Authority questioned (Luke 20:1–8)
1 One day as he was teaching the people in the temple area and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and scribes, together with the elders, approached him
2 and said to him, "Tell us, by what authority are you doing these things? Or who is the one who gave you this authority?"
3 He said to them in reply, "I shall ask you a question. Tell me,
4 was John's baptism of heavenly or of human origin?"
5 They discussed this among themselves, and said, "If we say, 'Of heavenly origin,' he will say, 'Why did you not believe him?'
6 But if we say, 'Of human origin,' then all the people will stone us, for they are convinced that John was a prophet."
7 So they answered that they did not know from where it came.
8 Then Jesus said to them, "Neither shall I tell you by what authority I do these things."
comments by Father Joe Tremblay (httpss://catholic-skyview-tremblay.blogspot.nl):
"Tell us, by what authority are you doing these things? Or who is the one who gave you this authority?" In response to this question, Jesus is surgical in asking the very question that exposes their weakness.
Now, if the elders of the temple were principled they would have answered our Lord’s question immediately. But they were not principled. Instead, they weighed the consequences of two possible answers. If they answered that if John’s baptism was of a heavenly origin, they would have no grounds on which to accuse Jesus of wrongdoing. After all, if John’s baptism was from God, then they would have to believe what John the Baptist said about Jesus Christ (being the Lamb of God etc.). Hence, Our Lord’s divine authority would be beyond dispute. His actions of cleansing the temple and his teaching within it precincts would be justified. On the other hand, if they were to affirm that John’s baptism was of human origin, as St. Luke tells us, they would be renounced by the Jews. Since they opposed Jesus’ authority more than they loved the truth, they committed themselves to neither answer. They simply said they didn't know.
Jesus knew that they were, in no way, interested in the truth so he did not tell them the truth. Our Lord simply refused to answer the question. And does he not continue to do the same thing today?
The nominal Catholic finds himself in a similar dilemma; an impossible situation, if you will. Perhaps this is why Catholicism and secular-liberalism simply do not mix.
The dilemma of the nominal Catholic is that, on the one hand, they choose not to believe in any number of Catholic doctrines: the real presence of the Eucharist; the moral teachings on chastity, contraception, homosexuality, abortion and the indissolubility of marriage; the teachings on purgatory and hell; and the teaching on a male-only priesthood. For them, the corpus of Christ’s teachings as taught through the Catholic Church is like a menu: you order some of the food but certainly not all of it.
On the other hand, these same nominal Catholics belong to a Church that teaches certain things about herself. For instance, the Catholic Church sees herself as the only prophetic and infallible voice of Christ; a true oracle of God Almighty.
Now, one of two things must be true; both cannot be true. Either the Church is who she says she is; that is, the infallible voice of Christ. Or the alternative belief is that the Catholic Church is just another church appropriating certain privileges for herself that are not true. If she is that infallible voice of Christ then the nominal Catholic can no longer be nominal; he or she must believe all that Christ has taught through his Church…all of it! But if she is not infallible on faith and morals then the nominal Catholic must come to terms with the following truth: he or she belongs to a Church that suffers from a serious delusion. As such, if they were principled people, they would leave the Church at once.
As for our Lord, many people said that he was a good teacher but they hardly take seriously that he was who he claimed he was, namely, God. If Christ wasn’t God, he could not be a good teacher because he would be under a delusion or a deceiver. This dilemma applies equally to the Church for the reasons we stated. An organization claiming to be the spokesman for God, but in reality is no such thing, is a cult and nothing more. Yet, the nominal Catholic continues along his way, going to church on some Sundays, having his children baptized etc. and selectively believing in some teachings while rejecting others. But the truth is that the nominal Catholic is a living contradiction.
Jesus posed a question to the priests, scribes, and the elders of his day. It was a question that caused an uncomfortable dilemma for them because not a single one was committed to the truth. They simply refrained from answering the question. If Our Lord were now to ask Catholics if the Church he founded was of heavenly or human origin, I wonder how many of us would find ourselves in a dilemma similar to those of the priests, scribes and the elders of temple. Is it not a safe bet that many- too many! -in the Church would refuse to answer his question?
* A nominal Catholic (or Roman Catholic) is also called a "check box Catholic". Someone who was raised in a Catholic family, so they check "Catholic" when filling out the College form, the dorm form, the hospital check-in, etc. They may attend Mass on Sunday, or at least at Christmas and Easter (if they are visiting their family or they got married and have children) but they don't go to confession, they shouldn't be receiving Holy Communion (but they do when they go at Christmas), etc. In other words, they are a "cultural Catholic" but not really a "practicing Catholic".
The Wicked Husbandman (Luke 20:9–19)
9
Then he proceeded to tell the people this parable. "(A) man planted a
vineyard, leased it to tenant farmers, and then went on a journey for a
long time.
10 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenant farmers to receive some of the produce of the vineyard. But they beat the servant and sent him away empty-handed.
11 So he proceeded to send another servant, but him also they beat and insulted and sent away empty-handed.
12 Then he proceeded to send a third, but this one too they wounded and threw out.
13 The owner of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do? I shall send my beloved son; maybe they will respect him.'
14 But when the tenant farmers saw him they said to one another, 'This is the heir. Let us kill him that the inheritance may become ours.'
15 So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What will the owner of the vineyard do to them?
16 He will come and put those tenant farmers to death and turn over the vineyard to others." When the people heard this, they exclaimed, "Let it not be so!"
17 But he looked at them and asked, "What then does this scripture passage mean: 'The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone'?
18 Everyone who falls on that stone will be dashed to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls."
19 The scribes and chief priests sought to lay their hands on him at that very hour, but they feared the people, for they knew that he had addressed this parable to them.
This parable about an absentee landlord and a tenant farmers' revolt reflects the social and economic conditions of rural Palestine in the first century. The synoptic gospel writers use the parable to describe how the rejection of the landlord's son becomes the occasion for the vineyard to be taken away from those to whom it was entrusted (the religious leadership of Judaism that rejects the teaching and preaching of Jesus.
They threw him out of the vineyard and killed him (Mark 12:8). Luke has altered his Marcan source and reports that the murder of the son takes place outside the vineyard to reflect the tradition of Jesus' death outside the walls of the city of Jerusalem.
The parable is usually interpreted as saying that God (the owner), keeps sending prophets (servants) to collect what is due, the grapes, a symbol of good. The priests (leaseholders) however refuse to comply with the prophets and instead hurt each one worse than they did the previous, wanting ever more control of Israel (the vineyard) for themselves; but when they finally kill the son, God (the owner) will revoke their right to Israel (the vineyard), and give it the followers of Jesus (the others) instead. God had granted his vineyard, his covenant, his land that produces grapes, symbolizing good, to his workers, the Jewish priests or all the world's authorities, to be worked for his benefit. Yet when he sends someone to collect what is due, the prophets of the past, his tenants refuse to pay up and hurt each succeeding servant worse than the last, meaning the increasing disregard of the will of God. God has given the vineyard to be worked for God's benefit but the husbandmen seem to want to keep the produce, indeed control of the vineyard, for themselves. When they finally kill his son who came to collect what was due, God decides that he has made a mistake by granting the vineyard to them and takes it back and gives it to those he thinks will be more trustworthy.
Jesus is thus criticizing the Jewish authorities directly for rejecting God's will, and for their treatment of Jesus himself, Jesus being the son of the parable. The husbandmen could also be seen as all of humanity as it is stated that they are the ones who killed the son, Jesus being killed by the Romans at the request of the Jews.
The church father St. John Chrysostom wrote: Why did the vineyard owner send his son after seeing what the tenants did to his servants? St. John Chrysostom explains that the father’s words to himself (“They will respect my son”) do not reflect naïveté. “This is not the language of an ignorant man. Away with the thought! Rather, it is the language of one desiring to show the sin to be great and inexcusable. For though he himself knew that they would slay him, he sent him. When he says ‘they will respect,’ he states what ought to have been done, that it was their duty to have reverenced him."
comments by Dr. Mary Healy, professor of Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit:
This vineyard owner leased it to tenant farmers and left on a journey. The tenants signify the leaders ofIsrael, to whom God had entrusted his vineyard. At the proper time-each harvest beginning with the fifth year after planting, according to the Mosaic law (Lev 19:23-25)-the owner sends a servant to obtain his share of the produce (literally, the fruits). Fruit is often used in Scripture to signify the results of good or evil conduct (Isa 3:10; Jer 6:19; Matt 7:16-20). God desires to obtain from his people the fruit of justice, piety, and good deeds (Hosea 10:12; John 15:2; Gal 5:22).
But the tenants' reaction is shocking: instead of paying the agreed-upon share, they seize the servant, beat him, and send him away empty-handed. Such brazen defiance could hardly be expected to go unpunished. Yet when the landlord tries again to collect his profits the violence continues and even escalates. In the ancient world, to treat someone shamefully could be more offensive even than physical assault (see 2 Sam 10:4-5). The third emissary is killed, and a succession of others are likewise beaten or killed.
By now Jesus' listeners grasp that he is speaking of God's persistent sending of the prophets to call his people back to himself. Like the vineyard owner's servants, God's prophets were repeatedly ignored (2 Kings 17:13-14; Jer 7:25-26; 25:4), mistreated (2 Chron 36:15-16), and killed (1 Kings 19:10; Neh 9:26; Luke 13:34). Micaiah, for example, was imprisoned on bread and water (1 Kings 22:27), Jeremiah was scourged and put in the stocks (Jer 20:2), Zechariah was stoned in the temple courts (2 Chron 24:20-22), and Isaiah was sawn in two.
At this point in the parable, the landlord does something inexplicable: instead of servants he sends his own beloved son. In the Old Testament, "beloved son" signifies "only son": and is always used in reference to an only son who is destined to die.
"He had one other to send, a beloved son. He sent him to them last of all" (Mark 12:6). The word for "last of all", eschaton, is a subtle reminder that the coming of Jesus signifies the fullness of time (see 1:15), the time of the definitive accomplishment of God's plan. Though his people had rejected a host of prophets, God sent them his only Son, desiring that he be shown honor and respect but knowing full well that he would be treated even worse than the rest.
