Sunday Meditation: Your Place at the Banquet

 So where will you sit?

 

He told a parable to those who had been invited,

noticing how they were choosing the places of honor at the table.

"When you are invited by someone to a wedding banquet,

do not recline at table in the place of honor.

A more distinguished guest than you may have been invited by him,

and the host who invited both of you may approach you and say,

'Give your place to this man,'

and then you would proceed with embarrassment

to take the lowest place.

Rather, when you are invited,

go and take the lowest place

so that when the host comes to you he may say,

'My friend, move up to a higher position.'

Then you will enjoy the esteem of your companions at the table.

For every one who exalts himself will be humbled,

but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

Then he said to the host who invited him,

"When you hold a lunch or a dinner,

do not invite your friends or your brothers

or your relatives or your wealthy neighbors,

in case they may invite you back and you have repayment.

Rather, when you hold a banquet,

invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind;

blessed indeed will you be because of their inability to repay you.

For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Lk 14:7-14

 

Brant Pitre again gives a wonderful exegesis. 

Humility, humility, humility.  So unless you’re father of the bride, don’t do it. 

Sunday Meditation: And Who Is My Neighbor?

 I’m sure you’ve heard or read the Parable of the Good Samaritan a thousand times. 

 

There was a scholar of the law who stood up to test Jesus and said,
"Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
Jesus said to him, "What is written in the law?
How do you read it?"
He said in reply,
"You shall love the Lord, your God,
with all your heart,
with all your being,
with all your strength,
and with all your mind,
and your neighbor as yourself."
He replied to him, "You have answered correctly;
do this and you will live."

But because he wished to justify himself, he said to Jesus,
"And who is my neighbor?"
Jesus replied,
"A man fell victim to robbers
as he went down from Jerusalem to Jericho.
They stripped and beat him and went off leaving him half-dead.
A priest happened to be going down that road,
but when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side.
Likewise a Levite came to the place,
and when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side.
But a Samaritan traveler who came upon him
was moved with compassion at the sight.
He approached the victim,
poured oil and wine over his wounds and bandaged them.
Then he lifted him up on his own animal,
took him to an inn, and cared for him.
The next day he took out two silver coins
and gave them to the innkeeper with the instruction,
'Take care of him.
If you spend more than what I have given you,
I shall repay you on my way back.'
Which of these three, in your opinion,
was neighbor to the robbers' victim?"
He answered, "The one who treated him with mercy."
Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

Lk 10:25-37

 

But here is the context of the parable in its historical Jewish context from the wonderfully insightful Dr. Brant Pitre.

 

 

If you are not aware, the Samaritan was not a Jew. 

Sunday Meditation: The Poor Widow

This is one of the most touching moments in the New Testament

 

Calling his disciples to himself, he said to them,
“Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more
than all the other contributors to the treasury. 
For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth,
but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had,
her whole livelihood.”

       -Mk 12:41-44

 

For some reason, she reminds me of my mother.

 

Gospel of Matthew, Part 3

You can read Part 1 here.  

Part 2, here.  

The fourth discourse in Matthew comprises chapter eighteen.  This is the discourse on the nature of community, and so we see each section a theme in some way that comments on the way elements of the community are supposed to relate to each other.  The discourse seems to divide into five parts.  Here’s how I divide it.

1. The relationship between man and heaven.

2. The relationship between man and sin.

3. The Parable of the Lost Sheep

4. How to deal with an unrepentant sinner.

5. The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant.

Let me put out some thoughts on each of these.  The image of a child returns in that first part of the discourse when Jesus is asked who in heaven is the greatest.  I love the rhythmic motifs that Matthew as writer forms in his Gospel.  The image of a child appears rhythmically through Matthew: Jesus as infant, the slaughter of the innocents, the simile of the apostles as little ones, and now here.  Here Christ physically takes a child and places him as the center of attention.  As I mentioned before, the child doesn’t so much symbolize innocence, as I’ve always thought, but stands for the lowest and least powerful.

