To hear the Audio reflections of Thursday, March 1, 2018 click HERE
Wednesday, 28 February 2018
Thursday, March 1, 2018 - Jer 17:5-10; Lk 16:19-31
Thursday, March 1, 2018 - Jer 17:5-10; Lk 16:19-31
Thursday, March 1, 2018 - Can I be accused of sins of lack of concern, inability to assess the reality of situations, closing my eyes and ears to the injustices around me, being caught up in my own small world? Does my reflection on sin include “sins of omission”?
To read the texts click on the texts: Jer17:5-10; 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
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.
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.
Is
my attitude towards those less fortunate than I one of condescension? Or do I
regard them as persons like myself?
Is
my faith mere “lip service”? What prevents me from “acting” out my faith?
Did
the brothers get the message?
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.
Tuesday, 27 February 2018
Audio reflections of Wednesday, February 28, 2018
To hear the Audio reflections of Wednesday, February 28, 2018 click HERE
Wednesday, February 28, 2018 - Jer 18:18-20; Mt 20:17-28
February 28, 2018 - Jer 18:18-20; Mt 20:17-28
Wednesday, February 28, 2018 - When you are being introduced by a friend to a stranger how would you want your friend to introduce you?
To read the texts click on the texts: Jer 18:18-20; Mt20:17-28
The text begins with what is known as the third and
final Passion and Resurrection prediction in Matthew’s Gospel. This is the most
detailed of the three and Matthew specifies crucifixion as the manner in which
Jesus will be put to death. However, Jesus is not simply a passive victim, his
death is in obedience to the will of God and he will let nothing and no one
come in the way of this obedience. Even as he speaks of his death, Jesus also
predicts his being raised on the third day.
If in Mark, it is the brothers James and John who make
of Jesus the request for places of honour (Mk 10:35-37), in Matthew, it is the
mother of the sons of Zebedee (Matthew does not name the brothers since he
wants to spare them this ignominy) who comes with the request on behalf of her
sons. The right hand and left hand symbolize places of honour and authority. In
his response, Jesus does not address the mother or even James and John, but all
the disciples. In contrast to Mark who mentions both the cup and baptism,
Matthew focuses exclusively on the cup of suffering, testing, rejection,
judgement and violent death. The metaphor “cup” here seems to refer to the
death ordained by God which is willingly accepted by the one who is to go to
his death. The disciples’ bravado and willingness to drink the cup is only
verbal and not one which they can show in their deeds. Though Jesus is aware of
this, he looks beyond their failure and invites them to share his cup. However,
even martyrdom does not gain one a special place in the kingdom because not
even Jesus will be able to assign such places. These are the exclusive
prerogative of God.
The request of the mother of the sons of Zebedee leads
to anger on the part of the other ten. This anger indicates that they too like
the mother (and the two brothers) had not really understood Jesus’ way of
proceeding. Jesus thus has to teach them yet again the meaning of discipleship,
authority and service in the kingdom. The king in the kingdom is not a ruler
but one who serves, the Lord does not lord it over others but is their slave.
By adding “Just as” before the final verse here, Matthew makes Jesus as the
model whom the disciples are called to imitate.
The desire to be in charge and dominate others is a
very real desire and most of us possess it. Some in large measure others in
small, but it is there. We like others to follow our instructions and do what
we tell them and feel upset or angry if they do not obey. Too easily we judge
people by the titles they have or the positions they occupy in society and this
leads to a desire in each of us to want to possess those titles or occupy those
positions. We identify ourselves and others too much by these external titles
and do not look at other more important areas of their lives and ours. The text
of today calls us to review our need for titles and positions of honour and
spend ourselves instead in service.
Monday, 26 February 2018
Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - Isa 1:10, 16-20; Mt 23:1-12
Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - Isa 1:10, 16-20; Mt 23:1-12
Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - Will you let people hear what you do rather than what you say? How?
To read the texts click on the texts: Isa1:10, 16-20; Mt 23:1-12
Jesus here addresses the people and his disciples and speaks of the hypocrisy
of the scribes and Pharisees. Scribes were a professional class with formal
training. They were schooled in the tradition and its application to current
issues. Pharisees were a group within Judaism defined by strictly religious
rules, composed mostly of laypersons without formal theological training. Some
scribes were also Pharisees, but few Pharisees were scribes.
