Posts Tagged ‘Jesus’

« Older Entries

Mother of Us All – A Brief Pondering of the Question, “What does Mary look like?”

It is a notable fact that our Lord and his Mother lived in a time long before photographs, even at a time, and among a people, where drawings and portraits of people were almost unknown. Also notably absent in the Sacred Scriptures are any details regarding the physical appearances of most Biblical figures, unless a detail is necessary for the story (e.g. Zacchaeus being short, Goliath tall, Leah being less attractive due to her misshapen eyes). But generally there seems to be an almost complete lack of preoccupation with such things in the Biblical narrative. And even when we are told that David was handsome or Bathsheba was beautiful, we are not really told how.

We live in a polar opposite world when it comes to images. Everything is visual, and we are quite obsessed with appearance and looking acceptable and good, and how other people look.

We attach great meaning (for better, but usually for worse) on our physical appearance. We divide out over race, skin tone, hair etc. We also prize thinness and ridicule fatness, we worry if we are tall enough, pretty enough, if our hair is too straight or not straight enough, if we are tan enough or too dark skinned, and when age sets in many head for the cosmetic surgeon.

Instructive! Thus when we wonder as to what Jesus or Mary “looked like,” it may be instructive for us to reflect on why the Lord would have them live in a time and place, where this data would NOT be supplied us. For, in the end, they look like us. And some historical sketch or painting, had one ever been made, would only tend to limit our vision, rather than allow us to identify with them.

To the question what did Mary look like we may garner five possible answers:

  1. None of your business.
  2. Why do you care?
  3. She looks just like you think she looks.
  4. She looks like you, because she is your mother.
  5. She is far more beautiful than you ever imagined (My favorite answer).

But answer four is probably the most helpful when it comes to accepting the diverse ways she is depicted.

Most of us American Catholics see her in very European terms. Historically this may be dubious, by why shouldn’t we see here as looking like us. She is after all our mother.

As I walk though the dozens of chapels in the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception here in Washington, I see her as Chinese, American, Lithuanian, Mexican, Filipino, Korean, African, Lebanese, Irish, Ethiopian, and so on. And why shouldn’t these various Ethnicities  see her as looking like them, she is, after all their mother.

In her various apparitions her look varies too. La Virgen de Guadalupe “La Morena”  (= dark skinned) is surely different than the descriptions we have from other sights such as Fatima or Lourdes. But here too, why can’t the heavenly beauty of Immaculate Mary, so brightly reflective of God’s glory, not refract through the prism of human experience in different colors and ways?

What does Mary look like? She is our Mother, she looks like us. Jesus is our brother (and Lord), he looks like us.

Happy Feast Day

Perhaps the “Meanest” and Most Shocking Thing Jesus Ever Said

The Gospel from today’s Mass (Luke 19:11-27) is known as the Parable of the Ten Gold Coins. It is similar to Matthew’s Parable of the Talents with certain significant differences and has an end so shocking that, when I read it at daily Mass some years ago, a young child said audibly to her mother: “Wow that’s mean!?!”

I’d like to take a look at it and ponder its shocking end.

As said, the parable is similar to the “Parable of the Talents” except that ten people receive a gold coin each. Despite this, we only hear the reports of three men as in the Matthean account, two who show profit and one who shows an angry and disdainful lack of profit.

But another significant difference is the weaving of another parable (Let’s call it the “Parable of the Rejected King”) into the story. Briefly stated, here are the lines of that parable, along with its shocking end:

A nobleman went off to a distant country to obtain the kingship for himself and then to return. His fellow citizens, however, despised his and sent a delegation after him to announce, “We do not want this man to be our king.’ But when he returned after obtaining the kingship…..[He said] “Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:12,14, 27-28)

In analyzing a text like this I must say that I was disappointed at the silence of most commentaries. The shocking verse “slay them before me” goes largely unremarked.

The Fathers seem to say little (though perhaps you will correct me). I did find two references in the Catena Aurea. Augustine says of this verse: Whereby He describes the ungodliness of the Jews who refused to be converted to Him. And Theophilus adds Whom he will deliver to death, casting them into the outer fire. But even in this world they were most miserably slain by the Roman army.

Hence both Fathers take the verse at face value and even declare it to be historically fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Josephus indicates in his work that 1.2 million Jews were killed in that dreadful war.

Not to doubt any Father of the Church;  I must say however, that the triumphal and vengeful tone of Jesus still puzzles. For if this verse does refer to the destruction of 70 AD, how do we account for Jesus’ tone here,  who just verses later weeps over Jerusalem:

As Jesus approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” (Lk 19:41-44)

Certainly a variety of emotions can sweep even the God-man Jesus, but let me also suggest some other contextual and cultural considerations that frame Jesus’ startling and “mean” words: Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me.

1. Jesus is speaking in the prophetic tradition – Prophets spoke this way, using startling and often biting imagery and characterizations. Though many today have tried to tame and domesticate Jesus, the real Jesus spoke vividly in the prophetic tradition. He often used shocking and paradoxical images. He spoke bluntly, as prophets do, calling his hostile interlocutors hypocrites, vipers, children of the devil, whitewashed tombs, evil, foolish, blind guides, and the sons of those who murdered the prophets. He warns them that they will be sentenced to hell unless they repent, and lays them out for their inconsistency and hardness of heart. This is what prophets do, they speak in this manner.

So, in speaking “mean” like this, Jesus is firmly in the tradition of the prophets, who spoke in a similar manner. Thus, in understanding the words of Jesus we are considering (slay them in my presence) we cannot overlook the prophetic context. His words which seem to us angry and even vengeful are expected in the prophetic tradition from which he speaks, intentionally shocking. Their purpose is to provoke a response.

Prophets used hyperbole and shock to convey and frame their call to repentance. And, while we ought not simply dismiss Jesus’ words as exaggeration, we should not fail to see them in the traditional context of prophetic speach.

Hence they may not, in fact,  portray an attitude of vengeance personally in Jesus’ heart but are to be understood as prophecy toward those who refuse to repent. They will die in their sins. And their refusal to reconcile with God and their neighbors (in this case the Romans) will indeed lead to a terrible war wherein they will be slain, dying horribly.

2. The Jewish culture and language often used hyperbole – Even beyond the prophetic tradition, the ancient Jews often used all or nothing language in their manner of speech. Although I am no Hebrew scholar, I have been taught that the Hebrew Language contains far fewer comparative words than English or other languages contain. Comparative words are words such as: more, less, greater, fewer, most, especially, and so forth. Hence, if an ancient Jew were asked if he liked Chocolate or Vanilla ice cream more, he would say something like: “I like Chocolate and hate vanilla.” By which he really means, I like Chocolate more.” Thus,  we see that Jesus says elsewhere that we must love him and hate our parents, spouse and children (e.g. Lk 14:26). He does not mean that we should literally hate them. This is a Jewish way of saying that we must love him more, and the most.

This background explains the ancient Jewish tendency to speak in hyperbole (exaggeration) and to often couch things in all or nothing terms. It is not as though they did not comprehend nuances, they just did not speak in that manner, allowing the context to supply that “hate” does not mean literal hate etc.

This linguistic background helps explain how the more extremist elements of prophetic language take shape.

We ought to be careful however not to simply dismiss things as hyperbole. We in the modern West, who speak English, may love that our language has greater nuance. But sometimes we are so nuanced as to say little. At some point we must be either yes or no, with God or against him. In the end, even if purgatory intervene, there is only Heaven or Hell.

The ancient Jewish way of speaking in a rather all or nothing manner is not primitive per se and it has a refreshing and honest way of insisting that we decide for or against God, what is right, and what is just.

Thus, though Jesus words are harsh, part of the Hebraic way of speaking, they do call the question. For either we choose God and live, or we choose sin and die spiritually. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Roma 6:23)

3. Jesus is speaking to hardened sinners – The audience here is important as well.  As Jesus draws near to Jerusalem he is going into hostile territory, and sinners and unbelievers he encounters are very rigid, and have hardened their hearts against him. Hence, Jesus’ words must be understood as strong medicine.

