Wednesday of Week 20 of Ordinary Time – Gospel

Commentary on Matthew 20:1-16

Today we have another parable of the Kingdom. And it is not unrelated to the previous story of the rich man. At a first reading we might be strongly inclined to side with the grumblers in the parable. After all, it did not seem at all fair that those who only worked for one hour should get exactly the same as those who had worked from early in the morning and through the heat of the day.

Even though all had agreed to work for a stipulated amount, still in all fairness and decency, one feels that the early comers should have been given more, or the latecomers less. However, if we find ourselves agreeing with this, then it shows that our thoughts are human thoughts and not God’s. A little further reflection will make us feel grateful that God works like the employer in the vineyard.

The story seems, as often happens in the Gospel, to reflect the situation of the early Church. The first Christians were all Jews. Before their conversion they had been trying to live according to the requirements of their Jewish faith. They belonged to a people who had thousands of years of religious history; they were God’s own people. Then, Gentiles began to be admitted into the community. Some of these people probably came from totally pagan environments. They may have lived very immoral lives and yet, once accepted and baptised, they enjoyed all the privileges of the community. Somehow, it did not seem right.

But this is the justice of God which we need to learn. Without exception, he gives his love—all of his love—to all those who open their hearts to it. It does not matter whether that happens early or late. One reason for that is because God’s love can never be earned, only accepted. And, as the previous story indicated, the genuine needs of all should be met. The fact that the latecomers were only employed at the last hour does not make their needs any less than those who came earlier. God’s justice is measured by our needs, not by mathematical divisions.

What each of the workers received was a symbol of the love of God, who is the vineyard owner. All—early arrivals and latecomers—got exactly the same, the love of their Master and Lord. There are not various degrees of that love. It is always 100 percent. God is Love; he cannot not love and he cannot not love totally. He cannot and will not give more of that love to one than another.

This is indeed something we should be grateful for. Because it can happen—perhaps it has already happened—that I move away from God and his love; I may move very far. But I know that at whatever time I turn back to him, even if it be the 11th hour, he is waiting with open arms. Thank heavens for the justice of God!

Read more

Wednesday of Week 20 of Ordinary Time – First Reading

Commentary on Judges 9:6-15

Today we have a rather unusual reading. Gideon is now gone and, true to form, the people have relapsed once more into idolatry. Our reading is taken from a section of Judges dealing with the reign of Abimelech as king.

The story of Abimelech does not really belong in this book. The only reason for his appearance is that he was the son of Gideon-Jerubbaal, but he was not one of the judges, nor even a king of Israel. He is presented as a highly disreputable character. He was the son of a Shechemite woman and was made king of Shechem by the Canaanites as the result of intrigue and a show of force on his part. His only exploits were the massacre of his brothers, his struggles with the rebels of Shechem and his assault on the Israelite town of Thebez, which ended ignominiously in his death.

The narrative is undoubtedly historical and throws light on conditions of the period, the 14th century BC. Abimelech’s failure served the author-editor’s belief that there could be no other king in Israel, but one chosen by Yahweh. That would not happen until the appointment of Saul. As with Rome at a later period, there was a strong anti-king feeling among the Israelites and it is reflected in today’s reading.

As the reading opens we are told that:

…all the lords of Shechem and all Beth-millo came together, and they went and made Abimelech king, by the oak of the pillar at Shechem.

Shechem, as we saw before, is in the very middle of Palestine, and at that time in the territory of Manasse. Beth-millo is probably the same as the Migdal-Shechem mentioned later in the story (but not in our reading). Millo is derived from a Hebrew verb meaning ‘to fill’ and probably refers to the earthen fill used to erect a platform on which walls and other large structures were built. Beth-millo then may mean ‘stronghold’ (see Judg 9:46).

News of the proclamation was brought to Jotham, Abimelech’s youngest brother. He went and stood on the top of Mount Gerizim and shouted at the top of his voice. He was totally opposed to his brother becoming king and, after making his speech, he will take flight to be beyond Abimelech’s reach. Mount Gerizim will later be the mountain which, for the people of Samaria, will become the rival to the Temple in Jerusalem. It is featured in the dialogue that Jesus has with the Samaritan woman when she asks him which place is the right one in which to worship God (see John 4:1-42).