"Come, let us kill him" is an exact echo of the scheming of the sons of Jacob when they plot their brother Joseph's death (Gen 37:20). Like them, the religious leaders are plotting against Jesus, their own brother Jew (Mark 3:6; 11:18). The parable thus depicts Jesus as true heir of the vineyard of Israel, and the leaders ofIsrael as the usurpers who have abused their stewardship and seized the vineyard for their own greed.
God's long suffering patience gives way to severity toward the tenants who had shown such flagrant contempt for his will. It is significant that God does not punish the vineyard itself (Israel), but its corrupt leadership. He will turn his vineyard over to new managers who will care for it properly-that is, the apostles, leaders of the new Israel that Jesus is establishing (see Mark 3:14; Luke 22:29-30).
Render unto Caesar... (Luke 20:20–26)
20
They watched him closely and sent agents pretending to be righteous who
were to trap him in speech, in order to hand him over to the authority
and power of the governor.
21 They posed this question to him, "Teacher, we know that what you say and teach is correct, and you show no partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.
22 Is it lawful for us to pay tribute to Caesar or not?"
23 Recognizing their craftiness he said to them,
24 "Show me a denarius; whose image and name does it bear?" They replied, "Caesar's."
25 So he said to them, "Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."
26 They were unable to trap him by something he might say before the people, and so amazed were they at his reply that they fell silent.
Through their question the agents of the Jerusalem religious leadership hope to force Jesus to take sides on one of the sensitive political issues of first-century Palestine. The issue of nonpayment of taxes to Rome becomes one of the focal points of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70) that resulted in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
comments by Dr. Mary Healy, professor of Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit:
The principle Jesus enunciates here forms part of the basis of Catholic teaching on the relationship of Church and state. Other New Testament writings elaborate on Jesus' principle, affirming both our duty to respect civil authority (Rom 13: 1-7; 1 Tim 2: 1-6; Titus 3: 1-2; 1 Pet 2: 13-17) and our
overriding allegiance to God wherever civil authority oversteps its bounds or imposes laws contrary to the moral law (Acts 5:29; Rev 13:1-18). The Catechism articulates this balanced understanding. "Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God" (2238); "Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country" (2240). However, "The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel" (2242).
The Jews had been subject to Roman rule since 63 BC when Palestine was conquered by the Roman general Pompey. The idolatrous claims of the Roman emperors and their usurpation of Jewish national sovereignty were continuing sources of outrage to the Jews.
The common understanding of the time was that coins were the property of the ruler who issued them. By referring to the coin as what belongs to Caesar Jesus implicitly affirms a state's right to exact tribute. Paying taxes to support the government is not in itself a compromise of religious
integrity. Jesus thereby distances himself from Jewish nationalists who refused to pay tribute to the Roman government. But what belongs to God is what bears his image-that is, every human being, including Caesar! Jesus' listeners recognize that he is alluding to Gen 1:27: "God created man in his image": The state may lay claim to a paltry piece of metal, but God lays claim to our whole being-mind, heart, soul, and strength (see v. 30). Our obligation to the state, which is limited, is subsumed under our obligation to God, which is absolute. Jesus is implicitly warning his listeners, Do not give to Caesar (to the state, to society, or to any human institution) what belongs to God alone and to his Son: your absolute, unconditional allegiance and devotion (Mark 8:34- 38). It is no wonder that Jesus' listeners, recognizing the wisdom of this answer, are utterly amazed at him. Once again his opponents are reduced to silence.
comments by Edward Sri, professor of theology and Scripture:
Instead of walking into the trap, Jesus slips through it, taking advantage of the situation to make an important point. He says, Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God. Just as Jesus exposed his questioners as hypocrites, so now he exposes their question as a false dilemma. He is saying that political and religious obligations can both be legitimately met. Paying taxes is not a compromise of one’s duties toward God, nor does serving God exempt one from supporting the civil government.
But this is not all the statement reveals, for Jesus implicitly subordinates the claims of Caesar to the claims of God. If the Roman coin bears Caesar’s image, then it belongs to him and should be given back to him. But what is it that “belongs to God”? It is the human person, who bears the image of the living God (Gen 1:26-27). So our highest obligation in life and one that is imposed on every man, woman, and child, regardless of nationality or citizenship is to give ourselves back to our Maker.
commentary by Pablo T. Gadenz, Roman Catholic priest of the Diocese of Trenton (NJ) :
The spies have failed in their effort to trap him in speech (Luke 20:20). Instead, they are amazed with his answer (see 4:22) and fall silent as a result. However, out of malice the leaders will later distort Jesus’ answer so as to accuse him falsely before Pilate: “He opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar” (23:2).
Reflection and Application (20:20-26): Give back to God what is God’s. Many Christians throughout history and still today in some parts of the world have accepted martyrdom rather than render to the civil authorities what belongs to God. Most Christians do not have to face such extreme trials, but nonetheless they may face situations—for example, regarding basic human rights and Gospel teachings—where they may be forced to practice civil disobedience (Catechism 2242), in a peaceful manner, thus accepting the sufferings that may result while also seeking recourse so as to remedy the situation.
comments by Father Pat McCloskey:
This question is posed by two groups with radically different political agendas, who were trying to trap Jesus about paying the census tax to Caesar (see Matthew 22:15-22). Although the Pharisees resented but grudgingly accepted Roman authority while the Herodians embraced Roman authority and prospered because of it, these rivals joined forces to pose this question to Jesus, expecting it would force him into a lose-lose situation.
If he says yes, the Pharisees can denounce him as an impious Jew. If he says no, the Herodians can accuse him of treason.
Jesus avoids this trap by asking to see the coin used to pay the emperor’s tax. When they produce it rather easily, he points out that Caesar’s image is on the coin. Some Jews in Palestine objected to using Roman coins, which bore the emperor’s image. These Jews considered such coins a violation of the commandment against making graven images (Exodus 20:4 and Deuteronomy 5:7). The Jewish tax to support the Temple in Jerusalem could not be paid with Roman coins.
When Jesus says, “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God,” he is saying, in effect, “You have already bought into Caesar’s system. Paying Caesar’s taxes is part of that.” The intended trap fails to ensnare Jesus.
Over the centuries, some Christians have understood this passage as suggesting that Caesar has some part of creation that God does not have. That cannot be; God created everything. What belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar are not two completely separate circles but rather a smaller circle (what belongs to Caesar) inside a much larger circle (what belongs to God).
This saying of Jesus neither advocates a separation of Church and State nor says that the State has ultimate authority in all matters. Only God has ultimate authority, as Jesus reminded Pontius Pilate (John 19:11). Failing to remember that is a form of idolatry and invites a totalitarian form of government. In Chapters 13, 14, 17, 18 and elsewhere, the Book of Revelation criticizes the despotism of Roman emperors in the late first century A.D.
Almost 300 years later St. Ambrose in Milan excommunicated the Emperor Theodosius, who had ordered the massacre of 7,000 civilians in Thessalonika. Ambrose said, “The emperor is in the Church, not above it.” Theodosius repented.
comments by the Holy Father Benedict XVI (Financial Times - 2012):
"Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God," was the response of Jesus when asked about paying taxes. His questioners, of course, were laying a trap for him. They wanted to force him to take sides in the highly-charged political debate about Roman rule in the land of Israel. Yet there was more at stake here: if Jesus really was the long-awaited Messiah, then surely he would oppose the Roman overlords. So the question was calculated to expose him either as a threat to the regime, or a fraud.
Jesus’ answer deftly moves the argument to a higher plane, gently cautioning against both the politicization of religion and the deification of temporal power, along with the relentless pursuit of wealth. His audience needed to be reminded that the Messiah was not Caesar, and Caesar was not God. The kingdom that Jesus came to establish was of an altogether higher order. As he told Pontius Pilate, "My kingship is not of this world."
The Christmas stories in the New Testament are intended to convey a similar message. Jesus was born during a "census of the whole world" taken by Caesar Augustus, the Emperor renowned for bringing the Pax Romana to all the lands under Roman rule. Yet this infant, born in an obscure and far-flung corner of the Empire, was to offer the world a far greater peace, truly universal in scope and transcending all limitations of space and time.
Jesus is presented to us as King David’s heir, but the liberation he brought to his people was not about holding hostile armies at bay; it was about conquering sin and death forever.
The birth of Christ challenges us to reassess our priorities, our values, our very way of life. While Christmas is undoubtedly a time of great joy, it is also an occasion for deep reflection, even an examination of conscience. At the end of a year that has meant economic hardship for many, what can we learn from the humility, the poverty, the simplicity of the crib scene?
Christmas can be the time in which we learn to read the Gospel, to get to know Jesus not only as the Child in the manger, but as the one in whom we recognize God made Man.
It is in the Gospel that Christians find inspiration for their daily lives and their involvement in worldly affairs – be it in the Houses of Parliament or the Stock Exchange. Christians shouldn’t shun the world; they should engage with it. But their involvement in politics and economics should transcend every form of ideology.
Christians fight poverty out of a recognition of the supreme dignity of every human being, created in God’s image and destined for eternal life. Christians work for more equitable sharing of the earth’s resources out of a belief that, as stewards of God’s creation, we have a duty to care for the weakest and most vulnerable. Christians oppose greed and exploitation out of a conviction that generosity and selfless love, as taught and lived by Jesus of Nazareth, are the way that leads to fullness of life. Christian belief in the transcendent destiny of every human being gives urgency to the task of promoting peace and justice for all.
Because these goals are shared by so many, much fruitful cooperation is possible between Christians and others. Yet Christians render to Caesar only what belongs to Caesar, not what belongs to God. Christians have at times throughout history been unable to comply with demands made by Caesar. From the Emperor cult of ancient Rome to the totalitarian regimes of the last century, Caesar has tried to take the place of God. When Christians refuse to bow down before the false gods proposed today, it is not because of an antiquated world-view. Rather, it is because they are free from the constraints of ideology and inspired by such a noble vision of human destiny that they cannot collude with anything that undermines it.
In Italy, many crib scenes feature the ruins of ancient Roman buildings in the background. This shows that the birth of the child Jesus marks the end of the old order, the pagan world, in which Caesar’s claims went virtually unchallenged. Now there is a new king, who relies not on the force of arms, but on the power of love. He brings hope to all those who, like himself, live on the margins of society. He brings hope to all who are vulnerable to the changing fortunes of a precarious world. From the manger, Christ calls us to live as citizens of his heavenly kingdom, a kingdom that all people of good will can help to build here on earth.
