Second Sunday after Easter (A)
José Enrique Galarreta S.J.
Acts of the Apostles
The third gospel and the book of the Acts probably formed just one book, divided into two books later separated (before the year 150). There is a strong unity in them, not only thematic, but also literary, language, style etc.etc, which allows us to recognize a single author.
This author has been recognized by the tradition of the Church as Luke, and we have testimonies to the fact in documents of the second century. Internal analysis of the text shows us a Greek or very helenized Jewish Christian of the apostolic generation, who knows the Bible very well, with medical knowledge, a companion of Paul’s journeys (in the journeys he usually speaks in the first person plural).
With respect to the date and place of composition, we have no firm date from external data, and we must be careful with the dates the book itself gives us. Critics point out that it could not have been composed before the year 64 nor after the year 100. To recognize the intention and the method of working of the author let us remember the prologues of both books.
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning it seems good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.......
FROM THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
Ch 1.v1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instruction through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion while he was eating with them, he gave them this command . Do not leave Jerusalem but wait for the gift my Father promised which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. V6 So when they met...
For this reason , this book is something like “The Gospel of the Church”. Events (Acts) are narrated of the first Christian community, because they signify the presence of God, of the Spirit of Jesus in that community.
REFLECTION
Hence, we are dealing with an account of great value. The author’s facts are well documented – we can even appreciate in his style the presence of different sources – and on occasion, he is a witness of the facts he presents, or receives first hand accounts of events. But we are not dealing merely with a book of history. What is fundamentally narrated is “History in the Spirit”, that is, the development of the Faith of the first Christian community. In this field there are some fundamental ideas:
1. The proclamation of Jesus as Messiah.
It is the fundamental theme of the discourses of Peter and Stephen, and the meaning of the “miracles”. Jesus is the one “we were waiting for”, he is the Messiah, who had to suffer and who is alive through the victory of the power of God.
2. The awareness of the Church of her missionary vocation.
In this sense the expansion of the Church in some particular missions is being narrated (Peter, Philip, Paul...)
3. The message to the pagans
It is the first problem. The Church as a continuation of the Old Law, subject to mosaic precepts, or the Church as the New Covenant, having superseded the Old. The proclamation to the pagans poses this problem for Peter (Ch. 10) so that he will have to justify himself before the brethren (Ch.11). Paul will pose the same problem, and it will be one of the basic themes of the so called “Council of Jerusalem” (Ch.15)
There is, therefore, in the book a clear apologetic intention of the policy of Paul: the proclamation to the pagans (“they will certainly listen”) and the freeing from the ritual obligations of the old Law.
In short
In the Book of the Acts we find three components of much interest to us:
1. A history of the first Christian community and its expansion. But “history” of the “gospel” kind, with a similar intention to that of the “historical” books of the Old Testament: history to show how the Spirit acts in that first community.
2. A Christology : the most ancient expressions of faith in Jesus, anterior to those elaborated by John and Paul. It is – almost the first stage of the answer of the Church to the great question about Jesus: “Who is this man?”
3. An ecclesiology: there is no doctrine on the Church, but we see how the Church functioned and what she thought of herself, how she prayed, organized herself, solved problems...It is very useful for us to reflect on what is permanent and what is transitory in the institutions of the Church.
IN TODAY’S TEXT
We have a fairly idealized description of the first community. From other texts – even of this same book – we know that not everything went smoothly: there were problems, serious problems, regarding doctrine and organization. Here we are shown only “the basic spirit” of that community: common prayer, the eucharist, life and property in common, the appreciation of the people, the slow spread of the Church. Later other problems will follow and the persecutions.
