WITH
GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY
Mario
D’Couto
During the crucifixion of Our Blessed Lord, Pilate said
to Him,
“Will you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to
crucify you and I have authority to release you?” to which Our Blessed Lord
responded,
“You would not have any authority over me unless it were given to
you from above” (John 19:10-11) Christ Our True King, Lord and Master shows
us by His life about what true authority implies. St. Paul explains it
beautifully in his letter to the Philippians where he writes,
“Though He was
in the form of God, Jesus did not count equality with God, a thing to be
grasped. He emptied Himself, taking the nature of a servant, being born in the
likeness of men, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, death on
the Cross. Therefore God has highly exalted Him and has given Him the name
above every other name. That at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow in
heaven and on earth and under the earth and every tongue confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:6-11) I
could not think of a better verse that describes the Kingship of Our Blessed
Lord.
The Greeks of Jesus’ time found it hard to understand how
could victory and glory be found in defeat, pain and suffering. It was only
until the day of Calvary when a defeated Man hanging on a Cross ultimately
became the Conqueror. Our Blessed Lord did not come to do away with the Old Law
but rather to fulfil it. He was born in Bethlehem, during the time of the Roman
occupation where Israel was under the ‘Roman veil’ so to speak. This is to say
that the Jews were allowed to carry on their religious practices, customs and
feasts although they had no political power. To resolve any public dispute,
they would have to approach the local leader who would be a Roman. Of course,
the Jewish Rabbis were there and they did have a certain superiority, yet, they
were devoid of having any political party. It is like a man who allows his
children to be controlled by another man.
Now while it seemed that the Rabbis had authority over
religious matters, nonetheless, it seemed as though they were too or overtly
stringent in their observance of the Law. Yet the question we could raise is
were the Pharisees too rigorous for the sake of being rigorous or was it
because they genuinely felt that the Law of God had to be followed that way?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides us with an answer,
“The
principal of integral observance of the Law not only in letter but in spirit
was dear to the Pharisees. By giving Israel this principle they had led many
Jews of Jesus’ time to an extreme religious zeal. However, if this zeal were
not to lapse into ‘hypocritical’ casuistry, the Law could only prepare the
people for the intervention of God through the perfect fulfilment of the Law by
the only Righteousness One in place of sinners” (CCC, 579). Elsewhere, we
also find something similar in another article,
“The law of the Gospel
fulfils the communication of the Law. The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, far from
abolishing or devaluing the moral prescription of the Old Law, releases their
hidden potential and has new demands arise from them: it reveals the entire
divine human truth. It does not add new external precepts but proceeds to renew
the heart, the root of human acts, where the human person chooses between the
pure and the impure, where faith, hope and charity are found …. The Gospel thus brings the Law to its fulness
through imitation of the perfection of the heavenly Father” (CCC, 1968)
From these two articles we can infer that the salvation
that Our Lord brought about was not a social one but a spiritual one. It was
not to save the world necessarily from their poverty but to save it from their
sins. To destroy sin is to uproot the first cause of poverty. What better way
Our Lord could have done this than by becoming poor Himself.
The plight is that despite all this, many people who
lived during Jesus’ time failed to understand Him and His mission starting with
His own Apostles. It was only at the time of His Resurrection that it all came
together which helped the Apostles to understand the purpose of His
incarnation. One clear instance that I can think of in this regard is the
feeding of the five thousand.
To provide some context, many, many years ago, during the
time of the Anglo – Saxons, it was customary for them to appoint someone who
would protect the food of the people lest they should be plundered if the enemy
attacks and plunders all their food leaving them starving.
At that time, in those days, the person in charge of this
critical assignment for the survival of the community was called a halfweard;
this word referred to the trusted ‘loafward’ or ‘loafkeeper’ for
the community. In time, the term was contracted to ‘hlaford’. By the
Middle Ages, the word had first evolved into ‘laferd’ and then ‘loverd’.
Finally, in later English, the word was reduced to the familiar word ‘lord’
and was the expression used to refer to the master of the household supplies,
especially the bread supplies. The word was further enabled as the English
translation of the word ‘dominus’. The root for this word is ‘domus’
meaning ‘household’ or ‘house’ in Latin. In Roman culture, dominus
or lord, was a position of prestige related to controlling the
household’s food supply, the mainstay of which was bread.
