Saturday of Week 5 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Mark 8:1-10
Today we have the second of two multiplication stories found in Mark. The first, with 5,000 people, was in a predominantly Jewish area while this one, with 4,000 people, is in mainly gentile territory. Jesus is reaching out to both groups. The people have nothing to eat and are hungry. The meaning is both physical and spiritual.
Once again we see Mark indicating the emotional response of Jesus. He is filled with compassion for the people in their need.
I have compassion for the crowd…If I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint on the way—and some of them have come from a great distance.
They will collapse “on the way”, i.e. on the road. Jesus is the Way, the ‘Road’. To walk the road of Jesus, we need a certain kind of nourishment. This is what Jesus came to give.
The disciples, interpreting Jesus literally, as they usually do, ask:
How can one feed these people with bread here in the desert?
In the presence of Jesus, the question answers itself, but the disciples have not yet clicked. In Mark’s Gospel, they are often shown to be without an understanding of just who their Master is—that is because they represent us.
The disciples are asked what they can supply. Seven loaves and a few fish is all they have. There is a strong Eucharistic element in this, as in the former story (with the 5,000). The people are told to sit down, and:
…he took the seven loaves, and after giving thanks [Greek, eucharistesas] he broke them and gave them to his disciples to distribute, and they distributed them to the crowd.
Again, we note that Jesus himself does not give out the food the people need. It comes from him, but is distributed by his disciples. The same is true today. It is our task to feed the hungry—both physically and spiritually. All were filled—4,000 people altogether—and even so, there were seven (a perfect number) baskets left over. A sign of God’s abundance shared with his people.
As before:
…he sent them away. And immediately he got into the boat with his disciples and went to the district of Dalmanutha. [i.e. back to Jewish territory]
Jesus was leaving no room for any misinterpretations of what he had done. The disciples, too, are quickly removed from the scene. There was to be no self-congratulation or glorying in their connections with Jesus, the wonder worker. Through the miracle, the teaching had been given and that was it.
And so, we pray:
Lord, teach me to serve you as you deserve;
to give and not to count the cost;
to fight and not to heed the wounds;
to labour and seek no reward,
save that of knowing that I do your holy will.
(Prayer of St Ignatius Loyola)
Read more
Saturday of Week 5 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on 1 Kings 12:26-32; 13:33-34
Today is our last reading from the First Book of Kings for a while. While Solomon’s former courtier, Jeroboam, ruled over 10 of the tribes of Israel, Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, ruled over Judah (including Simeon) which contained Jerusalem and the Temple. For Jeroboam this meant that the people in Jeroboam’s territory might still continue to go to Jerusalem to worship and could be won over to give their allegiance to Rehoboam, who would, in turn, get rid of Jeroboam. Jeroboam did not have confidence in the divine promise given to him through the prophet Ahijah (see yesterday’s Reading and 1 Kgs 11:38) and thus took action that led to his losing God’s blessing on his kingship.
He made two calves and built two shrines, one in Bethel and the other in Dan, to house them. Pagan gods of the Arameans and Canaanites were often represented as standing on calves or bulls as symbols of their strength and fertility. To the people Jeroboam said:
You have gone up to Jerusalem long enough. Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.
Jeroboam’s intention was not to adopt another god, but to use the symbol of Baal-hadad to represent the Israelites’ invisible God. Such representations were never used; Yahweh could not properly be represented by a human-made image. In doing so, Jeroboam was reducing Yahwism to the level of the surrounding religions. It was very similar to what Aaron did when the people waited impatiently for Moses to come down from Mount Sinai and made the golden calf. Like Aaron, Jeroboam attempted to combine the pagan calf symbol with the worship of the Lord, although he apparently attempted no physical representation of the Lord – no ‘god’ stood on the backs of his bulls (as in the case of the Canaanites).
Bethel and Dan had long been places of worship. Dan was located in the far north of the kingdom near the source of the River Jordan. In the time of the Judges, there was a similar paganised form of worship practised here. Bethel was situated about 20 km (12 miles) north of Jerusalem, close to the border of Ephraim, but within the territory of Benjamin. It held an important place in the history of Israel’s worship of Yahweh. The two sites marked the limits of the new northern kingdom and the clear implication was that it was not necessary to go beyond them to worship the Lord.
“And this thing became a sin” says the writer. This tactic of Jeroboam violated the second part of the First Commandment (the carving of idols for worship) and it inevitably led to the violation of the first part (“You shall not have other gods besides me”). What is worse, although Jeroboam intended the worship of Yahweh (but not in Jerusalem), it opened the way for full pagan practices to come into Israel’s religious rites. This happened especially under King Ahab.
