Friday of Week 2 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Mark 3:13-19
Jesus goes up a mountain. It has no name because the symbolism is more important than the location. Mountains in the Scriptures are holy places associated with the presence of God. Jesus goes up mountains at more solemn moments in his public life—here, during the Sermon on the Mount, at the Transfiguration, and after feeding the 5,000.
Jesus’ purpose on this occasion is to pick the inner circle of his followers:
[He] called to him those whom he wanted, and they came to him.
Later he will say:
You did not choose me, but I chose you. (John 15:16)
A call includes both the invitation and the response. The same is true for each one of us. The call is always there—can we say the same about our response?
There were twelve in this inner circle of disciples. In the New Covenant, they would be the ‘patriarchs’, the foundational pillars of the new community, embracing the new Israel.
They are called ‘apostles’. This is a word to be clearly distinguished from ‘disciples’. The ‘disciple’ (coming from the Latin verb discere, meaning ‘to learn’) is essentially a follower who imbibes the teaching of the teacher and tries to make it part of his or her life. However, ‘apostle’ (from the Greek verb apostello, meaning ‘to go out on a mission’—like an ambassador) is essentially one who has a mandate from the teacher to pass on to others.
In the Pauline letters, where the term appears most often in the Christian (New) Testament, ‘apostle’ means primarily one who has been a witness of the Risen Lord and has been commissioned to proclaim the resurrection. Paul himself, because of his experience at Damascus, is regarded as one of Jesus’ Apostles.
The Twelve were to be Jesus’ companions. They were to preach, that is, proclaim his message of the Kingdom, and work with him to make it a reality. They were to cast out demons and liberate people from all situations which enslaved them to any form of evil.
The list is headed—as are all lists of the Apostles—by Simon Peter. For Mark, the name Peter was given on this occasion. In Matthew, it is given later, following Peter’s confession of Jesus’ identity. In the Gospel of Mark, the list included one man who would betray (“handed him over”) his Master and Lord.
And today there are still those, called by Jesus, who betray him. What about me?
Surely not I, Lord? (Matt 20:22)
There go I but for the grace of God.
Read more
Saturday of Week 2 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Mark 3:20-21
Today we are told that Jesus “went home”. Yet, at another time Jesus will say that he has nowhere to lay his head. Of course, one can say that anywhere can be the home of Jesus, or that home is where Jesus is. We have seen references already to the ‘house’ or the ‘home’ indicating any house where Jesus is gathered with his disciples, with those who listen attentively to what he says.
At the same time, so many people came looking for him that he did not even have time to eat. This is in strong contrast with what is going to follow. One might think such popularity would be welcomed especially by his family—a kind of reflected glory.
On the contrary, he is an embarrassment to them. They think he “has gone out of his mind”. They think he must be ‘mad’ because he is in conflict with the religious leaders, with the Pharisees and the Scribes. It reminds one of the parents of the man born blind who did not want to have anything to do with their son because of his relationship with his healer, Jesus.
Jesus must be “out of his mind” because a genuine rabbi would never be seen happily in the company of sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers and outcasts. Similarly, teachers of the Law who had come all the way from Jerusalem (news of Jesus must now be reaching that far) were saying that he must be possessed by the prince of demons, and that it was by the power of the prince of demons that he drove out other demons.
From the experience that Jesus had, his followers must not expect, simply because they based their life on truth and brotherly love, that they will be admired, respected and loved in return. From Jesus onward, true followers of Christ have faced misunderstanding, opposition and even verbal and physical violence. And this even comes sometimes from within their own community.
Read more
Tuesday of Week 2 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on Hebrews 6:10-20
The source of all our security is in the oath God has made to all humankind and whose pledge is in Jesus our High Priest, who has gone before us and on our behalf. Today’s reading begins with words of encouragement to the Hebrews, who are having problems in remaining faithful to their Christian commitment. On the one hand, they are to realise that God is not unmindful of all the good things they have done, and the love they have shown in their service of their fellow Christians. This may include material help given to another church, perhaps the church in Jerusalem which was often in need.
