Second Sunday in Ordinary Time B January 18, 2009

Gospel, John 1:35-42  We read a lot about John the Baptist during Advent and again at the Baptism of Christ. I suggested that John the Baptist received so much attention in the gospels because a significant number of people throughout the regions the apostles were evangelizing had received the baptism of John, either directly at his hand or through his disciples. The evangelists used the person and ministry of John as a bridge to that of Jesus. The fact that the fourth gospel, traditionally believed to have been written at a much later date than the other three, gave so much attention to John, even to having him state directly of Jesus, “Behold, the Lamb of God”, indicates how strong and enduring was the effect of John’s ministry. In the gospels of Matthew and Mark, Peter first meets Jesus while putting nets in order down at the lakefront, at which time Jesus calls Peter to follow him. Luke presents a similar lakefront call, but has the initial encounter take place following the synagogue service with Jesus going to Peter’s house to heal his mother-in-law. John’s gospel gives a different scenario with Andrew, previously a disciple of John the Baptist, coming to Jesus first and then bringing Peter to Jesus. His question on meeting Jesus, “Where are you staying?” let Jesus know Andrew wanted to spend more time with him than just a quick interview on the spot. The mention of it being about “four in the afternoon”, literally “the tenth hour”, would have special significance if they were approaching the beginning of the Sabbath which began at sunset or around the twelfth hour. Since Jewish people were not to do unnecessary work on the Sabbath, Andrew and his companion would spend the day in prayer and conversation with Jesus…a wonderful encouragement for us to honor the Day of the Lord by spending time with Jesus in prayer /conversation. Regarding the name used for Simon Peter, “Cephas” is the Hebrew word for “rock”, the same as “Petros” in Greek.

Reading 1, 1 Samuel 3:3b-10,19  Eli and his sons functioned as priests at the sanctuary in Shiloh at which the tabernacle with the ark of the Lord was kept (the ark would not be transferred to Jerusalem until the time of King David). Hannah, a childless woman getting along in years, had gone to Shiloh to petition the Lord for a child, promising that her child would be dedicated to the Lord’s service. Eli, observing her emotional sobbing, thought her to be drunk and reprimanded her. On learning what was actually going on, he blessed her. Hannah conceived and gave birth to Samuel. After he was weaned, Hannah and her husband brought the boy and turned him over to Eli’s care and direction. Thus, Samuel, as a young boy, helped Eli at the sanctuary. The good-hearted boy must have been a good companion and solace to Eli whose heart was grieved by his own sons who had “respect neither for the Lord nor for the priests’ duties toward the people” (1 Samuel 2:12). In this beautiful recounting of little Samuel learning to recognize the voice of the Lord, we all would do well to pray in the words old Eli taught the youth: “Speak, Lord, for your servant is listening.”

Reading II, 1 Corinthians 6:13c-15a, 17-20   What does it mean that “the Lord is for the body”? In the first part of verse 13 (not included in this reading) Paul refers to a popular saying of the time: “food for the belly and the belly for food”, a rationale for indulging in feasting and partying…the belly’s purpose…if it tastes good, why not enjoy it. Undoubtedly some people applied the same logic to sexual license…the body for sexual immorality. Paul corrects that logic with a similar juxtaposition of terms as in the saying about food and belly: “the body is for the Lord and the Lord for the body.” Now the saying makes sense. The purpose of the body, as God has created it, is to give honor to the Lord. Elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, Paul refers to the body as the “temple of the Lord” (3:16-17 and here quoted in 6:19). The Lord is for the body as its creator who will “change our lowly body to conform with his glorified body” (Phil. 3:21). So, glorify God by using the body for the purpose for which it was created.

Response to a reader's comment: "Just to be clear, Fr. Dempsey, you are instructing readers to accept as a historical fact Herod's dispatching of a specific grouping of 'Magi'--is that correct?"

The reader brings up a very good point regarding the historicity of scriptural accounts.  What actually took place? Did things happen exactly in the manner in which they are recorded in the bible?   Did some texts undergo significant editing?  Was some material included in the gospel accounts which did not actually take place?   Take, for example, the geneologies of Jesus presented in Matthew and Luke.  They are markedly different in both the names included and the number of generations.  At least one of the two is not historically accurate.  It seems probable that Matthew intentionally edited the list to arrange names in groups of 14 (2 x 7, the number symbolic of perfection for Jewish people) to teach theological truths about Jesus, truths more important to him than scientifically accurate history.  Is the gospel, then, not true?  Better to look at the intent of the author and seek out the theological truths presented.  The four gospels often present the same event in different formats or changing details, so it is evident that the authors felt a certain editorial licence to rework the details of an event to better get across theological points.  Is it possible that that extended as well to insertion of events that didn't actually take place?    Consider the infancy narratives in Luke.  If shepherds had told everyone about the angels' appearance and identifying the child, would not someone have remembered it years later?  What about Jesus spending three days in the temple impressing the teachers of the Law with his questions and answers...would they not have noted the event or at least have contacted a rabbi from the Nazareth area to do some follow-up?  Some scholars believe these accounts are purely theological in nature, not actual historical facts, written as a sort of children's version of the adult story of Jesus.  In the case of the magi, we know the group did exist and advised kings, even the Roman emperor on at least one occasion.  We know that King Herod was paranoid and had had members of his own family put to death.  The magi could have come, and King Herod was capable of attempting to have the competition killed, be it a very tiny baby. Nevertheless, there are no extra-biblical accounts of the visit, and it is logical to assume that someone would have noted the news brought by the magi for future reference.  As the reader noted, many scholars believe this to be a purely theological rather than historical account, perhaps a way of emphasizing that Jesus came for people of all nations and backgrounds.   Having Joseph and Mary go down to Egypt, then, could be interpreted in the same way since there would have been no reason to go to Egypt...to have Jesus come out of Egypt as with the account of the exodus.  My intention with this or any other brief commentary is not to "instruct you to accept as historical fact" the visit of the magi or any other aspect of scripture for that matter.  Applying the criteria of outside evidence from extra-biblical sources, some people choose not to accept the resurrection of Jesus as true historical fact.  Although reference is made to people believing in the resurrection of Jesus, it is not recorded anywhere other than in the gospels.  In my limited scope here, I try to give a bit of background to things mentioned in the readings, at times as in this case without focusing on the question of where things fall on the spectrum from verifiable historical fact to strictly theological overlay.  How you choose to interpret texts and what you choose to believe is up to you.  

Comments

[moncler jacket store]

Your article is too interesting, I was deeply attracted to your work, let people indulge in pleasures without stop I enjoy your articles