AT TIMES GOD ASKS TOO MUCH

TWENTY-FIRST SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME – YEAR B

 

Introduction 

The results of histological examination, the response of an ultrasound, the results of amniocentesis, and a doctor’s diagnosis can disrupt a person’s life. They can disrupt the plans and dreams, facing dramatic choices between the wisdom of this world and that of Christ.

Making a gift of one’s own life is not easy or comfortable. It requires sacrifice, renunciation, and asceticism. Accepting the will of God is the willingness to follow “the true light that enlightens everyone” (Jn 1:9), even when people would consider it illogical and inconclusive.

It’s hard to listen to the promptings of the Spirit, to depend on God, and to focus on the life that lives forever. More straightforward, but still disappointing, is to enter through the wide gate and to choose the spacious path (Mt 7:13), to fall back on the material prospects, forgetting that “the order of this world is vanishing” (1 Cor 7:31) and that man profits nothing to gain the whole world (Mt 16:26). Making choices “in the flesh” seems reasonable, although, in the inner self, one realizes that “all flesh is grass, and all its beauty as the flower of the field” (Is 40:6).

The disciple who has “tasted the beauty of the Word of God and the wonders of the supernatural world” (Heb 6:5) resists the temptation to turn away from Christ and to be “in love with this present world“ (2 Tim 4:9). The Eucharist is a proposal. The one who decides to receive it says yes to the light and rejects the darkness. This is the choice that qualifies a Christian.

 

• To internalize the message, we repeat:

“When all logic is on one side and Christ on the other, I would choose Christ.”

 

First Reading: Joshua 24:1-2a,15-17,18b

“After the death of Moses the servant of the Lord, the Lord said to Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ assistant: cross the Jordan to the land which I give to the sons of Israel. Your frontiers will extend from the mountain of Lebanon in the north to the desert in the south, as far as the great Euphrates in the east and the Great Sea in the west” (Jos 1:1-4). Thus the book of Joshua begins, a rather embarrassing book because it talks about wars conducted in the name of the Lord, violence, mass executions, dozens of conquered kings, and peoples driven from their land to make way for the Israelites arriving from Egypt.

This story of the conquest of the Promised Land was written many centuries after the events. While the possibilities are corroborated in part by archeology, it should not be considered a history book in the modern sense. It is a theological interpretation of what happened. Israel, which has become sedentary, thinks back to how she had managed to take possession of a land not her own despite being the smallest and weakest of all people. She attributed this enterprise not to her power or ability but the kindness of her God.

Today’s passage is taken from the last part of this book. It is Joshua’s farewell address to his people (Jos 22–24). Joshua said, “I am now very old. You have seen all that the Lord has done to all these nations for your sake and how he has fought for you” (Jos 23:2-3). He does not mention any of his glorious battles nor boasts of the victories gained. He just remembers what the Lord has done for Israel.

Before considering his mission completed, he asks the people to make a decisive choice. He wants them to declare openly and resolutely which God they intend to serve. Only later, at the age of one hundred and ten, can he close his eyes in peace on the mountains of Ephraim (Jos 24:29-30).

He gathers the tribes in Shechem and exposes his proposal: “choose your God. Do you want to go back and serve the gods worshiped by your ancestors in Mesopotamia, before Abraham left Ur of the Chaldeans, or the gods of the Amorites in the country in which we now live, or the Lord who has delivered us from slavery?” He immediately adds: “As for me. I and my household will serve the Lord” (v. 15).

This request for verification is impressive! It seems impossible that a people who have witnessed many miracles such as passing through the waters of the Red Sea, eating the manna, and drinking water from the Rock, seeing the collapse of the walls of Jericho, and receiving the gift of a land flowing with milk and honey, can abandon the God who has fostered and protected them.

Yet in all this, there is nothing strange; it is our history. Called into existence by God’s love, introduced in a world in which we are destined to live as pilgrims, filled with gifts to share with others, we can be seduced by the creatures we meet and begin to serve the gods worshiped on this earth—money, power, pleasure—forgetting the one who created us, and who also through Christ, the new Moses, delivered us from slavery and death.

Israel’s response came immediately, without hesitation: “May the God not permit that we ever abandon the Lord to serve other gods” (v. 16). We want to continue united to him, who has freed us from Egypt and protected us during the exodus in the desert. We are sure that no one else will receive many manifestations of love (vv. 17-18).

The choice to worship a God—and we all need a God—is not professed once and for all; It must be renewed at any time because, consistently, other gods present themselves. They ask to be served and are idols that seduce, deceive, but ruin those who believe in them. Only the Lord God of Israel deserves full faith, and he does not betray.

