The Way of the Son of God Matthew 4:1-11

KAALAGAD Gospel Reflection – March 1, 2020
First Sunday of Lent

Matthew 4:1-11

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished. 3 The tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.”  4 But he answered, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone,  but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” 5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 saying to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you,’and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.’”  7 Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” 8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; 9 and he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” 10 Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! for it is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God,     and serve only him.’” 11 Then the devil left him, and suddenly angels came and waited on him.

The Way of the Son of God

In Mario Puzo’s novel The Godfather, adapted into the big screen by Francis Ford Coppola, one of the central characters Don Vito Corleone makes a fortune by building and maintaining a highly successful Mafia empire. His career is nicely summed up in the words, “Behind every great fortune there is a [great] crime.” No wonder Mario Puzo, who credits Balzac, used these words as the epigraph to the novel.

Vito Corleone is what the destitute and the hopeless might regard as a savior-figure. Indeed Corleone is godlike. He is a source of livelihood. He offers protection. Everything seems to be under his control.

By the time the gospel text for today was composed, there already had been a variety of expectations concerning the son of God. The three well-known temptations are noteworthy precisely because they seem to reveal some of the popular Jewish expectations concerning how they thought the Messiah would behave. Many seemed to have expected that the miraculous turning of stones into loaves of bread will be what the Messiah would normally do. Others thought that a display of power such as jumping from the pinnacle of the temple was necessary precisely because this will prove, in a decisive manner, that indeed he is the son of God. Still others thought that the Messiah will claim or conquer the world’s kingdoms, for how can he be able to liberate his people if he does not own, or is not in control of the kingdoms?

It is not difficult to see that the act of turning stones into bread seems to reveal not only the basic human instinct for survival and but also of instant gratification. The picture of one jumping off the steeple reveals the basic human desire not only for supernatural divine intervention but also guaranteed protection from harm (as beautifully expressed in Psalm 91 which the devil used in the passage). Finally, ownership of the kingdoms of the world seems to reveal the human impulse to control the daily transactions of life.

There seems to be nothing wrong if Jesus yielded to these temptations especially if the point was to showcase God’s provision, or God’s supernatural power to intervene and to protect him from harm. Moreover, there seems to be nothing wrong if indeed the point was to show that he is sovereignly in control of the world, to which the term “Lord” is not uncommonly meant to refer.

But this should make the reader wonder: What if in the story Jesus turned stones into bread? What if he jumped from the pinnacle of the temple? What if he chose to own the kingdoms of this world? Yes, he may have proved to satisfy hunger. Yes, he may have boasted to have secured guaranteed protection. Yes, he may have claimed to be simply in charge, Lording over the kingdoms of this world. And because of this, people will inevitably come to trust in him for their livelihood, and to trust him to protect them from harm because he is in control of everything. Having chosen this route, however, is it not the case that Jesus would have ended up looking somewhat like Vito Corleone?

In this first Sunday of Lent, it is absolutely worth pondering why Jesus refused to be just another Vito Corleone, and why he restrained himself by choosing the way of the cross, which in today’s passage is expressed or implied in the words “Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.”

Christopher Sabanal 

Asian Theological Seminary
KAALAGAD Member

A Theology of Nonviolence - Matthew 5:38-48

KAALAGAD Gospel Reflection – February 23, 2020
Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time
Matthew 5:38-48

 Jesus said to his disciples:

“You have heard that it was said,

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil.

When someone strikes you on your right cheek,

turn the other one as well.

If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic,

hand over your cloak as well.

Should anyone press you into service for one mile,

go for two miles.

Give to the one who asks of you,

and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.

“You have heard that it was said,

You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.

But I say to you, love your enemies

and pray for those who persecute you,

that you may be children of your heavenly Father,

for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good,

and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.

For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have?

Do not the tax collectors do the same?

And if you greet your brothers only,

what is unusual about that?

Do not the pagans do the same?

So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

 Do not resist evil.

Turn the other cheek.

Walk two miles more.

Give him your tunic.

Love your enemies.

Pray for your persecutors.

A THEOLOGY OF NONVIOLENCE

These words in the Sermon on the Mount seem to be a central part of the Christian tradition. Forgiveness, love of enemy, non-violence: these define our Christian identity. “If we only love those who love us, what reward do we expect?” The martyrs were portrayed as joyfully singing to their death among the lions.

If these commands were personal injunctions, they may still be manageable. Still difficult but possible. To keep quiet in the face of insult; to give continuing service to one who does not appreciate it; to pray for those who wish my downfall – provide occasions to practice self-restraint, to accept personal idiosyncrasies, or to keep on caring for people we love no matter what the cost.

But it becomes more complicated when applied to social relations enmeshed in asymmetric and hegemonic power.

