5TH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME (B)

Jesus approached, grasped her hand, and helped her up. Then the fever left her and she waited on them. 

Mk 1:29-39 

 

v. 31. He approached, grasped her hand, and helped her up. Then the fever left her and she waited on them.

Once again the story gives the general impression of a cure performed effortlessly without the need for any magic or special technique. But just as in the last incident the words used were current terms in con- temporary exorcism, so here the action is that recorded in the case of various healings by rabbis in the Talmudic literature. The phrase' lift up' (egeirein) seems indeed to have been the conventional Talmudic expression meaning to 'cure' or 'heal'. The phrase ‘the fever left her’ is likewise known from contemporary narratives of healings. 

She served them: 

i.e. presumably at table. The words show both the completeness of the cure and also its miraculous speed.  St Jerome comments: “The human constitution is such that after fever our bodies are rather tired, but when the Lord bestows health, restoration is immediate and complete.”

v. 32. When it was evening, after sunset, they brought to him all who were ill or possessed by demons.

The sabbath ended in the evening, at sundown, and the note of time is duplicated (contrast the parallels in Matthew and Luke) to emphasize that Jesus did not exercise his power until the sabbath was quite over and it was lawful to ‘bring' (lit. 'carry') the sufferers through the street.

vv.32- 34.

Here as in v. 5 we have hyperbole ('all', 'the whole city') and once again the intention is symbolic—to convey the universal scope and efficacy of the Messiah's activity. St Mark will have intended no distinction between ‘all' in v. 32 and ‘many' in v. 34, especially as the word for ‘many' in Hebrew and Aramaic did not have the exclusive sense ('a large number but not all') it bears in English.

v. 34. He cured many who were sick with various diseases, and he drove out many demons, not permitting them to speak because they knew him.

And he would not permit the demons to speak: 

By refusing to let the demons say who he was, Jesus deliberately makes it harder for people to deduce his identity from his works. Some MSS read ‘because they knew that he was the Messiah'. Though not the original reading, that is certainly a correct interpretation of St Mark's meaning. Once again the reader has his own belief confirmed by the supernatural insight of the evil powers.

v. 35. Rising very early before dawn, he left and went off to a deserted place, where he prayed.

Rising very early before dawn: 

Prayer in the early morning was a pious habit among the Jews (Pss 5:3, 88:13, 119:147). It is just possible however that the reference to prayer here is a later addition. Luke 4:42 omits it, and since it is specially characteristic of him to include references to Jesus at prayer, some commentators take his silence to mean that the statement was not included in the version of Mark known to him.

v. 37. And on finding him said, “Everyone is looking for you.”

They presumably expect Jesus to return to Capernaum. The Greek word for “is searching” (zetousin) is used in nine other places in Mark and always in a derogatory sense. It refers either to actual persecution or to seeking Jesus in a wrong and unacceptable way (cf. especially 3:32 and 16:6).

v. 38. He told them, “Let us go on to the nearby villages that I may preach there also. For this purpose have I come.”

Villages/towns: 

Greek “komopoeos” - strictly small towns with only the status of villages, but here generally of the small market towns in the neighborhood. 

For this purpose have I come: 

Possibly just referring back to v. 35 but more probably as Luke thought (Luke 4:43) meaning 'I came forth from heaven to earth', 'I was sent into the world'.

Further commentary on vv. 35-39.

Early on the morning after his experience with the crowds, Jesus seeks a quiet place to be alone and perhaps to pray. The reference to his prayer may be meant simply to remind us that he and the power he wields are entirely dependent on, and subordinate to, the will of God. But both the other occasions in the Gospel when Jesus prays are times of great stress, and it may be that this too is seen as a point of crisis and stress, for the only results of the ministry so far have been excitement and amazement on the part of the crowds and the thronging of invalids in the evening at the door of Peter's house. Neither of them results in accordance with Our Lord's purpose. 

Peter and his companions do not help, for instead of leaving Jesus in peace, they track him down (the Greek word katadiokein usually implies 'hostile following', 'persecuting') to give him what they regard as the good news that everyone is looking for him. But to be 'searched for' (Greek 'sought') in this way as a wonder-worker is not the 'following' Jesus has been sent into the world to attract. So he decides to go elsewhere in order to proclaim the inbreaking of the kingdom both by word and deed. 

The true significance of all the words and mighty works of Jesus is that they ‘proclaim' (literal meaning of the Greek in v. 38) and usher in the kingdom. Any response to them, however favorable, which does not recognize that as the essential truth about them is unacceptable, even if it comes from professed followers such as Simon and those who were with him - a noteworthy phrase by which they are pointedly denied the title' disciples'. Theirs is not the attitude of true disciples. They come simply as representatives of the crowd, wholly identified with its worldly attitude and interests.

4th SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME (B)

He commands even the unclean spirits and they obey him. 

Mk 1: 21-28

v. 21. Then they came to Capernaum, and on the sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught.

If we say that the synagogue corresponded roughly to the English parish church, we shall not give a wholly wrong impression. At any rate every town or village of any size possessed at least one synagogue in which services were held on all sabbaths and also on certain weekdays. 

All sacrificial rites were reserved to the temple in Jerusalem, so the synagogue services were not wholly unlike Anglican Morning and Evening Prayer. They consisted of various praises, blessings, and other prayers, together with readings from the Old Testament which were subsequently expounded by a preacher. This is the ‘teaching’ referred to here. 