One can imagine a doctor saying to a stubborn patient, “If you do not change, you will die soon, and I’ll see you at your funeral.” While some may consider this a poor “bedside manner,” there are some patients for whom such language is necessary and appropriate.

Jesus is dealing with hardened sinners here and so he speaks bluntly. They are headed for death and hell and he tells them so.

Perhaps we who live in “dainty” times and who are so easily offended and of giving offense, could learn from such an approach. There are some who just need to hear from priests, parents, and others, “If you do not change you ways, I do not see how you can avoid being sentenced to hell.”

4. A final thought, a theory really, that some have advanced. According to this theory, Jesus is referring to an actual historical incident and using it to disabuse his listeners of their fond thoughts of a new King. After the death of Herod the Great, Archelaus, his son, went to Rome to receive the title of king. A group of Jews also appeared in Rome before Caesar Augustus and opposed the request of Archelaus. Although not given the title of king, Archelaus was made ruler over Judea and Samaria, and later had those Jews who opposed him killed.

Kings are often despots – Since many Jews thought the Messiah, when he came, would be a king, some where hoping that Jesus was going to Jerusalem to take up the role of an earthly King. According to this theory, since the people pined for a king, Jesus uses this fearsome parable and reminder that earthly Kings are usually despotic. Jesus is thus trying to disabuse them of the notion that he or anyone else should be their earthly King.

While this theory has a lot to recommend it, especially historical precedent, it seems unlikely that the Gospel text would use such an historically localized event to make such a narrow point. Jesus is not just speaking to the people of that time and place, he is also speaking to us. Hence, even if this explanation may have partial historical context, the meaning would also need to extend beyond one incident in the ancient past.

Well there you have it. I am interested in your thoughts as well. Since the commentaries I consulted seemed rather silent, perhaps you have read commentaries worth sharing. Likewise, perhaps you know of some other quotes of the Fathers I could not find.

Is Jesus mean here? No, but blunt and painfully clear? Yes. And frankly some of us need it. In these thin-skinned times we may bristle at such talk, but that’s our problem. Good refreshing honesty and a clear diagnosis are far more important than our precious feelings.

In this video James Earl Jones portrays Vernon Johns, an early Civil Rights activists. He shows well what real prophets are like.

And here’s Jesus in Prophetic Mode – No compromises

Jesus Was was no “Girlie-man.” On Restoring a Truer Vision of the Biblical Jesus from the 20th Century Remake

When I was a teenager in the 1970s Jesus was presented in less than flattering terms, at least from my standpoint as a young man at that time. The paintings and statues of that day presented Jesus as a rather thin, willow-wisp of a man, a sort of friendly but effeminate hippie, a kind of girlyman,  who went about blessing poor people and healing the sick. It is true he did that but usually left out of the portraits was the Jesus who summoned people to obedience and an uncompromising discipleship, the Jesus who powerfully rebuked his foes.

1970s Jesus was “nice,” and I should be nice too. In my 1970s Church we had no crucifix. Rather there was a cross and a rather slender and starry eyed Jesus sort of floated there in front of the Cross. The cross, it would seem, was all too much for a kinder gentler Jesus. The cross was, how shall we say…., so “unpleasant.”

Somehow, even as a teenager, I craved a stronger, manly Jesus. My heroes then were Clint Eastwood and I loved John Wayne movies which my father called to my attention. Now those were men. (I know they were into revenge, but I’d learn about that later).

The “Jesus” I was presented with seemed soft and unimpressive compared to them and, teenager that I was, I was unmoved. Who will follow an uncertain trumpet? The basic message of Jesus 1970 was “be nice” but 1970s Catholicism (which Fr. Robert Barron calls “beige Catholicism”) stripped away the clarion call of repentance and trumpet-like command that we take up our cross, that we lose our life in order to save it.

Imagine my pleasant surprise when I actually began to study the real Jesus, the one in Scriptures. He was nothing like the thin little williow-wisp of a man I had been taught. He was a vigorous leader, a man among men. Someone who was formidable and commanding of respect. Someone I could look up to.

What follows is a portrait of Jesus Christ that I culled from a few sources and adapted. I wish I could remember the sources to credit them here, but it was over twenty years ago in seminary that, from some dusty old books written long before the 1970s, I culled this portrait on the human stature of Christ. Note that the focus here is on the humanity of Christ. It presupposes his divine nature but focuses on the human nature and, as you will see draws most of its material straight from the Scriptures. As You can see the description is longish. In case you would rather print and read it later I have put it in PDF here: On the Human Stature of Christ

The exterior appearance of Jesus seems to have been a handsome one. A woman in the crowd broke out into praise of him with the words, Blessed in the womb that bore Thee and the breasts that nursed Thee. His response to her Rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep itseems to suggest that she had bodily excellencies in mind as well as spiritual. The powerful impression which Jesus made on ordinary people certainly owed something to his attractive exterior which by its charm drew everyone to him and held them.

Even if this was due primarily to his spiritual and religious power, still, his eyes, with their burning, waking, reproving looks must have been especially striking. For example see how Mark remarks of the eyes of the Lord in the following passages: 3:5,34; 5:32; 8:33; 10:21; 23:27.

We also may cull from Scripture an impression of health, power, energy and well being in Jesus. Jesus seems to have been a thoroughly healthy man, not prone to fatigue and with a great capacity for work. We never hear that Jesus was visited by any sickness. A proof of his physical endurance is born out in Scripture. He was in the habit of rising very early (Mark 1:35). The hills and the lake were especially dear to him and after a long day he loved to climb some lonely height, or late in the evening get himself taken out on to the shimmering water of Lake Gennesareth and stayed out far into the night (cf Mk 4:35; 6:35). We also know that his public life was one of wandering through the mountain valleys of his homeland, from Galilee to Samaria and Judaea and even as far as to the district of Tyre and Sidon (Matt 15:21). Despite these arduous journeys he counseled that one should travel light, bringing nothing for the journey, neither staff, money, nor bread, neither have two coats (Luke 9:3). Hunger and thirst must therefore have frequently accompanied him.

His last journey from Jericho up to Jerusalem was an astounding feat. Under a burning sun through a desolate, rocky waste he climbed some 3500 feet in a six hour climb. Despite this, he seems not tired, since that night he takes part in a feast at the house of Lazarus and his sisters (John 12:2). By far, the greater part of Jesus’ public ministry was spent out in the open, exposed to rigors of climate, in a life filled with labor and toil, with often little time eat (Mk 3:20; Mk 6:31). He owned no home and “had nowhere to lay his head” (Matt 8:20) Hence he likely spent more than a few nights sleeping out in the elements. Only a sound body of physical stamina could have endured such as this.

And now to his mental stature itself. He faced many malevolent enemies among the Pharisees and Sadducees and dealt with them effectively, reducing them to silence (so much so that they began to plot his death). In addition there were tiring explanations to be offered to disciples who were often slow to learn. His self assurance is manifest. In the midst of a raging storm he went on peacefully sleeping till his disciples woke him. He immediately grasps the situation and rebukes the storm.

There was tremendous clarity in his thought. He had an absolute grasp of His goal which gave him an inflexibility and finality (in the good sense) of his will. Jesus knows what he wills and determinedly pursues it. This is evident even at twelve years of age in the temple.

