November 8, 2009 – Sunday 32B

Gospel, Mark 12:38-44  In early Old Testament times, a scribe was a person who could read and write, usually educated in the languages and alphabets of neighboring countries such as Egyptian, Sumerian and Greek in addition to their native Hebrew.  With such skills, many scribes were employed in the service of government, religion, and business.  They kept the records, wrote the documents, and counseled royalty for which they were often given high administrative positions.  For such leadership and diplomatic roles, scribes learned the ways of international politics.  They were experts on how to work with and counsel people for wise decisions.  The work of compiling all the Old Testament books was that of scribes. Old Testament wisdom literature, in particular, was developed in schools of scribes.  In the post-exilic era (following the Babylonian Captivity) Jews became “People of the Book”.  The majority of Jewish men learned to read and write.  Many scribes were still employed in government service, but many focused on the sacred writings for which they were the teachers and interpreters, the moral guides of the Jewish people.  In time the oral tradition of scribal interpretation acquired an authority almost equal to the Law of Moses.  Most scribes in the New Testament era tended to be Pharisees.  After the destruction of the second and last temple of Jerusalem in 68 A.D., Jewish priesthood disappeared (there were no longer any sacrifices) and scribes (rabbis) became the uncontested leaders of Judaism as they continue to be today.

The text accuses the scribes of “devouring” the houses of widows.  William Barclay’s commentary says that scribes could take no pay for their teaching.  They were supposed to have a trade from which they made their income.  There was always room to abuse their honor and role as religious leaders, however, by showering their attention and lengthy prayers of blessings and assurances of high places in heaven for people…widows could be a particularly easy target…who supported the dignified lifestyle of religious leaders such as themselves.  Religious figures in every age, from priests to TV evangelists, should be careful not to use their position as a means for gaining personal prominence, prestige, or treasure.  We are to be servants and should use our position to serve.

Before leaving the issue, we should be cautious about condemning the scribes for taking large donations from widows, noting that Jesus’ own ministry was financed on the inheritance of widows (Luke 8:1-3).  What separated Jesus’ ministry financing from that of the scribes was probably more apparent in who benefitted and in Jesus’ lifestyle in comparison to that of many scribes.

We come to the poor widow’s donation of two small coins.  During the week of the Passover celebration, upwards of 100,000 pilgrims came through the temple of Jerusalem.  For some, it was the visit of a lifetime.  Some brought sizeable contributions from relatives and Jewish communities as far away as Spain to the west and Persia to the east.  The annual operation of the temple depended on these Passover contributions which probably brought in the equivalent of millions of dollars.  Many institutions and organizations today give special recognition to major contributors by putting their names on buildings or lists of “President’s Circle” donors.  During the Passover at the temple, priests positioned by the collection boxes blew trumpets when a sizeable contribution was placed in the coffers.  Today the phrase “to blow one’s own horn” refers to a person who boasts of their own achievements.  To be sure, the poor widow’s contribution of two coins received no fanfare or notice from anyone…except Jesus. 

November 1, 2009 – All Saints

Gospel, Matthew 5:1-12a   Jesus sat down to teach.  Teachers today commonly stand while the students sit.  In times past the teacher, as with other figures of authority, sat while exercising that authority.  The very chair in which the person sat often became symbolic of that authority…the throne of a king, the chair of a bishop (cathedra, from which comes the word cathedral, is Greek for seat or bench…the base of the word used here for Jesus sitting down), the head chair at a table…and the head of an area of study at a university was called the “chair” of that department.

Note that this teaching of Jesus is not given to the masses down on the plain but to his disciples (students) gathered around him.  This was an advanced teaching or “upper level course” which required of the disciples the ability to see life in a panoramic way with an eye that could see beyond the limits of this earthly life itself to the final destiny in the kingdom of heaven.  Jesus had been teaching his disciples about that kingdom and believed they, unlike the crowd below, could grasp the message he was about to share with them.  

A man is on his way to the airport for a flight.  He gets a flat tire, causing him to be late and miss his flight.  Not a blessing!  The airplane encounters engine failure during the flight and crashes, killing all passengers aboard.  The flat tire, in the bigger picture, was the instrument of a great blessing for that individual.