In one important respect, however, the parallel with the modern Church breaks down. There was no ordained ministry in our sense of the term connected with the synagogue. There were elders responsible for the administration of the synagogue and its discipline. Among them were one or more 'rulers of the synagogues’ who arranged for the services and might lead the worship, and a paid official who was a sort of cross between a sacristan and a village schoolmaster who might fulfill a number of other duties as well.

But it was perfectly competent for any male Israelite who was qualified to do so to deliver the 'sermon', and it would appear that Jesus was often invited by synagogue rulers to do this. Indeed for him - as later for his disciples (Acts 13:15ff and 9:20) - such invitations afforded one of the chief opportunities for spreading the gospel.

v. 22. The people were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes.

Authority: 

The question is raised whether Jesus was trained and formally “ordained” as a rabbi. We do not know exactly what becoming a rabbi entailed at this period, and in any case the evidence about Jesus is not sufficient to enable us to answer the question with certainty. But the case for thinking he was an official rabbi is stronger than is often supposed. For example see Mark 9:5, 10:51, 11:21, and 14:45.

The scribes: 

In the time of Jesus these were men devoted to the study of the Law and to drawing out its implications in terms of the detail of daily life. Their accumulated teaching is known as 'the tradition'.  

If not of independent means, they had to ply a trade as well as performing their scribal duties. Though they were laymen they were highly esteemed in the community (being called 'Doctors of the Law' and addressed as 'Rabbi') and were well represented in the Sanhedrin. 

Most of them belonged to the party of the Pharisees, though some may have been Sadducees (see 12:18). They mostly worked in Jerusalem, gathering round them circles of disciples, to whom they imparted the Law and the tradition by a method of education which was almost entirely oral and involved the learning by heart, and exact repetition, of innumerable maxims and memorable sayings (see 7:1-23). It will be obvious how exactly, in certain respects, Jesus' ministry fitted into the pattern of scribal activity. A comparison between him and the scribes, such as is here described, would have been very natural.

v. 23. In their synagogue was a man with an unclean spirit.

An unclean spirit: 

I.e. possession by the spirit made the man unclean, either in the sense of ceremonially impure, or in the more general sense of being unfit for worship and fellowship with God. However, the word translated unclean (acathartos) sometimes meant little more than 'vicious', and the phrase may be used by Mark to mean simply 'an evil spirit'.

v. 24. He cried out, “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”

Cried out: 

In the Greek a strong word indicating deep emotion. 

What have you to do with us?: In classical Greek this would mean 'What have we in common?' Here, under the influence of Hebrew usage, it probably means 'Why are you interfering with us?' See 1 Kgs 17:18.

Of Nazareth: 

In Greek a single word (Nazarene) the meaning of which is very uncertain. On balance the R.S.V. translation is probably the right one, though among other possibilities are that it is connected with the Hebrew word for 'shoot' or 'branch', or that it means "consecrated", 'holy', in which case it is picked up by Holy One of God at the end of the verse. The question is of course linked with that of the locality of Nazareth, the existence of which is not attested outside the New Testament.

Have you come to destroy us?: 

Perhaps better translated as an assertion. The spirits, with their supernatural insight, could not fail to recognize that the hour of their destruction had arrived. For the expectation of the destruction of evil powers in the messianic age, see Lk 10:18 and Rv. 20:10.

The Holy One of God: 

Presumably used in a messianic sense, though there is no evidence that the term was so used by the Jews. Possibly a later Christian term (based on the association of Ps 16:10 with the resurrection - see Acts 2:27) is here attributed to the demon.

v. 27. All were amazed and asked one another, “What is this? A new teaching with authority. He commands even the unclean spirits and they obey him.”

A typical conclusion to a healing pericope, emphasizing the reality and remarkable character of what had been done by describing the stupefying effect it had on the bystanders.

Amazed:

Like the different Greek word used in v. 22 (astonished) this implies profound astonishment. Since the Jews were not unfamiliar with exorcisms, such a reaction may seem strange, but St. Mark’s point is that Jesus’ exorcisms were not like any other.

3rd SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME (B)

Jesus said to them, “Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men.

Mk 1:14-20

v. 14. After John had been arrested, Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the gospel of God:

Arrested: This conveys the sense of the Greek word in this passage, but the word itself is a general one (“hand over”) which had many overtones for Mark (see 9:11). The word is also used in the LXX (Septuagint) version of Is 53:6 and 12.

The gospel of God: This could mean 'the good news about God', but more probably here it means 'the good news from God', i.e. the news of his intention to bring in his kingdom immediately. The phrase was widely used in the early Church (cf. I Thess. 2:2. 8-9; Rm 1:1, 15:16; and 2 Cor. 1I:7) to describe the Christian message of salvation. And if it be asked how Jesus could have been thought to have preached that when he makes no reference to himself, the answer will be that to the Evangelist, Jesus, in preaching the gospel of God, or the gospel of the kingdom of God, must ultimately be referring to himself.

v. 15. “This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”

This is the time of fulfillment.: The idea is that God had from the beginning determined the length of time that must elapse before the coming of his kingdom, and that time is now up. Such beliefs were common in apocalyptic. See Dn 12:4. 9 and Ez 7:12, Gal. 44, Eph. 1:10. For closely related ideas see Mark 13:20. 33.

