11 January – Gospel
Commentary on Luke 5:12-16
Leprosy was one of the most feared diseases of the ancient world. It was known to be contagious, which made the leper a very dangerous person. As a result, the leper was a social outcast, feared and rejected by all. The leper had always to warn people around of his or her presence and had to keep a clear distance away from others. What was particularly tragic is that sometimes the person might not have been suffering from leprosy at all, but from some other skin disease which was, in fact, not contagious.
In today’s Gospel we find a leper approaching Jesus, falling prostrate before him. His request is full of faith and trust in the power of Jesus:
Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.
Obviously he had heard stories of Jesus’ many healings, some of which are recounted by Luke in this part of his Gospel. Jesus responds immediately, reaching out and touching the man, saying:
I am willing. Be made clean.
The man was healed immediately.
The touching is very significant. No ordinary person would dare to touch a leper. But think of the inner healing that must have resulted from the touch, that moment of physical contact. Touch is something we all need and are so often deprived of. We, too, are in need of healing, including the healing that comes from touch. Let us put our trust in Jesus that he can also bring us healing.
Jesus then gives him two commands. First, he is not to go around telling people about what happened to him. This story follows Mark’s version very closely. In Mark, Jesus often demands the concealing of his true identity. At this stage, he does not want people to identify him with the Messiah because of the preconceived ideas which most people had—ideas very different from the kind of Messiah that Jesus is. This will not become fully clear until his passion, death and resurrection.
Second, the healed leper is told to go to the priests and make the prescribed offering of thanksgiving for his healing. This was also, one presumes, a time for him to be officially declared as free of the disease. He could now freely re-enter society. The healing of someone like a leper went far beyond the mere physical healing. It was a total re-integration of his life, a real re-making of the whole person.
We should well ask, who are the lepers in our own day? Of course, there are still many parts of the world where leprosy has not been eradicated. But in every society there are people who are treated as lepers, people that no one wants to mix with, and people who are ostracised or marginalised for one reason or another. There are the victims of contagious diseases (especially those sexually transmitted) with whom people are afraid to have contact. There are the homeless people we walk past in the street every day and try not to notice. There are the victims of addictions—to drugs legal and illegal and alcohol. There are people who are excluded on the basis of race or religion, or because they have mental or physical disabilities. We might also look at those who are effectively treated as lepers in our own family, our place of work or our social gatherings.
There is no place in our society, still less in our church, for lepers of any kind. The world of Jesus is a totally inclusive one.
Read more
Friday of Week 2 of Lent – Gospel
Commentary on Matthew 21:33-43,45-46
Today’s Gospel is a parable spoken to the unbelieving chief priests and elders of the people. It is the history of the Israelite people told in parable form. In fact, it is more of an allegory than a parable, as each of the persons and incidents described point to real people and real events. Some scholars think that what we have here is really an early Church document, rather than something directly from Jesus. What may be more likely is that a parable spoken by Jesus has been modified in the light of later events.
The owner of the vineyard is clearly God. The vineyard is the house of Israel, where God’s people are to be found. The tenants of the vineyard are the people of God.
Servants sent to collect the harvest are abused in various ways—beaten, killed or stoned. The servants represent the prophets and other spokespersons sent by God to his people, many of whom were rejected, not listened to and even abused.
Finally, the owner decides to send his son, saying:
They will respect my son.
On the contrary, the tenants rationalized that, if they got rid of the son, they could take over the whole vineyard for themselves. They could carry on without the owner.
So they seized the son, threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. This is a clear reference to Jesus’ being crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem.
And what will the king do then? Jesus asks. The leaders condemn themselves by answering the question: “He will put those wretches to a miserable death”—just as happened when the city of Jerusalem was totally destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.
Instead, the vineyard is let out to new tenants—those Jews and Gentiles, the new people of God, who believe in Jesus as Lord and Saviour. The stone rejected by the builders becomes the cornerstone. Jesus says:
Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces its fruits.
This is one of only two instances where Matthew uses the term ‘Kingdom of God’ rather than ‘Kingdom of Heaven’. The Gentiles had for long been rejected as unbelievers and outsiders. Now, it is on them, together with those Jews who accepted Jesus, that the Kingdom will be built.
The Gospel ends by commenting that the unbelieving priests and elders understood his message perfectly, but because of Jesus’ popularity with the people, they could do nothing in retaliation for the moment.
