

SATURDAYS WITH JESUS

Lawrence G. Wrenn

Text copyright © 2015 Lawrence G. Wrenn

all rights reserved

Smashwords Edition

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

Thank you for downloading this free ebook. You are welcome to share it with your friends.

This book may be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes, provided the book remains in its original form.

Cover photo copyright © 2013

by Bob Mullen/The Catholic Photographer

Jesus Teaching from the Boat

Jean Barillet, Artist - 1962

Cathedral of St. Joseph, Hartford, CT

Again he began to teach by the lakeside but such a huge crowd gathered round him that he got into a boat on the lake and sat there. The people were all along the shore, at the water's edge. He taught them many things in parables. (Mk 4:1-2)

While the crowd was pressing in on Jesus and listening to the word of God, he was standing by the Lake of Gennesarat. He saw two boats there alongside the lake; the fishermen had disembarked and were washing their nets. Getting into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, he asked him to put out a short distance from the shore. Then he sat down and taught the crowds from the boat. (Lk 5:1-3)

Jesus left the house and sat by the lakeside, but such crowds gathered round him that he got into a boat and sat there. The people all stood on the beach, and he told them many things in parables. (Mt 13:1-3)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

EVANGELISTS, APOSTLES, DISCIPLES

The Key to Mark's Gospel

Mark, Teller of the Truth

Mark 16, The Mystery Chapter

Saying Nothing about the Resurrection

A Misplaced Event?

Matthew the Scribe

The Missionary Discourse

Matthew and the Letter of James

Matthew – Levi

The Gentleness of Jesus and of Luke

The Positive and Negative in Luke

Luke, Paul and Prayer

A Lucan Parable?

Doctor without Borders

Journeys to Jerusalem in John and Luke

The Book of Signs and the Book of Glory

The Warp and Woof of John Six

The Appendix to John's Gospel

John's Distinctive Christology

Jesus and the Baptist

First Century Apostles

The Twelve and the Seventy-Two

The Real Reason for the Visitation

Francis and Lawrence

The Slow to Faith

Nicodemus

Isaiah

JESUS

Two Different Infancy Narratives

The Israelites and the Little Boy who was Saved

Jesus, the Fulfiller of Prophecy

Jesus the New Passover

The Lord of the Sabbath

The Baptism and Transfiguration of Jesus

Abba

The Mighty Deeds of Jesus

Miracles in Matthew

Miracles and the Kingdom

Miracles

Jesus and Lazarus

The Messiah and the Donkey

Jesus a Rabbi?

Jesus the Prophet

LITURGICAL SEASONS AND EVENTS

Our Liturgical Year

Two Parousia Figures

The Lenten Liturgy

Thinking as God Does

Being Justified by our Savior

TEACHINGS, PARABLES, DISCOURSES

Creation in Genesis

Paul's Gospel

Being Childlike

Following Christ

The Call of Christ

The Unworthy

Blessed is the Womb

Inheritance

Eucharist

The Eucharist over the Centuries

Preaching to Gentiles

The Parables of the Talents and Pounds

The Great Reversal

Hearing and Doing

Just a Parable

Judging Others

Three Exaltations

The Temple and Jesus, Symbols of God's Presence

Persistence in Prayer

In Times of Persecution

A Changing Church

Thinking about the Pope

The Proper Use of Money

The Importance of the Individual

Our Saintly Side

The Unforgivable Sin

Actions and Motivation

The Last Supper in John

Heaven, Hell and Purgatory

The Torah and an Afterlife

The Resurrection of the Dead

The Second Coming

Chronological Index

Preface

Since _Saturdays With Jesus_ is a sequel to _Teaching Daily in the Temple_ , the homilies in the present work have been grouped under the same four headings found in _Teaching Daily_ : Evangelists, Apostles, Disciples / Jesus / Liturgical Seasons and Events / and Teachings, Parables, Discourses.

For those, however, who are interested in locating a particular homily as it appears in the Church year, beginning with Advent and ending with the last week in Ordinary Time, the final pages of the book contain a Chronological Index.

As in _Teaching Daily_ , the reader is once again urged, before reading a particular homily, to read the all-important Scripture passage on which the homily is based, because ultimately the goal of this little e-book is for all of us to become more thoroughly acquainted with the Sacred Scriptures on which our Christian faith is largely based.

Finally, as you have probably guessed, the title of this collection comes from the fact that all of the homilies that follow were given at a _Saturday morning Mass_ , here at the wonderful parish of St. Thomas More, Sarasota, Florida.

And speaking of Saturdays in Sarasota, one is likely to see more boats out on Sarasota Bay on a Saturday than on any other day of the week, which is why the cover of this book shows Jesus teaching his disciples while sitting in a boat. The Gospel passages that describe this charming scene appear on the next page.

Lawrence G. Wrenn

November 29, 2014

Back to top

### EVANGELISTS, APOSTLES, DISCIPLES
_The Key to Mark's Gospel_

Mk 6: 30-34

Saturday – 4th Week Ordinary Time

Mark's Gospel is in two parts. Today's Gospel reading is from chapter 6 of Mark's Gospel and this reading along with the rest of chapter 6, all of chapter 7 and most of chapter 8 are the passages that bring Part One of the Gospel to a close. These same chapters, furthermore, are the key, the absolute key to understanding Mark's Gospel. So I want to urge each of you to read these chapters at home sometime this week, and if you do I promise you that you will come to understand Mark's Gospel in a way you never have before.

But let me give you a quick overview this morning of what's in store for you. First Jesus feeds five thousand people with just four loaves of bread and two fish. Then he walks on water. Then he cures countless people in the land of Gennesaret, some of whom are brought to him on stretchers. Then he heals the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman. Then a deaf man. Next he feeds four thousand people with seven loaves of bread. And finally a blind man at Bethsaida.

And after Jesus has performed all these miracles, all these mighty deeds, the moment of truth arrives. Jesus says to his disciples, "Now, who do people say that I am?" and "Who do you say that I am?" And sadly it is clear to us that even after his disciples have witnessed Jesus perform all these miracles, they still think that he is just another prophet, or maybe the Messiah, but even if he is the Messiah, they have no real appreciation of what that means. And that's the way Mark concludes Part One of his Gospel: with the realization that all the miracles in the world do not reveal who Jesus really is. Because Jesus is not just some miracle worker.

But now the stage is set for Part Two of Mark's Gospel where we learn, and where his disciples learn, who Jesus really is. Part Two begins toward the end of chapter eight where Jesus prophesies for the first time that he will soon be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and be put to death. And the rest of Mark's Gospel tells us, in effect, that the true Jesus is revealed, not in his miracles but in his suffering, in his suffering and his death, in his courage and his selflessness, in his love and his humanity, and finally, through his resurrection from the dead, in his divinity and his oneness with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Mark, Teller of the Truth

Mk 3: 20-21

Saturday – 2nd Week Ordinary Time

Our Gospel reading today is only two verses long and it is so succinct that some background is needed in order to know what's really going on here. The opening sentence, for example, says that "Jesus came with his disciples into the house." But what house is this and where is it located? And the answer is that this is the house in Capernaum where Jesus settled after spending the forty days in the wilderness following his baptism in the Jordan. (Mt 4:13) It's the same house we read about last Friday when Jesus cured the paralyzed man after the man's friends had opened up the roof of the house and had lowered the man on his mat down in front of Jesus. (Mk 2:1-12)

Next our Gospel reading says that when Jesus' "relatives heard this they _set out_ to seize him." In a moment we will hear exactly who these "relatives" are, but for the present let me just point out that the phrase "set out" suggests that the relatives were going to travel some distance, and that's because they were living in Nazareth and the trip from Nazareth to Capernaum was probably twenty miles or so as the crow flies. Which gives us some idea how concerned the family was over Jesus' mental condition.

Let me now make a couple of observations on this event as a whole. First of all, perhaps you remember that on five occasions in his Gospel Mark uses a literary device known as sandwiching. What happens in sandwiching is that an author starts off recounting an event but then, part way through, he sort of puts that event on hold while he goes off on an apparent tangent to relate an entirely different event, and only after that does he return to finish off his original story. Well that's exactly what's happening here. After Mark tells his readers that the relatives of Jesus set out from Nazareth to Capernaum, he at that point interrupts his narrative and proceeds to write a paragraph about how the scribes accuse Jesus of casting out demons by the prince of demons, and only then does Mark return to the narrative about the relatives of Jesus, which then begins with these words (and I'm reading now from next Tuesday's Gospel), "His mother and brothers now arrived, and standing outside, sent in a message asking for him." (Mk 3:31) So now, to our surprise, we hear that it was Mary, the mother of Jesus who led the others to Capernaum to take charge of Jesus because she and the others were, as Mark says, concerned that Jesus was "out of his mind."

In fact, of course, Jesus was not at all out of his mind. It was just that his baptism experience had dramatically changed him. He was now a miracle worker who was absolutely filled with the Holy Spirit and was therefore a much different man from the one Mary and the others had known only a few months earlier when he was just the humble carpenter of Nazareth.

But the point I want to make is that the fact that Mark included this incident in his Gospel and the fact that no one else had deleted it is an amazing piece of transparency. I mean Mark is clearly wanting his readers to know the whole truth, warts and all. Jesus is Mark's hero and Mark wants his readers to see Jesus as he sees him, but he also wants his readers to know the whole truth. And while this incident may be shocking on first hearing, ultimately it is reassuring; for now, when Mark tells us that Jesus actually rose from the dead, he has our confidence and our trust, because we know that Mark is a teller of the truth.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Mark 16, The Mystery Chapter

Mk 16: 9-15

Saturday Within the Octave of Easter

Our Gospel reading today is from the final chapter of Mark's Gospel, which is chapter 16. Chapter 16 consists of two distinct and very different, _very_ different parts. Part one is verses 1 through 8. Part two, which is the part we just read, is verses 9 through 15.

What I'd like you to take note of in today's reading is that there are three post-Resurrection appearances by Jesus and that all three take place in or around the city of Jerusalem. The first appearance is to Mary Magdalen, which obviously takes place right outside the tomb where Jesus had been buried. The second is to the two disciples on a road right outside Jerusalem. And the third is to the Eleven who are pretty much in hiding but still in the city. So that's part two of Mark's final chapter, where there are three appearances by Jesus, all of which take place in or around Jerusalem.

But what about part one? I'll read part one in a minute, but first let me give you a quick rundown so you'll know what to expect. Part one says that three women, one of whom is Mary Magdalen, go to the tomb at sunrise. When they get there they see an angel. The Gospel actually says that they saw "a young man in a white robe", but clearly it's an angel. The angel tells the women not to be alarmed. "Jesus", he tells them, "is risen and is no longer here and you won't find him here. What I need you to do", says the angel, "is to go tell Peter that Jesus is going to Galilee (which is 50 or 60 miles away), Jesus is going to Galilee and that's where they will see him. Not here in Jerusalem but in Galilee."

So let me read for you now verses 1 through 8:

When the Sabbath was over, Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James, and Salóme, bought spices with which to go and anoint him. And very early in the morning on the first day of the week they went to the tomb, just as the sun was rising.

They had been saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?" But when they looked they could see that the stone—which was very big—had already been rolled back. On entering the tomb they saw a young man in a white robe seated on the right-hand side, and they were struck with amazement. But he said to them, "There is no need for alarm. You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified: he has risen, he is not here. See, here is the place where they laid him. But you must go and tell his disciples and Peter, "He is going before you to Galilee; it is there you will see him, just as he told you."

So this is part one of Mark's final chapter. _However_ , as we've seen, in part two, exactly the opposite happens. Part two speaks of three appearances but all three take place not in Galilee but in or around Jerusalem.

So what's the explanation? The explanation is that Mark himself did not write part two of chapter 16. Mark did write the first eight verses of chapter 16, but then _either_ he decided to end his Gospel with verse 8 _or_ he actually wrote his own ending (which presumably was about the appearances in Galilee), but unfortunately, very unfortunately, this ending that Mark himself wrote, got lost. At any rate, many years later someone else wrote verses 9 through 15 and these verses eventually became accepted as part of the canonical Gospel.

But the bottom line is this: after his Resurrection, Jesus made several appearances both in Jerusalem and in Galilee. St. Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, for example, says, "He (Jesus) had shown himself alive to them after his Passion by many demonstrations: for forty days he had continued to appear to them and tell them about the Kingdom of God." (1:3) And St. Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, says:

He was raised to life on the third day, in accordance with the Scriptures;...he appeared first to Cephas and secondly to the Twelve. Next he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time...then he appeared to James and then to all the Apostles; and last of all he appeared to me too. (15:4-8)

And in all these appearances Jesus convinced the early church that he was truly risen from the dead and that they must bring this Good News, this Great News, to all the world.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Saying Nothing About the Resurrection

Mk 16:9-15

Saturday Within the Octave of Easter

I want to begin this morning by reading the passage from Mark's Gospel where Mark talks about the three women who go to the tomb at dawn on the first Easter morning. According to many of the best ancient manuscripts, this paragraph about the three women was the final, closing paragraph of Mark's Gospel. And that's so important that I want to say it again. According to many of the best ancient manuscripts, this paragraph about the three women was the final, closing paragraph of Mark's Gospel. However, because the ending of this passage is so strange, the passage itself is almost never used at Mass. As a matter of fact, unless I'm mistaken, it is not read either at any weekday Masses during the year or at any Sunday Masses during the year. To my knowledge, it is read at Mass only once every three years and that's at the Easter vigil of year C.

So this is the passage. You will find it in your Bible in Mark's Gospel, chapter 16, verses 1 through 8.

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought perfumed oils with which they intended to go and anoint Jesus. Very early, just after sunrise, on the first day of the week they came to the tomb... On entering the tomb they saw a young man sitting at the right, dressed in a white robe. This frightened them thoroughly, but he reassured them: "You need not be amazed! You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, the one who was crucified. He has been raised up; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. Go now and tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you to Galilee, where you will see him just as he told you.'" They made their way out and fled from the tomb bewildered and trembling; and because of their great fear, they said nothing to anyone.

Well, as you heard, the young man dressed in a white robe, who is certainly an angel, orders the three women to go tell Peter and the other disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead. The passage concludes, however, by saying that the women did not, in fact, do that; instead they "fled from the tomb bewildered and trembling; and because of their great fear, they said nothing to anyone." Well that, of course, is a most unlikely way to conclude a Gospel. So unlikely that some people think that what happened was this. Mark wrote this paragraph about the three women as his next-to-last paragraph. He then wrote a final paragraph (which was probably about some of Jesus' post-Resurrection appearances up in Galilee), but unfortunately, this final paragraph of Mark somehow got detached or separated from the rest of his Gospel and was lost.

And who knows? Maybe that did happen, but it's speculation, of course, and most scholars don't buy it. Most scholars are of the opinion that the paragraph about the three women is, in fact, exactly the way Mark concluded his Gospel, with its final haunting words, "because of their great fear, they said nothing to anyone."

I say "haunting words" because many of us are still haunted by them. And we are haunted by them because they make us face the fact that, like the three women, we too have "said nothing to anyone" about the fact that Jesus has risen from the dead. Oh, sure, among ourselves we rejoice in Christ's resurrection, and we see it not as a simple awakening from a near-death experience but as a true resurrection from the dead and therefore as something that had never happened before in history and has never happened since. We see it, furthermore, as an altogether unique event that happened to Jesus only because he was not only man but God as well. But we're afraid that if we talk about this to outsiders, to unbelievers, they will regard us as gullible, credulous, unthinking, unscientific, hoodwinked, foolish dupes who live in a fantasy world, so we say nothing to anyone about what we know to be true. But then, having failed to share with others the greatest news that any human being has ever heard, we are haunted, haunted by our own timidity, our lack of courage. And that, I suspect, is exactly what Mark wanted us to feel when he concluded his Gospel the way he did.

### \+ + +

Back to top
A Misplaced Event?

Mt 10: 16-23

Friday – 14th Week Ordinary Time

For more than a month now our Gospel reading at daily Mass has been from the Gospel according to Matthew. And let me remind you that Matthew has grouped much of his material into five major discourses. The first of these discourses is the Sermon on the Mount. The second is the Missionary Discourse (about how missionaries should conduct themselves); the third is the Parabolic Discourse (a gathering of parables); the fourth is the Ecclesial Discourse (how the early church should conduct itself); and the fifth is the Eschatological Discourse (which is about the End Time, sometimes known as the Apocalypse).

I would ask you first to take special note of number 2, the Missionary Discourse, and number 5, the Eschatological Discourse. And secondly, having just heard today's Gospel reading about how Christians will be scourged in synagogues and how children will have their parents put to death, and so forth, then ask yourself this question: if you were Matthew, would you put this Gospel reading in Discourse number 2 (the Missionary Discourse) or in Discourse number 5 (the Eschatological Discourse)?

Before you answer that question, however, let me add one more piece of information, namely that Matthew pretty much lifted today's Gospel passage, much of it word for word, right out of chapter 13 of Mark's Gospel (vs 5-13); and in Mark the passage is in a section just before the Last Supper where Jesus is talking about the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and about the coming of the Son of Man at the end of time. So now I'm definitely thinking that, if you were Matthew, you would put today's Gospel passage into Discourse number 5, the Eschatological Discourse, the one about the end of time. Right?

Strangely, however, Matthew didn't do that. Instead, he put today's Gospel passage into Discourse number 2, the Missionary Discourse. And I'm sure that Matthew had his reasons for doing that. But to me, at least, this Gospel passage, which actually concludes with the coming of the Son of Man, seems to fit perfectly into the Eschatological Discourse and very imperfectly into the Missionary Discourse, much of which is just about typical first century missionary behavior like curing the sick, cleansing lepers and traveling poor.

Maybe, however, Matthew was wanting to connect what he saw as a dangerously complacent idea that was prevalent at the time and still is today: the idea that missionary activity is something that goes on right now whereas the end of time is maybe a hundred or several thousand years from now. Maybe, in other words, Matthew is saying, "who knows? the end of time could happen today or early tomorrow. So let's all be missionaries as though the end of time is just around the corner."

Note: This homily was prepared under the mistaken impression that Mt 10:16-23 was the Gospel reading for Saturday when in fact it was the reading for Friday. Since, however, the homily is entitled _A Misplaced Event?_ it seems fitting to include it in the collection as a misplaced homily.

### \+ + +

Back to top

Matthew the Scribe

Mt 23:1-12

Saturday – 20th Week Ordinary Time

In our Gospel reading today, the principal message of Jesus, at least his principal message as it might apply to us today, is that within Catholicism, perhaps within all organized religions but especially within Catholicism, there is an unfortunate tendency on the part of some to desire honorific titles and places of honor in the Church. It is clear that Jesus is not only fiercely opposed to this tendency but that he positively wants all of us to look upon ourselves simply as brothers and sisters. In today's Gospel reading Jesus says, "As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi'. You have but one teacher, and _you are all brothers_."

So this is our _principal_ message for today, but our Gospel reading also has something to say about the life and times of the author of this Gospel, so let me say a few words about that as well. Matthew the Evangelist was, as you know, an entirely different person from the Matthew who was one of the Twelve Apostles. As a matter of fact, it is virtually certain that Matthew the Evangelist had never personally met Jesus. Rather, Matthew the Evangelist was a Jewish scholar, a man who had a profound knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures and who was, prior to his conversion to Christianity, a devout Jew. More than likely, Matthew had been known at the time as a scribe. He is sometimes said to have been a rabbi, but that would be using the word rabbi in the broad sense, and the word scribe seems to fit Matthew better, because that's exactly what a scribe was, a student and lover of the law and the prophets and of all the great wisdom of Judaism.

Matthew wrote his Gospel some fifty years after the death of Jesus and during those fifty years much had changed in the region. Most notably, Rome had stormed Jerusalem in the year 70 and destroyed much of the city, effectively bringing to an end Jerusalem's traditional role as the center of Jewish life. When, therefore, a famous rabbi decided a few years later to open a school for the training of rabbis, he did so not in Jerusalem but in the town of Jamnia, which was located in what is now Gaza, and rather quickly this rabbinic school became the principal seat of Jewish learning. Right around this time, furthermore, and partly through the influence of this school, the term "rabbi" came to be used as a technical term for an authorized Jewish sage and teacher. Well Matthew, as a Judaic scholar himself, was, of course, familiar with the Jamnia school and, while he no doubt admired much of the wisdom taught there, he also seems to have become a critic of the way some of the rabbis at the school were so impressed with themselves and were so enamored of their new, enhanced title of "rabbi".

It might seem, I know, that I am making too much of Matthew here because our impression is that Matthew's role is simply to write down the words and deeds of Jesus, that and nothing more. But there is, I think, more to it than that. Because the fact is that Matthew is the only one of the four Evangelists to record this criticism by Jesus of the use of titles. So it seems that, because of Matthew's background and experience, this was a matter of particular interest to him, an interest that the other three Evangelists did not seem to share.

But that said, let me close now with a quote from an earlier chapter in Matthew, again a quote found only in Matthew, where one single line seems to sum up Matthew's own life. The line is this: "every scribe who becomes a disciple of the Kingdom of Heaven is like a householder who brings up from his storeroom things both old and new." (Mt 13:52)

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Missionary Discourse

Mt 10:24-33

Saturday – 14th Week Ordinary Time

In the Gospel according to Matthew, the author has gathered many of the teachings of Jesus into five major discourses. The first of these is the famous Sermon on the Mount which is found in chapters 5, 6 and 7 of Matthew's Gospel. The second is the Missionary Discourse, which is in chapter 10, and it's this discourse we've been reading from for the past four days.

Let me try to give you a quick overview of this discourse. It consists basically of two parts. Part one (which were our Gospel readings on Wednesday and Thursday) is about what the disciples or missionaries are _to do_ ; while part two (our Gospel readings yesterday, today and Monday) is about what the disciples or missionaries are _to expect_.

Let's look at it in a little more detail. On _Wednesday_ Jesus tells his disciples that they are not to go into pagan territory or to enter a Samaritan town. Rather they are to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and to announce to them that the Kingdom of God is at hand. On _Thursday_ Jesus tells them to travel light, not to carry even a walking stick, to stay overnight in private homes, to cure the sick, cleanse lepers and drive out demons. That's part one.

Then, _yesterday's_ Gospel brings us to part two where the disciples are told what to expect. What they can expect, says Jesus, is to be brought to court, to be scourged in synagogues, and to have to flee from one town to another. And right below the surface of _today's_ Gospel, Jesus is telling his disciples that they should expect fierce opposition, so fierce that they may be tempted to abandon their mission, that some of them will even be killed, but that they should remember that their enemies might kill their body but cannot kill their soul, that their Father in heaven is watching over them and they should not be afraid. Indeed, three times Jesus tells them, "Do not be afraid." And finally, in _Monday's_ Gospel reading Jesus makes it clear that his disciples will be expected to follow him absolutely, through thick and thin, giving up family and friends and anyone and any thing that might stand between them and Jesus, even to the point of sacrificing their very lives in order to be worthy followers of Jesus.

This Missionary Discourse is not nearly as famous as the Sermon on the Mount, but it is nevertheless a very, very impressive sermon. It's straightforward and demanding and it pulls no punches. And yet, at the same time, it was encouraging and even comforting, I'm sure, to those brave men who would soon be called to embark on a highly dangerous mission.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Matthew and the Letter of James

Mt 5:33-37

Saturday – 10th Week Ordinary Time

If you read this Gospel passage not in a missal but in the Bible itself, perhaps you will see in the margin next to this passage from Matthew a reference to chapter 5 of the Letter of James, and if you turn to chapter 5 of that letter you will find these words:

Above all, my brothers, do not swear by heaven or by the earth, or use any oath at all. If you mean "yes", you must say "yes"; if you mean "no", say "no". Otherwise you make yourselves liable to judgment. (5:12)

I want to get back to this Letter of James in a moment but first just a few words about the author of the letter. The author of the letter is the man known as "James the brother of the Lord." He was probably a much younger cousin of Jesus who was neither an apostle nor a disciple of Jesus during Jesus' public ministry, but who eventually became the leader of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, and who, along with Peter and John, was considered to be one of the "pillars" of the Church at the time. (Gal 2:9)

Let me mention too that besides this passage about saying "yes" when you mean "yes" and "no" when you mean "no", there are at least fifteen other passages where Matthew and James are recounting the very same teaching of Jesus. And given the fact that the Letter of James is only five pages long, that's an awful lot of parallel passages with Matthew. So many, in fact, that it seems to call for an explanation. And the usual explanation is that there were in circulation at the time multiple copies of a source, a source that contained several of the teachings of Jesus, and that both Matthew and James were making use of that source.

But back now to the letter itself, specifically to what the Letter of James says about three different kinds of speech: truthful speech, judgmental speech and uncontrolled speech. First _truthful_ speech. This is the passage we've been talking about where James says that we should say "yes" when we mean "yes" and "no" when we mean "no". What is meant here is simply that we be honest in our speech, that we say what we mean and mean what we say, that we don't dissemble or lie or skirt an issue that we should be facing. (5:12) Second there is _judgmental_ speech where James simply says, "Brothers, do not slander one another.... Who are you to give a verdict on your neighbor?" (4:11-12) And finally James' rather colorful remarks on _uncontrolled_ speech; he writes:

Once we put a bit into the horse's mouth, to make it do what we want, we have the whole animal under our control. Or think of ships: no matter how big they are, even if a gale is driving them, the man at the helm can steer them anywhere he likes by controlling a tiny rudder. So is the tongue only a tiny part of the body, but it can proudly claim that it does great things. Think how small a flame can set fire to a huge forest; the tongue is a flame like that. Among all the parts of the body, the tongue is a whole wicked world in itself: it infects the whole body; catching fire itself from hell, it sets fire to the whole wheel of creation. Wild animals and birds, reptiles and fish can all be tamed by man, and often are; but nobody can tame the tongue—it is a pest that will not keep still, full of deadly poison. We use it to bless the Lord and Father, but we also use it to curse men who are made in God's image: the blessing and the curse come out of the same mouth. (3:3-10)

James tells us here that we human beings can tame wild animals but that we cannot tame the tongue. And that's true. By ourselves we're not always able to tame the tongue. But with God, of course, all things are possible. Last Sunday, Pentecost Sunday, we saw the Holy Spirit empower the disciples to speak, as it were, several different languages all at the same time. Clearly, therefore, the Holy Spirit is the Lord of the tongue. So if we have trouble speaking truthfully and non-judgmentally and with suitable restraint, then we need only ask the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit will bless us with a truly Christian tongue, a tongue that will be used only to praise God and to strengthen the bonds of fellowship and communion.

### \+ + +

Back to top

Matthew – Levi

Mt 9:9-13

September 21 – Feast of St. Matthew

I want to begin this morning with an unusual request and that is that, for just a minute or so, you forget about the Gospel passage we just read, because first I want to read a couple of brief passages from Mark's Gospel. And keep in mind that Mark's Gospel was the first Gospel written. Mark wrote his Gospel around the year 69 and it wasn't until fifteen years or so later that Matthew and Luke wrote theirs. Anyway I want to begin with chapter one of Mark's Gospel where Jesus chooses his first four apostles: Simon, Peter and his brother Andrew and James and his brother John. Mark writes:

As he was walking along by the Sea of Galilee he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net in the lake – for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them, "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men." And at once they left their nets and followed him.

