descendant of the house of Aaron, the high priest; and according to the Law of Moses, he is the son of Joseph, of the House of David, who received Mary into his home without acknowledging his paternity of the yet unborn child. On the other hand, Jesus is the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, who is, who was, and who will be in all eternity.
The Jews who were listening to Jesus did not understand what he was saying, because their minds were clouded by what they believed to be the truth. The high school pupil poring over a mathematical formula in the text book cries out “I’ve got it!” The university student in conference with his professor says, “Thank you for explaining that concept; I’m beginning to grasp it.” The words we commonly use to express understanding speak of truth as an object, and the human mind as a strong box in which the precious object is kept.
But that is far from the truth about our relationship with God’s truth. Jesus, in John 7, says to the Jews, “The truth will set you free.” But they, especially their leaders, refused to accept a truth they could not grasp, that Jesus, the rabbi from Galilee, was at the same time son of Mary and Son of God.
It is not for us to grasp the fullness of the truth, which is far beyond our reach. Rather, we should extend our hands upward and outward in the universal gesture of prayer and supplication, and allow the One who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, to lead us, to teach us, and to grant us eternal life.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
There Is No Commandment Greater Than These!
Mark 12:28-34
One of the Scribes asked Jesus, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
"The first and most important of them," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these."
"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."
When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.
+++ +++ +++ +++
“Shema Israel! Adonai eloheinu, adonai echad!” Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is Lord alone! This text of scripture was a topic of great debate among the Scribes, Pharisees and Teachers of the Law. On the one hand, some strove to distill God’s law into its very essence, and express it in as few words as possible; on the other, some tended to expand it into hundreds – if not thousands – of very specific regulations, that dealt with every aspect of the relationship between the human person and God, and between one human person and all others, as individuals and as members of society.
Finally, a teacher of the Law with an honest question! When Jesus answers, he says, approvingly, “Well said!” He sounds less like a rabbi speaking to another rabbi, than an examiner congratulating a student. At least, it’s a better question than those posed yesterday and the day before, which were riddles deliberately intended to entrap Jesus. “You are not far from the Kingdom,” Jesus responded to the compliment. Good citizenship in God’s Kingdom is not a matter of reciting rote formulas like children learning the times tables: One times two is two. Two times two is four. Three times two is six. …
“Love your neighbor as yourself” is the Golden Rule. Sometimes it is described as the heart of the Gospel message, and a uniquely Christian teaching. The first part of that description is accurate, but not the second part. The Golden Rule is a core directive of the relationship of the followers of Christ to other persons. But it does not take much study to learn that this precept is echoed in every religion and in many, if not most, secular and humanistic philosophies. Sometimes it is phrased in the affirmative, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”; sometimes, in the negative, “Do not treat another person in a way you would not want to be treated.”
If the Golden Rule is the norm of relationships between persons regardless of their religion or their philosophy, we must look further for the guiding principle of Christian living. In today’s gospel passage Jesus was replying to a question about the Mosaic Law; he was giving his interpretation of it. When Jesus spoke for himself he did not say, “Love your neighbor as yourself”, but “Greater love than this no one has, except to give up his life for his friend. You are my friends if you do what I command you. My command to you is this: Love one another as I have loved you. That is the entire law, and all of the commandments.”
One of the Scribes asked Jesus, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
"The first and most important of them," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these."
"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."
When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.
+++ +++ +++ +++
“Shema Israel! Adonai eloheinu, adonai echad!” Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is Lord alone! This text of scripture was a topic of great debate among the Scribes, Pharisees and Teachers of the Law. On the one hand, some strove to distill God’s law into its very essence, and express it in as few words as possible; on the other, some tended to expand it into hundreds – if not thousands – of very specific regulations, that dealt with every aspect of the relationship between the human person and God, and between one human person and all others, as individuals and as members of society.