At the same time, he urges them to maintain their former earnestness:
…so that you may not become sluggish but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
He wants them to follow in the footsteps of those who have maintained their fidelity and shown patience in times of difficulty. Paul, in his letters, often encourages people to be “imitators”, to model themselves on outstanding Christians. Paul even suggests that they be imitators of himself.
The author then goes on to use the example of Abraham as one who believed in God’s promise to him and was not disappointed. God had sworn in his own name (for there was no other by whom he could swear an oath) that Abraham would be blessed and that his descendants would be great in number. They would be:
…as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. (Gen 22:17)
This promise seemed impossible of fulfilment when Abraham was asked to sacrifice his only legitimate son, Isaac. Only when, in a great act of trust in God, he proceeded to prepare his son for sacrifice, did God stay his hand. Abraham’s total submission in faith to God had been convincingly demonstrated. Later in the Letter, there is a much longer discussion of faith.
When human beings swear by an oath, they do so by someone greater than themselves and, in normal circumstances, an oath solemnly made is taken as a final guarantee. When God wanted to show that his promise to the heirs of Abraham was genuine, he too guaranteed it with an oath.
So the Hebrew Christians are protected by these two unassailable guarantees—God’s promise and his confirming oath. With such a backing, their hope in their future with God is made sure and firm. And it is made more sure by the backing of our High Priest, a backing which reaches right to God’s presence. This is all expressed in a Temple image:
We have this hope, a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus, a forerunner on our behalf, has entered, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.
Actually, the anchor as a symbol of hope is not normally found in Scripture, but was common in the culture of Greece and Rome as a symbol of stability. It became a symbol of hope in Christian iconography of the 2nd century AD.
The image is of the Jerusalem Temple, where the high priest once a year, on the solemn Day of Atonement, penetrated beyond the veil or curtain of the Holy of Holies where God was believed to be present, and offered sacrifice on behalf of the people. Jesus, our High Priest and “forerunner on our behalf”, penetrates the veil of Heaven, where God dwells in inaccessible glory. There he intercedes on our behalf. The imagery here anticipates a much longer discussion of the tabernacle later in the Letter.
In our time, Jesus is still our High Priest. In every Eucharist, we celebrate and remember with thanksgiving the supreme offering he made of himself on our behalf. And we, too, are full of faith and hope that the promises made in the Gospel will become a reality in our own lives—provided we open ourselves fully to them.
Read more
Thursday of Week 2 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on Hebrews 7:25—8:6
Today’s reading shows again the contrast between the high priests of the Law and Christ our High Priest. The Hebrew Christians (to whom the Letter is addressed) are being reminded, once again, that the Jesus Christ they are threatening to abandon in favour of the old Temple-based worship is on a far superior level.
In the two verses immediately preceding today’s reading, the author reminds his readers that the former priests were many in number because they died off and had to be replaced. Christ, however, holds his priesthood permanently because he endures forever. Hence (and it is here that our reading begins) he is able for all time to be a source of salvation for us because his intercession on our behalf is never-ending.
And it is totally:
…fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners [in their sinfulness], and exalted above the heavens.
In this, Christ is totally different from the Levitical priests. Perhaps it also indicates Jesus’ superiority over Melchizedek. Christ does not need to offer sacrifices every day for the sins of the people and for his own sins. Parenthetically, daily sacrifice is nowhere mentioned in the Mosaic Law. The high priest was only expected to offer sacrifice on the Day of Atonement “because of their transgressions, all their sins” (see Leviticus chap 16).
Jesus made one sacrifice for the whole world and for all time, a sacrifice that does not need to be repeated. The Levitical priests offered animals in sacrifice, but our High Priest makes the unique offering of his totally sin-less self, a single offering that was once for all time.
The Jewish Law appointed:
…as high priests humans [men], who are subject to weakness, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.