Whoever has received the mission to lead the people is called to proclaim, first, as Joshua did, by word and life, to adhere to the one true God.

 

Second Reading: Ephesians 5:21-32

Choosing Christ also involves a radical change of relationships within the family. The last part of the letter to the Ephesians devotes ample space to this theme (Eph 5:21–6:9). The family conflicts, disagreements, misunderstandings always come from the fact that someone dishonestly tries to dominate, desires to be served by others: the husband by his wife and vice versa, children by their parents, the owners by their slaves.

Today’s passage introduces an innovative principle: Be subject to one another. There is no rule of the strong over the weak, the rich over the poor, those at the top over those at the bottom, but only submission, willingness to serve, and obedience to Christ (v. 21). Biblical fear does not indicate the fear of punishment but the loving adherence to the person one trusts. “The God-fearing” are those who make choices following the word of the Lord and never act in contravention to its directions.

Christ offers the choice of the last place, “Whoever wants to be more important in your community shall make himself your servant. Be like the Son of Man who has come, not to be served but to serve, and to give life to redeem many” (Mt 20:26-28).

Having established this principle, the author makes some applications to family relationships. He recommends in the first place: “Wives, be subject to your husband as you are to the Lord” (v. 22). “Be subject” is an addition and does not appear in the original text and is better taken off because stressing a disposition already embarrassing should be avoided. It’s even irritating for women.

The passage is set in the mentality of the time. In the letter, one immediately notices that submission is recommended only for the most vulnerable, wives, children, slaves. However, the exhortations: “Children obey your parents” (Eph 6:1) and “Servants, obey your masters” (Eph 6:5), are then balanced by other warnings: “You fathers, do not make rebels of your children” (Eph 6:4) and “You, masters deal with your servants in the same way, do not threaten them” (Eph 6:9).

The author, therefore, applies, first of all to women, the principle he has formulated. If every Christian should consider himself a servant of others, the fact that their wives are invited to be subject to their husbands should not arouse any objection. Of course, it clashes with our modern sensibilities that this recommendation that probably husbands need more is firstly directed to women.

A theological reason is also adopted: the church is also subject to Christ, the head and the source of life of the whole body (vv. 22-23). Her authority, however, has nothing to do with the oppressive despotism. Still, it’s just a life service, and the submission of the Church to Christ is her willingness to accept his gifts, the fruits of his sacrifice, his sacrifice for love.

The conclusion, instead of developing and implementing this excellent discourse, resumes the theme of”submission” of a wife to her husband “in every situation” (v. 24). This insistence, too excessive for us, is the toll that the author pays to the culture of his time. The innovative principle of mutual service is therefore established. It will constitute an eternal condemnation of male chauvinism, of all arbitrariness, abuse, or any form, even the most consolidated because it is divine.

In the second part of the passage (vv. 25-32), the author of the letter addresses the husbands: “Love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (v. 25).

We would have expected that the husbands also were reminded of, as it should be, the duty to be submissive to their wives, but for them, another verb, “love,” agape is used. Agape indicates the feelings and actions of one who, completely forgetting oneself and one’s interests, actively and passionately seek only the good of others. It is the characteristic of the life of God, who is love (1 Jn 4: 8). To practice agape, a husband must keep himself, at all times and in all situations, at the service and be submissive to his wife.

The proposed model of love to husbands is Christ, who “loved the church and gave himself up for her” (v. 25). With his love, he created a masterpiece: he transformed his wife, purifying her with water and words, and has made of her a wonderful woman, “radiant, without stain or wrinkle or any blemish, but holy and blameless” (vv. 26-27).

This is the goal that every Christian groom seeks to achieve on the day of the wedding. In fact, in front of the whole community, he assumes the responsibility to witness to the world the immense and unwavering love ofChrist for his church (vv. 28-32).

For having ordered women to remain subservient to their husbands, Paul was accused of misogynism. Suppose one considers the complex structure of his thought that one of his disciples transmitted to us in this passage and that the recommendations addressed to husbands are four times more than those of their wives. In that case, it can be concluded that certain stereotypical statements about him are unfounded.

 

Gospel: John 6:60-69 

We are at the end of Jesus’ discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews, who have sought him as a miracle worker, face a staggering proposal: to welcome him, the bread which came down from heaven. They must make a choice: to continue to live as they have done so far, adapting themselves to the wisdom of this world and contenting themselves with the material bread, or make a quantum leap, accepting his gospel, which is the bread of life.

