The Eucharist

In “The Feeding of the Five Thousands” we find Jesus followed by a large crowd (about five thousand) and wanting to feed them in what seems to be an ordinary meal. His disciples advise him to send the crowd off, but he insists on feeding them and is able to do so with five loaves and two fish.  Luke 9:16 says: “Then taking the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he said the blessing over them, broke them, and gave them to the disciples to set before the crowd. In this cases, the elements were bread and fish and the actions taken in relation to this elements is that he “raise them” to heave, broke them and gave thanks. A theological purpose for this might have been to prelude Jesus words in the Last Supper (Mark 14:22-25; Matthew 26:26-29; Luke 22:14-20) and how whenever Jesus followed this kind of format, great things usually happened: in this case he multiplied the bread and fish and great quantities but in the Last Supper, he left his presence among humanity until the end of times.

 Now, the Last Supper was indeed a festive meal in comparison to the Feeding of the Five Thousand. It was the Passover meal, an important festivity for the Jews. For the three accounts of the Last Supper and for The Feeding of the Five Thousand we find the common typical structure of Jesus. He takes the elements, in this case the cup [of wine] and the bread and gave thanks. But we see in the Last Supper that he gives a greater emphasis on the his sacrifice, the need to repeat whatever he is doing in his memory, and his coming to the kingdom of God. Furthermore, in terms of the Appearance on the Road to Emmaus, we find that the two disciples invite the man whom they encountered in the road to dine and stay with them.  In this supper, a regular supper, this man took the bread and said the blessing and broke it and at that moment with, that similar structure of blessing we have seen throughout the three accounts and with the bread as the common element among them, the eye of the disciples were open and they were finally able to recognize him as Jesus.

 

Of Gods and Men

Psalm 82 talks about the sons of God, “the Most High”, and how they, even though they are sons of God, will die as mere men and also makes reference as to how “all the nations are [God’s] inheritance.” These lines characterize the film “Of Gods and Men” in that the French monks in the movie have a close relationship with their God; they are purely sons of God, at the service of God and rest of his people. Yet, just as the psalm suggests that “[they] die like mere men; [they] will fall like every other ruler,” so these monks are confronted with death just like any other men amidst a very human-created conflict. Furthermore, the phrase “all the nations are [God’s] inheritance” in the Psalm 82 is characterized in the movie by presenting to different religious communities intertwined with each other that pray to the same God but find themselves in different positions, like to different nations, yet the monks loved them both government and terrorist, friends and enemies because they understood that every “nation” was from God.

God in the film can be found in the monk’s home and religious acts but also in their day-to-day life, they seek God and encountered God in their daily tasks, in their prayers, in the people in the community around them and even in the beautiful nature surrounding them. There are several scenes where we see monks amidst their natural surroundings, seeking God in their prayer and in His creation. The film is about men and their different religions, their different gods in that since the beginning we see these relationships in the community between men from two different religions and beliefs. Either the monks are participating in celebrations with their fellow villager, even when these are Muslim, or the villagers visit, help and seek counsel with the monks even if they are not Christians. It is about different religions in that it shows even differences in one same religion and the possibility of harmony between Christians and Muslims as sons of God.  

Pro-Alexander & Athanasius

Among the strongest arguments in favor or Alexander and Athanasius’ position I found first, the idea that people like Arius “shy away from those passages [in Scriptures and Gospels about his divinity and his indescribable glory alongside the Father.” (Letter to Alexander of Constantinople) and that “by supposing that he came out of nothing, they utterly abolish the sacred writings about his eternal being, which indicate the immutability of the Word and the divinity of the wisdom of the Word, which is Christ.” (Letter to Alexander of Constantinople) when John clearly says that “ In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. All things came to be through him, and apart from him not one came to be” (John 1:1-3)

 Furthermore, among other compelling arguments, Alexander makes a strong argument by saying that “the sonship of our savior has nothing in common with the sonship of anyone else” (Letter to Alexander of Constantinople) and that “also his sonship, being according to nature of his Father’s divinity, differs by an ineffable preeminence from those who have been made into sons through his decree.” (Letter to Alexander of Constantinople)  Some may ask what his differing nature implies that he is divine but Alexander continues to argue that: “For he is of an immutable nature, perfect and lacking in nothing, but since they are deficient in every way, they need assistance from him.” (Letter to Alexander of Constantinople) In this sense, Jesus divinity explains his nature as a Savior.  Only a being completely perfect and divine was capable of aiding and saving humanity from evil and sin. If Jesus would have been a mere human, that would not have been enough for the mission of salvation for all. 