Resurrection of the Dead (Luke 20:27–40)
27 Some Sadducees, those who deny that there is a resurrection, came forward and put this question to him,
28 saying, "Teacher, Moses wrote for us, 'If someone's brother dies leaving a wife but no child, his brother must take the wife and raise up descendants for his brother.'
29 Now there were seven brothers; the first married a woman but died childless.
30 Then the second
31 and the third married her, and likewise all the seven died childless.
32 Finally the woman also died.
33 Now at the resurrection whose wife will that woman be? For all seven had been married to her."
34 Jesus said to them, "The children of this age marry and remarry;
35 but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.
36 They can no longer die, for they are like angels; and they are the children of God because they are the ones who will rise.
37 That the dead will rise even Moses made known in the passage about the bush, when he called 'Lord' the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;
38 and he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive."
39 Some of the scribes said in reply, "Teacher, you have answered well."
40 And they no longer dared to ask him anything.
The Sadducees, unlike the Pharisees, did not believe in immortality, nor in angels or evil spirits. Their religion was literally grounded in an earthly image of heaven. The Sadducees' question, based on the law of levirate marriage recorded in Deut 25:5-10, ridicules the idea of the resurrection. Jesus rejects their naive understanding of the resurrection (Luke 20:35-36) and then argues on behalf of the resurrection of the dead on the basis of the written law (Luke 20:37-38) that the Sadducees accept. See also the notes on Matthew 22:23-33.
Comments by Father Denis Kevin (DK) O'Sullivan (The Sunday Readings Cycle):
We can thank the Sadducees today. They came to our Lord with what they thought was a case that would make the doctrine of the resurrection look very ridiculous. It would have appeared so, if it were understood in the crude sense which they gave it, namely, that we would come forth again from the grave in the very same bodies which we now have, with all their needs and instincts. Our Lord corrected that erroneous idea. We shall all rise to a new and eternal life, in a form and an existence very different from that of our present life. Thus, the question of ownership of wives or property will not, and cannot, arise in our new life. He gave us a brief but basic description of what our risen bodies will be. I am sure that most of us would love to know a lot more about what our future state will be like. But if we knew all, then where would our faith and trust in God come in? Some saints are said to have had brief visions of the joys of heaven. They wanted to die immediately in order to get there. God wants each one of us to earn heaven, by living our life on earth, and trusting in His word that heaven will be our eternal home if we do our part here below.
In his brief answer to the Sadducees, Christ gives us the essential facts concerning our future status. First, he affirms that all those who have proved themselves worthy while in this life will rise to an eternal life. In that life we will become like angels. We will not be angels, pure spirits without bodies, but we will be like them in that our bodies will become "spiritual." They will lose all the restrictions and limitations imposed on them now, as mere material composites. They will no longer be subject to decline and decay as they now are. Therefore, they can never suffer from pain or sickness or weakness of any sort.
Jesus says, “They can no longer die, for they are like angels…” (Luke 20:36) There is a radical difference between our earthly body and our body in the next life. The best way to think about our heavenly body is that we will be “like angels.” We can see something of this difference when Jesus rose from the dead. People did not recognize Jesus after his resurrection. Mary Magdalene thought Jesus was the gardener and even asked him about finding the body of Jesus (John 20:14-15). She did not recognize him until he spoke. The two disciples on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Jesus until the breaking of the bread (Luke 24:13-35). Not only did Jesus look different after his resurrection but he could pass through walls and doors. On Easter Sunday evening the disciples were gathered together with the doors closed but Jesus came among them (John 20:19). Yet the evangelists also make it clear that Jesus did have a body; he needed to eat (Luke 24:41-42; Acts 10:41), and he showed them the wounds in his hands and feet (Luke 24:39). Jesus’ body after the resurrection was transformed.
Second, He clearly affirmed that those risen from the dead are no longer liable to death. Leaving aside the other greater joys of heaven, such as the beatific vision, and the close association with Christ our Savior in His risen humanity, the meeting with our blessed Mother and with all the Saints, including our relatives and friends, what a source of happiness and joy will it be for us, to know that we can never die again! The happiness and joy which we shall have will never end. We all have had moments of happiness in this life. Great as these moments were, the thought that they had to end too soon cast a shadow on our joy. There will be no shadow to darken or lessen our future joy and happiness.
Jesus says, “They can no longer die, for they are like angels…” (Luke 20:36) There is a radical difference between this life and the next life. We cannot think about the next life in terms of this life. That radical transformation affects everything about us in the next life, even marriage. As we think about marriage in this life we know that marriage is to be a blessing for the spouses; they are to help sanctify each other. Marriage is a gift from God for the good of the spouses, but also for the procreation of children. Sometimes our contemporary culture forgets that marriage is not just for the spouses but is also God’s plan for the continuation of the human race. Our Catholic teaching tells us that children are the crowning glory of marriage (Gaudium et Spes §48), the supreme gift of marriage, and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves (Gaudium et Spes §50). Because we all die, the continuation of the human race is dependent on marriage begetting children, yet in today’s Gospel Jesus teaches that there is a radical difference between this life and the next. In the next life there is no death so there is no begetting of children and therefore no marriage. Jesus said,
“The children of this age marry and remarry; but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. They can no longer die, for they are like angels; and they are the children of God because they are the ones who will rise.” (Luke 20:34-36)
Marriage is for this life only, there is no marriage in the next life, so the Sadducees’ question is irrelevant. The Sadducees had asked Jesus a hypothetical question about a situation that would be most unlikely to ever occur but it elicited from Jesus his clearest teaching on the resurrection.
The Sadducees got themselves into this mess because they relied on only part of the Jewish teaching that suited them. The first reading, which is from one of the seven extra books that Catholic Bibles have in the Old Testament and not included as inspired in Protestant Old Testaments, gives us a more complete picture because it teaches the Resurrection of the dead. Seven brothers were prepared to die rather than break the Jewish law by eating pork. The second brother said, “you are depriving us of this present life, but the King of the world will raise us up to live again forever.” (2 Macc 7:9) The third brother said he had received his limbs from heaven and hoped to receive them again from God (2 Macc 7:11). The fourth brother also said he hoped to be raised up again. It was the Thessalonians’ anxiety about the next life that partly drove St. Paul to write his letters to them, part of which we read today as our second reading. They were concerned about what would happen to those who died before the Second Coming of Jesus and St. Paul reassured them.
The Sadducees were in a mess because they thought of the next life in terms of this life, a mistake still made today, but Jesus teaches there is a radical transformation in the next life which will affect everything, even marriage. Belief in the resurrection gave strength and hope to seven Jewish brothers about to be martyred. We too are reassured by Jesus’ teaching and look forward to eternity with God, radically transformed. May we live lives worthy of God’s promise.
From the beginning, Christian faith in the resurrection has met with incomprehension and opposition. “On no point does the Christian faith encounter more opposition than on the resurrection of the body” (St Augustine). It is very commonly accepted that the life of the human person continues in a spiritual fashion after death. But how can we believe that this body, so clearly mortal, could rise to everlasting life?
What is “rising”? In death, the separation of the soul from the body, the human body decays and the soul goes to meet God, while awaiting its reunion with its glorified body. God, in his almighty power, will definitively grant incorruptible life to our bodies by reuniting them with our souls, through the power of Jesus’ Resurrection. Who will rise? All the dead will rise, “those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment” (Jn 5,29).
How? Christ is raised with his own body: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself"; but he did not return to an earthly life. So, in him, "all of them will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear," but Christ "will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body," into a "spiritual body". This "how" exceeds our imagination and understanding; it is accessible only to faith. Yet our participation in the Eucharist already gives us a foretaste of Christ's transfiguration of our bodies:
Just as bread that comes from the earth, after God's blessing has been invoked upon it, is no longer ordinary bread, but Eucharist, formed of two things, the one earthly and the other heavenly: so too our bodies, which partake of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but possess the hope of resurrection.
Death is a consequence of sin. The Church's Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man's sin. Even though man's nature is mortal God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin.
The Church encourages us to prepare ourselves for the hour of our death. In the ancient litany of the saints, for instance, she has us pray: "From a sudden and unforeseen death, deliver us, O Lord"; to ask the Mother of God to intercede for us "at the hour of our death" in the Hail Mary; and to entrust ourselves to St. Joseph, the patron of a happy death.
Every action of yours, every thought, should be those of one who expects to die before the day is out. Death would have no great terrors for you if you had a quiet conscience. . . . Then why not keep clear of sin instead of running away from death? If you aren't fit to face death today, it's very unlikely you will be tomorrow. . . .
Praised are you, my Lord, for our sister bodily Death,
from whom no living man can escape.
Woe on those who will die in mortal sin!
Blessed are they who will be found
in your most holy will,
for the second death will not harm them.
Before Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, he exclaimed: “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?(John 11:25). Jesus asks us the same question. Do you believe in the resurrection and in the promise of eternal life with God?
The Holy Spirit reveals to us the eternal truths of God’s unending love and the life he desires to share with us for all eternity. Paul the Apostle, quoting from the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 64:4; 65:17) states: “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,God has revealed to us through the Spirit” (1 Corinthians 2:9-10)
Is the Messiah the son of David? (Luke 20:41–44)
41 Then he said to them, "How do they claim that the Messiah is the Son of David?
42 For David himself in the Book of Psalms says: 'The Lord said to my lord, "Sit at my right hand
43 till I make your enemies your footstool."'
44 Now if David calls him 'lord,' how can he be his son?"
After successfully answering the three questions of his opponents, Jesus now asks them a question. Their inability to respond implies that they have forfeited their position and authority as the religious leaders of the people because they do not understand the scriptures. This series of controversies between the religious leadership of Jerusalem and Jesus reveals Jesus as the authoritative teacher whose words are to be listened to.
This is a promise made to David by God. The first Lord mentioned is God and the second lord was believed by Jews and then later Christians to refer to the messiah. Since David is here calling the messiah Lord the messiah must be superior to David. "Son" was a term of submission as father was a term of authority, so one can not say that the messiah will be inferior to David by using the term son.
comments by Dr. Mary Healy, professor of Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit:
For the early Church, Psalm 110 was one of the most important Old Testament prophecies of Christ, fulfilled in its deepest meaning at his resurrection when he won victory over his enemies-sin, Satan, and death-and was enthroned at the Father's right hand.