It is certainly more providential than coincidental that
Jesus acknowledged for himself the title Lord, “You call me ‘Teacher’ and
‘Lord’ and rightly so, for that is what I am” (John 13:13). As we have
already seen, etymologically, the lord or ‘master of the household’
was the keeper of the bread supply. Thus in referring to Himself with the
phrase, ‘master of the household supplies’ or ‘food provider’,
Our Blessed Lord is pointing to the word ‘Lord’ as founded in St.
Matthew’s Gospel, “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the
master of the household has put in charge of the servants in his household to
give them their food at the proper time?” (Matthew 24:45)
Upon further investigation, we uncover more interesting
little details that seem far from being coincidental. Was it coincidental that
Jesus, the ‘master of the household’, the ‘master of food supplies’ was
born in Bethlehem which means ‘House of Bread’? Was it coincidental that Jesus,
who would later call Himself the Bread of Life was laid as a new-born infant in
a manger, a box designed to hold food for the livestock in the stable?
Thus coming back to the miracle of the feeding of the
five thousand, Jesus exercised the office of master of the food supply in a tangible way in the feeding of the five thousand men (not counting women and
children), leaving 12 baskets of leftovers. Among the many miracles of Jesus,
this one enjoyed the widest participation. In fact, we could say that this is
the only miracle besides the Resurrection that is mentioned in all four
Gospels, where in turn we may infer that this miracle, this incident in the
life of Our Blessed Lord made an indelible impression on the minds of the 4
Gospel writers. Yet, as St. Augustine would say that to admire a miracle
without learning its lesson is like admiring beautiful handwriting without
knowing how to read and so St. John besides writing the Gospel also gives us
its implication. As St. John’s Gospel is popularly known as the Gospel of
signs, the multiplication of the five loaves and two fish or the feeding of the
five thousand is a prefiguration of Christ’s own Body and Blood as food for
their souls. This miracle took place during the Jewish feast of the Passover. When
the people had come to hear Jesus, He knew that they would be hungry. St. John
tells us that Jesus already knew what He was going to do but He decided to test
His disciple Philip and asked Him,
“Where can we buy enough food for them to
eat?” Puzzled at such a question, he pointed out to Our Blessed Lord that
it would take two hundred days of wages to buy enough food to feed everyone
that too just the minimal amount of food. Just then, a small boy approached
Jesus and His Apostles, offering them five small barley loaves and two small
fish. Certainly this meagre offering appeared rather pitiful though Jesus had
all the people recline so they could eat (Matthew 14:19) and as they say, the
rest is history.
miracle takes place as the Passover
draws near, the same time of the year that Jesus would later choose to
institute the Eucharist. The proximity of this feast certainly must have evoked
images of Moses among the people in the crowd. Second, Jesus uses the same
sequence of actions here which He repeats at the Last Supper: He takes the
bread, blesses it and distributes it to His disciples, who in turn give it to
the people. Third, Jesus’ blessing of the bread has supernatural power in both
instances. In this case, the bread is miraculously multiplied to feed five
thousand men. At the Last Supper, Jesus miraculously changes ordinary bread and
wine into His Body and Blood. Fourth, Jesus provides His followers with all the
material sustenance they need at the miracle of the five loaves and two fish.
In fact, the Gospels tell us that the people ate until they were full and an
abundant surplus of twelve full baskets still remained. In the Eucharist, Jesus
provides us with all the spiritual sustenance we need to live for Him but not only
that we can trust He will take care of our material needs as well
(metaphorically expressed in the phrase ‘our daily bread’).
Now while Our Blessed Lord addresses the physical need,
the plight is that they (the people) had not taken the miracle as a sign of His
Divinity. They were looking ‘for’ Him instead ‘to’ Him. It seemed
as though they saw Him only as a means of satisfying their bread – hunger and
not their soul – hunger. In fact, we may just say that when Our Blessed Lord
got off the boat once it reached the shores, the multitudes of people were
there to meet Him. They had brought their sick with them and they were hungry
in more ways than one. They gave Him no repose, not because they believed Him
to be the Son of God but because they regarded Him as a magician who could do
wonders as a physician who could heal the sick.
