REFLECTION ON THE DAILY READINGS - Wednesday, 08 October 2014. Wednesday of week 27 of Ordinary Time – First Reading and Gospel. Commentary on Gal 2:1-2, 7-14 and Luke 11:1-4 We carry on from yesterday’s reading and today Paul tells us of how he began his mission. It is fourteen years later and Paul finds himself again in Jerusalem. This is dating either from his return to Tarsus, his meeting with Peter on his last visit or his conversion at Damascus. It is not clear and it does not really matter. In any case, it is quite a lengthy period during which Paul must have grown greatly in his understanding of Christ and the Gospel. This time he went in the company of two people whom he had come to know during these years and who would be closely involved in his evangelising work – Barnabas and Titus. Barnabas means “one who encourages”. His other given name was Joseph and we know that he was a Levite from Cyprus. He would also accompany Paul on the first missionary journey (Acts 13:1-14:28). Titus was a gentile Christian. He served as Paul’s representative in Corinth and later went to Crete to “oversee”, to be an episcopus (‘episkopos) over the church there. Paul says he went to Jerusalem as the result of a private revelation. His main purpose was to let the leaders of the church in Jerusalem – Peter, James and John – know how he was proclaiming the Gospel to the Gentiles, the non-Jewish “foreigners”. He specifically went to the leadership because he knew there were elements among the Christians in Jerusalem who were strongly opposed to accepting Gentiles into the church, especially when they did not follow the Jewish traditions. Paul says he went “so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain”. In other words, he was anxious that his preaching be in harmony with the teaching of the Jerusalem church, the “mother” church. It is not that he doubted the rightness of what he was doing but he was concerned that when new churches were founded they should keep in touch with the mother church. It is why, later on, he will agree with the request to support poorer churches (of which Jerusalem seems to have been one). The leaders in Jerusalem gave him their full endorsement. They recognised that Paul had been called to proclaim the Gospel to the “uncircumcised” just as Peter was called to proclaim it to the “circumcised”. In fact, Paul did not just confine himself to the Gentiles. When he arrived for the first time in a town he nearly always headed straight for the synagogue. Often, of course, his message was usually rejected by the local Jews. So, he saw himself as primarily an apostle to the Gentiles. And, as far as Paul is concerned, the two distinct apostolates of Peter and himself were assigned by the Lord himself. A kind of contract was then made. James, Peter and John (notice the order), the “pillars” of the Jerusalem church, shared the right hand of fellowship with Paul and Barnabas. Among both Hebrews and Greeks, this was a common practice indicating a promise of friendship. It was agreed that the former would concentrate on working among the Jews while Paul and Barnabas devoted themselves mainly to the Gentiles. This division, as we have seen, was mainly geographical as Paul did reach out to Jews as well as Gentiles but confined himself generally to territories where Gentiles were in the majority. There was one proviso: that Paul would remember to give help to the poor, something he was only too happy to do. The “poor” seemed to mean mainly the Christians of the Jerusalem church who had to be regularly helped by the churches of Asia Minor and Greece, as the Acts tell us. In the second half of the reading we find Paul back in Antioch in Syria. Antioch was the main city in Syria and, after Rome and Alexandria in Egypt, the third largest city in the Roman empire. It was already becoming a major Christian centre, especially with those working among the Gentiles, and Paul used it as a home base during his missionary journeys. Here we find a showdown taking place between Paul and Peter. Peter, who in a vision (recorded in the Acts) had been told by Jesus that there was no such thing as ritually “unclean” food, had baptised the first Gentile Christian and had been mixing freely with Gentiles and eating with them. However, when some followers of James arrived in Antioch from Jerusalem, Peter refrained from doing so because he did not want to offend those Jewish Christians who insisted on circumcision and other Jewish customs e.g. concerning ritual cleanliness and the avoidance of eating ‘forbidden’ food. Other Jewish Christians and even Barnabas (who was a Levite Jew) began to follow Peter’s example. Paul became very angry at this compromising of an essential principle which had already been agreed on. He opposed Peter “to his face”. Not only that, in the presence of everyone he declared that Peter, although a born Jew, had been living like a Gentile and not like a Jew. He had no right, then, to be imposing Jewish ways on Gentiles which was the message his behaviour was giving. It was not a