In today's Gospel, Jesus returned to his native place (which we'll assume to be Nazareth) and taught in the synagogue. Those who listened to him were astonished and while they recognized his wisdom and probably heard of his wondrous deeds, they took offense at him. The commentary in Matthew chapter 13 verse 54 says that the Nazarenes probably found Jesus to be pretentious. A carpenter suddenly speaking with authority in the synagogue.
Elsewhere, I have written that there are two kinds of what we Filipinos call "yabang" roughly translated in English as arrogance or pretension. One kind is when you claim more about yourself than you really are. But a second sense is when a person speaks even when his social position does not permit him to speak given prevailing social norms. A person, as it were, who does not know his place.
I think it is the second sense that riles his fellow Nazarenes. It seems they were amazed by Jesus' wisdom and his wondrous deeds. But they still took offense because he was a carpenter and the son of Mary and not the son of someone like Zaccheus or Nicodemus. In other words, it wasn't what Jesus said that made them cringe but who he was and his audacity to claim to have the authority to preach (with authority). They probably thought of Jesus as an embarrassment for not knowing his place.
But if there is anything about Jesus' ministry, it is that it there are several instances when he subverts the prevailing sense of place. This is one such instance, a carpenter preaching in the synagogue. Those who are first who will be last and those who are last who will be first. A God-man who washes the feet of his disciples.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Mark 5: 21-43: Living Water
Last Tuesday, while lecturing on capabilities and social exclusion, I said I always found it curious that when Jesus healed people, he almost always touched them. I found it curious because he was God after all and he could heal without touching.
The case of the centurion's servant shows this clearly. The servant was nowhere near Jesus. My students also pointed out to me that the other person Jesus "healed" from a distance was Lazarus.
In today's Gospel there are two healings and both involve touching. The woman with hemorrhage touched Jesus' cloak and she was healed. And Jesus took Jairus' daughter by the hand and she was raised from the dead.
I think it was the story of the woman with hemorrhage that opened up a new way of looking at the Gospels for me. By bleeding constantly for twelve years, she remained unclean and could not worship God in his temple. By touching Jesus, she made Jesus ritually unclean and that is why she was afraid that Jesus might get mad at her.
Then I realized from there that by touching people, Jesus was saying that if you are not allowed to touch God, then God will touch you (or allow himself to be touched) and restore you to full standing in the community. For me, that was the moment when I saw the entire Gospel as a Gospel of inclusion.
If we think of baptism as a way of cleansing ourselves for worship, a full body detoxification, as it were, then maybe this is one sense in which Jesus claims to be living water. Touching (and believing in) him heals us physically, socially, spiritually, cleanses us and restores our standing in many ways.
The case of the centurion's servant shows this clearly. The servant was nowhere near Jesus. My students also pointed out to me that the other person Jesus "healed" from a distance was Lazarus.
In today's Gospel there are two healings and both involve touching. The woman with hemorrhage touched Jesus' cloak and she was healed. And Jesus took Jairus' daughter by the hand and she was raised from the dead.
I think it was the story of the woman with hemorrhage that opened up a new way of looking at the Gospels for me. By bleeding constantly for twelve years, she remained unclean and could not worship God in his temple. By touching Jesus, she made Jesus ritually unclean and that is why she was afraid that Jesus might get mad at her.
Then I realized from there that by touching people, Jesus was saying that if you are not allowed to touch God, then God will touch you (or allow himself to be touched) and restore you to full standing in the community. For me, that was the moment when I saw the entire Gospel as a Gospel of inclusion.
If we think of baptism as a way of cleansing ourselves for worship, a full body detoxification, as it were, then maybe this is one sense in which Jesus claims to be living water. Touching (and believing in) him heals us physically, socially, spiritually, cleanses us and restores our standing in many ways.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Mark 5: 1-20: The Rejected Would-Be Follower
The Gospel shows a number of instances when Jesus calls various people to follow him. But it was my wife who pointed out to me that there is at least this one story of somebody who wanted to follow Jesus but was told not to. This man who had been possessed by several demons asked to remain with Jesus "But Jesus would not permit him but told him instead, "Go home to your family and announce to them all that the Lord in his pity has done for you."
I like this episode in the Gospel because it goes against our tendency to think that some choices are necessarily better than others. That it is necessarily better to become ordained, for example, rather than to be married. That it is better to serve the poor like Mother Teresa rather than to run a business.
I think the lesson to be learned than from this passage is that we must be sensitive to what it is God wants us to do and be open to the possibility that what he wants us to do may not necessarily be what we think would be most pleasing to him.
I like this episode in the Gospel because it goes against our tendency to think that some choices are necessarily better than others. That it is necessarily better to become ordained, for example, rather than to be married. That it is better to serve the poor like Mother Teresa rather than to run a business.
I think the lesson to be learned than from this passage is that we must be sensitive to what it is God wants us to do and be open to the possibility that what he wants us to do may not necessarily be what we think would be most pleasing to him.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
1 Corinthians 7: Marriage and the Bigger Picture
I just noticed that 1 Corinthians 7 has sections on marriage advice. Apparently, the Christians in Corinth wrote to Paul and asked him for advice on certain matters. Paul writes at the beginning of 1 Corinthians 7: "Now in regard to matters about which you wrote," and proceeds to give advice to the married and in a subsequent passage, he gives advice to virgins and widows.
I don't want to discuss Paul's advice. Some of the things he says are hard to wrap my mind around.
But I would like to note that in verses 29-35 (out of 40 verses), Paul segues into what seems to be an attempt to put things into context. Actually, the first part of those verses were read at last Sunday's mass and the second part is read in today's mass.
It seems to me that Paul is saying, you Corinthians have these concerns about marriage, virgins, and widows but don't you know that "time is running out"? (verse 29) And then he proceeds to suggest that those having wives should act as if they did not have them. And he says he desires that the Corinthians be free from anxiety (verse 32). And he reminds them in verse 31 that the world in its present form is passing away. Hello again, eschatology.
I don't think Paul really meant that husbands should act as if they had no wives but maybe he was just exasperated and challenged the Corinthians to ask themselves what was really important. In verse 35, Paul explains that he says that he is giving this message "for the sake of... adherence to the Lord without distraction."
And I guess it is a valid question we should also ask ourselves. If we knew that the world would end soon, what questions would we ask and how would we choose to live our lives, including our married lives. What constitutes what is essential and what can we consider distractions.
Exercises like these force us to look into the heart of what matters.
---
I haven't read 1 Corinthians thoroughly but the famous Pauline passage about love being patient, and kind, and many other wonderful things are also found in 1 Corinthians. I wonder if that's Paul's way of saying, beyond your questions, Corinth, love is the bottom line.
I don't want to discuss Paul's advice. Some of the things he says are hard to wrap my mind around.
But I would like to note that in verses 29-35 (out of 40 verses), Paul segues into what seems to be an attempt to put things into context. Actually, the first part of those verses were read at last Sunday's mass and the second part is read in today's mass.
It seems to me that Paul is saying, you Corinthians have these concerns about marriage, virgins, and widows but don't you know that "time is running out"? (verse 29) And then he proceeds to suggest that those having wives should act as if they did not have them. And he says he desires that the Corinthians be free from anxiety (verse 32). And he reminds them in verse 31 that the world in its present form is passing away. Hello again, eschatology.