By the time of Jesus, when the monarchy had long ceased to exist, Psalm 110 was viewed as a prophecy of the Messiah, the promised royal descendant of David who would revive the monarchy and restore sovereignty to Israel. But how, Jesus asks, can the Messiah be David's son if David himself calls him "lord"? In ancient culture, it would be unthinkable for a father to address his son or descendant as "lord:' Jesus is challenging his listeners: What are the implications of the fact that David reveres the Messiah as someone superior to himself? What does this psalm reveal about the majesty of the Messiah? Is he merely an earthly monarch, descended from the line of David, or is he something much greater? Elsewhere the Gospels indicate that Jesus is "greater than Solomon" (Matt 12:42), "greater than Jacob" (John 4:12), "greater than Abraham" (John 8:53); here Jesus hints that he is greater than David.
In their worship all Israel joined David in addressing the Messiah as "my lord:' Jesus is pointing to the mystery of the incarnation, foreshadowed in the Psalms: the Messiah is the son of David, who is born of God's people yet in a mysterious way also far transcends them in dignity.
comments by Pope Benedict XVI (General Audicence Nov 2011):
Let's mediate on one of the most famous of the “royal Psalms”, a Psalm that Jesus himself cited and that the New Testament authors referred to extensively and interpreted as referring to the Messiah, to Christ. It is Psalm 110 according to the Hebrew tradition, 109 according to the Graeco-Latin one, a Psalm very dear to the ancient Church and to believers of all times. This prayer may at first have been linked to the enthronement of a Davidic king; yet its meaning exceeds the specific contingency of an historic event, opening to broader dimensions and thereby becoming a celebration of the victorious Messiah, glorified at God’s right hand. The Psalm reads as this:
1. The Lord says to my lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.’
2. The Lord sends forth from Zion your mighty sceptre: ‘Rule in the midst of your foes!
3. With you is sovereignty in the splendour of holiness on the day of your birth: before the morning star, like the dew, I have begotten you.’
4. The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.’
5. The Lord is at your right hand; he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath.
6. He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses; he will crush heads over the wide earth.
7. He will drink from the brook by the way; therefore he will lift up his head.”
The Psalm begins with a solemn declaration: “the Lord says to my lord ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool” (v. 1).
God himself enthrones the king in glory, seating him at his right, a sign of very great honour and of absolute privilege. The king is thus admitted to sharing in the divine kingship, of which he is mediator to the people. The king’s kingship is also brought into being in the victory over his adversaries whom God himself places at his feet. The victory over his enemies is the Lord’s, but the king is enabled to share in it and his triumph becomes a sign and testimony of divine power.
The royal glorification expressed at the beginning of the Psalm was adopted by the New Testament as a messianic prophecy. For this reason the verse is among those most frequently used by New Testament authors, either as an explicit quotation or as an allusion.
With regard to the Messiah Jesus himself mentioned this verse in order to show that the Messiah, was greater than David, that he was David’s Lord (cf. Mt 22:41-45; Mk 12:35-37; Lk 20:41-44).
And Peter returned to it in his discourse at Pentecost, proclaiming that this enthronement of the king was brought about in the resurrection of Christ and that Christ was henceforth seated at the right hand of the Father, sharing in God’s kingship over the world (cf. Acts 2:29-35). Indeed, Christ is the enthroned Lord, the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God and coming on the clouds of heaven.
He is the true King who, with the Resurrection, entered into glory at the right hand of the Father (Rom 8:34; Eph 2:5; Col 3:1; Heb 8:1; 12:2), was made superior to angels, and seated in heaven above every power with every adversary at his feet, until the time when the last enemy, death, to be defeated by him once and for all (cf. 1 Cor 15:24-26; Eph 1:20-23; Heb 1:3-4; 2:5-8; 10:12-13; 1 Pet 3:22).
And we immediately understand that this king, seated at the right hand of God, who shares in his kingship is not one of those who succeeded David, but is actually the new David, the Son of God who triumphed over death and truly shares in God’s glory. He is our king, who also gives us eternal life.
The first stanza of the Psalm ends with this evocative and enigmatic image. It is followed by another oracle, which unfolds a new perspective along the lines of a priestly dimension connected with kingship. Verse 4 says: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek”.
Melchizedek was the priest-king of Salem, a mysterious figure in the Old Testament who had blessed Abraham and offered him bread and wine after the victorious military campaign the patriarch led to rescue his nephew Lot from the hands of enemies who had captured him (cf. Gen 14): "He offered bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said, 'Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth'" (Gen 14:18-19). Royal and priestly power converge in the figure of Melchizedek. They are then proclaimed by the Lord in a declaration that promises eternity: the king celebrated in the Psalm will be a priest for ever, the mediator of the Lord’s presence among his people, the intermediary of the blessing that comes from God who, in liturgical action, responds to it with the human answer of blessing.
In the Risen Lord Jesus who had ascended into Heaven where he is seated at the right hand of the Father the prophecy of our Psalm is fulfilled and the priesthood of Melchizedek is brought to completion. This is because, rendered absolute and eternal, it became a reality that never fades (cf. 7:24). And the offering of bread and wine made by Melchizedek in Abraham’s time is fulfilled in the Eucharistic action of Jesus who offers himself in the bread and in the wine and, having conquered death, brings life to all believers. Since he is an eternal priest, “holy, blameless, unstained” (7:26), as the Letter to the Hebrews states further, “he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them” (7:25).
If in verse 1 it was the king who was seated at God’s right hand as a sign of supreme prestige and honour, the Lord now takes his place at the right of the sovereign to protect him with this shield in battle and save him from every peril. The king was safe, God is his champion and they fight together and defeat every evil. Thus the last verses of the Psalm open with the vision of the triumphant sovereign. Supported by the Lord, having received both power and glory from him (cf. v. 2), he opposes his foes, crushing his adversaries and judging the nations. The scene is painted in strong colours to signify the drama of the battle and the totality of the royal victory. The sovereign, protected by the Lord, demolishes every obstacle and moves ahead safely to victory. He tells us: “yes, there is widespread evil in the world, there is an ongoing battle between good and evil and it seems as though evil were the stronger. No, the Lord is stronger, Christ, our true King and Priest, for he fights with all God’s power and in spite of all the things that make us doubt the positive outcome of history, Christ wins and good wins, love wins rather than hatred.
Denouncing scribes (Luke 20:45–47)
45 Then, within the hearing of all the people, he said to (his) disciples,
46 "Be on guard against the scribes, who like to go around in long robes and love greetings in marketplaces, seats of honor in synagogues, and places of honor at banquets.
47 They devour the houses of widows and, as a pretext, recite lengthy prayers. They will receive a very severe condemnation."
comments by Fr. Tim Mockaitis (httpss://frommysideofthealtar.blogspot.com):
The scribes who Jesus criticized were not bad men as such. Their position was both religious and civil among the Jewish population. They wore distinctive clothing that would reflect their position of responsibility among the people. It isn’t the clothing they wear that Jesus warns against. It is their love for power and prestige that becomes detrimental to their spiritual health and makes them poor examples for the people they serve. Let’s face it – they loved being who they were and they attempted to soak it for all it was worth. It brings to mind the famed saying of the fun loving Pope Leo X (1513): “God has given us the Papacy so let us enjoy it!” And he did indeed. We don’t need leaders like that! Such poor example of responsibility is scandalous.
Jesus criticizes the brightest, the most knowledgeable, and the most influential leaders of the people in a way that likely stunned the crowd. It often doesn’t take long to see though a person’s hypocrisy or love for prestige. Yet, the crowds didn’t dare say anything publicly about their true feelings. There might have been a few “right on Jesus!” comments under the breath of the powerless when they heard of Jesus’ comparison. We too need to remind ourselves.
That God and the poor, dependent, helpless, vulnerable, and truly humble have a special relationship of love. That when we voluntarily swallow our pride or our own desire to be noticed and recognized and turn to the Lord, we are heard and loved in return.
 |
| Francisco Caro - The Holy Trinity (XVII century) |
1 One day as he was teaching the people in the temple area and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and scribes, together with the elders, approached him
2 and said to him, "Tell us, by what authority are you doing these things? Or who is the one who gave you this authority?"
3 He said to them in reply, "I shall ask you a question. Tell me,
4 was John's baptism of heavenly or of human origin?"
5 They discussed this among themselves, and said, "If we say, 'Of heavenly origin,' he will say, 'Why did you not believe him?'
6 But if we say, 'Of human origin,' then all the people will stone us, for they are convinced that John was a prophet."
7 So they answered that they did not know from where it came.
8 Then Jesus said to them, "Neither shall I tell you by what authority I do these things."
comments by Father Joe Tremblay (httpss://catholic-skyview-tremblay.blogspot.nl):
"Tell us, by what authority are you doing these things? Or who is the one who gave you this authority?" In response to this question, Jesus is surgical in asking the very question that exposes their weakness.
Now, if the elders of the temple were principled they would have answered our Lord’s question immediately. But they were not principled. Instead, they weighed the consequences of two possible answers. If they answered that if John’s baptism was of a heavenly origin, they would have no grounds on which to accuse Jesus of wrongdoing. After all, if John’s baptism was from God, then they would have to believe what John the Baptist said about Jesus Christ (being the Lamb of God etc.). Hence, Our Lord’s divine authority would be beyond dispute. His actions of cleansing the temple and his teaching within it precincts would be justified. On the other hand, if they were to affirm that John’s baptism was of human origin, as St. Luke tells us, they would be renounced by the Jews. Since they opposed Jesus’ authority more than they loved the truth, they committed themselves to neither answer. They simply said they didn't know.
Jesus knew that they were, in no way, interested in the truth so he did not tell them the truth. Our Lord simply refused to answer the question. And does he not continue to do the same thing today?
The nominal Catholic finds himself in a similar dilemma; an impossible situation, if you will. Perhaps this is why Catholicism and secular-liberalism simply do not mix.
The dilemma of the nominal Catholic is that, on the one hand, they choose not to believe in any number of Catholic doctrines: the real presence of the Eucharist; the moral teachings on chastity, contraception, homosexuality, abortion and the indissolubility of marriage; the teachings on purgatory and hell; and the teaching on a male-only priesthood. For them, the corpus of Christ’s teachings as taught through the Catholic Church is like a menu: you order some of the food but certainly not all of it.
