Wednesday of Week 11 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Matthew 6:1-6,16-18
We move today to a different theme, namely, the way in which we are to pay our worship to God. Jesus’ teaching is based on the three basic acts of religion expected of a devout Jew—almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. In each case, Jesus warns his disciples not to indulge in any form of ostentation so as to attract the admiration of others.
He presents exaggerated images of how we should not do things in the way of ostentatious hypocrites. He speaks about people who blow trumpets in the streets to draw the attention of everyone when they give alms to the poor. He speaks about hypocrites who say their prayers in the most conspicuous places so that people will marvel at how holy they are. He speaks about people putting on gloomy and drawn looks so that everyone will know that they are fasting. In fact, Jews were only expected to fast on one day in the year—on the Day of Atonement, but the practice of regular fasting had become more common in Jesus’ time.
All this, Jesus says, is not worship of God, but a kind of self-advertisement. Such people, he says, get their reward, namely, the admiration of the onlooker, but it is not the reward that comes from acts of genuine worship.
When his disciples pray or fast or give alms they should do it in such a way that their actions will be directed entirely to God and not to themselves. We do remember earlier in the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus said people should be able to see the good works of his disciples, but then the purpose was not that they would be praised, but that people would be led to glorify God.
It should also be pointed out that Jesus’ recommendation that we pray in private where only God can see us shouldn’t be interpreted as meaning that it is not necessary for us to take part in forms of community prayer—which Jesus himself would have done whenever he attended the synagogue or went to the Temple. It would be a gross misreading of this text to argue, as people sometimes are heard to do, that it is not necessary to attend Sunday Mass because “I can pray equally well in the privacy of my home”. To speak in such a way is to misunderstand completely the essentially communal nature of the Eucharistic celebration.
Read more
Tuesday of Week 11 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Matthew 5:43-48
We come to the last of the six examples that Jesus gave in his Sermon on the Mount as illustrations of how he brings the teaching of the Law to a higher and more perfect plane. In today’s Gospel, Jesus says to his disciples:
You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
This saying is not found as such in the Hebrew Testament. Rather we find in the book of Leviticus that it says:
You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself… (Lev 19:18)
The wording here would seem to condone, however, acts of revenge against strangers and outsiders. And in practice, as indeed is the case in many communities throughout the world, the saying of Jesus reflects the way many people feel is a justified way of acting. And as we saw earlier on where Jesus spoke about anger, at least limited revenge was condoned in the phrase “an eye for an eye”.
Again, Jesus turns things on their head with a saying which many people would find quite unrealistic, if not downright stupid. He tells us actually to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us. How can we be asked to do such a thing?
Yet, if we would only reflect a little, the advice of Jesus makes a great deal of sense and, in fact, is really the only way to go for our own happiness and peace. Otherwise, as Jesus says, his listeners were no different from “tax collectors”, a group who, because they worked for the occupying power, were held in special contempt—or pagans, that is, people who lived godless lives.
To understand what Jesus is saying we need to clarify two words, ‘love’ and ‘enemies’. Who are our enemies? They can be either the people that we are hostile towards, or the people who are hostile to us.
The practising Christian who takes on board the teaching of Jesus will want to have positive attitudes to people in general, and will not marginalise anyone on the basis of race, nationality, colour, class, gender or other personal characteristics. Such a person will not want to act in a way to create hostility in others unnecessarily.
However, simply because we try to look and act positively towards others is no guarantee that they will act in the same way towards us. Through no objective fault of our own, we may become the object of their dislike, resentment, hatred, jealousy, anger and even violence. These are our enemies, and we are to love them.
But what does ‘love’ mean here? The word that the Gospel uses is a verb from the Greek noun agape. Agape is a unilateral way of loving by which, irrespective of the actions or attitudes of another person, I desire their well-being. It is the love which God extends to every one of his creatures, irrespective of how they respond to him. In this it is quite different from the love which involves sharing, intimacy, affection and a strong element of mutual giving.
We are not being asked to love our enemies with the love of affection—to be ‘in love’ with them, or even to be fond of them. That would not make sense and they would not want it. But we are asked to reach out and desire their well-being. This can be done when we focus our attention and our concern more on them than on ourselves.
