30th Sunday of Year A: Oct. 29, 2017

 May the good Lord grant you the grace not only to love your neighbour as yourself but to love him\her by sacrificing your life for him\her just as Jesus loved  us by dying on the cross for our sake. Happy Sunday! 

+ John Okoye

DOCTRINE AND FAITH

 (Exodus 22, 20-26; 1 Thess. 1, 5-10; Matt 22, 34-40: 30th Sunday of Year A: Oct. 29, 2017)

In today’s Gospel reading, the credibility of Jesus is again under attack. Last Sunday, he succeeded in silencing the Sadducees, the priestly and aristocratic group that were in sympathy with the Roman occupation. Now the Pharisees, a lay group that exerted significant influence among the people because of their knowledge and piety, set out to trick Jesus. One of them, a lawyer, or an expert in the Law asks Jesus to identify the most important commandment. This question was an issue of considerable interest to rabbis at the time, about which there seemed to have been little agreement. While the discussion in rabbinic circles was probably carried on for the sake of clarification, in the present hostile context, the question is posed in order to put Jesus to test. At this point, in history, the Law included 613 commandments, 365 prohibitions (one for each day of the year) and 268 prescriptions (one for each bone in the body). Although each law was considered binding because they had been delivered by Moses, some were regarded as heavy or very important and others were looked upon as less weighty. Presumably, the lawyer, whose very profession consisted of interpreting the Law, would have understood this better than Jesus, who was not a scribe. Despite the fact that this was a disputed question, whatever priority Jesus proclaim would most likely be challenged by some. If it appeared he was annulling a part of the Law, he could lose his status in the community as a teacher.

Jesus’s answer is faithful to his own Jewish faith. He does not single out any particular statute but rather endorses the summons that constitutes the Shema, the most significant prayer of the Israelite religion (See Deuteronomy 6,7). To the injunction to love God with all one’s heart and soul, Jesus adds with all your mind, probably for the purpose of emphasising the total engagement of the person. This is the way the love of God must occupy one’s entire being and not be simply a superficial allegiance. Jesus was asked to identify one commandment, and he offers two. The second, which is said to be like the first rather than second in importance, is a citation from the book of Leviticus (19, 18). Twice Jesus has reached into the biblical Law in order to answer the question posed to him. By bringing these admonitions together as he does, he shows that, though not identical, they are interrelated.  Placing his answer within the context of the Shema, he makes proclamation that there is no other God but this God, the controlling theme in his response. From this proclamation flows the responsibility to love God with one’s entire being and to love one’s neighbour as oneself. With his final statement: On these two commandants hang the whole Law and the Prophets also, Jesus demonstrates that singling out a dual commandment in no way abrogates the other commandments. He is not judging between the heavy and the less weighty requirements. Instead, he is asserting that the entire religious tradition, identified as the Law and the Prophets, is dependent upon this commandment of love. In other words, there is no genuine fulfillment of the Law that does not flow from love of God and love of others.

We may sometimes think that it is easier to love God than to love others. But, it may actually be just the opposite. Other people are tangible. We can see and hear them, interact with them. Their influence in our lives can permeate our consciousness. That is not the way it is with God. Like Moses on the mountain, we can only see the traces of divinity as God passes by (Cf. Exodus 33, 23). However, we show that we love God by loving what He loves; we that show we love God in the way we love our neighbour. The Sacred Scriptures goes as far as telling us that we really do not love God if we do not love others (1 John 4, 20). It is true that we love God when we love those who are such intimate part of our lives, but love like God’s love must be more expansive than this. If our love is open and generous like God’s love, we will care for widows, orphans and the abandoned, the aged that live alone in their homes near our quarters; we will visit and care for the sick, feed the hungry, especially the homeless, ones that are stranded in our streets; we will alleviate the suffering of those who are suffering from terminal diseases like AIDS and those with mental illness; we will also show love and compassion to the marginalised of our society.  If our love is open and generous like God’s love, we will do what we can as individuals and as groups to provide decent living conditions for people trapped in the prison of poverty, we will make sure that the sick child of my neighbour does not die for lack of medical attention by making available few naira and kobo for the child’s treatment of malaria or similar illness. If we love as God has loved us in Jesus Christ we will inconvenience ourselves for the comfort of neighbours.

