Monday of Week 13 of Ordinary Time – Gospel

Commentary on Matthew 8:18-22

There are times when Jesus goes out of his way to meet the crowds. On one occasion we are told he was filled with compassion because he saw them as sheep without a shepherd. But today, he gives orders to cross the lake apparently to avoid the crowds pressing in on him.

The crowds represent two kinds of people: those in real need of teaching and healing, and those who are simply driven by a kind of curiosity for the unusual. Jesus is not particularly interested in the second kind; they represent a false interest in Jesus. For them he is just a sensation, a wonder-worker—‘Jesus Christ Superstar’.

Similarly, when a scribe approaches Jesus and says, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go”, it seems like a generous offer, but Jesus reminds the man of just what that may entail:

Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.

To follow Jesus means, like him, to be ready to have nothing of one’s own. As Jesus said earlier in the Sermon on the Mount, we cannot at the same time serve two masters. To be with Jesus is to accept a situation where we may have nothing in the way of material possessions—our security will be elsewhere.

We do not know whether the scribe took up the challenge or not, and it does not really matter. Jesus’ words are recorded mainly for us to hear them. What do I think when I hear them? Have I made the choice between having Jesus and having things? Or do I think I can have both? Do I want to have both?

Another person, described as being already a disciple, asks for permission to go and bury his father first before following Jesus. It seems a fairly reasonable request and Jesus’ reply sounds rather harsh as both the Jewish and Hellenistic world regarded this as a filial obligation of the highest importance:

Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.

There are two ways we can understand this reply. In one case, the man is asking to postpone his following of Jesus until his father dies and he can bury him. But to follow Jesus is to enter a new family with a new set of obligations. It is not that the man should not honour his father, but in the meantime, there are other things of much greater importance that need to be done. In the new family, of which his father is just one member, there are more pressing obligations. It is another example of Jesus letting us know that our following of him has to be unconditional. We cannot say, “I will follow you if…” or “I will follow you when I am ready.” When he calls we have, like the first disciples, to be ready to drop our nets, our boats and even our family members.

A second way of understanding Jesus’ words is to see his call as a call to a way of life. Those who want to go their own self-seeking ways belong to the spiritually dead. Leave the burial of the dead to them. The rituals of society, including burial, have their place—even an important place. But for Jesus, the call to the Kingdom represents a commitment to a more important set of values.

We must put all these statements in their context. They make clear that following Jesus involves a radical commitment, but it does not mean that we act in ways that are inhumane or unreasonable. Soon after Peter and Andrew had abandoned their boats and their nets to follow Jesus, we find Jesus in their house tending to Peter’s mother-in-law who had fallen sick (Mark 1:29-31).

While there was a time in the past when some religious sisters were not allowed to attend a family funeral, that has now changed—and rightly so. At the same time, the call of Jesus still involves a total commitment.

Read more

Monday of Week 13 of Ordinary Time – First Reading

Commentary on Genesis 18:16-33

For the next two days we read the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. As we begin the reading we see the three mysterious visitors of Abraham preparing to continue their journey to Sodom.

As an act of courtesy on the part of a host, Abraham accompanies them on the beginning of their journey. In parts of the Old Testament, especially in the Pentateuch, God is portrayed as having very human qualities, and this is particularly revealed in the dialogues he holds with various people (e.g. when Moses pleads on behalf of the recalcitrant Israelites).

There is a delightful touch in today’s reading. As Abraham is seeing off his mysterious visitors, one of whom is identified as God himself with two angels as companions, God wonders to himself whether he should reveal to Abraham his plan to destroy Sodom. He knows how good and compassionate a man Abraham is—almost more kind and compassionate than God himself! But Abraham is now an important person in God’s plans. He has become the head of a great nation, and all the other nations will be blessed in him. So in a way, he has a right to be privy to God’s intentions.

In fact, Abraham has been specially chosen to teach his sons and his posterity to follow closely the ways of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the promises made to Abraham will be realised. And the very justice about what the Lord is planning to do is going to be questioned.

