

TEACHING DAILY IN THE TEMPLE

Observations on the four Evangelists  
and on the life and teachings  
of their Lord

Lawrence G. Wrenn

Text copyright 2013 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 as Teacher

Jean Barillet, Artist - 1962

Cathedral of St. Joseph, Hartford, CT

Yes, as the rain and the snow come down from the heavens and do not return without watering the earth, making it yield and giving growth to provide seed for the sower and bread for the eating, so the word that goes from my mouth does not return to me empty, without carrying out my will and succeeding in what it was sent to do. (Is 55:10-11)

To the wonderful people of the parish of St. Thomas More, Sarasota, Florida where these homilies were given

and

To the equally wonderful people of the Cathedral of St. Joseph, Hartford, Connecticut where I helped out on weekends for many years prior to my retirement, my blissful retirement among the palm trees.

Contents

Preface

EVANGELISTS, APOSTLES, DISCIPLES

The Evangelists \- Thursday, 3rd Week of Advent

An Event Worthy of the Gospel \- Saturday, After Ash Wednesday

Mark \- Saturday of Easter Week

Sandwiching \- Saturday, 4th Week Ordinary Time

The Cost of Discipleship \- Friday, 4th Week Ordinary Time

Triple Cycle \- Tuesday, 5th Week Ordinary Time

Making the Hidden Known \- Saturday, 14th Week Ordinary Time

A Little Faith \- Saturday, 18th Week Ordinary Time

Matthew the Apostle \- September 21st, Feast of St. Matthew

Matthew's Message \- Friday, 10th Week Ordinary Time

Matthew's Structure and the Kingdom \- Friday, 14th Week Ordinary Time

Conclusions to the Five Discourses \- Thursday, 12th Week Ordinary Time

Binding and Loosing \- Wednesday, 19th Week Ordinary Time

Luke and His Gospel \- Monday, 22nd Week Ordinary Time

Women in Luke \- Friday, 24th Week Ordinary Time

Children in Luke \- Saturday, 19th Week Ordinary Time

The Journey \- Wednesday, 30th Week Ordinary Time

Luke and Matthew's 1st and 2nd Sources \- Friday, 23rd Week Ordinary Time

Luke's and Matthew's 3rd Source \- Thursday, 24th Week Ordinary Time

A Parable's Unusual Origin \- Saturday, 16th Week Ordinary Time

The Sermon on the Plain \- Thursday, 23rd Week Ordinary Time

John the Evangelist \- Wednesday, 7th Week of Easter

Peter and the Beloved Disciple \- Saturday, 7th Week of Easter

The Beloved Disciple \- Saturday, 7th Week of Easter

John's Prologue \- December 31st

The Gospels of Mark and John \- January 5th

Re-Creation \- January 2nd, Before Epiphany

John's Two Books \- Wednesday, 4th Week of Easter

The Last Supper \- Thursday, 4th Week of Easter

The Inerrancy of Scripture \- Feast of St. Andrew, November 30th

Enthusiasm \- Feast of St. James, July 25th

James the Greater \- July 25, James the Apostle

The Twelve \- SS Philip and James, May 3rd

St. Andrew \- Feast of St. Andrew, November 30th

Judas \- Tuesday of Holy Week

Paul and Barnabas \- Thursday, 4th Week of Easter

The Way \- Friday, 3rd Week of Easter

Baptist, Herald of Death \- Friday, 4th Week Ordinary Time

Legion, the Apostle \- Monday, 4th Week Ordinary Time

Mary, Mother of God \- January 1, Octave of Christmas

The Magnificat \- December 22nd

The Assumption \- August 15th

Origins of Our Belief in the Assumption \- The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Women \- Tuesday, 4th Week Ordinary Time

The Disciples of Jesus and John \- Friday, 2nd Week of Advent

The Johannine Community \- Saturday, 5th Week of Easter

Blindness \- Wednesday, 6th Week Ordinary Time

Ambition \- Wednesday, 2nd Week of Lent

Transformation of Disciples \- Tuesday, 6th Week Ordinary Time

The Charcoal Fire \- Friday of Easter Week

JESUS

The Davidic Genealogy \- December 17th

Two Births \- Our Lady of Guadalupe, December 12th

The Infancy Narratives \- December 19th

The Joyful News \- December 22nd

The Presentation of the Redeemer \- 5th Day in the Octave of Christmas

Jewish Christians \- Presentation of the Lord

The New Exodus \- December 28th, Holy Innocents

Son of David \- Friday, 1st Week of Advent

Son of Man \- Tuesday, 2nd Week Ordinary Time

The Father's Son \- Friday, 5th Week of Lent

Son of God \- Thursday, 2nd Week Ordinary Time

Yahweh \- Tuesday, 5th Week of Lent

The I Am \- Saturday, 2nd Week of Easter

Lamb of God \- January 4th, Before Epiphany

The Authoritative One of God \- Tuesday, 1st Week Ordinary Time

Authoritative Teacher \- Friday, 15th Week Ordinary Time

The Teacher \- Wednesday, 2nd Week of Advent

The Gatherer \- Saturday, 5th Week of Lent

Christ the Reformer \- Saturday, 18th Week Ordinary Time

Jesus Messiah / King \- Thursday, 2nd Week Ordinary Time

The Messianic Secret \- Wednesday, 1st Week Ordinary Time

Action and Prayer \- Friday, After Epiphany

The Touch of Christ \- Tuesday, 4th Week Ordinary Time

Powerless Christ \- Wednesday, 4th Week Ordinary Time

The Six Antitheses \- Friday, 1st Week of Lent

Oath Taking \- Saturday, 10th Week Ordinary Time

Jesus the Legislator \- Saturday, 1st Week of Lent

Words of Christ \- Tuesday, 4th Week of Lent

Jesus in Conflict \- Wednesday, 2nd Week Ordinary Time

Plots Against Jesus \- Saturday, 5th Week of Lent

The Three Entrapment Episodes \- Saturday, 8th Week Ordinary Time

Founding a New Church \- Monday, 2nd Week Ordinary Time

Two Miracles \- Friday, 5th Week Ordinary Time

A Miracle at Home \- Friday, 1st Week Ordinary Time

Jesus Our Model \- Friday, 5th Week Ordinary Time

The Courage of Jesus \- Friday, 33rd Week Ordinary Time

Agony and Ecstasy \- Transfiguration, August 6th

Symbol of Fidelity \- September 14th, Exaltation of the Cross

The Four Songs of the Servant of God \- Saturday, 15th Week Ordinary Time

Empty Tomb \- Monday of Easter Week

Resurrection / Resuscitation \- Tuesday of Easter Week

Final Pep Talk \- Friday of Easter Week

LITURGICAL SEASONS AND EVENTS

Advent \- Tuesday, 1st Week of Advent

More on Advent \- Wednesday, 1st Week of Advent

The Lenten Sunday Gospel Readings, Year C \- Ash Wednesday

Acknowledging Our Sins \- Ash Wednesday

Conversion \- Ash Wednesday

Annual Readings \- Tuesday, 2nd Week of Lent

TEACHINGS, PARABLES, DISCOURSES

The Holy Trinity \- Tuesday, 1st Week of Advent

God the Creator \- Thursday, 7th Week of Easter

The Giver of Life \- March 25th, The Annunciation of the Lord

God's Love \- Sacred Heart

The Two Hearts \- Immaculate Heart of Mary

Hesed \- Saturday, After Epiphany

Kingdom from Day One -Wednesday, 25th Week Ordinary Time

Launching the Kingdom \- Friday, After Ash Wednesday

The Open Kingdom \- Thursday, 19th Week Ordinary Time

Like a Child \- Saturday, 7th Week Ordinary Time

Paradox of the Kingdom \- Wednesday, 26th Week Ordinary Time

Urgency of the Kingdom \- Wednesday, 26th Week Ordinary Time

The Oneness of Christ and the Kingdom \- Saturday, 16th Week Ordinary Time

The Multiplication of the Loaves \- Friday, 2nd Week of Easter

Prefigurement of the Eucharist \- Wednesday, 1st Week of Advent

Foreshadowing of the Eucharist \- Friday, 2nd Week of Easter

Faith and Reason \- Wednesday, 3rd Week of Easter

The Bread of Life \- Thursday, 3rd Week of Easter

Real Faith and the Eucharist \- Friday, 3rd Week of Easter

The Eucharistic Memorial \- Memorial Day

Good Works \- Thursday, 1st Week of Advent

The Mystical Body \- January 25th, Conversion of St. Paul

The Scribes \- Monday, 3rd Week Ordinary Time

Clericalism \- Saturday, 20th Week Ordinary Time

The Will of God \- Tuesday, 3rd Week Ordinary Time

Siblings of Christ \- Tuesday, 3rd Week Ordinary Time

Handling Rejection \- Thursday, 4th Week Ordinary Time

The Law \- Wednesday, 5th Week Ordinary Time

Law and Prophets \- Wednesday, 3rd Week of Lent

Three Predictions \- Tuesday, 7th Week Ordinary Time

The Core Message \- Thursday, After Ash Wednesday

Marriage in Heaven \- Wednesday, 9th Week Ordinary Time

The Afterlife \- Saturday, 33rd Week Ordinary Time

The Sermon on the Mount \- Ash Wednesday

The Last Judgment \- Monday, 1st Week of Lent

The Paracletes \- Wednesday, 6th Week of Easter

Stages of the Journey \- Monday, 5th Week of Easter

Christianity / Stoicism \- Friday, 6th Week of Easter

Teaching in Plain Words - Saturday, 6th Week of Easter

Glory \- Tuesday, 7th Week of Easter

Priesthood of the Baptized \- Tuesday, 14th Week Ordinary Time

The Sabbath \- Friday, 15th Week Ordinary Time

The Canaanite Woman \- Wednesday, 18th Week Ordinary Time

Principles \- Thursday, 25th Week Ordinary Time

The Lord's Prayer \- Wednesday, 27th Week Ordinary Time

Prayer and Intercession \- Saturday, 6th Week of Easter

Hypocrisy \- Friday, 29th Week Ordinary Time

Jerusalem \- Thursday, 30th Week Ordinary Time

Servants \- Tuesday, 32nd Week Ordinary Time

Paths to Jesus \- Tuesday, 33rd Week Ordinary Time

Envy \- Wednesday, 20th Week Ordinary Time

Generosity \- Monday, 34th Week Ordinary Time

Parables \- Thursday, 16th Week Ordinary Time

The Mystery of the Kingdom of God \- Friday, 3rd Week Ordinary Time

The Kingdom Parables \- Friday, 3rd Week Ordinary Time

Parable of the Sower and the Seed \- Wednesday, 3rd Week Ordinary Time

The Seed \- Thursday, 3rd Week Ordinary Time

The Call to Bear Fruit \- Friday, 2nd Week of Lent

The Unforgiving Servant \- Thursday, 19th Week Ordinary Time

The Wedding / Baptismal Garment \- Thursday, 20th Week Ordinary Time

The Rich Fool \- Monday, 29th Week Ordinary Time

The Sinful / Loving Woman \- Thursday, 24th Week Ordinary Time

Shema \- Friday, 3rd Week of Lent

The Greatest Commandments \- Friday, 3rd Week of Lent

The Most Important Commandment \- Friday, 20th Week Ordinary Time

Love for One Another \- Friday, 5th Week of Easter

The Wise and Foolish \- Friday, 21st Week Ordinary Time

The Parousia \- Wednesday, 29th Week Ordinary Time

Christians Thinking Church \- June 29, SS. Peter and Paul

Paul and Luke on the Parousia \- Thursday, 34th Week Ordinary Time

The Parousia Revisited \- Friday, 32nd Week Ordinary Time

Chronological Index

Preface

In a collection of this sort the homilies are usually set down in chronological order, that is to say, from the beginning of the Church year to the end. A different arrangement is used here. These homilies have been grouped under four headings. The first group consists of homilies about the Evangelists, the Apostles and other disciples. The homilies in the second group are about Jesus himself, and these _are_ arranged chronologically, from the birth of Jesus to his resurrection. In the third group are a few homilies on liturgical matters. And in section four are the homilies on the teachings of Jesus.

This arrangement has distinct and, I think, prevailing advantages over the chronological one but it does rely on the indulgence of the reader to overlook occasional references and allusions that might seem awkward and foreign when read out of their original setting. My hope is that the reader will not find this too bothersome or distracting.

I have another hope as well and that is that, before reading a homily, you will first read the Gospel passage on which it is based. Not only because the homily is not fully understandable when unhooked from its Gospel passage but more importantly because it is the Gospel passage itself that is the primary source of our faith. Jesus is the Teacher. It is he who taught daily in the temple[1] and it is he who continues to teach us.

Lawrence G. Wrenn

EVANGELISTS, APOSTLES, DISCIPLES

Thursday—3rd Week of Advent

Lk 7:24-30

The Evangelists

Today's Gospel reading about John the Baptist is taken from the Gospel according to Luke. Matthew, in his Gospel, has an almost identical passage; both Matthew and Luke, for example, quote Jesus as saying, "Among those born of woman no one is greater than John." Between Matthew's account and Luke's, however, there is a small but notable difference, and it's this: in Matthew's account Jesus likens John the Baptist to Elijah the prophet come back to life, whereas in Luke's account there is no mention at all of Elijah. So why is that? Why does Matthew mention Elijah whereas Luke does not? Well the short answer is that Matthew was writing for Jewish Christians who were familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures whereas Luke was writing for Gentiles who would not have been familiar with Elijah.

That's the short answer. But it brings up the question of how one Gospel differs from another, so let me say a few words about that. Of the four Gospels, the one by John is very different from the other three. His is more reflective, more theological minded, more concerned with the hidden meaning of things. He speaks, for example, of Jesus as the Word made flesh, the Living Water, the True Vine, the Bread of Life and the Light of the World.

The other three Gospels concentrate more on the historical events in the life of Jesus, and they, as a group of three, have been called the Synoptic Gospels. The word synoptic, as you might gather from the last two syllables of the word, has to do with the eye. Syn-optic. It literally means "with one eye," and the idea is that many of the passages in these three Gospels can be lined up side by side and be compared with a single glance.

And while we're speaking about the Gospels, let me make just a few observations on the four authors themselves. First of all, Matthew. It used to be taken for granted that the author of the Gospel according to Matthew was Matthew, the tax collector, who was one of the Twelve Apostles and was therefore an eyewitness to many of the events described in the Gospel. Now, however, it appears that the author of that Gospel was someone else altogether, a Jew, perhaps even a rabbi, who lived in Palestine and put this Gospel into its final form around the year 85, based not on what he had personally seen or heard but rather on the sources available to him at the time.

Then there was Mark. Mark worked with Paul and was a close friend of Peter, indeed practically like a son to Peter, and so Mark was able to incorporate into his Gospel much of what Peter had told him about Jesus and the people and events in the life of Jesus.

Luke was different from the other three evangelists in that he was not a Jew but a Greek-speaking Gentile who came from Syria, considerably north of Galilee. In Paul's letter to the Colossians he speaks of "my dear friend Luke, the doctor." And Luke wrote not only the Gospel but the Acts of the Apostles as well.

And finally there is John, the young fisherman from Bethsaida, who was definitely one of the Twelve and who was, therefore, an eyewitness to most of the events recorded in all four of the Gospels.

Perhaps, as you read the Gospels at home, and as we read and talk about them here at church, these few basic facts about the Gospels and their authors will be of some help. I hope so. The Gospels are so important. They are filled with wisdom, and most of all, they are filled with the Good News.

\+ + +

Saturday After Ash Wednesday

Lk 5: 27-32

An Event Worthy of the Gospel

The Gospel according to John contains twenty-one chapters, and at the end of those twenty-one chapters John wrote, "There were _many_ other things that Jesus did; if _all_ were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not hold all the books that would have to be written." One of the implications of this observation by John is that writing a Gospel involved a selection process. Presumably, in other words, as each of the Evangelists was writing his Gospel, he had before him many accounts of the various deeds and sayings of Jesus, and he had to decide which of those deeds and sayings he would incorporate into his Gospel. Today's Gospel reading about Jesus dining with tax-collectors and other sinners is from the Gospel according to Luke but the same event is also recorded by both Matthew and Mark. Which gives rise to the question: what was it about this particular event that prompted all three of the Synoptic Gospel writers to include it in their Gospels?

The answer, I suspect, is that Jesus' attitude towards tax-collectors and other sinners helped settle a disagreement that had occurred among the early Christians. Let me try to spell that out a little bit. The very early Christians were, as you know, all Jews, and Jews were not allowed to fraternize with gentiles. However, within four or five years after the death of Jesus, some of those Jewish Christians were urging that gentiles be accepted into their company, and for a time this became a source of major disagreement among the early Christians. But one might say, "Yes, I know about that. But how did today's Gospel event help to settle this disagreement? I mean in our Gospel reading today Jesus is not talking about fraternizing with _gentiles_ ; he's talking about fraternizing with _tax-collectors and sinners_." True, but the point is that eventually everyone came to realize that the principle is the same, that what Jesus was saying was that no one, not tax-collectors, not sinners, not gentiles should be excluded.

Even St. Peter who, as a devout Jew, was one of those who, for a time, objected to fraternizing with gentiles, even St. Peter eventually came around, and when he did he called the people together and addressed them saying, "You know it is forbidden for Jews to mix with people of another race and visit them, but God has made it clear to me that I must not call anyone profane or unclean." (Acts 10:28)

And this, of course, is the message that we are all expected to take from today's Gospel reading as well, that we are called to see everyone else, everyone else as a person created in the image and likeness of God, and therefore worthy of our respect and support and compassion and yes, even our love.

\+ + +

Saturday of Easter Week

Mk 16:9-15

Mark

Today's Gospel reading begins with the closing verses, the final verses, of St. Marks Gospel. It is to be noted, however, that these verses were _not_ written by Mark himself. Rather they were written by some anonymous first century author who did not like the way Mark himself concluded his Gospel. (Presumably, he felt Mark's own ending was too abrupt and pessimistic and perhaps too subtle.) So, he took it upon himself to write his own conclusion and tack it on to Mark's Gospel. And that's the Gospel passage we just read.

I'll read for you in a moment Mark's own original ending to his Gospel but first let me make a few observations about Mark himself.

Mark never met Jesus. But when Mark was a boy or a young man the Christians in Jerusalem used to meet for prayer at the home of Mark's mother (Acts 12:12) and Mark came to know both Peter and Paul very well. As a matter of fact, in the year 46 Mark went off with Paul on Paul's first missionary journey. That journey ended badly, however, because at some point on the journey Mark apparently became disenchanted and abandoned Paul (Acts 13:13) and Paul became very upset, so upset that Paul absolutely refused even to consider taking Mark along on his second missionary journey in the year 50. The Acts of the Apostles describes that event this way:

Barnabas suggested taking Mark but Paul was not in favor of taking along the very man who had deserted them in Pamphilia and had refused to share in the work. After a violent quarrel they parted company. (Acts 15:37-38)

Fortunately, Paul and Mark later reconciled and even became co-workers again. (Phlm 24, Col 4:10, 2 Tm 4:11) But it was to Peter that young Mark became particularly devoted. Peter and Mark became like father and son (I Peter 5:13) and they spent much time together in Rome before Peter was executed in the year 68 during the persecution of Nero.

It was shortly after Peter died that Mark wrote his Gospel; and let me read for you now the rather strange way in which Mark ended his Gospel:

When the Sabbath was over, Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, 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."' And the women came out and ran away from the tomb because they were frightened out of their wits; and they said nothing to a soul, for they were afraid.

That's it. That's the way Mark ended his Gospel. It's understandable, I guess, that some people had a problem with this conclusion and that a second ending was eventually added on to soften it. But there is also something to be said for having left it the way it was. Mark, after all, had suffered some pretty severe traumas in his life and, more importantly, Christians were still being persecuted as Mark was writing his Gospel, and many Christians (probably even Mark himself) were fearing for their lives at the time. So maybe Mark was wanting to make the point that, for one reason or another, fear had been a problem for Christians from the very beginning, that if we don't learn to deal with it, it will paralyze us, but that the tomb is empty and we are not alone, that others before us have risen above their fear, and have become zealous and fearless apostles, and we can do the same. Perhaps, in other words, Mark had a point in ending his Gospel the way he did.

\+ + +

Saturday—4th Week Ordinary Time

Mk 6:30-34

Sandwiching

Our Gospel reading today is part three in a set of three. Part one we read on Thursday where Jesus sent his disciples out on a training mission. And today, right at the beginning of part three, the disciples return from their training mission. But what about part two which is the Gospel passage we read yesterday? Well part two was about the beheading of John the Baptist. Part two, in other words, was about an incident that was, at least on the face of it, not related in any way to the training mission of the disciples.

Well this, as it turns out, is actually a recognized literary device in which the author intentionally inserts a totally unrelated incident into the middle of another event. The device, by the way, has both a fancy name and an unfancy name. The fancy name is intercalation but the device is also known, for pretty obvious reasons, by its unfancy name of sandwiching. Although sandwiching is not found in any of the other Gospels, it seems to have been a favorite of Mark who used it five times, and before I offer any other comment, I want to zip very quickly through the other four examples.

In chapter 3 Mark begins talking about the concern that Jesus' family have for him. Then he sandwiches in a discussion about the power that Jesus had over devils, and after that, Mark goes back to the concern that the family had for Jesus. In chapter 5 Jesus is asked to cure Jairus' daughter but before he does he gets sidetracked into curing the woman with the hemorrhage, and only after that does he return to cure Jairus' daughter (or actually to raise her from death). In chapter 11 Jesus curses a fig tree because it is barren and the next day Jesus' disciples notice that the fig tree had withered right to its roots, but in between Mark recounts the event in which Jesus expels the money changers from the temple. And finally, in chapter 14 Mark talks about how the Pharisees are plotting to kill Jesus. Then, in part two, the unrelated insertion part, Mark recounts the incident about the woman anointing Jesus with a costly ointment, and only after that does Mark return to the plots against Jesus. So these, along with this week's example of the training mission interrupted by the death of the Baptist, are Mark's five uses of sandwiching.

I guess a case could be made that, in at least one or two of those incidents, the middle part is, in fact, more related to parts one and three than it might appear to be. But I also think that, in the bigger picture, maybe Mark is wanting to tell us that sandwiching should be an essential part of our lives. What I mean is this: we all have plenty to do most days. We vacuum and do the dishes and the laundry. We take care of our own finances. We volunteer. We shop. We cook. We have breakfast, lunch and dinner. We read. We go to movies, plays, lectures, concerts and so forth. But periodically it is essential that we interrupt our routine and say to ourselves, "I am a creature of God, I am a disciple of Jesus. What is really important in life? Do I love God and my neighbor the way I should?" What I'm saying in other words, is that sandwiching moments like these are essential. Because without them life is just busyness, but with them life is rich and full and ordered to our ultimate destiny. In short, sandwiching moments like these are what really make sense of our lives. They are what make sense of who we really are and what we're really doing here on earth.

\+ + +

Friday—4th Week Ordinary Time

Mk 6:14-29

The Cost of Discipleship

_Yesterday's_ Gospel reading described how Jesus sent his twelve apostles out on their first training mission. In _tomorrow's_ Gospel reading we're going to hear about the apostles returning from that training mission. Let me read just a few lines from each. _Yesterday's_ Gospel reading said:

He summoned the Twelve and began to send them out in pairs, giving them authority over the unclean spirits. And he instructed them to take nothing for the journey except a staff...So they set out to preach repentance, and they cast out many devils, and anointed many sick people with oil and cured them. (Mk 6: 7-12)

That was from _yesterday's_ Gospel reading. _Tomorrow's_ reading begins:

The apostles rejoined Jesus and told him all they had done and taught. Then he said to them, 'you must come away to some lonely place all by yourselves and rest for a while.' (Mk 6: 30-31)

But _today_ , smack in the middle of these two readings about the mission of the apostles, we read this gruesome story about the beheading of the Baptist. It sounds like a disconnected, desultory arrangement of the events but this, in fact, is exactly the way Mark himself wrote this section: first something about the training mission of the apostles, then the story of the beheading, and finally back to the mission of the apostles again.

So why did Mark do that? Well one answer to that question might be that Mark wrote it that way because that's the way it happened. Perhaps, in other words, Jesus first sent the apostles off; then, while they were out preaching, John was beheaded; and afterwards the apostles returned. That, as I say, might be a possible explanation except for the fact that it's pretty clear from Matthew's Gospel (chapters 10 and 14) that, in fact, it did _not_ happen that way. Mark, in other words, did not write this section the way he did in order to reflect the actual chronology of events. So he must have had some other reason for deciding to insert the beheading event in the middle of the training mission of the apostles.

So again, why did Mark do that? Well first of all it helps to remember that Mark wrote his Gospel around the year 69, shortly after his very dear friend, probably his closest friend, and mentor, St. Peter, had been executed by the Emperor Nero. So very likely Mark decided to link the training mission of the apostles together with the execution of the Baptist as a way of reminding his contemporaries and us that being a Christian means not only that we belong to this wonderful, faith filled, worshipping, loving community which is nourished by the very Body and Blood of our Savior, being a Christian means not only that, but it also means that we are called to a life of service and a life of sacrifice.

This, I think, is why Mark ties together, or intermingles the two events of the sacrifice of the Baptist and the mission of the apostles: because Mark had learned from heart breaking, personal experience that being a disciple of Christ necessarily involves sacrifice. If, in other words, our own Christian faith does not entail some element of sacrifice on our part, then we cannot, I think, really claim to be true disciples of Jesus. Or, as Jesus himself put it. "Whoever would be a disciple of mine must take up a cross and follow me." (Mk8:34)

\+ + +

Tuesday—5th Week Ordinary Time

Mk 7:1-13

Triple Cycle

A couple of weeks ago, when our Gospel reading was from chapter 3 of Mark's Gospel, I mentioned that Jesus had already worked several impressive miracles and people were coming from far and wide to be healed by him. Everything was going smoothly. But then suddenly the scene turned ugly. The scribes entered the picture and claimed that Jesus was casting out devils through the prince of devils. So first there were the miracles and then the confrontation with the scribes.

Well now we're in chapter 7 and the same thing is happening. In chapter 6 Mark records two spectacular miracles. First Jesus feeds 5,000 people with just five loaves of bread and two fish; and then he walks on water. And now in chapter 7 here we go again; first we have the miracles and then the confrontation.

And guess what. Turn the page in your Bible and you will find exactly the same scenario. At the end of chapter 7 Jesus cures a deaf man, and then chapter 8 opens with an account of the second miracle of the loaves where Jesus now feeds 4,000 people with seven loaves of bread and a few fish. And immediately after that Mark writes, "The Pharisees came up and started a discussion with Jesus; they demanded from him a sign from heaven to test him."

So this is the structure or format of Mark's opening chapters. You have a few miracles and then a confrontation; then another few miracles and a confrontation; and so on. There are probably several reasons why Mark chose to utilize this structure but let me mention just a couple.

First of all Mark wants his readers to know right from the beginning that the public ministry of Jesus will constitute and symbolize the great struggle between good and evil. So Mark first portrays Jesus the miracle worker or goodness personified, and then he shows the forces of evil out to destroy him. And to make sure the reader doesn't miss the point, Mark repeats the scenario again and again.

But there is, I suspect, a second meaning to Mark's narrative. What I suspect is, that Mark wants us on reflection, to realize that the real cycle is not a coupling but a tripling. So it's not; first miracles and then confrontation. Rather the real cycle is: first miracles, secondly confrontation and thirdly miracles again. Because, of course, Jesus will be killed but then he will rise from the dead. And so with us. The real cycle is not: first life and then death. The real cycle is: first life, secondly death and thirdly life again. Because ultimately miracles win out and we too will rise from the dead. Ultimately the cycle ends with miracles. Ultimately the cycle ends not with death but with life.

\+ + +

Saturday—14th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 10:24-33

Making the Hidden Known

In today's Gospel reading Jesus says, "Nothing is concealed that will not be revealed and nothing hidden that will not be made known." That's from Matthew's Gospel, chapter 10. And the very same line also appears in Mark's Gospel, chapter 4. In Mark's Gospel, however, the line is spoken in a broad, general context, whereas in Matthew's Gospel the line is spoken in the context of a very specific issue.

Let's look at Mark's context first. In Mark the sentence about making known what is hidden is found in a parable that Jesus told, known as the Parable of the Lamp. The gist of that parable is that if you've got a lamp (that is to say, if you have knowledge of the truth) then you shouldn't hide the lamp under a basket; rather you should put it on a lampstand for all to see, so that what was concealed will be revealed. In Mark's Gospel, in other words, Jesus is simply making the general point that knowledgeable people have a responsibility to pass that knowledge on to others.

In Matthew's Gospel, however, the statement about making the hidden known is set in a very specific context. In Matthew's Gospel Jesus has just finished giving sight to two blind men and then telling them not to let anyone know about the cures. Jesus, you see, seemed to sense that his cures and other miracles would be properly understood only after his resurrection from the dead. Not before. So prior to his resurrection, Jesus wanted to keep things hush-hush. But afterwards, after he is risen from the dead, that, says Jesus, will be time to reveal his wondrous deeds. This is why, in today's Gospel reading, Jesus says to his disciples, "What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; what you hear now in private, proclaim from the housetops." In other words, says Jesus, don't say anything now but once I've risen from the dead, then "do not let them intimidate you, for nothing is concealed that will not be revealed, and nothing hidden that will not be made known."

So we have Mark's general context and Matthew's specific context, but the question is: what is the message for us today? The message for us today is that Jesus is risen from the dead now, so now is the time for us to tell all who will listen about his wondrous deeds. Now is the time for us to put our lamp on a lampstand. Now it is our task and our great privilege to bring the light of Christ to everyone we meet in every way we can in order to fulfill the prophecy of Jesus that nothing is concealed that will not be revealed and nothing hidden that will not be made known.

\+ + +

Saturday—18th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 17:14-20

A Little Faith

Of the four Gospels Mark's is by far the shortest. As a matter of fact in my Bible Mark's Gospel is only 25 pages long whereas Matthew's Gospel, at 50 pages, is twice as long as Mark's. One might expect, therefore, that when Matthew and Mark both recount the same incident, Matthew's account would be the longer of the two. In fact, however, that is by no means always true. Often when Matthew and Mark are covering the same event, it is Mark's account that is the longer of the two.

And today's reading about the epileptic boy is a perfect example of that. Today's Gospel reading is from Matthew. Mark's recounting of the same event, however, is much more detailed than Matthew's and clarifies several issues that Matthew leaves unclear.

For example, in Mark's Gospel the father gives a rather thorough description of his son's symptoms, including foaming at the mouth, the grinding of teeth and the rigidity of the body, whereas Matthew simply has the father describe the boy as a lunatic who falls into the water and the fire. So in Matthew's account the father seems to have stereotyped his own son and perhaps even to have lacked sympathy for him. Whereas in Mark the father comes across as a sensitive, compassionate man who loves his son and who has, over time, carefully observed the painful details of his son's seizures.

Secondly, in Matthew's Gospel, after the man approaches Jesus about his son, Jesus then seems to scold the father, saying, "you faithless and perverse generation. How much longer must I be with you?" Mark, however, makes it clear that Jesus is not at all upset with the boy's father but rather with his disciples who have been with him for a couple of years now and have still not come to believe in him.

And thirdly, in Matthew, Jesus has the boy brought to him and then immediately cures him, whereas in Mark, after Jesus complains about the lack of faith, the boy's father cries out, "I do have faith. Help the little faith I have." And only then does Jesus cure the boy, suggesting that the father's faith, small as it may be, nevertheless plays a role in the cure of the boy. And that, of course, is a point that Jesus made over and over again—that even faith the size of a mustard seed can work wonders, not only for us but for those around us as well.

\+ + +

September 21st—Feast of St. Matthew

Mt 9:9-15

Matthew the Apostle

Today we celebrate the Feast of St. Matthew the Apostle. Whenever Matthew's name comes up most Christians think immediately of the _Gospel_ according to Matthew. So it might seem strange that today's liturgy makes no mention at all of the Apostle Matthew as the author of a Gospel. None of the three prayers for today's feast, the Opening Prayer, the Prayer over the Gifts or the Prayer after Communion, none of them even hints in the slightest way that Matthew the Apostle might have been the author of a Gospel. Which, by the way, is in marked contrast to the liturgy for the Feast of St. John, which is on December 27th and where all three of the prayers for _his_ feast clearly refer to John as an author. And also, of course, John is commonly known as John, Apostle _and Evangelist_ , whereas Matthew is known simply as Matthew the Apostle.

There is, of course, an explanation for this. And the explanation is that Matthew the Apostle is _not_ the author of the Gospel according to Matthew. This is the conclusion reached after careful analysis by Scripture scholars over many, many years, and their conclusion, if I may oversimplify somewhat, is based on three facts. First, the author of Matthew's Gospel could not have been an eyewitness to the events in the life of Jesus because it is absolutely clear that whoever wrote Matthew's Gospel was using Mark's Gospel as his basic source of information. Second, Matthew's Gospel lacks what has been called the "immediacy" of an eyewitness account. The author, in other words, never suggests that he was present on this or that occasion in the life of Jesus, or that he saw or heard Jesus at this or that event. And third, Matthew's Gospel was clearly written by someone who was thoroughly familiar with rabbinic scholarship; Matthew the Apostle, however, was a tax collector and therefore someone who lived on the fringes of Jewish religious life, and as such he simply would not have been equipped to write a sophisticated religious work like the Gospel according to Matthew.

So Matthew was not one of the four Evangelists but he _was_ an Apostle. It's true that we don't know much about the life of Matthew but then we don't know much about the lives of several of the other Apostles either, like Philip, for example, or Bartholomew or Jude Thaddeus or Simon the Zealot, but Matthew, like the other Apostles, did well and courageously what the Twelve were primarily called by God to do, and that was to give witness to the fact that Jesus truly rose from the dead after he died on the cross. For Matthew it all began on the day that Jesus called him from his customs post, and then, once Jesus was raised up from the dead, this became Matthew's mission in life: to be one of the twelve special witnesses to the Resurrection.

\+ + +

Friday—10th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 5:27-32

Matthew's Message

In writing his Gospel, Matthew wanted to emphasize two basic points. His first point was that Jesus was very much a part of the continuum of Jewish history. For centuries, as we know, the Israelites had been awaiting the arrival of the Anointed One who would be a descendant of King David and who would bring peace and security to the Israelites. The Hebrew word for the Anointed One is Messiah. The Greek word is Christos. Matthew makes the point very early on in his Gospel and very forcefully that the Israelites do not have to wait any longer; the Anointed One, the Messiah, the Christos, the Christ has, says Matthew, now finally arrived and his name is Jesus.

Let me very quickly skim over the first two chapters in Matthew's Gospel and review with you exactly how Matthew does this. First he begins his Gospel with a fairly detailed genealogy which he entitles (and this is chapter one, verse one) "A Genealogy of Jesus _Christ_ , son of David, son of Abraham." So right from the get-go Matthew portrays Jesus as the focal point in a centuries old continuum.

Then Matthew tells the story of how Jesus is conceived. He's conceived by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. And when Joseph, Mary's betrothed, is puzzled and dismayed over Mary's pregnancy, an angel comes to him and says, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife." So why does the angel address Joseph as "Joseph, son of David?" Precisely, of course, to emphasize the place of Jesus in the historical continuum.

Then, a few verses later, Matthew explicitly says that "all this took place to fulfill the words spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son and they will call him Emmanuel."

Next Matthew tells the story of the Wisemen, the magi who have been following a star from the east, which they apparently take to be a sign that someone of great importance has been born. When they arrive in Jerusalem they visit with King Herod from whom they hope to get some specific directions. But they ask Herod a strange question, not just some general question about where this mysterious infant might be staying, but very specifically they say, "Where is the newborn King of the Jews? We have come to pay him homage."

Matthew then tells us that Herod went immediately to the chief priests and scribes and "enquired of them where the Christ [that is to say, the Messiah] was to be born." So you see how relentlessly Matthew is buttressing his argument that Jesus is a key figure, indeed the key figure, in the history of the Jews.

But then Matthew tells one final story to reinforce the point. An angel instructs Joseph to take the child and his mother to Egypt because King Herod wants to kill the child. And Matthew adds, "This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken through the prophet, 'I called my son out of Egypt.'" King Herod then ordered all the male children under two years of age to be killed, and Matthew notes that this too was to fulfill a prophecy, this one by the prophet Jeremiah.

So this is the first point that Matthew wants to emphasize in his Gospel: that Jesus is the fulfillment of a centuries old Jewish tradition. A long line of prophets going back hundreds and hundreds of years have been looking forward to this day and it has finally arrived. This is the point that Matthew makes in his first two chapters.

Our Gospel reading for today, however, is from chapter 5 of Matthew's Gospel, and it's here that Matthew now begins to make his second basic point, namely that the continuum has now come to an end. Jesus will now break with tradition. He will, it is true, bring Jewish history to its fulfillment but not, as might have been expected, in a seamless way. Quite the contrary. Jesus will now call for a radical new reform of our lives. Today's brief Gospel reading recounts two teachings of Jesus in a series of six where Jesus keeps saying, "You have heard it said...but I say to you;" and each time Jesus calls us beyond traditional moral teaching to something higher. "You have heard it said," says Jesus, "'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' but I say to you, 'If anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well.' You have heard it said, 'You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy' but I say to you, 'Love your enemies.'" And so forth.

The continuum, in other words, is now over. With Jesus a new age has dawned, a demanding new age of love and sacrifice. This, in a nutshell, is the message of Matthew's Gospel: that Jesus is the culmination of one historical era and the beginning of another.

\+ + +

Friday—14th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 10:16-23

Matthew's Structure and the Kingdom

During most of the summer our Gospel reading at daily Mass is from the Gospel according to Matthew so perhaps it's time to say a few words about the overall structure or framework of Matthew's Gospel.

Matthew's Gospel consists of seven sections. The first section is about the infancy of Jesus and the last section is about his passion, death and resurrection, so they're both kind of obvious. The five sections in the middle, however, are not so obvious, so let's talk a little about them.

The most significant thing about the middle sections is that all five of them are about the Kingdom of God. The _first_ of the middle sections is about how Jesus himself proclaims the Kingdom of God. The _second_ section is about how the disciples should conduct themselves as they, in turn, take up the preaching of the Kingdom of God. The _third_ section is about how the kingdom will slowly thrive despite obstacles and opposition. The _fourth_ section is about the very early stages, the sort of embryonic stages of the kingdom's gestation period, where Peter is given the keys of the kingdom and the disciples are warned that, in order to follow Jesus, they are going to have to carry their own cross. And finally there's the _fifth_ of the middle sections which recounts the events just prior to the passion and death of Jesus, and describes how Jesus prepares his disciples for the actual coming of the Kingdom of God and how it will be ushered in by his death and resurrection.

In each of these five middle sections, by the way, Matthew has Jesus give a major speech or discourse. And these five major discourses are the distinctive characteristic of Matthew's Gospel, the characteristic that distinguishes Matthew's Gospel from the others. In the first section, for example, which is the section where Jesus himself proclaims the Kingdom of God, the major discourse that Jesus gives is the one we call the Sermon on the Mount, sometimes known as the Inaugural Discourse. In the second of the middle sections, which is the one where Jesus instructs his disciples on what is expected of them as they take up the preaching of the kingdom, the major speech is known as the Missionary Discourse. It's called that, of course, because the disciples will soon be missionaries. Well, it's from this Missionary Discourse that today's Gospel reading is taken, so this is the context of today's reading.

It may be true, as some have said, that the warnings of today's Gospel are not all that pertinent to our evangelization efforts in twenty-first century America, but you certainly have to love that line about how the Holy Spirit will be with us and will be speaking through us in our efforts. Because this, after all, is what we all hope for: that the Holy Spirit will energize our wills and illuminate our minds as we work and pray for the gradual coming of God's Kingdom.

\+ + +

Thursday, 12th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 7:21-29

Conclusions to the Five Discourses

For the past week and a half our Gospel reading at daily Mass has been from Matthew's Gospel, and we will continue to read from Matthew until the end of August when we will switch over to Luke. The distinctive feature of Matthew's Gospel, the feature that distinguishes his Gospel from the other three, is that Matthew has grouped many of the teachings of Jesus into five major discourses. All five discourses have been given names. The first major discourse is called the Inaugural Discourse (that's the Sermon on the Mount); the second is the Missionary Discourse; the third is the Parabolic Discourse (that's a collection of parables); the fourth is the Ecclesial Discourse (it's about what life should be like in the early Christian communities); and the fifth is the Eschatological Discourse (which is about the last things, especially the Last Judgment).

One of the interesting aspects of the five discourses is the way they end. All five conclusions are very similar to one another, almost like five variations on a theme. And basically the theme is that good people will be rewarded while the bad will be punished.

Let me very quickly go through each of the five. Today's Gospel reading is the conclusion to the _first_ discourse. Jesus is just concluding the Sermon on the Mount and he then contrasts the wise man who listens to his words and acts on them with the foolish man who doesn't act on Jesus' words, and winds up losing everything. The _second_ discourse ends with Jesus saying that anyone who gives a cup of cold water to one who is thirsty will be rewarded. (10:42) At the conclusion of the _third_ discourse Jesus says that at the end of time the angels will separate the wicked from the just and the wicked will be thrown into the blazing furnace where there will be weeping and grinding of teeth. (13:50) The _fourth_ discourse ends with Jesus telling the story of the unforgiving servant whom the master turns over to the torturers, whereupon Jesus says, "And that is how my heavenly Father will deal with you unless you forgive your brother from your heart." (18:35) And finally in the _fifth_ discourse, Jesus describes the Last Judgment where the King separates the sheep from the goats, the "goats" who did not give food to the hungry or drink to the thirsty, and the King concludes by saying to the goats, "Insofar as you neglected to do it to the least of my brothers, you neglected to do it to me. And these went off to eternal punishment but the virtuous to eternal life." (25:45-46)

So these are the conclusions to the five discourses. The five conclusions are, as I say, five variations on a single theme. And the theme, stated positively, is this: that it is those wise and virtuous people who do God's will; it is, in other words, those loving, forgiving people who spend their lives in the service of others who will inherit the reward of everlasting life.

\+ + +

Wednesday—19th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 18:15-20

Binding and Loosing

Matthew's Gospel is, in a way, the most Jewish of the four Gospels. For example, our Gospel reading this morning about the need for two or three witnesses in a case is found only in Matthew. The other three evangelists don't mention these remarks by Jesus. And I have to think that Matthew included them in his Gospel because they are a kind of updating by Jesus of an ancient Jewish legal procedure which is recorded in the Book of Deuteronomy, Let me read it for you:

A single witness cannot suffice to convict a man of a crime or offence of any kind; whatever the misdemeanor, the evidence of two witnesses or three is required to sustain the charge.

If a malicious witness appears against a man to accuse him of rebellion, both parties to this dispute before Yahweh must be brought before the priests and judges then in office. The judges must make a careful inquiry, and if it turns out that the witness who accused his brother is a lying witness, you must deal with him as he would have dealt with his brother. You must banish this evil from your midst. Others will hear of it and be afraid and never again do such an evil thing among you. You are to show no pity. (Dt 19:15-20)

So what I'm saying is that Matthew, as a devout Jew writing for devout Jews, included in his Gospel Jesus' updating of this passage from Deuteronomy because he knew it would be of interest to his readers.

The other observation I want to make about this morning's Gospel reading has to do with the closing lines about the fact that when two or three people gather together in Jesus' name, their prayers will be answered. In popular usage these few lines are usually considered in isolation as a way of encouraging people to pray in groups. These closing lines, in other words, are usually considered to be all about prayer.

Which is ok; it's fine, but it's also important, I think, to see these closing lines as _closing_ lines, to see them, in other words, not in isolation but in context. And when you see them in context, then the "two or three people gathered together in Jesus' name" is clearly referring back to the word of the two or three witnesses on which every case must stand. Our Gospel reading today, in other words, is all about the binding and loosing office of the Church when a wrong has been committed, and it is assuring us that when we make judgments _together_ , as a church, about guilt or innocence in a case, then Jesus is truly in our midst helping us to judge with wisdom.

\+ + +

Monday—22nd Week Ordinary Time

Lk 4:16-30

Luke and His Gospel

During June, July and August our Gospel reading at daily Mass was from the Gospel according to Matthew. We are now, however, in the twenty-second week of Ordinary time and that's the week we start reading from Luke's Gospel. And Luke will now be our Evangelist at daily Mass right through the end of November when the Church year comes to an end. So let me offer a few observations this morning about Luke and his Gospel.

First of all, unlike the other three Evangelists, Luke was not a Jew but a Gentile. He was probably born up in Syria and was a product not of the Palestinian or Hebrew culture but rather of the Greek culture. Somewhere along the line Luke, like many Gentiles at the time, became a convert to Christianity. It may even have been St. Paul who converted Luke but at any rate Luke eventually became a companion of Paul on Paul's missionary journeys, and Paul once referred to Luke as "the beloved physician" (Co 4:14) According to tradition Luke died in Greece at the age of 84.

Luke wrote not only the Gospel but also the Acts of the Apostles, and the two works are, as a matter of fact, usually considered as two parts of the same book. By the time Luke wrote his Gospel, Mark's Gospel was already being circulated, so Luke used Mark as his principal source for the deeds and sayings of Jesus. Luke, however, wanted to tailor his Gospel, even more than Mark had, to the Greek or Hellenistic Christians of the time, so Luke did two things. First he _omitted_ from Mark's account certain events or sayings that, in Luke's judgment, would be either meaningless or perhaps even confusing to the Greeks for whom Luke was writing. And secondly Luke, utilizing his other sources, _included_ material _not_ found in Mark.

But there was another factor here. Back in the fourteenth century, Dante, the great Dante Alighieri described St. Luke as "the scribe of Christ's gentleness." Dante, in other words, saw Luke as the evangelist who highlighted the gentleness and the joyfulness of Christ. And when you compare Luke's Gospel with Mark's, particularly in terms of the material that Luke _omitted_ from what was in Mark's Gospel, as well as the material that was _not_ found in Mark but which Luke _included_ in _his_ Gospel it's quite apparent that Luke's focus on the gentleness and joyfulness of Jesus was certainly a factor in Luke's decisions about what to omit and what to include.

Let me give you a couple of examples of each. Mark, in his Gospel, had quoted Jesus as saying that if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. Better to enter heaven with only one hand or foot than to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better to enter heaven with only one eye than to be cast into hell with two eyes. (9:43-48) Luke, the scribe of Christ's gentleness, _omitted_ those rather harsh lines from his Gospel,. Mark had also quoted Jesus as saying, "Alas for that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. Better for that man if he had never been born." (14:21) Luke _omitted_ that statement as well from his Gospel. Probably because to Luke it just seemed too grim.

On the other hand, Luke _included_ in his Gospel the beautiful parable we usually call the "Parable of the Prodigal Son" but which is really about the father who is so gentle, so gentle with both of his sons. (15:11-32) That tender and gentle parable is not found in Mark, only in Luke. And the same goes for the parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin, both of which conclude with the observation that, just as the owners of the sheep and the coin were filled with joy when they found what they had lost, so too there will be great rejoicing among the angels in heaven over one repentant sinner. (15:4 10) Both of these gentle and joyful parables are found in Luke but not in Mark.

So this is the Gospel we'll be reading at daily Mass over the next few months, the Gospel according to St. Luke, the scribe of Christ's gentleness.

\+ + +

Friday—24th Week Ordinary Time

Luke 8:1-3

Women in Luke

In our Gospel reading today Luke mentions that as Jesus went from town to town proclaiming the Kingdom of God, he was accompanied by two groups of people: the Twelve and certain women, women who were devoted to Jesus and who were providing financial assistance to Jesus and his apostles. In those days for an itinerant rabbi to travel with women in his entourage would have been unheard of, and not only unheard of but probably scandalous as well. Which is perhaps why the other evangelists do not mention the fact that women were travelling with Jesus. Luke, however, makes a point of mentioning it because Luke recognized early on that women had played key roles in the life and work of Jesus, and Luke wanted his readers to know about that.

It is, furthermore, important to note that today's Gospel reading is by no means the only time that Luke highlights the importance of women in the life of Christ and of the early church. Let me give you just five quick examples of where Luke is the only one of the four evangelists to recount an incident in which a woman plays a prominent role. First of all, in chapter two of his Gospel Luke notes that, shortly after Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph went to Jerusalem to present the infant Jesus to the Lord in the temple. Luke says that, on that occasion, the prophetess Anna was there and when she saw Jesus she praised God and spoke of him to all those who were awaiting the deliverance of Jerusalem. The other evangelists didn't mention Anna. (2:36) Second, Luke recounts a scene where Jesus is reminding his fellow Jews that there is goodness in all people and that God loves all people, and the example Jesus gives is that, in time of famine, God arranged for the starving Elijah to be given food not by the Jews but rather by a widow of Zarephath. The other three evangelists do not mention the kind and gentle widow form Zarephath. (4:25) Third, another widow, the widow of Nain. Jesus met this woman shortly after her son had died, and Luke says that Jesus felt such pity for the woman that he raised her son from the dead. Remarkably, Luke is the only evangelist to recount that extraordinary incident. (7:11) Fourth, the unnamed woman we read about at Mass yesterday, the woman whose tears of repentance fell on Jesus' feet. And after Jesus' feet were washed with the woman's tears, the woman then dried his feet with her hair and anointed his feet with oil. Such a beautiful story and Luke alone tells us about it. (7:36-50) And finally there was Lydia, the devout woman who was so supportive of St. Paul in his ministry. (Acts 16:13-15)

So again, all of this is just one more illustration of how blessed we are to have all four Gospels and not just one or two of them. Because each of the Gospels has its own special insights and emphases, and it is only the four of them taken together that gives us the fullest picture of Jesus the Son of God as our Teacher, our Model, our Savior and our Redeemer.

\+ + +

Saturday–19th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 19:13-15

Children in Luke

We've talked a few times in the past about the order in which the Gospels were written but I want to touch on it again this morning because it has a bearing on our Gospel reading today. The first Gospel was written by Mark in about the year 69. The next two Gospels were written about fifteen years later, around the year 85 or so by Matthew and Luke. Matthew and Luke were writing completely independently of each other but both of them were using Mark's Gospel as their primary source.

The story about Jesus welcoming the children appeared first in Mark's Gospel and both Matthew and Luke pretty much repeated what Mark had written. What's interesting, however, is what immediately preceded this story about the children. In Mark the story about the children follows immediately after Jesus talks about marriage and divorce. And that makes sense because obviously marriage and children go together. Matthew, furthermore, clearly found Mark's sequence a logical one because he followed exactly the same order: first Jesus' position on marriage and divorce and then the story about the children.

At this point, however, Luke decided not to follow Mark's order and instead prefaced the story about the children with the parable about the Pharisee and the tax collector praying in the temple. Let me read it for you:

Two men went up to the Temple to pray, one a Pharisee, the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood there and said this prayer to himself, 'I thank you, God, that I am not grasping, unjust, adulterous like the rest of mankind, and particularly that I am not like this tax collector here. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes on all I get.' The tax collector stood some distance away, not daring even to raise his eyes to heaven; but he beat his breast and said, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner.' This man, I tell you, went home again at rights with God; the other did not. (LK 18:10-14)

So why did Luke tell this story right before the one about the children? Well clearly he did so because for Luke the tax collector had that childlike quality that Jesus considered so essential in order to enter the Kingdom of God. Deep down little children realize that they are needy and powerless and helpless and defenseless and dependent on their parents for everything. They are fed and clothed and protected and housed not because they have earned it, but simply because their parents love them and want to take care of them. Well this, of course, was exactly the mindset of the tax collector. He didn't really expect God to reward him for anything he had done. He just trusted that God would have mercy on him and take care of him. The tax collector's great virtue, in other words, was trust, trust in God and trust in God's mercy.

So this, I think, is why Luke put the two stories together. Because one story illuminated the other. It is, I think, just one more example of the often underappreciated, even unnoticed wisdom, profound wisdom, of the Gospels.

\+ + +

Wednesday—30th Week Ordinary Time

Lk 13:22-30

The Journey

For the past seven weeks our Gospel reading at daily Mass has been from St. Luke's Gospel. As you perhaps know, the whole middle section of Luke's Gospel (from the closing verses of chapter 9 all the way to the middle of chapter 19) that whole middle section tells of the final journey of Jesus to Jerusalem. Actually this Journey of Jesus is a literary device or framework that Luke used in order to make a point. The framework might remind one, for example, of _Pilgrim's Progress_ or perhaps _The Odyssey_ about the journey of Ulysses.

Let me begin with a couple of general observations about this Journey of Jesus to Jerusalem. First of all, the journey is unique to St. Luke. The other evangelists recount much of the same material that Luke does but, unlike Luke, they don't place that material into the framework of a journey. Only Luke does that.

