Monday in the Third Week of Lent, March 8, 2021

Luke 4:24-30

Jesus said to the people in the synagogue at Nazareth: “Amen, I say to you, no prophet is accepted in his own native place. Indeed, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah when the sky was closed for three and a half years and a severe famine spread over the entire land. It was to none of these that Elijah was sent, but only to a widow in Zarephath in the land of Sidon. Again, there were many lepers in Israel during the time of Elisha the prophet; yet not one of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.” When the people in the synagogue heard this, they were all filled with fury. They rose up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town had been built, to hurl him down headlong. But he passed through the midst of them and went away.

Back on Ash Wednesday, in accordance with a decree from the U.S. Bishops Conference, priests did not use the word “one” — as in, “one God forever and ever” — in the opening prayer (the Collect).  I don’t know how many people noticed this or if priests provided an explanation for this.  During the first three hundred years of the Church, prayers ended very simply, usually with a formula similar to “through Christ our Lord”, to which the people responded “Amen”.  The prayer might even end only with the “Amen”.  Towards the end of this period, however, certain teachers arose who challenged the doctrine of God as a Trinity of Divine Persons, primarily by attacking the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ.  To combat this, the custom arose, especially after the definition of the Holy Trinity st the Council of Nicaea in 325, in faithful Catholic churches of concluding prayers, especially the Collect which opened the Mass, with a manifestly Trinitarian formula.  This became codified over time and was made the rule with the Council of Trent. Different translations of the formula are found in the hand missals and prayerbooks which proliferated beginning around that time, and they tended to end with “God, forever and ever” in accord with the Latin, which has Deum per omnia saecula saeculorum.  Beginning with the reform of the Mass in the 1960’s, the Latin was translated into English as “one God, forever and ever.”  The reason for this is to be understood with the rationale for the vernacular translation of the Mass as a whole, part of which was to simplify and explain.  This actually led to an oversimplification which was largely corrected by the new translation of a few years ago.  For some reason, the conclusion of the Collect was unaffected by this.  Perhaps it was simply overlooked.  The meaning of the prayer is not changed by this, nor is one version of the conclusion necessarily better than the other.  “God” without the “one” is certainly an older usage.  What the addition of “one” does is to emphatically declare that the Father, to whom the prayer is addressed, the Son, through whom the prayer is addressed to the Father, and the Holy Spirit, in the unity with whom it is addressed to the Father, are “one God”.  The translation, then, is a matter of emphasis and not one of doctrine.  

In looking at the Gospel reading for today’s Mass we see the Lord Jesus on his only visit during his Public Life to his childhood home.  St. Luke gives much more detail to the event than Matthew and Mark do in order to show why the Lord made Capernaum his home base rather than Nazareth, a question which must have puzzled those to whom Luke was writing.  The way this episode is cut up in the lectionary, we do not see how the Lord entered the synagogue at Nazareth, read from the Prophet Isaiah, and was initially received favorably: “And all spoke well of him, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth.”  But as the people in the synagogue continued to talk, they began to grow more critical.  “And they said, ‘Is not this Joseph’s son?” And he said to them, ‘Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here also in your own country.’ ”  From this point, we have the words for today’s reading.  The subsequent riot results not from the Lord’s teaching on Isaiah, but from the objection, “Is this not Joseph’s son?”  That is to say, Does he not belong to us?  The people wanted him to “do here also in your own country” all the wonderful things they had heard him doing first in Capernaum.  The Lord reminded them of the need for faith for the healings they demanded, and gave the examples of Naaman and the widow in the land of Sidon as examples of faith that even the Gentiles could possess.  But for his former neighbors and friends, it was too late.

These folks turned on the Lord because they saw him as preferring other towns to his home town.  It came down to pride,  and their pride was so outraged that they tried to throw Jesus over the side of the hill on which their town was built.  The Lord left them, then, and never returned.  For the next two to three years the countryside rang with his praises and stories of the wonders he had worked.  But Nazareth stood by as a mere spectator and had no share in his glory.

