Saturday of Week 4 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Mark 6:30-34
The Twelve came back from their mission full of excitement at all they had done and taught. Jesus now told them to withdraw for a while for reflection and rest. This is what Jesus himself used to do. Large crowds were still mobbing Jesus and perhaps some of the Apostles too, so much so that they did not even have time to eat. This could have been a real time of temptation as the Apostles began to glory in their new-found power and the resultant fame and popularity.
We also see here once more the balance in Jesus’ life. He was so available to all those in need, the poor, the sick, the outcasts, but there was a limit to his availability. He knew when he needed to get away, to renew contact with his Father and to recharge his batteries (see Mark 1:35-37).
Some people are too self-centred. They have a very poor awareness of other people’s needs and do not bother to meet them. On the other hand, there are those who need to be needed. Their need is to have people looking constantly for them, but the result can often be ‘burnout’ or breakdowns. There are times when we have to learn to be able to say ‘No’ without feeling guilty.
So Jesus and his disciples take off in a boat to a solitary place where they will be left to themselves. Rather, that is what they thought they did. But the people saw them leaving and had a good idea where they were headed. While Jesus and his disciples crossed the lake in a boat, the people hurried along the lake shore. When Jesus stepped out of the boat, he was again faced by a huge crowd.
Jesus quickly decides that this is a time for availability. He is deeply moved by the people’s need; they were like lost sheep in need of a shepherd’s guidance. The people’s persistence in coming out to a desert place echoes the people of Israel in their wanderings. Here, Jesus is the Shepherd of the New Israel. So he begins to teach them. Their first hunger was spiritual. They needed to understand what Jesus stood for and why he did the things he did. There is a Eucharistic connection here and in what follows (the multiplication of loaves), and the teaching corresponds to what we now call the Liturgy of the Word during the Eucharist.
The story illustrates well the balance in Jesus’ life. As he did himself, he urges his disciples to retire and reflect on the meaning of what they are doing. Otherwise they may become active for activity’s sake, or for other less worthy motives. At the same time, in this particular situation, Jesus sees that a response is called for. The day of reflection is abandoned, and the people in their great need are served.
Let us learn, through careful discernment, to do likewise—to do the right thing at the right time.
Read more
Saturday of Week 4 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on 1 Kings 3:4-13
Today we have our first reading on King Solomon. It tells of the source of Solomon’s proverbial wisdom. The second part of the chapter, which we will not be reading, tells the story of that wisdom in action when Solomon solved a dispute between two women over which of them was the real mother of two children, one living, one dead.
We are told today that Solomon goes to Gibeon to sacrifice. Gibeon lay to the northwest of Jerusalem and was in the territory of Benjamin. At the time of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, the Gibeonites tricked Joshua and Israel into a peace treaty. The city was subsequently given to the tribe of Benjamin and set apart for the Levites. David avenged Saul’s violation of the Gibeonite treaty by the execution of seven of Saul’s descendants (see 2 Sam 21:1-9 and Monday’s reading of this week).
The reason for Gibeon’s importance was the presence there of the tabernacle and an ancient bronze altar. These must have been salvaged after the destruction of Shiloh by the Philistines. There Solomon made a huge offering of 1,000 holocausts. Later, the tabernacle will be moved to the new temple that Solomon will build in Jerusalem.
While still in Gibeon, the Lord tells Solomon in a dream to ask for anything he wants. Before the time of the prophets, dreams were one of the main channels by which God communicated with people. But in the New Testament, we also see Joseph being spoken to by God three times in a dream (Matt 1:20; 2:12 and 2:22), and there is the vision of Peter in Acts (10:10-16). It is not clear what the distinction would be between a dream and a vision.
In response to God’s command, Solomon praises the Lord for all that had been done through his father David. And these favours continue by God’s seating a son of David on his throne. But Solomon is very young and knows little about administration. The birth of Solomon is generally placed in approximately the middle of David’s 40-year reign, meaning that Solomon was about 20 years old at the beginning of his own reign, and hence lacked experience in assuming the responsibilities of his office.
Moreover, he is king of a very large number of people, “so numerous they cannot be numbered or counted”. Something of an exaggeration, of course, but from the small beginnings of a single family living in Egypt, the Israelites had increased to an extent approaching that anticipated in the promises given to Abraham and Jacob.
