Scripture Archives - Page 11 of 21 - Community in Mission

April 30, 2012June 9, 2015

An Image of the Church From the Book of Ruth

Recently I preached a retreat for a good number of women here in our Archdiocese, and I based the the retreat on the Book of Ruth, a beautiful love story that is a kind of allegory for Christ and the Church. More specifically it is also an allegory of the individual’s salvation by Christ and relationship to Him.

The remote background to the text I want to share here is too lengthy to detail here. But a few points will help. The story features three main Characters: Boaz, Ruth and Naomi. Boaz is clearly a picture (or “type”) of Christ. He is Born, and lives in Bethlehem, and he acts, ultimately, as Ruth’s “kinsman-redeemer” by rescuing her from her poverty and paying the price to cancel her debt. This of course is just what Christ, born in Bethlehem, does for us: redeeming us by his blood and canceling our poverty and debt. And Ruth is a picture of the individual soul in need of Christ’s redemption and mercy. Naomi serves several roles in the book, but in the passage we will consider here, she is a picture of the Church, as she advises Ruth in what to do, and draws her to Boaz (Christ), her redeemer.

Consider the following text and then let us she how Naomi pictures the Church.

Naomi said to Ruth, Is not Boaz…a kinsman of ours? Tonight he will be winnowing barley on the threshing floor. Wash and perfume yourself, and put on your best clothes. Then go down to the threshing floor, but don’t let him know you are there until he has finished eating and drinking. When he lies down, note the place where he is lying. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down. He will tell you what to do.” “I will do whatever you say,” Ruth answered. (Ruth 3:2-5)

The advice that Naomi gives is quite in line with the instruction that our Mother the Church gives us. For in our poverty, and under the debt of our sin, the Church exhorts us to seek our “Boaz” who is Christ. Observe the advice given by Naomi and consider how it sounds so like our Mother the Church. Namoi advises:

1. Be Firmly Convinced – Naomi says, Is not Boaz…a kinsman of ours? Tonight he will be winnowing barley on the threshing floor. Ruth knows her poverty, her pain and her debt. Naomi does too, and she exhorts Ruth to seek for Boaz, for he is near, and can help. Boaz is wealthy and thus has the power to save her, to draw her out of her overwhelming poverty. He has the capacity, unlike any other to cancel Ruth’s whole debt. She is to seek him at the threshing floor where he is preparing and providing the bread that will sustain her. She must go, firmly convinced that Boaz will love her and save her.

And so too does the Church exhort us: Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near (Is. 55:6). Yes, there is one among us, a near kinsman, who is not ashamed to call us his brethren (Heb 2:11). His name is Jesus and he, as God, has the power to save and cancel our whole debt. Cast your cares on him, for he cares for you (1 Peter 5:7). He is at the threshing floor of his Church preparing a banquet for you in the sight of your foe (Psalm 23:5). And the grain he is winnowing is the Eucharistic Bread of his own flesh. Yes, says the Church, Come to Jesus, firmly convinced of his love and power to save.

2. Be Freshly Cleansed – Namoi says next and simply, “Wash.” In other words, the first step in finding help from Boaz is to be washed, to be freshly cleansed.

So too does the Church draw us to Christ with the exhortation, “Wash,” that is, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Yes the love of God will be poured forth on us, and the cancellation of our debt will take place as we are washed from our sins.

Here are some other texts wherein the Church, our Naomi, our Mother exhorts us to be Washed:

James 4:8 Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
2 Cor 7:1 Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.
Is 1:15 Wash and make yourselves clean.
Is 52:11 Depart, depart, go out from there! Touch no unclean thing! Come out from it and be pure, you who carry the vessels of the LORD.
Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.

3. Be Fragrantly Consecrated – Namoi says to Ruth “and perfume yourself” In other words: Be nice to be near. Come with an aroma that is sweet and pure.

So too does the Church, our Naomi, exhort us to to be fragrantly consecrated. The fragrance we are called to is that of a holy life, which we receive in baptism. Like a sweet incense, or perfume, should our life in God be. Consider some of the following texts the Church gives us:

Eph 5:2 – Live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God
2 Cor 2:15 For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing.
Song 4:12 [The Groom (Christ) speaks to his beloved]: You are a garden locked up, my sister, my bride; you are a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain. Your plants are an orchard of pomegranates with choice fruits, with henna and nard, nard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon, with every kind of incense tree, with myrrh and aloes and all the finest spices.
Ex 30: 7 Aaron must burn fragrant incense on the altar every morning when he tends the lamps.

4. Be Fitly Clothed – Naomi says to Ruth – and put on your best clothes.

Here too does our mother the Church advise us to be fitly clothed. And for a Christian, to be fitly clothed is to be adorned in the righteousness that comes to us in Christ, by Baptism. In the Baptismal liturgy the Church says to the newly baptized of the white garment they wear: You have become a new creation and have clothed yourself in Christ. Receive this baptismal garment, and bring it unstained to the Judgment seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you may have everlasting life.

In other words, be fitly clothed, wear well the garment of righteousness that Christ died to give you. Scripture too speaks of the garment in which we are to be fitly clothed:

Is 61:10 I delight greatly in the LORD; my soul rejoices in my God. For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
Rev 19:7 Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready; it was granted her to be clothed with fine linen, bright and pure”– for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.

5. Be Fully Committed – Naomi says, Then go down to the threshing floor, ….until he has finished eating and drinking. When he lies down, note the place where he is lying. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down.

In other words, Ruth place yourself at the feet of your redeemer. This action of Ruth was a way of saying to Boaz, I put myself under your protection. I am fully committed to you.

And so too the Church bids us to do the same, that we go to the threshing floor, to that place where the threshed and winnowed bread becomes the Eucharist.

Beneath, or near, every Catholic altar is the Cross. And on that Cross are the uncovered feet of Jesus Christ.

The most sacred place on earth is at the feet of Jesus Christ. And to that place, to that altar, beneath the uncovered feet of Christ, the Church, our Naomi, bids us gather each Sunday. The Church says just what Naomi said, “Place yourself at the feet of your Redeemer.”

6. Be faithfully Compliant – Naomi says to Ruth, confidently and succinctly: He will tell you what to do.

And here too the voice of the Church echoes what Mother Mary also said long ago regrading her Son: Do whatever he tells you (Jn 2:5). How can our Naomi, the Church, say anything less or anything else? The Church has one message: Do whatever Christ, your redeemer tells you.

So Naomi is a picture of the Church, Boaz a picture of Christ, and Ruth a picture of the soul in need of salvation.

