Saturday of Week 18 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on Deuteronomy 6:4-13
Our reading comes from the second of Moses’ three discourses in this book. It is one of the key texts in Scripture for both Jews and Christians and consists of two parts. The first is to make our love for God the absolutely central characteristic of all our lives. The opening words are: “Hear, O Israel!” and give the passage its common name, Shema, which is the Hebrew word for ‘hear’. It has become the Jewish confession of faith, recited daily by observant Jews.
The discourse begins with the first principle:
Yahweh our God is the one, the only Yahweh.
This is certainly a declaration of monotheism. It is a divinely revealed insight, especially important in view of the multiplicity of Baals and other gods of Canaan and elsewhere, which one meets right through the history of Israel, both in the time of the Kings and during the later exile. Again and again, the Israelites would worship these gods (see for example, Judg 2:11-13).
Yahweh is not only the God of Israel; he is the only God. This is not where the Israelites originally began from. Throughout their history, a faith in a unique God is something that became more precise with time and experience, especially under the impact of the covenant and God’s choice of Israel as his chosen people. The existence of other gods was never explicitly affirmed, but more and more became the affirmation of the living God, the unique creator and master of the world as well as of his people. This is accompanied by the constant denial of other gods, first as false and then as non-existing.
Then comes the necessary human response to this statement:
You must love Yahweh your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength.
This love, the echo of God’s love for his people, embraces the fear of God (in the sense of a deep respect and sense of awe), the duty of service and the observance of precepts. Strangely, outside Deuteronomy there is no explicit command to love God, but its equivalent is found, for instance, in 2 Kings 23:25. Speaking of King Josiah, the Scripture says:
No king before him turned to Yahweh as he did, with all his heart, all his soul, all his strength, in perfect loyalty to the Law of Moses.
And in Hosea (6:6) we read:
Faithful love is what pleases me, not sacrifice.
Although the command does not appear, the Psalms and the prophetic books, especially Hosea and Jeremiah, are full of the love of God.
These words, then, are to be engraved on each one’s heart. This would become a feature especially characteristic of the “new covenant”, with the emphasis on the inner spirit more than on external behaviour:
The urging to bind the words to the wrist and as a headband was surely meant in a figurative sense but it was, and is, taken literally by some Jews. They tie phylacteries to their foreheads and left arms. ‘Phylacteries’ are small boxes containing strips of parchment on which the words of the text are inscribed. They also attach mezuzot (small wooden or metal containers in which passages of Scripture are placed) to the doorframes of their houses. However, a figurative interpretation is supported by other Old Testament texts.
In the Gospel, we see the Pharisees following this custom, but Jesus criticises them because it was purely an external manifestation which did not correspond to what was going on in their hearts. They literally wore their heart on their sleeve. Speaking of some Pharisees Jesus said:
They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders, but will they lift a finger to move them? Not they! Everything they do is done to attract attention, like wearing broader headbands and longer tassels… (Matt 23:5)
Finally, Jesus, quoting today’s passage, lays it down as the greatest commandment of all (Matt 22:37). However, he significantly links this commandment with another from Leviticus 19:18 saying:
Love your neighbour as yourself.
And, to remove all ambiguity, he tells the parable of the Good Samaritan to show exactly who our neighbour is (Luke 10:25-37). In the Gospel, these two commandments cannot be separated and so we read in the First Letter of John:
Anyone who says he loves God and hates his brother is a liar, since whoever does not love the brother whom he can see cannot love God whom he has not seen. (1 John 4:19-20)
The second part of today’s reading from Deuteronomy is a reminder to the Israelites that it was Yahweh who brought them into the land which he swore to their ancestors Abraham, Isaac and Jacob he would give. Moreover they should not take for granted the presence of large and prosperous towns which they did not build, houses full of good things they did not provide, vineyards and olive trees they did not plant. After they have eaten all the food they want, they must not forget that it was Yahweh who brought them there from a life of slave-labour in Egypt.
Because the emphasis in Scripture is always on what God does and not on what his people achieve, they are never to forget what he has done for them:
Yahweh your God is the one you must fear, him alone you must serve, his is the name by which you must swear.
