Thursday of Week 23 of Ordinary Time – First Reading

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 8:1-7,11-13

Paul now moves on to another local problem for the Christians of Corinth—the question of eating food offered to idols.

The New American Bible has a useful note on the issues which are at stake:

“The Corinthians’ second question concerns meat that has been sacrificed to idols; in this area they were exhibiting a disordered sense of liberation that Paul here tries to rectify. These chapters contain a sustained and unified argument that illustrates Paul’s method of theological reflection on a moral dilemma. Although the problem with which he is dealing is dated [namely, eating food offered to idols], the guidelines for moral decisions that he offers are of lasting validity.”

Essentially Paul urges them to take a communitarian rather than an individualistic view of their Christian freedom. Many decisions that they consider pertinent only to their private relationship with God have, in fact, social consequences. Nor can moral decisions be determined by merely theoretical considerations; they must be based on concrete circumstances, specifically on the value and needs of other individuals and on mutual responsibility within the community. Paul here introduces the theme of “building up” (Greek, oikodome)—i.e. of contributing by individual action to the welfare and growth of the community. (See also 1 Cor 14; Rom 14:1-15.)

The topic—meat sacrificed to idols—is immediately introduced. This refers to meat which had been offered in pagan temples to idols. Meat left over from a sacrifice might be eaten by the priests, as well as by the offerer and his friends at a feast in the temple or sold in the public meat market. (At the site of ancient Corinth, archaeologists have discovered two temples containing rooms apparently used for pagan feasts where meat offered to idols was eaten; to such feasts Christians may have been invited by pagan friends.) Some Christians felt that if they ate such meat, they participated in pagan worship and thus compromised their testimony for Christ. Other Christians did not feel this way.

Today’s passage begins with a rather abstract and vague statement which makes one wonder where Paul is leading us. In fact, he is enunciating a principle of the very greatest importance for our living together as Christians and one that we neglect at our peril.

Paul opens with an apparently well-known slogan: “All of us possess knowledge.” In Greece, knowledge was felt to be everything, but Paul says that it can make people arrogant. What really builds people up, he says, is love (a central theme of this letter). Knowledge without love is barren. People equipped with much knowledge may not have a real understanding of what life is about.

The truly wise person (like Socrates) above all knows what he does not know. One is reminded of those people on some TV programmes who may have encyclopaedic knowledge about all kinds of things, but as persons may have been quite inadequate in coping with life. Pure knowledge can lead to arrogance and a feeling of superiority; love, on the other hand, builds up. Better a person filled with genuine love and theologically ignorant than a topnotch theologian without a trace of love.

The person who loves and, in particular, the person who loves God, “is known by him”, that is, has direct experiences of God’s love and thus knows how to relate with others. This is the only knowledge really worth having.

Today’s passage serves as an introduction to a question which was very relevant to the Christians of Corinth, namely, the eating of food which may have been offered to idols. In itself, this is clearly not a problem for people in most of the Western world, but it can still be a matter of conscience in some countries of Asia and Africa.

The questions for the Corinthians then were: Should Christians eat such food or not? Would they be compromising their Christian faith by taking this food? Could they accept invitations to eat such food in a pagan house or temple?

Some Christians, especially converts from a former pagan life, felt that by eating this meat they were taking part in idol worship and were compromising their Christian faith. Others, however, including Paul and perhaps others with a Jewish background, did not feel that way at all.

Paul gives a very nuanced answer, but one which we should read carefully. He says that, in principle, enlightened Christians are completely free to decide for themselves, but they must avoid leading astray other Christians who are not yet liberated from their pre-conversion ideas. In other words, as he has already said, knowledge alone is not enough for a good decision; love of neighbour must also be taken into account.

In the reading, Paul first enunciates some of his own convictions about the issue. He says there is really no need to worry about food offered to idols because idols do not represent anything. There is only one God. The rest are pure fakes. Indeed there seem to have been many so-called gods in the Greek and Roman pantheons which were worshipped by thousands of people, but the Christian knew that they had no real existence whatever.

For Paul, and for us:

…there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

These statements are found in different formulations throughout Paul’s letters.

Nevertheless, continues Paul, the Corinthian Christians have to acknowledge that among them there are many converts who have not completely shaken off their old superstitions. While they have abjured the worship of idols, they still have a feeling that they are somehow real. And they are inclined to think that the food they see offered to idols is being offered to something real. If, during a feast following worship in a temple, they are invited to share in the food, they feel they are taking part in idol worship and have sinned.

As mentioned, others, like Paul himself, do not feel this way at all. They know that the idol has no existence and that for them there is no real worship involved with a statue in a temple. The meat, whether it is at a temple feast or on sale in the market place, can be eaten with impunity by Christians.

