Fellowship of Southern Illlinois Laity
ROGER VERMALEN KARBAN SCRIPTURE COMMENTARIES
STONES CRY OUT WINTER 2009 Featured in CORPUS REPORTS MARCH/APRIL 2007 By ROGER KARBAN Our Eucharist: Our celebration forms us into the one Body of Christ By Roger V. Karban October 2007 Celebrations www.celebrationpublications.org IN NEWS NOTES ROGER'S COMMENTARIES FOSIL has the latest Scripture reflection, “the Gospel Truth,” written by Fr. Roger Karban. If you would like to purchase a copy, please return the form below. The price is $3.00 cash and carry, $3.50 to be mailed, with a discounted price of $3.00 for 10 or more copies to be mailed. The pamphlet, “See, I am Doing Something New!” Isaiah 43:19, by Roger Karban, is also available. Send order and check (payable to FOSIL) to: FOSIL, P.O. Box 31, Belleville, Il 62222. Please note on check that it is for the book(s). Name: ___________________________________________ No of copies: _______________ Address: ___________________________________________ Amount enclosed: _______________ City: _____________________________ State: ________ Zip: __________________________ Our Lady of Good Counsel Church , 2038 Washington St., Renault, OUR LADY OF GOOD COUNSEL PARISH 618-458-7710 May 2009 Dear Friend, Since the “regime change” in our diocese four years ago, it’s been evident to all that the education office has removed me from the summer catechists and teachers program. This is especially blatant since I’ve played a yearly role in this program since its inception. On one hand I’m grateful to have the extra time their exclusion affords me. On the other hand, for over 43 years I’ve dedicated my time and scriptural expertise to the people of the diocese of When colleges and universities through the years have inquired about my availability to teach Scripture full-time in their institutions, my response has always been, “No. As a diocesan priest I’m committed to the people of the Belleville Diocese.” In recent years I’ve relented somewhat and have become an adjunct professor at Instead of sitting around “bemoaning my fate,” I’ve scheduled two Scripture sessions this summer for catechists and teachers. Without questioning the biblical qualifications of those conducting the office of education’s courses, it’s impossible to give an adequate introduction to either the Hebrew or Christian Scriptures in just three hours. I’m asking the participants to “sacrifice” six hours in this endeavor. On Wednesday July 22nd, I’ll have a session at Holy Spirit Parish in Carterville on the Hebrew Scriptures from 9:00am to 3:00pm. The morning will revolve around the Torah (the Bible’s first five books); during the afternoon I’ll zero in on the prophets. The next day Thursday July 23rd at Our Lady of Good Counsel Parish in Renault, I’ll speak about the Christian Scriptures. The morning session will concentrate on the gospels, stressing the three stages which contributed to their formation; in the afternoon I’ll focus on Paul, his importance for the early church and his basic beliefs. There’ll be no charge for these days. What I have received freely, I offer freely. But you’ll have to bring your own lunch. I’ll provide forms acknowledging your participation. The office of education can put them into any tier they wish. My classes have always been credited by the office. To withhold credit now would be scandalous. Anyone is invited to participate even if you’re not a teacher or catechist. Should you need directions to either site, you can email me at rkarban@htc.net . No pre-registration is necessary. My oncologist assures me my lymphoma is still in remission, so I should have no difficultly fulfilling this two-day commitment. Since, as you surely realize, I’m severely restricted from the normal channels of communicating with teachers and catechists in the diocese, I’d deeply appreciate your spreading the word about these classes to your teachers and catechists. If no one comes, no one comes. But I guarantee I’ll sleep much better those two nights knowing I refused to go off quietly into the night. Thank you. Roger Vermalen Karban Dear Principal, The Catechist Certification summer list is on the portal. All approved Scripture courses are also on the portal. It has come to my attention that you have received a letter promoting two Scripture sessions this summer that have not been approved for Catechist Certification. Any person attending these Scripture sessions will not receive Catechist Certification credit. We are requesting that you do not distribute this letter announcing the Scripture sessions to your teachers as the letter requests. We would like to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding regarding the courses that are approved. Sincerely, Thomas Posnanski Director of Education Russell Peterson Director of Religious Education and Catechesis AUGUST 23, 2009: TWENTY-FIRST SUNDAY OF THE YEAR Joshua 24:1-2,15-17,18 Ephesians 5:21-32 John 6:60-69 One of the most intriguing aspects of studying Scripture critically is to surface the many different theologies which make up our sacred writings. This is especially eye opening to us Catholics. Throughout my life I’ve asked or been asked, “What do Catholics believe about this?” Or, “How do Catholics explain that?” Trained to memorize one catechism answer for every question, we’re amazed to discover our sacred authors might provide us with as many as half a dozen answers for the same question. From today’s gospel pericope, for instance, it’s clear that John’s unique theology about the Eucharist and the person of Jesus contradicted the earlier, more traditional biblical explanations of both. That’s why the author mentions, “From this time on, many of his disciples broke away and would not remain in his company any longer.” The evangelist isn’t speaking about the historical Jesus’ late 20s or early 30s followers. He’s referring to the risen Jesus’ mid-90s disciples who refuse to buy into his gospel’s “new-fangled” ideas. Those people of faith who collected and saved the writings which comprise our canon of Scripture presumed human perceptions of God and Jesus continually grow, change and evolve. They never thought of faith as a static element in their lives. It was constantly “moving.” No accident that when our sacred writers talk about having faith, or making a faith commitment, they’re never referring to giving oneself over to a theology. We’re expected to have faith in a person, not an idea. Today’s Joshua passage is classic. “If it does not please you to serve Yahweh,” the Jewish leader demands, “decide today whom you will serve. . . . As for me and my household, we will serve Yahweh.” After reflecting on Yahweh’s “track record,” the people respond, “We also will serve Yahweh, for he is our God.” Yahweh’s past actions on their behalf are reason enough to commit themselves to following Yahweh in the future. God’s personality carries the day. John parallels this commitment to Yahweh with the disciples’ commitment to Jesus. No matter what theology is floating around, “To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” During my 32 years of teaching high school marriage courses, I always reminded my students that they were marrying a person, not the idea of that person hovering in the back of their minds. The real flesh and blood person will still be there when the idea changes. That’s why we take vows. We wouldn’t need to make such a formal commitment to another person if we could be certain our ideas of one another would remain the same. This personal commitment certainly kicks in when we hear today’s well-known Ephesians passage - both our commitment to Jesus and to one another. Many are bothered by the author’s command to women to be “submissive to their husbands as to the Lord because the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of his body, the church, as well as its savior . . . . Wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” Obviously such “marital theology” was based on ideas of man/woman relationships in vogue in the first century, CE. Almost no one in our communities hold such ideas today. Had the canon of Scripture not been closed in the second century, I’m certain later sacred writings would offer opposing theologies. Yet no matter the theology, every husband and wife is committed to one another, and if they’re Christians, they’re also committed to the risen Jesus whose personality plays an essential role in all human relationships. Roger Vermalen Karban This commentary is provided by the FELLOWSHIP OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS LAITY. Please share it with a friend. We appreciate your comments and donations. F.O.S.l.L., AUGUST 16, 2009: TWENTIETH SUNDAY OF THE YEAR Proverbs 9:1-6 Ephesians 5:15-20 John 6:51-58 Regular readers of these commentaries know how often (as recently as last week) I quote and refer to Carroll Stuhlmueller and Hans Walter Wolff. Though I’ve read the works