Monseñor Romero: A Modern Martyr

Now a day, Monseñor Romero, is constantly used by self-interested Salvadorans as a political figure. Nonetheless, his work during El Salvador’s civil war was one of Christian discipleship. This modern martyr shared threats and pressures from the Salvadoran society’s officials just as Polycarp did from the officials of his time. But just as the ancient martyrs were constant in their professions of faith and did not allow threat or fear to stop them, Monseñor Romero fought and insisted to the last day of his life in making people understand that:

“Brothers, you are from the same people; you kill your fellow peasants…No soldier is obliged to obey an order that is contrary to the will of God…In the name of God, in the name of this suffering people, I ask you—I implore you—I command you in the name of God: stop the repression!”

Oscar Romero fought to and was ultimately killed for transmitting the preference for the poor and the love for the neighbor that Jesus teaches us in the Gospel just ancient martyrs were threatened because of their own teachings about Jesus Gospel. He was killed because his Gospel teachings and concerns ultimately criticized the government’s and military officials actions toward the Salvadoran society, especially those towards the poor and the campesinos who were all treated miserably.  One might think that being an influential priest in an influential position of a Christian community, Monseñor Romero, would have received more support from at least his fellow bishops whom “all but one of whom turned their backs on him.” What Romero’s assassination in a Christian Culture reflects the nature of martyrdom as a shared mission with Christ, whom was a rejected prophet even among his own people. Martyrs, and in this case Monseñor Romero, share with Christ the mission of bringing truth and justice, and yet being rejected and even harmed.

Romero’s life is a good example of what means to by a Christian in today’s world. Most of us are not persecuted because of our faith, nonetheless we all live societies full of corruption and social injustice. Romero shows us that living our faith more fully in today’s world requires bringing the Gospel’s teachings and applying them to what is currently happening in our society. It requires Christians to be able to identify and fight for justice and good for everyone even in the midst of conflict. It is not about accepting Jesus as our God or not, it is about finding Jesus in every single one human being and fighting for the truth and the common good.

Early Christian Leadership: The Didache

The leadership of the early church, in light of the Didache, seems very concerned with the welfare of Christian communities as we can see in their concern of protecting them from false prophets. On the other hand, they also seemed concern with how the community interacts with themselves, but mainly with their own prophets and leaders. Furthermore, we can tell that the church leaders were starting to seek a more structured organization of the communities. For this reason, they asked the communities to appoint specific leaders to manage their affairs (i.e. bishops and deacons.)

The problem this church seems to be facing is that false prophets and teachers have been taking advantage of the Christian community for their own individual profit. Therefore, the church leaders believe that it is important that the Christian communities learn to test and identify this false prophets and “and limit the length of their stay at the community’s expense.” (Pg. 323, The Development of Church Offices, The Didache) Among the advice given to identify these false prophets we find things like: a prophet does not ask to stay for more that two days, he does not ask for money when departing, he practice what he teaches, among others.

In terms of effectiveness, I believe that these strategies were definitely possible if the communities itself were small enough so that both the people and the leaders were aware of what was happening in the community and who was coming in and out. We know that early Christians promoted communal life, but once this communal life started to decrease due to big numbers, it would have been harder for leaders to control who came in and out of the community. Among the changes necessary to promote and maintain necessary discipline in later centuries, I would say it was necessary to start delegating and dividing the jurisdiction of specific leaders into smaller communities with their own leaders. So that, little by little, a hierarchy of leadership might have been created so that every community, big or small, might have had a leader to respond to, while their responds to the leader of a much larger christian community their part of.

Luke’s Resurrection Narrative

             Luke’s Resurrection Narrative, starts of without any reference to the Sabbath, as other Gospels had. He narrates how “they” took spices and went to Jesus’ tomb, from the context of the gospel however, we know that he is referring to “the women who had come from Galilee with him” (Luke 23:55) but the Gospel does not identify specific women among the group until later. They get to the tomb, however, and find that the stone was rolled away already. As they entered the tomb they see that Jesus is not there anymore and instead two mean appeared to them, presumably angels. The women were terrified but the men said, “Why do you seek the living one among the dead? He is not here, but he has been raised…Remember that he said to you that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners and be crucified, and rise on the third day” (Luke 24:5-6) This clearly shows that Jesus was already risen and among them. They went back to tell everything to the disciples, but they did not believe it.

