Friday of Week 2 of Ordinary Time – First Reading

Commentary on 1 Samuel 24:3-21

Today’s First Reading is a truly majestic passage with much to say to us in these violent times. Saul has been continuously trying to put an end to David’s life. He is jealous of David and sees him as a threat to his throne, especially as Saul knows that because of his own behaviour, he has lost God’s support of him as king.

As our reading opens we find Saul with no less than 3,000 men trying to hunt down David. In some rocky terrain, Saul slips into a cave in order to “to relieve himself” (though some translations euphemistically say, “to cover his feet”). Little does he know that deeper inside the cave is David hiding with his men.

Seeing Saul’s very vulnerable position, David’s men urge him to kill Saul. After all God had promised that he would deliver David’s enemy into his hands:

Here is the day of which the Lord said to you, ‘I will give your enemy into your hand, and you shall do to him as it seems good to you.’

Here was the clear opportunity.

Actually, there is no previous record of the divine revelation here alluded to by David’s men. Perhaps it was their own interpretation of the anointing of David to replace Saul, or of assurances given to David that he would survive Saul’s vendetta against him and ultimately become king. It could also refer, not to a verbal communication from the Lord, but to the providential nature of the incident itself, which David’s men understood as a revelation from God that David should not ignore.

However, David refused to kill Saul. Instead he “stealthily cut off a corner of Saul’s cloak”. How he did this without Saul’s being aware is not clear, unless, after relieving himself, Saul had lain down to sleep. But almost immediately, David regretted what he had done. For the garment was, as it were, the man himself and even to touch it was to lay hands on the person. (Remember in the New Testament, how people just touched the clothes of Jesus or of his disciples to be healed.)

For all his wickedness, Saul was still the anointed king of Israel. Nor would David allow his men to attack Saul. Saul’s royal office carried divine sanction by virtue of his anointing. David will not seize the kingship from Saul, but leave its disposition to the Lord to whom it belongs.

Only after Saul had left the cave did David reveal himself. He called out to the king and “bowed with his face to the ground” in reverence to his king. Why should Saul think that David wished him harm when, just now, David had him totally at his mercy and refrained from doing anything? He says to Saul:

I will not raise my hand against my lord, for he is the Lord’s anointed.

Not only is Saul his king, but also his father-in-law.

He lets Saul know how close to death he had been. The evidence was in David’s hands; the piece of the cloak that he had cut off. David offered this as proof that he had no designs on Saul and there was no need for Saul to regard David as his enemy. In the end, it would be the Lord who would judge between them.

Saul, for all his faults, generously acknowledges the enormous dignity of David in behaving the way he did. Asks Saul:

…who has ever found an enemy and sent the enemy safely away?

In the culture of Israel in those days, the answer was definitely, “No!” And, in many situations in our own day, it is still “No!” There are many in our society who would not be able to understand the attitude of David.

For now, Saul feels great remorse for his wicked intentions against David, but it will not be long before he reverts to his former murderous plots. He realises that a person of such extraordinary dignity as David must surely replace him as king. He only begs David that he not do harm to his family and wipe out his family name. Jonathan will be killed in battle, but David will take another son, who is physically disabled, into the royal palace.

If David had killed Saul, he would have lowered himself to the same level as the king. David here can be seen as a patron for all those—and they are clearly a minority—who believe passionately in non-violent means for dealing with all problems, most of all problems which involve violence. This scene really shows the greatness of the man. It is a perfect example of the power (not the weakness) of turning the other cheek.

Two examples of non-violent heroes in our recent past have been Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr, but there certainly are many others. They would understand very well what David did. Let us try to understand too.

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

Tuesday of Week 2 of Ordinary Time – First Reading

Commentary on 1 Samuel 16:1-13

With Saul rejected by God as king, Samuel is now told to look for a successor, whom God has already chosen. The episode, as described here, seems to come from the prophetic tradition and is not related to the later narrative in which David is anointed as king at Hebron by the men of Judah (2 Sam 2:4) and again by the elders of Israel (2 Sam 5:3); in contrast, there is no mention of the anointing described in today’s reading. In fact, in the next chapter (1 Sam 17:28), Eliab, David’s eldest brother, speaks to him as if he were still just a shepherd boy who had no place being with the Israelite army.