of, and been influenced by other famous Scripture scholars, these two were among the many dedicated men and women who actually taught me. I sat in their classrooms, took notes during their lectures, and passed their exams. But more than just learning the “material” they so generously shared, I learned them. Both were kind, loving, and determined ministers of the risen Jesus, their personalities formed by the Scriptures which were such an essential part of their lives. Neither could teach a class, give a lecture, conduct a seminar or write an article without applying God’s word to the concrete situations and problems they encountered in their daily experience of living their faith. Since Pius XlI’s 1943 tradition-shattering encyclical on the study of Scripture - Divino Afflante Spiritu - our “official” church documents on the Bible have not only demanded we teachers employ the most up-to- date exegetical methods in our pursuit of God’s word, but also insist that we don’t make our study and teaching of those sacred writing just an academic endeavor. Our biblical authors always had one eye on God’s will and one eye on the community problems which triggered their writings; so we who teach their writings should always make “practical applications” to the circumstances in which we live our faith. Of course, such a teaching style “dates” one’s presentation. Another of my profs, Keith Nickle once commented, “Those who teach Scripture’s eternal truths would like to be remembered for the eternal insights they offer their students.” Once we make one practical application, those who years down the road will come into contact with our work will be able to figure out how we wore our hair and the kind of clothes we sported. We become locked in a specific day and age. Our scholarly immortality goes out the window. On an academic level, for instance, I can assure you the majority of Pauline scholars believe the Apostle didn’t pen the letter to the Ephesians. But, on the other hand, the disciple of Paul actually responsible for the letter imitated his mentor’s passion to make faith in the risen Jesus a force which dominated his readers’ daily lives. That’s why he integrates these verses of “pastoral” advice into his work. “Keep careful watch over your conduct,” he writes. “Do not act like fools . . . . Do not continue in ignorance... . Avoid getting drunk. . . . Address one another in psalms and hymns and inspired songs.” The writer’s not alone in his concerns. Though the author of Proverbs gives us a poetic reflection on the importance of Wisdom, we need only page through the other chapters and verses of his work to discover how finding patterns in God’s creation and presence among us changes the way we live our lives. The same holds true for John. He presumes we can spend lots of time meditating on the significance of the Eucharist for our lives of faith. It’s essential to know, “whoever feeds on me will have life because of me.” But it’s just as essential for the evangelist to encourage his readers not only to meditate on Jesus, but also to imitate him, especially when it comes to giving their lives for others. Keith Nickle often reminded us, “You should have the Bible in one hand and the daily newspaper in the other. The point at which those two intersect is God’s word for us for that day.” Roger Vermalen Karban This commentary is provided by the FELLOWSHIP OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS LAITY. Please share it with a friend. We appreciate your comments and donations. F.O.S.I.L., AUGUST 9, 2009: NINETEENTH SUNDAY OF THE YEAR I Kings 19:4-8 Ephesians 4:30-5:2 John 6:41-51 One of Hans Walter Wolff s most memorable classes revolved around the great Scripture scholar’s reflection on something which takes place in today’s first reading. “Elijah went a day’s journey into the desert, until he came to a broom tree and sat beneath it. He prayed for death: ‘This is enough, 0 Yahweh! Take my life, for I am no better than my ancestors.” Though we were studying Jonah, not I Kings, Wolff used today’s reading to reinforce his comments about Jonah also praying for death. In both cases, the prophets had simply “had it” with Yahweh. They were being asked to do something they hadn’t foreseen when they first responded to God’s call. When each eventually discovers that God’s demanding he take those extra steps, each asks for death. Wolff reflected that almost every follower of God reaches that point. “Most,” he said, “don’t actually ask for physical death. They commit ‘spiritual suicide;’ they change their faith priorities just enough to still appear to be people of faith. But they no longer follow God. Though they know there’s another door to open or another road to travel, down deep they’ve stopped going in the direction God called them to go.” With a smile, he then got personal. “For some ministers and priests, our ‘death’ is the long siesta we take every day; a time during which God’s will for us is pushed completely into the background of our ministry.” During my early Catholic life, I had just one goal: get into heaven. I was convinced that was all God expected of me. The most important part of my religious education revolved around learning the distinction between mortal and venial sin. The former sent me to hell; the latter, to purgatory. Though purgatory provided the same physical tortures as hell, everyone imprisoned there eventually went to heaven. I “went to Mass” - on days other than Sunday - because my teachers guaranteed the more Masses I attended, the more grace I’d acquire. The more grace, the higher place in heaven I’d eternally enjoy. Such theology not only isn’t scriptural, it could contribute to our spiritual suicide. Just as the food and drink Elijah receives from Yahweh’s angel enables him to “walk forty days and forty nights to the One quick glance at our Ephesians pericope will tempt us to ask for this death. “Get rid of all bitterness, all passion and anger, harsh words, slander, and malice of every king. In place of these, be kind to one another, compassionate, and mutually forgiving. . . Be imitators of God . . . Follow the way of love.. . Does God really expect us to make all these things a priority during our entire lives? I presume if that weren’t the case Jesus would never have agreed to give us his body and blood “for the life of the world.” We won’t need the Eucharist in heaven. It’s earmarked only for those brave enough to stay alive and Christ directed in this world. This commentary is provided by the FELLOWSHIP OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS LAITY. Please share it with a friend. We appreciate your comments and donations. F.O.S.I.L., AUGUST 2, 2009: EIGHTEENTH SUNDAY OF THE YEAR Exodus 16:2-4, 12-15 Ephesians 4:17, 20-24 John 6:24-35 I vividly remember the pictures in my grade school Bible History of Israelites catching the manna floating down from heaven. I don’t remember any pictures, though, of them grabbing, killing and cleaning the quail which “came up and covered the camp.” Such a scene probably was regarded as too disturbing for young minds. As it does in today’s gospel pericope, the manna always took center stage. Manna has become the classic symbol of Yahweh’s care for Yahweh’s people. John’s Jesus employs the manna image, showing that, by the end of the first Christian century, the Eucharistic bread has been singled out as the bread which “comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” Scholars remind us that our idea of the Eucharist would be quite different if our Christian Scriptures didn’t contain John’s gospel. Paul, Mark, Matthew and Luke concentrate more on the meal than the menu. They certainly wouldn’t have understood our practice of “Eucharistic devotions.” A few of my students through the years have been disturbed when they learned manna’s “non-faith dimensions.” Our sacred authors poetically refer to it as something raining down from heaven, and even call it bread. Yet today’s Exodus passage provides a description of it which most readers ignore. “In the morning a dew lay all about the camp. When the dew evaporated, there on the surface of the desert were fine flakes like hoarfrost on the ground.... Moses told them, ‘This is the bread which Yahweh has given you to eat.” The text itself tells us that manna literally wasn’t “bread come down from heaven.” People familiar with the Sinai remind us that manna’s still out there today. It’s the overnight secretion of insects on the area’s bushes, vegetation, and rocks. Not the most appetizing fare. But in a pinch, scraping it off and eating it will keep a starving person alive until something better comes along. In other words, Yahweh cared for the Chosen People by having someone show them how to employ the survival tactics native Bedouin used to keep body and soul together while they crossed that barren stretch of land. (The “quail” probably are migratory birds whose yearly