When we are the objects of other people’s hostility we tend to go on the defensive and to generate negative attitudes towards the other. Our inner security (or insecurity) is under attack. Instead, Jesus is asking us to respond to the real situation rather than to react to spontaneous feelings.
When someone hates me, attacks me or is angry with me for no reason that I can think of, instead of feeling sorry for myself, I can choose to ask, “What is wrong with that person? Why is that person acting in that way? What is bothering that person? Is there any way I can help to dissolve this person’s negative behaviour, which is probably a sign of some inner self-hating or insecurity on their part?”
And certainly when I begin to think in this way, it becomes perfectly natural to pray for that person, to pray for their inner healing, for a restoration of peace and inner security. To hate someone who hates me, to be violent with someone who is violent with me, simply means that there are twice as many problems as there were at the beginning. By responding in the way that Jesus suggests, we end up with no problem at all!
And Jesus gives us another motive for acting in this way—it is the way God himself acts. He causes the hot, merciless sun to shine on the good as well as the bad; the cool, refreshing rain falls equally on the bad as well as the good. What Jesus is saying is that God’s love, his agape, reaches out indiscriminately to every single person, irrespective of their behaviour. The passage ends with Jesus saying:
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Perfection here refers to that unconditional agape love that God extends to every single person. If we are to grow into the likeness of God and give witness to his presence in the world, we need to act in exactly the same way. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if people followed Jesus’ advice? Far from being impractical, it is the only way to go.
Read more
Monday of Week 11 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Matthew 5:38-42
We continue Jesus’ interpretations of some commands of the Mosaic Law as he pushes that law to a higher level of understanding. The saying from the Old Testament, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is not, as it may seem to be saying, an encouragement to take revenge. It is part of what is known as the lex talionis (the principle of reciprocal justice), by which punishment for an assault was to be restricted to not more than the suffering experienced. The passage in Exodus says:
If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Ex 21:23-25)
Jesus calls for a very different kind of response. He tells us to offer the “evildoer” no resistance. He makes the famous recommendation to turn the other cheek. As well:
…if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, give your coat as well, and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.
It is unsurprising that even in Christian circles not a great deal of time is given to this text. Is it to be taken literally? Are we really to allow people to walk over us and offer no resistance at all?
I think the answer is both yes and no. For many in our modern world, turning the other cheek seems the ultimate in ‘wimpishness’ and cowardice. Turning the other cheek is certainly not the way of countless ‘heroes’ in our movies and on our TV screens.
But Jesus did. During his trial before the Sanhedrin:
…they spat in his face and struck him, and some slapped him, saying, “Prophesy to us, you Messiah! Who is it that struck you?” (Matt 26:67-68)
And Jesus’ response was silence. This was turning the other cheek. Was this weakness or was it strength? Which is easier to do under great provocation: to practise self-restraint and keep one’s dignity or to lash out in retaliation? By lashing out, one comes down to the same level as one’s attackers (of course, this is quite different from self-defence.)
In another account of Jesus’ trial, after having given an answer to a question:
…one of the police standing nearby struck Jesus on the face, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?”
(John 18:22-23)
Jesus replied:
If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?
Here Jesus does respond to the attack but on a totally different level. The physical and unreasonable attack on an unarmed person is actively responded to on the basis of reason and non-violence. Jesus is not a victim here; rather, he is in control. And this is true of the whole experience of the Passion. His executioners behave in the most barbaric way, but Jesus never loses his calm and dignity right up through the very end. And that is why we worship him as our Lord and Master. He asks us to follow in his footsteps.
Revenge, in all its various forms, is the easier way, the more instinctive way, but it is not the better way. The way of ‘intentional’ non-violence (i.e. not passive) is, in the long run, far more productive, far more in keeping with human ideals and human dignity. We have more than enough evidence in our world of the bankruptcy of a never-ending cycle of violence and counter-violence. We see it all over. Yet violence does not pay and revenge is not sweet.
Turning the other cheek is not at all a sign of weakness. It requires great inner strength, self-respect and even respect for the dignity of one’s attacker. Jesus is calling us a long way forward and upward from “an eye for an eye”.
