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