arrival in large numbers supplied them with meat for at least a short period of time.) No wonder some of the Israelites “grumbled.” It took a certain amount of faith in Yahweh to see God’s care for them in the natural phenomena which the wilderness provided. That’s why today’s Ephesians reading might be the most important of the three. The author reminds his community, “You must lay aside your former way of life and the old self... And acquire a fresh, spiritual way of thinking. You must put on that new person created in God’s image... People of faith live in the same world as people without faith. Our faith simply is the filter through which we look at that world. Like all filters, it highlights some things and obscures others. John’s Jesus presumes we’ll go through life looking at the Eucharistic bread and wine as a sign of Jesus’ care for his people, guaranteeing we’ll never again hunger or thirst for what really counts in life. Of course, to be cared for by Jesus in that way, we must have a deeper hunger and thirst than many around us; the same hunger and thirst the historical Jesus experienced and the risen Jesus wants us to be concerned about. Roger Vermalen Karban This commentary is provided by the FELLOWSHIP OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS LAITY. Please share it with a friend. We appreciate your comments and donations. F.O.S.I.L., JULY 26, 2009: SEVENTEENTH SUNDAY OF THE YEAR II Kings 4:42-44 Ephesians 4:1-6 John 6:1-15 During my minor seminary career we regularly were treated to Sunday night movies: three reel, 16mm presentations of recent (and highly censored) hits. Since the seminary had just one workable projector we took two short intermissions while the projectionist changed reels. One memorable evening we returned from our first intermission and discovered the second reel was from a different movie than the first. Obviously someone from the movie provider had made a mistake packing the reels. We dutifully sat through the second reel (realizing the faculty hadn't censored it), then took our second break and came back for the third reel from the original movie. Only in a pre-Vatican II seminary could that have happened in just that way. Yet every three years we Catholics go through a parallel event. We've faithfully been listening to Mark's gospel week after week. Then on this Sunday we shift from Mark 6 to John 6. After a few weeks of John, we'll return to Mark: the original B cycle gospel. Only in a non-scripturally sophisticated church could this happen. Though similar, there's a big difference between the movie and church audiences. We all noticed the mistake 50 years ago. Practically no one today gives the gospel-switch a second glance. Though both chapter 6 of Mark and chapter 6 of John narrate the miraculous feeding, each evangelist does so from a different theological perspective. To defend the switch on the grounds that both gospels narrate the same event is like saying we shouldn't have complained about the different movie reels; both were westerns. John doesn't look at the miracle through Mark's eyes. One of the most glaring differences: in Mark, Jesus' disciples do the feeding; in John, Jesus does it. Mark's very concerned that his community understands its role in meeting the needs of all during their Eucharistic celebrations, especially when they feel they've little or nothing to offer. John has Jesus "institute" the Eucharist during the feeding (not at the Last Supper) and wants to make certain his community understand the deeper significance of Jesus' body and blood which they consume during the Eucharist. In some sense, today's first reading fits Mark's reluctance-to-help theme better than it does John's life-giving food and drink motif. (Of course, Philip does raise the question, "Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?" But that's nothing compared to the threefold Jesus/disciples exchange in Mark.) Elisah's people are amazed that so much can result from so little. Such amazement is paralleled in Mark and John. Our Ephesians author is amazed to see great unity among God's people. It's the outward sign we're doing what God wants. "Make every effort," he writes, "to preserve the unity which has the Spirit as its origin and peace as its binding force. There is but one body and one Spirit, just as there is but one hope given all of you by your call." When a young Fr. Frank Murphy taught us how to "say Mass" back in the fall of 1964, he began by stressing one point: "Your main job is to unite all who participate in the Eucharist into one community." No matter what biblical theology of the Eucharist we buy into, the future At the end of every Eucharist we should be forced to ask, "Am I more one with my brothers and sisters now than when the Eucharist began?" Roger Vermalen Karban This commentary is provided by the FELLOWSHIP OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS LAITY. Please share it with a friend. We welcome your comments and your donations. F.O.S.I.L., JULY 19, 2009: SIXTEENTH SUNDAY OF THE YEAR Jeremiah 23:1-6 Ephesians 2:17-18 Mark 6:30-34 As the late John McKenzie pointed out in his book Authority in the Church, both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures rarely say anything about obeying those in authority. When the authority issue comes up the point of discussion almost always revolves around the abuses perpetrated by those exercising authority. Scripture is only written when our sacred authors discover problems in their communities. No problems; no Scripture. If those who wielded authority in biblical communities acted according to God's wishes, our Bible would be much thinner. In the course of his ministry, Jeremiah nails just about every authority figure in 7th and 6th century BCE Israel. Today's passage is classic. "Woe to the shepherds who mislead and scatter the flock of my pasture, says Yahweh ... You have scattered my sheep and driven them away. You have not cared for them ...." Since the king set the pattern for both civil and religious authority in ancient I've frequently mentioned the scriptural significance of justice and just individuals. The terms refer to those who not only have proper relationships with God, but also with one another. In this case, the leader who does "what is just," will treat, people as Yahweh treats .them, always gathering, never scattering. The prophets consistently remind us that leaders accomplish this unity not by falling back on rules and regulations, but by putting their relations with and commitments to others at the center of their lives. Jeremiah's convinced the only place his people can find such justice is in Yahweh; rarely in their civil and religious leaders. It's clear from today's other two readings that our ancestors in the Christian faith also believed such an emphasis on justice was at the heart of Jesus' prophetic reform of Judaism. The Pauline disciple responsible for the letter to the Ephesians zeros in on the radical unity experienced by those who imitate Jesus' faith. Those "near" are Jews; those "far off," Gentiles. Before Jesus, a huge chasm existed between the two. But now, "You who were once far off have been brought near through the blood of Christ .... In his own flesh he abolished the law with its commands and precepts, to create in himself one new person from us who had been two, and to make peace, reconciling both of us to God in one body through his cross which put that enmity to death." All us other Christs find reasons to unite, not scatter. Mark's Jesus conveys the same message in our gospel pericope. Returning from their first "missionary endeavor," his followers are met by a very just person. "Come by yourselves to an out-of-the-way place and rest a little." But then, an unexpected crowd causes Jesus to change his plans and relate to more than just his friends. "He pitied them, for they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them at great length." It's unforgivable that our liturgical passage ends here. Mark goes on to have Jesus force his disciples to relate to others in need. They refuse to admit that something of theirs can take care of the crowd's hunger. Only after Jesus compels them to bring their "pittance" for his blessing and they begin to share what they have with others do they also begin to imitate Jesus' justice. Jesus' and our sacred authors' idea of a good leader has nothing to do with his or her faithfulness to rules, regulations or institutional traditions. It simply revolves around being faithful to people. Roger Vermalen Karban This commentary is provided by the FELLOWSHIP OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS LAITY. Please share it with a friend. We appreciate your comments and donations. F.O.S.I.L., JULY 12, 2009: FIFTEENTH SUNDAY OF THE YEAR Amos 7:12-15 Ephesians 1:3-14 Mark 6:7-13 Even casual Scripture readers quickly discover that prophets have problems with religious