Through the multiplication of the loaves of bread, Our
Lord was setting two kinds of bread before them, namely, the bread that could
perish and the bread that would bring them life everlasting. He cautioned them
against following Him as a donkey following the master who holds a carrot.
Excitement is not religion nor was it meant to be that way but it was
definitely meant to be meaningful. Of course, in later stages, one may finding
it exciting once one has discovered the meaning and purpose behind what he/she
believes. But if this is not there, everything else is just shallow or a
façade.
To lift the carnal minds to the Eternal Food, Our Lord
suggested they seek the Heavenly Bread the Father has given. He, Who was born
in Bethlehem, the ‘House of Bread’ and was laid in a manger, a place of
food for lower animals, would now be to men, so inferior to Him, their Bread of
Life. Everything in nature has to have communion in order to live and through
it what is lower is transformed into what is higher: chemicals into plants,
plants into animals, animals into man. And man? Should he not be elevated
through communion with Him Who came down from heaven to make man a partaker of
Divine nature? As a Mediator between God and man, He said that as He lived by
the Father, so they would live in Him, “As the Father sent Me and I live
because of the Father, so he who eats Me shall live because of Me” (John
6:58).
This eating of flesh is not the same as a mother
nourishing her child. It is much more than that. Every mother to every child at
her breast can say, “Eat this is my body; this is my blood” yet no
mother ever had to die and take on a more glorious existence in her human
nature before she can be the nourishment to her offspring. On the other hand
Our Lord said that He would have to give His life before He would be the Bread
of Life to His believers. The plants which nourish animals do not live on
another plant; the animals which nourish man do not live in another world. If
Christ then was to be the “Life of the World”, He must a tabernacle
among men as Emmanuel or ‘God among us’, supplying a life for the soul
as earthly bread is for the life of the body.
However, the mind of His hearers rose no higher than the
physical, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52) It
would take His death to reveal the ultimate meaning of His works and who He
truly was. Bishop Fulton Sheen (now Venerable Fulton Sheen) would explain this
in his book, “Life of Christ” in the following words, “The masses
were generally interested only in wonders and security. When He multiplied the loaves and fishes, He
startled their eyes. When He filled their stomachs, He satisfied their sense of
social justice. That was the kind of King they wanted – a bread King. ‘What
else can religion do for men anyway except give him social security?’ they
seemed to ask. The masses tried to force Him to become a King. That is what
Satan wanted too! Fill gullets, turn stones into bread and promise prosperity –
this is the end of living to most mortals.
But Our Lord would have no kingship based on the
economics of plenty. To make Him King was His Father’s business, not theirs:
His Kingship would be of hearts and souls, not digestive tracts. So the Gospel
tells us He fled into the mountains alone, to escape their tinsel crown and tin
sword.”
According to pastor Gregory A. Boyd, it is the radical
nature of Our Blessed Lord that distinguishes Him. It didn’t just rain when He
prayed for it. We are talking about blindness, deafness, leprosy, scoliosis
being healed, storms being stopped, sons and daughters being raised from the
dead, bread and fish being multiplied. There are 37 miracles recorded in the
Gospels although Jesus did many more (John 21:25). Through all the miracles,
Our Blessed Lord was revealing Himself through it and hence far from being just
a
‘magician performing magic’, the miracles of Our Blessed Lord were
meant to transform. Hence besides just addressing the issue at hand (whatever
the need was), each miracle was pointing to His Divinity as we see in the
healing of the blind man (John 9:1-39) or the woman at the well (John 4:5-30,
39-42) and in so many other instances in the Gospels.
Having said that, this brings me to an important point
which seems to be a bit of a concern and while this is mostly seen among
Protestant circles, it is important for each of us to be careful about lest we
fall for the trap and that is the ‘
Prosperity Gospel’. In a nutshell,
the Prosperity Gospel tells us that because we pray to God, God will reward us
with material benefits whether it is in finance, good health, a job offer and
the list goes on. The danger of this is that we reduce God to a
‘vending
machine’ rather than truly worshiping Him for Who He is. Would we stop
praying and worshipping God just because we feel that our prayers are not
answered or we don’t see results? Given the instant – culture that we live in,
it only seems to have aggravated the problem and yet nothing could be further
from the truth.