Read more
Corpus Christi – The Body and Blood of Christ (Also Year A)
Commentary on Deuteronomy 8:2-3,14-16; 1 Corinthians 10:16-17; John 6:51-52
(more…)
Saturday of Week 11 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on 2 Chronicles 24:17-25
About this passage, the Vatican II Missal says:
“We turn today to Second Chronicles for a further unhappy episode in the history of Judah. The zealous high priest Zechariah, son of the same Jehoiada who had saved King Joash, is murdered in the Temple area. Jesus referred to this sad story (see Matt 23:31).”
Our reading is taken from the Second Book of Chronicles, but chronologically, it follows on the events of yesterday’s reading where we saw the young Joash, who had been rescued from certain death at the hands of his murderous grandmother, Athalia, and made king through the instrumentation of Jehoiada, the high priest. Sadly however, as happens so often in these accounts, treachery again takes over.
When Jehoiada died, officials began to work on King Joash, who listened to what they had to say. As a result, the people of Judah began to abandon worship in the Temple and turned to various forms of idolatry. For this reason, “wrath [God’s anger] came upon Judah and Jerusalem”—the southern kingdom and its capital. The Hebrew word for ‘abandon’ or ‘forsake’ is repeated three times in the passage, indicating the reason for the divine punishment which follows. There are many similar examples in other parts of the Old Testament.
When prophets were sent to bring them back to their senses and to God’s ways, the people refused to listen. Their rejection of these prophets was a rejection of Yahweh himself, thus sowing the seeds of the destruction to follow.
Then Zechariah, the son of the former high priest Jehoiada, was inspired to call the people back to the worship of Yahweh. He told them:
Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has also forsaken you.
But instead of listening to his appeals, they plotted against him and, at the orders of the king, stoned him to death right there in the Lord’s Temple—causing a terrible sacrilege to take place.
The blame is laid fairly and squarely on King Joash. It was an extraordinary act of ingratitude to the son of the man who had rescued the king as a young child from the same fate. As he died, Zechariah cried out:
May the Lord see and avenge!
The cry is a contrast to the words of Jesus on the cross and of Stephen before his martyrdom. In the Old Testament, justice is often achieved through vengeance, and violence met with violence. In the New Testament, violence is not the Way.
This cruel death is referred to indirectly by Jesus when, speaking to the Pharisees, he says:
Thus you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets.
(Matt 23:31)
The retribution was not long in coming. A year later an army of Aramaeans attacked King Joash and executed his officials, perhaps those very ones who had led him and the people astray to the worship of idols.
Although the Aramaean forces were not large in number, they were, by God’s power, able to overcome the much larger army of Joash and the Judeans, defeated for deserting their God. Just as God had helped the small army of Judah against overwhelming odds when the king and people were faithful to him (2 Chron 14:8-9; 2 Chron 20:2,12), so now in their unfaithfulness they are defeated by a much smaller force of invaders.
Joash was treated, in the thinking of the time, as his royal status deserved, but they left him a very sick man. Finally, his own officers, the ones perhaps who had helped Jehoiada engineer the coup against Athalia, moved to avenge the death of the high priest’s son Zechariah, and murdered the king in his bed. He was buried in the citadel of David, but not in the tombs of the kings.
Once again, sin does not pay.
Read more
Friday of Week 11 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on 2 Kings 11:1-4,9-18,20
As stated in the Vatican II Missal:
“We read one of the most shameful episodes in the history of Judah. Around 837 BC the wicked queen mother Athaliah seized power. The high priest Jehoiada led a revolution, put the young Davidic King Joash on the throne and renewed the covenant with God.”
If we thought Queen Jezebel was bad, we are hardly ready to read about Queen Athalia. She was a daughter of King Ahab, but Jezebel was probably not her mother. Her influence on King Jehoram, her late husband, paralleled that of Jezebel on King Ahab.
When her son, King Ahaziah died at the young age of 22, she immediately moved to have all his children, that is, her grandchildren done away with so as to secure the throne of Judah (the southern kingdom) for herself. The royal family had already been reduced to a mere remnant. Jehoram, her late husband and the father of Ahaziah, had already killed all his brothers when he succeeded his father Jehoshaphat on the throne. King Jehu had slain another 42 members of the royal house of Judah, perhaps including many of the sons of Jehoram’s brothers. To top it all, the brothers of Ahaziah had been killed by raiding Arabs.
