Signing Off, For Now

Years ago, I did what the Jesuits call a 19th annotation or a Retreat in Daily Life. That involved a 30 minute prayer period every day and monthly consultations with a spiritual director.

The trickiest part of the 19th annotation was finding time and space to pray.

I'd often pray at night in our small condo unit when my wife was asleep. But sometimes she'd wake up and (maybe because she was pregnant then) I had to attend to her. My spiritual director said it was absolutely right to attend to my wife during those moments and interrupt prayer.

I find myself in a similar situation now. Doing these daily posts takes time. Sometimes I know what to write after taking one look at the readings. At other times, it's a struggle. I have to go through the passages several times. I have to look at bible notes or search the internet (including Wikipedia!) for inspiration. This season of Lent has been particularly difficult readings-wise.

And it's time I need for other things like dissertation (the tragedy being that I'm more consistent here on Readings for the Day than in dissertation. Maybe this time around, "the wife" is the dissertation). I also need time to rest and release myself from dealing with one more daily expectation.

So last night, I decided it's time to stop posting readings for the day until such time as conditions are right again. I was hoping to finish all three mass cycles but I guess I'll have to defer that ambition.

Thanks to all the faithful readers and it's amazing that I see that there are consistent readers from Russia (!), the U.S., and of course, the Philippines.

I don't know when I'll be back but you can subscribe to the blog by email. There's a subscription button to the right and that could be a way to alert you to new posts.

It's been fun while it lasted, especially those moments when I'd reflect on eschatology, Saul, and John the Baptist. Maybe the message is, that's enough for now. I've learned what I've needed to learn at this point in time.

Squandering Our Freedom (Luke 15: 11-32)

(An old essay, undated)

It is a natural tendency of young people to want to assert their freedom vis a vis their elders. But I think that it’s a much more basic truth that the tension between freedom and responsibility, guidance and independence is something we live with all throughout our lives. The only difference is that when we were younger we articulated this tensions rather violently, questioning authority, always asking “Why?” As we get older, we live out these questions, perpetually facing situations (in relationships, in work) where we have to ask “Why should I do what is right when I derive so much satisfaction from doing what is wrong?” We find ourselves failing to disclose information to our bosses, figuring that the less they know, the freer we are to do as we please. As we grow up, we resent bosses who are perpetually “in our face”.

I think the same is true of our spiritual lives. How often has it been said that we are merely Sunday Catholics who go to mass probably to avoid the burden of guilt or out of tradition and habit? And isn’t it the normal occurrence that we frequent our God only when we need help? We ask for “divine intervention” or seek guidance over a decision” and more often then not, we leave God alone, or more accurately, we tell God “Thanks for being around, but I think we can do it on our own. We’ll tell you if we need your help”.

What the Son asked for in the story of theProdigal Son was much more than his material inheritance but also his freedom. Like a rebellious teen-ager, the Prodigal Son asked for the wealth and independence that was to be eventually his and wandered far away from his Father’s guidance. What the Prodigal Son squandered was much more than his material wealth but also the freedom to choose what to do with his life, away from anyone telling him what he ought to do, counseling him on what is right and what is wrong.

But the Son quickly learned that this was the wrong way to live. He realized that, acting alone, he had squandered his freedom and found himself bankrupt, bankrupt materially and bankrupt of any form of meaningful existence. He therefore resolved to go back to his Father, willing to become a slave. The Father rejoiced upon seeing him return, happy to see him and probably happy that the son had come to the right mature decision on his own. Instead of making the Son a slave, the Father gave to the Son wealth and restored to him the freedom he had squandered.

It isn’t clear from the Gospels why the Son returned. Was it because he was truly sorry for what he had done to His Father, the insult of asking for his inheritance while his father was still alive? Or was it because he ran out of money and therefore he had to find the means to sustain his existence? Something tells me it was the latter reason. The Prodigal Son is so much like us, running to Papa only when we are in trouble. The nice thing about our God is that, like a fool, he always obliges us, at least with his presence.

There’s also nothing in the Gospels about what happened to the Prodigal Son after the feast. He probably conducted mini-experiments with his newly resurrected freedom.

All throughout our lives we feel this tension, this need to “strike it out on our own”. We learn to resent authority and publicly (or behind everyone’s backs) question all the rules. This maybe valid to some extent when we are guided by human (and therefore imperfect) authority. Sometimes, the responsible thing to do is to responsibly question authority and institutions to learn the meaning behind these authorities and institutions or to improve them (or to get rid of them if that’s necessary)

But what I think the story of the Prodigal Son teaches us is that it never pays to stray too far from our God. Like the Prodigal Son, if we squander our freedom we will eventually reach the point where our existence will seem meaningless. Our freedom is only relevant when we exercise it within the guidance of the Almighty.

---

Post-script. 

What does it mean then not to stray too far from God? I don’t think it is necessarily to follow the Hierarchical Church blindly. There are certain moral rules with roots in the Church that have become universally accepted as Universal values. But we must remember that the Church itself is an institution, thus an imperfect representation of the Will of Christ. Like all institutions, it must constantly be improved.

