Posts Tagged ‘Jesus’
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:
- Is there any real distinction to be made between agapas and philo? Or is it a distinction without a difference?
- 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?
- If so, why does John and the Holy Spirit record these different words for love? Is there really no purpose at all?
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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)!
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!)
Is He Your King? Jesus’ 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 video depicts Jesus and Pilate. It is from the movie The Gospel of John.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 (Audience Hall). 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 becuase you say so or are you just saying what others say? Only Pilate can aswer if Jesus is a king. Only you and I can answer for ourselves. Is he your King?
Update: What Did Jesus Look Like?
A little over a week ago I posted on the question, What Did Jesus Look Like? Among the things we discussed, was what data the Shroud of Turin supplied. Many consider it authentic (including me). But even for those who do not it can still aid in our speculation of what Jesus may have looked like. Now it seems that the History Channel will be airing a special on March 30th from 9-11pm EDT that considers the data from the shroud, and using forensic science and other methods, seeks to present three-dimensional renders of the “man of the shroud.”
While the Archdiocese of Washington cannot endorse TV shows in any official way, nevertheless, as an update on my previous post I want to inform you of this interesting looking addendum to our previous discussion. The home page for this projest is Here: http://www.raydowning.com/ And this is a video trailer of the project.
The Real Face of Jesus on HISTORY 3/30
Uploaded by HistoryChannel. – Classic TV and last night’s shows, online.
On Fixing a Dreadful Error And Taking a Graceful Bow
We are in the heart of Lent but for one day we step back into the Christmas cycle. It is nine months before Christmas and today we celebrate the true feast of the Incarnation. December 25 is the Lord’s birth but today is His incarnation as he is conceived in his Mother’s womb. TODAY the Word becomes flesh.
This needs to be emphasized in an age of abortion where some in our culture deny explicitly or implicitly that human life begins at conception. You are aware that a new translation of the Mass will soon come to us in the English speaking world. It is long needed and treasures of the faith kept hidden for long decades (except for those know Latin) will become visible again.
Among the most egregious errors of the current English version is in the Creed which erroneously indicates that Jesus became man at his birth, rather than his conception. Here is what the current version says:
For us men and our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary , and became man.
Notice that the text says he became man when he was born. As a poor translation of the Latin text it is irritating enough but to have this mistranslation exist when abortion is thought a legal right is a complete disaster. The Latin text does not say that Jesus became man at his birth (celebrated December 25), but rather at His incarnation (celebrated March 25). Here is what the the Latin text says:
Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis. Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est.
The New Translation which will be implemented in a little over a year renders it correctly in the following way:
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
I for one am grateful for the accuracy. The whole translation is going to take some getting used to but it will be of great benefit to see our Holy Faith, so beautifully articulated in the Latin text, properly translated and conveyed at last. Since 1970 the text has been really little better than a paraphrase and so much is lost. This mistranslation of the Creed is but one of ten thousand examples where the current translation is woefully inaccurate and/or incomplete. But surely the mistranslated Creed is most egregious for the reasons stated.
A final thought on this section of the Creed – The Bow. The Congregation is instructed to bow at the words: and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. This is in recognition of the great mystery that the incarnation is. How can God, whom the very heavens cannot contain dwell in the womb of the Virgin Mary? How can the infinite become an infant? It is a mystery too great and so we bow in reverence. In the Traditional Latin Mass the practice is to kneel at these words. Such was the practice until about 1970 when it was replaced by a bow. Personally I think we Americans are terrible at bows and would be happy if the genuflection returned. In other cultures bowing is graceful and natural. For most of us here it is awkward and usually lacks proportional and graceful movement. But bow we are told and bow we should. One ought to fold the hands and bow at the waist. Think of your waist as the hinge, not the neck and shoulders which should not move in proportion to the shoulders. The bow is a reverent acknowledgment of the mystery of the Incarnation we celebrate today. Interestingly enough there are still two days in the year when we still kneel at the words of the incarnation. We kneel and pause at these words on Christmas and today, March 25, The Feast of the Annunciation. Otherwise we bow, as gracefully as possible
I am curious if you bow at these words in the Creed and if it is common in your parish. Does your clergy bow, do they teach others to do so? Just asking!
Happy Feast Day!
What Did Jesus Look Like?
The very question, “What Did Jesus Look Like?” says a lot about our modern age. And the silence of the Bible as to the physical appearance of most of its principal characters says a lot too.
We live in a very image driven culture. Ever since the invention of photography and especially television, the physical appearance of people has become quite significant. Perhaps the first real discernment of how important this had become was in the Nixon-Kennedy debate. Those who listened on radio generally thought Nixon won the debate. Those who saw it on TV thought Kennedy had won. And thus it was that physical appearance seems to have been greatly magnified as an assent or liability. It is surely true that physical appearance had importance before, but now it was magnified. Prior to the invention of photography, films and TV very few people had access to the physical appearance of influential people before they formed an opinion of them.