In the second reading we see how the love of God and neighbour was practiced. Paul and his two companions, Silvanus and Timothy showed pastoral love as missionaries among the Thessalonians. Their manner of living converted the Thessalonians to the lifestyle of Paul and his companions. This conversion made such an extraordinary effect on their lives that they in turn made a comparable impact on the lives of others. The gospel message takes shape in the lives of believers and elicits a positive response from those with whom they have contact. Thus, the pastoral charity of Paul and his companions had ripple effects. The goodness and compassion of these missionaries made the Thessalonians renowned in the neighbouring territories. Love of God and neighbours encourages us to appreciate the good in the other. That is why Paul eulogies the Thessalonians, whom he just knew for a short time but for whom his heart was already pulsating in profound love. He was full of good words for their generosity of faith as they received the word of God with the joy of the Holy Spirit even in the midst of tribulations. We make bold to say that Paul’s eulogy on the Thessalonians was a manifestation of love and apostolic zeal he had for them. When one eulogises the other person, it is to encourage him in the path of virtue. We should be able to acknowledge the good we see in others and the good works they do. This is also a demonstration of delicate, positive and fecund love. It is all about the recognition of the good that others perform and to encourage others in doing such good works with the eventual effect that all will grow together in mutual love towards God and brothers and sisters. Love your God, love your neighbour and love one another the way I have loved you. These statements of Jesus are the most important of the ideals we have to pursue in life. Therefore, these sayings should be the principles of all we do and should give colour to all we do. When we use them as the motivating factor of all we think, say and do we will be seeing ourselves gradually being united with Christ and through him to the Blessed Trinity and to our brothers and sisters. Happy Sunday! +John I. Okoye

(graphics  by chukwubike )

29th Sunday of Year A, 22nd Oct. 2017

May the relationship between you and God, which God started in you by infusing into you the theological virtues of faith, charity/love and hope continue to grow to the extent that God will use you as instrument for the salvation of the world. Happy Sunday! + John I. Okoye

Doctrine And Faith

(Isaiah 45, 1.4-6; 1 Thess. 1, 1-4; Matt 22, 15-21: 29th Sunday of Year A, 22^nd Oct. 2017)

Today’s reading resembles a royal decree, a formal statement wherein God addresses a king in order to authorise him for some tasks, empower him to function in the capacity of that task, give legitimation to decisions he may make or to a plan of action on which he might embark or instruct him in the art of ruling. This particular royal decree is extraordinary by the fact that in it, it is the God of Israel that addresses a pagan king. The contents of this decree reveal God using as his instrument a non-Israelite in the salvation of the people of Israel. Cyrus was the Persian ruler who permitted the Israelites to return from captivity in Babylon to their homeland and rebuild the temple. Cyrus subdued nations, released captive kings so that they might serve him unfettered, threw open locked doors and barred gates in the spirit of freedom. All these were done for the sake of the Israelites (Jacob-Israel). This Cyrus, the foreigner, was the agent of the release of the Israelites, but their release is for the sake of the enlightenment of foreign nations. It is understandable for God to work through the Israelites. But if the God of a people is seen to work marvels through the instrumentality of another people, it is easy to conclude that there is but one God who works through all. This is precisely what is stated in this reading. There is no other God but the God of Israel. This God is the author of history and directs the events of life to follow his plans. He can use anybody, not only the believers, but also non-believers to realise his plans. He will even use us the more if we are docile, disposed to the insinuations of his graces. What we have to do in life is to  make effort to see things from God’s perspective and align our actions and deeds  accordingly.  