Finally, a teacher of the Law with an honest question! When Jesus answers, he says, approvingly, “Well said!” He sounds less like a rabbi speaking to another rabbi, than an examiner congratulating a student. At least, it’s a better question than those posed yesterday and the day before, which were riddles deliberately intended to entrap Jesus. “You are not far from the Kingdom,” Jesus responded to the compliment. Good citizenship in God’s Kingdom is not a matter of reciting rote formulas like children learning the times tables: One times two is two. Two times two is four. Three times two is six. …
“Love your neighbor as yourself” is the Golden Rule. Sometimes it is described as the heart of the Gospel message, and a uniquely Christian teaching. The first part of that description is accurate, but not the second part. The Golden Rule is a core directive of the relationship of the followers of Christ to other persons. But it does not take much study to learn that this precept is echoed in every religion and in many, if not most, secular and humanistic philosophies. Sometimes it is phrased in the affirmative, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”; sometimes, in the negative, “Do not treat another person in a way you would not want to be treated.”
If the Golden Rule is the norm of relationships between persons regardless of their religion or their philosophy, we must look further for the guiding principle of Christian living. In today’s gospel passage Jesus was replying to a question about the Mosaic Law; he was giving his interpretation of it. When Jesus spoke for himself he did not say, “Love your neighbor as yourself”, but “Greater love than this no one has, except to give up his life for his friend. You are my friends if you do what I command you. My command to you is this: Love one another as I have loved you. That is the entire law, and all of the commandments.”
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
He Is Not The God Of The Dead, But Of The Living!
Yesterday, some Pharisees approached Jesus with a tricky question about whether or not it is lawful to pay the census tax; today, it is the Sadducees’ turn to pose a conundrum.
Moses wrote that if a man dies, leaving a wife but no child, his brother should marry the widow, and the first born of her children would be the heir of the deceased brother. Now, there were seven brothers: the first married and died childless; the second married the widow, but died without issue; the third likewise, and the other four as well. Finally, the woman herself died. The question is: In the Kingdom of Heaven, whose spouse will she be?
Both yesterday’s question and today’s are the sort my Dad, God rest him, would describe as “cunning”. The word, which was common among folks of Irish ancestry in my home town, is defined as “crafty, wily, cute”. What is not so obvious about yesterday’s questions – or today’s -- is the ulterior motive of the ones who posed the riddle. The Pharisees were experts in the law, and they knew that no matter what answer Jesus gave, he would be in trouble with the law – either the Roman law, or the Mosaic law. The Sadducees, on the other hand, were a sect of Judaism who did not profess belief in life after death. Their purpose was not merely to trip up the preacher from Galilee, but to point out the absurdity of belief in the resurrection.
Neither yesterday nor today did Jesus accommodate his questioners with the answers they expected. Aren’t you aware that when people rise from the dead, they don’t get married, and they don’t live like married folks. In fact, they will be like the angels in heaven. Jesus knew that the Sadducees did not believe in angels any more than they did in life after death. There is a lesson here in how to defend the faith against unbelievers: don’t give ground, don’t backtrack, and don’t shy away.
The great French philosopher, Blaise Pascal, raised an interesting question about this passage of Mark’s gospel. What is the ground for questions about the resurrection? Does it lie in the mind alone? It is a brilliant conundrum, which is called “le grand pari” – the big bet. You can’t lose by believing in live after death, for it is true, and you live your life accordingly, you will not be disappointed with this life ends. On the other hand, if there is no life after death, you will also not be disappointed, because in order to experience disappointment, you have to be alive, and if there is no resurrection, you would have ceased to exist.
But Jesus did not come into our world to proclaim the safe bet, the sure thing. He came to proclaim the Good News. When Jesus, on the cross, said, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit”, he was not wagering whether there was an afterlife or not. He was placing his life at the mercy of the Lord of Heaven. Yet the mercy was not for him, because he had no need of mercy for himself. God’s mercy is for us, who are called to entrust ourselves, body, blood, soul and divinity, to the Father. If I’m not striving to trust God, whatever happens, to be best of my ability, I don’t really have faith in the resurrection. And if I don’t believe He died and rose again, then my belief is absurd and my hope is in vain. But that’s not the way it is, because of the third of the great cardinal virtues: God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten son that whoever believes in him might have everlasting life.