Secondly, in the course of Luke's 9 or 10 journey chapters, he periodically reminds his reader that Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem. The opening sentence of today's Gospel reading, for example, says, "Jesus went through cities and towns teaching, all the while making his way toward Jerusalem."

Well during this journey narrative, Luke tells us about a lot of things that Jesus says and does along the way. Jesus cures several people. He tells several parables. He instructs people about the Kingdom of God. But above all Jesus keeps telling us that we should all be making the journey along with him, that the journey ends in Jerusalem where he will be crucified, that our following Jesus on the journey means taking up _our_ cross as well, that we must lead a life of selflessness and asceticism if we are to be worthy followers of Jesus, that not everyone is saved and that we must rigorously condition ourselves in order to be able to enter through the narrow door.

Last week, during that drenching storm, the wind was blowing the rain sideways so I went out to check the front porch and, sure enough, the porch furniture was already wet and was getting wetter. Without thinking much about it, I hastily dragged the furniture in towards the door of the apartment to get it out of the rain. I had a towel with me and dried off the furniture but only then did I realize that I left only the narrowest little passageway to get back into the apartment, and for a moment I wondered how I was going to manage it. Well, in thinking about this morning's Gospel reading, it occurred to me that this, in the bigger picture, is the question we all have. How do we get through the narrow door that leads to eternal life? And Jesus says, "Not to worry. Come, let us embark together on the Great Journey. Follow me as closely as you can. Never lose sight of me, and I will lead you through the narrow door into eternal life."

\+ + +

Friday—23rd Week Ordinary Time

Lk 6:39-42

Luke and Matthew's 1st and 2nd Sources

Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels around the year 80 or 85. It seems, however, that when Matthew wrote his Gospel he was not aware that Luke was writing one as well. And the same goes for Luke; he didn't know about Matthew's Gospel. This is not perhaps as strange as it might sound, because while Matthew was writing his Gospel in Syria for a Jewish audience, Luke was writing his Gospel over in Greece or Asia Minor for a gentile audience; and they were both writing about the same time.

By the time Luke and Matthew were writing their Gospels copies of Mark's Gospel were readily available throughout the Christian world, and it's clear that Luke and Matthew both used Mark's Gospel as their _primary_ source for the deeds and sayings of Jesus. There was, however, another important source being circulated in Christian communities at the time. This other source was, it seems, a collection of the sayings of Jesus, and it appears that Luke and Matthew each had a copy of that document, and that both of them used that document as their _secondary_ source.

How do we know that? Well one way we know it is from the very first line in today's Gospel reading, "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into the ditch?" This line in Luke's Gospel is also found in Matthew's Gospel–chapter 15, verse 14. It is not, however, in Mark's Gospel. So Matthew and Luke did not get it from Mark; they got it from that secondary source that each of them was using. [2]

But what's really interesting is that Luke took that saying of Jesus and applied it to one context, while Matthew took the same saying and applied it to an entirely different context. Which is a further indication that Matthew and Luke were writing entirely independently of each other. So in today's reading from Luke's Gospel Jesus directs the statement about the blind leading the blind to his own disciples as a way of reminding them that he is their teacher now and they are his students, and now is the time for them to learn from him. So that when they go out as missionaries they will know well the mind of Jesus and will not therefore be the blind leading the blind. In Matthew's Gospel, on the other hand, Jesus directs the saying not to his own disciples but to the scribes and Pharisees; and Jesus does so in a very critical way, saying, in effect, that the scribes and Pharisees have long since lost sight of the truth and now they are nothing but blind men leading people into a ditch.

But I mention this only as an illustration. Mostly what I'd like you to remember is that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as their primary source, and then, as their secondary source, this collection of the sayings of Jesus that was circulating at the time. It might seem at first to be a rather technical point but it is, I think, one more piece of information that can be of help to us as we all search for the true and profound meaning of the Gospels.

\+ + +

Thursday—24th Week Ordinary Time

Lk 7:36-50

Luke's and Matthew's 3rd Source

Last Friday I mentioned that when Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels they were both using the same primary source and the same secondary source. The primary source was Mark's Gospel; the secondary source was a collection of the sayings of Jesus. What I _didn't_ mention last Friday was that Matthew and Luke each had a third source as well. And when I say they each had a third source I mean that Luke had one and Matthew had another.

How do we know that? We know it because the scholars, the biblical detectives, have deduced it from the fact that Luke, in his Gospel tells us of events in the life of Jesus that Matthew doesn't know anything about, and vice versa. Take today's Gospel reading, for example. This is a wonderful, wonderful story. It's colorful. It's dramatic. It's packed with human emotion: the love that the woman has for Jesus and the way she expresses it, the resentment and coldness of the Pharisees, the tenderness of Jesus, and finally Jesus practically revealing himself as God when he says to the woman, "Your sins are forgiven." I mean this is one great story. It's a story, furthermore, that would certainly have appealed to Matthew and his audience, but it's not found in Matthew's Gospel. It appears only in Luke. So how does one explain that? Well the obvious explanation is that it was an event that was originally handed down orally by those who had witnessed it. Eventually it was written down, probably along with other information about Jesus, and at some point Luke found that manuscript while Matthew did not. If Matthew _had_ found it and knew about this wonderful story, he would almost certainly have found it irresistible and would have included it in his Gospel.

It appears, however, that Matthew was not without a source all his own. Because there are passages in Matthew's Gospel that Luke seems to know nothing about. There are several but, as one example, let me just read for you these verses form Matthew's Gospel:

The Kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field which someone has found; he hides it again, goes off happy, sells everything he owns and buys the field. Again, the Kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls; when he finds one of great value he goes and sells everything he owns and buys it. (13:44 46)

These are a couple of little parables that are found only in Matthew, not in Luke. But Luke would have loved them. They're about total dedication to the highest value and the joy and happiness that comes from that kind of dedication, so one cannot help thinking that if Luke had known of those two little parables, he most certainly would have included them in his Gospel. [3]

The point, I guess, is that while many of the deeds and sayings of Jesus are recounted in all three of the Synoptic Gospels, often using identical words, it is also true that there are truly beautiful passages that occur in only one of the Gospels, so we are blessed indeed to have all four Gospels and not just one or two

\+ + +

Saturday—16th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 13:24-30

A Parable's Unusual Origin

I guess we all understand, at least in a general way, that Jesus did not actually say every single word attributed to him in the Gospels. There are two basic reasons for this. One is that the Gospels were written several years after the events actually took place. Matthew and Luke, for example, wrote their Gospels fifty years or so after Jesus died, so verbatim quotations were not always available. But the other reason, and the one I want to talk about today, is that the Gospel writers apparently felt comfortable taking Jesus' basic ideas and adapting them so that they would be more relevant to the writer's own time and place and situation.

According to many reliable, mainstream Scripture scholars, today's Gospel reading is an example of this. What these scholars have concluded about today's Gospel is this: that Matthew's source for today's parable was a much shorter parable that is found in Mark. The point of this shorter parable is that the Kingdom of God is inexorably on its way. Some people may want to hasten its coming; others may want to oppose it. But the Kingdom of God itself is unstoppable. Its coming is inevitable. Let me read this short parable for you. It's from chapter four of Mark's Gospel:

This is what the Kingdom of God is like. A man throws seed on the land. Night and day, while he sleeps, when he is awake, the seed is sprouting and growing; how, he does not know. Of its own accord the land produces first the shoot, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. And when the crop is ready, he loses no time: he starts to reap because the harvest has come. (Mk 4:26-29)

Well the theory is that Matthew took this parable in Mark, which was undoubtedly the parable that Jesus actually told, and Matthew expanded upon it. Presumably Matthew did this because in the community in which he was living there were certain preachers who were distorting the truths that Jesus had taught and who were confusing people, so Matthew attributed to Jesus this parable about the enemy sowing weeds in among the wheat. Matthew no doubt felt that this is the parable Jesus _would_ have told had Jesus been in Matthew's shoes. But the main theme of the newer parable was the same as that of the older one, namely that the coming of the Kingdom of God is inevitable. And that's why the weeds don't have to be pulled up right now; that can wait until the Kingdom has matured on earth.

This, at any rate, is, the scholars say, the proper explanation of the origins of today's parable. Today, of course, twenty centuries later, we consider it unethical to attribute to someone words that that person did not actually use, but at the time what Matthew did was seen as a simple updating of the earlier parable, and was regarded not only as an acceptable practice but also, and more importantly, as something that had come to Matthew under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. (2 Tim 3:16-17 and 2  
Pet 1:21)

\+ + +

Thursday—23rd Week Ordinary Time

LK 6:27-38

The Sermon on the Plain

We've talked a little in the past about how the four Gospels were written, and this morning I want to say a little more about that because it bears on our Gospel reading for today.

The first Gospel that was written was the one by Mark. Mark was very close to Peter and much of what Mark knew about Jesus he had learned directly from Peter. It was around the year 69, shortly after Peter died, that Mark wrote his Gospel.

About fifteen years later, around the year 84 or 85, the next two Gospels were written. These were the Gospels by Matthew and Luke, and let me mention a few points about these two Gospels. First, the author of the Gospel we know as the Gospel according to Matthew was not written by Matthew the Apostle. Rather it was written by another man altogether, a man for whom the name Matthew was conceivably his given name but was more likely his pen name, his nom de plume, but a man, at any rate, who almost certainly had never met Jesus personally. Second, Luke was a gentile and had most probably been converted to Christianity by St. Paul, but like Matthew, Luke too had never personally met Jesus. Third, Matthew and Luke apparently wrote their Gospels without either of them being aware that the other was also writing a Gospel. And fourth, Matthew and Luke, in writing their Gospels, were using two common sources. Their first source was, of course, Mark's Gospel written some fifteen years earlier. Their second source was a collection of the sayings of Jesus that had been handed down from one generation of Christians to the next.

So with that as background, let's look briefly at today's Gospel reading from Luke. Today's reading is an excerpt from a sermon Jesus gave. In Luke's account the whole sermon takes up about 30 verses and is known as "The Sermon on the Plain" because Jesus preached the sermon after he had come down from a hill. Matthew, in his Gospel, recounts the same sermon but Matthew's version is much longer than Luke's, about 110 verses long, and is known as "The Sermon on the Mount" because, according to Matthew Jesus was still up on the hill or mount when he preached the sermon.

St. Mark, in his Gospel, makes no mention at all of this sermon so clearly Matthew and Luke were basing their accounts of the sermon on that second source I mentioned, that collection of the sayings of Jesus that had been handed down within Christian communities. And the bottom line is that the two accounts of the sermon, Matthew's and Luke's, apart from some interesting differences, have the same basic spirit and flavor.

And this is certainly true of today's Gospel reading about loving our enemies. In this part of the sermon, which consists of about eleven verses, Luke's account and Matthew's are virtually identical. Jesus is here calling us, his followers, to go beyond what is humanly reasonable. Jesus is calling us beyond justice to absolute sanctity and to a life of absolute love and humility where everything, everything is left in the hands of God.

\+ + +

Wednesday—7th Week of Easter

Jn 17:11-19

John the Evangelist

Our Gospel reading today recounts the part of the prayer of Jesus at the Last Supper where Jesus is asking his Father to watch over and protect his disciples as they go out to preach the Good News. The prayer, I think, speaks for itself so rather than comment on it, I thought I would offer some observations on the Last Supper itself, particularly about where it might have taken place, and then about the authorship of this Gospel which we know as the Gospel according to John. All of the observations, incidentally, are based on Pope Benedict's book, _Jesus of Nazareth_ , which was published in 2007, and which the Pope wrote not really in his role as Pope but rather as a private theologian.

First of all some background on John the Evangelist. John was the son of Zebedee and Salome, who were fairly wealthy people. We tend to look upon Zebedee as a humble fisherman up in Galilee but it is much more accurate to say that Zebedee ran a fishing business and had other men working for him. (Mk 1:20) But more importantly, it seems that Zebedee was also a priest who spent time each year in Jerusalem performing his priestly duties, and was therefore a part of the priestly aristocracy in Jerusalem. (Jn 18:15-16) Because of the time Zebedee spent in Jerusalem, he maintained a dwelling there, and it seems likely that it was in the dining room of that dwelling that the Last Supper was held, (Mk 14:12-16) which explains, incidentally, why John was seated at the right hand of Jesus at the Last Supper. At gatherings such as this, it was customary for the owner of the house to sit at the right hand of the guest of honor, but since Zebedee himself was not present at the Last Supper, his son John took his place. (Jn 13:23) But the main point I want to make here is about Zebedee and it is that Zebedee was both a man of means and a man of considerable influence.

Meanwhile John's mother, Salome, was an important figure in the public ministry of Jesus. And no shrinking violet either. When Jesus was preaching in Galilee, Salome was one of the women who looked after him and supported him financially. (Lk 8:1-3 and Mk 15:41) and she was at the tomb on the morning of the resurrection. (Mk 16:1) She was, indeed, such an insider that, at one point, she had the audacity to try to exact a promise from Jesus that, when he came into his kingdom, he would seat her two sons right next to him, one on his right, the other on his left. (Mt 20:20-28) Salome, as I said, was no shrinking violet.

These, at any rate, were John's parents: prosperous, influential, forceful people. So it follows that their son John was not just some poor fisherman from the hinterlands. The fact is that, even as a young man, John knew his way around Jerusalem society and had important connections that none of the other apostles had. (Jn 18:15-17)

But did he actually write the sublime fourth Gospel which, as Pope Benedict eloquently points out, is "full of visions that peer into the deepest depths of God's mystery?" Did John actually write that Gospel? It is, in fact, virtually certain that he did. Not perhaps in the sense that he physically wrote down the words, but still John the Apostle was truly John the Evangelist, that is to say, the author of the Gospel.

What John actually did, it seems, was this: he entrusted the entire spirit and message of his Gospel to a man we shall call simply "the Presbyter," who was John's good friend and protégé when John was an old man The Presbyter, for his part, viewed himself as John's mouthpiece, as the transmitter of John's thought, and as the trustee of the tradition that John had handed down to him. And with this in mind the Presbyter then shaped what he had received from John into the final draft of the Gospel.

So the bottom line, and let me close with this thought, the bottom line is this: the fourth Gospel is basically the work of John the Apostle. It is, in other words, basically the work of an eyewitness, a thoughtful, perceptive, reliable eyewitness, to virtually everything recorded about the life, death and resurrection Our Lord.

\+ + +

Saturday—7th Week of Easter

Jn 21:20-25

Peter and the Beloved Disciple

John's Gospel is a magnificent testimonial to the eternal Son of God who, 2,000 years ago, entered human history in the person of Jesus and became our Savior. That's the substance of John's Gospel. This morning, however, I want to comment on a rather minor issue in John's Gospel and that is the tension that existed between Peter and the man known as the Beloved Disciple.

It is clear from the closing lines of today's Gospel reading that the Beloved Disciple is the one who wrote the fourth Gospel. What is not clear is whether this Beloved Disciple was or was not John the Apostle who has traditionally been recognized as the author of the fourth Gospel. That question, however, we'll leave for another day. What I want to concentrate on today is the relationship between this Beloved Disciple and the apostle Peter.

The thing is that the Beloved Disciple is mentioned five times in the fourth Gospel (and not at all outside of the fourth Gospel) and on each of those five occasions he is compared either directly or indirectly with Peter. In each of those five scenes, furthermore, the Beloved Disciple seems to be the more favored of the two; he seems slightly better positioned, somewhat more responsive and at least equal to if not slightly superior to Peter.

The _first_ of these scenes is at the Last Supper. It's recorded in chapter 13 and this is what it says:

Jesus was troubled in spirit and declared, 'I tell you most solemnly, one of you will betray me.' The disciples looked at one another wondering which he meant. The disciple Jesus loved was reclining next to Jesus; Simon Peter signed to him and said, 'Ask who it is he means,' so leaning back on Jesus' breast he said, 'who is it, Lord?' 'It is the one' replied Jesus 'to whom I give the piece of bread that I shall dip in the dish.' (13:21-26)

So in this scene the Beloved Disciple is the one who has Jesus' ear. He's the one who obtains the crucial information and Jesus obviously trusts him, while Peter seems to play a rather subordinate role.

The _second_ scene takes place at Golgotha. Jesus is hanging on the cross and at the foot of the cross are the Beloved Disciple, Jesus' mother and three other women. Peter, of course, is not present because he is in hiding but the reader is keenly aware of his absence and is saddened by it. (19:25-27)

The _third_ scene takes place right after Jesus has risen from the dead. Both Peter and the Beloved Disciple race to the tomb. The Beloved Disciple arrives before Peter but Peter enters the tomb first, and the Gospel tells us that he saw the linen cloths on the ground. But then the Beloved Disciple enters the tomb and the Gospel says that "he saw and believed." So Peter saw but the Beloved Disciple saw _and believed_ , suggesting that Peter was not yet ready to make his act of faith. (20: 1-10)

The _fourth_ scene also takes place after the Resurrection but now the disciples are out fishing on the Lake of Galilee. Chapter 21 describes the scene this way:

It was light by now and there stood Jesus on the shore, though the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus. Jesus called out, 'Have you caught anything, friends?' And when they answered 'No', he said, 'Throw the net out to starboard and you'll find something.' So they dropped the net, and there were so many fish that they could not haul it in. The disciple Jesus loved said to Peter, 'It is the Lord.` (21:4-6)

So in this incident it is the Beloved Disciple, not Peter but the Beloved Disciple who first recognizes Jesus and alerts the others to who he is.

And the _fifth_ and final incident is the one in today's Gospel reading where it has come to be understood among the brothers that the Beloved Disciple rather than Peter has been chosen by Jesus to remain alive until the second coming of Jesus; and one gets the impression that Peter is not at all pleased with that arrangement.

So in all five scenes it appears that it is the Beloved Disciple and not Peter who seems to be the more prominent figure, and one gets the clear impression that the author is wanting to make a point here. I'm not really sure what that point is but I suspect that the author is saying that among the followers of Jesus, in all Christian communities and in every age, two things, two qualities are important: first _stability_ , represented by Peter who had been given the practical task of feeding the flock of Jesus and who had been rock solid for the last thirty years of his life; and second, _dynamism_ , represented by the Beloved Disciple who was quick to run, quick to recognize, quick to see and quick to believe, and whose life was characterized by love and charity. I suspect, in other words, that the author of John's Gospel is telling us that, in every Christian community, both qualities should be treasured and should always coexist, in tension perhaps but also in harmony. Stability and dynamism.

\+ + +

Saturday—7th Week of Easter

Jn 21:20-25

The Beloved Disciple

Our Gospel reading today begins with the line, "Peter turned and saw the disciple following whom Jesus loved." This is the fifth time in John's Gospel where reference is made to the disciple whom Jesus loved, the one who has come to be known as the Beloved Disciple. The first mention made of the Beloved Disciple was at the Last Supper when the disciple Jesus loved was reclining next to Jesus. (13:23) The second time was at the Crucifixion when Jesus looked down from the cross and saw his mother and the disciple he loved, and said to his mother, "Behold your son," and to the disciple, "Behold your mother." (19:26) The third time was on the morning of the Resurrection when Mary Magdalen ran to Peter and to the disciple Jesus loved to tell them what she had seen at the tomb. (20:2) And the fourth time was at the post-Resurrection appearance of Jesus by the Sea of Tiberias. On that occasion the disciples were out fishing on the lake; suddenly Jesus appeared on the shore and called out to them, and the first one to recognize Jesus was the disciple whom Jesus loved. (21-7)

So this is the Beloved Disciple, and according to the closing lines of the Fourth Gospel (21:24) it was the Beloved Disciple who wrote the Gospel. But who exactly was this Beloved Disciple? Well, traditionally it was always understood that the Beloved Disciple and John the Apostle were one and the same person. So yes, the Fourth Gospel was written by the Beloved Disciple but the Beloved Disciple was John the Apostle. Another theory, however, is that the Beloved Disciple and John were two very different people, and the Gospel was written not by John but by this other man. This theory was largely based, I think, on the assumption that it would have been extremely unlikely that a poor fisherman like John could ever have written anything as majestic and inspiring and as theologically profound as the Fourth Gospel, so the author of the Fourth Gospel, namely the Beloved Disciple, must have been someone other than John.

However, as scholars have learned more about John and his family (and this is what we talked about on Wednesday) it now seems that John the Apostle was much much more than a poor fisherman. It now seems, in fact, that the traditional theory is very probably the correct one, and that John the Apostle was indeed the disciple Jesus loved and that it was he who authored the Fourth Gospel.

Let me turn now very briefly to another aspect of today's Gospel reading. During the first century a common greeting or farewell among Christians was: maran atha, two Aramaic words meaning "The Lord is coming." (1 Co 16:22) In those days the Second Coming of Christ, the Parousia, was almost constantly on the minds of devout Christians. They were all eagerly awaiting Christ's Second Coming. So Christians would joyfully say to one another, "Maran atha." No one knew, of course, exactly when the Parousia would take place so it was understood that some among them would die before the Parousia, but it was also widely understood that one person who would surely still be alive when Jesus returned would be the Beloved Disciple. Clearly, however, shortly before today's Gospel passage was written, the much revered and elderly man, John the Evangelist, the Beloved Disciple, finally died. Which clearly took his community by surprise. And this is what our Gospel reading today is about. It's explaining how a vague remark made about John by Jesus shortly after Jesus rose from the dead, came to be completely misunderstood to mean that John was never going to die. But that, the Gospel makes clear, was definitely not something Jesus ever really said.

But I'm afraid I've gone on too long this morning, so let me conclude now by saying simply: Maran atha!

\+ + +

December 31st

Jn 1:1-18

John's Prologue

Our beautiful and profound Gospel reading for today is known as the Prologue to John's Gospel. For many of us it is _the_ most familiar passage in the entire Bible. In the old days, as you may remember, this passage was read every single day at Mass, just prior to the final blessing. Some of you probably used to know it practically by heart.

In this Prologue, John makes two basic points about the one he calls the Word (which elsewhere in the Bible is also called Wisdom). The first point is that the Word was with God from the very beginning, that is to say, before the universe was created, and that all things were created through the Word and without him nothing came to be. One might think that this is a new insight, an original concept of John but that, in fact, is not the case at all. The fact is that this notion about the Word had been expressed hundreds of years before John by several Old Testament authors. Let me read for you just a couple of these passages from the Old Testament.

First a passage from Proverbs, where the author is speaking about Wisdom:

Yahweh created me when his purpose first unfolded, before the oldest of his works. From everlasting I was firmly set, from the beginning, before earth came into being. The deep was not when I was born, there were no springs to gush with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I came to birth; before he made the earth, the countryside, or the first grains of the world's dust.

When he fixed the heavens firm, I was there when he drew a ring on the surface of the deep, when he thickened the clouds above, when he fixed fast the springs of the deep, when he assigned the sea its boundaries—and the waters will not invade the shore, when he laid down the foundations of the earth I was by his side, a master craftsman, delighting him day after day, ever at play in his presence, at play everywhere in his world, delighting to be with the sons of men. (Pr. 8:22 31)

The second passage is this one from the Book of Wisdom:

Within wisdom is a spirit intelligent, holy, steadfast, dependable, unperturbed. She is a breath of the power of God, pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; although alone, she can do all, herself unchanging, she makes all things new. She is indeed more splendid than the sun. She deploys her strength from one end of the earth to the other, ordering all things for good. (Ws excerpts from 7:22-8:1)

So, in the first point of John he is simply restating a centuries old, traditional belief in the Word or Wisdom being with God from the very beginning and playing an essential part in the creation of the universe.

But John's second point in this Prologue, unlike his first, is brand new. In this second point John says, in effect, "You know that Word about which (or about whom) Proverbs and Wisdom spoke so eloquently, well that Word was not only _with_ God; it _was_ God, it was God himself, actually a kind of other person within God, and not only that, but that Word (that other person within God) has now become flesh, has now become incarnate, has now become a human being. "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

And this, of course, is the first great truth of Christianity, the first, great and amazing truth of Christianity.

\+ + +

January 5

Jn 1: 43-51

The Gospels of Mark and John

When you read quickly through the first eight or nine chapters of the Gospel according to Mark, you come away with three basic impressions of the public ministry of Jesus. Number one, that the young preacher Jesus was constantly struggling to convince the people of Galilee that they should be preparing themselves for the coming of the Kingdom of God; number two, that only very gradually did the disciples of Jesus come to put their complete trust in him; and number three, that during that period there were, in the life of Jesus, many ups and many downs.

Among the downs mentioned by Mark were the fact that the scribes and Pharisees were constantly giving Jesus a hard time, that, at one point, Jesus' own family thought he was out of his mind, that he had no success at all in his hometown of Nazareth, that by chapter eight Jesus clearly realized that his enemies were going to assassinate him, and that even by chapter eight, Peter, Jesus' right hand man, was still so unaware of who Jesus really was that he vehemently disagreed with Jesus on one essential point, treating Jesus, in effect, as though they were equals.

So these were the opening chapters of Mark's Gospel describing the vacillating but gradual appreciation by the disciples of the true nature of Jesus. For the past few days, however, we have been reading not from Mark's Gospel but from chapter one of John's Gospel, and this is something altogether different.

John's Gospel begins, of course, with the words, "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." So right from the beginning of John's Gospel Jesus is recognized as the eternal God made man. Then, still in chapter one Jesus is called the Lamb of God, the Chosen One of God, the Messiah, the One Moses wrote about in the law, the Son of God and the King of Israel.

So Mark's account and John's are very different. Mark wants us to know how difficult it was, especially early on, for some people to put their faith in Jesus. Whereas John expresses the fully realized faith of the post-Resurrection Christians. And both accounts, both Mark's and John's, continue to nourish us as we all strive to deepen our faith in Jesus.

\+ + +

January 2nd—Before Epiphany

Jn 1:19-28

Re-Creation

On Monday at Mass our Gospel reading was the first 18 verses of John's Gospel, which is known as the Prologue to his Gospel. Today we begin with verse 19 and I want to say something about the overall structure of the rest of chapter one of John's Gospel and the first 12 verses of chapter two.

When you read these two or three pages in your New Testament you quickly realize that what John is writing here is a kind of daily journal. He will, for example, narrate the events of day one and then, before telling what happens the next day, he will actually introduce it by saying, "the next day" or "the following day" or "early the next morning." In my own Bible I have circled each of the phrases: the next day, the following day and so forth, and, in the margin of the page, I have written "Day One", "Day Two" and so forth. And when you get to verse 12 of chapter two, where this brief section ends, John has told us of the events of six days, six days in the life of Jesus.

I know it's early in the morning to put your thinking caps on but let me ask you: when you think of six days in the context of the Bible, does anything special come to mind? And, if it doesn't, I'll give you a hint, which is this: John begins his Gospel with the words, "In the beginning." So we have, "In the beginning" and six days.

Exactly, it's all about creation. John is asking us to see Jesus in the context of creation. So in the beginning God created the world. Now his only begotten Son has come to _re_ create the world, to create the world anew.

In each of John's six day, by the way, some aspect of Jesus is revealed. Today he is seen as the one whose sandal strap John the Baptist is not worthy to unfasten. The next day as the Chosen One of God. The day after that as the Lamb of God. Then as the Messiah, and so forth until finally, on day six, in the opening verses of chapter two we see Jesus work his first miracle at the wedding feast at Cana, revealing himself as True God.

John, in other words, is saying that God in now with us in the person of Jesus, and the process of _re_ creation is underway. The six mystical days of _re_ creation have already begun to unfold and will come to fruition in the Parousia when Christ will come a second time and bestow on God's creation and _re_ creation the gifts of everlasting peace and love.

\+ + +

Wednesday—4th Week of Easter

Jn 12:44-50

John's Two Books

During the Easter Season (the 50 days or 7 weeks between Easter and Pentecost) our Gospel reading at daily Mass is almost exclusively from the Gospel according to John.

John's Gospel may be divided into two parts. The first half of the Gospel (actually the first 12 chapters) is called the "The Book of Signs." The second half (chapters 13 to 21) is called "The Book of Glory." Our Gospel reading for today consists of the last 7 verses of chapter 12. These, in other words, are the closing verses of the Book of Signs, and they are considered to be Jesus' own summary or recapitulation of what the Book of Signs is all about. So what _is_ the Book of Signs all about?

The Book of Signs is a collection of events in the life of Jesus that demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah, the unique Son of God, that he is Yahweh, the I Am, that he and the Father are one and, above all, that Jesus mirrors God, that Jesus is the perfect image of God the Father, or as Jesus himself sums it up in today's reading, "whoever sees me, sees the one who sent me." So in the Book of Signs John is saying to us "If you want to know who God is, if you want to know what God is like, then look at Jesus." That's Part One of John's Gospel.

Part two, called "The Book of Glory" is about the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus. So now John is saying, "OK. I told you in Part One that if you want to know who God is, look at Jesus. But now I'm asking you to take a good, long, hard look at Jesus in his passion and death. What do you see? What you see is self sacrificing love. So that, my friends, is who God is. God is self sacrificing love. Jesus came into the world to tell us who God is, to help us understand that God is self sacrificing love. This was Jesus' mission—to make clear to us in an unforgettable way that God is love.

And now, since we are followers of Jesus, this is our mission as well. Jesus has passed the baton on to us. So our mission now is to tell the whole world, in every way we can, that God is love.

\+ + +

Thursday—4th Week of Easter

Jn 13:16-20

The Last Supper

At the Last Supper there were two major events. It seems that one of them was more major than the other but there were still two major events. The first was the Institution of the Eucharist; the second was the washing of the Apostles' feet by Jesus. On Holy Thursday evening, at the Liturgy of the Lord's Supper, both these events are highlighted. After the presider proclaims the Gospel he kneels down and washes the feet of twelve parishioners. And then, at the conclusion of Mass, the Blessed Sacrament is carried in procession through the church to the singing of the Pange Lingua, the great hymn of thanksgiving for the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

It's interesting, though, that when each of the four Evangelists offers his account of the Last Supper, not one of them mentions both events. Matthew, Mark and Luke (the Synoptics, as they're called) each talk about the Institution of the Eucharist but don't mention the Washing of the Feet at all. And John does the opposite. He talks about the Washing of the Feet but doesn't mention the Institution of the Eucharist.

So two questions: why does John not mention the Eucharist, and why do Matthew, Mark and Luke not mention the washing of the feet?

To take the last question first, I suspect that the answer is that the Synoptics (who wrote their Gospels 10, 20 maybe even 30 years before John) saw the Washing of the Feet not really as a major event but as a minor one, at least when compared with the Institution of the Eucharist, and they did not want their readers to get distracted from what was, for them, clearly the principal event of the wondrous and historic supper, so they simply omitted all mention of the washing.

But what about John? How is it possible that he omitted all mention of the Eucharist in his account of the Last Supper? Well, this is a bit more puzzling but at the same time, I think quite understandable. First of all, because, by the time John wrote his Gospel, it was not only a fact accepted by Christians that Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper; it was, so to speak, Gospel truth believed by all and was simply understood. Not only that, but by John's time Christians were, at least weekly celebrating Mass and receiving the Body and Blood of Christ just as we do today, so the point did not need to be belabored. And also, of course, John's account of the Last Supper begins with his chapter 13 but earlier, in his chapter 6, John had already written the classic, extensive and beautiful theological treatise on the Eucharist, so it's not as though John was ignoring the Eucharist when, in chapter 13, he spoke of the Washing of the Feet.

We have, at any rate, these two great events at the Last Supper and they are, I suppose, symbols of the two great commandments. Because the Eucharist is the symbol of loving God in and through his only begotten Son, while the Washing is the symbol of loving our neighbor. And this is who we are as Christians. We are lovers of God and neighbor.

\+ + +

Feast of St. Andrew—November 30

Mt 4:18-22

The Inerrancy of Scripture

Our Gospel reading today is from Matthew's Gospel and I want to call to your attention three particular statements that Matthew makes. Number one, Jesus meets Peter and Andrew simultaneously, both at the same time. Number two, when Jesus meets them they are in the act of casting a net into the sea. And number three, this takes place at the Sea of Galilee.

But now let me read for you the passage in John's Gospel where Jesus meets Peter and Andrew. On all three points, as you will see, John's account is quite different from Matthew's. This is from chapter one in John's Gospel beginning with verse 35:

On the following day as John [that's John the Baptist] stood there [and it's clear from what has been said in verse 28 that the word "there" means in the town of Bethany, which is about 75 miles south of Lake Galilee] as John stood there again with two of his disciples, Jesus passed, and John stared hard at him and said, 'Look, there is the Lamb of God.' Hearing this, the two disciples followed Jesus. Jesus turned around, saw them following and said, 'What do you want?' They answered, "Rabbi' –which means Teacher' 'where do you live?' 'Come and see' he replied; so they went and saw where he lived, and stayed with him the rest of that day. It was about the tenth hour.

One of these two, who became followers of Jesus after hearing what John had said was Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter. Early next morning, Andrew met his brother and said to him, 'We have found the Messiah' – which means the Christ – and he took Simon to Jesus.  
(Jn 1:35-41)

So John's account is very different from Matthew's. In John's account, number one, Jesus does _not_ meet Peter and Andrew simultaneously, number two, Peter and Andrew are _not_ in the act of casting a net into the sea when Jesus meets them, and number three, the meeting does _not_ take place anywhere near the Sea of Galilee.

But how can this be? Aren't the Scriptures supposed to be free of all error? Hasn't the Church spoken for centuries about the inerrancy of the Scriptures? Of course. And even beyond that we have always believed that the Sacred Scriptures are not only inspired by God but that they are indeed the living word of God himself who is all truth.

However, all of this must be properly understood. It should not, for example, be understood in some fundamentalist sense to mean that every word is absolutely historically accurate as we today understand history. In today's Gospel reading, for example, Matthew is clearly synthesizing. I think it's what is called a telescoped narrative. At any rate Matthew, like most writers of his time, was not always interested in specific details. In this particular passage, for example, Matthew simply wants his readers to know that Jesus chose Peter and Andrew as his apostles and that he would send them forth as "fishers of men."

So the Scriptures, while not always absolutely factual, are always true. The Scriptures were written to bring God's revelation to us for our salvation, and they are always true to that purpose. This I think is a reasonably accurate explanation of what is meant by the inerrancy of the Scriptures, so let me close by saying it one more time. The Scriptures were written to bring God's revelation to us for our salvation, and they are always, always true to that purpose. [4]

\+ + +

Feast of St. James—July 25

Mt 20:20-28

Enthusiasm

Today we celebrate the Feast of St. James the Apostle. James and his brother John were apparently a couple of rather impulsive, almost rash, certainly overly enthusiastic young men. On one occasion, for example, when travelling with Jesus, they came to a Samaritan town, and when the townspeople there refused to welcome Jesus, James and John said to Jesus, "Lord do you want us to call down fire from the heaven to burn them up?" (Lk 9:51-56) At the time Jesus rightly rebuked James and John for the remark but I suspect that he also found it somewhat amusing as well because it was apparently shortly after that incident that Jesus started calling the two brothers "sons of thunder," (Mk 3:17) a nickname that seemed to capture their enthusiastic personalities.

Enthusiasm, it seems, was a characteristic that appealed to Jesus. Perhaps James and John had a bit too much of it but Jesus apparently figured "better too much than too little," and James and John, along with Peter, another man with enthusiasm to spare, became Jesus' closest friends. On three very special occasions in the life of Jesus, he brought with him only those three men. When, for example, Jesus went to raise to life the deceased daughter of Jairus, the Gospel say the Jesus "allowed no one to go with him except Peter and James and John the brother of James." (Mk 5:37) And on that extraordinary occasion when Jesus was transfigured, the Gospel says that "Jesus took with him Peter and James and John and led them up a high mountain where they could be alone by themselves." (Mk 9:2) And on that mountain Jesus was transfigured before them. And finally, when Jesus experienced the awful agony in the garden, it was only Peter, James and John that he wanted with him. (Mk 14:33)

So clearly this man James, this son of thunder, this man of great enthusiasm, was a close friend, a faithful and supportive friend of Jesus. After Jesus died, indeed, it was probably James' enthusiastic and outspoken efforts on behalf of the cause of Jesus that singled James out as enemy number one in the eyes of King Herod Agrippa. At any rate in the year 42, only nine years after Jesus himself died, King Herod ordered James to be beheaded. (Ac 12:2) James was probably only in his late 30s or early 40s at the time and he was doing what the Apostles, the Twelve, were elected to do: he was, with his brother Apostles, giving witness to the awesome truth that Jesus had risen from the dead.

So James died a noble death for a more than noble cause, and has merited our esteem, our admiration and our gratitude.

\+ + +

July 25—James the Apostle

Mt 20:20-28

James the Greater

On this Feast of St. James the Apostle, I want to begin by reading the names of the Twelve Apostles. This is what Matthew says, and please note that there is not just one Apostle named James but two:

These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon who is called Peter, and his brother Andrew; James the son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, the one who was to betray him. (Mt 10:2-4)

So, there's James the son of _Zebedee_ , known as James the Greater and James the son of _Alphaeus_ , known as James the Lesser. Today, July 25th, we celebrate the Feast of James the Greater. James the Lesser's feast is on May 3rd. It may be, by the way, that these two Apostles were like Mutt and Jeff, one tall, the other short, so they were called the Greater and the Lesser. Anyway, even though this is not James the Lesser's feast, I want to say something about him so that you can keep the two of them more or less straight. I say "more or less" because unfortunately the identity of James the Lesser remains something of an historical puzzle.

The conventional explanation is that James the Lesser is the one who became so influential in the early church, during the 50s and 60s. He indeed became the head of the church in Jerusalem as mentioned in Acts 12 and was the key figure at the Council of Jerusalem in the year 50 as described in Acts 15. It is also reported that he was executed in the year 62. That's the conventional explanation.

Another explanation and perhaps a more accurate one is that, after the death and resurrection of Jesus, nothing at all is known about the activities of James the Lesser. Like several of the other Apostles, his apostolic activities just never got recorded. But if that's the case then who was the man who became head of the Church in Jerusalem and was executed in the year 62? That, according to this second explanation, was another man named James, not one of the Twelve Apostles at all but rather a close relative of Jesus (Mt 13:55 and Ga 1:19), maybe a younger cousin, who later emerged as the gifted and courageous leader of the Jerusalem Christians.

But back to James the Greater whose feast we celebrate today. It is clear from the Gospels that James the son of Zebedee was one of Jesus' three closest friends, the other two being James's brother John and Peter. For some of the most important events in the life of Jesus, the raising to life of Jairus' daughter, the Transfiguration and the Agony in the Garden, it was these three men who, because of their close friendship with Jesus, were privileged to accompany him. But again, after the death and resurrection of Jesus, we don't know many details about the activities of James the Greater. What we do know, however, is that he must have been extremely zealous in preaching the Gospel because in the year 42, only nine years after the death of Jesus and while James himself was still probably in his early forties, Herod Agrippa ordered him to be executed. So this is the man we remember and honor today, James the Greater, the first of the Apostles to be martyred.

\+ + +

SS Philip and James—May 3rd

Jn 14:6-14

The Twelve

Today we celebrate the Solemnity of Philip and James, who were two of the Twelve Apostles. We, of course, know the names of all of the Twelve and regarding a few of them (Peter and Judas, for example) we know a few salient personal facts. But several of the Twelve are names and names only to us. The Gospels tell us nothing about them as individuals. So it's pretty clear that they are less important as individuals than they are as members of the Twelve.

So why were the Twelve important? Well, Jesus apparently sensed right from the beginning of his public ministry that after he died and rose from the dead, people would refuse to believe in his resurrection unless there were, say 10 or 15 reliable, honest, upstanding men who had been with him from start to finish and who would attest to the fact that he did indeed rise from the dead. Jesus knew that 2 or 3 witnesses would not be sufficiently convincing. He knew he needed more. So he chose twelve.

But why twelve exactly? Well Jesus was going to usher in the Kingdom of God, the new Israel, and just as there were twelve tribes in the old Israel, so symbolically, there should be twelve tribes in the new Israel as well, and each tribe would need a leader. And it would be only fitting that those reliable, honest, upstanding men who, by their testimony, would lay the foundation for the whole enterprise—it would be only fitting that those men would be the rulers in the new Israel. According to Matthew, this is what Jesus said to the Twelve:

I tell you solemnly when all is made new and the Son of Man sits on his throne of glory, you yourselves will sit on twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. (Mt 19:28)

So the number 12 was important. So important, in fact, that after Judas died, the followers of Jesus saw it as necessary to elect someone to take Judas' place. This is the way Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, explained it. After Judas died, Peter quoting Psalm 109 to the group, said, "Let someone else take his office." And then Peter added:

We must therefore choose someone who has been with us the whole time that the Lord Jesus was travelling round with us, someone who was with us right from the time when John was baptizing until the day when he was taken up from us—and he can act with us as a witness to his resurrection. (Ac 1:21-22)

Witnessing to the resurrection was what it was all about. This was the principal role of the Twelve. Let me read for you the passage from the Acts of the Apostles about the meeting Jesus had with the Twelve just before he ascended into heaven:

Now having met together, they asked him, 'Lord, has the time come? Are you going to restore the Kingdom of Israel?' He replied, 'It is not for you to know times or dates that the Father has decided by his own authority, but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes to you, and then you will be my witnesses not only in Jerusalem but throughout Judea and Samaria, and indeed to the ends of the earth.' (Ac 1:6 8)

So these are the men who, by their testimony, by their witnessing to the Resurrection, laid the foundations of the Church for centuries to come, so that all of us who have come after them might believe with some assurance in the truth of the Resurrection. Several of these men gave up their lives rather than deny what they knew to be true, and we are all indebted to them; we are indebted to the twelve witnesses, and owe them our gratitude.

\+ + +

Feast of St. Andrew—November 30th

Mt 4:18-22

St. Andrew

In the Gospels there are two different accounts of how St. Andrew became a disciple of Jesus. There's today's version, written by Matthew which is the condensed, skeletal account that pairs up the two sets of brothers: Andrew and his brother Peter, and James and his brother John. This is the short, rather impersonal version.

The other version is told by John in his Gospel (1:35-42) and contains much more detail. John, for example, tells us that Andrew was originally a disciple not of Jesus but of John the Baptist. And one day, when Andrew was with the Baptist, Jesus walked by. The Baptist then said to Andrew, "Look, there is the Lamb of God." Andrew apparently took that to mean that he, Andrew, should now switch his allegiance from the Baptist to Jesus, and so Andrew left the Baptist's side and followed Jesus. The Gospel writer, incidentally, mentions that, when that happened, it was "about the tenth hour," that is to say, about four o'clock in the afternoon, and that detail suggests that the writer (John the Evangelist) either personally witnessed the event or at least heard it directly from Andrew.

Anyway this account then goes on to say that early the next morning Andrew (who apparently by that time had spoken at length with Jesus) went to his brother, Simon Peter, and said to him, "Simon, we have found the Messiah" and then Andrew brought Peter to Jesus and introduced him. And then Peter too became a disciple of Jesus.

Well in light of John's longer and more detailed version of the event, it is clear that Andrew can serve as a model for us in at least a couple of ways. First of all, Andrew left the Baptist to become a disciple of Jesus. Andrew, in other words, left something good for something even better. So we can ask ourselves, "Might we not do the same?" No doubt we're already leading a good Christian life. But think about it, could we not crank it up a notch and become even closer to Christ?

And secondly Andrew, once he got to know Jesus, then introduced other people to Jesus as well. So with Andrew as our model, might we not ask ourselves, "How effective am I in recruiting others to enter the service of Christ?"

So with Andrew's example in mind, these are a couple of worthy goals for us: first to get closer to Christ ourselves, and secondly to bring others into the world of Christ in the hope that they too will come to recognize him as their Lord and Savior.

\+ + +

Tuesday of Holy Week

John 13:21-33 and 36-38

Judas

Today we read St. John's account of the clear prediction by Jesus that Judas was about to betray him. It's interesting, I think, that of the four Gospel writers, John is the only one who recounts this clear prediction about Judas. Mark and Luke, as a matter of fact, never even mention Judas in their accounts of the Last Supper. And although Matthew does mention Judas, he does so in a completely ambiguous way so that when you read Matthew's account you're not sure whether Jesus is _accusing_ Judas or whether he's _exonerating_ him. According to Matthew this is what happens: Jesus announces (perhaps expressing a premonition) that one of his apostles is about to betray him. Judas then says to Jesus, "Surely it is not I, Lord" and Jesus responds, "They are your words." So what does that mean? Is Jesus saying, "You got it right, Judas, you are not the one?" Or is he saying, "That's what you say, Judas, but you and I both know you are the one?" It can obviously be interpreted either way.

The bottom line, at any rate, is that none of the three earliest Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) stated clearly that Jesus knew beforehand that Judas was about to betray him, and that became a problem, because by the time John was preparing to write his Gospel, many people were already saying that Jesus could not be the true Messiah because the true Messiah would have read Judas' heart and would either not have selected him to be an apostle in the first place or would have weeded him out early on, before Judas did any serious damage.

Well this was the problem John faced when he wrote the fourth Gospel. So John, who was not only an eyewitness but a key participant in the event, decided to tell the whole story and set the record straight—how Peter asked John, who was sitting right next to Jesus, who exactly Jesus was talking about when he spoke about a betrayer, and how John then asked Jesus who it was and Jesus said, "the one to whom I give the bit of food I dip into the dish," whereupon Jesus promptly gave the food to Judas and told Judas to be quick about what he was going to do.

And in telling this whole story John was assuring his readers that Jesus knew all about Judas and that Jesus was the Messiah. But as the Messiah, indeed as the very Son of God, Jesus also knew that Judas' betrayal would, ironically, play a part in bringing about the redemption of humankind, which ultimately would give glory to God. And that's what John's Gospel is all about: the glory of God.

\+ + +

Thursday—4th Week of Easter

Acts 13:13-25

Paul and Barnabas

Ever since the day after Easter, our first Scripture reading at daily Mass has been from St. Luke's _Acts of the Apostles_. Today's reading is from chapter 13 and I'd like to begin by calling to your attention an interesting development in the relationship between Paul and Barnabas.

On Tuesday our reading was from chapter 11 where it talks about the fact that, for the first time, the good news about Jesus is now being preached to Gentiles, to non-Jews, people who are described as Greeks, and a great number of them were being converted. Tuesday's reading then goes on to say:

News of this eventually reached the ears of the church in Jerusalem, resulting in Barnabas' being sent to Antioch. On his arrival he rejoiced to see the evidence of God's favor. He encouraged them all to remain firm in their commitment to the Lord, since he himself was a good man filled with the Holy Spirit and faith. Thereby large numbers were added to the Lord. Then Barnabas went off to Tarsus to look for Saul [and let me just mention here that "Saul" is the Jewish name of the man we know more commonly as 'Paul', which was his Roman name] so Barnabas goes to Tarsus to look for Paul; once he found him he brought him back to Antioch.

Well clearly Barnabas is the number one man here. He is described as "a good man filled with the Holy Spirit and faith" and he travels to Tarsus to get Paul so that Paul can help him on his mission. So Barnabas is obviously the boss man and Paul is his assistant. That was Tuesday's reading from chapter 11.

Yesterday's reading was from chapter 12 which begins by noting that "Barnabas and Saul returned to Jerusalem upon completing the relief mission." Barnabas and Saul. Not Saul and Barnabas but Barnabas and Saul. Barnabas is mentioned first and Saul second because Barnabas is the leader. Then, later in yesterday's reading, the same thing. The _Acts_ say:

On one occasion, while they were worshipping the Lord and were fasting, the Holy Spirit said to them, 'Set apart Barnabas and Saul for me to do the work for which I have called them.'

But then, in today's reading, from chapter 13, we find a major change. I should note, however, that this change did not take place overnight. In fact the time period between the event mentioned in Chapter 11 and those in chapter 13 was at least a year, perhaps a year and a half. But our reading today begins with the line, "From Paphos, Paul and his companions put out to sea and sailed to Perga." So now it's "Paul and his companions." It's no longer Barnabas first and Paul second but it's now Paul first and Barnabas getting mentioned not even by name but only as one of Paul's companions.

So evidently Barnabas got sort of demoted somewhere along the line. St. Luke, however, doesn't comment on it at all and we are, I think, left to assume that the arrangement was worked out in an amicable fashion. Perhaps Barnabas even recognized that Paul was, on balance, better suited to the leadership role, and so simply turned the reins over to him.

There is, at any rate, a lesson here, and it is this: that always always the all important thing is that the Good News of Jesus Christ be brought to all the world. Who's first and who's second is not the issue. We are all God's people. We are all disciples of Jesus. And we all have the same mission: to proclaim Jesus as Lord of history and Savior of the world.

\+ + +

Friday—3rd Week of Easter

Acts 9:1-3

The Way

In our first Scripture reading this morning St. Luke refers to the early Christians as people who belonged to what he called "the Way." He writes, "Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains." So I want to say something about this term "the Way."

First of all the term, as it applies to the early Christian community, is found only in the _Acts of the Apostles_ (and it is found there maybe 8 or 10 times) and, as best I can make out, the term seems to have been coined by St. Paul himself. My reason for saying that it was coined by Paul is based mostly on chapter 24 of the _Acts of the Apostles_. By this time, that is, by chapter 24, Paul is no longer a persecutor of Christians but has become a Christian himself, and some of the Jewish elders, including the high priest, have now brought him before the governor of Judea charging Paul with sedition. This, briefly, is what the high priest says to the governor, "The plain truth is that we find this man a perfect pest; he stirs up trouble among the Jews the world over, and is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect." (24:5) So this is the way the Jewish elders viewed the early Christians: as a sect. Well a sect, of course, is a small group that has broken away from an established religion. Paul, however, bristles at being regarded as a member of a sect because Paul doesn't see himself as having in any way broken away from Judaism, and when it comes his turn to speak to the governor he says,

It is not true that they ever found me arguing with any one or stirring up the mob, either in the Temple, in the synagogues, or about the town; neither can they prove any of the accusations they are making against me now.

What I do admit to you is this: it is according to the Way which they describe as a sect that I worship the God of my ancestors, retaining my belief in all points of the law and what is written in the prophets; and I hold the same hope in God as they do that there will be a resurrection of good men and bad men alike ...It is about the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today. (24:12-15, 21)

So what is Paul saying here? He is saying that he is a loyal and devout Jew, but that there are two types of Jews; there are those who follow the Way and those who do not follow the Way. Those who follow the Way believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. They believe furthermore, that Jesus rose from the dead and that's why they follow him. But they remain faithful Jews and are certainly not a sect. The Way, says St. Paul, is not a religion different from Judaism. It is, rather, the fulfillment of Judaism. It is the hope of the ancient Jews come true. It is the hope of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Moses and David and all the prophets. It is the true Way to God.

\+ + +

Friday—4th Week Ordinary Time

Mk 6:14-29

Baptist, Herald of Death

Shortly before Jesus began his public ministry, John the Baptist appeared on the scene as a voice crying in the wilderness, "Make straight the way of the Lord." And this is the way we usually see John the Baptist: as the herald, the precursor of the public ministry of Christ.

In Today's Gospel reading, however, St. Mark tells us that not only did the _preaching_ of John prepare people for the _preaching_ of Jesus, but also the _death_ of John prepared people for the _death_ of Jesus. This, in fact, is what Mark too is doing in today's reading: he is preparing his readers for the death of Jesus. And Mark does this by pointing out four parallels between the death of John the Baptist and the death of Jesus, four aspects of John's death that will later be repeated in the death of Jesus.

_First_ , Mark points out that Herodias wanted to kill John but was unable to do so because Herod was afraid of John. Later in his Gospel Mark will twice point out that the chief priests and scribes had exactly the same problem with Jesus: they wanted to kill him but could not because they feared the reaction of the people. _Secondly_ , Mark notes that Herod ordered John to be executed even though he knew him to be a good and holy man. Later Mark will note that Pontius Pilate, in order to placate the crowd, did basically the same thing to Jesus, even though Pilate could find no fault in him. _Thirdly_ , Mark notes that after John died, his disciples came, took the body, and laid it in a tomb; and the disciples of Jesus, of course, did the same after Jesus died. And _fourthly_ , when King Herod finally got to meet Jesus, long after John the Baptist had been killed, Herod was convinced that Jesus was actually John the Baptist raised up from the dead. And while John did not actually rise from the dead, Jesus of course, did.

So in those four ways Mark wants us to understand that John the Baptist was the herald, the forerunner not only of the preaching and ministry of Jesus but even of his death. And perhaps Mark has another message here as well. Maybe he is saying that just as Herod thought Jesus was John revivified, just, in other words, as Herod confused John and Jesus, it would be good if others would confuse us with Jesus. It would be good if our lives were so giving and holy that others would look at us and think, "There is one who is truly Christ-like." Or better yet, "There is a whole parish, a whole community, that is truly Christ-like."

