Are you wearing the wedding garment? Isa 25:6-10 Phil 4:12-14.19-20 Mt 22:1-14

The last four verses of today’s Gospel have caused much consternation when heard or read and this is possibly one reason why the Church allows these verses to be omitted. It seems however; that they are part of the original parable even if seen as an expansion and Matthew’s own composition, but if read bring out the whole meaning of the parable. While at first glance it seems quite unreasonable to expect someone who has been invited from the streets to have a wedding garment, it must also be noted that all others who have also been invited from the streets, except this one, are wearing the wedding garment. This is an indication that the others accepted the invitation, and after doing so, did something about it. On the other hand, the one who did not have the wedding garment was there in body but not in spirit. He was at the feast but was not partaking of it. He was present yet absent. He sought the benefits of the feast without the required response to the invitation. Thus he cannot make the appropriate response nor can he claim ignorance when he is questioned by the king. He knows what the appropriate garb is in order to remain at the banquet; and he knows well that he is not wearing the wedding garment. The notion of election here works together with, rather than against, the reality of human responsibility.

This is why it is made quite clear that there is no coercion or force on the part of the king, but the issuance of an invitation. Those invited are free to respond in any way they want, but must be prepared to face the consequences of this response. Some of the original invitees make light of the invitation and pretend as if they have not heard it. They ignore the messengers and go off to do their own thing. These are engaged not in sin but in the events of life which have taken hold of them to such an extent that they cannot even understand the privilege that they are receiving in being invited. Still others behave irrationally, by attacking and killing the messengers who bring the invitation.

Since the invitation is spurned by the original invitees, the king is forced to send new invites to those who will accept them. These are the ones who are considered the scum of society, who are found on the streets or byroads. While these fill the banquet hall and accept the invitation willingly, it is also necessary for them to show, in action, this acceptance which they have made in freedom. This they do by wearing the required wedding garments which, in this context, can be interpreted as being present in both body and mind at the wedding feast. Matthew’s Gospel interprets this as doing deeds of righteousness. The consequence of not having a wedding garment or not showing in action that one has accepted the invitation is banishment from the feast. This is not the punishment given by the king but one which the invited guest has brought on him or herself.

An invitation to a feast is also issued in the first reading from Isaiah.  Those who will heed the call are invited to the mountain of the Lord, Zion. Here is the choicest of food and drink which is served in abundance. It is an invitation to feast and rejoice and an assurance that all tears will be wiped away and the people who come will be accepted. All reproach will be removed and God will reveal himself as a God who saves. This salvation will be shown in the most tangible of ways in that death itself will be destroyed.

Paul in the second reading of today tells of how because he has accepted the invitation in both words and deeds, he is completely sated. He does not hunger or thirst for anything but has been fulfilled in every single aspect of his life. The promise of Isaiah finds its meaning in the manner in which Paul lives his life. He lacks nothing. He has everything. In every single situation of life he is content.

The challenge of the readings, to each of us who are also called, is to also be regarded as those who are chosen. This is not a one time response, but a regular one since the invitation is constant. In order to be regarded as chosen, the ones called must manifest through their lives, in deeds of love and service, that the invitation to participate in the feast has been accepted. Thus, while the goods news is of an open invitation to everyone who is willing to listen leaving no one out, the fact remains that the response has to be shown through the actions of ones life. Not all who are invited are receptive to the invitation of the Lord and thus not all will bring forth the deeds of righteousness expected of the invitees. Those who are invited are expected to wear the wedding garment.

How would you define “God’s Word” today? Do you put this “Word” into practice in your life? How? Joel 4,12-21; Galatians 3,22-29; Lk 11,27-28

The words, “While he was saying this” connect what follows to what has gone on before. Jesus has just challenged his listeners to fill their lives with the kingdom of God, and now a woman in the crowd blesses the mother of Jesus, because of the beauty she sees in Jesus. While Jesus does not deny that his mother is indeed blessed, he uses this opportunity to extend the blessing to anyone who like his mother will hear the Word of God and put it into practice in their lives.

If the woman in the crowd was able to bless the womb that bore Jesus, it was because she could see and experience the goodness in Jesus. This goodness was manifested not only in what he said but in what he did and was therefore visible in his person. If we like Jesus hear the word of God and act on it, then others will pronounce the same blessing on us.