Solomon, therefore, asks the Lord to give him “an understanding mind” so that he can rule with equity and distinguish right from wrong. He prays for wisdom in practical affairs. It is a generous request, made not for himself, but for the benefit of the people over whom he rules.
The Lord is deeply pleased that Solomon has not asked for what Near Eastern rulers traditionally looked for: long life, great wealth, the destruction of enemies. He had asked for wisdom, for deep insight into what is true and good. And so the Lord gives him what he asks:
…I give you a wise and discerning mind; no one like you has been before you, and no one like you shall arise after you.
And, because of his integrity and concern for the good of his people, Solomon will also get those things which he did not ask for—riches and glory, the likes of which had never been seen until that time.
And indeed, Solomon would become famous both for his wisdom and also for his great wealth.
God today puts to me the same question he put to Solomon:
Ask what I should give you.
What will I ask for? What do I really want? What do I really need? Let me not be too hasty in answering the question. Remember the promise of Jesus:
Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well. (Luke 12:31)
The answer I give to this question can be very revealing of my attitudes, my values, my priorities and where I stand in my relationships with God, others and self.
Read more
Friday of Week 4 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Mark 6:14-29
Jesus was now becoming well known over a wide area. There was much speculation as to who he was (a major theme of Mark’s Gospel). Some were suggesting that he was John the Baptist (who had by this time been executed) come to life again, or that he was the prophet Elijah, who was expected to return just before the coming of the Messiah, or that he was a prophet in his own right, “like one of the prophets of old”. We know, of course, that all those speculations were wrong. The true answer will emerge very soon.
King Herod, steeped in superstition and full of fear and guilt, was convinced that Jesus was a re-incarnation of John the Baptist, whom he had beheaded. Today’s Gospel now gives us the story as to how this happened.
Herod Antipas, also known as Herod the Tetrarch, was the son of Herod the Great, who was king when Jesus was born. When the older Herod died, his kingdom was divided among his three surviving sons. Archelaus received half of the territory, Herod Antipas became ruler of Galilee and Perea, while Philip (Herod Boethus) became the ruler of the northern territory on the east side of the Jordan. The title ‘Tetrarch’ indicates that he was ruler of one quarter of the whole territory.
It is clear that Herod had great respect for John, as he would also have for Jesus later on. The problem arose because John had denounced Herod’s taking the wife (Herodias) of his half-brother Herod Boethus. This was in clear violation of Jewish law. The historian Josephus also says that Herod feared that John, so popular with the people, might instigate a riot against him.
It was this woman, Herodias, who now wanted to be rid of John, but could not do so because of Herod Antipas’ respect for him. Herod had gone as far as arresting John, but even when John was in prison, Herod loved to listen to him, despite being puzzled by John’s preaching.
Herodias saw her opportunity when Herod threw a party for his court to celebrate his birthday. She knew her husband’s weaknesses. Herodias’s daughter was brought in to dance and utterly captivated Herod. Deep in his cups, he made a rash promise. He would give her anything, even half of the territory he governed. Under the prompting of the mother, the girl makes the gruesome request for John’s head on a dish.
Herod was aghast, but because of his oath in the presence of his guests, he dared not renege on his promise. John was beheaded, and the head given to the mother. Afterwards, John’s disciples came and took his body and gave him a decent burial.
We might notice some similarities between this story and the passion of Jesus. Both Herod and Pilate recognised in John and Jesus, respectively, people of obvious goodness of life, wisdom and integrity. The hatred of Herodias for John parallels the hatred of the Jewish leaders for Jesus—in both situations the ‘haters’ called for execution by the ruler (Herod in one case, Pilate in the other). After the deaths of John and Jesus, disciples asked and received permission for a decent burial.
John is the precursor of Jesus, not only in announcing the coming of Jesus, but also in giving his life for the integrity of his beliefs and in bringing God’s message to the people. We are called to do the same. Preparing the way for Jesus and his message must become an integral part of every Christian’s life. Without our cooperation, without our going ahead of Jesus, his message will not be heard.
Read more
Friday of Week 4 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on Sirach 47:2-11
Today we have our final reading about David. It comes from the poetic and apocryphal Book of Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), which contains a lengthy section (chaps 44-50) praising the great figures of Israel’s history. Here we have Sirach’s eulogy of David which in poetic language recalls the highlights of his life.
David was a person set apart, in the way that in a sacrifice the fat is set apart from the rest of the flesh offering. From his youth, he stood out:
He played with lions as though they were young goats
and with bears as though they were lambs of the flock.