The fulfilment of God’s oath regarding the priesthood of Melchizedek (“You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek”, Ps 110:4) makes the Son of God the perfect priest forever.
As we enter chapter 8, the superiority of Christ as High Priest is further emphasised. According to the New Jerusalem Bible:
“The argument so far has been to prove that what Christ is, i.e., an eternal and perfect priest, is superior to what the Levitical priests are, since they are mortals and sinners. Now the argument goes on to show that what Christ does is equally superior to what the Levitical priests do: Christ’s sanctuary is better because it is in heaven, while the one on earth is only a copy of it, and the covenant brought by the mediation of Christ is a better covenant.”
Our High Priest is not in a temple made by human hands. Rather, he:
…is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent that the Lord, and not any mortal, has set up.
Before the building of the Temple by Solomon, the Ark of the Covenant, representing the presence of Yahweh among his people, was housed in a special tent or tabernacle. God dwells in an altogether superior “Holy of Holies”, and it is there that Christ has access to his Father on an equal and permanent level.
“True” here means “real” in contradistinction to a mere “sketch and shadow”, as the earthly sanctuary is described. The idea that the earthly sanctuary is a shadowy reflection of a heavenly model may be derived from the Platonic concept of a real world of which our observable world is merely a shadow (Plato’s famous cave).
Further, the role of every priest is to offer gifts and sacrifices, and our Priest also has something to offer. But if he were on earth, he would not be a priest in the ordinary human sense, because the priests only made offerings in accordance with the Law, that is, for the sins of the people and their own sins. Christ’s offering, on the other hand, is made purely on our behalf. He does not need to make sacrifice for himself. On the contrary, he is the Perfect Offering, pleasing to the Father.
In addition, the priests make their offering in a sanctuary that is only a pale shadow of the heavenly sanctuary where God dwells. When Moses was about to erect the tent or tabernacle (in which the Ark of the Covenant was placed), he was told by Yahweh to make it exactly according to the instructions he was given on Mount Sinai. As such, it had all the limitations of human workmanship. The use of the present tense here leads some to believe that the Temple was still standing and functioning, and that these words must have been written prior to 70 AD when Jerusalem was sacked and destroyed by the emperor Titus (an event commemorated in the Arch of Titus still to be seen in the Roman Forum).
But Christ as Priest has been given a much higher form of ministry and is the mediator between God and us of a new and better covenant—a covenant which is being carried out according to better promises. All in all, then, how can the Hebrew Christians be thinking of going back to the old dispensation when the new one with Jesus Christ is on a totally different level and can do so much more for them?
It is for us to remember that we, too, are sharers in this new dispensation. Let us thank Christ for the gift of the Church, for his Living Word and for the many ways in which our lives are nourished by our adherence to our High Priest.
Read more
Friday of Week 2 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on Hebrews 8:6-13
Jesus, with a far higher ministry, is the mediator of a new and better covenant between God and his people. A large part of today’s reading is taken up with a passage from the prophet Jeremiah, as confirmation of the writer’s argument about the superiority of the new covenant made through Jesus Christ.
The reading opens by stating that Jesus has obtained a better ministry than that of the Levitical priesthood and is the mediator of a better covenant, that is, the covenant that was sealed between God and us by the sacrificial death of Jesus.
The Christ is the only perfect mediator because he is truly human and truly divine. He is the one and only true intermediary between God and the human race. He unites and reconciles them. Through him comes God’s love and complete revelation. And, in heaven, he continues to intercede for those who remain faithful to him.
The author further adds that, if the first covenant had been without fault or defect, it would not need to have been replaced. But God did find fault with it, and that is confirmed by the long quotation from the prophet Jeremiah which immediately follows (from Jer 31:31-34). The author follows the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Some discrepancies with the official text may be because the author was working from a different version or because he deliberately altered the text himself.
The NIV Study Bible summarizes how the pre-eminence of the new covenant lies in its superior benefits:
- God’s laws will become inner principles which will enable his people to delight in doing his will;
- God and his people will have an intimate fellowship;
- Sinful ignorance of God will be removed forever;
- Forgiveness of sin will be an everlasting reality.
