To hear the Audio reflections of Saturday, March 23, 2019 click HERE
Friday, 22 March 2019
Saturday, March 23, 2019 - Am I “good” because of fear of punishment or hope of reward, or am I “good” because it is good to be good?
To read the texts click on the texts: Mic 7:14-15, 18-20; Lk15; 1-3, 11-32
The setting for the Parable of the Prodigal son (more correctly called “The Prodigal father”) is the same as at the beginning of Chapter 15 and concerns the murmuring of the Pharisees and scribes because Jesus eats with “tax collectors and sinners.”
The setting for the Parable of the Prodigal son (more correctly called “The Prodigal father”) is the same as at the beginning of Chapter 15 and concerns the murmuring of the Pharisees and scribes because Jesus eats with “tax collectors and sinners.”
Direct taxes (poll tax,
land tax) were collected by tax collectors employed by the Romans, while tolls,
tariffs, and customs fees were collected at toll houses by toll collectors, the
group that appears frequently in the Gospels and is not entirely accurately identified
as “tax collectors.” Toll collectors paid in advance for the right to collect
tolls, so the system was open to abuse and corruption. The toll collectors were
often not natives of the area where they worked, and their wealth and collusion
with the Roman oppressors made them targets of scorn.
Those designated as
“sinners” by the Pharisees would have included not only persons who broke the
moral laws but also those who did not maintain the ritual purity practiced by
the Pharisees. The scandal was that Jesus received such outcasts, shared table
fellowship with them, and even played host to them.
The beginning of the
Parable which speaks of “two sons” indicates that the focus is on their relationship to the Father and not to each other as “brothers”. The demand
of the younger son is disrespectful and irregular. There is no rationale here.
He was breaking family ties and treating his father as if he were already dead.
The father divides his life among
them. As soon as the younger son receives his share, there is a progressive
estrangement. He goes into a far away country which indicates gentile land and
mismanages the money given to him. He spends it all on loose living. His
descent into poverty and deprivation is swift. He descends as low as to agree
to work for a gentile and in a gentile land. Swine were an abomination to Jews,
and they were prohibited from raising swine anywhere. The man who would dare to
breed swine was considered cursed. Human
beings even ate carob pods, which were used as animal fodder, in times of
famine. This is an indication of the complete destitution of the younger son.
He comes to his senses when he is at the depth of his degradation and in the
midst of mire and filth.
There are four parts to the speech that the younger
son prepares
1. An address – “Father”
2. A confession – “I have sinned”
3. Contrition – “I am no longer worthy”
4. A Petition – “treat me as one of your
hired servants.
The journey begins with coming to himself and
ends with his going to his Father. It means learning to say ABBA again, putting
one’s whole trust in the heavenly Father, returning to the Father’s house and
the Father’s arms. That the younger son is serious about his return is shown in
his action. He gets up from the mire and begins the return to his father.
The father’s response is mind boggling. While the
son is still a long way off, he runs to meet him. In the first century it was
considered undignified for grown men to run. The father sets aside respect and
dignity. His only focus is his son. The son begins his speech but is not
allowed to complete it. The father interrupts his son even before he can
finish. He gives instructions to his servants for a robe, ring and sandals all
of which indicate that the son is given back his original place as son. The
call to kill the fatted calf is a sign that the return of the son is to be
regarded as a time of celebration. The dead son has come alive, the lost son
has been found.
Even as the celebration is on, the elder son is
introduced. When he is informed about the reason for the celebration, he sulks
and refuses to enter the house. Like in the case of his younger son, the father
goes to meet his elder son. However, while he does not have to plead with the
younger son, he does so with the elder son. The elder son does not address his father
as “Father”, nor does he refer to his brother as “brother”. He argues his case
on the grounds of merit and what he thinks he rightfully deserves. Even as he
does this, he points to the failings of the younger son. What then is the point
of being good?
In his response to the elder son, the father first
addresses his son as “Son” though he was not addressed as “Father” and also
reminds him that the younger son is also his brother. Reconciliation for the
younger son meant reconciliation with his father, but for the elder son it
means reconciliation with his brother. There is thus both the vertical
dimension and the horizontal dimension of reconciliation.
Much of the fascination of
this parable lies in its ability to resonate with our life experiences: adolescent
rebellion; alienation from family; the appeal of the new and foreign; the
consequences of foolish living; the warmth of home remembered; the experience
of self-encounter, awakening, and repentance; the joy of reunion; the power of
forgiveness; the dynamics of “brotherly love” that leads to one brother’s
departure and the other’s indignation; and the contrast between relationships
based on merit and relationships based on faithful love.
Unfortunately, we usually
learn to demand our rights before we learn to value our relationships. The
younger son was acting within his rights, but he was destroying his closest
relationships in the process. How many times a week will a parent hear one child
say to another, “This is mine. Give it to me”? Children quickly learn to demand
their rights, but it often takes much longer for them to learn how to maintain
relationships. Governments and law courts defend our civil rights, but how do
we learn to defend our civil and familial relationships?