Going on a little further, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John; they too were in their boat, mending their nets. He called them at once and leaving their father Zebedee in the boat with the men he employed, they went after him. (vs 16-20)

So Jesus sees Simon, Andrew, James and John at their place of business, tells them to follow him and they follow him. Then in chapter two we read:

As he was walking on, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting by the customs house, and he said to him, 'Follow me.' And he got up and followed him. (vs 14)

So now Jesus meets Levi at his place of business, tells him to follow him and Levi follows him. And we say to ourselves, "Ah, now we have a fifth apostle." Jesus uses exactly the same approach to Levi as he took for Peter, Andrew, James and John, so now Levi is a fifth member of the Twelve. In the next chapter, however, chapter three, Mark gives a list of all the names of the Twelve selected by Jesus and we look through all the names but we find no one by the name of Levi. And we think to ourselves, "Huh, I could have sworn Levi would be among the Twelve but I guess I was wrong."

But let me go back now and read the full text in Mark of the call of Levi:

As he walked on he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus, sitting by the customs house, and he said to him, 'Follow me'. And he got up and followed him.

When Jesus was at dinner in his house, a number of tax collectors and sinners were also sitting at the table with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many of them among his followers. When the scribes of the Pharisee party saw him eating with sinners and tax collectors, they said to his disciples, 'Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?' When Jesus heard this he said to them, 'It is not the healthy who need the doctor, but the sick. I did not come to call the virtuous but sinners. (vs 14-17)

And now, of course, it all dawns on us that this is the very same event as the one described in today's Gospel reading. The only difference is that the man sitting at the customs post, the man Mark called Levi, is, in today's Gospel reading, known as Matthew. So Levi did become one of the Twelve after all but he did so not under the name Levi but under the name Matthew. And one explanation of that is that just as Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter, so he changed Levi's name to Matthew.

But let me mention one other thing about the Twelve. We usually tend to look upon them as a tight knit band of brothers, and in many ways they were. But they also came from very divergent backgrounds, all Jewish, of course, but still with very dissimilar points of view. Just think, for example, of Matthew on the one hand and Simon the Zealot on the other (not Simon Peter but Simon the Zealot). Simon had been a member of the Zealot party, and the Zealots were what we today would call terrorists or perhaps freedom fighters. Their tactics were violent. They were intensely opposed to any foreign domination, like that of the Romans. They considered paying taxes to the Romans blasphemous, and they despised any of their fellow Jews whom they perceived to be collaborators of the Romans. And then, of course, there was Matthew who, as a tax collector for the Romans, was the very epitome of a collaborator. And in between Simon on one extreme and Matthew on the other, there were ten others who undoubtedly held a whole range of views.

And yet Jesus chose each one of them, as he has called each one of us, as he has called all of us to follow him and to love one another.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Gentleness of Jesus and of Luke

Lk 13:1-9

Saturday – 29th Week Ordinary Time

Our Gospel reading today is in two parts. The first part is about whether people who die violent deaths are being punished for their sins, while the second part is about whether a barren fig tree should be cut down. And I'd like to offer some brief observations this morning on both parts.

First the part about whether God is punishing people who have died sudden gruesome deaths. To begin with, we know that in biblical times, this was, in fact, a fairly common belief among the Israelites. In the Book of Job, for example, we read:

Can you recall a guiltless man that perished, or have you ever seen good men brought to nothing? I speak of what I know: those who plough iniquity and sow the seeds of grief reap a harvest of the same kind. A breath from God will bring them to destruction, a blast of his anger will wipe them out. (4:7-9)

Jesus, however, did not agree that a violent death or an affliction was necessarily the result of sin, and he made that crystal clear to his disciples one day when they came across a blind man. The incident is recorded in John's Gospel, and I want to read it for you. It's only a couple of lines long. John writes:

As Jesus went along he saw a man who had been blind from birth. His disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, for him to have been born blind?' 'Neither he nor his parents sinned,' Jesus answered, 'he was born blind so that the works of God might be displayed in him.' (9:1-3)

Meaning, of course, that Jesus was about to heal him. And in today's Gospel Jesus unequivocally makes the same point: that the people who died in the two incidents mentioned were no more guilty of sin than anyone else. That's the first part of today's Gospel reading.

Now for the second part, the part about the barren fig tree. Our reading this morning was from Luke but Mark and Matthew also record an incident about a barren fig tree. The interesting thing, however, is that Luke's account is different from the other two. The earliest account is in Mark, but Matthew pretty much just copied Mark's account, and this is what Matthew wrote, "In the early morning Jesus felt hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it and found nothing on it but leaves. And he said to it, 'May you never bear fruit again'; and at that instant the fig tree withered." (21:18-19) Well Luke, if you remember, was famous for his gentleness. Gentleness was, as they say, his middle name, and the gentle Luke was, it seems, uncomfortable recording this event where Jesus curses the fig tree, so Luke replaced this incident with the little parable in our Gospel reading today where the caretaker and the owner take pity on the tree and hope that, with a little more care and a little more time, the tree will bear fruit.

One of the interesting things about this second part of today's Gospel reading, and let me close with this thought, one of the interesting things is not only that it is absolutely characteristic of Luke but also that it is, at the same time, one more example of why, 700 years ago, Dante referred to Luke as "the scribe of Christ's gentleness."

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Positive and Negative in Luke

Lk 6:1-5

Saturday – 22nd Week Ordinary Time

All during the summer we've been reading at daily Mass from the Gospel according to Matthew. Last Sunday, however, marked the beginning of the 22nd week in Ordinary Time and that's the week we switch over to Luke. So for the next three months, right through till the end of November, we'll be reading now from the Gospel according to Luke.

One might think that on Monday of the 22nd week we would begin reading right from chapter one of Luke's Gospel, but the first two chapters of Luke, if you remember, are the Infancy Narratives which we'll be reading during Advent; and Luke doesn't really start talking about the public ministry of Jesus until halfway through chapter 4, so that's where we began on Monday, halfway through chapter 4, where Jesus is in the synagogue in Nazareth. He opens the scroll of the Book of Isaiah where Isaiah says, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor." And when Jesus has finished reading from Isaiah he rolls up the scroll and says, "Today this Scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing." That was on Monday. On Tuesday Jesus cured a man possessed by a demon; on Wednesday he cured Peter's mother-in-law, and in Thursday's Gospel he called his first four disciples, Peter, Andrew, James and John.

So in our Monday to Thursday readings we have seen Jesus begin his public ministry in a very positive way, announcing first that he is the embodiment of Isaiah's prophecy about the Messiah, then curing a number of people and finally selecting his first disciples. All very positive.

The readings for yesterday and today, however, are quite different. Luke, it seems, is now wanting to tell us that, right from the beginning, there was also a negative side to Christ's public ministry, especially in the person of the Pharisees who were constantly finding fault with Jesus and criticizing him. Yesterday they were complaining that Jesus and his disciples weren't fasting; today they object that his disciples shouldn't be picking heads of grain on the Sabbath. And these two incidents of yesterday and today are just two in a series of five in chapter five (for the other three, see the incidents beginning with verses 17, 29 and 33) where the Pharisees are increasingly looking upon Jesus as the enemy.

So already in this first week of reading from Luke, the stage is now set for Luke's entire Gospel. In Luke's full narrative there will be both a positive and a negative side. The Pharisees will continue to oppose Jesus and will eventually plot to kill him, while Jesus will continue to cure people and to preach love and peace and the coming of the Kingdom of God. And in this struggle the Pharisees, as we know, will win the battle; but Jesus will win the war.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Luke, Paul and Prayer

Lk 18:1-8

Saturday – 32nd Week Ordinary Time

I want to say something this morning about St. Luke and prayer because Luke, much more than Mark and Matthew, emphasizes the role of prayer both in the life of Jesus and in our lives as well. For example, in the life of Jesus there are four significant events where Luke mentions that Jesus was at prayer. The four events I'm talking about are the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan (3:21-22), the choosing of the Twelve (6:12-14), Peter's profession of faith at Caesaréa Philippi (9:18-20) and the Transfiguration (9:28-29). According to Luke, on each of these four occasions Jesus was at prayer. As a matter of fact, Luke says that, before choosing the Twelve, Jesus spent the whole night in prayer. But all of this is in contrast to Matthew and Mark both of whom recount all four of these events but never mention that Jesus was at prayer at the time.

And besides those four events Luke recounts two parables that Jesus told about prayer, and Luke is the only one who recounts these two parables. The first parable is the one known as the Midnight Visitor or the Insistent Friend (11:5-8) where a man goes to his neighbor's house in the middle of the night and asks for three loaves of bread. And the neighbor says, "Go away, we're all in bed," but the man persists and eventually, in order to get some sleep, the neighbor gives in and the man gets his three loaves of bread. And the other parable is the one in today's Gospel reading about the judge and the widow, with the same basic theme about persistence in prayer.

Anyway, all of this: these two parables and the fact that Jesus was at prayer during those four events I mentioned, all of this comes from Luke and nowhere else. So is there an explanation for this? I mean, where does Luke's special emphasis on prayer, his recognition of the importance of prayer come from?

Well first of all Luke was a convert and typically converts bring to their newfound faith a level of enthusiasm that the rest of us never seem to match. And when I say Luke was a convert I mean that he wasn't Jewish; he was a gentile or pagan. And while pagans did pray to their own gods, it seems that they prayed in a different way because Jesus once told his followers _not_ to pray the way pagans do, babbling away and using lots of words in order to be heard. (Mt 6:7) So Luke started off as a pagan but at some point took an interest in Judaism and eventually he became a Christian, and in his formative years as a Christian he came under the influence of Paul who was a man of prayer. Luke didn't write his Gospel until around the year 80 but back in the 50s he became a companion of Paul and I'm thinking that it was Paul's appreciation of the role of prayer that rubbed off on Luke and gave Luke his deep interest in prayer.

But let me close this morning with a few lines from Paul's letters that shed some light on his prayer life, the prayer life that I suspect became a positive influence on Luke. First, to the Romans Paul says, "I never fail to mention you in my prayers." (1:9), and again, "Do not give up if trials come; and keep on praying." (12:12) To the Colossians, "We have never failed to remember you in our prayers." (1:3) To the Thessalonians, "We pray continually that God will make you worthy of his call." (2 Th 1:11) And finally I leave with you Paul's beautiful words to the Ephesians, "Pray all the time, asking for what you need, praying in the Spirit on every possible occasion." (6:18)

### \+ + +

Back to top
A Lucan Parable?

Lk 13:1-9

Saturday – 29th Week Ordinary Time

If you visit the Church of Santa Croce in Florence you see there a huge monument in honor of Dante Alighieri. Dante was an encyclopedic genius who seems to have read everything that had been written before his time and somehow digested it all. He is best known as the author of _The Divine Comedy_ , which is a poem, a poem of several hundred pages. And engraved in large letters on his monument in Santa Croce are the words, "L' altissimo poeta", the highest or loftiest poet.

As you might expect, Dante was a dedicated and avid student of the Sacred Scriptures and, as I've mentioned before, he once described St. Luke as "the scribe of Christ's gentleness". And in describing Luke that way, Dante put his finger on what is probably the chief characteristic of Luke's Gospel – gentleness. Luke, as you know, wrote his Gospel some ten or fifteen years after Mark wrote his, and Luke used Mark's Gospel as his chief source. When, however, Mark recounted something that offended Luke's sense of gentleness, Luke simply omitted it. Mark, for example, quoted Jesus as saying, "If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off. Better to enter heaven with one foot or hand than to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better to enter heaven with one eye than to be cast into hell with two eyes." (9:43-47) Well that statement was apparently too harsh for Luke so Luke simply left that out of his Gospel.

Another example: in chapter 11 Mark recounts an incident where Jesus wants to impress on his disciples that God will grant whatever they pray for if only they put their complete faith and trust in him; and to drive that point home, Jesus sort of talks to a fig tree; he tells the fig tree not to bear any more fruit, and the fig tree obeys him. This is Mark's account of the incident:

Next day, as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus felt hungry. Seeing a fig tree in leaf some distance away, he went to see if he could find any fruit on it, but when he came up to it, he found nothing but leaves; for it was not the season for figs. And he addressed the fig tree. 'May no one ever eat fruit from you again,' he said. And his disciples heard him say this..... Next morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree withered at the roots. Peter remembered. 'Look, Rabbi,' he said to Jesus, 'the fig tree you cursed has withered away.' Jesus answered, 'Have faith in God. I tell you solemnly, if anyone says to this mountain, "Get up and throw yourself into the sea," with no hesitation in his heart but believing that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. I tell you therefore: everything you ask and pray for, believe that you have it already, and it will be yours.' (Mk 11:12-14; 20-24)

Well the gentle hearted Luke was apparently uncomfortable with Jesus cursing an innocent fig tree simply because it wasn't the season for the fig tree to produce fruit, so Luke declined to include this incident in his Gospel.

What Luke did do, however (and he was the only one of the four evangelists to do it) what Luke did do was to include a parable about another fig tree, a fictional fig tree where those in charge of the tree are patient, understanding, reasonable and, above all, gentle. I refer, of course, to the parable in our Gospel reading for today.

Some Scripture scholars are of the opinion that Jesus never actually told this parable, that Luke came up with this parable on his own, based, of course, but based very loosely on the fig tree event recorded in Mark. But whether the parable originated in the mind of Jesus or in the mind of Luke, it is, at the very least, in the _spirit_ of Jesus, with Jesus telling us that we can't just go on, year after year, being barren, just taking up space on this planet, or just exhausting the soil, as the parable puts it. The parable tells us that God is patient with us and continues to provide us with tender, loving grace, but eventually we're expected to produce, to produce fruit, to grow, to provide sustenance for others, to love God with our whole heart and soul and mind, and to love our neighbor as ourself.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Doctor Without Borders

Lk 10:1-9

October 18 – St. Luke, Evangelist

Today we celebrate what is officially known as the Feast of St. Luke, Evangelist. The term "Evangelist" usually refers to one of the four Gospel writers; which might suggest that the Church is honoring Luke today only insofar as he is the author of the Gospel. But in fact, of course, Luke's Gospel was only the first half of his work; the other half is known as the Acts of the Apostles, and it is clear that Luke intended that the two halves be seen as two parts of the whole, with part one being about the life of Jesus and part two being about the life of the early Church.

Coincidently, Luke's Gospel and the Acts each cover a period of a little over 30 years. Since Luke's _Gospel_ begins with the Infancy Narrative and concludes with the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus, it goes roughly from the year zero to the year 33, while the _Acts_ begins with the Ascension and ends with Paul being in the City of Rome, and so goes from the year 33 to roughly the year 65.

But let's concentrate this morning on the Acts of the Apostles. First of all, Luke seems to have a fairly detailed knowledge of what went on in the Church during those 30 plus years, beginning with the events in and around Jerusalem, and then, in the later chapters, with the missionary journeys of Paul. But who was this man Luke and where did he get all this information? Well very briefly, Luke, it seems, was originally, a well educated gentile who, at some point, became interested in Judaism and finally converted to Christianity. It is clear from our first reading this morning, which was from Paul's second Letter to Timothy, that when Paul was in Rome towards the end of his days, Luke was with him; as a matter of fact, that Luke alone was with him. (4:11) Paul and Luke, furthermore, were clearly friends because in Paul's Letter to the Colossians, Paul refers to "my dear friend, Luke, the doctor." (4:14) It is, indeed, entirely possible that Luke may have served at times as physician to Paul. Paul, as we know, not only suffered from some kind of illness (Gal 4:13-15) but also had been whipped several times, beaten with sticks, stoned and shipwrecked (2 Cor 11:23-29), so on several occasions the ministrations of a physician would clearly have been helpful and appreciated. There is, in fact, some evidence, not perhaps conclusive evidence, but evidence nonetheless, that at certain points on Paul's missionary journeys, Luke traveled with him, that Doctor Luke, in other words, went far beyond just making house calls. And basically the evidence is this: that in five passages in the Acts of the Apostles, Luke, the author, seems to be reporting live from the scene. Let me read just one of those passages for you. It takes place around the year 50 and Paul is on his second missionary journey. Luke writes:

One night Paul had a vision: a Macedonian appeared and appealed to him in these words; 'Come across to Macedonia and help us.' Once he had seen this vision, we (Luke uses the word 'we'), we lost no time in arranging a passage to Macedonia. (16:9-10)

And there are four other passages similar to this where Luke speaks about "we", that is, he, Luke, Paul and perhaps others engaging in some activity. (20:5-8; 20:13-15; 21:1-18 and 27:1-28) So part of Luke's reporting may have been eye witness reporting, but certainly Luke used other sources as well to describe how the Holy Spirit eventually brought Paul to Rome, the center of the world, from which the Church would then spread and grow strong.

This, at any rate, is Luke, that extraordinary man, that extraordinary author and physician whom we honor today.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Journeys to Jerusalem in John and Luke

Lk 12:8-12

Saturday – 28th Week Ordinary Time

During his public ministry Jesus went several times to Jerusalem. In chapter 2 of his Gospel, John says that the _first_ time Jesus visited Jerusalem during his public ministry was on the occasion of the Feast of Passover that year, and that that particular journey to Jerusalem took place shortly after Jesus had performed his first miracle at Cana in Galilee. John then reports that after leaving Jerusalem, Jesus went first to Samaria where he spent a couple of days and then on to Galilee. Then in chapter 5 of John's Gospel it is reported that Jesus went to Jerusalem a _second_ time, this time for another religious festival, perhaps the Jewish Feast of Pentecost, and that afterwards Jesus returned once again to Galilee. Next in chapter 7, John says that Jesus tells his disciples that they should go up to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles that year, but, because his own life is, by this time, in danger, he himself will remain in Galilee, because, as he says, "the time is not yet ripe," meaning that it is not yet the time for him to die. Nevertheless Jesus apparently has a change of mind because when the festival is half over he does, in fact, enter the city, and this, according to John, is Jesus' _third_ visit to Jerusalem. It seems that Jesus then remains in Jerusalem for some time, curing people and debating with the Pharisees, until, at the very end of chapter 10 in John, Jesus leaves Jerusalem and travels to the far side of the Jordan River. Finally, in chapter 12 John reports that on the occasion of another Feast of Passover, Jesus enters Jerusalem for the _fourth_ and final time, this time, of course, while riding on a donkey with all the people waving palm branches and shouting, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord".

Well all of this is from John's Gospel. But what about the other three Gospels? What do Matthew, Mark and Luke tell us about Jesus going to Jerusalem? The answer to that question is that Matthew, Mark and Luke mention only one visit that Jesus made to Jerusalem and that, of course, was the one during which he was crucified. Matthew, Mark and Luke, in other words, say absolutely nothing about the three earlier visits that Jesus made to Jerusalem as recounted by John. Perhaps the synoptic authors didn't know about those three earlier visits, or maybe they knew about them but did not regard them as being particularly relevant to what they were wanting to say in their Gospels. Anyway, they speak only of Jesus' final journey; and let me say something about this last, fateful journey of Jesus into the Holy City of Jerusalem.

To begin with, just as John was the last of the Evangelists to write a Gospel, so Mark was the first, and Mark's remarks about Jesus' final journey to Jerusalem are very brief. Between Mark's first mention of Jesus being "on the road, going up to Jerusalem" (10:32) and his final arrival in the city (11:15) there's maybe only a page or a page and a quarter of narrative. When, however, Luke read what Mark had written, it gave him an idea. Luke then went on to write some fifteen pages on Jesus' journey to Jerusalem. In these fifteen pages (9:51 to 19:27) Luke recounts several parables that Jesus told, several cures he performed, some confrontations he had, some advice he gave, some lessons he taught, and so forth, all the while reminding his readers that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. Luke, in short, made this passage about the _journey_ the very centerpiece of his Gospel, and it is from this journey narrative that we're reading at daily Mass during the entire month of October and half of November as well. It is, as I say, the centerpiece of Luke's Gospel.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Book of Signs and The Book of Glory

Jn 15:18-21

Saturday – 5th Week of Easter

In our Gospel reading last Saturday we saw John three times use the term "works" to refer to the miracles that Jesus performed. But besides the term "works" John also used another synonym for miracles, and that's the word "signs". Let me give you a couple of examples. In chapter two John records the event at Cana where Jesus changes water into wine, and he concludes that scene by saying, "this was the first of the signs given by Jesus." (vs. 11) Then, in chapter four, Jesus cures the dying son of a royal official, and at the conclusion of that incident John writes, "This was the second sign given by Jesus." (vs. 54)

Then, in the course of the next eight chapters, John records five more miracles that Jesus performed, including that of raising Lazarus from the dead. And that basically is an outline of the first half of John's Gospel: seven miracles or signs in the first twelve chapters. And because this first half of John's Gospel is characterized chiefly by these seven signs, it is commonly known as the "Book of Signs". That's the first half of John's Gospel.

The last half of John's Gospel, chapters 13 to 20, is known as the "Book of Glory". During these chapters no signs or miracles are reported. Rather the Book of Glory is about the Last Supper and the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus; and it's known as the Book of Glory because, by rising from the dead and conquering death, Jesus returns to his Father in complete glory.

An interesting aspect of both books, however, is the mixed response that people have to Jesus. Before I get to that, however, let me, by way of preface, make one very brief observation, and that is that, in the Prologue to his Gospel, John had written that "in the beginning was the Word... and the Word was God... and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us... and to his own he came yet his own did not accept him." His own did not accept him. That's in the Prologue. Then, in both the Book of Signs and in the Book of Glory, John concludes each book with a statement about how some believed in Jesus and some did not. In the Book of Signs John writes:

Though they had been present when he gave so many signs, they did not believe in him.... And yet there were many who did believe in him, even among the leading men, but they did not admit it, through fear of the Pharisees and fear of being expelled from the synagogue; they put honor from men before the honor that comes from God. (12:37 and 42-43)

That's the conclusion to the Book of _Signs_. And in a somewhat similar fashion John concludes the Book of _Glory_ with the story of Doubting Thomas who, as we know, eventually came around but only after putting his hand into the side of Christ. Whereupon Jesus offers those lines that are so consoling to all of us, and let me close with them, "You believe, Thomas, because you see me. Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe." (20:24-29)

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Warp and Woof of John Six

Jn 6:60-69

Saturday – 3rd Week of Easter

For more than a week now our daily Gospel reading has been from one of the most important chapters in the entire Bible, the famous chapter 6 of John's Gospel. Chapter 6 begins this way (and I'm reading now from last Friday's Gospel passage at Mass):

Jesus went across the Sea of Galilee. A large crowd followed him, because they saw the signs he was performing on the sick. Jesus went up on the mountain, and there he sat down with his disciples. The Jewish feast of Passover was near.

So this is how John introduces his chapter 6, by noting that the Jewish feast of Passover was near. But this statement by John has both a literal and a symbolic meaning. The literal meaning, of course, is that the feast of Passover will soon begin. But the sentence has a deeper meaning as well, because John is here asking his readers to think back to what happened at the original Passover. Remember, if you will, that Yahweh had set his people free from their slavery in Egypt by striking down all the first-born of the Egyptians but then _passing over_ the homes of all the Jews and leaving all _their_ first-born very much alive. Then, once the Israelites escaped from Egypt, Yahweh worked two special miracles for them: first he sent them manna for their sustenance, which was a kind of bread miracle, and second, when they arrived at the Sea of Reeds, he rolled back the water for them so that there was a wall of water on their left and on their right as all the Israelites passed through on dry land. So first a bread miracle and then a water miracle.

Good, says St. John. Now that you have remembered all that, read the rest of my chapter 6 and you will see how it all fits together. And sure enough, John then begins recounting first a bread miracle where Jesus multiplies five loaves of barley into enough bread to feed 5000 people, which was our Gospel reading last Friday at Mass. And then, on Saturday, we read about a water miracle where Jesus walks on water. So like Yahweh at the first Passover, Jesus too works both a bread miracle and a water miracle.

Then, during the rest of chapter 6, Jesus goes on to tell his listeners that, in two different ways, he himself is the Bread of Life. First, he says, he is the Bread of Life in his person and in his word, and in this sense we are called to put our faith in him and in his word. We are called to _believe_. And secondly he is the Bread of Life in his very body and blood, and now we are called not just to believe but to _eat_ , to eat his body and drink his blood. So from verse 32 to verse 50 the key word is believe, and from verse 51 to 71 the key word is eat. First of all we must believe in Jesus as our Savior and as the Son of God and secondly we must be nourished by his body and his blood.

And this very briefly, too briefly, I suppose, is the famous chapter 6 of John's Gospel.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Appendix to John's Gospel

Jn 21:20-25

Saturday – 7th Week of Easter

Today's Gospel reading is from chapter 21 of John's Gospel, and in almost all Bibles this chapter 21 is listed either as an Appendix or as an Epilogue to John's Gospel. So why is that? It's because the closing lines of the previous chapter, chapter 20, are obviously and unmistakably the conclusion to the Gospel itself. Let me read for you these closing lines of chapter 20 and you can see for yourself:

There were many other signs that Jesus worked and the disciples saw, but they were not recorded in this book. These are recorded that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing this you may have life through his name.

Well those are the closing lines of chapter 20, and originally they were, without any doubt, the closing lines of John's Gospel. At some later time, however, somebody, almost certainly somebody other than John himself, added to John's Gospel what is now listed as chapter 21. And the big question is: "why?". Why was chapter 21 added to John's Gospel? And did this extra chapter really contribute anything significant to John's Gospel?

Well chapter 21 is basically about two events that took place up at the Lake of Galilee shortly after Jesus had risen from the dead, and I know you're familiar with both of these events. It begins with Peter telling six of his fellow disciples one night that he's going out fishing, and all six decide to go along with him, but they fish all night and catch nothing. At dawn the next morning Jesus is on the shore and he instructs them to cast their nets to starboard; which they do, and Peter then winds up dragging in the net filled with 153 fish. Then, when all are ashore, Jesus, Peter and the other six enjoy a wonderful breakfast together. That's event number one. Event number two starts immediately after breakfast when Jesus asks Peter three times. "Do you love me?", and when Peter responds in the affirmative, Jesus says to Peter, "Feed my sheep."

Well these two, back-to-back events are the substance of chapter 21. And after reading them, a typical first response is, "What on earth is so important about these two events that someone would consider it appropriate to tack them onto John's beautiful Gospel as a kind of appendix? Why would anybody do that? And the short answer is, "It's all in the symbolism."

I suppose the first thing to keep in mind is that this chapter 21 was being added to John's Gospel at the very end of the first century when the Christian church was just starting to take shape as an organized community, and it seems clear that the author of chapter 21 was wanting to say something about the role of Peter in this fledgling community. So what the author did was portray Peter first as a fisherman in event number one and then as a shepherd in event number two. And the point, of course, is that Peter is to be both a fisherman and a shepherd: a _fisherman_ in that his role will be to catch not fish but men, as Jesus once said (Mk 1:17), someone, in other words, who will bring the Good News in all its splendor to outsiders; and a _shepherd_ in that his role will be to nourish, protect and lead those who are already part of the community. In a nutshell, in other words, Peter is to be both a missionary to those outside and a leader to those within.

This, it seems, is what the author of chapter 21 is telling us. And by extension, of course, this, to some extent, is what we are all called to do: to be _evangelizers_ to those outside who have not yet understood the Good News, and, at the same time, to be good _stewards_ for those within by being welcoming, thoughtful, nourishing, caring members of this wonderful church, this wonderful community of ours at St. Thomas More.

### \+ + +

Back to top
John's Distinctive Christology

Jn 14:6-14

May 3 – Feast of Saints Philip and James

The Gospel according to Mark was written a good ten or fifteen years before any of the other three. But Mark's Gospel is not only the earliest of the four Gospels; it's also the shortest. In my Bible Mark's Gospel is only 24 pages long whereas each of the other three Gospels is closer to 48 pages, just about twice the length of Mark's.