\+ + +

Monday—4th Week Ordinary Time

Mk 5:1-20

Legion, the Apostle

The great St. Paul travelled hundreds and hundreds of miles through modern Turkey, Greece, Sicily and Southern Italy preaching the Gospel to non-Jews, so Paul is known as "The Apostle to the Gentiles."

Paul, however, was not the first apostle to the Gentiles. The first, it would seem, is the man we read about in today's Gospel. We don't even know his name. Jesus asked him his name but the man only said, "Legion is my name," meaning that he was possessed by hundreds of demons. But after he was cured, the Gospel says that he "went off and began to proclaim throughout the Ten Cities what Jesus had done for him," and all were amazed at what they heard, so the man must have been a pretty impressive and effective apostle.

The Ten Cities were across the Jordan and were Greek or Hellenistic cities. They even went by their Greek name, Decapolis (Deca meaning ten; polis meaning city), Decapolis. Anyway, these cities were inhabited by non-Jews. And this man, who had been cured or set free by Jesus, apparently spent the next period of his life, perhaps the entire rest of his life, travelling to those ten cities, and probably to the smaller settlements in between, telling the people about Jesus the wonder worker.

It could not have been an easy life travelling to all ten cities and talking to as many people as he could, so it's an inspiring story of a man whose heart was filled with gratitude for what Jesus had done for him.

He's a man we can all certainly learn from. His journeys were not as extensive or as well documented as those of the great St. Paul but he deserves nonetheless to be recognized, I think, as the very _first_ apostle to the Gentiles, and I can understand why his listeners were amazed. He was an amazing man with an amazing story.

\+ + +

January 1—Octave of Christmas

Mary, Mother of God

Scripture says that as Jesus was dying on the cross, his mother, by that time a widow, was standing at the foot of the cross, and with her was the young apostle John. Jesus said to his mother, "Woman, behold your son," and to John, "Behold your mother." Jesus was, in other words, asking John to take care of his mother and to treat her as though she were his very own mother.

After Jesus died it is known that John spent many years in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9) but a very ancient tradition has it that he eventually made his way to Ephesus, a bustling mideast city which is located in present day Turkey, _and_ that John had Mary, the mother of Jesus, with him. Whether Mary every actually lived in Ephesus is not certain but what is certain is that the people of Ephesus, the Ephesians, came to have enormous loyalty and devotion to Mary. They took pride in her and revered her as though she herself were an Ephesian.

Some four hundred years after the time of Jesus a man name Nestorius was ordained a priest and eventually became the bishop of the great city of Constantinople. Being bishop of Constantinople carried with it immense prestige, and with all that authority behind him, Nestorius began to preach from his cathedral pulpit certain things about our Blessed Mother that rubbed the Ephesians the wrong way. And not only the Ephesians but the Romans as well, and the Corinthians and Christians from all over the world.

What Nestorius was saying would perhaps not be all that newsworthy in the 21st century but in the fifth century the whole Christian world was up in arms over what Nestorius had done. What he had done was to deny publicly, from the pulpit, Mary's most basic title which was, in Greek, Theotokos—in English, Mother of God. Mary, said Nestorius, is not the Mother of God. That's absurd. That's blasphemy. How could a mere creature be the mother of the Creator? Mary is not the Mother of God. She is the mother of Jesus but not the Mother of God.

This was the position of Nestorius. But the Pope and the Ephesians and Christians around the world were quick to see that the position of Nestorius was heresy. Because Jesus is God, and if Mary is the mother of Jesus then she is the Mother of God. Not the mother of divinity, of course. That _would_ be absurd. But nevertheless the Mother of God. Jesus is not two people. He is one person, one person who is both God and man, both human and divine, but still only one person. So when Nestorius claimed that Mary was the mother of the human person but not the divine person, he was, in effect, saying the Jesus was two different people. And that's heresy.

So an ecumenical council was convened to declare once and for all that Mary is indeed Theotokos, the Mother of God. A hundred and fifty bishops gathered from all over the world. And do you know where the Council was held? Do you think it was in Rome: or Constantinople? No. It was in Ephesus. Perhaps as a tribute to the great Marian loyalty of the Ephesian people.

It is said that, during the meeting, hundreds and hundreds of the townspeople waited outside, and when the announcement was finally made that the Council had solemnly decreed that Mary was indeed Theotokos, the place went wild. The Notre Dame victory march had not yet been written but the people paraded around chanting, "Theotokos, Theotokos!!" The Mother of God was vindicated.

And that, my friends, is the story of today's feast. Happy Feast Day and Happy New Year!

\+ + +

December 22

Lk 1:46-56

The Magnificat

Let me begin with a little background on our first reading this morning from the First Book of Samuel. About eleven hundred years before the time of Jesus there lived a man named Elkanah who had two wives, Hannah and Peninnah. Hannah was his favorite but she bore him no children and for years, Peninnah, who did have children, taunted Hannah, saying that God had made her barren. So Hannah prayed to God, promising that, if he blessed her with a son, she would dedicate him for his entire life to the service of the Lord. So the Lord blessed Hannah with a son whom she named Samuel. And eventually Samuel would become one of the great leaders of the Israelite people.

Well after Samuel is born and has been weaned, Hannah brings him to the temple to present him to the Lord. And that's what our first reading today is about. But more interesting than the first reading, I think, is the Responsorial Psalm. The first thing that's interesting about the Responsorial Psalm is that it's not really a Psalm at all. At least it's not one of the psalms in the official collection of the 150 psalms that make up the Psalter or Book of Psalms. And this is unusual. Actually it's more than unusual. It's rare. Extremely rare. Almost always, almost always, the Responsorial Psalm at Mass is from the Book of Psalms. Today, however, it's not from the Book of Psalms. It's from the First Book of Samuel. Today the Responsorial Psalm is Hannah's song or hymn or canticle of praise and thanksgiving to the Lord for gifting her with a son.

Most likely Hannah's song of thanksgiving was not something she made up on the spot. Most likely it was a traditional song of praise with which Hannah was familiar and which she used for the occasion. Or maybe this traditional song of praise was just put into Hannah's mouth by the author of the Book of Samuel because it seemed to him that these would certainly be the sentiments that were in Hannah's heart at the time.

Anyway, it has probably already occurred to you why Hannah's song was selected for today's liturgy. It is, of course, because of its obvious similarity to Mary's song in our Gospel reading today. Both Hannah and Mary are thanking God for the birth of a special son, and they are both rejoicing in God's mercy and goodness. Hannah begins, "My heart exults in the Lord." Mary begins, "My spirit rejoices in God my Savior." Both speak of how God casts down the proud and exalts the humble. And both praise God's power and God's holiness.

Most Scripture scholars agree, I think, that St. Luke took it upon himself to add to Mary's song the line, "From this day all generations will call me blessed," but other than that Mary was no doubt relying either on Hannah's song or on some other traditional canticle that expressed the beautiful sentiments in her own famous Magnificat.

The Magnificat is, of course, justly famous and is a prayer all of us can pray. Certainly we can all pray, "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord. My spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked with favor on his lowly servant."

\+ + +

August 15th

The Assumption

Let me begin this morning by posing a little question about our Blessed Mother. It's not exactly a trick question but it is perhaps a question you have never asked yourself before. The question is this: did our Blessed Mother die? Most of us, I think, would kind of automatically answer, "Of course she died." Because everybody dies. Even Jesus died though he, of course, rose from the dead on the third day.

The question of whether or not _Mary_ died, however, is not as simple or as straightforward as we might think. Let me offer a little background. Prior to 1950 the standard textbooks in systematic theology pointed out that practically all of the Church Fathers and most theologians taught that Mary did die. They pointed out, however, first of all that Mary's death was not punishment for her sins but rather a way of following the example of her son, and secondly that Mary did not die from some illness or decrepitude; rather she died from an intense, burning desire to be with God in heaven, So this was the situation prior to 1950: most theologians held that Mary died but that she died in a way that was different from the way that the rest of us die. She died not because she had to but because she wanted to.

In 1950, however, a kind of theological shift took place. On November first of that year, Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary into heaven to be a dogma, that is to say a definitive, infallible teaching of the Church. In defining the dogma, however, Pius XII sort of fudged on whether or not Mary died. One might have expected the Pope to say, "After Mary died but before any bodily corruption occurred, Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven." But that isn't what the Pope said. What he said was this: that "Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

So after polling all the bishops of the world and after several years of study, the Pope declared not that Mary died but only that she "completed the course of her earthly life." And once the Pope took that position, then many of the theologians who previously held that Mary died weren't so sure anymore. Indeed more and more theologians began to consider it likely that while Mary was still alive, perhaps while she was praying or doing the dishes or whatever she was sort of beamed up to heaven, body and soul, to be with God.

This whole business, however, of whether the Assumption of Mary occurred while she was still alive or only after she died is obviously a matter of pure speculation and is, at best, a peripheral issue. The main issue, the main point is this, that Mary was certainly assumed, body and soul, into heaven. I mentioned that this was not declared to be a dogma until 1950 but that is not to say that this is some kind of new teaching in the Church. It is not. The Assumption of Mary is an ancient, ancient teaching. It has been part of our belief system since at least the sixth century and has been celebrated liturgically since then in both the East and the West.

Mary is the Mother of God. It was from her body that Jesus was born. And Christians, therefore, have always regarded Mary's body as unique, and considered it fitting that her body be spared the corruption to which all other bodies are subject. In this sense, therefore, we are different from Mary. But in another sense we are like her and she is like us. Because just as Mary lives now, body and soul, in heaven, so we too one day will live body and soul in heaven. For as we say at the very end of the Nicene Creed, "We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

\+ + +

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Origins of Our Belief in the Assumption

Today we celebrate the fact that, at the end of Mary's life, she was assumed into heaven. So just as Jesus _ascended_ , with his resurrected body, into heaven, Mary's body was _assumed_ into heaven. But where does our belief about the Assumption of Mary come from?

In a few moments we will be making our profession of faith together as we proclaim the Creed. Together we say, "I believe in one God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life." These and all the other divine truths found in the Creed come directly and explicitly from the Bible, the Sacred Scriptures. The same, however, cannot be said of the Assumption of Mary into heaven. The last mention of Mary in the Scriptures is in chapter one of the _Acts of the Apostles_ where Mary is with the twelve Apostles and some other disciples right after Jesus has ascended into heaven, and they are all at prayer as they await the coming of the Holy Spirit. That's the last we hear of Mary in the Scriptures. The fact that some years later she was assumed into heaven is never mentioned in the Bible.

So again, where does the belief about the assumption come from? Well, if I had to put it in a nutshell I would say that it came from the immense esteem that Christian men and women have had for Mary over the centuries. And not just esteem but affection and love and admiration and gratitude and devotion. But that's just the nutshell. Let me be a bit more specific.

First we have today's first Scripture reading from the Book of Revelation which talks about the woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Well it's generally agreed, I think, by those who know, that when the author of the Book of Revelation penned those words, he wasn't really thinking about Mary. That, however, mattered little to the millions of Christians over the centuries who loved Mary and who continued to insist that those beautiful words about the woman clothed with the sun perfectly described Mary after she had been assumed into heaven.

Secondly, Mary was, after all, the woman in whose womb our Savior had been nourished for nine months; and she was the woman who had given birth to the Son of God as a human being, and many Christians over the centuries found it repugnant to think that God would allow that woman to be subjected to the corruption of the tomb. It made much more sense, they thought, that God would take her to heaven to be with her son.

Thirdly, many Christians felt that Jesus, as a good son, would want to do this favor for his mother. Some indeed felt that it was his filial duty, that since, as God, Jesus had the power to do this, that he was almost obliged to have his mother assumed, body and soul, into heaven.

And finally, since we know from the Scriptures that one day we will all be raised from the dead, it seems altogether fitting that we have the complete Mary already in heaven as a symbol of the beautiful future that awaits us all.

And that, my friends, in slightly more than a nutshell, is the origin of our faith in the Assumption of our Blessed Mother. O Mary, conceived without sin and assumed into heaven, pray for us.

\+ + +

Tuesday—4th Week Ordinary Time

Mk 5:21-43

Women

In our Gospel reading today Jesus cures and probably even restores to life a young woman; and he also heals a woman who was afflicted for years with hemorrhaging. So I thought, since both miracles were for women, that today might be a good day to say just a word or two about women in the New Testament.

First of all, when we imagine Jesus during his public ministry, many of us tend to think of him as travelling either alone or perhaps with his apostles. In fact, however, Jesus generally travelled not only with the twelve but also with a number of women, some of whom at least were fairly wealthy, and all of whom were very much a part of Jesus' team. Let me read for you a couple of brief passages about these women. First a passage from Luke who wrote:

Now after this he made his way through towns and villages preaching, and proclaiming the Good News of the Kingdom of God. With him went the Twelve, as well as certain women.

Luke then mentions three of these women: Mary Magdalen, Joanna and Susanna, and then Luke adds, "and several others who provided for them out of their own resources." (Lk 8:1-3)

The other Passage is from Mark and is about the holy women of Calvary. Mark says:

There were some women watching from a distance. Among them were Mary of Madgala, Mary who was the mother of James the younger and Joset, and Salome. These used to follow him and look after him when he was in Galilee. And there were many other women there who had come up to Jerusalem with him. (Mk 15:40-41)

So that's the first point: women played an important, perhaps even an indispensable role in the public ministry of Jesus.

Secondly, Mary Magdalen. Mary Magdalen was obviously special. She had been a loyal supporter of Jesus and his mission through most of his ministry. And then, of course, after Jesus died, John tells us in chapter 20 of his Gospel that Mary Magdalen was the very first person Jesus appeared to after he rose from the dead. She had been weeping at the tomb because the man she so admired and loved had died. But then suddenly Jesus appears and, once she realizes who he is, she embraces him, and Jesus has to say, "Mary, do not cling to me because I have not yet ascended to the Father." So Mary Magdalen then goes and informs the disciples that Jesus has risen from the dead. So where, in fact, did the apostles learn about the Resurrection? They learned about it from Mary Magdalen. So it's fitting, isn't it, that she should be called "The Apostle to the Apostles."

Thirdly, Martha and Mary of Bethany, the sisters of Lazarus. These were clearly among Jesus' closest friends. He obviously spent lots of time with them, was comfortable with them and just hung out with them. In fact John, in chapter 11 of his Gospel, specifically says that Jesus loved Martha and her sister Mary and Lazarus.

Well, time is running out and I haven't even mentioned Mary the Mother of God who is, of course, the greatest woman in the New Testament but we'll save her for another day. Before I close, however, let me skip ahead and mention that 25 years or so after Jesus died, women clearly continued to be influential in the spread of Christianity. In chapter 15 of his Letter to the Romans, for example, St. Paul mentions a woman by the name of Phoebe who was a deaconess, and another woman, Prisca, whom Paul describes as a "co-worker."

So there you have it: women have always played major roles in the great saving works of Christ. They still do today and will, I'm sure, take on even more demanding ministries in the years to come.

\+ + +

Friday—2nd Week of Advent

Mt 11:16-19

The Disciples of Jesus and of John

In our Gospel reading today Jesus mentions that he and his cousin John the Baptist were two entirely different kinds of people. Jesus was, of course, a very social kind of person, definitely on the gregarious side. He had good close friends, both men and women. He loved children. He would invite himself to dinner, even when he hardly knew the people. We think of him as having a hearty laugh and as enjoying good food and wine and companionship. John, on the other hand, was an ascetic, given to rigorous self denial. His diet consisted of locusts and wild honey and he never touched alcohol. He dressed in primitive fashion and, in general, we think of him as a deadly serious man who had little or no sense of humor.

As different as they were, however, both John and Jesus came bearing the same message. Matthew, in his Gospel, notes, regarding the Baptist that "he preached in the wilderness of Judaea and this was his message: 'Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is close at hand.'" (Mt 3:2) And regarding Jesus, Matthew writes, "Jesus began his preaching with the message, 'Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is close at hand.'" (M 4:17) So Jesus and John came bearing exactly the same message, and it is clear from the Scriptures that they also had a profound respect for each other.

The same was not always true, however, of their disciples. On the contrary. There are at least a couple of incidents in the Gospels which suggest that there was a certain tension, even a certain rivalry between the disciples of Jesus and the disciples of John. John, the Evangelist, for example, in his Gospel, notes the following. He writes:

Some of John's disciples...went to John and said "Rabbi, the man who was with you on the far side of the Jordan, the man to whom you bore witness, is baptizing now; and everyone is going to him.' (Jn 3:25 27)

Between these lines you can almost hear the resentment in the voices of John's disciples. The man they're talking about is, of course, Jesus but they refuse to humanize him by calling him by name. They clearly consider John to be superior to Jesus whom they regard as a kind of copycat, and they are indignant that this upstart would try to compete with their Rabbi.

And Matthew, in his Gospel, reports that one day "John's disciples came to Jesus and said, "Why is that we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not?" (Mt 9:14) Now you might say, "Well what's wrong with that? They're just asking a question, just looking for information." But that, I think, is not really the case. What is really going on here, it seems to me, is that they're making a statement in the form of a question, and the statement is this: they're saying to Jesus, "We, John's disciples, are better than your disciples because we fast and they do not."

So it seems clear that while Jesus and John were still alive there was a certain competition going on among their respective disciples. One would expect that after Jesus and John died that that sort of rivalry would simply have faded away but it appears that, in fact, it did not. Because in chapter 19 of the _Acts of the Apostles_ St. Luke reports that around the year 56, some twenty plus years after Jesus and John died, St. Paul met about twelve men who were still disciples of John the Baptist, and that it was only after Paul explained that the Baptist himself had always insisted that people should believe not in him but in Jesus, that they finally converted.

Well, I'm not exactly sure what this little bit of history says to us today but one thought is this, and let me close with it: seeing Jesus for who he is and believing in him is not always easy. So each of us should be grateful to God in our hearts for the great gift of faith that _we_ have in Jesus as our Lord and Savior.

\+ + +

Saturday—5th Week of Easter

Jn 15:18-21

The Johannine Community

In the years during which John was writing his Gospel, he and his entire flock, his whole community, was suffering persecution. And in today's Gospel reading John is trying to give support to his people during their trials by reminding them that Jesus himself had been persecuted and that Jesus had once said, "If they persecute me, they will also persecute you." In other words, let us be courageous and take up our cross. It's what Jesus expects of us.

But who were those people who were persecuting John's community? And why were they paying more attention to John's community than they perhaps were to other Christian communities? Well, the very short answer to these two questions is first, that the persecutors were devout Jews; and second that they were singling out John and his flock because they, more than some other Christian communities, were, or seemed to be, advocating a clean break away from worshipping in the Temple in Jerusalem. That's the very short answer but it obviously needs some explanation.

First of all about the Temple. Jesus, like all good Jews, had tremendous reverence for the Temple. When he was twelve, as you remember, and his parents were frantically looking for him, and finally found him in the Temple, Jesus said to them, "Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I would be in my father's house?" And, as an adult, whenever Jesus was in Jerusalem he taught practically every day in the Temple. He often referred to the Temple as the house of God and a house of prayer, and he was enraged that the money changers had defiled the Temple by making it a den of thieves.

However, within just a few years of Jesus' death, some Jewish Christians, not all by any means but some, were saying that what Jesus would really want would be for his followers to worship God on their own, not in the Temple but in freedom and in spirit. One person who thought this way was Stephen the deacon who gave a speech in the Sanhedrin one day in which he said, "The Most High does not live in a house...Was not all this made by hand?" (Acts 7:48-50) And after making that speech Stephen was, as we know, stoned to death.

Then there were the Samaritans. The Samaritans were really Jews but had broken away from mainstream Judaism in a bitter, centuries long dispute. Then, to show their independence from Judaism, the Samaritans built a rival temple on Mt. Gerizim in Samaria. But here's the interesting thing. According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus never spent any time in Samaria. He had to pass through it because Samaria lay between Galilee in the north and Judea in the south but he never spent any time there. According to John, however, one day when Jesus stopped at a well in Samaria, he met a woman there, and according to John this is what was said:

'I see you are a prophet, sir' said the woman. 'Our fathers worshipped on this mountain, while you say that Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.' Jesus said: 'Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem...But the hour is coming—in fact it is already here—when true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth: that is the kind of worshipper the Father wants. God is spirit, and those who worship must worship in spirit and truth.' (Jn 4:20-24)

So with John being the only evangelist to record this event, where Jesus takes this explicit "post Temple" stance, a stance very similar to that taken by Stephen, one gets the impression that very likely John personally agreed with that stance. And if that, in fact, was the case, then one can understand why John's community might be targeted by devout Jews who would regard John's position as an attack on their beloved Temple which, for a thousand years, their ancestors had revered as God's very own house.

Finally let me just mention that at some point, perhaps around the year 70 the Jews agreed to expel from the synagogue anyone who would acknowledge that Jesus was the Christ (Jn 9:22-23 and 16:1-4a), and perhaps it was this decision that prompted John and his community to leave Palestine and move to Ephesus. But even there, as today's Gospel suggests, devout Jews continued to make life difficult for John and his community.

\+ + +

Wednesday—6th Week Ordinary Time

Mk 8:22-26

Blindness

Today's Gospel reading is so tied in with yesterday's that I want to begin this morning by taking just a moment or two to refresh your memories about yesterday's Gospel reading. It began by noting that the disciples of Jesus had forgotten to bring bread and had only one loaf with them in the boat. Jesus then says something about yeast or leaven, and the disciples think that Jesus is scolding them for having forgotten the bread. Jesus, however, is not thinking about the bread. He is not in the least concerned with the forgotten bread. What he is talking about and what he is really concerned about is the fact that his disciples, even though they have seen him work miracle after miracle, still don't seem to have the faintest idea about who he is. And he says to them, "Don't you remember how many baskets were left over after I fed the 5,000, and how many baskets were left over after I fed the 4,000? Are your eyes completely closed? Or do you have eyes that do not see? Do you still not understand? Are you still without perception?" That was yesterday's reading.

And from there we go directly into today's Gospel reading where Jesus cures the blind man. Now curing the man's physical blindness is, in itself, a wonderful thing, of course, but it's pretty clear from the larger context that St. Mark wants his readers to understand that, in giving this man his sight, Jesus is also sending a message to his disciples that he can and will give them sight as well. It's true that they don't understand who he is yet. It's true that they are still spiritually blind. But they mustn't be discouraged. One day soon spiritual sight will be given them and they will understand that he is truly the Messiah, the only Son of God. It's significant, of course, that in curing the blind man, Jesus worked in stages. The first time he laid hands on the man, the man could see but only fuzzily, and to him people looked like walking trees, but the second time the man could see clearly and distinctly. So the message is that, for most of us (and that includes the early disciples of Jesus) our faith in Christ, our trust in him, our understanding and appreciation of him comes in stages. It's a gradual process but with prayer and the Eucharist and charity towards our neighbor and with reading the Sacred Scriptures, we grow. It comes. And though we can't do it by ourselves, we can be confident that the same Jesus who cured the blind man is always at our side with his enlightening, his sight-giving touch.

\+ + +

Wednesday—2nd Week of Lent

Mt 20: 1-28

Ambition

Our Gospel reading today is from chapter 20 of St. Matthew's Gospel and it begins with Jesus predicting for the third time that he is going to be put to death. His first prediction of his impending passion and death was in chapter 16. His second prediction was in chapter 17. And now we have our third in chapter 20. And these same three predictions are also contained in the Gospels of Mark and Luke as well. So all three of the Synoptic Gospels contain the three predictions by Jesus of his suffering and death.

But what's really interesting is that, in both Matthew and Mark, the third prediction is followed immediately by this unbelievably stupid question (well, maybe 'stupid' is too strong a word—let's say 'inappropriate'), anyway this third prediction is followed immediately by this altogether inappropriate question about whether James and John are going to be rewarded with a rank above the other apostles. Well Jesus handles the question very tactfully but I strongly suspect that he must have been at least tempted to say something like, "Hello? Is anybody at all listening? Am I not getting through to anyone among you? I just got finished telling you for the third time that very soon, probably before the year is out, I'm going to be scourged and then crucified, and this is all you've got to talk about: who's going to outrank whom in this little society of ours? Have I picked a bunch of complete dunces to bring the great message of salvation to the world?"

This is what Jesus might have said, but he didn't because he was too polite. But clearly the ugly vices of ambition and self-aggrandizement and the coveting of honors were in evidence very early on in the history of the church, so it's no wonder we're still plagued with them today.

Jesus, poor man, kept telling us how dead wrong, how completely off target all of this is but we've been pretty slow learners, I'm afraid. Jesus still keeps telling us that following him means taking up a cross; it means being poor in spirit; means being meek and humble of heart and, above all, it means serving others. Jesus came not to be served but to serve, and this is what we are all called to do—to serve others, to be of service to others as we bring his message of love to the world.

\+ + +

Tuesday—6th Week Ordinary Time

Mk 8:14-21

Transformation of Disciples

In our Gospel reading today Jesus is saying to his disciples, "So what exactly is the problem, fellas? I mean you've seen the miracles I've worked and you've heard my teaching, so why are you just sitting there looking confused? How come you don't understand who I am and why I'm here? Are you just too slow witted, or perhaps blind or deaf? Or maybe it's a memory problem; maybe you've forgotten that just yesterday I fed 4,000 people with just seven loaves of bread."

These are a few of the possibilities that occur to Jesus: blindness, deafness or perhaps some kind of mental block on the part of his disciples; and maybe the answer is "all of the above." At any rate, the disciples of Jesus are portrayed in general as a pretty inept, incompetent, pathetic bunch of guys. In Thursday's Gospel reading, for example, we will see Jesus reprimand Peter, saying, "Get thee behind me, Satan (he calls him 'Satan'). Get thee behind me, Satan, you are judging not by God's standards but by man's."

And besides the fact that the disciples just don't seem to be able to understand, they also remain self-absorbed (more concerned with themselves than with Jesus) and filled with ugly ambition. On one occasion, for example, Jesus catches the apostles arguing about who among them is the greatest (Mk 9:34), and on another occasion James and John ask Jesus if they can sit one on his right, the other on his left when he comes in his glory (Mk 10:35).

And finally, of course, when Jesus is about to be crucified, Judas betrays him, Peter denies him three times, and the rest of them just run away and desert him. A pathetic bunch, indeed.

But then suddenly everything changes. The apostles are all of a sudden transformed. Now they think not at all about themselves but only of Jesus, and they tell everybody they meet about him and about his great and saving works. And to a man they are ready and willing to die for him. Indeed, many of them did, in fact, suffer torture and death rather than deny their faith in him.

So what happened? What explains the remarkable transformation? One thing only could possibly have brought it about. Well two things actually. First that Jesus rose from the dead, and secondly that the Holy Spirit came to the disciples and made them new people, people of courage and conviction, people who were then tested by fire, and in the end, were finally found worthy of their Master.

\+ + +

Friday of Easter Week

Jn 21:1-14

The Charcoal Fire

John ended his Gospel with these words:

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

These were the closing lines of chapter 20, the final chapter of John's Gospel. But then John, or more likely one of his disciples, added an appendix or epilogue to the Gospel. This epilogue then became chapter 21 of John's Gospel, and it is from this epilogue that today's Gospel reading is taken.

This epilogue might seem to be about catching fish but it is really about something more profound. It's really about light versus darkness, about life versus death, about courage versus cowardice. The first hint of this is that the disciples fish during the night and catch nothing, but then when day breaks, the Risen Christ appears to them and suddenly they have more fish than they know what to do with. So darkness symbolizes failure and emptiness, whereas light brings success and abundance. It is one of John's favorite themes. But there was more.

Our Gospel reading today ends at verse 14 with these seven or eight men sitting around a charcoal fire enjoying breakfast together as the sun is rising in the eastern sky. The last time we read about a charcoal fire in John's Gospel was in chapter 18. In chapter 18 the time was not early morning; it was nighttime. It was, in other words, a time not of light but of darkness. Peter was standing by the charcoal fire that night warming himself, and as he stood there he three times denied that he ever knew this Jesus who was about to be crucified. It was a time of darkness, a time of cowardice and shame for Peter. But now, in chapter 21, day is dawning and Peter is about to be redeemed. Our reading today, as I mentioned, ends with verse 14 but let me read for you the next few verses:

After the meal Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these others do?' He answered, 'Yes, Lord, you know I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Feed my lambs.' A second time he said to him, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' He replied, 'Yes, you know I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Look after my sheep.' The he said to him a third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' Peter was upset that he asked him the third time, 'Do you love me?' And said, 'Lord, you know everything; you know I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Feed my sheep.'

So now the dark ugly night of Peter's cowardice is forgotten. Peter's threefold denial has been cancelled out by the threefold profession of love, and the charcoal fire has witnessed them both. The charcoal fire witnessed both the denial and the profession of love and tied the two of them together. And dawn is now bathing this earth not only in brightness and color but also in courage and strength and hope, and above all, in victory, the ultimate victory of love.

And this, of course, is what we celebrate in the Paschal mystery: the ultimate victory of life and love.

\+ + +

JESUS

December 17

Mt 1:1-17

The Davidic Genealogy

St. Matthew's whole point in this genealogy of Jesus is to assure his Jewish Christian readers that Jesus is truly the Messiah. And Matthew does this particularly by shining his spotlight on King David, because it was axiomatic among the Israelites of the time that, when the Messiah finally appeared, he would be recognized especially by the fact that he was a descendant of David, that he was the Son of David.

So how exactly does Matthew shine this spotlight on David? He does it in two ways. The first thing he does is divide the ancestors of Jesus into three chronological sets. Then Matthew ends the first set with David and begins the second set with David. But then, to put further emphasis on David, Matthew does not end the second set with a person at all but rather with the Babylonian Exile. So now there is no other transition person to distract us from David, no other person to steal the scene from David. And even though there are a lot of names in between, the reader is left with the distinct impression that it is David who is the principal ancestor of Jesus.

The second way Matthew highlights the importance of David is by dividing Christ's ancestors into three sets of fourteen generations, because every Israelite knew that the number 14 _identified_ David. David and the number 14 were virtually synonymous in the mind of the ancient Jew. It was, you see, fairly common at the time to assign a numerical equivalent to a name. In English it would work this way: with a equaling 1, b 2, c 3 and so on, take the name "Abe," A-B-E. A would be 1 and B would be 2 for a total of 3; then E (being the 5th letter of the alphabet) would be 5. So 3 plus 5 would be 8 so the numerical equivalent of Abe would be 8. Well, in ancient Israel every Jew knew that the numerical equivalent of the name David was 14. So when the Christian Jews read Matthew's genealogy of Jesus and saw three sets of ancestors each with 14 generations, they heard David, David, David. And this reinforced the notion that Jesus was indeed the Son of David, their long awaited Messiah and Savior.

\+ + +

Our Lady of Guadalupe—December 12th

Lk 1:26-38

Two Births

On this feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe our Gospel reading is from chapter one of the Gospel according to Luke. Luke begins his Gospel with the story of two births: the birth of John the Baptist and the birth of Jesus. And while there are some similarities in the two births, basically Luke is pointing out how different the two births are. Basically Luke is calling to our attention that, while the birth of John is firmly rooted in Hebrew history, the birth of Jesus constitutes a break from history and is something radically new, Luke does this in several ways.

First the _locale_ : the future birth of John is announced not only in the city of Jerusalem but in the very temple itself, which is, of course, the epicenter of Jewish life and worship. The future birth of Jesus, on the other hand, is announced far from Jerusalem, way up in Galilee, which was a province that was scorned in Judaism as a very secondary outpost.

Secondly the _parents_ : St. Luke highlights the essential Jewishness of Zechariah and Elizabeth, who were the parents of John the Baptist. Luke not only makes a point of the fact that they were both from a priestly tribe but he also notes that they were elderly and childless, and Luke thereby reminds his readers that Zechariah and Elizabeth were, in more ways than one, descendants of Abraham and Sarah, the founding parents of all Hebrews, because Abraham and Sarah were also elderly and childless before they had their son Isaac. Regarding Jesus, on the other hand, Luke says much less about the Jewishness of the parents. He does note that Joseph was of the House of David but Luke says nothing at all about Mary's ancestry.

Thirdly the _angel_ : regarding the birth of John, the angel Gabriel appears to Zechariah as Zechariah is in the very act of burning incense in the sanctuary of the Lord, once again emphasizing the Jewishness of the scene, whereas Gabriel appeared to Mary while she was alone, probably at home or perhaps out in a field, but not in a specifically Jewish setting.

Fourthly the _conception_ : Elizabeth, according to Luke, had been barren but her infertility had been cured and she conceived John through intercourse with her husband. Mary, however, conceived through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. And so once again a dramatic break from history.

And finally the _destiny_ of the two boys: John, according to Luke, is destined to be a prophet with the power of the great Elijah, while Jesus is to be much more than a prophet. For the angel, according to Luke, announces that Jesus will be called the Son of God.

So the two births were very different. As were the two mothers: Elizabeth was the mother of a prophet but Mary was the mother of God. And this is the woman we honor today under her title of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

\+ + +

December 19

Lk 1:5-25

The Infancy Narratives

Today, in accord with our Advent liturgy, we begin reading from chapter one of Luke's Gospel. Chapters 1 and 2 of Luke's Gospel are known as his Infancy Narratives, and the Infancy Narratives are interesting, partly because they are completely absent from the Gospels of Mark and John. Neither Mark nor John include in their Gospels an account of the birth and infancy of Jesus. Only Luke and Matthew do that.

And then Luke's Infancy Narrative and that of Matthew are so completely different from each other that it is generally agreed that neither of them was aware of what the other was writing. Really the only event that both Luke and Matthew recount is the actual birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. All the other events are told either only by Luke or only by Matthew.

Matthew, for example, is the one who tells us that when Joseph discovered that Mary was pregnant and knew it was not by him, an angel appeared to him and told him it was OK because the child had been conceived by the Holy Spirit. Luke doesn't mention that in his account. Again, the coming of the Magi, the Wisemen from the east with the gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh – that's found only in Matthew. Also the business about Herod killing all the male children under two years of age and how the Holy Family had to flee to Egypt, that too is found only in Matthew, not in Luke.

On the other hand there are a whole bunch of events that are found only in Luke, not in Matthew. It is, for example, Luke who tells us about the Annunciation when the angel Gabriel announces to Mary that she is to be the mother of Jesus. It is Luke who tells us about the Visitation, when Mary goes to visit her cousin Elizabeth. It is Luke who tells us about the birth of John the Baptist (which is today's reading) and contrasts that birth (as we saw last week) with the birth of Jesus. It is Luke who tells us about the shepherds in the fields who, on the night Jesus was born, heard an angel say, "I bring you news of great joy." And it's in Luke's Gospel that we find the Magnificat of Mary, the Benedictus of Zechariah and the Nunc Dimittis of Simeon. And it's also Luke who tells us about the time when Jesus was 12 years old and was finally found by his worried parents as he was sitting in the temple discussing matters religious with the doctors of the law.

Well these are the events we'll be reading about at daily Mass for the next 5 or 6 days, until Christmas. But perhaps when you're home and have your Bible handy, you might want to read on your own the first two chapters of Luke and the first two chapters of Matthew. It's the best possible way to prepare for the great feast of the Nativity of our Lord.

\+ + +

December 22nd

Lk 1:46-56

The Joyful News

Our Gospel reading at Mass during the last three days has been one continuous passage from Luke's Gospel divided up into three parts. Part one was on Thursday when the angel Gabriel comes to Mary and says, "Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you." Gabriel then tells Mary that, if only she will say "yes", she will conceive a child by the Holy Spirit and shall name the child "Jesus". If only she will say "yes". And Mary says "yes". Part two was yesterday when Mary goes to visit her cousin Elizabeth, and Elizabeth greets her by saying, "How does this happen to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" And today we have part three where Mary utters her "Magnificat," saying, "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord."

But clearly it all begins with that initial greeting of the angel Gabriel when he says to Mary, "Hail, full of grace." And what's especially interesting is that greeting word "Hail", because "Hail" is a very un-Jewish word. The usual Jewish greeting word is, of course, "Shalom", which means "Peace". We read in John's Gospel, for example, that after Jesus rose from the dead, his disciples had, out of fear, locked themselves in a room; suddenly, however, Jesus stood in their midst and said to them, "Shalom", "Peace." (Jn 20:20) John, of course, wrote in Greek so to express the Hebrew greeting "Shalom" John used the Greek word for peace, which is "eirѐne".

Now one would expect that when Gabriel comes to Mary he will greet Mary with the usual Jewish greeting of Shalom. But he doesn't. He doesn't say to Mary, "Peace". Instead he says, "Rejoice". In Greek, in other words, Gabriel's initial greeting is not "eirѐne", as we might expect. Instead he says, "cháire" which means "Rejoice." It's true that, in this context, the Greek word "cháire" has traditionally been translated as "Hail" but the fact is that the Greek word "cháire" really means, actually means "Rejoice".

I'm not sure that all of this is something you want to hear about in a homily but let me make a couple of homiletic points. Number one, the fact that Gabriel greets Mary with a very un-Jewish greeting is in fact a clue that the child to be born will be the Savior not just of the Jewish people but of the whole world. And number two, the fact that the story of Jesus begins, right from its very inception, with the word "Rejoice" helps us to understand how joyful the story of Jesus really is. And I should mention as well at this point that some nine months after Gabriel greeted Mary, and shortly after the child is born, the angel once again makes an appearance. This time he appears to shepherds in the field and says to them, "I bring you glad tidings of great joy". Great joy, there's that word "cháire" again. Joy. It is, in other words, all about joy, which is perhaps why the story of Jesus is called a Gospel, the Good News, the Joyful News. So let's all rejoice. Let our hearts be filled with joy, because Christ is about to be born.

\+ + +

Fifth Day in the Octave of Christmas

Lk 2: 22-35

The Presentation of the Redeemer

In the opening verses of today's Gospel reading St Luke quotes that Israelite law that says, "every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord." Luke quotes that law in the context of the child being presented in the temple, so one gets the clear impression that, among the Jews, every first-born son was to be set apart for service to the Lord. In fact, however, the law about the first-born being "consecrated to the Lord" meant much more than that. Let me try to review with you what that Jewish law actually said.

First of all a question: where does this emphasis on the first-born male come from? It comes, at least partly, from the terrible tenth plague that God inflicted on the Egyptians in order to convince the Pharaoh that he should set the Israelites free. The Book of Exodus describes the tenth plague this way: "At midnight Yahweh struck down all the first-born in the land of Egypt; the first-born of the Pharaoh, heir to the throne, the first-born of the prisoner in his dungeon, and the first-born of all the cattle." (Ex 12:29) So that was the tenth plague.

But then, once the Israelites were free and were settled in the Promised Land, the Lord decreed that, just as the first-born of the _Egyptians_ had been killed in order to free the Israelites, so now it was only fitting that the Israelites, in thanksgiving for their freedom, should sacrifice their _own_ first-born as well. (Ex 13:14-15) And that word "sacrifice" meant that the first-born would be set apart, not for service but to be killed, in sacrifice. The Book of Deuteronomy notes that the first-born of the cattle should not be used for work in the field and that the first-born of the sheep should not be sheared for their wool, but the first-born of both cattle and sheep should be killed. (Dt 15:19-20) And the Book of Numbers says of the first-born cattle and sheep, "They are holy: you must sprinkle their blood on the altar and burn the fat as a burnt offering, an appeasing fragrance for Yahweh; the meat shall be yours." (Nm 18:17-18) So that was the fate of the first-born animals.

But what about the fate of the first-born children? Well, strictly speaking, the same was true for them. Among the Israelites, however, animal sacrifice was acceptable but human sacrifice was not, so it was spelled out in Jewish law that every first-born _child_ had to be redeemed, had to be bought back from his fate as a victim. The Book of Numbers, for example, says, "Every first-born brought to Yahweh shall be yours, of all living creatures whether man or beast; nevertheless you must redeem the first-born of man ... You must redeem it in the month in which it is born at the price of five shekels." (Nm 18:15-16)

So, contrary to the impression we get from Luke: number one, the first-born of both man and beast were set apart not for a lifetime of service to the Lord, but to be killed as a sacrifice to Yahweh; and number two, all the first-born of man had to be ransomed or redeemed so that they would be exempt from being killed in sacrifice.

What, therefore, are we to make of Luke's statement? One of two things. _Either_ that Luke, who was not a Jew but a gentile, was simply not well informed on this point of Jewish law. _Or_ , that Luke was wanting to make a theological statement, namely that Jesus, as Mary's first-born, was, in a very special way, consecrated to the Lord, and that Mary and Joseph did not have to redeem Jesus by bringing the five shekels to the local priest, but instead they brought him to the Temple in Jerusalem, the holiest place on earth, where Jesus would begin his life of absolute dedication to the Kingdom of God and where eventually he would lay down his life and sacrifice himself to save us all, to redeem us all.

\+ + +

Presentation of the Lord

Lk 2: 22-40

Jewish Christians

In chapter two of the Acts of the Apostles Peter gives a stirring speech to the men of Jerusalem. He keeps reminding them that they are Israelites. He tells them that the whole House of Israel can be certain that God has made Jesus both Lord and Messiah. He tells them they must now repent and be baptized. And Luke, the author of the Acts of Apostles, notes that that day 3,000 Israelites were baptized. That was chapter two. By chapter four Luke reports that the number had by then reached 5,000. And in each of the next three chapters, chapters 5, 6 and 7, Luke mentions that the number of new disciples continued to increase dramatically.

Luke, however, is not just reporting facts here; he is also making a point. He is saying that what we call Christianity was tailor-made for the Jews, that the whole message of Jesus, his teaching and his life, were in no way opposed to Judaism. As attested to by the vast numbers of people, just in Judea alone, who were becoming disciples of Jesus.

I mention this because, in a way, today's Gospel reading, which was also written by Luke, is making exactly the same point: that Judaism can flow smoothly into Christianity . Think about it. In part _one_ of today's Gospel reading Mary and Joseph bring the child Jesus to the Temple to be presented to the Lord. So who are Mary and Joseph and what exactly are they doing? Mary and Joseph are a typical Jewish couple, good Jewish parents fulfilling the Law of Moses. That's who they are and that's what they're doing.

Then, in part _two_ of today's Gospel we see Simeon, the elderly Jewish man who, the Gospel says, is "awaiting the consolation of Israel;" and he takes Jesus in his arms and calls him "the glory of your people Israel."

And finally, in part _three_ of our Gospel we meet Anna, the woman who was in the Temple night and day, fasting and praying, and Luke seems to go out of his way to mention that Anna is a woman of a particular Jewish tribe, the tribe of Asher, and when Anna sees Jesus she recognizes him as the one who will bring about "the deliverance of Jerusalem," and she gives thanks to God.

So clearly today's Gospel reading and the early chapters of the Acts of the Apostles are making exactly the same point: that being Jewish and being a disciple of Jesus were, at least at that time, one hundred percent compatible.

\+ + +

December 28th—Holy Innocents

Mt 2:13-18

The New Exodus

Thirteen hundred years before the time of Jesus, the Israelites were living as slaves in Egypt. Several attempts were made to persuade the Pharaoh of Egypt to set the Israelites free but without success, so finally God sent the tenth plague upon the Egyptians, sending the angel of death to claim the lives of all the firstborn of the land of both man and beast. The Israelites alone were saved from the plague because, as God had instructed them, each household sacrificed a lamb and sprinkled the lamb's blood on their doorposts, and the angel of death, seeing the blood, _passed over_ the Jewish homes and took only the Egyptian firstborn.

With that the Pharaoh finally relented and allowed Moses and his fellow Israelites to go free. It's one of the great freedom stories of all time. And every year since then, on the anniversary of the event, Jewish people have always celebrated that exodus from Egypt on a feast they appropriately call Pass over.

Well some 1,300 years after the Exodus itself, precisely at Passover time and in the very city of Jerusalem, Jesus the Christ sacrificed his own life in order to set the entire human race free from a life of hopelessness. And in so doing Jesus became the new Moses and the new Lamb of God, and Christ's death and resurrection became the new Exodus.

I mention all this because today's Gospel reading has always been understood as a kind of foreshadowing of the new Exodus. Even as an infant, in other words, Jesus was brought into Egypt precisely so that he could come out of Egypt and thereby symbolize the fact that a new freedom story was beginning to unfold. And this would be the ultimate freedom story in which the new Promised Land would be the Kingdom of God where genuine hope, founded hope would finally be restored to the human heart.

\+ + +

Friday—1st Week of Advent

Mt 9:27-31

Son of David

King David lived almost exactly one thousand years before Jesus. As a teenager David used to tend his father's sheep, and even then David was brave and courageous, even fearless. One day a lion attacked the sheep; another day a bear. David killed both of them and saved the sheep. But besides being tough and powerful, David also had a sensitive side to him. He played the harp beautifully, and it was his musical ability that initially opened doors for him. What happened was this. When David was a boy the King of Israel was a man named Saul who, unfortunately, was subject to bouts of severe depression. It was soon learned that during these periods when King Saul was depressed, the only thing that would cheer him up was music. So young David was called into service, and after 15 or 20 minutes of David's calming, peaceful music, the King's melancholy would pass, and he could function again. So it was David the minstrel who first won the favor of the king.

But that was only the beginning. Around this time the Philistines were mustering their troops to go to war with the Israelites. One of the Philistines, Goliath, came forth and called out to the Israelites challenging their fiercest warrior to come out and meet him in single combat. Goliath, however, was so intimidating that none of the Israelite men were willing to face him. But David, even though he was a mere boy at the time, knew that with God's help he could beat Goliath. And so he did, of course, and in so doing became a kind of national hero.

So some years later, when King Saul was killed in battle, David succeeded him. David was only thirty years old when he became King and he ruled for forty years. David was by no means perfect but his rule was fair and just and benevolent, and among the Jews he came to be seen as "a King according to the heart of the Lord" and as the ideal King of God's people. (Acts 13:22)

After David died the hopes of the Jewish people were that one day someone would come along to take David's place, a man they called "Son of David," and this Son of David would be God's instrument in saving his people.

A thousand years later, in the time of Jesus, this hope was still alive, and many many people saw Jesus as the fulfillment of that hope. Jesus was frequently referred to as "Son of David." In our Gospel reading for today, for example, the two blind men called out to Jesus, "Take pity on us, Son of David." And there are many other examples as well. Matthew begins his Gospel with a genealogy in which his opening line is:

A genealogy of Jesus Christ, Son of David

In Luke's account of the Annunciation, the Angel Gabriel says to Mary:

Listen! You are to conceive and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David; he will rule over the House of Jacob forever and his reign will have no end. (Lk 1:31-33)

And Matthew describes Jesus' entry into Jerusalem shortly before he died with these words:

Great crowds of people spread their cloaks on the road, while others were cutting branches from the trees and spreading them in his path. The crowds who went in front of him and those who followed were all shouting: Hosanna to the Son of David. (Mt 21:8-9)

So, many of Jesus' contemporaries saw him as the Son of David. And so do we. But more importantly, we Christians see Jesus not only as the Son of David but also as the unique Son of God.

\+ + +

Tuesday—2nd Week Ordinary Time

Mk 2:23-28

Son of Man

In our Gospel reading today Jesus refers to himself as the "Son of Man." Generally Jesus used this title when he wanted to highlight his humanity, when he wanted to remind people that what he was doing, he was doing as a man, as a human being. As you perhaps remember, Matthew, Mark and Luke all mention that on three separate occasions in the last year of his life Jesus predicted to his disciples that he would be killed. And on each occasion Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man. On each occasion Jesus does not refer to himself in the first person. He does not use the pronoun "I" as he would in most circumstances. So he doesn't say, "I will be rejected by the chief priests and scribes and will suffer grievously and be put to death." Rather, on each of the three occasions he says "The Son of Man will be rejected by the chief priests and scribes and will suffer grievously and be put to death." And he does this because he wants to remind people that just as sin came into the world through a man, the _first_ Adam, so the human race will now be saved, it will be redeemed from sin by a man, the _second_ Adam, Jesus, the Son of Man, who will lay down his life for the salvation of the human race.

So that's the first thing: the title Son of Man tends to highlight the humanity of Jesus. In its _origins_ , however, the title Son of Man connotes not so much humanity as divinity. So what _is_ the origin of this term? Basically it comes from a vision of the great Old Testament prophet Daniel as found in chapter 7 of the Book of Daniel. Daniel begins by describing his vision of God whom he refers to only as "one of great age" but, as you will see, Daniel is clearly talking about God. This is what Daniel says:

Thrones were set in place and one of great age took his seat. His robe was white as snow, the hair of his head as pure as wool. His throne was a blaze of flames, its wheels were a burning fire. A stream of fire poured out, issuing from his presence. A thousand thousand waited on him, ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. A court was held and the books were opened. (Dn 7:9-10)

And then Daniel talks about the Son of Man, and this is what he says:

I gazed into the visions of the night, and I saw, coming on the clouds of heaven, one like a Son of Man. He came to the one of great age and was led into his presence. On him was conferred sovereignty, glory and kingship, and men of all peoples, nations and languages became his servants. His sovereignty is an eternal sovereignty which shall never pass away, nor will his empire ever be destroyed. (Dn 7:13 14)

So there you have it: the title Son of Man refers to someone who seems to be both human and divine. Which is why Jesus, in our Gospel reading today, says that the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.

\+ + +

Friday—5th Week of Lent

Jn 10:31-42

The Father's Son

When Jesus taught us to pray, he taught us to pray to our Father. You and I are, of course, completely comfortable thinking about God as our Father but for the ancient Israelites that would definitely have been outside their comfort zone. It's true that in the Hebrew Scriptures there are a few instances where God refers to himself as a father. On one occasion, for example, God says of David, "I will be a father to him and he a son to me." (2 Sam 7:14) and later God says the same of Solomon. (1 Ch 22:10) Again, in Psalm 89 God says that David will call upon him, saying, "my father, my God, my rock of safety." (Ps 89:27)

But these are, in a sense, exceptions. For the most part the ancient Jews looked upon God with such awe, they saw God as so absolutely transcendent, that they would not even dare to speak aloud the word "God" for fear that they would be taking his name in vain. So if pronouncing the word _God_ or Yahweh was that off-limits for them, you can imagine how uncomfortable they would be calling God their _father_.

Our Gospel reading today contains the second half of a statement Jesus made in answer to a question asked of him about whether he is the Messiah. The first half of that statement begins a few verses earlier and is interrupted when some of his listeners pick up stones to throw at him. The entire statement is only 10 or 11 verses long but what is most striking about the statement is that in those few verses Jesus refers to God as his father nine times.

Let me read a few of those verses for you. Jesus says, "The works I do in my Father's name are my witnesses...The Father, who gave me my sheep, is greater than anyone and no one can steal from the Father. The Father and I are one...The Father is in me and I am in the Father.

So it's understandable, I guess, that some of Jesus' listeners would want to stone him. Because to them Jesus' overly familiar and even intimate way of speaking of God was not just inappropriate; it was brazenly impertinent and deserving of punishment. But what they did not understand, of course, was that Jesus is, in fact, the unique Son of God, that he and the Father really are one, and _therefore_ , that Jesus was simply speaking the truth.

But we should not, I think, be too judgmental of those people who wanted to stone Jesus because, even today, some of us have a difficult time getting our arms around the awesome truth that Jesus is, indeed, divine, that he is, indeed, one with the Father.

\+ + +

Thursday—2nd Week Ordinary Time

Mk 3:7-12

Son of God

In the Hebrew Scriptures the term "Son of God" was used to refer to lots of people. When, for example, the Jews were being held as slaves in Egypt, God said to the Pharaoh, "You should let my people go because" said God, "this people Israel is my son, my first-born son." (Ex 4:22) Much later King David was, on several occasions, referred to as the "Son of God." (Ps 2:17 and 2 Sam 7:14) The term "Son of God" was even used to describe the angels who minister at the throne of God. The Psalmist, for example, once called out to the angels, "Pay tribute to Yahweh, you sons of God." (Ps 29:1) And in the Book of Sirach (or Ecclesiastes, as it is sometimes called) every person who feeds the hungry, gives drink to the thirsty and reaches out to the distressed, all those people are referred to as "Sons of God." (Si 4:11)

So the obvious question is this: since, in the Hebrew Scriptures, the term "Son of God" was used to describe the whole people of Israel, King David in particular, the angels in heaven and all charitable people in general, why does Jesus object so strongly to the term being applied to him as well? And the answer is that Jesus understands that, when the spirits apply the term "Son of God" to him, they are doing so in a unique sense, in a literal sense. The spirits are, in other words, proclaiming Jesus to be the true and only begotten Son of God the Father. The spirits are, in short, proclaiming the divinity of Christ. And so Jesus urges them not to reveal this yet, because he realizes that right now, at the very beginning of his ministry, the people have not yet been adequately prepared for this revelation.

It is, therefore, all about adequate preparation, and in that context, the same is true for us. The better we prepare ourselves, by a life of prayer and by living out Gospel values, the better we too will be able to appreciate and absorb the wonder of this great mystery—that Jesus the Christ is truly God, God the Son, come down to earth.

