To hear the Audio reflections of Sunday, March 4, 2018 click HERE
Saturday, 3 March 2018
Sunday, March 4, 2018 - Ex 20:1-17; 1 Cor 1:22-25; Jn 2:13-25
Third Sunday in Lent, March 4, 2018 - Ex 20:1-17; 1 Cor 1:22-25; Jn 2:13-25
Third Sunday in Lent, March 4, 2018 - Laws and rules…or God?
To read the texts click on the texts:Ex 20:1-17; 1 Cor1:22-25; Jn 2:13-25
The incident that is popularly referred to as “The
Cleansing of the Temple” is one of the few incidents in the life of Jesus that
is found in all four Gospels. However, there are significant differences in the
manner in which John narrates it.
The incident is narrated by John at the beginning
of the public ministry of Jesus. The incident can be divided into two parts.
The first part concerns Jesus’ actions in the Temple. The second part contains
Jesus’ words about the destruction of the Temple and its rebuilding in three
days.
The Cleansing of the Temple takes place during the
feast of Passover, a time when large crowds would gather in Jerusalem. A large
number of animals would be required for sacrifice as burnt offerings. These
facts make the action of Jesus much more radical that in the synoptic Gospels.
The people who came for the festival would have come from far distances and
would have to buy animals in the precincts of the Temple. And, since Roman
coins were not acceptable as offerings in the Temple, money changers were
needed to change Roman coins to Tyrian coins, that these could be offered. This
means that, by his actions, Jesus challenges the very institution of worship
and its meaning.
The focus of the challenge is not so much on the
dishonesty of those who sold animals, or on the thievery of the money changers,
but on the fact that the house of God had been turned into a marketplace. Jesus
challenges the system, the very institution itself. He challenges the authority
of the Temple and its worship. That this is the case is clear in the words that
Jesus speaks as he performs his action. Jesus does not protest, like he does in
the synoptic Gospels, that the house of God has become a den of robbers. In
John’s gospel, Jesus protests that the house of God has become a house of
trade, a marketplace. The additional comment in John, which is based on Ps
69-9, serves to strengthen this view: zeal for the things of God and God’s
house will consume Jesus. His zeal will lead to his crucifixion. The story in John
focuses more on Jesus than it does on the Temple.
To the Jewish authorities who demand for a sign
authorizing his action, Jesus speaks about the destruction and the raising up
of the Temple. The Jewish authorities misunderstand his words. Jesus is referring
to the Temple that is his body. “Raise up” refers to the resurrection. This
means, therefore, that Jesus’ body replaces the Temple as the new place where
God is revealed.
It is with this background in mind that the first
reading of today should be read. Jesus has shaken the very foundations of what
the Jews considered the base of their authority. He has acted in a manner that
prevented them from offering sacrifice and money offerings on one of the most
significant feasts of the year, Passover. The challenge is to a system of
worship so embedded in its own rules and regulations that it was no longer open
to a fresh revelation from God. This is what happened to the Ten Commandments
give by God through Moses. They became ends in themselves. They were multiplied,
divided, added to, and subtracted from, until the original meanings and reasons
were lost and everything else, but God, took centre stage. The Commandments
were given to Israel after God had redeemed his people, through the Exodus. It
shows that God now claims the full attention and the complete devotion from
Israel. The focus of the commandments is thus, not on the law by itself, but on
living a life in which God remains at the centre. The commandments are not a
set of rules to be followed to the letter, but a programme for life which, if
followed, can result in recognizing God in all things and recognizing all
things in God.
Paul realized this, as is evident in the second
reading of today. He tells the Corinthians that, if they want to know the meaning
of salvation, they must not, like the Jews, look at a set of rules and
regulations or, like the Gentiles, go after false gods and idols. Paul tells
the Corinthians to continue to keep their gaze on the crucified Christ. Doing
so will enable them to see the true meaning of life and will result in every
law, every rules, and every regulation, being transformed into love.
Thus, the readings of today challenge us, as
Christians, to ask ourselves whether we are closed to fresh revelations from
God, as the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ time were. They challenge us to ask
ourselves if we have made rules, laws, and regulations, ends in themselves.
They challenge us to ask ourselves whether our worship, religious practices,
and liturgical celebrations have resulted in taking us away from God rather
than bringing us closer to him.
Friday, 2 March 2018
Audio Reflections of Saturday, March 3, 2018
To hear the Audio Reflections of Saturday, March 3, 2018 click HERE
Saturday, March 3, 2018 - Mic 7:14-15, 18-20; Lk 15: 1-3,11-32
Saturday, March 3, 2018 - Mic 7:14-15, 18-20; Lk 15:1-3,11-32
Saturday, March 3, 2018 - What names do you use to address God? What does this tell you about your relationship?
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”. His 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, 1 March 2018
Audio reflections of Friday, March 2, 2018
To hear the Audio reflections of Friday, March 2, 2018 click HERE
Friday, March 2, 2018 - Gen 37:3-4, 12-13, 17-28; Mt 21:33-43, 45-46
Friday, March 2, 2018 - Gen 37:3-4, 12-13, 17-28; Mt 21:33-43, 45-46
Friday, March 2, 2018 - 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?
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 centre 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, 28 February 2018
Audio reflections of Thursday, March 1, 2018
To hear the Audio reflections of Thursday, March 1, 2018 click HERE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)