The kingdom of God: It may be translated as the kingship of God or the reign of God. This ‘kingdom’ is not a place but rather a web of relationships. Those belonging to the kingdom are those who accept the life vision that Jesus gave to us and whose lives are based on that vision of life. It does not matter who they are or where they are and it exists here and now. The Kingdom extends far wider than the Church, which is called to be the sign pointing to the Kingdom’s presence among us.

Is at hand: This is the meaning most scholars assign to the Greek word (engiken) Though others translate it as "has arrived", or 'is here'. The difference is not very great since in any case only a comparatively short interval is thought of as intervening between Jesus' proclamation and the arrival of the kingdom. More significant is the question how far, and in what sense, Jesus believed the kingdom actually to have arrived during his earthly life. Here at any rate he seems to envisage its coming as being in the immediate future.

Repent: The Greek word (metanoein) means literally 'to change one's mind', but as it is used in the New Testament, it comes very near to the Old Testament word shubh ('to turn back', cf. Jl 2:12-13), implying a coming to one's senses, a deliberate turning away from one's sinful past towards God, with the corollary of a change in conduct. In its New Testament usage it implies much more than a mere "change of mind". It involves a whole reorientation of the personality, a "conversion".

Believe in the gospel: It is not just to accept as true what Jesus or the Church teaches. To believe IN involves a total commitment, a throwing in of one’s lot with Jesus without any guarantees or preconditions. It is to invest one’s whole self (as people do in a good marriage, for better or for worse, in good times and in bad…).

Certainly “repent and believe in the gospel” is exactly how the later Christian preachers summarized what men must do to be saved.

v. 16. As he passed by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting their nets into the sea; they were fishermen.

As he passed by the Sea of Galilee: The construction in the Greek (paragein para) is unusual, and commentators generally are agreed that the reference to the Sea of Galilee is an addition made by St Mark - no doubt a deduction from the contents of the story. The Sea of Galilee was about 19 km. long and about 9.5 km. across at its widest point.

v. 17. Jesus said to them, “Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

Follow me: The language may suggest that in which a rabbi summoned new disciples to his school, but the Gospel means far more by 'following Jesus' than is implied in that sort of relationship. The present story shows that it may often mean a total renunciation of one's past relationship and way of life. Later stories will bring out further aspects of what is involved.

I will make you fishers of men: In Our Lord's time 'catching' men was already widely used as a metaphor, both by Jews and Gentiles (cf Hb 1:15. 17 and Prv 6:26) But it is doubtful if this would have prepared the two disciples for its use here, for the metaphor seems always to have been applied to harmful activities, especially in the Old Testament haling men off to divine retribution. Cf. Jer. 16:16, Amos 4:2, Ez 19:4f. To the modern reader, looking back, the phrase seems readily intelligible in the present context, and perhaps the two brothers, if they knew something of Jesus beforehand, could already have understood it, as meaning to win further converts to his movement. But the call is in the first instance to discipleship rather than to apostolate, and the words make much more obvious sense in the light of later Christian practice and usage (cf. Mt. 13:47ff. and John 21:3ff. and the metaphor of the 'Ark ' of the Church). So we cannot rule out the possibility that the saying owes at least its formulation to the early Church.

v. 18. Then they abandoned their nets and followed him.

If the details are pressed as biographically accurate, we are bound to suppose that the two men had had previous contact with Jesus (cf John 1:35-42). In order to understand the significance the early Church found in the verse, we must realize that the word translated “followed” was the term they generally used for acceptance of Jesus' call and attachment to his person. We are thus meant to see in the conversion of the Prince of Apostles what such 'following' must always be like. Jesus' demands brook no delay (immediately) ; the response must be decisive and must include willingness to give up one's means of livelihood and make a clean break with one's past. The best commentary is Luke 9:57-62. See also Mk 10:28ff. The Evangelist no doubt had the story of Elisha's call in mind (1 Kgs 19:19-21). To many of Mark's original readers all this will have had very immediate relevance.

v. 19. He walked along a little farther and saw James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John. They too were in a boat mending their nets.

He walked along a little farther: This linking phrase may well be due to St Mark, who wanted to record the call of the three pre-eminent apostles (cf. 5:37; 9:2; 14:33) before that of any others, and it does not necessarily follow that the two incidents occurred at the same time. Indeed some scholars, impressed by the similarity of the two stories, have regarded them as variant accounts of a single episode. Such a view is certainly not inescapable, though for the possibility of such a thing, see on 6:35- 7:37 and 8:1-26.

v. 20. Then he called them. So they left their father Zebedee in the boat along with the hired men and followed him.

The previous story shows how 'following' Jesus may involve the severance of economic ties; this one shows that it may involve the severance of personal and family ties (cf. Luke 14:26 and Mt 10:37. Does the reference to the hired men serve to defend the apostles against the charge of completely abandoning their aged father, or does it add to the pathos - he is now left entirely at the mercy of 'hirelings'? The Greek word (misthotos) is frequently used in a bad sense (cf.Jn 10:12-13) Can it be that the contrast here is between the apostles, who answer Jesus' call, and the 'hirelings', who are held back by mercenary considerations?

THE FEAST OF THE STO. NINO

Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Mk 10:13-16

Why did the disciples object to the bringing of the children?

A common suggestion is that Jesus was tired and the disciples did not want him troubled further. But this is something foreign to the Gospels. Moreover, the strong word used to describe the disciples' reaction suggests that some deeper issue was at stake. Perhaps the families from which the children came were not committed to Christ (cf. the disciples' attitude in 9:38 and Jesus' response to it). Or more probably the idea is that contact with Jesus is not for those too young to make a responsible decision upon his claims (see further below). Jesus' reaction also suggests that some important matter of principle was involved, for nowhere else in the Gospels is 'indignation' (aganakteo) ascribed to him.