The passage from Jeremiah begins with the prophet’s quoting Yahweh’s words in which the Lord says that he is going to establish a new covenant with the houses of Israel (the Northern Kingdom) and Judah (the Southern Kingdom). This new covenant will be different from the one that was made through Moses on Mount Sinai:
…when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.
There is need now for a new covenant because the people, in not observing the first covenant, became distanced from the Lord. A reading of the books of Samuel and Kings affords abundant evidence of the people’s infidelity to Yahweh and the Law.
This new covenant will be a covenant in the heart and not just in outward behaviour, such as the observance of external rules and rituals:
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts…
And then comes the covenant promise:
…I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
It is an agreement to be kept by both sides.
From then on, there will be no need for people to teach each other, saying “Know the Lord.” This is because, by their observance of the covenant and the mutual relationship it implies, they will already know their Lord in the way that really matters—finding and serving him in every area of their lives.
Furthermore, God will show compassion for their past sins and even forget them entirely. This idea is central to the new covenant. As we know from Jesus in the Gospel, God only sees us as we are at the present moment. Where our past is concerned, he has a very bad memory!
Then the Hebrews’ author resumes his message. In speaking of a “new covenant”, it is clear that the old one is now obsolete:
…what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear.
Again, the argument is clear: what are the ‘Hebrews’ thinking of by wanting to go back to a way of life that has lost its validity for them?
We, too, need to remain faithful and vigilant in our commitment to Jesus as our link with God our loving Father. For us, too, it is what goes on in our heart that matters more than what we just do on the outside.
Read more
Thursday of Week 2 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Mark 3:7-12
This is a summary text indicating the tremendous drawing power of Jesus with ordinary people. It is in stark contrast with the preceding passages of conflict with the religious leaders who were out to destroy him. People were coming not only from Galilee, where Jesus was living and working, but from Jerusalem and Judea in the south, from across the river Jordan and even from gentile regions like Tyre and Sidon. They came because of all they had heard about what he was doing.
So great were the crowds that Jesus had to ask his disciples to get a boat so that he would not be crushed. Huge numbers of people who had heard of his healing powers wanted to touch him. They felt that was enough to be healed.
Some, possessed by “unclean spirits”, fell down before him and called out:
You are the Son of God!
And Jesus:
…sternly ordered them not to make him known.
As mentioned before, this call by those possessed by “unclean spirits” was not a confession of faith, but an attempt to turn aside the threatening power of Jesus by using the exact name of the opposing ‘spirit’. Jesus knew that the people were not yet ready for this revelation of his identity. Their attitudes were still largely superficial. They were coming for their own immediate needs and not as true followers. They came to get, not to give or share.
Nevertheless, Jesus would not turn them away. He knew that they had great needs which only he could satisfy. He was full of compassion for them and anxious to bring healing into their lives. And now, more than 2000 years later, he has the same compassion and desire to bring healing to us as well.
Read more
Monday of Week 2 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Mark 2:18-22
The disciples of John the Baptist and the Pharisees fasted. It was a sign of a deeper commitment to the service of God. Then, how come the disciples of Jesus were not fasting? In their defence, Jesus speaks a kind of parable. A wedding feast is no time for the attendants of the bridegroom to be fasting. It is a time for joy and celebration. Jesus is clearly the bridegroom and his disciples the attendants. A time will come when the bridegroom will no longer be visibly with them—then will come the times when fasting will be appropriate.
Jesus continues with another image. No one uses a piece of new, strong cloth to patch an old garment. At the first sign of stress, the new patch will pull and tear the weaker, old cloth. Similarly, no one puts new, fermenting wine in old, used wineskins. When the new wine ferments and expands, the old skins have no more stretch and will burst. The skins are ruined and the wine lost.