I don't think Paul really meant that husbands should act as if they had no wives but maybe he was just exasperated and challenged the Corinthians to ask themselves what was really important. In verse 35, Paul explains that he says that he is giving this message "for the sake of... adherence to the Lord without distraction."
And I guess it is a valid question we should also ask ourselves. If we knew that the world would end soon, what questions would we ask and how would we choose to live our lives, including our married lives. What constitutes what is essential and what can we consider distractions.
Exercises like these force us to look into the heart of what matters.
---
I haven't read 1 Corinthians thoroughly but the famous Pauline passage about love being patient, and kind, and many other wonderful things are also found in 1 Corinthians. I wonder if that's Paul's way of saying, beyond your questions, Corinth, love is the bottom line.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Calming Stormy Seas
Leaving the crowd, they took Jesus with them in the boat just as he was.
And other boats were with him.
A violent squall came up and waves were breaking over the boat,
so that it was already filling up.
Jesus was in the stern, asleep on a cushion.
They woke him and said to him,
"Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?"
He woke up,
rebuked the wind,
and said to the sea, "Quiet! Be still!"
The wind ceased and there was great calm.
Then he asked them, "Why are you terrified?
Do you not yet have faith?"
Mark 4:35-41
The Gospel today is familiar, it is about the Calming of the Sea.
Reading the passage again, I now have a theory that what irritated Jesus was the fact that the apostles said this: "Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?" One thing I have learned is to always assume that people have good motivations and to have second thoughts on questioning their motives.
But by saying, "Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?" the apostles suggest that Jesus does not care. He probably was very tired from all that preaching, so tired he slept through the violent squall. But when the apostles woke him up, they were virtually accusing Jesus of not caring about their lives. Not a good way to wake up anyone, I suppose.
So I don't blame Jesus when he lashes out at them.
And if we look at what Jesus said, we can read it on two levels. First, he is asking if the disciples do not have faith that he could calm the seas. But I think, on another level, he was also asking if the disciples did not have faith that he cared. In the end, I think the second notion of faith is the one that matters.
And other boats were with him.
A violent squall came up and waves were breaking over the boat,
so that it was already filling up.
Jesus was in the stern, asleep on a cushion.
They woke him and said to him,
"Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?"
He woke up,
rebuked the wind,
and said to the sea, "Quiet! Be still!"
The wind ceased and there was great calm.
Then he asked them, "Why are you terrified?
Do you not yet have faith?"
Mark 4:35-41
The Gospel today is familiar, it is about the Calming of the Sea.
Reading the passage again, I now have a theory that what irritated Jesus was the fact that the apostles said this: "Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?" One thing I have learned is to always assume that people have good motivations and to have second thoughts on questioning their motives.
But by saying, "Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?" the apostles suggest that Jesus does not care. He probably was very tired from all that preaching, so tired he slept through the violent squall. But when the apostles woke him up, they were virtually accusing Jesus of not caring about their lives. Not a good way to wake up anyone, I suppose.
So I don't blame Jesus when he lashes out at them.
And if we look at what Jesus said, we can read it on two levels. First, he is asking if the disciples do not have faith that he could calm the seas. But I think, on another level, he was also asking if the disciples did not have faith that he cared. In the end, I think the second notion of faith is the one that matters.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Sowing Seeds
One of the nice things about teaching is that you never know what students will remember and oftentimes, what they remember isn't exactly what you expect them to remember. Students from the past have approached me years later and will say, I remember when you said this or that and sometimes I find myself asking, I said that?
I guess so it is with Jesus who said many things and he really didn't know what registered and what didn't register in the minds of people. The Gospel today says, "with many such parables he spoke the word to them as they were able to understand it."
There is a line in today's Gospel though which suggests that Jesus processed his disciples' understanding of his teaching. The line reads: "to his own disciples he explained everything in private."
I guess so it is with Jesus who said many things and he really didn't know what registered and what didn't register in the minds of people. The Gospel today says, "with many such parables he spoke the word to them as they were able to understand it."
There is a line in today's Gospel though which suggests that Jesus processed his disciples' understanding of his teaching. The line reads: "to his own disciples he explained everything in private."
When I read this line, I couldn't help but think that the disciples were the first Christian prayer group with Jesus himself as its guide. Through this private explanation, Jesus could check how his disciples understood his teaching, what registered with them, and further expound on what he meant.
And I guess such intensive formation was necessary because these folks would be expected to carry the ball after Jesus ascended.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Reading for Yesterday: Paul II
The reading for today is a letter of Paul to Timothy. But I want to write a little more about Paul's conversion.
I've written a lot about obedience lately (seems to be a theme that runs through the bible) but a problem we face is how we are to know what God is asking us to do here and now.
I was going to write that I envy the apostles because God was right there with them giving orders. Follow me, go to Jerusalem, etc. And then it becomes a simple case of obeying or not obeying.
But then again, I don't think the apostles expected that this guy they were following was God himself. So maybe they were also in a quandary about whether or not to obey and at one point, many disciples left.
But Paul is especially blessed because God appeared to him and there could have been little doubt that the light he saw and the voice he heard was God's. Sometimes I wish that God would speak to us that clearly and confirm it all by sending someone like Ananias. I think Ignatius called the revelation to Paul as a "consolation to the soul without any previous cause."
But then again, all those God spoke to that clearly usually had a difficult life. So maybe it's a case of be careful what you wish for.
I've written a lot about obedience lately (seems to be a theme that runs through the bible) but a problem we face is how we are to know what God is asking us to do here and now.
I was going to write that I envy the apostles because God was right there with them giving orders. Follow me, go to Jerusalem, etc. And then it becomes a simple case of obeying or not obeying.
But then again, I don't think the apostles expected that this guy they were following was God himself. So maybe they were also in a quandary about whether or not to obey and at one point, many disciples left.
But Paul is especially blessed because God appeared to him and there could have been little doubt that the light he saw and the voice he heard was God's. Sometimes I wish that God would speak to us that clearly and confirm it all by sending someone like Ananias. I think Ignatius called the revelation to Paul as a "consolation to the soul without any previous cause."
But then again, all those God spoke to that clearly usually had a difficult life. So maybe it's a case of be careful what you wish for.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Readings for the Day: Paul
I've read commentaries saying that St. Paul was the greatest propagator of the faith. He really took to heart what Jesus said in the Gospel today, "Go into the whole world, and proclaim the Gospel to every creature." St. Paul seemed to have an abundance of energy, traveling to many places, writing many letters in order to spread and nurture the faith.
Thinking about the readings for today, I realized that Paul had always been enthusiastic about God, even before his conversion. In the first reading, Paul says, he was "educated strictly in our ancestral law and was zealous for God." That zealousness made him persecute the so-called Christians (and if I read it right, this included imprisoning and stoning some of them to death).
I think it is this zeal which made it easier for Paul to convert. All along, he had that zealousness for God, a desire to do God's will. And all along, he thought he was doing God's will but when God himself said that persecuting Christians was like persecuting God, Paul began a process of redirecting his enthusiasm toward the propagation of the Gospel.
I guess that's why Paul had to be blinded for a while so that he could be given new sight, a new way of seeing things, a new way of expressing his zealousness for God. Note how he says that he was educated in the ancient law, which probably meant the law before Jesus' reinterpretation of the law, which really wasn't that ancient.