He was still a boy when he took on the Philistine giant, Goliath, and brought him down with one shot from his sling, thus relieving his people of their shame. Because of this he won the enthusiastic support of the people:
So they glorified him for the tens of thousands.
This is in contrast to Saul who, they said, only killed his thousands.
He was regularly victorious against their enemy, the Philistines and “crushed their power” (or “horn” in some translations).
At the same time, he constantly gave glory and praise to his Lord. David is famous in the Old Testament as a maker and performer of music. The Psalms have been attributed to him although, of course, he could not have written them all as their composition extends over a long period of time.
He created liturgies so that feasts could be celebrated with fitting splendour:
…while [the people] praised God’s holy name
and the sanctuary resounded from early morning.
The deeply sinful parts of his life are summed up in one short sentence:
The Lord took away his sins
and exalted his power forever;
he [the Lord] gave him a covenant of kingship
and a glorious throne in Israel.
It is right to concentrate on a person’s virtues and achievements and especially their relationship with God and their fellow-men. That is what Sirach does here.
Unfortunately, the words of Mark Antony about Caesar in Shakespeare’s play are often too true:
“The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”
But a Latin saying is more to be followed:
De mortuis nil nisi bonum.
This translates as:
“Say nothing but good about those who have died.”
Yet, what makes many of the saints, saints, is precisely how sin was turned to good in their lives. We can think of Paul, Augustine and Ignatius Loyola, among the many others.
Read more
Thursday of Week 4 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Mark 6:7-13
We now reach a new stage in the formation of Jesus’ disciples. There was a calling of the first disciples to be “fishers of people”, then the choosing of twelve who would share in the very work of Jesus. Now the Twelve, the foundation of the future community, are being sent out to do exactly the same work that Jesus has been doing.
They have been given authority over unclean spirits, they preach repentance—that radical conversion (Greek, metanoia) to the vision of the Kingdom—and they anoint the sick with oil and heal them. Notice that these three activities cover the whole person: spiritual, mental and physical; healing and wholeness; health and holiness. To be holy is to be whole.
They are instructed to travel lightly, bringing only what they absolutely need—no food or money or even a change of clothes. They will not need these things because they will be taken care of by the people they serve. They are to stay in the first house that takes them in. Overall, they are to show total dependence on and trust in God.
This is freedom at its best. It is a model repeated by many saints and founders of religious congregations. Do we really need all the baggage we carry through life? Even the ancient Greeks said: “Those are really rich whose needs are the least”. That is what Jesus is teaching us. And, of course, he was a living example.
The disciples went off and did the three central works of Jesus:
- They proclaimed the Kingdom and called for a radical change of heart from people, so that they might see life in the way that Jesus, the Son of God, was proclaiming.
- They liberated many people from evil influences and compulsions. Freedom is the essence of Christian discipleship.
- They anointed the sick with soothing oil and brought them healing and wholeness.
They not only preached the Kingdom; they made it a reality in people’s lives. This is what we too are all called to do within the circumstances of our life. Even having little, we are to give much.
Read more
Thursday of Week 4 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on 1 Kings 2:1-4,10-12
Today we begin reading from the Book of Kings. The two Books of Kings were originally, like 1 and 2 Samuel, a single historical work. In conjunction with the Books of Samuel, they extend the consecutive history of Israel from the birth of Samuel to the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. This combined work is designed as a religious history; hence in Kings, the Temple, which is the chosen site for the worship of Yahweh, occupies the centre of attention.
The Books of Kings show clearly the theological bent of a Deuteronomic editor. In them, as already in Judges, material from various sources, such as the Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:41) and the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (1 Kgs 14:19), is forged into structural unity by an editor whose principal interest is in the fidelity to Yahweh of rulers and people. The reigns of individual kings are adapted to an editorial framework consisting of a presentation and an obituary notice for each, in stereotyped formulae. In between, the achievements of the king are reported—above all, his fidelity or lack of fidelity to Yahweh.
The faithful prosper; the unfaithful pay for their defections. Since this is basically a narrative of sin and retribution, it would not be inappropriate to entitle the Books of Kings “The Rise and Fall of the Israelite Monarchy”.
Without minimising the complexity of the process by which this material was transmitted for many centuries, one may speak of two editions of the Books. The first was written at some time between 621 BC and 597 BC and the second, the final edition, during the Exile, probably shortly after Jehoiachin was released from his Babylonian Prison (561 BC).