The reading today opens with the Lord scolding Samuel for grieving over Saul’s rejection as king. Instead he is sent to Jesse, the father of a large family of sons in Bethlehem. At first, Samuel is afraid to go because Saul may hear of it and kill Samuel out of anger and jealousy. The road from Ramah (where Samuel was) to Bethlehem passed through Gibeah, the region of Saul. Saul already knew that the Lord had chosen someone to replace him as king, and Samuel was afraid that jealousy would incite Saul to violence. Later incidents would confirm that Samuel’s fears were well-founded. So Samuel is told by God to tell Saul he is going to sacrifice a heifer to the Lord—which in fact he does. It was the truth, but not the whole truth.

When Samuel arrived in Bethlehem, he was met by the elders who asked if the prophet’s visit was a peaceful one. Samuel simply replied that he had come to offer a sacrifice to the Lord. Again, the truth, but not the whole truth about the real purpose of his visit. He orders them to make themselves ceremonially clean for the sacrifice by washing and putting on clean clothes, as required by the law.

Jesse and his family are also invited to the sacrifice during which Samuel is to choose the one who is to be anointed king. Samuel at first presumes that Eliab, the eldest son, is the obvious candidate because his appearance and height seem to indicate he is the one. These were the qualities which had been a factor in Saul’s being chosen earlier.

But the Lord tells Samuel he is not to judge by external appearances. The Lord is concerned more with a person’s inner disposition and character:

…the Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.

Eliab, then, is not the one.

The second son, Abinadab, and then the third, Shammah, come forward, but are also turned down. After seven sons had been presented and passed over, Samuel asks if there are any others.

Jesse says there is still one more, who was not present. He was away in the fields taking care of sheep. This was David. As we saw earlier, his role as one taking care of sheep is contrasted with Saul, who was earlier pictured searching after wandering and disobedient donkeys. And of course, the image of the shepherd is one that belongs to God. It is fitting that the king of his people will also be a shepherd (and we still call those who serve the community of the church ‘pastors’, i.e. shepherds).

Samuel says that the sacrificial meal cannot proceed until the boy is brought in from the fields. David:

…was ruddy and had beautiful eyes and was handsome.

He is the one that God has chosen:

The Lord said, “Rise and anoint him, for this is the one.” Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers…

This small circle of witnesses to David’s anointing assured its confidentiality, but also would provide ample testimony for the future that David had been anointed by Samuel and that he was not merely a usurper of Saul’s office.

From that day on:

…the spirit of the Lord came mightily upon David…

The spirit of God possesses David without any external manifestation and in close association with the anointing—this is the grace bestowed on one consecrated. The name ‘David’ is an ancient semitic word for ‘commander’, ‘military leader’.

David will become one of the outstanding and most human characters of the Old Testament, as both sinner and saint. In a very special way, he will be the ancestor, through Joseph, of Jesus. Jesus is the “root of Jesse” who comes from Bethlehem, the “city of David”, and it is in the royal city of his ancestor that he will be born.

A reading like this is an opportunity for us to reflect on our own vocation, our being chosen by God for a special task. And we may well wonder why God has chosen us, rather than others whom we might regard as far more qualified, to do the work he has given us to do.

And within the vocation or way of life in which we already find ourselves, we can still ask to what, in our present circumstances, God is further calling us or whether he may even be calling us to serve him in a different direction altogether. Let us listen to his call and ask him for the strength and courage to say ‘Yes’.

Read more

Tuesday of Week 2 of Ordinary Time – Gospel

Commentary on Mark 2:23-28

Today we have a third confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees on the place of the Law in people’s lives. His disciples are accused of violating the Sabbath by picking ears of corn (“heads of grain”) as they walked through a field. Stealing was not involved, as ‘gleaning’, especially by the hungry poor, was tolerated. But the Law forbade reaping on the Sabbath. One could hardly call what the disciples were doing ‘reaping’, but with the casuistic mind of the Pharisees and teachers of the Law, the bias was on the side of safety. The perfect observer of the Law would not do anything that could even be regarded in the slightest as a violation.