\+ + +

Tuesday—5th Week of Lent

Jn 8:21-30

Yahweh

The ancient Jews, at least after the time of Moses, referred to God as Yahweh. So what does the word Yahweh mean? Well it appears that Yahweh is an archaic form of the verb "to be." So perhaps we can say that Yahweh means "the one who exists" or "the one who is," who simply is, the one, in other words, who exists by his very nature, the one and the only one who does not receive his existence from some higher power, from some ultimate creator. Rather, Yahweh is the one from whom all other beings take their existence. Yahweh, in other words, is the Primary Being, the one who always was and is and ever will be. Yahweh is pure uncreated eternal Being, the Being in whom nothing is lacking and everything is goodness.

Well having said that, let me read for you the passage from the Hebrew Scriptures where God reveals to Moses that he wants to be called Yahweh. It's from the Book of Exodus, chapter 3:

Then Moses said to God, "I am to go, then, to the sons of Israel and say to them 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' But if they ask me what his name is, what am I to tell them?" And God said to Moses, 'I Am who I Am. This,' he added, 'is what you must say to the sons of Israel: 'I Am has sent me to you.' And God also said to Moses, 'You are to say to the sons of Israel: "Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you." This is my name for all time; by this name I shall be invoked for all generations to come. (Ex 3:13-15)

So that's who God is. God is Yahweh; God is the "I Am." It's a term that refers uniquely to God and absolutely no other. Only Yahweh, only the I Am is the one true God.

So in today's Gospel reading, which is from chapter 8 of John's Gospel, Jesus is clearly and unmistakably saying that he is the one true God. We hear him say it twice in these first verses of chapter 8. The first time he says, "You will surely die in your sins unless you come to believe that I Am." And the second time he says, "When you lift up the Son of Man, you will come to believe that I Am." And then, at the very end of chapter 8, which we'll read later this week, Jesus refers to himself a third time as the I Am. He says, "I tell you most solemnly, before Abraham ever was, I Am."

So this is the Christ in whom we believe, truly a man, of course, but also truly God who, with the Father and the Holy Spirit is the one true God, the Yahweh, the one who, from all eternity, is the I Am.

\+ + +

Saturday—2nd Week of Easter

Jn 6:16-21

The I Am

By the year 400 B.C. Greece had somehow achieved an absolute explosion of culture, in art and architecture and drama and poetry and philosophy. In the long term, as we know, this explosion of culture became the source not only of modern democracy but of Western civilization itself. And in the much shorter term, even before the year 300 B.C. and largely through the efforts and genius of Alexander the Great, Greek culture spread like wildfire beyond the borders of Greece and Macedonia into every corner of the known world. And then, as one might expect, the Greek language became the common means of communication among the more educated people of the world.

But that's background; now to the point. Once the Greek language sort of settled in as the universal language of the time, the leaders of the Jewish people began to recognize the importance of having a Greek translation of their Sacred Scriptures. So somewhere around the year 250 B.C., 72 Jewish scholars who were fluent in both Hebrew and Greek were commissioned to produce a Greek translation of what we call the Old Testament. The number 72, incidentally, was the result of selecting 6 men from each of the 12 tribes of Israel. And because the final number was 72 the translation itself became known as the Septuagint.

Let me give you just one example of a Greek phrase in the Septuagint. In chapter 3 of the Book of Exodus God is revealing to Moses what he wants to be called. And this is what the Book of Exodus says:

Then Moses said to God, 'I am to go, then, to the sons of Israel and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you." But if they ask me what his name is, what am I to tell them?' And God said to Moses, 'I Am who I Am. This' he added 'is what you must say to the sons of Israel: "I Am sent me to you."' (Ex 3:13-14)

The phrase I want to focus in on here is, of course, the phrase "I Am", which the Septuagint rendered into Greek with the words "Ego eimi." Now for us Christians this is an extremely important phrase because on several occasions Jesus told his listeners that he is the I Am. On one such occasion, for example, Jesus said,

'Your father Abraham rejoiced to think that he would see my Day; he saw it and was glad.' The Jews then said, 'You are not fifty yet, and you have seen Abraham!' Jesus replied, 'I tell you most solemnly, before Abraham was, I Am.' (Jn 8:56-58)

I Am. Ego eimi. Jesus, in other words, is claiming to be none other than Yahweh, none other than God who told Moses to call him ego eimi.

In our Gospel reading today the disciples see someone or something moving over the water, and the Gospel says that "they began to be afraid." But Jesus says to them, "It is I. Do not be afraid." So the English reads "It is I" but the Greek is ego eimi which, as we have seen, has a much deeper meaning than "It is I." So I suspect that what Jesus is really saying to his disciples is this: you were afraid because you saw something moving over the water and you thought that perhaps it was some fearsome creature approaching to do you harm, but be not afraid because only God, only the I Am can walk on water, so be not afraid, God is with you, the I Am is with you.

\+ + +

January 4—Before Epiphany

Jn 1:35-42

Lamb of God

When John the Baptist called Jesus the "Lamb of God," this was not just some catchy little title he came up with off the top of his head. Nor would it have seemed so to John's listeners. On the contrary, calling a person the "Lamb of God" would, at the time, have conjured up in the Jewish mind three profoundly theological images. And those three images would be, first that of a Saving Liberator, second that of a Sacrificial Victim, and third that of the Suffering Servant.

First the _Saving Liberator_. This goes back to the time of the Exodus, 1,300 years or so before the time of Jesus. At the time, the Jews had been held in slavery in Egypt for many years and were yearning for their freedom. Moses tried to convince the Pharaoh to let his people go but Pharaoh was adamant and refused to listen, so Yahweh sent a series of plagues on the Egyptians. It was not, however, until God inflicted on the Egyptians the terrible tenth plague, the death of every first-born of the land, that Pharaoh finally relented and let the Israelites go. But in the process had the first-born of every Israelite family also died along with the first-born of every Egyptian family? They had not. Why? Because Yahweh had instructed each Israelite family to kill an animal from their flock (and for most families that animal was a lamb) and sprinkle the blood of that animal around their front door, and then when Yahweh or his angel saw that blood, he would pass over that Jewish home, and the first-born in that home would not be killed. (Ex 12:1-14)

So 1,300 years later, when John the Baptist calls Jesus the "Lamb of God," what is he saying? He is saying that just as once, many years ago, the blood of a lamb saved the Israelites from a life of slavery and set them free to move on to the Promised Land, so now Jesus, this Lamb of God, will save us from our slavery to sin and will set us free to move on to the promised land of heaven. This Lamb of God, in other words, is a Saving Liberator.

Second, a _Sacrificial Victim_. Once the Israelites arrived in the Promised Land, Yahweh gave detailed instructions to Moses on how he, Yahweh, was to be worshipped, how the sanctuary was to be built, how the priests were to be vested, and so forth. And when it came to the daily holocaust, this is what Yahweh said:

This is what you are to offer on the altar: two yearling lambs each day in perpetuity...This is to be a perpetual holocaust from generation to generation, at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, in the presence of Yahweh, this is where I shall meet you and speak to you. (Ex 29:38 and 42)

So here again, the Jews, who knew this passage well and who now heard the Baptist refer to Jesus as the Lamb of God, must almost certainly have wondered to themselves, "Why is the Baptist calling Jesus a lamb? Indeed, _the_ Lamb? Is he saying that one day Jesus himself will die a sacrificial death? That he will sacrifice himself, that he will become the ultimate victim to save the rest of us? Is this what the Baptist is saying?" This, as I say, is almost certainly what John's listeners must have wondered.

And thirdly, the _Suffering Servant_. The towering prophet, Isaiah, who lived 700 years before the time of Christ, often spoke of the Suffering Servant who would one day come to redeem us. And when, in his famous chapter 53, Isaiah described the Servant and his suffering, he seemed to be predicting, in an almost uncanny way, the passion and death of Jesus. Let me read for you just a few lines from that chapter 53:

See my servant, a man of sorrows and familiar with suffering...and yet ours were the suffering he bore...he was pierced through for our faults, crushed for our sins...and through his wounds we are healed. Harshly dealt with, he bore it humbly; he never opened his mouth, like a lamb that is led to the slaughter house. (Is 52:12 and 53:3 7)

Again, when the Baptist, 700 years later, called Jesus the Lamb of God, this passage too about the lamb being led to the slaughter must almost certainly have been in mind.

So while the Baptist's phrase, "the Lamb of God" might seem, at first glance to have been quite simple and innocent, it was, in fact, anything but. It is, in fact, loaded with theological significance, describing Jesus, as it does, as the Saving Liberator, the Sacrificial Victim and the Suffering Servant.

\+ + +

Tuesday—1st Week Ordinary Time

Mk 1:21-28

The Authoritative One of God

St. Mark begins his Gospel with a bang. He jumps right into the deep water. As I mentioned a few weeks ago, there is no Infancy Narrative in Mark. From Mark we hear nothing about the birth of Jesus, how there was no room in the inn, or about the shepherds in the fields or the wisemen from the East. Nothing at all about that in Mark. Rather Mark begins his Gospel with the adult John the Baptist preparing the way for the adult Jesus and then baptizing him in the Jordan. That's the first 13 verses of Mark's Gospel.

In the next seven verses, verses 14 through 20 (which we read yesterday at Mass) Mark recounts first a teaching of Jesus and then an action by Jesus. The _teaching_ of Jesus is that the time of fulfillment has arrived, that the Kingdom of God has arrived and it is the time to repent and reform our lives and to believe in the Good News. The _action_ of Jesus is the selection by him of his first four apostles: Peter and his brother Andrew and John and his brother James. That's what happened in verses 14 through 20: first a teaching and then an action.

Which brings us to today's Gospel reading: verses 21 to 28. And here again Mark recounts first a teaching by Jesus and then an action. So the same basic structure but here Mark not only recounts the teaching and the action but he also tells us how the people responded to the teaching and the action.

As regards the _teaching_ of Jesus Mark twice uses the word "authority." Jesus, he says, taught with authority. And authority, of course, is more than charisma. When, in other words, Jesus spoke about God and the Kingdom of God and about the need to repent, the people sensed that he knew all there was to know about such matters, that he had a right to acceptance on the part of his audience because he was the master of such matters. Mark tells us that the people had never heard anyone teach like this before and that they were amazed and astonished.

The _action_ that Jesus performed was the casting out of the unclean spirit and once again the people were amazed but now not only at the power of his teaching but also at the power of his actions. The people say, "He gives orders even to unclean spirits and they obey him."

So this is the way Mark begins his Gospel: by immediately establishing the reputation of Jesus as the authoritative, holy one of God. It is, of course, a reputation that cuts both ways, and eventually this powerful authority that Jesus wields will threaten the powers that be, and they will plot to remove him from their midst.

Do you think Mark realized how dangerous it was for Jesus to have such authority? You bet he did. This indeed is precisely Mark's way of setting the scene that will then gradually unfold throughout the next 15 chapters of Mark's Gospel.

\+ + +

Friday—15th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 12:1-8

Authoritative Teacher

We're up to chapter 12 in Matthew now but some weeks ago, when we were reading his earliest chapters, the ones on the infancy of Jesus, I mentioned that in those chapters (chapters 1 and 2) Matthew meticulously and forcefully made the point that Jesus was the one for whom Israel had been waiting. In those early chapters Matthew highlighted the fact that several key figures, among them the ancient prophets who had peered into the future, the angel who spoke reassuring words to Joseph about the pregnancy of Mary, the Magi who had followed the star, and even Herod himself, all pointed to Jesus as the long awaited Messiah.

And the Messiah, of course, would be not only the leader of the Jewish people but also the perfect model of the wise and learned rabbi. So it would be expected, even taken for granted, that when the Messiah came to maturity, he would endorse and approve all of the wisdom and traditions and beliefs and moral teachings that were at the heart and soul of Judaism.

But when _Jesus_ came to maturity he did not, in fact, do that. He once said that he had come not to abolish the law but to bring it to fulfillment. But what Jesus meant by fulfillment and what the Israelites meant by fulfillment were obviously two different things. Because, as early as chapter 5 in Matthew we see Jesus _contrasting_ _his_ moral teaching with that of the scribes on six different issues. He keeps saying, "You have heard it said...but I say to you." And, in each case, he calls us to a higher, more demanding morality than was accepted by mainstream doctors of the law. And in so doing Jesus was presenting himself as the authoritative teacher of morality, as the divinely commissioned teacher of what God expects of his children.

In today's Gospel reading we once again see Jesus explaining to the Pharisees that they have misunderstood and misinterpreted God's law. This time the issue is the law regarding the Sabbath day. And this time Jesus makes the point that the interpretation of the Pharisees is not too lenient but too strict. Jesus gives three reasons for his position. First the precedent about David and his men eating the holy bread not ordinarily permitted, in order to stave off hunger. Secondly, the recognized principle that the laws pertaining to the temple take precedence over the laws of the Sabbath. And thirdly, the principle that mercy takes precedence over sacrifice, that God, who loves us, would rather see us adequately nourished than suffering hunger for no sound reason.

But then, having stated these three reasons, Jesus tells the Pharisees what is really happening here. What is really happening, he says, is that all erroneous interpretations of the law are now obsolete and must be discarded because he, Jesus, is the Lord of the Sabbath and the authentic interpreter of the law. His mission, furthermore, is to bring God's truth to the world. This is the principal message of Jesus in our Gospel reading today.

\+ + +

Wednesday—2nd Week of Advent

Mt 11:28-30

The Teacher

Most teachers, even most professors at the graduate levels, seem to consider it their role to pass on to their students the conventional wisdom, the accepted insights and principles of their particular field or discipline. But the really great teachers, the truly outstanding professors go beyond that. They break new ground. They open up new vistas. They see things that no one before them had ever even thought of.

And this is the kind of teacher Jesus was. Matthew (7:28-29), Mark (1:27) and Luke (4:32) all note that the people who heard Jesus were bowled over by his insights and by the authority with which he taught. Mark, in chapter one, notes that on a particular occasion, the people, after hearing Jesus, remarked "here is a teaching that is new – and with authority behind it."

Some of Christ's teaching was quite direct and explicit in breaking with the past. In chapter 5 of Matthew's Gospel, for example, there is a whole series of teachings where Jesus says, "You have heard it said but I say to you." "You have heard it said," for example, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to you, 'Turn the other cheek.'" Or, "You have heard it said, 'Love your neighbor but hate your enemy' but I say 'Love your enemy.'" There were, as I say, a whole series of those teachings where Jesus went beyond the accepted, conventional moral doctrine and called people to a new and higher standard.

In today's brief Gospel reading Jesus is doing basically the same thing but in a less direct, more subtle way. Today's Gospel reading is the famous "Come to me" invitation from Christ, but it's important to know that there was also a "Come to me" invitation in the Old Testament, and Jesus is now calling us to something higher. The Old Testament "Come to me" was in the Book of Sirach, and it was an invitation to enroll in what was known as the School of Wisdom. But for Sirach, wisdom meant adhering strictly to the letter of the Law of Moses. This is what Sirach said:

Come to me, you uninstructed; take your place in my school. Why complain about lacking these things, when your souls are thirsty for them? Put your necks under her yoke and let your souls receive instruction. (Si 51:23-36)

Well in today's reading Jesus, using much the same language as Sirach, says, in effect, "Come to me and enroll in the New School of Wisdom, because the full wisdom of God dwells not in the law," says Jesus, "but in me."

This, in short, is the message of today's Gospel: that Jesus is the Word of God; he is the personified Wisdom of God. So if we are searching for wisdom, as I hope we all are, it is to him we should turn.

\+ + +

Saturday—5th Week of Lent

Jn 11:45-56

The Gatherer

In the Hebrew Scriptures, God, Yahweh is portrayed in several different roles. At the very beginning, of course, he is seen as the Creator. Later, when he elects the Israelites to be his chosen people, he is seen as the Elector. And later still, when Yahweh sets his people free from their slavery in Egypt, he is seen as the Liberator. Eventually, however, many of the Israelites abandon the covenant that their fathers had entered with Yahweh, and they turn to worshiping other gods, and Yahweh then becomes the one who gathers them back into the fold. Yahweh then becomes the Gatherer. This role of God as Gatherer, although it is not as well known or as celebrated as his other more famous roles, is nevertheless just as important as they are, and just as enduring, since it remains God's role even today.

I want to read now several passages from Scripture that refer to God as the Gatherer. Let me begin with one from the Book of Deuteronomy. It opens with Moses saying to the Israelites:

If you return to Yahweh, your God, if you obey his voice with all your heart and soul in everything I enjoin on you today, you and your children, then Yahweh your God will bring back your captives, he will have pity on you and gather you once again out of all the peoples... Had you wandered to the ends of the heavens, Yahweh your God would gather you even from there, would come there to reclaim you and bring you back to the land your fathers possessed. (Dt 30:2-5)

Then two brief quotes from Isaiah. The first from Chapter 11:

He will gather the scattered people of Judah from the four corners of the earth (vs. 12)

The other from chapter 56:

It is the Lord Yahweh who speaks, who gathers the outcasts of Israel: there are others I will gather besides those already gathered. (vs. 8)

And two more from the Book of Psalms, one from Psalm 106:

Yahweh our God and savior, gather us from among the pagans to give thanks to your holy name and to find our happiness in praising you. (vs. 47)

The other from Psalm 147:

Yahweh, Restorer of Jerusalem, he gathers Israel's exiles healing their broken hearts and binding up their wounds. (vs. 2 and 3)

So these are some of the passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that speak of God as the Gatherer.

Then, when God became man in the person of Jesus, he too, like his Father before him, took on several roles. He is seen, for example, as our Savior and our Redeemer but also, like his Father before him, Jesus took on the role of Gatherer. In Matthew, chapter 12 he says, "He who is not with me is against me and he who does not gather with me, scatters." (vs. 30) And later in Matthew Jesus says, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you! How often have I longed to gather your children, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you refused." (23:37)

Which brings us to today's Gospel reading where St. John says that Caiaphas as high priest was prophesying, unwittingly, it's true, but still prophesying that "Jesus was going to die for the nation and not only for the nation but also to gather into one the dispersed children of God." John is saying, in other words, that Jesus was a Gatherer not only during his life but in the very act of dying as well.

And in a way gathering is our role too, isn't it. Because in all our dealings with others our calling is not to create friction or strife or discord or antagonism of any kind but always the opposite, always to gather others together, to gather them together in peace and friendship and love.

\+ + +

Saturday—18th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 17:14-20

Christ the Reformer

Jesus, as we know, was a kind, loving, compassionate man. But he was also very much a reformer. His basic message was a call to repentance. "Repent and reform your lives" he would say, "for the Kingdom of God is at hand." (Mt 4:17 and 18:3) And, as part of his call to repentance, Jesus often got very specific about the failures and shortcomings of the society in which he lived.

This morning I want to call your attention to four passages from Matthew's Gospel where Jesus calls people to repent over their failures in regard to four different virtues, the virtues of faith, hope, charity and humility.

First of all the virtue of _faith_. This is the subject of today's Gospel reading where Jesus tells his disciples and his other listeners that all they need is a tiny little bit of faith, faith the size of a mustard seed, and they can move mountains, but unfortunately they don't even have that much faith. Jesus is clearly upset with them and calls them a faithless generation, a generation without faith. He's crying out to them to develop some faith.

Secondly the virtue of _hope_. In chapter 12, Jesus, in effect, tells the scribes and Pharisees that they are a hopeless generation, a generation without hope. His point, I think, is that, once we have the seed of faith in our hearts, then our job is to nourish the seed and to be patient, and to trust and hope that the seed will come to fruition. Once we have the seed of faith, in other words, our job is not to look for any further signs. It is not to look for scientific certitude. Our job is simply to be hopeful and to trust God. Hope is a virtue that exists only when we _don't_ have certitude. Let me read for you this passage from Matthew:

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees spoke up. 'Master,' they said, 'we should like to see a sign from you.' He replied, 'It is an evil and unfaithful generation that asks for a sign! The only sign that will be given is the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was in the belly of the sea-monster for three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. On Judgment day the men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation and condemn it, because when Jonah preached they repented; and there is something greater than Jonah here. On Judgment day the Queen of the South will rise up with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the Wisdom of Solomon; and there is something greater than Solomon here. (Mt 12:38-42)

Thirdly the virtue of _charity_. For Jesus the two great commandments were love of God and love of neighbor. But what does love of neighbor mean? For one thing it means that we should judge others the way we ourselves would want to be judged. It means not exaggerating the faults of others or seeing faults where there are none, or putting a negative spin on the behavior of others. Jesus talks about this in chapter 11. This is what he says:

What description can I find for this generation? It is like children shouting to each other: 'We played the pipes for you and you wouldn't dance. We sang dirges and you wouldn't be mourners.' For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say 'He is possessed.' The Son of Man came, eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look, a glutton and a drunkard.' (Mt 11:16-19)

Jesus wants us to avoid all that, to repent of our lack of charity and to judge others benignly.

And finally the virtue of _humility_. Jesus, on one occasion, severely criticized the towns on the banks of the Sea of Galilee for being prideful, for looking upon themselves as virtually sinless and not in need of repentance or reform. These were the towns where Jesus had worked most of his miracles, and it's significant that Jesus did not accuse them of lacking faith or hope or charity. But Jesus was nevertheless tough on them because they thought they should be praised to the skies but what they really needed was humility. This is what he said,

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. And still I tell you it will not go as hard on Judgment day with Tyre and Sidon as with you. And as for you, Capernaum, did you want to be exalted as high as heaven? You shall be thrown down to hell. For if the miracles done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have been standing yet. And I tell you that it will not go as hard with the land of Sodom on Judgment day as with you. (Mt 11:20 24)

So this was Jesus the social and religious critic, telling the people of his own generation (and us, as individuals, I'm sure) that we all need to reform our lives, especially in the practice of the great virtues of faith, hope, charity and humility.

\+ + +

Thursday—2nd Week Ordinary Time

Mk 3:7-12

Jesus Messiah / King

Among the ancient Israelites a king became a king by being anointed. Let me recount for you, for example, how David became king. According to the First Book of Samuel, God sends Samuel to inaugurate David as king. "Fill your horn with oil and go" says God to Samuel... "I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem, for I have chosen myself a king among his sons...I myself will tell you what you must do; you must anoint to me the one I point out to you." Well Jesse has eight sons, so one after another, Jesse presents the first seven of his sons to Samuel, but each time God says to Samuel, "No, this is not the one." So Samuel then anoints David whereupon David becomes the king of Israel. (1 S 16:1-13)

The point I want to make here is that, among the Israelites, the king is the one who is anointed and the anointed one is the king. In Hebrew, as you probably know, the word for Anointed One is Mashiah or Messiah. So among the Israelites the king and the Messiah were one and the same person. We tend to think of the Messiah as primarily a religious figure, but among the Jews he was primarily a secular figure, namely their king. The anointing, after all, was only the means by which the king became the king.

In the centuries before the birth of Jesus several of the great prophets spoke about the fact that one day a descendant of King David would become a sort of ultimate king, a man who would achieve lasting victory and salvation for his people. Jeremiah, for example, wrote:

See the days are coming—it is Yahweh who speaks—when I will raise a virtuous branch for David, who will reign as true king and be wise practicing honesty and integrity in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel dwell in confidence. (Jr 23:5-6)

Well after Jesus began his public ministry many Jews became convinced that Jesus was the one that Jeremiah was talking about, that he was, in other words, their king. In the last days of Jesus, indeed, this was precisely what the enemies of Jesus accused him of before Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect: they said that Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews. (Lk 23:2) And it was understood, of course, that just as David had conquered the Philistines, so, at the time of Jesus, the principle duty of the king of Israel would be to conquer the Romans.

But Jesus, of course, had an entirely different notion, an _entirely_ different notion of what he was called to do. Jesus knew that he was called not to wage war but to bring God's peace and God's love to the hearts and lives of all people. So throughout his public ministry Jesus did not want his fellow Jews to regard him as their Messiah / king because it would only serve to mislead them, to mislead them so drastically that they would never be able to see him for who he really was. Which explains why, in the closing line of today's Gospel reading, Jesus warns the unclean spirits not to make him known.

\+ + +

Wednesday—1st Week Ordinary Time

Mk 1:29-39

The Messianic Secret

In our Gospel reading today Jesus cured many people who were ill. He also expelled from others the demons who possessed them. And afterwards Jesus would not permit the expelled demons to speak, "because," the Gospel says, "they knew him." Well if we were to read this Gospel passage in isolation, we might get the impression that it was just the demons that Jesus wanted to be silent, that it was OK for others to go around talking about his miracles but it wasn't OK for the demons.

But that was not really the case at all. As a matter of fact, in tomorrow's Gospel reading, Jesus cures a man afflicted with leprosy and afterwards he tells the man not to tell anyone how he got cured. And let me remind you of a couple more examples, examples with which I know you're familiar. In Caesarea Philippi when Jesus asked his disciples, "Who do people say that I am?" and "Who do you say I am?" and Peter answered, "You are the Messiah," the Gospel says that Jesus "gave them strict orders not to tell anyone." (Mk 8:30) And after the Transfiguration the Gospel says that Jesus "warned [Peter, James and John] not to tell anyone what they had seen." (Mk 9:9)

There are, in fact, at least a half dozen times in Mark's Gospel alone where Jesus wants his miracle working and especially his Messiahship to be kept quiet. This reserve, this reticence on the part of Jesus about his being the Messiah is an important theme in Mark and has come to be known as The Messianic Secret. The Messianic Secret.

So what's it all about? Why the secret? Well, the answer, I think, is fairly clear. By the time Jesus began his public ministry, Palestine had been part of the Roman Empire for almost a hundred years. Roman rule was often harsh, and was despised by the Jews. And so, understandably, I guess, the popular notion of the Messiah at the time was that of one who would lead a rebellion, a sedition, an uprising against the Roman oppressor and restore independence to Israel. Well clearly Jesus was not _that kind_ of Messiah and he didn't want to be boxed in or trapped in that kind of framework. He _was_ the Messiah but a whole different kind of Messiah. He was the Messiah on his own terms, strange as those terms might be. For he would reveal his Messiahship not by a rebellion or an insurrection but by his love of God his Father, by his compassion and love for his neighbor, by his gentleness, his meekness and especially by his dying on the cross as our Savior, and ultimately, of course, by his resurrection from the dead.

\+ + +

Friday After Epiphany

Lk 5:12-16

Action and Prayer

In our Gospel reading today Jesus cures a man full of leprosy. But this, of course, was nothing unusual. This is what Jesus did. It was who he was. He was a healer. He felt compassion for people who were ill and he cured them. He cured blind people and deaf people. He cured paralyzed people and crippled people. He cured a man with a withered hand and people suffering from epilepsy. He cured dying people like the centurion's son. And he even raised people from the dead like Jairus' daughter and Lazarus and the widow of Naim's son. And as our Gospel reading today tells us, the more people he cured the more his reputation spread, and soon great crowds of people were coming to him, at all hours of the day and night, to be cured of their maladies.

So Jesus was a busy man, a very very busy man. But note please the closing sentence of today's reading, "He often retired to deserted places and prayed." It's been said that if we're too busy to pray, we're too busy. Jesus was never too busy. No matter how busy he was, he always found time to pray.

Let me go very quickly through a half dozen or so times in Luke's Gospel where Jesus is in prayer. First at his baptism by John:

Now when all the people had been baptized and while Jesus after his own baptism was at prayer, heaven opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily shape, like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, 'You are my Son, the Beloved; my favor rests on you.' (Lk 3:21 22)

Then, in preparation for his choosing the twelve apostles:

Now it was about this time that he went out into the hills to pray; and he spent the whole night in prayer to God. When day came he summoned his disciples and picked out twelve of them; he called them 'apostles.' (Lk 6:12-14)

Again, before Peter makes his profession of faith:

Now one day when he was praying alone in the presence of his disciples, he put this question to them, 'Who do the crowds say I am?' And they answered, 'John the Baptist; others Elijah; and others say one of the ancient prophets come back to life.' 'But you,' he said, 'who do you say I am?' It was Peter who spoke up, "The Christ of God' he said. (Lk 9:18 20)

Then at the Transfiguration:

Now about eight days after this had been said, he took with him Peter and John and James and went up the mountain to pray. As he prayed, the aspect of his face was changed and his clothing became brilliant as lightning. (Lk 9:28 29)

Also, in chapter 11 on no particular occasion:

Now once he was in a certain place praying, and when he had finished, one of his disciples said, 'Lord, teach us to pray.'

And then Jesus teaches his disciples the prayer we call the Our Father. (Lk 11:1 4) Next in Chapter 18, he tells his disciples the parable about the unscrupulous judge and the pestering widow who wears the judge down and obtains justice. Luke introduces that parable with these words:

Then he told them a parable about the need to pray continually and never lose heart. (Lk 18:1)

And finally on the Mount of Olives on the night before he died:

When they reached the place he said to them, 'Pray not to be put to the test.' Then he withdrew from them, about a stone's throw away, and knelt down and prayed. 'Father,' he said, 'if you are willing take this cup away from me. Nevertheless, let your will be done, not mine.' Then an angel appeared to him, coming from heaven to give him strength. In his anguish he prayed even more earnestly, and his sweat fell to the ground like great drops of blood. (Lk 22:40 44)

And there are many other times as well, of course. But the point is that Jesus was both a man of action (always reaching out to help people) and a man of prayer (always in communion with his Father). Which is the way all of us should be. We are all called to be both people of action and people of prayer.

\+ + +

Tuesday—4th Week Ordinary Time

Mk 5:21-43

The Touch of Christ

Jesus healed many people by touching them, usually by touching the sick part of their body. When he healed the man who was unable to speak, Jesus touched the man's tongue. When he healed the blind man, he touched his eyes. Jesus touched the ears of the deaf man in order to cure him. He touched the skin of the leper. And whenever Jesus touched people who were ill, power went out from him and people were cured.

Meanwhile people who were ill soon learned or intuitively sensed that the touch of Jesus was curative and so they would try on their own to reach out and touch him or at least touch his garment in the hope that they would be cured. The woman in today's Gospel does it; and it's recorded elsewhere in the Gospels that those with afflictions, some able to walk, others on stretchers, would try to make physical contact with Jesus.

Even today, I think, people still want to touch Jesus and to be touched by him. We still yearn for a physical, healing encounter with our Lord. We still long for some tangible assurance that we are loved by him, welcomed by him, forgiven by him, healed by him, made whole by him, nourished by him and made ready by him for our passing from this world into eternity.

And for us Catholics this is what the sacraments are all about. They are our way to touch Jesus and to be touched by him. They are the tangible signs that Jesus is with us at every stage of life, touching us and healing us. And we are blessed indeed to be members of this salvific, sacramental church which is, of course, the very body of Christ, the mystical body of Christ, the mystical but touchable body of Christ.

\+ + +

Wednesday—4th Week Ordinary Time

Mk 6:1-6

Powerless Christ

For the past several days our Gospel readings at Mass have been telling us about some pretty impressive miracles that Jesus worked. Last Saturday we read about the time that Jesus and his disciples are in a boat when a bad squall blows up. His disciples, all experienced sailors, are terrified but Jesus says to the wind and the sea, "Quiet. Be still," and suddenly all is calm. The disciples are dumbfounded and say, "Who can this be that even the wind and the sea obey him?" On Monday we saw Jesus cure a man possessed by a legion of unclean spirits by sending the demons into a herd of pigs. There was also the woman who suffered from a hemorrhage for a dozen years and was finally cured simply by touching Jesus' cloak. And then in yesterday's Gospel reading we saw Jesus apparently at the apex of his powers when he goes to the home of a little twelve year old girl who has died. Jesus takes her lifeless hand in his, says, "Talitha Koum—Little girl, get up," and suddenly the dead girl comes back to life. The Gospel writer can't resist noting that everyone was amazed, absolutely astonished. They could hardly believe their eyes. It was overwhelming.

But then, in today's Gospel reading, the wheels come off. Jesus can do almost nothing. He seems powerless. His extraordinary powers of the last few days seem to have deserted him. The Gospel explicitly notes that apart from a few cures Jesus "could work no miracle there." He "could work no miracle there." So what happened to Jesus? Did his Father in heaven and the Holy Spirit suddenly abandon him? Not at all. The fact is that Jesus remained that day just as powerful as he was on the day he raised the twelve year old girl from the dead. The problem, in other words, was not with Jesus. It was with the townspeople. The simple fact is that the father of the dead girl _believed_ in Jesus whereas the townspeople did not. It all came down to the people.

And it is ever thus. Even today Jesus remains ready, willing and able to do wonderful things in our lives, but it actually happens only when we allow him to do so, when we by our absolute and unconditional faith in him, _allow_ him to do so. Jesus, in other words, is standing right outside the door but we have to unlock the door and open it for him. We have to welcome him into our hearts. And when we do that, we open ourselves to his divine power working within us.

\+ + +

Friday—First Week of Lent

Mt 5:20-26

The Six Antitheses

Our Gospel reading for today is from chapter 5 of Matthew's Gospel. It begins with verse 20 but it's important to note that just a few lines earlier, in verse 17, Jesus says, "Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets. I have come not to abolish them but to bring them to perfection." Then, during the rest of chapter 5, Jesus gives six examples, six examples of exactly what it means in practice to bring the Law to perfection. These six examples are known as the Six Antitheses or Six Contrasts, and today's Gospel reading describes the first of these six contrasts.

So that's the setting, the context of today's Gospel reading. But why is it significant? Why is it important? It's important because the implication is that Jesus came not just to bring the Law and the Prophets to perfection but to bring the entire Old Testament to perfection. The implication, in other words, is that Jesus came to reveal the true meaning of the Old Testament. He came to bring light to the most profound aspects of the great teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures. And in doing that he reveals himself first of all as the authoritative interpreter of Jewish tradition. But secondly and more importantly he reveals himself as the ultimate fulfillment of the promises that Yahweh made to his chosen people.

It's interesting too that, even though Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the Law, in two of the six antitheses, he seems to do precisely that, he seems to abolish a law. In Antithesis number 6, for example, Jesus says, "You have heard it said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say to you (and this is the antithesis, the contrast) 'but I say to you, 'Love your enemy.' So the old law was 'hate your enemy' while the new law of Jesus is 'love your enemy.' Which certainly seems to be abolishing a law.

But let's save that for another homily. For today I think we do well to see Jesus as the one who brought to perfection the Law and the Prophets and all of the wisdom and richness and beauty and mystery of the Old Testament. That's who Jesus is. He's the one who brings it all to perfection.

\+ + +

Saturday—10th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 5: 33-37

Oath Taking

Before we talk about today's Gospel passage I want to do a very quick overview of exactly when we read at Mass from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. To begin with, there are two systems: the Sunday system and the weekday system. The Sunday system is very simple. The Sundays are on a three year cycle, cycles A, B and C. All during year A we read from Matthew. In year B we read from Mark and in year C we read from Luke. So this year, 2013, for example, we're in cycle C so our Gospel reading on Sundays this year are from Luke's Gospel. That's the Sunday system.

The weekday system is different. On weekdays substantial parts of all four Gospels are read every single year. In other words, every single year at daily Mass we read most of Matthew, most of Mark, most of Luke and most of John. So how does that work? Well there are 34 weeks in Ordinary Time. Every year in weeks 1 through 9 we read from Mark; in weeks 10 through 21 we read from Matthew; in weeks 22 through 34 we read from Luke, and during the Easter season we read from John. So this week is week 10 in Ordinary Time. That means that last week we concluded our reading from Mark, and this week, actually on Monday, we started reading from Matthew, and we will continue to read from Matthew all summer long.

This past Monday we actually started reading from chapter 5 of Matthew's Gospel. The first four chapters, in other words, get skipped over in the weekday system but chapters 5, 6 and 7 in Matthew's Gospel are the famous Sermon on the Mount so on Monday of week 10 we jump right in to a masterpiece.

Today's Gospel reading is part of that Sermon on the Mount and is the section known as the Six Antitheses where, six times, Jesus says, " You have heard it said ... but I say to you ..." In today's passage Jesus says, "You have heard it said 'Do not take a false oath.' but I say to you, 'Do not swear at all.'"

We, however, live in a world where oath taking is very, very common. An essential part of our court system is that all those called to give testimony at a trial are sworn in; they swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And the same is true of the Congressional committee hearings that we see on television all the time. People, furthermore, take it for granted that lying under oath is especially reprehensible and that perjury rightly carries with it added penalties. So are we supposed to conclude from today's Gospel reading that Jesus would disapprove of all this?

I don't think so. First of all because Jesus' main point in this antithesis is that ideally we should all be totally honest 100% of the time, so in a truly Christian world, swearing under oath to tell the truth would be completely unnecessary. But secondly, later in Matthew's Gospel Jesus seems to be saying that the real problem with oath taking is not the oath itself but rather the fact that the Pharisees and other legalistic types are always looking for loopholes or rather creating loopholes in an oath in order to skirt the truth. The passage I'm talking about is in chapter 23 of Matthew's Gospel and let me close with that:

Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.' Blind fools, which is greater, the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? And you say, 'If one swears by the altar, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gift on the altar, one is obligated.' You blind ones, which is greater, the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? One who swears by the altar swears by it and all that is upon it; one who swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it; one who swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who is seated on it.

\+ + +

Saturday—1st Week of Lent

Mt 5: 43-48

Jesus the Legislator

I want to begin this morning by reading the introductory verses of a passage from chapter 19 of the Book of Exodus, a passage where God, using Moses as his mediator and spokesperson, conveys to the Israelites the laws they are to follow. It all takes place shortly after the Israelites are set free from their slavery in Egypt, so some 1300 years before the time of Jesus; and the setting is Mt. Sinai. It begins this way:

Three months after they came out of the land of Egypt ... on that day the sons of Israel came to the wilderness of Sinai ... there in the wilderness they pitched their camp; there facing the mountain Israel pitched camp... Now at daybreak on the third day there were peals of thunder on the mountain and lightning flashes, a dense cloud, and a loud trumpet blast, and inside the camp all the people trembled ... The mountain of Sinai was entirely wrapped in smoke, because Yahweh had descended on it in the form of fire ... and Yahweh called Moses to the top of the mountain; and Moses went up. (Ex 19: 1,2,16 18,20)

The Book of Exodus then goes on to say that there, at the top of the mountain, God spelled out for Moses all of the laws that henceforth were to be observed by the Israelites and he commissioned Moses to make known these laws to all the people. Which, over the next twelve chapters of the Book of Exodus, Moses does in minute detail. So from start to finish this is clearly a major Biblical event.

But why do I mention all this today? I mention it because this event recorded in the Book of Exodus has a direct and important connection to today's Gospel reading. More specifically, Moses, the delegated legislator for the Israelites, is in today's Gospel reading, being replaced, 1300 years later being replaced by Jesus who, not by any delegated authority but by his own proper authority, is now issuing a more demanding legislation for Christians.

In order to truly appreciate what is happening here, however, we have to see today's Gospel reading in its broader context. First of all, it is part of the Sermon on the Mount, and the fact that _Jesus_ is up on a mount evokes the image of _Moses_ being on the mount of Sinai. And while this is perhaps a minor point, it is also one that is rich in symbolism and that ties the two events together.

Second, today's Gospel reading begins with Jesus saying, "You have heard it said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies." This statement of Jesus is the last in a series of six such statements where Jesus says over and over again, "You have heard it said ... But I say to you ....." These six statements are known as the Six Antitheses and together with the Beatitudes, which they immediately follow in the Gospel, they are regarded as an absolute masterpiece of religious teaching and the very epitome of Christian values.

But beyond that, what is really striking about the Six Antitheses is the ease, the consummate ease with which Jesus overturns, corrects or modifies the laws of Yahweh, the laws of God himself. As someone once said, in the Six Antitheses Jesus legislates with all the authority of the God of Sinai. But of course he does. Because that's who Jesus is. He is God.

\+ + +

Tuesday—4th Week of Lent

Jn 5:1-3, 5-16

Words of Christ

Sometimes when Jesus healed a person he would touch or lay his hand upon the person. He once healed a deaf man by putting his fingers into the man's ears, and on another occasion he healed a blind man by applying spittle to the man's eyes.

But there were also many occasions when Jesus healed a person simply by speaking, simply by the power of his words. In yesterday's Gospel reading, for example, Jesus healed the dying son of a royal official without ever seeing the boy; Jesus simply said to the boy's father, "Return home; your son will live." And at that very hour the son got better. And now, in today's Gospel reading, Jesus heals the man who had been ill for 38 years not by touching him but simply by saying, "Stand up, pick up your mat and walk."

Both of those miracles are recorded only in John's Gospel (not in the other three Gospels) and John, who was theologically minded, wants to make a point of the fact that it is not only the _actions_ of Jesus but his _words_ as well that are filled with divine power. So how exactly does John make that point? Well, just _prior_ to recounting these two miracles, John has some townspeople speak about the power of Christ's words and how those words affected their lives; and then immediately after recounting the two miracles (and we'll see this in tomorrow's Gospel reading) John has Jesus himself comment on the saving power of his words.

But let me spell that out a little more thoroughly. Just _prior_ to recounting these two miracles, John tells us in chapter 4 that Jesus met a Samaritan woman in the town of Shechem and he told her all about her past life and she came to believe in him. Jesus then spent two more days in that town and spoke to many of the Samaritans, and John says that "when he _spoke_ to them, many came to believe in him" and they said to the woman, "Now we no longer believe because of what you told us; we have _heard_ him ourselves and we know that he is really the savior of the world."

Well immediately after that sentence John recounts the two miracles of the royal official's son and the man by the side of the pool, and then Jesus gives a little instruction to his hearers. We'll be reading that passage tomorrow but let me just quote a couple of lines from tomorrow's Gospel. This is what Jesus says, "I solemnly assure you, the one who _hears my word_ and has faith in him who sent me possesses eternal life...I solemnly assure you, an hour is coming, has indeed come, when the dead" (that is, the spiritually dead) " _will hear the voice of God's son_ , and those who have heeded it, shall live."

So let's you and I never forget that it is not just the _actions_ of Jesus but his _words_ as well that are powerful, and let us always be open and receptive to the life giving words of Jesus.

\+ + +

Wednesday—2nd Week Ordinary Time

Mark 3:1-6

Jesus in Conflict

I want to talk very briefly this morning about our last five Gospel readings at daily Mass. That's the Gospel readings from last Friday and Saturday and then Monday, Tuesday and today. Last Friday's Gospel was from the beginning of chapter 2 of Mark's Gospel. For the next three days we read more from Chapter 2 and then today we finished off with the first six verses of Chapter 3. I say we "finished off" because these five readings are, in fact, a kind of play or drama in five acts. The five readings taken as a unit are known as "Jesus in Conflict." That's sort of the title of the play, "Jesus in Conflict." And the play comes to an ominous climax in the final verse of today's reading where the Pharisees go off to plot how to destroy Jesus.

In order to appreciate what it was that so infuriated the Pharisees, what drove them to plot a murder, a homicide, let's start with Act I, which was our Gospel reading last Friday. In that reading a paralyzed man is brought to Jesus. Jesus says, "My son, your sins are forgiven." The Pharisees are appalled by what they consider outright blasphemy, whereupon Jesus says to the Pharisees, "that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins," and then to the man, "Stand up, pick up your mat, and go home." Which the man promptly does. But the Pharisees are outraged at this young upstart Jesus claiming to have divine authority.

On Saturday we have Act II. Jesus dines with and enjoys the company of sinners. The Pharisees are again offended because now the implication seems to be that they are the ones who are self-righteous.

Act III was on Monday. Unlike the Pharisees, the disciples of Jesus don't fast. Jesus says that that's because he is the bridegroom. Again, the implication is that, as the bridegroom, he is ushering in a new family, a new age, so there's going to be a changing of the guard. The old guard (that is, the Pharisees) will be replaced. New wine skins for new wine. The anger of the Pharisees towards Jesus is raised still one more notch.

Then, in yesterday's Gospel the disciples of Jesus were picking off heads of grain and it was the Sabbath. The Pharisees let Jesus know that such activity is not permitted on the Sabbath, whereupon Jesus has the apparent gall or chutzpah to say that he, the Son of Man, is Lord even of the Sabbath.

And then finally today's Gospel where Jesus does what the Pharisees saw as the ultimate insult to them when he actually cures a man on the Sabbath.

Well these five incidents, recorded by Mark one after another, are, as I mentioned, known as "Jesus in Conflict" and they end with the observation that the Pharisees are now plotting to destroy Jesus. Mark narrates these five incidents in the very early chapters of his Gospel, which is his way of warning his readers that one day in the not too distant future the Pharisees would succeed in killing this wonderful man who cured the sick and forgave sinners. But as you and I know, of course, this Son of Man, this Bridegroom, this Lord of the Sabbath, did not stay dead for long.

\+ + +

Saturday—5th Week of Lent

Jn 11:45-56

Plots Against Jesus

Our Gospel reading today begins with the sentence, "Many of the Jews who had come to Mary and had seen what Jesus had done, began to believe in him." So two questions: number one, who is this Mary? I mean, which Mary are we talking about here? And number two, what exactly had the people seen Jesus do? Well, as you probably guessed, Mary is Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, and what the people saw Jesus do was raise Lazarus from the dead.

As our Gospel reading today makes clear, this raising of Lazarus strikes fear in the hearts of the Pharisees and the high priest. And we get the clear impression from this passage in John's Gospel that this is the moment when the Pharisees decide they're going to kill Jesus. John, as a matter of fact, explicitly says, "So from that day on they planned to kill him."

But this raising of Lazarus takes place only weeks before Jesus was actually killed, and it appears that, in fact, the Pharisees had planned to kill Jesus long before that. According to Mark's Gospel, at least, the Pharisees first began planning to kill Jesus even before Jesus chose his twelve apostles; in other words, very early on in Christ's public ministry. This is what Mark writes in his chapter three (and the chapter number is significant; what I'm about to read is not from chapter 13 or 14 but from chapter 3.) This is what Mark says:

He went again into a synagogue, and there was a man there who had a withered hand. And they were watching him to see if he would cure him on the Sabbath day, hoping for something to use against him. He said to the man with the withered hand, "Stand up out in the middle!' The he said to them, "Is it against the law on the Sabbath day to do good, or to do evil; to save life or to kill?' But they said nothing. Then, grieved to find them so obstinate, he looked angrily round at them, and said to the man, 'Stretch out your hand.' He stretched it out and his hand was better. The Pharisees went out and at once began to plot with the Herodians against him, discussing how to destroy him. (Mk 3:1-6)

Also, according to Mark, it was not so much the raising of Lazarus that solidified the plotting against Jesus but rather the expulsion of the money changers from the temple. Again, this is what Mark writes:

So they reached Jerusalem and he went into the Temple and began driving out those who were selling and buying there; he upset the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those who were selling pigeons. Nor would he allow anyone to carry anything through the Temple. And he taught and said, "Does not Scripture say: My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples? But you have turned it into a robbers' den." This came to the ears of the chief priests and the scribes, and they tried to find some way of doing away with him. (Mk 11:15 19)

So the plotting against Jesus was intense, was probably prompted by several things that Jesus said and did, and no doubt took place over a period of many many months. Jesus, for whatever reasons, rubbed the powers-that-be the wrong way, and they felt themselves threatened by him. But it is also true, I think, that at times even you and I feel threatened by Jesus because he does, after all, call us to take up a cross and to spend our lives serving others. Fortunately, however, you and I have come to believe in Jesus as our Lord and Savior, and to believe in his message as well, his message that it is only when the seed falls to the ground and dies that it produces fruit.

\+ + +
Saturday—8th Week Ordinary Time

Mk 11: 27-33

The Three Entrapment Episodes

In yesterday's Gospel reading Jesus expelled the money changers from the Temple. The high priests, of course, regarded this as outrageously intrusive because Jesus was not just criticizing the way in which they were running the temple; he was actually accusing them of malfeasance and of turning the sacred temple into a den of thieves. Well, for the high priests this was the absolute last straw, and the Gospel says that they were now seriously seeking a way to put Jesus to death.

Because Jesus was so popular, however, they decided as a first step to try to undermine his reputation among the people. And they would do this by confronting Jesus with a series of questions that were designed to embarrass Jesus, to put him on the defensive, make him look bad and perhaps even lure him into saying something that could be used against him.

St. Mark in his Gospel recounts three of these confrontations. The first is in today's Gospel reading; the second we will hear on Tuesday and the third on Wednesday.

In today's Gospel reading the chief priests, scribes and elders demand to know by what authority, _by what authority,_ Jesus is now acting as the self-appointed moral teacher in the Temple, deciding what should and should not be done there. The priests are no doubt hoping that Jesus will claim he is doing it by _divine_ authority and thereby provide them with something they can use to accuse him of blasphemy. To their dismay, however, Jesus adroitly lobs the ball back into their court and leaves them speechless. On next Tuesday they ask him whether it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, leaving him with only two apparent options. Either he can say yes, it _is_ lawful, but in doing that he would turn his back on the people who hate having to pay taxes to the despised foreigners who are occupying their country. Or he can say no; it is _not_ lawful but then he would open himself up to being prosecuted by the Romans for tax evasion and insubordination. But once again Jesus deftly sidesteps the question. And finally on Wednesday the Sadducees try to make the doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead seem foolish by citing the case of a man who had seven wives; but Jesus sets them straight by telling them that their problem is that they are ignorant of both the Scriptures and the power of God. So three confrontations, three questions, and to the enemies of Jesus, it's three strikes and you're out. And shortly thereafter St. Mark notes that no one then dared ask him any more questions.

Eventually, of course, the high priests succeeded in having Jesus crucified but they did it by bribing witnesses to perjure themselves and by bribing Judas to betray Jesus. Jesus for his part, was more than willing to confront evil were he saw it, and he was more than willing to die in the battle against evil, but he was not willing to be tricked into condemning himself. If others were to condemn him they would have to do it on their own.

\+ + +

Monday—2nd Week Ordinary Time

Mk 2:18-22

Founding a New Church

According to both Matthew and Mark, the Roman officer who witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus, said, just moments after Jesus died, "This man was indeed the Son of God." (Mt 27:54 and Mk 15:39) So we know that among the early believers in Jesus there was at least one gentile. We also know, however, that that Roman officer, that centurion was clearly a rare exception. The plain fact is that, for the first two or three years after Jesus died, practically all those who believed in him were not gentiles but Jews. In the early years, in other words, virtually one hundred percent of those we would call "Christians" were, in fact, Jews. Not only that but, during those early years, it apparently did not dawn on those early believers that they were _anything_ _but_ Jews. They were simply the Jews who believed Jesus to be the Messiah and the Son of God. But they regarded their religion to be Judaism.

However, around the year 35, Paul, in a vision, had his famous encounter with Christ and then, after a period of reflection and preparation, Paul began bringing the message of Christ to hundreds and hundreds of gentiles throughout the known world; and once that happened it was, of course, only a matter of time before the early believers came to the realization that their believing community, or their "church" as St. Paul called it, was, in fact, something different from and quite distinct from Judaism.

Some critics have claimed that Jesus himself never intended to found a church distinct from Judaism but this morning's Gospel reading is, I think, an early hint that establishing a new entity, a new church, was in fact, precisely what Jesus had in mind. Today's Gospel reading is cloaked in parabolic language so its meaning is not immediately clear, but what, after all, is Jesus saying here? First of all he declares himself to be the bridegroom. He is the one, in other words, who is going to start a new family. John's disciples and the Pharisees represent the old family but Jesus says, "I'm going to establish a new family." Secondly he says that sometimes it is no longer appropriate or useful to patch up an old cloak; rather what is needed is a brand new cloak. And finally Jesus says that when you have new wine (and that's what Jesus had—he had a new and powerful wine, a new and powerful message) when you have new wine, you need new wineskins. The old wineskins will not do.

So this, I think, is what Jesus is saying today, that Judaism, as beautiful as it is, as important as it is, will not be able to contain his message, that what is required now is a whole new community, a whole new church, a distinctly Christian church. A new cloak, new wineskins for the new bridegroom and his new family.

\+ + +

Monday—2nd Week Ordinary Time

Mk 2:18-22

Founding a New Church

According to both Matthew and Mark, the Roman officer who witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus, said, just moments after Jesus died, "This man was indeed the Son of God." (Mt 27:54 and Mk 15:39) So we know that among the early believers in Jesus there was at least one gentile. We also know, however, that that Roman officer, that centurion was clearly a rare exception. The plain fact is that, for the first two or three years after Jesus died, practically all those who believed in him were not gentiles but Jews. In the early years, in other words, virtually one hundred percent of those we would call "Christians" were, in fact, Jews. Not only that but, during those early years, it apparently did not dawn on those early believers that they were _anything_ _but_ Jews. They were simply the Jews who believed Jesus to be the Messiah and the Son of God. But they regarded their religion to be Judaism.