1 Kings carries the history of Israel from the last days and death of David to the accession in Samaria of Ahaziah, son of Ahab, near the end of the reign of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. Judgment is passed on Ahaziah’s reign, but the details are given later in 2 Kings. We should note the two large cycles of traditions which grew up around the great prophetic figures of Elijah and Elisha, the former in I Kings and the latter chiefly in 2 Kings. These cycles, which interrupt the sequence of regnal chronicles, were very probably preserved and transmitted by the prophetic communities to which there are references in the same traditions. The Elijah cycle is the more important since it dramatically underscores Israel’s critical struggle with the religion of Canaan.
According to the New American Bible, the principal divisions of the Books of Kings are:
I. The Reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1:1–11:43)
II. The Reign of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 12:1–14:20)
III. Kings of Judah and Israel (1 Kgs 14:21–16:34)
IV. The Story of Elijah (1 Kgs 17:1–19:21)
V. The Story of Ahab (1 Kgs 20:1–2 Kgs 1:18)
VI. Elisha Succeeds Elijah (2 Kgs 2:1–25)
VII. Stories of Elisha and Joram (2 Kgs 3:1–9:13)
VIII. The End of the Omrid Dynasty (2 Kgs 9:14–11:20)
IX. Kings of Judah and Israel (2 Kgs 12:1–17:5)
X. The End of Israel (2 Kgs 17:6–41)
XI. The End of Judah (2 Kgs 18:1–25:30)
Today we begin the First Book of Kings. We carry on the narrative from 2 Samuel as David comes to the end of his life and hands over the kingship to his son Solomon, the second son that he had by Bathsheba (after she had become his wife).
Today’s reading contains part of David’s final testament before his death. Moses, Joshua and Samuel, as representatives of God’s rule over his people, had all given final instructions and admonitions before they died. David is now going “to go the way of all the earth” and exhorts his son to be courageous and act like a real man.
While the section in our reading consists of positive instructions to his son and successor, Solomon, he is also instructed to execute vengeance on David’s personal enemies. These include Joab, one of his chief generals who had betrayed him, and Shimei, a man who had cursed David and whom David had originally said should not be touched.
On the positive side, Solomon is told to observe what the Lord his God requires. He is told to:
Be strong, be courageous, and keep the charge of the Lord your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes, his commandments, his ordinances, and his testimonies…
This is a characteristic expression from the law of Moses for acting in obedience to the obligations of God’s covenant with the obligations spelt out. And finally, David tells his son of the words God had spoken to him about the continuity of his dynastic line:
If your heirs take heed to their way, to walk before me in faithfulness with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail you a successor on the throne of Israel.
This is the covenanted promise given to David through Nathan the prophet. Although the covenant promise to David was unconditional, individual participation in its blessing on the part of David’s royal descendants depended on their total obedience (“with all their heart and soul”) to the obligations of the Mosaic covenant.
However, both Solomon and his descendants fell short of their covenant obligations. This led to the division of the kingdom and eventually to the exile of both the northern and southern kingdoms to Babylon. It was only with the coming of Christ that the fallen tent of David would be restored and the promise of David’s eternal dynasty ultimately fulfilled.
When the nation and its king turned away from the requirements of the covenant, they experienced the covenant curses rather than blessings. But in all this, God remained faithful to his covenant promises to Abraham and to David. In spite of all their failings, the promise of the covenant found its realisation in Jesus, King and Messiah.
After 40 years on the throne, David died in Jerusalem, the “city of David”. He had been king in Hebron for 7 years and in Jerusalem for 33 years. The dates were from about 1010 to 970 BC. Solomon, his son by Bathsheba and a young man full of promise, had already taken over the kingship.
In the Old Testament David stands out as a giant. He was a man of glaring faults and paradoxically, a man of great integrity. He was also a man of deep religious conviction. When he failed—and he failed badly by any standards—he was the first to acknowledge his faults and express repentance for his sin. In consequence, he experienced God’s mercy and forgiveness.
We can learn from his example. Not by saying that it does not matter if we sin, because it does. But that, having sinned, we need to acknowledge our sin and turn back to our loving God.
Read more
Wednesday of Week 4 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Mark 6:1-6
Jesus returns to his home town in the company of his disciples. On the Sabbath day, as was his right, he began teaching in the synagogue. His listeners, who all knew him since he was a child, are staggered at the authoritative way he speaks, and by what he says:
Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands!
