Misunderstanding Signs

Year B, 18th Sunday of Ordinary Time | John 6:24-35

Think of an engagement ring. What is better, the ring, or what that ring symbolizes? Certainly, the physical ring is good, but we would all probably agree that what the ring symbolizes is better. The most important thing is that an engagement ring is sign of the love and commitment of the couple. That said, it is easy focus on the good thing rather than on the better thing. In today’s Gospel (John 6:24-35), we find Jesus correcting people for focusing on the externals of a sign - the good thing - rather than what the sign represents - the better thing. It is as though they want the engagement ring and not what the ring symbolizes!

Jesus Teaches the People by the Sea, J. Tissot [public domain, Wikimedia Commons]

The concept of “sign” is of fundamental importance in the Gospel of John. A sign is some miraculous action of Jesus that reveals a heavenly truth Jesus has come to transmit. While the miraculous action is something good, the divine truth is something better(1). The importance of signs is evident in the very structure of the Gospel as it can be divided into two parts: the Book of Signs (1:19 to 12:50) and the Book of Glory (13:1 to 20:31). In the Book of Signs, we find seven miraculous actions of Jesus. In the Book of Glory, we find the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus, an event which, in its totality, is often viewed as the eight sign in the Gospel. In the Book of Signs, each sign follows a familiar pattern. The sixth chapter of John, from which today’s Gospel is taken, describes one such sign and follows the characteristic pattern neatly. First, Jesus works a miraculous action. This is the external, visible, aspect of the sign. It is something good. We heard about this last Sunday when Jesus multiplied loaves and fish and fed a multitude (John 6:1-15). Next, the people for whom Jesus worked the sign fail to understand its significance. They focus on the physical aspect of what Jesus has done only. This misunderstanding then gives Jesus the opportunity to enter into dialogue with the people and explain the significance of the sign that he has worked. Invariably, he tries to convince the people that what the sign represents is something better than the miraculous action he has worked.

In today’s Gospel, we find that the people have misunderstood the sign that Jesus performed and search after what is good while ignoring what is better. Going back to our previous analogy, the people want the engagement ring and not what the ring symbolizes. After Jesus feeds the people and departs, they go in search of him. When he is ultimately found in Capernaum, Jesus chastises the people for their lack of understanding. They followed him because they want more bread. They fail to grasp the divine truth the sign represents. We should not be too hard on the people in the Gospel. The physical bread that people want is something good. Since for many of us bread is a simple and easily available food, it is easy to lose sight of this fact.  An experience a few years ago helped me understand the importance of bread at the time of Jesus. At the time, I was spending a couple of months studying modern Hebrew in Jerusalem in a class of mostly Arab students, both Christian and Muslim. At the end of the program, we had a party and everyone brought in some food. One of my classmates, a young Muslim woman, brought flatbread that was freshly baked. It was warm and delicious! After we tried some of the bread, she proudly showed pictures of how the bread was made. Her mother had woken up at about 4 am to prepare and cook the bread over a charcoal fire. The class was struck by the act of the kindness the student’s mother had done for us. Her gift helps me understand the the action of the people in the Gospel. Bread took some work to make, even when the basic ingredients were on hand. If someone were to provide you with an abundance of bread, you would realize that they cared for you. It is only natural that they would come back to Jesus for more bread!

The bread!

Jesus’ miraculous feeding of the people, while a good thing, symbolizes a divine truth that is more important. In the Gospel, Jesus seizes upon the misunderstanding of the people and tries to convince them that the sign of the multiplication of the loaves represents something better: Jesus himself is the bread of life. Later in this chapter, Jesus will explain to the people two ways in which he is the bread of life. First, Jesus is the bread of life because his teaching nourishes and gives life like bread (6:35-50). Second, Jesus is the bread of life in the Eucharist, which is the very gift of himself (6:51-58). In today’s Gospel, Jesus tries to convince the people the people to come to him not because he can give them physical bread whenever they want, but because he is the bread of life. Going back to our analogy, this great truth is what the engagement ring symbolizes. It is the better thing.