What follows is known as Jotham’s fable. It is the earliest example in the Bible of a fable using plants or animals to illustrate a human moral. Later examples include the fable that Nathan told to David to make him aware of his terrible combined sin of adultery and murder in connection with Bathsheba (2 Sam 12:1-4) or the fable of King Jehoash about a thistle proposing marriage to a Lebanon cedar (2 Kings 14:9). Ezekiel, too, uses a fable to speak of how Nebuchadnezzar deported King Jehoiachin and put Zedekiah on the throne instead.

As a literary form, it was found everywhere including Mesopotamia, Egypt and Greece. In Greece, one thinks of the fables of Aesop, part of the literary lore of children up to our own day. The one that is told here may have existed independently and was adapted by Jotham to express his evaluation of Abimelech.

Jotham’s fable betrays a mistrust of the monarchy such as we find in the period just before the choice of Saul as Israel’s first king (1 Sam 8). So here, olive, fig, and vine trees, of value for man, refuse kingship as serving no useful purpose. They represent Gideon, who refused to be king or found a dynasty. The thornbush, fruitless and noxious, accepts it and represents Abimelech, a person entirely unsuited for the role.

The fable then follows:

The trees once went out to anoint a king over themselves.

As we mentioned, fables of this type, in which inanimate objects speak and act, were popular among Eastern peoples of that time – and indeed in our own, though now they may be more likely to take the form of a Disney cartoon.

The fable continues:

So they said to the olive tree, ‘Reign over us.’

But the olive tree declined and answered them:

Shall I stop producing my rich oil by which gods and mortals are honored and go to sway over the trees?

Oil was used in the worship both of the true God and of false gods; it was prescribed in the worship of Yahweh. It was also used to consecrate prophets, priests and kings. In speaking of Jesus as the ‘Christ’, we are speaking of an anointing with oil. Christos means ‘anointed’ and hence that he is a King. The Hebrew equivalent is Messiah. But in fact, Jesus was not anointed with oil; rather, he was baptised with water by John the Baptist.

Back to the fable:

Then the trees said to the fig tree,
‘You come and reign over us.’

The fig tree replied:

Shall I stop producing my sweetness and my delicious fruit and go to sway over the trees?

Then the trees said to the vine:

You come and reign over us.

The vine also declined:

Shall I stop producing my wine that cheers gods and mortals and go to sway over the trees?

Wine was used in the libations both of the Temple of Jerusalem and of pagan temples. But it was also commonly believed that the gods participated in such human experiences as drinking wine (remember Bacchus—the god of wine).

All in all, the olive tree, the fig tree and the vine were all plants which produced fruit of great importance to the people of the Near East. All are mentioned frequently in the Scriptures, including Gospels.

Lastly, the trees approached the thorn bush:

So all the trees said to the bramble, ‘You come and reign over us.’

The bramble replied to the trees:

If in good faith you are anointing me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade, but if not, let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon.

The cedars of Lebanon, the most valuable of all Near Eastern trees, is here symbolic of the leading men of Shechem who are being warned of the consequences if they do not show their loyalty to Abimelech, whom they have made king.

The ‘bramble’ is probably the well-known buckthorn, a scraggly bush common in the hills of Palestine and a constant menace to farming there. It produced nothing of value and was an apt figure to represent Abimelech. In offering shade to the trees, the thornbush symbolised the traditional role of kings as protectors of their subjects, but there is an element of sarcasm in such a plant offering shade to other trees all much taller than itself. There seems to be an implication that the protection of kings, especially Abimelech, is no better than the thornbush.

Overall, the story reflects Israel’s distaste for monarchy at this time. It implies that the most valuable and productive people are not interested in being kings. Instead the role is taken by the utterly useless brambles (symbolic of Abimelech).

We too can sometimes avoid taking on responsibilities because we are reluctant to give up something we like doing. As a result, the task may have to be done by people who are incapable or unsuitable. On the other hand, we may have ambition for some role for which we are not suited and which frustrates the use of the real gifts we have. Discernment is often needed to discover whether we are really in the place that God wants us to be or whether we are making good use of the talents he has given us.

Read more

Tuesday of Week 20 of Ordinary Time – Gospel

Commentary on Matthew 19:23-30

After hearing the sad story of the rich young man who could not accept his invitation to be a disciple, Jesus gives some comments on the effects of wealth. Jesus says:

Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.

It could be that Jesus was referring to a narrow entrance in the city wall of Jerusalem called the ‘eye of the needle’. In either case, Jesus is indicating something which is extremely difficult, in fact, next to impossible.