We tend to be rather nearsighted in our evaluation of what constitutes a blessing.  Hunger is bad, so is mourning, and, definitely, persecution.  These and other situations of life which Jesus includes on the list of Beatitudes are not blessings in and of themselves.  They become blessings only in the response which they engender in the individual experiencing them.  To turn to God and become closer to God as a result of mourning turns that sorrow into an instrument of blessing.  Likewise, all the other things in the list of Beatitudes, as they cause us to seek and become closer to God, can be instruments of blessings. 

October 25, 2009 – Sunday 30B

Gospel, Mark 10:46-52   Jews traveling between Judea in the south and Galilee in the north skirted the intervening Samaritan territory, following the Jordan valley to the east.  The city of Jericho lay well below sea level down in the Jordan rift valley, five miles west of the river and six miles north of the Dead Sea.  It was located at an oasis with a significant outpouring of water, a lush green gem in the midst of the parched desert terrain and the only city of size along the entire route between Jerusalem in the hills to the west and the Galilee region to the north.  Recall that Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10) was the chief tax collector there.  He prospered from taxes paid by the many wealthy people who maintained residences in Jericho.  Also trying to make a living from the many visitors and travelers passing through Jericho was the blind beggar Bartimaeus.  He had a regular spot along the main road leaving Jericho for Jerusalem.  The road from Jericho to Jerusalem, approximately 17 miles, wound through craggy desert and desolate territory.  It was a familiar haunt of robbers.  People rarely traveled the route alone, gathering near the edge of the city in the early morning to make the trip together.  This scene takes place near that gathering point in that early morning hour. 

It is notable that Bartimaeus is mentioned by name rather than merely “a blind beggar”.  This may indicate that he was known to the early Christian communities for having become an outstanding disciple of Jesus.  There may also be significance in the meaning of his name.  On this point, however, there is a difference of opinion as to exactly what “Bartimaeus” means.  The word “bar” is Hebrew for “son”.  The second part has been interpreted as “unclean”, thus “son of uncleanness” referring to Jesus making him clean.  The more likely interpretation is that the name derives from the Greek word “timao” meaning a “prize” or “something of value”.  People commonly considered blindness, as well as other physical sufferings, to be punishment for God for their sins.  As such, they would not have seen much value in the blind beggar.  Jesus would have seen value in Bartimaeus that other people overlooked…truly a “son of value”…and Jesus gave him value as he followed him as a disciple. 

Bartimaeus undoubtedly knew about Jesus from snippets of conversations he had overheard from passing crowds.  He had likely prayed for a chance to actually meet Jesus as his only hope to be freed from blindness.  Hearing that Jesus was passing by that very moment, Bartimaeus was not going to lose the opportunity.

Bartimaeus cast his cloak aside.  Certain groups in society were identifiable by the clothes they wore.  It may simply have been that beggars, for lack of resources, wore shabby cast-away clothing.  This casting the cloak aside is a symbol of putting aside his old life for a new one.

What Bartimaeus wants is obvious.  Why does Jesus ask him rather than just go ahead with the healing?  Jesus honors Bartimaeus by inviting him to state what he wants, something Jesus commonly did for nearly everyone who sought his healing power.

Jesus tells Bartimaeus to “go your way”.  He give Bartimaeus freedom to choose his own way, and he chooses the way of Jesus.  Before being called “Christians” followers of Jesus were known as people of the Way.  How many people healed by Jesus…or blessed by Jesus in so many ways today…thank him and then go their own way?  May we, like Bartimaeus, make Jesus’ way our way.

October 18, 2009 Sunday 29B

Gospel, Mark 10:35-45  Jesus had recently caught the apostles arguing over which of them was most important (Mark 9:33-37).  They were jockeying for positions of authority in the kingdom they expected him to establish here on earth.  Jesus’ teaching at that time did little to advance their understanding of the real nature of the kingdom or dampen their ambitions.  In Matthew 20:20-21 it is mom who takes her boys in tow and puts the question to Jesus.  Here James and John themselves take their request to Jesus.  It is a brazen move, and we can imagine that the brothers had talked about it a great deal as they strategized how to get those positions of authority which the other ten apostles also coveted.  Their boldness may have come from considering themselves Jesus’ favorites, two of the three (along with Peter) on the inside track, selected to accompany him on a few occasions when the others were told to stay behind.  Their opening statement, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask”, betrays their confidence…or overconfidence…in their relationship with Jesus, like children making a request from a doting parent.  How odd it seems to us to ask that God promise to do our will unconditionally when it should be the other way around. 