The Gospel challenges us to come to Mass for the right reasons. This is because at every Mass, we receive Jesus the bread of life both in his teachings we hear in the readings and in the Eucharist. This is the better thing. Like the people in the Gospel that only want physical bread from Jesus, we can come to Mass for the lesser reasons and motivations, looking for something other than the bread of life. We can come because we feel obligated or because we like seeing certain people or simply out of a sense of habit. Although many of our reasons for coming to Mass are good and even though it is preferable to come to Mass for ambiguous motivations than not at all, if we come for the the better reason, namely, to receive Jesus the bread of life, we will probably get more out of Mass. Purifying our motivations for coming to Mass has the added benefit that it helps us put external and secondary things in their proper perspective. There is no Mass at any Church in the world that is done perfectly and according to everyone’s taste. We will always find something that makes the experience of the Mass less than optimal. Maybe the Church is too hot or someone beside us is singing out of tune or perhaps the music, liturgical style and preaching is not to our liking. When we get distracted by these considerations, it can be helpful to remind ourselves why we come to Mass. We are here to receive Jesus the bread of life in his word and in the Eucharist. It might be helpful to do some simple things to reenforce in ourselves a proper motivation for coming to Mass. For example, we could take a look at the readings of Mass before coming. We could try to pay especially close attention to the words and actions of the Mass or participate more in the singing and responses. Or, maybe we could say a simple prayer before Mass starts: “Jesus, I have come here for you”.

Just as the people in the Gospel are corrected by Jesus for focusing on the good, but external aspects of a sign (bread) rather than the better, divine truth it represented (Jesus is the bread of life), the Gospel today challenges us to ensure we come to Mass for the right reasons. Going back to our analogy, today is a chance to evaluate whether we we are focused on the engagement ring or what it represents. We would do well to ask ourselves two simply questions. Why are you here at Mass now now? What can you do to make sure the reason you come is to receive Jesus the bread of life in the word and sacrament?

Footnote:

1) For further discussion, see Brown, Raymond. An Introduction to the Gospel of John (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 80-81.

Jesus is the GOAT

Year B, 17th Sunday Ordinary Time | 2 Kings 4:42-44, John 6:1-15

Although I don’t follow much sports news or discussion, there is a term from this world that I find interesting: “goat”. Goat, spelt just like the animal, is an acronym that stands for the “greatest of all time”. In different sports, fans and commentators argue that a particular athlete is the “goat”. In basketball, some content that LeBron James is the goat. Who should be deemed the greatest of all time in a given sport is hotly debated. What is constant in these debates, however, is that whenever an athlete of extraordinary ability arises, people try to assess his or her talents by comparing the athlete to past stars. For example, LeBron James is compared to Michael Jordan. Some argue that the former is the goat, while other hold it is the latter. Early Christians followed a similar strategy. In trying to explain the life and mission of Jesus, they often compared and contrasted him to famous religious figures of the past.

Inside the Church of the Multiplication (Tabgha, Israel), which marks the place of the miracle described in the Gospel. Note the mosaic of the loaves and fish in front of the altar.

In the Gospels, Jesus is regularly likened to great historical leaders of Israel. In an attempt to describe his extraordinary life and mission, authors often compared Jesus to individuals with whom their audience were familiar. This method of comparison is often described as “typology”1. A kind of typology happens in sports. Remarkable athletes are compared to historic greats we can call “types”. This is only natural as current exceptional athletes share similar talents and skills with past stars. The same process happens in other fields. For example, we might say that because of her powers of deduction and reason, a certain journalist is like a new Sherlock Holmes (the type). Likewise, for the Gospel writers, comparing Jesus to other individuals must have come naturally since Jesus behaved in a way similar to religious figures from Israel’s past. At the same time, Gospel writers inserted certain clues or markers that made the comparison of Jesus with past religious figures more explicit. Unless we are familiar with the Old Testament, many of these typological cues pass by us unnoticed. Typological comparisons are quite common in the Gospels and help us better understand who Jesus is.