And Mark's Gospel is not only the earliest and the shortest; it is also the simplest, mostly because it's just a straightforward, chronological account of Jesus' public ministry, death and resurrection, while the other three Gospels have a structure that is considerably more elaborate than Mark's. As a matter of fact, each of the other three Gospels has its own distinctive framework within which the author discusses the life, death, resurrection and importance of Jesus.

Matthew, for example, is known for the fact that he begins his Gospel with an Infancy Narrative and concludes it with the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, but in between he divides his material into five sections, each one graced by one of Jesus' major discourses on the Kingdom of God. Luke, on the other hand, devotes the ten middle chapters of his Gospel to the Great Journey of Jesus to Jerusalem. And it is in the context of this framework, this device, this journey to Jerusalem, that Luke helps us to appreciate one of his major theological insights: that Jerusalem is where our salvation has been won and it is also from there that the evangelization of the world had its beginnings. And then there is John whose dominant theme is the Incarnation; whose dominant theme, in other words, is that Jesus is God's only begotten Son, who has existed from all eternity but became a human being in a place on earth called Palestine at a particular moment in history when Palestine was under Roman rule. This Christology of John, often referred to as High Christology, is apparent throughout John's Gospel but especially perhaps in two places: first in the Prologue to his Gospel where John writes, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.... and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us"; and second, this High Christology is especially seen in Jesus' Farewell Discourse from which is taken our Gospel reading today.

This Farewell Discourse, as recorded in John takes up four or five chapters (13-17) and is therefore reminiscent of both the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and the Journey to Jerusalem in Luke, both of which also take up multiple chapters. (5-7 and 9-19 respectively)

But let me focus in a bit on today's Gospel reading which is found in chapter 14 of John. Just prior to the opening line of today's Gospel when Jesus says, "I am the way," Jesus tells his disciples that he will not be with them much longer because he is going to his "Father's house" by which Jesus surely meant heaven. He tells his disciples that they will be joining him, and he tells them that they "know the way to the place" where he is going, whereupon Thomas pipes up saying, "Lord, we do not know where you are going so how can we know the way?" And that's when Jesus responds, "I am the way."

Well, when you think about it, this is an amazing, even breath-taking statement. Thomas, it seems, is thinking in almost geographical terms, like he wants Jesus to provide him with a map to his Father's house. So how does Jesus respond? Does he say, "Well, if you want to get to the Father's house you must obey all the commandments, give generous alms to the poor, forgive those who have offended you and love your neighbor as yourself."? Is that what Jesus says? Not at all. What he says is, " _I_ am the way." The way to God, in other words, is not a map or a plan or a method or a program or even a disciplined life. The way to God is Jesus. _He_ is the way. To know him is to know God. To see him is to see God. So the way to heaven is absolute union with Jesus. That's the way to heaven, absolute union with Jesus.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Jesus and the Baptist

Mt 14:1-12

Saturday – 17th Week Ordinary Time

Apart from Jesus himself, the three most prominent, the three most frequently mentioned people in the Gospels are Peter, Mary and John the Baptist. But this morning, of course, I want to concentrate on the Baptist because he's the subject of today's Gospel reading.

Basically I just want to touch on two disputed matters regarding the Baptist. The first is whether John the Baptist was a precursor to the Kingdom of God and, as such, belonged to the time of the prophets and the Law, or whether he was, in fact, the first martyr of the Kingdom and, as such, belonged to the time of the Kingdom itself.

There's a passage in chapter 11 of Matthew's Gospel where Jesus seems to state rather clearly that the Baptist was just the precursor to the Kingdom. Let me read it for you. It quotes Jesus as saying:

I tell you solemnly, of all the children born of women, a greater than John the Baptist has never been seen; yet the least in the Kingdom of heaven is greater than he is. (Mt 11:11)

Well this seems rather clear: being a member of the Kingdom carries with it a greatness that John the Baptist did not enjoy because, as the precursor of the Kingdom, he was, as it were, left at the gates of the Kingdom and so did not himself enter into it.

The other opinion, however, is that the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation in the New Testament describe the arrival of the Kingdom as involving a violent, destructive, apocalyptic period; and this, it seems, already began with the brutal beheading of the Baptist so, in fact, the Baptist was not left at the gates after all, but was rather the first victim of Satan's attempt to destroy the Kingdom at its very inception.

That's the first question. The second is more of a wonderment really, and it's this. Some students of the Gospels wonder whether initially Jesus may have been a disciple of John the Baptist. Those who favor this position tend to do so, I think, largely on the basis of chapter 3 of Matthew's Gospel. The first _two_ chapters of Matthew are, if you remember, his Infancy Narratives. The first twelve verses of chapter _3_ , however, are not, as one might expect, about the adult Jesus. Instead they are all about how John the Baptist is preaching in the wilderness and urging his hearers to repent and reform their lives because the Kingdom of God is at hand. Then, in verse 13, Matthew reports that Jesus comes all the way from Galilee in order to be baptized down in Judea by John, suggesting that at some time prior to that, John may have been Jesus' mentor. It's only speculation, I guess, but it may well be that it was only at the baptism itself, when the heavens opened and the Spirit descended on Jesus, that it finally became clear that it was John who was sent to prepare the way for Jesus and not the other way around.

I know that questions like these may sometimes seem irrelevant to our lives as Christians but they can also, I think, help us to see the Sacred Scriptures in a somewhat different way, and more importantly, they can help us see with a bit more clarity how God reveals to us in the Scriptures his mysterious plan to save us all through his beloved Son Jesus.

### \+ + +

Back to top
First Century Apostles

Mt 4:18-22

November 30 – Feast of St. Andrew, Apostle

Today we celebrate the feast of St. Andrew, Apostle. When you and I hear that phrase, "Andrew Apostle", we understand that the title Apostle means that Andrew was one of the Twelve. And not only was he one of the Twelve but he was, indeed, the very first man to be called by Jesus to be one of the Twelve. What I want to point out today, however, is that in the New Testament, that term "apostle" referred not only to the Twelve but to lots of other people as well.

First of all, Paul. Paul was not one of the Twelve but he nevertheless claimed to be an apostle equal to the Twelve, because, like them, he too had been appointed by Jesus to preach the Good News. He begins his letter to the Romans, for example, with these words: "From Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus who has been called to be an apostle" (Rom 1:1), and in his introduction to his Letter to the Galatians, he introduces himself this way: "From Paul to the churches of Galatia, and from all the brothers who are here with me, an apostle who does not owe his authority to men or his appointment to any human being but who has been appointed by Jesus Christ and by God the Father who raised Jesus from the dead." (Gal 1:1-2)

Secondly, in chapter 14 of the _Acts of the Apostles_ , St. Luke refers to both Paul and Barnabas as apostles. At the time Paul and Barnabas were at Iconium on their first missionary journey and twice, in verses 4 and 14, Luke refers to both of them as apostles.

Thirdly, in chapter 16 of his Letter to the Romans, Paul refers to two people by the name of Andronicus and Junia as "those outstanding apostles". (vs. 7)

And finally, in I Corinthians Paul lists a number of people to whom Christ appeared after he had risen from the dead. Paul says that Jesus

appeared first to Cephas and secondly to the Twelve. Next he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died; then he appeared to James, and then to all the apostles. (1 Cor 15:5-8)

That term "all the apostles" would seem to refer to a large group of people who were preaching the Gospel and to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection, and it seems, furthermore, that in Paul's eyes, they deserved to be called apostles precisely because Jesus had appeared to them,

So what should we conclude from all this? I think that what we can conclude is that, during much of the first century, the word "apostle" was used in both a strict sense (to refer to the Twelve) and in a broad sense (to refer to all those who had been sent by Christ to testify to the good news of Christ's resurrection). And I think it's also true that, by the time the second century rolled around, this term "apostle", in its broad sense pretty much fell into disuse, and the term "apostle" came to be used solely and exclusively to refer to the Twelve, the Twelve Apostles plus Paul.

And it is, of course, in this sense that we refer to Andrew as Andrew Apostle, because he was one of the Twelve, several of whom, including Andrew, sacrificed their lives in order to proclaim boldly that Jesus had truly risen from the dead.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Twelve and the Seventy-Two

Lk 10:17-24

Saturday – 26th Week Ordinary Time

During his public ministry Jesus had two sets of collaborators, an inner circle and an outer circle. The inner circle was, of course, the Twelve; the outer circle was the Seventy-two. In chapter 9 of Luke's Gospel Jesus sends his inner circle, the Twelve, out on their first mission; and in the following chapter, chapter 10, Jesus does the same with the Seventy-two.

Prior to their departure, Jesus gives to each group the same basic instruction. He tells them to travel in pairs (see Mk 6:7 for the Apostles), to travel light, to go from village to village, to cure the sick, proclaim the Kingdom of God and, where a particular village does not accept them, to shake its dust from their feet.

What's really interesting, however, is that, as best we can tell, the mission of the Twelve did not go well at all whereas the mission of the Seventy-two was a huge, I mean a huge, complete, overwhelming success.

As regards the mission of the Twelve all Luke says is this, "On their return the apostles gave Jesus an account of all they had done. Then he took them with him and withdrew to a town called Bethsaida where they could be by themselves." (9:10) And Mark adds that Jesus took them off by themselves so that they could "rest for a while". (6:31) So one gets the impression that the Twelve returned exhausted and probably discouraged as well.

At any rate Luke's bare-bones account of the return of the Twelve is in sharp contrast to his account of the return of the Seventy-two that we read about in our Gospel passage today where everybody is rejoicing. As a matter of fact that word rejoicing is used four times in today's Gospel reading, and Scripture scholars have dubbed this entire Gospel passage as the "jubilant outcry". Luke reports that Jesus himself was rejoicing, and not only rejoicing but rejoicing in the Holy Spirit because he clearly saw the success of the Seventy-two as the first sign of the victory of good over evil, that he actually saw Satan fall like lightning from the sky as the Seventy-two proclaimed the coming of the Kingdom. And Jesus furthermore told the Seventy-two that they were blessed because they saw and heard what prophets and kings had desired to see and hear but never did.

So the Seventy-two returned energized and joyful while the Twelve returned weary and deflated. And perhaps this is a harbinger of the Kingdom itself. Because while it is true that the Kingdom of God is inexorably on its way to its full realization, it is also true that along the way there will be peaks (like the mission of the Seventy-two) and there will be valleys (like the mission of the Twelve); and meanwhile our calling is to be patient and hopeful, and to proclaim the Good News in every way we can.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Real Reason for the Visitation

Lk 1:39-45

December 21

I want to begin this morning by reading a few lines from yesterday's Gospel passage. This is what it says:

But Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?' And the angel said to her in reply, 'The Holy  
Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And, behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren; for nothing will be impossible for God.'

So first the angel makes it absolutely clear to Mary that she will conceive by the Holy Spirit and that the child will therefore be the Son of God. And second, Mary's cousin Elizabeth, who was an elderly woman, is now six months pregnant; and it seems that the angel Gabriel tells Mary about Elizabeth only because he realizes that Mary will be pretty overwhelmed with the news that she is to be the mother of the Son of God, and in order to reassure her, Gabriel says, "well, your elderly cousin Elizabeth is also pregnant, for nothing will be impossible for God." At no time, however, does Gabriel suggest that Mary should go visit Elizabeth.

Nevertheless, today's Gospel passage begins with Mary on her way to visit Elizabeth, and it's important to realize that we're not talking about a simple trip across town. Elizabeth lived in a little town just outside Jerusalem but that's like 50 or 60 miles away from Nazareth where Mary lived, so Mary had a fairly lengthy, probably a four day's journey. Presumably, therefore, Mary's plan was to spend the next three or four months with Elizabeth and then return some time after Elizabeth's baby was born.

But why did Mary make this trip? What was her purpose? Well the obvious answer is that Mary was a sweet, compassionate, thoughtful young woman, just a teenager really, who realized that while Elizabeth was surely rejoicing in her pregnancy, she was, at the same time, an elderly woman and that the months ahead, especially the birthing, could be a very difficult time for her, so Mary just wanted to be there to support Elizabeth and to help her in any way she could. That's the obvious answer.

There is, however, just one little phrase in Luke that sows a tiny bit of doubt in our minds and makes us wonder whether this obvious answer is the right answer. And the phrase I'm talking about is the one where Luke says that Mary was traveling "in haste". I mean why would she travel in haste? Elizabeth had three more months to go and, besides, it would hardly seem that Mary's presence would be essential. Elizabeth must have had lots of other family and friends from her own town who could be there for her.

And, sure enough, if we keep reading on in Luke, we see, 10 or 12 verses later, that, in fact, there is indeed more to this than meets the eye, that, in fact, Mary had an entirely different reason for visiting Elizabeth. I refer to verses 56 and 57. Let me read them for you. Verse 56: Mary remained with Elizabeth about three months and then returned home. Verse 57: When the time arrived for Elizabeth to have her child, she gave birth to a son. What Luke is saying, in other words, or certainly seems to be saying, is that Mary did not, in fact, stay for the birth, first because Mary knew that others would help Elizabeth with that, and secondly, because Mary had already accomplished what she had really come for. Which was to share the Good News. Mary was fairly bursting with joy over the fact that God was becoming a human being, and she absolutely had to share that news with someone, someone who would truly believe it, and after hearing the angel, Mary knew that Elizabeth was that person. So Mary was joyously impatient to get to Elizabeth's house as soon as she could and give her the good news. And that's why Luke notes that Mary traveled "in haste".

So Mary, as it turns out, was the first human being to bring the Gospel, the Good News, to another human being. She was the First Disciple of her son; even before he was born, she was his First Disciple. And she is also the model for all of us, all of us who, like Mary, are called to bring the Good News to others.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Francis and Lawrence

Jn 12:24-26

August 10 – Feast of St. Lawrence

Our wonderful new Pope is clearly determined to reform the church, to make it more like Jesus, meek and humble of heart. Pope Francis abhors a proud, rich, fat, pompous Church that no longer really communicates with the rest of the world. And Pope Francis, it seems, is intent on spending the rest of his years on earth doing everything he can to make this Catholic Church of ours what he himself has called "a poor church for the poor".

His preeminent model is, of course, Jesus who spent probably 90 percent of his public ministry years on the road, with no place to lay his head. Apart from Jesus, however, and from among the saints, the Pope has chosen Francis of Assisi as his primary model, the man who came to be known as Il Poverello, the little poor man. And he was known as the little poor man because he came from a fairly wealthy family but divested himself of all that, put on a simple brown robe and worked among the poor as a way of reforming the church.

Today, however, is the feast of St. Lawrence, and here is another great model for Pope Francis and for all of us. Let me set the scene for you. The place is Rome. The time is the year 258. Valerian is the emperor. Sixtus is the Pope. Lawrence is one of seven deacons who assist Pope Sixtus in the governance of the Church of Rome. On a hot August day, however, Valerian, who hates Christians, orders the execution of Pope Sixtus and four of the deacons; and Lawrence is left in charge of the finances of the diocese. So what does Lawrence do? He takes care of the poor and disencumbers the church of much of its wealth. Valerian, however, calls in Lawrence and says, "I hear your church is very rich, that your chalices and candlesticks are made of gold. Well the emperor needs your money." And Lawrence says, "Oh, yes, we are very rich but give me a couple of days to put things in order and to make an inventory." Well, three days later Lawrence shows up and with him he has all the poor and the blind and the lame and orphans and widows of Rome, and he says to the emperor, "Here is the wealth of the church. These are our treasures."

And this is what Pope Francis wants us to understand, that the poor are the true wealth of the church; they are our treasure. And like Lawrence of old, our Pope is calling us today to be a poor church, a poor church for the poor.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Slow to Faith

Jn 3:22-30

Saturday After Epiphany

Tomorrow we conclude the Christmas season with the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, and on Monday we begin Ordinary Time. Then, for the next nine weeks our Gospel reading at daily Mass will be from the Gospel according to Mark. This past week, however, has been very different from what we will see during the first nine weeks of Ordinary Time in that this week we've heard from not just one of the Evangelists but from all four of them. From Monday through Friday two of our Gospel readings were from Luke, two from Mark and one from Matthew. And now today we have this sort of isolated reading from chapter 3 of John. And because today's reading is from chapter 3 I want to call to your attention one of the special characteristics of the early chapters of John.

What it all comes down to is faith; it comes down to how people respond to Jesus. We're all very familiar with the way the Apostles responded to Jesus. With Peter and Andrew, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew and Matthew it was pretty much a case of Jesus saying, "Come, follow me" and they followed him. And despite the fact that we have heard or read those accounts maybe a hundred times or more during our life, it still amazes us that those men, with hardly a moment's hesitation, just left everything behind and followed Jesus.

In John's early chapters however, he introduces us to three people, people not mentioned by any of the other Evangelists, who were much more cautious in the way _they_ responded to Jesus. While all three of these people were, in some sense, drawn to Jesus, they were nevertheless much slower than were the Apostles in putting their full faith in him.

First there is Nicodemus. Nicodemus comes to Jesus one night and says, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who comes from God." That's the way Nicodemus introduces himself, and from that introduction one gets the impression first of all that Nicodemus respects Jesus but also that Nicodemus is confident that he pretty well understands exactly who Jesus is. But Jesus says to him, "Unless one is born again from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God." Well Nicodemus is completely puzzled by that and he says to Jesus, "How can that be? Can a person go back into his mother's womb?" And at that point it's clear that Nicodemus doesn't have the faintest idea who Jesus really is. And, by the way, John notes that Nicodemus came to Jesus "one night", which was John's way of saying that perhaps Nicodemus had looked upon himself as enlightened but he was, in fact, still very much in the dark. Anyway, as we know, Nicodemus eventually became a believer but it proved to be a rather slow process. (3:1-21)

Next there is the Samaritan woman whom Jesus meets at a well. John tells us that she and Jesus have a rather lengthy discussion during which Jesus seems to know all about her; he knows, for example, that she had been married five times and is living now with a sixth man so John says that the woman then recognizes Jesus as a prophet because, as she says, "he knows everything about me", but beyond that she isn't sure. She thinks Jesus might be the Messiah but she isn't sure. (4:5-30)

And finally there is the man who was blind from birth. Jesus cures the man and for the first time in the man's life, he sees, but since the cure took place on a Sabbath day, the Pharisees are concerned; they ask the man who cured him but the best he can came up with is that the one who cured him is a prophet. The Pharisees then angrily press the man further but all he says to them is, "I only know that I was blind and now I can see." Later on, however, Jesus finds the man and tells him who he is, and the man finally says, "Lord, I believe", and he then worships Jesus. (9:1-38)

So through these three people, Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman and the man born blind, John is telling us that, when it comes to faith, it is a simple fact of life that we are all different, that some of us come much more slowly than others to a worshipping, adoring faith in Jesus, but, thanks be to God and by his grace, there is hope for all of us.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Nicodemus

Jn 7:40-53

Saturday – 4th Week of Lent

Our Gospel reading today mentions the Pharisee Nicodemus, so I want to say a little something this morning about this man Nicodemus.

Of the four Gospel writers only John mentions Nicodemus. Matthew, Mark and Luke say nothing at all about him. John, however, was a particularly keen observer of human behavior and I suspect that Nicodemus' behavior sort of intrigued John, because, in his Gospel, John mentions Nicodemus three times. The first time John talks about Nicodemus is in chapter 3 where Nicodemus is portrayed as a Seeker of the Truth. The second time is in chapter 7, which is our Gospel reading today, and here Nicodemus is seen as a Respecter of the Law. And the third time is in chapter 19 where Nicodemus has finally become a full fledged believer.

Let's look first at chapter 3. Chapter 3 begins, "There was one of the Pharisees called Nicodemus, a leading Jew who came to Jesus by night." I should mention here that John, besides being a keen observer of human behavior, was also very much into symbolism, and for John the fact that Nicodemus came to Jesus by night was a symbol that Nicodemus was still very much in the dark, very much wanting to be enlightened. Anyway he came to Jesus by night and said, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who comes from God; for no one could perform the signs that you do unless God were with him." The next sentence then begins, "Jesus answered" as though Nicodemus had asked a question. And maybe he did. Maybe there's a missing sentence here, or maybe Jesus just understood, since Nicodemus recognized him as a teacher, that he was implicitly asking Jesus to enlighten him with a teaching, which, over the next twenty verses or so, Jesus proceeds to do. This, at any rate, is the Nicodemus of chapter 3, a Seeker of the Truth.

In today's reading from chapter 7 Nicodemus courageously confronts his fellow Pharisees who disdainfully condemn the lowly crowd as accursed because they know nothing of the law. But Nicodemus reminds his fellow Pharisees that they too are ignoring the law because Jewish law recognizes the right of an accused to a hearing at which he can defend himself, and the haughty Pharisees are failing to accord that right to Jesus. So in this Gospel passage John is suggesting, I think, that Nicodemus' respect for the Mosaic law is bringing Nicodemus one step closer to Jesus.

Finally, in chapter 19, John writes about the burial of Jesus, about how Joseph of Arimathaea had received the body, and then John says, "Nicodemus came as well, the same one who had first come to Jesus at night-time". Interesting that John reminds the reader that Nicodemus was the one who had initially come to Jesus at night. But now he comes with a hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes, obviously very expensive, but Nicodemus has obviously become a devoted follower of Jesus, and he felt that anything less would be unworthy of Jesus.

So this is Nicodemus whose Search for Truth and whose Respect for Law helped him to become not only a believer in Jesus but one of the very few people who would have the very great honor of burying the man who, three days later, would rise up in victory.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Isaiah

Mt 12:14-21

Saturday – 15th Week Ordinary Time

In our Gospel reading today Matthew quotes a fairly lengthy passage from the great prophet Isaiah so I want to say something this morning about the Book of Isaiah.

The Book of Isaiah consists of 66 chapters, and the first thing to note is that those 66 chapters were not written by just one man. The fact is that there was not just one Isaiah but three Isaiahs; and Third Isaiah wrote some 300 years after First Isaiah. Let me be more specific. First Isaiah (chapters 1 through 39) was written around the year 750 BC. Second Isaiah (chapters 40 through 55) was written some 200 years later, around the year 550 BC; and Third Isaiah (chapters 56 through 66) was written around 450 BC.

A quick look at First Isaiah. Some 500 years before First Isaiah wrote his 39 chapters, 500 years before that (so around the year 1250 BC) the Israelites had escaped from their captivity in Egypt and had taken up residence in the Promised Land, the land of milk and honey, and they were having a wonderful time there living off the fat of the land. Unfortunately, however, they had become materialistic and unfaithful to their covenant with God. so the Book of Isaiah begins:

Listen, you heavens; earth attend for Yahweh is speaking, 'I reared sons, I brought them up, but they have rebelled against me. The ox knows its owner and the ass its master's crib, Israel knows nothing, my people understands nothing. A sinful nation, a people weighed down with guilt, a breed of wrong-doers, perverted sons. They have abandoned Yahweh, despised the Holy One of Israel, they have turned away from him.' (1:1b-4)

And later it says,

Woe to you, ravager never ravaged, plunderer never plundered! When your ravaging is over, you shall be ravaged, when your plundering is done, you shall be plundered. (33:1)

And that's the whole tone of First Isaiah, very negative and critical and threatening and accusatory.

Second Isaiah, on the other hand, is totally, totally different. Why? Because in the year 587 BC Babylon invaded Judah, destroyed the city of Jerusalem and its temple, and then proceeded to march perhaps as many as 10,000 Jews back to Babylon. The deportation of thousands of people over several hundred miles might seem to us to be far more trouble than it's worth but, at the time, detaching people from their land was seen as a way of breaking their spirit of resistance and of suppressing their sense of natural identity, and to the Babylonians it apparently seemed very much worth the trouble. At any rate, by the time Second Isaiah wrote chapters 40 to 55, the Israelites had been living in exile over in Babylonia for almost 40 years, and they were discouraged and depressed and confused, and Second Isaiah clearly felt that his role was to console and encourage his people and to give them some hope. And that's what Second Isaiah is all about. Very different from First Isaiah.

Most especially Second Isaiah wanted to assure the Jewish exiles that God would send them his special Servant who would suffer for them and somehow save them, and in today's Gospel passage Matthew is suggesting that that special Servant of God is Jesus himself who will save not only the Jews but the entire world.

### \+ + +

Back to top

### JESUS

Two Different Infancy Narratives

Lk 1:39-56

May 31 – Visitation of the Blessed Virgin

Our Gospel reading this morning is from the section in Luke's Gospel known as the Infancy Narrative, so I want to say a little something this morning about the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels.

Of the four Gospel writers, only Luke and Matthew wrote Infancy Narratives. Neither Mark nor John say anything at all in their Gospels about the conception, birth and early years of Jesus. Only Luke and Matthew do that. There are, as you perhaps know, many differences between Luke's Infancy Narrative and that of Matthew, but the particular difference I want to focus in on this morning, which is, I think, a really interesting one, is that the main adult character in Matthew's narrative is Joseph, whereas the main adult character in Luke's account is Mary.

I'll try to spell that out a bit in a moment but first let me just say that, for many of us, this is so surprising that we might be tempted to think that perhaps Matthew wrote his account first, and when Luke saw that Matthew had highlighted Joseph, he decided that he would highlight Mary instead, just to sort of balance things out. In fact, however, it is generally agreed that Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels right around the same time and that neither of them was aware that the other was also writing a Gospel. So the fact that Matthew highlighted Joseph whereas Luke highlighted Mary appears to have been pure happenstance or coincidence. Either that or it was the Holy Spirit quietly arranging matters behind the scenes.

Anyway, let's go back and take a look at exactly how Matthew highlighted Joseph and how Luke did the same for Mary. Matthew begins his Gospel with a long genealogy of Jesus going back 28 generations and ending with: "Jacob, the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary who gave birth to Jesus." So even though Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, Matthew nevertheless traces Jesus' ancestry not through Mary but through Joseph. Next, the angel of the Lord makes three appearances in Matthew's Infancy Narrative but not one of those appearances is to Mary; rather all three are to Joseph. The angel's first appearance is when Mary becomes pregnant, and the angel comes to Joseph and tells him that Mary has conceived by the Holy Spirit, and that Joseph should not hesitate to marry her. Second, King Herod hears that a rival king has been born in Bethlehem and Herod plans to eliminate this newborn rival, so the angel comes to Joseph and tells him to flee to Egypt with the child and his mother. And finally, after King Herod dies, the angel appears to Joseph a third time, telling him that the coast is clear now and it's ok to return home. That's Matthew's account.

Luke's account is very different. In Luke, Joseph is mentioned, but pretty much only in passing, whereas Mary is clearly the star. In Luke's account an angel appears twice but not at all to Joseph. The angel first appears to Mary telling her that she will give birth to a son who will be called the Son of God, and the angel and Mary have a rather detailed conversation. In Luke's narrative the angel appears a second time but this time it's to the shepherds in the field, bringing them the famous "good tidings of great joy"; and the shepherds then go to Bethlehem to be part of that wondrous event.