The three temptations in the desert are turned back forcefully by the Lord. He is never deterred by opposition. There is opposition among the kindred of his own town, among his followers (cf esp. John 6:57) and even among the Apostles (cf esp. Matt 16:22). Here we have a man of clear will. He demands the same determination and certainty from his followers. No man, putting his hand to the plough and turning back is fit for the reign of God.” (Luke 9:62)

He bore so clearly the marks of the true, the upright, and the strong, that even his enemies had to declare when they came to him, Master, we know that thou art a true speaker and care not for the opinion of any man. (Mk 12:14) He shows forth a unity and purity and transcendence that reflect his interior life of union with the Father. His loyalty to the will of his Father is unwavering and clear even though it leads directly to the Cross. Jesus in every way is a heroic and epic figure in the purest sense of that word staking his life for a known truth and demanding the same of his followers.

Jesus was a born leader. When he calls his apostles, they immediately arise to follow after him. (cf esp Mk 1:16; 1:20) Again and again the Apostles note how they wondered among themselves about the marvels of his actions and even how these struck terror into them (cf esp. Mk 9:5; 6:51; 4:40; 10:24,26). At times they did not dare question him any further (Mk 9:3). The same wonderment affected the crowds.(cf Mk 5:15,33,42; 9:14). He spoke with towering authority and the people sought the loftiest images to in wondering who he could be. Is he John the Baptist? Elijah? Jeremiah or one prophets? (Matt 16:14) His spiritual power and authority discharged themselves in stern language and bold action when the powers of evil arrayed themselves against him. Demons trembled against his awesome power (Matt 4:10.) He also rebukes strongly the evil that is in men and warns them that they will not be worthy of him if they do not repent (Matt 13:41sq; 13:49sq; 25:1sq; 14sq; 33sq; 18:34; 22:7; 22:11sq.).

He is absolutely clear and unflinching in dealing with the scribes and Pharisees (Matt 23:14,24,25). As shown above, he knows himself to be the Messiah and is anything but a fair-weather Messiah but follows the model of the prophets rebuking all enemies of the truth He proclaims. He speaks of hypocrites, serpents and generations of vipers and liars (cf Matt 23:33). He calls Herod a fox (Lk 13:32). Although he was never one to tread lightly, he never forgets himself or loses control. His anger is always the expression of supreme moral freedom declaring, for this I came into the World, that I should give testimony to the truth (John 18:37). Because He was so consistently true to His Father’s will his life was only “Yes and No” and he reacted with great severity against anything that was ungodly or hateful to God. He was ready to stake his own life for the truth and die for it.

To describe Jesus psychologically would be to describe his as a man of purposeful virility, absolute genuineness, austere uprightness, and heroic in performance. He knows the truth, knows himself and, with exact clarity, executes his mission.

I realize that people are pretty particular in how they envisage Jesus. I also think men and women have a very different starting point too. Please remember that I am not pontificating here, I am starting a conversation. So have at it!

Photo: From the Movie, The Passion of the Christ. A strong Christ, to be sure.

This video Clip is from the Movie The Gospel of John

Is He Your King? The Trial Before Pilate

GOOD FRIDAY – All through the night Jesus has been locked in the dungeon of the high priest’s house. Early this morning he was bought before a Pilate who transferred his case to Herod. Herod sent him back to Pilate who, sometime in the mid-morning, bowed to the pressure of the Temple leadership and the crowds, and condemned Jesus to a horrible death by crucifixion. In the late morning Jesus was taken by the soldiers through the city and up the hillside of Golgotha. By noon he is nailed to the cross where he hangs in agony for some three hours. He dies around three in the afternoon. He is taken down from the cross and placed in the tomb hastily before sundown. Today is a day of prayer, fasting and abstinence. Whenever possible, Christians are urged to keep today free of work, of social engagements, of entertainment, and to devote themselves to communal prayer and worship. At noon many parishes gather for stations of the cross for recollections of the seven last words of Jesus. Many parishes also offer stations of the cross at 3pm the hour of Jesus death. In the evening, we gather quietly in our parish Churches to enter into time of prayer as we reflect on Jesus death on the cross. We also pray for the needs of the world. To acknowledge the power of the cross in our lives today, we one by one come forward to venerate the cross with a kiss. Our hunger from this day of fasting is satisfied with Holy Communion distributed at the end of this liturgy. Consider too how the apostles might have gathered that night together in fear and prayer reflecting on all that happened.

The following videos depicts Jesus and Pilate. The First is from The Passion of the Christ. What is remarkable about this clip is that when Pilate addresses Jesus in Aramaic, Jesus answers him in Latin. This is not a biblical fact, but a technique that the producer, Mel Gibson (pray for him) uses. It is something that startles Pilate and the bystanders, for it was unlikely that a Galilean would know enough Latin to hold a conversation, let alone about philosophy and theology! But it would seem to be Gibson’s (pray for him) way of illustrating that this conversation is personal, between Pilate and Jesus, for Jesus uses Pilate’s mother-tongue. Jesus speaks to Pilate in a very personal and serious way: Who do YOU think I am and what will YOU do about it?

The Second clip is from the movie The Gospel of John. It follows the Gospel of John exactly. Notice how Jesus turns the tables on Pilate. Although Jesus is on trial, he ends up putting Pilate on trial! Notice too how many times Pilate goes in and out of Praetorium (Governor’s Palace). At least four times! He is vacillating. He knows Jesus is innocent of the charges. But in the end, out of fear, he suppresses his conscience and hands Jesus over. Pilate had wanted to avoid committing to Jesus one way or the other. But he, like you and me had to make a decision. You might say he goes from vacillation to assassination!

Notice particularly the question Pilate wrestles with over Jesus’ Kingship. He asks, “Are you the King of the Jews?” But Jesus will not answer. This is a question Pilate must answer. It is a question you and I must answer. And so Jesus says, “Are you saying this on your own or have others been saying this to you?” In other words am I a King because you say so or are you just saying what others say? Only Pilate can answer if Jesus is a king. Only you and I can answer for ourselves. Is he your King?

Art Credit : Brain Jekel

Recall Notice!

RecallThe maker of all humans beings (GOD) is recalling all units manufactured, regardless of make or year, due to a serious defect in the primary and central component of the heart. This is due to a malfunction in the original prototype units (code named Adam and Eve) resulting in the same defect in all subsequent units. This defect has been technically termed “Sorrow Inducing Non-morality (S.I.N.). Some of the symptoms include:

  1. Loss of direction
  2. Foul vocal emissions
  3. Amnesia of Origin
  4. Lack of peace and joy
  5. Selfish or violent behavior
  6. Depression or confusion in the mental component
  7. Fearfulness
  8. Idolatry
  9. Rebellion
  10. Sometimes the units are just plain mean.

The Manufacturer, who is neither liable nor at fault  for this defect is providing factory-authorized repair and service, free of charge, to correct this defect. The Repair Technician, Jesus, has most graciously offered to bear the entire burden of the staggering cost of these repairs. Some of the following procedures will be necessary in this repair:

  1. The disk in the heart component must be scrubbed clean of all viruses.
  2. The mental component must be overwritten with new software, (especially WORD of God 3.0)  
  3. Virus Protection software (such as Pure Eyes 2.0) must be installed to protect the unit from further damage.
  4. Connection to the Maker of all all human beings (GOD) must be re-established through the restoration of communication software in the unit. This is done by installing COMMUNION 2.0 Software.
  5. Communications protocols must be upgraded to make sure that the unit says “only the good things men need to hear” and to be sure the unit speaks only that which is true.

Please bring your unit to the nearest Catholic Parish for immediate service. While it is true that WORD of God 3.0 is available for immediate download, an interpretive key must be installed on site at the Catholic parish. Without this interpretive key, WORD of God 3.0 may not function properly in the unit. Further, scrubbing the disk of the heart component can only be done by an authorized technician as well as the installation of COMMUNION 2. 0 software. Jesus has personally authorized these technicians to do the work necessary to repair your unit.

WARNING: Continuing to operate the human being unit without correction voids any manufacturer warranties, exposing the unit to further dangers and problems and will result in the unit being permanently quarantined. For more information on avoiding  the “Hell sub-routine”  send a kneemail to Jesus at: Jesuspaiditall@oncalvary.org 

Please note that emergency service is always available. For information on the location of Catholic Churches and regular service hours go to www.masstimes.org

Please spread the word on this recall!