Jesus solves the issue by appealing to the Hebrew Testament, which, of course, the Pharisees recognised as the word of God. He reminded them how King David and his followers, because they were hungry, went into the house of God and took the loaves of offering, even though only the priests were allowed to eat them. Jesus then enunciates two principles. The first was:

The Sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the Sabbath…

The second was that:

…the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.

The first principle is a very important one, namely, that all laws are for people and not vice versa. They are not ends in themselves, and moral perfection is not in their literal observance. The hunger of David and his men transcended a religious regulation (that only the priests could eat the bread of offering). For the Jews of Jesus’ time, virtue was in perfect observance of the Law. For Jesus, observance of the Law was only perfect when it was for the good of others and oneself.

The second principle was that Jesus, as the Son of God, was not bound by human laws, however lofty their motive. We would do well to remember those principles in the living out of our Christian faith.  It is possible to lead rule-centred Christian lives rather than love- and people-centred lives.

There is only one law in our faith:

Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. (John 13:34)

Even God will not violate that law because God is love. Any law which, in a particular situation, does not serve this overriding law can be set aside, and should be set aside. Positive laws are necessary for smooth functioning in society, but they are never absolute.

Read more

Saturday of Week 2 of Ordinary Time – First Reading

Commentary on Hebrews 9:2-3, 11-14 (more…)

Read more

Monday of Week 2 of Ordinary Time – First Reading

Commentary on 1 Samuel 15:16-23

Today we see Saul rejected by Yahweh as king. In fact, Yahweh regrets ever having made Saul king. This is a very anthropomorphic image of God, where he admits to making mistakes. The Old Testament also presents God as angry, jealous and vengeful, but these are really projections of the Israelites’ own feelings, making God to be very much like themselves.

Although Saul had carried out his mandate to defeat the Amalekites, enemies of Israel, he displeased God because he and his men used the victory to plunder and gather all the spoils to themselves. Saul tried to justify his behaviour by claiming that the best of the sheep and oxen seized by his men would be sacrificed to God.

But Samuel enunciates the very important principle that obedience to God’s will transcends any religious rituals—and that is the central point of today’s reading.

Surely, to obey is better than sacrifice
and to heed than the fat of rams.
For rebellion is no less a sin than divination,
and stubbornness is like iniquity and idolatry.

In so speaking, Samuel is not condemning sacrificial practise as such, but rather saying that ritual which is not accompanied by appropriate behaviour in our relationships with God and others is of no value (see Is 1:11-17; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:21-27; Mic 6:6-8). To act against God’s known will while doing homage to something which is not of God (e.g. personal greed in this case) is to be guilty of a kind of idolatry (worship of Mammon). Saul’s crime is likened to ‘sorcery’ (“divination”), and the last line in some translations reads, “presumption a crime of teraphim”. Teraphim were the household gods, which guarded houses and property (regarding the use of a household idol, see 1 Sam 19:11-17).

Submissiveness to God’s will is certainly better than “the fat of rams”. The fat of sacrificed animals always belonged to the Lord. Samuel speaks of “rebellion”. He is charging Saul with violating the central requirement of the covenant condition when he became king. Speaking earlier to the people he had said:

If you will fear the Lord and serve him and heed his voice and not rebel against the commandment of the Lord, and if both you and the king who reigns over you will follow the Lord your God, it will be well; but if you will not heed the voice of the Lord but rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then the hand of the Lord will be against you and your king. (1 Sam 12:14-15)

Now Samuel tells Saul:

…you have rejected the word of the Lord…

A king who set his own will above the command of the Lord ceases to be an instrument of the Lord’s rule over his people, violating the very nature of his office, where he is a vicegerent of God.