How does the Story end? Well I am tempted to to tell you to read it for yourself. But since Boaz is a picture of Christ, you already knows how it ends. Ruth, firmly convinced and having been freshly cleansed, fragrantly consecrated, and fitly clothed, fully commits herself to Boaz and is at his feet. Boaz who saw and loved Ruth before she ever saw or loved him (cf Ruth 2:5), arises and takes her as his bride, paying off all her debt, and giving her a new life. Sound familiar? It is the story of salvation if we have eyes to see it.

April 12, 2012June 9, 2015

When did the Resurrection become truly the Faith, and the official teaching of the Church?

In the early hours of the resurrection appearances on the first Easter Sunday news began to be circulated that Jesus was alive and had been seen. These reports were, at first disbelieved or at least doubted by the apostles. Various reports from both women and men were dismissed by the apostles. But suddenly in the evening of that first Easter Sunday there is a change, and a declaration by the apostles that the Lord “has truly risen!” What effected this change? We will see in a moment. But first note the early reports of the resurrection and how they were largely disregarded:

The women who go to the tomb first discover it empty (Mat 28:6; Mk 16:6; Luke 24:5; John 20:2). The Gospel of John, which is most specific indicates that Magdalene went straightway to Peter and John and speaks anxiously, not of resurrection but of a stolen body. Peter and John hurry to the tomb to investigate. But meanwhile the other women have had a vision of an angels who declare that Jesus had risen and that they should inform the apostles. They depart to do so. Here is first evidence though the risen Lord had yet to appear.
John sees and believes – Peter and John arrive at the tomb after the women had departed. They saw only the empty tomb but it was clearly not grave robbers for the expensive grave linens were lying outstretched. Peter’s reaction is unrecorded but the text said, John saw (the grave clothes outstretched) “and believed” (Jn 20:8). Exactly what he believed is not clear. Did he believe what Mary had said? Or does the text mean he came to believe in that moment that Jesus had risen? It is not clear but let us suppose that he has come to believe that Jesus has risen. Does this mean that the Church now officially believes that Christ has risen because one of the apostles (one of the first bishops) believes it? It would seem not. That will have to wait for later in the day. Peter and John depart the tomb.
Mary Magdalene had followed Peter and John back to the tomb and, after they leave, Jesus appears to her. Here is the first appearance of the risen Christ. Does this now mean that the Church officially believes that Jesus is risen? It would seem not. That will have to wait until later in the day. For scripture testifies that Jesus appeared elsewhere to the other women who had gone to the tomb but that when Mary Magdalene and the other women report that they had seen Jesus risen, the apostles would not believe it (Mk 16:11; Luke 24:11) Hence, though we have appearances we cannot yet say that there is any official declaration by the Church that Christ is truly risen.
Jesus appears also to two disciples (not apostles) who are journeying to Emmaus that late afternoon. At the conclusion of that appearance they run to tell the apostles who, once again, do not believe it (Mark 16:13). So now we have had at least three appearances but no official acceptance by the Church’s leaders (the apostles) that there is any truth to these sightings.

So when does the resurrection become the official declaration of the early Church? Up till now the stories had been rejected by the apostles as either fanciful or untrue. Even the possible belief of one of the 12 (John) was not enough to cause an official declaration from the early Church. So, what causes this to change? It would seem that, after the early evening report by the disciples returning from Emmaus, Peter slipped away, perhaps for a walk, or some other purpose, and according to both Paul (1 Cor 15:5) and Luke (Lk 24:34) the risen Lord appeared to Peter privately and prior to the other apostles. Peter then reports this to the others, and the resurrection moves from being doubted, to being the official declaration of the community, the Church. The official declaration is worded thus:

The Lord has truly risen indeed, he has appeared to Simon!” (Luke 24:34)

The resurrection is now officially declared. Notice, the world “truly” (some texts say “indeed”). It is now an officially attested fact that Jesus has risen. Neither Magdalene, nor the women in general, nor the disciples from Emmaus, nor even John, could make this declaration for the Church. It took the college of apostles in union with Peter to do this. Hence the dogma of the resurrection becomes so on very Catholic terms: The first bishops (the apostles) in union or in Council with the first Pope (Peter) make this solemn declaration of the faith.

When I wrote a similar article some years back, some argued in opposition that the Church “did not exist” at this point since Pentecost “is the birthday of the Church.” I do not accept that “the Church did not exist at this time” (For I think she did exist, but had simply not been commissioned to go forth to the nations as yet, that would wait for Pentecost. Further even if one will piously hold Pentecost as the birthday of the Church, our existence precedes our birth by at least nine months, and the Church’s existence surely also precedes her “birth”). But let us side-step the whole debate by holding saying that this exercise of the Church’s teaching authority in this event is proleptic. That is to say, what would fully be the case later, is here seen operative in an anachronistic, yet real manner (For example, Mother Mary is saved by Jesus and preserved from sin not apart from Christ’s saving act, but in a proleptic way, in anticipation of his saving grace). Thus, the apostles and their office which were fully operative after Pentecost, are here active as the result of a prevenient grace, an anticipation of the future reality of the Church to teach authoritatively out of her basic structure and the charism given to Peter and the Apostles more fully or widely at some later time. But again, I stand by my point that the Church did exist at this time and that we do not have a proleptic but in fact a proper action of the magisterium at this very point.

But did the women and the laymen’s declaration mean nothing? In fact it does. And the Lord upbraids the apostles later for being so reluctant to accept the testimony of the others (Mk 16:14). He calls them “hard of heart” for this reluctance. But he does not undermine their authority to make the official declaration, for in the very next verse he commissions the apostles to go forth and preach and teach in his name. Surely the Lord was not pleased after he had promised many times to rise from the dead that they were so slow to listen to the voices of the first witnesses. Should they not have concluded it was the third day and that the Lord had promised to rise and connected the dots? Did he have to personally appear before they would believe?

Alas, it would seem so. Jesus’ first bishops were not perfect men, far from it. But they were the leaders he had chosen, knowing their weakness. So too for today, the Church’s leaders are not perfect and may take far too long at times to make decisions or give clearer teachings or impose necessary discipline. But, in the end it is they who are nonetheless commissioned to teach officially.

This whole event also teaches us that the bishops and even the Pope are not always the first to hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church. The more frequent pattern is that the Lord begins reforms and sends apparitions, not to the leaders, but among the faithful. Reform movements and messages are often received there first, and only later does the Church, through her anointed and appointed leaders, affirm or uphold certain things as worthy of belief, and set aside others as problematic.