Is Anger Always a Sin?

Some one wrote in the following question:  

How would you respond to a someone who (in Zen like fashion) states that anger is always counterproductive?  Is anger always a sin?

The simple answer is ”No, anger is not always a sin.” In fact, in some situations anger is the appropriate response. If anger were always a sin, the Jesus never got the memo since he displays quite a lot of anger in the Gospels. We’ll look at that in a moment.

To being with, some distinctions are in order.

  1. We ought first to distinguish between the internal experience or feeling of anger and the external manifestation of it.The internal expereince of anger as a passionate response to some external stimulus is not sinful since we cannot usually and immediately control the arising of feelings or passions. Anger usually arises out of some sense of threat. It signals us that something is wrong, threatening or inappropriate as we understand or interpret the data. Sometimes our perceptions are incorrect but often they are not. Anger, in this sense, is not only sinless, but necessary as it alerts  us to the need to respond to something that is a threat or unjust and it gives us the energy to address it. In this sense, it is not sinful. It is a passion and an energy to set things right or to address a threatening situation.
  2. Now it is possible that our anger can arise from less than holy reasons. Some of the things we fear, we should not fear. Some of our fears are rooted in pride, and an inordinate need for status and affirmation. Some of our fears come from misplaced priorities. For example we may be excessively concerned with money, property, popularity  or material things. And this concern triggers inordinate fears about things that should not matter so much. And this fear gives rise to feeling easily threatened at loss or diminishment. This in turn triggers anger, since we sense that something is wrong or threatening. But we ought not be so concerned with such things since they are rooted in pride, vanity and materialism. In this case the anger may have a sinful dimension but the sin is more rooted in the inordinate and sinful drives than merely the anger itself. This is because, even when anger arises from poor motives or objects, it is still not something all that voluntary.
  3. Now external manifestations of anger can and do sometimes have a sinful dimension when they are beyond what is reasonable. If I am experiencing anger there may be little or no sin in that. However if I express that anger by hurling insults, or physically attacking someone I may well have sinned by a sinful expression of my anger. Even here there can be exceptions. It may be appropriate at times to physically defend myself. I can think of no exception to the rule against hurling insults and personal attacks. However, it remains true that we live in thin-skinned times and people often take personal offense when they should not. We will see in a moment that Jesus did not often hesitate to describe his opponents’  in rather vivid ways.
  4. Hence, of itself, anger is not a sin.The Scriptures say, Be angry but sin not (Ps 4:4) So anger is not the sin. However, the expression of anger may become sinful. Further, it is possible that some of our anger springs from less than holy sources.

When is the external manifestation of anger an appropriate response?  Most simply put, anger is appropriate when its object is appropriate and reasonable.

For example, it is appropriate to experience anger when we see or experience injustice. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. harnessed appropriate anger of Americans toward the injustice of racism. He elicited it,  and focused  its energy in productive ways. Notice that he was very careful to teach against violence and revenge. Anger did not to give the Civil Rights Protesters the right to hate. What Dr. King did was to elicit a just anger on the part of many Americans. This anger in turn gave them the motivation to act creatively and energetically to resist  injustice and effect change through non-violence. This sort of angry response was appropriate, reasonable and even holy. The tradition of non-violent resistance to injustice remains strong in those who protest abortion, and other sins, crimes and social injustices. It is the anger that motivates the desire to speak and the zeal to take action to rectify injustice.

Anger is also appropriate and even necessary in some forms of fraternal correction. To fail to manifest some level of anger may lead to the false conclusion that the offense in question is not really all that significant. For example if a child belts his brother in the mouth and knocks out a tooth a parent ought to manifest an appropriate amount of anger to make it very clear that this sort of behavior is intolerable. To gently correct a child in a smooth and dispassionate way with no inflection in the voice can lead to the impression that this really isn’t so bad. Proper anger has a way of bringing the point home and making a lasting impression. Again, note that the anger in question should be at a proper level, not excessive, and not too weak. This of course requires a good bit of self-mastery.

Meekness- And this leads us to an important beatitude and fruit of the Holy Spirit which helps us to master anger: Meekness. In modern English, meekness has lost its original vigor and tends to signify a person who is a bit of a pushover and easily taken advantage of. But,  in its original meaning, meekness describes the vigorous virtue wherein one gains authority over their anger. Aristotle defined meekness (πραΰτης ) as the mean between being too angry, and not being angry enough. As we have noted, there is a place and a need for anger. The meek person has authority over their anger. They are able to summon its energy but control its extremes.  Hence the meek are far from weak. They are the string ones who have gained authority over their anger. St. John Chrysostom says in this regard: He who is not angry when he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is a hotbed of many vices. (Homily 11). St Thomas Aquinas says: Consequently, lack of the passion of anger is also a vice, [for it is] a lack of movement in the will directed to punishment by the judgment of reason (II, IIae 158.8).

What of Jesus? One the one hand Jesus seems to have taught very strongly against anger:

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’  But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matt 5:21-22) 

On the face of it it would seem that Jesus condemns anger without exception. However, if that is the case then Jesus broke his own rule for he exhibited a lot of anger in the Gospels. What Jesus DOES clearly condemn here is unrighteous and wrathful anger. Notice that he give two examples of the kind of anger he means. The first example is to use the term of contempt: Raca. This term is hard to translate so it is simply rendered in the Aramaic. Essentially what it means to do is to strip a person of any dignity and to regard them with utter contempt. Notice that Jesus links this kind of anger to murder since, by it, the other person is so stripped of any human dignity that to murder them is no different than killing an ox or mule. This sort of anger depersonalizes the other and disregards them as a child of God. The term fool; has a similar, though less egregious, purpose. Hence, it would seem that the Lord is not condemning all anger her but rather the anger of contempt and depersonalization. To absolutize Jesus’ teaching here to include any anger would seem unreasonable given what we have said above and it would also call into question Jesus’ own example which includes not a little anger.

Most people are familiar with Jesus’ anger in the cleansing of the temple. But there are other places as well where he manifest not a little anger:

 Jesus said, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!”You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? (Matt 23:29-33)

Jesus said, “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire!  He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me?  He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God!” ( John 8:44-47)

Passages like these do not exhibit the “Mr Rogers” kind of Jesus common in the modern imagination. Jesus was no “Caspar Milquetoast.”  His vigorous anger is also on display in the video below.

What to make of these angry displays?

  1. Not sinful – Clearly they are not sinful displays of anger since the scriptures assure us that Jesus never sinned (e.g. Heb 4:15).
  2. There may be an important cultural dimension to remember here. In the culture of the ancient Jews there seems to have been a wider acceptance of the expression of anger than in our own American setting. Even in America there is a wide variance in the acceptance of anger. I once dated an Italian girl in college and she and her mom could really set to it: lots of loud shouting in Italian!  And then in a moment it was over and they were on to the next topic. In their family anger was a more accepted expression than in the typical American setting. The cleansing of the Temple by Jesus was also an expression more acceptable than our culture would usually permit. Turning over the tables etc. was a “prophetic action.” Prophets did things like this. In that culture it was more acceptable than perhaps in ours. But even we find a place for civil disobedience. We may not always like it, but we respect that it has a place in our culture.
  3. Yet Jesus clearly is angry. He is grieved at the hard heartedness of his opponents and his strong tone is an authoritative summons to repent. A lowered and lyrical voice might not convey the urgency of the situation. These are hardened men and there is a need for pointed and passionate denunciation. This is righteous anger.
  4. We ought to be careful before simply taking up Jesus angry tone for two reasons. First, he was able to see into their hearts and properly conclude as to the proper tactics necessary. We may not always be able to do this. Secondly, the wider Western culture in which many of us live may not be as prepared to accept such an angry tone. It may be a less effective tactic in our setting and  prudential judgment is a necessary precursor to using such tactics.