However, around the year 35, Paul, in a vision, had his famous encounter with Christ and then, after a period of reflection and preparation, Paul began bringing the message of Christ to hundreds and hundreds of gentiles throughout the known world; and once that happened it was, of course, only a matter of time before the early believers came to the realization that their believing community, or their "church" as St. Paul called it, was, in fact, something different from and quite distinct from Judaism.

Some critics have claimed that Jesus himself never intended to found a church distinct from Judaism but this morning's Gospel reading is, I think, an early hint that establishing a new entity, a new church, was in fact, precisely what Jesus had in mind. Today's Gospel reading is cloaked in parabolic language so its meaning is not immediately clear, but what, after all, is Jesus saying here? First of all he declares himself to be the bridegroom. He is the one, in other words, who is going to start a new family. John's disciples and the Pharisees represent the old family but Jesus says, "I'm going to establish a new family." Secondly he says that sometimes it is no longer appropriate or useful to patch up an old cloak; rather what is needed is a brand new cloak. And finally Jesus says that when you have new wine (and that's what Jesus had—he had a new and powerful wine, a new and powerful message) when you have new wine, you need new wineskins. The old wineskins will not do.

So this, I think, is what Jesus is saying today, that Judaism, as beautiful as it is, as important as it is, will not be able to contain his message, that what is required now is a whole new community, a whole new church, a distinctly Christian church. A new cloak, new wineskins for the new bridegroom and his new family.

\+ + +

Friday—5th Week Ordinary Time

Mk 7:31-37

Two Miracles

Let me begin by pointing out four details in today's Gospel reading. First the deaf man does not approach Jesus on his own, nor does Jesus go to him; rather the Gospel says that some people brought the man to Jesus. Second Jesus takes the man off by himself away from the crowd. Third Jesus uses spittle as part of his ritual in curing the man. And fourth, Jesus orders the man not to tell anyone about the cure.

And now I want to read for you another Gospel passage where Jesus cures not a deaf man but a blind man. I think you will find the two cures remarkably similar, almost suspiciously similar. This is the other passage:

They come to Bethsaida and some people brought to him a blind man whom they begged him to touch. He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. Then putting spittle on his eyes and laying his hands on him, he asked, "Can you see anything?" The man, who was beginning to see, replied, "I can see people; they look like trees to me, but they are walking about." Then he laid his hands on the man's eyes again and he saw clearly; he was cured, and he could see everything plainly and distinctly. And Jesus sent him home, saying, "Do not even go into the village."

Interesting, isn't it? You heard the same four details, right? Other people bring the man to Jesus. Jesus takes the man off by himself. Jesus uses spittle. And he tells the man to go home, not to the village so that he won't tell anyone about the cure.

So what are we to make of these two almost identical miracles? Well given the fact that the Synoptic Gospels were written at least 30 or 40 years after Jesus died, one explanation might be that there weren't really two separate incidents at all but only one. And in this scenario what would have happened was that one of the evangelists, say Matthew for example, correctly reported that it was _blindness_ that Jesus cured while another evangelist, perhaps Luke or Mark, incorrectly reported that it was _deafness_ that was cured. As I say, given the fact that these Gospels weren't actually written down until 30 or 40 years after the events themselves, it's understandable that something like this could happen.

This, however, is _not_ what happened here. Rather, what we have here are two separate and distinct incidents, one about the deaf man, the other about the blind man. And both incidents are found in the same Gospel, namely the Gospel according to St. Mark. Not only that but Mark records the two events virtually back to back. The cure of the deaf man, which was the official Gospel passage for today's liturgy, was from the final, closing verses of chapter 7 in Mark's Gospel, while the story of the blind man's cure is told in the very next chapter, chapter 8, of Mark's Gospel.

So why did Jesus do this? Why did Jesus cure the deaf man and the blind man, using virtually the same ritual, one right after the other? Well, the simple straightforward answer, of course, is that Jesus felt compassion for the men and wanted to bring some joy into their lives. That's the first reason Jesus did it.

But beyond that Jesus also, I think, wanted to say something about his Messiahship. He didn't want to come right out and say, "Yes, I _am_ the Messiah," but he did want to offer some evidence and then let people draw their own conclusions. Seven or eight hundred years before the time of Jesus, Isaiah, the great poet and prophet of the Old Testament, prophesied that when the Messiah comes, he will usher in a kingdom of peace and justice; the lion and the lamb will lie down together, flowers will bloom in the desert, streams will flow in the wasteland, _and then_ , says Isaiah, in chapter 35, "the eyes of the blind will be opened and the ears of the deaf will be unsealed—the eyes of the blind will be opened and the ears of the deaf will be unsealed." So in performing these twin miracles Jesus is saying, in effect, "Watch what I am doing and then ask yourselves whether perhaps the Messiah has finally come."

\+ + +

Friday—1st Week of Ordinary Time

Mk 2:1-12

A Miracle at Home

I want to begin this morning by calling to your attention a little known fact about Jesus, and that is that he had a house. And I'm not talking about the house he grew up in, the house in Nazareth where Joseph and Mary lived. I'm talking about his own house. And that house was in Capernaum.

The fact that Jesus had a house in Capernaum is based especially on three Gospel texts. The first is Matthew chapter 4, verse 13 where Matthew tells us that after Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan, Jesus went to Capernaum and "settled" there. This is what Matthew says, that Jesus "settled" in Capernaum, which the Scripture scholars understand to mean that Jesus established his own residence there in Capernaum.

The second text is Mark, chapter 2, verse 1, which is the opening line in today's Gospel reading which says, "When Jesus returned to Capernaum after some days, it became known that he was at home." So clearly this house in Capernaum was considered to be the home of Jesus.

And the third text is Matthew, chapter 9, verse 1, where Matthew is recording this same incident in which Jesus cures the paralytic and forgives his sins, but Matthew specifically notes that this event took place in what he called Jesus' "own town." His own town, indicating that people generally regarded Capernaum as the place where Jesus had a stable residence. Much, I suppose, as Sarasota would be considered to be our hometown even though we didn't grow up here.

At any rate this is the house in Capernaum where the remarkable event of today's Gospel reading takes place and where the whole house (which perhaps consists of only one room) is completely filled with people and where there is also a crowd standing outside the front door. But what's really remarkable about this incident is that Mark recounts it at the very beginning of chapter 2; so very early in Christ's public ministry. Right from the get-go, in other words. Jesus is, in effect, declaring himself to be God, for the scribes are, of course, correct when they say, "Who but God alone can forgive sins?" So, according to Mark, Jesus was not at all bashful about telling people exactly who he was. He was God and he wanted people to know it.

\+ + +

Friday—5th Week Ordinary Time

Mk 7:31-37

Jesus Our Model

For many of us our first reaction when we hear a Gospel passage like this one is to say to ourselves, "Jesus is my Savior too. Just as he cured this man in the Gospel, so he can cure me too. He can cure me of my meanness or intolerance or pettiness or self-centeredness or whatever. He can even cure me of my physical illnesses. If only I go to him with confidence and trust he can make me well and whole again, the kind of person I'm supposed to be.

This, I think, is the way many of us respond to a Gospel reading like today's. And it's a perfectly suitable response. No question about that. But it's not the only response. Because Jesus is not only our Savior; he is also our Model. When we see Jesus as Savior we see ourselves as passive. We think about how he can save and cure and heal us. But when we see Jesus as Model, we see ourselves as active. We think about how we can imitate him and be like him. We say to ourselves, "Just as Jesus heals a man in today's Gospel reading, so I can bring healing to people too. I can, at the very least, bring some happiness and cheer and hope into the lives of other people."

It is, in fact, no exaggeration to say that an absolutely essential part of our calling as Christians is precisely this: that we be healers. Isn't this, after all, what Matthew 25 is saying? Do you remember Matthew 25? Let me read part of it for you:

Then the King will say to those on his right hand, "Come, you whom my Father has blessed, take for your heritage the Kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you made me welcome; naked and you clothed me; sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me." Then the virtuous will say to him in reply, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you; or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and make you welcome; naked and clothe you; sick or in prison and go to see you?" And the King will answer, "I tell you solemnly, insofar as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me." (Mt 25:34-40)

We are all, in other words, called to be healers. And perhaps step number one in becoming a Christian healer is to see Jesus not only as our Savior but also as our Model.

\+ + +

Friday—33rd Week Ordinary Time

Lk 19:45-48

The Courage of Jesus

Today's Gospel reading is St. Luke's very brief account of the expulsion of the traders or dealers from the temple. This event is described by all four evangelists, and the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke) all indicate that this expulsion of the traders took place immediately after the event that we now commemorate on Palm Sunday. In other words, some few days before Jesus died, he came riding on a donkey into Jerusalem with the people spreading their cloaks on the road and shouting, "Hosannah to the Son of David. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." And then, once in Jerusalem, Jesus went to the temple and expelled these traders that we read about today. So this clearly was a key event. Because, for the enemies of Jesus, it was, so to speak, the last straw. As a matter of fact, when Mark recounts the incident in his Gospel, he concludes his account by saying, "When the scribes and Pharisees heard of this, they tried to find some way to destroy Jesus." (Mk 11:18) And, sure enough, within the week Jesus was dead.

Jesus, of course, knew the dangers involved. He was not a naïve man. He knew precisely what the stakes were but he was outraged that the religious leaders of the time had allowed the house of God to become a house of thieves, so he did what needed to be done. It took immense courage to do what he did, but Jesus was a man of courage, and he would not back down from what he knew God wanted of him. Even if it meant, as Jesus surely knew it did, that his actions would lead to his imminent death.

There's an old verse that says "Some men die by shrapnel and some go down in flames. But most men perish inch by inch playing at little games." Jesus was not like "most men." He did not play at little games and he did not perish inch by inch. He was one of those bold, brave men who died for what he believed in.

Most of us are not called to do that. But all of us are called not only to _admire_ but each in our own way, to _imitate_ the courage of Jesus.

\+ + +

Transfiguration—August 6th

Mk 9:2-10

Agony and Ecstasy

The Transfiguration of Jesus is recorded by all three of the Synoptic writers. And in all three of those Gospels the Transfiguration takes place immediately after Jesus predicts for the first time that he will very soon be tortured and executed. So it has always been understood that the purpose of the Transfiguration was to prepare Jesus' disciples for his passion and death.

But even more specifically than that, it's quite clear that the Scriptures want us to see the close connection, the pairing up really, of the Transfiguration and the Agony in the Garden. This pairing up of the two events becomes evident when one realizes that the two events had four important elements in common. First they both took place on a mountain, the Transfiguration on an unnamed mountain, the Agony in the Garden on the Mount of Olives. Secondly the same three witnesses, Peter, James and John, and only they, were present at both events. Thirdly during both the Transfiguration event (Lk 9:32) and the Agony in the Garden all three apostles fell asleep. And fourthly, while the apostles were sleeping on the Mount of Transfiguration and on the Mount of Olives, Jesus was not sleeping; he was praying.

Apart from these four common elements, however, the two events were almost diametrically opposite. On the Mount of Transfiguration the three apostles saw Jesus in a moment of ecstasy when the divinity of Jesus was emphasized, while on the Mount of Olives the same three apostles saw Jesus in a moment of agony when his humanity was emphasized.

But in fact, of course, the agony and the ecstasy, the humanity and the divinity are really complementary qualities, and together they make up a whole. They are inseparable sides of the same coin. That's certainly true in Jesus, of course, but it's also true of us. Because to some extent each of those qualities is in each one of us. There is a spirit of Adam in each of us and a spirit of Christ. There's something human and something divine in each of us. And we also all experience moments of agony and moments of ecstasy, moments of deep sadness and moments of great joy.

But perhaps the most practical thing for us to remember is what Jesus was doing both in his Agony and in his Transfiguration. On both occasions he was praying. So, as always, we learn from him and know that in both good times and bad we too should be praying.

\+ + +

September 14th—Exaltation of the Cross

Jn 3:13-17

Symbol of Fidelity

Today we celebrate the Solemnity of the Exaltation of the Cross. We Christians have, of course, always shown great reverence for the cross of Christ. We place it atop our churches; we suspend it from our necks and we engrave it on our tombstones.

But when you stop to think about it, this is by no means the only way to view the cross of Christ. As a matter of fact, another apparently quite legitimate way to view the cross is one that is diametrically opposed to our usual approach. It is to see the cross not as an object of reverence but rather as an object of horror and revulsion. Because, after all, the cross, the original cross to which Christ was nailed, and on which he hung for hours, caused him excruciating agony. It was an instrument of torture and eventually of death for Jesus. So why should we venerate it? Surely no one would ever think of venerating the rifle that shot Martin Luther King or the bullet that killed Bishop Oscar Romero. So why should we venerate the cross that killed Jesus?

The answer, it would seem, is that we venerate the cross of Christ because it is the symbol of the fidelity of Jesus, a fidelity unto death.

Like Dr. King and Bishop Romero, Jesus was, in a special way, called by God to live a life of faith, love, compassion and justice. But the values of Jesus, the values of faith, love, compassion and justice, were in stark contrast to those of weaker, more selfish, more narrow-minded people who saw Jesus as a threat and an embarrassment to them and to the power they so cherished, and so they plotted to kill him.

Jesus could, no doubt, have avoided dying on the cross. He could have backed off from what he was saying and doing. He could have returned quietly to Galilee and resumed the safe life of a village carpenter. But he did not do that because, for him, it would have meant a retreat from his Father's will.

But what was that will? Was it that God the Father willed that his Son Jesus die a horrendous death by crucifixion? Not at all. What God the Father willed was that Jesus live a life of faith, love, compassion and justice. Which is precisely what Jesus chose to do.

But the cost of that choice was the cross. And this is why we Christians reverence the cross—because it is the symbol of the fidelity that Jesus had (and that all of us should have) to a life of faith, love, compassion and justice.

\+ + +

Saturday—15th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 12:14-21

The Four Songs of the Servant of God

Isaiah, the great prophet who lived 700 years before the time of Christ, wrote four songs or poems about the Servant of God. But who was this Servant of God? As described by Isaiah he is one who will proclaim justice to the gentiles, who will be insulted, beaten and whipped but one who will offer his life in atonement for the many and who will finally be vindicated by God.

It seems quite clear that when Isaiah wrote these four songs he was visualizing the Servant of God to be not a single individual at all but rather the nation of Israel, not perhaps the actual Israel but a kind of idealized Israel which, over centuries, would be persecuted and attacked but which would eventually bring justice and light to the gentiles and which, ultimately would be exonerated by God.

In our Gospel reading today, however, Matthew strongly suggests that the first song (part of which he quotes) and by implication, I suppose, the other three songs as well, are not really so much about the nation of Israel as they are about Jesus. And ever since the time of Matthew, Christians have understood the famous Four Songs of the Servant of God in precisely that way, as referring, in other words, _primarily_ to Jesus.

I'm going to close by reading the fourth song of the Servant of God. It's quite lengthy but parts of it will be familiar to you, and it will, I know, be immediately apparent why Christians have always understood Isaiah's words primarily as a prophecy about Jesus the Christ.

See, my servant will prosper, he shall be lifted up, exalted, rise to great heights.

As the crowds were appalled on seeing him—so disfigured did he look that he seemed no longer human—so will the crowds be astonished at him, and kings stand speechless before him; for they shall see something never told and witness something never heard before: 'Who could believe what we have heard, and to whom has the power of Yahweh been revealed?' Like a sapling he grew up in front of us, like a root in arid ground. Without beauty, without majesty (we saw him), no looks to attract our eyes; a thing despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and familiar with suffering, a man to make people screen their faces; he was despised and we took no account of him.

And yet ours were the sufferings he bore, ours the sorrows he carried. But we, we thought of him as someone punished, struck by God and brought low. Yet he was pierced through for our faults, crushed for our sins. On him lies a punishment that brings us peace, and through his wounds we are healed.

We had all gone astray like sheep, each taking his own way, and Yahweh burdened him with the sins of all of us. Harshly dealt with, he bore it humbly, he never opened his mouth, like a lamb that is led to the slaughter-house, like a sheep that is dumb before its shearers never opening its mouth.

By force and by law he was taken; would anyone plead his cause? Yes, he was torn away from the land of the living; for our faults struck down in death. They gave him a grave with the wicked, a tomb with the rich, though he had done no wrong and there had been no perjury in his mouth.

Yahweh has been pleased to crush him with suffering. If he offers his life in atonement, he shall see his heirs, he shall have a long life and through him what Yahweh wishes will be done.

His soul's anguish over he shall see the light and be content. By his sufferings shall my servant justify many, taking their faults on himself.

Hence I will grant whole hordes for his tribute, he shall divide the spoil with the mighty, for surrendering himself to death and letting himself be taken for a sinner, while he was bearing the faults of many and praying all the time for sinners. (Is 52:13 - 53:12)

\+ + +

Monday of Easter Week

Mt 28:8-15

Empty Tomb

At a college in the midwest there is a wall that the students use for their graffiti. At Easter time a few years ago someone wrote on the wall "Christ is risen. Alleluia." But by the next day someone else had written right under that message, "Forget it. They found the body." Well that second message was not as negative and cynical as it might sound because the writer clearly knew that the body of Jesus never has been found.. So what the writer was really saying was this, " _If, if_ the body had been found then sure, we should forget the whole thing, but in fact it never has, so Happy Easter and Alleluia!"

What it comes down to is this: everyone who has ever heard of Jesus has had to deal, in one way or another, with the fact that on the third day after Jesus died his tomb was found to be empty. Realistically there are only two possible explanations for that. The first explanation is that Jesus rose from the dead and so took his body along with him. The second explanation is the one the chief priests and elders came up with in the Gospel reading today. So that's it. We have to choose one or the other. Either Jesus rose from the dead or his disciples stole the body. Take your pick.

I realize, of course, that for those without faith the first explanation must seem preposterous. But for me the second explanation seems equally preposterous. Because it entails believing that these men and women who were disciples of Jesus first managed to spirit his body away, then concocted this story about a resurrection and several post resurrection appearances by Jesus, then, even though their leader was dead, were suddenly filled with a great joy and an energy that propelled them throughout the whole known world, telling everybody they met about the miracles of Jesus and the wonder of his resurrection. And all of this at immense personal cost. They were ridiculed, treated as outcasts, beaten, imprisoned, and many of them tortured and killed. And yet they stuck to their story, knowing all the time, according to this second explanation, that it was a hoax.

This second explanation simply doesn't make sense. I'm sure it was the best the chief priests and elders could come up with at the time, but given the total behavior and experience of the disciples after the death of Jesus, this second explanation just doesn't hold water. It fails the credibility test.

So thank God, my friends, for our faith in the divinity of Jesus and in his resurrection from the dead. And thank God for the hope it gives us in a glorious life after death. Alleluia!

\+ + +

Tuesday of Easter Week

Jn 20:11-18

Resurrection / Resuscitation

In the Gospel reading today Mary Magdalen doesn't recognize Jesus. She mistakes him for the gardener. Of course a lot of people in those days must have suffered from myopia and astigmatism, and there were no eye glasses then to correct the problem, but that clearly is not the issue here because in chapter 24 of Luke's Gospel, we read that later that day Jesus spent probably a couple of hours or more with some of his disciples who were on their way to Emmaus, and they didn't recognize him either. Not only that but during that first week after the Resurrection, on a couple of occasions when the apostles were in a locked room, Jesus suddenly appeared in their midst. Locked rooms were evidently no longer a problem for him.

So after Jesus rose from the dead his body was different from what it was before. He could apparently look like somebody else so people wouldn't recognize him, and he could also appear and disappear at will.

All this brings up the difference between being resuscitated and being resurrected. Lazarus was resuscitated. He died and was buried and his friend Jesus came and resuscitated him, which means that Jesus restored Lazarus to his previous life. This, however, was not what happened to Jesus. After Jesus died he was not resuscitated. He was resurrected, which means that he was not brought _back_ to his previous life but rather that he made a quantum leap _forward_ to a new life, he was catapulted forward to a much higher life.

In the famous fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians St. Paul describes it this way, "When the body is buried it is mortal; when raised it will be immortal. When buried it is ugly; when raised it will be beautiful and strong. When buried it is a physical body; when raised it will be a spiritual body."

And this, my friends, is what will happen to us all one day. We will not be just resuscitated. We will be resurrected. As we say every Sunday at the conclusion of the Nicene Creed, "We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

\+ + +

Friday of Easter Week

Jn 21:1-14

Final Pep Talk

Today's Gospel reading is from chapter 21 of John's Gospel. That's the last chapter from the fourth and last Gospel. Well in the last chapter of the last Gospel you kind of expect some kind of wrap up, maybe a pep talk where somebody says, "OK, people, let's get out there now and tell everybody we meet about the wonderful news that our Lord Jesus has risen from the dead."

That's what you might expect in the last chapter of the last Gospel, and that, in fact, is precisely what we've got here, except that the message is delivered in what is, for us, a rather obscure way, and it's up to us to connect the dots. The first dots to be connected are between _this_ fishing experience and another very similar, very _very_ similar fishing experience that took place at the very beginning of Christ's public ministry. The two events are so remarkably alike that the apostles could not possibly have failed to make the connection.

Let me refresh your memory on the earlier incident. It is recounted by all three of the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke) in the early chapters of their Gospels. It's the story of how Jesus recruited his first four disciples, Peter, Andrew, James and John, all of whom were fishermen. Jesus tells them to put out into the deep and lower their nets. They say, "We've been at it all night, sir, and haven't caught a thing, but if that's what you want, we'll do it." And once they do, they draw in so many fish that the nets are breaking, and they have to call to their friends, and load some of the fish into their friends' boat. Whereupon Jesus says, "Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." (Mt 4:18-22, Mk 1:16-20 and Lk 5:4-11)

That was the fishing event at the beginning of Christ's ministry. So now, in today's Gospel reading, Jesus, by staging this second, nearly identical fishing miracle, is reminding his apostles of that earlier incident, and is now, in effect, saying to them, "Ok, fellas, the hour has now arrived. It's time now for you to go out and become fishers of men. It's what we talked about when I first met you. And everything that has happened since that time has been leading up to this moment. So go out now to all the world and tell the Good News."

It's not a pep talk in our western sense, I guess, but to the apostles, especially the fishermen among them, the point could not have been more clear, and they were inspired and motivated by it. And off they went to bring what would later be called Christianity to the world.

\+ + +

LITURGICAL SEASONS AND EVENTS
Tuesday—1st Week of Advent

Lk 10:21-24

Advent

Since we are now at the very beginning of the Advent Season I thought I would offer this morning a little overview of the Advent liturgies. The first thing to note is that there are two different stages, two very different stages to Advent. Stage one goes from the First Sunday of Advent to December 16th. Stage two goes from December 17th to December 24th.

Let's begin with stage two. During the last eight days before Christmas all of the daily Gospel readings, all of them, are from the so called Infancy Narratives of Matthew and Luke. And, by the way, as you perhaps know, Matthew and Luke are the only two evangelists who included Infancy Narratives in their Gospels. The other two evangelists, Mark and John, do not recount in their Gospels any scenes at all about the infancy of Jesus. Anyway, in the last eight weekdays before Christmas we read about how an angel appeared to Joseph telling him that Mary was pregnant but that she had conceived by the Holy Spirit so it would be OK to marry her. We read about the angel announcing to Mary that she will give birth to a son whose name will be Jesus. We hear Mary's Magnificat. We hear about the birth of John the Baptist, about Mary's visit to John the Baptist's mother Elizabeth, and finally we hear the Benedictus of John the Baptist's father Zechariah. So that's stage two, pretty much what people would expect I guess.

Stage one, however, is another matter altogether. Most people, I think, figure that, like stage two, stage one will also be replete with passages from the Infancy Narratives, like, for example, the part from Luke about how Mary and Joseph travelled from Nazareth to Bethlehem and about how angels appeared to shepherds in the fields telling them, "Behold I bring you glad tidings of great joy. This day a Savior has been born to you who is Christ the Lord." That, I think, is what most people expect during the liturgies of Advent. But, in fact, there is none of that in stage one. The fact is that during the first couple of weeks of Advent not one of the Gospel readings at daily Mass is from the Infancy Narratives. Rather, all of them describe incidents from the public ministry of Jesus in the last two or three years before Jesus died.

So why is that? It is because Advent is not just preparing us for the birth of the baby Jesus in Bethlehem. Advent, if I may be so bold, is much bigger than that. It is true, of course, that Advent is about the fact that God became a human being, a bona fide member of the human race, and about what that means for the human race and for history. But that's only the _First_ Coming of Christ which is only half of what Advent is about. The other half of Advent is about the _Second_ Coming of Christ when the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Peace and Love will reach perfection.

And this is why, on every day between now and December 16th, the Preface at Mass is known as The Preface of the Two Comings of Christ. We will, of course, be reading the entire Preface in a few moments, just before the Eucharistic Prayer but let me close now with just the two sections from the Preface about the Two Comings of Christ. It begins:

For he assumed at his first coming the lowliness of human flesh, and so fulfilled the design you formed long ago, and opened for us the way to eternal salvation,

(that's the first coming, and now the second)

that, when he comes again in glory and majesty and all is at last made manifest we who watch for that day may inherit the great promise in which now we dare to hope.

So this is Advent, a time to prepare for the _Two Comings of Christ_.

\+ + +

Wednesday – 1st Week of Advent

Mt 15:29:37

More on Advent

Yesterday in the homily I talked about the two stages of Advent. I mentioned that in stage one all the Gospel readings at daily Mass are from the public ministry of Jesus whereas in stage two (beginning on December17th) all the Gospel readings are taken from the Infancy Narratives. And I concluded yesterday's homily by reading from the Preface that we use at Mass during Advent known as the Preface of the Two Comings of Christ. So we have the two stages of Advent and the Two Comings of Christ.

This morning I want to spell out in a little more detail the relationship between the two stages and the two comings. The First Coming of Christ is, of course, his birth, his nativity. It's about God taking on human nature, about God becoming incarnate. So the first coming is the _Incarnation_. The Second Coming of Christ will take place at the end of time when peace and justice and unity will finally reign on earth. The second coming is also known as the _Parousia_ and is described by St. Paul this way:

We can tell you this from the Lord's own teaching, that any of us who are left alive until the Lord's coming will not have any advantage over those who have died. At the trumpet of God, the voice of the archangel will call out the command and the Lord himself will come down from heaven; those who have died in Christ will be the first to rise, and those of us who are still alive will be taken up in the clouds, together with them, to meet the Lord in the air. So we shall stay with the Lord forever. (1 Th. 4:15-17)

So we have the Two Comings of Christ: the Incarnation and the Parousia. A common misconception about Advent is that Advent is a season during which we prepare ourselves _only_ for the _First Coming of Christ_. In fact, however, Advent is and always has been a time to prepare ourselves not only for the Incarnation but also for the Parousia.

So how exactly does the liturgy do this? Well, if I may put it in a nutshell, stage one (the stage we're in now) is designed primarily to prepare us for the Parousia, whereas stage two (beginning on December 17th) is designed primarily to prepare us for the Incarnation.

More specifically: in stage one almost all of the first readings at daily Mass (actually 14 out of the 17 readings) are taken from Isaiah where Isaiah is describing an eschatological, Parousia-like period of history where the lion and the lamb will lie down together and all people and all nations will be one in worshipping together the one true God. And in the Gospel passages in stage one we hear Jesus talking about the Kingdom of God and we see Jesus curing the sick and feeding the hungry, all of which is a foreshadowing of the Parousia when there will no longer be any sickness or hunger, a time when all sickness will have been cured and all hunger satisfied. That's stage one, preparing us primarily for the Parousia, with Isaiah and Jesus as our guides.

But then, on December 17th, there is an abrupt change. In the final eight days of Advent we hear from Isaiah only once. So in stage one 14 times, but in stage two only once. And that one reading is no longer about the Parousia. Rather it is Isaiah's famous prediction about how a virgin shall conceive and bear a son whose name will be Immanuel. And all the Gospel readings in stage two are, as I mentioned yesterday, from the Infancy Narratives of Jesus.

So this is Advent, a time to prepare for the Two Comings of Christ, first the Parousia and then the Incarnation.

\+ + +

Ash Wednesday

Mt 6:1-6, 16-18

The Lenten Sunday Gospel Readings Year C

The Scriptural passages that are read at Sunday Masses during the year are on a three year cycle known as Years A, B and C. During the course of the year there are 33 Sundays known as the Sundays in Ordinary Time, and in Year A on those Sundays in Ordinary Time the Gospel reading is from the Gospel according to Matthew, which is read pretty much from start to finish during the course of the year. In year B we read from Mark's Gospel and in year C (which is the year we're in now) from Luke. So that's the system that is generally followed on Sundays in Ordinary Time: Matthew in Year A, Mark in B and Luke in Year C.

But besides the Sundays in Ordinary Time there are also special _celebrations_ , like, for example, Easter, Pentecost and Trinity Sunday, and also special _seasons_ like Advent and Lent. On those Sundays a different system of readings is used. On those days special Gospel readings are selected to reflect the spirit of the season and to put special emphasis on a particular aspect of our call to holiness, the call which each of us has received from Christ.

So this year what will the Gospel readings for the six Sundays of Lent be telling us? The general theme, if I may put it in a nutshell, is this: that from time immemorial a cosmic struggle has been going on between the forces of good and the forces of evil, and as individuals we are called to do two things: number one, to reform our own life and thereby ally ourselves with the forces of good, and number two, to refrain from judging our neighbor. But let's look briefly at each of the six gospels.

In the Gospel for the First Sunday of Lent we see Satan, the evil one who has gone into the desert to test Jesus, to lure Jesus away from the path of saving humankind. These days we so-called enlightened Christians tend to think of Satan as a mere symbol but in this Gospel for the First Sunday of Lent, Satan is a real, tangible character; and elsewhere in the Scripture we hear that Satan prowls the world like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. (I Pet 5:8)

In the Gospel for the Second Sunday we see Jesus transfigured, shining like the sun, and we hear the voice of God saying, "This is my beloved Son." So on the first two Sundays we meet the two great antagonists in the cosmic struggle, Satan and the Christ. And Satan, it seems, is just as real as Christ is. The battle is on.

On the Third Sunday Jesus tells us in the Gospel that if people are killed, say in a natural disaster like what happened in New Orleans and Haiti, it is not because those people have sinned. It is, in other words, not for us to judge them. But Jesus also says that if we ourselves do not lead holy lives then we may have reason to be anxious that, on our own day of reckoning, God will judge us not only with understanding and mercy but also with justice.

On the Fourth Sunday of Lent we read the story of the Prodigal Son where the judgmental older son is contrasted with the forgiving father who, by his example, teaches both his sons how to lead the good life, not just the pleasureful life or the correct life but the truly good life.

On the Fifth Sunday we read about the woman taken in adultery where Jesus, in effect, tells the bystanders that they should not be judging her and also tells the woman that he does not condemn her but, at the same time, tells her to sin no more.

And finally on the Sixth Sunday, which is Palm or Passion Sunday, we read about the awe inspiring suffering and death of Jesus which, as we know, leads to his resurrection from the dead three days later, the Resurrection that gives us all hope that in the great cosmic struggle it will not be the forces of death and evil but the forces of life and goodness that will ultimately triumph. And meanwhile, as those Gospel readings have been telling us, each of us is called to do two things: to reform our own life and to refrain from judging others.

\+ + +

Ash Wednesday

Mt 6:1-6, 16-18

Acknowledging Our Sins

A thousand years before the time of Jesus the leader of the Israelites was the great king David. Well one day a man named Nathan went to King David and told him of a sad incident that had apparently taken place quite recently; and clearly Nathan is looking to David for some advice on how the matter should be handled. Let me read for you what Nathan said to King David. It's from the second book of Samuel. He said:

In the same town were two men, one rich, the other poor. The rich man had flocks and herds in great abundance; the poor man had nothing but a ewe lamb, one only, a small one he had bought. This he fed, and it grew up with him and his children, eating his bread, drinking from his cup, sleeping on his breast; it was like a daughter to him. When there came a traveller to stay, the rich man refused to take one of his own flock or herd to provide for the wayfarer who had come to him. Instead he took the poor man's lamb and prepared it for his guest.  
(12:1-4)

So that's the incident that Nathan describes to King David. But before I read for you David's response let me remind you of a few facts about David himself. Some of these facts I'm sure you know. Others you might not. One of the facts I'm sure you know is that David looked out from his palace one day and saw a woman taking a bath. The woman was the stunningly beautiful Bathsheba and David wanted her so he seduced her. Now one might say, "Oh, poor David, he was probably lonely, and seeing the woman bathing was too much of a temptation for him and he got carried away in a moment of passion." But the fact is that David was not some lonely, frustrated celibate. The fact is that King David already had a whole harem of women, probably 15 or 20 of them or more, some wives, others concubines, and from these women he fathered 17 children (2S 3:2-5 and 5:13-16). Bathsheba, furthermore, was not a single, unattached woman. She was the only wife of a man named Uriah who was a captain in David's army. But David still wanted Bathsheba as his wife so David then arranged for Uriah to be killed in battle so that he, David, could have Bathsheba.

So what do we have here? We have David with his whole flock of women who takes from poor Uriah the one woman in the world Uriah loves with all his heart, and then, to compound the crime, David sends Uriah off to battle like a lamb being led to the slaughter.

One more point. David was a very smart man, and in many ways a religious man. So you might think that, in hearing Nathan's story about the rich man with all the sheep and the poor man with only one, David would have put two and two together and realized that he was like the rich man in the story and Uriah was like the poor man. But no. Instead, after hearing Nathan's story David became angry at the rich man. The author of Second Samuel writes, "David's anger flared up against the man, 'As Yahweh lives,' he said to Nathan, 'the man who did this deserves to die!'". (2S 12:5)

Whereupon Nathan says to David, "You are that man – you are that man." And only then does David finally realize what he has done, what a heinous crime he has committed, and he puts on sackcloth and ashes and finally repents of his sins.

I tell this story on Ash Wednesday because David's blindness, his moral blindness is so typical, so absolutely typical of us human beings. We are all, I'm afraid, tainted with it to some degree. We can see the faults of others as clear as day but it's _so_ hard for us to see our own. Which is why we have Lent. Lent is a time to get to know ourselves better, a time to face up to our own faults and our sins and to repent of them and then to trust in the love and forgiveness of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

\+ + +

Ash Wednesday

Mt 6:1-6 and 16-18

Conversion

When the ashes are being put on your forehead in a few minutes, many of the ministers will be using the form, "Turn away from sin and be faithful to the Gospel." It's a call or an invitation to reform our lives. It's the same message that Jesus himself always preached: Repent and reform your lives for the Kingdom of God is at hand.

To reform our lives means to reform ourselves, our very selves. The process of reform, in other words, involves the whole person. More specifically, it involves the three faculties of mind, heart and will.

First the _mind_. Reforming the mind means we have to start thinking differently. We have to think less about our past failures and our weaknesses, about people who have hurt or injured us in some way, and for whom we still carry a grudge. We have to think less about all the things that cause us to lose hope and to become discouraged and depressed. And we have to start thinking more about all the blessings we have received, about the opportunities we have, and about the good we can do, about the help we can offer to others. And above all we have to start thinking more about the great truths of the Gospel: that God loves us, and that, like Jesus, we too will rise from the dead, that life will conquer death, that good will conquer evil, and love will conquer hatred and indifference.

Secondly reform involves a change of _heart_. We have to love more. We have to love more people and more often and more deeply. We have to rid our heart of its prejudices. We have to cleanse the heart of whatever anger and bitterness and resentment still reside there. We have to purify the heart, so that it is free to love God above all things and to love our neighbor, even our enemy, as we love ourselves.

And thirdly we are invited to reform our _will_ , to exchange our old secular will for a Christian will, to live, in other words as Jesus did, not primarily for our own comfort and pleasure and convenience but rather to live primarily for others, to spend ourselves in order to benefit others, and to make this world a better place.

So as we begin this Lenten season this is what we're called to do, to reform our mind and our heart and our will, to turn away from sin and to be faithful to the Gospel.

\+ + +

Tuesday—2nd Week of Lent

Mt 23:1-12

Annual Readings

In the Church's liturgical year there are 34 weeks in what is called Ordinary Time. The first 9 weeks of Ordinary Time typically fall between the end of the Christmas season and the beginning of Lent, so that takes up most of January and February. During those 9 weeks, each daily Gospel reading is from _St._ _Mark's_ Gospel, and we pretty much start at the beginning of Mark's Gospel and read right through to the end.

Week 10 of Ordinary Time begins after the Easter Season, that is to say, after Pentecost (which occurs in late May or early June) and then for the next 12 weeks, right through week 21 of Ordinary Time our Gospel reading at daily Mass is from _Matthew's_ Gospel. And once again we go from start to finish so that by Saturday of week 21 we have pretty much read the whole of Matthew's Gospel.

Then, for the last 13 weeks of Ordinary Time, that is, from week 22 through week 34 (say from late August to November sometime) our daily Gospel reading is from _St. Luke_ , and once again we read that Gospel pretty much from start to finish.

And finally, during the seven weeks of the Easter Season, that is, the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost we read from the Gospel according to _John_.

So weeks 1 through 9 of Ordinary Time are from Mark, 10 through 21 from Matthew, 22 through 34 from Luke, and the Easter Season is John.

But now, of course, we're in Lent, and during Lent (and this is true of Advent as well) our Gospel reading at daily Mass bops around among Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. So all of us who worship at daily Mass throughout the entire year, have, by the end of the year, heard all four Gospels proclaimed practically in their entirety. And since we read just a short passage each day, it has the advantage of giving us time to reflect on each individual incident in the life of our Lord as told by the different evangelists. Which is, in many ways, the ideal way not only of reading the Gospels, but also of getting to know more thoroughly Jesus the Christ who is the Lord of our life.

\+ + +

TEACHINGS, PARABLES, DISCOURSES

Tuesday – 1st Week of Advent

Luke 10:21-24

The Holy Trinity

I want to say a few words this morning about the Holy Trinity, which is the core mystery of our Christian faith. Non-Christians sometimes accuse us of believing in three gods, but that's not our belief at all. We are monotheists. We believe in only one God but within that one God, Scripture tells us that there are three manifestations.

At least while we're on this earth we shall never, of course, understand; we shall never even come close to understanding the mystery of the Trinity, but there is, I think, one sentence that can give us a glimpse, a tiny, tiny, glimpse into the mystery. The sentence I'm talking about is a very simple sentence. It consists of just three words: a noun, a verb and a pronoun. And the sentence is this: God knows himself. Philosophers have always recognized that to know thyself is the ultimate wisdom, so it goes without saying that if God is really God, he must know himself.

But what does that say about the Holy Trinity? Well in the sentence 'God knows himself,' God the Knower we call the Father, while the One he knows we call the Son. But they are both God so, in fact, they _both_ know _each other_. Indeed they know each other _perfectly_. They know and love each other perfectly. This is why Jesus says in the Gospel today that no one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him.

But what about the Holy Spirit? Where does the Holy Spirit come in? Well the sentence, "God knows himself" clearly implies that God the Knower and God the Known have existed from all eternity. But when you think about it, it also implies that something else has also existed from all eternity, and that something else is the Knowledge itself, the Knowledge that the Father and Son have always had of each other; and that Knowledge is Wisdom Personified whom we know as the Holy Spirit. This is the one of whom Jesus spoke in his farewell address on the night before he died when he said, "The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything." (Jn 14:16)

So that's a tiny, tiny glimpse into the awesome mystery of the Holy Trinity: God the Knower, God the Known and God the Eternal and Divine Knowledge.

\+ + +

Thursday—7th Week of Easter

Jn 17:20-26

God the Creator

In our Gospel reading today, Jesus speaks of the love that God the Father had for him before the world began. Before the world began, that is to say, before God created the universe. So when did God create the universe? And in what did the stupendous act of creation consist?

In order to answer these questions I want to read for you nine statements about the immensity of the universe. The figures are, of course, astronomical and are difficult to absorb so I'll pause briefly after each statement in order to let them sink in.

  1. The universe is 13.7 billion years old.

  2. Within the universe there are more than 100 billion galaxies.

  3. Each of these galaxies has something like 100 billion stars.

  4. Like the other galaxies, our galaxy (which we call the Milky Way) has about 100 billion stars.

  5. One of the hundred billion stars is our sun, which is the center of our solar system. It is around this star, which we call the sun, that the earth and the other planets revolve.

  6. The sun is 93 million miles from earth. The next closest star to earth is about 25 trillion (that's 25 followed by 12 zeros, 25 _trillion_ ) miles from earth.

  7. Some stars are 40 million times brighter than our sun.

  8. Some quasars (which are star-like objects) emit the light of a trillion suns.  
and finally...

  9. There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the shores of all the oceans on planet earth.

So this is the present result of the absolutely awesome and wondrous act of creation that our all powerful and all loving God performed 13.7 billion years ago. Even in its broad outlines, it is already a work beyond our ability to grasp. It is a work that brings us to our knees, brings us even to prostrate ourselves in adoration and worship before the one true God, God the Creator of the universe.

\+ + +

March 25th\- The Annunciation of the Lord

Lk 1: 26-38

The Giver of Life

On this day, March 25th, nine months before December 25th, we celebrate the moment when Mary conceived Jesus in her womb. Since our Gospel reading today makes it clear that Mary conceived not by an implanting of the male seed but rather through the power of the Holy Spirit, today's feast or solemnity may be viewed as very much a feast of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is, of course, ever at work in the world, inspiring us and giving us courage and strength and wisdom and hope, but above all giving us life. In the Nicene Creed, which we will be reciting together in a few moments, we say, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, _the giver of life_." This is how the Holy Spirit is defined: as the giver of life. Today we specifically think of the Holy Spirit as giving life to Jesus, and this act of giving life to Jesus is one of the three special entries of the Holy Spirit into history.

The first historic entry of the Holy Spirit into the world took place at the time of creation. The very first words of the Bible are, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was a formless void, and there was darkness over the deep and God's spirit hovered over the water" and once God's spirit hovered over the water, the universe began to take shape. Then, in chapter two of Genesis, when God creates Adam, the Bible says that God breathed into Adam's nostrils a breath of life, and Adam then became a living being. Well that's the Holy Spirit breathing the breath of life into Adam, and this creation of Adam along with the creation of the universe in general is the Holy Spirit's first dramatic entry into the world.

The Holy Spirit's second great entry is, as I say, today's, where the Spirit gives life to Jesus, the second Adam.

And the Holy Spirit's third entry is, of course, at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit, sounding like a powerful wind from heaven, came among the disciples, breathed into them a new life and sent them forth to bring the Good News to the world.

Pentecost has, for obvious reasons, always been known as the birthday of the Church, and so the Holy Spirit has been the key figure in the three great births of history: the birth of the universe, the birth of Jesus, God's only begotten son, and finally the birth of the Church. The Holy Spirit, in other words, is truly the giver of life.

\+ + +

Sacred Heart

God's Love

The Book of Genesis tells us that, long before the time of Abraham, God became so angered over the wickedness of people that he decided to kill off the entire human race except for eight people: Noah and his wife, their three sons and their wives. Everyone else, everyone else, died in the flood. And that horrendous image of all those drowning people became so seared into the human consciousness that for a very long time most people's image of God became that of a cruel, sadistic despot. (Gn 6)

Eventually, however, the Israelites came to understand that Yahweh was not a ruthless tyrant at all. Rather he was kind and merciful and, above all, loving. I think, for example, of the prophet Hosea who viewed Yahweh as never ceasing to love Israel despite her many infidelities. In chapter two of his book Hosea actually portrayed Yahweh as loving Israel in a romantic way, as being so in love with Israel that he wanted to take her as his wife. Hosea wrote (and here Hosea is, as it were, putting words in Yahweh's mouth as Yahweh speaks to Israel) so Hosea wrote:

I will betroth you to myself forever  
betroth you with integrity and justice  
with tenderness and love;  
I will betroth you to myself with faithfulness  
and you will come to know Yahweh. (Ho 2:21-23)

And I think of the beautiful Psalm 136, a psalm, incidentally, which those of us who pray the Liturgy of the Hours, read at least once each month (at Evening Prayer on Monday of Week IV). Psalm 136 consists of 26 couplets, and the second line of each couplet is: "His love is everlasting." So one stanza, for example, reads:

He alone performs great marvels  
_his love is everlasting_  
His wisdom made the heavens  
_his love is everlasting  
_ He set the earth on the waters  
_his love is everlasting_

And when the whole psalm is read, that line, "his love is everlasting" has been heard 26 times. Indeed long before one has finished reading the psalm it is crystal clear that the psalmist sees God not as a cruel tyrant but as a loving protector. And this clearly was the belief of most Jews by the time of David, a thousand years before the time of Jesus.

It is also true, however, that even though the Israelites of the era saw God's love as everlasting, they did _not_ see it as all-encompassing. They knew that God loved them, the Israelites, but they failed to appreciate the fact that God loved other peoples and nations as well. Even in the beautiful Psalm 136, for example, other couplets read:

He drowned Pharaoh and his army  
_his love is everlasting_  
He struck down mighty kings  
_his love is everlasting_  
He slaughtered famous kings  
_his love is everlasting_

So, on the one hand, the ancient Israelites recognized God as merciful and loving, but on the other hand, they failed to grasp the breadth, the universality, the all-inclusiveness of his love.

So finally, in the fullness of time, God became a human being in order to reveal his true self in a way we could better understand. The second person of the Holy Trinity, without stripping himself of his divine nature, took on a human nature as well, and was given the name Jesus. And Jesus, as we know, is the glory of God. He is the complete manifestation of God. To see him is to see the Father. And what do we see when we see Jesus? We see love personified. We see self-sacrificing love. We see a heart that is overflowing with infinite love for every single human being, not an _exclusive_ love but an _inclusive_ love for every human being. This is the Sacred Heart that we celebrate today, the heart that finally and truly reveals to us who God really is.

\+ + +

The Immaculate Heart of Mary

Lk 2:41-51

The Two Hearts

I have a friend, Sister Mary Francis, who is a nun of the Visitation order. The Visitation order is a congregation of contemplative religious women that was founded in the year 1610 by two French saints, Francis de Sales and Jane Frances de Chantal. Sister Mary Francis lives in a monastery in the little town of Tyringham, Massachusetts set in the foothills of the Berkshires, and the name of the monastery is the Monastery of the Two Hearts.

The two hearts are, of course, the heart of Jesus and the heart of Mary, and the monastery was given that name because the hearts of Jesus and Mary are at the core of the spirituality developed by Saints Francis de Sales and Jane Frances de Chantal. I mentioned that the Visitation order was founded in 1610,and that's significant because in that same century, the 17th century, along came two more French saints, John Eudes and Margaret Mary Alocoque, both of whom also made the hearts of Jesus and Mary the center of their spirituality. And it was largely through the influence of these four 17th century saints that reflecting on the hearts of Jesus and Mary has brought courage and strength and consolation and hope to millions of people right down to our own day.

The hearts of Jesus and Mary, I should point out, are not about our devotion to them. At least they're not primarily about our devotion to them. Primarily the hearts of Jesus and Mary are about _their_ devotion to _us_. It's about how their hearts are filled with love for us. And it's easy to see, I think, why a spirituality with that at its center caught on so fast and held on so firmly and lasted so long. The plain fact is that most of us find it extremely difficult to relate to God, at least in any personal way. A famous 12th century theologian (Anselm) once described God as "that than which nothing greater can be thought –that than which nothing greater can be thought," and while that is undoubtedly a brilliant description of God, the question is, how do you get your arms around somebody like that? I mean is it even possible to really love, to fall in love with someone like that? Or perhaps more importantly, is it possible for us to grasp the fact that someone like that can love us? And the answer to that question, I think, is: maybe, maybe it's possible for a few exceptional people; but for most of us, I'm afraid, not at all.

Which is partly, of course, why 2,000 years ago the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity became a human being, and also, of course, why centuries later four French saints focused our attention on the loving heart of Jesus and on the loving heart of his mother as well. We are, after all, just poor limited human beings. We need images like this. We need to know that God loves us pretty much the same way that one human being loves another, the way parents love their children or a husband loves his wife or a girlfriend loves her boyfriend. That's the way God loves us. And this is what the hearts of Jesus and Mary help us to understand, that God is not just some awesome, distant, demanding being but is rather someone who loves us, wholeheartedly loves us.

\+ + +

Saturday After Epiphany

Jn 3: 22-30

Hesed

We all know at least a couple of Hebrew words. We know the word Shalom for one, and we know the Hebrew toast to life: L'Chaim. And this morning I want to introduce you to one more Hebrew word, a word of some Biblical significance. It's the word Hesed. H-e-s-e-d.

The word hesed has been variously translated. In Jeremiah it has meant "affection" where God says to his beloved Israel, "I remember the affection of your youth, the love of your bridal days." (2:2) Your honeymoon days. And in Hosea it is translated as "tenderness" where again God says to Israel, "I will betroth you to myself forever with tenderness and love." (2:21) Another translation of hesed has been "loving kindness" but the translation that most scholars now favor is "covenant love" to describe the kind of profound love that a devoted and faithful husband and wife have for each other in their covenant of marriage. And also, of course, to describe the love that Jeremiah and Hosea talked about, the love that Yahweh God had for his wife Israel in their marriage covenant. One Scripture scholar, as a matter of fact, has said that that one Hebrew word hesed, in the sense of covenant love, sums up the entire history of Israel.

I mention this because in the closing verses of today's Gospel reading John the Baptist refers to Jesus as the bridegroom. Now one might think that calling Jesus the bridegroom is just an insignificant little metaphor but it is, in fact, much more than that, first of all because it hearkens back to the great Hebrew tradition, as enunciated by Jeremiah and Hosea, that saw God himself as the bridegroom, the groom whose bride was the chosen people of Israel. And secondly because this is, after all, none other than John the Baptist who calls Jesus the bridegroom, and John the Baptist was the one whose divine calling, whose whole purpose in life was to prepare the way of the Lord; John the Baptist whose divine calling was to make the crooked ways straight and the rough ways smooth; in other words to provide clear information about the Holy One to come after him. And the information that John provided was that the One to come after him is: the bridegroom, not that he is the Messiah or our Savior or Redeemer or even the Son of God but that he is the Bridegroom.

So what does it all mean? It means that just as Yahweh was the bridegroom who loved his spouse Israel, so now, in the New Covenant Jesus is the new bridegroom who will love all people but who will love his Church with a covenant love, a faithful, bridegroom, marital kind of love. He will love his Church with hesed. And so now, of course, it is for us to return to him the same kind of love that he has for us.

\+ + +

Wednesday—25th Week Ordinary Time

Lk 9:1-6

Kingdom from Day One

There are 24 chapters in St. Luke's Gospel and today's reading is from chapter 9, so it's still very early in the public ministry of Jesus. Thus far in Luke's narrative Jesus is still preaching in Galilee, which is in northern Palestine. But he has also worked some wondrous miracles. He has cured a leper and a paralyzed man and the centurion's servant who was near death, and he has even brought two deceased people back to life: the widow of Naim's son and Jairus' daughter.

But, as I say, we are still only in chapter 9 of Luke's Gospel so none of the major events of the Gospel (Jesus' death, his Resurrection and his post-Resurrection encounters with his disciples) none of these have as yet taken place. And yet in today's reading Jesus calls together the Twelve and sends them out to cure people and to preach. But what are they going to preach? They can't preach about Christ's death and resurrection or about the Holy Spirit because they don't know anything about that yet. So what are they to preach? They are, says Jesus, to preach, to proclaim the Kingdom of God.

The Kingdom of God was, in fact, what Jesus himself preached all the time. And I mean _all_ the time, from the first moment of his public ministry until the end. The Kingdom of God was not, in other words, a theme that Jesus developed say in the second or third year of his ministry. The Kingdom of God was what Jesus preached from day one. In Mark's Gospel, for example, the first few paragraphs (actually the first 13 verses of chapter one) are about John the Baptist, and then Mark says:

After John had been arrested, Jesus went into Galilee. There he proclaimed the Good News from God. 'The time has come' he said, 'and the Kingdom of God is close at hand. Repent, and believe the Good News.' (Mk 1:14-15)

In Matthew's Gospel, as soon as Jesus has chosen the twelve apostles, he says to them:

Do not turn your steps to pagan territory and do not enter any Samaritan town; go rather to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. And as you go, proclaim that the Kingdom of Heaven is close at hand. (Mt 10:6 7)

And in chapter 4 of Luke's Gospel, even before Jesus has chosen his first four apostles, Luke says of Jesus:

When daylight came he left the house and made his way to a lonely place. The crowds went to look for him, and when they had caught up with him they wanted to prevent him leaving them, but he answered, 'I must proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom of God to other towns too, because that is what I was sent to do.' (Lk 4:42-44)

So this is what Jesus preached from the very very beginning of his ministry—the Kingdom of God. It was, as Jesus says, what he was sent to do.