leaders and religious leaders have problems with prophets. Today’s first reading narrates a classic confrontation between the two. Since surfacing and listening to prophets is the most acceptable biblical way of finding out God’s will in one’s life, religious and civil leaders eventually developed a method to circumvent this process. Kings and priests created a system of shrine and court prophets: people on their payroll whom they regularly consulted to find out Yahweh’s will for them. Of course, because they “ate at the king or priest’s table” their oracles almost always were what their employers wanted to hear. That’s part of the background for today’s Amaziah-Amos encounter. That’s why Amos responds with the unbelievable statement, “I am no prophet!” It doesn’t mean what it implies. He’s simply reminding Amaziah that he’s not his prophet. Those who proclaim this reading during the Eucharist should emphasize the first word of Amos’ remark. “Yahweh (not Amaziah) took me from following the flock and said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to my people The most ridiculous part of Amaziah’s tirade is his proposal, “Earn your bread prophesying (in Jesus, the prophet, naturally commands those who carry on his ministry to imitate his simple lifestyle. Only those who do will give credibility to the message they proclaim. “He instructed them to take nothing for the journey but a walking stick - no food, no sack, no money in their belts . . . not (even) a second tunic.” Neither were they to shop around for the best digs or food in town. “Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave,” no matter how uncomfortable the bed or lousy the food.” Those who are other Christs are to preach “repentance:” a 180 degree turn in one’s value system. They can only do this in a convincing way after they themselves have achieved such a turnabout. The disciple of Paul who wrote the letter to the Ephesians reminds his community where real wealth is to be found. “In him (Jesus) we have redemption by his blood, the forgiveness of transgressions in accord with the riches of his grace that he lavished upon us.” Those who surface that kind of treasure will truly understand God’s will, God’s plan for them. Things really haven’t changed much over the last 2,700 years. When anyone claims to be God’s mouthpiece, there’s a lot of questions to ask. In Amos’ case, it was the person thrown out of organized religion who actually gave us God’s will, not the representative of organized religion. Roger Vermalen Karban This commentary is provided by the FELLOWSHIP OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS LAITY. Please share it with a friend. We appreciate your comments and donations. F.O.S.I.L., JULY 5, 2009: FOURTEENTH SUNDAY OF THE YEAR Ezekiel 2:2-5 II Corinthians 12:7-10 Mark 6:1-6 Biblical redaction critics enjoy pointing out the changes Matthew made to the story he found in today’s Marcan gospel pericope. Among other things, redaction critics are interested in how sacred authors alter material they copy from other sacred authors. Such changes help to surface the different theologies which lie behind a specific writer’s work. Since Scripture parallels a newspaper’s editorial page, not its news page, we presume different authors can, and do have different takes on the same incident. No two are exactly alike. It’s essential for those who study the different theologies of our evangelists to know both Matthew and Luke have a scroll of Mark’s gospel in front of them when they write their own gospels. They not only borrow generously from their predecessor, they also reserve the biblical right to change parts of his writing when they insert them into their works. As I mentioned above, this alteration is particularly evident when we hear Mark’s account of Jesus’ return to Two significant points are Mark’s mention of Jesus’ occupation and his reason for Jesus working so few miracles in his hometown. First, the evangelist quotes Jesus’ former acquaintances put-down remark, “Is he not the carpenter. . .?“ Then Mark mentions, “He was not able to perform any mighty deed there, apart from curing a few sick people by laying his hands on them. He was amazed at their lack of faith.” Turning to Matthew 13:54-58, we find that about 10 years after Mark wrote, Matthew no longer refers to Jesus as “the carpenter.” Now he’s “the carpenter’s son.” Those who wrote after Mark never mention Jesus’ occupation. They free him from such a limiting, undignified line of work. Next, Matthew turns Mark’s statement that Jesus “was not able” to work big miracles into he “did not work many mighty deeds.” There’s a huge difference between could not and did not. Matthew implies Jesus could have performed such acts, but because of their lack of faith he freely decided not to do so. Mark tells us Jesus so depended on people’s faith in him that without it, he couldn’t do certain things. Matthew’s redaction of Mark’s narrative tells us that already in the early church some of Jesus’ followers were guilty of the same “sin” for which the two evangelists condemn the people of Those of us who think God only works through exceptional people need to hear not only Mark’s account of Jesus’ Yahweh constantly refers to Ezekiel as “son of man,” reminding him of his human roots. (Remember how often the gospel Jesus refers to himself by the same title.) Yet this human being is Yahweh’s mouthpiece, a prophet among Yahweh’s people. All of us have heard about Paul’s “thorn in the flesh,” something stopping him from living up to his potential. The Apostle is speaking of himself when he assures the Corinthians, “. . . Power is made perfect in weakness.” Paul’s imperfections are proof the risen Jesus is working through him. Perhaps long after we’re dead a Matthew will come along and put us on a pedestal. But at this present moment of our carrying on Jesus’ ministry, Mark’s doing all the writing. Roger Vermalen Karban This commentary is provided by the FELLOWSHIP OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS LAITY. Please share it with a friend. We appreciate your comments and your donations. F.O.S.I.L., Wisdom 1:13-15; 2:23-24 II Corinthians 8:7,9,13-15 Mark 5:21-43 Today’s first reading contains one of the most important lines in all of Scripture: “justice is undying.” Scripture scholars for a long time had been looking for a biblical “smoking gun:” a verse or passage showing how our Jewish ancestors in the faith came up with the insight that there’s a life after this one. From almost nowhere, about 100 years before Jesus’ birth, Pharisees began to believe it was possible to step beyond this mortal existence into an eternal experience of Yahweh. The scholars’ best bet was that some Jews read the writings of the classic Greek philosophers, especially those who had divided living entities into bodies and souls. Because they believed the latter element to be immaterial, it could never disintegrate like the material body. It would exist beyond the body’s demise. The only problem with this explanation was that there was no place in Scripture that its proponents could point to as proof of this particular Jewish/Greek connection. “Suddenly,” the late Roland Murphy always informed his students, “we realized it was right there, before our eyes, in Wisdom 1:15. We didn’t have to connect our Jewish authors with Aristotle, we just had to delve more deeply into the Scriptures we were already reading and teaching.” The Hebrew word translated here as “justice” refers to relationships. Shortly before Jesus, some insightful individuals began to reason that if we spend our lives building a relationship with Yahweh, that relationship will continue after our deaths. Everyone agreed that God will exist for all eternity. So if God maintains a relationship with us, then we’ll also exist for all eternity. The just will live forever. That’s why the authors of our Christian Scriptures make a big thing about having faith in Jesus. Biblical faith implies more than just acknowledging his existence as God. It presumes we’re willing to trust him with ourselves; that we’re willing to build a deep relationship with him, just as spouses have faith in one another, often in spite of fearing the consequences of showing their real selves to the one they love. We see such faith in our gospel pericope. This “story within a story” is a literary device Mark employs to show a passage of time. He already used it in chapter 3 when he had to give Jesus’ well-meaning family time to reach and seize him because they presumed he was “out of his mind.” Mark interrupts his first narrative and inserts Jesus’ famous Beelzebub and kingdom-divided-against-itself passage. Only when he finishes talking about the “unforgivable sin” does his “mother and brothers arrive” to take him away. Whenever Mark uses a story within a story, each narrative revolves around the same topic. In chapter 3 it has to do