Moses’ seat is a metaphorical expression
representing the teaching and administrative authority of the synagogue
leadership, scribes and Pharisees. Jesus condemns only the practice of the
scribes and Pharisees and not their teaching. The Matthean Jesus makes three
points about the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees. The first is that “they say but do not do”, which means that
there was no consonance between their words and actions. They did not act on
their words. The second is
that “they burden while failing to act
themselves” which means that they lay law upon law upon the people and make
life so much more complicated than it really is, and the third is that “they act for the wrong reasons: to make an
impression on others”. This they did by wearing broader phylacteries.
“Phylacteries” is the term Matthew uses for the “tephillin”, which were small
leather boxes containing portions of the Torah (Exod 13:1-16; Deut 6:4-9;
11:13-32) strapped to the forehead and arm during the recitation of prayers in
literal obedience to Deut 6:8. The “tassels” were attached to the prayer
shawls, and the most important seats in the synagogue refer to the place of
honour at the front facing the congregation, occupied by teachers and respected
leaders. The term “Rabbi” was a title of honour. The Scribes and Pharisees
wanted to be noticed, commended and honoured more than to pray.
In contrast the disciples of
Jesus ought not to go for external titles and especially those which heighten
distinction since they were brothers and sisters and there was to be no greater
and smaller among them. They were to be one in God who alone is father.
Authority and leadership were to be expressed in selfless service.
It is easy to say, but
difficult to do, it is easy to preach but difficult to practice. There must be
a correlation between our words and our actions. The way to ensure that there
is a correlation between the two is to first do and then say, or better to let
people hear not what we say but what we do. This doing, if it is to be regarded
as a genuine work of love must be done not to earn titles or the approval or
commendation but because one is a disciple of Jesus who has shown through his
life and actions what true leadership means.
Sunday, 25 February 2018
Audio reflections of Monday, February 26, 2018
To hear the Audio reflections of Monday, February 26, 2018 click HERE
Monday, February 26, 2018 - Dan 9:4-10; Lk 6:36-38
Monday, February 26, 2018 - Dan 9:4-10; Lk 6:36-38
Monday, February 26, 2018 - How often have you done something for someone else without any expectation whatever? Will you do something like this today?
To read the texts click on the texts: Dan9:4-10; Lk 6:36-38
The injunction to “be
merciful, just as your Father is merciful” which begins the text of today
adapts the Old Testament command to “be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy”
(Lev 19:2), which in the Sermon on the Mount of Matthew has become “Be perfect,
therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48). Whereas this
injunction stands at the conclusion of the six antitheses in Matthew 5, here it
concludes the section on love for one’s enemy by placing the challenge to be
merciful in a theological context. Just as God’s love for all is
indiscriminate, so must the love of the true disciple be. If love is given only
in return for love, it is not love at all. To be called love, it must be
unconditional.
The next two verses move to
the theme of not judging and not condemning. The reason for this is that the
one who does not judge and condemn will not be judged or condemned him/herself.
Instead, the disciple of Jesus is called to forgive and let go of hurts and
resentments as these block the receipt of pardon and forgiveness that is freely
available from God. The section ends with a call to a kind of giving which does
not count the cost, but which gives generously and freely. The result of such
giving will be God’s unbounded generosity.
Mercy, forgiveness and love
are in short supply today. Most relationships between people are built on what
one can gain from the other and how the relationship will help one. It is rare
to see (even in relationships between members of one family) selflessness and
generosity. Yet, this is what Jesus calls the disciple to and expects that the
disciple will live such a generous life.
Saturday, 24 February 2018
Audio reflections of Sunday, February 25, 2018 the Second Sunday in Lent
To hear the Audio reflections of Sunday, February 25, 2018 the Second Sunday in Lent click HERE
Sunday, February 25, 2018 - Gen 22: 1-2, 9,10-13,15-18; Rom 8:31-34; Mk 9:2-10
Sunday, February 25, 2018 -0 Gen 22: 1-2, 9,10-13,15-18; Rom 8:31-34; Mk 9:2-10
Second Sunday in Lent - February 25, 2018 - Look at the Son
To read the texts click on the texts: Gen 22: 1-2,9,10-13,15-18; Rom 8:31-34; Mk 9:2-10
I still remember that night, eight years ago, when
I received a call at 11.45 p.m. I knew immediately that it would be from
someone with a very great need or someone in great despair. It was. The father
of a young man was calling to tell me that his 23 year old son had just died.