However, Paul warns that those who, like Paul himself, feel ‘liberated’ in this matter must be careful not to become a stumbling block, a source of scandal to their more sensitive brothers and sisters. If the latter see a brother or sister dining together with people in a temple and eating food that has just been offered to an idol, may they not be tempted to think that it is alright to eat this meat when, in their weakness, they still attribute some reality to these idols? If this is the case, they may further be led to believe that worshipping idols is acceptable. In this way one could bring about the spiritual destruction of a weaker brother or sister. The weak Christian could be influenced by the example of the stronger Christian and, even though he or she would feel it to be wrong, would go ahead and eat the meat offered to an idol.

The weaker brother or sister may be persuaded to eat, but afterwards would be filled with guilt for doing something he or she believed was quite wrong and against the Christian faith. What is worse, if they did this often enough, they might blunt their consciences and continue to do something they still felt in their heart of hearts was not right.

In such a situation, it is the ‘stronger’ person who has sinned. A weak conscience is wounded by eating meat offered to idols. The result may be moral tragedy. There is a sin against Christ, who is present in the ‘weaker’ person, and it could break the unity of the members of the body (the church).

So Paul has made his own decision in this matter. Even though he himself has no problems about eating such meat, he has resolved never to eat meat again rather than be a source of scandal to a weaker member of the community. Paul says he will not hurt their feelings and he will abstain from something which in itself has nothing to do with his loving and serving his Lord.

There is a very important lesson for all of us here. Certainly principles, laws and rules are very important and in general they should be observed. But there is one over-riding principle—and Paul mentions it—the principle of agape-love, that is, a sensitive and empathic caring for the well-being of the brother or sister. The not-eating of meat on such occasions was a small price to pay for a brother’s or sister’s peace of mind.

In our Church today, for instance, there are people who still have not fully come to terms with changes, new ways of seeing things, which were introduced by the Second Vatican Council years ago. To take one small example, there are people who still feel they must eat fish on Fridays, even though they know it is no longer compulsory to abstain from meat. There are also those who feel they must receive Communion on the tongue and kneeling down. For many others, receiving in the hand and standing makes much more sense, and frankly it is closer to the ancient customs of the Church.

In the long run, though, it is not an issue to be fought over (though certainly it may be discussed). By being adamant over not eating fish on Friday or taking Communion in the hand, we may drive a brother or sister away who still feels scruples about touching the Eucharistic bread, something they were sternly warned about in the past.

Yet, this does not mean that we should adopt an attitude of indifference that one way is as good as another. People do need to be formed to help them understand the mind of the Church in such matters.

In the meantime, we must carefully distinguish matters where we can in no way compromise. On marginal issues, however, we need to follow Paul’s example of being flexible*. The ultimate aim is to bring all together in union with Christ present in each one.
_____________________________

*This particular issue is dealt with at greater length in Paul’s Letter to the Romans (chap 14), a passage, that for some reason is not read in our liturgy.

Read more

Thursday of Week 23 of Ordinary Time – Gospel

Commentary on Luke 6:27-38

For many people, even those who identify themselves as Christians, this may be one of the most difficult passages in the Gospel. It seems to express an idealism that is totally unrealistic and unattainable.

We live today in a world of terrible violence, of murder, of terrorism—the horror of attacks on the innocent, of vicious vendettas often stirred up in the press (especially the tabloids) and internet media, of rampant litigation—suing and counter-suing. Are these things not to be avenged?

Where do Jesus’ words fit in? It is worth noting that the passage begins:

I say to you who are listening…

In order to understand what Jesus is really saying to us, we have to put aside our prejudices and assumptions and really listen to what he is saying. This passage, in particular, is one where we are likely to react emotionally.

Jesus says:

Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you; bless those who curse you; pray for those who mistreat you.

We may feel that to follow this teaching is to try something which is totally beyond our capacity, that it would require a tremendous amount of will-power, and that it would only encourage those people to behave even worse. In the Old Testament, hatred of evildoers is presumed to be the right attitude to have. But Jesus is extending love to the enemy and the persecutor.

This is the core of Jesus’ teaching, which he himself practised. The Golden Rule, which is sometimes expressed as “Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you”, is expressed here in positive terms.

The first big hurdle is the word “love”. For us, it is a very emotional word, implying both affection and intimacy. For us, in English, to ‘love’ is most often associated with to ‘be in love with’, to ‘be attracted to’, to ‘desire’. But Jesus is not telling us to be in love with our enemies. He is not even telling us to like them. The Greek verb which the Gospel uses is agapao from which the noun agape comes. Agape [pronounced ‘ah-gah-pay’] is a special kind of love. It is not the physically-expressed love of lovers, nor is it the love of close friends. It is rather an attitude of positive regard towards other people by which I wish for their well-being.

This, in fact, is the love that God has for us. It is a one-sided love in the sense that a return is not expected. God reaches out in infinite love to every single person without exception. God wishes every person to experience that love; God wishes the fullest well-being of every single person. That love of his is often not returned; it is often rejected or ignored.