What does the word such mean in his reply? There are two possibilities:

(1) “these and other (literal) children”. In that case take note of such passages as Ps. 8:2, Matt. 21:15-16 and 11:25. Just as it is God's inscrutable will that the truth should be 'hidden from the wise and understanding and revealed to babes', so it is his will that those who have not yet reached 'the age of the Law' should inherit his kingdom. Alternatively, Lohmeyer has the ingenious (over-ingenious?) idea of linking the saying with 9:1. Since Jesus there says that a few members of his own generation will survive to see the kingdom come in power, presumably the younger generation will be the 'generation of the last times'. In view of that, should they be denied the attention and blessing of Jesus, the bringer of the kingdom?

(2) The meaning may be: “these and others who, though not literally children, share the characteristics of children”. In this case we have to ask what characteristics? 'The point of the comparison is not so much the innocence and humility [or obedience] of children; it is rather the fact that children are unselfconscious, receptive, and content to be dependent upon others' care and bounty. It is in such a spirit that the kingdom must be received. It is a gift of God and not an achievement on the part of man. It must be simply accepted, in as much as it can never be deserved. Such an interpretation fits well with our other information about the teaching of Jesus (Luke 17:10, Matt. 23:12 and 5:5), and v. 15 makes it clear that this was how St Mark understood the saying. Indeed it was no doubt as revealing the disposition of the true disciple that he included the story in this general context which deals with the character and cost of discipleship. But since there is some doubt if v. 15 is an original part of the saying, it remains possible that (1) was the original meaning.

Jesus' action in v. 16, which goes even beyond what was asked of him, emphasizes the contrast between his attitude and that of his disciples, and the verse gives a sort of pictorial expression to the truth in 14b, for the early Church certainly believed, if not that 'Jesus Himself is the Kingdom', at least that reception by him carries admission to the kingdom.

Finally, it should be noticed that, as described by St Mark, Jesus' action corresponds fairly closely to that of the minister at infant baptism; evidence has been collected which makes it at least plausible to suggest that the primitive Church (like the later Church) found in this story an expression of the Lord's mind on the vexed question of infant baptism. (See notes on vv. 14 and 16 below.) Certainly the story gains considerably in point if read with that suggestion in mind, and it would explain why Jesus and the disciples are pictured reacting so sharply, as if to an issue of principle.

v. 13. And people were bringing children to him that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them.

Children: The Greek word (paidia) definitely means "children" (up to twelve years) rather than 'babies', but this would not have prevented the early Church from finding the passage relevant to infant baptism. For a development in that direction cf. how Luke (18:15) has 'babies.'.

To secure for children the 'touch' of a great or holy man is a common custom in most civilizations.

Rebuked: In Marcan usage the Greek word tends to have a solemn flavor and to presuppose really serious evil (cf. 4:39, 8:32. 33 and 9:25).

v. 14. When Jesus saw this he became indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Hinder: There is a suggestion that this is a deliberate allusion to the baptismal rite of the primitive Church, in which the question: 'What hinders?' was asked liturgically before the candidates were baptized.

v. 15. Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.”

Few deny the authenticity of this saying: the main reason for doubting whether this is its original setting is its incongruity as the centerpiece of a story which deals with Jesus' attitude to children, and not with children as examples to be imitated. It is a curious fact that this saying would be wholly appropriate after 9:36, and 9:37 would be mere appropriate.here. Someone has suggested that the two sayings have suffered some confusion with one another.

v. 16. Then he embraced them and blessed them, placing his hands on them.

Laying his hands upon them: An essential complement to, if not actually part of, the primitive rite of baptism. A writer has said: 'It is by a true instinct that this action of Our Lord's is claimed as implying his sanction for infant baptism.'

EPIPHANY (B)

And on entering the house they saw the child with Mary his mother. They prostrated themselves and did him homage. Then they opened their treasures and offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

Mt 2:1-12

v. 1 - When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem.

Bethlehem of Judea: See Luke 2:1-7 for the Lucan account of how Jesus came to be born at Bethlehem although he was brought up at Nazareth.

For Bethlehem as David's home, see e.g. 1Sam.16.

The place is called Bethlehem of Judea, because there was another Bethlehem in Zebulun (Joshua 19:15).

In the days of Herod the king: Herod was king from 37-4 B.C.

Wise men (magoi): The word could be used in either of two senses: wise man or magician. The only other magus in the New Testament is Elymas in Acts 13:6ff, and he is clearly a magician. Possibly Matthew also meant the word to be understood in this sense, and this o certainly how Ignatius of Antioch understood the passage: `From that time [i.e. the appearance of the star] all sorcery [mageia] and every evil spell began to lose their power; the ignorance of wickedness began to vanish away; the overthrow of the ancient dominion was being brought to pass, since God was appearing in human form unto newness of life eternal' (Letter to the Ephesians, 19).

v. 2 - …saying, “Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star* at its rising and have come to do him homage.”

The Magi ask for the king of the Jews, because they themselves, are Gentiles and Jews did not call themselves Jews; Jews would say, either the Christ, as in v. 4; or the King of Israel, as in 27:42.