He had no more education than any of his fellow-villagers. But the point is that they do recognise his wisdom and his power to perform miracles. Yet, he is ‘only’ the son of a carpenter and of Mary, related to James and Joses and Jude and Simon, and with “sisters” as well.
And because they knew him so well, because they were so familiar with him, they could not accept him. They deliberately chose not to see what was happening before their very eyes. This, of course, is the irony of the whole situation—they did not know him at all. They were blinded by their superficial familiarity.
This trap of familiarity is one we can all fall into very easily. How many times have we failed to recognise the voice of Jesus speaking to us because the person is someone we meet every day, a person we may not like or may even despise? But God can and does talk to us through all kinds of people, Catholic or not, relative, friend, colleague, our own children, total stranger, educated, uneducated and many others.
Jesus says to them:
Prophets are not without honor, except in their hometown and among their own kin and in their own house.
This is a saying known in other cultures and an experience all too often repeated in our own day. In comparing himself to the Hebrew prophets who went before him, Jesus foreshadows his ultimate rejection by many of his own people. We have already seen his problems with his own family, and now with his townspeople—and it is not the end.
As a result of the townspeople’s deliberate blindness, we are told Jesus:
…could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief.
He could not help those who had no faith in him. Jesus never forces himself on us. Jesus waits patiently and works only when we cooperate and open ourselves to him. Mark often says how amazed the people are at Jesus’ teaching. Sadly now, as the last line reads, it is Jesus’ turn to be amazed at his hometown’s lack of faith and trust in him.
Read more
Wednesday of Week 4 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on 2 Samuel 24:2,8-17
Today we have our last reading from the Second Book of Samuel, where we are coming to the end of David’s life. The reading comes from the final chapter of 2 Samuel. It seems that the material was originally part of chapter 21, where we are told that there had been three consecutive years of famine.
David gives a command for a military census to be made of the whole country from the far north (Dan) to the very south (Beer-sheba). However, as soon as it was done, David deeply regretted what he had done. The preceding verse (not in our reading) implies that David’s decision was the result of God’s anger against the people and would result in a lot of suffering.
The census does not appear to have been prompted by any external threat. Since he wanted to “know how many there are”, it is evident that his action was motivated either by pride in the size of the empire he had acquired or by reliance for his security on the size of the reserve of manpower he could muster in an emergency or, more likely, both.
The mere taking of a census was hardly sinful (there were precedents in the past), but in this instance it represented an unwarranted glorying in and dependence on human power rather than the Lord (not much different from Israel’s initial desire to have a king for their security, see 1 Sam 8-12). In those days a census was often considered impious because it usurped the prerogative of God to whom alone it belonged to give increase to family and nation. The act in many ways was uncharacteristic of David.
The result of the census found that in Israel (the northern part of the kingdom) there were 800,000 men fit for military service and in Judah (the southern part) there were 500,000. Even by today’s standards for a large country, they would be huge figures, so we can take it they are highly inflated. This, of course, only makes clearer the taking of the census as a kind of hubris.
Almost immediately, David could see the whole exercise as a not so subtle act of arrogance, of pride in the size of his kingdom, and of the material resources he had to deal with any enemies. In other words, it seemed to turn the focus away from the Israelites’ real source of strength and security, namely, the Lord God, and towards themselves. David now begs God’s forgiveness for what he has done.
And indeed God seems to concur with David’s view. The following day, Gad the seer is sent with a message. David is offered a choice of three forms of punishment: three years of famine, to be on the run from his enemies for three months, or endure a pestilence for three days. The three alternative judgments were all included in the curses that Moses said would come on God’s people when they failed to adhere to their covenant obligations (see Deut 28:15-25).
It was a very difficult choice, but David chose the last of the three—three days of pestilence and said:
Let us fall into the hand of the Lord, for his mercy is great…
David, who knew both God and war, knew that even in his anger God was more merciful than man let loose in the rampages of war (see Ps 30:5).
It may have been only three days, but it coincided with the time of the wheat harvest. The death toll throughout the nation was 70,000 people. But as the plague was about to destroy Jerusalem, God relented and stayed the hand of the avenging angel. He stopped at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. This was located on Mount Moriah, immediately north of David’s city and overlooking it. Later it would become the site of the Temple.