But in the end, anger is not, ipso facto, sinful or wrong. It is sometimes the proper and necessary response. We do well to be careful with our anger, for it is an unruly passion. We ought to see above all the fruit of the Spirit which is meekness and ask to Lord ot give us authority over our anger and a prudence as to its effective use.

 This video shows Jesus’ anger:

Why Does Jesus Call Us Evil?

The Gospel for today’s Mass records Jesus as saying the following:

If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him? (Lk 11:13)

I received an e-mail today regarding this verse:

This line bugs me. I think I know the larger point that Jesus makes here, and/or perhaps it’s poorly translated, but it seems a bit harsh for Jesus to refer to mankind as “evil”.  Evil?  That’s tough stuff!  But perhaps, to Jesus, we are evil.  I don’t know.  Bring on the redemption Lord!!!

So what is going on here? Why does Jesus call us evil?

Let’s check first and make the translation is good. The Greek expression πονηροὶ  ὑπάρχοντες (poneroi hyparchontes). Now poneroi is defined in the Greek lexicon as “bad, of a bad nature or condition.”  But it is also defined as “full of labors, annoyances, hardships.”   And hyparchontes  is translated as “from the very beginning” or “being inherently.”

Thus the translation “you who are evil” is likely accurate. It might be more precisely translated as “If you then, being inherently bad (or evil).” Or perhaps also it could be rendered as “If you then, being evil from the beginning….”

But it also seems, if we take the second meaning of poneroi  it could be rendered: “If then you, being full of labors (or hardships)…” However, I checked over a dozen translations over at Biblos.com and none of them render it in this secondary way. All of them simply say, “If  then, you who are evil….”

So it seems the bottom line analysis of the text in Greek is that we’re stuck with the fact that the Lord is calling us “evil.”

What do the Commentaries say? It is interesting that in the seven modern commentaries I consulted, none of them make any mention of this expression. However some of the ancient Fathers make mention of the phrase:

1. Cyril of Alexandria says, When he says, “You who are evil” he means, “You whose mind is capable of being influenced by evil and not uniformly inclined to good like the God of all.  (Commentary on Luke, Homily 79)

2. Bede interprets the phrase to mean, Any human mortal, weak and still burdened with sinful flesh, does not refuse to give the good things which he possesses, although they are earthly and weak, to the children whom he loves. (Homilies on the Gospel 2.14)

3. Bede also says elsewhere: He calls the lovers of the world evil, who give those things which they judge good according to their sense, which are also good in their nature, and are useful to aid imperfect life. Hence he adds, “[They] know how to give good gifts to [their] children.”  The Apostles even, who by the merit of their election had exceeded the goodness of mankind in general, are said to be evil in comparison with Divine goodness, since nothing is of itself good but God alone (Quoted in the Catena Aurea  at Lk 11:13)

4. Athanasius Says:  Now unless the Holy Spirit were of the substance of God, Who alone is good, He would by no means be called good, since our Lord [Jesus] refused to be called good, inasmuch as He was made man. (Quoted in the Catena Aurea at Luke 11:13)

Therefore if I can be so bold to enter the company of these Ancient and approved Fathers of the Church I would like to draw a conclusion from our consideration of what the Lord means by calling us evil.

1. Jesus, it would seem, is speaking by comparison or degree here. He may not mean that we are evil in an absolute sense, rather, that we are evil in comparison to God who is absolute good. The Hebrew and Aramaic  languages tend  to lack comparative words and this means that ancient Jews would often use absolute categories to set forth comparison or degree. For example elsewhere Jesus tells us that we must hate our father, mother, children even our very self and that we must love him (e.g. Luke 14:26). This does not mean we are to literally despise our family and others. It means we are to love Jesus more than them. Ancient Jews spoke this way and used a lot of what we consider to be hyperbole (exaggeration) due to the lack of comparative words in Hebrew and Aramaic. Hence in calling us “evil” that Lord may not mean it in an absolute sense but is setting forth a comparison in a Jewish sort of way. Hence in modern English we might tend to say, “If you then, who are not nearly as holy as God and are prone to sin, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will God, who is absolutely good and not prone to sin give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?”

2. However, we ought to be careful here as well not simply to discount Jewish hyperbole and simply re-write it as I have done. The point of the hyperbole cannot be missed or set aside. Created things may share in God’s goodness, but God ALONE is absolutely good. So good is He, in fact, that everything else is practically evil in comparison to him. The hyperbole places the emphasis of God’s absolute goodness. We have no goodness apart from God’s goodness. And, if we do share in God’s goodness, it is infinitesimal in comparison to God. Hence, as Bede says above: The Apostles even, who by the merit of their election had exceeded the goodness of mankind in general, are said to be evil in comparison with Divine goodness, since nothing is of itself good but God alone.

3. As an illustration, some decades and many pounds ago, I ran track. We would sometimes josh a runner who had lost a race by saying, “That guy ran past you so fast you looked like you were standing still!” It was hyperbole (and a cruel one at that). However, the exaggeration was meant to make a real point: he out-classed you, he whooped you. And so it is that, even if Jesus is using hyperbole and absolute categories, we cannot miss the point: whatever goodness we have is really a participation in God’s goodness. God is so great that our goodness can barely be seen as goodness. 

4. Even Jesus refused the title “good” for himself  in terms of his humanity. In the Gospel of Mark we have the following dialogue: As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good — except God alone. (Mk 10:17-18). Now, as God, Jesus is good. One would also argue that in his sinless humanity Jesus was also good. But, presuming the man merely regarded him as ordinarily human, Jesus rebukes him and declares that God alone is good.

5. So, in the end, it’s time for some humble pie. Jesus probably does not mean we are absolutely evil and with nothing good in us. But God ALONE is absolutely good. And he is so good that we can barely be thought of as anything but evil in the face of his immense goodness. Humble pie doesn’t have much sugar in it, does it?

Going Deeper with the Parable of the Good Samaritan

The Parable of the Good Samaritan is often read by many in a rather single manner to mean that we ought to be more generous to those in need or that we ought to not neglect those who suffer. Perhaps too, that racial and ethnic boundaries must be overcome as we broaden what it means to consider some one a neighbor.  All of this is fine enough, there are plenty of social justice themes at work here to permit such a reading and they ought not be neglected. But as is always the case with scripture, there is more at work here than the merely obvious interpretation. In effect the whole passage before us goes a long way to show some of the deeper drives we have regarding the pride and self-righteousness, along with a stubborn tendency we have to reduce holiness to something “manageable” and merely human. Let’s take a look.

1. There was a scholar of the law  who stood up to test him and said, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”  (Luke 10:25) – On the face of it this question is absurd. It is rooted in self-justifying notions. What must I DO to obtain eternal life….The simple fact is that we cannot save ourselves. We do not have the resources to obtain eternal life. No amount of human flesh power could even come close to paying the debt we owe. We do not have a rocket ship powerful enough to fly to heaven. We have no ladder tall enough to climb there. The lawyer’s flawed question sets him up for a series of misunderstandings about salvation and the absolute need for grace. Because he thinks that eternal life is somehow in his power to obtain it he looks more and more foolish as the interaction goes on.