The fact that the Bible has so little to say about the physical appearance of Jesus or most of the main figures gives an indication that such facts were of less significance to the people of that time. It may also say something of God the Holy Spirit who chose not to inspire the recordation of such information as a general rule. It would seem that physical attractiveness (or lack thereof) matters little to God? (I am hopeful in this department for my handsomeness has taken a serious hit in recent decades). Perhaps too the Holy Spirit draws back from such descriptions so that we would be encouraged to see ourselves in the narrative of Holy Scripture.
We get occasional references to physical traits. There are the some references to attractiveness. David is said to have a ruddy appearance, Leah seems to have been less attractive than her sister Rachael. Bathsheba surely drew David’s eye. There is also some mentioning of more specific traits. For example the beloved woman in the Song of Songs describes herself as “black” and “beautiful.” Sampson is said to have long hair. Zacheus is said to be of short stature. Herod was an Edomite, a name which refers to the reddish skin of that race of people. You will perhaps want to add to this list in the comments section. But overall the Scriptures are remarkably silent about any extensive physical description of the main protagonists. Who was tall, who was short, what color their skin or hair, or eyes? How long was the hair? Did the person have a beard?
And thus as we consider Jesus we are left with little from the scriptures themselves. It does seem clear that Jesus must have had a vigorous constitution given the extensive journeys he made throughout the mountainous region of the Holy Land. Lengthy walks of 60 miles or more back and forth from Jerusalem to Galilee and then well north to Tyre and Sidon. Climbs up steep hills and mountains such as Tabor were not for the weak or feeble. I have spoken more of the physical stamina of Christ here: On the Human Stature of Christ. But as for his hair color, relative height, skin tone etc. we have little or nothing.
I would like to speculate however based on a a few criteria of certain possible traits of Jesus’ physical appearance. Again, these are mere speculations. I encourage you to remark on them and to add or subtract as you see fit. These speculations are somewhat random and given here in no particular order.
1. The length of his hair. It is common since the renaissance to see Jesus depicted with long and straight or wavy locks of flowing hair. I have often wondered if ancient Jewish men ever wore their hair this long. I say this because St. Paul says, Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him? (1 Cor 11:14). He goes on to speak of long hair as a ”glory” to a woman. I wonder if Paul would have said such a thing if Jesus had the log hair he is often depicted with today? What exactly Paul meant by “long” is a matter for debate. It does not necessarily mean that Jesus went about with hair as short as some men wear it today. The Shroud of Turin, if it is authentic, shows the hair length to be at just about the length of the upper shoulder. I also doubt that Jesus’ hair would be as straight as many post renaissance artists depict it. If Jesus was a Semite, his hair was probably far more coarse and wiry than European hair. It is also interesting that some of the earliest images we have of Jesus on the Catacomb walls depicts him as clean shaven with short hair. But this may simply be a projection of Mediterranean standards upon him. Again, all these ponderings of mine are speculative.
2. What of Jesus’ complexion? If Jesus was of Semitic stock (a point which some debate) it would follow that his skin was not as dark as that of a sub-Saharan African but neither was it as light as a northern European. Many Scholars think that the ancient Semites had something of an olive tone to their skin, generally dark colored hair that was thick and often wiry or curly. The picture at left was developed by scholars recently using forensic techniques on a skull found from the first century AD. While the skin tone and hair are more speculative, the appearance of the face is based on the techniques of forensic reconstruction (cf HERE and HERE ). The image is not without controversy. Indeed there seem to be significant differences among scholars as to both the origin, appearance and general anthropology of the Semites who likely descended from Noah’s son Shem according to the Scriptures. Here again, I present these aspects of appearance to you only as speculative.
3. The Shroud of Turin - You have likely read much on the shroud. There is wide consensus today that the shroud comes from a period far earlier than the Middle Ages as was held in the 1980s when some questionable studies were conducted on it. Even if it dates from the time of Christ, this still does not prove it is his image. However the seemingly miraculous manner of the imprinting of the image is strong evidence not to be lightly set aside that this is in fact Christ’s image. Even if it is we have to be careful to remember that he had been savagely beaten and that this may have marred his appearance left on the shroud. Nevertheless, if this is Jesus’ image then we can see that he was 5-feet-10 to almost 6 feet tall and weighed about 180 pounds, had a fairly strong muscular build and a long nose seemingly typical with the Jews of his day. We have already remarked on the length of the hair and, despite Paul’s remark, his hair as depicted on the Shroud was worn a bit longer than most men of today. The photo at the top of this post is based on the Shroud image. Again I caution, these observations are all speculative based on the authenticity of the shroud of which the Church makes no official ruling.