question here, as Paul practised elsewhere, of not giving scandal to weaker brethren by enforcing one’s own belief and practices (cf. Acts 16:3; 21:26; 1 Cor 8:13; Rom 14:21; 1 Cor 9:20). Peter was giving out a misleading message. Peter’s behaviour should have advertised his real position but instead of that he disguised it. He was suggesting, by following the Judaisers’ ways, that the only true Christians were converted Jews who followed the Law. This could only result in two separate communities which could not then celebrate the “breaking of bread” together. There is a radical difference between accommodating the weak and compromising on essential principles. In Paul’s eyes, Peter was guilty of the latter and he had to be challenged. The problem was especially relevant to the Galatian situation where Jewish Christians were trying to impose Jewish customs, including circumcision, on Gentile Christians. Peter’s misleading behaviour was not at all helpful in such a situation, especially as it did not represent his own beliefs. Today, there is a good deal of discussion about the extent to which our leaders can be challenged in the Church. There will always be a tension between what we may call the ‘institutional’ and ‘prophetic’ wings of the Church. While some would prefer perfect harmony between all members, it is not the way the Church has operated from its earlier days. We must not confuse ‘unity’ with ‘uniformity’. Unity presupposes harmony between differing elements. We need the ‘institutional’ as the conservers of orthodoxy and tradition and continuity. But we need the ‘prophetic’ to arouse us to the need to adapt our message to changing needs and changing situations in a constantly changing world. No change means stagnation and ultimate death; too much change means loss of identity. We have to keep a balance between both so there will always be ‘Pauls’ opposing ‘Peters’ to their face. This is not to say that Peter the conserver is usually wrong and Paul the (r)evolutionary is always right. Most of the time, the truth lies somewhere in between. Careful discernment is needed at such times. One of the truest signs that we are on the right track is that the ultimate result is greater union. The truth can never divide because there can only be one truth. Wednesday of week 27 of Ordinary Time – Gospel Commentary on Luke 11:1-4 It is surely no coincidence that Jesus’ commendation of Mary for spending time listening to Jesus should be followed by a section on prayer. Luke’s gospel has been called the Gospel of Prayer. It is in his gospel, more than any of the others, that we are told about Jesus praying, especially before the more important moments of his public life, such as at his baptism, the choosing of the Twelve, before Peter’s confession of his Messiahship and in the garden before his Passion. Today we see Jesus just praying somewhere and we get the impression that it was something he did quite often. We mentioned earlier that it was perfectly natural for Jesus to pray to his Father, if we understand by prayer being in close contact with God. Sometimes it will be to ask him for help in our lives or in making the right decision, sometimes it will be to thank and praise him, sometimes it will be to pray on behalf of someone else and sometimes it will just to be in his company. We saw this yesterday with Mary of Bethany sitting quietly at the feet of Jesus listening to him. In fact, a lot of our prayer should be in silent listening. Some people talk so much in their prayer that God cannot get a word in! And then they complain he does not answer their prayers! After seeing him pray on this occasion, Jesus’ disciples asked him to teach them how to pray. In reply, he gives them what we know as the Lord’s Prayer. It is not quite the form we are familiar with, which comes from Matthew’s gospel. It is simpler but the basic structure is still the same. Matthew’s text has seven petitions (we know how he likes the number ‘seven’) but Luke only five. It is believed that Matthew follows an earlier form which may be closer to Luke’s. When Jesus taught this to his disciples did he mean that praying meant reciting this formula at regular intervals? In fact, it is (in Matthew’s version) a formula we all know by heart and which we recite regularly during the Eucharist, when we say the Rosary and on many other occasions. But it seems more likely that Jesus intended to do more than just teach them a formula to be recited. It is probably much better to see his words as an answer to their request: “Lord, teach us how to pray.” This is not the same as “Teach us some prayers to say/recite.” We will get much more out of the Lord’s Prayer if we take each petition separately and see each one as a theme about which we can pray. We can take each petition separately and spend time praying around each one. When we do that seriously and conscientiously we will see that it is a very challenging prayer. Let us briefly look at the petitions as they are in Luke: Father: To begin with, let us not get into arguments about God’s gender. We can address God as either Father or Mother; the basic meaning is that God is the source of life, that God is the Creator of every living thing. In addressing God as Father (or Mother) we are acknowledging that we are children, sons and daughters, of God. But if we are children of the one God, then we are brothers and sisters to each other. And there can be no exceptions to this, not even one. Is this what I mean when I utter the word “Father”? Am I prepared to see every single person on the face of this earth, irrespective of race, nationality, skin colour, class, occupation, age, religion, behaviour… as my brother and sister? If not, I have to stop praying at this first word. We can begin to see now what teaching his disciples to pray meant to Jesus as well as to them and us. May your name be held holy: God’s name is already holy and nothing we can do can make it any more so. In this petition we are rather asking that the whole world recognise the holiness of God, that the whole world sing with the angels, “Holy, holy, holy…” God does not need this but we do. And when we sing like this in all sincerity then we are saying that we belong to him and recognise him as Lord. And it is, in fact, another way of expressing the following petition… Your kingdom come: We refer frequently in these reflections to the Kingdom. It is that world where God’s reign prevails in people’s hearts and minds and relationships. A world where people have submitted gladly to that reign and experience the truth and love and beauty of God in their lives and in the way they react with the people around them. It produces a world of freedom, peace and justice for all. In praying this petition, though, we are not just asking God to bring it about while we sit back and wait. We are also committing ourselves to be partners with God in bringing it about. Our co-operation in this work is of vital importance. To be a Christian, to be a disciple of Jesus is essentially to be involved in this task of making the Kingdom a reality. And it has to begin right now; it is not just to be left to a future existence. (In Matthew’s version we pray: ‘Your kingdom come on earth…’)Like many of these petitions, it is a prayer that God’s will be carried through our involvement. Again it is a really challenging prayer. Give us each day our daily bread: A prayer that we will be always provided with what we need for our daily living. There is a highly dangerous word buried in the petition. That word is “us”. To whom does “us” refer? My family? my friends? my work companions? my village, town, city, country, nationality, race? Surely it refers to all God’s children without exception. If that is the case, then we are praying that every single person be supplied with their daily needs. But that cannot happen unless we all get involved. The petition is not simply passing the buck to God. The feeding of our brothers and sisters is the responsibility of all. Yet millions are hungry, other millions suffer from malnutrition as well as being deprived of many of the other essentials of dignified living. Clearly, we are not doing all we could to see that all of “us” have “our” daily bread. So again this is a very dangerous prayer. It is even more dangerous when we say it in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the sacrament or sign of a community that takes care of all its members and of others in need. It is the sacrament of breaking bread with brothers and sisters. If we leave the Eucharistic table and do nothing about this then our sign has been a sham. Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who is in debt to us: How easily we say this again and again! Yet it is a very frightening thing to do: to put God’s forgiving us conditional on our forgiving others. Forgiveness and reconciliation must be part and parcel of Christian living and we all know that at times it can be very difficult. Yet, as we see in the book of Jonah (read during Cycle I at this time), our God is so ready to forgive. To be like him, to be “perfect” is to have that same readiness to forgive. Our deepest urge should be not to condemn and punish but to rehabilitate and restore to life. Do not put us to the test: We are surrounded by forces which can draw us away from God and all that is true, good and beautiful. We pray that we will not succumb permanently to anything of the sort. We need constantly God’s liberating hand to lift us up as he lifted the drowning Peter. This is the one petition where we depend totally on God’s help. The Lord’s Prayer is beautiful. It is challenging. It needs to be taken slowly and meditatively so that we have time to enter deeply into each petition. Perhaps as we pray we can stop at just one petition which at this time is particularly meaningful to us and leave the others for another time. It is primarily not a formula to be recited but themes for prayer. Any one petition is enough to last a long time.
Posted on: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 05:50:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015