Characteristically, David takes responsibility for the sin that had been committed. The sin was his and not that of the people. It was David’s decision to have the census. They should not have had to suffer:
I alone have sinned, and I, the shepherd, have done evil, but these sheep, what have they done? Let your hand, I pray, be against me and against my father’s house [but not against his people].
The people of Israel were certainly not without guilt; in fact, it was the Lord’s anger against them that led David to order the census for which they would have to pay the price. Even so, David characteristically assumes full blame for his own act and acknowledges his responsibility as king for the well-being of the Lord’s people.
The story reminds us of the subtle arrogance that can rule our lives. We can set so much store by our intellectual or academic abilities, by our professional skills or status, or by the material goods we have accumulated. And we forget how really vulnerable we are and how little we can do without God’s help.
There is also our constant tendency to lay the blame on others when things go wrong. We don’t find it easy to follow David’s example. Let us reflect today on where we put our day to day security and where God fits into our lifestyle.
Read more
Tuesday of Week 4 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Mark 5:21-43
Today’s passage illustrates a feature of Mark’s Gospel—inclusion, where one passage is contained inside another. Today we have two miracles, with one of them narrated inside the other. Again we are told of large crowds gathering around Jesus on the shore as once again he crosses the lake.
A synagogue official, Jairus, approaches and begs Jesus to lay his healing hands on his daughter who is very ill. Jairus was a person responsible for conducting services at the synagogue and keeping order. Sometimes the position was honorary, without any administrative responsibility.
Jairus asks Jesus to come and lay his healing hands on his daughter, as he has done for so many others. As Jesus makes his way to the house followed by a large crowd, there is a woman who had been haemorrhaging for 12 years. She had tried every kind of medical treatment in vain, and she was getting worse. Apart from the distress caused by the ailment, her bleeding rendered her ritually unclean. If the people around her knew of her condition, she might have been attacked. Hence she felt great anxiety about approaching Jesus without being identified or drawing attention.
She had this tremendous faith that, just by touching the hem of Jesus’ garment, she would be healed. And she was—immediately. In both cases, there was a deep conviction that physical contact, together with faith in Jesus’ power to heal, would bring about a cure. It is important for us to recover the connection between physical touch and healing.
Jesus knew something had happened:
Immediately aware that power had gone forth from him, Jesus turned about in the crowd and said, “Who touched my cloak?”
His disciples naturally wondered why he would say this when so many people were pressing in on him.
In fear and trembling, probably more afraid of the crowd than of Jesus, the woman identified herself. She then hears the beautiful words:
Daughter, your faith [i.e. your total trust in me] has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.
Peace indeed. Not only was she physically cured, but she could now mix freely with people again. She was fully restored to society and her community, without the shame that a woman of that time would feel, and without having to hide.
After this, we resume the first story. Messengers come to say that Jairus’ daughter has died. There is no need to bother Jesus any more. Jesus urges Jairus to keep believing. As he approaches the house, he separates from the crowd and brings only Peter, James and John with him as witnesses to a very special event. The house is full of mourners, wailing and weeping in the customary way.
Why do you make a commotion and weep? The child is not dead but sleeping.
In so speaking, Jesus is not denying the child’s real death, but it is an assurance that she will be wakened from her sleep of death. Death in the Old Testament is often described as sleep. And we, too, read on gravestones that so-and-so “went to sleep in the Lord”.
The crowd, often portrayed as so supportive of Jesus, is here shown as incredulous. They laugh at him. So everyone is put out of the room except the child’s parents and Jesus’ three companions. Then:
Taking her by the hand, he said to her, “Talitha koum,” which means, “Little girl, get up!”
The words suggest resurrection to new life. Immediately the girl got up and began to walk around. She was just 12 years old.
Those present are “overcome with amazement” and are told not to say anything to anyone. They are also reminded to give the poor girl some food. This is another step in the unfolding of Jesus’ true identity, while at the same time, he does not want that identity to be made public at this stage. It is another indication of Jesus’ mission:
I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.
(John 10:10)
Tuesday of Week 4 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on 2 Samuel 18:9-10,14,24-25,30—19:3
Once again David surprises us by his reactions. The tables are being turned on the rebellious Absalom and a huge army goes out against his supporters. David himself, on the advice of his commanders, stays behind. Already they suspect his gentle attitude towards his son. As they set off, David told them:
Deal gently for my sake with the young man Absalom.