I guess the story of Paul is a story of hope. That if there is a sincere desire to serve God, then God will find a way to redirect our actions towards better service.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Reading for the Day: Dancing With Abandon
Then David, girt with a linen apron,
came dancing before the LORD with abandon
2 Samuel 6:5
We've all heard the phrase loving the Lord with all our hearts. My boss, a Dean of a school, often speaks of loving God with all our minds. David seems to suggest in this passage that we also dance with our bodies.
And if there's anyone who loved God with his body it would be Jesus who let others do to his body what no one would wish for themselves, all in loving obedience to his Father.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Gospel for the Day: Name-calling
After reading today's Gospel and after reading last Saturday's Gospel, I think I'll start a little project and list down all the derogatory names Jesus was called or the outrageous claims about him.
Today, that list will include the following:
Today, that list will include the following:
- He is possessed by Beelzebul. Mark 3:22
- By the prince of demons he drives out demons. Mark 3:22
- He has an unclean spirit.Mark. 3:30
Jesus came with his disciples into the house.
Again the crowd gathered,
making it impossible for them even to eat.
When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him,
for they said, "He is out of his mind."
Again the crowd gathered,
making it impossible for them even to eat.
When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him,
for they said, "He is out of his mind."
Mark 3:20-21 (emphasis mine)
Elsewhere, Jesus is called a drunk and a glutton.
Of course he was called nice things by others. Since I started this exercise, I've noticed that Jesus has been called nice things by blind men. Peter called him the Messiah (was he the only mainstream character to do so and was that why Jesus was so happy?) And even evil spirits recognized him as the Son of God.
I guess it's also important to note who says what. It seems that his relatives and those threatened by his presence like the Pharisees and Sadducees call him names. And evil spirits, who are fully self-aware unlike humans, recognize him for who he really is.
Of course he was called nice things by others. Since I started this exercise, I've noticed that Jesus has been called nice things by blind men. Peter called him the Messiah (was he the only mainstream character to do so and was that why Jesus was so happy?) And even evil spirits recognized him as the Son of God.
I guess it's also important to note who says what. It seems that his relatives and those threatened by his presence like the Pharisees and Sadducees call him names. And evil spirits, who are fully self-aware unlike humans, recognize him for who he really is.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Readings for the Day: Bad News, Good News
I sat through a focus group discussion about spirituality with some students yesterday. It was a very interesting exercise of listening to how the youth view Catholicism in particular.
One student said she didn't think the Old Testament should be part of the bible. And I don't blame her. Look at today's first reading, for example. Jonah is ordered by God to Nineveh and he went around proclaiming, "Forty days more and Nineveh would be destroyed." Memories of Sodom and Gomorrah. By some miracle (and much to Jonah's consternation), the people of Nineveh repented and God "repented of the evil that he had threatened to do to them; he did not carry it out." But I guess from the student's point of view, it would still seem strange that God would have even thought of destroying Nineveh.
The message of the Gospel is the same but God's actions are different. After John dies, Jesus takes up the message of repentance but he doesn't go about threatening destruction to any of the places he visits, regardless of whether or not they heed his message. The closest he got to threatening a place was when he said, "Woe to you Chorazin! Woe to you Bethsaida!" But the punishment would be on judgment day. No fire and brimstone for them.
And that same message applies to individuals. Repent or else you will suffer on judgment day. Think of the rich man who paid no heed to his servant Lazarus, died, and appealed to Abraham (?) to save him. Or the goats on judgment day.
No punishment while a person is alive. No stripping of kingdoms, for instance, as was the case with Saul. In fact, the "King of the Jews" ends up being crucified himself instead of punishment being inflicted on the evildoers.
And I guess that's why we call it the Gospel. The prophets of old were proponents of bad news. (But of course, this must all have been all part of their God architectonic, a way to explain all the bad things that befell the people of Israel) Repent or else something deadly will happen.
The message of the Gospel, on the other hand is that of an infinitely forgiving God, one who at the moment of death asks his father to forgive those who did him harm and even provides them with a excuse, they know not what they are doing.
The good news is that God is actually not a God of infinite vindictiveness but one of infinite love.
One student said she didn't think the Old Testament should be part of the bible. And I don't blame her. Look at today's first reading, for example. Jonah is ordered by God to Nineveh and he went around proclaiming, "Forty days more and Nineveh would be destroyed." Memories of Sodom and Gomorrah. By some miracle (and much to Jonah's consternation), the people of Nineveh repented and God "repented of the evil that he had threatened to do to them; he did not carry it out." But I guess from the student's point of view, it would still seem strange that God would have even thought of destroying Nineveh.
The message of the Gospel is the same but God's actions are different. After John dies, Jesus takes up the message of repentance but he doesn't go about threatening destruction to any of the places he visits, regardless of whether or not they heed his message. The closest he got to threatening a place was when he said, "Woe to you Chorazin! Woe to you Bethsaida!" But the punishment would be on judgment day. No fire and brimstone for them.
And that same message applies to individuals. Repent or else you will suffer on judgment day. Think of the rich man who paid no heed to his servant Lazarus, died, and appealed to Abraham (?) to save him. Or the goats on judgment day.
No punishment while a person is alive. No stripping of kingdoms, for instance, as was the case with Saul. In fact, the "King of the Jews" ends up being crucified himself instead of punishment being inflicted on the evildoers.
And I guess that's why we call it the Gospel. The prophets of old were proponents of bad news. (But of course, this must all have been all part of their God architectonic, a way to explain all the bad things that befell the people of Israel) Repent or else something deadly will happen.
The message of the Gospel, on the other hand is that of an infinitely forgiving God, one who at the moment of death asks his father to forgive those who did him harm and even provides them with a excuse, they know not what they are doing.
The good news is that God is actually not a God of infinite vindictiveness but one of infinite love.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Reading for the Day: Obedience
And so, in the end, Saul dies. And in today's reading, David mourns for him and for his son Jonathan.
And it seems clear that Saul dies a humiliating death because of his disobedience.
I read a commentary on the internet saying that disobedience seems to be man's principal sin ever since Adam. Adam's sin was that he disobeyed God and ate of the tree of knowledge when he was told not to. Much, much later, it is Saul's turn to disobey and he too is punished (or ends up tormenting himself).
This theme of obedience seems to find redemption then in Christ's crucifixion, which is a symbol of obedience unto death.
From all their points of view, God's orders might not have made a lot of sense. Why was Adam forbidden to eat from the tree of knowledge? Why was Saul punished for offering sacrifices to God or wanting to offer sacrifices to God? Why did Jesus have to die on the cross?
The difference between the three characters is that even if it did not make sense and even if it meant pain and suffering, Jesus obeyed.
And it seems clear that Saul dies a humiliating death because of his disobedience.
I read a commentary on the internet saying that disobedience seems to be man's principal sin ever since Adam. Adam's sin was that he disobeyed God and ate of the tree of knowledge when he was told not to. Much, much later, it is Saul's turn to disobey and he too is punished (or ends up tormenting himself).
This theme of obedience seems to find redemption then in Christ's crucifixion, which is a symbol of obedience unto death.
From all their points of view, God's orders might not have made a lot of sense. Why was Adam forbidden to eat from the tree of knowledge? Why was Saul punished for offering sacrifices to God or wanting to offer sacrifices to God? Why did Jesus have to die on the cross?
