 |
| "Zacchaeus' tree", Jericho, Palestine, via Wikimedia Commons |
 | |
| The Pharisee and the Tax Collector via Google Images |
It is difficult for us to imagine the shock with which the parable of the publican and the Pharisee must have been received. The Pharisee is depicted as an exemplary man of religion. He does even more than is required of him by law: he fasts twice a week. There is no suggestion that he was a hypocrite. He does not take the credit for his own virtue; he thanks God for it. The publican or tax collector, on the other hand, although he asks God for mercy, makes no attempt to mend his ways and to make restitution for all the money he has [likely] stolen.
Jesus' verdict on these two men must have sounded outrageous. The sinner is pleasing to God and the virtuous man is not. Why? Because the sinner did not exalt himself as superior to men like the tax collector...[The Pharisee lacked compassion.] Without compassion all religious practices and beliefs are useless and empty...
...The piety and good works of the dutiful religious man made him feel that God was on his side. He did not need God's mercy and forgiveness; that was what others needed. The sinner, on the other hand, was well aware of his desperate need for mercy and forgiveness and of his need to change his life...I find it particularly interesting that in the end, both the Pharisee and the tax collector were in need of the same thing but in different ways and for different reasons. What they both needed most was the love of Jesus.
_-_James_Tissot.jpg) |
| The Lord's Prayer by James Tissot via Wikimedia Commons |
 |
| Via Google Images |
 | |
| Image via Google Images |
_-_James_Tissot.jpg) | |
| Lazarus; via Wikimedia Commons |
I used to think when I was a child that Christ might have been exaggerating when he warned about the danger of wealth. Today I know better. I know how very hard it is to be rich and still keep the milk of human kindness. Money has a dangerous way of putting scales on ones' eyes, a dangerous way of freezing people's hands, eyes, lips, and hearts.
Until we meet again, may the Lord bless you and bless others through you.
Jesus appealed…for a loving solidarity which would exclude nobody at all.
Solidarity with humankind is the basic attitude. It must take precedence over every other kind of love and every other kind of solidarity. ‘Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple’ (Luke 14:26).The commentators always point out that because of the paucity of the Hebrew and Aramaic languages, the word ‘hate’ is used to cover all the attitudes which are not love. Thus it could mean hating, being indifferent to, detached from, or not preferring, someone. In this context, we are told, Jesus is asking for detachment: that one should not give preference to one’s families and relatives. This is true but it does not do justice to the mode of thinking of Jesus and his contemporaries.If love means solidarity then hate means non-solidarity. What Jesus is asking for is that the group solidarity of the family be replaced by a more basic solidarity with all humankind. This obviously does not mean that one’s kith and kin are to be excluded—as enemies! They are included in the new solidarity because they too are human beings. Nor does this mean that one should love them any the less. It is the basis of the love that is being altered. They are not to be loved just because they happen to be your family and relatives but because they too are persons. They are to be loved with an inclusive love. In the end this will mean that they are loved all the more. They will be loved, not merely preferred.All the other references to the family in the gospels confirm this interpretation.