Here, to ‘serve’ God means especially to ‘worship’ him. In this sense it is quoted by Jesus during his temptations in the desert as an argument against worshipping the devil (Matt 4:10).
Both of these lessons we need to take to heart:
Friday of Week 18 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Matthew 16:24-28
Jesus has already shocked his disciples by telling them in advance what is going to happen to him as Messiah. Now he goes further and tells them that they too will have to have a part in his experience.
They are to follow in his footsteps. Like him, they are to be ready to take up their cross—whatever it may be—and carry it behind him. For some, it will mean dying for Christ and the Kingdom. For others, it will mean living totally for Christ and the Kingdom. Notice, Jesus tells them to take up their own cross, not his. That cross will be different for each person; it takes the form of some difficult thing which it is clear we must accept and not run away from. It is not to be sought for—that would not be a healthy thing to do. It will come, unmarked and unchosen, but clear.
The other way, to avoid all pain and seek only what brings pleasure and enjoyment, is to go down a cul-de-sac, a blind alley that leads nowhere. That is what we mean by trying ‘to save our life’. It is a sure way to lose it.
What is the use of gaining “the whole world”, becoming a multi-billionaire and being profoundly unhappy? Living for oneself only is to end up finding one’s self dying. Letting go of one’s life to live for others, to live for truth, love and justice is to live a full life, even if shortened by physical death.
Many of the saints died long before their time, but achieved in a few years what most of us cannot do in a long life. There is a scriptural phrase applied to some of the saints who died relatively young:
Consummatus in breve, explevit tempora multa.
It means that, although their life came to an early end, they had filled it with many good things.
Read more
Thursday of Week 18 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Matthew 16:13-23
We now reach a high point in Matthew’s narrative. More than any of the other Gospels, his is a Gospel of the Church. (Mark, in comparison, emphasises discipleship; Luke, the communication of God’s love and compassion; and John, unity with God through Jesus.)
We find Jesus and his disciples in the district of Caesarea Philippi. This is not the fine city of Caesarea built by Herod the Great on the shore of the Mediterranean. It was a town, rebuilt by Herod’s son Philip, who named it after the emperor Tiberius Caesar and himself. It lay just to the north of the Sea of Galilee and near the slopes of Mount Hermon. It had originally been called Paneas, after the Greek god Pan and is known today as Banias.
The area was predominantly pagan, dominated by Rome. In a sense, therefore, it was both an unexpected yet fitting place for Jesus’ identity to be proclaimed. He was, after all, not just for his own people, but for the whole world.
Jesus begins by asking his disciples who people think he really is. They respond with some of the speculations that were going round: he was John the Baptist resurrected from the dead (Herod’s view, for instance), or Elijah (whose return was expected to herald the imminent coming of the Messiah), or Jeremiah or some other of the great prophets.
The Jews at this time expected a revival of the prophetic spirit which had been extinct since Malachi. John was regarded by many of the people as a prophet, although he denied that he was the expected prophet, often thought to be Elijah returned. The early Christians saw Jesus as a prophet, but with the appearance of prophecy as a charism in their communities, the term was dropped in his case.
Interestingly, the people did not seem to think that Jesus himself was on a par with these ‘greats’ of their history. We do tend to undervalue the leaders of our own time when compared with those of the past.
Jesus goes on to ask:
But who do you say that I am?
It was a moment of truth, a very special moment in his disciples’ relationship with their Master. Simon speaks up:
You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.
It is a huge step forward for Simon and his companions. As we shall see, it is not yet a total recognition of his identity or mission. But Jesus is no mere rabbi, no mere prophet, but rather the long-awaited Messiah and Saviour King who would deliver Israel. It is an exciting moment in their relationship with him. And it is only in Matthew that Simon Peter calls him “Son of God”.
The focus now shifts immediately to Simon. He is praised for his insight but Jesus makes clear that it comes from divine inspiration and is not a mere deduction. A ‘mystery’, in the Scripture sense, is being uncovered.