The difference between the three characters is that even if it did not make sense and even if it meant pain and suffering, Jesus obeyed.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Reading for the Day: Saul as a Tragic Figure
I did some back reading on Saul and I've come to the conclusion that he is a tragic character, like John the Baptist. Saul does what he thinks is good rather than doing what he is told to do.
It seems his first transgression happens in 1 Samuel 13. Samuel tells Saul to go on ahead somewhere and he'd follow soon after to offer holocausts and to sacrifice peace offerings. (1 Samuel 10: 8) But when Saul sees the Philistines approaching, his soldiers leaving, and Samuel is nowhere in sight, Saul proceeds to make offerings without Samuel in order to prepare for battle. Samuel arrives after the offering and reprimands Saul.
Saul explains "When I saw that the men were slipping away from me, since you had not come by the specified time, and with the Philistines assembled as Michmash, I said to myself, "Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not yet sought the Lord's blessing." So in my anxiety I offered up the holocaust."
Seems like a reasonable explanation but Samuel gets mad at him and calls him foolish for having disobeyed.
And then there's the episode I talked about here. God orders Saul to remove all traces of the Amaleks but Saul spares the king and also the choicest animals to offer to the Lord as a (pleasing) sacrifice. But Samuel gets mad at Saul for his disobedience.
Here's a guy who thought he was doing what is good but is punished by God for disobeying.
And it's all downhill from there.
Things pivot when he hears the women singing their song. And from there, he proceeds to try to kill David. Along the way, there are opportunities for him to have a change of heart. His son Jonathan talks to him. Samuel talks to him. In today's reading, David spares his life and in a future chapter, David spares his life again. But after the pivot, it was too late.
Saul wanted to please God. But his greatest sin was that he did not listen and obey.
It seems his first transgression happens in 1 Samuel 13. Samuel tells Saul to go on ahead somewhere and he'd follow soon after to offer holocausts and to sacrifice peace offerings. (1 Samuel 10: 8) But when Saul sees the Philistines approaching, his soldiers leaving, and Samuel is nowhere in sight, Saul proceeds to make offerings without Samuel in order to prepare for battle. Samuel arrives after the offering and reprimands Saul.
Saul explains "When I saw that the men were slipping away from me, since you had not come by the specified time, and with the Philistines assembled as Michmash, I said to myself, "Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not yet sought the Lord's blessing." So in my anxiety I offered up the holocaust."
Seems like a reasonable explanation but Samuel gets mad at him and calls him foolish for having disobeyed.
And then there's the episode I talked about here. God orders Saul to remove all traces of the Amaleks but Saul spares the king and also the choicest animals to offer to the Lord as a (pleasing) sacrifice. But Samuel gets mad at Saul for his disobedience.
Here's a guy who thought he was doing what is good but is punished by God for disobeying.
And it's all downhill from there.
Things pivot when he hears the women singing their song. And from there, he proceeds to try to kill David. Along the way, there are opportunities for him to have a change of heart. His son Jonathan talks to him. Samuel talks to him. In today's reading, David spares his life and in a future chapter, David spares his life again. But after the pivot, it was too late.
Saul wanted to please God. But his greatest sin was that he did not listen and obey.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Reading for the Day: Last Song Syndrome
Poor Saul. Here he was, chosen by God to be the first king of Israel and he's replaced by the youngest son of Jesse's family who just happened to kill Goliath and made the Philistines flee. And then after speaking to this David and learning to love him,
The women played and sang:
"Saul has slain his thousands,
and David his ten thousands."
And Saul became
very angry and resentful of the song, for he thought:
"They give David ten thousands, but only thousands to me.
All that remains for him is the kingship."
women came out from each of the cities of Israel to meet King Saul,
singing and dancing, with tambourines, joyful songs, and sistrums.The women played and sang:
"Saul has slain his thousands,
and David his ten thousands."
And Saul became
very angry and resentful of the song, for he thought:
"They give David ten thousands, but only thousands to me.
All that remains for him is the kingship."
Poor Saul. And all because he wanted to make sacrifices to God.
From there Saul tries to get David killed. What isn't narrated in today's reading is that Saul tries to kill David with a spear twice, made David lead military expeditions to get him killed (a tactic David would use later to have Bathsheba all to himself) He offers his daughter's hand in marriage but only if David brings back 100 Philistine foreskins (!) And because the Lord was with him, Saul escaped unharmed through all of these trials, became a hero to Israel and Judah, and got to marry Saul's daughter.
Saul was a man possessed with envy leading him to use his energy to bring about the destruction of David.
And this was all triggered by those women singing that song. It must have been a catchy tune to have driven Saul absolutely nuts.
I think we all live with those kinds of "songs" inside our head. And they could be tunes or memories or images that taunt us. Of course, they're rarely the kinds of ghosts-inside-our-head that drive us to kill people. But still they lead us down slippery slopes and make us do things we know we shouldn't do.
Saul's story is a cautionary tale of what could happen to us if we let these ghosts take permanent residence in our heads.
Saul was a man possessed with envy leading him to use his energy to bring about the destruction of David.
And this was all triggered by those women singing that song. It must have been a catchy tune to have driven Saul absolutely nuts.
I think we all live with those kinds of "songs" inside our head. And they could be tunes or memories or images that taunt us. Of course, they're rarely the kinds of ghosts-inside-our-head that drive us to kill people. But still they lead us down slippery slopes and make us do things we know we shouldn't do.
Saul's story is a cautionary tale of what could happen to us if we let these ghosts take permanent residence in our heads.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Reading for Yesterday: Get Over It
Today's first reading is about David and Goliath. But I have some back matter I want to comment on.
In Monday's reading, Saul displeases God and in Tuesday's reading, Samuel locates David, Saul's successor.
I wanted to note part of a passage that wasn't read last Monday and part of a passage that was read yesterday.
After Samuel kills Agag, "he grieved over Saul, because the LORD regretted having made him king of Israel." In the next chapter, the Lord says, "How long will you grieve for Saul, whom I have rejected as king of Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and be on your way."
In other words, get over it.
Here was a guy the Lord had chosen to be the first king of Israel and he ended up being a terrible disappointment. So God chooses to move on to Plan B and selects David to take over from Saul.
Samuel, being human, is filled with grief, enough for the Lord to ask "How long will you grieve for Saul?"
Sometimes, I think, God wants us to ask us that same question. How long will you grieve for that person? Or How long will you grieve for that failed attempt? Get over it and do what I'm asking you to do next.
In Monday's reading, Saul displeases God and in Tuesday's reading, Samuel locates David, Saul's successor.
I wanted to note part of a passage that wasn't read last Monday and part of a passage that was read yesterday.
After Samuel kills Agag, "he grieved over Saul, because the LORD regretted having made him king of Israel." In the next chapter, the Lord says, "How long will you grieve for Saul, whom I have rejected as king of Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and be on your way."
In other words, get over it.
Here was a guy the Lord had chosen to be the first king of Israel and he ended up being a terrible disappointment. So God chooses to move on to Plan B and selects David to take over from Saul.
Samuel, being human, is filled with grief, enough for the Lord to ask "How long will you grieve for Saul?"