The episode in today’s gospel is common to the three Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). Once again Jesus is in a battle of wits with the religious leaders of the people. This time they are the ones who initiate it. While the purpose of the encounter is the entrapment of Jesus, the underlying issue is the possibility of being faithful both to God and to a secular state. The Pharisees did not seem to approve of the Gentile rule over the Jewish people. The Herodians, on the other hand, were Roman royalists. Within the ranks of the people, the Zealots vehemently opposed the occupation, while many others had made their peace with it and sometimes even benefited from it. Roman taxation was an issue that could easily cause people to take sides. It was with this issue that the Pharisees hoped to ensnare Jesus. They first flattered him, then set up the trap by asking him for an interpretation on a point of Roman law: Is it lawful for a Jew to pay taxes to Rome? The tax in question was probably the poll tax paid directly to Rome, evidence of political subjugation. If Jesus answers no, he can be accused of political insubordination of the type that might incite others to follow in violence. If he says yes, he would have appeared to have relinquished Israel’s boast of being a people bound only to God. In his reply, Jesus did not fall into the  snare of the Pharisees, neither did he incur an eventual shame nor put himself into political jeopardy/quagmire. In order to adequately respond to their question, he asked for a coin that could be used to pay the poll tax. The coin itself was abhorrent to the Jewish people, for it contained the image of Caesar along with titles that accorded him both political honour and divine status. Both of these features violated Jewish Law. In deference to Jewish sensitiveness, imageless copper coins were used in ordinary commercial exchange. At Jesus’ demand, the Pharisees produced the coin, and now they acknowledged that it contains the image of Caesar. Jesus directed them to give back or repay what is owed to both Caesar and God. Besides exonerating him from possible political or religious reproach, Jesus’ response suggests that one can indeed be loyal both to a religious tradition and to a secular power. It may be very difficult at times, especially where their claims seem to conflict, but it is possible.

In today’s second reading Paul thanks God for choosing Silvanus and Timothy as his co-apostles especially in founding and nurturing the young church in Thessalonica. The Israelites of the Old Testament prided themselves, with singular privilege, as God’s elect. But in virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ this privilege was extended to all the nations through faith in Jesus Christ.

 Indeed, every nation can now enjoy these privileges formerly reserved for the people of Israel. What and what could be the contents of the privileges? They are no other things than spiritual privileges of ardent faith, works of charity and constancy in hope. Their effort in manifesting these virtues in their lives was a clear indication of their election by God, who infused these theological virtues in them. Outwardly and humanly speaking, the Thessalonians were influenced by Paul’s preaching, but inwardly they were inspired and led by the Holy Spirit. Each one of us was infused with theological virtues of faith, love and hope at our baptism when we became the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit and entered into close relationship with the Blessed Trinity. Paul is thanking God today for the growth and manifestation of these theological virtues which God infused into the Thessalonians through him as an instrument. Will the priests who baptised us and through whom we became the elect of God be thankful to God for our spiritual growth? It is only and only if we remain in good relationship with God through living out the theological virtues can we begin to acquire the optic/perspective of God; when this becomes a reality, we will see things as God sees them and he will make of us instruments of evangelisation and expansion of his mission just as he used the pagan Cyrus of the first reading of today. It is, therefore, abiding in the friendship with God that we will be able to see things in the way Jesus saw it and will be able to maintain our religious traditions and still cooperate with political dispensation, regarding them as part of God’s design for our salvation. Happy Sunday? +John I. Okoye 

( graphics  by chukwubike)

28th Sunday of Year A, Oct. 15, 2017

May the rich graces of the good Lord be yours in abundance this Sunday to enable you accept  always and joyfully God's offer of salvation. 

Happy Sunday!  + John I. Okoye

DOCTRINE AND FAITH

(Isaiah 25, 6-10a; Philippians 4, 12-14.19-20; Mathew 22,1-14: 28th Sunday of Year A, Oct. 15, 2017)

Today’s reading taken from the prophecy of Isaiah is one of the Old Testament texts that offer a glimpse of hope for an era of bliss when God shall restore harmony in creation and set before his people a wonderful banquet. The idea of banquet here, in God’s own mountain, suggests fullness of life, emanating from God’s benevolence, munificence and care.  It is on this very mountain that God destroys death along with the pall and shroud that are symbols of death. Here death does not refer merely to the final demise but also anything that diminishes life. The reproach of God’s people certainly diminishes their full life. Removing that reproach is another case for rejoicing. The beneficiaries are not just the chosen people of God – the Israelites alone; but for all peoples. Two things come to mind here. First, it is God who, in his infinite love, takes the initiative. Secondly, the fact that all peoples without exception would be part of this great banquet underlines the universality of this offer.

An interesting aspect of this universal invitation to the divine banquet could be seen in the today’s gospel reading in the parable about the kingdom of God which Jesus narrates. Jesus likens the kingdom of God to a king who threw a wedding party for his son. When every thing was ready he sent his servants to call in the invitees. But the invitees make excuses which prevent them from taking part in the wedding feast. Insisting, the king sent another group of servants to persuade them to participate in the wedding feast. But the invitees still refused. They had interest in other matters. Some went to their farms and others to their businesses. They had no interest in the king’s invitation. Moreover, they were even hostile to the servants of the king. They insulted some and killed others. The king could not contain these and sent his troop to burn their town. As the banquet was already prepared, the king sent his servants to call in people who were not initially invited. As the king went round to see the guests he discovered one who was not wearing the wedding garment. At the order of the king, he was bound up and taken out of the banquet hall.