There is, of course, much more to be said about the Kingdom of God but for today let's just remember this one thing: that from day one of his ministry, what Jesus himself proclaimed, both in word and in deed, and what he commissioned his apostles to proclaim was the Kingdom of God.

\+ + +

Friday After Ash Wednesday

Mt 9:14-15

Launching the Kingdom

In our Gospel reading today John's disciples ask Jesus why he and _his_ disciples do not fast. And Jesus says, "Well we don't fast because I'm the bridegroom and we're still celebrating the wedding." Actually that's just the first part of Jesus' answer. Let me read for you the second part. So immediately after Jesus talks about himself as the bridegroom this is what he says:

No one puts a piece of unshrunken cloth on to an old cloak, because the patch pulls away from the cloak and the tear gets worse. Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; if they do, the skins burst, the wine runs out and the skins are lost. No; they put new wine into fresh skins and both are preserved. (verses 16-17)

So what is Jesus saying here? He is saying that the old laws and customs about fasting no longer pertain. Why? Because Jesus is ushering in a whole _new_ era, an entirely _new_ order. Which is the Kingdom of God. Jesus will not therefore be just patching up the old order (as one might patch an old cloak). Nor will he just be adding new features and improvements to the old order (as one might add new wine to the old). Because this _new_ order, this Kingdom of God, will be something entirely new and completely different from the old order. The new Kingdom will be a kingdom of love and mercy and peace and humility.

Furthermore, says Jesus, this Kingdom of God is already among us. Because Jesus is already among us and he is the bridegroom. Not a bridegroom in the ordinary sense of a man marrying a woman; but Jesus is the bridegroom in the sense that he came to shed his blood and lay down his life for all of us in a perfect act of perfect love. Then, by rising from the dead (and thereby taking the worst sting out of death for all of us, for we too shall do the same, we shall all rise from the dead) Jesus launched this great Kingdom of God into the world and set it on course.

So in answering the question about fasting, Jesus used some metaphorical language, but he also made an important statement, and the meaning is clear: the Kingdom of God is already among us and will, with our help, continue to grow and to flourish.

\+ + +

Thursday—19th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 18:21-19:1

The Open Kingdom

The principal theme of today's Gospel reading is, of course, forgiveness. But there is a secondary theme in this reading that is also interesting. This secondary theme, like the forgiveness theme, was a very important one in the preaching of Jesus. And the theme is this: that the Kingdom of God is open not just to the chosen people of Israel but to the Gentiles as well.

It was a theme that Jesus kept repeating and repeating, in various ways. Let me give you a few examples. First there was the parable of the man who was mugged by robbers on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho and he's lying there on the side of the road. Two upstanding Jewish men, a priest and a Levite, passed by the man but ignored him. But then an outsider, a despised Samaritan happened by and, the Gospel says, he was "moved with compassion" and took care of the man. So it was the despised outsider, not the Jew, who demonstrated love of neighbor. (Lk 10:25-37)

Secondly, there was the Roman centurion whose servant was ill. Jesus said he had met no one in Israel with the faith of this centurion, and then Jesus said, "Many will come from the east and the west and will recline with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob at the banquet in the Kingdom of Heaven." (Mt 8:10-11)

And one more example—the parable of the wedding feast where the king invited many people to come but even though everything was ready for the feast, they all refused, one going to his farm, another to his business. So the king sent his servants out to the highways and byways and invited to the feast whomever they met. The meaning was, of course, clear. The people from the highways and byways were the gentiles, so they too would share in the heavenly banquet. (Lk 14:15-24)

Well today's parable is making much the same point. As you and I read this parable today, the point might go right over our heads but to the Jews who heard the parable from the lips of Jesus, the point was crystal clear. Because it was clear to them that the king, who is the good guy, the compassionate man, in the story, was not a Jew. How did they know this? They knew it because at first the king ordered the servant to be sold "along with his wife, his children, and all his property." Selling off wife and children, however, was not permitted in Jewish law. Jewish law permitted the debtor himself but not his family to be sold into slavery. And Jesus' audience was aware of that. So that was Jesus' way of letting his audience know that the king was not a Jew but a gentile. And when the servant begged this gentile king to be patient, the Gospel tells us that, like the Good Samaritan in the other story, this gentile king was _moved with compassion_. He was so moved with compassion that he forgave the man's entire debt, which was huge.

For Jesus, in other words, being compassionate was more important than being Jewish. And in our day it's also true that for Jesus, being compassionate is more important than being Catholic. Jesus was big on compassion. He was big on compassion and love and mercy and forgiveness. And the implication, of course, is that if you and I embrace and practice those virtues then we too will one day recline with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob at the banquet in the Kingdom of Heaven.

\+ + +

Saturday—7th Week Ordinary Time

Mk 10:13-16

Like A Child

Our Gospel reading today is very short. It's only four verses long. One of those verses, however, is surely one of the most important verses in the entire Gospel, because it is the key that opens for us the basic message of Jesus. And I'll get to that in a moment but first let me very briefly try to respond to the question that seems to puzzle most people when they read or hear this Gospel passage. And that is: why do the disciples of Jesus get so upset at the parents who are bringing their children to Jesus for his blessing? I mean to us it seems like the most natural thing in the world for a parent to do. So why do the disciples get so upset?

Well the answer has to do with the fact that there were differing opinions, first about who Jesus was, and second about who the children were. First about Jesus. The parents obviously looked upon Jesus as a holy man, a man of God who could bring God's blessings on their children; whereas the disciples looked upon Jesus primarily as a teacher. Indeed, in Luke's Gospel alone Jesus is referred to as "The Teacher" thirteen times; and in those days the teachers of religion or philosophy dealt only with adults who could understand their teaching. So, to the disciples, bringing children to Jesus the Teacher seemed like a waste of his time and a distraction from his real work.

Secondly there were different opinions about children. Generally in ancient times children were not perceived as real people, people with rights, including legal rights, of their own. Rather they were perceived as creatures who, realistically, were given to misbehaving much of the time, and therefore as creatures who were there to be trained, much as we today might train a pet. Jesus, however, saw children very differently. He saw them as real persons who were loved by God and whom God wanted to bless.

So that perhaps explains, at least to some extent, why the disciples got upset at the parents and why Jesus, in turn, got upset with his disciples.

But I said that one of the four verses in today's Gospel reading is an especially important verse so let me get back to that now. The verse I'm talking about is, of course, "whoever does not accept the Kingdom of God like a child will not enter it." Which, stated positively, is "only the one who accepts the Kingdom of God _like a child_ will enter it." In other words, if we accept The Kingdom but we accept it _like an adult_ , we will not enter it. The only way we enter the Kingdom is to accept it _like a child_.

So what's the difference between accepting something as an adult and accepting something like a child? Well, to accept something as an adult is to accept it as something earned or merited or achieved in some way, whereas to accept something like a child is to accept it as a pure gift, freely given, independent of any accomplishment or merit on our part. And that, says Jesus, is the only way to enter the Kingdom, by saying to God, our Father in heaven, "Thank you, God, for inviting me into your Kingdom. I accept with all of my heart. I know I have done nothing to deserve it, that you have _given_ it to me out of your boundless love and great goodness. I accept and I thank you with all of my heart." That, says Jesus, is the only way we enter into the Kingdom of God.

\+ + +

Wednesday—26th Week Ordinary Time

Lk 9:57-62

Paradox of the Kingdom

Last week I mentioned that the Kingdom of God was what Jesus preached from the very beginning of his public ministry. From day one the Kingdom of God was the heart and soul of Christ's preaching. And not only did Jesus himself proclaim the Kingdom of God but as soon as he chose his twelve apostles that's what he commissioned them to proclaim as well.

In today's Gospel Jesus asks a man to follow him and when the man says, "First let me bury my father," Jesus says, "Let the dead bury the dead; come away and proclaim the Kingdom of God." Meaning that, for Jesus, proclaiming the kingdom takes precedence over all other responsibilities.

This morning let me make just one point about the kingdom and that is that it involves a great paradox. Because while it is true that the Kingdom of God is already here, it is also true that the Kingdom of God is not yet here. Jesus made this point in several places in the Gospels but let me give you just one example of each. When the Pharisees asked Jesus when the Kingdom of God was coming, Jesus told them straight out, "The Kingdom of God is already among you." (Lk 17:21) But when Jesus taught his apostles to pray, he said, "Pray this way. Say 'Our Father who art in heaven...Thy Kingdom come" (Mt 6:10) suggesting that the kingdom has not yet come. The seed has been sown, in other words, but it has not yet come to full flower. The Kingdom is already here but it is not yet here.

And both parts are important. It's important that the kingdom is already among us because it means that the Resurrection of Christ from the dead was the turning point in the historic battle between the forces of life and the forces of death, the forces of evil and the forces of good. Goodness is now winning and ultimately can no longer lose. Because the Kingdom of God is already among us, so we have hope now.

But it is also important that the Kingdom of God is not yet here. Because it means that we have our work cut out for us. This, after all, is our special vocation as Christians—to bring the Kingdom of God into our own time and place. It is not enough just to pray "Thy kingdom come." We have to make it happen. By our love of God and neighbor, by our commitment to justice and peace, it is up to you and me to make the Kingdom of God come alive right here and now.

\+ + +

Wednesday—26th Week Ordinary Time

Lk 9:57-62

Urgency of the Kingdom

In our Gospel reading today Jesus meets three men, three potential disciples, and in his brief remarks to these men Jesus tells us how important, how demanding and how urgent it is to proclaim the Kingdom of God.

The first man tells Jesus that he is totally available. "I will follow you" he says, "wherever you go." But Jesus wants the man to know up front what discipleship will cost him, how demanding it will be. "The foxes have lairs and the birds have nests" says Jesus, "but if you follow me you will have no place to lay your head." It will not, in other words, be an easy life.

The second man wants to follow Jesus but first he must bury his father who has just died. "Come away and proclaim the Kingdom of God" says Jesus, "and let the dead bury the dead." So what is Jesus saying here? He is saying that proclaiming the Kingdom of God is more important and more urgent than our most sacred duties under the law, like burying the dead. He is saying that some people understand that; they understand how important it is to proclaim the Kingdom of God, and these people are spiritually alive. But other people do not understand it, and they are, as it were, spiritually dead. So let those spiritually dead persons bury the people who have physically died. But the spiritually alive persons—they should be out proclaiming the Kingdom of God.

And then there's the third man. He wants to follow Jesus but first he wants to say goodbye to his family, whereupon Jesus says, "whoever puts his hand to the plow but keeps looking back is unfit for the Kingdom of God." So why does Jesus talk about ploughing the field? Because he wants to remind the man of a classic incident in the Hebrew Scripture where the great prophet Elijah calls Elisha to follow him. Elisha at the time is out ploughing the field and he says to Elijah, "Yes, I will follow you but first let me go to the house and say goodbye to my parents." And Elijah say, "By all means, go first and say goodbye to your parents." (1 K 19-21) And Jesus says, "Well that was OK for Elijah because he wasn't in any rush but things are different now. Because the Kingdom of God is now at hand. Now is not the time either to bury your dead parents or to say goodbye to your parents who are alive. Now is the time to proclaim the Kingdom of God."

Jesus is, I assume, using some hyperbole here; he's exaggerating somewhat, but he does so in order to make his point and to make it in the strongest possible terms, that we should repent now and reform our lives because the Kingdom of God is at hand.

\+ + +

Saturday—16th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 13:24-30

The Oneness of Christ and the Kingdom

The most distinctive feature of Matthew's Gospel is that the author arranged or consolidated much of Christ's teaching into five major speeches or discourses. The first of the discourses is in Chapters 5, 6 and 7. The next three discourses are in Chapters 10, 13 and 18, and the last of the discourses is in Chapters 24 and 25.

Today's Gospel reading is from the third of those major discourses. This discourse consists of seven parables (it is sometimes called the Parabolic Discourse) and all seven of these parables are about the Kingdom of God.

Unlike the other New Testament writers, Matthew does not usually use the term "Kingdom of _God_." Instead he calls it the Kingdom of _Heaven_." This is not because the Kingdom of Heaven is different from the Kingdom of God, nor does it suggest that the Kingdom of God exists only in heaven. Rather Matthew uses the word "heaven" rather than the word "God" because, like many Jews of the time, Matthew considered the word God to be so sacred that, whenever possible, he preferred to use a related word rather than the word itself. It was done, in other words, simply out of profound respect for the holy name of God. But everyone knew what Matthew was talking about. He was talking about the Kingdom of God, the kingdom where God reigns, where God is king and ruler of all creatures.

The Kingdom of God is what Jesus preached all the time and right from the very beginning of his public ministry (Mk1:15 and Lk 4:42-44) It is also what Jesus ordered his apostles to preach. (Mt 10:6-7) It is _not_ , however, the principal focus of our preaching. The principal focus of our preaching is Christ. So Christ preached the Kingdom of God and his apostles preached the Kingdom of God but we preach Christ. Why is that?

Well, there are two reasons for it. The first reason why the church began preaching more about Christ than about the Kingdom is that, very early on, the Christian community came to the realization that Jesus and the Kingdom of God are virtually one and the same. Jesus, if you remember, once said that the fact that he cast out devils by the Spirit of God meant that the Kingdom of God had arrived. (Mt 12:28) Jesus, in other words, did not merely predict or foretell the coming of the Kingdom; he himself brought it forth; he produced or established it in the world. And Jesus also said that one day people would see the Son of Man (that's himself, of course) people would see the Son of Man coming with his Kingdom. (Mt 16:28) The triumph of Christ, in other words, and the triumph of the Kingdom would be one and the same. So that's the first reason why the church began to emphasize Christ rather than the Kingdom in its preaching: because it quickly came to the realization that Jesus and the Kingdom were virtually identical.

But secondly the early Christians were so completely blown away by the fact that Jesus had risen from the dead that they could think of almost nothing else. So the preaching of the early church tended to focus less and less on the Kingdom and more and more on Christ. The change of focus was, when you stop to think about it, practically inevitable.

A typical example of the preaching in the early church is in the opening words of Paul's Letter to the Romans, and let me close with that:

From Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, who has been called to be an apostle and especially chosen to preach the Good News that God promised long ago through his prophets in the Scriptures.

The news is about the Son of God, who according to the human nature he took, was a descendant of David: it is about Jesus Christ our Lord who, in the order of the Spirit, the Spirit of Holiness that was in him, was proclaimed Son of God in all his power through his resurrection from the dead.

\+ + +

Friday—2nd Week of Easter

Jn 6:1-15

The Multiplication of the Loaves

For more than sixty years now I've been using the same old concordance of the Gospels. This particular concordance is rather musically entitled _A Harmony of the Gospels_ and the first thing it does is divide the Gospel events into 288 units. Some of these units are quite lengthy; others are very short. Unit number 58, for example, is the Sermon on the Mount which takes up three whole chapters in Matthew's Gospel, whereas unit number 84 recounts the two little parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl of great price, which are told in only three verses.

One of the most useful features of a concordance is the index. So if you want to read about a particular event, perhaps the birth of Jesus, or Peter's denial or the raising of Lazarus, you just check the index and it refers you to the proper section.

But the real value of a concordance is that whenever more than one evangelist writes about a particular incident, the two or three or sometimes even four versions of the event are printed out in parallel columns so you can see at a glance exactly how, say, Matthew's version might differ from Mark's or Lukes' or John's.

It's interesting, I think, that of the 288 units in _A Harmony of the Gospels_ , only 19 of them contain passages from all four of the evangelists. There are, of course, a whole bunch of events that are narrated by all three of the Synoptics: Matthew, Mark and Luke, but only 19 that are narrated by the three of them plus John. And what's really interesting is that of those 19 events, 17 of them take place at the very end of Christ's earthly life, beginning with his final entry into Jerusalem riding on the foal of an ass and then including his passion, death and resurrection.

Let me put it another way: prior to the final week of Christ's life, of all the events, cures, parables, teachings, confrontations, encounters and miracles that we read about in the Gospels, only two of them are narrated by all four of the evangelists. Pretty surprising, don't you think. And guess what, one of those two is our Gospel reading this morning about the multiplication of the loaves, which gives you some idea of how important this Gospel reading is.

So why is it so important? Its importance comes from the fact that, at least by the end of the first century, when John was writing his Gospel, the multiplication of the loaves was recognized as a direct foreshadowing of the Eucharist. This is not clear from the first three Gospels where the multiplication of the loaves is reported as a spectacular and impressive miracle but isolated from any connection to the Eucharist. John, however, situates this outstanding miracle right at the beginning of his famous chapter six which is John's magnificent hymn to the Eucharist, as though to say, "I know the Eucharist is hard to believe but if Jesus can multiply five loaves into enough bread to feed 5,000 people, then he can also change bread and wine into his Body and Blood, so believe."

So this is why today's Gospel reading is so important: because it prepares us for the great mystery of the Eucharist.

\+ + +

Wednesday—1st Week of Advent

Mt 15:29-37

Prefigurement of the Eucharist

In our Gospel reading today Jesus feeds 4,000 people with just 7 loaves of bread, and after everyone has eaten, there are 7 baskets of scraps left over. And this is not the first time Jesus has done this. Just a few days earlier Jesus fed 5,000 people with 5 loaves of bread and afterwards there were 12 baskets filled with leftovers. (Mt 14:15-21)

Jesus, of course, worked many other miracles as well. He cured deaf people and blind people. He walked on water. He ordered the wind and the waves to calm down and they obeyed him. He even raised people from the dead. But of all the miracles that Jesus worked, the two he wanted his disciples to be most aware of were the two miracles of the multiplication of the loaves of bread. Jesus not only wanted his disciples to ponder the meaning of these two miracles, he also wanted his disciples to remember those two miracles in precise detail regarding the numbers involved.

Why do I say that? I say it because when Jesus became frustrated over the fact that, despite his many wondrous deeds, his disciples were still failing to understand that he was the unique Son of God, it was the two bread miracles that Jesus called to their attention. In chapter 8 of Mark's Gospel, this is what Jesus says to his disciples:

'Have you no perception? Are your minds closed? Have you eyes that do not see, ears that do not hear? Or do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves among the five thousand, how many baskets full of scraps did you collect?' They answered, 'Twelve.' 'And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many baskets full of scraps did you collect?' They answered, 'Seven.' Then he said to them, 'Are you still without perception?' (Mk 8:18-21)

So why does Jesus put such emphasis on these two bread miracles? I think it is because he wants to prepare his disciples for an even more important bread event, an event that will take place at the Last Supper on the night before he dies when he doesn't just _multiply_ loaves of bread but actually _changes_ bread into his own body as an everlasting memorial. Jesus knows that unless his disciples are, by that time, the time of the Last Supper, totally and absolutely convinced that he is the unique Son of God and therefore omnipotent; unless they are convinced of that, they will never be able to accept the awesome and nearly unbelievable Eucharistic event. So Jesus wants his disciples to have seared into their memories the feeding of the 5,000 and the 4,000, and then ask themselves this question, "If Jesus can do that, can he not also feed us with his Body and his Blood?"

It's a question that deserves to be pondered by all of us.

\+ + +

Friday—2nd Week of Easter

Jn 6:1-15

Foreshadowing of the Eucharist

Our Gospel reading this morning about the multiplication of the loaves has always been seen as a foreshadowing of the Eucharist. There are several reasons for this but let me start with the three most obvious ones.

First, John chose to position this miracle at the very beginning of his famous chapter six which is all about the Bread of Life. It's the same chapter where Jesus says "I tell you solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you will not have life in you." John could, of course, have chosen to recount this miracle about the loaves and fishes in chapter 3 or 5 or 9 or wherever, but he didn't. Instead he used it as the preface to his chapter that is primarily about the Eucharist; precisely, I'm sure, in order to tie the two events together.

Second, in this Gospel reading today John notes that before Jesus gave the bread to his disciples, he gave thanks. He gave thanks. The Greek word that John uses for thanks is eucharistasis, which is, of course, the very word we use to describe our celebration of the Lord's Supper—Eucharist.

Third, when Matthew, Mark and Luke recount this miracle about the multiplication of the loaves, all three of them are careful to mention that in working the miracle Jesus did three things: first he took the bread, then he broke it and finally he gave it to his disciples. He took, he broke, he gave. Then, when Matthew, Mark and Luke recount the Last Supper where the Eucharist was instituted, they are again careful to note that Jesus performed the same three actions with the bread. They all report that Jesus took the bread, broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, "This is my body." And this, as we know, has always been what the priest says whenever Mass is celebrated. He says that Jesus took bread, broke it and gave it to his disciples saying, "Take this and eat it. This is my body."

So those, I think, are the three most obvious reasons why the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves has always been seen as a foreshadowing of the Eucharist. But let me briefly mention a couple more.

First, of all the many miracles Jesus performed, this is the only one recorded by all four of the evangelists. So it appears that, right from the beginning, we Christians have always seen this miracle where Jesus gives his followers food to eat as having some very special relevance to our _own_ situation, whether we lived in the first or the tenth or the twenty-first century. And what could that relevance be but that, as we celebrate the Eucharist together, Jesus is still giving us food to eat.

And lastly, in today's Gospel reading, after the people have all had their fill they gather up the leftover fragments so that, as the Gospel says, "nothing will be wasted." The leftovers, in other words, are not considered refuse or waste. And to me, at least, this sounds like a symbol of the Eucharistic host which, once it is consecrated, is always to be consumed and never just discarded.

So this is our Gospel reading today, at once a foreshadowing of the Eucharist and also the most famous miracle that Jesus ever performed.

\+ + +

Wednesday—3rd Week of Easter

Jn 6:35-40

Faith and Reason

In our Gospel reading this morning Jesus makes some rather provocative statements. He says, for example, that he is the Bread of Life, and he says that those who believe in God's Son shall have eternal life. Well Jesus' listeners have never heard a Rabbi speak like this before. So it's understandable that, in the verses that immediately follow today's Gospel passage, we read that some of Jesus' listeners were grumbling about what he had just said.

But what's interesting is exactly which statement they were grumbling about. What seems to have upset these people the most was not that Jesus said he was the Bread of Life or that he said that those who believed in God's Son would have eternal life. What upset them the most was that Jesus said that he had come down from heaven. That seems to them totally preposterous. They say among themselves. "What's this man talking about? We know who he is. This is Jesus, the son of Joseph. We know his father and his mother. How can he possibly say that he came down from heaven? He came from the womb of a woman just like all the rest of us. He no more came down from heaven than you or I did."

In a sense, of course, these people, these critics were being entirely reasonable. They were engaged in a perfectly legitimate reasoning process. They started with certain established facts and from those facts they reached a conclusion. It was a simple matter of deduction, a logical deduction.

And this, after all, is the way we're all supposed to conduct our lives. Because essentially this is who we are. Of all the animals God created, we human animals are the rational ones. We are the ones endowed with reason. René Descartes said, " _Cogito_ , ergo sum – I _think_ , therefore I am." Thinking, in other words, is what makes us who we are. It's what makes us human. It is the ability to think, to reason that is the distinguishing feature of the human being. So in navigating our way through the labyrinth of life, it's critical that we rely on our ability to think and to plan and to reason.

One caveat, however. One word of caution. There are certain areas of life where reason alone is insufficient, certain areas where reason must be supplemented by faith in order to arrive at truth. In our Gospel reading this morning Jesus three times mentions the importance of faith. And he concludes by saying, "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and _believes in him_ may have eternal life, and I shall raise him on the last day." It is not enough, in other words, just to see Jesus. His listeners in today's Gospel passage saw him, and knowing that he was Mary's son, they thought they knew him, but they didn't. Jesus says to them, "although you have seen me you do not believe." Seeing is not enough. Reason is not enough. To attain ultimate truth we need both reason and faith. This, I think, is the basic message of our Gospel passage today.

\+ + +

Thursday—3rd Week of Easter

Jn 6:44-51

The Bread of Life

Last Friday at Mass, we began reading from chapter six of John's Gospel, and we will continue to read from that chapter through Saturday of this week. So for eight straight weekdays we read from John's sublime chapter six. Chapter six is all about Jesus as the Bread of Life but it's important to note that the term Bread of Life refers not to just one thing but to two. Let me start with the less obvious of the two.

In its less obvious sense, the term Bread of Life refers to the _Word of God_ , that is to say, God revealing himself to us both in the Sacred Scriptures and in the person of Jesus, God's only Son. Regarding the Sacred Scriptures you will remember that after Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan he went into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. The devil then said to Jesus, "If you are the Son of God then turn these stones into bread" but Jesus replied, "Scripture says, 'Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'" (Mt 4:4) Physically, in other words, we need ordinary bread but spiritually we need the Bread of Life; spiritually we need faith in God insofar as God is revealed to us in the Scriptures, in the Word of God. But the _supreme_ Word of God is, of course, Jesus himself. As John says in his first chapter, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and Word was God" and "the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us." So when Jesus says, "I am the Bread of Life" he is describing himself as the culmination of all that we know about the one, true, loving God both from the Scriptures and in his own person as the Word of God made flesh.

So one meaning of the term Bread of Life is the Word of God. The other meaning, the more obvious one is, of course, the very _Body of Christ_ in the Eucharist. This is what it means in the closing lines of today's Gospel reading and especially in tomorrow's Gospel passage at Mass. But the final line of today's Gospel is where Jesus really begins to speak about the Bread of Life where the Bread of Life clearly means his own Eucharistic Body. So let me close by reading that final line one more time. Jesus says, "I am the living bread that comes down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my Flesh for the life of the world."

\+ + +

Friday—3rd Week of Easter

Jn 6:52-59

Real Faith and the Eucharist

At Mass tomorrow we conclude our reading from John 6, the chapter we've been reading at Mass since last Friday. This morning I want to point out that, during the course of this week, John has given us two very different messages. Or at least what appear to be two different messages.

The first message is about the importance of believing in Jesus, of having faith in Jesus. This was the message we heard in the Gospel readings of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and the first part of Thursday's Gospel readings: _Monday_ : the people ask, "What must we do to perform the works of God?" And Jesus replies, "This is the work of God: have faith in the One whom he sent." _Tuesday_ : Jesus says, "No one who believes in me shall thirst again." _Wednesday_ : "Everyone who looks upon the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life." And _Thursday_ : "Let me firmly assure you, he who believes has eternal life."

So this is John's first message: that what is needed is faith. And apparently that's all that's needed because Jesus tells us that if only we believe in him we shall never thirst and shall have eternal life. So it would appear that faith alone is sufficient.

But then, beginning at the halfway point of yesterday's Gospel reading, we hear John's second message. In this second message there is no mention at all of faith or belief. Rather the second message is all about our absolute need to be nourished by the body and blood of Christ. This point is driven home by the relentless repetition of the words 'eat' and 'drink' which, in some form or another, are used maybe 10 or 12 times in today's reading. And the reading begins, of course, with Jesus explicitly saying, "Let me solemnly assure you. If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

So does the second message contradict the first? Does it suggest that faith alone is not sufficient? Not at all. Faith alone _is_ sufficient but only when it's real faith. And real faith does not exist in a vacuum. Real faith is, by its nature, diffusive. It's productive. It naturally spills over into action. So if we really believe Jesus when he says that his flesh is real food and his blood real drink, and that, if we do not partake of them, there will be no life in us, if we really believe that, then naturally we gather around the table of the Lord to be nourished by him.

So this is John's double message. Real faith is sufficient because real faith unfailingly creates within us a burning desire to be nourished by the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

\+ + +

Memorial Day

The Eucharistic Memorial

Today is our special day, not our only day but our special day for remembering the men and women who have died in the service of our country. Some of those men and women who died were our friends, maybe even our relatives, and they especially are in our thoughts and in our hearts today. Memorial Day is observed in many ways: with parades and speeches and cemetery services and of course, with prayer.

For us Catholics it is most fitting that we observe Memorial Day here at Mass because the Mass is itself a Memorial. For on the night before Jesus died, after he took bread and wine and said, "This is my body. This is my blood", he said, "Do this in memory of me" or, as one translation puts it, "Do this as a Memorial of me." And in every Eucharist since that time we have repeated the words and actions of Jesus in memory of him, as a Memorial of him.

The Eucharistic Memorial, however, is not _just_ a memory. It is not a _mere_ memory, a _simple_ remembering. Rather, the Eucharist is a unique sort of memory, a memory that is somehow actualized, a memory that mysteriously takes on a life of its own in the here and now, a memory in which the subject remembered actually comes alive in the here and now. Immediately after the consecration at every Eucharist we have what is called the Anamnesis, which is a Greek word that means precisely what I'm talking about: an actualized Memorial. The Anamnesis in the second Eucharistic Prayer, for example, says, "Therefore, as we celebrate the Memorial of his Death and Resurrection, we offer you, Lord, the Bread of Life and the Chalice of Salvation." And there is a similar wording in each of the Eucharistic Prayers. So at every Eucharist we remember the saving deeds of Christ, especially his death and resurrection. But we don't _just_ remember them, because by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Eucharist actually draws the death and resurrection of Christ into the present, into our midst, and allows us to participate in them and to be nourished by them.

And so, my friends, to celebrate the Eucharist is not only our great privilege. It is also our strength and our salvation.

\+ + +

Thursday—1st Week of Advent

Mt 7:21, 24-27

Good Works

The Inaugural Address of Jesus, also known as the The Sermon on the Mount, takes up three whole chapters in Matthew's Gospel, chapters 5, 6 and 7. In his Inaugural Address Jesus sketches out the new spirit that will prevail in the Kingdom of God. He begins with the Beatitudes – Blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are those who mourn, those who hunger and thirst for what is right. Blessed are the merciful and the peacemakers. Jesus then goes on to tell his followers that a higher standard will be expected of them. Not just an eye for an eye, for example; rather, they should turn the other cheek. He speaks of the importance of prayer and of alms giving, and above all, of loving God and neighbor.

And then Jesus concludes his Inaugural Address. And do you know how he does that? He does it with the words I just read from the Lectionary. Today's Gospel reading _is_ the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount. And basically what Jesus says in this conclusion is, "Now that you know what God wants of us, get out there and _do_ it. It's not enough to _know_ what is good and right. We have to _do_ what is good and right. If you put my words into practice, says Jesus, you are wise. If you do not put them into practice, you are foolish. Not everyone who cries out 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the Kingdom but only the one who _does_ the will of my Father."

Later in Matthew's Gospel, Jesus makes the same basic point when he says that, at the time of the Last Judgment, those who feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, welcome the stranger and visit the sick and those in prison will be rewarded with eternal life, whereas people who fail to do what they can for those in need will be sent away to eternal punishment. (Mt 25:31-46) It is the same basic message as that of today's Gospel reading—that doing good works is an absolutely essential element of being a Christian.

_Faith_ in Jesus the Christ who, by his death and resurrection, has redeemed us is also essential, of course, but that faith is efficacious only when joined to good works. It is to both faith and good works, that is to say, _doing_ the will of the Father, that we Christians are called. James, whom St. Paul once referred to as the "brother of the Lord," (Ga 1:19) made that point crystal clear in his famous Letter, and let me close with his words. He wrote:

Take the case, my brothers, of someone who has never done a single good act but claims that he has faith. Will that faith save him? If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on, and one of you says to them, 'I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plenty' without giving them those bare necessities of life, then what good is that? Faith is like that: if good works do not go with it, it quite dead. (Jm 2:14-17)

The true Christian, in short, is a person of both faith and good works.

\+ + +

January 25th—Conversion of St. Paul

Mk 16:15-18

The Mystical Body

Today is the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul. And did you know that in the Acts of the Apostles the story of the conversion is told not once, not twice but three times. It's not just told once and then referred to briefly twice more, but the whole story, about how Paul is knocked to the ground, how he sees the brilliant light and hears the voice and is blinded and then goes to Damascus, the entire story is told three times. (AC 9:1 19, 22:5 16 and 26:12 18) So obviously St. Luke, the author of the Acts of the Apostles, considered Paul's conversion extremely important.

Luke did so because the story of the conversion contains two key messages. The first message is found in the verbal exchange between Jesus and Paul. The background is that Jesus was crucified, died and was buried about three years before this event, and Paul is persecuting the followers of Jesus, the first Christians. So Paul hears the voice saying, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" Paul says, "Who are you, Sir?" And the voice responds, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting." Well since Jesus had left this earth three years previously, Paul surely felt that he was not really persecuting Jesus. How could he? Jesus had been dead for three years. Jesus, however, is saying that, in fact, that's precisely what Paul is doing, because Jesus and his flock are one. Christ and his people, his church are one. Jesus is the vine; we are the branches. Jesus is the head; we are the body. We Christians _are_ the Mystical Body of Christ. We are not just followers of Christ. We are, by the power of the Holy Spirit, _part_ of him. Christ lives in us and we in him. We are all one, and we are all one with Christ. That's the first important message.

The second message in Paul's conversion is that, after he was converted, he was, in effect, commissioned by Christ, to go out to all the world and tell the Good News, which is exactly what Paul, after a period of preparation, did for the rest of his life, in season and out of season, at great personal expense. And that, of course, is what we are all called to do as well—to go out to all the world and tell the Good News.

\+ + +

Monday—3rd Week Ordinary Time

Mk 3:22-30

The Scribes

Our Gospel reading today is from chapter 3 of Mark's Gospel but already, in just three short chapters, Jesus has worked five separate miraculous cures. First he cured the man with the unclean spirit. Then he cured Peter's mother-in-law who was down with a fever. Thirdly he cured a leper. Then a man who was paralyzed. And fifthly he cured the man with the withered hand. And besides those five cures, he also cured a whole bunch of people on the same night he cured Peter's mother-in-law. This is the way Mark, in chapter 1, describes those cures:

That evening, after sunset, they brought to him all who were sick and those who were possessed by devils. The whole town came crowding round the door, and he cured many who were suffering from diseases of one kind or another; he also cast out many devils. (Mk 1:32 34)

So clearly Jesus was causing a sensation, and Mark repeatedly says that the people were amazed and astounded. But that's the people. As we see in today's reading, however, the scribes have quite a different reaction to Jesus. The scribes are not so much astonished as they are threatened. They are indeed so threatened that their minds simply shut down and they cannot see what is perfectly clear to almost everybody else, namely that Jesus is from God, and the Holy Spirit is working through him. The scribes cannot, of course, _deny_ the cures outright because the leper is no longer a leper and the paralyzed man is walking and the man with the withered hand no longer has a hand that is withered. But what the scribes cannot _admit_ is that Jesus is performing these miracles through the Holy Spirit of God within him. And the reason they cannot admit that is that Jesus is not part of their inner circle, their organization, their hierarchy. He's an interloper, an unauthorized outsider.

So how does Jesus react to these scribes? Jesus reacts to them harshly, very harshly. He is perhaps tougher on the scribes than he is on anyone else he meets in his ministry. He tells those scribes that their obstinate refusal to accept the obvious, namely that the Holy Spirit is at work in their midst, is the worst of all sins, and that if they persist in their blindness, they will never find heaven. Their souls will be lost forever. It is, I think, one of the saddest moments in the Gospels.

\+ + +

Saturday—20th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 23:1-12

Clericalism

We live in a country where the law of the land now recognizes all people as equal, and we tend to think that Jesus had a similar view. We tend to think that Jesus also saw all people as equal, and in a way, I'm sure he did. But it is also true that Jesus had his own peculiar notion of how people in leadership positions should conduct themselves. What it comes down to, I think, is this: that the leaders of the people should never act as superiors or, for that matter, even as equals. Rather they should always conduct themselves as inferiors.

Let me give you two examples of this and then two statements by Jesus in which he spells it out. The two _examples_ are that it was Jesus who went to receive John's baptism, the greater who went to the lesser, and not the other way around. And also of course, it was Jesus who washed the feet of the disciples and not the other way around. And now the two _statements_ of Jesus. The first is from Matthew's Gospel, chapter 18. It reads:

At this time the disciples came to Jesus and said, 'Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?' So he called a little child to him and set the child in front of them. Then he said, 'I tell you solemnly, unless you change and become like little children you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. And so the one who makes himself as little as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.' (Mt 18:1-4)

And the second is from chapter 20 of Matthew's Gospel where Jesus says:

You know that among the pagans the rulers lord it over them, and their great men make their authority felt. This is not to happen among you. No; anyone who wants to be great among you must be your servant, and anyone who wants to be first among you must be your slave, just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mt 20:25-28)

So this, of course, is why Jesus is so upset at the scribes and Pharisees in today's Gospel reading, because they are the recognized leaders of the people and should therefore be serving others but instead they are looking for places of honor at banquets and greetings in marketplaces and salutations like Rabbi and Father and Master.

And one would have to assume, I think, that Jesus would have the very same feelings about what is going on today in this Catholic Church of ours, with clerics expecting places of honor and greetings in marketplaces and certain salutations. And in terms of salutations I'm not talking only about calling a bishop "Your Excellency" or even the awful title of Monsignor but even the title Father. Jesus says, "Call no one on earth your father" and for some decades now my own sense has been that it would be more appropriate to call a priest "Brother" rather than "Father", but that's just me.

The main point, at any rate, is this: that Jesus regards all of us human beings as equals; but some, as they say, are _more equal_ than others, and they are the ones who are called by God, who are called by Jesus to serve and protect and comfort and strengthen and, if need be, even lay down their lives for others.

\+ + +

Tuesday—3rd Week Ordinary Time

Mk 3:31-35

The Will of God

To some people this Gospel reading sounds like a putdown of Mary. Somebody says to our Lord, "Jesus, your mother is outside and would like a word with you." And Jesus says, "My mother? Who is my mother? My mother is the person who does the will of God."

At one level, of course, it does sound like a putdown, especially perhaps if you read it in conjunction with that other scene where someone says to Jesus, "Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you," and Jesus responds, "Rather blessed is the one who hears the word of God and does it." (Lk 11:27-28)

And this, of course, was a constant theme with Jesus. He was always telling his fellow Jews that they are not saved simply because they are descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And he tells us that we are not saved simply because we were baptized as Christians. Rather we are all saved, Jew, Christian and Muslim, we are all saved by doing God's will.

For Jesus the two great commandments were love of God and love of neighbor. And when someone asked him, "Who is my neighbor?", What did Jesus say? Did he say, "Well, first of all, the neighbor you should love is primarily your family, your parents, your children, your brothers and sisters, perhaps even the people who live nearby or maybe even those who live in the same town." Is that what Jesus said? Not at all. Instead Jesus told a story in which the model of a neighbor was not even a Jew but rather a Samaritan and therefore an adversary to the Jews. But the point was that the Samaritan was kind and thoughtful, and a helper to those in need. For Jesus this was always the important thing—not what family or race or religion or blood line we belong to, but whether we spend our life doing God's will.

\+ + +

Tuesday—3rd Week Ordinary Time

Mk 3:31-35

Siblings of Christ

I want to begin this morning talking about two different ways in which societies are structured. I know this is a strange way to begin a homily but if you will bear with me for a few minutes the tie-in with today's Gospel reading will, I think, be apparent.

The first kind of society is the modern one where the population is relatively settled and stable and oftentimes even propertied. In this system the largest unit is a country like, say, Brazil or China. Typically the country is then divided up into states or provinces, the states or provinces perhaps into counties, the counties into cities, the cities into neighborhoods. The whole structure, in other words, is based on geography. Where you live is where you vote and where you pay taxes.

The second kind of society is a nomadic one. Nomads, by definition, have no fixed or permanent home. Nomads, by definition, are a migratory people who move from place to place in search of water or food or pasture or protection from the elements. So instead of states and counties and cities, nomads tend to organize themselves according to tribes and clans and families. Their basic structure, in other words, is based not on geography but on consanguinity, that is to say on blood relationships.

The ancient Israelites were initially a nomadic people so their social structure was, almost from the beginning, of the second kind. I say "almost from the beginning;" actually their societal structure dates from the time of Jacob who was the grandson of Abraham. Jacob, as you perhaps remember, had that famous wrestling match with God and afterwards God gave Jacob a new name. He called him Israel. (Gn 32:29) Well this man Jacob or Israel had twelve sons and these twelve sons became the founders of the twelve tribes of Israel. (Ex 1:1-17) As the tribes increased in size there would, of course, be several clans in each tribe and several families in each clan. But the point is that it was all based not on geography but on blood relationships.

Well after the Israelites settled into the Promised Land and gradually ceased to be nomads you would think that their societal structure would have gradually changed from the nomadic style to the geographical style. But the fact is that even after several centuries this apparently never happened. Instead they clung tenaciously to their tribal relationships. Why do I say that? I say it because of this passage from Luke's Gospel which I know is very familiar to you. Luke writes:

Now at the time, Caesar Augustus issued a decree for a census of the whole world to be taken. This census, the first, took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria, and everyone went to his own town to be registered. So Joseph set out from the town of Nazareth in Galilee and travelled up to Judaea to the town of David called Bethlehem since he was of David's house and line. (Lk 2:1-5)

It is, I think, clear from this passage that even though Joseph actually lived in Nazareth, he saw himself not, so to speak, as a man of Nazareth but as a man of Bethlehem. Why? Because what was important was not the geography but the consanguinity. It was because Joseph still saw himself primarily as belonging to the tribe of Judah and the clan of David. For Joseph, in other words, the all important thing was the blood line.

And this is what Jesus is talking about in the Gospel today. He is saying that what is really important is not the blood line; it's not whether we share a common ancestor that makes us his brothers and sisters. What makes us his brothers and sisters is doing the will of God. Later, in Luke's Gospel, Jesus makes essentially the same point: when someone says to him, "blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you." Jesus says in reply, "Rather blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it." (Lk 11:27-28) It is basically the same point.

You and I, of course, take all this for granted now. It is perfectly clear to us now that we don't have to belong to the clan of David or even be Jewish in order to be Christ's brother or sister. But it is, I think, important for us to realize that, at the time, these were revolutionary statements by Jesus. To the Jews of Jesus' time this was a whole new way of thinking, a whole new shocking way of thinking.

\+ + +

Thursday—4th Week Ordinary Time

Mk 6:7-13

Handling Rejection

To be rejected by other people is always difficult but rejection at some point happens to most of us so it's important for us to learn how to deal with it. In our Gospel reading today, Jesus gives us a few rules on how to handle rejection in our lives. They're simple rules but they are, at the same time, full of wisdom.

Rule number one is this. Always anticipate acceptance. That's right, we should anticipate acceptance, not rejection. Maybe that sounds backwards, like we're setting ourselves up for the big letdown. Perhaps it would sound more logical to anticipate rejection so that we could steel ourselves against it. But rule number one is to anticipate acceptance because in general we get what we look for. It's the old business of the self-fulfilling prophesy. If we expect to be rejected we probably will be because we will be frightened and defensive and uncomfortable and will consequently turn people off. So Jesus tells his disciples that when they set out they should carry no extra money, food or clothing. He is telling them, in other words, that they should expect to meet a lot of nice friendly people along the way who will provide for them. They should anticipate acceptance. That's rule number one.

Rule number two is that when rejection comes, as it more than likely will at some point, we must shake it off and move on. It's something we all have to learn how to do. Whether rejection happens at work or in the home, and however brutal the rejection might be, somehow we must shake it off because, if we do not, it will drag us down and we will wind up looking upon ourselves as worthless losers who deserve to be rejected. So somehow we must find the courage to shake the dust from our feet and move on.

And finally rule number three. Rule number three is to hang on to your friends. This, I think, is why Jesus sent his disciples out two by two. That way, no matter how tough the going got, they could hang on to each other. So Jesus recommends companionship. Life is a team sport. We can't play it alone. And with a little help from our friends we can all muddle through even the darkest of days.

So those are Jesus' three rules of handling rejection: anticipate acceptance; when rejection comes, shake it off; and hang on to your friends.

\+ + +

Wednesday—5th Week Ordinary Time

Mk 7:14-23

The Law

One of the more gory and gruesome stories from the Old Testament is found in chapter 7 of Second Macabees. It took place about 150 years before the time of Jesus when Palestine was ruled by the Greeks, actually the successors of Alexander the Great. The King of Palestine at the time was determined to compel the Jews to abandon their ancestral customs and laws, to reject Yahweh their God and to worship Zeus instead. Well this sadistic tyrant of a King met one day with a Jewish mother and her seven sons, and one by one he brutally tortured and killed the seven sons because they refused to eat pork, which was a food not permitted by Jewish law. So the seven sons and eventually the mother herself courageously, heroically and nobly faced torture and death in order to give witness to the validity of their law, which they knew in their hearts to be the law of the one true God. I mention this story because it illustrates so clearly the tremendous respect and reverence that devout Jews had for the law. For them, as you can see, to deny their law was to deny their God. And Jesus, it should be noted, shared this respect for the law, although, as he said, he came to fulfill it; not to abolish the law but to fulfill or reform it.

Law, of course, is a good, even a necessary thing in that it is meant to bring harmony, peace and order into the life of a society. At the same time, however, law has two major weaknesses. First, like the rabbit, it tends to proliferate, so that eventually a society, if it is not careful, can become completely weighed down by laws, overrun by laws, causing ordinary people to feel oppressed by all the laws that surround them. And this, unfortunately, was the state of Jewish or Pharisaic law at the time of Jesus. It was one of the aspects of law that he came to reform.

The second major weakness of law is that, by definition, it deals only with external behavior, whereas real life, real virtue is not about external things at all. Real virtue is about sacred principles and truth and kindness and love. Real virtue is about inner strength, not outward appearances. Which is why the great prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah warned their people that God wanted much more than clean kosher animals. What God really wanted was clean hearts. And this basically is also the message of Jesus in our Gospel reading today. Jesus was more interested in clean hearts than in clean animals. For Jesus law without heart was hypocrisy, and he often bemoaned the fact that so many people honored God only with lip service while their hearts were far from him.

\+ + +

Wednesday—3rd Week of Lent

Mt 5:17-19

Law and Prophets

In our Gospel reading today Jesus says that he has come not to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill them or to bring them to perfection.

The Law and the Prophets. Jesus spoke of them often, and more often than not he spoke of them as a duo, a pair, a couple. Besides this Gospel passage we just read, let me give you a couple of more examples. One day a Pharisee asked Jesus which was the greatest commandment and Jesus said that there were two great commandments: love of God and love of neighbor, and then he added, "On these two commandments depend the whole law and the prophets." And you remember, of course, that at the Transfiguration, when Jesus appeared shining like the sun, Moses and Elijah appeared with him, Moses representing the law and Elijah the prophets. There are many other examples as well but the point is that Jesus spoke often, as he does in today's Gospel reading, about the importance of the law and the prophets.

But why does Jesus speak of the law and the prophets as a team or a pair? He does so because the law and the prophets are the two great dimensions of religious or church life. The two dimensions are, of course, very different from each other and exist in a state of tension. The law, for example, favors a relatively tight ship and going by the book on the grounds that it is fairer and more even handed, while prophecy favors a looser, more adaptable approach in order to meet new challenges and to remain more open to the Holy Spirit. So law is stable while prophecy is dynamic. The law is characterized by patience while prophecy is characterized by a sense of urgency.

So the law and the prophets are very different from each other and they often seem at odds, but together (and this is the important thing) together, as a team, as a couple, a duo, they keep the Church afloat and alive and in balance. We need both of them in the Church, and we need both of them to be strong, so that one does not dominate or overpower the other. This, I think, was what Jesus was telling us, that for a church to be healthy, it needs both the law and the prophets, the law to keep us on course, and the prophets to keep us moving ahead.

\+ + +

Tuesday—7th Week Ordinary Time

Mk 9:30-37

Three Predictions

Our Gospel reading today begins with Jesus and his disciples walking along a road on their way to Capernaum where Jesus' good friend Peter has a house. It's clear that Jesus is very apprehensive. He's never been a pessimistic sort of man, certainly not a paranoid sort of man, but he is now convinced that very soon he is going to be taken prisoner, tortured and killed. So he is filled with a sense of dread, a sense of deep foreboding. Then, for some reason, partly perhaps just to relieve his own anxiety, he tells his disciples exactly what he's thinking. He tells them he's going to be handed over to men who will kill him. That's the first part of today's Gospel reading.

The second part takes place after they arrive at Peter's house. Jesus had apparently noticed that, as they have been walking along the road, a few of his disciples had been engaged in some sort of argument. So once they have arrived at their destination he asks them about it. "What were you arguing about?" he wants to know. As it turns out they had been arguing about which one of them was the greatest, so Jesus say to them, "If anyone wants to be first, he shall be the last of all and the servant of all."

These two events took place, of course, on the same day. Not only that, but they took place either on the way to Peter's house or in the house itself. But apart from that, apart from the chronology, does it appear to you that these two events have anything in common? I mean, is there supposed to be some connection between, on the one hand, Jesus predicting his passion and death, and on the other hand, Jesus telling his disciples that they are called to be servants?

My own answer to that question, based at least on this one Gospel passage alone, my own answer is: probably not. I mean maybe there's a connection between these two events but if so I'm not really getting it. At least not yet.

However, I've brought along my trusty Bible because the meaning of today's Gospel passage becomes clear only when it is seen alongside a couple of other Gospel passages. The mistake most people make when they hear today's Gospel reading is that they assume that this is the only time that Jesus predicts his passion and death. But the fact is that Jesus predicted his passion and death not just once but three times. And not only that but on all three occasions, immediately after Jesus predicts his own death, he tells his disciples that each of _them_ is also called to be the servant of all. Today's Gospel reading, which is from chapter 9 of Mark's Gospel, recounts Jesus' _second_ prediction of his death. His first prediction is in chapter 8; his third is in chapter 10. So the three predictions are in chapter 8, 9 and 10. Let me read for you a few lines from the other two predictions.

Here's what happens immediately after the first prediction. St. Mark writes:

If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself and take up his cross and follow me. (8:34)

And here's what happens immediately after his third prediction. Mark says:

James and John, the sons of Zebedee, approached him. 'Master,' they said to him, 'we want you to do us a favor.' He said to them, 'What is it you want me to do for you?' They said to him, 'Allow us to sit one at your right hand and the other at your left in your glory.'  
...When the other ten heard this they began to feel indignant with James and John, so Jesus called them to him and said to them, 'You know that among the pagans their so called rulers lord it over them, and their great men make their authority felt. This is not to happen among you. No; anyone who wants to become great among you must be your servant, and anyone who wants to be first among you must be slave to all.' (10:35-36 and 41-44).

So three times Jesus predicts his death, and immediately after these three predictions Jesus reminds his disciples that each of them is called to be a servant or to renounce himself and to take up a cross, which is just another way of being a servant. Being a servant therefore is what Christianity is all about. Because being a servant is the most accurate and the most profound description of what it means to be a true Christian, and because being a servant is primarily and fundamentally what each of us is called by Christ to be.

\+ + +

Thursday After Ash Wednesday

Lk 9:22-25

The Core Message

This morning I want to talk about three scenes from Luke's Gospel. Besides the fact that Peter has a role in each of the scenes, there are two things that the scenes have in common. The first thing they have in common is that in each of the scenes Jesus is recognized as the long awaited one, the one for whom all Israel has been longing. But before I mention the second thing they have in common let me describe very briefly each of the three scenes.

In the first scene Jesus asks his apostles two questions: who do the _crowds_ say I am? And who do _you_ say I am? To the first question they answer, John the Baptist or Elijah or one of the prophets. And to the second question Peter pipes up and says, "You are the Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed one of God." (9:18-21) The second scene is of the Transfiguration before Peter, James and John where the face and clothing of Jesus become as brilliant as lightning, and a voice from heaven says, "This is my Son, the chosen one." (9:28-36) And in the third scene Peter says to Jesus, "What about us? We left all we had to follow you." And Jesus responds, "I tell you solemnly there is no one who has left house, wife, brothers, parents or children for the sake of the Kingdom of God who will not be rewarded many times over in the present time, and, in the world to come, eternal life." (18:28-30)

So these are the three scenes. In each of them Jesus is recognized as the Messiah, even as the unique Son of God who can promise and grant eternal life to those who spend their lives in the service of the Kingdom of God. Each scene is, for the apostles, a kind of mountain experience, a moment of revelation that brings to the apostles a sense of peace and joy and relief. After each experience the apostles are reassured that they have definitely chosen the right path. After each experience they can almost feel in their bones that Jesus is indeed the Way, the Truth and the Life. (Jn 14:6)

Which brings me to the second thing that each of these three scenes have in common, and that is that almost immediately after each of these scenes Jesus takes his apostles aside and tells them that very soon he is going to be arrested, tortured and finally executed. So three times Jesus seems to be telling his apostles that all is well and then, almost immediately afterwards he tells them he's going to die.