Sometimes, I think, God wants us to ask us that same question. How long will you grieve for that person? Or How long will you grieve for that failed attempt? Get over it and do what I'm asking you to do next.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
What Isn't Read
Yesterday's story was about God's order to Saul to exterminate all the Amaleks including their animals. However, Saul doesn't follow the order and spares Agag, the king of the Amaleks, and some of the choicest animals which he planned to offer to God as a sacrifice. So God tells Saul that his reign as king is over.
The reading for today is taken from the next chapter of the book of Samuel about Samuel choosing David but what I find interesting is what will not be read in mass (or what was not read in mass yesterday) from the same chapter as yesterday. Here it is:
The version on the U.S. Catholic Bishops site is even more graphic. It reads: "Then he cut Agag to pieces before the Lord in Gilgal."
Just as in yesterday's reading, the lesson my Theology teacher from long ago really helps. That the Old Testament represents incomplete revelation. That the people in the Old Testament probably misunderstood God's commands.
And that Jesus is the fullness of revelation. So we come a long way from exterminating the Amaleks and cutting Agag to pieces to turning the other cheek and loving your enemy.
The reading for today is taken from the next chapter of the book of Samuel about Samuel choosing David but what I find interesting is what will not be read in mass (or what was not read in mass yesterday) from the same chapter as yesterday. Here it is:
Afterward Samuel commanded, "Bring Agag, king of Amalek, to me." Agag came to him struggling and saying, "So it is bitter death!"And Samuel said, "As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women." Then he cut Agag down before the LORD in Gilgal.Samuel departed for Ramah, while Saul went up to his home in Gibeah of Saul.Never again, as long as he lived, did Samuel see Saul. Yet he grieved over Saul, because the LORD regretted having made him king of Israel.
The version on the U.S. Catholic Bishops site is even more graphic. It reads: "Then he cut Agag to pieces before the Lord in Gilgal."
Just as in yesterday's reading, the lesson my Theology teacher from long ago really helps. That the Old Testament represents incomplete revelation. That the people in the Old Testament probably misunderstood God's commands.
And that Jesus is the fullness of revelation. So we come a long way from exterminating the Amaleks and cutting Agag to pieces to turning the other cheek and loving your enemy.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Reading for the Day: Sacrifices Not Accepted
In the prelude to today's reading, Saul is ordered by God to exterminate all traces of the Amaleks including their livestock.
First a word on theology. My theology teacher in college told us that the Old Testament represented incomplete revelation. So the Old Testament characters must have misunderstood what God wanted them to do. This interpretation is supported by what Jesus eventually did and said.
In any case, Saul proceeds to kill all the Amaleks but "He and his troops spared Agag (king of Amalek) and the best of the fat sheep and oxen, and the lambs. They refused to put under the ban anything that was worthwhile, destroying only what was worthless and of no account."
When Samuel got mad at Saul for not exterminating all traces of the Amaleks, Saul had this to say: "The people spared the best sheep and oxen to sacrifice to the LORD, your God".
And Samuel responded with this:
"Does the LORD so delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as in obedience to the command of the LORD?
Obedience is better than sacrifice,
and submission than the fat of rams.
For a sin like divination is rebellion,
and presumption is the crime of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the command of the LORD,
he, too, has rejected you as ruler."
I know there's a verse in the bible somewhere (aside from this one) that says the Lord doesn't want sacrifices. In that version, what God wants is a humble and contrite heart.
This version seems to be telling us that what God wants is obedience, to do what he tells us to do, rather than what WE think is pleasing to him.
First a word on theology. My theology teacher in college told us that the Old Testament represented incomplete revelation. So the Old Testament characters must have misunderstood what God wanted them to do. This interpretation is supported by what Jesus eventually did and said.
In any case, Saul proceeds to kill all the Amaleks but "He and his troops spared Agag (king of Amalek) and the best of the fat sheep and oxen, and the lambs. They refused to put under the ban anything that was worthwhile, destroying only what was worthless and of no account."
When Samuel got mad at Saul for not exterminating all traces of the Amaleks, Saul had this to say: "The people spared the best sheep and oxen to sacrifice to the LORD, your God".
And Samuel responded with this:
"Does the LORD so delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as in obedience to the command of the LORD?
Obedience is better than sacrifice,
and submission than the fat of rams.
For a sin like divination is rebellion,
and presumption is the crime of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the command of the LORD,
he, too, has rejected you as ruler."
I know there's a verse in the bible somewhere (aside from this one) that says the Lord doesn't want sacrifices. In that version, what God wants is a humble and contrite heart.
This version seems to be telling us that what God wants is obedience, to do what he tells us to do, rather than what WE think is pleasing to him.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Gospel for the Name: Renaming Peter
(Apparently, today is the Feast of the Sto. Nino in the Philippines. In this post, I'll follow the ordinary liturgical calendar)
"You are Simon the son of John;
you will be called Cephas" - which is translated Peter.
John 1:42
I always thought Jesus gave Simon the name Peter. In this version of the verse from John, apparently he just makes a prediction that Simon will be called Cephas/ Peter. In another verse (Matthew 16:18), Jesus says, "You are Peter, and upon this Rock, I will build my Church" (But of course, the translation says that maybe he meant, "You are the rock, and upon this rock, I will build my Church". So it wasn't a proper name)
But let's take today's Gospel first, "You will be called Cephas" which is translated as Peter, which is translated as rock.
I guess the practice of calling someone by names other than their own is pretty common until today. My wife and I have a friend we call "taong bato" (literally man-stone) because he looks like he's made of stone. Or we label people by calling them names like "nerd." Or we associate people with names of well known characters like "Adonis." And we even invent names for people like Brenda (brain-damaged).
Calling people by names other than their own is our way of getting a handle on people and by that standard, Simon didn't have too bad a handle.
And maybe Jesus predicted what people would call Simon because he foresaw that Simon would be the rock on which his church would be built. And by being given this name, Simon gets to internalize the role he would play in the church. Simon, son of John is who he is but Cephas is the role he would play, the handle people would know him by.
"You are Simon the son of John;
you will be called Cephas" - which is translated Peter.
John 1:42
I always thought Jesus gave Simon the name Peter. In this version of the verse from John, apparently he just makes a prediction that Simon will be called Cephas/ Peter. In another verse (Matthew 16:18), Jesus says, "You are Peter, and upon this Rock, I will build my Church" (But of course, the translation says that maybe he meant, "You are the rock, and upon this rock, I will build my Church". So it wasn't a proper name)
But let's take today's Gospel first, "You will be called Cephas" which is translated as Peter, which is translated as rock.
I guess the practice of calling someone by names other than their own is pretty common until today. My wife and I have a friend we call "taong bato" (literally man-stone) because he looks like he's made of stone. Or we label people by calling them names like "nerd." Or we associate people with names of well known characters like "Adonis." And we even invent names for people like Brenda (brain-damaged).
Calling people by names other than their own is our way of getting a handle on people and by that standard, Simon didn't have too bad a handle.
And maybe Jesus predicted what people would call Simon because he foresaw that Simon would be the rock on which his church would be built. And by being given this name, Simon gets to internalize the role he would play in the church. Simon, son of John is who he is but Cephas is the role he would play, the handle people would know him by.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Reading for the Day: Divine Set-up
In today's First Reading, donkeys belonging to Saul's family have wandered off and Saul's father tells him to go and look for those donkeys and to take a servant with him.