Again and again it has happened in world history that fighters for truth and justice have been rejected, jailed and tortured, but eventually found themselves the saviours of their people. Let us make sure that we are listening to the right people—the people who have the message of truth, love and justice—and that we follow them. Jesus, our Saviour, still speaks through his followers.
Read more
Wednesday of Week 9 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on Tobit 3:1-11, 16-17
Today’s reading follows immediately on yesterday’s where we saw the good Tobit, now blind, being taunted by his wife as being something of a pious hypocrite. We are given pictures of two people in deep distress, people who feel that life is no longer worth living.
The first of these is Tobit. In response to his wife’s indignant outburst, which he seems to have felt was not altogether wide of the mark and feeling sorry for himself over his blindness, Tobit breaks into a long lament.
He acknowledges God’s truth and justice.
All your ways are mercy and truth; you judge the world.
Like Job, in spite of his distress, he never utters a word of complaint against God himself.
He pleads with God to look compassionately on him and not to punish him for his wrongdoings, including those he is not aware of. Though Tobit is a good, observant Jew, he is not without sin. At the same time, he cannot, in his position of exile, make the necessary sacrifices to atone for them.
He pleads forgiveness too for the sins of those ancestors who disobeyed the Lord’s commandments. It is no wonder that his people have suffered so much from being plundered, sent into exile and death, and become a byword of mockery among the nations. To some extent he sees himself as liable for those sins too and they are partly the source of his present troubles.
For we have sinned against you and broken your commandments; and you have given us over to be plundered, to captivity and death, to be the talk, the laughing-stock and scorn of all the nations among you have dispersed us.
Finally, he puts himself fully into God’s hands and asks that his life on earth be terminated.
Deliver me from this affliction. Let me go away to my everlasting home…
His words are similar to those of Jonah who wanted to die because God would not destroy the pagan people of Niniveh. Moses, too, prayed for death (Num 11:15) as did Elijah and Job. The “everlasting home” was Sheol, the dismal abode of the dead from which there was no return.
It is better to die than still to live in the face of trouble that knows no pity. I am weary of hearing myself traduced.
He seeks to become again the dust from which he originally came, and to find a release from the undeserved insults of his wife. God, however, has other plans as we shall see.
At this point we move, with no apparent reason, to a completely different setting. Here we are introduced to Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, who lived in Media at Ecbatana.
She had become the object of taunts from one of her maidservants as she had been married to no less than seven different men in succession. But each one of them had died before they had had an opportunity to have intercourse together as man and wife (see a similar yet very different situation in today’s Gospel reading). This curse was understood to be the work of Asmodeus, “the worst of demons”.
The meaning of the name Asmodeus is uncertain but it probably means ‘the destroyer’. The name appears in the Testament of Solomon (where he also is the enemy of the marriage act) and in post-biblical Judaism; some think Asmodeus may be related to Aesma, a demon of the Parsees in northern India. The demon love, a common motif in ancient folklore, also appears in 1 Enoch 6-11. Here, the demon who cannot satisfy his lust kills his rival each time before the marriage is consummated, thus leaving Sarah without the possibility of offspring and making her the object of great reproach.
Even a maidservant could accuse Sarah of being the cause of her husbands’ deaths. She was a disgrace and an embarrassment to every other woman, whose primary obligation was to provide sons for her husband.
Deeply distressed, Sarah went to her father’s room with the intention of committing suicide by hanging herself. Unfair reproach leads Sarah, like Tobit, to wish and pray for death.
But then, she had second thoughts. If she hanged herself in her father’s room, the blame could fall on him. In addition, how could she cause such grief to an elderly father who loved his only daughter so much? Her death could hasten his own death.
Her rejection of suicide indicates a concern for her family which is lacking in Tobit.
Instead of hanging herself, she wanted God to allow her to die in some other way and not have to bear any more terrible insults from those around her. Like Tobit, she then recites a prayer to God which is not included in our reading.
Once again, God has his own plans, and the two previously unconnected victims are brought together in the unexpected way described in the last verse of the reading.
There are a number of issues for us to reflect on. In a time when assisted suicide and euthanasia are widely discussed, we need to sympathise with and try to understand the feelings of those for whom the burden of living has become too great. This is especially the case in our own times when people tend to live much longer (or are kept living much longer) and become the victims of debilitating old age. We also have the tragic situation where so many young people can see no future for themselves and, feeling they have no one to turn to, put an end to their lives.