From a distance, the “far
country” can be very appealing. Young people leave home for fast living.
Spouses move out to form liaisons with exciting new partners. The glow that
surrounds the far country is a mirage, however. Home never looks as good as
when it is remembered from the far country.
The journey home begins
with coming to oneself. That means that the most difficult step is the first
one. The younger son had to face himself in the swine pen of his own making
before he faced his father on the road. Pride can keep us from admitting our
mistakes; self-esteem may require us to take decisive action to set right the
things we have done wrong.
Although the opportunity
to restore relationships and remedy wrongs begins with coming to oneself, it
requires more. We must go to the person we have wronged. Was the younger son
just seeking to improve his situation, or was he seeking reconciliation with
his father? The direct confession in his interior monologue confirms the
sincerity of his intent. Neither the younger son’s pride nor his shame mattered
as much as his need to restore his relationship to his father. He did not ask
for his filial privileges to be restored. He did not even ask for forgiveness.
He merely stated his confession. When the prodigal son came to himself, he came
to his father. . . .
The temptation a parent
faces is to allow the child’s separation to become reciprocal. If the child
separates from the parent, the
parent may be tempted to respond in kind. The
parable’s model of parental love insists, however, that no matter what the son/daughter
has done he/she is still son/daughter. When no one else would even give the
prodigal something to eat, the father runs to him and accepts him back. Love
requires no confession and no restitution. The joyful celebration begins as
soon as the father recognized the son’s profile on the horizon.
Insofar as we may see
God’s love reflected in the response of the waiting father, the parable
reassures all who would confess, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and
before you.” The father runs to meet his son even before the son can voice his
confession, and the father’s response is far more receptive than the son had
dared even to imagine. The father’s celebration conveys the joy in heaven. The
picture is one of sheer grace. No penance is required; it is enough that the
son has come home.
If this is the picture of
God’s joy in receiving a sinner coming home, then it can also give assurance of
God’s love to those who face death wondering how God will receive them. In the
end we all return home as sinners, so Jesus’ parable invites us to trust that
God’s goodness and mercy will be at least as great as that of a loving human
father.
The elder brother
represents all of us who think we can make it on our own, all of us who might
be proud of the kind of lives we live. Here is the contrast between those who
want to live by justice and merit and those who must ask for grace. The parable
shows that those who would live by merit can never know the joy of grace. We
cannot share in the Father’s grace if we demand that he deal with us according
to what we deserve. Sharing in God’s grace requires that we join in the
celebration when others are recipients of that grace also. Part of the
fellowship with Christ is receiving and rejoicing with others who do not
deserve our forgiveness or God’s grace. Each person is of such value to God,
however, that none is excluded from God’s grace. Neither should we withhold our
forgiveness.
The parable leaves us with
the question of whether the elder brother joined the celebration. Did he go in
and welcome his brother home, or did he stay outside pouting and feeling
wronged? The parable ends there because that is the decision each of us must
make. If we go in, we accept grace as the Father’s rule for life in the family.
Ø
How would you define your relationship with God?
Ø
What names do you use to address God?
Ø
What does this tell you about your relationship?
Ø
Is my prayer like that of the younger son, “Give me, give me, and give
me”?
Ø
How often have I said, “This is mine”?
Ø
How often have my own desires and the desire for personal gratification
got the better of me?
Ø
Write a prayer which indicates your acknowledgement of the need for
grace, and which will end with confidence that the Father will take you back.
Ø
Do you feel guilt whenever you sin?
Ø
Do you begin to hate yourself when you feel you do not come up to the
mark?
Ø
Do I sometimes have “a better than thou” attitude?
Ø
Do others have to lose in order for me to win?
Ø
Am I “good” because of fear of punishment or hope of reward, or am I
“good” because it is good to be good?
Ø
God has FORGIVEN YOU, have you FORGIVEN YOURSELF/OTHERS?
Ø
1 Jn 4,20 – If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his
brother/sister, he/she is a liar, for he/she who does not love his/her
brother/sister whom he/she has seen, cannot love God whom he/she has not seen.”
Do you agree with this way of thinking? If yes, why? If No, why not?
Saturday, March 23, 2019 - Mic 7:14-15, 18-20; Lk 15; 1-3, 11-32
Saturday, March 23, 2019 - Mic 7:14-15, 18-20; Lk 15:1-3, 11-32
Thursday, 21 March 2019
Audio Reflections of Friday, March 22, 2019
To hear the Audio Reflections of Friday, March 22, 2019 click HERE
Friday, March 22, 2019 - Will you give God his due by sharing with at least one person who does not have today? If God were to visit the vineyard of your life and ask for fruit what would your response be?
To read the texts click on the texts:Gen37:3-4, 12-13, 17-28; Mt 21:33-43, 45-46
This Parable is known variously as the parable of the wicked tenants or
the Parable of the Vineyard. While the parable in Mark has been allegorised, it
is not clear whether there was a non-allegorical parable going back to Jesus.