So what's going on here? What is going on, I think, is this: that Jesus is telling his apostles that, because of who he is, his death will be different from the deaths of all those who have died before him. He is telling his apostles that he _must_ die so that he can then rise from the dead and thereby win his final victory, his victory over death itself. And this, as we know, is the central theme of his entire ministry. Later, right before the Last Supper, Jesus says, "Unless a wheat grain fall to the ground and die it remains just a single grain but if it dies it yields a rich harvest." (Jn12:24) And later still, after his resurrection, Jesus says to the disciples on their way to Emmaus, "Was it not fitting that the Christ should suffer, and by doing so, enter into his glory?" (Lk 24:26)

This, as I say, is the central theme, the core message of Christ's entire ministry. And it is certainly the core message of this great season of Lent.

\+ + +

Wednesday—9th Week Ordinary Time

Mk12:18-27

Marriage in Heaven

The Nicene Creed which we profess every Sunday at Mass concludes with the words, "We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen." In the world to come, in other words, we, like Jesus, will be resurrected. We will get our body back, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that we will be given a new body. The body we will be given in the world to come is usually described as a "glorified" body. And while we don't know much about the glorified body, we do know something. We know, for example, that after Jesus rose from the dead he looked different. Different enough so that his good friend Mary Magdalen mistook him for the gardener, and the disciples walking along the road to Emmaus didn't recognize him at all. And we know that he suddenly just appeared, like out of nowhere, in the middle of the room where his disciples were gathered behind locked doors. So the glorified body is a body but a body that is quite different from the one we have now.

Many people, especially married people, and most especially perhaps widows and widowers, are uncomfortable with today's Gospel passage, because for them the idea of heaven includes being reunited with their spouse. But Jesus is not saying that that reunion between spouses will not take place in heaven. He's just saying that the reunion will perhaps be _different_ from the way we imagine it because our bodies will be different. They will be glorified, not earthly bodies. St. Luke, in his Gospel tells us that when Jesus suddenly appeared in the locked room where his disciples were gathered after he had risen from the dead, they thought he might be a ghost, so to set them straight, he said to them, "Do you have anything to eat?" and when they gave him a piece of fish, Luke says, "he ate it before their eyes." (Lk24:42-43) So clearly the glorified body performs some bodily functions but apparently not all because, in today's reading, Jesus says that when we rise from the dead we "are like angels in heaven."

Nevertheless God is love and I hope you feel sure, as I do, that in the world to come we will be able to express our love for those who are dear to us and be united with them in a way that is deeper and fuller and more sublime and more glorious than anything we can imagine.

\+ + +

Saturday—33rd Week Ordinary Time

Lk 20: 27-40

The Afterlife

Our Gospel reading today is about what life will be like after we die. So I want to say something this morning about the afterlife because belief in an afterlife has a very interesting biblical history, a history that most people find surprising, even shocking. I say shocking because the fact is that throughout most of the Old Testament, during a period of more than 1500 years, the ancient Hebrews, God's chosen people, did not believe in an afterlife. That's right. To a man, the giants of the Old Testament did not believe in an afterlife. And I'm talking about Abraham (who lived 1700 years before Christ), Moses (1300 years before Christ), David (1000 years B.C.), Isaiah (8th century B.C.) and Jeremiah (7th century B.C.) and all their contemporaries. The fact is that none of them ever believed in an afterlife.

They did have a place called Sheol which they understood to be the abode of the dead. But Sheol was a place where the bodies (actually the corpses) of the dead lay totally and completely inert. Sheol, in other words, was where all life ceased. It was not in any sense a form of survival. It was rather the exact opposite. It was, in fact, an outright _denial_ of survival.

So what explains this? Why is it that the ancient Hebrews did not believe in an afterlife? Basically it was because they saw the human being as essentially a body. And that's understandable, because this is what the Book of Genesis seemed to be saying: that a human being is essentially a body. The key sentence in Genesis is this, "God fashioned man of dust from the soil. Then he breathed into his nostrils a breath of life, and this man became a living being." (Gen 2:7) According to Genesis, in other words, once God fashioned the soil or clay into the shape of a man, it was, at that point, a man. The man didn't become a "living being" until after God breathed life into him but he was already a man before that. So this is the way the ancient Jews viewed the human being, as essentially a body, an animated body but essentially a body. For the Jews, therefore, once the body died and became a corpse, that was the end of the human being. The ancient Jews, in other words, could simply not conceive of a human person without a body, and so they could not conceive of an afterlife.

This, as I say, went on for fifteen centuries or more, and it was not until the year 165 B.C. or so that there was a breakthrough. Finally, finally, after all those centuries of not accepting the notion of an afterlife, the author of the Book of Daniel was able to talk about a life after death. This is what he wrote: "Of those who lie sleeping in the dust of the earth many will awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting disgrace." (Dn 12:2) And how shocking those words must have been to his contemporaries.

But the question is: what exactly enabled this second century B.C. author to write those words? And the answer is that Daniel must have received some kind of enlightenment that enabled him to see the human being in a whole new way. Somehow, contrary to what had always been thought, Daniel came to the realization that the human being is not essentially a body but is rather essentially a spirit or a soul. Essentially, in other words, _the human being is not a body that has been animated but a spirit that has been incarnated_. And once that initial breakthrough was made then the rest fell easily into place. Because once the human being is seen as essentially a spirit, then clearly the body can die while the soul or spirit can live on and enjoy an afterlife. And that's what Daniel and eventually most other Jews came to understand.

As we look back on all this now we see it as God gradually revealing to his chosen people the true nature of the human being and allowing them to get a glimpse of their true destiny. But we Christians also see it as God preparing the world for the coming of Jesus who, during his ministry, would speak often of the afterlife and who, after he died, would rise from the dead and reunite body and soul. And this, of course, is the source of our faith not only in a life after death but also in the Resurrection of the Dead which is a whole other thing.

\+ + +

Ash Wednesday

Mt 6:1-6, 16-18

The Sermon on the Mount

Our Gospel reading for today is an excerpt from the famous Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount consists of three whole chapters, chapters 5, 6, and 7 of St. Matthew's Gospel, and it is also called the Inaugural Address of Jesus. It's called the inaugural address for several reasons. First because it comes at the very beginning of Christ's public ministry. Secondly because it announces that a whole new era is at hand for the human race. Thirdly because it states that this new era, this new kingdom will be radically different from anything that has preceded it. And finally because it calls all the citizens of this new kingdom to a new level of maturity and holiness. It calls them, indeed, to a life of perfect virtue, to a demanding new way of comporting themselves.

Lent, as a season of repentance and reform, is probably the ideal time for us to read this Inaugural Address. So let me strongly recommend that sometime in the next few days each of you read chapters 5, 6, and 7 of Matthew's Gospel. And that you not just read the words but that you listen carefully to what the words, the words of Jesus, are asking you to do. And even more than that, that you breathe in the whole spirit of the message and allow it to change you. Don't be afraid. Let Christ's Inaugural Address change you. Let the Sermon on the Mount make you a better Christian.

As you read the Sermon on the Mount you will hear Jesus tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, you will not enter the Kingdom of God (5:2) You will hear Jesus tell you that you must be perfect just as your heavenly Father is perfect. (5:48) You will hear him tell you that you are the salt of the earth and the light of the world. (5:13-14) Maybe you've forgotten that. So this time, as you read the Sermon on the Mount, be sure to listen when Jesus tells you that you, his disciple, you're the one who is the light of the world. So, for example, when someone offends you, you are to turn the other cheek. (5:39) And you are called to fast and pray and give alms. (6:1-18) You are called to treat others as you would have them treat you (7:12) and never, never to judge others. (7:1) And above all you are called to trust God and rely on him and know that he holds you in the palm of his hand. (6:25-34) This and much much more is all part of the Sermon on the Mount, the Inaugural Address of Jesus.

It's all very countercultural, of course, not only counter to Jesus' time and place but counter to every time and place. Because it's a call to perfection, and nobody but Jesus ever really asks that of us. But he asks it because the Kingdom of God is at hand, and we are the children of the Kingdom.

So please, between now and Sunday, try to remember to read the Sermon on the Mount, chapters 5, 6, and 7 of Matthew's Gospel. It's the absolutely best way to begin the season of Lent.

\+ + +

Monday—1st Week of Lent

Mt 25:31-46

The Last Judgment

Our Gospel reading this morning is one of history's outstanding pieces of oratory. It is, at the very least, in a class with Shakespeare's "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" speech and with Lincoln's _Gettysburg Address_. But because of its content it may very well be in a class by itself. For it rises above any kind of temporal concern, however important, and focuses instead on providing us with a key to the salvation of our immortal souls. And besides that, of course, it's got style and rhythm and elegance and grace. Even when it's read with a minimum of expression, as I just did, its brilliance still shines through. And even though we've heard or read it hundreds of times, it never loses its luster.

And for us, of course, the meaning is perfectly clear. It is saying that our salvation depends not only on our faith in Jesus as our Savior but also on our dedication to the corporal works of mercy: feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless and visiting the sick and those in prison.

Some people say that when Jesus actually gave the speech, it had, at least for some of his listeners, a somewhat different meaning. I don't agree with that but let me tell you what their argument is. Their argument is based on two words in the text. The first word is "nations." In the opening line of the speech it says that "all the nations" are assembled before the King. The Greek word that is used is _ethne_ (from which comes our word ethnic) and it's true that, in general, that word _ethne_ means not so much "nations" as "pagans." So according to this argument it was not all humankind who were assembled before the King for judgment but only the pagans. The second word on which the argument is based is "brothers." Jesus says that as long as you did it for one of my least brothers, you did it for me. Again Jews would not generally refer to pagans as their brothers. The term brother would be reserved for a fellow Jew. So, according to this argument what Jesus was really saying was that the pagans are going to be judged on how kind and considerate they are to the Israelites.

But that, of course, is a very narrow understanding of the discourse. And, most of all, it fails to take into account that Jesus himself used the equivalent of both the word " _ethne_ " and the word "brother" in a much broader sense. After his resurrection Jesus commissioned the apostles to go out to all the world and "make disciples of all nations," of all _ethne_ , meaning, of course, both Jews and non-Jews. (Mt 28:19) And Jesus also said that all those who do the will of the Father are his brothers. (Mt 12:50) So Jesus used both words in a much broader sense, and in this apocalyptic speech he is certainly using them in this broader sense.

Which means that in today's beautiful Gospel reading the word _ethne_ is correctly translated not as "pagans" but as "nations." And therefore this Gospel reading means exactly what we think it means: that all of us, Jews and Gentiles alike, are called to roll up our sleeves and take care of all those in need, whoever they might be.

\+ + +

Wednesday—6th Week of Easter

Jn 16:12-15

The Paracletes

In a criminal trial there are three principal officers of the court. There is the judge who is neither for nor against the accused but is there to insure that the trial is conducted in a fair and just manner. Secondly there is the prosecutor whose role it is to prove that the accused did in fact commit the crime. And thirdly there is the defense attorney whose role it is to show that in fact it has _not_ been proved that the accused committed the crime.

Well the Bible has often portrayed human life in precisely these judicial terms. The lives of all of us, in other words, are seen as part of a courtroom drama. And in this courtroom drama we sinners are the ones charged with having committed a crime. We are the accused. And God, of course, is the judge. But who is the prosecutor? And who is the defense attorney? Well the prosecutor is Satan. And I say that because the word 'Satan' is a Hebrew word which means the accuser. So that's Satan; he's the one whose role it is to convince God the judge that we are guilty and that we should be condemned. Which leaves the defense attorney. The defense attorney in this Biblical trial is known in Scripture as the Paraclete, which is a Greek word meaning advocate. The Paraclete, in other words, is the one who stands by us, who takes our part and works to save us from ultimate condemnation.

But who precisely is that? Most of us think of the Paraclete as the Holy Spirit. And that's true. The Holy Spirit is definitely our defense attorney, our advocate before the judgment seat of God. But that's not the full truth. The full truth is that the Holy Spirit is the _second_ Paraclete. The _first_ Paraclete is Christ himself. And I say that because in John 14:16 Jesus says: "I will ask the Father and he will give you _another_ Paraclete." In other words, "I am your Paraclete. I am your advocate. But I'll be leaving you soon and God will then send you a second Paraclete." And then in today's Gospel reading Jesus says that when the Spirit of Truth (that's the Paraclete) when the Spirit of Truth comes "he will not speak on his own but he will speak what he _hears_." But from whom does he hear this? He hears it from Jesus. Because in the very next sentence Jesus says that the Advocate "will take from what is mine and declare it to you."

So Jesus is our first Paraclete. He is the one who, by his death and resurrection, has defeated all of Satan's arguments and won for us our complete freedom in the courtroom of God. And Jesus is the one who, after he ascended into heaven, sent us the second Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, to help us understand and to believe all that God has done for us.

\+ + +

Monday—5th Week of Easter

Jn 14:21-26

Stages of the Journey

It's interesting that our two Scriptural readings for today both convey exactly the same message, namely that we deepen our religious faith in stages, one step at a time. First we crawl, then we walk, and so on.

In our first reading, Paul and Barnabas are in Lystra where the people are not only polytheists, who believe in Zeus and Hermes and bunch of other gods, but they also think that Paul and Barnabas are themselves gods. The people of Lystra, in other words, have very primitive religious beliefs. So Paul gave them a little homily. But what does he say to them? Does he say that God sent his only Son into the world who was true God and true man, that this God/man took the name 'Jesus', that he was crucified but rose from the dead, and if we believe in him we are saved? Is this what Paul says? It is not. Paul knows that the people of Lystra are not ready for that. So Paul simply tries to help them understand that there are not many gods but only one. Paul never even mentions Jesus. This is what he says:

We are bringing you the good news that will convert you from just such follies as these to the living God, the one who made heaven and earth and the sea and all that is in them. In ages past he let the Gentiles go their way. Yet in bestowing his benefits, he has not hidden himself completely, without a clue. From the heavens he sends down rain and rich harvests; your spirits he fills with food and delight. (Acts 14:15-18)

So Paul wants them to understand that there is only one true God and that he reveals himself to them in many ways, and they should believe only in him because there is really no other God but him. Paul's approach was very basic. He was simply helping the people of Lystra to crawl. Or perhaps take their first baby step.

In our Gospel reading, on the other hand, Jesus is dealing with his disciples who have followed him for two or three years now and have come to believe that he has risen from the dead. So in their spiritual journey they are in an entirely different place from the people of Lystra. But Jesus nonetheless tells them that they have much more to learn, that they have much farther to go on their journey. He says:

This much have I told you while I was still with you; the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will instruct you in everything and remind you of all that I told you.

So the point, I guess, is that this journey, this spiritual journey that each of us is on, is a journey that has a beginning and a middle but no end. The journey is endless. We are constantly striving to deepen our faith and to love God more. Each of us, I suppose, is at a different point on the journey but the important thing is that we move along, that we make progress, and that we strive, each day, to become a better Christian, a more Christ-like Christian.

\+ + +

Friday—6th Week of Easter

Jn 16:20-23

Christianity / Stoicism

There's a story about a man who lived in China many years ago. This man had one son and one horse. One day the horse escaped from its corral and fled into the forest. His neighbor said, "Oh, what bad luck." But the man said, "How can you be so sure?" The next day the horse returned to the corral bringing ten wild horses back with him. "Oh, what good luck," the neighbor said. But the man said, "How can you be so sure?" The next day the man's son went out to try to tame one of the wild horses but he was thrown and broke his leg. "Bad luck," the neighbor said. "How can you be so sure?" the man said. The next day an enemy invaded the village and carried off all the able-bodied young men but the man's injured son was left behind.

That's the story. But the question is what are we to think about this man's response to the ups and downs of life? Well obviously the man recognizes one of the great truths of life, namely that sometimes what appears to be bad turns out to be good and vice versa. So clearly there is a certain wisdom in the man's approach. But it is, I think, a cold kind of wisdom. An unemotional, distant, austere, excessively rational kind of wisdom. The man allows nothing at all to affect him. He feels neither joy nor sorrow. He recognizes neither success nor failure. He is indifferent to everything. He is cut off from real life. He is, in short, a Stoic.

How different this man's approach is from that of Jesus in today's Gospel where Jesus is preparing his friends for his leaving them! "Dark days are ahead" he warns them. "You will have to watch me die by torture and your hearts will be broken. You will feel abandoned and perhaps hopeless. But embrace your feelings. Cry your hearts out. Feel the pain. But always know that after death comes resurrection. You will weep and mourn...you will grieve for a time...but I shall see you again; then your hearts will rejoice with a joy no one can take from you."

This clearly is a very different approach from that of the man from China. Because Christianity is not Stoicism. Christianity knows that there is, in this world, a time for weeping, but it also knows that the time for weeping does not last forever, because Christ has won for each of us a life of ultimate joy and happiness.

\+ + +

Saturday—6th Week of Easter

Jn 16:23-28

Teaching in Plain Words

Our Gospel passage for today continues the reading from chapter 16 of John's Gospel which we began on Monday and which we finish next Monday. In today's reading Jesus says "I have been telling you all this in metaphors but the hour is coming when I shall no longer speak to you in metaphors but shall tell you about the Father in plain words."

But there's a problem here. Or at least an apparent problem. Because these words were spoken by Jesus on the very night before he died. They're part of his Farewell Discourse to his disciples. And not only was he going to die in a matter of hours but he _knew_ he was going to die in a matter of hours. (Jn 18:4) So in the short time he had left, how exactly was he planning to teach his disciples the great truths of life in a direct and straightforward way? How was he going to do that?

He would do it in three ways. First he would do it not so much by words as by his deeds. Tomorrow he would face death courageously and nobly and gently, forgiving his executioners, giving himself over completely to his Father, and thinking always not of himself but of others. Just as he taught us all how to live, so he would teach us all how to die. And then, of course, he would rise from the dead, and so he would teach his disciples and all of us the ultimate truth that all of us yearn to believe more fully and more firmly, the truth that all of us yearn to accept and welcome not only into our hearts and minds but into the very marrow of our bones—the truth, namely, that there really is life after death, and not only life but resurrection. So this is the first way that Jesus, on the eve of his death, planned to teach us. He would teach us by his saving deeds.

The second way Jesus taught his disciples was through the many conversations he had with them between the time of his resurrection and the time of his ascension. In the opening verses of the Acts of the Apostles, St. Luke says that for forty days after Jesus died he continued to appear to the apostles, to instruct them and to tell them about the Kingdom of God.

And the third way Jesus taught his disciples was by the sending of the Holy Spirit which, according to chapter two of the Acts of the Apostles, finally took place ten days after the Ascension. And this sending of the Holy Spirit fulfilled what Jesus promised in Wednesday's Gospel reading where he said, "I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the Spirit of Truth comes, he will lead you to the complete truth." And so he has.

So this is how the disciples of Jesus learned (how we all learn) about the Kingdom of God—through the saving deeds of Jesus, through his post resurrection instructions, and through the wisdom breathed into them and into us by the Holy Spirit.

\+ + +

Tuesday—7th Week of Easter

Jn 17:1-11a

Glory

The Gospel according to John is generally divided into two books. Basically the early chapters are known as the Book of Signs while the later chapters are known as the Book of Glory. Our Gospel reading for today is from the second book, the Book of Glory. And, as a matter of fact, in this passage we just read the word "glory" is used by Jesus over and over again. Jesus keeps talking about how the Son gives glory to the Father, and how the Father gives glory to the Son, so I want to say something about this word glory.

First of all, the word glory is sometimes used almost as a synonym for praise. At our Eucharistic celebration on Sunday, for example, right after the Penitential Rite, we say or sing, "Glory to God in the highest,' which is another way of saying, "Let us give praise to God." So we're all familiar with that rather obvious meaning of the word.

But this morning I want to talk about the _other_ meaning of the word glory. Because in our Gospel reading this morning John is not using the word glory to mean praise. Rather he is using the word to mean God manifesting himself or revealing himself. This is a fairly common meaning of the word not only in John but throughout the Hebrew Scriptures as well. Psalm 19, for example, begins with the line, "The heavens proclaim the _glory_ of God." God, in other words, created the heavens, so when we look up at the heavens we see God. The heavens are God manifesting or revealing himself. They are the glory of God.

Or think about the days when the Jews were escaping from their slavery in Egypt and God wanted to reveal himself to them as their leader, as the one who would lead them out of Egypt into the Promised Land. Regarding this the Book of Exodus says:

Yahweh went before them, by day in the form of a pillar of cloud to show them the way, and by night in the form of a pillar of fire to give them light; thus they could continue their march by day and by night. The pillar of cloud never failed to go before the people during day, nor the pillar of fire during the night. (Ex 13: 21-22)

This was Yahweh revealing on manifesting himself to his chosen people. The pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire were the glory of God. They glorified, that is to say, revealed or manifested God.

And this is what Jesus is talking about in our Gospel reading today when he uses the word glory. He is saying that he is about to enter his passion, death and resurrection, and that this will give glory to God, not in the sense that it will give honor or praise to God but rather in the sense that is will _reveal_ God; it will manifest God. So the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus are like the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire. They reveal God to us; they tell us who God is.

But how do they do that? Well certainly the resurrection of Jesus reveals that he is God, and his passion and death then reveal who God is. They reveal that God is sacrificing love. They reveal that God is the one who undergoes a horrible torture and death because he loves us. So the passion, death and resurrection of Christ are the perfect glory of God, the perfect revelation of God. They tell us that Christ is God and God is love.

\+ + +

Tuesday—14th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 9:32-38

Priesthood of the Baptized

In the Gospel today Jesus says, "The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few." Not too many years ago when we Catholics heard or read those words we automatically assumed that when Jesus spoke about the "the laborers," he was talking about priests. Ordained priests. We thought that Jesus was saying that there are a lot of people out there who need to be ministered to and who need the Good News preached to them but there aren't enough priests.

But today we know that Jesus meant much more than that. We know now that when Jesus spoke about "the laborers" he wasn't talking just about ordained priests. He was talking about all the Christian faithful. Because by reason of our baptism we all share in the priesthood of Jesus Christ. And we are all, therefore, obliged and privileged to bring the Good News to others.

In the Book of Exodus (19:5-6) God says to the Jewish people:

If you obey my voice and hold fast to my covenant, you of all the nations shall be my very own...I will count you a Kingdom of priests, a consecrated nation.

This is the way God saw the Jewish people, his chosen people. He saw them as a kingdom of priests and a consecrated nation. And shortly after Jesus died and rose from the dead, the early Christian community came to see itself as the new chosen people, the new kingdom of priests. St. Peter, for example, in his first letter (2:9) said to all his fellow Christians:

You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a consecrated nation, a people set apart to sing the praises of God who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

So this is the way the early Christians saw themselves. And now, in our own lifetime, after centuries of a lost vision, a lost perception, we have, thank God, once again come to see ourselves in the way the early Christians saw themselves: as a holy nation and a royal priesthood. It is the priesthood of all the faithful, the priesthood of all the baptized.

There's an old legend about Jesus arriving in heaven after he rose from the dead. He arrived bearing the marks of his recent wounds: the thorn marks on his head, the whip marks on his back, the lance mark on his side, and the nail marks in his hands and feet. And when the people in heaven saw him they were grieved over how much he had suffered. The Archangel Gabriel spoke up and said, "Lord, do all the people on earth know how much you suffered for them and how much you love them?" Jesus said, "Oh no, Gabriel, only a handful of people on earth ever even heard of me let alone know about my suffering. Most people have no idea how much I love them."

Gabriel was shocked and he said to Jesus, "How will all the rest of the people learn about your suffering and about the love you have for them?" and Jesus said, "Oh, not to worry, Gabriel. I've taken care of that. You see, just before I left I asked some of my friends to tell as many people as they could about my love for them. And those people will tell still other people, and eventually the whole world will know."

Well Gabriel was clearly skeptical, "But Lord," he said, "suppose your friends, or maybe the people they tell, suppose they grow tired or frustrated, or they forget about you or begin to have doubts about you? Aren't you afraid that, somewhere along the line, the news will get lost? Don't you have some kind of backup plan, just in case?" "No," said Jesus, "I thought about that but I decided against a backup plan. This, in fact, is the only plan I have. I'm just counting on my friends and the people they tell not to let me down."

Well it's only a legend, of course, but the point is well taken. And when Jesus talks about people not letting him down, he's talking about us. So now it's up to us, this holy nation of ours, this royal priesthood. It's up to all of us priests, ordained and non-ordained alike, to bring the Good News of Jesus Christ out to all the world.

\+ + +

Friday—15th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 12:1-8

The Sabbath

Our Gospel reading today is St. Matthew's account of the incident about the disciples of Jesus picking corn on the Sabbath. Mark, in his Gospel, recounts the same incident but with an important difference. In Mark's account Jesus kind of wraps up the whole incident by saying, "The Sabbath is made for man; not man for the Sabbath."

Now that, it seems to me, is an important statement by Jesus, which makes one question why Matthew would have omitted it from his account. An easier question, however, and a more basic one is this: what exactly does the statement mean? What does it mean when we say that "a" is made for "b" and not the other way around? Well let's say you go to a restaurant for dinner. Clearly the restaurant is made for you; you are not made for it. The chef and server are there for you; you are not there for them. This does not mean, of course, that you have no responsibilities at all in the arrangement. Clearly you are required to pay the bill. Perhaps you will want to compliment the chef. And certainly you are expected to leave a gratuity for the server and treat the server with kindness and respect. But primarily and fundamentally the restaurant is there to serve you and not the other way around.

Well this is the point that Jesus is making about the Sabbath: that the Sabbath is made for us. The Sabbath is there to give us a day of rest after six days of labor. And to give us time not just to rest but also to think and pray about who we are and what life is all about and to have a day for God in our lives. Primarily, in other words, the Sabbath, like the restaurant, is made for us; we are not made for it.

At the time of Jesus, however, the Pharisees had managed to turn the Sabbath upside down. Upside down. For the Pharisees, the Sabbath was there not for the _benefit_ of people but rather as something that put all kinds of demands and restrictions on people. Mustn't do this, mustn't do that. Breathing in and out was permissible but beyond that the primary Sabbath function of the good Jew was, according to the Pharisees, to observe with scrupulous care all the austere and multiple demands of the Sabbath. The Sabbath, in other words, was there not to serve but to be served.

Well, this was clearly a gross distortion of the true nature of the Sabbath, so Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, felt obliged to remind the Pharisees that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

But what, if anything, does this say about the Catholic Church in our time? Well, to put it very briefly, it says, I think two things: first, that there is an inherent and ever-present tendency in life for things to get turned upside-down; and secondly, that what is right-side up for the Church is that the pope, bishops, priests, church law, church structures and the sacraments are all here for us; we are not here for them. We all have our responsibilities, of course, but primarily and fundamentally, the pope, bishops, sacraments and so forth are all here for us, the People of God, and not the other way around.

\+ + +

Wednesday—18th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 15:21-28

The Canaanite Woman

It is clear from the Gospels that, during his public ministry, Jesus cured many many people, probably a hundred or more. (Lk 4:40, 6:17-19 and 9:11) Almost all of the people Jesus cured, however, were his fellow Jews. And given the circumstances of the time this was understandable. Because in those days Jews, who worshipped the one true God, regarded gentiles as pagans and infidels, and they did not want to fraternize with them.

On two occasions, however, Jesus made an exception and granted a cure to a gentile. The first time was to a centurion who begged Jesus to cure his servant who was grievously ill back home (Mt 8:5-13) and the second time was to the Canaanite woman in today's Gospel reading.

And precisely because today's incident is such an unusual exception, there are, I think, a few little lessons to be learned from it.

First, in regard to both the Canaanite woman and the centurion Jesus was open to recognizing the profound faith that existed in the hearts of people who were not of his religion. We, on the other hand, are not always too good at that. These days, for example, largely because the image of Islam has been hijacked by certain violent extremists, it's difficult for many of us to appreciate the deep faith of most Muslims. But Jesus, apparently, would not have a problem doing that.

Second, both the Canaanite woman and the centurion were asking for favors from Jesus for someone other than themselves, the woman for her daughter, the centurion for his servant. Who knows? Maybe prayers for others are more efficacious than prayers for ourselves.

Third, sometimes, when there is a sufficient reason, it's OK to break a rule. Jesus' rule was that his mission was only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. His disciples wanted him to break the rule and give this gentile woman what she wanted in order to get rid of her because she was bothering them. But Jesus knew that that was not a sufficient reason to break his rule. The woman's deep faith, on the other hand, convinced Jesus to make an exception in her case.

And fourth, it was the woman's persistence, her perseverance that finally won Jesus over. Even when things seemed hopeless, even after Jesus made it clear to her that, as an outsider, she had no right to the favor, she pressed on, and Jesus finally granted her request. So when we pray a prayer of petition, this is our final little lesson from today's Gospel reading: that, even when things seem hopeless, we should never give up, we should press on. We should keep knocking on the door.

\+ + +

Thursday—25th Week Ordinary Time

Lk 9:7-9

Principles

When Matthew, Mark and Luke are writing about the same incident in their Gospels, it's useful to compare them with one another because often the subtle differences between them are interesting and illuminating. And today's Gospel reading from Luke is a case in point.

According to Luke, Herod Antipas is uncertain and perplexed about the identity of Jesus. Herod just can't figure out who this Jesus is. "Who is this about whom I hear such things?" He asks. Both Matthew and Mark, however, have quite a different take on the matter. Matthew says, "At that time Herod the tetrarch heard about the reputation of Jesus, and said to his court, "This is John the Baptist himself; he has risen from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.'" (Mt 14:1-2) And Mark says, "Meanwhile King Herod had heard about him, since by now his name was well known. Some were saying, 'John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.' Others said, 'He is Elijah,' others again, 'He is a prophet like the prophets we used to have.' But when Herod heard this he said, 'It is John whose head I cut off; he has risen from the dead.'" (Mk 6:14-16)

So according to Matthew and Mark, Herod was convinced, probably even obsessed with the idea that John the Baptist had come back to haunt him. This was consistent with Herod's character, because Herod's life was not directed by well reasoned, thoughtful decisions, but was rather driven by passion, superstition, fear, weakness, insecurity and ambition. Jesus once referred to Herod as "that fox" and at times Herod could be sly and cunning, but basically his life consisted of one mistake after another because he had no principles, principles that might produce consistent behavior. He was a ship without a rudder.

For example, Herod was married to the daughter of the King of the Nabataens, who was a powerful man and not a man one would want as an enemy. Nevertheless Herod developed a passion for Herodias who, incidentally, was not only his niece but also his sister-in-law, since she was married to his half-brother Philip. Herod then divorced the daughter of the Nabataean King (which was a mistake he lived to regret) and married Herodias (which was another mistake that contributed to his eventual disintegration). Ultimately, indeed, the Roman Emperor Caligula (who was no saint himself) became so disgusted with Herod that he stripped him of his tetrarchship and banished him from Palestine.

So what can we learn from the life of Herod Antipas? Not much, unfortunately, at least in a positive way. But in a negative way we can learn the importance of having a value system, a set of principles that direct our daily actions. A good set of principles is like a Global Positioning System, a GPS. It tells us where we are and how to get where we're going; and if we follow it, we get there. Herod Antipas, unfortunately, never seemed to have any principles. He went left when he saw a pretty girl, and he went right when he saw somebody he wanted to kill. And he wound up never getting anywhere. As a matter of fact, he wound up getting banished from the Holy Land. And that, if you know what I mean, is definitely not what we want to happen to us.

\+ + +

Wednesday—27th Week Ordinary Time

Lk 11:1-4

The Lord's Prayer

Our Gospel reading today is St. Luke's somewhat abbreviated version of the Lord's Prayer. The longer versions, the one we're more familiar with is from St Matthew's Gospel.

The Lord's Prayer, as you perhaps know, consists of six petitions. The first three petitions are for God and the last three are for us. And even this basic structure is, of course, a reminder that this is the _right_ way to pray. Always, in other words, we should first praise God and have his interest at heart, and only then should we ask for favors for ourselves.

Anyway we have these six petitions, three God petitions and three us petitions. The first God petition is "Hallowed be thy name" where we pray that all creation will recognize God as the Holy One, the Hallowed One. The second God petition is "Thy kingdom come." Jesus used to say that the Kingdom of God is already among us (Lk 17:21) and that's true, of course, but only in the sense that the seed has now been planted; not, however, in the sense that it has already come to final fruition. When, in other words, Jesus rose from the dead, he conquered (when viewed in terms of ultimate victory) he conquered not only his own death but human death as such, and not only death but all the powers of evil and darkness. So now we know that in the great cosmic struggle between good and evil, the powers of evil ultimately have no chance of winning, because the seed of God's Kingdom of love and light and life and goodness has been planted and ultimately it will surely, it will certainly, it will inevitably prevail. Meanwhile, however the struggle goes on and so we pray that every day God's Kingdom in the world will grow stronger and stronger. We pray "Thy kingdom come."

The third God petition is "Thy will be done," when we pray that the perfection with which God's will is done in heaven will be extended to earth as well. So those are the three God petitions.

The first us petition is "Give us this day our daily bread." In this petition, the term "daily bread" should not be understood too narrowly. It's actually a code phrase that refers to our general physical and spiritual well being. So in this petition we're asking God to bless us with physical and emotional health and to make us loving, holy people.

The second us petition is "Forgive us our trespasses." From this sort of shorthand formula in the Lord's Prayer we get the impression that God first watches us to see how forgiving or unforgiving we are, and then he treats us exactly the way we treat others-"Forgive us our trespasses _as we forgive those who trespass against us_." From other passages in the Gospels, however, we know that this isn't really the way it works. Rather the way it works is that, when we ask God for forgiveness, God immediately and unconditionally forgives us, no questions asked. Because God is, by nature, merciful and forgiving. But then, having set the example, God expects us to be merciful and forgiving as well.

And finally, the third us petition is "Lead us not into temptation" when we ask God that, in the time of testing, we may not fall victim to the Evil One.

Well these are the six petitions of the Lord's Prayer. It's the way Jesus himself taught us to pray. It's a prayer that we should direct to our Father thoughtfully and devoutly every day of our lives.

\+ + +

Saturday—6th Week of Easter

Jn 16:23b-28

Prayer and Intercession

In our Gospel reading today Jesus three times talks about asking the Father for something in his name, in Jesus' name, so I want to say just a few basic things this morning about prayer, especially the prayer of petition.

First of all, what is prayer? The accepted definition of prayer is "the raising of one's mind and heart to God or the requesting of good things from God." (Catechism, 2590) What is immediately clear from that definition is that all prayer is to God and only to God. We do not, in other words, pray to saints. It's true, of course, that most of us, when we lose our keys or our wallet or something, ask good ol' St. Anthony to tell us where it is. And not too many years ago, when a young Catholic woman was wanting to marry, she would turn to St. Anne to find her a husband. The short form, as you remember, was "St. Anne, get me a man." But this is not really prayer because true prayer is directed only to God.

So what then is the proper role of the saints when we are asking for something? The proper role of the saints is to intercede. And we all know about interceding. That's what happens when your best friend's grandson has been arrested on a drug charge and your nephew just happens to be the chief of police so you put in a good word for the kid. Or maybe your best friend's granddaughter has applied to Yale and the president of the University just happens to be an old college classmate of yours so you ask him to do what he can.

That's interceding, where you're the go-to person between your friend and a person in authority. And that's what we ask the saints to do for us, to intercede with God. Or, to put it another way, we ask the saints to pray to God on our behalf. This is true incidentally, even of our Blessed Mother. We call the "Hail Mary" a prayer but it's not really a prayer because true prayer is directed only to God. In the "Hail Mary" we're not really praying to Mary; rather we're asking Mary to pray for us to God, which is clear from the line where we specifically ask her to "pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen."

Regarding this intercessory role of the saints let me quote just a couple of lines from the Second Vatican Council. At one point it says of the saints that "once received into their heavenly home... they do not cease to intercede with the Father for us" and later it says that what we seek from the saints is "example in their way of life, fellowship in their communion, and the help of their intercession." (Lumen Gentium, 49 and 51)

So we can ask the saints to pray for us but we can also, of course, pray ourselves, and God will listen to us. And since there are three persons in God we can pray to anyone of the three persons. We can, for example, pray to the Holy Spirit, especially in that familiar and beautiful prayer, "Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and enkindle in them the fire of your love." Or we can pray to the Son, as the blind man in the Gospel did when he called out, "Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me." As you know, however, the official prayer of the Church is generally to neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit but almost always to the Father. When, however, we pray to the Father we always do so "through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever. Amen".

\+ + +

Friday—29th Week Ordinary Time

Lk 12:54-59

Hypocrisy

Our Gospel reading today seems rather puzzling, even disturbing. Because, at the very least, it makes Jesus appear to be grossly overreacting to a situation.

What, after all, is Jesus saying here? Basically, he's telling his listeners that they're a bunch of hypocrites. That's the word Jesus uses. He calls them all hypocrites. Now if he had been speaking to the scribes and Pharisees, his remark might have been more apropos because we know from other passages in the Gospels that Jesus _did_ view the scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites (Mt 23:13-32) But today's Gospel reading specifically says that Jesus was talking not to the scribes and Pharisees but to the crowds, the crowds that had come out to hear him preach. And these are the people he characterizes as hypocrites.

And what reason does Jesus give for doing that? Well it doesn't sound like a very good reason. Basically what Jesus appears to be saying is this "if you can figure out simple weather patterns, like the fact that when a big dark cloud approaches, it's going to rain, if you can figure that out," says Jesus, "then you ought to have been able to figure out by now that the Kingdom of God is at hand. But since you haven't done that, you are all hypocrites."

Well, I think you'll agree that this sounds like a reasoning process that is seriously flawed. But since flawed logic is totally out of character for Jesus, Jesus must, in fact, be saying something different from what he _appears_ to be saying. And, sure enough, what's throwing us off is the word hypocrite. In this context, Jesus is using that word hypocrite in a way that we're not used to, in a way that is foreign to us. We think of a hypocrite as a fraud, as a person who _pretends_ to be what he or she is not. But Jesus, I think, is using the word in its more radical sense. In its root sense. Jesus, of course, spoke Aramaic but the Gospels were written in Greek and the root meaning of the Greek word hypocrite—and this is the key—the root meaning of the Greek word hypocrite is: stage actor. So what Jesus is saying to the crowd is this: you're like stage actors, actors who might appear to be wise and knowledgeable because they're reciting lines that have been written for them by a playwright, but what I want you to do is to leave aside the role you're playing and be yourselves. Don't let other people do your thinking for you. How does Jesus put it in the Gospel today? He says, "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right? Why do you not judge _for yourselves_ what is right?" In other words, don't be a hypocrite, a stage actor. Don't just recite from the script what someone else has written. Judge _for yourselves_ what is right. Be the real person you are, the one who is called to deal personally with everyday issues of justice and honesty and fairness and, above all, love of God and love of neighbor.

This is what Jesus was really saying to his listeners of 2,000 years ago. It is also what he's saying to us today.

\+ + +

Thursday—30th Week Ordinary Time

Lk 13:31-35

Jerusalem

Jerusalem (or Zion, as it is sometimes called) was always regarded by Jews as the most sacred of all cities. More than any other place on earth it was where Jews came to meet God. It was holy ground. So reverence and affection for the city was deep in the genes and the heart of every Jew. Let me read for you a few verses from Psalm 87 and Psalm 122 that express the profound devotion of the Jewish heart for the great city of Jerusalem. These psalms were, of course, written hundreds of years before the time of Jesus. From Psalm 87:

Yahweh loves his city founded on the holy mountain; he prefers the gates of Zion to any town in Jacob. He has glorious predictions to make of you, city of God. All call Zion mother since all were born in her. It is he who makes her what she is, he the Most High, Yahweh. And there will be princes dancing there. All find their home in you.

And from Psalm 122:

How I rejoiced when they said to me, 'Let us go to the house of Yahweh!' And now our feet are standing in your gateways, Jerusalem. Here the tribes come up, the tribes of Yahweh, they come to praise Yahweh's name. Pray for peace in Jerusalem. Since Yahweh our God lives here, I pray for your happiness.

Jesus, like every Jew, held in his heart a deep affection and admiration for the Holy City of Jerusalem but with Jesus there was also a problem. In today's Gospel Jesus notes that, in the past, Jerusalem had killed the prophets and stoned others whom God had sent to her, and now Jerusalem was treating him (Jesus) in much the same way. Jesus longed to bring God's comfort and peace to the people of Jerusalem but they, for the most part, rejected him. In chapter 19 of Luke's Gospel it is reported that Jesus actually wept tears over Jerusalem's failure to accept his message of peace. But the all important thing to realize here is that Jesus wept over Jerusalem because he loved her. And despite her hard heartedness and stubbornness, despite her rigidity and close mindedness, despite her crimes against the prophets, he never, never, never stopped loving her.

And this, of course, is the way Jesus loves _us_ as well. Despite all our faults he just goes on loving us, weeping over us sometimes, but still loving us.

And to go one step further, it is also the way we should love others. So when, for example, members of our family (perhaps our parents or siblings or children) or close friends turn away from us and reject us, then despite their faults (and maybe because of our own faults) we should never stop loving them. We should go on loving them just as Jesus went on loving Jerusalem, because eventually, ultimately, love conquers all.

\+ + +

Tuesday—32nd Week Ordinary Time

Lk 17:7-10

Servants

The speech of Jesus was always interesting because he didn't speak in platitudes; he spoke the unfamiliar. When he spoke you never quite knew what to expect. And today's Gospel is an example of that.

Why do I say that? I say it because what Jesus says in today's reading about master servant relationships seems somewhat out of character for him. Jesus, after all, was the great champion of the oppressed and the poor, among whom, of course, were the servants. So you don't expect Jesus to say something like, "When the servant comes in from the field after a hard day's work, the master doesn't say, 'Oh, you must be hungry. Sit right down here and eat.' No, the master says, 'Now that you're back, cook my supper and wait on me while I eat and drink. You can have something later.' Is the master supposed to be grateful when all the servant is doing is carrying out orders?"

Well coming from Jesus this seems harsh. In fact, it is not only generally out of character for Jesus but a few chapters earlier in Luke Jesus specifically took the opposite approach. In chapter 12 Jesus said:

Be like men waiting for their master to return from the wedding feast, ready to open the door as soon as he comes and knocks. Happy those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. I tell you solemnly, he will put on an apron, sit them down at table and wait on them. (Lk 12:36-38)

And then, of course, at the Last Supper, Jesus not only _talked about_ the master serving the servants but he actually knelt down and washed the feet of his disciples.

So what's going on in _today's_ Gospel reading? Well, first of all Jesus is speaking to the wealthy, the people who have servants and order them around, and what he's saying is this: OK. If this is the way you view the master servant relationship, if this is the way you treat your servants, let's carry it out to its logical conclusion. It's true, of course, that relative to your servants you are the _master_ , but relative to God, relative to Yahweh, you are the servant; we are all his servants. So let's all act like servants before God. We know his will. We know what he wants. So let us do his bidding and then simply say, "We have done no more than our duty."

\+ + +

Tuesday—33rd Week Ordinary Time

Lk 19:1-10

Paths to Jesus

Probably one of our least favorite things to do is to pay taxes. And yet we realize that our governments, federal, state and county governments, provide us with lots of services, and somebody's got to pay for those services, and that "somebody" is us, so we go along with it, more or less willingly.

In Palestine, at the time of Jesus, however, the situation was quite different. Some 60 years before Jesus was born, Rome invaded and conquered Palestine, and Rome then began exacting taxes from the people. The people might have been willing to pay taxes to their own government but they resented having to pay taxes to a foreign, occupying power, especially one that became more oppressive and controlling as the years wore on.

In ancient Rome tax collectors were known as publicans because they collected the public revenue, and in Palestine they were despised, partly because they were collaborators with Rome but partly too because not infrequently they were guilty of extortion and injustice.

In today's Gospel reading we meet one of these publicans, a man named Zacchaeus. Actually Zacchaeus was more than just an ordinary publican; he was the chief publican, the district supervisor of the publicans in Jericho where this scene takes place. So as far as the Jewish people and their leaders were concerned, Zacchaeus was the worst of the worst. This, however, was not the way Jesus saw him. Jesus, the Good Shepherd saw Zacchaeus as one of the lost sheep and he reached out to him.

It is interesting to see in the Gospels the variety of people who are healed or strongly influenced by Jesus. Some people pester Jesus or cry out, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me." And Jesus heals them. Other people don't even know Jesus is there but Jesus takes the initiative and cures them. Still other people are cured not because Jesus takes the initiative or because they themselves take the initiative but rather because some of their friends bring them to Jesus. And then there's someone like Zacchaeus who doesn't fit into any of these categories. Zacchaeus just takes a very tentative, neutral step; he climbs a tree, not because he expects anything from Jesus but just because he is curious to see him. And Jesus then invites himself to dinner at Zacchaeus' house, and he literally changes Zacchaeus' life.

So the message is that there are lots of ways to meet Jesus and have him change our life. Basically, I guess, each of us has to figure out, given our personality, which is the best way for us to meet Jesus. But if we're just open to him, then even if we don't find him, then he'll find us anyway. But always the one essential quality is openness. Always we at least have to be open to the daunting challenges, the challenging demands of Jesus and his Gospel of love and sacrifice.

\+ + +

Wednesday—20th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 20:1-16

Envy

In Salman Rushdie's latest novel, _The Enchantress of Florence_ , one of the main characters is Akbar who was the real life emperor of India for almost fifty years, from 1556 until 1605. Although Rushdie doesn't mention this incident in his book, I remember hearing once that in Akbar's palace there were two officers, one of whom was known for being avaricious, the other for being envious. Akbar wanted to make an example of these men to his court, showing how foolish they were. So one day he summoned the two of them and told them that he had decided to reward them for their years of service by giving them whatever they wanted. "Whoever first mentions what he wants" said Akbar, "will receive what he wishes. And then the other person will receive double what the first one asks for."

The two officers remained silent for some time as they thought about Akbar's offer. The avaricious man thought, "If I speak first I will receive less than the other officer." And the envious man realized that if he spoke first, the other would get twice as much. But his envy could not tolerate that. "I would rather get nothing." he decided, so like the first man he remained silent.

Akbar meanwhile was getting impatient. He wanted an answer, and the court was waiting. Akbar finally decided that the envious man should choose first, and he ordered him to make his choice within one minute. Frantically the man said to himself, "How can I keep the other person from getting twice what I get? If I ask for a house he will get two houses. If I ask for a horse, he will get two horses. Ah" he thought, "I know what I'll do." So he announced to Akbar, "I want one of my arms to be cut off."

Well, fortunately the whole court knew the silly vices of these two men, and they all burst into laughter. And Akbar had taught them all, including the two officers, we hope, an important lesson.

Envy is a silly vice, it's true. But besides that, envy takes all the fun out of life. Which is part of the message of today's parable of the grape pickers. In this parable the men who received a full day's pay for a full day's work should have been delighted. It was, after all, a just wage, and it enabled them to support their families. But the sense of satisfaction they _should_ have enjoyed was stolen from them by envy, by their envy of the other men who seemed to have made out even better than they.

It's a trap into which any of us can fall. But we should beware of envy because it is a thief of happiness, and if we entertain it at all, it will steal away the joy that life holds out for us.

\+ + +

Monday—34th Week Ordinary Time

Lk 21:1-4

Generosity

Today's Gospel passage always reminds me of one of my favorite old stories from the Hebrew Scriptures, the one about Elijah and the widow of Zarephath. I have no idea, of course, what Elijah really looked like but I've always pictured him as a great bear of a man with a booming voice, one of those larger than life characters. Anyway, the story takes place at a time when all of Israel is suffering from a terrible drought and famine. Elijah comes to the town of Zarephath and he sees a woman bent over gathering sticks. He says to the woman, "May I please have some water." Well by this time all the streams and rivers in Israel have long since dried up and nobody has any water to speak of, certainly none to spare. This woman has saved perhaps a half cup of water, maybe less but she starts off to fetch what she has to give to this stranger. But Elijah calls out to her and says, "And while you're at it, bring me some bread as well." With that the woman turns and says, "Sir, I have no bread. All I have is a little handful of flour in the jar and little bit of oil in the jug. I was just gathering sticks to prepare one last meal for my son and myself, and after that we shall die." "Well," says Elijah, "you and your son can have a little something to eat afterwards but first bring me a nice scone and some water. And not to worry" says Elijah, "because the Lord the God of Israel has promised that, even during the drought, the jar of flour will not go empty nor will the jug of oil run dry." So the widow carries out Elijah's orders. And guess what. The jar of flour does not go empty nor does the jug of oil run dry. And throughout the many remaining months of the drought, this widow of Zarepath and her son do just fine. (1 K 17)

Well you can see why today's Gospel reading reminds me of that story. Both of these women gave from all that they had to live on. Which is something that few, if any, of us do. We look upon ourselves as generous people. And we are. We give thousands of dollars each year to charity. But we don't give away all that we have to live on. We save for a rainy day as our mothers taught us to do. Giving everything away seems like utter foolishness to us. And yet Jesus applauds the woman who gives her last two pennies to someone who is even poorer than she is. And Jesus says, "Blessed are the poor; theirs is the Kingdom of God—woe to the rich their consolation is now. (Lk 6:20 and 24) And Jesus says, "Look at the flowers of the field; they neither spin nor sew but not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed like one of those." (Lk 12:27) And Jesus tells the rich young man to go sell everything he owns and give the money to the poor. (Lk 18:21) So Jesus doesn't seem to be big on saving. Instead he repeatedly encourages his followers to put their complete trust in God's providence.

The message of today's Gospel reading, put in its simplest terms, is this: generosity is measured not by what we give but by what we save. This is the Gospel message and we followers of Christ are called to respond to that message according to our own conscience and our own circumstances. But it is also true, I suspect, that each of us can certainly be more generous than we are at present, and each of us can be more true to the Gospel than we are at present.

\+ + +

Thursday—16th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 13:10-17

Parables

There were two factors that prompted Jesus to tone down or soften his message. One was the extremely common but nevertheless mistaken notion that the long-awaited Messiah would be a kind of revolutionary figure who would lead a successful uprising against the Romans. So Jesus, not wanting to be identified or confused with that erroneous image of the Messiah, often directed people not to tell anyone about his miracles. But by trying to keep his miracles a secret Jesus was, in a sense, softening his message and temporarily obscuring the fact that he was God's only Son come to save us.

The second factor that prompted Jesus to temper his message was the fact that some people were so prejudiced on certain issues that it would have been useless and probably counter-productive for Jesus to try to argue the issue directly with them. So instead Jesus found an indirect but more effective way to make his point. For example: the Jews of Jesus' time despised the Samaritans and regarded them as enemies. So one day Jesus told his fellow Jews a story, a parable about a man who, while travelling along a rather isolated road, was robbed and beaten. As the man lay by the side of the road a priest passed by and later a Levite but neither of them tried to help the poor man. But then along came a Samaritan and he bound up the man's wounds and got him to an inn where the man could recuperate, all at the Samaritan's expense. And then Jesus asked, "Who was a neighbor to that poor man? And aren't we supposed to love our neighbor?" Jesus in other words, did not try to engage his fellow Jews in a heated debate or to confront them directly with his position on the dignity and equality of all human beings, because he knew that they were not ready for that. So instead he just told them a story, a parable, in the hope that at least a few of his listeners would maybe be able to think about the issue in a different way and perhaps even see the light.

This, of course, is what our Gospel reading today is all about. And it's just as relevant today as it was 2,000 years ago. Because we still have our prejudices and our lifestyles that we simply accept and never really analyze or question. But then we read a parable, maybe one that says, "The Kingdom of God is like a merchant in search of fine pearls. And when he finds one really valuable pearl, he sells everything he owns and buys it." And we can't help saying to ourselves, "What does that mean? Is that parable asking me to examine my life and perhaps change my life? Is there one really valuable pearl that is missing in my life? Am I ready to give up everything in order to obtain it? Should I be searching for it? What exactly does this parable mean for me?" And if we think about it long enough, who knows? One day we might even see the light.

\+ + +

Friday—3rd Week Ordinary Time

Mk 4: 26-34

The Mystery of the Kingdom of God

In the closing verses of today's Gospel reading Mark notes that while Jesus gave private instruction to his close disciples, to the crowds he spoke only in parables. The parables he spoke, however, were down-to-earth parables, simple parables, like the ones about sowing wheat and planting seed, and Mark says that the people understood them _to an extent_ , meaning, I gather, that they got the general idea of each of the parables but probably missed many of the nuances.

In this past Wednesday's Gospel reading, however, Jesus seemed to describe parables in a much more negative way, even suggesting that parables were actually designed to disguise the truth and thereby prevent people from profiting from them. What Jesus said was this: "The mystery of the Kingdom of God has been granted to you. But to those outside everything comes in parables so that they may look and see but not perceive, and hear and listen but not understand, in order that they may not be converted and be forgiven."

So what are we to make of that? Well, taken at face value, this statement seems so strange and so totally out of character for Jesus, that one is inclined to think right from the get-go that the statement cannot possibly mean what it seems to mean. Our intuition, in other words, tells us that the _apparent_ sense of the statement is not the _true_ sense. And our intuition is, in fact, correct. But in order to uncover the true sense of the statement we have to look more thoughtfully at three of the key terms in the statement, and those three terms are, number one, the mystery of the Kingdom of God, number two the word "you", and number three the word "parable."