Finally it should be noted that one of the apostles, Thomas, was absent. Even after the official declaration of the Church went forth he still refused to believe (Jn 20:25). Here too the Lord is merciful to him but in the end is clear that Thomas has fallen short. And Thomas has fallen short in a more egregious manner, for he has refused the collective and solemn declaration of the Church, not merely disbelieved the testimony of one or a few disciples. Jesus goes on to declare blessed those who accept the solemn testimony of the Church though they have not seen him with earthly eyes (Jn 20:29). That’s us!

April 8, 2012April 20, 2025

Are There Discrepancies in the Resurrection Accounts? If so, can they be resolved?

When we read the various accounts of the Resurrection in the four Gospels, Acts and Pauline Epistles we can easily be puzzled by some apparent discrepancies in the details.

The Pope in his recent book, Jesus of Nazareth (Vol II) says, We have to acknowledge that this testimony [of Scripture] considered from an historical point of view, is presented to us in a particularly complex form and gives rise to many questions. (P. 242)

The Pope goes on to explain what he considers to be the reason for this complexity and apparent divergence in some of the details.

What actually happened? Clearly for the witnesses who encountered the risen Lord, it was not easy to say. They were confronted with what, for them, was an entirely new reality, far beyond the limits of their own experience. Much as the reality of the event overwhelmed them and impelled them to bear witness, it was still utterly unlike anything they had previously known. (p. 242).

The Pope then reminds us that Jesus’ resurrection was experienced by them as something far beyond the resuscitation of a corpse. Rather, Jesus had taken up a wholly new and transformed humanity that was beyond anything they could fully describe or had ever experienced.

With all this in mind we are better able to appreciate the ecstatic qualities of the resurrection accounts and appreciate why all their details do not perfectly line up. The accounts have a rather crisp, “lets get to the point” quality; especially the accounts of the first day of the appearances. Frankly, one would be surprised if every detail in the account of an astonishing event were exactly the same. One might even suspect a story that was too controlled and wonder as to a kind of brainwashing or conspiracy having taken place. But as they are, these accounts have every hallmark of the accounts of people who experienced the events truly, but, due to their ecstatic and disorienting quality, recall the details differently or emphasize different facets.

It is important to recall that the Scriptures record the things Jesus actually said and did but they are not written like history is today: Today we attempt or think we write history as an exact chronological and comprehensive analysis of an event or era. But the Scriptures are selective, story-based accounts rather than our modern journalistic approach to history. They will often collect the sayings and deeds of Jesus around certain theological themes, rather than follow an exact time line. The Gosples do not intended to be an exhaustive account of everything Jesus said and did in exact detail (cf Jn 20:30; 21:25). Rather the Evangelists select what is suited to their theological purpose. And yet, despite these distinctions, we must be clear that the gospels are historical accounts, in that they recount the things Jesus actually said and did (cf Dei Verbum # 19)

Now, for the record, there are some apparent, and also real discrepancies in the accounts. The word “apparent” is important though, because not all the discrepancies are real or substantial if we take a closer look at them. Some who wish to cast doubt on the historicity of the Resurrection often wish to make more of these differences than necessary. Many, if not most of the differences can be dealt with quite easily and we are able to ultimately stitch together a reasonably clear account of the resurrection, if we are disposed to do so.

So, lets consider some of the apparent conflicts that emerge in the accounts:

How many women went out to the tomb that morning, one (Jn 20:21) two (Matt 28:1), or three (Mk 16:1)?
Did Magdalene alone go to just Peter and John (Jn 20) or did the several women go to the Apostles (Matt 28; Mk 16)?
How many angels did they see there that morning, one (Matt 28:2; Mk 16:5) or two (Lk 24:4; Jn 20:12)?
Did the women run to the other disciples and tell what they had seen (Mt 28:8; Lk 24:9) or did they say nothing out of fear (Mk 16:8)?
Did Jesus see them first in Galilee (Mk 16:7; Mt 28:9) or in Jerusalem (Jn 20; Lk 24:36)?
Among the Apostles, did he appear to Peter first (Lk 24:34), all eleven at once (Mt. 28:16), or the eleven minus Thomas (Jn 20:24)?
Did Jesus appear to them in a room (Jn 20:19) or a mountaintop (Mt 28:16)?
Lastly, did Jesus ascend on Easter Sunday (Lk 24:50-53; Mk 16:19) or forty days later (Acts 1:3,9)?

At one level some react that some of these details are picky. Who cares really who many women went or how many angels? Perhaps, but it does not seem wise to simply dismiss the differences this way. Some of the differences ARE quite significant. For example, did Jesus appear to them first in Jerusalem? Luke and John are quite clear that he did. But why then do Mark and Matthew completely ignore this and record that the angel instructed the women to have the disciples go to Galilee where they will see him? Now, as has been stated, these differences can be addressed in a thoughtful manner, but they should not be simply dismissed as of no account.

In what follows I propose to address these differences and give possible resolutions. I am also aware, and expect to hear from some who consider any attempt to resolve these matters “simplistic.” You of course are free to propose other solutions and demonstrate how attempts at a resolution fall short. This is what comments are for. If something seems wrong state why and give evidence or an alternative point of view. So, on to possible solutions.