This Sunday’s Gospel, taken from John, in which Jesus performs a miracle and feeds the multitude (John 6:1-15), is an important example of typology. To help the reader better understand the person of Jesus and the significance of his actions, the Gospel draws out comparisons between Jesus and religious figures from Israel’s past. The Church gives us a hint at one such comparison with the choice of the First Reading (2 Kings 4:42-44). In the Gospel, Jesus is likely being compared to Elisha as both multiply barley loaves to feed a crowd. This comparison should provoke the reader to consider other ways in which Jesus is similar to Elisha. As a result, readers who know something about Elisha will get to know Jesus better. For example, both Elisha and Jesus are successors to other great figures (Elisha to Elijah and Jesus to John the Baptist). Both Elisha and Jesus are greater than their successors. Both are itinerant prophets who works miracles and have disciples. Both are single and acknowledged to be righteous. Another figure to whom Jesus is compared to in the Gospel is Moses (next Sunday’s readings make the connection explicit). A few clues point to this comparison. Just as Moses would often ascend a mountain to encounter God, at the start of today’s Gospel, Jesus went up the mountain. After the miracle, the people speculate that Jesus is truly “the prophet, the one who is to come into the world” (Jn 6:14). In this, the crowd is expressing the expectation that God would eventually send into the world a prophet who was like Moses (cf. Deuteronomy 18:15). Jesus' miracle happens at Passover, a feast associated with Moses. Like Moses fed the people with the gift of manna (via God’s intervention), in the Gospel, Jesus feeds the people with bread. This connection is made more explicit later in the chapter (Jn 6:30-32). Further, right after the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves, Jesus walks on the Sea of Galilee, an event which is reminiscent of the miraculous passage of the people of Israel through the Red Sea. The Gospel today clearly suggests to the reader that Jesus is a new Moses. Jesus brings a new law and works a New Exodus from sin and death. Assuming we catch the clues in the Gospel, the typological comparisons of Jesus to Elisha and Moses help us better understand who Jesus is and what he does for us.

For us Christians, the typology in which Jesus is compared to past religious figures is unlike typologies from sports and other fields in important ways. First, Christian typology is not just about making a comparison, like saying that some athlete has skills that are like those of a past star. Rather, it helps us describe the plan of God throughout history. For us, types in the Old Testament like Elisha and Moses, although of immense and lasting value in God’s plan, prefigure or prepare for Jesus. Who these figures were and what they accomplished is fulfilled in the life and mission of Jesus. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it, “typology indicates the dynamic movement toward the fulfillment of the divine plan when ‘God [will] be everything to everyone’” (CCC 130). Second, although Jesus is compared to various past religious figures, the Gospels make is clear Jesus cannot be adequately described by these types. The Gospel of today hints at this reality. Jesus is a prophet like Elisha but he is so much more. While Elisha fed 100 with 20 barley loaves, Jesus fed over 5000 with only 5 loaves. Jesus is a leader like Moses, but he is so much more. After the people recognize Jesus is a prophet, he withdraws because he knew they were going to make him a king. It does not seem that Jesus is rejecting the title of king. Rather, he withdraws because he does not want to be the kind of king that people expect. In John’s Gospel, Jesus’ brand of kingship is only made manifest on Golgotha. Jesus is a king who suffers and dies for his people. His crown is of thorns; his throne is the cross.

Through the use of typology, the Gospels convey the exceptional nature of Jesus. Unlike typological comparisons in sports, however, in which the identity of the “goat” is up for debate, among Christians there was no argument. Through its use of typology, today’s Gospel challenges us to hold the following truths close to our hearts: 1) Although Jesus is like figures from the past (Moses and Elijah), all comparisons come up short. 2) In God’s plan, Jesus fulfills all the types to which he is compared. 3) Jesus is truly the greatest of all time.

Footnote:

1 For a concise summary of the use of typology in the New Testament, see “Typology” in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, 783-784.

Jesus came to tear down walls

Year B, 16th Sunday OT | Ephesians 2:13-18

During the past US elections, a certain slogan became popular. It was often chanted during political rallies and met with cheers. The slogan is this: “Build a wall! Build a wall!” Although the particular wall in question was to be located between the United States and Mexico, the desire to build walls in general is ingrained within us. We appear to be very good at walling-off others from us, whether it be in the literal or metaphorical sense.

In the Church too there is a tendency to build walls between individuals and groups. Although we rarely state it aloud, we can separate others from us, thinking that they are somehow “less Catholic” than us, or not quite as worthy to be in the Church. We may wall-off people in the Church because they don’t think like us. Maybe they have different political views. Perhaps they have different tastes in Church music or liturgy. Another reason we may create a wall to divide others from us is because they are not part of the right group. In the Church, we are blessed to have so many communities and movements that contribute greatly to the life and mission of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, however, people can separate themselves from those who participate in groups they do not like, often viewing them with suspicion. In addition, those who are members of groups can at times divide themselves from others in the Church who are not part of their particular community. Finally, we may create walls and divide ourselves from others because we perceive that they have wronged us. Perhaps this is the most common reason for building walls in the Church. Unfortunately, we are all too good at creating divisions in the Church.