with misunderstanding Jesus’ words and actions. Do they come from a mad man or someone possessed by the devil? Here in chapter 5, where Jesus must have time to reach Janus’ house, the topic is faith. Jesus demands it both from Janus and the woman afflicted with uterine bleeding. The former is put to the test when he receives word of his daughter’s death. “Do not be afraid; just have faith.” The latter’s faith becomes known the instant Jesus feels “power had gone out of him.” Though dozens were touching him, only she did so with faith. “Daughter, your faith has saved you.” Losing power is essential to true relationships. When Paul encourages his Corinthians to “excel in the gracious act of love” for one another, he’s telling them to weaken themselves. They’re to imitate Jesus, who “though he was rich, for our sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich.” Relationships always take away some of the “wealth” that protects us from being hurt by others. Only those who surrender their present security to others can look forward to an eternity of security. Roger Vermalen Karban This commentary is provided by the SOUTHERN ILLINOIS FELLOWSHIP OF LAITY. Please share it with a friend. We appreciate your comments and donations. F.O.S.I.L., JUNE 21, 2009: TWELFTH SUNDAY OF THE YEAR Job 38:1,8-11 II Corinthians 5:14-17 Mark 4:35-41 Those who’ve heard about Job’s “patience” from the letter of James but have never cracked the book which bears his name have a lot to learn about this famous individual. Patience certainly isn’t in the fore of this unfortunate person’s quest to discover why Yahweh is treating him so unjustly. Though four of Job’s friends address his predicament by offering contemporary theological explanations for it, he doesn’t buy into any of them. Since Yahweh’s creating Job’s pain, only Yahweh can explain Job’s pain. Yet when God finally arrives on the scene, there’s still no suitable explanation. Yahweh simply reminds this suffering person that he’s not Yahweh by rattling off a series of rhetorical questions, forcing Job to admit his limited human powers and reason are no match for the almighty creator. Today’s passage is classic: Yahweh addresses Job out of the storm and demands to know, “Who shut within doors the sea, when it burst out of the womb . . . ?“ Whoever it was, it wasn’t Job. Yahweh gives no satisfaction. After his divine audience, Job walks away realizing the gulf between God and us is so vast we can’t expect to have answers for certain questions, especially the one that most bothers us: why does evil encompass our lives? The authors of the Christian Scriptures don’t share Job’s experience of helplessness before God. In today’s gospel pericope, for instance, we hear an early church belief that God calms the storms in our lives instead of causing them. Many Marcan scholars contend this narrative originally was just a “nature miracle” story: an account demonstrating Jesus’ power over the world around him. But at some point someone added a few phrases, making the miracle more personal. One of the additions appears to be the words, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” Something was happening in the community to tempt Jesus’ followers to doubt that he actually cared about them. That’s also why, after the storm is calmed, the community added Jesus’ questions, “Why are you terrified? Do you not yet have faith?” I was working at a local Catholic hospital during the summer of 1961, preparing to leave for There’s just one little problem: today’s second reading. As Job realized how different he was from Yahweh, so Paul understands how different the risen Jesus is from everything and everyone else we encounter. He/she is no longer “according to the flesh;” we’re dealing with a “new creation.” We have no mental box that perfectly encloses him/her. If Paul stopped there it wouldn’t be so bad. But he goes on to mention, “Whoever is in Christ is (also) a new creation: the old things have passed away’ behold, new things have come.” We who have faith in Jesus are just as unique as Jesus. Were Sister Baptist giving me that same picture today, I’m certain she’d be asking, “Roger, what are you doing to help calm the storms in other peoples’ lives?” Roger Vermalen Karban This commentary is provided by the SOUTHERN ILLINOIS FELLOWSHIP OF LAITY. Please share it with a friend. We appreciate your comments and donations. F.O.S.I.L., JUNE 14, 2009: BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS Exodus 24:3-8 Hebrews 9:11-15 Mark 14:12-16, 22-26 Scripture scholars faithfully point out the changes made between the earliest scriptural account of the Lord’s Supper in I Corinthians 11 and today’s earliest gospel account in Mark 14. Most important, during the 10-12 year interval between Paul and Mark’s writings, it appears the Eucharistic “pot-luck meal” has been discarded. While Paul mentions Jesus said the “words of institution” over the bread at the beginning of the meal, and the words over the cup after the meal, Mark has Jesus proclaim both sets of words in the trip- hammer pattern with which we’re familiar today. Mark’s community doesn’t seem to be consuming a whole meal during their celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The evangelist also adds a small, but significant detail to Paul’s narrative: Jesus passes his own personal cup to the men and women gathered around the table with him that night. Though each has his or her cup of wine in front of them during a Passover meal, Jesus tells them to put their cups down and to drink from his. When Mark’s Jesus states, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.. . ,“ he can only be thinking about our Exodus 24 pericope. Blood is always associated with biblical treaties and covenants. (The Hebrew phrase we usually translate “make a covenant” literally means “• a covenant.”) For the people of Scripture, blood symbolizes life. It didn’t take our ancestors long to conclude that a living thing didn’t live long once all its blood was drained. Blood and aliveness were synonymous. Employing blood in covenant-making ceremonies was a practical way of stating that this particular agreement was being entered into to deepen and expand the life each one was experiencing. In preparing couples for the covenant of marriage, I often ask if they believe their union will improve how they live their lives. Do they think they’ll experience life more deeply when married than they do as single people? That’s why Moses has young men sprinkle blood on those who agree to the Sinai covenant with Yahweh. The blood splotches on these individuals are just as much a sign of their commitment to Yahweh and faith in the life-giving dimension of that covenant as a wedding ring is a sign of commitment to a spouse. Of course, we don’t leave the Eucharist with blood stains on our clothes. Both Paul and Mark believe the outward sign of the covenant to which we’ve committed ourselves is that we drink from Jesus’ cup. By doing so, we’re publicly stating that we’re making Jesus’ covenant with God our covenant with God. The author of the letter to the Hebrews uses sacrifice and covenant images with which his Jewish/Christian readers are familiar. But he insists that “Jews for Jesus” have taken on a deeper commitment than their ancestors originally made with God. “(Jesus) is mediator of a new covenant. . .“ he writes. We now have faith obligations which our Jewish ancestors didn’t have to worry about. Paul reminded his community in I Corinthians that our participation in the blood of Jesus is first of all a commitment to becoming “church:” to forging a unity in Christ with all who celebrate with us. No doubt Paul would have been uptight had he lived long enough to see the pot-luck part of the meal abolished. He thought it was a terrific way to share oneself with others. But then again, I recently celebrated the funeral of a close friend - a staunch Democrat. I began the Eucharist by mentioning that one of the reasons she wanted the Lord’s Supper celebrated during her funeral was that she presumed some Republicans would attend. She hoped all of us would die enough to ourselves to become church. I made certain I invited all to receive from the cup. Roger Vermalen Karban This commentary is provided by the FELLOWSHIP OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS LAITY. Please share it with a friend. We appreciate your comments and donations. F.O.S.I.L., JUNE 7, 2009: HOLY TRINITY SUNDAY Deuteronomy 4:32-34,39-40 Romans 8:14-17 Matthew 28:16-20 The authors of our Christian Scriptures couldn’t have imagined celebrating today’s feast of the Trinity. They were much more interested in discovering what God was doing for us than what made God, God. Even our catechism tells us God made us before it tells us about the three persons who constitute God. The church came to the insight of the “three in one” only at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, about 