He was his only son. The boy was coming home from work when a drunk driver
knocked him down and fled the scene. He was taken to hospital but declared dead
on arrival. At the funeral Mass the next day, there was not one person in the
church who was not moved by tears by the sight of that young man in his coffin.
The questions on everyone’s lips were: “How could God…” and “Why”?
I do believe that the answer to our every “How
could God…” and “Why” is provided for us in God sending his only son.
The first reading also speaks to us about a father
and his only son. Abraham was asked to give up his only son, and this, after
being promised that his descendants would be as numerous as the grains of sand
on the seashore. How could God, who had made such a promise, expect it to be
fulfilled, if Isaac was to be sacrificed? This kind of sacrifice would result
in cutting Abraham off from his future. Abraham did not know that God was
actually testing him. He heard the command from God as something that he was
being called to do. However, he did know that God would provide and find a way.
He believed that God could do even what was impossible. This is why his
constant response to God was “Here I am”. This willingness and faith of Abraham
resulted in God being able to work in and through him. It resulted in the
promises of God being fulfilled in the life of Abraham. He did, indeed, become
a great nation and his descendants were as numerous as grains of sand on the
seashore.
The willingness and faith that Abraham showed was
exemplary. However, it pales in comparison with the willingness and faith that
Jesus showed when he took up his cross. This is what God commanded Jesus to do
and this is what he did. While in Abraham’s case, he was stopped before he
could complete the act of offering his son, in the case of Jesus, he had to go
the full way to show his obedience to God’s will and fulfil God’s plan for the
salvation of the whole world.
We are given a foretaste of this obedience in the
scene of the Transfiguration. The figures that appear with Jesus on the
mountain are Elijah and Moses. These were prophets who were considered (along
with Enoch) as alive in the presence of God. The voice from heaven, after
addressing Jesus as beloved son, asks the three disciples who were with Jesus
on the mountain to listen to him.
Despite being God’s beloved son, Jesus would have to go to his suffering
and death and, only then, enter his glory. There was no other way. Jesus did
not simply obey God; he obeyed God because he trusted. He knew that God was in
charge and, even in what seemed like defeat and death, there would be victory
and new life.
We sometimes tend to think that Jesus is most
clearly Son of God only in glory, not in suffering. The transfiguration
challenges us to revise our understanding of how God’s presence comes to the
world. Even as he stands transfigured, Jesus is aware that the cross is a certainty
in his life. He is aware that, though he is beloved son, he will have to suffer
and die. The command to silence, given
by Jesus to the disciples, reminds us that glory and suffering cannot be
separated.
Yes, Jesus was able to go to the cross in the full
knowledge that God would always do what was best for him. He was aware that the
God who delivered Elijah and Moses would also deliver him. He was able to go
through the cross because he knew that, in and through the cross, he would save
the world. That Jesus continues to live today is proof that his faith and
confidence in the goodness of God was affirmed and confirmed. It was a proof
that Paul experienced when he told the community in Rome that “neither death
nor life…. nor anything else in all creation will ever be able to separate us
from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord”.
The message then, on this second Sunday of Lent,
to every one of us, is that God continues to be in charge. He continues to want
what is best for each of us at every moment of our life. Even at those times
when we cannot see his hand as clearly as we would like, or cannot feel his
presence as tangibly as we would want, he is still working for our good. This
was confirmed in the life of Abraham, but fulfilled in the most perfect way in
the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Every time we are tempted to
ask “Why” or “How could God….” we have only to look at his Son.
Friday, 23 February 2018
Audio Reflections of Saturday, February 24, 2018
To hear the Audio Reflections of Saturday, February 24, 2018 click HERE
Saturday, February 24, 2018 - Mic 7:14-15, 18-20; Lk 15:1-3, 11-32
Saturday, February 24, 2018 - Mic 7:14-15, 18-20; Lk 15; 1-3, 11-32
Saturday, February 24, 2018 - What names do you use to address God? What does this tell you about your relationship? God has FORGIVEN YOU, have you FORGIVEN YOURSELF/OTHERS?