On the other hand, these same nominal Catholics belong to a Church that teaches certain things about herself. For instance, the Catholic Church sees herself as the only prophetic and infallible voice of Christ; a true oracle of God Almighty.
Now, one of two things must be true; both cannot be true. Either the Church is who she says she is; that is, the infallible voice of Christ. Or the alternative belief is that the Catholic Church is just another church appropriating certain privileges for herself that are not true. If she is that infallible voice of Christ then the nominal Catholic can no longer be nominal; he or she must believe all that Christ has taught through his Church…all of it! But if she is not infallible on faith and morals then the nominal Catholic must come to terms with the following truth: he or she belongs to a Church that suffers from a serious delusion. As such, if they were principled people, they would leave the Church at once.
As for our Lord, many people said that he was a good teacher but they hardly take seriously that he was who he claimed he was, namely, God. If Christ wasn’t God, he could not be a good teacher because he would be under a delusion or a deceiver. This dilemma applies equally to the Church for the reasons we stated. An organization claiming to be the spokesman for God, but in reality is no such thing, is a cult and nothing more. Yet, the nominal Catholic continues along his way, going to church on some Sundays, having his children baptized etc. and selectively believing in some teachings while rejecting others. But the truth is that the nominal Catholic is a living contradiction.
Jesus posed a question to the priests, scribes, and the elders of his day. It was a question that caused an uncomfortable dilemma for them because not a single one was committed to the truth. They simply refrained from answering the question. If Our Lord were now to ask Catholics if the Church he founded was of heavenly or human origin, I wonder how many of us would find ourselves in a dilemma similar to those of the priests, scribes and the elders of temple. Is it not a safe bet that many- too many! -in the Church would refuse to answer his question?
* A nominal Catholic (or Roman Catholic) is also called a "check box Catholic". Someone who was raised in a Catholic family, so they check "Catholic" when filling out the College form, the dorm form, the hospital check-in, etc. They may attend Mass on Sunday, or at least at Christmas and Easter (if they are visiting their family or they got married and have children) but they don't go to confession, they shouldn't be receiving Holy Communion (but they do when they go at Christmas), etc. In other words, they are a "cultural Catholic" but not really a "practicing Catholic".
The Wicked Husbandman (Luke 20:9–19)
 |
| Marten van Valckenborch - The Parable of the wicked husbandmen (1585) |
10 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenant farmers to receive some of the produce of the vineyard. But they beat the servant and sent him away empty-handed.
11 So he proceeded to send another servant, but him also they beat and insulted and sent away empty-handed.
12 Then he proceeded to send a third, but this one too they wounded and threw out.
13 The owner of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do? I shall send my beloved son; maybe they will respect him.'
14 But when the tenant farmers saw him they said to one another, 'This is the heir. Let us kill him that the inheritance may become ours.'
15 So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What will the owner of the vineyard do to them?
16 He will come and put those tenant farmers to death and turn over the vineyard to others." When the people heard this, they exclaimed, "Let it not be so!"
17 But he looked at them and asked, "What then does this scripture passage mean: 'The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone'?
18 Everyone who falls on that stone will be dashed to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls."
19 The scribes and chief priests sought to lay their hands on him at that very hour, but they feared the people, for they knew that he had addressed this parable to them.
This parable about an absentee landlord and a tenant farmers' revolt reflects the social and economic conditions of rural Palestine in the first century. The synoptic gospel writers use the parable to describe how the rejection of the landlord's son becomes the occasion for the vineyard to be taken away from those to whom it was entrusted (the religious leadership of Judaism that rejects the teaching and preaching of Jesus.
They threw him out of the vineyard and killed him (Mark 12:8). Luke has altered his Marcan source and reports that the murder of the son takes place outside the vineyard to reflect the tradition of Jesus' death outside the walls of the city of Jerusalem.
The parable is usually interpreted as saying that God (the owner), keeps sending prophets (servants) to collect what is due, the grapes, a symbol of good. The priests (leaseholders) however refuse to comply with the prophets and instead hurt each one worse than they did the previous, wanting ever more control of Israel (the vineyard) for themselves; but when they finally kill the son, God (the owner) will revoke their right to Israel (the vineyard), and give it the followers of Jesus (the others) instead. God had granted his vineyard, his covenant, his land that produces grapes, symbolizing good, to his workers, the Jewish priests or all the world's authorities, to be worked for his benefit. Yet when he sends someone to collect what is due, the prophets of the past, his tenants refuse to pay up and hurt each succeeding servant worse than the last, meaning the increasing disregard of the will of God. God has given the vineyard to be worked for God's benefit but the husbandmen seem to want to keep the produce, indeed control of the vineyard, for themselves. When they finally kill his son who came to collect what was due, God decides that he has made a mistake by granting the vineyard to them and takes it back and gives it to those he thinks will be more trustworthy.
Jesus is thus criticizing the Jewish authorities directly for rejecting God's will, and for their treatment of Jesus himself, Jesus being the son of the parable. The husbandmen could also be seen as all of humanity as it is stated that they are the ones who killed the son, Jesus being killed by the Romans at the request of the Jews.
The church father St. John Chrysostom wrote: Why did the vineyard owner send his son after seeing what the tenants did to his servants? St. John Chrysostom explains that the father’s words to himself (“They will respect my son”) do not reflect naïveté. “This is not the language of an ignorant man. Away with the thought! Rather, it is the language of one desiring to show the sin to be great and inexcusable. For though he himself knew that they would slay him, he sent him. When he says ‘they will respect,’ he states what ought to have been done, that it was their duty to have reverenced him."
comments by Dr. Mary Healy, professor of Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit:
This vineyard owner leased it to tenant farmers and left on a journey. The tenants signify the leaders ofIsrael, to whom God had entrusted his vineyard. At the proper time-each harvest beginning with the fifth year after planting, according to the Mosaic law (Lev 19:23-25)-the owner sends a servant to obtain his share of the produce (literally, the fruits). Fruit is often used in Scripture to signify the results of good or evil conduct (Isa 3:10; Jer 6:19; Matt 7:16-20). God desires to obtain from his people the fruit of justice, piety, and good deeds (Hosea 10:12; John 15:2; Gal 5:22).
But the tenants' reaction is shocking: instead of paying the agreed-upon share, they seize the servant, beat him, and send him away empty-handed. Such brazen defiance could hardly be expected to go unpunished. Yet when the landlord tries again to collect his profits the violence continues and even escalates. In the ancient world, to treat someone shamefully could be more offensive even than physical assault (see 2 Sam 10:4-5). The third emissary is killed, and a succession of others are likewise beaten or killed.
By now Jesus' listeners grasp that he is speaking of God's persistent sending of the prophets to call his people back to himself. Like the vineyard owner's servants, God's prophets were repeatedly ignored (2 Kings 17:13-14; Jer 7:25-26; 25:4), mistreated (2 Chron 36:15-16), and killed (1 Kings 19:10; Neh 9:26; Luke 13:34). Micaiah, for example, was imprisoned on bread and water (1 Kings 22:27), Jeremiah was scourged and put in the stocks (Jer 20:2), Zechariah was stoned in the temple courts (2 Chron 24:20-22), and Isaiah was sawn in two.
At this point in the parable, the landlord does something inexplicable: instead of servants he sends his own beloved son. In the Old Testament, "beloved son" signifies "only son": and is always used in reference to an only son who is destined to die.
"He had one other to send, a beloved son. He sent him to them last of all" (Mark 12:6). The word for "last of all", eschaton, is a subtle reminder that the coming of Jesus signifies the fullness of time (see 1:15), the time of the definitive accomplishment of God's plan. Though his people had rejected a host of prophets, God sent them his only Son, desiring that he be shown honor and respect but knowing full well that he would be treated even worse than the rest.
"Come, let us kill him" is an exact echo of the scheming of the sons of Jacob when they plot their brother Joseph's death (Gen 37:20). Like them, the religious leaders are plotting against Jesus, their own brother Jew (Mark 3:6; 11:18). The parable thus depicts Jesus as true heir of the vineyard of Israel, and the leaders ofIsrael as the usurpers who have abused their stewardship and seized the vineyard for their own greed.
God's long suffering patience gives way to severity toward the tenants who had shown such flagrant contempt for his will. It is significant that God does not punish the vineyard itself (Israel), but its corrupt leadership. He will turn his vineyard over to new managers who will care for it properly-that is, the apostles, leaders of the new Israel that Jesus is establishing (see Mark 3:14; Luke 22:29-30).
Render unto Caesar... (Luke 20:20–26)
 |
| Aniello Falcone - Roman soldiers at the Circus (1640) |
21 They posed this question to him, "Teacher, we know that what you say and teach is correct, and you show no partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.
22 Is it lawful for us to pay tribute to Caesar or not?"
23 Recognizing their craftiness he said to them,
24 "Show me a denarius; whose image and name does it bear?" They replied, "Caesar's."
25 So he said to them, "Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."
26 They were unable to trap him by something he might say before the people, and so amazed were they at his reply that they fell silent.
Through their question the agents of the Jerusalem religious leadership hope to force Jesus to take sides on one of the sensitive political issues of first-century Palestine. The issue of nonpayment of taxes to Rome becomes one of the focal points of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70) that resulted in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
comments by Dr. Mary Healy, professor of Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit:
The principle Jesus enunciates here forms part of the basis of Catholic teaching on the relationship of Church and state. Other New Testament writings elaborate on Jesus' principle, affirming both our duty to respect civil authority (Rom 13: 1-7; 1 Tim 2: 1-6; Titus 3: 1-2; 1 Pet 2: 13-17) and our
overriding allegiance to God wherever civil authority oversteps its bounds or imposes laws contrary to the moral law (Acts 5:29; Rev 13:1-18). The Catechism articulates this balanced understanding. "Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God" (2238); "Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country" (2240). However, "The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel" (2242).
The Jews had been subject to Roman rule since 63 BC when Palestine was conquered by the Roman general Pompey. The idolatrous claims of the Roman emperors and their usurpation of Jewish national sovereignty were continuing sources of outrage to the Jews.