Today, the charges of “sedition” are hurled left and right against critics of this regime. For instance, is the showing of Bikoy videos constitute a conspiracy to sedition, creating hatred against the president and his family, stirring tumult among the people, and intending to topple the government “by force”? Is it seditious to report a crime?

We push the question further: Is inciting to “sedition” immoral? Is the rhetoric of force in the midst of violent tyranny un-Christian? Does Christian forgiveness and compassion mean passive submission to systemic evil?

On the one hand, there are Christians who profess “absolute pacifism” – unconditionally rejecting in all circumstances any form of physical force to achieve political, economic of social goals. Many Christians, mostly Duterte supporters, tell us: just pray for the President, do not sow hate and discord, preach the gospel of peace and forgiveness. As priests, that is what you are supposed to do, they remind me.

But we soon realize that non-violent pacifism has many faces.

Take the case of Mahatma Gandhi. Millions of Indians liberated themselves from British rule through “active non-violence” guided by satyagraha (which literally means ‘truth force’). It was a use of force, the force of truth. Gandhi’s march (March 12 – April 6, 1930) was not a passive submission to evil but militant protest which was seen as seditious by the Empire. It was an act of rebellion, a symbolic breaking of the Salt Law, a call to civil disobedience to bring down colonial power. There were no arms and bullets, of course. But it was seen as a war of defiance, a confrontation with evil, in the words of Gandhi, “a battle of right against might.” He was even imprisoned together with his 60,000 followers. He was seditious. During the march, after his morning prayer, with a lump of salt, Gandhi said: “With this, I am shaking the foundations of the British Empire.” And crumble it went. The rest is history.

The great Protestant preacher, Martin Luther King, Jr. learned from Mahatma Gandhi. This was also Martin Luther King’s response in the bus company boycott in Montgomery in 1955-1956 and subsequent campaigns. These large scale US demonstration later led to 40,000 black bus drivers to boycott their work until the black segregation ended. King was reacting not only to white supremacy but also to the “purist” but also self-righteous stance of Christian’s absolute pacifism.

In the ideal world, one can trust in human goodness to forge peace or institute justice. But in the realpolitik of everyday living and asymmetric social power, strategic force – in whatever nonviolent form one can imagine – becomes necessary to free the oppressed, to incapacitate the abusive ruler, or to stop the dictator from killing more people.

Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King are not alone. Pope Paul VI went even further; he recognized the moral sense of “revolutionary uprisings” in the context of “manifest, longstanding tyranny”.

“The injustice of certain situations cries out for God's attention. Lacking the bare necessities of life, whole nations are under the thumb of others; they cannot act on their own initiative; they cannot exercise personal responsibility… Everyone knows, however, that revolutionary uprisings—except where there is manifest, longstanding tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country—engender new injustices, introduce new inequities and bring new disasters” (Populorum Progressio, 30-31).

My point is simple: there is no universal theology of non-violence that floats free regardless of historical contexts and theological traditions. There is also no such theology of non-violence that is predetermined from the start. This is the reason for the Catholic Social Teachings’ acknowledgement of the use of violence in most difficult contexts, even as it strongly cautions the faithful against its long-term effects.

 In short, a theology of non-violence is always a product of its context as individual or groups discern for an honest Christian response in their difficult circumstances.

New Testament studies show that Jesus did not tell his followers to use violence to promote the Kingdom. He did not succumb to the Zealot’s temptation. However, he did not also advise a retreat to Qumran among the Essenes. He asked his disciples to engage the real world.

Whether the renunciation of force (or the use of it) as the prerequisite of the “following of Jesus” cannot be determined from the beginning or decided in a vacuum. It can only be honestly and painfully discerned in context. It is not an easy deductive enterprise. Like Jacob, it is always an act of “wrestling with God” in the process of asking what his name is.

The journey of Dietrich Bonhoeffer – from being a pacifist, to helping plot Hitler’s assassination, to kneeling before his execution to the gallows – is well-known.

We stand on the shoulders of some great theologians before us. I seriously take the products of their own reflections on this matter. They keep me thinking. Their challenge strikes at the heart of the Philippine situation today.

In Jesus Before Christianity, Albert Nolan gives a helpful reminder:

 “Jesus was not a pacifist in principle, he was a pacifist in practice, that is to say, in the concrete context of his time. We do not know what he would have done in other possible circumstances. But we can surmise that if there had been no other way of defending the poor and the oppressed and if there had been no danger of escalation of violence, his unlimited compassion might have overflowed temporarily into a violent indignation… However, even in such cases, violence would be a temporary measure with no other purpose than the prevention of some more serious violence. The kingdom of total liberation for all men cannot be established by violence. Faith alone can enable the kingdom to come” (Jesus Before Christianity, 111).

The great theologian Karl Rahner writes:

 “The principle of absolute renunciation of force would not be a Christian principle. It would be a heresy which misunderstood the nature of man [sic], his sinfulness and his existence in the interplay of persons in the one space of material being. An order of freedom would be misunderstood, if it were taken to be an order of things in which force was considered reprehensible on principle. A fundamental and universal renunciation of physical force of all kinds is not merely impracticable. It is also immoral because it would mean self-destruction of the subject who is responsible to God.” (Theological Investigations Vol. 4, 399).

 I am back to my first questions: Is inciting to “sedition” immoral? Is the rhetoric of force in the midst of violent tyranny un-Christian? Does Christian forgiveness and compassion mean passive submission to systemic evil?

Daniel Franklin E. Pilario, C.M.
St. Vincent School of Theology
Adamson University

The Rule of Law - Matthew 5:17-37

KAALAGAD Gospel Reflection – February 16, 2020
6th Sunday in Ordinary Time
Matthew 5:17-37

 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

“You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire. So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift. Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell. “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

“Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.’ But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’ or ‘No, No’; anything more than this comes from the evil one.

 The Rule of Law

To the ordinary Jew, Jesus was a prophet, a miracle worker, a wise teacher, a man of God.

But to the Temple officials, He was a deranged person, a rabble rouser, and a Law Breaker: He healed people on the Sabbath, He did not observe the hand-washings prescribed by the Law, He consorted with sinners and, worst of all, he was openly contemptuous of the Scribes and Pharisees, the self-proclaimed ‘protectors’ of the Law! So they watched his every word and action, for an excuse to get rid of Him.


But they were wrong, as Jesus declared at the Sermon on the Mount (Mat. 5:17-ff):

“Do not think that I have come to remove the Law and the Prophets;
I did not come to remove the Law and the prophets but to fulfill them.
I tell you this, as long as heaven and earth last, not the smallest letter or stroke of the Law will change until all is fulfilled…….”
     
What Law then were the enemies of Jesus accusing Him of breaking?
And inversely, what Law was Jesus declaring as ‘irremovable’, the Law that He’d come to fulfill?
Biblical exegetes point to four different uses of the expression The Law among the Jews:

One, to refer to the Ten Commandments; Two, to refer to the first five books of the Bible, known as the Pentateuch, which the Jews regard as the most important part of the Bible; Three, they use the  phrase ‘the Law and the Prophets’ to refer to the whole of Scripture (or, what we today call the Old Testament); and Four, to refer to the Oral or Scribal Law.

William Barclay, in his biblical commentary, explains that this Oral or Scribal Law was the creation of a ‘race of men called the Scribes, who made it their business to reduce (or, elucidate) the (Ten Commandments) to literally thousands upon thousands of rules and regulations.”  The Scribal Law was never written until the third century A.D. It was, instead, handed down in the memory of the Scribes. The Pharisees were men who separated themselves from the ordinary activities of life in order to observe and to teach these rules  and regulations.

The Gospels relate instances when Jesus did ‘break’ some of the rules and regulations stipulated by the Scribal law. But when He did, it was always in deference to service and compassion for the people. And he did lash out against the Scribes and Pharisees, the authors and practitioners, respectively, of the Scribal Law, calling them ‘hypocrites’, ‘blind guides’, ’brood of vipers, and ‘White-washed sepulchers’ (Mt.23:13-36). They were the ones He referred to when he warned the people ….I tell you, then, that if you are not righteous in a much broader way than the teachers of the Law and the Prophets, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven!”(Mt.5:20)

On the other hand, it was the Law handed down through Moses, not the Scribal Law, to which Jesus adhered strictly- the Law that He came to FULFILL. By this, Jesus meant that it was His sacred mission from the Father to bring out the full meaning of the foundational principles contained in the Law handed down through Moses.

William Barclay points out that if we look at the Ten Commandments, “….the whole meaning can be summed up in one word – respect, or even better, reverence”:  Reverence for God, for the Name of God, for the Day of God, Respect for parents, for life, for property, for personality, for the truth, and for another’s good name.”  Then Barclay concludes, “…. (Reverence and Respect) are the foundational principles of the Ten Commandments (The Law) – reverence for God and respect for ourselves and our fellowmen. Without them, there can no such thing as law.”

But Jesus had first said that long before, although, with much more authority, because that was how he had lived His whole life. When asked one day by a ‘teacher of the Law’, trying to trip Him, what He considered the ‘most important commandment in the Law’, Jesus answered, “You shall love (Reverence) the Lord your God….This is the first and the most important of the Commandments. But after this, there is another one, very similar to it: You shall love (Respect) your neighbor as yourself. The whole Law and the Prophets are founded on these two commandments.” (Mt. 22:35-40) If a law does not originate from and lead to love (reverence and respect), no law exists.

Governments and peoples often love to boast that they live and relate by the ‘rule of law’.  And we sincerely wish this were true. But measured against the yardstick laid down by Christ, we have reason to doubt this assertion.

A couple of illustrations:

Earlier this week, the US President Donald Trump, narrowly escaped being ousted from office for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress; this, despite the allegedly overwhelming evidence presented by his accusers. His Republican defenders, who voted to acquit him, claim that his actions, although admittedly ‘inappropriate’, did not break any law!

Also this week, the Philippine Government’s Solicitor General, is seeking for the withdrawal of the franchise of ABS-CBN to operate as a media corporation. It is an open secret that his move comes directly from the orders of Malacanang, which has a long-standing feud with ABS-CBN. Legally, the Solicitor General’s Office is not the proper body that grants or withdraws franchises. But, ‘what are we in power for’, right? So Solicitor Calida has invoked a ‘law’ known as the Quo Warranto to lodge his complaint. This is the same Quo Warranto law that SolGen Calida used to drive Supreme Court Chief Justice Sereno from office! And knowing this Government’s tricky ways of applying the ‘rule of Law’, Calida might yet succeed again!

And of course, we need mention the thousands upon thousands of victims of the diabolical War on Drugs and the Extra-Judicial Killings! Laws are abundant and clear, both ecclesiastical and civil, both human and divine: Life is sacred, Life is a gift from God, Thou shall not kill! Persons are presumed innocent unless proven guilty! Everyone is entitled to a day in court! etc. etc. Then, of a sudden, new ‘laws’ emerged: Addicts are the enemy, their life is worthless, they are dangerous, hunt them down, kill them. Then collect your price, and say: “Kasi Lumaban”

All laws must be rooted in and must lead to Love (i.e. Reverence for God & Respect for oneself and one’s fellows). We are obligated to obey such laws. But what if laws originate from other objectives other than love? What if laws are twisted and exploited in order to cheat, to intimidate,, to harm, to kill?

            “Every time we turn our heads the other way, when we see the law flouted,
              When we tolerate what we know to be wrong,
              When we close our eyes and ears to the corrupt,
                      because we are too busy  or too frightened,
              When we fail to speak to speak up and speak out,
              we strike a blow against freedom, decency and justice.”
                                                                          (Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy)

BEN MORALEDA

KAALAGAD Member

Reading the Signs - Matthew 5:13-15

KAALAGAD Gospel Reflection – February 9, 2020

5th Sunday in Ordinary Time
Matthew 5:13-15

13“You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot. 14“You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. 15No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house.

Reading the Signs  

I wonder at times how Jesus does perceive his world. Does he see the first century Palestine in dire crisis? That something sinister is underway that must be immediately addressed otherwise social collapse is imminent?

No one, for sure, will miss the light and the salt in reading our text. Discussion on those metaphors are swarming and still mounting. The saints are ardently urged to shine brightly and stay salty.

Having them in focus, I wonder, on the other hand, if anyone has noticed the state of darkness and rottenness in the text. They are not in there, you are right. You cannot find them in the text. Inquisitive mind, however, would assume they are there, otherwise light and salt will have no use at all.

 This is to point out that shining and saltiness are not the end in itself. They were coaxed primarily to counter a prevailing condition, where in the condition of darkness and decay fit well.  And there the problem of religious language comes in, to understand the actual reference of those metaphors and figures of speech Jesus employed.

If we take “light” and “good deeds” as one and the same thing in the line that says, “…let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds,” we have a de facto reference of light therefore, which in most probability goes also with the salt.

Good works then must counter darkness and rottenness. And on this crucial speech he made, he perceives no other way to address them but good works. No magical utterance, no secret formula, no mystical travel but good deeds only.

 And Jesus is explicit as to what comprise these good deeds. We might see resemblance with Moses in Mount Sinai in the process of the making of the nation of Israel spitting up the constitution that will seal the covenant, and with Jesus uttering the “blessed” teachings that precede our text. The difference, however, is that Jesus was not laying down legal statutes like Moses, but somewhat of wisdom principles akin to the original shape of the Torah before it was officially turned to legal order as asserted by some scholars.

 The absence of coercive force means that the “blessed” principles now dubbed as “Beatitudes” must be internalized freely and willingly by the community or movement Jesus imagined. Internal the process might be, but it discourages personal piety or individual spirituality. It has its social dimension, or its entire goal is societal rather. It must save the world from rotting and darkness. Meaning, from all the evil the Beatitudes are trying to counter.

The goading to keep our saltiness intact and our light shine suggest the urgency of time. Jesus might have seen something ominous befalling to Israel. To act swiftly and surely is the call of the time. The fall of Israel, the destruction of the second temple and the consequent diaspora tell us clearly that for Jesus, perdition is coming.

 Damned is a nation that does not listen to its prophets, curse is when you cannot find one!


NESTOR M. RAVILAS

Penuel School of Theology