Monday of Week 20 of Ordinary Time – Gospel

Commentary on Matthew 19:16-22

We have here a story of a young man who did not have that simple trust of the child which Jesus spoke about in the immediately preceding passage (note that only Matthew describes him as ‘young’).

He was apparently a good man—an unusually good man. He asks Jesus what he needs to do in order to have eternal life. However, he seemed to be operating out of a legalistic mindset with the emphasis on external actions. For Jesus, what we are is more important than what we do. The man also asked about “eternal life”. In Matthew (and in Mark and Luke) ‘eternal life’ is really synonymous with ‘entering the Kingdom of Heaven [God]’ and ‘being saved’. It is to be totally taken up into God’s world and sharing God’s understanding of life.

Jesus asks him

Why do you ask me about what is good? There is one who is good.

This seems to be a way of telling the man that goodness is not something merely external. The real source of goodness is inside, although, of course, it will flow out to the exterior. Is it also a way of asking the man who he really thinks Jesus is?

In any case, Jesus tells the man:

If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.

As we have just said, to “enter into life” is equivalent to entering the Kingdom. And Jesus mentions just four of the commandments, all touching on relationships with other people. And he adds:

Also, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.

The man is not satisfied:

I have kept all these; what do I still lack?

Jesus tells him that if he wants to be perfect, he should sell off everything he has, give it to the poor and then become a disciple of Jesus.

Obviously, the man was not expecting this. He was very rich and, although he wanted to serve God, he was not prepared to separate himself from the security of his wealth. And he walked away from Jesus full of sadness. It is an example of Jesus’ words earlier on that we cannot at the same time serve God and wealth.

In this context, to be ‘rich’ is not just to have a lot of money. It is to have a lot more money than others and especially to have more money than one needs in a world where there are people who do not have enough for a life of dignity. And wealth is very relative: a person close to the poverty line in some western countries could be seen as very rich in a remote village elsewhere in the world.

So, as long as the man had to cling to his money, he could not—as he claimed—be loving his neighbour as his own self. Clearly he was not yet ready for an unconditional following of Jesus. He was not able to follow the example of Peter and Andrew and James and John, who left their boats, nets and family to go and put all their security with Jesus.

Before we think that this Gospel does not particularly concern us because we do not see ourselves as numbered among the rich, we should listen to what Jesus is really saying. He touched on the one thing that the man was not ready to give up—his money and all that it brought. But if we are honest, we will admit that we all have some things we would be very slow to let go of. Things we would not like God to ask us to give up.

It might be a good exercise today for us to ask ourselves what would be the most difficult thing for us to give up if Jesus asked us to do so. It might be some thing we own like our house, or it might be a relationship, or our job, or our health. Whatever it is, could it be coming between us and our total following of Jesus? Do the things we own really own us? Why not ask for the strength to be ready, if called on, to give it up? Only then do we know that we are truly free and truly followers of Jesus.

One final point—this story has been used in the past as an example of someone’s getting a special ‘vocation’. According to this view, all are expected to keep the commandments, but only some are invited to follow a ‘counsel’, such as living a life of ‘poverty’, as members of religious institutes do. It would be quite wrong to see Jesus here suggesting two levels of living the Christian life. What is said here applies to every person who wants to follow Christ. All the baptised are called to the same level of service, although there are different ways of doing this.

Read more

Monday of Week 20 of Ordinary Time – First Reading

Commentary on Ezekiel 24:15-24

In today’s reading, the death of the prophet’s wife becomes a symbol of how the people are to respond to the loss of their Temple. God warns Ezekiel that he is going to lose his wife, the “delight of [his] eyes”, through sudden illness and death. She would be taken away in “one blow”, some swiftly fatal disease, perhaps some form of plague.

However, when it happens, Ezekiel is to display none of the traditional forms of mourning, but is to suffer his loss privately. He is not to mourn or weep. He is to “groan quietly” in the silence of his own heart, not to lament the dead. He is to keep his turban fastened (it was normal for the mourner to uncover his head and put dust on it). He is to keep his sandals on and not to cover his beard (a gesture of shame or uncleanness). Nor is he to eat the customary bread, perhaps referring to a funeral meal in which neighbours would take part as an expression of sympathy and commiseration.

That very evening his wife died and Ezekiel told the people what he had been instructed to do. Not surprisingly, the people wanted to know the meaning of this rather unusual and unfeeling behaviour. Ezekiel then passes on the message that God had given him for the people.

The beloved sanctuary of God, the Temple: “the pride of your power, the delight of your eyes, and your heart’s desire”, is about to be desecrated, i.e. burnt down by Nebuchadnezzar. When it happens, the people are to do what Ezekiel did after the death of his wife. This does not mean that the citizens of Jerusalem are forbidden to lament their sins, but that there will simply be no time for mourning; the catastrophe will be too sudden and cataclysmic. Many, in fact, will simply be cut down by the Babylonian invaders. It will be the punishment for the people’s immorality and idolatries.

Ezekiel and his behaviour over the death of his wife are to be a sign for the people:

Thus Ezekiel shall be a sign to you; you shall do just as he has done. When this comes, then you shall know that I am the Lord God.

It is not the Temple they are to mourn for, but for themselves and their failure to recognise that Yahweh is Lord. The loss of a building is something far less significant than the loss of their own integrity and wholeness.

Obviously, there is no teaching here to discourage people from mourning the loss of loved ones. Rather, the lesson is that we can become so focused on these losses that we fail to see how much should be mourned in our own lives because of our repeated failures in our relationships with God and our living neighbours.

Read more