The common understanding of the time was that coins were the property of the ruler who issued them. By referring to the coin as what belongs to Caesar Jesus implicitly affirms a state's right to exact tribute. Paying taxes to support the government is not in itself a compromise of religious
integrity. Jesus thereby distances himself from Jewish nationalists who refused to pay tribute to the Roman government. But what belongs to God is what bears his image-that is, every human being, including Caesar! Jesus' listeners recognize that he is alluding to Gen 1:27: "God created man in his image": The state may lay claim to a paltry piece of metal, but God lays claim to our whole being-mind, heart, soul, and strength (see v. 30). Our obligation to the state, which is limited, is subsumed under our obligation to God, which is absolute. Jesus is implicitly warning his listeners, Do not give to Caesar (to the state, to society, or to any human institution) what belongs to God alone and to his Son: your absolute, unconditional allegiance and devotion (Mark 8:34- 38). It is no wonder that Jesus' listeners, recognizing the wisdom of this answer, are utterly amazed at him. Once again his opponents are reduced to silence.
comments by Edward Sri, professor of theology and Scripture:
Instead of walking into the trap, Jesus slips through it, taking advantage of the situation to make an important point. He says, Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God. Just as Jesus exposed his questioners as hypocrites, so now he exposes their question as a false dilemma. He is saying that political and religious obligations can both be legitimately met. Paying taxes is not a compromise of one’s duties toward God, nor does serving God exempt one from supporting the civil government.
But this is not all the statement reveals, for Jesus implicitly subordinates the claims of Caesar to the claims of God. If the Roman coin bears Caesar’s image, then it belongs to him and should be given back to him. But what is it that “belongs to God”? It is the human person, who bears the image of the living God (Gen 1:26-27). So our highest obligation in life and one that is imposed on every man, woman, and child, regardless of nationality or citizenship is to give ourselves back to our Maker.
commentary by Pablo T. Gadenz, Roman Catholic priest of the Diocese of Trenton (NJ) :
The spies have failed in their effort to trap him in speech (Luke 20:20). Instead, they are amazed with his answer (see 4:22) and fall silent as a result. However, out of malice the leaders will later distort Jesus’ answer so as to accuse him falsely before Pilate: “He opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar” (23:2).
Reflection and Application (20:20-26): Give back to God what is God’s. Many Christians throughout history and still today in some parts of the world have accepted martyrdom rather than render to the civil authorities what belongs to God. Most Christians do not have to face such extreme trials, but nonetheless they may face situations—for example, regarding basic human rights and Gospel teachings—where they may be forced to practice civil disobedience (Catechism 2242), in a peaceful manner, thus accepting the sufferings that may result while also seeking recourse so as to remedy the situation.
comments by Father Pat McCloskey:
This question is posed by two groups with radically different political agendas, who were trying to trap Jesus about paying the census tax to Caesar (see Matthew 22:15-22). Although the Pharisees resented but grudgingly accepted Roman authority while the Herodians embraced Roman authority and prospered because of it, these rivals joined forces to pose this question to Jesus, expecting it would force him into a lose-lose situation.
If he says yes, the Pharisees can denounce him as an impious Jew. If he says no, the Herodians can accuse him of treason.
Jesus avoids this trap by asking to see the coin used to pay the emperor’s tax. When they produce it rather easily, he points out that Caesar’s image is on the coin. Some Jews in Palestine objected to using Roman coins, which bore the emperor’s image. These Jews considered such coins a violation of the commandment against making graven images (Exodus 20:4 and Deuteronomy 5:7). The Jewish tax to support the Temple in Jerusalem could not be paid with Roman coins.
When Jesus says, “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God,” he is saying, in effect, “You have already bought into Caesar’s system. Paying Caesar’s taxes is part of that.” The intended trap fails to ensnare Jesus.
Over the centuries, some Christians have understood this passage as suggesting that Caesar has some part of creation that God does not have. That cannot be; God created everything. What belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar are not two completely separate circles but rather a smaller circle (what belongs to Caesar) inside a much larger circle (what belongs to God).
This saying of Jesus neither advocates a separation of Church and State nor says that the State has ultimate authority in all matters. Only God has ultimate authority, as Jesus reminded Pontius Pilate (John 19:11). Failing to remember that is a form of idolatry and invites a totalitarian form of government. In Chapters 13, 14, 17, 18 and elsewhere, the Book of Revelation criticizes the despotism of Roman emperors in the late first century A.D.
Almost 300 years later St. Ambrose in Milan excommunicated the Emperor Theodosius, who had ordered the massacre of 7,000 civilians in Thessalonika. Ambrose said, “The emperor is in the Church, not above it.” Theodosius repented.
comments by the Holy Father Benedict XVI (Financial Times - 2012):
"Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God," was the response of Jesus when asked about paying taxes. His questioners, of course, were laying a trap for him. They wanted to force him to take sides in the highly-charged political debate about Roman rule in the land of Israel. Yet there was more at stake here: if Jesus really was the long-awaited Messiah, then surely he would oppose the Roman overlords. So the question was calculated to expose him either as a threat to the regime, or a fraud.
Jesus’ answer deftly moves the argument to a higher plane, gently cautioning against both the politicization of religion and the deification of temporal power, along with the relentless pursuit of wealth. His audience needed to be reminded that the Messiah was not Caesar, and Caesar was not God. The kingdom that Jesus came to establish was of an altogether higher order. As he told Pontius Pilate, "My kingship is not of this world."
The Christmas stories in the New Testament are intended to convey a similar message. Jesus was born during a "census of the whole world" taken by Caesar Augustus, the Emperor renowned for bringing the Pax Romana to all the lands under Roman rule. Yet this infant, born in an obscure and far-flung corner of the Empire, was to offer the world a far greater peace, truly universal in scope and transcending all limitations of space and time.
Jesus is presented to us as King David’s heir, but the liberation he brought to his people was not about holding hostile armies at bay; it was about conquering sin and death forever.
The birth of Christ challenges us to reassess our priorities, our values, our very way of life. While Christmas is undoubtedly a time of great joy, it is also an occasion for deep reflection, even an examination of conscience. At the end of a year that has meant economic hardship for many, what can we learn from the humility, the poverty, the simplicity of the crib scene?
Christmas can be the time in which we learn to read the Gospel, to get to know Jesus not only as the Child in the manger, but as the one in whom we recognize God made Man.
It is in the Gospel that Christians find inspiration for their daily lives and their involvement in worldly affairs – be it in the Houses of Parliament or the Stock Exchange. Christians shouldn’t shun the world; they should engage with it. But their involvement in politics and economics should transcend every form of ideology.
Christians fight poverty out of a recognition of the supreme dignity of every human being, created in God’s image and destined for eternal life. Christians work for more equitable sharing of the earth’s resources out of a belief that, as stewards of God’s creation, we have a duty to care for the weakest and most vulnerable. Christians oppose greed and exploitation out of a conviction that generosity and selfless love, as taught and lived by Jesus of Nazareth, are the way that leads to fullness of life. Christian belief in the transcendent destiny of every human being gives urgency to the task of promoting peace and justice for all.
Because these goals are shared by so many, much fruitful cooperation is possible between Christians and others. Yet Christians render to Caesar only what belongs to Caesar, not what belongs to God. Christians have at times throughout history been unable to comply with demands made by Caesar. From the Emperor cult of ancient Rome to the totalitarian regimes of the last century, Caesar has tried to take the place of God. When Christians refuse to bow down before the false gods proposed today, it is not because of an antiquated world-view. Rather, it is because they are free from the constraints of ideology and inspired by such a noble vision of human destiny that they cannot collude with anything that undermines it.
In Italy, many crib scenes feature the ruins of ancient Roman buildings in the background. This shows that the birth of the child Jesus marks the end of the old order, the pagan world, in which Caesar’s claims went virtually unchallenged. Now there is a new king, who relies not on the force of arms, but on the power of love. He brings hope to all those who, like himself, live on the margins of society. He brings hope to all who are vulnerable to the changing fortunes of a precarious world. From the manger, Christ calls us to live as citizens of his heavenly kingdom, a kingdom that all people of good will can help to build here on earth.
Resurrection of the Dead (Luke 20:27–40)
 |
| Francisco Collantes - Ezequiel vision: The Resurrection (1630) |
28 saying, "Teacher, Moses wrote for us, 'If someone's brother dies leaving a wife but no child, his brother must take the wife and raise up descendants for his brother.'
29 Now there were seven brothers; the first married a woman but died childless.
30 Then the second
31 and the third married her, and likewise all the seven died childless.
32 Finally the woman also died.
33 Now at the resurrection whose wife will that woman be? For all seven had been married to her."
34 Jesus said to them, "The children of this age marry and remarry;
35 but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.
36 They can no longer die, for they are like angels; and they are the children of God because they are the ones who will rise.
37 That the dead will rise even Moses made known in the passage about the bush, when he called 'Lord' the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;
38 and he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive."
39 Some of the scribes said in reply, "Teacher, you have answered well."
40 And they no longer dared to ask him anything.
The Sadducees, unlike the Pharisees, did not believe in immortality, nor in angels or evil spirits. Their religion was literally grounded in an earthly image of heaven. The Sadducees' question, based on the law of levirate marriage recorded in Deut 25:5-10, ridicules the idea of the resurrection. Jesus rejects their naive understanding of the resurrection (Luke 20:35-36) and then argues on behalf of the resurrection of the dead on the basis of the written law (Luke 20:37-38) that the Sadducees accept. See also the notes on Matthew 22:23-33.
Comments by Father Denis Kevin (DK) O'Sullivan (The Sunday Readings Cycle):
We can thank the Sadducees today. They came to our Lord with what they thought was a case that would make the doctrine of the resurrection look very ridiculous. It would have appeared so, if it were understood in the crude sense which they gave it, namely, that we would come forth again from the grave in the very same bodies which we now have, with all their needs and instincts. Our Lord corrected that erroneous idea. We shall all rise to a new and eternal life, in a form and an existence very different from that of our present life. Thus, the question of ownership of wives or property will not, and cannot, arise in our new life. He gave us a brief but basic description of what our risen bodies will be. I am sure that most of us would love to know a lot more about what our future state will be like. But if we knew all, then where would our faith and trust in God come in? Some saints are said to have had brief visions of the joys of heaven. They wanted to die immediately in order to get there. God wants each one of us to earn heaven, by living our life on earth, and trusting in His word that heaven will be our eternal home if we do our part here below.