And several months before that, before the birth of Jesus, the newly pregnant Mary goes off to visit her cousin Elizabeth, which is the wonderful event we celebrate today, where once again Luke is the loyal advocate, even the troubadour of Mary and not only of Mary herself but also of the very key role that Mary played in the great history of our salvation.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Israelites and the Little Boy Who Was Saved

Mt 2:13-18

December 28 – The Holy Innocents

Today is the feast of the Holy Innocents, when we commemorate the deaths of the 20 or so little boys, aged two and under, who were maliciously executed by King Herod. This cruel slaying of innocent children painfully reminds us, of course, of the murder of the little children that took place in Connecticut in 2012, but it also reminds us of another indiscriminate killing of little ones that took place centuries before the time of Christ, and it's this latter event that I want to talk about first. The event itself is recorded in the Book of Exodus but its roots are in the Book of Genesis so let me begin with Genesis.

The Book of Genesis begins, of course, with the creation of the universe, and after that the flood. After the flood God tells Abraham to settle in the land of Canaan, which is the land just north of Egypt, and God promises Abraham that he will make of him a great nation. (12:1-5) Well Abraham has a son Isaac who in turn has a son Jacob. And this is where it gets especially interesting because one night God has a wrestling match with Jacob, and Jacob is such an impressive, strong wrestler that at daybreak God blesses Jacob and changes his name. He changes his name to Israel. At the time, Jacob has two wives, two slave girls and eleven sons. Later, in his old age, Jacob will have a twelfth son, Joseph, but at the time of the wrestling match he has only eleven; and since God has now changed Jacob's name to Israel, he, Israel and this family of his are the original Israel-ites. (32:23-32) Well Jacob (or Israel) and his family remain in the land of Canaan for some time but then one day God comes to Jacob with a message. This is what the Book of Genesis says:

God spoke to Israel in a vision at night, 'Jacob, Jacob', he said. 'I am here', he replied. 'I am God, the God of your father', he continued. 'Do not be afraid of going down to Egypt, for I will make you a great nation there. I myself will go down to Egypt with you.'.... Taking their livestock and all that they had acquired in the land of Canaan, they went to Egypt, Jacob and all his family with him: his sons and his grandsons, his daughters and his granddaughters, in a word, all his children he took with him to Egypt... The members of the family of Jacob who went to Egypt totaled seventy. (46:2-4,6-7,27)

So these seventy Israelites go to Egypt. The year is about 1600 BC and the Israelites then reside in Egypt as shepherds for the next 300 years or so, and they do indeed become a great people. Which brings us to the Book of Exodus.

The Book of Exodus opens around the year 1300 BC and in chapter one the King of Egypt addresses his people. This is what Exodus says:

'Look', the king said to his subjects, 'these people, the sons of Israel, have become so numerous and strong that they are a threat to us. We must be prudent and take steps against their increasing any further, or if war should break out, they might add to the number of our enemies. They might take arms against us and so escape out of the country.' Accordingly they put slave-drivers over the Israelites to wear them down under heavy loads. In this way they built the store-cities of Pithom and Rameses for Pharaoh. But the more they were crushed, the more they increased and spread, and men came to dread the sons of Israel. (1:9-13)

Next the king orders the midwives to kill all the Jewish males at birth but that doesn't work because the midwives can't bring themselves to do that. So finally the king orders all of his subjects to throw all the Hebrew boys into the Nile River. And that's what happened. But, as you know, at least one little boy is saved and is raised as an Egyptian and is given the name Moses. And it is, of course, Moses who becomes the great leader of the Israelites, helps to set them free from slavery, and brings them to the very gates of the Promised Land.

But let me return now to King Herod. When, 1300 years after the time of Moses, Herod orders the execution of the little boys of Bethlehem, he is clearly repeating history; he is repeating the execution event ordered by the King of Egypt 1300 years before him. And with a similar outcome. For just as, under the King of Egypt, Moses turned out to be the little boy who was saved, so now it is Jesus who is the little boy who is saved, and Jesus therefore is now seen as the new Moses.

And the implication, of course, is that, like Moses before him, Jesus will now be the leader of his people and will set all of us free from slavery and will lead all of us into the Promised Land.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Jesus the Fulfiller of Prophecy

Mt 12:14-21

Saturday – 15th Week Ordinary Time

The three synoptic Gospels, those of Matthew, Mark and Luke, are, as you know, somewhat different from one another. And that's due partly to who the author is and partly to who the audience is. Mark and Luke, for example, both wrote for a predominantly _gentile_ audience; but it's also helpful to remember that Luke was himself a gentile whereas Mark was a Jew. And then there was Matthew who was not only a Jew but may have been a rabbi before he became a Christian; and Matthew, furthermore, wrote for a _mixed_ audience, a community of both Jews and gentiles.

Of the three synoptic Gospels, therefore, Matthew's was the most Jewish. And one of the ways that plays out is that, on ten occasions in his Gospel, Matthew reminds his readers that a particular event in the life of Jesus was, in fact, the fulfillment of a prophecy from the Hebrew Scriptures. I've written down these ten events and I want to mention each one of them because I want you to see how, back then, a Jew who knew his Scriptures, could well have recognized and accepted those ten events as a proof that Jesus was, in fact, the Messiah, that, ironically, the man who had been crucified turned out to be the long-awaited Messiah.

Let me now go through these ten events chronologically. First Matthew notes that Jesus was born of a virgin; he then says, "This took place to fulfill the words spoken by the Lord through the prophet" and Matthew then quotes the pertinent words of Isaiah. (1:23) Second, Matthew recounts how Joseph and Mary fled with the infant Jesus to Egypt in order to escape from the wrath of King Herod, and how this flight to Egypt had been prophesied. (2:15) Then there's the passage about the massacre of the Holy Innocents and how that too had been prophesied. (2:18) The next prophesied event was that, after King Herod died, the Holy Family returned to Nazareth. (2:23) The fifth event takes place when Jesus, as an adult, settles in Capernaum, which Isaiah suggested the _Messiah_ would one day do. (4:15-16) This was followed by a number of cures that Jesus performed which was also foreseen by Isaiah as something the Messiah would do. (8:17) Then there is the passage from today's Gospel reading about Jesus as the servant of God. (12:18-21) The eighth event mentioned by Matthew is that Jesus taught in parables, as the psalmist foretold. (13:35) The ninth prophesied event was the one about acquiring the donkey on which Jesus would ride as he entered Jerusalem shortly before he was crucified. (21:5) And the final event referred to the thirty pieces of silver that Judas received for his betrayal, about which Jeremiah had spoken. (27:9-10)

So those are the ten prophesied events mentioned by Matthew, and this is the kind of thing that only Matthew would write. But again, why did Matthew write these things? He wrote them because he saw it as a way of convincing his fellow Jews that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Briefly Matthew's argument was this: the Hebrew Scriptures prophesied that when the Messiah would finally come, these ten different events would occur, and sure enough, it was in the life of Jesus of Nazareth that all these events did, in fact, occur, so Jesus must be the Messiah. At the time, as we know, many Jews found this argument of Matthew to be a convincing one, and it should, I think, strengthen our faith as well, not just our faith in Jesus as the Messiah, leader of the Israelites but also our faith in Jesus as the Messiah/King who was God's only Son and who came to earth as our Lord and Savior.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Jesus the New Passover

Jn 6:16-21

Saturday – 2nd Week of Easter

The greatest liberation story of all time is the one in the Book of Exodus where God sets the Israelites free from their slavery in Egypt. Even after the Israelites have left the land of Egypt, however, their troubles are not over, and twice more Yahweh comes to their rescue. Their first problem is that the Pharaoh has decided to recapture them, and as they approach the Sea of Reeds, they turn around and see the Egyptian charioteers in hot pursuit. The Israelites then turn to Moses and say, "Were there no graves in Egypt that you must lead us out to die in the wilderness?" (Ex 14:11) But God rolls back the sea for them, and with a wall of water to their right and to their left, they cross the sea on dry land and leave the charioteers behind. But then the Israelites have nothing to eat, and they complain to Moses, "Why did we not die at Yahweh's hand in the land of Egypt, when we were able to sit down to pans of meat and could eat bread to our heart's content! As it is, you have brought us to this wilderness to starve the whole company to death!" (Ex 16:3) So Yahweh rescued them a second time by sending them manna. Manna tasted like wafers made with honey, and the Israelites were then nourished with this God-given manna for the next forty years, right up until the time they came to the Promised Land. (Ex 16:31 and 35)

But having said that, let me turn now to our Gospel reading. Yesterday we began reading from the famous chapter 6 of John's Gospel and we will continue to read at daily Mass from John 6 until next Saturday. The entire John 6 is, as you know, about Jesus as the Bread of Life. The entire chapter 6, that is, except for this episode in today's Gospel passage where Jesus walks on water. So the question is, why on earth did John insert these six verses about Jesus walking on water, smack in the middle of an entire chapter that is all about the Bread of Life? At first glance, at least, this walking on water episode seems totally and definitely out of place.

But John, of course, must have had his reasons. And one explanation is that John wanted to remind his readers that the coming of Jesus is the new liberation story, the new Passover. In the old liberation story, once the Israelites had escaped from the land of Egypt, Yahweh twice came to their rescue, once when he worked a bread miracle for them by sending them manna, and once when he worked a water miracle for them by rolling back the Sea of Reeds. So this perhaps is why John inserted this miracle about Jesus walking on water into his chapter 6, which is mostly about a bread miracle; perhaps he did it in order to reinforce in the minds of his readers that Jesus is indeed the New Passover.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Lord of the Sabbath

Lk 6:1-5

Saturday – 22nd Week Ordinary Time

I want to say something this morning about the Sabbath. Keeping holy the Sabbath was, of course, one of the ten commandments that Moses received from God on Mt. Sinai. (Ex 20 and Dt 5) Among the Israelites, keeping holy the Sabbath entailed two things: the religious assembly in the synagogue, and rest from work. And over the centuries the careful observance of the Sabbath became the distinguishing characteristic of Judaism, the thing that distinguished Jews from Gentiles.

There was, however, a problem. And the problem was with the meaning of the word "rest". Initially, it seems, the Sabbath rest was a gift, giving people, every seventh day, a break from their often back-breaking labor. But over time the powers-that-be decided that the Sabbath should be totally religious so that anything profane, anything profane was to be avoided; and by the time of Jesus all kinds of perfectly harmless activities were being prohibited, things like walking more than a thousand yards from home, jumping, clapping hands and even visiting the sick. And unfortunately all of this transformed the Sabbath from what initially had been a gift into what was now a burden. Perhaps, however, it was providential. Because, when Jesus arrived on the scene, part of his mission was to proclaim, especially to the Jews, that he had come to set the world free, to announce that he was the Great Liberator, that just as the Jews had, some 1300 years earlier, been set free from their slavery in Egypt by the Passover event, so Jesus himself would now be the New Passover. But how precisely would Jesus make this proclamation? Clearly he would need to do something that would convince his fellow Jews that he was here to set them free, free from the pettiness and the negativity and the legalistic mentality that had so distorted their beautiful religion. And instinctively, it seems, Jesus sensed that the way to do that was to reform _the Sabbath_ , which, as I say, was Judaism's most outstanding feature, the observance of which distinguished a Jew from a gentile. Instinctively Jesus realized that he would have to return the Sabbath to its original state, as a day of freedom and recuperation, as a day for restoring one's health, one's spiritual and physical health.

Luke, in the early chapters of his Gospel, mentions seven occasions where Jesus does precisely that, and here at daily Mass we are now in the midst of reading those seven passages in Luke. On Monday we heard Jesus begin the process by solemnly and dramatically declaring himself to be the Great Liberator, when he stood up in the synagogue on the Sabbath and read from Isaiah:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord. (4:16-30)

That was our reading on Monday. In our Gospel readings for Tuesday and Wednesday Jesus taught with authority on the Sabbath and cured a man plagued with a demon (4:31-37) and later that day he went to Simon's house for the Sabbath meal, cured Peter's mother-in-law, and at sunset cured countless people with various diseases. (4:38-44) All on the Sabbath. It is Jesus setting people free from ignorance and illness, on the Sabbath. Then, in today's reading Jesus declares himself to be Lord of the Sabbath as he informs the Pharisees that something they regarded as unlawful was, in fact, perfectly legitimate and even appropriate. (6:1-5) Next Monday we will read about how, on the Sabbath, Jesus cures the man with the withered hand and then says to the Pharisees that doing good on the Sabbath could not possibly be unlawful. (6:6-11) And later on in Luke's Gospel, Jesus cures on the Sabbath two other people, one of them a crippled woman, after which Jesus says to the objecting official, "Was it not right to untie her bonds on the Sabbath day?" (13:10-17)

So this is Jesus, the Untier of Bonds, the Great Liberator, the New Passover, the Lord of the Sabbath and the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Baptism and Transfiguration of Jesus

Mk 9:2-13

Saturday – 6th Week Ordinary Time

In our Gospel reading this morning Jesus is on a mountain with Peter, James and John, and a voice comes from heaven saying, "This is my beloved Son. Listen to him." And immediately we realize that this is the second time in the life of Jesus that a voice from heaven has said, "This is my beloved Son" or "you are my beloved Son." (Mk 1:11) The first time it happened was, of course, when Jesus was being baptized. So it appears that the Gospels are wanting us to see what the two events, Jesus' baptism and his transfiguration, have in common.

It would seem that the most obvious thing they have in common is that both events are preparing Jesus for the next stage of his life. The baptism of Jesus is preparing him for entering upon his public ministry, whereas his transfiguration is preparing him, along with his disciples, to face with courage his passion and death on the cross.

Let's first look at the baptism in a bit more detail. Prior to the baptism, Jesus was living a rather conventional life in Nazareth with his mother and cousins. He was no doubt accepted by the townspeople as an admirable and devout young Jewish man who worked as a carpenter and was, in general, a productive citizen, but that was it. Once baptized, however, and once Jesus heard the voice from heaven, saying, "You are my beloved Son", he suddenly knew who he was and what he was called to do. He first spent forty days, fasting and praying in the desert, and he then returned to Galilee (Mk 1:12-14) but with a whole different purpose to life. He no doubt stopped in Nazareth to explain to his mother that he was now moving on to Capernaum to fulfill the call of his heavenly Father. And while there in Nazareth, it appears that his mother and cousins immediately sensed that he was, in some strange way, a changed man, because shortly thereafter they traveled up to Capernaum in an attempt to bring him home because they feared that he had suffered some sort of mental breakdown. (Mk 3:20-21) It was not, however, a breakdown. It was a breakthrough. It was Jesus, God's beloved Son, setting forth now to proclaim to the world, both in word and deed, that the Kingdom of God was at hand.

The transfiguration came two or three years later. By this time Jesus had won over a multitude of disciples and had many good friends but lots of enemies as well, and his enemies were plotting to kill him. Jesus had already prophesied for the first time that he would be put to death (Mk 8:31-32) and clearly both he and his disciples would need extraordinary courage to enable them to face the dark days ahead. This time it was the transfiguration that gave them the support they needed, the reassurance that Jesus was indeed God's beloved Son, and that if, in fact, he would be put to death, then somehow, somehow, the transfigured Son of God would conquer even death itself. And so it happened.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Abba

Jn 14:7-14

Saturday – 4th Week of Easter

In our Gospel reading at Mass on Tuesday we heard Jesus speak these words, "My sheep hear my voice; I know them and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. No one can take them out of my hand. My father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can take them out of the Father's hand. The Father and I are one." (Jn 10:27-30) Those were the final words in our Gospel passage on Tuesday. But what you probably did not realize when you heard those words on Tuesday was that the very next line in John's Gospel is this: "The Jews picked up stones to stone him."

So what was it that Jesus said that prompted his fellow Jews to want to stone him? Well perhaps they felt that Jesus was declaring himself to be God, but more fundamentally, I think, what really teed them off was Jesus' scandalous over-familiarity with God. At the time many of the Jews, as you know, lived in fear and trembling before God. They were in such absolute awe of him that they would not even speak the word "God" out loud. So when Jesus called God his Father in a very personal way, they regarded that not only as impertinent and insolent but as out and out blasphemy.

It's true that when the Israelites thought of God as the creator of the universe or when they thought of God as the one who selected them as his very own chosen people, they occasionally did see God as a kind of _founding_ father. But here was Jesus calling God his _real_ father, with all the warmth and closeness and intimacy and love that that term implied. And that was simply unacceptable to his fellow Jews. And not just unacceptable; blasphemous.

Anyway, Tuesday's Gospel reading was from chapter 10 of John's Gospel, while today's is from chapter 14. And here in chapter 14 Philip, who was one of the Twelve, is still, it seems, having trouble figuring out exactly who Jesus' father really is. As a matter of fact, one almost gets the impression that Philip thinks that Jesus' father is another human being. Because Philip says, "Master, show us the father and that will be enough for us."

Eventually, of course, it becomes clear to Philip and to the early Christians that the Father Jesus is talking about is none other than Yahweh, the one true God, and that, for Jesus, that one true God is his Abba, his dad, his daddy, and is not only a loving Father to Jesus but is actually _one with him_. (Mk 14:36 and Rm 8:15)

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Mighty Deeds of Jesus

Mk 4:35-41

Saturday – 3rd Week Ordinary Time

There's a passage in the Gospels where Jesus is grieving over the towns of Chorazin and Bethsaida. I'm going to read a couple of lines from that passage as they appear in _The Jerusalem Bible_ where you will twice hear the word "miracle". And I should mention that that word "miracle" comes from the Latin word "mirari" which means to wonder or to cause wonderment. Etymologically, therefore, a miracle is something that causes wonderment on the part of a viewer or witness. In other words, when viewed in terms of the origin of the word, in order to have a miracle, there has to be a witness. Anyway, here's the passage I'm talking about:

Then Jesus began to reproach the towns in which most of his miracles had been worked, because they refused to repent. 'Alas for you, Chorazin! Alas for you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. (Mt 11:20-21)

That's the translation in _The Jerusalem Bible_. _The New American Bible_ , however, doesn't use the word "miracle". Instead it uses the phrase "mighty deeds" which is, I think, a much more accurate translation of the Greek word "dunameis", from which, by the way, comes our word "dynamite". Dunameis – dynamite. And besides being a more accurate translation, the phrase "mighty deeds" also takes the focus off the witness (the witness required for a miracle) and puts it on to the agent, the one who performs the mighty deed.

And this is exactly where the focus should be. Because, as I've mentioned many times, the entire public ministry of Jesus, right from day one, was about ushering in the Kingdom of God. And Jesus would usher in the Kingdom of God in two ways: by his preaching and by his mighty deeds. What we have to remember is that once sin and death entered the world, as described in the Book of Genesis, Satan then maintained a certain dominion, a certain power over nature and over humanity. But the mighty deeds performed by Jesus demonstrated that the power of Jesus is greater than the power of Satan so the kingdom of Satan is on its way out and the Kingdom of God is on its way in.

In today's Gospel reading Jesus' mighty deed of quieting the storm demonstrates that he has power over _nature_. And this is the first of a set of three such mighty deeds recounted by Mark in chapters 4 and 5. The other two we will read on Monday and Tuesday. On Monday Jesus shows that he has power not only over nature but over _demons_ as well, and you will remember that Jesus once said, "If it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons then the Kingdom of God has come upon you." (Lk 11:20) Then on Tuesday Jesus demonstrates, as he restores to life the daughter of Jairus, that he has the power even over _death_ itself. So power over nature, over demons and over death.

And these are but a few of the mighty deeds, the dynamite deeds that Jesus performed. Someone has actually gone to the trouble of adding up the total number of verses in Mark's Gospel and has noted that, of the 450 verses that refer to the public ministry of Jesus, almost half of them, just about 200 of them describe the mighty deeds that Jesus performed.

And while, at the _individual_ level, many of these deeds were cures or other acts of service that Jesus performed out of kindness or compassion, at the _cosmic_ level, all the mighty deeds of Jesus are proclaiming the advent, not the final flowering, of course, but the advent of the great Kingdom of God.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Miracles in Matthew

Mt 8:5-15

Saturday – 12th Week Ordinary Time

On June 9th, the day after Pentecost Sunday, we began reading at daily Mass from the Gospel of Matthew and we will continue to read from Matthew until the beginning of September when we will switch over to Luke. The principal way in which Matthew's Gospel differs from the other three is that Matthew has taken many of the teachings of Jesus and arranged them into five major discourses.

Right at present, however, and for the next eight weekdays, our Gospel readings will not in any way refer to any of those five major discourses. Because during these eight days we'll be reading from chapters 8 and 9 of Matthew, and chapters 8 and 9 are the chapters in between the first major discourse and the second.

So let me give you a kind of overview of what's in store for us over the next eight days. During this period Matthew will be telling us about a series of miracles that Jesus performed. And although many of you know this, perhaps it should be mentioned once again: that while you and I usually refer to these events as "miracles", the Bible itself is more likely to refer to them as "deeds of power". Anyway, Matthew, in his Gospel, has an interesting way of listing these miracles. He first recounts three of them. Then there is a pause during which Jesus gives his disciples a brief instruction. Following the pause Matthew then recounts three more miracles. Then another pause. And then the three final miracles. So three groups of three.

As I say, the Bible refers to these events as deeds of power, and in a rather clever way, Matthew notes that each of the nine miracles shows the power that Jesus had over a _different_ element. So nine miracles regarding nine different elements: and this, as you will see, is the real ingenuity of Matthew's arrangement. I could never remember all nine of them so I've written them out. Let me run through the nine miracles very quickly. And remember: they are divided into three groups and in each group there are three miracles. So in group _one_ the first miracle shows Jesus' power over leprosy, the second his power over paralysis, and the third his power over fever. In group _two_ the first miracle shows Jesus' power over a raging sea, the second his power over demons, and the third his power over sin. And finally in group _three_ the first miracle shows Jesus' power over death, the second his power over blindness, and the third his power over muteness or the inability to speak.

Well this is the rather elaborate framework that Matthew devised in order to display the historically unprecedented miracles of Jesus. And Matthew did this because he was aware of the key role that miracles played in the mission of Jesus, that Jesus performed these miracles primarily to proclaim that the Kingdom of God was now breaking into history, that the defeat of Satan was now underway, that God, in the person of Jesus, was now ushering in his own Kingdom of justice, righteousness and goodness, and _therefore_ , we should all repent and reform our lives, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Miracles and the Kingdom

Jn 14:7-14

Saturday – 4th Week of Easter

Right in the middle of our Gospel reading this morning there are three consecutive sentences where John uses the term "works". Let me read those three sentences again. "The Father who dwells in me is doing his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else, believe because of the works themselves. Amen, amen I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do."

It is, I think, apparent from the context that this term "works" is the word that John uses to describe what we usually call miracles. And while it's true that the term "miracle" is itself never used in the New Testament, nevertheless all four Gospel writers use words or phrases that are pretty much synonyms for our word "miracles". John, as we've seen, uses "works" or "signs" while the other Evangelists use "mighty deeds" or "acts of power". But all of these terms refer to what we, somewhat loosely, call "miracles".

The miracles that Jesus performed were, of course, many. He cured lepers, for example, and paralytics, blind people and deaf people; he calmed storms; he raised people from the dead, and he fed thousands of people with just a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish.

And then, in today's Gospel reading, Jesus says, "Whoever believes in me will do the works I do." And sure enough, Luke tells us in the _Acts of the Apostles_ , that, after Jesus ascended into heaven, Peter, Mark and Paul all went on to perform miracles as well, just as Jesus had. (3:1-10; 9:32-42; 14:8-10)

Shortly thereafter, however, it all came to an end. The great Age of Miracles came to an end. And that perhaps calls for a little explanation. Many of us tend to look upon the miracles of the New Testament as primarily acts of compassion. When, for example, Jesus restores sight to a blind man, we tend to assume that Jesus simply felt sorry for the man and so cured him. But this is not, this is not what the miracles of the New Testament are about. The fact is (and if I were to type up this sentence I would put it in bold type or italics or something), the fact is that the whole point of the miracles that Jesus performed was to assure and facilitate the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. Jesus once said that proclaiming the Good News of the Kingdom of God was what he was sent to do. (Lk 4:44) Proclaiming the Kingdom of God was, in other words, the main mission of Jesus; and the whole point of the miracles was to dispose people to put their faith not only in Jesus himself but also in this mission of his, and once a critical mass of people had done that, then many of those people would join forces with Jesus and become miracle working evangelizers themselves, and these evangelizers were, it seems, absolutely essential in order for the Kingdom of God to take root in the world.

This is not to say, of course, that these evangelizers were the only factor in kick-starting the Kingdom of God on earth. Clearly the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead and the infusion of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost were also major factors, but the point is that once the Kingdom of God had taken root in the world, it then seems to have been God's will for the great Age of Miracles to come to a close. Occasional miracles still occur, of course, but that great profusion, that abundance of miracles that occurred at the time of Jesus is simply no longer part of life.

So now it's up to us. By being the best Christians and the best evangelizers we can be, it's up to us now to bring about the steady increase of the Kingdom of God on earth. Which is what we pray for every day when we say, "The Kingdom come."

### \+ + +

Back to top
Miracles

Mt 17:14-20

Saturday – 18th Week Ordinary Time

In our Gospel reading today Jesus performs another of his miracles. So I thought I would try to offer a few thoughts this morning about miracles, especially about how, over the centuries, our understanding of miracles has changed.

First of all, what is a miracle? Well I suppose that an initial attempt to describe a miracle would say that it is something that contradicts scientific laws. My Webster's dictionary, however, is much more precise than that. It doesn't say that a miracle contradicts scientific laws. Rather, it says that a miracle _apparently_ contradicts _known_ scientific laws. And both of those extra words, "apparently" and "known" are, as we shall see, extremely important. This, at any rate, is Webster's complete definition: a miracle is an event or action that apparently contradicts known scientific laws and is hence thought to be due to supernatural causes, especially to an act of God.

Back in Biblical times, of course, people did not think in terms of scientific laws. The Israelites, furthermore, were God's chosen people, and as part of his covenant with the Israelites, Yahweh constantly watched over his people, protected them, nourished them and was always there for them, so at least in a general way, the Israelites were completely familiar with Yahweh intervening on their behalf. When, however, God intervened in some extraordinary way, such as happened, for example, at the Passover event, that event would then be regarded as a special sign or a mighty deed but it would not have been seen as something contrary to nature.

Later on, when Jesus performed what we call miracles, as he does in today's Gospel, these actions too were referred to simply as signs or mighty deeds.

But then, in the 17th and 18th centuries, along came the scientific age, the age of Enlightenment, when Isaac Newton, for example, formulated his famous laws of motion, and once this scientific age took hold, the mighty deeds that Jesus performed began to be seen as actions that were contrary to the laws of nature. At the time some Christians found it awkward to admit that Jesus would do something contrary to nature, so they scurried around looking for explanations that would satisfy both what the Scriptures reported and this new scientific way of thinking. So, for example, they would say, yes, Jesus fed 5000 people with five loaves of bread but Jesus also had a huge supply of bread stashed away in a nearby cave, and those were the loaves that his disciples distributed to the crowd. And yes, Jesus walked on water but he was walking on wooden planks or boards that were floating in the water.

Well that was the 18th century, a century that is long gone now, and I gather that, at present, many theologians have taken the position that the miracles of Jesus were not, in fact, contrary to nature. Their reasoning process, if I understand it correctly, is that we have now come to understand that nature is far more mysterious than we had previously thought, that nature has, in fact, been richly endowed by God with profound healing powers; and while we 21st century human beings are only now, and only in a rudimentary way, beginning to tap into these sources, two thousand years ago, Jesus seems not only to have intuitively sensed the presence of these powers but also to have had the unique ability to unleash those powers.