200 years after the last biblical writing. The theologians who composed our Scriptures only reflected on the actions of God which directly affected their lives. If God didn’t act on their behalf, we’d know nothing of God. Our Christian writers simply followed the example of their Hebrew predecessors. In today’s Deuteronomy reading, for instance, Yahweh’s praises are sung because of what Yahweh does for the Chosen People, not because of what Yahweh is. “Did a people ever hear the voice of God speaking from the midst of fire, as you did, and live? Or did any god venture to go and take a nation for himself from the midst of another nation, be testings, by signs and wonders, by war, with strong hand and outstretched arm, and by great terrors, all of which Yahweh, your God, did for you in Egypt before your very eyes?” Only because Yahweh has done these things for Yahweh’s people are those people obligated to do the specific things Yahweh commands. Paul and his communities have experienced parallel actions of God in their lives. Jesus’ followers are just as liberated from slavery as their ancestors were in But just as the ancient Israelites were obligated to respond to God’s actions with actions of their own, Jesus’ disciples are expected “. . . to suffer with him, so that we might also be glorified with him.” God’s children are expected to imitate Jesus, their brother. Today’s gospel pericope is one of the Christian Scriptures’ most important passages. Having recently celebrated the feast of Jesus’ ascension, many of us read something into the narrative that Matthew never put there. Those who preach today must be careful not to refer to this mountain-top event as giving us “Jesus’ last words before he ascends into heaven.” There’s no ascension in Matthew. Only in Luke does Jesus definitively leave his followers on earth and go up to heaven. For Matthew, the risen Jesus is still here among us. Scholars remind us that, just as the evangelist begins his gospel with the angel’s proclamation to Joseph that his wife’s child will be known as “Emmanuel-God is with us,” he ends it with Jesus’ assurance that “I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Matthew’s Jesus has actually become the God who is continually with us. Of course, Jesus’ continuing presence demands we reciprocate.. “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” If we’re grateful the Father, Son and Holy Spirit work in our everyday lives, shouldn’t we be helping others recognize those same actions in their lives? Or is that something only “evangelical Christians” do? Roger Vermalen Karban This commentary is provided by the SOUTHERN ILLINOIS FELLOWSHIP OF LAITY. Please share it with a friend. We appreciate your comments and donations. F.O.S.I.L., MAY 31, 2009: PENTECOST Acts 2:1-11 1 Corinthians 12:3b-7,12-13 John 15:26-27;16:12-15 During a seminary Scripture course in Acts, I was amazed to discover that the feast of Pentecost existed long before Christianity came on the scene. Until then, I presumed Pentecost was a Christian feast, limited to the phenomenon of the Holy Spirit’s arrival. To this day, Jews observe the feast of “Weeks,” celebrated seven weeks (or 50 days) after Passover. Just as Passover commemorates their liberation from Egyptian slavery, Pentecost is the reminder of the covenant they made with Yahweh on We might imagine such a phenomenon would bring great peace and security. But Luke uses images which make us question whether we actually want the Spirit to be at the heart of our faith. Notice how he describes the Spirit’s arrival. “Suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were. Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them” Noise, wind, fire; things which bring consternation and confusion, not peace and security. Have you ever seen a painting or stained glass window which actually depicts the event as Luke describes it; people’s clothes blowing in the wind, hands covering their ears? We usually see a group of people piously sitting or standing with neatly formed streaks of fire hovering over their bowed heads. Luke deliberately chooses these disturbing images because his community has already experienced the Spirit at work in its midst, especially on such occasions as the controversial opening of their faith to non-Jews - an event prefigured by the non-Jewish languages the Spirit-filled disciples are now able to speak. Though Luke’s clear about the commotion accompanying the Spirit’s presence in the community, history is also clear about our church’s attempts through the centuries to rid itself of such confusion. One small example: When I was preparing for my 1952 Confirmation, I had to memorize the “Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit:” wisdom, understanding, counsel, strength, knowledge, piety and fear of the Lord. Not a disturbing gift among them. They fit perfectly into an authority-structured, highly disciplined church. Just one problem: this list of the Holy Spirit’s gifts isn’t from the Christian Scriptures! Six of the seven are qualities which, in Isaiah Ii, are gifts the spirit of Yahweh infuses in the ideal Jewish king. They have little in common with the Holy Spirit’s gifts in Paul’s I Corinthians list; gifts which, for some incomprehensible reason have been left out of the middle of today’s second reading. Here’s a brief summary of the gifts Paul enumerates in the omitted verses: wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, mighty deeds, prophecy, discernment of spirits, tongues, and interpretation of tongues. Nine gifts which, when found in any community can really create lots of agitation. No wonder our catechisms replaced them with Isaiah’s list. Think of the disturbance it would cause if a child about to be confirmed gave the questioner Paul’s list instead of Isaiah’s. John hits the nail on the head when his Jesus states, “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when the Spirit of truth comes, you will be guided to all truth.” Those who believe their church already possesses all truth will be greatly disturbed to discover that, according to Jesus’ plan, there’s always more truth to be discovered. Roger Vermalen Karban This commentary is provided by the FELLOWSHIP OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS LAITY. We appreciate your comments and donations. F.O.S.I.L.; MAY 24, 2009: ASCENSION OF JESUS Acts 1:1-11 Ephesians 1:17-23 Mark 16:15-20 (For those who celebrate the Ascension on the Seventh Sunday of Easter) Jesus’ first followers quickly experienced something they could never have imagined when they opted to make his faith their faith. Though they still did many of the things they did before they started listening to this Yet even those disciples who geographically stayed put still reflected on how their imitation of Jesus’ dying and rising moved them to experience reality from a whole new perspective. Just as traveling to new places forces us to look at “home” differently, so their faith forced them to look at the people and events of their everyday lives differently. The disciple of Paul who composed the letter to the Ephesians expresses that insight in classic terms. Just as God has taken the risen Jesus beyond this world, “seating him at his right hand in the heavens,” so God has enlightened us, giving us a taste of “the surpassing greatness of his powers.” After all, according to Paul’s theology, we’re Jesus’ body, “the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way.” What happened to Jesus continues to happen to us, his body. Luke begins the second volume of his scriptural work with Jesus’ geographic plan for evangelization. Everything in his first volume converged in Their moving begins with their question, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Even the bishops at the Council of Trent (1545) were convinced Mark didn’t write today’s gospel pericope. The author of these extra verses simply didn’t want the gospel to end as abruptly as it does in verse 8, with the women leaving the empty tomb, saying nothing to anyone about Jesus’ resurrection. In the original gospel ending, the risen Jesus is simply “out there.” No telling when, where or in whom we’ll encounter him or her. But one way we can be certain we’ve had such an encounter is to notice the force it brings into our lives, making us go beyond where we were before we came face to face with this “new creation.” Jesus’ disciples were certain about one thing: he never let them stay put. Roger Vermalen Karban This commentary is provided by the FELLOWSHIP OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS LAITY. We appreciate your comments and donations. F.O.S.I.L.; MAY 24, 2009: SEVENTH SUNDAY OF EASTER Acts 1:15-17,20-26 1 John 4:11-16 John 17:11-19 (For those who do not celebrate Ascension on the Seventh Sunday of Easter) “The Twelve” symbolized something quite different for the historical Jesus and authors