Saul must have been irritated at the donkeys for wandering off and at his father for sending him, a"handsome young man" (!), off to look for the donkeys. And look for them he did. Through the "hill country of Ephraim... through the land of Shalishah... through the land of Shaalim... and through the land of Benjamin, but they failed to find the animals". .
The journey had taken them three days and Saul wanted to head back: "When they came to the land of Zuph, Saul said to the servant who was with him, “Come, let us turn back, lest my father forget about the donkeys and become anxious about us.” They also had run out of food.
But Saul's servant suggested that they go see Samuel, the seer, and ask if the seer could provide any help. Saul hesitates however because he had nothing to offer Samuel to which the servant replies that he had some money.
So Samuel and his servant go off to look for Samuel and the next morning, Saul ends up being anointed King of Israel.
The narrative reveals that all of this was part of God's plan. God tipped off Samuel on what was happening so Samuel could dazzle Saul with knowledge of what Saul was up to.
But Saul didn't know any of this of course. From his point of view, he was just being sent off to do an irritating task that was turning out to be an impossible and tiring task. At some point, he wanted to just declare a mission a failure and was only prevented from doing so by a servant who he happened to bring along with him and who happened to have a quarter shekel of silver.
I wonder how many times we've chased our own donkeys and almost gave up, not knowing that all of this was a divine set-up job.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Reading for the Day: Samuel's Scare Tactics
The Reading for the Day involves God, Samuel and the Israelites. Samuel is old and there is a problem with succession and the Israelites are asking him to appoint a king "as other nations have".
Samuel doesn't like what he hears but he tells God what the Israelites said anyway and God tells Samuel, (in the version available at the site I usually consult) ""Listen to whatever the people have to say. It is not you they reject, they are rejecting me as their king."
Samuel doesn't exactly grant the people's request right away. Upon God's orders, he issues a fairly lengthy warning that if the Israelites have a king, that king will treat their children like servants and expropriate their best servants and animals. He will tax them and make them slaves. I've made copy of the reading below simply because you really have to read it for yourself to get a sense of Samuel's scare tactics.
But despite this the people still want a king because "We too must be like other nations, with a king to rule us and to lead us in warfare and fight our battles."
So Samuel tells God and God tells Samuel to give the Israelites a king. Eventually, this leads to the installation of Saul.
The Israelites seem to be keeping up with the Joneses. Other countries have kings, so should we, they said.
I guess we're all like the Israelites sometimes. Stubbornly insisting on our own way even if good spirits tell us that our decisions are bad for us. And God is and has always been a God who in the end respects our freedom to make decisions for ourselves.
---
All the elders of Israel came in a body to Samuel at Ramah
and said to him, "Now that you are old,
and your sons do not follow your example,
appoint a king over us, as other nations have, to judge us."
Samuel was displeased when they asked for a king to judge them.
He prayed to the LORD, however, who said in answer:
"Grant the people's every request.
It is not you they reject, they are rejecting me as their king."
Samuel delivered the message of the LORD in full
to those who were asking him for a king.
He told them:
"The rights of the king who will rule you will be as follows:
He will take your sons and assign them to his chariots and horses,
and they will run before his chariot.
He will also appoint from among them his commanders of groups
of a thousand and of a hundred soldiers.
He will set them to do his plowing and his harvesting,
and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots.
He will use your daughters as ointment makers, as cooks, and as bakers.
He will take the best of your fields, vineyards, and olive groves,
and give them to his officials.
He will tithe your crops and your vineyards,
and give the revenue to his eunuchs and his slaves.
He will take your male and female servants,
as well as your best oxen and your asses,
and use them to do his work.
He will tithe your flocks and you yourselves will become his slaves.
When this takes place,
you will complain against the king whom you have chosen,
but on that day the LORD will not answer you."
The people, however, refused to listen to Samuel's warning and said,
"Not so! There must be a king over us.
We too must be like other nations,
with a king to rule us and to lead us in warfare
and fight our battles."
When Samuel had listened to all the people had to say,
he repeated it to the LORD, who then said to him,
"Grant their request and appoint a king to rule them."
---
Samuel doesn't like what he hears but he tells God what the Israelites said anyway and God tells Samuel, (in the version available at the site I usually consult) ""Listen to whatever the people have to say. It is not you they reject, they are rejecting me as their king."
Samuel doesn't exactly grant the people's request right away. Upon God's orders, he issues a fairly lengthy warning that if the Israelites have a king, that king will treat their children like servants and expropriate their best servants and animals. He will tax them and make them slaves. I've made copy of the reading below simply because you really have to read it for yourself to get a sense of Samuel's scare tactics.
But despite this the people still want a king because "We too must be like other nations, with a king to rule us and to lead us in warfare and fight our battles."
So Samuel tells God and God tells Samuel to give the Israelites a king. Eventually, this leads to the installation of Saul.
The Israelites seem to be keeping up with the Joneses. Other countries have kings, so should we, they said.
We can learn some things about God in this passage. First, God astutely observes that Samuel takes the request personally. He tells Samuel the first time around, "Grant the people's every request. It is not you they reject, they are rejecting me as their king."
And second, God respects Israel's freedom. Israel was headed in the wrong direction (away from God) but God tells Samuel to grant the people's request anyway.
I guess we're all like the Israelites sometimes. Stubbornly insisting on our own way even if good spirits tell us that our decisions are bad for us. And God is and has always been a God who in the end respects our freedom to make decisions for ourselves.
---
1 Sm 8:4-7, 10-22a
All the elders of Israel came in a body to Samuel at Ramah
and said to him, "Now that you are old,
and your sons do not follow your example,
appoint a king over us, as other nations have, to judge us."
Samuel was displeased when they asked for a king to judge them.
He prayed to the LORD, however, who said in answer:
"Grant the people's every request.
It is not you they reject, they are rejecting me as their king."
Samuel delivered the message of the LORD in full
to those who were asking him for a king.
He told them:
"The rights of the king who will rule you will be as follows:
He will take your sons and assign them to his chariots and horses,
and they will run before his chariot.
He will also appoint from among them his commanders of groups
of a thousand and of a hundred soldiers.
He will set them to do his plowing and his harvesting,
and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots.
He will use your daughters as ointment makers, as cooks, and as bakers.
He will take the best of your fields, vineyards, and olive groves,
and give them to his officials.
He will tithe your crops and your vineyards,
and give the revenue to his eunuchs and his slaves.
He will take your male and female servants,
as well as your best oxen and your asses,
and use them to do his work.
He will tithe your flocks and you yourselves will become his slaves.
When this takes place,
you will complain against the king whom you have chosen,
but on that day the LORD will not answer you."
The people, however, refused to listen to Samuel's warning and said,
"Not so! There must be a king over us.
We too must be like other nations,
with a king to rule us and to lead us in warfare
and fight our battles."
When Samuel had listened to all the people had to say,
he repeated it to the LORD, who then said to him,
"Grant their request and appoint a king to rule them."
---
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Gospel for the Day: Deserted Places
It's the second day in a row Mark says that Jesus went off to a deserted place. Yesterday, Mark said Jesus woke up and went to a deserted place to pray. Today, Jesus avoided the towns and went off to deserted places. The effect was still the same however. People kept seeking him out.