When, in other words, Jesus healed a blind or lame or otherwise sick person, he understood that hidden, like prisoners, deep within that person were these wonderful God given healing powers, powers that only he, only Jesus could release, and Jesus then cured that person by unlocking those powers and setting them free to do their work. And these were the mighty deeds, the truly miraculous deeds of Jesus.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Jesus and Lazarus

Jn 11:45-56

Saturday – 5th Week of Lent

Today's Gospel reading tells us what happened immediately _after_ Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, but what happened shortly _before_ the raising up of Lazarus is equally important. John's Gospel mentions two issues of special interest: first, the anti-Jesus faction had, for some time, been intent on killing Jesus (Jn 7:1) and had only recently wanted to stone him to death (Jn 10:31); and second, after the near stoning incident, Jesus went to stay for a time in a region called Perea, which was a relatively safe place for him to be, since Perea was on the other side of the Jordan River from Jordan where the anti-Jesus group held sway. (Jn 10:40)

Meanwhile, Lazarus and his two sisters Martha and Mary, who were probably Jesus' closest personal friends, lived in the little town of Bethany, which was just a couple of miles outside of Jerusalem, and Jerusalem, as you know, was not only the political and religious center of Judea but was also the absolute stronghold of the anti-Jesus crowd. Well, Lazarus then became seriously ill, and his sisters sent word to Jesus over in Perea that his dear friend Lazarus was dying. On receiving the news Jesus decided to leave the safety of Perea and go to Bethany, which meant, of course, that he would be walking into an extremely dangerous situation. Thomas the Apostle, in fact, realized that, if Jesus insisted on going to Bethany, he would almost certainly be killed; but, at the same time, Thomas bravely said to his fellow disciples, "Let us also go, to die with him" (Jn 11:16).

So this is the first point I want to make this morning: that in going to Bethany, Jesus was well aware that he was, in fact, virtually sacrificing his own life in order to raise up Lazarus from the dead and, in doing that, to provide all of us with a sign of God's power to restore to life those who have died.

The other point I want to make this morning is that John the Evangelist, the author of this episode about Lazarus, quite clearly was wanting his readers to see the resurrection of Lazarus as a kind of preview of Christ's own Resurrection. In a moment I want to mention the five little devices by which the Evangelist did that, but I should probably mention first that what happened to Lazarus and what happened to Jesus were two entirely different things. Because when Jesus called Lazarus forth from the tomb, he was simply giving Lazarus back the life he previously had, with exactly the same body he previously had; which means that Lazarus would someday die again. Whereas, when Jesus rose from the dead he assumed a brand new life and a brand new body, a body that could take on different forms and could appear and disappear at will, and would never die again. So, to distinguish between the two phenomena, some people call what happened to Lazarus not a resurrection but a resuscitation, while other people call what happened to Jesus a Resurrection with a capital R, and what happened to Lazarus a resurrection with a small, lower case r. So, I guess you can take your pick.

But let me get back now to those five little ways in which John the Evangelist tied the two events together. First of all, as I already mentioned, he introduced Thomas the Apostle into the Lazarus event and, as we all know, Thomas was portrayed as the doubting Thomas in the Jesus event. Second, in both events the burial place is described in almost exactly the same terms: as a cave with a large stone rolled across the entrance. Third, both Lazarus and Jesus left behind the linen burial cloths. Fourth, in each case there was a woman named Mary grieving near the tomb, Mary Magdalen for Jesus, and Mary, Lazarus' sister for him. And fifth, both men had lain in their tomb for several days prior to their resurrection. So this is the way John ties together the two resurrections.

Finally, let me close by calling to your attention that, in today's Gospel reading, Caiaphas said that it was better for one man to die _instead_ of the people, but John the Evangelist notes that what Caiaphas was unwittingly doing was prophesying that Jesus would die not _instead_ of the people but _for_ the people: "he would die for the nation and not only for the nation but also to gather into one the dispersed children of God." Which, of course, is exactly what Jesus did.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Messiah and the Donkey

Jn 7:40-53

Saturday – 4th Week of Lent

For many centuries now a king has become a king by being crowned. Among the ancient Israelites, however, a king became a king not by being crowned but by being anointed. This anointing was, in fact, regarded as being so absolutely essential that an Israelite king came to be known simply as "the anointed one", and since the Hebrew word for "the anointed one" is "messiah", every Israelite king was a messiah. But that was messiah with a small m, a lower case m.

Over the course of several centuries, however, the Hebrew Scriptures began to speak of a Messiah with a capital M; and this Messiah, this king would become the great king of the ages. According to the prophets he would be a descendant of King David and at some unknown point in the future he would establish in the world the reign of God.

Well, in our Gospel reading today some people in the crowd, people who had perhaps witnessed some of Jesus' mighty deeds and had heard him speak as no one had ever spoken before, these people were of the opinion that this very impressive Jesus might very well be the long awaited Messiah. It's true that in our English translation of the Gospel the question is not whether Jesus is the _Messiah_ but whether he is the _Christ_ , but I think you know that the Hebrew term "messiah" is regularly translated into English as "the Christ", so the basic issue of our Gospel reading remains the same: is Jesus the Messiah? Is he the king who will usher in God's Kingdom and save his people?

The point I really want to make this morning is that, despite the fact that throughout his public ministry, Jesus did his best to play down any rumors about his being the Messiah, because he was concerned it would be misunderstood, despite that, at the very end of his life, just before he is to be executed, Jesus decides to declare, clearly though symbolically, that he is indeed the Messiah. The story is a strange one, almost a funny one because it goes into such detail about what appears to be a very minor matter, namely: how do we get a donkey? Not a noble horse, mind you, but just a plain old donkey. Jesus, however, wanted that donkey. It was very important to him. He needed it to make his point. Let me read for you Mark's account of the event:

When they were approaching Jerusalem, in sight of Bethphage and Bethany, close by the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples and said to them, 'Go off to the village facing you, and as soon as you enter it you will find a tethered colt that no one has yet ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone says to you, "What are you doing?" say, "The Master needs it and will send it back here directly." 'They went off and found a colt [of a donkey] (Mt 21:2) tethered near a door in the open street. As they untied it, some men standing there said, 'What are you doing, untying that colt?' They gave the answer Jesus had told them, and the men let them go. Then they took the colt to Jesus. (Mk 11:1-7)

Well, as you know, Jesus then rides the colt into Jerusalem. Which might seem to some a rather ordinary thing to do but there is absolutely nothing ordinary about it. Far from it. It is, in fact, the royal entrance of a king into his city. Jesus is now proclaiming that he is indeed the Messiah/King and that his humble entry into Jerusalem is a sign that the Kingdom of God is now entering history.

To us, perhaps, none of this is clear. But what is not clear to us was apparently crystal clear to those who witnessed it because as soon as they saw Jesus on the donkey, they quickly spread their cloaks on the road and shouted, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Blessed is the kingdom of our father, David, that is to come. Hosanna in the highest!" So what did those Jews of old know that we do not? What had they read that we have not? What they had read was the prophecy of Zechariah written some 500 years earlier, and let me close with that. It makes everything clear.

Rejoice heart and soul, daughter of Jerusalem! Shout with gladness, daughter of Jerusalem! See now, your king comes to you; he is victorious, he is triumphant, humble and riding on a donkey. He will banish chariots from Ephraim and horses from Jerusalem; the bow of war will be banished. He will proclaim peace for the nations. His empire will stretch from sea to sea from the River to the ends of the earth. (Zc 9:9-10)

### \+ + +

Back to top
Jesus a Rabbi?

Jn 1:45-51

August 24 – Feast of St. Bartholomew

Today is the Feast of St. Bartholomew the Apostle but our Gospel reading today is about Nathaniel, and the explanation for this is that Bartholomew and Nathaniel are one and the same person. He just happened to be known by two different names. In all three Gospel listings of the Twelve Apostles he goes by the name of Bartholomew but in today's Gospel reading he is known as Nathaniel.

So with that said let's turn to our Gospel reading. In this reading Bartholomew (or Nathaniel if you will) addresses Jesus as "Rabbi", which brings up the rather interesting matter of the various ways in which Jesus is, in fact, quite different from a rabbi.

First of all, when a young man back in those days, wanted to live a particularly holy life in a traditional way, he would approach a rabbi and ask the rabbi to take him on as one of his students. It was simply not the custom for a rabbi to take the initiative and invite a young man to be his student. It was always the other way around. It was always the student who took the initiative. With Jesus, however, it was the opposite. Jesus took the initiative. He went out and selected the people he wanted to be his disciples.

Secondly, once a rabbi agreed to take on a young man as a disciple, the disciple was there for one reason only: to study the Torah, the sacred Mosaic Law as it had been handed down for centuries from one rabbi to another. It was all about studying the Torah. The emphasis, in other words, was not on the person of the rabbi but on the Torah. With Jesus, however, it was different. His disciples were there to put their complete trust and faith in Jesus, and while Jesus certainly taught them about the law, they did not spend much of their time studying the fine points of the Torah. Rather, Jesus sent them out among the people with the mission of curing the sick and proclaiming the Kingdom of God. With Jesus, in other words, it was definitely _not_ all about the Torah.

Thirdly, the disciples of a rabbi were treated as the rabbi's servants, cleaning his house and courtyard. Why? Because that was another way of learning the Torah, of seeing how the Torah was lived out in practice by their teacher, but the fact is that the students were still the servants of the rabbi. Again, however, with Jesus it was different. Jesus was the servant of _all_ , including his disciples. He came, as he said, not to be served but to serve, and at the Last Supper it was he who washed the feet of the disciples and not the other way around.

And finally a rabbi always had an established, stable dwelling where he taught the Torah, whereas Jesus was, as we know, a barnstormer, almost always on the move, frequently with no place to lay his head.

So it's true that Jesus was sometimes referred to as a rabbi but he was, in fact, very different from a rabbi. He was a Proclaimer of the Kingdom of God, and he had his own method, his own style which was untraditional and may have been off-putting to many young men who wanted to study the Torah as a way to holiness. Jesus, however, had a magic about him, a charm and an overwhelming self-confidence that prompted young men like Bartholomew to leave everything behind and follow Jesus with their whole heart and soul. And you and I, of course, as disciples of Jesus, we too are called to do the same, to follow Jesus with our whole heart and soul.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Jesus the Prophet

Lk 9:43b-45

Saturday – 25th Week Ordinary Time

All three of the synoptic writers, Matthew, Mark and Luke, mention that, during Jesus' public ministry, he three times predicted that he would soon be handed over to men and put to death, and that on the third day he would rise again. Our Gospel reading this morning is Luke's account of Jesus' second prophecy of his passion. And while this second prophecy in Luke is rather vague, the first and third are anything but vague. In his first prophecy Jesus says that he will be rejected by the elders, put to death and raised up on the third day (9:22), and in his third prophecy Jesus says that he will be mocked, spat upon and scourged before being put to death, and that he will rise up on the third day. (18:32-34)

Well these predictions are so specific and so detailed that some authors are of the opinion that they are anachronistic, in the sense that Jesus could not possibly have made such specific predictions prior to the time the events actually happened. Jesus, they say, was not only true God; he was also true man; but no true man can predict the future in such detail. It's simply not possible.

In this particular case, however, it seems to me that several factors did make it possible for Jesus to have predicted with some degree of specificity what was in store for him. Let me mention a few of those factors.

First of all, Jesus' first prophecy is reported in chapter 9 of Luke's Gospel but already in chapter 6, after Jesus cured, on the Sabbath, the man with the withered hand, Luke reports that the scribes and Pharisees were "enraged and discussed together what they might do to Jesus." (6:11, see also Mk 3:1-6) Well, given the fact that Jesus was now aware that the scribes and Pharisees were already plotting against him, it would not, it seems, be too difficult for Jesus to deduce what sort of tortures the scribes and Pharisees might come up with.

But second, what about the prophecy that Jesus will rise up from the dead on the third day? Well this too was not, I think, beyond the reasoning powers of Jesus. Because Jesus was certainly familiar with the prophet Jonah who was, in a way, a symbol of the Messiah and who spent three days and three nights in the belly of the fish. (2:1) And Jesus was also familiar with the prophet Hosea who wrote that a day or two after we are struck down Yahweh "will bring us back to life and on the third day he will raise us and we shall live in his presence." (6:2) So Jesus, as one who was completely familiar with these passages from the Hebrew scriptures, and also as one who had, by that time, some sense of his Messiahship, could, it seems, feel somewhat confident in prophesying that he would rise up on the third day.

Thirdly, let me close with one final factor, a factor which seems almost proof positive that Jesus did, in fact, prophesy in some detail during his public ministry about his death and resurrection. And that last factor is this, that according to Luke, after Jesus did in fact rise up from the dead, the two angels at the tomb actually reminded the women who had come to the tomb about the prophecies that Jesus had made months before. The account of this incident is in chapter 24 of Luke and let me close with this quotation. It is one of the angels speaking, and he says to the women:

"Why look among the dead for someone who is alive? He is not here; he has risen. Remember what he told you when he was still in Galilee: that the Son of Man had to be handed over into the power of sinful men and be crucified and rise again on the third day?" And they remembered his words. (24:5-8)

### \+ + +

Back to top

### LITURGICAL SEASONS AND EVENTS

Our Liturgical Year

Lk 21:34-36

Saturday – 34th Week Ordinary Time

Today is the last day of the church year so let's talk a little about the church year. As one might expect, the church year begins at the beginning, that is to say, it begins with the birth of Christ. And the reason the church year begins around _December_ first rather than January first has to do with the _date_ of Christ's birth. By the time Jesus had risen from the dead and had been recognized as the only Son of God come to earth, no one knew the _actual_ date of his birth so early on it was decided that, because Christ was the Light of the world and because the winter solstice was the time of the year when the world was most in need of light, henceforth December 25th would be recognized as the official date of Christ's birth. Next it was decided to set aside a few weeks of preparation for the great event of December 25th, and that, as I say, is why the church year begins around the first of _December_ rather than the first of January.

If someone came along who knew nothing at all about how our liturgical year is arranged, that person would most likely presume that the year would follow a strict _chronological_ order. So it would go something like this: after Christmas, December 25th, the events of Christ's childhood would be remembered. Then, maybe around the beginning of February, the liturgy, especially the Gospel readings at Mass, would begin to focus on the public ministry of Christ. We would then spend the next seven or eight months at Mass reflecting on Christ's public ministry, which would bring us to September. Then, during the last three months of the church year (September, October and November) the readings at Mass would concentrate on the passion, death and resurrection of Christ, and eventually on the coming of the Holy Spirit. So, in effect, the final days of Jesus on earth would be commemorated during the final days of the church year. That would be an outline of a strictly _chronological_ arrangement of the church year.

But in fact, of course, this is not at all the way our liturgical year is arranged. And the basic reason we follow a _different_ order has to do with the time of the Last Supper. The actual Last Supper took place, as you know, at Passover time, which is in the spring. And Passover, remember, is the great Hebrew commemoration of God setting his people free from slavery in Egypt. Well it was clear from the very beginning that the church would absolutely insist on celebrating the Last Supper only at Passover time because the Last Supper, along with the death and Resurrection of Jesus, was the _New Passover_ story, the story of Jesus, the great Liberator setting the world free from the grip of Satan and leading it gradually into the Kingdom of God. And since this matter of celebrating the Last Supper only at Passover time was an absolutely non-negotiable issue, a strictly chronological arrangement of the church year was, quite obviously, off the table.

So our church year actually goes like this. Advent, Christmas and the Christmas season take up December and January, and in February the Gospel readings at Mass begin to recount for us the events of the public ministry of Jesus. This period during which we remember Christ's public ministry is known as Ordinary Time, but after about eight weeks of that, spring is arriving and it's time to interrupt Ordinary Time and start preparing for the events surrounding the Last Supper. So roughly during March, April and May we have Lent, Holy Week, Easter, the post Resurrection appearances of Jesus and finally the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Then, starting in June we return to Ordinary Time and that takes us right up until the end of November, right up, indeed, to the day before Jesus enters Jerusalem where he will be crucified. Which is today's Gospel reading.

So let me sum up. We have these two ways of arranging the church year: the chronological way and the actual way. In the chronological way, the death and resurrection of Jesus take place at the _end_ of the church year, whereas in the actual way, the death and resurrection of Jesus take place towards the _beginning_ of the year, with the remainder of the year being filled out with narratives about the public ministry of Jesus. Well clearly, obviously, more than obviously, the chronological way is, pure and simple, the better way. So why on earth did the church choose the other way? Well the simple answer, and let me close with this, the simple answer is that, despite the impressive merits of the chronological way, it is only the non-chronological way that makes the all-important, essential point that Jesus is the New Passover, the Great Liberator, the Ultimate Fulfillment of God's plan of salvation.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Two Parousia Figures

Mt 17:9a, 10-13

Saturday – 2nd Week of Advent

I mentioned last week that Advent is about the _two_ comings of Christ, the first being his birth in Bethlehem, the second being his return at the end of time which is known as the Parousia. I also mentioned that there are two stages to Advent. Stage one goes from the First Sunday of Advent until December 16. The second stage begins on December 17 and ends on December 24. The liturgical emphasis during the last eight days before Christmas is, as you might expect, on the _birth_ of Jesus, his first coming into the world. At present, however, we are still in stage one of Advent, and the liturgical emphasis during _this_ stage is on the Parousia when Jesus will come to earth a second time.

So how exactly does the liturgy emphasize the Parousia during stage one? Well primarily it does it by having us read a lot, a whole lot from the prophet Isaiah. On Monday we celebrated the feast of the Immaculate Conception but apart from Monday and up until today our first reading at every single Mass for the past two weeks has been from Isaiah. But why Isaiah? Because Isaiah, in his uniquely poetic way, is, over and over again, writing about the End Time, when streams will burst forth in the desert, when the wolf will be the guest of the lamb, when the veil that veils all people will be destroyed, when the eyes of the blind will see, when the tyrant and the arrogant will be gone, when the Lord will bind up all the wounds of his people, and all peoples and all nations will reverence in awe the one true God, and all the world will rejoice in the peaceable kingdom. That's Isaiah.

Our first reading today, however, is not from Isaiah. It's from Sirach. But like the passages from Isaiah, it too is referring to the Parousia. Because this reading from Sirach is about Elijah, and Elijah and Isaiah are the two great Parousia figures from the Hebrew Scriptures. They are, however, Parousia figures for different reasons. Isaiah is a Parousia person because he wrote so beautifully about the End Time. Whereas Elijah is a Parousia person because, according to a centuries-old Hebrew legend, Elijah will actually be present at the End Time. Listen, for example, to the prophet Malachi, who lived some 400 years after the time of Elijah and another 400 years before the time of Jesus. This is what Malachi writes; Yahweh is speaking:

For you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness will shine out with healing in its rays; you will leap like calves going out to pasture.... Remember the Law of my servant Moses to whom at Horeb I prescribed laws and customs for the whole of Israel. Know that I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before my day comes, that great and terrible day. (3:20 and 22-24)

So by turning our attention to Elijah, the liturgy today is still emphasizing the _second_ coming of Jesus, and it will continue to do so until December 17 when the emphasis will then be on Jesus' first coming, his birth in Bethlehem of Judea.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Lenten Liturgy

Mt 5:43-48

Saturday – 1st Week of Lent

Before we get any further into Lent I want to point out that the liturgical season of Lent is divided into two stages. Perhaps the first thing to note about the stages of Lent is that in stage one (roughly the first three weeks of Lent) all of the Gospel readings at Mass are from one of the synoptic writers, either Matthew, Mark or Luke, while in stage two (the last three weeks of Lent) all of the Gospel readings are from John. That's one of the ways in which the two stages are different. Another way is that each stage has its own distinctive character, in that stage one describes a problem whereas stage two tells us about the solution to that problem. And together, the two stages clarify for us what Lent is all about. So what exactly is Lent all about? My own answer to that question is: Lent is all about our accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior. This is what Lent is all about. It's about our accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

And with that said, let's take a look at stage one, where all the Gospel readings are focusing on a single theme, which is this: the lifestyle to which Jesus is calling us is formidable, arduous and demanding, so demanding, in fact, that quite clearly it is not something we can accomplish on our own. For example, in the Gospel reading on the day after Ash Wednesday, Jesus says, "If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it." That was the Gospel reading last Thursday. Then, on this past Tuesday, Jesus says that if we do not forgive those who have offended us, then God the Father will not forgive us. And in today's Gospel reading Jesus tells us that we should love our _enemy_ , not just tolerate but _love_ our enemy. Which, for most of us, is the ultimate challenge and a task that few of us even come close to accomplishing. Not only that but Jesus also tells us in today's Gospel that we should be _perfect_ just as our heavenly Father is perfect. And these are just a few representative examples of the theme that we hear over and over again during the first three weeks of Lent: that the lifestyle to which we have been called is simply beyond us. It is not something we can do on our own. That's the central theme of stage one where the problem is described.

Which brings us to stage two where the problem is solved. Stage two opens on the Fourth Sunday of Lent where the Gospel reading tells us that Jesus gives sight to a man who has been blind from birth. On the very next day, Monday, Jesus cures the son of a royal official and then, during the next couple of weeks we see Jesus first cure the man who has been ill for thirty-eight years, and then actually raise up from the dead his friend Lazarus; after which Jesus says, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live and whoever believes in me will never die." And finally Jesus tells his fellow Jews, "Before Abraham came to be, I AM," meaning that he is Yahweh, the one true God. This, in short, is the oft repeated theme of stage two: that Jesus is the One, the One who cures the sick, restores life to the dead, and is the Savior of all who believe in him.

In a nutshell, therefore, what the Lenten liturgy is saying is first, that we are the problem, and second, that Jesus is the solution. Which is why it is true to say that Lent is all about our accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Thinking as God Does

Lk 15:1-3, 11-32

Saturday – 2nd Week of Lent

Last Saturday I mentioned that the central theme of the Gospel readings during stage one of Lent is that, by ourselves, we are not really capable of being true followers, true disciples of Jesus. And that's because, in order to be a true, perfect disciple of Jesus, we would have to be perfectly selfless and perfectly loving; and that's just not who we are. The role of the perfect disciple, in other words, is too demanding; it's too lofty for us to attain. It's simply beyond our reach. We can _try_ to be a perfect disciple, and we _should_ try, but we must face the fact that, without outside help, it's beyond our reach.

It's beyond our reach not only because we don't always _do_ what the perfect disciple would do, but also because we don't always _think_ the way the perfect disciple would think. This, as you remember, was one of St. Peter's problems. One day, when Jesus was explaining to his disciples that he would soon be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the scribes, and be put to death, Peter rebuked Jesus for saying such things, whereupon Jesus said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan, you are thinking not as God does but as human beings do." (Mk 8:33) So this, apparently, is what Jesus wants of us. He wants us to think as God does.

But to think as God does is, of course, a major challenge. Let me offer a couple of examples. Shortly before Jesus told the parable in today's Gospel he made this statement, "there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance." (Lk 15:7) Well, unless I'm mistaken, this is not _our_ experience at all. Our experience is, I suspect, the very opposite. Our joy comes mostly from all the good righteous people who are part of our lives, many of them our friends from here at St. Thomas More, people who inspire us and encourage us and are there for us both in good times and in bad. We certainly respect and admire the courage of the repentant sinner when we know of him, but for the most part, _our_ joy comes not so much from the one repentant sinner as it does from the so-called ninety-nine righteous people, the people, in other words, who have been so influential and so uplifting in our lives over the years. So I guess this means that, in this instance at least, we are thinking not as God does but as human beings do.

The other example is today's parable where the father loves both his sons but throws a huge party to welcome the younger son back into the family. Well, some of us, as we read this parable, feel that, had the father shown some restraint and required the younger son to work as a hired hand for maybe a couple of years before being accepted back into the family; had the father done that, it might have been better for everyone involved, including the younger son. Part of the problem, furthermore, is that this is not just some anonymous story or legend but a parable of Jesus, a parable in which the father clearly represents God the Father, and it seems altogether inappropriate to portray God the Father as one who responds so lavishly and extravagantly towards one son while seeming to ignore, at least temporarily, the other son. I suspect, however, that those of us who feel this way about the parable are thinking not as God does but as human beings do.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Being Justified by Our Savior

Lk 18:9-14

Saturday – 3rd Week of Lent

Today is the final day of stage one of Lent. Stage one is sometimes known as the Pilgrim stage because it's primarily about us, and we are all pilgrims trying to make our way through life; we are all on a pilgrimage to the Promised Land.

On this final day of stage one the liturgy provides us with a Gospel reading that has got to be the perfect Gospel passage for the occasion. It's a parable about two men who go up to the temple area to pray; and it concludes by saying that one man went home "justified" while the other did not.

That term "justified" has, as you know, several meanings. When, for example, a police officer fires his weapon at someone, there will often be an investigation to determine whether or not the shooting was "justified", that is to say, warranted by the evidence. Then, in the field of printing, we speak of "justified" margins, meaning that every line on a page is of exactly the same length. The term "justify", however, also has a theological meaning, which is probably the most basic or radical meaning of the word. In theology the word "justify", simply means to make just. In theology, furthermore, it is understood that only God, God alone can make us just, and that God does this by washing away all our sins, by forgiving and forgetting all our sins.

Well, in our parable today, the one who goes home justified is the one who sees himself as a sinner, a sinner who is in absolute need of God's mercy, while the one who goes home unjustified is the man who _seems_ to be offering a prayer of thanksgiving but who, in fact, is merely stating his belief that he is superior to others and is quite satisfied with himself. Clearly this is a man who has never understood the call of Jesus to "repent and reform your lives for the Kingdom of God is at hand."

I said that this parable is the perfect Gospel reading with which to conclude stage one because this is precisely what the Pilgrim stage is all about. It's about our absolute need to recognize our dependence on God, our absolute need for a Savior-God, a God who will save us, who will justify us, who will make us just by forgiving all our sins and setting us free. That's stage one.

Then, tomorrow, we begin stage two of Lent which, because it is primarily about Christ, is sometimes known as the Christological stage. Tomorrow, the Fourth Sunday of Lent, is known as Laetare Sunday, laetare being the Latin word for rejoice. Tomorrow, in other words, is Rejoice Sunday, because for the next few weeks we will begin to rejoice that we have in our lives Jesus, the one who cures the sick and restores life to those who have died, who dies himself but then rises up from the dead to be the Savior of all, the Savior of all of us pilgrims who believe in him.

### \+ + +

Back to top

### TEACHINGS, PARABLES, DISCOURSES

Creation in Genesis

Gn 3:9-24

Saturday – 5th Week Ordinary Time

All this week our reading at Mass has been from the early chapters in the Book of Genesis so I thought I would offer a few brief observations this morning on those chapters.

If you sit down and read the first three chapters of Genesis from start to finish they seem, at first glance, to be a natural unit in that God first creates the universe and then he creates Adam and Eve, and it all seems to flow with a nice continuity. The scholars, however, tell us that the first three chapters of Genesis are not a single unit at all. Rather, they say, what we have here are two distinct and very different traditions about creation. So let me try to summarize for you what the scholars have figured out.

First of all the older of the two Hebrew traditions about creation goes back to about the year 950 BC and was all about Adam and Eve. It is what we now have in chapters 2 and 3 in Genesis. In this account God always goes by the name Yahweh, and Yahweh has a very human shape. Yahweh walks in the garden in the cool of the day and he talks to Adam and he talks to Eve and he talks to the serpent. It's all very vivid and imaginative and colorful and folksy, and above all, memorable. That's the older of the two accounts.