In the eyes of the author, this attempt to completely destroy the house of David was an attack on God’s redemptive plan—a plan that centred on the Messiah, which the Davidic covenant had promised and which depended on the continuation of the Davidic line to become a reality.
However, as we are told today, a sister of King Ahaziah managed to save one of the princes, Joash, and hid him first in the servants’ sleeping quarters together with his nurse. This would indicate that the child was not more than a year old and not yet weaned. There he remained in hiding while Athalia took over as ruler of the kingdom. This woman, Jehosheba, was the wife of Jehoiada the high priest, who will soon appear in the story, and it explains how she was able to keep Joash hidden in the Temple for six years.
Not surprisingly, Athalia in time became the object of a palace coup organised by the high priest Jehoiada. It happened in the seventh year of her rule. He made a pact with the captains of the mercenary soldiers who served as the palace guard. The Carians were mercenary soldiers from Caria in southwest Asia Minor who served as royal bodyguards. After both those on and off duty had sworn their commitment, they are secretly shown the young prince. They are then given detailed instructions on how to protect him.
They got together their men and were given weapons which David had captured in a former battle. David had probably taken the spears and gold shields as plunder in his battle with Hadadezer and then dedicated them to the Lord (see 2 Sam 8:7-11). This would explain why there were weapons in the Temple. They then surrounded the altar and the Temple. Joash, the king’ son, was brought out, anointed as king by Jehoiada and given some of the royal insignia. He was then acclaimed by the people gathered in the Temple for the Sabbath. “Long live the king!” they cried. This was clearly an act of rebellion and a coup d’etat.
Athalia discovered the rebellion too late. She saw the new king “standing by the pillar”. This was apparently one of the two bronze pillars of the portico of the Temple. With him were “all the people of the land”. It is likely that Jehoiada had chosen to stage his coup on a Sabbath during one of the major religious festivals, when many from the kingdom who were loyal to the Lord would be in Jerusalem. Athalia tore her garments and cried “Treason! Treason!”
Jehoiada then gave orders for her arrest. Any of her supporters were to be killed and she was not to be executed within the sacred confines of the Temple. As was the custom, she was put to death outside the city confines, near the ‘horse gate’ of the royal palace.
Jehoiada then had a double covenant made between the Lord and his people and between the new king and the people. It was a renewal of the Mosaic covenant declaring that Israel was Yahweh’s people and the king his vicegerent. The years of apostasy, involving both the royal house and the people of Judah, necessitated a renewal of allegiance to the Lord at the time of an important new beginning for the southern kingdom.
Finally, the temple to Baal, its altars and images were smashed and Mattan, the priest of Baal, was put to death. All the “people of the land”, that is, the country people, supported the return to the traditions of David and Yahweh. The city was forced to accept the situation. Finally, right order had been restored between God and his people.
Read more
Thursday of Week 11 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on Sirach 48:1-15
About this passage, the Vatican II Missal states:
“Having read in the Book of Kings the story of the great Elijah, we now read Sirach’s poetic description and praise of this prophet.”
It is quite normal in our liturgical readings that, after we have been hearing about one of the great personalities of the Old Testament, there is a final encomium taken from the Book of Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus). We had a similar reading after hearing about David’s life. These testimonies are taken from a part of the book called “Praises of the Fathers”. The book is listed among the so-called ‘apochryphal’ books which are not part of the recognised canon in either the Hebrew or Christian Scriptures of other denominations.
The author of Sirach here recalls the great exploits of Elijah, including his triumph over the priests of Baal and his bringing down fire from heaven when the Lord burnt up the sacrifice of Elijah, but not that of the priests of Baal. He was also instrumental in the breaking of a long drought; he raised a dead child to life; and he brought about the destruction of kings (Ahab).
About Elijah, the passage states:
[You] heard rebuke at Sinai
and judgments of vengeance at Horeb…
This seems to refer to the time when Elijah went to the mountain at Horeb and learned that God was not in violence, but in the gentle breeze (“sheer silence” in the NRSVue translation). This seemed to be a reproof from Yahweh that violent action was not the way Elijah’s enemies were to be dealt with.