And now comes the great promise. Simon from now on is to be called “Peter”, a play on the word for ‘rock’ (kepha in Aramaic, petra/petros in Greek), for he will become the rock on which the “church” will be built—a rock which will stand firm against all attacks on it. This promise must have sounded very daring at the time it was written, but throughout more than 2,000 years it has again and again been vindicated. ‘Peter’, in either its Aramaic or Hebrew form, was not a previously known personal name.
The term ‘church’ only appears twice in Matthew and not at all in the other three Gospels. The Hebrew word qahal, which in Greek is rendered as ekklesia, means ‘an assembly called together’. It was used often in the Old Testament to indicate the community of the Chosen People.
According to the Jerusalem Bible:
“By using this term ekklesia side by side with ‘Kingdom of Heaven’, Jesus shows that this eschatological community (community of the ‘end-times’) is to have its beginnings here on earth in the form of an organised society whose leader he now appoints.”
And Peter is given power and authority, the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”, all that he will need to make the Kingdom a reality. His authority and that of the ‘church’ is the authority of Jesus himself. Whatever Peter and the church formally decide is immediately ratified by God; they are his appointed agents.
Lastly, they are strictly ordered not to tell anyone else that Jesus is the Messiah. The people are not ready to hear it. The people have their own expectations, which are very different from the Messiah that Jesus is going to be. The disciples themselves have a totally wrong idea, as becomes immediately clear in what follows.
From the moment that they recognise Jesus as Messiah, he begins to prepare them for what is going to happen:
[The Son of Man] must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed and on the third day be raised.
This is the first of three ominous predictions.
After the euphoria of knowing their Master was the Messiah, all their dreams and hopes are shattered by these terrible revelations. It is hard for us to imagine the impact these words must have had.
Peter, who had just covered himself in glory and been appointed leader, almost patronisingly takes Jesus aside, saying:
God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.
For him and the others this was an unthinkable scenario for the Messiah for whom they were all waiting. How much more shocked Peter must have been at Jesus’ reaction:
Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me, for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.
The man who was just now called the Rock is accused of being Satan’s advocate! Instead of being a rock of stability, he is seen as a stumbling block in the way of Jesus.
Peter is seen as doing the very work of the devil in trying to divert Jesus from the way he was called to go, the way in which God’s love would be revealed to us, the way in which we would be liberated for the life of the Kingdom.
It will take time before Peter and the others both understand and accept the idea of a suffering and dying Messiah. It will not happen until after the Resurrection. Before that the “Rock” will be guilty of a shameful betrayal of the Man who put such trust in him.
We too should ask ourselves to what extent we accept Jesus the rejected, suffering, dying and rising Messiah.
Read more
Thursday of Week 18 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on Numbers 20:1-13
The passage from Wednesday of Week 18 of Ordinary Time is followed in Numbers by a long section of laws governing sacrifices, powers of priests and Levites (chaps 15—19 inclusive). The main theme of the section we are entering in today’s reading is the steady advance of God’s chosen people despite all opposition on their part. Today’s reading is the final passage we will be taking from the book and is an account of another sad confrontation between Yahweh and his people.
The Israelites are very near the end of their long journey. We are told that the whole community of the Israelites arrived at the desert of Zin on the first month of the year, and that the people settled in Kadesh. The desert of Zin was a barren region with a few good oases, lying southwest of the Dead Sea.
It is the first month, but we are not told in which year. However, based on earlier information, we are led to the conclusion that this passage begins in the 40th year after the Exodus. Those people over 20 years of age, who the Lord said would not enter the Promised Land because of their disobedience at Kadesh (see the reading from Wednesday of Week 18 of Ordinary Time), have now all died.
The majority of the people’s desert wandering is left without record. The people may have gone through a cycle of roving travels, seeking water sources and the sparse vegetation, supported primarily by manna. But their circular wanderings would bring them back to the central camp at Kadesh, the scene of their great rebellion when, on the very borders of the Promised Land, they refused to enter it (again see the reading from Wednesday of Week 18 of Ordinary Time).
They have now come full circle, and again the land of promise lies before them. Here Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron, died and was buried. When they got back to Kadesh, there was no water for the community and, as happened so often before, the people held a council, putting the blame on Moses and Aaron for their situation.