Moses wrote that if a man dies, leaving a wife but no child, his brother should marry the widow, and the first born of her children would be the heir of the deceased brother. Now, there were seven brothers: the first married and died childless; the second married the widow, but died without issue; the third likewise, and the other four as well. Finally, the woman herself died. The question is: In the Kingdom of Heaven, whose spouse will she be?
Both yesterday’s question and today’s are the sort my Dad, God rest him, would describe as “cunning”. The word, which was common among folks of Irish ancestry in my home town, is defined as “crafty, wily, cute”. What is not so obvious about yesterday’s questions – or today’s -- is the ulterior motive of the ones who posed the riddle. The Pharisees were experts in the law, and they knew that no matter what answer Jesus gave, he would be in trouble with the law – either the Roman law, or the Mosaic law. The Sadducees, on the other hand, were a sect of Judaism who did not profess belief in life after death. Their purpose was not merely to trip up the preacher from Galilee, but to point out the absurdity of belief in the resurrection.
Neither yesterday nor today did Jesus accommodate his questioners with the answers they expected. Aren’t you aware that when people rise from the dead, they don’t get married, and they don’t live like married folks. In fact, they will be like the angels in heaven. Jesus knew that the Sadducees did not believe in angels any more than they did in life after death. There is a lesson here in how to defend the faith against unbelievers: don’t give ground, don’t backtrack, and don’t shy away.
The great French philosopher, Blaise Pascal, raised an interesting question about this passage of Mark’s gospel. What is the ground for questions about the resurrection? Does it lie in the mind alone? It is a brilliant conundrum, which is called “le grand pari” – the big bet. You can’t lose by believing in live after death, for it is true, and you live your life accordingly, you will not be disappointed with this life ends. On the other hand, if there is no life after death, you will also not be disappointed, because in order to experience disappointment, you have to be alive, and if there is no resurrection, you would have ceased to exist.
But Jesus did not come into our world to proclaim the safe bet, the sure thing. He came to proclaim the Good News. When Jesus, on the cross, said, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit”, he was not wagering whether there was an afterlife or not. He was placing his life at the mercy of the Lord of Heaven. Yet the mercy was not for him, because he had no need of mercy for himself. God’s mercy is for us, who are called to entrust ourselves, body, blood, soul and divinity, to the Father. If I’m not striving to trust God, whatever happens, to be best of my ability, I don’t really have faith in the resurrection. And if I don’t believe He died and rose again, then my belief is absurd and my hope is in vain. But that’s not the way it is, because of the third of the great cardinal virtues: God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten son that whoever believes in him might have everlasting life.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. They came to him and said, "Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to anyone’s status; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn't we?"
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it." They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.
Mark 12:13-17
+++ +++ +++ +++
When the Pharisees and Herodians approached Jesus with this question, they thought they had caught him in a trap. To say no would be considered treason; to say yes, would be denying his faith in God. Jesus answer does not make a distinction between religion and politics. Faithful disciples of Jesus keep the Ten Commandments. Responsible citizens obey the law of the land.
Let us turn the pages of the universal calendar to a time nearly eighteen hundred years later, and consider two significant documents of the late 1700s.
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
The Declaration of Independence
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Constitution of the United States – Amendment 1
The question has been asked many times over the course of the centuries. The answer has always remained the same. The disciples of Jesus have an obligation to obey God’s law, as summarized in the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments). But we have a parallel obligation to obey the laws of the country where they reside. Like the song said, “They go together like a horse and carriage.”
I have an admission to make. For some time now, I have been avoiding any comment on the relationship of the disciples of Jesus to the law of the land in which they live. Today’s readings, and current events, leave me no other option.
The disciples of Jesus in the lands of the Mediterranean Basin from Pontus in Asia on the east, to Massilia in Gaul (or Marseilles in France) on the west were bound to obey the law of the land. People from both locations were among those touched by the Spirit of God on the day of Pentecost. The records show that they were law abiding citizens of the Roman Empire, which had no objection to the practice of religion of any stripe.