In part of my essay on the Preferential Option for the Excluded, I argued that yes, maybe Jesus went to these deserted places to pray. But maybe, he also went to these deserted places to look for the deserted people. And maybe Jesus had a special affinity for these deserted people because Jesus somehow knew that at some point, the same people who sought him ought in those deserted places would one day desert him.
In part of my essay on the Preferential Option for the Excluded, I argued that yes, maybe Jesus went to these deserted places to pray. But maybe, he also went to these deserted places to look for the deserted people. And maybe Jesus had a special affinity for these deserted people because Jesus somehow knew that at some point, the same people who sought him ought in those deserted places would one day desert him.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Readings for the Day: Retreat Matters
The readings for the day could have been used for the first day of an Ignatian Retreat.
The Gospel for the Day is standard fodder for a retreat. The Gospel says how, after a long day of healing, Jesus withdraws to a deserted (or lonely) place to pray. Retreatants are often introduced to this image and are invited to be alone with the Lord in their silent retreat.
In the first reading, Samuel is waken by the voice of someone calling him and he thought it was his master, Eli. After he hears the voice a third time, Eli realizes it is God calling to Samuel and tells Samuel to reply, "Speak, Lord, Your Servant is listening".
I think the reading on Samuel is a perfect illustration of what a retreat looks like. God calls a person or wants to tell a person something but the person does not recognize God's voice "because the Lord had not revealed anything to him yet". What's nice about Samuel is that he hears something. There is a spiritual openness to God's voice, as it were. (What's also nice is that God sounds like Eli for Samuel. Eli must have been the embodiment of God's love for Samuel)
And then there is Eli, a veteran of prayer, who after getting off his irritation at having been woken thrice recognizes that it is God calling Samuel. So he proceeds to suggest to Samuel what can be said in reply. After overcoming himself, Eli makes a good spiritual director move.
After everything is said and done, Samuel grew up and in the words of the link's version, grew up to be an accredited prophet. The encounter with God bears fruits.
The Gospel for the Day is standard fodder for a retreat. The Gospel says how, after a long day of healing, Jesus withdraws to a deserted (or lonely) place to pray. Retreatants are often introduced to this image and are invited to be alone with the Lord in their silent retreat.
In the first reading, Samuel is waken by the voice of someone calling him and he thought it was his master, Eli. After he hears the voice a third time, Eli realizes it is God calling to Samuel and tells Samuel to reply, "Speak, Lord, Your Servant is listening".
I think the reading on Samuel is a perfect illustration of what a retreat looks like. God calls a person or wants to tell a person something but the person does not recognize God's voice "because the Lord had not revealed anything to him yet". What's nice about Samuel is that he hears something. There is a spiritual openness to God's voice, as it were. (What's also nice is that God sounds like Eli for Samuel. Eli must have been the embodiment of God's love for Samuel)
And then there is Eli, a veteran of prayer, who after getting off his irritation at having been woken thrice recognizes that it is God calling Samuel. So he proceeds to suggest to Samuel what can be said in reply. After overcoming himself, Eli makes a good spiritual director move.
After everything is said and done, Samuel grew up and in the words of the link's version, grew up to be an accredited prophet. The encounter with God bears fruits.
Gospel for the Day: Those Threatened by Jesus
The reading for the day features the first time Jesus preaches in the Gospel of Mark and the first entity that is threatened by his presence is a man with an unclean spirit.
The Jews were waiting for a political Messiah to deliver them from foreign occupiers. But if we come to think of it, the foreign occupiers were never threatened by Jesus' presence. Even Pontius Pilate saw no reason to crucify Jesus (except to satisfy an angry mob).
But those who were threatened by Jesus were unclean spirits (and the religious authorities of his day). At this early point in Jesus' ministry, this should give us a clue as to what Jesus' mission was: a mission that was more spiritual rather than political. A mission to bring souls closer to God and not a mission of political liberation.
The Jews were waiting for a political Messiah to deliver them from foreign occupiers. But if we come to think of it, the foreign occupiers were never threatened by Jesus' presence. Even Pontius Pilate saw no reason to crucify Jesus (except to satisfy an angry mob).
But those who were threatened by Jesus were unclean spirits (and the religious authorities of his day). At this early point in Jesus' ministry, this should give us a clue as to what Jesus' mission was: a mission that was more spiritual rather than political. A mission to bring souls closer to God and not a mission of political liberation.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Gospel for the Day: Endorsement
Today is the Feast of Jesus' Baptism. In the Gospel today, John the Baptist tells those whom he baptizes, "I have baptized you with water; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
When Jesus goes to John to be baptized, the Spirit came " And a voice came from the heavens,
"You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased."
I think we can take it from this that Jesus was the first person to be baptized by the Spirit. And subsequently, he commands his disciples to baptize others as he was baptized himself.
I did a quick scan of what baptism meant during the time of Jesus. And it seems, baptism was a ritual to make people clean. One site I saw said that clean/ unclean wasn't the same as good/ evil (although sin could make one unclean). Those who were unclean, however, could not go to the temple to worship unless they got themselves clean. I guess baptism would be the equivalent of full body detoxification.
So what John was doing was to thoroughly clean people so that they could receive the Lord.
Jesus' baptism, however, was different. He was baptized by the Spirit and endorsed by what we assume to be God the Father. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, the voice says.
I think through this episode, the triumvirate does what it does best: reinterpret the law and rituals and bring it to its fullness. Baptism becomes not just a ritual of cleansing but also a ritual of endorsement. When we are baptized, as Jesus was baptized, we are cleansed, yes, but more importantly, God endorses us and says, you, baptized one, are also mine.
And if we follow Christ's mission and those of his disciples, we begin to understand that this endorsement does not lead to exclusivity but mission. That those of us who are baptized have a mission to let hearts know that they belong to God.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Gospel for the Day: Three Kings
Jesus had two sets of visitors at the manger. One set was composed of shepherds. Another set was composed of the three kings, or more accurately, the magi from the East bearing three gifts.
One thing that these two sets had in common was that they were led to Jesus. The shepherds were led to Jesus by angels. The magi were led to Jesus by the star. This leading to Jesus makes me think of grace, that being led to Jesus is a product of grace. No one comes to knowledge of Jesus as God except through grace.
And yet, there is another side of grace and that is the openness to grace. I think you have to be a little coocoo to be open to receiving (and heeding) messages from angels. And you have to be a little unorthodox to read messages from the stars. But what takes the cake is that you have to be a whole lot of crazy to believe that a baby born beside farm animals is the newborn king of the Jews.
One thing that these two sets had in common was that they were led to Jesus. The shepherds were led to Jesus by angels. The magi were led to Jesus by the star. This leading to Jesus makes me think of grace, that being led to Jesus is a product of grace. No one comes to knowledge of Jesus as God except through grace.
And yet, there is another side of grace and that is the openness to grace. I think you have to be a little coocoo to be open to receiving (and heeding) messages from angels. And you have to be a little unorthodox to read messages from the stars. But what takes the cake is that you have to be a whole lot of crazy to believe that a baby born beside farm animals is the newborn king of the Jews.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Gospel for the Day: The Wedding at Cana
I sometimes have these imaginative prayers that takes quite a while to resolve themselves. A meditation on the Wedding at Cana is one of them.