Perhaps we do well to end where we began and question our own modern preoccupation with the physical appearance of Jesus and other biblical figures. It is true we are visual and will always prefer to see the face of those we love. But the Bible’s silence on these matters may be instructive and we do well to consider that the Scriptures invite us to look deeper than appearance, deeper than race or ethnicity. The Word became flesh in Jesus, but the Word must also become flesh in us and we must learn to find Christ in the Sacraments (cf Luke 24:31,35), in the poor, in our neighbor, our enemy, our very selves.
This video is one of the most extraordinary I’ve seen using a fascinating technology to show the many ways Jesus has been depicted down through the centuries. The images melt and morph into one another!
The Only Cure for Our Spiritual Blindness is Holiness
Over 21 years ago I made my canonical retreat that was required before being ordained a transitional deacon. We were studying the Letter to the Romans in the retreat conferences and came upon a particularly difficult passage early in the retreat. The retreat master, an older priest and well known scripture scholar stopped his train of thought, perhaps perceiving we were having difficulty and said, “Do you know what is the biggest obstacle for us in understanding the Word of God?” I was expecting a geeky answer like, “We don’t know enough Greek,” or “We haven’t studied the Historical Critical Method carefully enough.” But the priest pleasantly surprised me we he paused, looked around the room and then said, “The biggest obstacle we have to understanding the Word of God is our sin.” He was (and still is) Fr. Francis Martin. He went on to encourage us in the discipline of study but warned us that all the study in the world could not be of great help, indeed it could be of harm, if we did not have a clean heart. I have respected him ever since and listened on tape to probably two dozen other priest conferences and courses he preached and taught. He became one of my principal teachers through his tape ministry though I was never formally enrolled in a class he taught.
Scholars, academicians, even unbelievers to some extent can tell you what a biblical text is talking about, but only the holy, the Saints, can tell you what it means. Fulton Sheen was famous for saying toward the end of his life something to the effect, that we have tried in modern times every possible way to build up the Church: committees, study groups, task forces, seminars, advanced degrees in every sort of theology and religious study. But there is only one thing that we have not tried and that is holiness. He went on to recommend that every priest commit to make a daily Holy Hour.
This past week in the Office of Readings from the Breviary the following reading reminded me of all these things:
If you say, “Show me your God,” I will say to you, “Show me what kind of person you are, and I will show you my God.” …..God is seen by those who have the capacity to see him, provided that they keep the eyes of their mind open. All have eyes, but some have eyes that are shrouded in darkness, unable to see the light of the sun. Because the blind cannot see it, it does not follow that the sun does not shine. The blind must trace the cause back to themselves and their eyes. In the same way, you have eyes in your mind that are shrouded in darkness because of your sins and evil deeds. A person’s soul should be clean, like a mirror reflecting light. If there is rust on the mirror his face cannot be seen in it. In the same way, no one who has sin within him can see God. But if you will you can be healed. Hand yourself over to the doctor, and he will open the eyes of your mind and heart. Who is to be the doctor? It is God, who heals and gives life through his Word and wisdom…. If you understand this, and live in purity and holiness and justice, you may see God. But, before all, faith and the fear of God must take the first place in your heart, and then you will understand all this. When you have laid aside mortality and been clothed in immortality, then you will see God according to your merits.— From the book addressed to Autolycus by Saint Theophilus of Antioch, bishop
So there it is, holiness, a the fear of the Lord are the only way to really see at all.
There was an option this past Sunday in Parishes where the Second Scrutiny was celebrated to the Gospel of the Man Born Blind. In a pivotal moment Jesus smeared his eyelids with clay and sends him to the Pool of Siloam to wash. He comes back able to see. When asked how he came to see he says, in effect, “I went, I washed and now I see.” This is Baptismal theology even if in seminal form. We cannot see until we are washed. In the end it is Baptism, Confession and a holy life by God’s grace that give the greatest light. One of the great theologians and Fathers of the Church St. Cyprian experienced the vision that Baptism and holiness brings:
And I myself was bound fast, held by so many errors of my past life, from which I did not believe I could extricate myself. I was disposed therefore to yield to my clinging vices; and, despairing of better ways, I indulged my sins…But afterwards, when the stain of my past life had been washed away by means of the waters of rebirth, a light from above poured itself upon my chastened and now pure heart; afterwards, through the Spirit which is breathed from heaven, a second birth made of me a new man. And then in marvelous manner, doubts immediately clarified themselves, the closed opened…and what had been thought impossible was able to be done(“Letter to Donatus,” 4).
Only after baptism did some things make sense and seem possible for Cyprian. For me too, I have come to understand some things only after many years of prayer and growth. Daily Holy Hours, daily mass and the liturgy of the hours, weekly confession, only then do some things clarify and does that which had been in darkness come to light. Studies have had their place in my life to be sure, But only the path to holiness (combined with study) can ever really bring light.
We’ve tried everything! How about holiness? …..Prayer anyone?
Here’s a video I put together on the beauty of prayer especially before the Blessed Sacrament. It is set to the words of a beautiful Eucharistic Hymn “Jesus My Lord, My God, My All” directed by the late Richard Proulx.