In his brief answer to the Sadducees, Christ gives us the essential facts concerning our future status. First, he affirms that all those who have proved themselves worthy while in this life will rise to an eternal life. In that life we will become like angels. We will not be angels, pure spirits without bodies, but we will be like them in that our bodies will become "spiritual." They will lose all the restrictions and limitations imposed on them now, as mere material composites. They will no longer be subject to decline and decay as they now are. Therefore, they can never suffer from pain or sickness or weakness of any sort.
Jesus says, “They can no longer die, for they are like angels…” (Luke 20:36) There is a radical difference between our earthly body and our body in the next life. The best way to think about our heavenly body is that we will be “like angels.” We can see something of this difference when Jesus rose from the dead. People did not recognize Jesus after his resurrection. Mary Magdalene thought Jesus was the gardener and even asked him about finding the body of Jesus (John 20:14-15). She did not recognize him until he spoke. The two disciples on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Jesus until the breaking of the bread (Luke 24:13-35). Not only did Jesus look different after his resurrection but he could pass through walls and doors. On Easter Sunday evening the disciples were gathered together with the doors closed but Jesus came among them (John 20:19). Yet the evangelists also make it clear that Jesus did have a body; he needed to eat (Luke 24:41-42; Acts 10:41), and he showed them the wounds in his hands and feet (Luke 24:39). Jesus’ body after the resurrection was transformed.
Second, He clearly affirmed that those risen from the dead are no longer liable to death. Leaving aside the other greater joys of heaven, such as the beatific vision, and the close association with Christ our Savior in His risen humanity, the meeting with our blessed Mother and with all the Saints, including our relatives and friends, what a source of happiness and joy will it be for us, to know that we can never die again! The happiness and joy which we shall have will never end. We all have had moments of happiness in this life. Great as these moments were, the thought that they had to end too soon cast a shadow on our joy. There will be no shadow to darken or lessen our future joy and happiness.
Jesus says, “They can no longer die, for they are like angels…” (Luke 20:36) There is a radical difference between this life and the next life. We cannot think about the next life in terms of this life. That radical transformation affects everything about us in the next life, even marriage. As we think about marriage in this life we know that marriage is to be a blessing for the spouses; they are to help sanctify each other. Marriage is a gift from God for the good of the spouses, but also for the procreation of children. Sometimes our contemporary culture forgets that marriage is not just for the spouses but is also God’s plan for the continuation of the human race. Our Catholic teaching tells us that children are the crowning glory of marriage (Gaudium et Spes §48), the supreme gift of marriage, and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves (Gaudium et Spes §50). Because we all die, the continuation of the human race is dependent on marriage begetting children, yet in today’s Gospel Jesus teaches that there is a radical difference between this life and the next. In the next life there is no death so there is no begetting of children and therefore no marriage. Jesus said,
“The children of this age marry and remarry; but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. They can no longer die, for they are like angels; and they are the children of God because they are the ones who will rise.” (Luke 20:34-36)
Marriage is for this life only, there is no marriage in the next life, so the Sadducees’ question is irrelevant. The Sadducees had asked Jesus a hypothetical question about a situation that would be most unlikely to ever occur but it elicited from Jesus his clearest teaching on the resurrection.
The Sadducees got themselves into this mess because they relied on only part of the Jewish teaching that suited them. The first reading, which is from one of the seven extra books that Catholic Bibles have in the Old Testament and not included as inspired in Protestant Old Testaments, gives us a more complete picture because it teaches the Resurrection of the dead. Seven brothers were prepared to die rather than break the Jewish law by eating pork. The second brother said, “you are depriving us of this present life, but the King of the world will raise us up to live again forever.” (2 Macc 7:9) The third brother said he had received his limbs from heaven and hoped to receive them again from God (2 Macc 7:11). The fourth brother also said he hoped to be raised up again. It was the Thessalonians’ anxiety about the next life that partly drove St. Paul to write his letters to them, part of which we read today as our second reading. They were concerned about what would happen to those who died before the Second Coming of Jesus and St. Paul reassured them.
The Sadducees were in a mess because they thought of the next life in terms of this life, a mistake still made today, but Jesus teaches there is a radical transformation in the next life which will affect everything, even marriage. Belief in the resurrection gave strength and hope to seven Jewish brothers about to be martyred. We too are reassured by Jesus’ teaching and look forward to eternity with God, radically transformed. May we live lives worthy of God’s promise.
From the beginning, Christian faith in the resurrection has met with incomprehension and opposition. “On no point does the Christian faith encounter more opposition than on the resurrection of the body” (St Augustine). It is very commonly accepted that the life of the human person continues in a spiritual fashion after death. But how can we believe that this body, so clearly mortal, could rise to everlasting life?
What is “rising”? In death, the separation of the soul from the body, the human body decays and the soul goes to meet God, while awaiting its reunion with its glorified body. God, in his almighty power, will definitively grant incorruptible life to our bodies by reuniting them with our souls, through the power of Jesus’ Resurrection. Who will rise? All the dead will rise, “those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment” (Jn 5,29).
How? Christ is raised with his own body: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself"; but he did not return to an earthly life. So, in him, "all of them will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear," but Christ "will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body," into a "spiritual body". This "how" exceeds our imagination and understanding; it is accessible only to faith. Yet our participation in the Eucharist already gives us a foretaste of Christ's transfiguration of our bodies:
Just as bread that comes from the earth, after God's blessing has been invoked upon it, is no longer ordinary bread, but Eucharist, formed of two things, the one earthly and the other heavenly: so too our bodies, which partake of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but possess the hope of resurrection.
Death is a consequence of sin. The Church's Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man's sin. Even though man's nature is mortal God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin.
The Church encourages us to prepare ourselves for the hour of our death. In the ancient litany of the saints, for instance, she has us pray: "From a sudden and unforeseen death, deliver us, O Lord"; to ask the Mother of God to intercede for us "at the hour of our death" in the Hail Mary; and to entrust ourselves to St. Joseph, the patron of a happy death.
Every action of yours, every thought, should be those of one who expects to die before the day is out. Death would have no great terrors for you if you had a quiet conscience. . . . Then why not keep clear of sin instead of running away from death? If you aren't fit to face death today, it's very unlikely you will be tomorrow. . . .
Praised are you, my Lord, for our sister bodily Death,
from whom no living man can escape.
Woe on those who will die in mortal sin!
Blessed are they who will be found
in your most holy will,
for the second death will not harm them.
Before Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, he exclaimed: “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?(John 11:25). Jesus asks us the same question. Do you believe in the resurrection and in the promise of eternal life with God?
The Holy Spirit reveals to us the eternal truths of God’s unending love and the life he desires to share with us for all eternity. Paul the Apostle, quoting from the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 64:4; 65:17) states: “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,God has revealed to us through the Spirit” (1 Corinthians 2:9-10)
Is the Messiah the son of David? (Luke 20:41–44)
 |
| Ignacio de Ries - The king David (1650) |
42 For David himself in the Book of Psalms says: 'The Lord said to my lord, "Sit at my right hand
43 till I make your enemies your footstool."'
44 Now if David calls him 'lord,' how can he be his son?"
After successfully answering the three questions of his opponents, Jesus now asks them a question. Their inability to respond implies that they have forfeited their position and authority as the religious leaders of the people because they do not understand the scriptures. This series of controversies between the religious leadership of Jerusalem and Jesus reveals Jesus as the authoritative teacher whose words are to be listened to.
This is a promise made to David by God. The first Lord mentioned is God and the second lord was believed by Jews and then later Christians to refer to the messiah. Since David is here calling the messiah Lord the messiah must be superior to David. "Son" was a term of submission as father was a term of authority, so one can not say that the messiah will be inferior to David by using the term son.
comments by Dr. Mary Healy, professor of Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit:
For the early Church, Psalm 110 was one of the most important Old Testament prophecies of Christ, fulfilled in its deepest meaning at his resurrection when he won victory over his enemies-sin, Satan, and death-and was enthroned at the Father's right hand.
By the time of Jesus, when the monarchy had long ceased to exist, Psalm 110 was viewed as a prophecy of the Messiah, the promised royal descendant of David who would revive the monarchy and restore sovereignty to Israel. But how, Jesus asks, can the Messiah be David's son if David himself calls him "lord"? In ancient culture, it would be unthinkable for a father to address his son or descendant as "lord:' Jesus is challenging his listeners: What are the implications of the fact that David reveres the Messiah as someone superior to himself? What does this psalm reveal about the majesty of the Messiah? Is he merely an earthly monarch, descended from the line of David, or is he something much greater? Elsewhere the Gospels indicate that Jesus is "greater than Solomon" (Matt 12:42), "greater than Jacob" (John 4:12), "greater than Abraham" (John 8:53); here Jesus hints that he is greater than David.
In their worship all Israel joined David in addressing the Messiah as "my lord:' Jesus is pointing to the mystery of the incarnation, foreshadowed in the Psalms: the Messiah is the son of David, who is born of God's people yet in a mysterious way also far transcends them in dignity.
comments by Pope Benedict XVI (General Audicence Nov 2011):
Let's mediate on one of the most famous of the “royal Psalms”, a Psalm that Jesus himself cited and that the New Testament authors referred to extensively and interpreted as referring to the Messiah, to Christ. It is Psalm 110 according to the Hebrew tradition, 109 according to the Graeco-Latin one, a Psalm very dear to the ancient Church and to believers of all times. This prayer may at first have been linked to the enthronement of a Davidic king; yet its meaning exceeds the specific contingency of an historic event, opening to broader dimensions and thereby becoming a celebration of the victorious Messiah, glorified at God’s right hand. The Psalm reads as this:
1. The Lord says to my lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.’
2. The Lord sends forth from Zion your mighty sceptre: ‘Rule in the midst of your foes!
3. With you is sovereignty in the splendour of holiness on the day of your birth: before the morning star, like the dew, I have begotten you.’
4. The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.’
5. The Lord is at your right hand; he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath.
6. He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses; he will crush heads over the wide earth.
7. He will drink from the brook by the way; therefore he will lift up his head.”
The Psalm begins with a solemn declaration: “the Lord says to my lord ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool” (v. 1).