Some of us may likely feel discomfort about this. Even if we are not rich ourselves, we might like to see our children get rich some day, or we admire people who have, by their hard work, become wealthy. What is wrong with having a lot of money which one has earned by one’s own sweat and labour?

What does the Gospel mean by being rich? To be rich here means to have a large surplus of money and possessions while around one are people who do not have what they need to live a life of dignity. How can I continue to hold on to ‘my’ possessions when such a situation prevails? How can I claim to belong to the Kingdom, the reign of God, which is a kingdom of love and justice? Jesus said that “you” did not give me to eat or drink; “you” did not visit me or show any compassion when I was:

…hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison… (Matt 25:44)

Instead, “you” piled up all that money in the bank or on the stock exchange or you splurged it on fancy cars, restaurants and expensive clothes.

In the Gospel, to be rich means refusing to share what you have with those who have not. As long as you behave like that, you cannot be eligible for the Kingdom. It really is like trying to get a camel through the eye of a needle. There is a radical incompatibility.

The disciples were quite amazed at Jesus’ words. They were thinking along lines traditional to their culture and their religion. Wealth was a sign of God’s blessings—poverty and sickness a sign of his punishment. But Jesus is turning their traditions on their head.

It was something the young man could not understand either. He was under the impression that his wealth was a grace, a sign of God’s favour. The idea of giving alms was to be highly commended, but to share his wealth with the poor and create a more just playing field was something for which he felt no obligation and which made no sense.

Then Peter, the optimist, begins to see the bright side:

Look, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?

Jesus gives a twofold reply. As the leaders of the new community and people who have generously put their whole security in Jesus, his disciples will be especially rewarded. And indeed everyone who leaves family and goods for Jesus’ sake will be rewarded many times over with father, mother, brothers, sisters, goods. This is not just a pie-in-the-sky promise. It is one that can be realised and, in many parts of the world, is being realised. When everyone works for the good of the other, everyone benefits.

The wealth-is-good world believes that it is every man for himself. There is only a limited amount of the cake and it is up to each one to get as big a piece as he can—too bad about the losers.

In the world of Jesus, everyone gets because everyone gives; because everyone gives, everyone receives. It is not a ‘gimme’ world; it is a ‘reaching out to others’ world. And when everyone reaches out, everyone is benefiting. In such a world, I do not have to worry about a roof over my head, or about brothers and sisters, or property or security. It is where love and justice meet. For too many people in our world, there is neither love nor justice.

If the rich man had liberated himself from his wealth and shared it with the poor and become a follower of Jesus in the new community, he might never have been rich again, but he would have had all his needs attended to.

Read more

Tuesday of Week 20 of Ordinary Time – First Reading

Commentary on Judges 6:11-24

We read today of the call of Gideon, one of the ‘major’ judges or leaders of the people. The story of Gideon is instructive of Israel’s condition at this time. The Hebrews had taken to agriculture and, like the other settled peoples, were threatened by nomads invading their territory to get food. To some extent they had adopted the worship of the Baalim, the local gods who guaranteed the annual yield of wheat and oil. Only a select few remained faithful to Yahweh.

The passage combines an account of the calling of Gideon and an account of the founding of a sanctuary, in the manner of those in Genesis, with a theophany (a divine appearance), a message of salvation and the inauguration of the cult.

At the beginning of this section, we are told that, because the Israelites had done evil in Yahweh’s eyes, they had been subjected to the power of the Midianites for seven years. The Midianites were a nomadic people living in north-western Sinai (remember that Moses’ wife came from this people). All efforts of the Israelites to support themselves by pasturing and farming were regularly pillaged by the Midianites. In their desperation, the Israelites cried out to God for help. And once again, God intervened on their behalf.

As our reading opens, we are told that the “angel of the Lord” (indistinguishable from Yahweh) came and sat under the terebinth tree at Ophrah, which belonged to a man called Joash of Abiezer. The Abiezrites were from the tribe of Manasseh, one of the tribes descended from Joseph. The terebinth was a sacred tree and the location of the Ophrah mentioned here is not certain. The angel of the Lord evidently appeared in human shape, which led to Gideon’s exclamation at the end of the passage.

Joash’s son, Gideon, was threshing wheat inside a wine-press, in order to remain hidden from the Midianites who might otherwise attack and take away the crop. Normally, threshing would take place in the open so that the wind could blow away the chaff, but Gideon felt more secure threshing in this better protected, but very confined space.