of the Christian Scriptures than they do for many catechism-formed Catholics. I learned very early that Jesus employed them as a symbol of the authority structure which has been present in the Catholic Church for 2,000 years. Each Catholic bishop in the world can supposedly trace his pedigree back to one of these original 12 men. No Scripture scholar today holds that position. The Twelve appear to have been formed by Jesus to concretely demonstrate his conviction that the reform he preached was directed to all Jews, not just to those who belonged to the two prominent tribes of Judah and Benjamin, or those privileged individuals whose ancestors had been exiled in In some way Luke narrates the end of the Twelve in today’s first reading. The recently deceased Judas must be replaced; an action which carries on Jesus’ ministry to his fellow Jews. But once the Holy Spirit arrives in the next chapter, there’s no talk about replacing other members of the Twelve. After Pentecost, the community will take it’s mission far beyond Judaism, reaching to each person on the face of the earth. By the time John writes in the mid-90s, Jewish conversions are rare. That seems to be why he rarely mentions the Twelve, and never lists its members. He’s much more interested in the uniting power of love than in the binding force of ethnicity or religious customs. For all practical purposes, John’s Jesus has morphed into a Gentile. Though some well-meaning, but biblically deficient Catholics label today’s gospel pericope “Jesus’ prayer for his newly ordained priests,” it’s actually a prayer for all his followers, all who carry on his ministry. “I do not ask you to take them out of the world, but to guard them from the evil one. . . Consecrate them by means of the truth - ‘Your word is truth.” The author of I John, trying to correct the misleading concepts which some took from the gospel, reminds his readers what Jesus is all about. “If God has loved us so, we must have the same love for one another.” The writer then carries love one step further. “No one has ever seen God. Yet if we love one another God dwells in us, and his love is brought to perfection in us. The way we know we remain in him and he in us is that he has given us of his Spirit.” Though John zeroes in on love as the basis for our discovery of Cod in us and others, he also agrees with Luke that it’s Jesus’ Spirit which first leads us down that road of love. In Pope Benedict’s recent letter to the world’s bishops explaining why he lifted the excommunication of the four archconservative bishops, the Holy Father made a very significant admission. He said that the original excommunication which John Paul Ii had leveled on the bishops didn’t bring about the desired effect: they didn’t return to full communion with the church. So Benedict tried a different tack, hoping his gesture of love and openness would make them reconsider their position. No matter how the four eventually respond to Benedict’s gesture, I’m certain both Jesus and our sacred authors are very pleased by it. Roger Vermalen Karban This commentary is provided by the FELLOWSHIP OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS LAITY. We appreciate your comments and donations. F.O.S.I.L.; MAY 17, 2009: SIXTH SUNDAY OF EASTER Acts 10:25-26,34-35,44-48 1 John 4:7-10 John 15:9-17 As I mentioned last week, we must be careful not to employ Luke’s Acts of the Apostles as an accurate historical record of the earliest Christian church. Luke’s a theologian, not an historian. His goal is not so much to tell us what happened as it is to give us the implications of what happened. One of the two most significant things to happen in Christianity’s first 70 years was that a movement which began 100% Jewish in 30 CE, became almost 100% Gentile by 100 CE. Luke, writing about 85, tries to give his readers the “why” of this transformation. On one hand, he must deal with those Jews who claimed this “sell-out” of Judaism was Jesus’ plan from the beginning. On the other hand, lots of conservative Christians contended that this opening of the faith to non-Jews was the work of Satan, completely against Jesus’ wishes. One way Luke attacks the Jewish objection is to arrange his gospel in such a way that before the Passion Narrative, Jesus never talks to a Gentile. (Notice how Luke redacts the story of Jesus’ cure of the Roman centurion’s slave in chapter 7 to avoid Jesus ever coming face to face with the Gentile officer. Check Matthew 8 to see what was probably the original version of the story.) But in today’s Acts pericope, Luke shows that the church’s reaching out to Gentiles as Gentiles is rooted in God’s plan, not the devil’s. The Spirit not only directs Peter to go to the Gentile Cornelius’ house, but, after his arrival, fills all the Gentiles in the room. Peter proclaims Luke’s key belief as he accompanies Cornelius’ servants to the Roman soldier’s house. “I begin to see how true it is that God shows no partiality. Rather, the person of any nation who fears God and acts uprightly is acceptable to him.” Yet it’s clear from Paul’s letters, especially the one he wrote to the Galatians, that the early church’s unanticipated acceptance of Gentiles wasn’t resolved just by someone receiving a heavenly vision on the subject, then carrying through on it. In such a problematic situation, the first question to be asked and answered is, “If one no longer must be a Jew to be a follower of Jesus, what actually is essential to discipleship?” John both expands and concentrates Luke’s concept of “upright.” In one of the Bible’s best-known passages, John’s Jesus states, “This is my commandment: love one another as I have loved you. There is no greater love that this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. The command I give you is this: that you love one another.” People are no longer to be judged on how well they keep the 613 laws of Moses, whether they’ve been circumcised, or how frequently they participate in Sabbath synagogue services. Love of others is the only criterion of faith. And Gentiles can be just as loving as Jews. Obviously, not everyone in John’s community got his gospel message of love. The author of I John must reiterate the point. “Beloved, let us love one another because love is of God; everyone who loves is begotten of God and has knowledge of God. The person without love has known nothing of God, for God is love.” No matter how often we quote these words, it never seems enough. I again remind you of the mid-60s poll which asked Catholics, “What’s the more important law; giving up meat on Friday or loving your neighbor?” More than 50% opted for meat on Friday. Perhaps we need a IV John. Roger Vermalen Karban This commentary is provided by the FELLOWSHIP OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS LAITY. We appreciate your comments and donations. F.O.S.I.L.; MAY 10, 2009: FIFTH SUNDAY OF EASTER Acts 9:26-31 1 John 3:18-24 John 15:1-8 One should be careful not to put a lot of trust in the historicity of the Acts of the Apostles. We’ve frequently seen how Luke is much more a theologian than a historian. For historical accuracy we turn to Paul’s letters, especially in those areas where the Apostle contradicts Acts. Yet, when it comes to Paul’s conversion - which takes places immediately before our liturgical passage - students of Scripture tell us the triggering device for that about face is verified in Paul’s letters. After mentioning Saul was on the road to Luke tells us that Paul’s conversion revolves around his insight that the heretical movement he’s trying to eradicate isn’t just carrying out the teachings of a religious leader who died years before. Something happens to make him realize the Jesus they follow is actually alive in those who imitate him. Beyond Acts, Paul’s own letters speak about his conviction that Christians are the Body of the risen Jesus. And for those who question whether certain individuals are more the Body of Christ than others, he clearly states in Galatians 3 that there’s a huge distinction between the historical Jesus and the risen Jesus. Only free Jewish men can imitate the historical Jesus. But, for Paul, that historically limited Jesus died at 3:00PM on Good Friday. The only Jesus Paul experiences is the unlimited Jesus who rose on Easter Sunday; a Jesus who is just as much free as slave, Gentile as Jew, and woman as man. (The latter is one of the reasons I have a problem using only male pronouns in these commentaries when I’m speaking of the risen Jesus.) In today’s Acts pericope, Luke tells us that Jerusalem Christians have more of a problem noticing Jesus in Saul than he has seeing him/her in them. Perhaps that’s why the author of I John makes a big thing about keeping “God’s commandments.”