To read the texts click on the texts: Mic 7:14-15, 18-20; Lk 15;: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.”
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.
Thursday, 22 February 2018
Audio Reflections of Friday, February 23, 2018
To hear the Audio Reflections of Friday, February 23, 2018 click HERE
Friday, February 23, 2018 - Ezek 18:21-28; Mt 5:20-26
Friday, February 23, 2018 - Ezek 18:21-28; Mt 5:20-26
Friday, February 23, 2018 - How many times did you get angry yesterday? Will you attempt to make it one less time today?
To read the texts click on the texts: Ezek 18:21-28; Mt 5:20-26
The righteousness of the disciples of Jesus must exceed that of the
Scribes and Pharisees whose standard of religious piety and practice was high.
These of course did what they did only to be seen by people and to show off
their piety. The disciples are called not merely to avoid being hypocritical.
In the six antitheses (5:21 -48)
that follow, Matthew shows what it means in practice for the righteousness of
the disciples to exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees. Each of the six
begins with what was said of old and what Jesus is now saying. In these verses
(5:21 -26) Matthew narrates
first of the six, which is about the Torah’s prohibition of murder (Exodus 20:13 ; Deut 5:18 ). The supplementary “whoever murders shall
be liable to judgement” is not found verbatim anywhere in the Old Testament,
and seems to have been added by Matthew to introduce the word “judgement” which
he uses in the next verse. After stating the law and adding a supplementary, the
Matthean Jesus then radicalises the law and calls for an interiorization of it
(5:22 ). The call seems to
be to submit one’s thoughts about other people, as well as the words they give
rise to, to God’s penetrating judgement. It is a call to realize that God wills
not only that human beings not kill each other but also that there be no
hostility between human beings. The next verses (5:23 -26) are an application of what Jesus says.
Reconciliation is even more important than offering worship and sacrifice. The
disciples are called to work for reconciliation in the light of the
eschatological judgement toward which they are journeying.
If we come to worship God and there are feelings of anger, revenge or
hatred in our hearts, then our worship remains incomplete. It is only an
external worship and not true worship. God does not need our adoration, but if
want to adore him it must also come from within.
Wednesday, 21 February 2018
Thursday, February 22, 2018 - The Chair of St. Peter - 1 Peter 5:1-4; Mt 16:13-19
Thursday, February 22, 2018 - The Chair of St. Peter - 1 Peter 5:1-4; Mt 16:13-16
Thursday, February 22, 2018 - The Chair of St. Peter - If Jesus were to ask you the question he asked the disciples, what would your response be?
To read the texts click on the texts: 1 Peter 5:1-4; Mt 16:13-19
The Chair of St. Peter is a feast which celebrates
the Lord’s choice of Peter to be the servant-leader of the Church. The choice
of Peter is indicative of what the Church is. On the one hand Peter was over zealous,
brash, impulsive, spontaneous and ready to die for the Lord, while on the other
he would deny the Lord and run away when trouble arose. The Church as a whole
has been like Peter. Yet, this is whom the Lord chooses and continues to
choose, broken men and women called to heal a broken world.
The Gospel text chosen for the feast is popularly
known as “Peter’s Confession”. The question of Jesus concerning his identity is
not because he wanted to be informed about people’s opinion of him, but to draw
a contrast between people’s answers and the answer of the disciples. Matthew is
the only evangelist who adds Jeremiah to the answers of the people. Some think
that Matthew has done so because of Jeremiah’s association with the fall of
Jerusalem. Others think that Jeremiah is mentioned because of his prophecy of
the new covenant.
After hearing through the disciples what the
people have to say about his identity, Jesus asks the disciples the same
question. The “you” is plural and therefore addressed to all disciples. It is
also emphatic. Simon Peter answers on behalf of the group. Matthew adds “the
Son of the living God” to Mark’s “Christ”. Only in Matthew does Jesus respond
directly to Peter. Peter is not blessed because of a personal achievement, but
because of the gift he received from God. Jesus names Peter as rock, the one
who holds the keys and the one who binds and looses. Rock here stands for
foundation, and though Peter is the foundation, Jesus is the builder. The
holder of keys was one who had authority to teach and the one who binds and
looses is the one who had authority to interpret authoritatively. The reason
for ordering them to tell no one is to reinforce the idea that the community
founded by Jesus is distinct from Israel who rejected Jesus.