And so the Lord has rejected Saul as being king. Already Saul had been told, because of a previous incident (see chap 13), that his dynasty would not last because he had disobeyed the will of the Lord. Here the judgement goes beyond the earlier one. Now Saul himself is to be set aside as king. Although this did not happen immediately, as chapters 16-31 show, the process was under way which would lead to his death. It included in its relentless course the removal of God’s Spirit and favour from him (16:14), the defection of his son Jonathan and daughter Michal to David, and the insubordination of his own officials.

In summary, the reading is saying that to appease or manipulate God by using sacrifices in this way was tantamount to superstition and idolatry. For his disobedience, God now rejects Saul as king. As mentioned, this will not occur immediately, but will unfold as the story proceeds.

We too should remember that it is God’s will in our lives that is paramount. Our greatest good is in making God’s will our own. To think that God will be happy with us simply by our piling up religious exercises is misguided piety.

Remember what Jesus said:

When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. (Matt 6:7)

and

…Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it! (Luke 11:28)

In other words, we can always be sure that God hears us. But do we always hear him?

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

Thursday of Week 2 of Ordinary Time – First Reading

Commentary on 1 Samuel 18:6-9; 19:1-7

Saul was deeply impressed by David’s great exploit in killing Goliath and took him into his palace. A deep friendship developed between David and Jonathan, Saul’s son. We are told a little earlier that:

When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. (1 Sam 18:1)

Jonathan, as a sign of his affection, gave David his own mantle, his military dress, his sword, his bow and his belt. David was now transformed from a shepherd into a soldier.

Our reading today opens by saying that, as David and Saul returned from David’s famous victory over Goliath, the women came out from all the cities, singing and dancing. They played and sang:

Saul has killed his thousands
and David his ten thousands.

In accordance with the normal convention of Hebrew poetry, this was the women’s way of saying: ‘Both Saul and David have slain thousands’ (10,000 was typically used as the parallel of 1,000—see Ps 91:7). It is a measure of Saul’s insecurity and jealousy that he heard their words literally and took offence. His resentment would also be triggered simply by having David’s name put alongside his own. From then on a seething jealousy and resentment against David grew in his heart.

Things reached a stage where Saul actually intended to kill David. He even tried to contrive that David would be killed in battle by the Philistines. If this happened, Saul’s evil intention would not be known, for he was aware of David’s popularity with the people. Of course, ironically, David himself will do exactly the same thing against the husband of a woman with whom he had an adulterous affair. Except that, in David’s case, the husband was killed and David’s sin was exposed (see 2 Sam 11:14-17 and 2 Sam 12:1-15).

In another ruse, Saul offered his own daughter as a bride to David. He hoped that, as Saul’s son-in-law, he would become a target for the Philistines. Unfortunately, this did not work, even though the daughter, Michal, who loved David, did become his wife.

In today’s reading we see Saul trying now to get his son Jonathan to bring about David’s death. He is abandoning the indirect attempts he has so far been contriving. He now adopts a more direct approach which will ultimately lead to David’s leaving the court and Saul’s service. However, Jonathan told David about his father’s intentions and later spoke to Saul on David’s behalf. After all, David had done so much to protect Saul and the people by his exploits. Why kill innocent blood?

Considering that David could have been seen as a threat to Jonathan’s own expectations of succeeding his father, his behaviour is both an indication of Jonathan’s integrity and his love and respect for David. Saul was won over and swore not to kill David, who was reinstated fully. However, Saul had made oaths in the past and not kept them. He won’t keep this one for very long either.

Jealousy can be a terrible thing. It is closely linked with one’s own insecurity and difficulty in accepting what one is. It is very difficult to see others surpassing the skills of which we were proud. It is difficult to see people turning their attention away from us to others. It is difficult for us to have the spirit of John the Baptist who, referring to Jesus, said:

He must increase, but I must decrease. (John 3:30)

The cure for jealousy is for us to accept fully our strengths and our weaknesses and not to measure our success as persons by what we can do or by what people think of us. All that matters is that God be given glory and that the work of the Kingdom be done.

If some are doing it better than us, we should be grateful. If some are not doing it better than us, but are getting all the credit—does it really matter?

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

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