God himself enthrones the king in glory, seating him at his right, a sign of very great honour and of absolute privilege. The king is thus admitted to sharing in the divine kingship, of which he is mediator to the people. The king’s kingship is also brought into being in the victory over his adversaries whom God himself places at his feet. The victory over his enemies is the Lord’s, but the king is enabled to share in it and his triumph becomes a sign and testimony of divine power.
The royal glorification expressed at the beginning of the Psalm was adopted by the New Testament as a messianic prophecy. For this reason the verse is among those most frequently used by New Testament authors, either as an explicit quotation or as an allusion.
With regard to the Messiah Jesus himself mentioned this verse in order to show that the Messiah, was greater than David, that he was David’s Lord (cf. Mt 22:41-45; Mk 12:35-37; Lk 20:41-44).
And Peter returned to it in his discourse at Pentecost, proclaiming that this enthronement of the king was brought about in the resurrection of Christ and that Christ was henceforth seated at the right hand of the Father, sharing in God’s kingship over the world (cf. Acts 2:29-35). Indeed, Christ is the enthroned Lord, the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God and coming on the clouds of heaven.
He is the true King who, with the Resurrection, entered into glory at the right hand of the Father (Rom 8:34; Eph 2:5; Col 3:1; Heb 8:1; 12:2), was made superior to angels, and seated in heaven above every power with every adversary at his feet, until the time when the last enemy, death, to be defeated by him once and for all (cf. 1 Cor 15:24-26; Eph 1:20-23; Heb 1:3-4; 2:5-8; 10:12-13; 1 Pet 3:22).
And we immediately understand that this king, seated at the right hand of God, who shares in his kingship is not one of those who succeeded David, but is actually the new David, the Son of God who triumphed over death and truly shares in God’s glory. He is our king, who also gives us eternal life.
The first stanza of the Psalm ends with this evocative and enigmatic image. It is followed by another oracle, which unfolds a new perspective along the lines of a priestly dimension connected with kingship. Verse 4 says: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek”.
Melchizedek was the priest-king of Salem, a mysterious figure in the Old Testament who had blessed Abraham and offered him bread and wine after the victorious military campaign the patriarch led to rescue his nephew Lot from the hands of enemies who had captured him (cf. Gen 14): "He offered bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said, 'Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth'" (Gen 14:18-19). Royal and priestly power converge in the figure of Melchizedek. They are then proclaimed by the Lord in a declaration that promises eternity: the king celebrated in the Psalm will be a priest for ever, the mediator of the Lord’s presence among his people, the intermediary of the blessing that comes from God who, in liturgical action, responds to it with the human answer of blessing.
In the Risen Lord Jesus who had ascended into Heaven where he is seated at the right hand of the Father the prophecy of our Psalm is fulfilled and the priesthood of Melchizedek is brought to completion. This is because, rendered absolute and eternal, it became a reality that never fades (cf. 7:24). And the offering of bread and wine made by Melchizedek in Abraham’s time is fulfilled in the Eucharistic action of Jesus who offers himself in the bread and in the wine and, having conquered death, brings life to all believers. Since he is an eternal priest, “holy, blameless, unstained” (7:26), as the Letter to the Hebrews states further, “he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them” (7:25).
If in verse 1 it was the king who was seated at God’s right hand as a sign of supreme prestige and honour, the Lord now takes his place at the right of the sovereign to protect him with this shield in battle and save him from every peril. The king was safe, God is his champion and they fight together and defeat every evil. Thus the last verses of the Psalm open with the vision of the triumphant sovereign. Supported by the Lord, having received both power and glory from him (cf. v. 2), he opposes his foes, crushing his adversaries and judging the nations. The scene is painted in strong colours to signify the drama of the battle and the totality of the royal victory. The sovereign, protected by the Lord, demolishes every obstacle and moves ahead safely to victory. He tells us: “yes, there is widespread evil in the world, there is an ongoing battle between good and evil and it seems as though evil were the stronger. No, the Lord is stronger, Christ, our true King and Priest, for he fights with all God’s power and in spite of all the things that make us doubt the positive outcome of history, Christ wins and good wins, love wins rather than hatred.
The evocative image that concludes our Psalm fits in here; it is also an enigmatic word: “He will drink from the brook by the way; therefore he will lift up his head” (v. 7).
The king’s figure stands out in the middle of the description of the battle. At a moment of respite and rest, he quenches his thirst at a stream, finding in it refreshment and fresh strength to continue on his triumphant way, holding his head high as a sign of definitive victory. It is clear that these deeply enigmatic words were a challenge for the Fathers of the Church because of the different interpretations they could be given.
Thus, for example, St Augustine said: this brook is the onward flow of the human being, of humanity, and Christ did not disdain to drink of this brook, becoming man; and so it was that on entering the humanity of the human being he lifted up his head and is now the Head of the mystical Body, he is our head, he is the definitive winner. (cf. Enarrationes in Psalmos CIX, 20: PL36, 1462).
The king’s figure stands out in the middle of the description of the battle. At a moment of respite and rest, he quenches his thirst at a stream, finding in it refreshment and fresh strength to continue on his triumphant way, holding his head high as a sign of definitive victory. It is clear that these deeply enigmatic words were a challenge for the Fathers of the Church because of the different interpretations they could be given.
Thus, for example, St Augustine said: this brook is the onward flow of the human being, of humanity, and Christ did not disdain to drink of this brook, becoming man; and so it was that on entering the humanity of the human being he lifted up his head and is now the Head of the mystical Body, he is our head, he is the definitive winner. (cf. Enarrationes in Psalmos CIX, 20: PL36, 1462).
Dear
friends, following the lines of the New Testament translation, the
Church’s Tradition has held this Psalm in high esteem as one of the most
important messianic texts. And the Fathers continued eminently to refer
to it in a Christological key. The king of whom the Psalmist sang is
definitively Christ, the Messiah who establishes the Kingdom of God and
overcomes the powers of evil. He is the Word, begotten by the Father
before every creature, before the dawn, the Son incarnate who died and
rose and is seated in Heaven, the eternal priest who through the mystery
of the bread and wine bestows forgiveness of sins and gives
reconciliation with God, the king who lifts up his head, triumphing over
death with his resurrection.
It would suffice to remember a passage, once again in St Augustine’s commentary on this Psalm, where he writes: “it was necessary to know the Only-Begotten Son of God who was about to come among men, to adopt man and to become a man by taking on his nature; he died, rose and ascended into Heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father and fulfilled among the people all that he had promised.... All this, therefore, had to be prophesied, it had to be foretold, to be pointed out as destined to come about, so that by coming unexpectedly it would not give rise to fear but by having been foretold, would then be accepted with faith, joy and expectation. This Psalm fits into the context of these promises. It prophesies our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in such reliable and explicit terms that we cannot have the slightest doubt that it is really Christ who is proclaimed in it” (cf. Enarrationes in Psalmos CIX, 3: PL 36, 1447).
The paschal event of Christ thus becomes the reality to which the Psalm invites us to look, to look at Christ to understand the meaning of true kingship, to live in service and in the gift of self, in a journey of obedience and love “to the end” (cf. Jn 13:1 and 19:30).
In praying with this Psalm let us therefore ask the Lord to enable us to proceed on his paths, in the following of Christ, the Messiah King, ready to climb with him the mount of the cross to attain glory with him, and to contemplate him seated at the right hand of the Father, a victorious king and a merciful priest who gives forgiveness and salvation to all men and women.
It would suffice to remember a passage, once again in St Augustine’s commentary on this Psalm, where he writes: “it was necessary to know the Only-Begotten Son of God who was about to come among men, to adopt man and to become a man by taking on his nature; he died, rose and ascended into Heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father and fulfilled among the people all that he had promised.... All this, therefore, had to be prophesied, it had to be foretold, to be pointed out as destined to come about, so that by coming unexpectedly it would not give rise to fear but by having been foretold, would then be accepted with faith, joy and expectation. This Psalm fits into the context of these promises. It prophesies our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in such reliable and explicit terms that we cannot have the slightest doubt that it is really Christ who is proclaimed in it” (cf. Enarrationes in Psalmos CIX, 3: PL 36, 1447).
The paschal event of Christ thus becomes the reality to which the Psalm invites us to look, to look at Christ to understand the meaning of true kingship, to live in service and in the gift of self, in a journey of obedience and love “to the end” (cf. Jn 13:1 and 19:30).
In praying with this Psalm let us therefore ask the Lord to enable us to proceed on his paths, in the following of Christ, the Messiah King, ready to climb with him the mount of the cross to attain glory with him, and to contemplate him seated at the right hand of the Father, a victorious king and a merciful priest who gives forgiveness and salvation to all men and women.
Denouncing scribes (Luke 20:45–47)
 |
| Gustave Doré - House of Caiaphas (1875) |
46 "Be on guard against the scribes, who like to go around in long robes and love greetings in marketplaces, seats of honor in synagogues, and places of honor at banquets.
47 They devour the houses of widows and, as a pretext, recite lengthy prayers. They will receive a very severe condemnation."
comments by Fr. Tim Mockaitis (httpss://frommysideofthealtar.blogspot.com):
The scribes who Jesus criticized were not bad men as such. Their position was both religious and civil among the Jewish population. They wore distinctive clothing that would reflect their position of responsibility among the people. It isn’t the clothing they wear that Jesus warns against. It is their love for power and prestige that becomes detrimental to their spiritual health and makes them poor examples for the people they serve. Let’s face it – they loved being who they were and they attempted to soak it for all it was worth. It brings to mind the famed saying of the fun loving Pope Leo X (1513): “God has given us the Papacy so let us enjoy it!” And he did indeed. We don’t need leaders like that! Such poor example of responsibility is scandalous.
Jesus criticizes the brightest, the most knowledgeable, and the most influential leaders of the people in a way that likely stunned the crowd. It often doesn’t take long to see though a person’s hypocrisy or love for prestige. Yet, the crowds didn’t dare say anything publicly about their true feelings. There might have been a few “right on Jesus!” comments under the breath of the powerless when they heard of Jesus’ comparison. We too need to remind ourselves.
That God and the poor, dependent, helpless, vulnerable, and truly humble have a special relationship of love. That when we voluntarily swallow our pride or our own desire to be noticed and recognized and turn to the Lord, we are heard and loved in return.
No comments:
Post a Comment