Now, while the two angels continue on their journey, the third man—the Lord—tells Abraham he must go down to Sodom and Gomorrah to verify the reports reaching him of their terrible immorality. Again, God is presented in human terms as needing to verify by a personal visit whether what he hears about these cities is true. What was the terrible sinfulness of Sodom and Gomorrah? Israelite tradition was unanimous in ascribing the destruction of the two cities to their moral wickedness, but there were different understandings of what this wickedness consisted.

According to the Yahwist account we are following here, the evil was in a request to have homosexual acts with the three visitors of Lot (one of whom, of course, was the Lord), giving us the origination of the word ‘sodomy’. Others however, would see this not just as a serious violation of the traditions of hospitality, but as a sin of rape. Such acts were abhorrent to the Jews. In that time and culture, it was regarded as the utmost degradation for a man to be abused in this way. Roman soldiers would sometimes humiliate their prisoners of war in this manner.

The idea of permitting this outrage to recipients of a host’s hospitality was beyond conception to Lot. Only the most wicked could even think of such a thing. The degree of abhorrence is indicated by Lot’s offering the people his daughters instead. Though this compromise certainly horrifies us, in that culture and at that time, Lot judged it better to have his own daughters violated than allow his guests to be touched. To Lot, there was nothing more he could have done.

Elsewhere, in Isaiah, the perpetrators of social injustice are likened to the people of Sodom (Is 1:9). Ezekiel likens the immoral behaviour of his people to that of Samaria and Sodom and says his people’s record is even worse:

Your big sister is Samaria, who lived with her daughters to the north of you; your little sister, who lived to the south of you, is Sodom with her daughters. You not only followed their ways and acted according to their abominations; within a very little time you were more corrupt than they in all your ways. (Ezek 16:46-51).

Speaking of the idolatry and sexual immorality of Jerusalem, Jeremiah says:

…all of them have become like Sodom to me
and its inhabitants like Gomorrah. (Jer 23:14)

While two of the men (the angels) continue on their way to Sodom, the third, who is the Lord, stays behind with Abraham, who immediately begins to plead on behalf of Sodom. Surely a God of justice will not wipe out the innocent with the guilty? Supposing there are as many as 50 good people in the city, will God destroy it? Abraham dares to tell God how he should behave! He says:

Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked!

And then Abraham presents the punch line:

Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?

It would be unjust to condemn the innocent, however few in comparison with the many sinners. We have here the age-old problem of why the good should suffer along with and because of the wicked.

The sense of collective responsibility was so strong in ancient Israel that the question does not arise as to whether the just might may be spared separately and individually. God will, in fact, save Lot and his family, but the principle of individual responsibility does not appear until later (e.g. in Deuteronomy and the prophets). Abraham’s argument, then, is that since all will share the same fate he asks that even a minority of good people would be enough to win pardon for all.

Even so, Abraham’s request does not go below the number 10. Beyond that would be too much to ask for. But later we read in Jeremiah (5:1) that God would pardon Jerusalem if only one just person could be found; the same is implied in Ezekiel (22:30). Then, in Isaiah (chap 53), it is the suffering of the one Servant which will save the whole race, but this was not understood until it was seen fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ.

God ultimately agrees to spare the city, if he can find 50 good people in it. But having received this concession, Abraham presses on even further, although he knows he is being very impertinent in speaking to his God like this:

Let me take it upon myself to speak to my lord, I who am but dust and ashes. Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?

No, God says, the city would not be destroyed if 45 innocent people could be found. Abraham then continues his bargaining—40? 30? 20? Even only 10? Each time God concedes and at the end replies:

For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.

With that, the Lord leaves Abraham and continues on his journey to Sodom, while Abraham returns to his home. However, on the following day, he will go back to the place where he spoke with the Lord and where he could look down on Sodom and Gomorrah in the valley below.

Unfortunately, as we shall see, not even 10 good people could be found in the whole of Sodom. Perhaps this would be a good time for us to reflect on the level of our own compassion with people who come into our lives. We may sometimes find ourselves doing the very opposite of Abraham, that is, condemning a whole group because of a small number of misbehaving people. We do need more of Abraham’s attitude of seeing as much good as possible in the world around us.

Read more