In both images Jesus is saying that he and his teaching, and the Way he is proposing, cannot be judged by the old, traditional standards. Jesus has brought about a radical shift in the ways we are to relate to God and to each other. The traditional ways, identified with the Pharisees and with John the Baptist, were basically those where loyalty to God was expressed through strict observation of laws and external practices of commitment, like fasting. The Way of Jesus is quite different. It is primarily interior, rather than just exterior. It is ultimately rooted in relationships based on love, a love that always seeks the well-being of the other. If we judge what Jesus does by the old ways, we will have difficulties. We need, as Paul says:
…the mind of Christ. (1 Cor 2:16)
This is still relevant in our Church today. There are many who still are living their Catholic life with the Pharisee mindset. Many decades now after the Second Vatican Council, there are still people who have not understood the radical shift in thinking that was introduced. In the liturgy, for instance, the changes in some places are often just cosmetic—only on the surface. There are people who still ‘go to Mass’ (note the expression) with basically unchanged attitudes or understanding. Others try to cling to the ‘old days’—Tridentine Masses, continuing to eat fish on Friday, following old devotions (some of which border on the superstitious). There is still a good deal of individualism and ‘saving my soul’, or staying in ‘the state of grace to get to heaven’ mentality.
There are people who still see sin as primarily the breaking of laws and rules, rather than as a breakdown in loving relationships with God, with others and with self. It is possible to be perfectly ‘orthodox’, affirming the doctrinal teaching of the Church to the last detail, and yet be devoid of love in the way one’s life is lived, and showing very little concern for the needy of this world. Sad to say, Pharisaism is alive and well among Christians. But it is like trying to force the ‘new thinking’ of Vatican II into the ‘old wineskins’ of past behaviour.
The new wine of Jesus’ teaching needs to be contained in new wineskins. And some of the problems of the Church in parts of the world where Christians are falling away can be traced to our unwillingness to let go of old wineskins.
Read more
Monday of Week 2 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on Hebrews 5:1-10
Today we have a lovely reading on how Jesus fulfils the role of our High Priest. In it we come to realise that the true humanity of Jesus makes him a more, rather than a less, effective high priest to the Christian community. This was something with which the Hebrew Christians, for whom the Letter was written, were having difficulty.
Paul explains that every high priest is a bridge builder between God and his people.
Every high priest chosen from among mortals is put in charge of things pertaining to God on their behalf, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.
The writer is thinking mainly of the role of the high priest on the Day of Atonement. This ritual was celebrated:
…to make atonement for the Israelites once in the year [i.e. annually] for all their sins. (Lev 16:34)
It was on this occasion, too, that the ‘scapegoat’ was sent out into the wilderness, carrying with it all the sins of the people for the past year.
The priesthood, which is connected more with Aaron than Moses, will be treated more fully later in the Letter. In saying that no priest takes the role upon himself, the author may be referring to the fact that in Jesus’ time, the office of the high priest was in the hands of a family who had bought control of it.
The priest:
…is able to deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is subject to weakness.
“Deal gently” is a translation of the Greek word metriopathein. This is the only time it appears in the Bible, and it was a term used by the Stoics to express a perfect balance between too much and too little feeling. Here it corresponds more to our word ’empathy’, the ability to enter into the feelings of others.
The priest, as a human being, is familiar with the sins and weaknesses of others because he experiences them in himself. And he has to include his own sinfulness in the offerings. The priest is no ‘super-man’. He is a priest, not because of his superiority over others, but simply because he has been chosen among many to fulfil his intercessory role. This is something over the years which we have tended to ignore, with disastrous consequences in more recent times. As the reading says, it is precisely his sharing in the weaknesses of his fellow human beings which qualifies someone for the role of priest.
That is why the Levitical priest:
…must offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people.
In our Eucharist too, the celebrant joins with everyone else in confessing his sinfulness during the Introductory Rite.
Being a priest is not an honour that one can confer on oneself; it is truly a calling from God:
…one does not presume to take this honor but takes it only when called by God, just as Aaron was.