As Jesus tells them, they don’t know what they are asking because they don’t really understand Jesus’ true identity, the nature of his mission, or the reality that will be his kingdom.  And so they declare “Yes!” to being able to share Jesus’ cup (an Old Testament reference to the destiny assigned a person by God) and baptism (which will be one of suffering and death). 

We can’t get down on the two for their attempt.  The other ten were after the same thing, just less blatant about making their wishes known, thus explaining their reaction of indignation at James and John.  Jesus tries to prepare them to understand the real nature of his kingdom by comparing the manner of leadership to that of worldly rulers who lord it over people rather than serving them, an image amplified in the familiar prayer of St. Francis.

Totally unimportant in reference to understanding the scriptural text but of note for lefthanders like myself, the Greek word for left hand (from the request for a place at Jesus’ left hand) is “euonomos” which translates literally as “well-named”.  Greeks considered the left hand as the lucky side, a rare positive attitude regarding left-handedness when the words used in most other languages mean sinister (Latin), bad (Korean), weak (Swahili), clumsy (Portuguese), and on.

October 11, 2009 Sunday 28B

Gospel, Mark 10:17-30   Although this account is found in all three synoptic gospels, the person approaching Jesus is presented differently in each gospel.  Matthew 19:16 says “someone approached” Jesus.  Luke 18:18 states “an official asked him this question”.  Only Luke recounts that the man “ran up” and “knelt down before” Jesus as he was setting out on a journey.  While the other two accounts could be interpreted merely as an intellectual query, the man’s manner of coming to Jesus in Luke’s gospel indicates an inner struggle for an answer to live by and a lack of peace.  The man is truly hungry to know what he should do.   Jesus looks at him and “loved him”.  Although we can assume that Jesus loved everyone, the gospels only mention three people specifically loved by Jesus: Lazarus, whose sisters referred to him as “the one you love” (John 11:3) in their message asking for Jesus to come quickly; the “disciple” referred to as “the one whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21:20); and here in reference to this man.  Clearly Jesus saw a very good person there before him whom he would enjoy having with him as his disciple.  It must have been sad for both of them when the man went away. 

To no other person in the scripture does Jesus tell to go and sell everything and give the money away to the poor…not even Peter who, through all his time with Jesus, retained both his house and his boat.  Between Jesus’ first statement about keeping the commandments and the further clarification, we have the difference between Jesus’ general call for all of us and the particular call for each person.  The main obstacle for this man in following Jesus was his attachment to material things.  It was not so with Peter whose main obstacle seems to have been his love for fishing and all that represented, shown in Jesus’ question to Peter in John 21:15, “Do you love me more than these?”  What particulars does Jesus ask of you and me if we would allow no obstacle to stand in the way of our following him?

The apostles are surprised at Jesus’ statement regarding the difficulty for rich people to enter heaven.  Even though they knew there were exceptions to the rule, the disciples, along with most people of the time, considered wealth as an indication of being particularly blessed and loved by God (a theme dealt with in the book of Job).  Jesus compares rich entering heaven to a camel passing through the eye of a needle, the name commonly given to the small door for passage in and out of the city of Jerusalem during the night when the large gates had been closed for security.  The door was intentionally too small for a man to pass with weapons of size, baggage, and certainly a camel.  Such things had to remain outside the city gates until the next morning.  Likewise, the young man would have to leave behind all the material goods that gave him security and ease if he were to be free to follow Jesus. 