Through his life, death and resurrection, Jesus tore down the walls that divide his followers. In the second reading today, we heard a wonderful passage from the Letter to the Ephesians (2:3-18). This letter was written to a community in which there existed some significant divisions. It is likely that part of the division was between followers of Jesus who came from a Jewish background and followers of Jesus who came from a Gentile, or non-Jewish, background. The main message of the passage is that neither group should consider itself superior or separated from the other. The two groups, which were divided before the coming of Christ, have now become one. Both are God’s beloved children and are part of the same family. The letter vividly describes the end of separation between Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus when it explains that Jesus “has broke down the dividing wall of enmity”. Although there is some debate as to what specific wall the letter has in mind, it is likely that the wall in question referred to the dividing barrier that was in the Temple. When the Temple in Jerusalem was in operation, there was a barrier that separated the Court of the Gentile from the inner courts. Although all could visit the former location, only Jews could pass further than the barrier. Therefore, many were excluded from the holiest places of the Temple, where God was thought to be most present. In an an archaeological dig, an inscription from the temple barrier was found. It reads  as follows: “No man of another race is to enter within the fence and enclosure around the Temple. Whoever is caught will have only himself to thank for the death which follows”. For those early Christians who were aware of the barrier within the Temple, the message of the Letter to the Ephesians would have been especially strong. Because of Jesus, now all had equal access to God. In Christ, all are to be united.

Jerusalem Temple Warning Inscription (source)

Because Jesus came to destroy walls that separate his followers, we should actively work to overcome divisions in the Church. It is only too easy to separate ourselves from those who have hurt us and those who think differently than us. St. Ignatius of Loyola gives some helpful advice for maintaining unity among Christians. This saint experienced first hand what it was like to be walled-off from the rest of the Church community. When he was beginning his community, his work was met with suspicion and even outright hostility. Over time, however, his teaching was enthusiastically accepted by the Church. In his Spiritual Exercises, St. Ignatius gives a powerful principle that can help us maintain unity with our fellow Church members. Namely, we should assume the best possible intent in other people. For example, if someone treats us in a way we think is unfair, instead of assuming that they are motivated by malice towards us, we can assume that we have perhaps misunderstood them, or that they are simply having a bad day. If our fellow Christians behave in a way we find puzzling or think differently than us, rather than immediately thinking they are misguided, we should try to assume that they are motivated by love of the Church. When we are tempted to wall-off and separate ourselves from some individual or group in the Church, our first step should be to always assume that they are motivated by the best intentions rather than the worst. By assuming the worst, we quickly build walls in the Church and cause division. By assuming the best, unity is maintained.

Who is some individual or group in the Church that you have difficulty accepting or getting along with? Today, try assuming that their actions are motivated by the best possible intentions. Jesus’ mission included tearing down the walls that divide us. Let us make sure that we never work against him and build up new walls within the Church.

What kind of messenger?

Year C, 15th Sunday Ordinary Time | Mark 6:7-13

source

Recently, I was at the airport, sitting in a enclosed room, waiting for a flight that had been delayed by a few hours. It was a noisy place! From where I was sitting, I could hear many different voices. A lot of the voices were shouting, bitter, complaining and angry. These voices made my mood worse. I’m sure they had the same effect on many others in the room. Other voices, however, were more positive. There was a mother who was playing with her child, an elderly couple talking about the nice places they went on their trip and polite staff who tried to reassure the passengers that the flight would come soon. These voices were uplifting and made the waiting easier. Each day can feel like being in that airport waiting room. We are surrounded by many voices. Numerous messengers communicate to us. Some of these voices are good and others bad.

There are many messengers who fill the world with darkness by their way of life and with the message they convey. Some examples come to mind. Messengers in the media. Although there are many well-meaning people working in the media, too often the media - whether it be newspapers or news programs on TV - tend to be negative. Only the bad news seems to be reported. Social media has aggravated this tendency. In an attempt to garner more clicks, the stories shared on the internet are becoming more and more sensational. Political messengers. Although there are many dedicated politicians, others live scandalous lives, lie and cheat. Their message seems intent on inflaming the fear and hatred of people, dividing them in the process. Religious messengers. Unfortunately, even in the world of religion there are many negative voices. Some religious leaders, who should be serving their people, use their positions to enrich themselves. For example, you might have heard the story recently about the TV evangelist who tried to convince his congregation to buy him a private jet for 54 million US dollars. This would be his fourth jet!