How many women went out to the tomb that morning, one (John 20:21), two (Matt 28:1) or three (Mk 16:1) and how many angels were there, one (Mk 16:5, Mat 28:2) or two (Lk 24:4, Jn 20:12)? One solution here is to recall that neither John’s Gospel nor Matthew’s absolutely deny that three women went to the tomb that day. They simply do not mention three whereas Mark does. John especially wishes to focus on Mary Magdalene and may have found it unnecessary to mention the others. Additionally, Matthew and Mark’s mention of one angel need not be seen as an absolute denial that there were two as described in Luke and John. Another solution is simply to acknowledge the discrepancies in the accounts but underscore the fact that the number of women and the number of angels is not the central point. The point is that the tomb was discovered empty by one or several women and they were instructed to tell the apostles what they saw and heard.
Matthew (28:8) and Luke (24:9) indicate that the women went and told the disciples of the empty tomb but Mark (16:8) says they were afraid and said nothing. True but in the verses that follow in the appendix to Mark’s own Gospel (Mk. 16:10) Mary Magdalene does in fact tell the apostles. Rather than conflicting with the other texts, Mark may merely supply additional detail about the startled nature of the women, that at first they were startled and said nothing but soon after went on, as Mark in fact says, a did tell the apostles.
Mark (16:7) and Matthew (28:9) indicate, according to the angel’s instructions, that Jesus would see them in Galilee but Luke (24:36 and John 20) describe the first appearances in Jerusalem. In addressing this difference we must recall that the gospels are not written as chronological or complete histories. The evangelists selected events from among the many things Jesus said and did and may also have altered the order. John (20:30 & 21:25) explicitly states that his account is selective. Hence we ought not conclude that any one gospel completely details all the resurrection appearances. It is true Mark and Matthew speak only of appearances in Galilee. Thus these accounts might only include the angelic instructions to go to Galilee since that they did not intend to describe appearances elsewhere. In other words it is possible to speculate that the angelic instructions were more elaborate and included instructions as to being prepared to meet Jesus first in Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark however paired these details down in their accounts since they did not intend to include the Jerusalem appearances in their accounts. This may not satisfy our notions of historical accounts wherein we expect and want a complete accounting of all the details. But, as has already been noted the Scriptures simply do not record history in this way. Rather they are selective accounts that open windows on history but do not claim to exhaustively report it. Note also that Matthew and Mark are not clear as to the time frame of the appearances they describe. Luke and John however, set the first appearance in Jerusalem and are rather clear that the day is the same day as the resurrection. Hence we reasonably conclude that the first appearances took place in Jerusalem and later appearances took place in Galilee. In other words the Jerusalem appearances do not conflict with the Galilean appearances in any way. Rather they simply add details that Mark and Matthew, for reasons of their own, chose not to include. Such a conclusion is speculative to be sure. It does, however, help us to see that the accounts do not absolutely contradict each other.
Among the Apostles, did Jesus appear to Peter first (Lk 24:34), all eleven at once (Mt. 28:16), or the eleven minus Thomas (Jn 20:24)? There seems to be a good case for the fact that the Lord appeared first to Peter even though we do not have a direct account of this appearance in the scriptures. The Gospel of Luke makes mention of it, And they [the disciples traveling to Emmaus] rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”(24:33-34). Paul also records it [The Lord] was raised the third day in accordance with the scriptures…he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time…Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles (1 Cor 15:3ff). So it seems a pretty good case can be made that Peter did see the risen Lord before the other apostles. This quote from Paul also helps us recall that the gospel accounts are selective in terms of which resurrection appearances they report. Thus, as we read the various accounts, we get from each of them only a part of the full picture (see John 20:30). According to Paul there were appearances to Peter, to five hundred disciples, and to James. The details of these appearances are left to our imagination. It also follows that we do not need to see the accounts of John and Matthew cited above as conflicting. They may well be describing different appearances.
Did Jesus appear to them in a room (Jn 20:19) or a mountaintop (Mt 28:16)? Again, we need not place these texts at odds with one another. Most likely they are describing different appearances. Since the time frame of John is clear that the appearances in the upper room took place on Resurrection Sunday and then a week later we can presume that these appearances took place first. The mountaintop appearance was in Galilee and the time frame is not clear. It may have been days or weeks later.
Did Jesus ascend on Easter Sunday (Lk 24:50-53; Mk 16:19) or forty days later (Acts 1:3,9)? At first glance the texts from Luke and Mark do seem to imply that the ascension was the same day as the resurrection. However, a closer look will show that they are rather vague as to the time frame. Mark begins the passage leading up to the ascension with the word “afterward.” How long after the previous appearance is uncertain. Luke’s passage is also vague regarding the time. However Acts (1:3,9) also written by Luke is quite specific that the time of the ascension was forty days later. Thus, Acts need not be seen to conflict with the gospel accounts; it merely supplies the details that are lacking in them. This case is made stronger when we note that Luke is generally accepted to be the author of both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles and it seems unlikely that Luke would directly contradict himself.

So here then is a short tour of some of the apparent discrepancies and possible ways to resolve them.

In the end we simply have to accept that the Gospels do not record history in the same systematic and strictly chronological manner we moderns prefer. But they DO record history. It is for us to accept the evidence and accounts as they are given. The fact is that to develop a precise time frame and blow by blow chronological description may not be fully possible. However, careful study of the texts can help somewhat in this regard.

In tomorrow’s blog I would like to propose a somewhat chronological account that attempts to weave the many strands into one narrative. Such an attempt as we will see involves some speculation given the nature of ancient historical accounts. But it can help us to sort our the many details by trying to order them. So stay tuned for tomorrow.

February 23, 2012June 10, 2015

What Does Jesus Mean by Hypocrisy? It’s Deeper than You Think

In the Gospel from Ash Wednesday’s Mass, Jesus gives an extended teaching on the problem of hypocrisy. You can read it here: Matthew 6 – On Hypocrisy. In the modern age we have tended to reduce the notion of hypocrisy to duplicity. The modern notion is that a hypocrite is someone who says one thing but does another, a person who is two-faced, who is inconsistent or phony. Jesus’ teaching on Hypocrisy does not exclude this notion but is far richer.

The Biblical understanding enunciated by Jesus is rooted in the original meaning of the Greek word ὑποκριταί (hypokritai) which means “stage actors.” At one level it is easy to see how this word has come to mean some one who is phony. For what they claim to be, they really are not, they are just acting a role. But when no one is looking (i.e. the audience is gone) they revert to their true self, which is some one quite different. But Jesus in his teaching here develops the understanding far more richly that shows how sad and poignant hypocrisy is, what its origin is and how it can be overcome.

Hypocrisy defined – In effect Jesus describes hypocrisy as the sad state of a person who reduces himself to being an actor on a stage, because he does not know God the Father. There are many people who live their life in a desperate search for human approval and applause. They discern their dignity and worth, not from God, (who is in effect a stranger to them), but from what other human beings think of them. They are willing to adapt themselves often in dramatic ways to win approval. They are willing to play many roles and wear many masks to give the audience what they want. They are like actors on a stage, who seek applause or perhaps laughter and approval. Notice the way Jesus describes the heart of hypocrisy:

Jesus said to his disciples: “Take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them;….The Lord goes on to say that they blow a trumpet so that others will see them giving alms, they pray ostentatiously so that others may see they are praying, and they alter their appearance so that others may see they are fasting.

The heart of hypocrisy – Thus, the goal of such a person is to be seen. They are on stage and seek to ingratiate themselves to the audience and win applause. Hence they engage in some action “in order that people may see them.” It is clear that this is ultimately very sad. A lonely actor on a stage performing whatever role is required in order to win approval from the current audience. Their inner core or deepest self is repressed and replaced by the demands of others. This is the true heart of and description of hypocrisy.

Many take this desperate need for approval from others to very self destructive extremes. Many young people, due to peer pressure, will engage in dangerous and unhealthy practices to win approval. Some will drop out of school, join gangs and commit crimes. Others will drink heavily or use drugs. Still others will tattoo and pierce their bodies, engage in sexual activity before marriage, and do many risky things. The need for approval is often the deep drive that underlies this desperate behavior. But like actors on a stage seeking applause they rush to fill these rolls and wait for the applause and acceptance.

Adults too will often compromise core principles in order to fit in and be liked, gain promotions or earn access. Christians will hide their faith, playing the role of a secular modern in order to win approval. Some will act deceitfully to please a boss, others will gossip or engage in any number of sinful behaviors to ingratiate themselves to a group.

It is also clear that our modern notion of hypocrisy as duplicity, while incomplete, is not wrong either. Why does the hypocrite act inconsistently, often in a duplicitous manner? Because the audience changes, and he must change with it. So to one group he will say “yes” and to another group he will say “no.” Since the goal of the hypocrite (actor) is to be seen and win approval, the answer must change if the group does. Hence he will morph, hide his true thoughts or outright lie to gain the approval. He no longer has a core, his identity is outside of himself in what ever the audience requires in order to grant him approval.

Why does this happen to a person? Here too Jesus is rather clear. This happens to a person who does not know God the Father. The great tragedy of many lives is that they do not know the Father. They may know ABOUT God, but they do not personally know God or his love for them. God is at best a benevolent stranger who runs the universe but he is in some remote heaven and the interaction that many have with him is vague and abstract. God exists but he is on the periphery of life. In effect he is a stranger.

Notice the remedy that Jesus assigns for each example of hypocrisy he cites:

Your heavenly Father, who sees in secret will repay you for giving alms….Your heavenly Father who sees in secret will repay you for praying…..Your heavenly Father who sees what is hidden will repay you for your fasting.

In other words the goal in life and the remedy for hypocrisy is that it is enough that Your heavenly Father sees what you do. Now of course, as long as God the Father remains a distant and aloof figure what he sees never WILL be enough for us. But to the degree that we begin to experience God the Father’s love for us, his providence and his good will toward us, then we become less concerned with what others think. We begin to come down off the stage and be less concerned for the approval of men and more focused on and then satisfied with the approval of God.

Notice too the intimacy that Jesus sets forth. He says of God, He is “Your heavenly Father.” He is not merely the “Deity.” He is not merely God in heaven. He is not even merely the Father. He is “YOUR heavenly Father.” He is the one who created you, sustains you, provides for and loves you.

Journeying away from Hypocrisy – To the degree that this becomes real for us, and is more than words on the page of a book, or inferential knowledge base only on what others have said, to the degree that this is a real experience for us, we start to climb off the stage. We are less the actor (the hypocrite) and more the authentic self God has created us to be. We begin to loose our obsession with what others think of us. We are less desperate for their approval. It is not that we become sociopaths caring not one whit what others think. We still groom ourselves etc., but we are not obsessed with the good opinion of others. It is enough that we know our heavenly Father and his love for us.

Hence, hypocrisy, at least as Jesus teaches it here. is a richer concept than we often think of today. To this sad and poignant problem, Jesus addresses a very powerful and personal solution of knowing “your heavenly Father” and experiencing his love for you. Thank you Lord Jesus!

February 10, 2012June 10, 2015

100 Questions Jesus Asked and You Ought to Answer

One of the bigger mistakes people make in reading Scripture is that they read it as a spectator. For them Scripture is a collection of stories and events that took place thousands of years ago. True enough, we are reading historical accounts.

But, truth be told these ancient stories are our stories. We are in the narrative. You are Abraham, Sarah, Moses, Deborah, Jeremiah, Ruth, Peter, Paul, Magdalene, Mother Mary, and, if you are prepared to accept it, you are also Jesus. As the narrative we read unfolds, we are in the story. We cannot simply watch what others say or do or answer. For what Peter and Magdalene and others did, we do. Peter denied and ran. So do we. Magdalene loved and never gave up, should should we. Magdalene had a sinful past and a promising future, so do we. Peter was passionate and had a temper so do we. But Peter also loved the Lord and ultimately gave his life for the Lord. So can we. Jesus suffered and died but rose again and ascended to glory. So have we and so will we.

The scriptures are our own story. We are in it. To read scripture as a mere spectator looking on is to miss the keynote. Scripture is our story.

In the light of this keynote there emerges another very important and powerful key to unlocking the text. The key is simply this: Answer the Question! Among the many things Jesus did, he asked a lot of questions! And whenever you read the Gospels and Jesus asks a question, answer it! Do not wait to see what Peter or Magdalene, or the Pharisees or the crowd say for an answer. You answer the question, in your own words. This brings Scripture powerfully alive.

So twenty years ago Bishop John Marshall, Bishop of Burlington VT., and later Springfield Mass compiled a book: But Who Do You Say That I Am? In the book he collected and listed all the questions Jesus asked in the Gospels. And he encourages us to answer the question. Bishop Marshall, in listing the question, gives extra verses for context and adds brief commentaries. However, I would like to list just the raw questions.

I will give the verse reference so you can look it up. But, unless you really think it necessary, avoid looking it up at first. Just let the question meet you where you are right now. The question may mean something for you that is very different that its original context. But that is OK. Just pick a question, read it, consider it and answer it, by talking to the Lord.

Read the list slowly, perhaps over days or weeks, often taking just one question at a time. I have attached a PDF version of the List here: 100 Questions that Jesus asked and YOU must answer. Again, ponder each question. Answer each question prayerfully and reflectively. This is not the complete list of questions but it is surely food for thought. Now, answer the questions:

100 Questions that Jesus asked and YOU must answer:

And if you greet your brethren only, what is unusual about that? Do not the unbelievers do the same? (Matt 5:47)
Can any of you by worrying add a single moment to your lifespan? Matt 6:27
Why are you anxious about clothes? Matt 6:28
Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye yet fail to perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? (Matt 7:2)
Do people pick grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? (Matt 7:16)
Why are you terrified? (Matt 8:26)
Why do you harbor evil thoughts? (Matt 9:4)
Can the wedding guests mourn so long as the Bridegroom is with them? (Matt 9:15)
Do you believe I can do this? (Matt 9:28)
What did you go out to the desert to see? (Matt 11:8)
To what shall I compare this generation? (Matt 11:6)
Which of you who has a sheep that falls into a pit on the Sabbath will not take hold of it and lift it out? (Matt 12:11)
How can anyone enter a strong man’s house and take hold of his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? (Matt 12:29)
You brood of vipers! How can you say god things when you are evil? (Matt 12:34)
Who is my mother? Who are my brothers? (Matt 12:48)
Why did you doubt? (Matt 14:31)
And why do you break the commandments of God for the sake of your tradition? (Matt 15:3)
How many loaves do you have? (Matt 15:34)
Do you not yet understand? (Matt 16:8)
Who do people say the Son of Man is? (Matt 16:13)
But who do you say that I am? (Matt 16:15)
What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life and what can one give in exchange for his life? (Matt 16:26)
O faithless and perverse generation how long must I endure you? (Matt 17:17)
Why do you ask me about what is good? (Matt 19:16)
Can you drink the cup that I am going to drink? (Matt 20:22)
What do you want me to do for you? (Matt 20:32)
Did you never read the scriptures? (Matt 21:42)
Why are you testing me? (Matt 22:18)
Blind fools, which is greater, the gold or the temple that makes the gold sacred….the gift of the altar that makes the gift sacred? (Matt 23:17-19)
How are you to avoid being sentenced to hell? (Matt 23:33)
Why do you make trouble for the woman? (Matt 26:10)
Could you not watch for me one brief hour? (Matt 26:40)
Do you think I cannot call upon my Father and he will not provide me at this moment with more than 12 legions of angels? (Matt 26:53)
Have you come out as against a robber with swords and clubs to seize me? (Matt 26:53)
My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me? (Matt 27:46)
Why are you thinking such things in your heart? (Mark 2:8)
Is a lamp brought to be put under a basket or under a bed rather than on a lamp stand? (Mark 4:21)
Who has touched my clothes? (Mark 5:30)
Why this commotion and weeping? (Mark 5:39)
Are even you likewise without understanding? (Mark 7:18)
Why does this generation seek a sign? (Mark 8:12)
Do you not yet understand or comprehend? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes and still not see? Ears and not hear? (Mark 8:17-18)
How many wicker baskets full of leftover fragments did you pick up? (Mark 8:19)
[To the Blind man] Do you see anything? (Mark 8:23)
What were arguing about on the way? (Mark 9:33)
Salt is good, but what if salt becomes flat? (Mark 9:50)
What did Moses command you? (Mark 10:3)
Do you see these great buildings? They will all be thrown down. (Mark 13:2)
Simon, are you asleep? (Mark 14:37)
Why were you looking for me? (Luke 2:49)
What are you thinking in your hearts? (Luke 5:22)
Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and not do what I command? (Luke 6:46)
Where is your faith (Luke 8:25)
What is your name? (Luke 8:30)
Who touched me? (Luke 8:45)
Will you be exalted to heaven? (Luke 10:15)
What is written in the law? How do you read it? (Luke 10:26)
Which of these three in your opinion was neighbor to the robber’s victim? (Luke 10:36)
Did not the maker of the outside also make the inside? (Luke 11:40)
Friend, who appointed me as your judge and arbiter? (Luke 12:14)
If even the smallest things are beyond your control, why are you anxious about the rest? (Luke 12:26)
Why do you not judge for yourself what is right? (Luke 12:57)
What king, marching into battle would not first sit down and decide whether with ten thousand troops he can successfully oppose another king marching upon him with twenty thousand troops? (Luke 14:31)
If therefore you are not trustworthy with worldly wealth, who will trust you with true wealth? (Luke 16:11)
Has none but this foreigner returned to give thanks to God? (Luke 17:18)
Will not God then secure the rights of his chosen ones who call out to him day and night? (Luke 18:7)
But when the Son of Man comes, will he find any faith on earth? (Luke 18:8)
For who is greater, the one seated a table or the one who serves? (Luke 22:27)
Why are you sleeping? (Luke 22:46)
For if these things are done when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry? (Luke 23:31)
What are you discussing as you walk along? (Luke 24:17)
Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter his glory? (Luke 24:26)
Have you anything here to eat? (Luke 24:41)
What are you looking for? (John 1:38)
How does this concern of your affect me? (John 2:4)
You are a teacher in Israel and you do not understand this? (John 3: 10)
If I tell you about earthly things and you will not believe, how will you believe when I tell you of heavenly things? (John 3: 12)
Do you want to be well? (John 5:6)
How is it that you seek praise from one another and not seek the praise that comes from God? (John 5:44)
If you do not believe Moses’ writings how will you believe me? (John 5:47)
Where can we buy enough food for them to eat? (John 6:5)
Does this (teaching of the Eucharist) shock you? (John 6:61)
Do you also want to leave me? (John 6:67)
Why are you trying to kill me? (John 7:19)
Woman where are they, has no one condemned you? (John 8:10)
Why do you not understand what I am saying? (John 8:43)
Can any of you charge me with sin? (John 8:46)
If I am telling you the truth, why do you not believe me? (John 8:46)
Are there not twelve hours in a day? (John 11:9)
Do you believe this? (John 11:26)
Do you realize what I have done for you? (John 13:12)
Have I been with you for so long and still you do not know me? (John 14:9)
Whom are you looking for? (John 18:4)
Shall I not drink the cup the Father gave me? (John 18:11)
If I have spoken rightly, why did you strike me? (John 18:23)
Do you say [what you say about me] on your own or have others been telling you about me? (John 18:34)
Have you come to believe because you have seen me? (John 20:29)
Do you love me? (John 21:16)
What if I want John to remain until I come? (John 21:22)
What concern is it of yours? (John 21:22)

After all this you might have a few questions for God:

February 8, 2012June 10, 2015

On the Sad End of Solomon – A Moral Lesson for Us All

The readings at daily Mass currently focus on the kingship of Solomon. Perhaps the high point of his life was, when presented the opportunity to ask anything whatsoever from God chose not gold or glory, but Wisdom. Today we read of the Visit of the Queen of Sheba and saw a description of his Court and Kingdom in all its glory. Her early years are a portrait of a man deeply rooted in God. But later in life Solomon turned from his first love and his infidelity ultimately led to divided kingdom. It is a moral tale that contains a warning for us all. Let’s review the basics of Solomon’s life and ponder the lessons.

Solomon was Israel’s third King. He was also known as Jedidiah (beloved of the Lord). His forty year reign is regarded as Israel’s golden age. It was an age of prosperity and national unity. But in the end, his reign ended disastrously, he began to oppress the people, multiplied wives and introduced pagan worship.

Solomon was the second son of David and Bathsheba. However, David had other wives and sons by them. Solomon was actually the 17th of 19 sons of David. This hardly made him the most likely son to succeed his father as king. However, through the court intrigues of his mother, and the support of Nathan the prophet, who both took advantage of David in his old age, Solomon was named king in 961 BC against Adonijah the presumed successor. Solomon swiftly and ruthlessly established his power against Adonijah, having his brother executed on a pretext. This act, along with the execution or banishment of Adonijah’s supporters in the military had repercussions throughout Solomon’s reign. It created military rivals on the northern edge of Israel that were something of a nuisance and may explain why Solomon raised a large army as we will see later.