Finally, he anointed kings who would do the Lord’s work, appointed Elisha as his successor and at the end was taken up to Yahweh in a fiery chariot, the transport of kings.
There is then a subtle reference to his future coming, heralding the arrival of the Messiah:
[You] who were prepared at the appointed time
to calm wrath before it breaks out in fury,
to turn the hearts of parents to their children
and to restore the tribes of Jacob.
The coming of the Messiah will see the inauguration of peace (“My peace I give you…” John 14:27). It will be a time of reconciliation and it will see the inauguration of a new family embracing not just the tribes of Jacob, but the peoples of the whole world.
And yes, says the author in a beautiful turn of phrase:
Happy are those who saw you
and were adorned in love!
For we also shall surely live.
Here there are intimations of immortality. And for those who “were adorned in love”, the word “love” surely means the love of God. However, the Hebrew text is unclear and the sentence may apply to Elisha, whose praises immediately follow.
Elisha was filled with the spirit of Elijah. He wrought many marvels and nothing was beyond his power—even:
…in death his deeds were marvelous…
This refers to a strange event in the Second Book of Kings which took place after Elisha’s death. Just as a dead man was going to be buried, a raiding party was seen, so the mourners threw the dead body into the grave where Elisha was buried and fled. But as soon as the man’s body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up (2 Kgs 13:20-21).
Shakespeare has one of his characters say rather cynically that “the evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones”. Unfortunately that is often the case, but as Christians we might make a special point of remembering the good things that people did in their lifetime, as this reading does.
Read more
Wednesday of Week 11 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on 2 Kings 2:1,6-14
Today we move on to the Second Book of Kings and we continue where we left off with the First Book. The division into two books is artificial and no such division is found in the earliest Hebrew bibles. The passage we are reading today acts as an introduction to the story of the prophet Elisha. Today we bring the story of Elijah to a conclusion and see Elisha taking over as his successor.
As Elijah is about to leave to go to the Jordan in obedience to the Lord’s call, he tells Elisha to remain behind. Whether this was said to test Elisha is not clear, but Elisha renewed his commitment as a disciple of Elijah and insisted on following him.
They are followed by fifty fellow-prophets who will be witnesses to what is about to happen by the banks of the Jordan, which the two prophets have now reached. Elijah then takes his cloak, rolls it up and strikes the waters of the river. As with Moses long ago crossing the Red Sea, the water of the river divides to right and left and the two prophets walk across on dry ground.
It is then that Elijah, about to go away, invites Elisha to make a final request. The younger prophet boldly asks to be given a double share of Elijah’s spirit. Elisha was not expressing a desire for a ministry twice as great as Elijah’s, but he was using terms derived from inheritance law to express his desire for a full sharing in Elijah’s ministry. In Jewish society it was normal for the elder son to inherit a double share of his father’s property. So, in making his request, Elisha is asking to be regarded as the genuine heir to Elijah’s prophetic powers and spirit.
Elijah replies that it is a difficult request to honour, for ultimately the giving of such a gift lies with God and not with Elijah. But he promises that there will be a sign given by which Elisha will know whether his request has been granted. And that will be the Lord’s doing and not Elijah’s. God indicates that the request is granted by allowing Elisha to see what is hidden from other human eyes, namely, Elijah’s being taken up to heaven.
All of a sudden, a chariot of fire with two fiery horses came between the two men and Elijah was taken up in a whirlwind. Elisha alone could see this—a sure sign that his request had been granted. By riding the chariot, a symbol of Israel’s strength, it is clear that Elijah, and not the king, is the Lord’s true representative among his people. And Elijah, like Enoch before him (Gen 5:24), was taken up to heaven bodily without experiencing death; like Moses (Deut 34:4-6), he was taken away outside the promised land.
It was generally believed by later generations that Elijah would return to die the natural death that is the fate of all. And his return was expected to herald the imminent coming of the Messiah. In the Gospels, John the Baptist is seen to fill that role.
Elisha then tore his own clothes in half, perhaps in grief at the loss of his master and perhaps as signifying the end of his former life. He picked up the cloak of Elijah which had fallen off as Elijah was carried away in the chariot, thereby symbolically taking on Elijah’s ministry and mission.