            The overall theological message that might motivate readers and listeners to believe in Jesus is the fulfillment of the Scripture in the Old Testament. The first sign of this message is found at the beginning of the narrative, but then we find that Jesus constantly alludes to the fulfillment of “everything written about me [Jesus] in the Law of Moses and in the prophets and psalms.” (Luke 24:45) Until he finally said: “It is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:46-47) In this sense, this Gospel tries to convince his reader/listener of Jesus being the Messiah by going back to the signs in the Old Testament already fulfilled by Jesus.

                       Finally, this Gospel’s portrait of the Risen Jesus is still shown as Rejected Prophet, especially when it is hard for his own disciples to recognize and believe he had risen. Going back to Luke 24:46-47 we see that he is still bringing good news to the gentiles, and outcasts and sinners, since he alludes to the forgiveness of sins that would be preached to all nations. I do believe, however, that the Risen Jesus of Luke’s narration did start to look more like the Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel that portrayed him “as the New Moses who fulfills the Jewish Scriptures.”

Jesus’ Death: Mark and John Gospels

Mark and John portrayals of Jesus’ death and events immediately after his death have both differences and similarities. In John 19, we find that John was very concerned about showing how Jesus was fulfilling the scriptures and so by the time his death was getting closer, in John 19:28, we find: “After this, aware that everything was now finished, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, I thirst” and right after he was given some wine he said his last words: “ ‘It is finished.’ And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.” (John 19…) In Mark however, we find that he was more concerned with the context: “At noon darkness came over the whole land” (Mark 15:33) and Jesus’ last words were different from the one we find in John’s account: “And at three o’clock, Jesus cried out in a loud voice…’My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?’” (Mark 15:34) In contrast, to John, Mark presents Jesus being offered wine after he had already utter his last words. 

Furthermore, John gives further detail to what happened after Jesus was dead, from how they broke the legs of the criminal crucified with Jesus and how they pierced Jesus’ side to make sure he was already dead and that it happened so that the scripture could be fulfilled “not a bone of it will be broken” and “they will look upon him whom they have pierced” (John 19:36-37) Mark, on the other hand, makes reference to how the veil of the sanctuary was torn from top to bottom and how the Centurion was the first to realize that “truly this man [Jesus] was the son of God” (Mark 15:39) plus the women that were staring from the distance.

 In terms of how the differences reflect the authors’ characteristic portrayals of the person of Jesus we find that Mark and the importance he gives to the secret Messianic identity of Jesus and how he was misunderstood, culminates at Jesus’ death when the Centurion is the first person to finally understand that Jesus was truly the Messiah. John, on the other hand, since he was concerned with signs, we find that by the end of Jesus life and after his death, he rectified what the scripture said about the savior and how this sings (Jesus being pierced and his legs not getting broken) present in Jesus’ death proved he was this savior. 

The Great Feast

Both Matthew and Luke, at some point, present the parable of the great wedding feast or the great feast. While at simple view, the two different accounts of each evangelist look very similar or almost the same, we find that they have some subtle differences that end up being important to each account after all. First of all, we find that Jesus in Matthew, addresses this parable without addressing a specific audience, although it may be argued that it was addressed to the Pharisees, while in Luke Jesus was presented as a guest in a dinner setting and answering with a parable to a specific fellow guest that after hearing him talk about who to invite to a dinner and why said: “blessed is the one who will dine in the kingdom of God” (Luke 14:15). So, in general, Luke gives this parable a social context related to its content directly, while Matthew doesn’t. 