The parable lends itself to an allegorical interpretation that highlights various theological aspects. The king is certainly God who planned the eschatological (eschatology: the part of theology concerned with death, judgement, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind and deals with the final triumph of Christ when all creation will be subjected to him) banquet. The king’s son was Jesus. The servants were the prophets and other religious leaders who served God by calling others to union with God. This mission cost some of them their lives. The first set of guests, those who were originally invited, appear to have been respectable people who, when the final call came, were preoccupied with their own affairs Their culpable negligence or indifference was no insignificant matter. To refuse the invitation of the king was tantamount to political insubordination. The people who finally filled the wedding banquet hall were picked up at random. They were street people, both good and bad. They may not have enjoyed the social status of the first group of invitees, but they, at least,  accepted the invitation. The meaning of the wedding garment, which some interpret as  being in the state of grace, represented some aspect of righteousness. It shows that even though the invitation was given freely, there were still standards for its enjoyment. Note is to be taken of the final statement of Jesus: For many are called, but few are chosen. It captures the essence of the parable. The invitation to the wedding banquet was an offer to all. However, a much smaller number of people, actually, enjoyed participating in the celebration. The point that Jesus makes is that enjoyment of the eschatological time of fulfilment is open to all but guaranteed to none. 

One may blame the initial invitees to the banquet for their negligence and disregard to the king and clear selfish attitude: I cannot come! But is such an attitude not verifiable in our lives today? An invitation to the eschatological banquet, like the invitation to Holy Mass, to catechetical and bible lessons, to the regular meeting of the  CMO, CWO, CYON and other church engagements does not seem as important as sports events (eg. Chelsea v. Liverpool); social events like Igba Nkwu (traditional marriage ceremony ), funeral celebrations) and their likes. So much of our time and energy is spent trying to do the things that will lead to the acquisition of wealth and attaining heights in the social ladder. One does not say that the concerns of life are ignoble. But the fact remains that, even if we are interested in the banquet, we do not seem to afford the time and energy it might require. And so we send our regrets: I cannot come. Let us be reminded that everything is tending towards the end; time is moving toward the time of the banquet. All of our plans, interests, and distractions will one day cease. Only the banquet will remain, and we would have turned down our invitation. Who are the people who eventually came to the banquet? They were the street people. Those who finally came to the banquet are not necessarily better than those who turned down the invitation. However, they are the ones who recognised the value of the invitation, and they were also well aware of their own need. It seems that all God asks of us is that we receive the blessings that have been prepared for us. We need not work for them. In fact, we cannot work for them on our own. All we can do is to enjoy them. 

In the three readings of today, the part God plays shines out. Both in the first and the gospel readings, it is God who spreads the table and invites the people. His generosity and benevolence is seen in his patience in trying to persuade the first invitees to participate in the banquet. It is God who also punished those who were indifferent to or antagonistic toward the eschatological banquet. Paul testifies that it  is God who supplies whatever we need in whatever circumstances as he affirms in the second reading: In return my God will fulfil all your need, in Christ Jesus, as lavishly as only God can.  We do not therefore, have to bargain with God or make reservations. All we have to do is accept what God has to offer. Happy Sunday! +John I. Okoye

27th Sunday of Year A – October 8, 2017

May God fill you with his graces so that you produce the expected fruits of Christian love towards him and your needy neighbours. – Happy Sunday! + John Okoye

Doctrine And Faith

(Isaiah 5, 1-7; Philippians 4, 6-9; Matthew 21, 33-43: 27th Sunday of Year A – October 8, 2017)