Once again Elisha went back to the River Jordan’s bank. As he had seen Elijah do earlier, he struck the water with Elijah’s cloak while he prayed:
Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah? Where is he?
When he struck the water, it divided to right and left and Elisha crossed over. The power was not in Elisha or in the cloak, but only in the Lord God, of whom the prophet is an agent, but it was also a clear indication that the prophet’s role and powers had been passed on to Elisha.
In crossing the Jordan as Joshua had before him, Elisha is shown to be Elijah’s ‘Joshua’ (Elisha and Joshua are very similar names, Elisha meaning “God saves” and Joshua, “The Lord saves”). Elisha would play the role of Joshua (who led the Israelites into the promised land) as Elijah played the role of Moses (who did not get to cross the Jordan).
In this story we can see:
- the loyalty of Elisha’s discipleship,
- his being called by God to carry on the mission of Elijah,
- his becoming, like Elijah, the instrument of God for his people.
In some way, this applies to each one of us in our relationship with Jesus.
Read more
Tuesday of Week 11 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on 1 Kings 21:17-29
Our reading today follows immediately on yesterday’s passage. We see Ahab now pay the price for the murder of Naboth.
Ahab has just been told by his wife that Naboth is now dead, so he immediately goes down to the vineyard he coveted so much to take it over. But just then Elijah is receiving instructions from the Lord to go and confront the king in the vineyard. He is given a strong message to pass on to Ahab:
Thus says the Lord: Have you killed and also taken possession? You shall say to him: Thus says the Lord: In the place where dogs licked up the blood of Naboth, dogs will also lick up your blood.
Ahab had not directly killed Naboth, but he had cooperated fully in the murder and theft planned by his wife, and as king, the ultimate responsibility was with him.
In fact, Ahab’s repentance for his actions, which will be mentioned in a moment, brought about a postponement of this prophecy. Instead, it will be the body of his son Joram which will be thrown on the field of Naboth.
More than that, Ahab is told that all his male descendants, free or slave, will be wiped out. Their bodies will either be eaten by dogs or by carrion-eating birds. The body of Jezebel, too, will be eaten by dogs. Elijah is told by God:
Anyone belonging to Ahab who dies in the city the dogs shall eat, and anyone of his who dies in the open country the birds of the air shall eat.
These were terrible indignities as dogs were symbolical of all that was unclean and defiled. We remember the poor man Lazarus in the house of the rich man. The level of Lazarus’ helpless destitution was indicated by dogs coming to lick his sores. He did not even have the strength to drive them away; meanwhile the rich man sat there doing nothing.
As Elijah pronounces God’s sentence, note the similarity with the episode of Nathan and David (where David is accused of the death of Uriah after his adultery with Bathsheba). On each occasion Yahweh defends the helpless against the powerful and, as in the case of David, there is the same reprieve for the repentant offender who is punished only through his son. But there are differences, too. David’s dynasty retains the divine promise, whereas Ahab’s is “consumed”. Nathan remains David’s prophet and blesses Solomon, but Elijah is Ahab’s “enemy”.
In addition to this murder, we are told that Ahab was responsible for all kinds of abominations, connected with the idolatrous practices of the Canaanites, under the pernicious influence of his wife. He became no different from the Amorites, a reference to the idolatrous peoples of Canaan before the Israelites arrived.
To his credit, after hearing the condemnation of Elijah, Ahab deeply repents of what he has done. He rends his garments, puts on sackcloth and walks in the slow steps of the repentant person.
Because of this, the punishments against his family would be postponed until after he died. He was, in fact, killed in battle at Ramoth Gilead and, after his body was brought to Samaria, dogs licked the blood that was being washed from his chariot. His son Joram was killed and the body thrown into Naboth’s field—just as Elijah had foretold.
Reflecting on this story we can say two things. First, our wrongdoings carry with them unavoidable punishments, built into the very nature of evil actions. And second, no matter how serious our faults, God’s compassion and forgiveness awaits those who genuinely repent and change their ways.