The Fourth Sunday of Lent, March 7, 2021

John 2:13–25

Since the Passover of the Jews was near, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. He found in the temple area those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves, as well as the money changers seated there. He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables, and to those who sold doves he said, “Take these out of here, and stop making my Father’s house a marketplace.” His disciples recalled the words of Scripture, Zeal for your house will consume me. At this the Jews answered and said to him, “What sign can you show us for doing this?” Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and you will raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking about the temple of his body. Therefore, when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they came to believe the Scripture and the word Jesus had spoken. 

St. John twice describes the Lord casting the money changers and the sellers out of the Temple: at the beginning of his public ministry, as though to serve notice that the Son of God has arrived to take possession of his house, and then at the end of it in order to give a sign of our redemption for which he would suffer, cleansing it of all sin and filth so that, purified, it might be totally worthy of God.  

Taking this as a sign, the Lord expels greed, in the form of the money changers and sellers, from our souls, and also the pride that allowed them to think of the house of God as simply another location for making money.  We can also see the expulsion of the devil here, inasmuch as the merchants possessed the animals to be sold for sacrifices.  The animals go free from those who had owned them.  Likewise, we are set free from the devil’s dominance by the power of Christ.  We see here also an example of the ruthlessness and total commitment with which we are to root out our sinful tendencies and addictions.  Just as no money changer or merchant was spared by the Lord, no matter what excuses they might have brought up, we cannot give any quarter to the tearing up of our former way of life in order to live not for self but for God.  The Jews saw nothing wrong with having these people in the Temple precincts and tolerated them.  In the same way, we are surrounded in society with people who see nothing wrong with the sin in their lives and an outlook which puts self and pleasure before all else.  They may look askance at us and may even feel “judged” — and they should, for this is a term that, as they use it, means to “to be made to feel guilty”.  Perhaps this might be a step towards their conversion, the quiet witness we give with our lives.  “Many believed in his name, seeing his signs which he did” (John 2, 23).  The signs that we do are the virtuous acts we perform, which only a Christian can do.

 

 Saturday in the Third Week of Lent, March 6, 2021

Luke 15:1-3, 11-32

Tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to listen to Jesus, but the Pharisees and scribes began to complain, saying, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” So to them Jesus addressed this parable. “A man had two sons, and the younger son said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of your estate that should come to me.’ So the father divided the property between them. After a few days, the younger son collected all his belongings and set off to a distant country where he squandered his inheritance on a life of dissipation. When he had freely spent everything, a severe famine struck that country, and he found himself in dire need. So he hired himself out to one of the local citizens who sent him to his farm to tend the swine. And he longed to eat his fill of the pods on which the swine fed, but nobody gave him any. Coming to his senses he thought, ‘How many of my father’s hired workers have more than enough food to eat, but here am I, dying from hunger. I shall get up and go to my father and I shall say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I no longer deserve to be called your son; treat me as you would treat one of your hired workers.”’ So he got up and went back to his father. While he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him, and was filled with compassion. He ran to his son, embraced him and kissed him. His son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you; I no longer deserve to be called your son.’ But his father ordered his servants, ‘Quickly, bring the finest robe and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Take the fattened calf and slaughter it. Then let us celebrate with a feast, because this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found.’ Then the celebration began. Now the older son had been out in the field and, on his way back, as he neared the house, he heard the sound of music and dancing. He called one of the servants and asked what this might mean. The servant said to him, ‘Your brother has returned and your father has slaughtered the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’ He became angry, and when he refused to enter the house, his father came out and pleaded with him. He said to his father in reply, ‘Look, all these years I served you and not once did I disobey your orders; yet you never gave me even a young goat to feast on with my friends. But when your son returns who swallowed up your property with prostitutes, for him you slaughter the fattened calf.’ He said to him, ‘My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours. But now we must celebrate and rejoice, because your brother was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’ ”

It is necessary to remember that the Lord told this parable to the scribes and Pharisees who complained that, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”  We hear this parable often at Mass. and we think we know it well, but without keeping the context in mind we lose something of its meaning.  