Even Christ did not take the honour to himself; it was conferred on him by his Father. And Psalm 2 is quoted in support of this:
You are my Son;
today I have begotten you… (Ps 2:7)
And from Psalm 110:
You are a priest forever
according to the order of Melchizedek. (Ps 110:4)
The author of Hebrews is the only New Testament writer to quote this verse of Psalm 110 to show that Jesus has been called by God to his role as priest. The implication here is that Christ is both a priest in the order of Melchizedek and that of Aaron, the source of the Levitical priesthood.
The reading now expresses in a most eloquent way how Jesus, our High Priest, really shared in the pain and sufferings of his brothers and sisters. It shows Jesus’ ability to sympathise with sinners because of his own experience of the trials and the weakness of human nature, especially the fear of death. In his present exalted state, weakness is now foreign to him, but he understands what we suffer because of his previous earthly experience.
Some people tend to think that Jesus, as the Son of God and having a divine nature, did not suffer greatly in his passion. On the contrary, the scene in the garden, when he sweat blood (Luke 22:44), indicates the degree of terror that he had with the prospect of what was coming. He begged, through prayers and silent tears, to be spared the pain of a terrible death by crucifixion. And yet, he offered himself so utterly to his Father, he submitted himself so completely, that his prayer was heard.
But this did not mean that he was spared from suffering and death. On the contrary, he learnt through his suffering the real meaning of total listening and submission to and union with his father:
Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered…
Jesus was not saved from dying because that was the ultimate purpose of his coming among us, but he will later be rescued from death.
And so, in a complete meeting of wills with his Father, he was “made perfect”. He becomes for all those who unite themselves completely with him, the source of salvation and of wholeness. He becomes our Priest forever, a:
…high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.
He does that by his total submission to the will of his Father and he points the way for us to follow.
This passage is so full of meaning for all of us. Pain and suffering of some kind will be part of everyone’s life. Like Jesus, we will often pray that that pain be taken away, but sometimes we learn that it is precisely in the pain that God is to be found. He is there not to take the pain away, nor to help us get round it, but to go through it. It is a paradox of life and one which we need to reflect on, namely, that a life entirely devoid of the challenge of pain is somehow an incomplete life. It is in dealing with our own pain and the pain of others that we grow in strength and maturity—and in love and compassion. And, strange to say, it is there too that we can find deep happiness.
And when we are deeply puzzled by acts of unspeakable violence or devastating natural disasters, and ask why so many innocent people suffer, we need to gaze at a crucifix and ask the same question: “Why did God not spare his own Son?”
Read more
Wednesday of Week 2 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on Hebrews 7:1-3,15-17
We now continue to reflect on the meaning of Jesus Christ as our priest. Today’s reading tells us that Jesus belongs “to the order of Melchizedek”, and discusses both the similarities and differences between the Old Testament figure and Christ.
The author explores the significance of applying Psalm 110 to Christ:
You are a priest forever,
according to the order of Melchizedek. (Ps 110:4)
He relies on the only reference to Melchizedek, a mysterious king-priest, in the Old Testament, where he is described as meeting with Abraham (Gen 14:17-24). The author presumes that he belonged to the beliefs of Israel and not to some other religious group.
As that reading affirms, he is the “king of Salem” and a priest of the Most High God. He encountered Abraham, who was returning from a battle, and blessed him. In return, Abraham gave him “one-tenth of everything”, suggesting that Melchizedek was superior to him. While so doing, we are told that Melchizedek “brought out bread and wine”, and perhaps it is this, in the mind of the author, that partly links Christ’s priesthood and that of Melchizedek, with overtones of the Eucharist.
We are told that Melchizedek means ‘king of righteousness’ and Salem means ‘peace’. Salem, of course, is part of the name of Jerusalem. The messianic blessings of righteousness and peace are foreshadowed in these two names. In modern Arabic, the word for ‘peace’ is salaam.