“We are to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus the Christ, and are to love one another as he commanded us.” Keeping those two commands, along with the help of the Spirit, is the key to knowing “he remains in us.” One must recognize the Jesus in others before he or she can recognize the Jesus in themselves. John’s Jesus employs a classic metaphor for oneness. “Live on in me, as I do in you. No more than a branch can bear fruit of itself apart from the vine, can you bear fruit apart from me. I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who live in me and I in them will produce abundantly, for apart from me you can do nothing.” We who as children were taught to focus on Jesus’ presence in the Eucharistic bread, might have to go through some biblical re-education. Scripture is only written when our sacred authors notice problems in the community. No problems; no Scripture. Today’s readings imply few people had difficulty recognizing Jesus in the bread and wine. No skin off their teeth to have him present in inanimate objects. The problem is recognizing him in oneself and others. Some of those others might not have voted for my presidential candidate last year, or might live in a different country, not speak my language, or be my gender. At that point real Christian conversion takes place. Roger Vermalen Karban This commentary is provided by the FELLOWSHIP OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS LAITY. We appreciate your comments and donations. F.O.S.I.L.; MAY 3, 2009: FOURTH SUNDAY OF EASTER Acts 4:8-12 1 John 3:1-2 John 10:11-18 Readers of the Christian Scriptures can never forget Rudolph Bultmann’s insight about the first Christians: “After Jesus’ death and resurrection, the preacher became the preached.”“Things” changed drastically after Jesus died and rose. Before that double event, Jesus crisscrossed the country preaching a reform of Judaism. As far as scholars can tell, he rarely, if ever, preached himself. That doesn’t happen until his original followers began to reflect on the significance of the risen Jesus in their daily lives. Not a word of our Christian Scriptures was written during Jesus’ preaching. Everything, including today’s three passages, was composed between 20 and 90 years into the “preached” era. We presume the historical Jesus never promoted or even accepted the titles which our sacred authors later gave him, even the “good shepherd” image John has him apply to himself in our gospel pericope. In a culture in which one constantly came into contact with old-time, herding shepherds, it was only a matter of time before someone referred to Jesus as the shepherd in his or her life. “I am the good shepherd,” the risen Jesus states.” I know my sheep and my sheep know me in the same way that the Father knows me and I know the Father; for these sheep I will give my life.” One aspect of John’s shepherd imagery that we frequently overlook is contained in Jesus’ next words. “I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must lead them, too, and they shall hear my voice. There shall be one flock then, one shepherd.” Scholars presume when John’s Jesus talks about those “other sheep” he isn’t planning on all Christians giving up their various denominational beliefs and joining the church to which each reader of the gospel belongs. Rather, he’s sharing his dream that all Christian communities (especially those who didn’t agree with John’s liberal theology) be united in faith and actions by their common belief in the risen shepherd among them. Ecumenism was already alive and kicking more than 1,900 years ago. A few years before John developed his shepherd theology, Luke promoted his rejected stone theology. Though the concept dates back to Psalm 118 (today’s responsorial Psalm), Luke most probably employed it in its present form because of the experience of many in his community. No one can carry on Jesus’ ministry without coming face to face with the rejection Jesus suffered. Luke encourages his readers to look beyond such rejection. “This Jesus,” he writes, “is ‘the stone rejected by you the builders which has become the cornerstone.’ There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name in the whole word given to people by which we are to be saved.” Rejection is part of the dying process by which we will eventually transform the world. (Before condemning to hell those who don’t believe in Jesus’ name, remember Luke is addressing only his community. He’s not directing these words to non-Christians. Were he speaking to us Catholics, he’d say something to the effect that no one is saved just by being Catholic, but only by imitating Jesus’ death and resurrection.) The author of I John reinforces Luke’s rejection concept. “The reason the world does not recognize us is that it never recognized the Son.” If they did it to him, they’ll certainly do it to us. Yet the most significant part of the author’s insight comes next. “Dearly beloved, we are God’s children now; what we shall later be has not yet come to light. We know that when it comes to light we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” Those who imitate the risen Jesus will one day be just as risen as he is. Roger Vermalen Karban This commentary is provided by the FELLOWSHIP OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS LAITY. We appreciate your comments and donations. F.O.S.I.L.; APRIL 26, 2009: THIRD SUNDAY OF EASTER Acts 3:13-15,17-19 I John 2:1-5a Luke 24:35-48 It’s difficult for some Christians to admit that our four gospels are not four biographies of Jesus. The first gospel (Mark) wasn’t written until at least 40 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. By that time eye and ear witnesses of the historical Jesus were rare. And no one who personally saw or heard that itinerant carpenter/preacher from Each evangelist, sometimes copying from one another and a hypothetical collection of Jesus sayings (which modern scholars have labeled the “Q”), redacted his sources into a unique document to help his readers understand both the significance of the risen Jesus in their lives and how they were to imitate his death and resurrection in those same lives. We have four gospels and not just one because there wasn’t just one way to surface that significance or do that imitation. Our earliest Semitic-thinking, biblical church understood the need for this diversity far better than our Greek-thinking, catechism-formed church does today. In one of his frequent asides during St. Louis University’s 1969 Bellarmine lecture, the late Cardinal Avery Dulles pointed out that, had there been a Holy Office in the first century church, we Catholics would have just one gospel in our bibles (Mark); but in our history books we’d have mention of three notorious early Christian heretics named Matthew, Luke and John! To say the least, many of us aren’t comfortable dealing with different theologies about Jesus. That seems to be why, in place of becoming knowledgeable about our diverse biblical insights, some are content simply to smash them all together and come up with just one catechism theology, a theology on which most of us became grade school experts. Notice, for instance, what commonly accepted theological point is missing from our first and third readings. We were brought up listening to the explanation of Jesus’ death which we hear in our I John pericope. “He (Jesus) is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world.” We’re in good biblical company when we profess our belief that Jesus died for our sins. Just one problem; Luke, the author of both the gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, never mentions Jesus dying for our sins, certainly not in today’s two liturgical passages. Luke’s read on Jesus’ death and resurrection revolves around his conviction that Jesus had to experience those two events. As his followers, we’re to go down that same road. The death he suffered was simply legalized murder according to Luke. As a human being, Jesus was subject to the whims and decisions of others, just as we are. Luke teaches that Jesus’ life and death demonstrates how we’re to face parallel situations, and, by giving ourselves over to them, reach life. In some sense, Luke believes we die for our own sins. Jesus’ role is to show us how to do it and give us the strength to follow through to the living end. Most of us have heard the “majority” theology of Jesus’ death and resurrection for so long that we’re locked into that one explanation. But at times, it’s good to hear Luke’s minority opinion. Many Christians through the centuries have benefited from it. When it comes to faith, our biblical authors were convinced that one size doesn’t fit all. Roger Vermalen Karban This commentary is provided by the FELLOWSHIP OF SOUTHERN ILLINIS LAITY. We appreciate your comments and donations. F.O.S.I.L.; POST OFFICE BOX 31, BELLE
IN CHURCH NEWS
ARTICLE BY ROGER
THE APOSTLE'S EUCHARIST
by ROGER V. KARBAN
IN NEWS NOTES
Why Do Married Priests Study Scripture?
Roger Vermalen Karban
JUNE 28, 2009: THIRTEENTH SUNDAY OF THE YEAR