In stark contrast to the many voices that fill the world with darkness, Jesus sent his twelve apostles to be be messengers who fill the world with love, liberation and healing. In the days before newspaper, TV and internet, information was spread through itinerant, wandering preachers. Jesus and the apostles were these kind of communicators. In the gospel of today (Mark 6:7-13), Jesus lays out clearly what kind of messengers the apostles are called to be. First and foremost, the twelve share in Jesus ministry. Like Jesus, they teach and call people to repentance, that is, to live a life more in accordance with what God would want. The twelve are also given authority over unclean spirits. Instead of bringing more darkness into the world, they receive the power to cast darkness out. Jesus also instructs his apostles “take nothing for the journey” except some mere essentials. They are to have just a walking stick, sandals and the clothes on their backs. In this way, Jesus informs his apostles that their focus should not be on material possessions but rather on their mission. This mission should fill them with a sense of urgency. They should not expect to have financial security but rather should rely on the hospitality of others. In addition, Jesus tells the twelve that when people do not accept them, they should “shake off the dust” from their feet “in testimony against them”. When they are rejected, the twelve are not to respond with violence or anger, but rather with this symbolic action which might represent that those places in which they are not accepted are not part of the true land of Israel. For this reason, they shake the dust of these places off their feet. It shows that those who reject them and Jesus are not part of Israel, that is, God’s chosen people.

Like the apostles, we are sent by Jesus to be messengers who fill others with love, joy and hope and lead them closer to God. Unlike the apostles, we are probably not called to go out as travelling missionaries. In our daily lives, however, Jesus calls us to be messengers like him. How can we do this? Two points stand out. 

First, we need to seriously evaluate our relationship with material possessions. Although we are perhaps not called to poverty like the twelve, we are challenged to put material possessions in proper perspective. Certainly, we need things like a place to live, food, and clothing and should work to get them. However, these things are not ends in themselves. These possessions are tools; they are means of building up God’s kingdom. When we die, Jesus will not ask us what kind of car we drove, the clothes we wore or the phone we had, but rather what we did to spread his message of love to others and how we have helped the needy.  

Second, like the apostles, we are called to engage in a peaceful way with others, especially those who disagree with us. We live in a polarized world where people no longer seem to get along. There is far to much shouting and too many unkind words. Like Jesus, we are called to speak kindly to others, to be patient and to forgive. Each day, we meet many people who are struggling and in need of encouragement. At work or school, we can compliment others when they do something well. If someone is passing through a difficult time, we can listen to them and assure them of our prayers.

Life is very much like that airport waiting room. It is filled with many voices. Many voices drag people down and bring more darkness into the world. Jesus calls us to be messengers who bring love, joy and compassion to others. What kind of messenger will you choose to be?

Water as a Symbol for the Holy Spirit in John

In the Gospel of John, the Holy Spirit is likened to water. While interacting with the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn 4), Jesus offers her living water. He declares that anyone who drinks this water will never thirst again. Once received, this water will become a spring, welling up to eternal life (v. 13). By the end of the encounter, the Samaritan woman accepted the offer of Jesus since she leaves her water jar behind and goes on a mission, bringing her townspeople to encounter Jesus (vv. 28-29). Later, on the final day of the Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus again promised living water to the thirty who come to him (7,37-39). In this episode, the living water that Jesus gives is clearly identified as the Spirit (v. 39). When blood and water flowed from his pierced side as he hung on the cross (19,34), Jesus finally gave the Spirit – the living water – to his followers.

For readers of John today, much of the significant of the image of water can be easily missed. For many, water is readily available. Those living in an urban setting can be unaware of the necessity of water for agriculture and thus daily sustenance. Modern readers can forget that water is a basic necessity for life and its lack is something to be feared. In first century Palestine, water was not in abundant supply nor as readily accessible. Long droughts were not uncommon. From their daily experience, those who first heard the Holy Spirit described as water would have been struck by the image. The necessity of water for life would have been much more present in their minds. Similar to water, they could readily grasp how urgent and necessary the Holy Spirit is.