2.  Jesus said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read it?”  He said in reply, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” He replied to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.”  (Luke 10:26-28) In way Jesus is humoring him and drawing him out. The man has suggested that salvation is in his power to accomplish. So, in effect Jesus says to him, “Since you think such a thing is possible, explain to me how you think so with your legal background.” The lawyer quotes the great Shema, the summary of the whole law contained in Deuteronomy 6. Now there is nothing wrong with the Law, and so Jesus says, “You have answered rightly.” But what IS wrong is thinking that this law is within my own unaided flesh power to keep. To love God with our whole heart, mind, being and strength is a remarkable call that should not be taken lightly or reduced a few ritual tokenary things. The honest truth is that most human beings do not love God this way and NO human being apart from grace even stands a chance of getting close. The human mind and heart apart from grace have been so wounded as to make such a law unattainable. The fact is not only do human beings (apart form grace) not love God with their whole heart, they barely give him leftovers. The usual human approach is to serve myself and the world and then, from whatever is left, I’ll throw a few scraps to God. I’ll pray, if I have time left over at the end of my busy worldly day. I’ll read scripture if it doesn’t interfere with my watching of the sports event or soap opera. I’ll put money in the collection plate after I pay my mortgage, Sears bill, magazine subscriptions and see what is left over. I’ll follow the teachings of God so long as they don’t interfere with my politics or worldview. So God barely gets leftovers from most people and that includes many who describe themselves as religious. For us to think we, by ourselves,  are really going to pull off loving God with our whole heart, mind, being and strength or even come close is absurd on the face of it. And we haven’t even considered loving our neighbor yet! Jesus answers the lawyer (probably with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek) “Do this and you will live.” :-)   He might as well have told him to leap a tall building in a single bound or to define the universe and give three examples. Does the lawyer really have any idea what it means to “do this?!” Surely not, as we see next.

3.  But because he wished to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29) And now we surely have reached the endgame of legalism and trying to be justified by our own flesh power. In effect the Lawyer says, “OK, if I have to love my neighbor as myself, let’s keep the meaning of neighbor as minimal and manageable as possible.” In other words if there are too many neighbors running around, with the requirement that I love them as myself, I might not be able to pull the thing off. So let’s dumb down and minimize what and who is meant by neighbor. This is what the flesh does. It salutes God’s law but doesn’t really take it seriously. The usual tactic of the flesh is to argue about meaning (e.g. the famous, “That depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.”) and then to minimize the observance as much as possible by all sorts of legalistic minimalism. Hence the lawyer seeks to quibble over a precise definition of “neighbor” and keep that category as small and minimal as possible. He has to do this because he wants to accomplish the Shema on his own, by his own merit and power.

4. Jesus doesn’t take the bait and goes on to tell the well known parable of the Good Samaritan. With it he devastates the concept of a small manageable notion of neighbor. Neighbor cuts across national, ethnic, religious and political boundaries to encompass…..everyone. Jesus will not accept the reductionist demands of the flesh and its legalism.

5. He also sets aside another form of reductionism in the parable, that of religious reductionism. A priest and Levite pass also and refuse to help to victim by the roadside. Perhaps they were afraid, perhaps they had concerns about blood which would render them unclean and unfit for Temple duties. But whatever their reasons they also represent the human tendency to think we can buy God off by religious observances. If I go to Church, pay my tithes, and say a few prayers I can check off the “God box,” consider myself righteous and to have met all my duties. It becomes all too easy to walk past the needy, to walk past injustice, to tolerate evil, to remain silent and protect my hide and ego and all the while think God won’t mind because I sat in the pew last Sunday. This is just another form of reductionism and the Lord’s parable makes it clear that he is not impressed. We can’t buy God off. We ought to be in Church every Sunday, financially support the word of God, pray and so one. There is no excuse for not doing these things. But they are not the end of faith, they are the beginning of faith. If I really sat in the pew last Sunday to any real effect that I cannot walk on past the needy, ignore injustice, tolerate evil or remain silent in the face of error.

6. Thus in the end the love of God and neighbor are expansive loves that go beyond the ability of the unaided flesh to do. Without the healing of grace we are simply too selfish, greedy, egotistical, thin-skinned, resentful, envious, bitter, lustful and revengeful to even come close to loving God and our neighbor the way that is described. We have to stop playing games with God’s Word and stop trying to explain it in a way that makes it manageable. God’s word means what it says. And, with our unaided flesh it is impossible to fulfill it.

7. What then are we to do? Seek lots of grace and mercy. This parable is about more than caring for the poor. It is also about the absolute need for grace. Only with tons of grace and mercy do we even stand a chance in coming close to what the Shema sets forth. Only God can really give God the love he deserves. Only God can really love the poor as they ought to be loved. That is why we have to die to our self and allow Jesus Christ to live his life in us. He does this through the sacraments fruitfully received, through faith mediation on his Word and through prayer. Those who faithfully attend Mass and regularly receive communion worthily, those who confess their sins frequently and fruitfully receive the graces of that sacrament, those who faithfully and thoughtfully meditate on God’s Word, begin to experience a transformation that enables them to love. They receive a new heart and a new mind, the heart and mind of Christ. As Christ lives in them they see the Shema come alive, they begin to love God above all things and their neighbor as their very self. And it is not they who do it. It is Christ who does it in them.

8. What must I do to inherit eternal life? I must decrease and Christ must increase (Jn 3:30). I must die so that Christ may live in me (Gal 2:19-20).

The audio version of my homily is here: Going Deeper with the Good Samaritan

This song says, “When you see me trying to do good, It’s just Jesus in me….Loving my neighbor like a Christian should, It’s just Jesus in me.”

On the Feast of the John The Baptist: A Strange and Wonderful, Though Long Delayed Answer

On this feast of the Birth of St. John the Baptist we celebrate the Birth of the final Prophet of the Old Testament. He stood at the culmination of the Old Covenant and emphatically pointed to the New. He drew back the curtain on all that that the ancient prophets longed to see. His birth is a great harbinger of a new epoch, the final age of Man. When he points to Christ and then steps back, we see the Old Covenant yield to the new. One era is ending another is beginning. This birthday bespeaks a coming sea change, something is ending, something greater is beginning. Types, symbols and shadows are about to give way to true reality they signified.

A great and dramatic moment in this Old giving way to the New occurs when the two meet by the riverside. (It is true, they had already met in utero, as Mary and Elizabeth shared company. John prefigured this riverside meeting by dancing for joy in his mother’s womb at the nearness of Christ). But the drama of this moment at the riverside cannot be overestimated for John supplies a strange and wonderful answer to a question asked 2,000 years before. And the answer he supplies to this question signals that the new has arrived.

To understand the moment we must go back in time to approximately 1900 BC. The place is a hillside called Moriah where Jerusalem would later be built. Abraham has been commended there by God where he has been told to prepare to kill him in sacrifice. Upon arriving at the foot of Moriah the text says,

Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, “Father?”  ”Yes, my son?” Abraham replied. ”The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb…? (Gen 22:6-8)

Do not miss the great foreshadowing here: A long promised son, about to die, carrying wood upon his shoulders ascending the very hillside where Jerusalem and Golgotha will one day be located. Yes this is a wondrous foreshadowing.

And then comes the great question to his Father: “But, Where is the Lamb?” Yes, indeed, where is the Lamb who will die so that I don’t have to? Where is the Lamb whose blood will save my life? Where is the Lamb?

Now you know the rest of that story. An angel stopped Abraham and then pointed to a ram, with it’s horns in the thicket. And you may be excused for saying, “Aha, God did provide the Lamb. End of story.” But truth be told, this ram, this lamb cannot really save Isaac. Because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (Heb 10:4) Isaac’s death is merely postponed and then it is off to Sheol with him where he will lie and wait for the True Lamb who alone can give eternal life.

And so, that question got wafted up on to the breeze and echoed down through the Centuries that followed: “But, where is the Lamb…..where is the Lamb?”

And now we are standing by the banks of the Jordan River 19 Centuries later and John the Baptist sees a full grown man coming toward him and says a very strange thing: “Look! There is the Lamb of God!” (Jn 1:29) Yes, there is the  true Lamb who alone can take away our sins. John the Baptist supplies a strange and wonderful, though long delayed answer to a question Isaac asked 1,900 years before. Where is the Lamb?  THERE is the Lamb!