I think staying close to God means prayer and an active sacramental life. These actions are manifestations of our desire to stay close to God. In the end, I think all the Father needs is for us to continually express the desire to be close to Him. A famous prayer articulates well this desire:

Day by Day, oh Dear Lord

Three things I pray,

To see thee more clearly,

To love thee more dearly,

To follow thee more nearly,

Day by Day

When we express that desire persistently, we learn slowly that God will not allow us to stray too far from him.

Katiwala II (Matthew 21: 33-43, 45-46)

A few months ago, I wrote an entry I entitled Katiwala (caretaker). And after writing that entry, I realized the importance of today's Gospel passage.

So first let me reproduce my old entry here:


When I run out of ideas on what to post, one of the sites I refer to is www.mass-schedules.com, which, despite its generic name, is a website for the Philippine mass schedules.


The site's reflection for the day (which will disappear tomorrow) says this: "Jesus' story about a businessman who leaves town and entrusts his money with his workers made perfect sense to his audience. Wealthy merchants and businessmen often had to travel abroad and leave the business to others to handle while they were gone". 


I'll run off on a tangent from there. While the concept of "stewardship" is not new, I think the Filipino translation is more descriptive of our place relative to things: tayo'y katiwala. Katiwala evokes images of people allowed  by owners to live for free in houses that are otherwise not occupied or people in rural areas allowed by owners of land to live on and plant in that land. I'm not all that comfortable with the concept of stewardship because it denotes a certain level of co-equality with the owner and not enough of servanthood and accountability. 


The word katiwala makes it clear that we are servants and clearly not the owners of various stuff. Nothing is ours. If you believe Kahlil Gibran, even our children are not ours. Pinagkatiwala lang sila sa atin. (They were just entrusted to us)


The question then becomes what do we do with the things and people entrusted to us. Mapagkakatiwalaan ba tayo? (Can we be trusted?) And when the owner comes back, what do we as katiwala have to show for it? 


The Gospel for today is all about katiwala. A landowner goes on a journey and asks his tenants to take care of the land. When harvest time drew near, the landowner sent servants to obtain his produce but the tenants beat these servants to death. He sent a second batch but they were treated the same way. Finally, he sends his son and the tenants still kill his son.

I think the tenants forgot that the land and its produce was not theirs but that they were merely stewards of the landowner's land.

I don't think the Gospel for today should just be directed to people who are like the Pharisees and the chief priests but applies to all of us who sometimes forget that we are merely katiwala, that everything is gift freely given by God to us and we must remain openhearted enough to surrender what is asked for when it is asked for.

Trust in the Lord (Jeremiah 17:5-10 and Luke 16:19-31)

If I were to create a theme for the readings today, it would be Trust in the Lord. 


The passage from Jeremiah says this explicitly and it is such a nice passage I copy it below. Jeremiah exhorts people to trust in the Lord and not in man. For me, this passage from Jeremiah is the Old Testament version of the Our Father. Give us today our daily bread, Lord. It is in you that we place our trust and turn to for our needs. And those who trust in the Lord are like trees "planted beside the waters that stretches out its roots to the stream: It fears not the heat when it comes, its leaves stay green. In the year of drought it shows no distress, but still bears fruit. "


The image of the daily bread also seems appropriate given the Gospel passage of today which is about Lazarus eating off the crumbs of the rich man. The rich man turned to his wealth for his daily needs but we can assume that Lazarus relied on the Lord. The rich man's wealth does nothing to save him in the afterlife. In the end, his wealth was unreliable.


The Psalm for the day seems to cap it all nicely: Blessed are they who hope in the Lord! 




---
Thus says the LORD:
Cursed is the man who trusts in human beings,
who seeks his strength in flesh,
whose heart turns away from the LORD.
He is like a barren bush in the desert
that enjoys no change of season,
But stands in a lava waste,
a salt and empty earth.
Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD,
whose hope is the LORD.
He is like a tree planted beside the waters
that stretches out its roots to the stream:
It fears not the heat when it comes,
its leaves stay green;
In the year of drought it shows no distress,
but still bears fruit.
Jeremiah 17: 5-10

Be Careful What You Wish For (Matthew 20:17-28)

In today's Gospel, the mother of the sons of Zebedee asks Jesus to place her sons on his side in his kingdom. 


Maybe the mother of James and John thought that Jesus was an earthly Messiah and so she asked for her sons to have the place of honor. 


I guess this is a bad case of being inattentive because Jesus had just said "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified." So the place on the left and right of Jesus were not places of honor but dishonor, occupied by two thieves. 

That is why Jesus replies, "You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the chalice that I am going to drink?" which must have sounded like a strange question because why can't anyone drink from another person's chalice? And drink from the chalice James did, dying by the Herod's sword.

Maybe John escaped a violent death because he did drink of the cup of Jesus somewhat when he was brave enough to stand at Jesus' side during the crucifixion. 

The Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:1-12)

It is wrong to think that occupying positions of power is necessarily wrong. I think it's clear from today's Gospel that's not what Jesus meant by being humble rather than being exalted.

Jesus says the Pharisees and the scribes have taken their places on the chair of Moses but taking the chair by itself is not the problem. The problem is that they do not practice what they preach and they use the law to lay burdens on the Jews.

Jesus teaches us the proper attitude to positions: that those who are greatest must be everyone else's servants.

Acquittal (Romans 8:31b-34, Deuteronomy 9: 4b-10, Psalm 79, Luke: 6:36-38)

The Old Testament passages for today are all about repentance. 


The passage from Deuteronomy contains an acknowledgement of disobedience:


We have sinned, been wicked and done evil;
we have rebelled and departed from your commandments and your laws.
We have not obeyed your servants the prophets,
who spoke in your name...

The Responsorial Psalm joins in on the act and asks the Lord not to deal with us according to our sins. 

A line from the second reading from yesterday seems to summarize the response to these readings very well. St. Paul in the letter to the Romans says: "It is God who acquits us, who will condemn?" 

And if God himself against whom sins are committed acquits us of our sins, who are we to condemn others? And so Jesus says, ""Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. "Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned."

The Price of Obedience (Genesis 22:1-19, Romans: 8:31b-34, and Mark 9:2-10)

The readings for the day remind me of an earlier post about the "rewards" of obedience. Moses promises his people prosperity if they obey God's commandments. Jesus' obedience on the other hand leads to the cross.


The contrast today is between Abraham and Jesus. Abraham is tested and is ordered to kill his beloved son. When Abraham passes the test, God promises him the following:


I will bless you abundantly
and make your descendants as countless
as the stars of the sky and the sands of the seashore;
your descendants shall take possession
of the gates of their enemies,
and in your descendants all the nations of the earth
shall find blessing.


Unlike Isaac, Jesus was not spared by his own father but was handed over and thus, was condemned to die. His reward came not in this lifetime but in the afterlife when he is raised from the dead and is seated at the right hand of the Father.


But the bottom line that seems to pervade the bible is the message of obedience. Whether it is Abraham who is asked to sacrifice his only son, or Jesus who is asked to give up his own life, regardless of outcome or reward, the bottom line is obedience. 

Holiness (Matthew 5:43-48)

"Be holy as your heavenly Father is holy."
Matthew 5: 48

Jesus sets a pretty high standard here. Be holy as your heavenly Father is holy.

I had the chance to listen to a priest talk about this line from the bible and he said that if we're really honest with ourselves, we don't want to be holy. Holiness sounds like you have to become a priest or a nun or involves suffering for others. In the Gospel today, Jesus says holiness involves loving your enemy.

Holiness sounds goody-goody. If we're honest with ourselves, we want to remain sinners and find it convenient that there is a chance to have our sins absolved. We want to enjoy life and holiness seems to be the opposite of enjoyment. (The kernel of the thought came from the priest. I've editorialized of course :-)

In the end, we might say that holiness is nice, but it isn't for me.

But I suppose holiness doesn't have to be boring. If we consider Jesus as the paragon of holiness, he seemed to like to dine with people. His first appearance in the Gospel of John after all was the Wedding at Cana. After his resurrection, he often asked if his apostles had any food with them. And he probably enjoyed the company of his friends.

I think the attitude for those of us who do not really want to be holy and are now confronted with this mandate from Jesus to be holy as his father is holy is to beg God for the grace to want to be holy despite ourselves. This probably is the appropriate attitude because in the end, our holiness (whatever that may entail) can only be a product of God's grace and not our efforts.

Thoughts (Matthew 5: 20-26)

In the Gospel today, Jesus raises the standard on the meaning of murder. According to him, "Thou shalt not kill" applies not only to those who actually kill but also involves those who are angry at others. 

I think this is Jesus' version of a familiar quote:

Watch your thoughts, they become words. 

Watch your words, they become actions. 

Watch your actions, they become habits. 

Watch your habits, they become your character. 

Watch your character, it becomes your destiny.

If we look at the Gospel, there is almost a similar pattern:

Watch your thoughts, they become words. 

whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna. 

The commentary in the Gospel suggests that "Raqa" means imbecile or blockhead. In Tagalog, gago.

Watch your words, they become actions. 

Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison.

Watch your character, it becomes your destiny.

Refer to the quote above on fiery Gehenna.

I don't think Jesus was saying necessarily that anger is murder. I think what he's saying is that anger leads to that slippery slope which could lead to murder. So before things get out of hand, deal with the anger and in the process, save your soul. 

Ask (Esther C, Psalm 138, Matthew 7:7)

Ordinary Time pretty much walked us through the Gospel of Mark and right before Lent, the letter of James. Because of this, the theme in the Gospel may not be the theme in the first reading. During Lent, however, the mass readings seem to follow certain themes and there is no single Gospel  that is followed. Yesterday, it was Luke, today it is Matthew.