The other account, which is now chapter one in Genesis, came along about 400 years later, so around the year 550 BC. In this account God is never called Yahweh but always Elohim in Hebrew, or simply God, and God, in this account, never takes on a human shape. And there's nothing even remotely folksy in this account. Quite the opposite. It's very structured, rigidly structured and repetitive and solemn. Take the six days of creation, for example. Each day has the same internal structure. First God says, "Let there be" – something (on the first day it's light) and there was that something. And then it concludes, "Evening came and morning came the first day" – the second day, and so on.

And the six days are really two sets of three. And by that I mean that day 1 matches up with day 4; 2 with 5, and 3 with 6. So on day 1, for example, God creates light and then on day 4 he creates the sun and the moon as the sources of that light. You can check out 2 and 5 and 3 and 6 on your own, and when you do you will see how rigidly and cleverly structured the whole account is. And also how altogether different this account is from the Adam and Eve story.

And once we become aware of all this, then almost certainly a certain something will dawn on us, something we all know deep down but which we sometimes forget, namely that there is more, much more to the Bible than meets the eye.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Paul's Gospel

Lk 10:17-24

Saturday – 26th Week Ordinary Time

The great St. Paul was born in Tarsus, a city located in what is now Turkey. Paul, or Saul as he was known then, grew up as a devout Jew, studied under a renowned rabbi, became himself a rather rigid Pharisee, and, as a young man, came, probably for the first time, to the city of Jerusalem where Jesus had died two or three years earlier. Early on Saul learned that this Jesus was a man who had been condemned by the Jewish authorities, so when Saul heard the early Christians claiming that Jesus was, in fact, the God-approved Messiah, this sounded like out and out blasphemy to Saul, and he began to persecute those early Christians wherever and whenever he could.

But then, of course, Saul, on his way to Damascus one day, experienced that mystical encounter with Jesus, and following that encounter Saul became the Ultimate Convert. He underwent a conversion so profound and so intense that it is, I think, no exaggeration to say that nothing quite like it has ever occurred since. For, once Paul came to realize who Jesus really was, that Jesus was God-become-man, that he was the fulfillment of God's eternal plan of salvation, that he was the Savior not only of the Jews but of the entire human race; once Paul realized all this, he was overwhelmed with the sense that this was not only the best news that he himself had ever heard but the best news that _anyone_ could _ever possibly_ hear.

There was, of course, a word in Greek for "good news"; the word was evaggelion, but the good news that Paul had come to embrace was not the run-of-the-mill, garden-variety of evaggelion; it was _the_ Evaggelion, or what we have come to call the Gospel, the Greatest News that ever was. Paul wrote his famous Letters at least a decade before the first of the four Gospels was written but it was Paul who popularized the word Gospel, the Evaggelion as it applied to Jesus as Savior. Paul used the word almost fifty times in his Letters and he came to see himself as the steward, the servant of this Gospel, this wonderful news.

In testimony of this let me read for your just two brief passages from Paul. First a couple of verses from Paul's Letter to the Romans:

Glory to him who is able to give you the strength to live according to the Gospel I preach, and in which I proclaim Jesus Christ, the revelation of a mystery kept secret for endless ages but now so clear that it must be broadcast everywhere. (16:25-26)

And one from his Letter to the Colossians:

I became the servant of the Church when God made me responsible for delivering God's message to you, the message which was a mystery hidden for generations and centuries and has now been revealed to his saints.... The mystery is Christ among you, your hope of glory. (1:25-27)

And this, of course, is the mystery that Jesus is talking about in our Gospel reading today when he says to his disciples, "Blessed are the eyes that see what you see. For I say to you, many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it."

### \+ + +

Back to top
Being Childlike

Mt 19:13-15

Saturday – 19th Week Ordinary Time

By this time you're probably tired of my reminding you of the five major discourses in Matthew's Gospel, but I have to do it one more time this morning because on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of the past week we read at Mass from Jesus' fourth major discourse, the one known as the ecclesial discourse. It's called the ecclesial discourse because it contains Jesus' advice to the members of the ecclesial community, the community we call the church. As we might expect, therefore, Jesus is telling us in this discourse how we should conduct ourselves precisely insofar as we are members of the church. How, in other words, do we members of the church get along together? How do we interact among ourselves?

Despite the fact, however, that this fourth discourse is primarily about the church and not about the Kingdom of God, it nevertheless begins with the disciples asking Jesus, "Who is the greatest in the Kingdom of God?" The presumed explanation for this rather odd beginning is that when Matthew was writing his Gospel, which was around the year 85, he was, of course, living in an ecclesial community, where undoubtedly there was some sort of structure, with some people being in charge and others who were not. And when Matthew wrote this passage he was, at it were, picturing the disciples of Jesus being in a similar community, with some people being in authority and others not, and the disciples want to know whether this is also the way it's going to be in the Kingdom. In other words, will some people in the Kingdom be greater than others? And Jesus responds that no, that's not the way it will be in the Kingdom. Self-seeking, prestige, ambition, rank, power, all these things, says Jesus, will do nothing but keep one _out of_ the Kingdom. Maybe such things work in the world, and, to some extent, they might even work in the Church, but the only way into the Kingdom, says Jesus, is to become like a little child, which, in the thinking of the time, meant to become like someone who has no rights at all. That, says Jesus, is the only way into the Kingdom.

Because this is the _ecclesial_ discourse, however, there is an unspoken implication here, and that is that, to the extent possible, the church should reflect the Kingdom, and therefore we should all be doing our best right now to practice or rehearse our role in the Kingdom. Right here and now, in other words, we should be trying to be as childlike as we can possibly be, especially in our relations with one another.

I mention all this because today's Gospel reading, while not actually part of the ecclesial discourse that we read during midweek, is nevertheless clearly rooted in it. And the message is the same: when the Kingdom finally reaches the stage when it is fully realized, which may be tomorrow or a thousand years from tomorrow, one thing is for sure and that is that it will belong to the childlike. And we should all therefore be working as hard and as smart as we can to develop to the fullest our childlike qualities so that, by tomorrow at the latest, we will be the children Jesus is looking for to inhabit the beautiful Kingdom of God.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Following Christ

Mt 6:24-34

Saturday – 11th Week Ordinary time

Our Gospel reading today is a sermon or a homily that Jesus gave to his disciples one day, and it is so beautiful and so profound that at one point I thought that, in place of a homily this morning, I would just read this Gospel passage one more time, very slowly, to give you more time to think about it. In the end, however, I decided to offer just a few simple observations on these extraordinary words of Jesus.

We, of course, look upon ourselves as Christians. But what is a Christian? A Christian is someone who is committed to following Christ. But ah, who is Christ? Well first of all, Christ is the Man for Others. He is the one who lives not for self but for others. He is the one who throws himself on the grenade in order to save his buddies. And in its simplest terms, this is what our Gospel reading today is all about. Either we live for self or we live for others.

Jesus, as we know, lived for others, not for himself but for others. And real Christians do the same. So real Christians don't worry about what they're going to eat or drink or wear because they don't go through life, preoccupied with themselves. They go through life concerned about others, especially about those who are being treated unjustly, and real Christians do what they can to correct injustices wherever they exist.

When people of the world hear Christians described this way, they tend to infer that Christianity must attract only people with low self-esteem, people who think too little of themselves, or people who want to punish themselves because they are plagued with guilt, or people who feel that they're not worthy, that they don't deserve to really enjoy life with all its pleasure. But the truth is that real Christians are simply people who love others and who are willing and eager to live with less so that others will not starve.

Real Christians, furthermore, are followers not only of Christ the Man for Others but also of Christ the Only Human Being ever to Rise from the Dead. Real Christians, in other words, live with the belief or at least the hope that if they seek _first_ the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, then all things, all things will be given them besides.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Call of Christ

Lk 6:43-49

Saturday – 23rd Week Ordinary Time

Both Matthew and Luke record, in their Gospels, a particularly memorable sermon given by Jesus. It's the same sermon but there are some differences between Matthew's account of the sermon (5-7) and Luke's (6:20-49). One difference is that Luke's account is only about one third the length of Matthew's, but that's largely because several of the verses in Matthew refer to _Jewish_ customs and practices, and since Luke was writing not for a Jewish but for a _gentile_ audience, he just decided to omit those verses. Another interesting difference between the two accounts is that Matthew's account is known as the Sermon on the _Mount_ because he portrays Jesus as having been on a hill as he gave the sermon, whereas Luke's account is known as the Sermon on the _Plain_ because, according to Luke, Jesus had just come down from the hill and was on level ground when he gave the sermon.

On Wednesday morning at Mass we read the _opening_ verses of Luke's account of the sermon, and this morning we read its _final, closing_ verses. These final, closing verses, if I may summarize, are basically saying that if we are good people at the very core of our being, then we will put into practice what we have heard in the _body_ of the sermon; and if we do that, then all will be well.

Well most of us feel that, like the good tree that bears good fruit, we are good people at the very core of our being so just tell us in simple language what the body of the sermon wants us to do and we'll do it. It can't be that hard. But in fact it is that hard. What Jesus asks of us is very hard indeed. Because the first thing he asks of us is that we love our enemies. "Love your enemies" says Jesus, "do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you..... Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours, do not demand it back." And then Jesus says it a second time, "love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back."

Some people try to write all this off by saying that this is just typical mid-eastern exaggeration, that Jesus doesn't really expect this of us at all. But in fact he does. This is, after all, Jesus, the man for others, the man who sacrificed his very life for us and forgave his enemies, this is the one who is telling us to love our enemies. So it is _not_ hyperbole. It is not exaggeration. It is rather, the first thing Jesus wants us to do.

And the second thing he wants us to do is to be non-judgmental. "Stop judging" he says, "and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned." If we really feel compelled to take the little splinter out of our brother's eye, at least let's have the decency to take the plank out of our own eye first. But we shouldn't be judging at all. Everybody's got a few little splinters. Let them be. Just "stop judging" says Jesus, "and you will not be judged."

So we know what Jesus wants of us. It's up to us now to pray for the grace and strength of character to answer the call.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Unworthy

Mk 2:13-17

Saturday – 1st Week Ordinary Time

Jesus seemed to favor people who were unworthy. Most of us are different from Jesus in that respect. I mean most of us don't positively prefer the unworthy. But this, it seems, is precisely what Jesus did. And this, I think, is apparent both in the teachings of Jesus and in the way he lived his life as well.

Let's begin with his teachings. First there is the famous parable in Luke 14, the parable known as the Great Supper where a wealthy man invites several people to a banquet but they all make excuses so the man orders his servants to bring in the feeble, the blind and the lame and anyone else they can find, and these are the people, the people who were unworthy of an original invitation, who, in the end, enjoy the banquet. And the banquet is, of course, a symbol of the heavenly banquet. Then there is a very similar parable in Matthew 22 where a king hosts a banquet on the occasion of his son's wedding. In this parable those invited not only don't show but they maltreat his servants as well, and once again it's the people who were brought in as replacements who wind up enjoying the feast. So Jesus told that same basic story twice. Clearly he wanted to emphasize the point. Then, of course, there's the story of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 where the unworthy son who has squandered his entire inheritance is welcomed home with the fatted calf while the hard working, ever loyal, worthy son declines to join in the festivities. And let me give just one more example. And that's the story in Luke 16 about a rich man and a beggar. The rich man, incidentally, is not given a name but the beggar's name is Lazarus. Both men die, and Lazarus, after he dies, is seen resting in the bosom of Abraham whereas the rich man is banished into the nether world.

So those are a few of Jesus' teachings where the favored ones are generally viewed as unworthy. And that's exactly the way Jesus lived his life as well. When, for example, he chose his apostles, his team, he did not make what one might call savvy choices. He did not select influential, well connected people who could fund his operation and build an efficient network for him. Instead he chose the unworthy. And when Jesus cured the sick and fed the hungry and gave sight to the blind, it was almost always for people who had never achieved any notable success in life. On one occasion, it is true, he cured the servant of a centurion, a Roman officer of some standing, but as we know, that particular centurion saw himself as an unworthy recipient of the favor that Jesus bestowed on him. (Mt 8:5-13) And finally we have today's Gospel reading where Jesus has invited to dinner at his home in Capernaum (and keep in mind that Jesus is fairly new in town, but he invites) not the respectable people of the community but the despised tax collectors and sinners; in short, those generally regarded as the unworthy.

And here too, at our Eucharistic banquet, we are invited primarily because we see ourselves as unworthy. Which is why, before we enter that wondrous communion with Jesus, we say:

Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Blessed is the Womb

Lk 11:27-28

Saturday - 27th Week Ordinary Time

Our Gospel reading this morning may be understood in two different ways.

The first way is the more straightforward, the more obvious way. According to this interpretation when the woman in the crowd speaks up we take her words at face value. When, therefore, she says, "Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed" we understand that she is directly praising Jesus' mother. So in this scenario when Jesus then responds, "Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it" we understand that what Jesus is really saying is this: Yes, my mother is truly blessed but not so much because she physically gave birth; rather she is truly blessed because she has heard the word of God and observed it. My mother, in other words, is more blessed in the way she has loved God and neighbor than she is in having given birth to a child. Her more important source of excellence, in still other words, is not her physical maternity but her spiritual godliness. That's the first way to read today's Gospel passage.

The second way is to understand the woman not as complimenting Jesus' mother but as complimenting Jesus himself. Scholars who have carefully studied verbal expression among the Israelites of Jesus' time tell us that it was common at the time to praise someone by praising his or her mother; and that, they say, is exactly what the woman in the Gospel today is doing. This might seem strange and alien to us but, when you stop to think about it, we Americans do, in fact, have a kind of slang expression that does pretty much the same thing. If, for example, you and I are having a chat, and you say something wise and profound, and I want to compliment you, I might say, "Your momma didn't raise no stupid kids." And while that might seem, at first, to be complimenting your mother, it isn't really, is it? What it's really doing is complimenting you. And that, say these scholars, is not only what the woman in the Gospel was doing but was also the way Jesus understood it. So when Jesus responded, "Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it", he was politely returning the compliment to the woman who, after all, had been listening intently to Jesus and was responding enthusiastically to the word of God.

So we have these two legitimate ways of interpreting our Gospel reading this morning. Both are reasonable and both have merit. In one we see both the woman and Jesus himself praising his mother. In the other we see Jesus and the woman respectfully admiring each other in the classic "mutual admiration society". But in both interpretations the point is made that hearing the word of God and observing it are the important things.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Inheritance

Mt 19:13-15

Saturday – 19th Week Ordinary Time

I want to say a few words this morning about the notion of inheritance. We usually think of an inheritance as a sort of posthumous gift from one person to another, most frequently, I suppose, from parents to children where the children inherit property or other financial assets from their parents.

Well in the Bible the issue of inheritance has a somewhat broader meaning, and in this broader sense it runs like a golden thread throughout both the Old and New Testaments, and it plays such a key role in both Testaments that its importance can hardly be exaggerated.

Let's look first at the Old Testament. In the Old Testament the Israelites _inherit_ the Promised Land. They don't conquer the Promised Land or win it or purchase it. They inherit it. And they don't inherit it from their forbears, their ancestors. They inherit it from God; because God had _promised_ it to them. Which is why it's called the _Promised_ Land. On this point let me read this brief passage from the Book of Exodus where Moses is praying to God. He says to God:

Remember Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, your servants to whom by your own self you swore and made this promise: I will make your offspring as many as the stars of heaven, and all this land which I promised I will give to your descendants, and it shall be their heritage forever. (32:13)

And the fact that it was not the Israelites who earned or conquered the Promised Land but rather the Lord God who bestowed it on them as a gift is also clear from our first reading this morning where Joshua has the people say:

Far be it from us to forsake the Lord, our God, who has brought us and our fathers up out of the land of Egypt, out of a state of slavery. He performed those great miracles before our very eyes and protected us along our entire journey and among all the peoples through whom we passed. At our approach the Lord drove out all the peoples, including the Amorites who dwelt in the land. (Jos 24:16-18)

So that's the notion of inheritance in the Old Testament. What about the New? Well in the New Testament we have our own Promised Land, which is heaven, eternal life. And again, we don't earn eternal life. It is bequeathed to us. If only we have faith in Jesus we inherit it. In the second Eucharistic Prayer we pray that, along with the saints, we will be "coheirs to eternal life". And again this wonderful inheritance of ours is based on a _promise_ , the promise of Jesus when he said, "Yes, it is my Father's will that whoever sees the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and that I shall raise him up on the last day." (Jn 6:40)

Well that's a very brief, probably a too brief outline of the role of inheritance in our Sacred Scriptures. Perhaps some other day we can discuss it again in more detail, but meanwhile I hope that it will be apparent, even from these few remarks, that the role of inheritance is absolutely essential to understanding what the Bible is all about.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Eucharist

Mk 8:1-10

Saturday – 5th Week Ordinary Time

All of the earliest believers in Jesus were Jews. And I'm not talking just about the Twelve Apostles and the Seventy-two Disciples but also about the hundreds of people, the thousands actually, who had listened to the preaching of the Twelve and the Seventy-two and, while remaining completely faithful to their _Jewish_ beliefs and practices, had also come to put their faith in the Risen Christ.

It is clear from the _Acts of the Apostles_ that these Jews, these Jews for Christ, were, in groups or communities, celebrating Mass or Eucharist. But they didn't use those terms; the term they used was the "breaking of bread". To illustrate let me read just a couple of lines from chapter 2 of the _Acts of the Apostles_ and one line from chapter 20. First the two lines from chapter 2 where Peter has just preached to his brother Jews and 3000 have come to believe. Luke then writes, "These remained faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread, and to the prayers." (vs 42) and, "They went as a body to the Temple every day but met in their houses for the breaking of bread." (vs 46) And then, from chapter 20 where Paul is in Troas on a missionary journey, and Luke writes, "On the first day of the week we met to break bread." (vs 7) So it appears that early on the term that the believers used to describe their celebrations of the Lord's Supper was the "breaking of bread". That was early on.

Before the end of the first century, however, the word "eucharist" began to appear in early church documents as a replacement for the term "breaking of bread". This new term, "eucharist", as it turned out, caught on very quickly and I want to try to explain _why_ it caught on so quickly. To begin with, there are, in the Sacred Scriptures, four accounts of the bread and wine event at the Last Supper: in Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul (in 1 Corinthians 11 for Paul), and when one reads all four accounts, it is apparent that, besides Christ's _primary_ act of changing bread and wine into his body and blood, his most significant _subsidiary_ act was not the breaking of the bread or the blessing of the bread or the giving of the cup to his apostles, but rather it was his prayer of thanksgiving, his giving thanks to his Father. And that, I think is quite clear from this account by St. Luke:

Then he took some bread, and when he had _given thanks_ , broke it and gave it to them saying, 'this is my body which will be given for you; do this as a memorial of me'. He did the same with the cup (that is, having _given thanks_ , gave it to his apostles)... and said, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood which will be poured out for you.' (Lk 22:19 and 20)

Thus far, therefore, what is clear is that Jesus' act of giving thanks was an extremely important one, but that, of course, is only half the answer because it still doesn't explain where the word "eucharist" comes in, so the rest of the answer is this: the New Testament was written in Greek, and the Greek word for giving thanks is "eucharistasas" which we've shortened to "eucharist". So in all four accounts, every time it says that Jesus "gave thanks", the original Greek was "eucharistasas". And that, in a nutshell, explains why the word eucharist came to be so easily accepted as the best describer of what we do at Mass.

But why do I mention all this today? I mention it because in today's Gospel reading where Jesus feeds the four thousand people, Mark makes note of the fact that Jesus took the seven loaves of bread, gave thanks (eucharistasas), broke them and gave them to his disciples to distribute; and in doing that Mark wants us to realize that this feeding of the four thousand is a foreshadowing of the Great Eucharist and that, just as Jesus takes pity on the people in today's Gospel, so Jesus takes pity on _us_ as well, and wants to nourish us with his body and his blood so that we will not collapse on our way to our heavenly home.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Eucharist Over the Centuries

Jn 6:60-69

Saturday – 3rd Week of Easter

For the past week or so our Gospel reading at Mass has been from the famous chapter six of John's Gospel, much of which is about the Eucharist, so this morning I want to offer a quick overview of how the Eucharist has been celebrated over the centuries.

The Eucharist was, of course, instituted at the Last Supper. The very first Eucharist, in other words, was celebrated in the context of a regular meal, actually a celebratory meal at Passover time. And we know from Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians that, twenty years later, the Corinthians were still celebrating Eucharist at the conclusion of a regular dinner. Clearly, however, this was not working out, because some people were getting drunk and causing all sorts of trouble before the Eucharistic celebration even began. Well when Paul heard of this he was outraged. He severely reprimanded the Corinthians for their scandalous behavior, and he promptly ordered that this practice of celebrating Eucharist in the context of a regular meal was to be discontinued. (1 Co 11:17-34)

A couple of decades later, somewhere around the year 68, St. Luke, in the _Acts of the Apostles_ , talks about the reverence that the early Christians had for the "breaking of bread", which was the term Luke used to describe the Eucharist. In chapter 2, for example, he says that the Jewish Christians of the time "remained faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and to the prayers". (vs 42) And again, "They went as a body to the Temple every day but met in their houses for the breaking of bread". (vs 46)

By the year 155 St. Justin Martyr wrote a description of a typical Eucharistic liturgy as celebrated in the middle of the second century. As I read this description I'm sure you will see that, in a remarkable way, it contains all of the essential elements of the Mass as it is celebrated today. This is what St. Justin wrote:

We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving.

The apostles, in their recollections, which are called gospels, handed down to us what Jesus commanded them to do. They tell us that he took bread, gave thanks and said: _Do this in memory of me. This is my body._ In this same way he took the cup, he gave thanks and said: _This is my blood._ The Lord gave this command to them alone. Ever since then we have constantly reminded one another of these things. The rich among us help the poor and we are always united. For all that we receive we praise the Creator of the universe through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.

On Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members, whether they live in the city or in the outlying districts. The recollections of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as there is time. When the reader has finished, the president of the assembly speaks to us; he urges everyone to imitate the examples of virtue we have heard in the readings. Then we all stand up together and pray.

On the conclusion of our prayer, bread and wine and water are brought forward. The president offers prayers and gives thanks to the best of his ability, and the people give their assent by saying, "Amen." The eucharist is distributed, everyone present communicates, and the deacons take it to those who are absent. (Breviary, 2nd reading, 3rd Sunday of Easter)

So that's the way Mass was celebrated at least from the middle of the second century.

It is clear from what St. Justin Martyr said and especially from our Gospel readings over the past few days that, from the very beginning, Christians understood that, in celebrating the Eucharist, they were really and truly eating Christ's body and drinking his blood. Not much was said back in those days about exactly how this happened but Christians have nevertheless always believed, right from the beginning, that while they _appear_ to be eating bread and drinking wine, _in reality_ they are doing something very different. In reality they are eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ.

It wasn't until probably the 13th century that philosophers and theologians began to describe what happens at Mass as involving the substance vs. the accidents of something, the substance being what the thing really is, the accidents being what the thing looks like, what color it is, what it tastes like and so forth. And ever since the 13th century this has been the general explanation of what happens at Mass, that the underlying substance _changes_ from bread and wine into body and blood, while the accidents, the appearance of bread and wine _remain the same_.

Finally, in the 16th century, the Council of Trent explained it this way, and let me close with this:

Because Christ our Redeemer said that is was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Preaching to Gentiles

Mt 9:35 to 10:1, 5a, 6-8

Saturday – 1st Week of Advent

If you check your missalette for the chapter and verse of today's Gospel reading, you will note that the closing verses in chapter 10 are verse 5a and then verses 6 through 8. So it's clear that the second part of verse 5, verse 5b has been omitted. So what is this verse 5b? It's the part where Jesus says to his disciples, "Do not go into pagan territory and do not enter a Samaritan town." So what Jesus really said was, "Do not go into pagan territory and do not enter a Samaritan town. Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

And Jesus felt very strongly about this. Given the fact that the Israelites were God's specially chosen people, it was the firm position of Jesus, right up until the day he died, that the Kingdom of God was to be proclaimed only to the Israelites and not to pagans or Samaritans. In the instruction he gives to his disciples in today's Gospel reading, Jesus makes it absolutely clear that this is what he expects of them. And in his own personal ministry Jesus followed the same practice; he reached out only to his fellow Israelites.

It's true that he did make an exception for the Canaanite woman but, even with her, he makes it clear that what he was doing for her was definitely contrary to his general practice. Let me read it for you. It's from chapter 15 of Matthew's Gospel:

At that time Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out, 'Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is tormented by a demon.' But he did not say a word in answer to her. His disciples came and asked him, 'Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us.' He said in reply, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' But the woman came and did him homage, saying, 'Lord, help me.' He said in reply, 'It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.' She said, 'Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters.' Then Jesus said to her in reply, 'O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.' And her daughter was healed from that hour. (vs 21-28)

So we have that exception and perhaps two or three others (the pastoral Jesus knew when to make an exception) but generally Jesus stuck to his position and worked only among the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

After Jesus rose from the dead, however, he took a different position. Prior to his death Jesus and his disciples had, day in and day out, proclaimed his message only to the Israelites and many of them had come to believe, but it was time now to reach out to others as well. Matthew concludes his Gospel with these words where Jesus issues what is known as the great commission. This is what Matthew says:

The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them. When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted. Then Jesus approached and said to them, 'All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of _all_ nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.' (28:16-20)

So this is the new position of the post-resurrection Christ, a position that prevails even to this day. We are to proclaim the Gospel to _all_ nations.

Let me mention, however, that some 10 or 15 years after Jesus died, St. Paul, the great apostle to the Gentiles, went on his first missionary journey, a journey that was primarily to Gentiles, but still, when Paul went to a particular town, he would frequently go first to the local synagogue and address his fellow Israelites, and only after that would he go to the Gentiles. In the _Acts of the Apostles_ , chapter 13, for example, St. Luke mentions two such incidents. He writes that when Paul and Barnabas went to Cyprus, they "landed at Salamis and proclaimed the word of God in the synagogue of the Jews." (vs 5) And at Antioch Luke wrote that "they went to synagogue and took their seats" and Paul spoke to those present. (vs 16) so it's clear that, from its earliest days, this whole matter of to whom the Gospel would be proclaimed went through different stages of development.

And here _we_ are, 2000 years later, still pondering the saving message of Jesus and still striving to be good disciples of our Lord and Savior.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Parables of the Talents and Pounds

Mt 25:14-30

Saturday – 21st Week Ordinary Time

When Matthew and Luke were writing their Gospels, they were each using two basic texts as their sources of information about Jesus. Each author was using Mark's Gospel as his primary source, and as his secondary source, a collection of the sayings and deeds of Jesus, a collection that has come to be known simply as Q, the letter Q.

Today's parable of the talents is not found in Mark but it is found, though in a very different form, in Luke, and despite the many differences between the parable recounted in Matthew and the one found in Luke, it is generally agreed that Matthew and Luke both started with the parable as they found it in Q and then each went on to write his own version of the Q parable.

If, later on today or tomorrow, you want to check out Luke's version, it's in your Bible in verses 12 to 27 of chapter 19, or, if you have a daily missal, you will find it as the Gospel reading for Wednesday of the 33rd week of Ordinary Time. But this morning I want to point out, as briefly as I can, some of the differences between the two accounts.