Happy birthday of John the Baptist. His birth is the culmination of an age, an era, a Covenant. He is the last of the Old Testament Prophets. His birth signals an end and a beginning. The Book of Hebrews says By calling this covenant “new,” [God] has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear (Hebrews 8:13). Hence John would later say, “The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. He must increase; I must decrease. (John 3:29-30).

Today John the Baptist is born who will usher in the new by answering the most significant question ever posed: “But where is the Lamb?”

A Distinction without a Difference, Or a Distinction to Die For? Wrestling with the Subtleties of John 21:16 – Peter Do you Love Me

One of the great indoor sports of New Testament Biblical Scholarship is how to interpret the subtleties in the dialogue between Jesus and Peter in today’s Gospel. It is the classic interaction wherein Jesus asks, “Peter do you love me?” And Peter responds “Yes, Lord you know that I love you.” This exchange occurs three times. But to us who read the passage in English some of the subtle distinctions in vocabulary are lost. There is an interplay between two Greek words for love, Agapas and Philo. Jesus asks of Peter’s love with one word, but Peter responds with another. There is also a subtle shift in the use of another verb meaning “to know.” Peter moves from odias  to ginoskeis. Both can be translated “you know” but again the question is why the shift and how should this be interpreted?

No one disputes these  facts about the Greek text. Allow me to reproduce the well known dialogue with the distinctions stitched in:

Jesus: “Simon, son of John, do you love (agapas) me more than these?”
Peter: “Yes, Lord, You know (oidas) that I love (philo) You.”
Jesus: “Simon, son of John, do you love (agapas) me?”
Peter: “Yes, Lord, You know (oidas) that I love (philo) You.”
Jesus: “Simon, son of John, do you love (phileis) me?”
Peter: “Lord, You know (oidas) everything; You know (ginoskeis) that I love (philo) You.”

But there are the facts. But here is where the debate begins. The central questions are these:

  1. Is there any real distinction to be made between agapas and philo? Or is it a distinction without a difference?
  2. Although modern Christians make a sharp distinction between agape love and filial (philo) love, was such a distinction operative in ancient Greek or where these words merely synonyms that were simply interchangeable?
  3. If so, why does John and the Holy Spirit record these different words for love? Is there really no purpose at all?
  4. And why does John shift from using the verb odias (you know) to ginoskeis? the same questions would prevail.

The answers to these questions admit of many possible answers. Now if you put three Greek scholars (or three scripture scholars) in a room together you’re going to have at least 17 opinions. But for the sake of brevity let me set forth two basic opinions or interpretations:

1. The use of different words for love is highly significant. Jesus is asking Peter for agape love. Agape love being  the highest and most spiritual love wherein Peter is called to Love Jesus above all things and all people, including himself. But Peter, finally being honest says to Jesus in effect, Lord you know that I love you (only) with brotherly love (philo se).  Jesus is not disappointed for entrusts the role of chief Shepherd to Peter anyway. But again he asks for agape love and Peter answers the same. A third time Jesus asks, but this time he comes to Peter’s level and says, in effect, “OK Peter then do you love me with brotherly love (phileis me)?”

And this all makes Peter sad who now becomes more emphatic and says  Lord, You know (oidas) everything; You know (ginoskeis) that I (only) love with brotherly love (philo). Note here that Peter’s exasperation includes a shift in the verb “know.” He shifts from the verb oidas (meaning more literally “you have seen”) to the verb ginoskeis (meaning a deeper sort or perception that includes understanding).

So perhaps the final sentence translated with these distinctions in mind would read: “Lord! You have seen everything; and you understand that I (only) love you with brotherly love.”  The Lord then goes on to tell Peter that one day he will die a martyr’s death. Almost as if to say, “Peter I DO understand that you only love me now with brotherly love. But there will come a day when you will finally be willing to die for me and you will give over your life. Then you will truly be able to say that you love me with Agape love.” 

This first opinion obviously takes the distinctions in the Greek text as very significant and interprets them to the max. It results in a beautifully pastoral scene wherein Jesus and Peter have a very poignant and honest conversation.

2. The second opinion or interpretation is there is no significance in the use of different Greek verbs for love or know. The main reason for this opinion is rooted in the view that among Greek speakers of the First Century there is no evidence that they used these verbs to mean significantly different things. It is claimed that Agape was not understood in the early Centuries of the Church as God-like, unconditional love. That meaning came only later and then only among Christians, not among pagans.

There seems to be a scriptural basis for the fact that the early Christians had not reserved apape and philo for the exclusive meanings they had later. For example ”agapao” is sometimes used in the New Testament  for less God-like loves. Two examples are the Pharisees loving the front seats in the synagogues (Luke 11:43) and Paul’s indication that Demas had deserted him, because he loved this world (2 Tim 4:10). Further, God’s love is sometimes described using “phileo“, as when he is said to love humanity (John 16:27) or even once when the Father is said to love Jesus (John 5:20).

More evidence is also deduced from the silence of the Greek speaking Fathers of the Church who do not make mention of this distinction in the verbs for love when they comment on this passage. One would think that had the subtle distinctions been significant they would surely have dwelt upon it.

 Hence, rooting itself in historical data this second opinion and interpretation sees little significance if any in the fact that Jesus and Peter are using different words for love.

So there it is. The great indoor sport of Scripture Scholarship: understanding and interpreting the subtleties of John 21:15ff. For myself I will say that while number 2 seems a compelling argument against opinion 1, I will also say that I cannot wholly reject that,  if opinion 1 isn’t true,  it OUGHT to be. I find it strange that these different verbs are being used and that we are to conclude absolutely nothing from it. The subtle details of John’s Gospel are almost never without purpose. SOMETHING is going on here that we ought not ignore. Peter and Jesus are subtly interacting here. There is a movement in their conversation that involves a give and take that is instructive for us.

It also remains a fact that not all Greek Scholars accept that Agape and Philo were simply synonyms in the First Century.

The silence of the Greek speaking Fathers is surely significant. But it also remains true that Scriptural interpretation did not end with the death of the last Father. Further, I have found that I, who speak a little German am sometimes better able to appreciate the clever subtleties of German vocabulary than the those for whom  it is the mother tongue. At a certain point we can become rather unreflective about the subtle distinctions of the words we use and it takes an outsider to call them to our attention. I never really appreciated the more subtle meanings of English words until I studied Latin.

Hence, for me it is still helpful to see the distinctions in this text even if some historical purists find no room for them. I simply cannot avoid that a key message is available to us in the subtle shifts in vocabulary here. As always, I value your comments and additions to this post. Do we have here a distinction without a difference, a distinction to die for or something in between? Let me know what you think!

When Jesus Said, “No”

One of the struggles that many Christians experience is that the needs around us are so great and yet we are limited both in personal strength and in resources. And, lurking in the back of our mind, is a notion that what ever the problem, Jesus would help and so should we.

It is a true fact, Jesus was quite generous with his time, attention, and resources. We too are counseled to be rich in mercy and kindness, expansive in our charity and to be willing to forsake everything to follow Christ. But for limited human beings, often with many obligations are there no limits? Of course there have to be. But, “What would Jesus Do?” Did he ever say, “No?”

Many think the answer to this question is no! But in fact there are instances where Jesus said, “No.” I’d like to look at three of them. I choose these three because to some extent they deal with the needy. Other examples of Jesus saying no pertain more to specialized or inappropriate requests (e.g. James and John want seats of honor, Peter wants to use a sword to defend Jesus). But lets take a look at three occurrences of Jesus saying no and see what we can learn.