First century Jews would also appreciate the significance that water had in their Scriptures and therefore better appreciate what Jesus was offering them with the “living water”. In the Old Testament, water can be used to symbolize the following realities: 1) wisdom (Prov 10:11; 13:14; Wis 7:25); 2) the Spirit of God (Isa 32:15; Ez 36:25-26; Joel 2:28-29); 3) cleansing (Lev 14:5-6.50-52; Zech 13:1); 4) the Torah (Sir 24:23-29); 5) the power of healing (2 Kgs 12:5); and 6) the final state of salvation (Isa 30:23-26; 41:17-20; Ez 47; Zech 13,1). For the initial audience of John’s Gospel, the water that Jesus offered – the Holy Spirit – could be understood as fulfilling all these meanings which water had in the Old Testament.

One way we can better appreciate the gift of the Holy Spirit is by understanding what it means that the Holy Spirit is the “living water”. The Holy Spirit is necessary for life and growth. Being identified with water, the Holy Spirit corresponds with a rich tapestry of images from the Old Testament and fulfills what water symbolized there. Like the Samaritan woman, let us more fully accept the gift of Holy Spirit in our lives.

A "Culture of Dialogue" in the Bible

In response to discord in society, Pope Francis has called for a “culture of dialogue”. He encourages us not to ignore or stigmatize those we disagree with. Rather, we are to respect them and enter into open dialogue. In this way, consensus and agreement can be built. If we look carefully, we are able to find a culture of dialogue within the Bible. There are texts within the Bible that are clearly in dialogue and even disagreement with one another. Authors take up themes presented by previous writers and engage with them, offering another perspective. Over time, a clearer picture of God’s revelation is painted. 

For example, consider two questions posed by Isaiah. During a polemic against idolatry he asks, “to whom can you liken God and what form compare to him?” (Isa 40:18). According to the prophet, nothing on earth can compare to God. Some chapters later, Isaiah puts this question in the mouth of God: “where could you build a house for me, what place could serve as my abode?” (Isa 66:1). Again, the answer is clear. God cannot live anywhere on earth.

Isaiah’s questions are taken up in Genesis 1:26 and Exodus 25:8-9. These texts, which probably took shape sometime after the questions in Isaiah were written, give different answers. Genesis 1:26 narrates that God made man in his image and likeness. Unlike Isaiah 40:18, the author of Genesis 1:26 clearly believed that there was something on earth that could be likened to God: every human person. In Exodus 25:8-9, God promises Moses that if he builds a sanctuary just as he is commanded, then God will dwell there. Unlike Isaiah 66:1, the author of Exodus 25:8-9 thought that God could dwell somewhere on earth.

The questions of Isaiah are taken up again in the New Testament where new answers are given. Paul’s letter to the Philippians declares that Jesus was in the form of God (Phil 2:6). To Paul, it is clear that Jesus cannot be compared with God in the same way that Genesis 1:26 says every human being can, since Jesus is Lord, the one God has exalted and who all will praise. John puts things more clearly. Jesus wasn’t simply created in the image of God. Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30). Elsewhere, John responds to the question posed by Isaiah 66:1. Unlike Exod 25:8-9, which argued that God can live in a sanctuary made by people, John teaches that Jesus is the only true dwelling place of God on earth (eg. John 1:4; 2:21).

In the examples above, the Bible exhibits a “culture of dialogue”. First, questions are posed by Isaiah, who also offers tentative solutions. These questions are then challenged by the authors of Genesis 1:26 and Exodus 25:8-9, who engage openly with Isaiah. Finally, Paul and John give fuller responses in the light of Jesus’ death and resurrection. This development illustrates the fruit that comes from engaging with the ideas of those who see things differently. With God’s help, this dialogue can lead to a deeper comprehension of the truth.

Why Did People Want to Kill Jesus?

Why did people want to kill Jesus? Although there are few ways we could answer this, it might be helpful to try to discover THE event that make people want to bring Jesus to be tried and killed. For much of Jesus’ ministry, he encounters opposition, especially with the Jewish authorities. When we examine the Gospels, however, there seems to be a turning point in each of them where the decision is made by the authorities to have Jesus put to death. Jesus did something which was “the straw that broke the camel’s back”, as the saying goes. So, what is this event? Remarkably, it depends on which Gospel you consult.

For the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) the turning point in Jesus’ ministry that leads to his death is the cleansing of the Temple. When Jesus enters the Temple, he takes possession of it and begins teaching. The crowds who were there listened attentively to his words. The authorities were indignant. They began to ask Jesus where his authority came from. Who was this man - this carpenter from an unimportant town in the north - to come into the Temple in this way and teach?! The authorities tried to trick him. They asked him questions in order to make him look foolish in front of the people. Jesus, however, responded to all comers. In each round in the battle, he was undefeated. The crowds continued to grow in their acceptance of him. Because they could not overcome Jesus directly and in the open, the authorities sought one of his own to betray him, Judas. Eventually, they trumped up charges against Jesus, and brought him before Pilate. Some of the people who clung on Jesus’ teaching called for his death. 