I ended up playing the role of the head waiter during my imaginative prayer on this passage. I dutifully note that the wine was running out so I start putting into place mechanisms to make sure the wine lasts until the week-long party is over. So there I am instructing the other waiters on what to do. For example, get people drunk so that they don't notice the wine we were serving was diluted.
As I'm hurrying along stretching our wine supply Jesus publicly hollers out to me "By whose authority do you do these things?" And that stops me in my tracks. I didn't know what to say. Honestly, I was irritated. I was head waiter, after all. It was my job. For a guest like Jesus to humiliate me like that seemed inappropriate to say the least. And I didn't know what the proper response was for several years.
After what must have been 15 years, the imaginative prayer finally continued and resolved itself. Jesus hollers out to me "By whose authority do you do these things?" And then he whispers in my ear, "Tama na yan, inaagawan mo ako ng eksena" (Stop what you're doing. You're stealing the limelight from me)
Only then did I understand that the proper response was to lay down my waiter's apron and laugh.
I ended up playing the role of the head waiter during my imaginative prayer on this passage. I dutifully note that the wine was running out so I start putting into place mechanisms to make sure the wine lasts until the week-long party is over. So there I am instructing the other waiters on what to do. For example, get people drunk so that they don't notice the wine we were serving was diluted.
As I'm hurrying along stretching our wine supply Jesus publicly hollers out to me "By whose authority do you do these things?" And that stops me in my tracks. I didn't know what to say. Honestly, I was irritated. I was head waiter, after all. It was my job. For a guest like Jesus to humiliate me like that seemed inappropriate to say the least. And I didn't know what the proper response was for several years.
After what must have been 15 years, the imaginative prayer finally continued and resolved itself. Jesus hollers out to me "By whose authority do you do these things?" And then he whispers in my ear, "Tama na yan, inaagawan mo ako ng eksena" (Stop what you're doing. You're stealing the limelight from me)
Only then did I understand that the proper response was to lay down my waiter's apron and laugh.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Gospel for the Day: Jesus' Sandals
This is what John the Baptist proclaimed:
"One mightier than I is coming after me.
I am not worthy to stoop and loosen the thongs of his sandals.
Mark 1: 7
A priest explained this passage one day. He said that the foot was considered the dirtiest part of the body. Consider that the Jews back then probably went around wearing sandals and the roads were dusty so it was a common courtesy (and common sense) to give a guest a bowl of water to wash their feet before entering a house. And any task that was foot-related was the job of a slave. (Wouldn't want anyone higher to wash someone's foot)
In this passage, John is comparing himself to Jesus and says that relative to Jesus, he is even lower than a slave. Sort of like comparing an ant to a giant, I guess.
"One mightier than I is coming after me.
I am not worthy to stoop and loosen the thongs of his sandals.
Mark 1: 7
A priest explained this passage one day. He said that the foot was considered the dirtiest part of the body. Consider that the Jews back then probably went around wearing sandals and the roads were dusty so it was a common courtesy (and common sense) to give a guest a bowl of water to wash their feet before entering a house. And any task that was foot-related was the job of a slave. (Wouldn't want anyone higher to wash someone's foot)
In this passage, John is comparing himself to Jesus and says that relative to Jesus, he is even lower than a slave. Sort of like comparing an ant to a giant, I guess.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Gospel for the Day: Downline Recruitment
After reading today's reading, I realized that the story of the call of the first disciples is unique in John's Gospel. In the Synoptics, Jesus says "Come follow me" and the beckoned disciple follows.
In John's Gospel, this happens only once with Philip. Jesus sees him and simply says, "Follow Me" and (we assume) Philip follows. (The Gospel suggests he runs off to find Nathanael)
In the case of Andrew and John, Jesus walks past them and they follow. The invitation comes after Andrew and John ask where Jesus stays and Jesus says, come and see.
Aside from the subtle recruitment of Andrew and John, the recruitment of Peter and Nathanael can be considered downline recruitment. In yesterday's Gospel, Andrew tells Peter, "We have found the Messiah" and Andrew brings Peter to Jesus. Downline recruit #1.
Philip hurries off to find Nathanael, shares the news and Nathanael is skeptical at first but he heads toward Jesus and ends up being convinced (and even makes a public declaration of faith). Downline recruit #2.
These stories of downline recruits are not surprising in the Gospel of John and may even be a central theme in the Gospel. After all, Andrew and John themselves were downline recruits of John the Baptist who allowed them to shift allegiances to Jesus.
And if you read the (first) ending of John's Gospel and the First Epistle of John, you will see that in a very real sense, John is recruiting his readers. In John 20: 31, John says that "these are written," he says, "that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name".
The beginning of the First letter of John is a beautiful piece on testifying to what he had heard for himself, what he had seen for himself, and touched with his hands. And he testifies so that we might come to believe.
What was from the beginning,
what we have heard,
what we have seen with our eyes,
what we looked upon
and touched with our hands
concerns the Word of life
for the life was made visible;
we have seen it and testify to it
and proclaim to you the eternal life
that was with the Father and was made visible to us
what we have seen and heard
we proclaim now to you,
so that you too may have fellowship with us;
for our fellowship is with the Father
and with his Son, Jesus Christ.
We are writing this so that our joy may be complete.
1 John 1: 1-4
That our joy may be complete. John the recruiter. We are the Peters and Nathanaels who are being recruited, who are being brought to Jesus, who are being encouraged to head towards Jesus. And down the line, Jesus asks us to recruit our own downline recruits.
In John's Gospel, this happens only once with Philip. Jesus sees him and simply says, "Follow Me" and (we assume) Philip follows. (The Gospel suggests he runs off to find Nathanael)
In the case of Andrew and John, Jesus walks past them and they follow. The invitation comes after Andrew and John ask where Jesus stays and Jesus says, come and see.
Aside from the subtle recruitment of Andrew and John, the recruitment of Peter and Nathanael can be considered downline recruitment. In yesterday's Gospel, Andrew tells Peter, "We have found the Messiah" and Andrew brings Peter to Jesus. Downline recruit #1.
Philip hurries off to find Nathanael, shares the news and Nathanael is skeptical at first but he heads toward Jesus and ends up being convinced (and even makes a public declaration of faith). Downline recruit #2.
These stories of downline recruits are not surprising in the Gospel of John and may even be a central theme in the Gospel. After all, Andrew and John themselves were downline recruits of John the Baptist who allowed them to shift allegiances to Jesus.
And if you read the (first) ending of John's Gospel and the First Epistle of John, you will see that in a very real sense, John is recruiting his readers. In John 20: 31, John says that "these are written," he says, "that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name".
The beginning of the First letter of John is a beautiful piece on testifying to what he had heard for himself, what he had seen for himself, and touched with his hands. And he testifies so that we might come to believe.
What was from the beginning,
what we have heard,
what we have seen with our eyes,
what we looked upon
and touched with our hands
concerns the Word of life
for the life was made visible;
we have seen it and testify to it
and proclaim to you the eternal life
that was with the Father and was made visible to us
what we have seen and heard
we proclaim now to you,
so that you too may have fellowship with us;
for our fellowship is with the Father
and with his Son, Jesus Christ.
We are writing this so that our joy may be complete.
1 John 1: 1-4
That our joy may be complete. John the recruiter. We are the Peters and Nathanaels who are being recruited, who are being brought to Jesus, who are being encouraged to head towards Jesus. And down the line, Jesus asks us to recruit our own downline recruits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