The ‘angel’ then greets Gideon with the words:

The Lord is with you, you mighty warrior.

By addressing him this way it would seem that Gideon belonged to the upper class, perhaps a kind of aristocracy, in spite of his disclaimer a little later on. He was more than a simple farmer.

Gideon’s response to the angel’s greeting is immediate and to the point:

But sir, if the Lord is with us, why then has all this happened to us? And where are all his wonderful deeds that our ancestors recounted to us, saying, ‘Did not the Lord bring us up from Egypt?’ But now the Lord has cast us off and given us into the hand of Midian.

At this, Yahweh turns to him and, without challenging Gideon’s complaint, instead suggests Gideon himself do something about it. He gives Gideon a mission:

Go in this might of yours and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian; I hereby commission you.

Now, it is Yahweh who speaks and not just the ‘angel of the Lord’. We are dealing not just with a divine messenger, but with an appearance of Yahweh himself, a theophany. This is a commission to deliver Israel just as Moses had been sent.

Gideon does not feel up to the challenge:

But sir, how can I deliver Israel? My clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my family.

But as is the case so often, the Lord usually calls the lowly rather than the mighty to act for him (e.g. Jacob the younger chosen before Esau in Gen 25:23; Saul, the least in the tribe of Benjamin; David, the shepherd in the field; and, of course, Mary, the ‘nobody’ from Nazareth).

But Yahweh promises to be with Gideon:

But I will be with you, and you shall strike down the Midianites, every one of them.

Gideon then requests that, if he has found favour in Yahweh’s sight, he be given a sign to confirm that the words come from Yahweh himself. He asks Yahweh to stay where he is while Gideon goes off to bring back an offering. Gideon now realises that he is addressing someone very special. His request is similar to Moses’ asking for signs as assurance that Yahweh would be with him in his undertakings.

Yahweh then makes a promise:

I will stay until you return.

Gideon then goes off. He prepares a young goat and an ephah of flour to make unleavened cakes. He puts the meat in a basket and the soup in a pot and brings them to the terebinth tree. Yahweh then tells him to put the meat and the cakes on a rock and to pour the soup over them.

The offerings are carefully chosen—a kid, the most suitable sacrificial animal; a measure of flour; loaves unleavened, because otherwise they would be ‘unclean’. All are placed on a rock, a primitive rite characteristic of peasants fresh from nomadic life.

Then (the angel of) the Lord touched the meat and the cakes with the staff he was carrying. Fire sprang from the rock and consumed the meat and cakes. The meal prepared by Gideon for the angel of the Lord—whether it has a sacrificial character or not—is turned into a burnt offering (holocaust) by the divine fire. There is a similar event, though more dramatically told, later on in Judges (13:15-20). The rock on which the offerings were placed becomes consecrated and Gideon builds an altar on it. The place becomes a sacred shrine.

Gideon then realises he has been speaking with the angel of the Lord and he exclaims:

Help me, Lord God! For I have seen the angel of the Lord face to face.

But Yahweh assures him:

Peace be to you; do not fear; you shall not die.

The traditional belief was that no one could look on the face of God and live. The great exception was Moses.

Gideon then builds an altar to Yahweh in that place and calls it “The Lord is Peace”. The author says that the altar still stands at Ophrah of Abiezer. But later, no one knew where it was.

As we read this story we may remind ourselves that God, too, is constantly calling us. Our lack of talent or education or ability will never be an excuse. We can trust, too, that he is always on our side and we do not need extraordinary signs of his presence, although things may happen which will surprise us. He is, after all, the ‘God of surprises’.

Read more

Monday of Week 20 of Ordinary Time – First Reading

Commentary on Judges 2:11-19

Immediately after the book of Joshua comes the book of Judges, which we begin reading today. We will just have four readings from the book.

The story of the Judges proper is confined to the main body of the book (chaps 2-16). The term ‘judges’ (in Hebrew, shophetim) does not have our common meaning, but indicates war leaders and deliverers of the people. They are very different in character and ability from each other, but what they do share is a divine calling to save their people.

Today’s reading sets the scene for the unfolding of the book. After the death of Joshua, the people—in spite of the solemn promises they made—gradually began to fall away from serving Yahweh and started to follow the gods of the surrounding peoples. For their disloyalty, they found themselves the victims of their enemies. Yahweh was no longer with them in their struggles.