First, we must note that the younger son violates all the laws and codes the Pharisees treasure.  Worst of all, he is heedless of his contact with sinners and prostitutes, and winds up tending pigs which, for a Jew, was akin to apostasy. When he comes home, his father immediately puts rings on his fingers and sandals on his feet and brings him back to his house without any attention to the purity tenets the Pharisees emphasized so much.  They would have hated this character and how his father treated him.  They would have had the father reject this disgusting son and send him back to the pigs.  The Lord seems to have drawn up this character with an eye to arousing their ire.

We next note the reaction of the older son to the presence of the younger.  He is appalled by his brother’s behavior, alienating part of the heritage of the family, wasting it on loose, unclean living, and he refuses even to go into the house.  In fact, the older son acts much in the way a Pharisee would have.  He does not go into the house which has been contaminated by the unclean son who had lived among “tax collectors and sinners”, not to mention pigs.  This brings to mind how the Jewish leaders, bringing Jesus to Pilate for judgment, “did not go into the hall, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the pasch” (John 18, 28).  

Finally, we see that the Lord does not give a solution to the problem posed by the younger son’s situation.  The parable ends with the older son, to whose mercy the younger son will have to appeal after the father dies, not reconciling with his brother.  Nor does the younger son seem to seek out his brother in order to beg his forgiveness as well as he had done his father’s.  The question the Lord leaves to the Pharisees is whether the older son, signifying them, the Pharisees, should forgive the younger son, signifying the tax collectors and sinners, even if the father had.  The father in the parable clearly wants this and the older son, if he wanted to be righteous regarding the Law, should have honored his father by obliging.  But this would break the taboos the Pharisees placed upon mixing with people they considered unclean, but of whom the Law said nothing.  (And while the younger son fed the pigs, he did not eat them or touch them and so he would not have become unclean himself).  Jesus thus confronts the Law and what it actually says with their interpretations of it.

God’s love knows no boundaries or prohibitions which we would establish to protect ourselves, ultimately, from the hard work of the conversion of sinners.  

Friday in the Third Week of Lent, March 5, 2021

Matthew 21:33-43, 45-46

Jesus said to the chief priests and the elders of the people: “Hear another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard, put a hedge around it, dug a wine press in it, and built a tower. Then he leased it to tenants and went on a journey. When vintage time drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to obtain his produce. But the tenants seized the servants and one they beat, another they killed, and a third they stoned. Again he sent other servants, more numerous than the first ones, but they treated them in the same way. Finally, he sent his son to them, thinking, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the tenants saw the son, they said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and acquire his inheritance.’ They seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What will the owner of the vineyard do to those tenants when he comes?” They answered him, “He will put those wretched men to a wretched death and lease his vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the proper times.” Jesus said to them, and did you never read in the Scriptures: “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; by the Lord has this been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes?”  Therefore, I say to you, the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that will produce its fruit.” When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they knew that he was speaking about them. And although they were attempting to arrest him, they feared the crowds, for they regarded him as a prophet.