Read more
Monday of Week 11 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on 1 Kings 21:1-16
Today we have the story of Naboth’s vineyard—an example of corrupt and shameless use of power. The main characters are King Ahab and his Sidonian wife, Jezebel. We have seen both of them before and the general impression is that Ahab is weak, while his wife is corrupt and ruthless. It was she who introduced the worship of Baal into Israel and had wanted to avenge the execution of the Baal priests by killing Elijah.
The story begins on a reasonable enough note. King Ahab asks Naboth to exchange his vineyard which adjoins the king’s property for another one or, alternatively, to be given its value in money. This property was in Jezreel, where Ahab had a second palace, in addition to his main one in Samaria.
In spite of his position, the king could not confiscate land. The king’s power in Israel was limited by the Law, so Ahab was unable simply to take over privately held land (as was customary with Canaanite kings, not to mention some kings and governments in our own time!).
Naboth, however, refused because the ownership of the land was a sacred tradition handed down through generations. Naboth’s refusal to dispose of his land was based on the conviction that the land belonged to the Lord and that a perpetual lease had been given to each Israelite family. This was to be jealously preserved as the family’s permanent inheritance in the promised land. (One of the central issues in the ongoing strife between Israelis and Palestinians today is precisely who has prior right to the ownership of the land, especially where outsiders had come in and taken it over.)
Ahab, like many people of power when they do not get their way, went into a sullen depression and refused even to eat. In some ways, of course, his behaviour arose out of his respect—or his fear—of the Law which he did not want to violate.
His wife, Jezebel, however, saw things differently. As a Canaanite, she was not used to seeing kingly power challenged and she satirically mocked her husband’s weakness. “Do you now govern Israel?”—a sarcastic remark of incredulity spoken by one accustomed to the dictatorial practices of Phoenician and Canaanite kings, who would not hesitate a moment to use their power to satisfy personal interests—something we see all too often even in our time. She tells him:
Get up, eat some food, and be cheerful; I will give you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.
Writing in the king’s name, she shamelessly sent off letters to the aristocracy and the leaders of the people ordering them to proclaim a fast (as if there had been a national calamity) and to put Naboth on trial (as its cause), accusing him of cursing God and the king, both charges carrying the punishment of death by stoning. In effect, the leaders of the community become collaborators in the crime; they could very well have known or suspected the real circumstances.
In addition, they were told to produce two witnesses (as required by law) to make the charges stick where a capital offence was involved. These “scoundrels” were to give false testimony in order to give a veneer of legality to the proceedings. Naboth was to be accused of cursing both God and king, for which the mandatory sentence was stoning. It seems also that the possessions of those condemned to death went to the king—the main purpose of the whole charade.
It is possible that there may, in fact, have been some form of calamity at the time, such as a drought or famine, which gave Jezebel the excuse to get rid of Naboth. She wanted to create the impression that a disaster threatened the people, a disaster which would only be averted if they would humble themselves before the Lord and remove any person whose sin had brought God’s judgement on them.
Everything was done to the letter as Jezebel, in the name of the king, had ordered. The two witnesses gave their false testimony and Naboth was stoned outside Jezreel, as the law required (recall that Jesus, too, was brought outside the city for his execution). From references in the Second Book of Kings, it seems that Naboth was actually stoned on his own land and his sons were stoned with him. This eliminated the heirs who might make claim to the land, thus leaving it for the king to take over.
With the vineyard now ownerless, Jezebel told her husband, as king, to exercise his right and take it over for himself. The reading ends with Ahab going down to Naboth’s vineyard to take it over but, as we shall see in tomorrow’s reading, there is an unpleasant surprise in store for him.
This story has overtones of the trial and death of Jesus much later on. Jesus himself, in a parable, will tell of tenants who will take over a vineyard and kill the son of the owner. Jesus, too, will be accused of cursing God and the Roman emperor and will be executed—not by stoning, but by death on a cross. In his case, too, scoundrels will be brought forward to make charges of blasphemy against God and sacrilege against the Temple. And like Naboth, the execution will take place outside the city.
We need to be constantly on our guard that people are not falsely accused even if it is ‘only’ a matter of gossip, but even more so if it is a serious matter. And we might ask to what lengths we would be prepared to go simply to have something we want but do not need.
We too live in a world where there is a great deal of scapegoating (the ‘blame culture’) and corrupt justice at many levels of public and private life. Let us not be part of it in any way.
Read more