So first Jesus says, "The mystery of the Kingdom of God has been granted to you." But what is the mystery of the Kingdom of God? And why is it called a mystery? The mystery of the Kingdom of God is that the kingdom, that is to say the power, of God is manifest in the brokenness of Jesus; in other words, the power of God will finally be revealed in the suffering and death of Jesus. And that is indeed a mystery: that power would be revealed in brokenness.

Second, Jesus says that the mystery has been revealed to "you." But who is this "you" of whom Jesus speaks? It is the group that is distinguished from the people in the very next sentence who are described as the outsiders (or "those outside"). So there are outsiders and insiders and the term "you" refers to _all_ the insiders, not just to the Apostles and close disciples of Jesus but to all those who accept the mysterious mystery of power being revealed in weakness and death.

Third, Jesus then says that, to the outsiders, everything comes in parables. And when we hear that word parables we immediately, of course, think of parables like the seed parables and the pearl of great price and the treasure in the field. But the fact is that in this context the word parable means not a little story with a message; rather it means a "puzzling statement." And this particular puzzling statement is precisely the one we've been talking about, namely that God's power is manifest through the suffering Jesus. And that, of course, is the puzzling statement that the outsiders are unable to comprehend. So they look and see but do not perceive and they hear and listen but do not understand.

\+ + +

Friday—3rd Week Ordinary Time

Mk 4:26-34

The Kingdom Parables

Our Gospel passage today consists of these two parables from Mark on the Kingdom of God. By my count there are in the Gospels a total of eleven parables that are explicitly about the Kingdom of God. I wouldn't want to try to list all eleven but some that come to mind are the dragnet in the sea, the laborers in the vineyard, the pearl of great price, the treasure in the field, the weeds in with the wheat, the wise and foolish virgins. Those are some of them.

Matthew, in chapters 13, 20 and 25 of his Gospel, recounts ten of the eleven kingdom parables. At the other end of the spectrum is John who doesn't recount any of the parables. John does recount some metaphors that Jesus used, like "I am the vine, you are the branches" and "I am the Good Shepherd" but John doesn't recount any parables, parables that have at least some minimal plot and narrative. So those are, as it were, the two extremes: Matthew who recounts ten and John who doesn't recount any. And in between, of course, are Luke and Mark, both of whom, by my reckoning, recount only two of the Kingdom parables. And the two recounted by Mark are the ones in today's Gospel reading.

Our first parable this morning is the one about the seed that grows by itself. Jesus says that the farmer in this parable does only two things: at the very beginning of the process he scatters the seed, and at the very end of the process he wields the sickle. But in between he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night. He's not worried about the process. He doesn't lose sleep over it. He doesn't even try to figure it out. He just lets it happen. He trusts that the seed will, by itself, produce the wheat. That's the parable. But what does the parable say about the Kingdom of God? What it says is that the coming of the Kingdom is inevitable. Christ has come and set everything in motion and we just have to be patient and to perform our obvious tasks, and God will take care of the rest. Our role is a minor one. We continue to love God and our neighbor and to pray for the coming of the Kingdom. But the fact is that the process is an inexorable one. In individual instances God's will can be thwarted but when it comes to the Kingdom, well the Kingdom is already here and is relentlessly, relentlessly unfolding, even as we sleep; first the blade, then the ear and eventually the ripe wheat.

Our second parable this morning is the one about the mustard seed which describes an entirely different aspect of the Kingdom. The first parable was about the _inevitability_ of the Kingdom but this second parable is, I gather, about the _otherness_ of the Kingdom. It seems to me, in other words, that what Jesus is saying is this: we look first at this tiny tiny seed and then we look at this huge bush, so huge that the birds come and build their nests on its branches, and we're inclined to say to ourselves, "These have to be two different things; the seed is one thing but this bush is **another** **thing** altogether." Well that's the way it is with the Kingdom of God. We look at the world today and we see so much pain and suffering and evil but when the Kingdom finally matures as a place of peace and love and beauty it will be **another thing** altogether. It will be the very same humanity but at a completely different stage. It's all part of the great mystery of the Kingdom of God.

\+ + +

Wednesday—3rd Week Ordinary Time

Mk 4:1-20

Parable of the Sower and the Seed

Jesus was once asked about which of the commandments is the greatest (Mt 22:37, Mk 12:28) or, as the question is phrased in Luke, about what one must do to inherit eternal life. (Lk 10:15) And Jesus, quoting the great Shema from Deuteronomy (Dt 6:5), answered, "you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind."

In that statement Jesus seems to recognize three faculties of the human being: mind, heart and soul, and one way to think of this parable about the sower and the seed is in terms of those same three faculties: mind, heart and soul.

In our parable today Jesus says that there are three situations in which the seed proves to be unproductive: when it falls on the footpath, when it falls on rocky ground and when it falls among thorns. Footpath, rocky ground and thorns.

First, when the seed falls on the _footpath_ the seed just sits there and the birds, that is to say, Satan, comes along and eats the seed. In real life, this, I think, describes a situation where a person may hear the word of God, say in the Gospels, but just doesn't get it. The person doesn't find it interesting or worth thinking about. It goes in one ear and out the other. The mind, if it's thinking at all, is thinking about something else. So the seed falling on the footpath represents the _mind_ failing to engage the word and take it in.

Secondly, when the seed falls on _rocky ground_ , the soil has no depth so the seed sends up sprouts but never really takes root so it quickly dies. In real life this seems to describe the person who hears the of word God, thinks about it, and responds to it initially with enthusiasm but then just as quickly loses interest. It is, so to speak, a fling, an infatuation but there is no real depth there; there are no roots so it never develops into a genuine love. It remains an infatuation. The seed falling on ground, in other words, represents the _heart_ that fails to commit.

And thirdly when the seed falls among _thorns_ it actually takes root and begins to grow but then the thorns, that is to say, the cravings and demands of life, choke off the growth so it never yields a harvest. In real life we're talking here about the person who hears the word of God, thinks about it, embraces it, becomes a Christian and remains a Christian, perhaps for some years, but then, in difficult, thorny times, seems to lack that stamina, that determination, that steadfastness and strength of soul that brings the person to the finish line. So the seed falling among thorns represents the _soul_ that surrenders and gives up.

This, at any rate, is one way to think about this parable, where the footpath, the rocky ground and the thorns represent a certain malfunctioning of the mind, the heart and the soul. But this malfunctioning is, of course, what you and I are urged to avoid. Because our calling is to engage the word of God with our whole mind and our whole heart and our whole soul, and thereby to produce in our own life an abundant harvest for the Lord.

\+ + +

Thursday—3rd Week Ordinary Time

Mk 4:21-25

The Seed

In yesterday's Gospel reading we heard the parable of the seed where some seed fell on the footpath, some on rocky ground, some among thorns and finally some on rich soil. This was Jesus' way of saying to his apostles, "Gentlemen, let me give you a little forewarning, when the time comes for you to go out and preach the good news, not everyone is going to welcome what you have to say. Some of what you say will fall on the footpath, some on rocky ground and some among thorns. That's just the way life is. So get used to it. Accept the fact and be realistic.

That was yesterday's Gospel reading. Today's reading consists of the verses that immediately follow yesterday's reading. And if they sound to us like they are totally unrelated to yesterday's parable, then we are missing the point. Because the fact is that these verses are four further observations by Jesus on the parable of the seed.

The first point is a word of encouragement from Jesus to his apostles. He says, "Put your lamp on the lampstand." Jesus, in other words, is saying, "After I'm gone you will have a new responsibility. You will be the teachers of others. You will be the light bearers, the sowers of the seed. After I'm gone it will be up to you. So be zealous, be industrious, be bold. Get the job done. Put your lamp on a lampstand."

Secondly Jesus says, "What is hidden will be made manifest." So what does that mean? Well, Jesus is saying to his apostles, "Remember, when the farmer sows a seed he doesn't see any results for a long time. The seed just seems to sit there. It's hidden. But not to worry. What is hidden will be made manifest. In due time it brings forth a harvest. So don't be discouraged if at first your preaching doesn't seem to bear fruit. Be patient. Preach diligently and with all your heart, and trust God, and all will be well.

Thirdly, Jesus says, "The amount you measure out is the measure you will receive." Again Jesus is encouraging his apostles in their mission of teaching and preaching, and assuring them that if they spend themselves, if they give a hundred percent in sowing the seed, in preaching the Gospel, in bringing the light to others, then they will be greatly rewarded.

And finally the mysterious fourth point where Jesus says, "To the one who has, more will be given; from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away." With these words Jesus is saying to his apostles, "Never forget that besides being teachers, you will always be learners as well. So not only will you be sowers of the seed but you will be receivers of the seed as well. Be true to me therefore. Stay close to me. Insofar as you are receivers of the seed, do not allow yourselves to become the footpath or the rocky ground or the thorns. Because if you do, what you have will be taken away. But remain always the rich soil where the seed can flourish, for only then can you be my disciple; only then can you effectively bring the good news to others.

\+ + +

Friday—2nd Week of Lent

Mt 21:33-43, 45-46

The Call to Bear Fruit

Our Gospel reading today is in two parts. The first part is the parable itself; the second part is Jesus' explanation of the parable. In the parable itself the property owner first sends three of his servants to obtain his share of the produce from the tenant farmers but the tenants beat one servant, kill a second and stone the third. The owner then sends maybe five or six more servants to the property but the tenants apparently kill them as well. And finally the owner sends his own son but tragically he too is killed.

Within a very short time span, in other words, perhaps seven or eight cold-blooded murders have been committed. So one fully expects that, once the perpetrators have been punished, the owner's number one, top priority will then be to make absolutely certain that nothing like that will ever happen again. The owner, we assume, will now be totally focused on seeing to it that never again will his servants be mistreated or harmed in any way. In fact, however, that is not what happens. Instead, at the end of the parable the owner seems to concentrate not on the safety of his servants but rather on making sure that he gets his share of the produce. The parable says, "He will bring that wicked crowd to a bad end and lease his vineyard out to others _who will see to it that he receives his produce at vintage time."_

So the question, of course, is, why did Jesus tell the parable this way? Well Jesus told the parable this way because he was wanting to make two points. The first point concerned those who _rejected_ him; the second point those who _accepted_ him. On the first point Jesus says to those who are rejecting him, especially the chief priests and elders of the people, he says to them, "I tell you the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you." On the second point Jesus then tells those who accept him that the Kingdom of God will now be given (and this is a quote) will now be given " _to those who will yield much fruit._ " So this is why Jesus told the parable the way he did. He had the owner of the vineyard focus not on the safety of the servants but on obtaining his produce because this was precisely the message Jesus wanted to convey to his followers. He wanted his disciples to understand, and to understand clearly that they are called to do more than just follow; they are called, _we_ are called to bear fruit, to yield a rich harvest. And we do that, well, in many ways, I guess, but especially by being caring and thoughtful and helpful to other people, and by remaining in loving, prayerful communion with God, and constantly praising and thanking him for all his wondrous goodness to us.

\+ + +

Thursday—19th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 18:21-19:1

The Unforgiving Servant

Our parable today is variously known either as the Parable of the _Unforgiving_ Servant or as the Parable of the _Unmerciful_ Servant. But there is, of course a difference between being unforgiving and unmerciful, simply because, on the positive side, there is a difference between the qualities of forgiveness and mercy. Forgiveness and mercy are not the same thing. To forgive is to give up resentment, anger and the desire to punish someone who has offended you. Whereas mercy is to show kindness or compassion to a person.

I once knew a man named Ralph who ran a little mom and pop business. One day Ralph discovered that Joe, his one and only employee, had stolen a thousand dollars from the business. Ralph knew that Joe had taken the money not to feed a drug habit but because of serious difficulties at home. So he confronted Joe with the evidence and said, "Joe, I understand your need for the money and I forgive you. I want you to stay on as my employee and things between us will be as they've always been. At the same time, however, I expect you to make restitution in the form of $50.00 every month." And that's what happened. All went well for the next five months, and at that point Ralph sat down with Joe and said, "Joe, I've decided that restitution has now been fully made. I expect no further payments from you. As far as I'm concerned the incident never happened."

Ralph's comportment over those months is, I think, a pretty good illustration of the difference between forgiveness and mercy, or if you will, the difference between justice and charity. Ralph forgave Joe right from the beginning and after five months he not only forgave him; he showed him mercy.

In our parable today, the servant who was originally shown mercy winds up getting tortured, apparently because he himself lacked mercy. I say "apparently" because the king specifically says to the servant, "Should you not have dealt mercifully with your fellow servant as I dealt with you?" I suspect, however, that even if the servant had not dealt _mercifully_ with his fellow servant and written off the debt completely, even if he had not done that, the king might still have forgiven him if only _he_ had been _forgiving_ towards his fellow servant. But no, instead he seized him, throttled him, refused to listen to him and wanted to punish him. If only he had said to his fellow servant, "I can't go on forever without the money you owe me. But we're fellow servants and have to work together, so promise me you'll pay up within, say, six weeks, and that'll be OK;" if only the servant had done that, it probably would have turned out better for him.

So the bottom line, I guess, is that mercy is great; it's always the ideal but if sometimes we can't quite reach to that, then at least let's be forgiving in our hearts.

\+ + +

Thursday—20th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 22:1-14

The Wedding / Baptismal Garment

There are several puzzling aspects to today's Gospel reading but perhaps the most obvious one is this: the Gospel explicitly says that there were both good people and bad people in the wedding hall, so when the king enters, one would assume that if he were to cast out anyone, it would be the bad people. But that isn't what the king does. Instead he casts out the man without the wedding garment. Not apparently because he's a bad person—there are lots those—but simply because he isn't wearing a wedding garment.

So what does this mean? Especially for us today. Well let's assume that the wedding hall with all the people in it represents the Church. The Church, as we know, is both sinful and holy. It is sinful because the Church is nowhere unless in its sinful members. We are all sinners and we, the People of God, _are_ the Church. So the Church is a sinful Church. But the Church is also holy because, as St. Peter said, we are a chosen people, a people set apart, a holy priesthood, a people consecrated to God. (1 P 2:9) The Church, in other words, is a group of sinful people who have been called by God to become a believing, worshipping, loving community.

Sinful as we are then, we are invited by God to put into motion a conversion process so that we may witness to Jesus. But what does it mean to witness to Jesus? It means to reflect or to mirror in our lives who Jesus was and what he stood for. And what he stood for was love. For Jesus love was everything. He once said that everything depends on love. He said that the whole law and the prophets, that is to say, all of morality depends on the two great commandments of love, love of God and love of neighbor. (Mt 22:34-38) So this is what the conversion process is all about. It's about turning us into more loving, more caring followers of Jesus.

The conversion process begins at baptism where we drown our old self beneath the waters and put on Christ. When we rise up from the baptismal waters we are vested in a baptismal garment, to symbolize that henceforth and forevermore we are bound to the conversion process. And then, every time we come to this banquet/sacrifice called the Mass, we identify with Christ, the One who laid down his life for us, and we renew our pledge to serve others. We are nourished with his Body and Blood, and then we go in peace, determined to be more loving than before.

But we remain, of course, sinners. And that's why, in the parable, the king does not cast out the bad people, that is to say, the people considered primarily in their badness or sinfulness, because that quality is present in all of us. That's why the king cast out only the man who refused to put on the wedding garment, that is to say, the man who did not wish to be part of the community that was present to celebrate love, marriage and lifelong commitment. He was cast out, in other words, not because he was bad but because he did not wish to celebrate goodness.

Again, in the context of the church, the parable reminds us that the Church is designed for all of us sinners but only when we accept the fact that our baptismal garment obliges us to a lifetime of striving to be more loving, more caring, more Christ like than we are at present.

\+ + +

Monday—29th Week Ordinary Time

Lk 12:13-21

The Rich Fool

Our parable this morning, called the Parable of the Rich Fool, is different from all other parables of its type in two ways, two interesting and important ways. The first characteristic that sets this parable apart from all others of its type is that all the other parables involve a whole cast of characters, several people interacting. Perhaps it's a father with two sons, one conventional, the other repentant. Or maybe it's an owner of a field who hires one group of workers early in the morning and other group late in the day, and then pays them all the same wage, even those who worked only an hour or so. Or maybe it's a master with an unjust steward who is skimming off profits or making deals on the side. Anyway, all the other parables involve a whole bunch of people interacting. Whereas this Parable of the Rich Fool involves just one man who is all alone, a man who talks to himself because he has no one else to talk to. They say "No man is an island" but this man is an island. It never seems to occur to him, for example, to give some of his wealth to the poor. And towards the end of the parable he is asked, "To whom will all this piled up wealth of yours go?" which suggests that the man has even failed to provide for his heirs. The man, in other words, is totally alone. He interacts in no way with any other human being.

The second characteristic that sets this parable apart is that, at the conclusion of the parable, God explicitly enters the story. This appearance by God in a parable is virtually unprecedented and was almost certainly meant to shock the audience because it was so unusual. And not only does God appear but when God appears, he calls the man a fool, which is, of course, extremely harsh. As a matter of fact Jesus once said that none of us should ever call another person a fool. (Mt 5:22) And yet in this parable God himself calls this sad, rich man a fool.

So this parable has a clear and strong message. Through the parable Jesus tells us what a terrible sin greed is, what an awful vice avarice is. Not only because it offends God our Creator but also because it isolates us; it cuts us off both from God and from neighbor and we wind up all alone and having no one to talk to but ourselves.

\+ + +

Thursday—24th Week Ordinary Time

Lk 7: 36-50

The Sinful / Loving Woman

Today's Gospel reading is known either as the story of the Sinful Woman or as the story of the Loving Woman. And it has these two very different titles because the story can be read in two very different ways. Both readings, however, are based on the same principle that love comes after forgiveness. So first there is forgiveness and then there is love. This is clear from the little story that Jesus tells Simon the Pharisee about the two men who are in debt to a creditor. The creditor forgives both men, and Jesus then says, "Which of them will love the creditor more?" And the answer, of course, is the one who was forgiven more. But the point is that first came the forgiveness and only after that the love. And this is the principle that Jesus clearly wishes to be applied to the story of the woman and the Pharisee.

The story of the woman and the Pharisee can, as I say, be read either as the story of the Sinful Woman or as the story of the Loving Woman. Let's look first at the story of the Sinful Woman. This is the way Simon the Pharisee saw the woman. So when she wept over Jesus' feet and kissed them and anointed them, Simon viewed these acts not as acts of love but as acts of repentance because Simon saw the woman primarily as a sinful woman. Towards the end of the story Jesus says to the woman, "Your sins are forgiven" and according to this reading of the story Jesus then wants Simon to conclude that afterwards, after Jesus forgave her, the woman must have loved Jesus very deeply because he had forgiven her so much. That's the story of the Sinful Woman.

Jesus, on the other hand, saw the woman as a Loving Woman. So when she drenched his feet with tears and dried them with her hair and kissed them and anointed them, Jesus saw these acts as acts of love because he saw her as a loving woman. However, according to Jesus' own principle that love comes _after_ forgiveness, Jesus must have recognized that, in order for the woman to have been capable of this great outpouring of love, she must _already_ have been forgiven. It's true that towards the end of the story Jesus says to the woman, "Your sins are forgiven" but this does not mean that Jesus forgave her because she had loved him so much. That would turn Jesus' principle upside down, because then you would have love first and only after that forgiveness. And that's not what Jesus said. What Jesus said was, "I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven, _hence_ she has shown great love." So Jesus is saying that _before_ the woman wept over his feet she must have known that God had already forgiven her, and she must also have forgiven herself and _hence_ she had shown great love.

So in this context, at least, this is the principle that Jesus wants us to remember: that it is in forgiving ourselves and being forgiven by God that we are set free, free to love God and to love our neighbor and to love ourselves.

\+ + +

Friday—3rd Week of Lent

Mk 12:28-34

Shema

When Jesus is asked which is the first and greatest commandment he begins by quoting a few verses from chapter 6 of the Book of Deuteronomy. The verses are about how we should love God with our whole heart and soul and strength. And those verses have always been regarded by Jews as the most sacred, the most important verses in the entire Hebrew Scriptures.

The Jews call these sacred lines the "Shema." Shema, in Hebrew means to listen or to hear, and you will note that, when Jesus responds to the question about the greatest commandment, he begins with the introductory sentence from Deuteronomy which says, "Hear (or "Listen") O Israel, the Lord your God is Lord alone." Therefore you shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, your whole soul, your whole mind, and with all your strength."

Jewish people know the Shema by heart. They repeat the words often and they consider it a special blessing to be able to recite those words at the moment of death. They were heard thousands and thousands of times in the concentration camps during World War II on the lips of dying Jews.

The Shema expresses the distilled essence of pure religion. And it must therefore be at the heart of every great religion, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, whatever it might be. Jesus was, of course, a devout Jew and was raised by devout Jewish parents, and so grew up with the Shema at the core of his existence. His life centered around the Shema. It centered, in other words, around wholehearted love of Yahweh, the one true God, his Father. And in today's Gospel he reminds us that wholehearted love of God is indeed the first and greatest commandment. It is not therefore one thing for a Jew and another for a Christian. The first and greatest commandment is the same for all of us—that we love the Lord our God with our whole heart, our whole soul, our whole mind and with all our strength.

\+ + +

Friday—3rd Week of Lent

Mk 12:28-34

The Greatest Commandments

Jesus once said that he had come not to abolish the law but to bring it to perfection (Mt 5:17), and today's Gospel reading is a perfect example of that. It's a perfect example of bringing the law of the Hebrew Scriptures to its perfection.

So what was the law in the Hebrew Scriptures? Well, first there is that most sacred of all laws from chapter six of Deuteronomy: that you should love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. This is the law that devout Jews have for centuries recited twice a day and which they attach to the doorpost of their homes. It's called the Shema and it is, as you know, the heart and soul of their religion. Secondly there is the law, "You should love your neighbor as yourself." But unlike the Shema which shines like a beacon on a hill, the law about loving one's neighbor is like a needle in a haystack. It appears only in chapter 19 of the Book of Leviticus. Chapter 19 consists of maybe 40 or 50 laws, some of which are quite trivial like not tattooing yourself and not rounding off your hair at the edges, and tucked in among those 40 or 50 laws is the one about loving your neighbor. In short, the law in the Hebrew Scriptures portrays love of God as extremely important but love of neighbor as, well, not very important at all.

And this is the law that Jesus brings to perfection in today's Gospel reading. Basically Jesus does this by bringing the two laws into balance. To begin with, the question that is asked of Jesus is not: which are the two most important commandments? The question is: which is the first commandment? Jesus, of course, recognizes that love of God is the first commandment but he refuses to let that stand alone, so, after quoting the Shema, he adds that the second commandment is that you shall love your neighbor as yourself. And then he says that there is no other commandment greater than these two, which, in effect, puts the two commandments of love of God and love of neighbor on a par.

But let's bring it a step further. John the Evangelist, one of Jesus' closest friends and certainly the best interpreter of his thought, apparently understood this statement of Jesus to mean that the two commandments were not only on a par but were, in fact, virtually identical. In other words, loving God necessarily _entails_ loving one's neighbor. John writes:

Anyone who says 'I love God' but hates his neighbor is a liar...So this is the commandment that he has given us, that anyone who loves God must also love his neighbor. (1 Jn 4:20-21)

And it works the other way around as well: loving one's neighbor necessarily _entails_ loving God. On this point John says:

No one has ever seen God but as long as we love one another God will live in us. God is love and those who abide in love abide in God and God in them. (1 Jn 4:12 and 16)

Loving God and loving neighbor are, in other words, very close to being one and the same thing, and taken together, they are what Christianity is all about.

\+ + +

Friday—20th Week Ordinary Time

Mt 22:34-40

The Most Important Commandment

My mother once lived in an apartment that had been previously occupied by a Jewish couple. When you walked in the front door of that apartment there was a little case or pocket attached to the doorpost on the right. By the time my mother got there the case had been painted over but when the Jewish couple lived there a little parchment called a mezuzah was tucked into the case and on that parchment were written these words:

Listen, Israel: Yahweh our God is the one Yahweh. You shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength. Let these words I urge on you today be written on your heart. You shall repeat them to your children and say them over to them whether at rest in your house or walking abroad, at your lying down or at your rising; you shall fasten them on your hand as a sign and on your forehead as a circlet; you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. (Dt 6:4-9)

Those words, known as the Shema and taken from the Book of Deuteronomy, are, hands down, the most famous words of the Hebrew Scriptures. In the time of Jesus every good Jew knew them by heart, recited them often, frequently wore them on their person, and attached them to the doorposts of their homes.

So when Jesus, in today's Gospel reading, answers the question, "Which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" it should have been pretty obvious that he would respond by quoting these sacred words from Deuteronomy about the preeminent importance of loving God. In Mark's account of the incident, however, it seems that the questioner, a scribe, expected a different answer. It seems that he expected that Jesus would perhaps say that offering holocausts or sacrifices to God is the greatest of all the commandments. I say the scribe seemed to expect this because, after Jesus responded as he did, Mark reports that the scribe said, "Well spoken, Master. What you have said is true: that he is one and there is no other. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself, this is far more important than any holocaust or sacrifice." And then Jesus, seeing how wisely he had spoken, said to the man, "You are not far from the Kingdom." (Mk 12:32 34)

But why would the scribe have thought that Jesus might have talked about sacrifices or holocausts rather than love of God and neighbor? I suspect he did so because deep down he himself, despite the Shema that he knew so well, had come to see offering sacrifices and holocausts as his most important obligations. And the same kind of thing can happen to us as well. We say we believe that the whole law and the prophets, that is to say, everything that is most important in life, is summed up in the two commandments of love of God and love of neighbor, but deep down, almost without realizing it, other things, things like orthodoxy or orthopraxis or even just being successful or being respected or whatever may have, in fact, taken over first place in our lives. Which is why reading the Gospels, especially perhaps passages like today's, is so good for us. It reminds us what is really important in life.

\+ + +

Friday—5th Week of Easter

Jn 15:12-17

Love for One Another

There are three kinds of love. In English we usually use just the one word, love, for all three. But in Greek each kind of love has its own specific word. The three Greek words that are used to describe the three kinds of love are philia, eros and agape.

First of all philia. There are, of course, a whole bunch of English words that are rooted in the Greek word philia. Like phil-osophy (love of wisdom) and phil-anthropy (love of humankind); or sometimes the 'phil' is put at the end of the word instead of the beginning, and then its pronounced differently, like the word biblio-phile (a lover of books) and russo-phile (a lover of things Russian) Primarily, however, (and this is the important thing), primarily, philia type love is the kind of love that _friends_ have for each other. Primarily, in other words, philia is a friendship type of love.

Secondly there's the Greek word eros. Eros is very different from philia. Eros type love is erotic or sexual love. It consists in the giving and receiving of sexual pleasure between people.

And finally there is agape. Agape is the kind of love that people have when they are so totally devoted to another person that they want nothing more than to make that person safe and well and happy. They are indeed so intent on doing that, that they will, if necessary, give up their own life to save the other. That's agape love.

So those are the three types of loves: philia, eros and agape. And though they are all different from one another, they can, and often do, coexist. As a matter of fact, in every really good marriage, the husband and wife have all three types of love for each other. They are best friends; they are tender lovers; and they are always striving for the benefit and fulfillment and welfare of the other.

Yesterday's Gospel reading and today's (both from John 15) are all about love. Jesus talks about the love that God the Father has for him, about the love that he, Jesus, has for his disciples, and especially about the love that we, his followers, should have for one another.

But what kind of love is Jesus talking about here? Well, since, in our reading today, Jesus twice refers to his disciples as friends ("You are my friends", he says, "I no longer speak of you as slaves but as friends") you might assume that Jesus is thinking along the lines of a philia type of love because that's what philia love is; it's the love between friends. However, in the original Greek (and the Gospels were, after all, written in Greek) every time the word 'love' is used in these two Gospel readings from John 15 (and that's nine times altogether) every time, the Greek word that is used is not philia but agape.

Jesus, in other words, is telling us that he wants us, his followers, well, to be friends to one another of course, but to be more than friends, closer than friends. He wants us to love one another to the point where I would lay down my life to save you and you would do the same for me. Jesus is quite explicit about this. He says, "this is my commandment: love one another _as I have loved you_."

This, therefore, is the great and fundamental call of the Christian: to love one another with an agape love, a self-sacrificing love.

\+ + +

Friday—21st Week Ordinary Time

Mt 25:1-13

The Wise and Foolish

Matthew wrote his Gospel around the year 85 when the early Christians were still adjusting to the fact that the Parousia, the Second Coming of Christ had still not taken place. They had been expecting the Parousia for at least a couple of decades now but so far nothing had happened and the early Christians were becoming confused. So in these closing chapters of his Gospel Matthew keeps telling his readers not to lose hope. "He's coming, he's coming" says Matthew, "keep your guard up. Stay awake. Be vigilant. Be prepared." And this, of course, is precisely the message of today's allegory about the wise and foolish virgins.

An allegory is, by definition a story in which certain elements have a symbolic meaning. The central element in today's allegory is lamp oil, lamp oil that clearly symbolizes being prepared by having performed good works. However, once lamp oil becomes the central element in the story then, of course, the rest of the story has to take place during the night. It has to take place during the night because during the day lamps are no longer needed.

And while this works just fine at the symbolic level, it results in certain absurdities at the level of real life. So first of all the bridegroom arrives for his wedding at midnight, at midnight, mind you, which, even in that culture, would have been an absurd time to have a wedding but again, at the symbolic level it works just fine because Matthew had earlier forewarned his readers that, at the Second Coming, Christ would come at a time they would least expect (24:43), or as St. Paul had said still earlier, Christ would come "like a thief in the night." (1Th 5:1) Secondly, close to midnight the foolish virgins go off to try to buy some lamp oil but realistically, of course, there aren't going to be any shops open at that hour of the night. Again, however, it works fine symbolically because the point is that while we're awaiting the Second Coming we have to be proactively preparing ourselves with the lamp of good deeds; if we just wait around passively we're going to find that when the time comes it's going to be too late to set things right; all the shops will, as it were, be closed up for the night. And thirdly, when the foolish virgins finally arrive back they call out, "Lord, Lord, open the door for us," but the bridegroom responds, "I tell you solemnly I do not know you." In real life, of course, it's pretty hard to imagine a bridegroom being that rude and nasty on his wedding day but again it reminds the reader that Jesus once said, "Not everyone who cries out 'Lord, Lord' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven but only those who do the will of my Father." (Mt 7:21)

So today's allegory, despite its lack of realism, works fine at the symbolic level and leaves us with the clear message that if we do the will of the Father then we can be sure that, when the time comes, we will be welcomed into the kingdom prepared for us since the foundation of the world.

\+ + +

Wednesday—29th Week Ordinary Time

Lk 12:39-48

The Parousia

In our Gospel reading today Jesus says to his disciples, "The Son of Man will come when you least expect him." Jesus is, of course, talking about his Second Coming which will take place at the end of time, when the world comes to an end. For many of the early Christians, say the first generation of Christians, this end of the world, this Second Coming of the Christ, the Parousia as it is called, was thought to be imminent. They lived with the thought that it could happen any day, perhaps even tomorrow or maybe even later today.

As evidence of this let me read for you a few lines from St. Paul's First Letter to the Thessalonians which was written in the early 50s, about twenty years after Jesus died. This is what Paul wrote:

We can tell you this from the Lord's own teaching, that any of us who are left alive until the Lord's coming will not have any advantage over those who have died. At the trumpet of God, the voice of the archangel will call out the command and the Lord himself will come down from heaven; those who have died in Christ will be the first to rise, and then those of us who are still alive will be taken up in the clouds, together with them, to meet the Lord in the air. So we shall stay with the Lord forever. With such thoughts as these you should comfort one another.

You will not be expecting us to write anything to you, brothers, about 'times and seasons,' since you know very well that the Day of the Lord is going to come like a thief in the night. (1 Th 4:15-5:3)

So why is it that the early Christians thought that the end of the world was imminent? They thought so, as St. Paul said, because of the Lord's own teaching. Or rather, because of a misunderstanding of the Lord's teaching. Matthew, Mark and Luke all have a section in their Gospel known as "The Eschatological Discourse of Jesus" where Jesus talks about his second coming and seems to imply that the Parousia will take place in the very near future. This, for example, is St. Mark's version of what Jesus said. It's from his chapter 13:

But in those days, after that time of distress, the sun will be darkened, the moon will lose its brightness, the stars will come falling from heaven and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory; then too he will send the angel to gather his chosen from the four winds, from the ends of the world to the end of heaven.

Take the fig tree as a parable: as soon as its twigs grow supple and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. So with you when you see these things happening: know that he is near, at the very gates. I tell you solemnly, before this generation has passed away all these things will have taken place. (Mk 13:24-30)

Well, you can see, I think, why the early Christians felt that the Parousia was imminent, but if you read the whole chapter 13, you will see that Jesus is talking about _two_ things. He's talking about the Second Coming but he is also talking about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, and that destruction of the temple did, in fact, take place while many of his hearers were still alive, that is to say, before that generation had passed away.

All this history aside, however, the fact is that today's Gospel message remains a vital one for us today—that one day each of us will be asked whether we have spent our life on earth truly loving God and truly loving our neighbor—and that more will be asked of those to whom more has been entrusted.

\+ + +

June 29—SS. Peter and Paul

Mt 16:13-19

Christians Thinking Church

Today's Gospel reading is a favorite among Catholics. Among Protestants not so much. But we Catholics are drawn to it because it speaks quite clearly of the primacy of Peter among the apostles and even of his primacy in terms of the Church. And also, of course, we Catholics see the Popes as the successors or vicars of Peter, so this is a very important Gospel passage for us.

Let me begin by pointing out the four highlights of the passage. In a way, I suppose, they're so obvious that they don't need to be pointed out but I'll explain in a moment why I'm doing it. The four highlights are these. _First_ , Peter proclaims that Jesus is not only the Messiah but also the Son of the Living God. Well, referring to the divine sonship of Jesus was clearly an extraordinary insight, and Jesus notes that it was an insight that was revealed to Peter by God the Father himself. _Second_ , Jesus changes Simon's name from Simon to Peter or Rock which signals that Peter is about to undertake a new role. _Third_ , Jesus says, "On this rock I will build my Church." My Church, that is, Jesus' Church. Peter, in other words, will not be the head of the church. Jesus will always remain the head of the Church, but after Jesus ascends into heaven Peter will be- what? Perhaps the arms, or maybe the hands of the Church. He, at any rate, will be the one who will make the everyday decisions about how the Church, the People of God, will proclaim the Good News. And _fourth_ , Jesus entrusts to Peter the Keys of the Kingdom.

So why do I mention these four highlights? I mention them because the parallel passage in Mark's Gospel (today's reading was from Matthew, but the parallel passage in Mark) begins, as you might expect, by noting that the episode takes place at Caesarea Philippi, and Jesus asks, "Who do people say that I am?"And "Who do you say that I am?" but Mark then completely omits all of the four highlights in Matthew. Mark's passage is very brief. Let me read it for you:

Jesus and his disciples set out for the village of Caesarea Philippi. Along the way he asked his disciples, 'Who do people say that I am?' They said in reply, 'John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others one of the prophets.' And he asked them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Peter said to him in reply, 'you are the Christ.' Then he warned them not to tell anyone about him.

So why do you think Matthew goes into such detail extolling Peter as the one selected by Jesus to be the earthly leader of the Church whereas Mark who, we know, was a very close friend of Peter, simply omits all that? The answer, I think, is in the timing.

Mark, you see, wrote his Gospel around the year 68 and in the year 68 Christians had not yet begun to think in terms of Church; they were still awaiting the Second Coming of Jesus. As a matter of fact, in Chapter 13 of Mark's Gospel Jesus is quoted as saying that, at his Second Coming the sun will be darkened and the stars will fall from the sky, and says Jesus, "this generation will not pass away until all these things come to pass." (13:24-30) Understandably, therefore Christians of the year 68 were still thinking that this Second Coming of Jesus might happen any day, so long-term thinking was simply not part of their existence. Matthew, however, did not write his Gospel until around the year of 85, 15 years or more after Mark, and by that time it had dawned on the early Christians that Jesus was not going to come back as soon as they had thought, so maybe it was time to settle in for the long haul and to reexamine their sources to see what Jesus might have said about founding a Church.

And that, I think, explains why the Caesarea Philippi passage in Matthew and the one in Mark are so vastly different.

\+ + +

Thursday 34th Week Ordinary Time

Lk 21: 20-28

Paul and Luke on the Parousia

The New Testament, as you know, begins with the four Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Next come the Acts of the Apostles, and following the Acts come about twenty letters, some written by Paul and some by Peter and James and John. And finally the last book in the New Testament, the Book of Revelation, also known as the Apocalypse.

Because of the way the New Testament is arranged, with the four Gospels coming first and the letters of Paul only later, one might assume that the "books" were actually written, were actually composed in the order in which they appear in the New Testament. One might assume, in other words, that the Gospels were written first and the letters of Paul at some later time. And if that were our starting point then we might go on to imagine that, as Paul went out on his missionary journeys to Rome and Corinth and Ephesus and so forth, he actually carried with him the four Gospels and used those Gospels as the basis of his preaching. But in fact, of course, that wasn't the case at all. The fact is that Paul wrote his letters between the year 50 and the year 60 whereas Luke's Gospel, which is the one we just read from, wasn't written until around the year 85.

So why do I mention this today? I mention it today because today's Gospel reading from Luke is all about the End of the World, and it just so happens that Paul also wrote about the End of the World. The two accounts, however, are vastly different. Luke's account is ominous and scary whereas Paul's account is thrilling and comforting. It's from his First Letter to the Thessalonians and this is what it says:

We can tell you this from the Lord's own teaching, that any of us who are left alive until the Lord's coming will not have any advantage over those who have died. At the trumpet of God, the voice of the archangel will call out the command and the Lord himself will come down from heaven; those who have died in Christ will be the first to rise, and then those of us who are still alive will be taken up in the clouds, together with them, to meet the Lord in the air. So we shall stay with the Lord forever. With such thoughts as these you should comfort one another. (1 Th 4:15-18)

So we have these two accounts of the same event, but the two accounts are so different that you have to figure that, between the year 50 when Paul wrote and the year 85 when Luke wrote, something major must have happened that caused Christians to look at the End of the World in two such very different ways. And that major happening, as we know, took place in the year 70 when the Roman legions sacked Jerusalem and destroyed both the city itself and, worst of all, the sacred Temple with its Holy of Holies. The destruction of the temple was a devastating, traumatizing event for the Jews, and for many years thereafter Jewish Christians saw the destruction of the Temple as a symbol of the end of the world, and the two events (the destruction of the Temple and the end of the world) became inextricably tied together, as they are in today's Gospel reading.

We know that Jesus foretold the destruction of the Temple almost forty years before it actually happened (Lk 21:5-6) so the early Christians were aware that one day the Temple would be destroyed, but it is, of course, one thing to be vaguely aware of a coming event that will occur at some indefinite time and quite another thing to actually experience it. More specifically, when Paul wrote about the End of the World, he saw it as a stand-alone event involving the joyful Second Coming of the Lord and the Resurrection of the dead, whereas, by the time Luke wrote about the End of the World, it had, in the Jewish national consciousness, become intermingled with the terrible violence of that awful year 70. You and I, as people who have lived through the horror of 9/11, can perhaps appreciate this to some extent. At any rate, it does, I think, explain to some degree why Paul's account of the End of the World, and Luke's, are so vastly different.

\+ + +

Friday—32nd Week Ordinary Time

Lk 17:26-37

The Parousia Revisited

In a homily a few weeks ago we talked a little about the Parousia, the Second Coming of the Christ at the end of time. In that homily I mentioned that around the year 50, when St. Paul was writing his First Letter to the Thessalonians, many Christians were of the opinion that the world was going to come to an end very very soon, that the Parousia was perhaps only days away.

Well, in today's Gospel reading from St. Luke we once again read about the Second Coming. Luke, however, wrote his Gospel some 30 or 35 years after Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, and it appears that in those 30 or 35 years things had changed. It seems that by the year 80 or 85, when Luke was writing, he, and probably other Christians as well, were beginning to downplay the immediacy of the Second Coming.

Let me give you two examples of that. When, in chapter 19, Luke recounts the Parable of the Pounds (and, by the way, we'll be reading that parable at Mass a week from tomorrow) Luke introduces it by saying that Jesus told the parable when he did because he was approaching Jerusalem and some of his followers "were imagining" (as one translation puts it) that the Kingdom of God was going to manifest itself right then and there. This, it seems, was Luke's not too subtle way of reminding people that for years, Christians had been imagining that certain events were going to occur right away, when, in fact, they would not take place for many years. And the prime example of that, of course, was the Parousia, the Second Coming.

The second example is a statement in Matthew's Gospel that Luke changes to give a whole different meaning. In Matthew's Gospel Jesus is reported to have said, "there are some of these standing here who will not taste death before _they see the Son of Man coming._ (Mt 16:28) But Luke changes that to read, "there are some of these standing here who will not taste death before _they see the Kingdom of God_. (Lk 9:2) Well, this of course, is a major difference. Matthew has Jesus talking about the Second Coming, the Parousia, the end of the world, whereas Luke has Jesus talking about the Kingdom of God, which is a whole different thing and which Jesus used to say was, at least to some extent, _already_ in their midst.

So Luke, in other words, is telling his readers not to be so preoccupied with when exactly the world is going to come to an end, because it may not happen for years. Instead, says Luke, let's be the best followers of Christ we can possibly be, right here, right now, every day of our lives, so that we will always be ready to face our Maker—whenever that day may come.

\+ + +

Chronological Index

Tuesday, 1st Week of Advent - The Holy Trinity

Tuesday, 1st Week of Advent - Advent

Wednesday, 1st Week of Advent - More on Advent

Wednesday, 1st Week of Advent - Prefigurement of the Eucharist

Feast of St. Andrew, November 30th - The Inerrancy of Scripture

Feast of St. Andrew, November 30th - St. Andrew

Thursday, 1st Week of Advent - Good Works

Friday, 1st Week of Advent - Son of David

Wednesday, 2nd Week of Advent - The Teacher

Friday, 2nd Week of Advent - The Disciples of Jesus and John

Thursday, 3rd Week of Advent - The Evangelists

Our Lady of Guadalupe, December 12th - Two Births

December 17th - The Davidic Genealogy

December 19th - The Infancy Narratives

December 22nd - The Magnificat

December 22nd - The Joyful News

December 28th, Holy Innocents - The New Exodus

5th Day in the Octave of Christmas - The Presentation of the Redeemer

December 31st - John's Prologue

January 1st, Octave of Christmas - Mary, Mother of God

January 2nd, Before Epiphany - Re-Creation

January 4th, Before Epiphany - Lamb of God

January 5th - The Gospels of Mark and John

Friday, After Epiphany - Action and Prayer

Saturday, After Epiphany - Hesed

Tuesday, 1st Week Ordinary Time - The Authoritative One of God

January 25th, Conversion of St. Paul - The Mystical Body

Wednesday, 1st Week Ordinary Time - The Messianic Secret

Friday, 1st Week Ordinary Time - A Miracle at Home

Monday, 2nd Week Ordinary Time - Founding a New Church

Tuesday, 2nd Week Ordinary Time - Son of Man

Wednesday, 2nd Week Ordinary Time - Jesus in Conflict

Thursday, 2nd Week Ordinary Time - Jesus Messiah / King

Thursday, 2nd Week Ordinary Time - Son of God

Monday, 3rd Week Ordinary Time - The Scribes

Tuesday, 3rd Week Ordinary Time - The Will of God

Tuesday, 3rd Week Ordinary Time - Siblings of Christ

Wednesday, 3rd Week Ordinary Time - Parable of the Sower and the Seed

Thursday, 3rd Week Ordinary Time - The Seed

Friday, 3rd Week Ordinary Time - The Kingdom Parables

Friday, 3rd Week Ordinary Time - The Mystery of the Kingdom of God

Presentation of the Lord - Jewish Christians

Monday, 4th Week Ordinary Time - Legion, the Apostle

Tuesday, 4th Week Ordinary Time - The Touch of Christ

Tuesday, 4th Week Ordinary Time - Women

Wednesday, 4th Week Ordinary Time - Powerless Christ

Thursday, 4th Week Ordinary Time - Handling Rejection

Friday, 4th Week Ordinary Time - The Cost of Discipleship

Friday, 4th Week Ordinary Time - Baptist, Herald of Death

Saturday, 4th Week Ordinary Time - Sandwiching

Tuesday, 5th Week Ordinary Time - Triple Cycle

Wednesday, 5th Week Ordinary Time - The Law

Friday, 5th Week Ordinary Time - Jesus Our Model

Friday, 5th Week Ordinary Time - Two Miracles

Tuesday, 6th Week Ordinary Time - Transformation of Disciples

Wednesday, 6th Week Ordinary Time - Blindness

Tuesday, 7th Week Ordinary Time - Three Predictions

Saturday, 7th Week Ordinary Time - Like a Child

Saturday, 8th Week Ordinary Time - The Three Entrapment Episodes

Wednesday, 9th Week Ordinary Time - Marriage in Heaven

Ash Wednesday - The Sermon on the Mount

Ash Wednesday - The Lenten Sunday Gospel Readings, Year C

Ash Wednesday - Acknowledging Our Sins

Ash Wednesday - Conversion

Thursday, After Ash Wednesday - The Core Message

Friday, After Ash Wednesday - Launching the Kingdom

Saturday, After Ash Wednesday - An Event Worthy of the Gospel

Monday, 1st Week of Lent - The Last Judgment

Friday, 1st Week of Lent - The Six Antitheses

Saturday, 1st Week of Lent - Jesus the Legislator

Tuesday, 2nd Week of Lent - Annual Readings

Wednesday, 2nd Week of Lent - Ambition

Friday, 2nd Week of Lent - The Call to Bear Fruit

Wednesday, 3rd Week of Lent - Law and Prophets

Friday, 3rd Week of Lent - Shema

Friday, 3rd Week of Lent - The Greatest Commandments

Tuesday, 4th Week of Lent - Words of Christ

March 25th, The Annunciation of the Lord - The Giver of Life

Tuesday, 5th Week of Lent - Yahweh

Friday, 5th Week of Lent - The Father's Son

Saturday, 5th Week of Lent - Plots Against Jesus

Saturday, 5th Week of Lent - The Gatherer

Tuesday of Holy Week - Judas

Monday of Easter Week - Empty Tomb

Tuesday of Easter Week - Resurrection / Resuscitation

Friday of Easter Week - Final Pep Talk

Friday of Easter Week - The Charcoal Fire

Saturday of Easter Week - Mark

SS Philip and James, May 3rd - The Twelve

Friday, 2nd Week of Easter - The Multiplication of the Loaves

Friday, 2nd Week of Easter - Foreshadowing of the Eucharist

Saturday, 2nd Week of Easter - The I Am

Wednesday, 3rd Week of Easter - Faith and Reason

Thursday, 3rd Week of Easter - The Bread of Life

Friday, 3rd Week of Easter - The Way

Friday, 3rd Week of Easter - Real Faith and the Eucharist

Wednesday, 4th Week of Easter - John's Two Books

Thursday, 4th Week of Easter - Paul and Barnabas

Thursday, 4th Week of Easter - The Last Supper

Monday, 5th Week of Easter - Stages of the Journey

Friday, 5th Week of Easter - Love for One Another

Saturday, 5th Week of Easter - The Johannine Community

Wednesday, 6th Week of Easter - The Paracletes

Friday, 6th Week of Easter - Christianity / Stoicism

Saturday, 6th Week of Easter - Prayer and Intercession

Saturday, 6th Week of Easter - Teaching in Plain Words

Tuesday, 7th Week of Easter - Glory

Wednesday, 7th Week of Easter - John the Evangelist

Thursday, 7th Week of Easter - God the Creator

Saturday, 7th Week of Easter - Peter and the Beloved Disciple

Saturday, 7th Week of Easter - The Beloved Disciple

Memorial Day - The Eucharistic Memorial

Friday, 10th Week Ordinary Time - Matthew's Message

Saturday, 10th Week of Ordinary Time - Oath Taking

Sacred Heart - God's Love

Immaculate Heart of Mary - The Two Hearts

Thursday, 12th Week Ordinary Time - Conclusions to the Five Discourses

June 29, SS. Peter and Paul - Christians Thinking Church

Tuesday, 14th Week Ordinary Time - Priesthood of the Baptized

Friday, 14th Week Ordinary Time - Matthew's Structure and the Kingdom

Saturday, 14th Week Ordinary Time - Making the Hidden Known

Friday, 15th Week Ordinary Time - The Sabbath

Friday, 15th Week Ordinary Time - Authoritative Teacher

Saturday, 15th Week Ordinary Time - The Four Songs of the Servant of God

Feast of St. James, July 25th - Enthusiasm

July 25th, James the Apostle - James the Greater

Thursday, 16th Week Ordinary Time - Parables

Saturday, 16th Week Ordinary Time - A Parable's Unusual Origin

Saturday, 16th Week Ordinary Time - The Oneness of Christ and the Kingdom

Wednesday, 18th Week Ordinary Time - The Canaanite Woman

Transfiguration, August 6th - Agony and Ecstasy

Saturday, 18th Week Ordinary Time - A Little Faith

Saturday, 18th Week Ordinary Time - Christ the Reformer

Wednesday, 19th Week Ordinary Time - Binding and Loosing

August 15th - The Assumption

Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary - The Origins of Our Belief in the Assumption

Thursday, 19th Week Ordinary Time - The Unforgiving Servant

Thursday, 19th Week Ordinary Time - The Open Kingdom

Saturday, 19th Week Ordinary Time - Children in Luke

Wednesday, 20th Week Ordinary Time - Envy

Thursday, 20th Week Ordinary Time - The Wedding / Baptismal Garment

Friday, 20th Week Ordinary Time - The Most Important Commandment

Saturday, 20th Week Ordinary Time - Clericalism

]Friday, 21st Week Ordinary Time - The Wise and Foolish

Monday, 22nd Week Ordinary Time - Luke and His Gospel

Thursday, 23rd Week Ordinary Time - The Sermon on the Plain

Friday, 23rd Week Ordinary Time \- Luke and Matthew's 1st and 2nd Sources

Thursday, 24th Week Ordinary Time - Luke's and Matthew's 3rd Source

Thursday, 24th Week Ordinary Time - The Sinful / Loving Woman

Friday, 24th Week Ordinary Time - Women in Luke

September 14th, Exaltation of the Cross - Symbol of Fidelity

September 21st, Feast of St. Matthew - Matthew the Apostle

Wednesday, 25th Week Ordinary Time - Kingdom from Day One

Thursday, 25th Week Ordinary Time - Principles

Wednesday, 26th Week Ordinary Time - Paradox of the Kingdom

Wednesday, 26th Week Ordinary Time - Urgency of the Kingdom

Wednesday, 27th Week Ordinary Time - The Lord's Prayer

Monday, 29th Week Ordinary Time - The Rich Fool

Wednesday, 29th Week Ordinary Time - The Parousia

Friday, 29th Week Ordinary Time - Hypocrisy

Wednesday, 30th Week Ordinary Time - The Journey

Thursday, 30th Week Ordinary Time - Jerusalem

Tuesday, 32nd Week Ordinary Time - Servants

Friday, 32nd Week Ordinary Time - The Parousia Revisited

Tuesday, 33rd Week Ordinary Time - Paths to Jesus

Friday, 33rd Week Ordinary Time - The Courage of Jesus

Saturday. 33rd Week Ordinary Time - The Afterlife

Monday, 34th Week Ordinary Time - Generosity

Thursday, 34th Week Ordinary Time - Paul and Luke on the Parousia

# # #

[1] Mt 26:55, Mk 14:49, Lk 19:47, 21:37, 22:53 and Jn 18:20

[2] For another example of both using a common second source, see the first paragraph of the homily titled The Evangelists. Jesus' extensive remarks about the Baptist are not found in Mark.

[3] For other examples of Matthew and Luke each using his own source, see the homily titled The Infancy Narratives and the second paragraph of the homily titled The Kingdom Parables.

[] Regarding Jesus' meeting with Peter and Andrew there were undoubtedly two separate events, first the _meeting_ and sometime later the _calling_ of the apostles to be fishers of men. This is clear in Luke who has the calling take place after Jesus cures Peter's mother-in-law. (Lk4:38-39 and 5:1-11).

The point, however, is that, despite the fact that Matthew (in today's Gospel) and Mark (in his very first chapter) represent both the meeting and the calling as taking place simultaneously, this does not mean that Matthew and Mark are wrong or that the Scriptures are in error. It simply means that Matthew and Mark are (knowingly or unknowingly) synthesizing.