On more than one occasion Our Blessed Lord spoke of
following Him not without carrying our Crosses. Ultimately He paid the price
for our sins by giving His own life on the Cross. Suffering, for the sake of
suffering is meaningless and useless but suffering for the sake of a higher
goal becomes meaningful. There can be no real success and fulfilment without
the struggle and this aspect is not only restricted to our faith and spiritual
growth but is also embedded in every other aspect of human life be it in
sports, music, work, finance, you name it. As the Cross came nearer to Our
Blessed Lord, His glory became greater. Just as the dove rested its feet after
the deluge (Noah’s Ark), so does true peace come only after the Crucifixion.
There are some who may raise a question as to whether
Jesus was a lesser god when He said,
“The Father is greater than I”
(John 14:28)? Absolutely not! In order to understand this statement, we must
keep in mind that when Jesus became human, He
‘emptied’ Himself
(Philippians 2:7). The disciples began to mourn when they knew that Jesus would
be going away from them to which He replied,
“If you loved Me, you’d be glad
for My sake when I say I am going away because the Father is greater than I”
(John 14:28) This is to say that Jesus is returning to the glory that is
properly His, so if they really knew who He was and really loved Him properly,
they would be glad that He is going back to the realm where He really is
greater.
Thus, when we use the word ‘greater’ in this
sense, it does not mean an ontological greatness. If for example, I consider
that the President of the United States is greater than me, it does not mean
that he is an ontologically superior being. He is certainly greater in military
capability, political prowess and public acclaim but he is not more of a man
than I am. Hence, in other words, He is still a normal human being just like
any other human person. The same understanding or interpretation can be said
with regard to the relationship between God the Father and Jesus whose essence
are the same.
What makes the personality of Our Blessed Lord unique
from His contemporaries (the Pharisees, the Scribes and the Sadducees) is that
He did things with authority. In the Gospels, we see that in the very beginning
of Jesus’ ministry, He knew what He came for (John 8:14) (the “I AM” found in
Exodus 3:14 is the same “I AM” found in John 18:5-8). Jesus is God incarnate as
He said,
“I and My Father are One” (John 10:30). This is evident where
He opened the scroll and read the book of Isaiah (Luke 4:17-21) and in many
other instances in the Gospels where He asserts His authority. We don’t find
any other rabbis talking like this anywhere. He does give God the Father the
credit for what He does but you will never find Him asking God the Father to do
it – He does it in the power of God the Father.
To conclude with the words of the historian and
theologian Philip Schaff,
“Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms,
conquered more millions that Alexander, Caesar, Mohammed and Napoleon; without
science and learning. He shed more light on things human and divine than all
philosophers and scholars combined; without the eloquence of schools. He spoke
such words of life as were never spoken before or since and produced effects
which lie beyond the reach of orator or poet; without writing a single line, He
set more pens in motion and furnished themes for sermons, orations,
discussions, learned volumes, works of art and songs of praise than the whole
army of great men of ancient and modern times”, not one recognised
religious leader, not Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius and so on ever claimed to be
God. Christ is the only religious leader who has ever claimed to be deity and
the only individual ever who has convinced a great portion of the world that He
is God. And how do we know this or on what basis can we come to this
conclusion? While this is a vast topic in itself and probably begs for a
separate blogpost/reflection, one thing we can say is that His teachings were
ultimate and final. He never added any afterthoughts or revisions; He never
retracted or changed; He never guessed,
‘supposed’ or spoke with
uncertainty. This is all so contrary to human teachers and teachings.
The feast of Christ the King is a reminder of God’s
sovereignty and yet in as much as He is transcendent, He invites us to be part
of His family, His Kingdom as Philip Yancey writes in his book,
“The Jesus I
never knew”,
“It occurs to me that all the contorted theories about
Jesus that have been spontaneously generating since the day of His death merely
confirm the awesome risk God took when He stretched Himself out on the
dissection table – a risk He seemed to welcome. Examine Me. Test Me. You
decide.” Would we worship and revere Our Lord and Master as King because it
is a feast that has been given to us by the Church or would we honour Him
because of Who He is and what He has done for us and continues to do for each of us each day in our lives?