Those who are of the opinion that there was a non-allegorical parable interpret
it to mean that just as the tenants took radical action, so radical action is
required in order to gain the kingdom. Others see the parable to mean that the
kingdom will be taken away from Israel
In Matthew, this parable is the center of Jesus’
threefold parabolic response to the chief priests and elders. The first of
these is about the two sons (21:28 -32)
and the third is about the great supper (22:1-14). He also links it to the
previous parable of the two sons by means of common words like vineyard, son
and the common theme of both which is doing God’s will rather than paying lip
service.
In Matthew, the one who gives the vineyard to
tenants is a “landowner” and not simply a “man “as he is in Mark. This helps
Matthew to use the term “Lord” towards the end of the parable. The vineyard is
described much like the one in Isa 5:1-7 which indicates that Matthew intends
the vineyard to be read as “Israel Israel
The Jewish leaders realize that the parable is about
them and this only hardens their stance against Jesus and strengthens their
resolve to destroy him.
All that we possess is given to us in trust. This
means that while we may use what we have, we have also to be concerned about
those who do not have and be generous with them. Selfishness on our part leads
to our thinking that we must use the things we have exclusively without even
the thought of sharing them with others.
Wednesday, 20 March 2019
Audio Reflections of Thursday, March 21, 2019
To hear the Audio Reflections of Thursday, March 21, 2019 click HERE
Thursday, March 21, 2019 - How would you like to conclude the story? Place yourself in the position of the rich man’s brothers’ and write down what you would do to ensure that you do not suffer the same fate as the rich man.
To read the texts click on the texts: Jer 17:5-10; Lk 16:19-31
The
parable of today has often been titled as the parable of “Dives and Lazarus”.
It can be seen to be divided into three parts. If in the first part the focus
is on rich man’s (who is not named. The term “dives” in Latin means “rich”)
opulence and wealth, in the second part it is on his death and burial. In the
third part which is the longest there is for the first time in the story, a
dialogue. It is between the rich man and Abraham and is the climax of the
story.
The
story begins by describing the rich man and his dress and food. The “purple and
fine linen” may signify that he was a high ranking official, since the Romans
had set standards regarding who could wear purple and how much purple they
could wear. In contrast to the rich man there is a poor man who is named
Lazarus. He is the only character in Jesus’ parables to be given a name. The
name Lazarus means “God helps”. The fact that he is at the gate of the rich
man’s house signifies that though the rich man could see Lazarus, he was not
aware of his existence. He is so caught up in his world of material things that
this results in his inability to see reality right before him. Lazarus would
have been content with the bread which was used to wipe the grease from the
hand of the one eating and then thrown under the table. However, even this he
did not receive. Instead, dogs fed off his sores.
The
death of Lazarus is no surprise. However, the detail that is added is that
Lazarus is carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. This detail brings
to mind that God indeed comes to Lazarus’ help.
The death of the rich man is described in a short sentence which brings
out strikingly the transient nature of all his opulence and wealth.
In
the third part, there is a dialogue between the rich man and Abraham. Lazarus
does not speak at all. He is in the bosom of Abraham. Being “in the bosom” of
Abraham may imply that Lazarus was the honoured guest at the eschatological
banquet, feasting while the rich man was in torment.
In the request that the rich man makes of Abraham to let Lazarus dip the tip of his finger in water to cool his tongue, he calls Lazarus by name which indicates that he knew who Lazarus was and yet refused to look at him on earth as a person. In his response, Abraham reminds the rich man of his and Lazarus’ past and of the chasm that separated them then, but which had been erected by the rich man, and which still separates them now. It is admirable that even in his torment the rich man can think of others (even if they be members of his own immediate family). He makes a second request of Abraham to send Lazarus as a messenger to warn his brothers. Abraham responds that the brothers have already received enough and more instruction and if they have not heeded that they will not heed another. The rich man tries one final time to convince Abraham to send Lazarus as one who has gone back from the dead. Abraham responds by telling the rich man that for those who believe no proof is necessary and for those who do not no proof is sufficient.
In the request that the rich man makes of Abraham to let Lazarus dip the tip of his finger in water to cool his tongue, he calls Lazarus by name which indicates that he knew who Lazarus was and yet refused to look at him on earth as a person. In his response, Abraham reminds the rich man of his and Lazarus’ past and of the chasm that separated them then, but which had been erected by the rich man, and which still separates them now. It is admirable that even in his torment the rich man can think of others (even if they be members of his own immediate family). He makes a second request of Abraham to send Lazarus as a messenger to warn his brothers. Abraham responds that the brothers have already received enough and more instruction and if they have not heeded that they will not heed another. The rich man tries one final time to convince Abraham to send Lazarus as one who has gone back from the dead. Abraham responds by telling the rich man that for those who believe no proof is necessary and for those who do not no proof is sufficient.
The
rich man in the story is so caught with the things of the world and with his
own self interests that these prevent him from even becoming aware of the needs
of another. A number of questions to which there are no easy answers are raised
by this parable and we must keep reflecting on them constantly if we are not to
lose touch with reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)