We live in a nation that has recently elected a new Chief Executive, one whose thoughts and statements on the right of a woman to choose appear to be at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church on the right to life of an unborn child. But the obligation of the President of the United States is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the First Amendment states clearly that the Congress shall make no law (and therefore, the Chief Executive shall enforce no law) imposing a religious test upon any citizen.
The woman who chooses to have an abortion is making a decision which, at the present time, is lawful. Whether or not she commits a sin is a religious question, and the Government of the United States has no voice pro or con in matters of religion. On the other hand, a person who enters a house of worship and shoots a physician who performs late term abortions has committed a capital crime of homicide according to the law of the land, and a mortal sin against the Fifth Commandment according to the norms of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition and teachings.
The President of the United States, in a speech delivered at a university in northern Indiana, proposed that a strategy might be devised to reduce the number of abortions. If the goal of the “pro-life” proponents is zero (0) abortions, then any reduction in the number of abortions is clearly a move in the direction toward achieving that goal. The longest journey, said a wise man, begins with the first step. The same wise man, a Chinese philosopher, also said that the journey of a hundred miles is only half completed at ninety.
If we refuse to cooperate in an endeavor to reduce the number of children whose lives end before they are born we still are correctly characterized by others as “anti-abortion”, but how can we honestly and sincerely call ourselves “pro-life”?
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it." They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.
Mark 12:13-17
+++ +++ +++ +++
When the Pharisees and Herodians approached Jesus with this question, they thought they had caught him in a trap. To say no would be considered treason; to say yes, would be denying his faith in God. Jesus answer does not make a distinction between religion and politics. Faithful disciples of Jesus keep the Ten Commandments. Responsible citizens obey the law of the land.
Let us turn the pages of the universal calendar to a time nearly eighteen hundred years later, and consider two significant documents of the late 1700s.
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
The Declaration of Independence
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Constitution of the United States – Amendment 1
The question has been asked many times over the course of the centuries. The answer has always remained the same. The disciples of Jesus have an obligation to obey God’s law, as summarized in the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments). But we have a parallel obligation to obey the laws of the country where they reside. Like the song said, “They go together like a horse and carriage.”
I have an admission to make. For some time now, I have been avoiding any comment on the relationship of the disciples of Jesus to the law of the land in which they live. Today’s readings, and current events, leave me no other option.
The disciples of Jesus in the lands of the Mediterranean Basin from Pontus in Asia on the east, to Massilia in Gaul (or Marseilles in France) on the west were bound to obey the law of the land. People from both locations were among those touched by the Spirit of God on the day of Pentecost. The records show that they were law abiding citizens of the Roman Empire, which had no objection to the practice of religion of any stripe.
We live in a nation that has recently elected a new Chief Executive, one whose thoughts and statements on the right of a woman to choose appear to be at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church on the right to life of an unborn child. But the obligation of the President of the United States is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the First Amendment states clearly that the Congress shall make no law (and therefore, the Chief Executive shall enforce no law) imposing a religious test upon any citizen.
The woman who chooses to have an abortion is making a decision which, at the present time, is lawful. Whether or not she commits a sin is a religious question, and the Government of the United States has no voice pro or con in matters of religion. On the other hand, a person who enters a house of worship and shoots a physician who performs late term abortions has committed a capital crime of homicide according to the law of the land, and a mortal sin against the Fifth Commandment according to the norms of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition and teachings.
The President of the United States, in a speech delivered at a university in northern Indiana, proposed that a strategy might be devised to reduce the number of abortions. If the goal of the “pro-life” proponents is zero (0) abortions, then any reduction in the number of abortions is clearly a move in the direction toward achieving that goal. The longest journey, said a wise man, begins with the first step. The same wise man, a Chinese philosopher, also said that the journey of a hundred miles is only half completed at ninety.
If we refuse to cooperate in an endeavor to reduce the number of children whose lives end before they are born we still are correctly characterized by others as “anti-abortion”, but how can we honestly and sincerely call ourselves “pro-life”?