The feast of today invites us to reflect on two
aspects in the Church. The first of these is that authority in the Church does
not mean domination but always service. The model of this service is Jesus and
it is him that we must imitate. The second is that even as we are broken
ourselves and sinners, we are called to heal the world. This is because like in
Peter’s case so in ours, it was not his merit that made him the leader of the
Church, it was the grace of God which worked in him despite his sin.
Tuesday, 20 February 2018
Audio Reflections of Wednesday, February 21, 2018
To hear the Audio Reflections of Wednesday, February 21, 2018 click HERE
Wednesday, February 21, 2018 - Jon 3:1-10; Lk 11:29-32
Wednesday, February 21, 2018 - Jon 3:1-10; Lk 11:29-32
Wednesday, February 21, 2018 - What sign are you seeking from the Lord? Will you believe in His love even without this sign?
To read the texts click on the texts: Jon3:1-10; Lk 11:29-32
Jesus’ debate with the crowd
following the exorcism of the demon that made a man mute (11:14-16) continues.
One of the challenges posed by some in the crowd was to demand from Jesus a
sign from heaven. The response of Jesus is not to give in to their demand for a
sign. A similar saying is also found in Matthew (12:38-42) which indicates that
both Matthew and Luke have taken it from the “Q” source {Mark also has the
episode of the demand for a sign and Jesus’ response (Mk 8:11-12), but it is
much shorter and does not have the details found in both Matthew and Luke}.
However, Luke has so formulated the response of Jesus, that it forms an
inclusion. It begins and ends with Jonah. Through this, Luke has associated
Jonah’s preaching with Solomon’s wisdom. Since Luke makes this association, for
him the sign of Jonah was not Jonah’s being in the belly of the whale for three
days and three nights (Mt 12:40), but the call to repentance that Jonah
preached. As the people of Nineveh repented after the call by Jonah, so Jesus
calls the crowd to repentance after his proclamation. The Queen of Sheba, or
the Queen of the South, journeyed from her kingdom in southwest Arabia to test
the reports she had heard of Solomon’s wisdom (1 Kgs 10:1-13; 2 Chr 9:1-12).
When she had tested Solomon with “hard questions” (1 Kgs 10:1), she was
convinced of the wisdom God had given to him and blessed the Lord who had set
Solomon on the throne of Israel (1 Kgs 10:9). At the judgement, therefore, she
also would rise to condemn that wicked generation because they had one who was
greater than Solomon, and they did not hear him.
Jesus thus refuses to give
the crowds any other sign, because any demand for a sign meant that they have
not understood what Jesus was about, and what his mission was. Jesus also knew
that for those who believe, no sign is necessary, whereas for those who do not,
no sign is sufficient.
The call to repentance is a
call to look at everything in a new light. The old is past, the new has come
with the coming of Jesus. If one persists in the old way of looking which is a
way of finding God only in miraculous and spectacular events, one will miss
him. Now he can be found in all things and all things can be found in him.
Monday, 19 February 2018
Audio Reflections of Tuesday, February 20, 2018
To hear the Audio Reflections of Tuesday, February 20, 2018 click HERE
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 - Isa 55:10-11; Mt 6:7-15
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 - Isa 55:10-11; Mt 6:7-15
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 - How will you acknowledge your dependence on God today? Is there someone who you think has hurt you whom you have not yet forgiven? Will you forgive that person today?
To read the texts click on the texts: Isa55:10-11; Mt 6:7-15
The three chapters beginning from 5:1 and ending at 7:29 contain one of
the most famous discourses of Matthew known as “The Sermon on the Mount”.
It is important to have a
brief background of the Sermon in order to appreciate fully each separate text
within it. The first point that we note about the Sermon on the Mount is that
it is the first of the five great discourses in the Gospel of Matthew. Each of
these five ends with the phrase, “and when Jesus had finished…” (7:28; 11:1;
13:53; 19:1; 26:1). It begins by showing Jesus as a Rabbi teaching ex-cathedra
(5:1) and ends by showing Jesus as the Messianic prophet addressing the crowds
(7:28).