Jeroboam also built temples in high places. When they entered Canaan, the Israelites often followed the Canaanite tradition (and other cultural traditions too) of locating altars on high hills. These were probably former places of worship to Baal. It is clear that the Israelites were forbidden to take over pagan altars and high places and use them for the worship of the Lord. Altars were to be built only at divinely sanctioned sites. It is not clear whether a multiplicity of altars was totally forbidden provided the above conditions were met. It seems, however, that these conditions were not followed even in the time of Solomon, and pagan high places were being used for the worship of the Lord. These practices would lead in time to a falling away from the true worship of Yahweh and involve the mixing of different religious practices, which was strongly condemned.
For all of these innovations, Jeroboam began to provide priests to minister at the shrines. But these priests were from the common people and not from the tribe of Levi which was the Mosaic tradition. It is likely that Levite priests in his kingdom had migrated to Jerusalem (and the Temple), because non-Levites had been promoted as priests for the worship in Dan and Bethel, or because they declined to function at these shrines.
Jeroboam also instituted a feast to correspond to the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles for which the people would normally travel to Jerusalem. Now they could celebrate the feast in Bethel. Priests from the shrines in the high places were appointed to officiate at Bethel. Finally, Jeroboam himself offered sacrifices and overstepped his privileges as king by assuming the role of priest.
It is clear that Jeroboam did all of this not out of religious conviction, but simply to protect his throne. His motives were political and not religious. He had to keep his people away from Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah. But precisely for that reason and for neglecting clear warnings he was given [not in our readings], Jeroboam incurred the wrath of God and was ultimately destroyed.
The story reminds us of the dangers of abusing religion for other ends. The mutual relationship of church and state is always a complex issue. The end of our commitment to Jesus Christ is to join with him in the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. It is to bring us closer to God and to each other, to lead us to an ever deeper understanding of what is true and good, which should be a source of justice and peace and unity. But it can so often become, as we well know, a source of terrible divisions, hatred, violence and destruction.
It is also the case that religion when lived on the very highest level can be a source of division and hostility to those who feel threatened by it. Jesus said very provocatively that he had come to bring not peace, but the sword and the division of families. But this is a very different issue from the abuse of religion and we need to distinguish both. As Christians we cannot isolate ourselves from the important concerns of our communities.
Religion is false when it leads to hatred and destruction. Religion is true when it leads to unity and the creation of more good. But in either case, religion will never be free from divisions because all true religion is both a contradiction and a challenge to conventional thinking.
Read more
Friday of Week 5 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Mark 7:31-37
Jesus is still in gentile territory. He has now moved east from the Mediterranean coast to the interior, on the east side of the Sea of Galilee, in the area of the Decapolis (Greek for “Ten Towns”).
A deaf and mute man is brought to Jesus for healing. He takes the man aside, puts his fingers in the man’s ears, touches his tongue with spittle, looks up to heaven and prays, “Be opened”. Immediately the man’s ears are opened, his tongue loosed and he is able to speak plainly. As often happens in this Gospel, the people who witnessed the miracle are told not to say anything about it to anyone:
…but the more he ordered them, the more zealously they proclaimed it.
The people “were astounded beyond measure” and they said:
He has done everything well; he even makes the deaf to hear and the mute to speak.
As often happens in the Gospels, and especially in Mark, what we have here is much more than a miracle story, i.e. the healing of a physical ailment. We are approaching a climactic part of this Gospel, and this passage leads into it. What Jesus does to this man is something that is meant to happen to every one of his followers, including his immediate disciples.
We all need to have our ears opened so that we can hear and understand in its fullness the message of Jesus. In addition to that, once we have heard and understood, the natural consequence is that we go out and speak openly to the world about what we have heard and understood. Both hearing and speaking are inseparable for the Christian disciple.
And so, in the older form of the baptismal rite, the celebrant touched the ears of the one being baptised and put saliva on the lips (saliva was then still believed to have healing powers). This rite symbolises the grace of the sacrament by which the newly baptised (in speaking about an adult) hears and accepts the Word of God, and undertakes the responsibility of proclaiming it in word and action.
And, as in today’s story, when we have truly experienced the power of that message and the love of God in our own lives, we cannot but do what that man did—broadcast it far and wide.
Read more
Friday of Week 5 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on 1 Kings 11:29-32; 12:19
The prophecy made in the time of Solomon is now being carried out. Solomon has died and his son Rehoboam wants to take over the throne. But as we saw, God was greatly displeased with the idolatrous behaviour of Solomon and would deny the kingdom to his son.