October 4, 2009 Sunday 27B

Gospel, Mark 10:2-16   The Pharisees were referring to Deuteronomy 24:1 “When a man after marrying a woman and having relations with her is later displeased with her because he finds in her something indecent and therefore writes out a bill of divorce and hands it to her thus dismissing her from his house…” All that precondition and more continues until we finally get to the main part of the sentence in the middle of verse 4: “he may not take her again as his wife” if she has married another in the meantime.  Moses is not here creating a right to divorce but actually setting a limit on it, demanding sufficient cause and certain legal formalities.  The practice of divorce is taken for granted and tolerated as an existing custom whose evil this law seeks to lessen.  Woman was considered a property transferred from father to husband (a mentality actually still technically symbolized today in some weddings at which the father walks his daughter down the aisle and hands her over to her husband-to-be, further enhanced by such phraseology as “giving his daughter away”).  She had no say in the matter of a divorce.  How was the phrase “finds in her something indecent” to be interpreted?  My Jewish translation uses the word “obnoxious”.  At the time of Jesus, rabbis differed in opinion regarding what sufficient grounds for divorce might be, reflected in the question of divorce put to Jesus in Matthew 19:3, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”  With some rabbinic interpretation as support, many an older Jewish man was putting aside the wife of his youth in favor of a young woman for little reason more than that her youthful beauty had faded.  Jesus put the matter in the realm of commitment, permanence and mutuality…qualities he stated to be God’s plan for marriage from the beginning.

Do you think the people were whom Jesus’ disciples were rebuking for trying to bring their children to Jesus for a blessing were moms or dads?  We don’t really know from the text, but I’d guess they were moms more than dads.  Why?  First of all, my experience is that moms today pay more attention to such things as dads.  Second, I’m guessing that, having been raised in the male-dominant Jewish culture, Jesus’ disciples (here again, I’m presuming they were predominantly male) would more easily put off a group of women than men.  Jesus’ words may have been just as much a victory for the women as it was for their children.

September 27, 2009 Sunday 26B

Gospel, Mark 9:38-43,45,47-48   In last week’s gospel (Mark 9:30-37) the disciples, having been arguing over which of them was most importance, got a lesson from Jesus on where true greatness lies…not in having power over someone else but in being humble and serving others.  Okay, they shouldn’t compare themselves with one another.  Team spirit.  That’s where it’s at.  John spoke out for team pride.  They had seem someone casting out spirits in Jesus’ name and tried to stop him because he wasn’t in their group.  Can’t you picture the other disciples, in true team spirit, nodding their heads in unison?  Sorry, boys, but “whoever is not against us is for us.”  Pride by comparison to others has no place on Jesus’ team.  Service to others, hunger to share Jesus with others rather than feeling superior to them…such attitudes would indentify people as Jesus’ followers. 

“If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off.”  Loss of a hand was a punishment dealt out to slaves who stole from their masters in some societies of the time.  Loss of a foot, an eye, or other body parts was punishment for other related infractions.  In addition to being a punishment, such actions were intended to keep the slave from committing the infraction again.  There is no indication that Christians took Jesus’ teaching here literally, understanding that such an overstatement got the point across clearly: If you’re going to lose something, better to suffer the loss of some body part during life here on earth than to lose entrance into God’s kingdom for all eternity.

Gehenna was a valley on the south side of the city of Jerusalem, the garbage dump of the city and scene of perpetual fire and foul stench.  What better illustration could Jesus find to represent eternal damnation?

Sept. 20, 2009 Sunday 25B in Ordinary Time

Gospel, Mark 9:30-37   The Greek word “dialogizomai” (see within it the word “dialogue”) is translated here as both discussing and arguing.  Just how heated the discussion had become (between discussing and arguing) we don’t know, but the disciples’ silence when Jesus calls them on it would indicate that they had more than an academic discussion going.  Why was it important to them who might be the most important?  Their lack of understanding what Jesus had previously been talking about shows that they, as Peter in last week’s reading, were operating out of some major misconceptions regarding the ministry and what they would gain from their association with Jesus.  They were still thinking of an earthly kingdom, and they were jockeying for position in the government structure of that kingdom. 

What was the child doing there in Peter’s house with Jesus and the apostles?  It is likely that a few families of relatives and, perhaps, hired hands lived in the assortment of rooms within the surrounding walls of Peter’s place.  The child may have lived there.  It is also possible that he was a kid from the neighborhood who regularly hung out at Peter’s place when Jesus and the apostles were around.  One thing about the boy is certain…he was not there to assert his self-importance but, rather, to enjoy the company of Jesus and the apostles, all of whom he looked up to and admired.  That made him a good example for Jesus to set before his disciples. 