Forty years earlier, the Lord had instructed Moses to take the staff he had used to strike the Nile (turning it to blood—one of the Ten Plagues; see Exod 7:17) and to strike the rock at Horeb (Sinai) to initiate a flow of water (see Exod 17:1-7). Now, 40 years later, at the place of Israel’s worst acts of rebellion, the scene was recurring. The descendants of the rebellious nation now desire to die along with their parents; they have learnt nothing from their 40 years of wandering.
They demand of Moses:
Why have you brought the assembly of the Lord into this wilderness for us and our livestock to die here? Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to bring us to this wretched place?
Where they are now, it is impossible to sow crops; there is no fruit, no vines and not even water to drink.
Leaving the assembly, Moses and Aaron went to the Tent of Meeting which was at some distance from the encampment. As they fell on their faces, the glory of the Lord appeared to them. He was aware of their problem and why they had come looking for him. He immediately gave them instructions:
Take the staff, and assemble the congregation, you and your brother Aaron, and command the rock before their eyes to yield its water. Thus you shall bring water out of the rock for them; thus you shall provide drink for the congregation and their livestock.
Although Moses was told to take his staff, through which God had performed wonders in Egypt and in the desert all these years, this time he was told just to speak to the rock and it would pour out its water for the people.
Moses then took the staff from before Yahweh, as instructed, and called the assembly together in front of the rock. He then said to the gathered people:
Listen, you rebels; shall we bring water for you out of this rock?
His calling them ‘rebels’ is an indication of his of accumulated anger, exasperation and frustration during Moses’ 40 years with this rebellious people.
Moses then raised his hand and struck the rock twice with the staff. In his rage Moses disobeyed the Lord’s instruction only to speak to the rock. Immediately, water gushed out in abundance and people and animals alike were able to drink.
However, Moses’ rash action brought a stern rebuke from the Lord. Yahweh said to Moses:
Because you did not trust in me, to show my holiness before the eyes of the Israelites, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them.
The phrasing, ‘to show my holiness’, is an allusion to the name Kadesh, which means ‘sanctified’ or ‘sacred’. God’s holiness was offended by Moses’ rash action, for he had not shown proper deference to God’s presence.
The sin of Moses and Aaron seems to consist in doubting God’s mercy toward the ever-rebelling people. And Moses is punished by not being allowed to bring the people, whom he had faithfully led for 40 years, into the Promised Land.
At first sight, it seems a very severe punishment for something relatively minor. In fact, the full nature of Moses’ sin is not altogether clear. Perhaps something less creditable to Moses has been suppressed. It is possible that the punishment really belongs to the refusal to enter Canaan (as described in the reading from Wednesday of Week 18 of Ordinary Time) which Moses may have endorsed because it was deemed too dangerous. It would have been a serious lack of trust in God’s promise to protect his people, more serious than his striking the rock at Meribah.
Whatever the explanation, the result is sure—neither Aaron nor Moses would enter the Promised Land. Of their contemporaries only Joshua and Caleb would survive to enter the land.
The author closes with a final comment:
These are the waters of Meribah where the Israelites quarreled with the Lord and through which he showed himself to be holy.
Meribah means ‘contention’.
And whatever the right interpretation, the words of today’s Responsorial Psalm provide an excellent lesson for us:
O that today you would listen to his voice!
Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah,
as on the day at Massah in the wilderness,
when your ancestors tested me
and put me to the proof, though they had seen my work.
(Ps 95:6-9)
Like the Israelites, it is so easy for us to forget the good things God has done for us just because we have run into some difficulties. Once again, let us count our blessings.
Read more
Wednesday of Week 18 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Matthew 15:21-28
Jesus is seen on one of his few visits outside Jewish territory. The cities of Tyre and Sidon are on the Mediterranean coast in what is today Lebanon. While he is there he is approached by a Canaanite (i.e. a non-Jewish) woman whose child is “tormented by a demon”. Whether it was an actual possession or some natural physical or mental ailment does not really matter. Already the woman’s faith and trust in Jesus is indicated by the way she addresses him, “Lord, Son of David!” coupled with her plea for his compassion.