Terrible actions befall the characters in the Lord’s parables.  They are humiliated, robbed, beaten, imprisoned, financially ruined, serially widowed, and killed.  Seldom do we find unambiguously happy endings to them.  This reflects the seriousness with which the Lord held the matter of sin and its consequences, which so often is found at the heart of the stories he told.  The parable featured in the Gospel for today’s Mass is one of the most violent of these.  After telling of the landowner and how he planted the vineyard and let it out, the Lord speaks of what happened when his servants arrived to collect his share of the produce: “The tenants seized the servants and one they beat, another they killed, and a third they stoned.”  The Greek word translated here as “they beat” can also mean, “they sodomized”, and all the possible meanings of the word imply murder.  The horror of this parable and the matter-of-fact way in which the Lord tells it cause us to distance ourselves from the situation that is described for us, but we are very much involved in it.  The Lord will make clear to the Pharisees that they are these murdering tenants.  They “murder” the Law and the Prophets by rejecting what they actually say for their own interpretation, which only serves themselves.  Finally, they murder the son of the landowner — a clear reference to their intention to kill him, the Son of God.  By doing so, they absurdly think they will “inherit” the vineyard, which St. Thomas Aquinas interprets as the justice of God.  Now, when we reject the law of God, whether in part or as a whole, we do the same as the tenants in the parable.  On the other hand, when we act on behalf of the Lord and live faithful, virtuous lives, we may be killed or injured by those who do not want their delusion of autonomy or atheism disturbed.  

The Lord compares himself to the stone “that the builders rejected”, which, of all the stones available, became the cornerstone.  That is, in his human form he seemed unremarkable, though his words and deeds pointed him out as one to whom attention should be paid.  The “builders”, that is, those who considered themselves the leaders of the people, rejected this stone as they planned out the places for each of the stones for their building.  It was oddly shaped, unlike any of the other stones.  It would not go where they wanted and, for that reason, they hated it..  But in the end, it was clear that this stone alone could be the cornerstone, and so the incompetence of the so-called builders was revealed.  New builders would then be brought in who would recognize the stone for what it was and then build a magnificent structure around it accordingly.  You and I are called to do this, and to the extent that we appreciate and love this Stone, this Rock, we will build a magnificent structure in terms of the Church and of our lives.  For, “the Lord lives, and blessed be my rock; and exalted be the God of my salvation” (Psalm 18, 46).

 

Thursday in the Third Week of Lent, March 4, 2021

Luke 16:19-31

Jesus said to the Pharisees: “There was a rich man who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day. And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps that fell from the rich man’s table. Dogs even used to come and lick his sores. When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he cried out, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.’ Abraham replied, ‘My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented. Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours.’ He said, ‘Then I beg you, father, send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they too come to this place of torment.’ But Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.’ He said, ‘Oh no, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ Then Abraham said, ‘If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.’ ”

The Lord vividly portrays the characters in this parable.  So much so that it begs the question of whether the events in the parable reflect actual events.  For instance, the Lord never otherwise names the characters in his parables.  Because the Lord only names the poor man, whose name, perhaps, few would have known — and not the rich man — it seems as though he allows it gradually to dawn on his audience that he is speaking about people they knew.  The realization would have shaken the members of his audience and could have led them to rethink their own lives.

The characters are described in some detail.  The rich man dresses in “purple and linen” and dines “sumptuously” every day.  We learn from this portrayal that the man did not merely possess an abundance of money, but a super-abundance of money.  On the other hand, Lazarus was “covered with sores” and pined for the scraps that fell on the floor of the rich man’s dining room.  His condition rendered him so helpless that he could not even shoo away the dogs which came to lick his sores.  The dog, we recall, was abhorred by the people of the ancient Middle East, as it is in some countries there even today.  Dogs were seen as carrion and scavengers.  The Lord paints these two characters with marvelous consistency, so that when they have died, their souls carry on in much the same manner in which they lived on earth.  Lazarus, for instance, does not speak a word in the parable, not even when he is held close to the bosom of Abraham, and not even when the rich man is conversing with Abraham.  He does not gloat over the rich man’s damnation, he does not cast insults at him, he does not demand greater punishment for this man.  He is meek, has suffered dramatically, but without complaint.  If he ever regarded the rich man as winning against him, he has forgiven him.  He is completely at peace and at home in the arms of Abraham.  The rich man, by contrast, remains haughty and demanding.  Rather than ask Lazarus to help him, he asks Abraham to ask Lazarus.  He will not talk to this low beggar.  In addition, the rich man makes the exorbitant request that Lazarus be sent from the dead to his brothers.  Abraham closes the conversation by observing that the brothers have the Law of Moses to help them, and that if this did not, then a man raised from the dead would not help either.  