(2 Sam 18:5)
Absalom, now in flight on his mule, gets his long hair caught in branches as he rides under a tree. The mule rides on and Absalom is left hanging in mid-air (the mule apparently was the normal mount for royalty in David’s kingdom). We were told earlier that Absalom, who was stunningly handsome, had such an abundance of thick hair that he had to shave his head every year. Presumably, then, it was this hair which got entangled in the branches of the tree. Whatever the cause, it was the young man’s beauty which was his undoing.
Absalom hanging from the tree was immediately reported to Joab, the general leading the army. In verses not part of today’s reading, Joab asked the man why he had not struck Absalom down and received a reward. The man replied that even if he had 2,000 pieces of silver in his hands, he would not lay a hand on the king’s son, whom David had ordered his officers to protect. The soldier who had found Absalom told Joab:
…if I had dealt treacherously against his life [Absalom’s] (and there is nothing hidden from the king), then you yourself would have stood aloof. (2 Sam 18:13)
Joab then himself went and thrust three spears into the heart of the helpless Absalom, still hanging alive on the tree. In Joab’s view, the rebellion is now over and the threat to David’s throne has been removed.
The battle is now called off. Absalom is taken down from the tree and thrown into a deep pit in the forest. A pile of stones is set up as a marker for his grave.
Meanwhile, Ahimaaz, the son of the priest Zadok, offers to bring the good news of the victory to David. Joab tells him he is not the man to do it because, in fact, for David it will not be good news with his son dead. Instead an anonymous Cushite is sent to bring the message. Then Ahimaaz again pleads with Joab to let him go. Joab tells him:
Why will you run, my son, seeing that you have no reward for the tidings?
But in the end Joab lets Ahimaaz go. He runs after the Cushite and he actually overtakes him and is the first to reach the city wall.
A lookout on the city gates saw Ahimaaz running alone. David said:
If he is alone, there are tidings in his mouth.
A large group of fleeing soldiers could only have meant disaster. Then the second runner is seen and again David says it must mean good news. As the runners get closer, Ahimaaz is recognised as one of them. Said David:
He is a good man and comes with good tidings.
Ahimaaz then, in the presence of David, reports:
Blessed be the Lord your God, who has delivered up the men who raised their hand against my lord the king.
But David has only one question:
Is it well with the young man Absalom?
Ahimaaz, suddenly realising the significance of the question, is immediately cautious and, in fact, does not say what he knows:
I saw a great tumult when the king’s servant Joab sent your servant, but I do not know what it was.
David then put Ahimaaz aside until he heard the Cushite’s report. The Cushite too at first only gives a general report:
Good tidings for my lord the king! For the Lord has vindicated you this day, delivering you from the power of all who rose up against you.
Again, the king has only one concern and asks if Absalom was safe. But the indirect response of the Cushite says it all:
May the enemies of my lord the king and all who rise up to do you harm be like that young man.
Far from being overjoyed at the removal of his rebellious son, David takes refuge in a room over the city gate and is overcome with grief:
O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would I had died instead of you, O Absalom, my son, my son!
Words that have echoed down the centuries as one of the most moving expressions of a father’s love. And that in spite of all that Absalom had done against his father. It reminds one of the way that God loves us, even at our most sinful.
And what should have been a triumphant victory is turned into a day of mourning for the whole army.
As the text continues beyond our reading, we are told that the generals and soldiers had mixed feelings about David’s reaction. They wondered if Absalom, who was out to destroy his father, had lived and they had died, would David have been happier? In that, they may have been unfair. For it is only a parent who knows the feeling of having a child, even a rebellious child, lost in this way.
Once again, we see the deep humanity of David. He did what we often fail to do. He made the clear distinction between the person of his son and his actions. He was opposed to his son’s actions, but he deeply loved his son. We sometimes express that by saying that we love the sinner, but not the sin. So often, however, our hate is directed so that both forgiveness and reconciliation can be very difficult.
Jesus, of course, as the image of his Father, also set us an example in this regard. As men, filled with hatred, nailed him to the cross, he prayed:
Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing. (Luke 23:34)
And, of course, every time we take advantage of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, we expect that God will forgive us no matter what we may have done or how often.
Let us remember, though, that as Christians we need to take on the same attitude as Jesus. Every time we pray the Lord’s Prayer we say:
Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.
It is a dangerous prayer to make and we should think twice about its meaning before we let it trip so easily off our tongues.
Read more