This passage comes from some general reflections on the whole period of the ‘judges’. We are given the theme or paradigm which will be repeated in the case of each judge:

• Israel deserts Yahweh for Baal;
• Yahweh hands Israel over to oppressors;
• Israel cries to Yahweh;
• Yahweh sends Israel a saviour.

The cycle then begins all over again.

However, this theological understanding of history, based on the assumption that the judges succeeded one another in the chronological order given in the book, and that each acted for the whole nation (rather than their own tribe), hardly corresponds to historical fact. The book is a compilation of originally independent accounts of local heroes, to whom an arbitrary relationship in time has been given.

As the Book of Judges opens we are told that the generation that followed Joshua neither knew Yahweh nor the deeds that he had done for Israel. The Israelites were now doing what was evil in Yahweh’s eyes and serving the “Baals” (‘Baal’ means ‘lord’). Baal, the god worshipped by the Canaanites and Phoenicians, was variously known to them as the ‘son of Dagon’ and the ‘son of El’. In Aram (Syria), he was called ‘Hadad’ and in Babylonia, ‘Adad’. Believed to give fertility to the womb and life-giving rain to the soil, he is pictured as standing on a bull, a popular symbol of fertility and strength.

The storm cloud was Baal’s chariot, thunder his voice, and lightning his spear and arrows. The worship of Baal involved sacred prostitution and sometimes even child sacrifice. The stories of Elijah and Elisha, as well as many other Old Testament passages, directly or indirectly protest Baalism. Elijah’s bringing rain down and breaking a drought showed the superior power of Yahweh over Baal, who was supposed to be the god of rain (1 Kgs 18:41-46).

The Israelites had deserted Yahweh, the God of their ancestors, who had brought them out of Egypt and followed other gods, those of the surrounding peoples. They bowed down before these gods; they provoked Yahweh; they deserted Yahweh to serve Baal and Astarte.

In the Bible the phrase ‘Baal and Astarte’ or, in the plural, ‘the Baals and Astartes’ is the common expression for the Canaanite divinities. Baal, ‘the Lord’, is the male god. Astarte was associated with the evening star and was the beautiful goddess of war and fertility. She was worshipped as Ishtar in Babylonia and as Athtart in Aram. To the Greeks she was Aphrodite, and to the Romans, Venus. Worship of the Astartes involved extremely lascivious practices.

Every time they indulged in this idolatrous behaviour, Yahweh’s anger would grow hot against Israel. He would hand them over to pillagers who would plunder them. They would be delivered into the hands of the enemies all around them and no longer able to resist them. Whenever they mounted an expedition, Yahweh’s hand would be there to foil them—as he had warned he would—and, as a result, they were in dire distress.

It was then that the Lord appointed ‘judges’ who would rescue them from the hands of their plunderers. There were 12 judges altogether: six major judges—Othniel, Ehud, Deborah, Gideon, Jephthah and Samson, and six minor ones—Shamgar, Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon and Abdon. Notice that one of the judges is a woman, Deborah.

But the Israelites would refuse to listen even to the judges. They preferred to prostitute themselves before other gods. They moved far from the path their ancestors had followed in obedience to Yahweh.

Idol worship was always seen as a form of prostitution. Since the Hebrew for ‘Baal’ (‘lord’) was also used by women to refer to their husbands, it is understandable that the metaphor of adultery was commonly used in connection with Israelite worship of Baal (see Hosea 2:2-3,16-17). Yahweh was the true spouse of Israel. The worship of Baal was a kind of adultery or prostitution.

When Yahweh appointed judges:

…the Lord was with the judge, and he delivered them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge, for the Lord would be moved to pity by their groaning because of those who persecuted and oppressed them.

The words ‘groan’ and ‘oppressed’ echoes the language of the bondage under the Pharaoh in Egypt.

But once the judge was dead, the people fell back into even more corrupt ways than those who had gone before them. They gave themselves completely to other gods, served them, bowed down before them and totally abandoned the practices of their ancestors.

Although there were undoubtedly natural explanations for the people’s sufferings, the Scripture sees the hands of God in everything they experience. On their own or subject to false gods, they are lost and they experience great suffering. It is less a sign of God’s punishment, still less his vindictiveness, than the fact that to leave truth and goodness is to head for darkness and failure and pain.

Following the ways of God and Jesus is not just a question of obedience to a higher authority; it is to follow a way of life which is in total harmony with our deepest needs.

Read more