_First_ , regarding the currency. Matthew has the master very generously handing out talents, with a talent being worth about a thousand dollars, whereas in Luke it's not a talent but a pound, or, in some translations a gold coin, which was worth only twenty dollars. _Second_ , regarding the servants approached by the master, in Matthew only three men are approached and each man is given a different number of talents depending on his ability, whereas in Luke ten men are approached and each of the ten is given exactly the same amount: one gold coin. _Third_ , the absence of the master. Matthew notes that the master was away for "a long time" whereas Luke doesn't comment at all on the length of the master's stay abroad. _Fourth_ , regarding the money earned during the master's absence, in Matthew the first two men double their master's original investment, which is pretty impressive; I mean not many financial advisors can double your money for you. When, however, you remember that the master was away for "a long time", perhaps it's not quite as impressive as you had initially thought. In Luke's account, however, one man earns five times the amount, and another man, ten times the amount of the master's original investment, and clearly Luke is wanting to make the point that these men must have engaged in extremely high-risk transactions in order to come away with that kind of profit. And _fifth,_ regarding the man who took no risk at all, Matthew has him thrown into the darkness outside where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth, whereas in Luke's account, the man doesn't really receive any punishment at all.

Well both parables, that of Matthew and that of Luke, are basically talking about the same thing, namely what we should do with our lives, how we should conduct ourselves while we're here on earth. But clearly the two parables take somewhat different approaches. _Matthew_ , by talking about talents or thousands of dollars, seems to be saying that the stakes are high, that our very salvation is at stake, and if we don't use our talents at all, we will wind up wailing and grinding our teeth. So we should all, of course, make good use of our talents, but if I hear Matthew's parable correctly, it is also saying that heroics aren't required, that we should certainly be responsible and prudent and productive but always within our God-given abilities; and if we do that, we're fine. Nothing superhuman is required so there's no need to worry. That's Matthew's message. _Luke's_ parable, meanwhile, seems to be sending a very different message. Again, if I read Luke correctly, he is saying that spiritually life begins for all of us in much the same way. We all start off with very modest abilities, with just one gold coin, so to speak, and although there's no great punishment involved if we never make use of that ability, the point is that there is within each of us a potential for greatness, for spiritual greatness, a potential for achieving far more than anyone might ever imagine, and if we turn our back on virtually everything else in order to achieve that spiritual greatness, if we take that huge risk, then the reward will be beyond our wildest dreams. That's Luke's message.

So the bottom line, I guess, is this: that despite the fact that the two parables have a common origin and that, on the surface, they sound very much alike, they nevertheless present us with very different messages, two very different messages to think about.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Great Reversal

Lk 14:1, 7-11

Saturday – 30th Week Ordinary Time

Our Gospel reading this morning opens with the statement that Jesus is dining at the home of a leading Pharisee. Having thus set the scene, Luke then says that Jesus "told a parable to those who had been invited". He told them a parable. But where's the parable? The rest of this morning's reading doesn't sound like a parable to me. To me it sounds like some basic advice on how to avoid embarrassment when selecting one's place at table. If I understand it correctly, however, Jesus is just getting warmed up; the parable is coming soon, and when it comes it will be a really good one. And sure enough, the parable comes just four verses later and is one of Jesus' more famous parables, the one known as the Parable of the Great Banquet.

It is clear from the introduction to the Parable of the Great Banquet that the parable itself is about the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of God. the basic story line is that one by one, those invited to the banquet decline to attend, so those who finally wind up enjoying the banquet are the poor, the crippled, the blind, the lame and anyone else who can be found among the highways and the hedgerows.

This is what is known as the Great Reversal. It's what our Blessed Mother talked about when she said in her Magnificat that God "has cast down the mighty from their thrones, and has lifted up the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things and the rich he has sent away empty." It is also what Jesus consistently spoke about when, in the Beatitudes, he said, blessed are the poor and the meek and the merciful, and when, regarding the Last Judgment, he said that those who will inherit the Kingdom are not the rich and the bold but those who feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, welcome the stranger and visit the sick and those in prison. It's the Great Reversal.

At the close of today's Gospel reading Jesus anticipates the Parable of the Great Banquet by saying that everyone who exalts himself will be humbled but the one who humbles himself will be exalted. When read in conjunction with the parable, however, the phrase means something altogether different from what it might mean to someone who is trying to avoid being embarrassed at a fancy dinner. In light of the parable, humbling oneself no longer means just playing it smart in order to gain the admiration of others. It now means really and truly seeing ourselves as being here on earth in order to be of some help to those who are less fortunate than us and, at the same time, to contribute in some way to the building up of the Kingdom of God on earth.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Hearing and Doing

Lk 8:4-15

Saturday – 24th Week Ordinary Time

Jesus wanted his followers to be good listeners. More than once he told his disciples that if they did not listen carefully, if they did not pay attention, they would never be effective disciples. In today's Gospel reading, right after Jesus tells the parable; before he explains it but right after he tells the parable itself, he calls out, "Whoever has ears to hear ought to hear." And a few chapters later in Luke, after noting that when salt loses its taste, people throw it out, Jesus then says, "Anyone who has ears to hear, listen!" (Lk 14:35) Careful listening, in other words, was a quality that Jesus looked for in selecting his disciples.

At the same time, however, Jesus made it clear over and over again that listening, hearing was not enough. Besides listening we also have to put into practice what we have heard. This, in fact, is the whole point of today's parable about the seed. In the telling and explaining of the parable Jesus specifically and explicitly notes that the first three people, the people who correspond to the seed falling on the path, the rocky ground and the thorns, all three of those people _heard_ the word of God but, for one reason or another, did not put it into practice; and so their lives, we gather, were in vain. Hearing, in other words, is a good thing but we can't stop there. Listening is a good thing but it is not enough.

Today's Gospel reading is from chapter 8 of Luke and it concludes with verse 15. Some Bibles, however, and some commentaries conclude this section not with verse 15 but with verse 18, and they do that precisely because verses 16 through 18 make exactly the same point as this morning's parable. The metaphor changes but the point remains the same: that hearing brings knowledge and faith and light (Rm 10:14) and once we have that light, we should not hide it away somewhere and keep it all to ourselves. Rather we should let it shine forth for all to see. This is what Jesus says in verses 16 through 18:

No one who lights a lamp conceals it with a vessel or sets it under a bed; rather he places it on a lampstand so that those who enter may see the light.... Take care then how you hear.

And St. Paul, I suppose was making the same point when he wrote in his Letter to the Romans, "It is not listening to the Law but keeping it that will make people holy". (2:13)

Also, if you remember, after Jesus rose from the dead, he said to his disciples, "You will be my witnesses not only in Jerusalem but throughout Judea and Samaria and indeed to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8).... "Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations". (Mt 28:19) But to whom did Jesus speak those words? Certainly not just to his contemporaries. Clearly these words were spoken to all of us, to each of us as well. Clearly we are all called not just to listen to the word of God and then take it home and put it under a bed. Rather we are all called to make disciples of all nations, even to the ends of the earth.

So let me sum up by reading just one stanza from a hymn that comes up in our breviary prayers a couple of times a month. (Office of Readings, Wednesday, Weeks II and IV) It says,

Give us the grace to grasp your word

that we may _do_ what we have _heard_

Instruct us through the scriptures, Lord,

as we draw near, O God adored.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Just a Parable

Mt 13:24-30

Saturday – 16th Week Ordinary Time

Before offering any specific comment on today's parable, let me just remind you of a few facts about Jesus and his attitude towards sinners.

First of all, Matthew (9:10-13), Mark (2:15-17) and Luke (5:29-32) all comment on the fact that Jesus used to dine with tax collectors and sinners and, despite the fact that he was severely criticized for this by the Pharisees, he nevertheless continued to do it. (Lk 15: 1-2, 19:1-10) Second, Jesus used to warn his disciples about judging others. "Do not judge", he said, "and you will not be judged." (Lk 6:36), and again, "How dare you say to your brother, 'Let me take the splinter out of your eye', when all the time there is a plank in your own?" (Mt 7:4) And third, when Jesus said that there would be one flock and one shepherd (Jn 10:15), and when he said that he would build his church on Peter the Rock (Mt 16:18), he certainly had no intention whatever of establishing some kind of pure Messianic community. A community that smacked of purism or angelism was not something that would be of interest to Jesus who came to call not the righteous but sinners. This attitude of Jesus towards sinners was, as we know, at the very heart of his ministry.

And this is what today's parable is about. It's about a community of saints _and sinners_ (wheat and weeds) who live together until judgment time when God will separate the wheat from the weeds, the sheep from the goats and God alone will do the judging. (Mt 25:31-46) It's something we're all familiar with and comfortable with, and it is, as I say, what today's parable is all about.

And that's _all_ the parable is about. It is, after all, just a parable, a parable that makes a single point, which is what this parable is supposed to do. Today's parable, in other words, is not in any sense a policy statement about how criminal activity is to be dealt with within the Church. It does not in any way suggest, for example, that when a priest sexually abuses little children or other minors who have put their trust in him, that we should look the other way or sit on our hands and do nothing, because, in a situation like that doing nothing is itself a criminal act.

Nevertheless the parable itself, within its obvious limits, makes a valid and important point, that, in general, we should always avoid judging others, not only because there is always a danger of making a rash judgment or an overly harsh judgment, and not only because the measure we measure out with will be measured back to us, (Mk 4:24) but simply because we are Christians who are called to look kindly on others and to see Jesus in everyone we meet.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Judging Others

Mt 12:14-21

Saturday – 15th Week Ordinary Time

The opening line in today's Gospel reading is, "The Pharisees went out and took counsel against Jesus to put him to death." And we say to ourselves, "Oh, my gosh! They actually want this man dead. They won't be satisfied putting him in prison for a couple of weeks in the hope that he will get his head on straight. They won't be satisfied putting him in solitary confinement with nothing but bread and water for nourishment. They won't even be satisfied with torturing him and leaving him half dead. They want him all the way dead". So what terrible thing did Jesus do to prompt such a fierce reaction? "Ah", we think, "it must be that Jesus has just expelled the money changers from the temple and overturned their tables and accused the high priests of turning the sacred temple into a den of thieves. That must be it." But no, that event takes place some nine or ten chapters later in Matthew's Gospel. So what was it? What did Jesus do to enrage the Pharisees to the point where they would plan to kill him? Let me read for you the section in Matthew's Gospel that immediately precedes the opening line of today's Gospel:

Jesus moved on from there and went to their synagogue, and a man was there at the time who had a withered hand. They asked him, 'Is it against the law to cure a man on the Sabbath day?' hoping for something to be used against him. But he said to them, 'If any one of you here had only one sheep, and it fell down a hole on a Sabbath day, would he not get hold of it and lift it out? Now a man is far more important than a sheep, so it follows that it is permitted to do good on the Sabbath day.' Then he said to the man, 'stretch out your hand.' He stretched it out and his hand was better, as sound as the other one. (vs. 9-14)

And the very next line is our opening line, "The Pharisees went out and took counsel against Jesus to put him to death." So where are these Pharisees coming from? What was their starting point? And how did it all develop? Well the starting point was the commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day. Which is a wonderful starting point. I mean it's clearly a healthy thing to have a special day a week when we spend time worshipping God and enjoying our family and our friends and the beauty of God's creation. Clearly that's a good thing. But what happened was that, presumably in order to preserve the holiness of that day, the Pharisees, over decades and decades, added layers of negative restrictions on Sabbath behavior; to the point where it became ridiculous, like, for example, outlawing on the Sabbath the curing of the man with the withered hand. And not only that, but also to the point where the Pharisees would consider it appropriate that that terrible crime of curing a man on the Sabbath would be punished by the ultimate sanction of death by crucifixion.

Well fortunately we no longer condemn other people on the basis of rigid rules and regulations. That's the fortunate part. The _un_ fortunate part is that the basic structure, the syndrome remains very much with us. Even among us Christians, one group will criticize the behavior of another group, not because their behavior is wrong or bad or harmful, but simply because it's different from our own. And unfortunately we do not always follow our Savior's advice when he said, "The measure you measure out with is the measure that will be measured back to you." (Mt 7:2)

### \+ + +

Back to top

Three Exaltations

Jn 3:13-17

September 14 – The Exaltation of the Holy Cross

Usually, when I give a homily, I try to make only a single point. Today, however, I want to make three points. All three, of course, are about the exaltation of the cross but there are, I think, three different exaltations so three points.

First, crucifixion is one of the most gruesome methods of torture and execution ever devised by the human mind. Among the Romans it was regarded as so cruel and so atrocious that it was imposed only on slaves and non-Romans, never on their own citizens. So in those days the cross was a symbol of shame and humiliation. When, however, Jesus, the Son of God, died on the cross, he put to death that old symbolism, and turned the cross into a symbol of love, of self-sacrificing love and redemption. So in that sense the crucifixion of Jesus exalted and ennobled the cross. That's the first point.

Second, chapter 3 of the Book of Genesis talks about the fall of Adam and Eve. It says that the Lord God had told Adam and Eve that they could eat of the fruit of all the trees in the garden except one. The wily serpent, however, convinced Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of that one forbidden tree as well; and that act of disobedience by Adam and Eve was the first sin committed by a member of the human race. The original sin, in other words, had to do with a tree, so when Jesus died on the wood of a tree, he, as it were, reversed the process set in motion by Adam and Eve and thereby exalted or restored to the tree its true and noble nature. On this point, this second point, we will hear more in a few minutes when we read today's special preface to our Eucharistic Prayer.

Third, the exaltation of the cross also has roots in the exaltation of Christ himself. This is a concept developed by John in his Gospel and is sometimes referred to as the crucifixion/exaltation theology where John keeps referring to Jesus as being "lifted up". We heard about that in today's Gospel reading from chapter 3 of John's Gospel but let me read two other brief passages. First one from chapter 8 where Jesus says:

When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am and that I do nothing of myself. (vs 28)

And one more from chapter 12 where again it is Jesus who speaks, saying:

Now sentence is being passed on this world; now the prince of this world is to be overthrown. And when I am lifted up from the earth I shall draw all people to myself. (vs 31,32)

Well clearly the point here is that when Jesus would be lifted up on the cross, he wouldn't be just physically lifted up to die; rather he would be lifted up as Lord and Savior for all to see and adore. God the Father, in other words, would, even before the Resurrection, turn this horrible execution, this horrendous crucifixion into a victory, an exaltation of both the cross and of Christ himself. So lift high the cross, the love of Christ proclaim.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Temple and Jesus, Symbols of God's Presence

Jn 2:13-22

November 9 – Dedication of the Lateran Basilica

Today, November 9, marks the anniversary of the Lateran Basilica. The Basilica was dedicated early in the 4th century and for the next thousand years, until early in the 14th century, the Popes resided there on the Lateran grounds, which are situated on the east side of the city of Rome. In 1309 Pope Clement V, who was French, moved to France and his successors in the papacy continued to live in France for the next 70 years, until 1377 when the Popes returned to Rome. By 1377, however, the papal residence at the Lateran had deteriorated badly so the Popes then began to reside over at the Vatican, on the west side of the city, and they have continued to live there ever since.

All of this history, however, is off topic because our feast today is not about where the popes lived; rather it is about the Basilica, the Lateran Basilica which is still recognized as the mother church of all the churches of the world. So I suppose what we're really celebrating today is the universal church, that is to say, the Mystical Body of Christ.

The Gospel reading selected for today's feast is from the second chapter of John's Gospel. The first twelve chapters of John's Gospel are, as a unit, known as the Book of Signs, and chapter two opens with the first two of these signs. The first of the signs is the incident where Jesus changes water into wine at Cana. And the second sign is the incident in today's Gospel reading where Jesus expels the money changers from the Temple. But what are these two incidents signs of? What exactly do they signify?

Well it all has to do with the Temple in Jerusalem. And we have to keep in mind that, for the Israelites, the Temple was the physical symbol of God's presence on earth. What John is saying in these two incidents of the miracle at Cana and the cleansing of the Temple is that one day the Temple will be replaced by Jesus the Christ. Jesus, in other words, not the Temple but Jesus will one day become the physical symbol of God's presence on earth. So how exactly do these two incidents symbolize that?

First the event at Cana. We usually regard the changing of water into wine simply as the first miracle that Jesus performed. In fact, however, it was much more than that. Because the water was not just ordinary water and the wine was not just ordinary wine. The water was water used for Old Testament ceremonial washings and the wine was so superb and so superabundant that, to those who witnessed the event, it almost certainly represented the coming of the Messiah. For just as the prophets of old had said that the coming of the Messiah would be marked by "the cow and the bear becoming friends" (Is 11:7), so it would also be marked with "the mountains running with new wine". (Joel 4 or 3:18 and Amos 9:13) Symbolically, in other words, the Old Testament water was becoming the New Testament wine; so Jesus, as Messiah, will somehow transform the Old Testament and its Temple into something new and very different. That's the symbolism of Cana.

Then, in today's Gospel reading where Jesus cleanses the Temple, it all becomes even clearer. Because Jesus, in effect, says that if this Temple in Jerusalem were destroyed that would be the end of it. Not a stone would be left on a stone. But with me, says Jesus, it will be different. One day I too will be "destroyed", so to speak, but three days later I will rise from the dead. Unlike the Temple I shall live forever as the indestructible Risen Messiah, and I shall then take the place of this Temple as the true presence of God in the world.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Persistence in Prayer

Lk 18:1-8

Saturday – 32nd Week Ordinary Time

Our Gospel reading for today is from chapter 18 of Luke's Gospel and is clearly about the need for persistence in prayer. The opening line of the Gospel is, "Jesus told his disciples a parable about the necessity for them to pray always _without becoming weary_." Without becoming weary. And it is clear from the parable that the woman had to pester the judge for a long time, because the parable specifically says that "for a long time the judge was unwilling" to render a decision. " _Eventually_ ", however, the judge gave in and found in her favor.

This chapter is, as I say, from chapter 18 of Luke's Gospel. But just about a month ago at daily Mass we read another parable from Luke's Gospel (that one was from chapter 11), a parable that is quite different from today's but has exactly the same message about the importance of persistence in prayer. Let me read this other parable for you; it's very short:

Suppose one of you has a friend to whom he goes at midnight and says, 'Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, for a friend of mine has arrived at my house from a journey and I have nothing to offer him' and he says, in replay from within, 'Do not bother me; the door has already been locked and my children and I are already in bed. I cannot get up to give you anything.' I tell you, if he does not get up to give him the loaves because of their friendship, he will get up to give him whatever he needs because of his persistence. (11:5-8)

So Jesus told these two parables with exactly the same message, two parables that make the same point. Which suggests that Jesus considered it an important point, a point to be made and remade. And maybe Jesus did that because he realized that most of us ordinary folk don't really understand why we have to keep pestering God before he eventually grants our request. I mean if God really loves us so much, and if our request is reasonable, why doesn't God grant it right away? And there is, I think, no easy, pat answer to that question. However, if we ponder it a while, if we ponder it in light of who we are as human beings, in light of what maturity means, in light of what constitutes true success in life, and especially in light of the man Jesus who lived a life of service and who died a painful death; if, in other words, we try to peer a bit beneath the surface, then maybe we begin to understand Jesus' point that in prayer, as in life, immediate, or even just prompt, gratification is not always good for us, that when we pray, it's really important for us to exercise patience and to remain full of hope, and to persevere and, above all, to have faith that our prayer _will_ be answered when the time is right, and by that I mean, right for us. Because God loves us.

### \+ + +

Back to top
In Times of Persecution

Mt 10:24-33

Saturday – 14th Week Ordinary Time

I was reading a short story the other day about a man named Tricksy Wilcox. Early on in the story the author writes, "Tricksy Wilcox was not the most intelligent of men". He then goes on for several pages describing in detail exactly how dumb Tricksy really was, and the author then concludes the incident with the words, "Tricksy was never the most intelligent of men."

Well this is a literary device, a device where a passage begins and ends with a similar statement, and it clearly has a long history because it goes back at least to Biblical times. When, for example, John, in his Gospel, tells the story of the raising up of Lazarus, he notes that when Jesus first learned that Lazarus was very ill, he said, "This sickness will end not in death but in God's glory." John then tells us that Lazarus did, in fact, die and was buried in a tomb, but that four days later Jesus came and raised him up from the dead, after which Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that, if you believe, you will see God's glory." (Jn 11:4 and 40)

This literary device has come to be known as an "inclusion", and I mention it this morning because in today's Gospel reading we have another example of an inclusion. Today's inclusion is on the subject of fear and it takes up the whole middle section of our Gospel reading. It begins with Jesus saying, "Do not be afraid of them" and ends several verses later with Jesus saying, "So do not be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows."

Let me mention at this point that our Gospel reading today is from Matthew's second major discourse, the one known as the Missionary Discourse where Jesus is offering advice to his disciples on how they should conduct themselves on their missionary journeys; and clearly a key piece, a major piece of that advice is, "Do not be afraid."

Back in those days, of course, professing one's belief in Christ, being committed to Christ as one's Lord and Savior, not only could but often did put one's very life in jeopardy, so clearly Jesus was wanting to encourage his disciples to be brave and courageous as they faced up to the fact that very soon they could be killed.

And even today, in some places of the world, places like the mid east and certain countries on the African continent, Christians are still in danger of being killed because of their belief in Christ. These good Christians are by definition our brothers and sisters in Christ, and I try to think of them every day and to pray for them. At times I also wonder about them. Today, for example, I wonder whether some Catholics among them listened to the very same Gospel passage that we just heard when _they_ were at Mass this morning, and I wonder whether they were able to draw strength and consolation from the words of Jesus when he assured them that God loves them and that God will reward them if they acknowledge him before others. But it is a very difficult thing that is being asked of them, a very difficult thing, and we should all, I think, pray every day for these brothers and sisters of ours.

### \+ + +

Back to top
A Changing Church

Mt 9:14-17

Saturday – 13th Week Ordinary Time

I just want to offer a few comments this morning on the closing lines of today's Gospel reading as they might apply to the Church.

To begin with we have somebody who has a quantity of new wine that has to be put into skins. Available are two sets of wineskins, an old set and a new set. Jesus says that nobody puts the new wine into old skins because the new wine is not yet completely fermented and as it expands it will burst the old skins. So, says Jesus, everybody puts the new wine into the new skins, and that way "both are preserved". Those are the closing words of our Gospel reading: both are preserved. But what does that mean? What are the two things that are to be preserved? Clearly they are the new wine and the old wineskins. And the implication here is that the old wineskins may be old but they're still valuable. They're still good and can be used for other purposes. And the goal is to preserve not only the new wine but the old wineskins as well.

So how, if at all, might this apply to the Church? Well the Second Vatican Council ushered in a new Church that is very different from the old. It's a Church where the people of God love to worship the God of Love, a Church that is welcoming, a Church where its people have a profound reverence for the Word of God, the Sacred Scriptures as the source of all true wisdom, a Church where people live in joy and freedom and dignity, and yet see a life of service to others as perhaps their greatest calling, a Church that understands that it is still in need of reform and always will be, and therefore a Church that is always open to repentance and to finding more authentic ways to be disciples of Jesus.

All this, or most of it anyway, is very different from the pre-Vatican II Church that we remember. This is not to say, however, that the "old" Church was inferior or that it is now entirely passé. Most of us, when we think of the Church of the '40s and '50s, tend to think of it as it was portrayed in the film, "Going My Way" with Bing Crosby and Barry Fitzgerald, when we had little money but a great neighborhood to grow up in, a neighborhood that typically had the parish Church as its physical, social and cultural center. It was a Church that knew where it stood on everything and confidently thought of itself as the one true Church. It was a Church where all those dedicated women in black habits ran a school system that educated millions of children and was matched by few if any public school systems. It was, in short, a Church that made us all proud to be Catholic.

And it's possible, I suppose, that our Gospel reading today about preserving the old wine skins is reminding us that there are aspects of the pre-Vatican Church that beg to be preserved. And although most of us today seem to prefer today's Church to yesterday's, both have their strengths, and we all live in hope that the Church of tomorrow will be even closer to what God's Church should be.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Thinking About the Pope

Mt 16:13-19

February 22 – The Chair of St. Peter the Apostle

Today is the feast of the Chair of St. Peter. I have to confess that I don't know very much about the history of this feast but at present anyway it seems to serve as a time to reflect on the papacy, on the role of the Pope in the Church. Which is a good thing to do once in a while. Unfortunately, however, when we do get around to reflecting on the Pope, our thoughts can sometimes be a bit misleading.

For example, we tend to look on the Pope as the head of the Church. But the Pope is _not_ , of course, the head of the Church. Christ is the head of the Church. It is acceptable to regard the Pope as the _visible_ head of the Church but only if we are aware that the _real_ head of the Church is Christ. Jesus did not say to Peter, "Feed your sheep. Feed your lambs". He said, "Feed _my_ sheep. Feed _my_ lambs". Because Christ is the real head of the flock, the Church. Christ is the Chief Shepherd, as St. Peter himself notes at the close of our first reading this morning. (1 Pt 5:4) Christ is the Chief Shepherd; the Pope is only his deputy. Or to put it another way, Jesus alone is the vine; he alone is the source of our life and our strength. All the rest of us, including the Pope, are just the branches, drawing our very life from Christ.

Also, when we think of the entire flock, the worldwide Church now in the care of this Vicar of Christ, we Americans can sometimes think too locally. In general we look upon the Catholic Church here in the United States as pretty representative, pretty typical of the universal church. In fact, however, we are now, at this moment in history, already in the early stages of a massive demographic shift which will, in only a matter of decades, leave the American Church as a relatively small and certainly atypical segment of the church as a whole. Already, for example, there are more than 300 million Catholics in Latin America while here in the United States we number only 85 million. Meanwhile in Africa, in just the last five years, the Catholic population has increased by 21 percent, and it's estimated that if that growth rate continues on track, in thirty years more than half the Catholics in the world will be African. And even before that, within just twenty years, two thirds of the world's Catholics will reside either in Africa, Asia or Latin America.

So it's a great big world out there, and a great big worldwide Catholic Church, with lots of growth and lots of opportunities and lots of challenges as well. So perhaps today's feast should be seen not so much as a time to _reflect_ on the Pope, as a time to _pray_ for our good Pope Francis that he will shepherd well the sheep of Christ.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Proper Use of Money

Lk 16:9-15

Saturday – 31st Week Ordinary Time

In our Gospel reading this morning Jesus offers some thoughts on the proper use of money, but there are three rather puzzling pieces of advice in this reading, and let me begin by just pointing out what they are. Actually, even before doing that, let me suggest that, just for today, we sort of uncomplicate the Gospel reading by replacing the phrase "dishonest wealth" with the simple word "money". So with that done, the _first_ puzzling piece of advice is that you should make friends for yourself with money so that when it fails you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings. The _second_ is that, if you are not trustworthy with money, who will trust you with true wealth? And the _third_ is that if you are not trustworthy with what belongs to another, who will give you what is yours?

Before offering any comment on these three puzzling pieces of advice, however, let me remind you that the event mentioned in today's Gospel reading is not the only time that Jesus spoke about money. First of all Jesus once said to his disciples, "How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the Kingdom of God!...... it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God." (Mk 10:23 and 25) Secondly, in the Sermon on the Plain, as recounted by Luke, Jesus said, "Give to everyone who asks you and do not ask for your property back from the man who robs you." (Lk 6:30) And finally, when Jesus was asked by the rich man what he had to do to inherit eternal life. Jesus told the man that he should keep the commandments, and when the man said that he had always done that, Jesus then told him that he should sell everything he had, distribute the money to the poor and come follow him. (Lk 18:18-23) So that tells us pretty much where Jesus is coming from regarding the use of money.