Which is the demon that has possessed you and does not leave you free? Will you attempt to get rid of that demon today? Joel 1,13-15; 2,1-2; Galatians 3,7-14; Lk 11,15-26

The onlookers respond to the exorcism of a demon that made a man mute, in different ways. While there are some who are amazed, others attribute Jesus’ power to cast out demons to Beelzebul. This is an indication that no one doubted Jesus’ power to exorcise and heal. They attributed it to different sources. In his response to this charge, Jesus says that since exorcisms represented a direct assault on Satan’ power and kingdom, it is clear that he cannot be on Satan’s side. Also, if Jesus’ exorcisms’ were performed by the power of Satan, the same would have to be said of other exorcists belonging to their community. Instead Jesus’ works indicate that the kingdom of God has indeed arrived. Through his exorcisms, Satan’s power is broken. In the simile of the strong man and his castle, Jesus explicates that he is the stronger one who overpowers Satan who had guarded his kingdom well till this time. Finally Jesus invites his listeners to take a stand for him. The saying here is strong. If one does not positively opt for Jesus, one has opted against him. The time now is for decision and choice.

Once he has answered his critics (11,17-23), Jesus moves on to exhort his listeners to fill their lives with the kingdom of God, because it is possible that despite the exorcism, if a person persists in his old ways, he will be possessed once again and this will be ever worse than before.

While there is no doubt that Jesus did exorcise people who were possessed by demons, we must avoid getting caught up with exorcisms ourselves. Rather, today there are many subtle forms of “possession” which are more dangerous than “external possession”. Some of these are consumerism, selfishness, ignorance and a better than thou attitude. We need to ask the Lord to exorcise these demons from our lives.

Do you give up easily when your prayers are not answered? Will you be shameless today? Will you persist today? Malachi 3,13-20; Galatians 3,1-5; Lk 11,5-13

Luke 11,5-8 is exclusive to Luke and deals with the assurance that God will answer prayer. This point is implicitly made through the parable in these verses. It is a parable from common experience. If the Greek word anaideia is translated as “shameless” (which is its literal meaning), then the parable is stating that it would be unthinkable in the setting of a Galilean village that a neighbour would not get up to give his friend what he wants even if it meant disturbing the entire family at midnight to oblige his friend. The reason why he would do this is to avoid being shamed. However, it can also mean that the one who makes the petition is shameless for going to the friend’s house at midnight to beg for bread.

If the translation of the word anaidea is “persistence” or “boldness”, then the point is that it is the persistence of the one who asks for bread, which will get him what he wants. The friend who gives the bread will be tired out by the persistence of the one who is asking.

In 11,9-13, we have a three-fold admonition, “Ask, search and knock” (11,9-10), followed by two rhetorical questions (11,11-12) both of which elicit the answer “No, there is no one”.

The final verse of this section 11,13 contrasts evil human beings with the heavenly Father. If humans evil as they are will still give their children only what is good, then the heavenly Father will do more than that. He will give the greatest of gifts, the Holy Spirit to those who ask.

To be without shame is also to be without ego. The one who is shameless is also one who can persevere since he/she has nothing to lose. Perseverance is indeed the key to open the door to God’s heart.

Will you depend on yourself today or will you show your dependence on God? How? Jonah 4,1-11; Galatians 2,1-2.7-14; Lk 11,1-4

Luke gives more importance to Jesus’ practice of praying than do any of the other Gospels. The only prayer that Jesus’ explicitly taught his disciples was the “Our Father”. This prayer appears only in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. While in Matthew, the prayer appears as part of the Sermon on the Mount; Luke explicitly has Jesus praying himself when he is asked by his disciples to teach them to pray. The following elements of the Matthean prayer are not found in Luke: “Our … who art in heaven…Thy will be done on earth as it is heaven… but deliver us from evil. This has the effect of making the prayer simple and direct in Luke. Both Matthew and Luke understood the prayer as a prayer of the community and have use the first person plural to stress this. While the prayer in Matthew contains seven petitions, the prayer in Luke contains only five. It is agreed by many that the Lukan version is probably closer to the original prayer that Jesus taught. By petitioning God for the most basic of our needs like “bread”, the prayer is basically a prayer of dependence. It is an acknowledgement of the fact that we cannot manage even this simple task on our own, and we need God’s goodness to provide it to us. Just as we need bread we also need God’s forgiveness, because if He were to keep a grudge against us for every time we sinned, we would be lost. In this context it must be noted that nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus tell us that we must be “sorry” for our sins if we want forgiveness. Rather if we want to be forgiven, we must forgive. Our forgiveness of others opens our hearts to receive the forgiveness that God constantly gives. The prayer is therefore not merely a prayer therefore, but an attitude, a way of life.