Instead, Jeroboam, a former servant in Solomon’s court, will become the ruler and Rehoboam will be rejected by the people. Jeroboam was from Ephraim and, as a resourceful and rich young man who impressed Solomon, he had been put in charge of the whole labour force of the tribe of Joseph.
In today’s reading, as Jeroboam is leaving Jerusalem, he meets with the prophet Ahijah. There are just the two of them present and the prophet is wearing a new cloak. Then, in a highly symbolic gesture, he indicates what is going to happen. (It is not unusual in the Old Testament for prophets to make statements by symbolic actions which are not only meaningful, but produce actual results—see Jeremiah 18:11.)
Ahijah takes his new cloak and cuts it into twelve pieces. At the same time, he tells Jeroboam that the kingdom is being taken from Solomon and ten of the tribes of Israel (each one was named after one of the 12 sons of Jacob) and will be given to Jeroboam. They will form what will be known as the Northern Kingdom (called Israel or Ephraim).
The two remaining pieces represent just one tribe left for Solomon’s successor, namely, Judah which had absorbed Simeon. They would become the Southern Kingdom (or Judah). In fact, his division goes back to the time of the Judges, but under David and Solomon the two territories had become temporarily united. Now they were splitting again—and for good.
The reason that part of Solomon’s kingdom will remain within his family is because of God’s loyalty to David and also for the sake of Jerusalem, which was in the territory of Judah. It was God’s chosen city, the city of David and the place where his earthly presence was symbolised in the Temple.
It is not in our reading, but Ahijah goes on to give the reasons why most of Solomon’s kingdom is being taken from his family and his immediate successor. It was because of Solomon’s worshipping of false gods and departing from the statutes that had been so faithfully observed by his father, David. Nevertheless, Solomon would be allowed to keep his throne up to his death and then one tribe would be given to his son to rule over. And, if Jeroboam is faithful in his service of Yahweh, God will be with him. He will have a lasting dynasty and it will be the kingdom of Israel.
When Solomon heard about this, he regarded Jeroboam as a rebel and a threat to his rule. Jeroboam was forced to flee in exile to the royal court of Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Solomon. This spelt the end of David’s kingdom, but it will be resurrected—in a very different way—with the coming of Jesus.
Today we have to acknowledge that, in a way, the kingdom of Jesus is divided into many factions, both within the Catholic Church and between many Christian denominations. It is surely not his will as expressed in Jesus’ prayer to his Father at the Last Supper:
I ask not only on behalf of these but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their word, that…they may be one, as we are one…that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
(John 17:20-23)
Let none of us be a source of division in our own church or parish, or in our relations with Christians of other denominations. Let there be for all of us, one Lord and one Shepherd.
Read more
Thursday of Week 5 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Mark 7:24-30
Having challenged some of the religious principles of the Pharisees and scribes, Jesus now pointedly goes into gentile territory. The next three stories take place in non-Jewish areas. Why did Jesus go to the city of Tyre on the Mediterranean coast? It may have been to give him some breathing space from the crowds which pressed in on him everywhere. Later, he will move on to Sidon, and then eastwards by way of the Sea of Galilee to the area known as Decapolis (Ten Towns). All of these places were dominated by Gentiles. Because the people there recognised his healing powers, he ministered to them also.
We are told that he entered a house in Tyre and did not want to be recognised. Why was this? Because his mission was only to his own people? Because people without faith only saw in Jesus a wonder worker? Nevertheless, he was already too well known even here to escape notice. His fame had spread even to these places.
It is then that a gentile woman came to him. She was a Greek, but Syro-Phoenician by birth. She prostrated herself before Jesus and begged him to exorcise the evil spirit in her daughter. Jesus’ answer seems somewhat strange and out of character:
Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.
Jesus’ words suggest an image where the children of the family are fed first, and then the leftovers are given to the dogs under the table. In so speaking, Jesus indicates the prior claim of the Jews to his ministry. In fact, we see this, too, in the missionary work of Paul. Whenever he arrived in a town for the first time, he always went to the Jewish synagogue first to preach the message of Christ, and only later to the Gentiles. Because of the shared tradition of Jews and Christians, they were the obvious people to hear the message first.
Jews (and also Muslims) avoided dogs as unclean animals. They were unclean because they ate all kinds of things indiscriminately. The name ‘dogs’ was sometimes applied by Jews to Gentiles, and for the same reason. It is likely that the woman would be aware of this disparaging title.
It is also important to sense the tone in which Jesus spoke, and this is indicated by the reply of the woman. It is done in a mood of friendly banter. This is clear from the immediate response of the woman:
Sir [also translated ‘Lord’], even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.
In other words, they do not wait until the children are finished eating. They eat simultaneously, even though they only get scraps. Her powerful faith is immediately rewarded and her daughter is healed.
This is a story anticipating the faith of future Gentiles who will become Christians. Let us pray that such faith may be ours also. We know that Jesus excludes absolutely no one from his mercy and healing power. Both as individuals and communities, may we too be as inclusive as possible in our relationships.
Read more
Thursday of Week 5 of Ordinary Time – First Reading
Commentary on 1 Kings 11:4-13
As his life progressed, Solomon moved steadily downhill. The sacred writer implies that women were the cause of his downfall, and especially foreign women. Apart from the daughter of Egypt’s Pharaoh, he took many foreign women as his wives. Among these were many from ethnic groups with which the Israelites were forbidden to marry. The reason for this prohibition was the danger that one would be tempted to worship their gods—as is the case here.
Solomon fell in love with many such women, and towards the end of his life, we are told he had 700 wives and 300 concubines (this is presumably something of a literary exaggeration!). The problem was not so much the number of women in his life—for even David had a number of wives. But these women turned him away from Yahweh as his God. Unlike his father, David:
…his heart was not true to the Lord his God…
Among the gods Solomon began to worship under the influence of his wives were Astarte (Asthtoreth), the goddess of the Sidonians, and Milcom (Molech), the idol of the Ammonites. Worship of Molech not only severely jeopardised the recognition of the absolute kingship of the Lord over his people, but also involved (on rare occasions) the practice of child sacrifice.
To appease his wives, Solomon built shrines to Chemosh, the god of the Moabites, and to Molech on a hill facing Jerusalem. And he did the same for many of his wives, who openly worshipped their own gods.
Twice in the past God had appeared to Solomon: the first time when he asked Solomon what special gift he wanted and Solomon, setting set aside wealth and military power, had asked for wisdom. In the second vision, just after Solomon had completed the Temple, Yahweh had promised many blessings on Solomon. But now God is angry with him, especially because of his repeated idolatry and his violation of the covenant. Solomon had broken the most basic demands of the covenant and thereby severely undermined the entire covenant relationship between God and his people.
In punishment, his kingdom would be given over to not a son, but to one of his servants. However, for the sake of David, Solomon would remain king until his death. Also, for David’s sake, Solomon’s son would be left king of just one tribe. In this way, the promise of an everlasting dynasty for David’s line would be at least partially observed.
As Jerusalem contained the Temple built by David’s son, the destiny of Jerusalem and the Davidic dynasty were closely linked. The Temple represented God’s royal palace, where his earthly throne (the Ark) was situated and where he had pledged to be present as Israel’s Great King.
Solomon’s foreign marriages were primarily contracted for political ends, and the pagan shrines were intended for his wives and for traders. Such contacts, however, jeopardised the purity of the religion of Yahweh, and the author interprets the situation in the spirit and language of Deuteronomy. God punishes Solomon’s impiety by raising up enemies abroad (Hadad the Edomite) and at home (Jeroboam will take over 10 tribes as king, leaving only Judah to Solomon’s son). In the end, Solomon’s great wisdom could not prevent his being ruled by his ‘heart’ and his political and economic interests.
How often have we, too, been ruled by our emotions and other considerations and been led into behaviour which we know is wrong? It is so easy for us to rationalise, which means creating false reasons to justify what we do. And yet, the only way to go for our own long-term good is the way of truth, integrity and genuine love.
Again we pray for that wisdom which gives us an insight into where truth and goodness are to be found. The road to that wisdom, of course, is the Way of Jesus.
Read more
Wednesday of Week 5 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Mark 7:14-23
After defending himself against the accusations of some Pharisees and scribes about his not observing the traditions of the elders, Jesus now turns to the people. He enunciates what for him are the main principles:
- Nothing that goes into the body from outside can make a person ritually or religiously unclean.
- What makes a person unclean is the filth that comes from inside their mind and is spoken through their mouth or expressed in action.
This was a major issue in the earliest days of the Church and was dealt with by the Council of Jerusalem. The story is told in the Acts of the Apostles (chap 15).
The first Christians were all Jews who continued to observe Jewish customs. But when non-Jews began to be accepted into the Christian communities, should they also be obliged to follow these laws and customs? It became clear that, from a religious point of view, no food could be called unclean. This helped to break down the barriers between Jew and Gentile. It has been pointed out that, immediately after this, Jesus entered gentile territory, something he did not often do in his own ministry (see tomorrow’s commentary).