  1. No to the Sick? The scene is Capernaum. Jesus and his apostles have made quite an impression. Jesus has cured a demon-possessed man in the synagogue and word has spread. Jesus is lodging at the house of Simon Peter and has just cured Peter’s mother-in-law of a great fever. The Gospel of  Mark picks up the story: When it was evening, after sunset, they brought to him all who were ill or possessed by demons. The whole town was gathered at the door. He cured many who were sick with various diseases, and he drove out many demons, not permitting them to speak because they knew him. (Mark 1:34-35)  So, clearly the Lord is helping a lot of people here, as was his custom. The crowd seems to have grown quite large and goes on curing till sundown. But then comes a twist: Rising very early before dawn, he left and went off to a deserted place, where he prayed. Simon and those who were with him pursued him  and on finding him said, “Everyone is looking for you!” He told them, “Let us go on to the nearby villages that I may preach there also. For this purpose have I come.”  (Mark 1:35-38)  Here we have what seems an unusual occurrence, Jesus is informed by Peter and the others that “Everyone is looking for you!” The exasperated statement implies that a line has once again formed in Capernaum of those seeking healing from various ailments. Many of the sick are waiting for his ministrations. But Jesus says, “No” to the request to return and indicates an intention to go to other villages so that he might preach, for THAT is what he has come to do. Why does Jesus say no? For two reasons it would seem. First, in terms of his humanity, he is limited. He has not come to save Capernaum only and must devote attention to other places as well. In effect he must allocate his (humanly speaking)  ”limited” resources justly and effectively. This is also the case with us. We must help the poor but we must also feed our children and meet other just obligations. Saying “No” is not necessarily un-Christlike, but is rather a humble admission of our limitedness. A second reason Jesus likely says no is that he will not allow himself to be defined merely as a medical miracle worker. He has come to preach and ultimately to take up his cross. Part of what he preaches is the role of the cross in life. It is not always appropriate to alleviate every burden. To be labeled as “Mr Fix-it” is to be diminished. For the Lord did not come merely to heal the body, but also and even more so, the soul. Jesus’ “No” is therefore also a teaching moment. We too who would imitate Christ should not think that alleviating burdens is our only mission. Sometimes it is more loving to let others carry the crosses God intends. We are not necessarily callous or un-Christlike in this if our intent is allow people to experience necessary growth or to experience the necessary consequences of their choices. We must be careful not to easily excuse ourselves from our duties to help others but neither should we become enablers or those who cause others to become too dependent. We should not usually do for others what they can do for themselves. The Lord could not allow himself to be drawn into a situation where what was good about him (healings) eclipsed what was best (salvation and the preaching of the Kingdom). Hence, he said, “No.”
  2. No on a matter of Social Justice?? On another occasion in the context of Jesus’  Sermon on the Plain a man called out from the crowd: ”Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me.” [But]  Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. (Luke 12:13-15)  Here too we have a bit of an unexpected twist. We might almost expect Jesus to side with this man. After all isn’t sharing the family inheritance with potentially needy siblings a just and charitable thing to encourage and do?  But Jesus says, “No” and then warns the man of greed. Here too the no of Jesus seems to point to two issues. First that Jesus is not going to be roped into  being a legal arbiter of worldly matters. He has come to preach the Kingdom and save us and will not be defined down into probating wills and settling inheritance law. Another issue is that Jesus, who is able to see into the man’s heart, says no to rebuke the man’s greed. And thus we are taught two things by Jesus’ “No.” First, that we are not always obliged to solve every one’s problems. Sometimes people try inappropriately to draw us into what does not involve us. They may ask us to take sides in a family dispute or some community issue where it is not right for us to take sides. On other occasions we may be asked to resolve matters involving two adults who should reasonably be expected to work out their own differences. Supervisors, pastors, and other leaders often experience such inappropriate attempts to draw them into disputes or take sides. There are surely times when leaders have to help arbitrate matters, especially if they pertain to the specific matters over which they have authority. But there are also many occasions when requested help in such matters deserves a “no” and it is not un-Christlike to do so. A second thing that we are taught here by Jesus’ “no” is that we are not always required to give people what they want. Although we are not gifted with Jesus’ ability to see into people’s heart and understand their motives fully, it remains true that we CAN sometimes see that “no” is the best answer in given circumstances. Perhaps we can see that what a person asks for is inappropriate or will cause harm to others. Perhaps it will offend against the common good or show favoritism. Perhaps the request involves an unwise use of resources or goes contrary to agreed upon goals and priorities. There may be any number of reasons we can and should say “no” and doing so is not necessarily un-Christlike. This may be so even if the one requesting insists that it is about what is just and fair. It may cause disappointment or even anger in others but that does not mean that we are necessarily doing anything wrong. Jesus did sometimes say, “No.”
  3. No to the Hungry?? The final example brings us to the shores of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus had just multiplied the loaves and fishes and fed somewhere between 5000 and 20,000 people. News of this has spread and the word of free food is starting to draw a crowd. Further, some of the crowd was not dispersing. So Jesus draws apart to pray and sends the apostles to the other side of the lake where he promises to join them later. After walking on the water (!) to meet them in the boat they come to other shore. News that Jesus had headed in that direction reached some in the crowd who ran around the lake and as Jesus disembarks they greet him with false surprise: “Rabbi! When did you get here?!”  Jesus was not born yesterday and he knows that they are seeking more free food so he says to them: I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. (John 6:26-27).  In effect Jesus refuses to produce again the food of this world and summons them to faith. He goes on to teach extensively in the remainder of John 6 on the Holy Eucharist and insists that this was the food that was more necessary for them. They are unimpressed and reject his teaching as a “hard saying” (Jn 6:60). But in effect here to we have a “no” from Jesus. Feeding the hungry is usually something commended, even commanded. But Jesus, in the end will not allow them to seek only that which is good (bread) and refuse what is best (the Bread of Life). As a priest I have frequently had this problem with some of the poor who come to me. When they first come asking for financail assistance I give it whole heartedly and inquire as to their story. They almost always admit that they have no real church home (otherwise why would they be coming to me). I indicate to them that it is absolutely essential for their salvation that they come to Church and receive Holy Communion. If they are not a Catholic they should at least come and see if they are ready to accept the faith. But most of them do not follow up on  this invitation and yet still come back seeking for money and resources. I begin then to place conditions upon the continued assistance that if they do not start coming or I cannot be sure they are attending somewhere. I will not continue to give worldly food to those who refuse heavenly food. Some have argued that this is not what Jesus would do, but in fact this is exactly what he did. He said no to those who wanted only their bellies filled but not their heart. Of course in utter emergency and if little children are involved this approach may have to be adapted. Perhaps I can refer them somewhere else but in the end I have to summon people not merely to the good but to the best. This is not un-Christlike.

Well, as usual a post too long! But the essential point I leave with you is that it is not always wrong to say no. Jesus did so even in some classic social justice and charity situations. We should never glibly say no or be unnecessarily hurtful. But  there are just times when no is the best and most Christ-like answer.

How say you? As usual, I do not intend for my post to be the last answer. Your additions, distinctions and rebuttals are encouraged and appreciated.

This song says, “Some of God’s greatest gifts are unanswered prayers” Actually they are answered I suppose and the answer is “No”

Resurrexit Sicut Dixit (He has risen as he said)!

resurrexit                  Today we acknowledge Jesus’ triumph over death. Just when all seemed a total loss, the disciples experienced his resurrected glory. To those of us who remain faithful, Jesus’ story is our story too. Whatever our crosses, trials, disappointments or set-backs, the truth is that troubles don’t last always. The Book of Psalms reminds us, Weeping may endure for a night, but joy will come with the morning light (Ps 30:5). The Easter message is one of victory for us. Whatever situation you may be going through just say, I’ll rise!  Tell Satan, “Victory is mine!” Address every fear with the words of an old song: Because he lives, I can face tomorrow! This is the feast of Jesus’ victory and ours too. Rejoice today that you’re on the winning team!

 

Here is a video of Resurrection Scenes from the Movie The Gospel of John   The movie is well worth the purchase price and ought to be on your shelf. The music is Mozart: Regina Caeli (Queen of Heaven rejoice, the SOn whom you merited to bear has risen as he said, Alleluia!)

 

 

« Older Entries