THE FIRST LETTER OF PETER
We do not know when Peter left Jerusalem. We do know that he died in Rome in the year 64, in the persecution of Nero. It is not clear either whether this letter is of Peter himself. The ancient Fathers of the Church, Irenaeus, Polycarp, attribute it to Peter. But there are many other facts, the style, internal data and other factors which make it difficult to admit. The specialists are agreed – at least – that this letter reflects the preaching of Peter and was written by someone in the circle of his closest disciples. The same letter ( 5,12) tells us who was his disciple – secretary: Silvanus. Some continue to attribute it to Peter himself. The letter hardly has any thematic unity. It skips from one theme to another.
The text has been brought in today to “accompany” the gospel, connecting it with the saying of Jesus: “Blessed are they who have not seen but believe.” And here we are dealing with the “second generation” of Christians, those who believe in Jesus through the preaching of the witnesses. We are at the beginning of “tradition”, the long chain of people and generations which hand down faith in Jesus from one to another. Although it is not that human transmission that produces the faith: that human transmission is only the vehicle of the “power of the Spirit”. Peter seems to admire that power: You have not seen him and you believe in Him!”.
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
We are dealing with the “conclusion” of the fourth Gospel.(Later, as we know, a second conclusion will be added.)Let us remember that after the scene with Thomas, the Gospel ends thus: Jesus did many other signs in the sight of his disciples that are not written down in this book. These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.”
John, therefore, finishes by inviting us to faith in Jesus, the basic purpose of the four Gospels. This clearly defines the subject matter of these texts. They are a history of the faith: the author is relating how faith in the Risen One arose. There is at the end of the fourth Gospel four “times” of access to faith in Jesus:
Ø That of John himself: he reaches the sepulcher, enters, sees the linen cloths and the burial cloth and then sees and believes.”
Ø That of Mary Magdalene: she does not recognize Jesus until Jesus calls her by her name.
Ø That of the disciples: Jesus shows them his hands, and his side and they “rejoice on seeing the Lord.”
Ø That of Thomas. The witness of the others is not enough for him, he is not satisfied with seeing, he wants to touch. Jesus invites him to do so. The Body of the Risen One is “touchable”.
The faith of John offers us, in the mouth of Thomas, the most elaborate testimony of faith in Jesus of the New Testament:”My Lord and my God”, a formula taken from the Old Testament applied here to Jesus. Hence the fourth gospel closes with the same profession of faith with which it began (The Word made flesh), continuing with the expressions which link the whole of this gospel (so that all honor the Father...”when you raise on high the Son of Man, then you will understand that I AM ...”I am in my Father and the Father is in me...”He who has seen me has seen my Father...”As the Father sent me so I send you.”).
It is a matter, then, of a double message, simple and vital: on the one hand, an advanced profession of faith in Jesus. On the other, the conclusion of the gospel looking to all those who will believe without having seen Jesus, by the witness of others.
In this way the fact that John does not “describe” the departure of Jesus is explained. For John, Jesus “does not go”. He continues present in the disciples, in the Spirit and in the Mission. The physical, touchable presence of Jesus has no importance.
REFLECTION
Using the stories of the resurrection as a point of departure, we can ask ourselves innumerable questions: How long did the manifestations of Jesus last? One day? As it seems to be in Luke, forty, as in Acts, a week as in the first letter of John ...?
That body that could be touched, could also eat (Luke)... had therefore all the normal organic functions of a normal body? Did he pass through walls? Was he visible to anyone who happened to be by chance there where he showed himself, or was he visible only to those to whom he wished to show himself? ... And so on, dozens of questions, all of them useless. On asking ourselves these kinds of questions we suppose that the preferred value of these texts is to be accounts of happenings, but it is not so: the preferred value is to be witnesses of faith. And this is the basic theme of all of them: they believed in Jesus.
It was not easy to believe in Jesus: they had believed in him, but they had believed badly. They had accepted him as the Messiah they were hoping for, but hoped for badly. The Zebedees had even hoped for thrones on his right and on his left, all hoped that he would restore the sovereignty of Israel, and the glorious times of King David would return, and that all nations would come to Jerusalem to adore God in his (their) holy temple. They had hoped for all this, and all of it died on the cross. The terrible Sabbath of the Pasch was a day of despair, of the death of all previous faith.