The theme for today is about asking. In the First Reading, Esther begs God to spare her life and give her strength for an act that might lead to her death. The response for today's psalm is "Lord, on the day I called for help, you answered me." And the Gospel for today is the familiar saying, "Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find."

The readings for today remind me of some basic lessons the Jesuits have taught me. Jesuit prayers always start with petitions, begging the Lord for this or that grace. And the stance of the person who prays is that of a beggar and this stance reflects a basic truth: that God is the source of all grace and that by definition, grace is pure gift and is given to us out of love and not because we are worthy of such grace.

The good news is that God is a gracious giver but the graces he gives may not necessarily be the graces we asked for. But the graces he gives are the graces we need at the moment he gives them.

God Himself (Luke 11:29-32)

In today's Gospel, Jesus expresses exasperation at his generation for always demanding signs from him. The exasperation probably comes from the fact that there could be no greater sign than that which is signified itself i.e. God himself was among them.

The exasperation also came from the fact that agents from the past were heeded: Solomon taught the Queen of Sheeba who converted and Jonah preached to the Ninevites and they repented (much to Jonah's consternation).

If mere mortals could lead others to conversion, why is it that when God himself comes, he isn't as effective? Maybe it's because the idea that God himself would come was so unthinkable that anybody who claimed to be God and who acted as if he was God was delusional or from the devil (or was the devil himself).

Jesus says "there is something greater than Solomon here" and "there is something greater than Jonah here." Indeed, there was something greater than Solomon and Jonah but it was so great it was incomprehensible. Only people of faith could appreciate what was going on.

Our Daily Hunger (Matthew 6: 7-15)

(originally re-written September 26, 2008) I watched the movie, The Devil’s Advocate, again last night and I realized one thing. The Devil can appear to fulfill some (if not most, but definitely not all) of our needs. This was clear (in an “evil” way) for the character played by Keanu Reeves who was self-absorbed and whose definition of good lawyering and adequate self-worth was the fact that he was “a stud” who won every case he handled. We tend to associate “evil” with these kinds of base passions, vanity and lust.

But the movie also shows that evil “woos” us when we desire to fulfill our “legitimate” needs, our need for someone to be interested in us, someone who will listen to us, someone who will take care of us when we have been “wronged”, our need to be loved. This was what was scary about the way the devil wooed the wife and mother of the character played by Keanu Reeves.

I think it is in this sense that I begin to understand the Lord’s Prayer. I never was satisfied with explanations that the “Daily Bread” that we ask from God is “God’s Word” or “Jesus in communion” or even the more simple explanation that this is a recognition that we rely on God completely for mundane and not too mundane things in order to live. For me, these explanations were too “up there”.

Then I began to look at it from a different angle. I began to ask myself, what is my daily hunger? Through the choices I make every day, through the feelings that I feel most of the time, what needs of mine do I reveal? What do I hunger for on a day to day basis? Do I hunger for affirmation from my co-workers and my friends? Do I hunger for belonging? Do I hunger for love from particular people? Do I hunger for a sense of accomplishment?

Before I proceed, let me just say that I think it is important to realize is that our “needs” are neither right nor wrong. They probably are just part and parcel of being human. Even vanity and lust may stem from “passions” that aren’t evil at all such as the need to feel useful and the need to feel loved.

That said, the movie leads my self-examination to another level. It leads me to ask myself: How do I fulfill my needs? Who or what do I rely on to fulfill my needs? And if these needs aren’t fulfilled, what do I do?

It is only then that I begin to understand the Lord’s Prayer a little bit more. When we ask God to “give us this day our daily bread” we are telling him, “Look God, you know and understand my needs better than I do. You know too how best my needs can be fulfilled. In fact I think you want to fulfill my needs because you love me. I turn to you and ask you to help me fulfill my needs. Please show me today how you would have me fulfill my needs”.

It seems logical then that the prayer proceeds to ask God to forgive us our sins and to forgive those who sin against us. We become sinners when we fulfill our needs in a sinful manner, at the expense of others and at the expense of our own souls. Then we pray that we be not led to temptation, the temptation that we fulfill our needs in a sinful way.

I guess in the end, our prayer is that God grants us the grace to be conscious of our daily hunger and that our daily hunger be increasingly fed by the grace of God.

Whatsoever You Do (Lev 19:1-2; 11-18 and Mt. 25: 31-46)

A former student of mine speaks regularly in one on my classes about persons with disabilities. In her talk, she often gives my students tips for dealing with these persons with disabilities. She says, for example, that when talking to a blind person, make sure to inform them when you will leave them otherwise, they might find themselves talking to thin air.

Today's first reading contains a verse which condemn acts against disabled persons. God says, "You shall not curse the deaf, or put a stumbling block in front of the blind." Putting it another way, don't be cruel to persons with disabilities and don't take advantage of their disabilities.

And deafness or blindness here could also be metaphorical. People might be deaf because they don't understand the subtext of what you're saying. They might not be inculturated. Or they might be deaf because you are talking behind their backs. Or people might be blind because they are not familiar with their surroundings or situations. One can also take advantage of such information asymmetries. 

And the Gospel for today completes the warning. While the deaf person or the blind person might not know what's going on, God does. And God knows what is going on because he is the deaf person and the blind person and he is the person who is disadvantaged in society. 

Tempting God (Genesis 9:8-15 and Mark 1:12-15)

Today's Gospel is about the temptation of Jesus in the desert. 

But in a sense, the first reading which tells the story of Noah and his sons returning back to dry land also suggests that even in Old Testament times, God could be tempted. And that is why God felt that he had to create a rainbow. God says:  

When I bring clouds over the earth, 
and the bow appears in the clouds, 
I will recall the covenant I have made
between me and you and all living beings, 
so that the waters shall never again become a flood 
to destroy all mortal beings.

God could be tempted to virtually wipe out almost everything all over again. And he had to remind himself that even when he is tempted to do so, he shouldn't pull the trigger. 

And this is a very Old Testament way of looking at things. God virtually wipes out everything because his people broke his commandments. And he is capable of being so severely tempted to destroy everything that he has to create a reminder to himself not to do so. 

I wonder how things would have been like if the Messiah foretold by the Old Testament writers came down to earth and was actually an agent of the God as conceived by Old Testament writers. That Messiah might have been a Moses like person or someone like Joshua or David. An earthly prophet-leader who shows the awesome power of God and who will make the Romans quiver in their armor. 

Or maybe that Messiah would preach for repentance from the Israelites lest the Roman conquest become even more unbearable. 

And that might have been what Jesus was tempted to do. To threaten one people or another of worldly defeat or torment and become a Savior in the earthly sense. 

But instead of an all-powerful God who sent vengeful rain, what we got was a God who was stripped of worldly possessions in the desert and stripped of dignity on the cross. 

In so doing, God did not unleash a torrent of death but through the resurrection, put an end to the finality of death. God did not renew the earth by destroying people but renewed it by letting his only son be destroyed at the hands of man, and saving us once and for all by showing that love conquers all temptation. 

The Company You Keep (Isaiah 58:9-14 and Luke 5:27-32)

It seems like there are a number of readings these past few days that contrast the Old Testament and the New Testament. 


In the Old Testament today there are a number of conditionalities attached to God's presence.


If you remove from your midst oppression,
false accusation and malicious speech;
If you bestow your bread on the hungry
and satisfy the afflicted;
Then light shall rise for you in the darkness,
and the gloom shall become for you like midday;
Then the LORD will guide you always
and give you plenty even on the parched land.
He will renew your strength,
and you shall be like a watered garden,
like a spring whose water never fails.

If you do this or that, light will rise and the Lord will guide you always. 


In the New Testament however, Jesus calls Matthew the tax collector to follow him. I'd hardly think Matthew qualifies on the count of bestowing bread on the hungry and satisfying the afflicted. More likely, he took bread away from the hungry and afflicted the satisfied (and the dissatisfied). 


And yet Jesus still chose him. And his reasons for doing so reverse the conditions in the Old Testament. He says, "Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do.I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners."


It is as if Jesus is saying, 


If you are the source of oppression,
false accusation and malicious speech;
If you take away bread from the hungry
and afflict the satisfied and dissatisfied;
Then light shall rise for you in the darkness,
and the gloom shall become for you like midday;
Then the LORD will guide you always
and give you plenty even on the parched land.
He will renew your strength,
and you shall be like a watered garden,
like a spring whose water never fails.

He came to give light to the sinners and renews their strength like a spring whose water never fails. 

Fasting (Isaiah 58:3-9)

The readings for the day are about fasting. In the Gospel, Jesus dismisses John's disciples concern about Jesus' disciples not fasting. A large portion of the First Reading is worth pasting here in full without commentary.

"Why do we fast, and you do not see it?
afflict ourselves, and you take no note of it?"

Lo, on your fast day you carry out your own pursuits,
and drive all your laborers.
Yes, your fast ends in quarreling and fighting,
striking with wicked claw.
Would that today you might fast
so as to make your voice heard on high!
Is this the manner of fasting I wish,
of keeping a day of penance:
That a man bow his head like a reed
and lie in sackcloth and ashes?
Do you call this a fast,
a day acceptable to the LORD?

This, rather, is the fasting that I wish:
releasing those bound unjustly,
untying the thongs of the yoke;
Setting free the oppressed,
breaking every yoke;
Sharing your bread with the hungry,
sheltering the oppressed and the homeless;
Clothing the naked when you see them,
and not turning your back on your own.

Then your light shall break forth like the dawn,
and your wound shall quickly be healed;
Your vindication shall go before you,
and the glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard.
Then you shall call, and the LORD will answer,
you shall cry for help, and he will say: Here I am!

Isaiah 58: 3-9 

The readings for the day present a nice contrast. On the one hand, Moses tells his people If you obey the commandments of the LORD, your God... loving him, and walking in his ways, and keeping his commandments, statutes and decrees, you will live and grow numerous, and the LORD, your God, will bless you in the land you are entering to occupy. On the other hand, Jesus who kept the commandments of his Father, loved him and walked in his ways says "The Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised." "If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. What profit is there for one to gain the whole world yet lose or forfeit himself?" So on the one hand, Moses proclaims a form of prosperity theology. Follow God and you will grow numerous and your land will be blessed. On the other hand, Jesus says, follow God, take up your cross, and follow me in suffering greatly and being rejected and killed. Talk about tough love. Beyond Prosperity (Deuteronomy 30: 15-20 and Luke 9:22-25)

The readings for the day present a nice contrast. On the one hand, Moses tells his people 


If you obey the commandments of the LORD, your God...
loving him, and walking in his ways,
and keeping his commandments, statutes and decrees,
you will live and grow numerous,
and the LORD, your God,
will bless you in the land you are entering to occupy.


On the other hand, Jesus who kept the commandments of his Father, loved him and walked in his ways says 


"The Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected
by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes,
and be killed and on the third day be raised."

"If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself
and take up his cross daily and follow me.
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it,
but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.
What profit is there for one to gain the whole world
yet lose or forfeit himself?"


So on the one hand, Moses proclaims a form of prosperity theology. Follow God and you will grow numerous and your land will be blessed. On the other hand, Jesus says, follow God, take up your cross, and follow me in suffering greatly and being rejected and killed. 


Talk about tough love. 

Public Displays of Affection (Mark 6: 1-6, 16-18)

In today's Gospel, Jesus says that we must not call for attention to ourselves when we do godly deeds such as alms giving, praying, and fasting. Our faith must not just be for show but sincere.

If we think of the way we deal with God as a relationship, then it makes sense that some acts of love we do for God be done in private, just as this is the case for any relationship. The audience of these acts of love must be directed to the lovee, as it were, and not to every one else who we want to be watching.

At Peace (Mark 9: 30-37, Psalm 55: 23)

It seems strange that on the one hand, the Gospel for the day speaks of Jesus' prediction that the Son of Man being handed over to be killed and yet the Psalms for the day says that never will God permit the just man to be disturbed.

I guess this suggests that what matters is not the absence of horrible situations but that in the presence of those horrible situations (the reading from the letter of James today talks about wars, for example), we are able to maintain a certain sense of (what might be called in Kung Fu Panda as :-) inner peace.

The Psalms tell us to throw our cares on the Lord and God will support us. And that support is the source of inner peace.

The thought that he would be handed over to man, (tortured) and killed must have made Jesus queasy but he threw his cares upon his Father, received support, and thus maintained inner peace (or at the very least, the courage to do what had to be done).

Man's Effort, God's Grace (Mark 9: 14-29)

Today's Gospel involves the healing of a boy possessed by a mute spirit. It comes right after the Transfiguration and when Jesus comes down from the mountain, he finds the disciples he had left behind trying to drive out the spirit but failing to do so. Jesus reacts by lamenting "this faithless generation" then after talking a bit more to the father, he proceeds to drive out the spirit.

In private, the disciples ask, "Why could we not drive out the spirit?" Jesus replies. "This kind can only come out through prayer.”


Sometimes I feel that it is not only possession that can be handled through prayer. Sometimes we feel powerless before situations around us which can easily lead us into despair. Sometimes we feel powerless even before our own abilities to reform ourselves. 


Today's Gospel is a nice reminder that all things are possible with God and those things which make us feel powerless are best handled with prayer. 

Something New (Isaiah 43:18-19 and Mark 2-1-12)

Remember not the events of the past,
the things of long ago consider not;
see, I am doing something new!
Now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?
Isaiah 43: 18-19

The Gospel for today is about the paralytic who was brought to Jesus by his four friends. In the Gospel, the scribes question Jesus' authority to forgive the man's sins. Only God, after all, can forgive sins. Of course, it was way beyond their capacity to understand that Jesus was God.


I think the First Reading for today is very appropriate for the Gospel. In it God says through Isaiah, "See, I am doing something new!" And indeed Jesus was doing something new: he was forgiving sins. God was doing something new. Instead of sending a prophet, he sent his only son.


But in order to see what's happening, the scribes and people of Israel were called to "remember not the events of the past, the things of long ago, consider not." Only then can they perceive that which is springing forth.


The scribes were all about the events of the past and the things of long ago. God was right before their eyes, forgiving sins, healing the sick. And they failed to perceive him. 


Which just goes to show that these events of the past and things of long ago can really make us miss out on the good things that are right in front of us. 

Moral Support (Mark 9:2-13)

Today's Gospel is about the Transfiguration. Jesus confers with Moses and Elijah and James, Peter, and John are there to witness it. 


We could interpret this as a manifestation of Jesus' divinity. 


But in the context of the last few days where Jesus rebukes Peter for tempting him to forego suffering and death and Jesus giving himself a pep talk about giving up one's life, maybe Jesus was up there on the mountain with Moses and Elijah because they were giving him morale support. 


We know Moses and Elijah to be great prophets but these two actually had very difficult lives. 


Moses had to deal with the Pharaoh and then he had to deal with his whiny people as they spent forty years in the desert. In the end, because of some seemingly small mistake, he never got to the promised land (for those who are not Filipino, promised land in Filipino is pinagakong lupa, thus the name of this site). 


Elijah was another great prophet but he didn't have a nice life either. In an earlier post, I wrote that Elijah had to flee twice (and at one point, prayed for death at which point, he is fed by an angel). At one point, he was being fed by ravens. And it's no joke to confront a King and his Queen. At one point he was so full of despair that he thought of himself as a failure. 


So maybe Jesus was up there with Moses and Elijah asking what it will be like and if it will be all worth it in the end. 

Faith and Works (James 2: 14 and Mark 8:34 - 9:1)

What good is it, my brothers and sisters,
if someone says he has faith but does not have works? 
James 2: 14


In today's Gospel, Jesus says, ""Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the Gospel will save it." 


While Jesus was God, as man, I believe he had his doubts whether or not his Father would vindicate him in the end or whether or not all the suffering he had to go through would be worth it. Thus the sharp rebuke of Peter and the Agony in the Garden. In other words, Jesus had to have faith in his Father regarding the mission he was entrusted with. And this mission involved taking up his cross and losing his life.

So in a sense, Jesus is the perfect model of what James talks about in the first reading, faith that has works. Faith that is translated into action.

Not What You Expected (Mark 8: 27-33)

In today's Gospel, Peter recognizes Jesus to be the Messiah. But when Jesus says he will suffer and die, Peter rebukes Jesus (!) privately and Jesus in turn rebukes Peter in front of the other disciples.

Peter's problem is that while he believes Jesus is the Messiah, he expects the Messiah to be an earthly king who will finally liberate Israel from foreign rule. And we can't really blame Peter because since the time of the prophets (did it start with Isaiah?), the Messiah had been expected to be a political liberator.

And Jesus was telling them, he was not going to be what they expected. In fact, just the opposite. He would suffer and die at the hands of the Romans.

I guess the strongly worded rebuke at Peter (Get thee behind me, Satan) reflects the internal struggle within Jesus. I mean who would want to give up the life of an earthly king and choose to path that leads to great suffering?

I guess it also applies to us to some extent.Some of our friends are called to lives of suffering and persecution or are called to do difficult things and the least we could do is not to tempt them to ignore that call.

Progressive Realization (Mark 8:22-26)

The Gospel for today is the second healing of Jesus that seems to be more elaborate than necessarily. The first one involved the man who was deaf and dumb. This one involved a blind man. The cure now involved Jesus rubbing spittle on the man's eyes and the first time around, the man can see people but as if they were trees. So Jesus rubs the man's eyes again and this time the man sees clearly.

According to the notes, the location of the passage is important. It is sandwiched between Jesus getting frustrated with the disciples for not understanding what he said about the leaven of the Pharisees and Jesus and Jesus getting mad at Peter for not accepting that Jesus had to suffer and die.

The notes say that the gradual healing of the man's eyes was symbolic of the process that the disciples would go through in recognizing who Jesus was and what that meant. And if we think about it, they didn't really get it until the Pentecost.

We can call this the principle of progressive realization. That recognizing God is rarely a one time event but a gradual process of seeing him.

What's on Your Mind Jesus? (Mark 8: 14-21)

After getting into a debate with the Pharisees, Jesus gets into a boat and heads for the far shore. He must have really been upset because in the boat, he told his disciples, "Watch out, guard against the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod."


It just so happened that the disciples had forgotten to bring bread so they thought Jesus was referring to the fact that they didn't have bread. The disciples were probably preoccupied themselves with the fact that they didn't have bread. 


We're so used to coming to God with our petitions. Maybe one lesson we can draw from today's Gospel is to forget about our immediate concerns and ask God once in a while, what's on your mind? 

Asking in Faith (James 1:1-11 and Mark 8:11-13)

What seems to differentiate those who wanted Jesus to heal them (or wanted Jesus to heal someone they knew) and the Pharisees was that those who were ill or knew someone who was ill had hope that Jesus would want to heal them.

The Pharisees, on the other hand, had no faith in Jesus and their requests (in today's Gospel, a request for a sign) were merely a test for Jesus. In fact these fellows didn't even make requests for their own healing (not thinking, I suppose, that they were sick) or for the healing of anyone they loved. They were just obsessed with the difference between clean and unclean.

In today's First Reading, James seems to have something to say about that

But he should ask in faith, not doubting,
for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea
that is driven and tossed about by the wind.
For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord,
since he is a man of two minds, unstable in all his ways.


If you're going to ask, James says, ask in faith. And the faith that's being referred to here is the faith that Jesus wants to heal us in all our different kinds of brokenness. 

Deserted Places (Mark 8:1-10)

Today's Gospel is about the Feeding of the Four Thousand. It is a familiar story of the multiplication of seven loaves of bread and a few fish.

Going through this exercise of reading the mass readings for the day, I couldn't help but notice that this was the nth time in the Gospel of Mark that Jesus was in a deserted place. I've already written about deserted places here and here.

In fact the place where he was for the feeding of the four thousand was so deserted that there was hardly any food around and he was afraid that if he sent the crowd home, they might collapse.

All this talk of deserted places makes me wonder why Jesus kept going to deserted places. Maybe because he didn't want to bother anybody? So if people wanted to go see him, they had to go out of their way and get out of other people's way?

Maybe because he wanted to avoid the places where the powers-that-be were? So far, every time he has been in a non-deserted place, the authorities contested him, his teaching, his practices, and his miracles. And every time they did so, he moved on to the next place. Deserted places, on the other hand, are places where the powers-that-be probably wouldn't go.

I know there's a passage somewhere in the bible where he escaped from a place because they were going to crown him king. So maybe it's that too.

And of course, I have a theory that he went to deserted places to look for deserted people.

I'm pretty sure as the Gospel of Mark continues, there will be more talk of deserted places. Maybe all this suggests that if we're looking for God, we should go and look for him in a deserted place.

Treatment for Scaly Infections (Leviticus 13 and Mark 1: 40-45)

The First Reading and Gospel for today present a nice contrast of the attitude towards leprosy. 


The First Reading from Leviticus describes how lepers must be treated.


"The one who bears the sore of leprosy
shall keep his garments rent and his head bare,
and shall muffle his beard;
he shall cry out, 'Unclean, unclean!'
As long as the sore is on him he shall declare himself unclean,
since he is in fact unclean.
He shall dwell apart, making his abode outside the camp."


In other words, the leper becomes socially excluded.


In the Gospel, Jesus heals a leper by touching him. Jesus' touch sets aside rules of social exclusion which deems anyone who touches an unclean person to be unclean. Jesus also tells the leper to present himself to the priests so that the leper may be formally re-introduced into the Jewish community.

I think Jesus' mission is truly catholic, i.e. universal. He seeks to integrate everyone into his community, especially those who have been excluded through man-made laws.

Deserted Places II (Mark 8: 1-10)

Today's Gospel is about the Feeding of the Four Thousand. It is a familiar story of the multiplication of seven loaves of bread and a few fish.

Going through this exercise of reading the mass readings for the day, I couldn't help but notice that this was the nth time in the Gospel of Mark that Jesus was in a deserted place. I've already written about deserted places here and here.

In fact the place where he was for the feeding of the four thousand was so deserted that there was hardly any food around and he was afraid that if he sent the crowd home, they might collapse.

All this talk of deserted places makes me wonder why Jesus kept going to deserted places. Maybe because he didn't want to bother anybody? So if people wanted to go see him, they had to go out of their way and get out of other people's way?

Maybe because he wanted to avoid the places where the powers-that-be were? So far, every time he has been in a non-deserted place, the authorities contested him, his teaching, his practices, and his miracles. And every time they did so, he moved on to the next place. Deserted places, on the other hand, are places where the powers-that-be probably wouldn't go.

I know there's a passage somewhere in the bible where he escaped from a place because they were going to crown him king. So maybe it's that too.

And of course, I have a theory that he went to deserted places to look for deserted people.

I'm pretty sure as the Gospel of Mark continues, there will be more talk of deserted places. Maybe all this suggests that if we're looking for God, we should go and look for him in a deserted place.

Elaborate Healing (Mark 7: 31-37)

The memorable word for today's Gospel is Ephphatha. Jesus is in another place which I assume is filled with Gentiles (Decapolis) and a man was brought to him who had a speech impediment.

What amazes me about this particular healing (and the one involving a blind man and mud) is that Jesus does quite a bit to heal this fellow. He puts a finger in the man's ear, spit, touched his tongue, looked up to heaven, groaned, and shouted Ephphatha!

I seriously doubt that all of that was necessary. As we read in yesterday's Gospel, Jesus could heal from a distance. So all Jesus had to do was will it and the man would have been healed. No touching needed.

Of course it could be argued that Jesus healed from a distance when the ill person was not around and someone just came to Jesus with a request. When the person was right in front of Jesus, he tended to touch them. But in most cases, all Jesus had to do was to touch (or be touched by) someone and they would be healed. So all he had to do was to touch this person with a speech defect.

Re-reading the passage, I'm thinking now that Jesus did everything he did because he felt he was expected to do something like this. The passage notes that some people brought the man with a speech impairment to Jesus and asked Jesus to lay his hand on him. If he were just asked to heal the man, then maybe no touching was required. But he was asked to lay his hands on the man. So he laid his hands on the man and then some.

I guess Jesus heals us in the way we expect to be healed, even if that method is not absolutely necessary.
Or maybe it's the miracle equivalent of speaking in parables.