Even Jesus’ disciples seemed shocked by Jesus’ teaching (probably reflecting the reactions of some of the early Jewish Christians). Jesus repeats what he says in the light of the Kingdom he was proclaiming:
He said to them, “So, are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters not the heart but the stomach and goes out into the sewer?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “It is what comes out of a person that defiles.”
Real uncleanness is in the ‘heart’—i.e. in one’s mind. Real uncleanness comes from within ourselves in the form of:
…sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.
As Christians, we do not normally worry about clean and unclean foods on religious grounds, but we can sometimes judge people’s religious commitment by their observance or non-observance of purely external things—a nun not wearing a habit, a person not taking holy water on going into the church, or someone taking Communion in the hand versus by mouth.
We may have gotten rid of the problem of unclean foods, but there are many other ways by which we focus on trivial externals while ignoring the real evils, the places where real love is absent—in ourselves.
Read more
Tuesday of Week 5 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Mark 7:1-13
A group of self-righteous scribes and Pharisees come to Galilee from Jerusalem to observe Jesus. Obviously, word has reached Jerusalem about what Jesus has been doing up in Galilee. They immediately notice that Jesus and his disciples do not observe some of the “traditions of the elders”, especially with regard to the washing of hands before eating. These traditions were a body of highly detailed, but unwritten human laws, which the scribes and Pharisees regarded as having the same binding force as the Law of Moses. Paul admits to having been a fanatical upholder of these traditions (see Gal 1:14).
It is hard not to come to the conclusion that many of these observances were originally based on practical experience. Eating without washing one’s hands could be a source of sickness, although they knew nothing about germs or bacteria. Because sometimes it could be diseased, eating pork made some people seriously sick, so the meat was banned altogether. But in order to ensure these hygienic requirements would be observed, they were linked to a religious sanction. Violating them was not just bad for your health, but a violation of God’s will. In the thinking of the Jewish leaders, to ignore them was to disobey God.
Clearly Jesus was not against the washing of hands as such, even as a religious observance. What he was against was the legalism by which the mere observance of some external actions was equated with being a devout lover of God. He quotes from the prophet Isaiah:
This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts as doctrines. (Is 29:13)
The real commandments of God, like unconditional love of the neighbour, are neglected in favour of what are purely human traditions. Jesus illustrates the hypocrisy involved by showing how some supposedly devout people got around the basic responsibility of respect for parents (which the Mosaic law demanded) by claiming that they had consecrated all they owned to God and the Temple, while in fact keeping it for their own use. The Corban (or Qorban in some translations) was a way of supposedly making a gift to God by an offering to the Temple, but in such a way that the donor could continue to use it for himself and not give it to others, even needy parents. This is like the story about the pastor who said, “Each week I throw all the collection up in the air for God. What stays up, he keeps; the rest comes to me”.
We sometimes meet Catholics who confuse the essential service of God with some religious rule. They judge people by whether they eat fish on Friday or not. They piously go through all kinds of devotional exercises, but their conversation is full of gossip and destructive criticism of others.
Others get tied down by scruples (“Did I say my penance after Confession?”) when the more important question would be, “Did I change my behaviour?” or “How did I keep my promise not to repeat the same sins?” Some ask: “Did I observe the full hour of fasting before Communion?” when the more important issue would be, “Does my going to Communion bring me closer to God and make me a more loving person with others?”
There can be a bit of the Pharisee in all of us, and that is the real subject of the teaching today. We will be judged by the depth of our love and nothing else.
Read more
Monday of Week 5 of Ordinary Time – Gospel
Commentary on Mark 6:53-56
In last Saturday’s Gospel reading, we saw Jesus and the Twelve landing at a remote place by the lake shore to spend a day of quietness and reflection. But as soon as they disembarked, they were met by a huge number of people for whom Jesus, as their Shepherd, was filled with the deepest compassion. After teaching them at length, he arranged with his disciples for the 5,000 people there to be fed.
After this, the disciples were sent off in their boat to Bethsaida. On the way, they ran into a huge storm. In the middle of it, Jesus appeared walking on the water. When he got into the boat and commanded the wind and the waves, there was total calm. In our weekday readings from Mark, these two scenes are passed over at this point (but we will be reflecting on them at another time).
Today we have a passage summarising what Jesus was doing for the people. It indicates the tremendous hunger of the people to be healed and made whole by Jesus. The people recognise him immediately and go everywhere to see him, bringing along those in need of healing. Jesus, in turn, was visiting towns and villages. The sick, strong in their faith, only asked to be allowed to touch the edges of his outer garment, and everyone who touched him was healed and made whole.
Let us pray that our influence on others at home, at work, and elsewhere may have a truly healing effect.
Read more