Despite all this, Solomon experienced a vision from God early in his reign. He was at the altar of Gibeon offering extensive sacrifices to God. And this is where we pick up the reading from Mass this past Saturday Morning:

In Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon in a dream at night. God said, “Ask something of me and I will give it to you.” Solomon answered: “You have shown great favor to your servant, my father David, because he behaved faithfully toward you, with justice and an upright heart; and you have continued this great favor toward him, even today, seating a son of his on his throne. O LORD, my God, you have made me, your servant, King to succeed my father David; but I am a mere youth, not knowing at all how to act. I serve you in the midst of the people whom you have chosen, a people so vast that it cannot be numbered or counted. Give your servant, therefore, an understanding heart to judge your people and to distinguish right from wrong. For who is able to govern this vast people of yours?” The LORD was pleased that Solomon made this request. So God said to him: “Because you have asked for this–not for a long life for yourself, nor for riches, nor for the life of your enemies, but for understanding so that you may know what is right– I do as you requested. I give you a heart so wise and understanding that there has never been anyone like you up to now, and after you there will come no one to equal you. (1 Kings 3:5-12)

And the Lord did indeed grant Solomon great wisdom. 1 Kings 4:30-32 notes that his wisdom surpassed all the people of the east, and also Egypt, and credits Solomon with 3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs. Many of these have come down to us in the biblical books authored by Solomon: Proverbs, the Song of Songs, Wisdom, and his possible editing of Ecclesiastes. Leaders from throughout the world sought out Solomon for his wisdom and counsel, most notably the Queen of Sheba.

Solomon was also noted as a superb statesman who had a great capacity to forge trading relationships with foreign leaders. Trade expanded widely during his reign. But these foreign entanglements may well have been the first sign of trouble, for they led him to take many wives. This was a common practice of the day for Kings. And yet, the Book of Deuteronomy warns kings and commands them not to do three things:

The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. (Deut 17:16-17)

Solomon ended up breaking all three of these commands.

1. He multiplied wives. In multiplying wives Solomon took many of them from the pagan territories around him. His wives included Hittites, Maobites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Ammorites. They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. (1 Kings 11:2). The Scripture notes that in the end he had 700 wives and 300 concubines! (1 Kings 11:3).

This not only demonstrates his lust but also his foreign entanglements. These pagan women brought with them their pagan deities and, in the end, they negatively influenced Solomon’s own faith. At the dedication of the Temple God warned Solomon:

But if you or your sons turn away from me and do not observe the commands and decrees I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land I have given them and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. Israel will then become a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples. (1 Kings 9:6-7).

Solomon failed to heed this warning and through lust, greed for trade, and fascination with things foreign and pagan, he turned away from the Lord and began to allow pagan worship, and pagan altars to be built in Israel and even built them himself (1 Kings 11). Of all his sins this was clearly the most egregious and the author of 1 Kings indicates it is the main reason God turned his favor from Israel:

So the LORD said to Solomon, “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen (1 Kings 11:11-13)

2. He multiplied gold and silver – Solomon solidified a large central government that cut across tribal boundaries. He also engaged in a massive building campaign to include the building of the a large royal complex, palace, fortifications and the Temple. He built large and opulent buildings. But the combination of a large central government, an extravagant palace life, and extensive building projects weakened the national economy, with high taxes and conscripted labor. The queen of Sheba who was fabulously wealthy herself remarked on visiting Solomon: Your wisdom and prosperity surpasses any report I which I have heard (1 Kings 10:7). Not only did the high taxes cause resentment but the centralized and growing government offended against the Jewish tribal system, which was used to a more local governance. Increasingly Solomon offended against subsidiarity by interfering in local affairs through his officials.

3. He Multiplied Horses– This is a Jewish expression for amassing a large army. In taking the kingship away from Adonijah, Solomon had acquired inveterate enemies from the military commanders who had supported Adonijah. They camped in the north and often harassed Israel. Perhaps for this reason, but more likely for pride, Solomon amassed a huge army including 12,000 horsemen and 1,400 charioteers. This, despite never going to war, during his reign. The problem with an extremely large army is that, not only is it expensive, but it also required a draft to conscript men into service. This caused resentment among some and the absence of large numbers of men from their families and work at home.

Consequences! – As God told him, the legacy of his turning away, was a divided kingdom. In the reign of Rehoboam, his son, the Kingdom of Israel divided from Judah, as a result of Solomon’s increasingly oppressive policies. When Rehoboam followed his father’s misguided policies the ten tribes in the north had enough, and they divided from Judah. The great unified Davidic Kingdom had ended and within less than 200 years Israel (721 BC) and later Judah (587 BC) were invaded and destroyed.

Of Solomon’s sad end Scriptures says:

How wise you were when you were young, overflowing with instruction, like the Nile in flood! Your understanding covered the whole earth, and, like a sea, filled it with knowledge. Your fame reached distant coasts, and you were beloved for your peaceful reign…. But you abandoned yourself to women and gave them dominion over your body. You brought a stain upon your glory, shame upon your marriage bed, Wrath upon your descendants, and groaning upon your deathbed. Thus two governments came into being (Sirach 47:14-21).

The story of Solomon is a sad object lesson, a moral tale. Failing to heed God brings destruction. And Solomon systematically failed to heed God.

What turned Solomon from the right path? Was it greed? Yes. Was it the foreign entanglements ignited by that greed and desire for power? Yes. Was it corruption by the world that greed, foreign entanglements and admiration of foreign ways caused? Surely. Was it lust? Clearly. Was it the inappropriate relationships and marriages that the lust caused? Yes. Did Solomon come to love the world more than God? Surely. Did lust and greed cause him to make steady compromises with the world? Without a doubt. And ever so slowly, and perhaps imperceptibly at first, he began to turn from God.

But Solomon’s story could be the story of any of us if we are not careful to persevere in the ways of God. Lust, greed, fascination with the world, these are human problems. I have seen people who are close to the Lord, drift away due to worldly preoccupations, bad and ill conceived relationships, career dominance that eclipses vocation, and just through accumulation of bad influences from the TV and Internet. Prayer and Mass attendance slip away. Bad moral behavior gets excused, and ever so subtly we turn less to God, and more to the gods of this world.

It is the road that Solomon trod. The great and wise Solomon, once close to God’s heart and preferring nothing of the world to God’s wisdom. But a man who died smothered in wealth, sex and power. A man whose heart turned from God.

Call no man happy before his death, for by how he ends, a man is known. (Sirach 11:28)
Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. (Rev 2:4-5)
But he who stands firm to the end will be saved. (Matt 24:13)

August 22, 2011June 10, 2015

Love Lifted Me. A Meditation on a Profound Insight of Origen

Back in Seminary days we would often study the question of authorship when it came to books of the Bible. Especially in modern times there are extensive debates about such things. I remember being annoyed at the question in most cases since I didn’t really care who the Holy Spirit gave the text to, in the end, God was the author.