What sin led to the rich man’s damnation?  It is not a sin to be rich, but it is a sin to stand by and let others starve.  As it is written in the Letter of James 4, 17: “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”  Beyond his letting Lazarus (and how many others) starve, the rich man possessed a personality unfit for heaven: self-absorbed, addicted to displays of extravagance, given to self-indulgence.  Now, destitution is not itself a virtue, and Lazarus did not attain heaven because of it, but rather because of how he maintained his faith in the most terrible of circumstances, and suffered without rancor or vindictiveness.  He does not blame God for his situation, nor does he blame the rich man.  And so he passes from the company of flies and dogs to the company of Abraham, in the house of God.

We must correct our faults, and we must correct and reform our personalities so that they fit those of the saints. 

 Wednesday in the Third Week of Lent, March 3, 2021

Matthew 20:17-28

As Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the Twelve disciples aside by themselves, and said to them on the way, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day.  Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee approached Jesus with her sons and did him homage, wishing to ask him for something. He said to her, “What do you wish?” She answered him, “Command that these two sons of mine sit, one at your right and the other at your left, in your kingdom.” Jesus said in reply, “You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the chalice that I am going to drink?” They said to him, “We can.” He replied, “My chalice you will indeed drink, but to sit at my right and at my left, this is not mine to give but is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” When the ten heard this, they became indignant at the two brothers. But Jesus summoned them and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave. Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

The mother of James and John had great ambitions for her sons.  She envisions the Lord seizing control of Jerusalem and leading the rebellion against Rome from there.  Her sons, whom the Lord has nicknamed “the sons of thunder” due to their temperament and zeal, would take a leading role in the war against Rome and in the subsequent independent kingdom of Israel, in her mind.  She has already earmarked the places for her sons at the Lord’s right and left, virtually equal to him in power.  Her petition to the Lord, coming directly after his detailed description of the fate that did await him in Jerusalem, seems almost absurd.  

Although she followed Jesus and provided for him and the Apostles out of her own means, along with several other women (cf. Luke 8, 2-3), she had not understood his teachings about the kingdom.  It is as though she heard the word “kingdom” and nothing else.  It is possible that she followed Jesus not so much for his own sake but for promoting her sons.  Still, on some level she understood the Lord’s greatness and saw that the future of her sons was bound up with him.  Though she sounds very confident in her expectation of the success she imagines the Lord desires to achieve, the possibility of disaster must also have crossed her mind as well.  But she does not hedge her bets: her sons will abide with Jesus no matter what the future brings.  She may not be able to say exactly, with Peter, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6, 69), but she says this in her own way.

“You do not know what you are asking.”  The Lord does not assail her for her presumption or her misunderstanding, but simply notes her understanding.  He does not then turn his back on her, but turns to her sons and asks them if they can drink of his chalice — to share in his life, come what may.  They say right away that they can.  Jesus accepts this affirmation, but qualifies his response by declaring that “to sit at my right and at my left, this is not mine to give but is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”  That is, they seek positions for ruling others, but these places are reserved as rewards for those who have lived heroic lives in the Faith.  Also, James and John desire physical places so that they may have physical proximity to the Lord, but these are spiritual places and the more a soul loved the Lord while one earth, the nearer it will be drawn to close spiritual proximity to him in heaven.

“The Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.”  This is an essential guide to life as a Christian.  The mind of the believer must be the mind of a servant: one who anticipates the needs of others, who does what is necessary without drawing attraction to oneself, who puts others first.  We do this for the Lord Jesus and to please him.  We may not be fully aware of the cost this service will take from us, but only this life of service brings us close to our God and to the eternal dwelling places he has prepared for us in heaven, near his side.