Among other differences, we find that Matthew directly addresses a comparison between the Kingdom of heaven with a king that gave a wedding feast for his son, Luke just starts the parable of without any direct comparison and instead of having a king give a wedding feast for his son, he has a man, not a king) having a great dinner, but not a wedding for his son. Both, man and king, in each account, send their servants to summon his guests, but in both stories the guest react differently. While in Luke they just excuse themselves, in Matthew the guest ignore the invitation or even react violently and maltreat the King’s servants.  Filled with rage, both king and man decide to invite other somewhat random people to their feast but while Matthew gives a general view of who he invited, Luke is more specific on what the man asked of the servants: “Go out and bring in here the poor and the crippled, the blind, and the lame” (Luke 14:21)

In terms of how these stories function as parable or allegory according to Ralph, we can see that by addressing and being related to a specific social context Luke’s account becomes a parable with a single comparison and challenging specifically the host and guests of the dinner while, Matthew’s account by lacking this specific social context can be considered as an allegory and based on many comparisons. 

The Messianic Secret

It is striking that someone so great and who can do wonderful deeds to want to keep secret their nature and identity, specially when throughout Mark’s gospel we see this messianic secret brought up over and over. Jesus wanted to keep his true identity secret, so throughout the gospel we first find that those who knew his true identity since the beginnings of his ministry were the demons that possessed people. Early in Mark’s Gospels (Mark 1:34) , we find that “He cured many who were sick with various diseases, and he drove out many demons, not permitting them to speak because they knew him.” Clearly, we can see how he was hiding something, and that something turned out to be the center of our Christian faith. Moreover we know that “whenever unclean spirits saw him they would fall down before him and shout ‘You are the Son of God.’ He warned them sternly not to make him known.” (Mark 3:11). Furthermore, whenever he performed a miracle or cured someone in private, he would ask them to “see that you tell no one anything” (Mark 1:44) as he did with the leprosy at the beginning of Mark’s gospel.

 

Later in the gospel, however, Jesus disciples are starting to figure his really identity by his teachings and his deeds and although they are not really sure what it meant, in Mark 8:29 “Peter said to him in reply, ‘You are the Messiah’” but then “he warned them not to tell anyone about him” (Mark 8:29). In terms of why Jesus acted this way, I think, first of all, that he was following his Fathers plan and being obedient to the task he was given. Furthermore, I also think the Jesus realized that he might have been killed, very likely, way before if he had started his ministry by claiming he was God’s son and shared His Divinity. By allowing people to know his true identity after his resurrection, he made sure that there was a sign that could convince people of this divine truth and so it did.  

---

 

PROPHETS

A prophet is someone concerned about evil in every dimension – “even a minor injustice assumes cosmic proportions.” (Heschel’s Pg. 4). The prophet shares his voice with God, and through the Prophet’s words, God lets his rage and indignation be reflected, as shown in Amos: “But you mad the nazirites drink wine and commanded prophets, ‘Do not prophesy!’ Look, I am groaning beneath you, as a wagon groans when lade with sheaves.” (2:12-13) Nothing that has to do with good and evil is to small to considered for him and God. The prophet is concerned with the people and their actions throughout history and their relationship with God. He might seem contradictory because he is trying to portray both, God’s wrath and God’s love and compassion. So although his words are harsh, they do hold a message of hope. The Prophet never lessens man’s culpability. He is the only one to have a “vision of an end” (Heschel’s Pg. 10) rather than being “intoxicated with the here and now” as shown in Amos 4:2, “The LORD God has sworn by his holiness: truly days are coming upon you when they shall drag you away with ropes.”

 

A prophet is an iconoclast, who challenges what people think is holy and firmly believes that “worship preceded or followed by evil acts become absurdity.” (Heschel’s Pg. 11) He predicts disaster in order to promote repentance. He brings castigation but also hope of reconciliation for men. He generalizes and overstates as we can see in Amos where he condemns is each complete city without distinctions among groups within the city. But their exaggerations are meant to provide deeper understanding and not necessarily used to present real facts, but rather the transcendent. Prophets remind us that although few may be guilty, we all are responsible of the evil in the world. They don’t necessarily enjoy being a prophet, but they know it is a “distinction as well as an affliction.” (Heschel’s Pg. 18). A prophet is a messenger, but also a counselor and a witness with the duty of reveling that although there is anger in God, his mercy is infinite.

 

I could say we do have a prophet today, the Church. Many are displeased by the teachings and the words the church transmits. Like a prophet the church is concerned with our actions and how we relate with God. The Church transmits God’s love and mercy but it also demands men to be responsible of their actions and what the harsh consequences evil are. Just as prophets were unwanted in their time because of the harshness in their words, so the Church finds itself in constant attacks. The Church is no only the messenger of God, but it also a counselor for the people that follows it.