Saturday of Week 33 of Ordinary Time – First Reading

Commentary on Revelation 11:4-12

Today’s reading seems at first sight to be very obscure in meaning. After the eating of the scroll, it is a second digression by the author and describes two rather mysterious ‘witnesses’. They are referred to as “two olive trees and the two lampstands”, and they had been given authority to prophesy for 1,260 days or three and a half years, a conventional period for eschatological distress.

These titles originally were applied by the prophet Zechariah to Joshua and Zerubbabel, the religious and civil leaders respectively, who restored the Temple and the city of Jerusalem after the return from the Babylonian Exile. Here it is possible they represent the leaders of the New Temple and the New Jerusalem, namely Peter and Paul.

The descriptive images which follow link them to Moses and Elijah, representatives of the Law and the Prophets who appeared at the Transfiguration along with Jesus, endorsing his mission, suffering, death and resurrection. Anyone who attacks them will be consumed by fire. The fire that consumes enemies reminds us of how King Ahaziah’s emissaries to Elijah were twice destroyed by fire brought down on them by God through his prophet (see 2 Kings 1).

And the power to shut up the sky refers to the great drought that came on Israel in the days of Elijah (1 Kings 17). Their ability to turn water into blood and bring other plagues recalls how Moses brought the plagues to Egypt to make the Pharaoh repent and release the Israelites (Exodus 7).

But after they have completed their task of giving witness to Christ and the Gospel, the “beast” comes from the Abyss, overcomes and kills them. Their killer is the Antichrist. His coming from the Abyss indicates his demonic origins. Some see the beast as Nero, the emperor traditionally thought to have martyred both Peter and Paul. In any case, he stands for a ruler opposed to God’s people. The death of these prophets parallels that of their Master and Lord.

Leaving their bodies to lie in the street of a “great city” was a serious violation of all decency for people in the Middle East (see the burial of Jesus himself).

The “great city” may be either Jerusalem or Rome. Jerusalem is sometimes called Sodom by the prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel) for its moral wickedness, and Egypt for its idolatry and oppression. It is also, of course, the city where Jesus was crucified. However, Jesus could have been said to have been executed in Rome in so far as Jerusalem was under Roman rule and crucifixion was a Roman form of execution (the Jews preferred stoning). The two “witnesses” or prophets, if they are Peter and Paul, would have died in Rome.

The outrage against them is repeated as they are left lying unburied for three and a half days because the “nations” will not allow their burial (in the Middle East and generally in the Muslim world people are buried very soon after death).

Their death, however, is celebrated by the ”inhabitants of the earth” (the world), who found the teaching of these prophets a scourge. This, of course, was only to fulfil the teaching of Jesus about the fate that would await those who preached his Gospel (see Matt 10:16-23). Things have not changed in our own day.

However, this was not the end. After three and a half days, God gave them new life. They stood up (i.e. they ‘rose’, ‘resurrected’), and all who saw this were terrified. The killing of Christians, i.e. the making of martyrs, in the whole history of the Church has only brought new life, new energy and new courage. A striking example in modern times was the assassination of Bishop Oscar Romero while he was saying Mass in El Salvador. The Church thrives most of all in time of persecution.

At the end of today’s passage, the two prophets are called up to the very presence of their Lord and, like him, ascend in a cloud, the very symbol of God’s presence.

Let us hope that we, too, will be able to follow them. For that, we need to give witness to our faith, even in times of difficulty or when faced with opposition. Those are not times to hide our light under a bushel basket or to bury our talent in the ground. As a risen people, we are called on to stand up. How else can the Gospel message of truth and love be seen and heard?

Read more

Saturday of Week 33 of Ordinary Time – Gospel

Commentary on Luke 20:27-40

Today we move on to the middle of chapter 20 of Luke’s Gospel. In previous passages which are not included in these readings, Jesus had rebutted a challenge to his authority and left his critics literally speechless (Luke 20:1-8). This was followed by his speaking a parable about tenant farmers (Luke 20:9-19). He was clearly referring to his questioners and identifying them with the wicked tenants who abused all the emissaries (the prophets) sent by the owner of the vineyard—an episode which culminated in the killing of his son. The identity of the tenants and of the Son is clear. This is followed by Jesus’ being confronted with a seemingly innocuous question about paying taxes to Caesar which again resulted in the silence of his critics (Luke 20:20-26).

Today another group, the Sadducees, thought they might do better. The Sadducees, among whom were numbered some of the most powerful Jewish leaders, including high priests, restricted their beliefs to the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, reputedly written by Moses and containing the essence of the Jewish Law.

For that reason, unlike the Pharisees, they did not accept some beliefs which occur only in later books of the Old Testament. Among these, for instance, were the existence of angels and the resurrection of the dead.

The Sadducees thought then they could stump Jesus with an unanswerable conundrum. They first quote a prescription from the Law of Moses by which a man was expected to marry the widow of his eldest brother, if there had been no children by the marriage. They then propose an imagined situation of seven brothers. The first brother married, but was childless when he died, so in accordance with the requirements of the Law the second married the widow, then the third and so on. Eventually, all seven brothers married the woman, but there were still no children.

The unanswerable question they proposed was that, if there really was a resurrection after death, which of the seven men would be the woman’s husband in the next life? For them, there was no problem; they did not believe in the resurrection. Death was the end of everything. For one who believed in the resurrection, it was an embarrassing difficulty—or so they thought.

Jesus quickly brushes the problem aside. To begin with, in the next life there are no marriage relationships:

Those who belong to this age [i.e. those who belong to this world] marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.

In the new life, all live face to face with God in a life that never ends. All are equally children of God—brothers and sisters to each other—taking their life and existence from him. That is now the focus of their relationship and it is through that relationship that they are bound together.

Jesus then goes on to challenge the Sadducees’ unbelief about life after death. He shrewdly quotes from a part of the Bible which they recognise as true. He reminds them of the scene where the voice from the burning bush identifies itself to Moses:

I AM the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. (Ex 3:6)

God, says Jesus, is the God of the living and not of the dead (i.e. of those who no longer exist). If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive, then the Sadducees’ argument fails. Perhaps we would not be convinced by such an argument, but it clearly worked in this case.

Some scribes who were listening in were delighted at the refutation of the Sadducees. Most of them were Pharisees and believed in the resurrection. At the same time, after these replies of Jesus to both the Pharisees and the Sadducees:

…they no longer dared to ask him another question.

We, of course, believe in the resurrection not so much because of Jesus’ arguments here, but because of his own resurrection and his promise to share his life with us forever.

Read more