In both the cases of today’s reading, we see Tobit, an older man, and Sarah, the young woman, begging God to let them leave this life. Yet, in very unexpected ways, help comes. Let us make sure that people we know in such a situation can find the help they need. For the terminally ill, it is to be able to die with dignity and peace and surrounded by love and care. For the young, it is to know that there are always alternatives, and that there are people who can understand, who will not judge, and who want to help.
We also see in the story the secondary role of the woman as the means by which her husband can produce an heir, preferably male. This is an attitude which has not completely disappeared even in so-called enlightened societies, but which needs to be challenged.
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
Thursday of Week 27 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Luke 11:5-13
Jesus continues his instructions to his disciples about prayer. Today the lesson is one of perseverance.
Jesus gives the parable of a man coming to a neighbour in the middle of the night looking for some food to provide hospitality to an unexpected visitor. The neighbour is not willing to get up and disturb his wife and children who are sleeping with him (which would be very common in a one-room house). But says Jesus, if the man persists, the neighbour, simply to get some peace, will eventually get up and give the man all he needs. If a grumpy neighbour will listen to an inconvenient request, how much more will a loving God pay heed to the needs of his children?
In another example, Jesus asks if a father would give his child a snake instead of a fish, or a scorpion instead of an egg. If even a very ordinary father would not think of treating his children so callously:
If you, then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!
Of course, a very pertinent question comes to mind: if God is such a loving and caring parent who will only give good things to us, why do we have to persist in asking? Why do we have to ask at all? The reason is not because God needs persuading (like the sleepy neighbour). Persistence in prayer is for our benefit.
There are a number of ways of praying persistently. One is to keep begging God to give us something we want or that we think we need. Another is to think that somehow we can manipulate God or put him under some kind of obligation by asking him repeatedly. So, if I do a nine-day novena and say certain prayers each day, I may expect that God or some saint somehow is under an obligation to give me what I am asking for. In some kinds of novenas or other devotional exercises, there are people who would tell us that “satisfaction is guaranteed”. This, in fact, is very close to superstition—if not heresy.
The kind of prayer that Jesus is talking about is really something quite different. He seems to presume that what we are asking for is the gift of God’s Spirit:
…how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!
Is that what we normally ask for? To ask for the Spirit is to ask to have the same Spirit that inspired Jesus in his life and work. It is a Spirit which is totally at one with the will of the Father. In the parallel text in Matthew (7:11), it is “good gifts” which the Father will give. What could be more of a “good” thing than the very Spirit of God?
The other types of asking can be a subtle way of asking God to do our will, instead of submitting our will to God as Jesus does:
Father…not my will but yours be done. (Luke 22:42)
Whatever form our prayer takes, ultimately it must be to be like Jesus, so that we may grow in the likeness of the Father:
To know him more clearly, love him more dearly, follow him more nearly.
One way of moving in this direction is to make this the constant theme of our prayer. The more we pray for this, the more likely it will become a reality in our lives. And it is inconceivable that God should refuse to hear this prayer.
Read more
Tuesday of Week 30 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Luke 13:18-21
At this point Luke inserts two short parables about the Kingdom of God which Jesus is inaugurating. Let us remind ourselves briefly what we mean by the ‘Kingdom of God’. The Greek word for ‘kingdom’ is basileia, which is more accurately translated ‘kingship’ or ‘reign’. So it is a network of relationships, rather than a place, that we are talking about. The basileia of God occurs wherever people are submitting themselves to that loving power of God in their lives and in their mutual relationships, working together to bring God’s love and justice to the world.
Jesus is the symbol, the very embodiment, of the Kingdom as, through him, God’s loving power breaks into people’s lives. And, insofar as they accept him and his message, the Kingdom is being realised. In the Lord’s Prayer, we ask God that the whole world may, in this sense, come under the reign of God when we say:
…your Kingdom come; your will be done on earth as in heaven.
So today, Jesus gives two parables or images of the Kingdom. First, he compares it to a mustard seed which a man planted in his garden. The tiny seed eventually grew into a bush, large enough that birds were able to make their nests in it.
When these words were written, the Church, the agent of Jesus’ mission, was still tiny, but it had already begun to grow considerably from its beginnings with a handful of Jesus’ disciples. There is an air of hope and confidence that it will continue to grow in spite of the persecutions and setbacks it is facing and will continue to face. How amazed would those Christians be to know that the seed has since grown, not into a shrub, but into a huge tree!
In our own time, we need to keep fresh the hope and confidence of this parable. In so far as we are dedicated to truth and love, we have nothing to fear; ultimately they will and must prevail.