The more obvious link of Melchizedek with Christ is that Melchizedek has no father, mother or ancestry. His life has no recorded beginning or ending—something rather unusual for a personage in the Old Testament. In this he is seen as similar to the Son of God, one who “remains a priest forever”. The rabbis maintained that anything not mentioned in the Torah does not exist. Consequently, since the Old Testament nowhere mentions Melchizedek’s ancestry, birth, or death, the conclusion can be drawn that he “remains…forever”.
This, says the Letter, is even more obvious when “another priest arises”, resembling Melchizedek in many ways. Like Melchizedek, Christ did not become our priest through the legal requirement of belonging to a particular priestly family (as in the case of the Levitical priesthood). Jesus actually belonged to the non-priestly tribe of Judah.
Christ became priest “through the power of an indestructible life”, brought about by his resurrection. It is his being “raised up” that makes him our priest, rather than his divine nature.
The reading concludes with a repetition of Psalm 110:
You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.
Jesus, then, is our High Priest, but on a totally different level from the priests of the Jerusalem Temple. Again, the writer is emphasising to his Jewish readers the very different status of Jesus compared to the old order to which they are tempted to return.
Sometimes in our Church, we find people who hanker for the past and fail to understand the necessary changes which an incarnated Church needs to make if it is to be able to communicate effectively with a rapidly changing world.
(Note: In our own liturgy, Melchizedek is mentioned, together with Abel and Abraham, in the First Eucharistic Prayer.)
Read more
Wednesday of Week 2 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Mark 3:1-6
Once again we see Jesus in confrontation with the religious leaders. It follows the same pattern as before between him and his critics, here simply referred to as “they”. But it is quite clear who “they” are.
The scene is in the local synagogue. Once again “they” were looking for evidence with which to convict Jesus. They were watching to see if Jesus would cure a man with a withered hand on a Sabbath day. There is every likelihood that the man was ‘planted’ as a ‘set up’. To use a person with some sort of illness or condition in this way was really despicable.
There is no doubt that Jesus is fully aware of what is happening. Unhesitatingly, he tells the man to come out and stand in the middle of the assembly. Then he puts his question:
Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?
His opponents are reduced to silence. They have neither the honesty nor the integrity to give the obvious answer to the question.
In another example of how Jesus shows his feelings, we are told that he was both grieved and angry at their stubborn attitude. Grieved because their attitude was so inappropriate for people who believed they were close to God. Angry because of the terrible injustice they were prepared to impose on this man. In their book, no suffering justified breaking the Law. But for Jesus, it is not a matter of keeping or breaking laws, but of doing good.
He tells the man to stretch out his withered arm and it is completely cured. The Pharisees—humiliated—immediately went out and began to plot with the Herodians to get rid of Jesus. The Pharisees needed the help of the Herodians (supporters of Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea), if they were to take action against Jesus. This strange alliance shows the extent of the Pharisees’ anger and blinding hatred. The Herodians represented everything the Pharisees despised.
The story once again highlights the difference between morality and law. It was against the Law to do healing work on the Sabbath. This was because, in normal circumstances, the attention of a doctor might involve extensive treatment. But here, the healing is instantaneous. Can it be called work? Can it be seen as a violation of the spirit of the Sabbath?
In this particular case, where the situation was chronic and causing no immediate distress to the man, it is worth noting that the healing could easily have taken place on another day. But Jesus uttered two principles that transcend all positive law:
- It is always justified to do what is good, provided no greater good is denied.
- No truly loving act can ever be sinful even though it may violate a law.
All laws, except for the law of love, are relative. The Law about healing on the Sabbath had good intentions and was part of the observance of the Lord’s day, but it was being absolutised by the Pharisees. This is a tendency in our Christian life which we must also avoid. Even the law about being at Mass on Sunday can be absolutised. Sometimes there are pressing needs, e.g. the care of a sick person or a child, which can override the ‘law’ about Sunday Mass.
Christianity is about loving relationships, not about conformity to laws. Says St Paul:
…if I have all faith so as to remove mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. (1 Cor 13:2)
Read more