I was also annoyed at some of the premises used to reject authorship. For example, it was widely held by modern scholars that St. Paul couldn’t possibly be the author of the the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus) since the description of the Church was “far too developed” to have been written prior to 65 AD. Never mind that the Acts of the Apostles describes many of the “dubious” hierarchal elements (presbyters (e.5. Acts 14:23), deacons (e.g. acts 6:3), and apostles (bishops). Never mind any of that, for us moderns there is the tendency to consider as “primitive” early eras. So Paul’s authorship was questioned by many in those days.

John’s gospel too was considered far too lofty by modern scholars to have been written by a “simple fisherman.” Where could this “unlettered man” have gotten such profound and mystical insights? Again, never mind that he may have been as old as 90 when he authored the gospel, and may have pondered it for some 60 years. Never mind that he lived for at least part of that time with the sinless Virgin Mary, who knew her son as no one knew him and saw him with sinless eyes. No, never mind the power of grace and infused vision. No, it was too much for many modern and rationalistic scholars to accept that a simple fisherman could pull it off. It must have been by some other more lettered man like “John the Elder,” or it must have been other smarter types in the Johanine community, or school that authored this.

Here too I was just a simple 25 year old seminarian but it seemed to me that far too many modern interpreters stressed only the human dimension of Revelation. Something more mystical was missing from their view. That God could somehow give a profound vision to the early Apostles, and an infused mysticism was almost wholly absent in their analysis. Even as a 25 year old I knew better than to exclude that. I was young, but had already experienced aspects of the charismatic movement where inspiration and gifts were to be sought and expected.

And had not Jesus himself said to the Apostles, But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you (Jn 14:26).

I recently came across a quote from Origen, the early 3rd Century Father, whose insight into John struck me as profound and telling, deeply faithful and challenging for every Christian. Pondering himself, where John “got all this” Origen says,

We may therefore make bold to say that the Gospels are the first fruits of all the Scriptures, but that of the Gospels that of John is the first fruits. No one can apprehend the meaning of it except he that has lain on Jesus’ breast and received from Jesus Mary to be his mother also. (Origen, Commentary on John, 6)

There is was, the lynchpin, the truest answer. John had mystical vision and saw the Lord in the loftiest way because he knew and experienced the heart of the Lord, and had Mary for his Mother. John was a brilliant theologian and possessed of deep insight, less because he knew books, and more because he knew the Lord, heart to heart.

And how surely and truly Mary’s role in this cannot be overlooked. Think of the conversations she and John must have had, the mystical prayer she must have enjoyed, and shared with John, the memories and the things that only the heart of a sinless mother could see and know. How John must have marveled at the gift of her. And how he too, who had known the heart of the Lord, and rested at his heart, at the Last Supper must have been able to pray and converse with her.

Speculation you say? Perhaps. But a vision I share with the great theologian Origen. It was love that gave John insight, it was relationship with Jesus, and with Mother Mary, by Jesus own gift, that his mystical gospel took flight.

And what of you and me? How will we gain insight into the Lord, and the truth of his Gospel? Books and learning? Studying Greek? Reading commentaries? Sure, all well and good. But these things are best at telling you what the text is saying. But it takes a deep relationship with the Lord to see Scripture’s mystical meaning.

Study? Sure. But don’t forget to pray! Scripture comes from the heart of the Lord and it is only there, by entering the heart of the Lord, and living there through prayer that Scripture’s truest meaning will ever be grasped.

Having trouble getting there? No one loves and understands Jesus like his Mother Mary. Ask her intercession and help, she will show you the heart of her Son.

Jesus gave John two gifts: the gift of his heart, and the gift of his mother. And John soared to such places that people could ask, “How did he get all this?” But you know how.

He offers you and me the same. Do you want vision, do you want to appreciate the depths of scripture and all God’s truth? Do you want the eyes of your heart opened to new mysteries and mystical experience? Accept the gifts Jesus offers: the gift of his heart, the gift of his mother.

Consider well the admonition of one of the most learned men who ever lived:No one can apprehend the meaning of it except he that has lain on Jesus’ breast and received from Jesus Mary to be his mother also.

Here is Fr. Thomas Luis de Victoria at his most mystical: O Magnum Mysterium (O Great mystery and wondrous sacrament, that animals would witness the birth of Christ. O Blessed Virgin whose womb merited to carry the Lord Jesus Christ, Alleluia!)

June 24, 2011June 10, 2015

Superb Bible Study on YouTube – Learning from a Great Teacher

The video at the bottom of this page is a commentary on the Gospel of John by Fr. Francis Martin, an excellent and well known biblical scholar. He has given many priest retreats, and taught in many settings, most recently at the Dominican House of Studies here in Washington.

He has been a great teacher of mine though his retreats and tape ministry. He has also been instrumental in my spiritual life through his careful and clear articulation of a theology of transformation, and insistence that we, as Christians, come to know and live the normal Christian life, a life of on-going and total transformation by the grace of God. He is a humble and prayerful man of God, a holy priest.

Recently Fr. Martin has begun a YouTube ministry that I would like to recommend to your attention. The video at the bottom is but a sample of a growing series. I want to be brief here to encourage you to take the time and watch the video. Fr. Martin is here covering the cleansing of the Temple by Jesus, in John’s gospel. Among the points he makes are these

1. Going up to Jerusalem– You always go up to Jerusalem. It doesn’t matter where you live, south or north, even if you live in the highest mountains, you always go up to Jerusalem.

2. Temple Worship is over – The cleansing of the Temple marks a major turning point in the Lord’s life. One of the over arching themes of the Gospel of John is that Temple worship is over. Jesus is now the temple.

3. Time – we in the modern West like to control things by measuring them. Time for us (especially in America) is considered a precise measurement, and it’s a way we try to stay in control. But in ancient culture, (and in many cultures today), the idea of space and time were different, more poetic, less precise. “Tuesday morning at 10 AM” is precise for us, for the ancients, it was a more general framework. This helps explain why John places the cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, the Synoptics at the end. The time is less the point to them. We obsess over which is right, but they were less concerned with when and more with what.

4. What is the Theology of Geography?

5. Why were there money changers and the selling of animals?

6. What was the spiritual problem against which Jesus is reacting?

Please consider taking some time to view the video. It is very informative and spiritual. Fr. Martin’s style is relaxed and subtle. Listen carefully and let the Lord teach you through him.

Father’s YouTube page is here: Fr. Francis Martin Ministries