The second parable compares the reign of God to a small measure of yeast that a woman kneads into a batch of dough as she makes bread. In time, under the influence of the small amount of yeast, the whole batch will begin to swell and rise. In Scripture, yeast, because it is a fermenting agent, usually symbolises what is evil and corrupt, but here the emphasis is on the goodness of its growth effect.
This is an image of how the reign of God spreads through the world. It does so by being totally inserted into that world. Externally it is not seen, but its influence is felt everywhere, bringing about gradual change. As Christians, we are called to be agents (though not the only agents) of the Kingdom. We can only do this by ourselves being fully inserted in our societies, not by separating ourselves from them.* At the same time, we must keep our distinctively Christian vision just as the yeast, though invisible, remains distinct from the dough it is transforming.
If this looks like infiltration, it is! But not all infiltration is bad, not if it is driven by God’s truth, goodness and beauty. Such infiltration does not undermine but builds up and transforms.
___________________________________
*Notwithstanding this, there are cloistered and contemplative communities who, while physically separated from the ‘world’, devote their time and energy to pray for our world.
The Epiphany of the Lord – Alternate Commentary
Commentary on Isaiah 60:1-6; Ephesians 3:2-3a,5-6; Matthew 2:1-12 (more…)
Read more
8 January – Gospel
Commentary on Mark 6:34-44
Just before today’s passage begins we are told that the Twelve had just returned from the mission on which Jesus had sent them. He suggested that they all go to a secluded spot where they could rest. So they set off there in one of their boats. (In spite of what we are told in Mark 1:18 and 20 about their leaving their boats to follow Jesus, we still see them in use.) However, the crowds spotted them and large numbers ran along the shore. As such, by the time Jesus and his companions had reached their destination, they were faced with a huge crowd. Perhaps the disciples were very disappointed to see their day of rest so badly disrupted. Jesus, on the other hand, was filled with compassion as he looked over the crowd. He saw them as people lost and confused; they were like sheep without a shepherd. Jesus, of course, is their Shepherd. He began by teaching them many things, helping to bring clarity and understanding into their scattered lives.
As evening began to draw in, the disciples approached Jesus and urged him to let the people go to the surrounding villages and towns where they could get something to eat. Did they say this because they really felt for the people’s needs or because they wanted to be left alone? Jesus replied by telling his disciples:
You give them something to eat.
His disciples remonstrated:
Are we to go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread and give it to them to eat?
It would require a large amount of money to give everyone even a little to eat.
Then Jesus told them:
How many loaves have you? Go and see.
They found that there were just five loaves and two fish—for Jesus that was enough. The people were told to sit down in rows on the green grass. The scene recalls Psalm 23:
The Lord is my shepherd
[Jesus saw the crowd as sheep without a shepherd];
I shall not want.
He makes me lie down in green pastures…
[the people sat in rows on the green grass];
You prepare a table before me…
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
all the days of my life…
The scene is also reminiscent of the Israelites encamped in groups in the desert (Exod 19:1-2) and the prophets speaking about the transformation of the desert into pastures where the true shepherd feeds his flock (see Is 35).
After the crowd was seated, Jesus:
Taking the five loaves and the two fish…looked up to heaven [to his Father] and blessed and broke the loaves and gave them to his disciples to set before the people, and he divided the two fish among them all. And all ate and were filled, and they took up twelve baskets full of broken pieces and of the fish. Those who had eaten the loaves numbered five thousand men.
The whole passage has strong Eucharistic overtones. There is what we would now call the Liturgy of the Word, when Jesus taught the people at length, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, when the bread was blessed, broken and distributed to the people in groups or communities. The amount left over points to the huge generosity of God in taking care of his children.
It is worth noting that Jesus does not distribute the bread and fish himself, but delegates his disciples to do this. And that is how Jesus comes into people’s lives today—through the agency of his dedicated followers.
It is also significant that the feeding of the 5,000 is the only miracle of Jesus which appears in all four Gospels. It can be understood on many levels. It looks backward to the feeding of Israel with manna in the desert during the Exodus (Ex 16). It was expected in some circles that this would be repeated in the messianic age—as in fact happens here. It may also point to the prophet Elisha’s feeding 100 men with just 20 loaves of bread, an action met with the same scepticism as the disciples showed, but in this case too, there was some left over (2 Kgs 4:42-44).
Altogether in the Gospels there are two multiplication stories in Mark and Matthew and one each in Luke and John. This is taken as an indication of the importance of eucharistic gatherings in the early Church.
But the story essentially points beyond the Eucharist to what it signifies. The breaking of the bread and its being shared out among all present is intended as a sign or symbol of the life of the Christian community, where all the resources of the community are shared and divided in such a way that no one is in need. And this way of life is also to be fostered in the wider community.
It is a story about the love of God for his people and how he takes care of them, but that love is shown in practice by his people’s passing on that love, especially to those in need. If that does not happen, then the Eucharist becomes a sign of nothing. It is simply reduced to an abstract ritual.
Read more
Monday of Week 4 of Lent – First Reading
Commentary on Isaiah 65:17-21
Isaiah speaks of a coming Utopia, a totally new world full of joy and gladness. It is a world without pain or sadness, a world of prosperity and plenty. The dream is of a restored Jerusalem after the exile, and of an even greater Messianic kingdom after that.
The reading comes from the last part of Third Isaiah, a part of the book not written by Isaiah the prophet. Chapters 65 and 66 form an apocalyptic collection, and date mainly from the period after the exile in Babylon, when a remnant of the Jews had returned to Jerusalem. (While it is not often said, many of the exiles stayed behind in Babylon because life was quite comfortable for them there.)
In the writing of the earlier prophets, messianic happiness was foreseen as a return to paradise, to the bliss of the Garden of Eden. But in apocalyptic literature, such as we have in today’s reading, there is seen rather a complete renewal of our present world. So, we have the opening words today:
For I am about to create new heavens
and a new earth.
The past will go into complete oblivion, never to be remembered again.
There will be a new Jerusalem—a completely restored Jerusalem—following the return from exile, and even more so in the Messianic kingdom to come. Later on, the Book of Revelation will link the idea of a new heaven and a new earth with the “new Jerusalem” (Rev 21:1-2).
It will be a world free of pain and sickness, no weeping or wailing, no children dying before their time and no one living less than 100 years. We are speaking, of course, in apocalyptic language, not to be taken literally. It is a dream of better and happier times to come.
It paves the way for the coming of Jesus who, in today’s Gospel, brings healing and wholeness back to a household threatened with death. Here, Jesus anticipates his later statement to Martha:
I am the Resurrection and the Life. (John 11:25)
We do not expect to live lives without pain, sickness or even tragedy, but what we can expect from our commitment to Jesus’ Way is to experience the peace which only he can give.
Read more
Thursday of Week 5 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on Genesis 2:18-25
We continue the story of the creation of Man. The Man, here clearly understood as male, is still alone on the earth with only the plant life which had been given to him in the Garden.
Now once more, from the soil of the earth, God brings into being all the animals and birds. They are brought to the Man who gives names to them all, a sign that he is responsible for them and is over them:
… and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
But the Man still needed “a helper as his partner”. The animals and birds could not fill that role. Without female companionship and a partner in reproduction, the Man could not fully realise his humanity and the command to increase and multiply.
The Man was put into a deep sleep and, as he slept, one of his ribs was removed and the gap covered with flesh. The rib, in its turn, was formed into a Woman, and God then brought her to the Man.
On seeing her the Man is delighted and bursts into song:
This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,
for out of Man this one was taken.
Note also here, there is a play on the similar-sounding Hebrew words ishsha (‘woman’) and ishah (‘her man’). The writer then reflects that:
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.
They become literally “one flesh”. Classical Hebrew has no specific word for ‘body’. The sacred writer also stresses the fact that conjugal union is willed by God. We have here a beautiful image of marriage, one that has been experienced again and again. Often, it is only when the union is broken by the death of one partner that the closeness of the union is fully realised.
As a final comment, the writer says that, though naked, they “were not ashamed”. This is a sign of their innocence. Nakedness is still a source of shame in our modern world. We are still uncomfortable with nudity.
One by-product of this discomfort is pornography, watched in darkness or read in secret. And there is the exploitation of nudity, where people are reduced to being objects of sexual desire, or reduced to objects of contempt and ridicule. Yet, artists have been constantly enthralled by the beauty of the human body in its natural state, and have created some of the most beautiful creations in painting and sculpture.
The story of the creation of Woman as ‘helpmate’ to the Man also reminds us that perhaps the most ecstatic experience of human living is when a couple, passionately bonded body to body, express their love for each other in a way that cannot be surpassed. Here, body, mind and spirit fuse in one perfect expression of union. Indeed it is not good that a man or a woman “should be alone”.
Read more