September 13, 2009 Sunday 24B

Gospel, Mark 8:27-35  A professor in the seminary remarked that these are the two most important questions in the bible.  “Who do people say that I am?” becomes a summary of all we have learned from studying theology and scripture and from hearing the testimony of others.  “Who do you say that I am?” invites a personal commitment to Jesus, not just what others have told me but what I truly believe in my mind and heart.  How would you answer?

Many Jewish people of Jesus’ time believed in reincarnation, not as some oriental religions believe that the same person comes back over and over again, but that God instilled the same spirit of prophecy or leadership in new people that he had given to other prophets and leaders in the past.  Thus, some people believed that God had given Jesus the same spirit with which he had endowed John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the other ancient prophets.  In this sense we can understand texts such as Numbers 11:25 (“Taking some of the spirit that was on Moses, God bestowed it on the seventy elders”), 2 Kings 2:15 (“The guild prophets in Jericho saw [Elisha] and said, “The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha”), and Isaiah 42:1 (“Here is my servant whom I uphold, mu chosen one with whom I am pleased, upon whom I have put my spirit”).

Although Peter believed that Jesus was the Christ (the anointed Messiah), his concept of Messiah was formed by popular conceptions of a worldly leader who would bring about a new age of prominence and prosperity to the nation of Israel.  Jesus’ statement of the pathway that lay before him did not match with what Peter had been taught.  Perhaps overconfident in having identified Jesus as the Christ, Peter decides to correct Jesus’ “faulty” understanding of Messiah.  How shocking it must have been, then, for Peter to have Jesus call him a Satan.  The force of Jesus’ comment indicates that it must truly have been a temptation with which he contended to avoid the suffering and follow a different path more in keeping with the one Peter proposed.  This is akin to the third temptation in the desert in which Satan offered Jesus all the nations of the world for merely bowing down and worshipping him for a moment (Matthew 4:8-10).  How often do we, like Peter, evaluate situations by human or worldly standards rather than by those of God?

September 6, 2009 – Sunday in Ordinary Time 23B

Gospel, Mark 7:31-37   Tyre and Sidon were cities on the Mediterranean coast which served as the government centers of regions bordering the Mediterranean on the west, the upper Jordan River on the east, and Galilee to the south.  Jesus and his disciples had followed the Jordan valley north into that region, perhaps as a bit of vacation or retreat, during which time a rather persistent Syrophoenician woman had prevailed upon Jesus to heal her daughter (Mark 7:24-30).  Jesus and his troupe now return to the Sea of Galilee, but rather than following the western shore to Capernaum in Galilee, they take the eastern shore through Bethsaida into the district of the Decapolis, literally “ten cities” and their surrounding regions united in a confederation. 

Jesus had been in that district previously, having cast an evil spirit out of a man into a herd of pigs who had run over a cliff and died (Mark 5:1-20).  Perhaps out of fear of losing more of their livestock to this non-pork eating Jew, the people had begged Jesus to leave their territory.  The fellow who had been cured, however, “went off and began to proclaim in the Decapolis what Jesus had done for him” (Mark 5:20).  It could have been his witness that had encouraged the people in this passage to bring the deaf-mute man to Jesus.

Why did Jesus heal in such a strange manner, sticking his fingers in the man’s ears, putting his spit on the man’s tongue, looking heavenward, groaning and shouting?  You would not go back to a doctor who used such healing techniques, but this was probably the way healers of that day did things…at least, what the man to be healed probably considered good technique.  Jesus had the power to heal by his word alone, but healings generally depended upon the faith of the one being healed (at times on the faith of another such as the healing of the Phoenician woman’s daughter, the centurion’s servant, and the daughter of Jairus).  Such actions were what the deaf-mute needed to believe Jesus could really heal him. 

This is one of the few instances (also “Abba”, “Talitha koum” and “Eloi, eloi, lema sabachthani”) in which the original Aramaic spoken by Jesus is retained in the gospel accounts.  This adds a certain extra force to the account, both  for its credibility and influence in evangelization.