For a star as the sign of a king, see Num. 24:17. “A star shall come forth out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel. The planet Jupiter apparently crossed the paths of Venus and Saturn in 7 B.C., and there may be some reference to this in Matthew.

v. 3. When King Herod heard this, he was greatly troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

Herod the king and all Jerusalem do not rejoice at the news, but are troubled. The word is used again at 14:26 of the terror of the disciples. And in both places it is the fear which comes from unbelief.

v. 4. Assembling all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born.

Assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, i.e. the Sanhedrin, the supreme council of the Jews: There may be a reference here to Ps 2:2, as in 22:34, 26:3.57.

vv. 5-6. They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it has been written through the prophet: ‘And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; since from you shall come a ruler, who is to shepherd my people Israel.’”

The prophecy is from Mic. 5:2, but it is not given in the LXX translation nor is it an exact rendering of the Hebrew text, 2 Sam 5:2. It may have been combined with the Micah prophecy; combining of similar Old Testament passages was a regular feature of rabbinic study of t scriptures.

v. 7 - Then Herod called the magi secretly and ascertained from them the time of the star’s appearance.

From v. 16 it seems that the star had appeared two years earlier.

v. 10 - They were overjoyed at seeing the star.

With the great joy of the magi, compare the great joy of the women in 28:8.

v. 11. And on entering the house they saw the child with Mary his mother. They prostrated themselves and did him homage. Then they opened their treasures and offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

And they fell down and worshipped him: Worship of Jesus is a feature of this gospel, in contrast to Mark's.

Gold and frankincense and myrrh: Detailed symbolic meanings have been found in these three gifts; but they may all be gifts suitable for presentation to a king - see Ps. 72:15 (gold), Isaiah 60:6 (gold and frankincense), Ps. 45:8 (anointing a king with myrrh), Song of Songs 3:6, etc. (frankincense and myrrh); or they may be the materials used by magicians: by offering them to Jesus, they are declaring the end of their practices.

MARY, MOTHER OF GOD

The shepherds went in haste to Bethlehem and found Mary and Joseph,and the infant lying in the manger.

Lk 2:16-21

Luke's exquisite nativity story is compounded of three ingredients—prophecy, history, and symbolism— which are so thoroughly intermingled that it is hardly possible to separate them. He does not claim in so many words that any prophecy was fulfilled; but, just as the prophecies of Mal. 3:1-4:6 and Is. 7:14 underlie the messages of Gabriel to Zechariah and Mary, so here many strands from Mic. 5:2-5 are woven into the fabric of the narrative. This prophecy tells how in t town of Bethlehem a mother in travail is to give birth to a prince of ancient lineage, who will be shepherd of the scattered flock of Israel, standing in the glory of the Lord and extending his authority to the ends of the earth, with a proclamation of peace.

The point in the story that especially captured Luke's fancy was not just that Jesus was born in Bethlehem according to the old prediction, but that this promise of God came true because of an enactment of the Roman government. God was working his purpose out not only through the hesitancy of Zechariah, the exuberance of Elizabeth, and the quiet faith of Mary. Caesar Augustus too, like Cyrus in earlier days (Is. 45:1), had become the unwitting coadjutor of a salvation which would one day encompass his whole empire. For the modern historian the account of the census presents difficulties. But there can be no question about its symbolic value for Luke.

Nor is this the only symbolism in the story. There was no room for the Savior in the common guest-room of the inn, just as later the Son of man had no place to lay his head, the King of the Jews no throne but a cross. His first worshippers, the shepherds, despised by the orthodox because their occupation made them neglectful of religious observance are the forerunners of the multitude of humble folk who were to throng him in his public ministry. The angelic chorus anticipates the jubilation which rings throughout the gospel and especially the joy in heaven which Jesus declared to ensue upon the rescue of the lost sheep. And the wonder with which the shepherds' story was greeted prepares us for the deeper and more abiding wonder to come.


The Mosaic Law provided three ceremonies to follow on the birth of a male child (Lv 12, Ex 13:12, Nm 18:6). The first was circumcision, which took place on the eighth day from birth and was usually the occasion for the giving of the child's name (Jesus is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Joshua which means `the Lord is salvation'). Then, in the case of the firstborn, there was the rite of redemption by the payment of a five-shekel offering; this could be done any time after the first month. Finally, after forty days, there was the purification of the mother, who up till then was regarded as unclean and therefore disqualified from any form of public worship. The purification involved the sacrifice of a lamb and a turtledove or young pigeon, but the poor were allowed to substitute a second dove or pigeon for the lamb. Joseph and Mary made the poor man's offering. Luke appears to have confused the second and third ceremonies.

Advisory

I will probably not be  able to put up the usual exegesis for the coming two Sundays (Christmas and Mary, Mother of God).

4th SUNDAY OF ADVENT (B)

Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son,and you shall name him Jesus.

Lk 1:26-38

This story of the annunciation of the birth of Jesus, which is of the same kind as that of the birth of John the Baptist and which shows many similarities, takes place in far away Nazareth. The mission of Jesus is described at first as that of the traditional Messiah of Is 7:14; 9:6 and 2 Sam 7:14. 16 (vv.31-33), then as that of Son of God par excellence (v. 35; Rom 1:4). The virginal conception is a sign of this unique and mysterious sonship. Comparing the two annunciation stories we see how the superiority of Jesus to that of John is highlighted as well as that contrast between the faith of Mary and the unbelief of Zehariah.

v. 26. In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth…

Nazareth is unknown in the OT. It is an insignificant small village (Jn 1:46). Luke calls it a city just as he calls the villages of Bethlehem (2:4), Capernaum (4:31) and Naim (7:11).

v. 27. To a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.

The Greek word “parthenos” refers to a young girl (cf. Mt 25:1-13) and implies a virgin. The Mary is a virgin will be made explicit in the following text (v. 34), removing any ambiguity regarding her marriage.

Mary is said to be betrothed (engaged) to Joseph. In reality Mary is legally married to Joseph (see the use of the term in 2:5) but they do not yet live together (1:34). According to Jewish custom in fact a certain amount of time has to pass before the husband brings his wife to his home (Mt 25:1-13).

v. 28. And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

Hail may be translated as “be joyful” or “be glad”. The imperative in this context is not a common greeting in the Greek world. It may be an echo of the proclamation of salvation made to the daughter of Sion (Zep 3:14; Zec 9:9). It expresses the joy of the good news (1:14).

Favored one: This expression is presented as a name given to Mary. In the Bible the word is not found except in Sir 18:17 and Eph 1:6. It is in relation to the word “grace” that in the OT it means first of all the favor of the king (1Sm 16:22; 2Sm 14:22,16:4; 1Kgs 11:19; Est 2:17, 5:8, 7:3, 8:5 etc.), then it means the love of the beloved (Sg 8:10; Esth 2:17 etc.) (cf. v. 30).

The Lord is with you: These words are often found in vocation stories (Ex 3:12; Jgs 6:12; Jer 1:18. 19, 15:20; cf. Gn 26:24, 28:15).

v. 29. But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be.

The word used to describe the reaction of Mary is stronger than that of Zechariah in 1:12 since the greeting of the angel enabled Mary to catch a glimpse of her singular calling.

Unlike Zechariah Luke does not say that fear came upon Mary as in 1:12; instead Luke presents her as pondering over the message of the angel (cf. 1:34 and 2:19). Mary seeks to penetrate the mystery of this unexpected revelation.

v. 31. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.

As in 1:13 the angel takes up again the birth prophecies of the OT. The nearest text is Is 7:14 (cf. Mt 1:23). The name “Jesus” is not explained here as in Mt 1:21 (God saves), but Jesus shall be called Savior in 2:11 (cf. 1:69. 71. 77; 2:30; 3:6).

v. 32. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father…

Unlike John (1:15), Jesus is undeniably great.

In contrast to 1:35 here the title of “Son (of God)” is the classic name of the king, son of David (2Sm 7:14; Ps 2:7; 89:27).

The name of “Most High”, used frequently for God in Hellenism and in the Greek OT, is used in the NT only by Luke (Lk 1:35. 76; 6:35; 8:28; Acts 7:48; 16:17) together with Mk 5:7 and Heb 7:1.

v. 33. And he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

This nationalistic messianism will be superseded in 2:32.

v. 34. But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”

Mary asks a question like Zechariah in 1:18. But while the question of Zechariah showed his unbelief (v. 20), that of Mary is received by the angel as inspired by faith which seeks understanding (vv. 35-36; cf. v. 45). In this narrative the question served to introduce a more complete revelation of the mystery of Jesus (cf. 35).

I have no relations with a man?: Literally, I do not know man. It is used in the Bible to refer to marital relationship (Gn 4:1. 17. 25; 19:8; 24:16 etc.) Mary, who is married to Joseph, is a virgin (v. 27). The angel announces to her that she is to be a mother (v. 31). As in Jgs 13:5. 8, she understands this at once. Thus she objects that she has had no marital relations with Joseph, and her question introduce the revelation of the angel.

Some suppose that the meaning of Mary’s question is: I do not wish to know any man (that is, I do not wish to have a marital relation with any man). In this case, she expresses her desire to remain a virgin. But the present tense of the verb indicates a state and not a desire.

v. 35. And the angel said to her in reply, “The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

One may notice the parallel and contrast with 1:17 where John is invested with the spirit and the power of Elijah. As in the OT to the Spirit is attributed the creative and life-giving action of God (Gn 1:2; Ps 104:30) as well as the investiture of the Messiah (Is 11:1-6).

“Overshadow”: In Ex 40:35; Nm 9:18. 22; 10:34 this expression refers to the effective presence of the Lord among his people (Lk 9:34). This Biblical language is very far from that of pagan stories of divine procreation which are full of eroticism.

“Holy”: This term which means belonging to God in an exclusive way is one of the most ancient expressions of the divinity of Jesus (Acts 3:14; 4:27. 30; cf. 4:34).

An alternative translation would be: “Therefore, the child to be born will be holy and shall be called Son of God”. For Luke as well as for the OT (2Sm 7:14) the title “Son of God” refers to the Messiah (cf. Lk 4:34 e 41; Acts 9:20 and 22); But Luke also uses it as an expression par excellence of the mysterious relationship which unites Jesus with God. In his gospel, he never puts it on the lips of men (as Mt does in 14:33; 16:16; 27:40. 43.54; and Mk in 15:39). Luke only uses it on the lips of the Father (3:22; 9:35), of an angel (in this case), of evil spirits (4:3. 9. 41; 8:28) and of Jesus (10:22; cf. 20:13). At the end of the message of Gabriel the title “Son of the Most High” is recalled (v. 32) and then superseded by “Son of God” which highlights the new fullness of the divine sonship of Jesus (cf. 22:70).

v. 37. For nothing will be impossible for God.

In Gn 18:14 this expression is used of the miraculous birth of Isaac.

v. 38. Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.

See Ru 3:9 and 1Sm 25:14.

More than an expression of humility, it is one of faith (v. 45) and of love since in the Bible to be a servant of God is a title of glory.

3rd SUNDAY OF ADVENT (B)

He said:“I am ‘the voice of one crying out in the desert. Make straight the way of the Lord.'”

Jn 1:6-8.19-29

v.6. A man named John was sent from God.

John's testimony helped others to believe, but his own belief and therefore his capacity to bear witness to others came by direct inspiration from God. This theme is also recognized in the Synoptics (e.g. Matt. 16'7: `Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona ! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.') and in Paul (e.g. 1 Cor. 123).

v. 7. He came for testimony, to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him.

The Greek word for testimony can be almost transliterated into the English word `martyr'. The evangelist recognizes many persons and acts as witnessing to Jesus Christ. By the time this Gospel was written some of the more tragic meanings of `martyr' were already being recognized.

v. 19. And this is the testimony of John. When the Jews from Jerusalem sent priests and Levites [to him] to ask him, “Who are you?”

The Synoptics report no such embassy, though it is highly probable that some report on all such reformers as, the Baptist would be sought by the authorities.

v. 20. He admitted and did not deny it, but admitted,o “I am not the Messiah.”

A typical piece of Johannine style, to give emphasis and weight to what follows, viz. a negative confession of the Christ.

v. 21. So they asked him, “What are you then? Are you Elijah?”* And he said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No.”

In current Jewish belief it was hoped that Messiah (Christ) would come. Many had apparently thought that John was he. Elijah was expected, on the basis of Malachi as the Messiah's herald. It was further expected that one of the prophets would return (cf. 1 Macc. 4:46; 14:41; 4 Ezra 2:18). It is clear from Mark 8:28 that the appearance of Jesus had caused many to identify him with Elijah, or one of the prophets: it is not therefore surprising, nor in any way impossible, that similar eschatological hopes were raised by the activity of John. But the important point here is the evangelist's removal of the whole Baptist-Christ relationship for interpretation from the realm of such apocalyptic hopes. What is taking place in Christ is not just a scene in a drama, but the coming of the eternal Son into the world of time and history.

v. 23. He said:“I am ‘the voice of one crying out in the desert, “Make straight the way of the Lord,”’ as Isaiah the prophet said.”

For all the impropriety of identifying the Baptist with a figure of apocalyptic Judaism, John now claims before his questioners a significance truly based in the one authority they recognize - the scripture. He is `a voice crying in the wilderness' - one who speaks from a situation in which the fulfillment of God's promise is still future, as Israel's situation in the days of (second) Isaiah long ago. His cry is `Make straight the way of the Lord'. His duty is to prepare for the coming of the Lord - the one God of the Old Testament religion who was shortly to be identified, to the bewilderment of the Jews, with Jesus of Nazareth.

v. 26. John answered them, “I baptize with water; but there is one among you whom you do not recognize….

`I baptize with water': This underlines the relatively insignificant, preparatory, provisional character of John's baptism - and that of Jewish ablutions and purificatory washings. Water cleanses, but temporarily. And in so far as baptism in the water of the Jordan is concerned, neither John nor the Pharisees were of the stature or possessed of the authority to declare any baptism so far practiced as the entry into the life of the new people or Israel of God. All that John and the authorities could do belonged to the stage preparatory to the beginning of the new Israel.

But there is one among you whom you do not recognize….: John, supernaturally enlightened for his mission (1:6 cf. Mark 1:7; Luke 1:15f.), knows that the Son-Messiah is among the Jews, though as yet unmanifested. When he is, then John's true non-significant significance will be evident.

v. 27. …the one who is coming after me, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to untie.

Whose sandal strap I am not worthy to untie.: This service was a performed by slaves, who had no status and no rights. John is saying that he has no status compared with the coming one, and no rights even to be a person with no rights in the New Israel of God.

v. 28. This happened in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

There is textual support for Bethabara, where, according to a local tradition, John baptized. This enables the reader to avoid confusion with the Bethany where Lazarus lived, and whither (according to the evangelist [10:40; 11:6f]) he from the place where John first baptized. But it is as easy to understand the evangelist's statements in 11:1ff as a careful attempt to differentiate for the reader between two places with the same name.

2nd SUNDAY OF ADVENT (B)

And this is what he proclaimed: “One mightier than I is coming after me. I am not worthy to stoop and loosen the thongs of his sandals."

Mk 1:1-8

The first eight verses might seem to be devoted entirely to John the Baptist, but in fact they have much to say about the credentials of Jesus. For they treat John almost exclusively in his capacity as the forerunner of the Mighty One - or Messiah, though he was a considerable person in his own right and St Mark knew a good deal more about him (cf. 2:18 and 11:32).

In verses 2 and 3, passages are quoted from the Old Testament which show that the Messiah would be preceded by a forerunner, and then the subsequent account of John is almost exclusively directed to showing that he was that prophesied forerunner. Thus the point of mentioning that he lived and worked 'in the wilderness' is that he thereby fulfilled the prophecy. St Mark has no interest in locating the wilderness or helping his readers to do so; it is simply the wilderness of the prophecy.

The whole population came out to be baptized by him. This is hardly to be taken literally. The point is that nothing less than a national repentance would constitute the expected messianic preparation.

Even in v.6 the point is not simply historical. It was widely believed, on the basis of Malachi 4:5-6 that the prophesied forerunner would prove to be Elijah returned to earth, and so it is highly significant that the account of John's clothes is an almost exact echo of the account of Elijah's clothing in 2 Kings 1:8.

One historical fact about John which did not immediately tie up with the prophecies was yet too prominent to be omitted, namely the fact that he baptized. Yet even this is brought into conformity with the prophecies, for it is presented as something he “proclaimed” (v. 4). The prophecies had spoken of a 'messenger' or 'proclaimer', 'the voice of one who cries'. It is also noteworthy that when John is heard explaining his baptism, the only point he really makes about it is that it is no more than a preparatory rite, not to be compared with the baptism of the coming ‘mightier one'. That, and the explicit prophecy of the immediate coming of the mightier one, exhaust the teaching of John as reported by St Mark, though in fact John had his own message of social righteousness to proclaim and St Mark almost certainly knew of it. As a result, by the end of v. 8 the reader has the overwhelming impression that the herald of the Messiah has come and so the stage is fully set for the entry of the Messiah himself. Whoever next appears at that place and time must surely be the Messiah. And thus St Mark continues: “It happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John” (v. 9).

CONTEMPORARY JEWISH BELIEFS

The Jews looked back with yearning to the days of the prophets, for in their own day God seemed in some ways very remote. The Holy Spirit had not been sent since the days of the prophets and the voice of God which had spoken directly to the prophets was no longer. heard direct - even the holiest rabbis were allowed to hear only the echo of it, the 'daughter of the voice' (bath qol) as it was called. In the old days, it was believed, God had been in the habit of piercing through the heavens to come to men's assistance (cf. Pss. 18:9, 144:5, 2 Sam. 22:10), but now, despite entreaties (Is. 64:1), that seemed a thing of the past; the sky had become a fixed barrier between heaven and earth and seemed likely to remain so, as far as the ordinary course of history was concerned. If the Jews were not without hope, that was because, as we have seen, they looked for a decisive deliverance by the hand of God himself. The heavens would once again be rent asunder and the voice and Spirit of God would descend to earth.

EXEGESIS

v. 1. The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ [the Son of God].

In another sensethe beginning is at 1:14.

Some MSS. (manuscripts) omit the words “the Son of God”, and it is hard to decide whether they are original. But the question is not of great importance, since St. Mark certainly believed that Jesus was the Son of God and that belief underlies the whole Gospel.

vv. 2-3. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “Behold, I am sending my messenger ahead of you; he will prepare your way. A voice of one crying out in the desert: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.’”

“In Isaiah the Prophet”: In fact verses 2 and 3 are a composite prophecy taken from Mal. 3:1 and Is. 40:3. The mistake may have arisen because the Malachi quotation was added later, or possibly St Mark took the texts, already combined, from a testimony-book, i.e. a collection of passages from the Old. Testament put together by the early Church as throwing light on the life and work of Christ.

In the Old Testament it was God himself for whom the forerunner was to prepare, and certain small changes have been introduced into the texts to make the quotations refer to Christ. This should not be taken as a sign of dishonesty or intention to deceive. Neither Christians nor Jews approached the Old Testament along the lines of modern historical or critical study. Both agreed that such passages as these referred to God's eschatological intervention, and if in the event, as Christians believed, God had chosen to intervene in the person of his Messiah, then it was right to rephrase the prophecy so as to put its precise application beyond doubt. It was their way of doing what we should perhaps do by means of an exegetical note.

vv. 4ff. John [the] Baptist appeared in the desert proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. People of the whole Judean countryside and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River as they acknowledged their sins.

There is no need to attempt here the full account of John that St Mark does not attempt. Suffice it to say that he was certainly a historical character, famous for his powerful moral teaching. See Mt. 3:1ff, Luke 1:5-80, and the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities, XVIII, 5, 2).

Despite Josephus, it is probably true that his life and teaching were controlled by expectations of the imminent coming of the kingdom of God (cf. Matt. 3:1). What he promised was that, if men would truly repent of their sins, his cleansing of their bodies in water might be an effective sign of the cleansing of their souls from guilt, so that they could become members of the New Israel, cleansed and ready for the coming judg ment.

Where the Christian tradition may perhaps have exaggerated was in suggesting - St Mark does not actually say it - that already at this early stage John identified Jesus as the coming one he was expecting. The Church may also have sharpened somewhat the contrast John drew between the messianic baptism and his own. Perhaps in fact he merely faced people with the choice: “Either my ‘water baptism’ now for forgiveness, or, very soon, the Messiah's ‘fire-baptism' - i.e. the painful prospect of (condemning) judgment.

v. 4. John [the] Baptist appeared in the desert proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

“Repentance”: The Greek word (metanoein) means literally 'to change one's mind', but as it is used in the New Testament, it comes very near to the Old Testament word shubh (' to turn back', cf. e.g. Joel2:12-13), implying a coming to one's senses, a deliberate turning away from one's sinful past towards God, with the corollary of a change in conduct. A. Richardson (A Theological Word Book oj the Bible, p. 192) states that 'in its New Testament usage it implies much more than a mere" change of mind"; it involves a whole reorientation of the personality, a "conversion".'

v. 6. John was clothed in camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist. He fed on locusts and wild honey.

“Wild honey”:Honey from wild bees, though some think a plant product is meant.