At first, Jesus ignores her completely. The disciples intervene and ask Jesus to give her what she wants because she is making such a nuisance of herself. Jesus replies that his mission is only to the “house of Israel”, to which this woman clearly does not belong.
In the meantime the woman continues her pleading, “Lord, help me.” She is following, in fact, advice that the Gospel gives—keep on asking. Jesus replies in words that sound very harsh, if not racist:
It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.
‘Dogs’, together with ‘swine’, was a common colloquial expression among Jews for Gentiles. We see this also earlier in Matthew’s Gospel:
Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under foot and turn and maul you. (Matt 7:6)
The dog was regarded as an unclean and promiscuous animal. Because it was such a common expression, it is probably not as harsh as it sounds to us and, if spoken with a measure of humour (implied by Jesus’ use of the diminutive word, ‘doggies’), would not have given offence at all. As they say, everything is in the tone of voice. Jesus was not a racist—that is clear from other situations where he dealt with non-Jews and with other commonly despised groups.
For her part, the woman certainly is not in the least fazed. She comes right back, saying:
Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.
That was enough for Jesus. She had proved her genuineness:
Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.
Her daughter was cured on the spot. It is a hint of what is to come. Membership as one of God’s people will be measured, not by birth or circumcision, but by a living faith in Jesus as Lord.
A story like this is an occasion for us to look at our own attitudes to people of other races, ethnic groups and nationalities, not to mention the socially disadvantaged or physically or mentally disabled—in other words, any people who are ‘different’. How inclusive are we in word and action? And does our parish community go out of its way to provide a welcome for the ‘outsider’? These are very real questions in societies which are becoming more and more multicultural.
Read more
Wednesday of week 18 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on Num 13:1-2, 26-14:1, 26-35 (more…)
Read more
Tuesday of Week 18 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Matthew 14:22-36
As soon as the people had been filled with the food that Jesus gave them, Jesus packs his disciples off in the boat to the other side of the lake. He sends the crowds away and then retreats to the mountain to pray all by himself.
We know from John’s account that the people wanted to make him a king. If Jesus wanted to take control of the crowd, this was the moment; they were ready to follow enthusiastically. Jesus was indeed their King, but not the kind they were expecting. He would draw the crowds to him in a very different way, hanging in shame on a cross.
It looks too as if he did not want his disciples to get any wrong ideas either. They must have been elated at their role in the extraordinary event of feeding more than 5,000 people. So, perhaps with a lot of grumbling, they are sent off even before the excited crowds have dispersed.
As they make their way across the lake in this dark mood, things get even worse. They run into a big storm and their boat is being tossed about like a cork. Then out of the darkness, between 3 and 6 in the morning hours, they see Jesus approaching them across the water. Far from being delighted, they are terrified out of their wits. Superstitious men that they are, they think it is a ghost. Ghosts were very much a part of their world.
Words of encouragement come across the water:
Take heart, it is I [Greek, ego eimi = I AM]; do not be afraid.
Jesus gives himself the very name of Yahweh; this is all the reassurance they need. Their God is with them.
Only in Matthew’s account of this story do we have Peter’s reaction:
Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.
To which, Jesus replies:
Come.
Peter gets out of the boat and goes towards Jesus. It is an act of love, faith and trust. But not quite enough. The power of the wind and waves gets stronger than his desire to be with Jesus. He begins to sink.
Lord, save me!
Jesus lifts him up and says:
You of little faith, why did you doubt?
As soon as Jesus and Peter get into the boat, there is a complete calm.
The rest of the disciples are overwhelmed and bow down before him saying:
Truly you are the Son of God.
We have here behind this story an image of the early Church, of which the boat and the disciples are a symbol. The surrounding water is the world, and the wind and waves are the forces which threaten the tiny community. Jesus seems to be far away, but he is not, and he appears in the midst of the storm. Once he steps inside the boat, there is calm, not only because the surrounding storm has stopped, but also because of the peace which the awareness of Jesus’ presence gives.