John paints a different picture. In John’s Gospel, Jesus does not cleanse the Temple at the end of his ministry, but at the very beginning. For John, the event that leads to the death of Jesus, the turning point in the Gospel, is the raising of Lazarus. After Jesus performs this great event, crowds of Jews believe in him. This worries the Jewish authorities. They feel like they are losing control. Eventually they decide to try to have him put to death.

So, what is the answer? Did the cleansing of the Temple lead to Jesus’ death, or the raising of Lazarus? Both the Synoptics and John convey a true message. They are meant to be heard in unison. From a chronological standpoint, the Synoptic Gospels are probably correct. The Synoptics challenge us to consider how we can be like the crowds. Often we can enthusiastically follow Jesus and his teaching when things go well. At times, however, we too can betray Jesus and what he calls us to, especially when there is pressure from others to do so. John, however, is not wrong. He is trying to make a theological point rather that recount the exact order of events. In John’s Gospel, Jesus needs to cleanse the Temple first because he replaces the Temple. The Temple was the dwelling place of God. In John, however, we read that the word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). Before, God dwelt on earth in the Temple. Now, God dwells on earth in the person of Jesus. In John’s Gospel, having the raising of Lazarus lead to Jesus’ death conveys a profound message. Giving life to Lazarus leads to Jesus’ death. Jesus’ death in turn will give life to us all. John reminds us that salvation from Jesus is a gift. Regardless of the fact that we are weak and betray Jesus, he gives himself up for us as a free gift.

St Paul Outside the Walls

Source

In this article, we conclude our series on Papal Basilicas with a look at St. Paul’s Outside the Walls. The name of this Basilica is interesting. The first part, “St. Paul’s”, is straightforward. This Basilica was built to honour St. Paul and houses his physical remains, which are found in a sarcophagus beneath the altar. For almost 2000 years, this sarcophagus was hidden from view. Just after the Jubilee in 2000, the area under the altar was excavated in order to expose the sarcophagus. At this time, it was not opened, so we are not sure what is inside. However, long tradition has it that St. Paul’s body is inside, with the exception of his head, which according to another tradition is in St. John Lateran. The second part of the Basilica’s name, “Outside the Walls”, is less clear. Ultimately, it means that this Basilica was built outside the walls of the ancient city of Rome. The reason for this is that in ancient Rome bodies were not buried within the city limits. The city was for the living. The dead needed to be deposited in their own place, called a necropolis, which literally means “city of the dead”. For example, the place where St. Peter’s Basilica now stands was originally a necropolis in which St. Peter was buried. Though today St. Peter’s seems like a part of Rome, 2000 years ago this was considered outside the city limits since it was on the other side of the Tiber river. Similar to St. Peter, St. Paul was buried close to where he was martyred in a place specially designated for the dead outside the city boundaries. In the 4th century, Constantine build a Basilica over St. Paul’s burial place. Since this was outside the city walls, the name stuck.

The Basilica built by Constantine was soon expanded by Theodosius in the year 386. This structure remained substantially unchanged for almost 1500 years. For centuries, it was the only Papal Basilica that had maintained its ancient design as the others were significantly altered, or, in the case of St. Peter’s, completely rebuilt. In 1823, however, a worker fixing the roof of St. Paul’s set a fire which almost completely destroyed the building. Pope Leo XII ordered that the Basilica be rebuilt according to its original design, utilizing as many elements that had survived the fire as possible. This is why when visiting St. Paul’s one gets the feeling that one is in an ancient Roman Basilica, even though the structure itself is relatively recent. In addition to housing the body of St. Paul, the Basilica also is home to magnificent mosaics, notably the mosaic of Christ over the triumphal arch, which survived the fire and dates from the 5th century. A detail of the Basilica that is popular among pilgrims is the series of mosaics showing each of the Popes, which wraps around the Basilica’s interior. The translucent alabaster windows further enhance the space’s beauty.  This Basilica is truly a wonderful place to visit and contemplate the life of St. Paul the Apostle, who was beheaded just a few kilometers away.