At the beginning of the passage (v. 60), oddly enough, new interlocutors are introduced: no longer the “Jews,” but the “disciples.” The reason for this change of character is pastoral. The evangelist reports the reaction of the crowds that have materially benefitted from the sign of bread and presents it as the crisis of every disciple facing the exacting requirements of the Master. The author speaks to the Christians of his community to invite them to resolutely decide in whom and in what they intend to believe.

The observation is bitter: many of the disciples who saw the sign and who listened to the speech do not accept the proposal of Jesus. It’s too “hard,” they say. Not that they have not understood. At first, it is true; they misunderstood. Maybe someone has thought of a meal by cannibals, but not anymore; now everything is clear. They have understood very well what Jesus means but are unwilling to give their consent. Uniting one’s life to his, choosing to give one’s life, involves too significant a risk.

To trust or not to trust him is the choice to make. The proposal can be accepted or rejected but not negotiated, modified, or made more acceptable by canceling some of its demands. The option is not just with the mind and heart but also in the act of receiving the bread of the Eucharist in which Christ is present.

At this point, a disturbing question arises. If worthily receiving the Eucharist calls for radical changes in giving one’s life together with Christ, who can ever dare to take communion? Let us, for a moment, suspend the answer to this question and see how Jesus reacts to the difficulty of the disciples to adhere to his proposal?

This is not surprising because misunderstanding and rejection are part of the mystery of human consciousness (v. 61). Then, instead of mitigating his proposal, he reports a new puzzle; he announces in a dramatic moment to the Christian community: his return to heaven from where he had descended as bread.

The vague statement “when you see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” (v. 62) can be paraphrased like this: if you have so much trouble accepting my proposal now that I am in your midst, what will happen when I have returned to the Father? Then you will require a purer faith, without any verification, any vision, or any significant contact with me, other than that of the sacramental signs.

To get involved in this pure faith, the disciples are asked to leave the world of the “flesh” and enter the world of the Spirit. “The flesh is useless” to those who want to understand the gospel proposal (v. 63). The purely human and earthly wisdom is unable to enter into the mysteries of God: “The one who remains on the psychological level does not understand the things of the Spirit. They are foolishness for him, and he does not understand because they require a spiritual experience” (1 Cor 2:14). It should not be surprising, then, that those who want to live bythe dictates of human common sense cannot accept the gospel.

The conclusion is depressing but predictable: “After this, many disciples withdrew and no longer followed him“(v. 66).

These disciples, also present in our communities, are not bad people. They should not be considered traitors. They realized that the Master is demanding too much; they are unwilling to give their consent and then withdraw. Jesus respects their freedom, and does not oblige them to share his choice, and does not force them to “eat his flesh.” Maybe they will look back, review their position, and those who approach the Eucharist each day will give them a witness of the authentic Christian life.

However, the passage does not close with the refusal of the Jews and with the announcement of the betrayal of Judas, but with the positive response of the twelve (vv. 67-69). Jesus disappointed the expectations of the majority of those who have followed him, but there is a group that, while not yet fully understanding what is involved in adhering to him, stays with him. Faith is not based on irrefutable proofs, but it is the loving adherence to a person. It’s no wonder that this adhesion is always accompanied by doubt and perplexity, and many remain hesitant even for a long time.

To the Master’s question, “Will you also go away?“ Speaking in the plural, Peter expresses the faith of all and says, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” It is the profession of faith that Christ expects of us today.

The question remains hanging: Who can ever feel worthy to approach the Eucharistic banquet? Who can be so reckless as to commit himself to Christ in so solemn a manner, to lay down his life with Him? If the Eucharist were a reward for the righteous, certainly no one would dare receive it. But it is not the bread of angels; it is the food offered to the pilgrim people—sinners, weak, tired, and those in need of help on earth.

In the account of the institution of the Eucharist, Evangelist Matthew reports Jesus’ words when he offers the cup of wine to his disciples: “Drink this, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the Covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt 26:27-28).

We approach the Eucharistic banquet, never to celebrate our purity and holiness, but to obtain God the forgiveness of sins. For the one who receives the communion, moral perfection is not required, but the disposition of the poor who recognizes one’s unworthiness and misery. We approach the one who can heal. For whoever receives it with this disposition of humble and sincere faith, the Eucharist bread becomes a medicine; it treats moral diseases, heals any wound, and overcomes all sin.

 

AT TIMES GOD ASKS TOO MUCH – DOWNLOAD VERSON