There is an added element in this story in that Peter, the leader of the community, comes hand in hand into the boat with Jesus. In time, the authority of Jesus will be passed over to him.
There is also, of course, in the calming of the storm an indication of Jesus’ real identity, expressed in the awe-filled words of the disciples, “Truly you are the Son of God”, echoing Jesus’ own statement of “I AM”.
There is a brief epilogue at the end of our passage. The boat reaches the area of Gennesaret. The name refers either to the narrow plain, about four miles long and less than two miles wide on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee, north of Magdala, or a town in the plain. Significantly for the work that Jesus was about to do, the plain was considered a garden land, fertile and well-watered.
As soon as Jesus reaches the shore the crowds again gather in huge numbers especially to have their sick cured. So great was their faith that they asked only to touch the fringe of his garment. All those who did so (in faith) were healed.
Jesus had sent away the crowds earlier probably because of the late hour, but also perhaps because of the mood of the crowd which was taking on political overtones not wanted by Jesus. But now they are back to seek from him what he came to give them—healing and wholeness.
Read more
Tuesday of Week 18 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on Numbers 12:1-13
Not only do the people complain, but Aaron and Miriam, the brother and sister of Moses, are also grumbling against their brother. Ostensibly their complaint was that Moses had married a Cushite woman. This seems to be Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro and a Midianite, whom Moses married when he was in hiding for killing a man prior to his becoming leader of his people (see Exod 2:21). There is an element of contempt in the expression.
However, it seems their real grievance was that God spoke not only through Moses, but also through them. The prophet Micah speaks of Moses, Aaron and Miriam as God’s gracious provision for Israel (Micah 6:4). Yet they were not given the treatment they felt they deserved, the kind of treatment that Moses was getting from God. Miriam appears as the chief complainer and Aaron simply goes along with her, so she alone will be punished.
In spite of the favours God showered on him, Moses himself is described as being the meekest man on earth (though he could, when need be, speak in very harsh language to wrongdoers). The complaint thrown against him could not be attributed to any arrogance on his part.
So God (how human he appears in all these accounts!) overhears their murmurings and summons all three to the Tent of Meeting. He comes down in a pillar of cloud, stands at the entrance to the Tent and calls Aaron and Miriam to come forward.
God makes his meaning very clear to them. He makes a distinction between other prophets and Moses (Miriam herself was a prophetess). God communicates with prophets through visions and dreams, but only Moses is at home in God’s house and God speaks to him face to face, plainly and not in riddles and Moses sees the very form of Yahweh.
With other prophets and seers, God’s revelation did not always come to them with complete clarity. A prophet might not fully understand the oracles he uttered, and they might seem to be riddles and mysteries. But, in Moses’ case, God spoke with special clarity—like two people speaking face to face. Clearly this was a privilege granted to no other human being.
By way of exception, some others would be given a share in the divine spirit, and God would raise up prophets after Moses’ death, but Moses will remain the greatest of them all—at least until John the Baptist comes, the forerunner of the new covenant.
How then could Aaron and Miriam have the temerity to speak against someone who had such a close relationship with him? So angry was God with the way Miriam and Aaron criticised God’s special friend that, as soon as he left and the cloud disappeared, Miriam found herself a leper, her whole body as white as snow. Actually, it was not strictly speaking leprosy (Hansen’s disease), but an affliction known as ‘white leprosy’ that is not regarded as serious or of long duration. However, it had the effect of ostracising her from the community for some time.
Aaron then begged God that the sin they had foolishly committed be not held against them. He begged that his sister not be left to look like a still-born baby:
…whose flesh is half consumed when it comes out of its mother’s womb.
Moses too, begs God to bring healing to his sister. On this note the reading ends.
Later, Aaron will pray to God on behalf of his sister. She will be cured, but not before she spends seven days outside the camp in quarantine and isolation until her skin returns to normal.
Perhaps today we could look into our own hearts and see if there are any traces of jealousy there. What or whom are we jealous about and why? And how do we relate with the people towards whom we feel jealousy or envy? Can we learn to thank God for the gifts we see in other people?
Read more