Will you like Martha, presume to tell Jesus what he ought to do, or will you like Mary listen to what he would like you to do? Jonah 3,-10; Galatians 1,13-24; Lk 10,38-42

This text, which speaks of the encounter of Martha and Mary with Jesus, takes the form of a pronouncement story (a story in which a saying of Jesus stands out and is the focus of the story). While the Gospel of Luke explicitly mentions women disciples of Jesus, here Mary is even sitting at the feet of Jesus and listening to his teaching, something unthinkable at the time of Jesus. By sitting at his feet, Mary is acting like a male, and in doing so neglects her duty of helping to prepare the meal. This action of Mary also results in bringing shame upon her house. Though justified Martha’s protest is put negatively by her. It is clear that her focus is not the Lord, but herself. She is concerned not with her service of the Lord, but the trouble that it is causing her because she is left alone to serve. The response of Jesus to Martha is the main point of the story and the pronouncement. The repetition of her name is a mild rebuke. Her “cares” have prevented her from unhindered devotion and attention to the Lord. Mary has chosen the one thing necessary and that is the Lord. Martha presumes to tell Jesus what he should do; Mary lets Jesus tell her what to do.

There are times when we do things not because we are convinced that they have to be done but because we want the approval of others or we want others to know how hard we are working. These are selfish acts and do not bring grace. The act that does bring grace is when we do what has to be done simply because it has to be done and expect nothing in return.

Is there a person/group that you have a prejudice against or whom you have stereotyped? Will you overcome that prejudice today? Jonah 1,1 – 2,1.11; Galatians 1,6-12; Lk 10,25-37

Our text for today contains the Parable of The Good Samaritan. This is a parable that is found only in the Gospel of Luke, and the context in Luke is the question that is asked by a lawyer regarding eternal life. In Matthew and Luke, the lawyer is hostile (not so in Mark), because the question is asked to “test” Jesus. While in Matthew (22,34-40) and Mark (12,28-31) the question is about the greatest commandment, and Jesus answers the question quoting from Deuteronomy and Leviticus, in Luke, Jesus asks the lawyer a counter question and gets him (the lawyer) to answer. Deuteronomy 6,4-9 (Love of God) was part of the “Shema” (the prayer to “Hear”), repeated twice each day, but it had not been linked to Leviticus 19,18 (Love of neighbour) as it is here. Since it is the lawyer who answers, Jesus responds with a commendation (“You have answered right; do this, and you will live.”) Since the lawyer was forced to answer and cede the upper hand, he does not give up, but asks a question over which there was some controversy – “Who is my neighbour?” In his response to this question, Jesus tells the parable of the Good Samaritan. This parable has often been interpreted as one in which Jesus is telling us that those in need are our neighbours, or that it has an anticlerical edge, in which Jesus is showing up the priestly class by mentioning priest and Levite as not reaching out to the one in need. If these were the meanings, then there would be no need to make the third person that passed by that way, a Samaritan. The third person could have been a lay Jew. The reason why the third person is a Samaritan is because Jesus wanted the lawyer who was a Jew, to go beyond the narrow definition of neighbour, to go beyond his prejudice, his bias, and his stereotyping. When Israel was split into kingdoms after the death of Solomon in around 922 BCE, the North (named Israel which had its capital at Samaria) and the South (Judah which had its capital as Jerusalem), it became the target for its neighbours, because its strength was divide. In 722 BCE, the Assyrians captured Israel and its capital Samaria and took as their wives and concubines Israeli women. The children by that union were known as Samaritans and till the time of Jesus were regarded as inferior and outcasts by their former Jewish brothers (and sisters). Jesus is thus asking the Jew (the lawyer) if he can get rid of his negative way of looking at the Samaritan, and regard him also as neighbour. It is interesting that at the end of the parable, Jesus overturns the lawyer’s question. Jesus asks, “Who was neighbour to the one who fell among robbers?” whereas the lawyers question was “Who is my neighbour?” The Samaritan is indeed, neighbour.

We often look at people with tainted glasses or a prejudiced vision. We tend to categorise them and place them in neat compartments based on their backgrounds. This attitude leads to stereotyping people and not being able to see them as they are. Albert Einstein said this about a prejudice, “It is easier to disintegrate an atom than a prejudice”.