Later (a day, a week, forty days ... a whole life time, who knows?)they recovered faith, their faith was reborn, better said, another faith was born, because the previous faith was dead, thoroughly dead, buried with the body of Jesus in the sepulcher and sealed with the tombstone. This faith could be born only because the old faith had died. The old Davidic messianic faith could not change, it had to die to make way for the faith. Just as neither could the Temple of Caiphas change and adapt itself to the style of Jesus. It had to be destroyed. Even before it was physically destroyed, the followers of Jesus went on abandoning it, because the new faith did not need it; it was enough for them to gather in houses to share the bread, to celebrate the supper of the Lord.
The new faith is powerful. A faith that affects the pocket is very true. It was capable of working miracles, above all that all would feel as brothers and would live as such. And the ancient rites were powerful only because they managed money and power, but they were not able to change hearts, they could not produce conversion.
And so we have dealt with all the keys we need to reflect on the resurrection. It’s a matter of knowing whether we too have faith in Jesus, of knowing what kind of faith we have in him, of knowing if already so many strange faiths have once for all died the ones that prevent us truly believing in him, of knowing in what our paschal experience consisted and consists.
Moved by a paleolitic (old Testament) faith we suppose that the disciples believed of a sudden, struck by a spectacular grace. We believe that Paul was literally struck down ( we even paint him thrown down from a horse), we think that people followed the apostles in large groups when they saw them perform miracles...This did not happen even to Jesus; the people who followed him because of his miracles did not follow him in the conversion of their hearts. But it suits us a lot to believe all those things because in this way we justify ourselves: they had an extraordinary experience, therefore they believed in him and changed their lives. We have not had one, so we believe in the Jesus that suits us more and we hardly change our lives.
But we can ask ourselves: all those people who have changed their lives, who share and are compassionate, who work for peace, who do not serve money, nor status nor prestige, who are not slaves of the values of our “culture” of having a good time, who are truthful, who know how to forgive...and who live in this way because they follow Jesus, what paschal experience have they had? Has the Risen One appeared to them? And have they put their hand in his side?
The answer is NO. And it cannot be otherwise. God does not show himself from the outside, from above, with spectacular appearances, as a blinding exception. To experience God there is no need to look for spectacular events. The threatening lightening is not a good image of God. A good image of God is leaven. From within, slowly, in silence.
Something, from within, in silence, insistently, unstoppable, has led us from a mediocre knowledge to a profound intimacy, from a feeling of distant attraction to personal adhesion, from a mythical, sociological faith to an elemental and profound conviction.
Our paschal experience is a conviction that keeps becoming increasingly irrevocable, united to a feeling of attraction and adhesion ever more binding. Our paschal experience means that once we believed – in some way – in Jesus, through what had been taught us, because it was in our culture, because we thought it was a good system of thought and religious practices... for many similar reasons, all of them “from outside within”. But increasingly, we have been experiencing it internally, we have lived it in such a way that the knowledge, the persuasion, the adherence, are from within to the outside, as something felt personally, as one feels love for a beloved person, from within, without need of demonstration.
That experience is nourished, as everything that grows: it is nourished in contemplation, it is nourished in works, and it is nourished in community. The contemplation of Jesus multiplies the fascination and the adherence; deeds, as putting into practice of values and criteria, reaffirm the validity of the message; the community, the church, especially in the fraternal celebration of the Eucharist, spreads faith, makes us live in common our paschal experience.
Once more, we need to abandon our mythologies, our faith in disguised divinities, our tendency to identify the religious with the marvelous. Our paschal experience is our progressive consciousness of conversion to Jesus and to the Kingdom.
We arrive, at the end, at joining up with the beginning, with the first word of Jesus when he went to the villages and took to the roads of Galilee: Be converted! This is and will always be the key and the measure of our faith: our readiness to change, to change one’s God, our readiness to change to the God of Jesus, so that it is he who changes our lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment