Glimpses of the Gospels: Theological, Spiritual & Practical Reflections

By Jack Mahoney Mahoney SJ and Jack Mahoney

How well do you know the Gospels? Who was the man who ran naked from the garden of Gethsemane? What did Peter and Jesus talk about when Jesus appeared to him after the resurrection? For Jack Mahoney, the Gospels are a patchwork quilt presenting the 'nuclear truth' of Jesus' resurrection. In Glimpses of the Gospel he makes accessible to the reader the patchwork unity of the Gospel story; tracing major themes, parables and moments across the Gospels, analysing what changes from gospel to gospel, and showing how the differences between gospel accounts can shed valuable light on the enduring questions of Christians.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Messenger Publications
• Release date: Sep 16, 2019
• ISBN: 9781788121637

Jack Mahoney Mahoney SJ

Jack Mahoney SJ lectured in moral and pastoral theology for many years at Heythrop College, King’s College, and finally at London Business School as the first Dixons Professor of Business Ethics and Social Responsibility. Fr Mahoney is a former member of the Theology Commission of the England and Wales Episcopal Conference, and of the International Theological Commission. He has lectured and broadcast widely at home and abroad in various branches of theology and applied.

Book preview

Introduction

The ‘Glimpses of the Gospels’ which are published here offer theological and spiritual reflections on various passages in the New Testament which over the last few years have appealed to me as particularly interesting or challenging. Most of them initially appeared separately in the British Jesuit online journal, Thinking Faith (www.thinkingfaith.org), and many readers appear to have enjoyed them and came to welcome each new one as it appeared. This warm reception has encouraged me to collect the pieces together and reprint them here in a more permanent form, in the hope of making them available to more readers. I am grateful to the editor of Thinking Faith for her permission to reprint the articles here. I have updated them occasionally, made a few minor changes and added some more, and I have grouped them all together under chapter headings.

The four different Gospels that we now have each provide us with a window into an early community of Christians in the Mediterranean world where they were produced. As each community was founded and grew in numbers, it received from Jesus’ early disciples oral traditions which related back to the Lord Jesus, and from these in the course of time there emerged written accounts of the death, life and teaching of Jesus, ‘gospels’, or ‘the good news’. These were used to instruct new Christians, and they were also read in the liturgy; and, since they were composed in the context of different localities and communities of believers, they occasionally applied the Lord’s teaching to the special conditions and needs of each community, as we shall see.

The oldest written gospel account which we possess as accepted by the Church is probably that of St Mark, and this was then drawn on and adapted separately in St Matthew’s Gospel and in St Luke’s Gospel. From examination of these last two it is concluded that they also shared another earlier written source which we do not possess today, which is referred to as ‘Q’ from Quelle, the German term for ‘source’. Viewed together, these three ‘synoptic’ gospels, that is, looking at Jesus in much the same way, provide an overall view of him, and they were followed, probably a little later, by the Fourth Gospel, which is traditionally ascribed to St John.

The Gospel we know as Mark’s is generally agreed to have been written for the Christian community in Rome about the year

AD

70, or perhaps earlier; and there is a strong early tradition that its author was John Mark, who was for a time the young companion of the apostle Peter (see Acts 15:37–9). Its special aim was perhaps to strengthen the community of Christians who were being persecuted in Rome. Compared with the other, longer, Gospels, there is a freshness and unadorned directness in Mark. It provides realistic details in describing events, it does not shrink from criticising the disciples whom Jesus called to accompany him, and it is open in describing Jesus’s human responses to various events, although it is forthright in its opening proclamation, ‘The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God’ (1:1).

It is widely considered that Matthew’s Gospel is not by the apostle we know as Matthew, and that, by contrast with the others, it was written largely out of concern for an early group of Jewish converts to Christianity, living possibly in Antioch in Syria, who were concerned about the Judaism and Jewish Law and practices that they had left behind in becoming Christians. How far, if at all, they asked, did these apply to Christians? Unlike the other Gospels, Matthew quotes regularly from the Hebrew Bible, which Christians came to term the Old Testament, to prove that its prophecies have been fulfilled in Jesus; it is preoccupied with the Mosaic Law and its requirements; it shows marked hostility to the Jewish people; and it devotes serious attention to the controversies between Jesus and his enemies concerning observance of the Jewish Sabbath and their rules of ritual purity.

The Gospel of Luke is probably the most accessible to modern readers, because he was concerned to address mainly educated Gentile and Roman readers, and he omitted material from his sources which would be of interest only to Jewish people. He shows a disposition to present Roman officials in as sympathetic a light as he can, by contrast finding the Jewish synagogue in his time more hostile to his fellow-Christians. He depicts a gentle, compassionate Jesus and shows in him a predilection for the poor and vulnerable. It is generally agreed that Luke was a second or third generation Gentile Christian, that he may have been a doctor (see Col 4:14), and that he belonged to the large Christian community in the city of Antioch in Syria and had composed his gospel by the late

AD

80s.

The Gospel of John is often today preferably called the Fourth Gospel because of uncertainty about the identity its author, who was traditionally considered the beloved disciple of Jesus. It contains less narrative than the others about Jesus’ actions, and more theological discourses by Jesus on his divine origin and his earthly mission. Written probably in Ephesus, and aimed at Christian readers and listeners, its particular purpose, drawn from internal evidence, includes the healing of divisions which existed within the Johannine community and promoting its unity, countering the followers of John the Baptist, and engaging in polemic against ‘the Jews’ of the diaspora, as well as against heretical groups of Christians.

Within the four Gospels, some events and sayings derived from Jesus are reported in only one, as we shall note, while others are repeated in more than one, yet often with fascinating differences. There are many passages in one or more of the Gospels which have captivated my interest and meditation, and my curiosity; and I hope that the following reflections on these glimpses of the Gospels will prove as attractive and exciting to others.

Chapter 1

Getting the Point

Occasionally in the New Testament we come across passages that are difficult to understand or where it’s not easy to get the point. This chapter considers several such instances: What did Jesus really mean when he said we should give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s? Why is Matthew’s Gospel unlike all the other Gospels in appearing to allow for divorce on certain grounds? What did Jesus mean by ‘our daily bread’ in the Our Father? What is the difference between the tiny parables of the hidden treasure and the precious pearl? What is the point of Jesus’ parable about the labourers in the vineyard, which seems to be unfair to grape pickers? What are we to understand by the statement that God is ‘with’ us, and what light does this throw on the Bible-based people’s response ‘And with your spirit’?

Giving to Caesar

Jesus’ statement that we should give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s is one of the best known, and yet perhaps one of the least understood, of his sayings. What is the point of it?

The gospel setting (Mark 12:13–17) shows us Jesus’ opponents trying to manoeuvre him into a corner by asking him the controversial question whether the Jewish people were allowed by their law to pay taxes to the Roman power occupying their country. Their aim was to trap him. If Jesus replied that they should pay the Roman tax, he would be accused of betraying his people and collaborating with their enemy. On the other hand, if he replied that they should not pay the tax, he would be denounced to the Romans as a troublesome rebel, and in fact during his trial the Sanhedrin did accuse him of forbidding people to pay taxes to the emperor (Luke 23:2).

The gospel tells us that Jesus was well aware of what his opponents were up to and knew how to handle them. The annual poll tax on all adults was one denarius, equivalent to a day’s wages, and it had to be paid in Roman coinage. So, Jesus asked his questioners to show him a tribute coin. (Years ago I had charge of a collection of ancient coins, including some small silver denarii dating from the reign of the Emperor Tiberius, and I occasionally fantasised whether one of them might be the actual Roman denarius handled by Jesus.) When they handed one to him, he asked his enemies whose head and title was on the coin, and they had to reply that, of course, it was Caesar’s. Whereupon Jesus said, ‘Well, then, if it’s Caesar’s, give it to Caesar. And give to God what belongs to God.’ We are told his enemies went off baffled, because, in modern colloquial terms, they realised there was no answer to that.

Church and State

Many people have understood that in this passage Jesus was making a distinction between two separate spheres: one relating to Caesar and the matters of this world, and the other relating to God and matters of God’s world, with the conclusion that we should recognise and respect what belongs to each sphere. We are to respect the secular, or civil, sphere of society in its own right (render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar), but we must also bear in mind our duty to obey God in the religious, or sacred, sphere.

In the course of history the relationship between these two spheres, the secular and the religious, has been very differently understood and has regularly created serious tension. The distinguished politician, Shirley Williams, once wrote a book with the catchy title God and Caesar, which made it immediately evident what the book was about: how political issues can often be in conflict with religious or moral considerations. Some people have come to consider the secular sphere as absolute and the state as totalitarian, justified in laying down the law even as far as in matters of religion and worship. However, the objection to this claim has always been recognised as the rider that Jesus added, that we must also give God what belongs to God, recalling for believers the claim of Peter and the other apostles when they were ordered by the Jewish authorities to stop preaching about Jesus: ‘We must obey God rather than any human authority’ (Acts 5:29).

In contrast, other people have seen Jesus’ saying as leading ultimately to a strict separation between the religious and the civil spheres, that is, between Church and state, as was introduced into the American Constitution when its founders decreed that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’. Interestingly, in his visit to the United States in 2008 Pope Benedict XVI praised this American separation for the way in which ‘historically, not only Catholics, but all believers have found here the freedom to worship God in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, while at the same time being accepted as part of a commonwealth in which each individual and group can make its voice heard’.

Others again have regarded God’s sphere, or the Church’s rule, as absolute, providing a theocracy that leaves no scope for autonomy or independence in the secular area of society, as in ancient Israel or Calvin’s Geneva. In The Church in the Modern World (n.76), the Second Vatican Council tried to strike the balance between the sacred and the secular when it observed that ‘in their proper spheres, the political community and the Church are mutually independent and self-governing. Yet, by a different title, each serves the personal and social vocation of the same human beings. This service can be more effectively rendered for the good of all, if each works better for wholesome mutual cooperation, depending on the circumstances of time and place.’

Looking in more detail at this passage of the New Testament, some people have drawn a further conclusion from the saying of Jesus about giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar: he was implying that he and his fellow citizens did have obligations to the Roman authorities in acknowledgement of the public benefits that they received from Caesar’s rule. Something like this lies behind the statement of St Paul to the Christians in Rome that they should pay taxes to the governing authorities, ‘for the authorities are God’s servants’ (Romans 13:7), their role being to protect everyone and ensure peace and public order.

Yet, as one looks more closely at the exchange between Jesus and his opponents, it becomes clear that we cannot really be looking at two separate and distinct spheres of activity, one of which pertains to God – and one that does not pertain to God. That is not believable. If they are indeed two separate spheres, they cannot be on the same plane of comparison: sometimes we may well need to choose for God against Caesar, but surely never for Caesar against God. As the Second Vatican Council observed in its Decree on the Church (n. 36), ‘even in secular affairs there is no human activity which can be withdrawn from God’s dominion’; and the Psalmist tells us that ‘the earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it’ (Psalm 24:1–2). Indeed, Caesar and all that is his belongs to God, although God’s will may well be that we respect the state authorities so long as they do not trespass on God’s prerogatives.

All the more

Perhaps the point is that we need to look more closely at the conversation between Jesus and his opponents, and realise that in fact he did not answer the question that was put to him, ‘Should we pay tax to the emperor?’ I think that Jesus never answered any question in exactly the same terms in which it was put to him; he always changed the subject, or he introduced his own agenda, moving everyone’s attention to a higher or deeper level of reflection. Forgive your neighbour seven times? No, seventy times seven. The greatest commandment? Well, there are two. One ground for divorce or many? Actually, none (except in Matthew’s Gospel, which needs special treatment – see below). Where do I live? Come and see! So we should not expect Jesus to answer the question here about paying tax to Caesar with a simple yes or no. In fact, he adroitly evaded answering the trick question, looking at the coin given to him and pointing out, ‘Well, if this belongs to Caesar, give it back to Caesar’. Then he added his own reflection, ‘and likewise give God whatever belongs to God.’

So, I suggest it is a mistake to think that in his reply Jesus is dividing life into two spheres, the secular and the sacred, as so many people have supposed. His argument does not separate; it accumulates, it is an a fortiori, or ‘all the more’, argument. He is not saying, on the one hand respect Caesar and on the other hand respect God. What he is pointing out is that, if you respect Caesar’s property, as you obviously should, then all the more you ought to respect God’s property. So his full answer is, ‘Well, then, give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. And while you are at it, give everything that belongs to God back to God.’ That sounds more like Jesus.

Grounds for Divorce in Matthew

Matthew’s Gospel contains two passages in which Jesus appears to allow his male followers to divorce their wives in certain circumstances. In this it contrasts dramatically with the rest of the New Testament, where Jesus is several times reported as totally forbidding divorce. What is the point of this remarkable difference?

Mark’s Gospel, which is probably the first written gospel, reports how Jesus was once asked by some Pharisees whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. Moses had allowed it (Deuteronomy 24:1); so, what did the rabbi from Nazareth think? Jesus’ answer was that Moses had indeed allowed divorce, ‘because of your hardness of heart.’ But, he added, from the beginning of creation God had made humans male and female, so husband and wife were no longer two: they belonged together. ‘Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate’ (Mark 10:2–9).

In Luke’s Gospel, which is later than and often follows Mark’s, we find among a collection of short sayings of Jesus the simple assertion that ‘Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery’ (Luke 16:18). In addition, both of these Gospel teachings, in Mark and Luke, which unreservedly forbid divorce, agree with the earlier statement of St Paul quoting Jesus when he wrote to the Christians in Corinth, ‘To the married I give this command – not I but the Lord – that the wife should not separate from her husband … and that the husband should not divorce his wife’ (1 Corinthians 7:10).

The remarkable thing is that in Matthew’s Gospel, even though it often follows Mark’s Gospel and parallels Luke’s Gospel, Jesus’ teaching differs in two places from this categorical condemnation of divorce. The first passage is in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7), where we find Jesus comparing the Ten Commandments of the Law of Moses (Exodus 20) with his own more demanding moral teaching (cf. Chapter 3). While contrasting the Mosaic commandment forbidding adultery with his own teaching, which calls for purity in one’s thoughts as well as one’s actions, Jesus adds a footnote, which refers to Moses’ permitting of divorce, and continues, ‘But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity (known as the ‘exceptive clause’; the Greek word is porneia), causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery’ (Matthew 5:32). In a later passage in Matthew the subject comes up again, when the conversation with the Pharisees on the subject of divorce, which we have seen above in Mark’s Gospel, is repeated and is filled out by Jesus being asked, not just whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife as Moses permitted, but whether a man can divorce his wife ‘for any cause’ (19:3–9).

A rabbinical dispute

Commentators are agreed that behind this question of the Pharisees lies the dispute between Jewish rabbis at the time on how one should understand the ground for divorce that Moses had indeed permitted, namely, for ‘something objectionable’ (in Hebrew, erwat dabar) on the wife’s part (Deuteronomy 24:1). One school of thought, that of the rabbi Shammai, understood this to apply only to sexual misconduct by the wife as a ground for divorce, whereas the other school, that of the rabbi Hillel, interpreted Moses’ ground of ‘something objectionable’ to include any fault on the part of the wife, including, as commentators all love to repeat, her being a bad cook!

In this later passage in Matthew, Jesus is recorded as repeating