 Tuesday in the Third Week of Lent, March 1, 2021

Matthew 23:1-12

Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens hard to carry and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them. All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation ‘Rabbi.’ As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers. Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven. Do not be called ‘Master’; you have but one master, the Christ. The greatest among you must be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”

“The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.”  By understanding what Jesus meant here, we can see the root of the bitterness of the scribes and Pharisees towards him.  The “chair of Moses” meant the authority of interpreting the Law for the people.  It had gone unfilled since the death of Moses, and, indeed, no one could fill it until the arrival of the Messiah.  To sit in that seat, that is, to claim to interpret the Law, would have signaled that someone was equating himself with Moses.  And this could not be done because “there arose no more a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face” (Deuteronomy 34, 10).  Moses appointed Joshua to lead the Hebrews after he died, but he was to make no new laws, and he could not take the place of Moses.  The Pharisees, who arose during the times of the Maccabees, were the first to claim to interpret the Law, claiming that the Law was “living” and could therefore grow to fit modern Jewish life.  In effect, they sat themselves in “the chair of Moses” although they had no authorization to do so and were therefore usurpers.  The scribes, who were mostly of the Pharisees, assisted them in finding ways to justify their interpretations.  These, then, stood between the people and the Law, insisting that they had to follow it according to their way of thinking, which actually clouded the purpose of the Law and made it more difficult to follow.  Quite literally, “they tie up heavy burdens hard to carry and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.”

The Lord’s injunction, “Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example”, may have been a rhetorical device to advise the people to do the opposite of what he was saying, as though to say, Therefore do all they say, but look at how they make heavy burdens for people, and how they do not practice the very things they teach.  Comparing them to Moses probably also had the effect of showing them for who they really were.  And far from living as champions of Jewish life, the Pharisees had gradually adopted many Greek customs, such as even naming their children with Greek and not Hebrew names.  

The Lord wants no part of these self-appointed busybodies and he warns his disciples from listening to them.  This is the context for his saying, “Do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.”  This was a title which they assumed for themselves.  Originally, a “rabbi” was simply one who taught the Law.  He was not a synagogue official, nor did he necessarily receive any special education or training.  He might speak in the synagogue on the Sabbath, but others would also speak, giving their views on the Scripture that was read.  The Lord will not have his disciples becoming these unofficial teachers.  Instead, he himself will commission them as teachers to speak, officially, in his name.  In the same way, the Lord told them, “Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.”  The disciple, especially a young one, would look upon his teacher as, and sometimes address him as, his “father”.  We see something of this in 1 Peter 5, 13, when St. Peter writes, “The church that is in Babylon, chosen together with you, salutes you. And so does my son, Mark.”  Peter does not mean that Mark is his biological son, but that he is a younger man who is always at his side as his interpreter and secretary.  The meaning the Lord has in mind, given the context, is that his followers should not become the “sons” of the Pharisaical rabbis.  Likewise, when the Lord says, “Do not be called ‘Master’; you have but one master, the Christ.”  “Master” in the sense of one who teaches not merely the Law but also how to live within his own group of followers.

“The greatest among you must be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”  The Pharisee, whether as teacher, father, or master, lived to exalt himself, to be given “places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation ‘Rabbi.’ ”  His students — his “sons” — helped establish him as a man of importance both by their number and by their coming from respected families.  Every detail of his life was tended to gain these things, even to his phylacteries and tassels.  But the follower of Christ must not do this; rather they must become “the servant of all” for the sake of and in imitation of Jesus Christ.  As St. Paul says: “I made myself the servant of all, that I might gain the more. And I became to the Jews a Jew, that I might gain the Jews: To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I became all things to all men, that I might save all” (1 Corinthians 9:19–22).

Only the Son of God sits in the chair of Moses.  He does so not as a ruler on a throne dominating his subjects, but as one who has come to serve Amd to save.