    Today’s gospel as well as the first reading from the book of Isaiah narrates a parable whose subject matter is a vineyard. In the first reading, the attentiveness of the vineyard owner is clearly sketched during the cultivation of the vineyard. Each step of the viticultural process is carefully accomplished. Everything was done to guarantee a bountiful   harvest. Unfortunately, the harvest was poor. But what is more, the vineyard produced wild grapes. The unnatural yield was not as a result of poor cultivation on the part of the owner. The vineyard was a failure. At this juncture, the owner of the vineyard (no longer the prophet who acted as a narrator) turns to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah for some sort of judgement as he asked: What could I have done for my vineyard and I have not done. I expected it to yield grapes. Why did it yield sour grapes instead? One might be able to offer some reason for a paltry harvest, but how does one explain the presence of wild grapes? The only answer is deliberate treachery or the rejection of all the careful attention provided. The indictment of sin has been introduced. Judgement is now passed on the unnatural vineyard. Some of the steps taken to ensure its productivity will be undone. Protection against animal ravages and human theft were removed and the vineyard becomes vulnerable. Even the clouds will be commanded (by God, the real owner of the vineyard) to withhold rain necessary for crop growth.  The owner of the vineyard turned to the people of Jerusalem and Judah for judgement on the case before them; scarcely did they know that their judgment will be directed back to them. God, through the prophet, decodes the meaning of the parable: the owner of the vineyard is God: the vineyard, the cherished plant, is the house of Israel. Then the prophet describes the heinousness of the people’s offence. God looked for justice (good behaviour: mishpath) but found bloodshed (mishphah); for justice (sedeq) but found an outcry (seaqah). God has invested much in the future of this people and they scorned the attention of the beloved vineyard owner. 
    In Jesus’ narrative of the parable of the vineyard in the Gospel, the master of the house planted the vineyard himself, built a protection around it, and constructed the winepress to be used at the time of vintage. After the hard work was finished, he leased it out to tenants who had only to care for the vines until the grapes were ready for the press. He then went abroad and from there he sent words to have the produce of the vineyard sent to him. Interpreting the parable as an allegory (a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one), God is understood as the owner of the vineyard and the leaders of the people would be the tenant vinedressers to whom the vineyard was leased. To these leaders, God periodically sent prophets to announce his designs. Israel’s history records how both the leaders and the people refused to listen to the prophets and even put some of them to death (cf. Isaiah 52, 13 - 53, 12). Continuing the allegorical interpretation, the parable suggests that God sent Jesus with full divine authority and the leaders of the people put him to death outside the city. When Jesus finished narrating the parable, he turned to the leaders and asked them to provide a legal ruling on the situation. In compliance they stated: He (the vineyard owner) will bring those wretches to a wretched end and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will deliver the produce to him when the season arrives.Thus the leaders condemn themselves in their own words. 

The first reading and the gospel describe two attempts at thwarting God’s plan. In both instances there is deliberate treachery (betrayal of trust). The first reading describes the tender and solicitous care God has taken on behalf of the vineyard. God worked tirelessly to ensure that it would thrive and be a source of enjoyment and prosperity. Despite all God’s plans and effort, it produced an unacceptable crop. There was no mistake here. God was in no way remiss in planting or on tending. The vineyard was simply rebellious. The metaphor of the vineyard functions differently in the gospel account. Here the fault is not with the vineyard. It produced an abundant crop. In fact, it is the very productivity of the vineyard that sets the stage for the treachery described. In this case, those who were trusted stewards turn out to be traitorous usurpers. They want the vineyard for themselves and they are willing to use any means to acquire it. 

Without interpreting any of the metaphors allegorically, we can see ourselves in each instance. There are times when regardless of what God seems to be doing for us, we simply rebel against God’s plans. We stand in defiance and cry out: I will not serve; I will do what I want. There are other times when we, who are only disciples of Jesus, act as if the kingdom is ours to direct or to manage it as we see fit. We might even marginalise or force out others with whom we do not agree, so that we have sole control. Unfortunately, we may not be above such treachery.

God is connected in both parables and what   is expected to be his stand? He does not tolerate treachery. That is why out of his tender love for his vineyard (the People of Israel of Old and the New People of God) treachery cannot be tolerated. If we have produced unacceptable fruits, it is for our own good that God steps in and dismantles the structure that enables us to produce as we did. If we attempt to usurp the kingdom (the church or any of its organisations or structures, etc) in order to exercise our own control over it, it is appropriate that God snatch it from our grasp and entrust it to those who will faithfully carry out his plan. May we therefore, pray in today’s liturgical celebration for the grace not only to produce the expected fruit but also be completely engaged in humble and sacrificial services to the church and to our needy neighbours. Happy Sunday! + John I. Okoye

pictures by chukwubike