On the second part of the discourse, I’ve always focused on either the beginning (causing a child to sin) or the end (cutting off a limb or plucking out an eye) but for some reason this time I focused on the middle: “Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!” (7). I must have glossed over that line every single time before.  Has anyone really ever thought about that verse before?  Woe means grief or distress or affliction.  The first sentence is clear: grief to the world because of things that cause sin.  Interesting that the woe comes not from the sin itself but from what causes sin.  The second sentence is startling and perhaps unexpected for me: “Such things must come,” meaning those that cause sin must come.  It sounds like it’s part of nature, the condition of earthly life.  Of course we know this.  God lets sin happen, so it is part of nature.  But to come from Christ’s mouth seems surprising to me.  When Christ says, woe to the one who causes sin my mind jumps to the serpent in the Garden and Judas at the Passion events.

I am never sure when Jesus is using exaggeration, but clearly in saying to cut ones hand off and pluck one’s eye out to prevent sin, that is over the top exaggeration.  Even I can see that one.  But can everyone?  The church father Origen took those words very literally and castrated himself to prevent sins of impurity. 

I love the Parable of the Lost Sheep.  What is the relationship in question here?  Between Christ and man or between a leader and his underlings?  I guess when one considers the entire sermon to be on community, then one has to extend the meaning to beyond just Christ.  But I don’t find that leadership element satisfactory, mainly because the unrealistic element in this parable is that no shepherd worth his salt would abandon the ninety-nine sheep to go find one stray.  Would a leader, say a leader of soldiers, risk the bulk of his troops for one stray soldier?  I don’t think so.  This parable only makes sense to me when it’s God searching for a lost soul.

The process of rebuking a sinner is rather straightforward.  I’ve never seen it in practice.  Has anyone? 

There’s a verse in there I never really noticed before, “Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (18).  Those are the same words He says to Peter in chapter 16.  Here He is addressing all the apostles, and so they too have the authority to bind (i.e. forbid) and loose (i.e. allow).  The difference is that Peter is the rock on which the church is built and Peter is given the keys; that is primacy.

And then finally the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant is really quite powerful.  It’s one of my favorite of the parables.  The preface to the parable starts with Peter asking Christ how many times a person should forgive another.  Seven times, Peter generously assumes.  Christ says seventy times seven, which is an overwhelming number.  In the parable we have one servant who is forgiven a debt of ten thousand talents, while the other owes the previous servant a hundred denarii.  From what I gathered, a hundred denarii was about three or four month’s wages while one talent was about 20 years wages.  So the one with ten thousand talents is like a billionaire and the one with hundred denarii is like a manual laborer living day to day.  One can see the disparity there but just like seventy times seven overwhelms Peter’s seven, the ten thousand overwhelms the hundred denarii.  There is a sort of symmetry in the numbers.

Now here’s the strange element that ends the Unforgiving Servant Parable.  That unforgiving servant at the end is sent off to be tortured.  Christ then ends with, so will God do to you if you don’t have mercy.  So is God sending souls off to be tortured or is that another exaggeration to make a point? As I said, I can’t always tell when to consider Christ exaggerating and when not.

###

The fifth and final discourse—the discourse on the end of times—is delineated in chapters 24 and 25.  Here’s how I see the structure of this discourse. 

1. Prediction of the destruction of the temple & collapse of civil order.

2. The prediction of false prophets.

3. The coming of the Son of Man.

4. The eternal endurance of Christ’s words.

5. The mystery of the end of time.

6. The Parable of the Faithful Servant.

7. The Parable of the Ten Virgins.

8. The Parable of the Talents.

9. The Parable of the Sheep and Goats.

The first six parts comprise chapter 24, and chapter 25 is made up of the three great parables which are so memorable. 

Just like the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is sitting (24:3) as he delivers this sermon.  Again I don’t have that image of Him sitting as He delivers these sermons.  Could it also be that I associate this with a priest’s homily?

Here Jesus forewarns the apostles about their persecutions as He did in the Sermon on the Mount: “Then they will hand you over to persecution, and they will kill you. You will be hated by all nations because of my name” (24:9). 