So back now to those three puzzling pieces of advice in today's Gospel reading. To begin with, this Gospel reading is from chapter 16 of Luke but four chapters earlier, in chapter 12, Luke quotes Jesus as saying, "Sell your possessions and give alms. Get yourselves purses that do not wear out, treasure that will not fail you, in heaven where no thief can reach it and no moth destroy it." (Lk 12:33,34) Which, when you think of it, clarifies all three of those puzzling statements in today's Gospel. The _first_ one simply means that in giving alms to the poor, we earn for ourselves a treasure in heaven. In the _second_ statement, being "trustworthy" with money means giving it to the poor, and when we do that, God then trusts us with true wealth, that is to say a place in heaven. And the _third_ one, the one about being trustworthy regarding what belongs to someone else, that means that the money we have is really being loaned to us by God, so if we are generous with that to the poor, then God will give us what is ours, which means: enough for us to live on here on earth, plus, of course, our mansion in heaven.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Importance of the Individual

Lk 11:27-28

Saturday – 27th Week Ordinary Time

Each of us is the child of our parents. Which means, among other things, that we don't start from scratch. We start with certain genes and certain talents, our own unique talents that lie deep within us waiting to be tapped, so each of us is a distinct individual, a person, a one-of-a-kind human being. But there is also more to us than that, because besides being an individual, we are also a citizen; besides being a person, we are also a member of a particular nation; besides being a _human_ being, we are also a _societal_ being. As Americans, for example, we not only dress differently and eat differently from, say, an Iraqi or a Somalian, but more importantly we have completely different freedoms and completely different opportunities as well. There are, in other words, two major factors that shape who we are and what we do with our lives, two factors: our inner self and our nationality. Both are important, and one factor should not be emphasized or exaggerated to the detriment of the other.

For the ancient Israelites it seems that being an Israelite, belonging to one of the twelve tribes of Israel, was far more important than it was to be a particular individual. And there was good reason for that, because whether you were old or young, rich or poor, a woman or a man, educated or not, if you were an Israelite, then you were one of God's chosen people, and that was the all important thing. When the Israelites were living as slaves in Egypt, the Lord God Yahweh set them free, not as individuals but as a people. And Yahweh brought them, not as individuals but as a people into the Promised Land. So being a member of the Israelite people, having Israelite blood in one's veins was far more important to them than what one did with one's life as an individual.

And this, it seems, was the attitude that prevailed at the time of Jesus. And I say that because, at least on a couple of occasions, Jesus went out of his way to make the point that, while it is certainly a blessing to be an Israelite, any person, any individual who does the will of God, whether that person is Jew or Gentile, is blessed by God and is a brother or sister to Jesus. Mark, for example, relates this incident; Jesus is inside his house in Capernaum, and Mark writes:

His mother and brothers now arrived and, standing outside, sent in a message asking for him. A crowd was sitting round him at the time the message was passed to him, 'Your mother and brothers and sisters are outside asking for you'. He replied, 'who are my mother and my brothers?' And looking round at those sitting in a circle about him, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers. Anyone who does the will of God, that person is my brother and sister and mother.' (3:31-35)

And then, of course, we have today's Gospel reading where Jesus has just cured a man, and a woman who witnessed the cure speaks up and talks about how happy Jesus' mother must be to have such a wonderful son, and Jesus, once again taking the emphasis off the bloodline, says, "Happier still is anyone who hears God's word and observes it."

And that, of course, is true of every human being of whatever nationality or race. The important thing is to listen to the word of God and observe it. It is in doing that that all of us are blessed. It is in doing that that one becomes the brother or sister of Jesus.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Our Saintly Side

Mt 5:1-12

November 1 – Feast of All Saints

In two of his plays Shakespeare expressed two quite different opinions of human nature. In _Hamlet_ (II, II) he wrote, "What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculties! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel! In apprehension how like a god!" But in _King Lear_ (III, IV) Shakespeare has Edgar describe himself as "false of heart... bloody of hand,... fox in stealth,...wolf in greediness...lion in prey." And the irony of these two diametrically opposed statements is that both of them are true. The human being is just as good and just as bad as the eloquent language of Shakespeare describes him.

But the problem is that generally we tend to concentrate so much on the bad that we forget about the good. We are bombarded every day with constant reminders of how thoroughly bad we human beings are. The morning paper and the evening news tell us over and over again that basically the human being is fox in stealth, wolf in greediness, lion in prey.

But today, on this Feast of All Saints, we are reminded by all the good and holy men and women who have gone before us that, despite our many faults, we human beings are not all bad. This human nature of ours is a mixed bag. We are both sinners and saints.

In our second reading today St. John tells us that we are not just _called_ children of God. It's not just a figure of speech. We _are_ children of God. And that's just for starters. That's just stage one. In stage two, John implies, we shall be something even greater than God's children. Isn't that the way you read it? John says, "Dearly beloved, we are God's children now; what we shall later be has not yet come to light. We know that when it comes to light, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." (1 Jn 3:1-3) So there's more to come, my friends. Bigger and better things. And maybe this is what Shakespeare was hinting at when he said, "What a piece of work is man...in action how like an angel! In apprehension how like a god!"

So let's not get down on the human race. Let's keep a balance. Let's remember our good side. One of the worst things that could happen to our world would be for you and me to stop believing in ourselves and in one another. Basically we are good people, and we are good people because long ago and at every stage of our lives there have been people who have had faith in us, people who believed in us and who believed in the essential and prevailing goodness of human nature as redeemed by Jesus Christ, and who taught us to do the same.

So let's have faith in ourselves and in one another, and let's remember that the saints whom we honor today are our very own ancestors and that, like them, we too can make this world a holier and more sacred place.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Unforgivable Sin

Lk 12:8-12

October 19 – Feast of the North American Martyrs

Today we celebrate the feast of the eight men who came from France in the 17th century to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Native Americans, mostly, I think, to the Hurons and Mohawks. Over a period of seven years in the 1640s all eight of these brave men were killed, some in Canada, some in Auriesville, New York. In 1930 they were canonized as the North American Martyrs and under that title they are the patron saints of Canada and are revered here in the United States as well.

Our Gospel reading this morning was just the regular Gospel passage for Saturday of the 28th week but the opening line so perfectly describes the North American martyrs that one might think that it had been specially selected for the occasion. The opening line quotes Jesus as saying, "everyone who acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man will acknowledge before the angels of God." And that, of course, was exactly what the North American martyrs did. They gave their lives acknowledging Jesus before the Native Americans, and Jesus, true as always to his word, has, in turn, been acknowledging them before the angels of God.

Now, however, I want to say something about the sentence in today's Gospel reading that talks about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit being the unforgivable sin. This is very puzzling to us because one of our basic beliefs is that there is no such thing as an unforgivable sin. We believe that God is all-forgiving, that, if a person commits a sin, _any_ sin, but then later truly repents of it, God forgives that person.

So what exactly is this sin against the Holy Spirit? How does one explain it? Well, first of all, we get no help at all from this morning's Gospel account by Luke because Luke simply offers the bald statement with no explanation whatsoever. The fact is that, if we're looking for enlightenment on the subject, we have to turn to Mark because Mark tells the whole story and puts the statement in context. So let me read that for you. It's from Mark, chapter 3:

The Scribes who had come down from Jerusalem were saying, 'Beelzebub is in him' and 'It is through the prince of devils that he casts devils out'. So he called them to him and spoke to them in parables, 'How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot last. And if a household is divided against itself, that household can never stand. Now if Satan has rebelled against himself and is divided, he cannot stand either – it is the end of him...... I tell you solemnly, all men's sins will be forgiven, and all their blasphemies, but let anyone blaspheme against the Holy Spirit and he will never have forgiveness: he is guilty of an eternal sin.' This was because they were saying, 'An unclean spirit is in him.' (vs 22-26 and 28-30)

So that's the context, and Mark's great clarification is in his last sentence where Mark says, in effect, that Jesus' statement about the sin against the Holy Spirit being unforgivable refers specifically to these particular scribes. So what have these scribes done? Well Jesus has just cast out a devil. The scribes claim that Jesus has done that, not through the power of the Holy Spirit, but by the power of Satan. But that, of course, is patently false. As Jesus says, "How can Satan cast out Satan?" And because it's so _obviously_ false (obvious, that is, to any open-minded person) Jesus has apparently concluded that these scribes have been so completely blinded by their animosity to him that they will never be able to face the truth, and will therefore never be able to repent and will therefore never seek forgiveness. That apparently was the conclusion of Jesus.

In general, however, our basic conviction, our basic belief remains: there is no such thing as a sin which is inherently unforgivable; so everyone who truly repents of his or her sins, whatever those sins might be, is absolutely and certainly forgiven by our all-forgiving God.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Actions and Motivation

Lk 18:1-8

Saturday – 32nd Week Ordinary Time

I want to begin this morning by outlining very quickly four separate incidents. All four incidents take place on a dark, rainy night but they involve four different men. The first man is on his way home after downing five or six beers. He shouldn't be driving but he is. Suddenly he hears and feels a bump. He figures he just hit something or maybe even someone but he knows that his blood alcohol level is way over the legal limit so he keeps on driving. The second man is on his way to the hospital to see his dying brother from whom he has been estranged for years. Suddenly he hears and feels a bump. He figures, however, that it's highly unlikely that a human being would be out walking on this lonely road in the pouring rain so he keeps on going. The third man is with his fiancée and they are on their way to her apartment. Suddenly he hears and feels a bump. He slows down a little but he's in a hurry to get to her apartment and it doesn't seem that he's actually going to stop; but at that point his fiancée says, "Stop the car. I think we might have hit somebody." So he does. And finally the fourth man is also driving home. Suddenly he hears and feels a bump. He instantly realizes that he might have hit someone so he slams on the brakes and goes to investigate.

To recap, the first man did the wrong thing and for the wrong reason: to avoid getting arrested on a DUI charge or worse. The second man also did the wrong thing but for the right reason, to reconcile with his brother before the brother dies. The third man did the right thing but for the wrong reason, because he was afraid that if he didn't stop, his fiancée would break off the engagement. And the fourth man did the right thing and for the right reason, simply because it was the right thing to do.

But what about the judge in our Gospel reading today? Did he do the right thing for the right reason or the wrong thing for the wrong reason or somewhere in between? By my count, he posted three wrongs and a right. His first wrong was in delaying a decision for what the Gospel calls "a long time". And since "Justice delayed is justice denied", the judge denied justice in this case, because he postponed the rendering of a decision beyond a reasonable time limit. The judge's second wrong was in his reason for delaying the decision, which was not that he was simply overwhelmed with more pressing cases but rather that, as the Gospel twice puts it, he "had no respect for any human being". When, however, the judge finally did get around to rendering a decision, it was a just one, and, for the first time, the judge did the right thing. Unfortunately, however, he did it for the wrong reason, not, in other words, because the widow deserved justice but rather because, as the Gospel says, he was afraid that, if he did not, the widow would come and strike him. So again, the judge's total score was: three wrongs and a right.

In real life, I suppose, most ethical problems are much more complicated than either the four men on the rainy night or the one in today's Gospel reading, but the basic principles are the same. There are always two factors at play: the action itself and the motivation. Two factors: what we do and why we do it. And for all of us, whether Christian or not, for all of us who strive to be noble souls, it is always these two factors that determine our success: what we do and why we do it.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Last Supper in John

Jn 16: 23b-28

Saturday – 6th Week of Easter

We are in a three week period right now when, at daily Mass, we are reading from John's account of the Last Supper.

This account of the Last Supper takes up five chapters in John, chapters 13 through 17, and I'd like to try to summarize those chapters one by one to the extent that I can. First of all, chapter _13_ , which we read from a couple of weeks ago, is about Jesus washing the feet of his disciples, and because the washing of feet is a major component of the liturgy of Holy Thursday, we're all very familiar with that.

The next four chapters, chapters 14 through 17, are often referred to as Jesus' Farewell Address, and this Farewell Address has been likened to the Sermon on the Mount as found in Matthew's Gospel in that it gathers together many of Jesus' favorite themes and teachings and puts them in the context of a single discourse; in this case, the thoughts of a man who is about to die and wishes to impart his blessing on those he will leave behind.

Perhaps the best loved lines from chapter _14_ are, "I am going to prepare a place for you... I will come back again and take you to myself, so that where I am you also will be." And again, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father". And "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". And also, "The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name – he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you."

In chapter _15_ the two most memorable lines are, "I am the vine... you are the branches." And "This is my commandment: love one another." And both of these lines are developed at some length.

In chapter _16_ Jesus tells his disciples that he will be leaving them shortly but it is better for them that he go because if he does not go, the Spirit, the Advocate will not come to them. But also Jesus himself will return. "A little while and you will no longer see me and again a little while and you will see me." Dark days lie ahead, says Jesus, "and you will weep and mourn... but your grief will become joy."

And finally, next Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday we will be reading the beautiful chapter _17_ which is the sublime prayer of Christ for his disciples and for all of us as well.

And with that John concludes his account of what is known as the _Last_ Supper but which is, of course, a supper that lives on and on among us.

### \+ + +

Back to top
Heaven, Hell and Purgatory

Jn 6:37-40

November 2 – All Souls' Day

All Souls' Day is, of course, about the souls in Purgatory, so I want to offer some observations this morning about purgatory and about heaven and hell as well. More specifically I want to touch on what _theologians_ are saying about heaven, hell and purgatory, not necessarily about what the Bible says but what theologians are saying about heaven, hell and purgatory.

In general, of course, theology is absolutely rooted in the Bible; the Sacred Scriptures are the basic nourishment of theology. But theologians also depend, and depend very heavily, on tradition and several other fields and on their own reasoning powers to make deductions regarding matters of faith. When the Sacred Scriptures speak of heaven and hell they tend to use descriptive images like the mansions in heaven and the fires of hell; and even if these images are not taken literally, they still provide us with important, though very basic information, namely that heaven is a rich and wonderful place whereas hell is painful and filled with torment. Theologians, however, have many further insights, many more specific observations to make regarding heaven, hell and purgatory, and they offer these to us for our consideration.

First of all about _hell_. Hell, say the theologians, is not a place. God did not create hell as a place into which he could cast unrepentant sinners in order to punish them and to seek retribution. In fact, say the theologians, it is simply not true to say that God, in any way, rejects sinners. Rather, it's the other way around. It is the unrepentant sinner who rejects God. Hell, in other words, is a self-chosen state of alienation from God, from the God who is love and the giver of all good things, so in rejecting God, the unrepentant sinner is, for all eternity, left all alone, and cut off from love and all that is good. That's what hell is.

Next, _heaven_. Unlike hell, say the theologians, heaven is a place, not perhaps a place in the ordinary sense of the word but a place nonetheless. And the reason for that is that Jesus rose from the dead and promised us that we too would rise from the dead and have a body, a glorified body it is true, but even a glorified body, it seems, would need a place, so heaven is, in some sense, a place. But heaven is also, of course, a state of being, of being completely and totally fulfilled in every way, and more importantly, a state of being in loving union with God, the God whose beauty and power and holiness and love we cannot even begin to imagine. That's what heaven is.

And finally a word about _purgatory_. Purgatory, according to the theologians, is, for those who have just died, also a state of being, initially, I would think, of feeling overwhelming relief over the fact that they are, thank God, among the saved, but also, of course, a state of realizing that in their present state they would be totally out of place in the presence of the All Holy One, that their residual, vestigial sinfulness would leave them in bad odor, that they need to be cleansed, to be purified. And who knows how long that purification process might take? At some periods of history it was thought that the purification or transformation process could take years, but today, even very conservative theologians suggest that the process might be an instantaneous one, that it might happen in a flash, at the very moment of death.

We simply don't know. So we leave it in God's good hands. And meanwhile we pray that all those who have died may very soon pass over to their mansion in heaven.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Torah and an Afterlife

Lk 20:27-40

Saturday – 33rd Week Ordinary Time

Martin Luther was a 16th century priest and theologian who saw the Church as being badly in need of reform, and one of his principle issues had to do with revelation. At the time the Church's position was that God had revealed to us his saving truths in two ways: in the Sacred Scriptures and in Tradition. Today this issue is, I think, somewhat more nuanced than that but in Luther's day that was the Church's position: basically two sources of revelation: Scripture and Tradition.

But what does that mean in practice? Well, take, for example, our teaching on the seven sacraments. One would be hard pressed, I think, to say that the New Testament alone clearly teaches that there are seven sacraments, but after several generations of Christians had carefully studied the Scriptures and prayerfully reflected on them and had taken into consideration the needs of the people, after several generations of that sort of appraisal, Tradition concluded that God had truly revealed, subtly perhaps, but truly revealed that Christ intended that there be seven sacraments. Luther, however, disagreed with this two-source position. For him there was only one source of revelation, the Scriptures, Sola Scriptura. Scripture alone. And to continue with the example of the sacraments, Luther's position, if I remember correctly, was that the Scriptures themselves, the Scriptures alone, would seem to point clearly to only two sacraments: baptism and eucharist.

I mention all this, however, only by way of analogy. Because what I really want to talk about is the fact that, at the time of Jesus, there was a similar disagreement, a practically identical disagreement among the Jews, and it all revolved around the first five books of the Bible known in Hebrew as the Torah. At the time of Jesus everyone agreed that the Torah was the _chief_ source of Jewish belief and practice but _not_ everyone agreed that the Torah was the _only_ source of Jewish belief and practice. The Sadducees, about whom we read in today's Gospel, held that the Torah was the only source while the Pharisees took a two-source position: the Torah and Tradition.

The specific issue in today's gospel has to do with an afterlife, particularly a resurrection. Well the Torah, it seems, never mentioned resurrection because when the Torah was written, presumably by Moses, around the year 1300 BC, the Jews at the time, had no belief whatsoever in an afterlife, so the Sadducees, who saw the Torah as the only source of God's directives, denied that there was any such thing as a resurrection.

And the Sadducees are the people who confront Jesus in our Gospel today. So how does Jesus respond? Well, in effect, he says to the Sadducees, "You say you do not believe in an afterlife because there is no mention of an afterlife in the Torah. But let's go back to the Torah, let's go back to the Book of Exodus, the second book of the Torah, and see whether it's really true that the Torah does not refer to an afterlife. Do you remember" says Jesus to the Sadducees, "do you remember in the Book of Exodus (3: 1-6) where Yahweh says to Moses, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob'? "Well", says Jesus, "Yahweh is the God not of the dead but of the living, so when Yahweh spoke those words to Moses, he must have been saying that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were alive, that they were, in other words, enjoying an afterlife." That was the gist of Jesus' answer.

Well obviously the Sadducees had never before heard that passage from the Torah interpreted in that way. It was brand new to them and yet made perfect sense. Such perfect sense that it caused them to question their lifelong belief in the absolute finality of death. And the more they thought about it the more confused they became. They hated to admit it but it appeared that Jesus was right. Which is why the Gospel reading concludes with the words "they no longer dared to ask him anything."

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Resurrection of the Dead

Lk 20: 27-40

Saturday – 33rd Week Ordinary Time

I don't know very much about religions other than our own but my impression is that almost all religions profess a belief in heaven, and, unless I'm mistaken, this is certainly true of all Christian churches, and of Jews and Muslims as well. As a matter of fact, the story goes that when Osama bin Laden arrived at the gates of heaven he was met by a large group of men, among them people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and they all start beating up on him. Well in between blows bin Laden calls out, "Stop, stop, what's going on? I thought when I got here I would be greeted by thirty virgins." Whereupon George Washington says, "Oh no, Osama, it wasn't thirty virgins; it was thirty Virginians, and here we are."

Well the point, of course, is that there are literally billions of people, among them Muslims and Christians and Jews who believe in _heaven_. Belief in the _resurrection from the dead_ , on the other hand, is another thing altogether. Again my impression is that even in those religions that recognize the resurrection of the dead as an official tenet of belief, most of the people in the pews pay no attention at all to that belief and it simply never occurs to them that a global rising up from the dead could ever actually happen.

Take our Catholic religion, for example. Every Sunday we conclude either the _Nicene_ Creed by saying. "I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come" or the _Apostles_ Creed by saying, "I believe....in the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen." And these beliefs come not only from tradition but from the Scriptures as well. Matthew, for example, wrote that, at the very time that Jesus "yielded up his spirit" on the cross:

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many. (Mt 27:51-53)

So it appears that some rose up from the dead in order to underline and celebrate the cosmic significance of the death and resurrection of Christ. And although the rest of us must wait until the End Time before we too rise from the dead, St. Paul assures us that our time is certainly coming, for he writes that Christ is both "the firstborn from the dead" (Col 1:18) and "the first fruits of those who have died". (1 Cor 15:20)

So we should be rejoicing, I think, not only because heaven awaits us but also because, just as Christ, the firstborn of the dead, rose up, so we will follow him; we too will be "born of the dead"; we too, in other words, will rise up from the dead and, like Christ, will finally experience a complete and total victory over death.

### \+ + +

Back to top
The Second Coming

Lk 18:1-8

Saturday – 32nd Week Ordinary Time

At Mass, immediately after the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, the priest says, "the mystery of faith", and the first response is, "We proclaim your Death, O Lord, and profess your Resurrection until you come again". Until you come again. Then, immediately after we pray the "Our Father" at Mass, the priest says that short prayer that concludes with the words "as we await the blessed hope and the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ." As we await the blessed hope and the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ. So at least twice at every Mass we profess our belief in the Second Coming of Christ.

And we _do_ believe in the Second Coming of Christ, but we don't believe in it in the same way that we believe, for example, in the divinity of Christ and in his Resurrection and in the fact that he is our Savior. _These_ are beliefs that impact our lives here and now in a radical way. They in fact determine the very way we think and act. They make us who we are. We are followers of Christ because of these beliefs.

Our belief in the Second Coming of Christ, however, is very different. It was, after all, more than two thousand years ago that Jesus told us that he would come again, and it hasn't happened yet, so we figure, what are the chances that it's going to happen in our lifetime? I think we all feel that if it _did_ happen in our lifetime it would surely be the most amazing, spectacular event we could possibly imagine. It's just that we're not holding our breath; and the plain fact is that the Second Coming of Christ is a thought that almost never crosses our mind.

I mention it today, however, because for the last few days at Mass Jesus has been talking in our Gospel reading about his Second Coming. He will also talk about it some more when we get to chapter 21 of Luke's Gospel a couple of weeks from now, but yesterday, for example, Jesus said, "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of Man; they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage up to the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all..... So it will be on the day the Son of Man is revealed."

It might seem that today's Gospel reading has nothing to do with the Second Coming of Christ, but in fact it does, because the whole point of today's parable is that, unlike the unscrupulous judge, God _always_ answers our prayers, and he always answers them on time, that is to say, at the right time. Apparently among the early Christians there were some who were disappointed when, after some years, Jesus had still not returned, and one gathers from the final line in today's Gospel that some of those people had actually given up waiting and believing. But Jesus says, "Patience, my friends, the time is not yet right, but when it is right the Son of Man will return and justice will then be done, and all will be well."

### \+ + +

Back to top
Saturdays – Chronological Index

1st Week of Advent -- Preaching to Gentiles

Nov 30 – St. Andrew -- First Century Apostles

2nd Week of Advent -- Two Parousia Figures

December 21 -- The Real Reason for the Visitation

December 28 -- The Israelites and the Little Boy who was Saved

Saturday After Epiphany -- The Slow to Faith

1st Week Ordinary Time -- The Unworthy

2nd Week Ordinary Time -- Mark, Teller of the Truth

3rd Week Ordinary Time -- The Mighty Deeds of Jesus

4th Week Ordinary Time -- The Key to Mark's Gospel

5th Week Ordinary Time -- Creation in Genesis

5th Week Ordinary Time -- Eucharist

6th Week Ordinary Time -- The Baptism and Transfiguration of Jesus

Feb 22 Chair of St. Peter -- Thinking About the Pope

1st Week of Lent -- The Lenten Liturgy

2nd Week of Lent -- Thinking as God Does

3rd Week of Lent -- Being Justified by our Savior

4th Week of Lent -- The Messiah and the Donkey

4th Week of Lent -- Nicodemus

5th Week of Lent -- Jesus and Lazarus

Easter Week -- Saying Nothing about the Resurrection

Easter Week -- Mark 16, the Mystery Chapter

May 3, Philip & James -- John's Distinctive Christology

2nd Week of Easter -- Jesus the New Passover

3rd Week of Easter -- The Eucharist over the Centuries

3rd Week of Easter -- The Warp and Woof of John Six

4th Week of Easter -- Miracles and the Kingdom

4th Week of Easter -- Abba

5th Week of Easter -- The Book of Signs and the Book of Glory

May 31 – Visitation -- Two Different Infancy Narratives

6th Week of Easter -- The Last Supper in John

7th Week of Easter -- The Appendix to John's Gospel

10th Week Ordinary Time -- Matthew and the Letter of James

11th Week Ordinary Time -- Following Christ

12th Week Ordinary Time -- Miracles in Matthew

13th Week Ordinary Time -- A Changing Church

14th Week Ordinary Time -- A Misplaced Event ?

14th Week Ordinary Time -- In Times of Persecution

14th Week Ordinary Time -- The Missionary Discourse

15th Week Ordinary Time -- Jesus the Fulfiller of Prophecy

15th Week Ordinary Time -- Isaiah

15th Week Ordinary Time -- Judging Others

16th Week Ordinary Time -- Just a Parable

17th Week Ordinary Time -- Jesus and the Baptist

18th Week Ordinary Time -- Miracles

Aug 10 – St. Lawrence -- Francis and Lawrence

19th Week Ordinary Time -- Being Childlike

19th Week Ordinary Time -- Inheritance

20th Week Ordinary Time -- Matthew the Scribe

Aug 24 St. Bartholomew -- Jesus a Rabbi ?

21st Week Ordinary Time -- The Parables of the Talents and Pounds

22nd Week Ordinary Time -- The Positive and Negative in Luke

22nd Week Ordinary Time -- The Lord of the Sabbath

Sept 14 – Exaltation -- Three Exaltations

23rd Week Ordinary Time -- The Call of Christ

24th Week Ordinary Time -- Hearing and Doing

Sept 21 St. Matthew -- Matthew – Levi

25th Week Ordinary Time -- Jesus the Prophet

26th Week Ordinary Time -- The Twelve and the Seventy-Two

26th Week Ordinary Time -- Paul's Gospel

27th Week Ordinary Time -- The Importance of the Individual

27th Week Ordinary Time -- Blessed is the Womb

28th Week Ordinary Time -- Journeys to Jerusalem in John and Luke

Oct 18 St. Luke -- Doctor Without Borders

Oct 19 – N. Am. Martyrs -- The Unforgivable Sin

29th Week Ordinary Time -- A Lucan Parable ?

29th Week Ordinary Time -- The Gentleness of Jesus and of Luke

30th Week Ordinary Time -- The Great Reversal

Nov 1 All Saints -- Our Saintly Side

Nov 2 – All Souls -- Heaven, Hell and Purgatory

31st Week Ordinary Time -- The Proper Use of Money

Nov 9 – Lateran Basilica -- The Temple and Jesus, Symbols of God's Presence

32nd Week Ordinary Time -- Actions and Motivation

32nd Week Ordinary Time -- Luke, Paul and Prayer

32nd Week Ordinary Time -- Persistence in Prayer

32nd Week Ordinary Time -- The Second Coming

33rd Week Ordinary Time -- The Torah and an Afterlife

33rd Week Ordinary Time -- The Resurrection of the Dead

34th Week Ordinary Time -- Our Liturgical Year

### \+ + +

Back to top