The second point that must
be kept in mind is that the Sermon is a composition of Matthew. An analysis of
similar texts in the Gospels of Mark and Luke indicate that many verses found
here in Matthew are found in Mark and Luke in different contexts. This does not
mean that Jesus did not say these words. It means that Matthew has put them
together in this manner.
The third point is the
theme, which will determine how one will interpret the Sermon as a whole. Most
are agreed that the theme of the Sermon is found in 5:17-20, in which Jesus
speaks about having come not to abolish but to fulfill the Law and Prophets,
and issues a challenge to those listening to let their “righteousness” be
greater than that of the scribes and Pharisees in order to enter the kingdom.
The mountain is a
“theological topos” in the Gospel of Matthew (Luke’s Sermon is from “a level
place” see Lk 6:17) and therefore means much more than simply a geographical
location. Matthew does not name the mountain, but by choosing it as the place
from where Jesus delivers the Sermon, he probably wants to portray Jesus as the
New Moses delivering the New Law from a New Mountain. While Jesus in the Gospel
of Luke “stands” and delivers the Sermon (Lk 6:17), in Matthew, Jesus sits
down. This is the posture that the Jewish Rabbis adopted when communicating a
teaching of importance or connected with the Law. In Luke the crowd is
addressed from the beginning of the Sermon and addressed directly, “Blessed are
you poor…” (Lk 6:20), but in Matthew, it is the “disciples” who come to Jesus
and whom he begins to teach.
The section on Prayer begins in 6:5 and Jesus contrasts the prayer of
his disciples with the prayer of hypocrites who like to be seen by all and also
Gentile prayer which heaps words upon words and may also mean a prayer made to
many “gods” to placate them. This kind of prayer is only for self gratification
or to receive favours. The prayer of the disciple is to God who is Father and
who knows what they need even before they can ask. Thus, prayer is not simply
to place the petition before God who is all knowing but primarily to
acknowledge dependence on God for everything.
What follows this contrast is the prayer that Jesus teaches his
disciples and which is commonly known as the "Our Father". However, a
better term for this would be "The Lord's Prayer". The reason for
this is because there are two versions of the same prayer. The other is found
in Lk. 11:2-4. There, the pronoun "Our" is missing and the prayer
begins simply with "Father". In Matthew this prayer is at the very
centre of the Sermon and must be read with that fact in mind. It begins with an
address and then goes on to make two sets of three petitions. The address of
God as “Father” brings out the intimacy of the relationship that disciples and
God share. The pronoun “Our” here indicates that God is not merely the father
of individual believers but of the community as a whole and therefore all in the
believing community are brothers and sisters.
The opening petitions indicate that prayer does not begin with one’s
needs, but with the glory and honour due to God. God’s name is and will be
honoured by all men and women, since God as revealed by Jesus is primarily a
God of mercy, forgiveness and unconditional love. The kingdom of God has come
in Jesus and is also in the future when God will be all and in all. This is a
situation in which God will show himself to be king as he has done in the life,
ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. As Jesus constantly did God’s will,
so it will continue to be done both in heaven and on earth. It is only when
God’s will is done rather than one’s own that there can be true and lasting
peace and harmony.
Despite petitioning God for something as stupendous as the kingdom, the
disciple also acknowledges dependence on God for something as regular and
ordinary as bread. God’s forgiveness is unconditional and without any merit on
the part of the disciples. However, in order to receive this forgiveness which
God gives graciously and gratuitously, the disciple will have to remove from
his/her heart any unforgiveness, resentment, bitterness or anger that might be
present there. The prayer ends with a final petition that God, who always leads
the people, will not bring them into a time of testing, when the pressure might
be so great as to overcome faith itself, but that he will save them from the
ultimate power of evil.
The Lord’s Prayer is not
just a prayer; it is also a way of life. The words of the prayer communicate
the attitude that one must have toward God and others. While we must
acknowledge our dependence on God for everything that we need and regard him
always as the primary cause, our attitude to others must be one of acceptance
and forgiveness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)