But it continues unabated, like the father in the story of the prodigal son waiting for his boy to come back. The father continued to love his son even in his lowest moments of debauchery and degradation. It was the same with the people who were nailing Jesus to the cross. He prayed for them—for their being forgiven—and that they might come to a realisation of just what they were doing. In this sense, loving our enemies seems altogether reasonable. And not only not impossible, but really the only thing to do.

Who are our “enemies”? First of all, they are not our enemies in the sense that we hate them or want to harm them. In that sense, a Christian should have no enemies. Rather, enemies are people who are hostile to us. They want to harm us, take revenge on us, even destroy us. There are two ways we can deal with such people. We can set out to do more harm to them, to take revenge on them, or try to wipe them out completely. Or we can try and work to turn them round.

Our problem is that we tend to focus too much on ourselves and our own immediate needs, and overlook the needs of others. To love as God loves is to focus more on others. We can only do this if we have a strong inner sense of security and self-acceptance. Then we are not too worried about what people say about us or do to us.

And then, too, we can turn our attention much more to the one who is hating or harming. We will begin to ask why do they have to act in this way. What is hurting inside them that drives them to such behaviour? Already we are, just by thinking in this way, beginning to care for our enemy and beginning to love him or her. And is not this a much better solution to the problem? Is it not better to bring peace back into that person’s life and initiate a healing process in them and between them and us?

Jesus is not at all asking us to do something ‘unnatural’. We do not naturally want to hate or be hated. We want to love and to be loved. We see many parts of the world where, for years, there has been a process of hatred and retaliation in a never-ending spiral of vengeance and loss of life. The only way to break this cycle is to follow Jesus’ advice. It is not a lose-lose or lose-win situation; it is a win-win situation where everyone benefits.

Perhaps words of the late St Teresa of Calcutta (Mother Teresa) are appropriate here:

“Love, to be true, has to hurt. I must be willing to give whatever it takes not to harm other people and, in fact, to do good to them. This requires that I be willing to give until it hurts. Otherwise, there is no love in me and I bring injustice, not peace, to those around me.”

To put Jesus’ teaching into effect is not a matter of strengthening our will to do something very difficult, but to change our conventional thinking at the deepest level, to see things his way. Once we do that, it becomes much easier.

Jesus’ application of this teaching has also been the subject of much mockery:

If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt.

We think that in a world where macho reigns, this is just too much! Only wimps would follow Jesus’ advice because they are afraid to do anything else! Our movie ‘heroes’ know what to do in such cases: mow them down, knock them out, blow them up!

Again, it is a question of seeing things from Jesus’, that is, God’s viewpoint. Turning the other cheek, as it is presented here, is not at all an act of weakness. It requires great courage and great inner strength and an awareness that the one who strikes is the one who is really weak. It is easy to lash out at another person by word or act. It is easy to hit back; it is almost an instinctive reaction, but it is not the truly human response.

To hit back is to reduce oneself to the same level as one’s attacker, and it solves nothing in the long run. Deliberately and calmly not to hit back is to refuse (in the words of Canadian-born psychiatrist, Eric Berne) “to play the other person’s game”. It is to break the cycle and change the level of the playing field and move it to a higher level—the level of mutual respect and human dignity.

Jesus set the example when he was struck on the face during his trial. During the whole degradation of the Passion his dignity shines out, in contrast to the pathetic posturings of his judges and tormentors. This was the spirit that guided some leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr, and which is behind all movements devoted to active non-violence.

Jesus lived the example of the principle: ‘Treat others as you would like them to treat you’. You do not want to be hated or struck so you refuse, no matter what happens, to hate or strike another person. He also said:

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.

So no, we will not react simply in the way others deal with us. As followers of Christ, we see things in a completely different way and we want to behave differently. We believe that not only do we personally benefit from following Jesus’ way, but that others too will benefit and may even come to our point of view.

Finally, Jesus calls us to follow the model of God himself:

Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

In Matthew’s Gospel it is written:

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
(Matt 5:48)

The meaning is the same: our perfection consists in our empathetic reaching out in compassionate agape to every single person. And, through us, the compassion of God can then be experienced by people.

We are not to judge or condemn persons. (This is not the same as being asked and required to give an objective and discerned evaluation of a person’s behaviour or fitness for some task or position; behavior does have consequences.) And we are to forgive. Then we will not be condemned, and we will in turn receive forgiveness.

The emphasis is on reaching out to others rather than gathering for ourselves and being turned in on our little, insecure selves. Jesus says:

Forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you.

Jesus put this graphically when he told us to give not only our cloak to someone asking for it but our tunic as well. Given that the poor in those days only had two garments, that would leave the donor totally naked!

But that is the point—the one filled with the spirit of Christ has nothing to lose, nothing of which to be ashamed. Life consists in what we are able to give and not what we can get. Jesus says to us:

…the measure you give will be the measure you get back.

And that, above all, applies to agape-love. Everyone can give an endless supply of that.

Read more