Monday, June 1, 2009
He Send His Beloved Son, Thinking: They Will Respect My Son
The story of Tobit is situated set in Assyria, a land that which bears the same name today, and remains a focus of conflict between the people of Israel and the countries on their borders. The story of Tobit reminds us of another truth, not about nations but about neighbors. Truly generous and charitable people, who strive to love God will all their heart and mind and might, and to love their neighbors as God has loved them, are often ignored or mocked by the folks who live next door, or down the street. They are neighbors in the root meaning of that Anglo-Saxon word: those who dwell nearby; but they are anything but neighborly.
The parable that Jesus speaks to the chief priests, the scribes and the elders of Jerusalem moves us from city to countryside, but it remains a story of conflict, this time between the owner and the tenants to whom he had leased his vineyard while he was away. When harvest time came, he sent a servant to collect his share of the produce. They seized him, beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. He sent another, whom they beat about the head. Then he sent a third, whom they killed. Finally, he sent his son, whom he cherished, thinking, “They will respect my son.” But when the son arrived at the vineyard the tenants said, “This is the heir. Let’s kill him, and the vineyard will be our inheritance.” So they seized him, killed him, and threw his body over the hedge. Jesus then asks a question, “What will the owner of the vineyard do when he returns?” And he answers his own question: “When he returns, he will have the tenants tried and executed for murder. Then he will give the vineyard to others. Jesus concludes with a passage from Isaiah, “The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is wonderful in our sight.” When they realized that Jesus’ parable was about them, they sought to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd. So they left him and went away.
The grapevine has always been a symbol of the people of Israel. Israel was the vine, the special focus of God’s care for all of humankind. (See Isaiah 5:2-7, which Jesus cited in the parable). Jesus identifies himself in John’s gospel as the true vine, and God’s people as the branches (John 15). But here, Jesus is identified not as the vine, but as the son and heir to the vineyard, Mark writes, “They seized him, killed him, and threw his body over the hedge.” Matthew’s version of the parable reverses the order, “They through him out of the vineyard and killed him” (21:29), as does Luke (20:15). They must have remembered not only the parable as Jesus told it, but the events of Jesus crucifixion: He was not stoned to death inside the city and his body thrown over the walls (although that was often a method of execution); Jesus was led out of the city to the hill of Calvary, and crucified there.
“They see Jesus in every detail, and every detail in Jesus!” ( Donagh O’Shea, S.J.)
The parable that Jesus speaks to the chief priests, the scribes and the elders of Jerusalem moves us from city to countryside, but it remains a story of conflict, this time between the owner and the tenants to whom he had leased his vineyard while he was away. When harvest time came, he sent a servant to collect his share of the produce. They seized him, beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. He sent another, whom they beat about the head. Then he sent a third, whom they killed. Finally, he sent his son, whom he cherished, thinking, “They will respect my son.” But when the son arrived at the vineyard the tenants said, “This is the heir. Let’s kill him, and the vineyard will be our inheritance.” So they seized him, killed him, and threw his body over the hedge. Jesus then asks a question, “What will the owner of the vineyard do when he returns?” And he answers his own question: “When he returns, he will have the tenants tried and executed for murder. Then he will give the vineyard to others. Jesus concludes with a passage from Isaiah, “The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is wonderful in our sight.” When they realized that Jesus’ parable was about them, they sought to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd. So they left him and went away.
The grapevine has always been a symbol of the people of Israel. Israel was the vine, the special focus of God’s care for all of humankind. (See Isaiah 5:2-7, which Jesus cited in the parable). Jesus identifies himself in John’s gospel as the true vine, and God’s people as the branches (John 15). But here, Jesus is identified not as the vine, but as the son and heir to the vineyard, Mark writes, “They seized him, killed him, and threw his body over the hedge.” Matthew’s version of the parable reverses the order, “They through him out of the vineyard and killed him” (21:29), as does Luke (20:15). They must have remembered not only the parable as Jesus told it, but the events of Jesus crucifixion: He was not stoned to death inside the city and his body thrown over the walls (although that was often a method of execution); Jesus was led out of the city to the hill of Calvary, and crucified there.
“They see Jesus in every detail, and every detail in Jesus!” ( Donagh O’Shea, S.J.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)