The description of the end of times sounds like it’s pretty horrendous.  Does anyone know why?  I know that’s common for apocalyptic literature, but coming from Christ’s mouth makes it a true forecasting of the future.  If we’re working toward creating the kingdom of God, why does it all collapse into degeneration? 

And then with the coming of the Son of Man (return of Christ) He comes to gather “the elect.”  The note at the bottom of the NAB says that Matthew is describing the destruction of the temple in 66 AD.  This is where I have a problem with modern scholars.  If that is the case, then Christ is not predicting anything.  It already happened.  Now how could that be if “the Son of Man” did not come?  Even more important perhaps, is the prediction about the end of times or the destruction of the temple?  Is the destruction of the temple a metaphor for the end of times?  Why does Jesus speak about “this generation” living through all this when He appears to be speaking about the distant future?  I don’t have answers to any of this, but you can see it’s rather complicated.  Events are intertwined and conflated.  If you believe Matthew through Mark wrote the Gospels post temple destruction, then the meaning of this would be different than if Matthew or Mark wrote it prior. 

I love the line, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”  Christ as the Word is eternal, so eternal that it will outlast heaven itself.  That’s obviously an exaggeration given that heaven cannot pass away.

I never noticed it before, but Christ compares the end of times with the flood of Noah (24:37-39).  I also never noticed these lines either until now.

Two men will be out in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left.  Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken, and one will be left.  Therefore, stay awake! For you do not know on which day your Lord will come. (40-42)

People will be at work, men in the field and women at the mill, and some will be saved and some not.  The caution to stay awake foreshadows how the apostles fall asleep while Jesus is praying in the Garden of Gethsemane. 

The Parable of the Faithful and Unfaithful Servants is allegorical.  While the master is away, you better be a faithful servant or there will be consequences if you are not.  That unfaithful servant will be punished so that he will be gnashing his teeth.  Matthew seems to like that image of grinding or gnashing of teeth.  It comes up frequently and I don’t think the other evangelists use it. 

The Gospel of Matthew is for me an endearing gospel because of the Sermon on the Mount and the three great parables of chapter 25.  Is it possible to not love those three great parables?  I have a theory on the three parables.  It seems to me they follow the virtues of hope, faith, and charity. 

The wise virgins of the first parable keep oil in their lamps while the foolish virgins don’t.  The wise virgins are prepared, and so they have had hope immediate in their minds.  The foolish virgins aren’t necessarily hopeless, but they don’t keep prepared, so their hope is distant, not presently conscious.  Does that make sense?  Notice though all ten fall asleep, and so all ten actually fail Christ’s command to “stay awake.”  But the wise account for the impossibility of always staying awake.  They hope the bridegroom will come and so prepare for it.

The servants of the second parable provide examples of putting faith into action.  Notice all three have faith, but only the first two put their faith into action.  Point this out to the Protestants who claim it’s “faith alone.”  The first two go out and use the talents to multiply talents.  The kingdom is broadened by putting talents into action.  I may have said this earlier, a talent was roughly twenty years income, so even the third servant who only received one talent received a richly amount. The first two are lauded: “‘Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master’s joy.’”  The third servant is called “wicked and slothful” and thrown into “the outer darkness” where he too will be “gnashing” his teeth.  Seems kind of harsh but remember a parable is not a reflection of reality but a glimpse into a truth.

The third parable clearly I think explicates charity.  This is the parable which convicts me every time, so much so that I actually feel anxiety when I read it. 

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’  Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’  He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ (25:41-43)

Am I one of the sheep or am I one of the goats?  Or perhaps in between, and where does that leave me?  Certainly I give money to charity.  But is that what Christ really wants of us?  Or does He want a hands on application to the needy?  I think this parable is the most powerful of all the parables.

Notice too that the goats, who go off into eternal punishment, didn’t do anything overtly evil.  Their sins were sins of omission, what they failed to do, as we pray in the Confiteor at Mass.  Whenever I get into a debate with a Protestant over faith alone, this is what I cite, though one could cite a number of Jesus’ teachings.  It’s so clear here.  The goats failed to do a work of mercy.  It is not faith alone.  You have to put faith into action.  As St. Paul writes of the virtues in 1 Cor 13:13, “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”