Statements, laws and proverbs in biblical teaching

STATEMENTS, LAWS and PROVERBS in Biblical Teaching

Chapter Eleven

from “COMMUNICATING THE WORD OF GOD. Practical Methods of Presenting the Biblical Message” by J N M Wijngaards, Theological Publications in India, Bangalore 560 055, 1974. First published in Great Britain in 1978 by MAYHEW-McCRIMMON LTD Great Wakering, Essex, England.

The whole book can be found online here: http://www.wijngaards-clackson.com/contents-communicating-word/ .

In other chapters of this book I have repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that the meaning of passages from Scripture has usually to be judged from the context. If is often quite wrong to lift a sentence from the Bible and maintain that we can understand it by itself. We find in the Bible the sentence, ‘There is no God’, but its meaning is only clear to us when we read the whole psalm in which this phrase occurs and in which the psalmist exclaims ”The fool says there is no God’ (Ps 35,1). For this reason to understand a biblical story we should search for its main statement first (pp. 97-102). I have suggested that, when preparing a reading from Scripture, we should try to determine its fundamental assertion (pp. 185-189). Generally speaking, it is dangerous practice to focus attention on one particular sentence or phrase, thereby forgetting that the meaning of communication does not reside in isolated phrases but in the unit taken as a whole.

On the other hand, there are exceptions to the rule. It does happen that individual phrases have a special meaning of their own or that they can validly be lifted out of their context and made into a statement on their own. Other units of communication in the Bible are short by their very nature, such as proverbs and laws. In these cases focussing attention on a specific statement is justified and rewarding.

Mahatma Gandhi, the father of Indian Independence, has left an enormous number of works.(*1) Most of his speeches, articles and letters have to be understood as total units of communication. But, on account of his constant involvement with the same kind of topic, Gandhi developed certain principles, certain maxims, that can easily be culled from his work. Some examples of these are:

‘To me, truth is God and there is no way to find truth except by

the way of non-violence.’

‘The welfare of India depends on the welfare of her villages.’

‘Untouchability is a sin and a blot on Hinduism. Untouchability

has to die if Hinduism is to live.’

From the context of the passages in which such phrases occur it is clear that they express, by themsleves, an important part of Gandhi’s philosphy of life. We would not do him an injustice if we were to take any such phrase as the subject matter of a special study.

In this chapter I should like to discuss techniques that are based upon such a ‘one sentence’ approach. After considering the merits and limitations of the classical homily, I will introduce spotlight exegesis, the study of parallel texts, and the presentation of laws and proverbs.

THE CLASSICAL HOMILY

The homily was a form of preaching that arose in the Church from the second century A.D. It was a form of address peculiar to Christians. It differed from the elaborate, technical commentary given by Rabbis on Sacred Scripture during the Sabbath service. It was also easily distinguished from the oratory so popular with the Greeks and the Romans. The homily can best be characterised as a ‘familiar discourse with a group of people’. In a homily the preacher spoke with great leisure, allowing his thoughts to wander into all kinds of directions and switching continually from dogmatic instruction to moral exhortation and back.

To get the feel of what we are discussing in this section I would like you to creep into St. Augustine’s skin. Imagine yourself on a Sunday of the year 420 A.D. in the Church of Hippo in North Africa. There he sits on a throne, St. Augustine, with his bishop’s mitre on, addressing the people. On his knees rests a codex of sacred Scripture. He gesticulates freely with both hands.

What would strike us apart from everything else as most different from our own times is the length of the sermon and people’s response. Augustine continues to preach for half an hour, one hour, yes, even for two hours, if he is in the mood. The faithful obviously enjoy his performance. They react to his oratory not unlike crowds today react to a film show or a theatrical play. Sometimes they are spellbound, and silent; at other times they laugh, or sigh, or beat their breast. Now and then they interrupt Augustine with the clapping of hands or cries of support. When Augustine refers to his favourite psalm text, “Who made peace your aim”, people interrupt him with loud acclamations. We hear him continue: “What? Are you all shouting for joy? Yes, brethren, love this passage! I am so pleased when love for peace sounds so loudly from the bottom of your hearts! Oh, how pleased you are yourselves! I have hardly spoken a syllable, I had not explained a word, I had merely pronounced the verse, and see a storm of applause broke loose among you!”

And as we watch Augustine and hear him speak, we discover an interesting fact. We realize that we have found much more than a man whose words are full of Scripture. Here is a man who lives on Scripture, whose life and personality are moulded by it. Ever since his conversion, when he heard the words, “Take and read”, the Bible has been his prayer book, his meditation book, his theological textbook and source book of preaching. Augustine is a learned man for his own times; he studied the secular sciences of his days; yet, whatever topic he speaks or writes about, it is ultimately evaluated in the light of Scripture. Augustine is a man obsessed by the Word of God, yet his position is not that of a fanatic. The only purpose of Scripture, he says, is that we learn to love God and our neighbour. The more a man knows Scripture, the better he can teach. But it isn’t memorizing texts or knowing interesting details that matters. The important thing is to understand the Word of God, to search for its deeper meaning, to penetrate its core with the eyes of the heart.

Augustine’s attitude is reflected in his preaching. Underneath his long- winded explanations we discover an enormous desire to understand and expound the word of God. His homilies are witty and refer to contemporary life, but they always return to Scripture for their explanation. Here is a man for whom preaching means “unlocking” the sense of Scripture, whether this be done by eloquence or straightforward talk, with a golden key or a wooden one, to use his own words. The preacher is God’s servant who invites people to partake in “the banquet of the sacred books”. “In expounding to you the holy Scriptures, I as it were break bread for you. What I deal out to you is not my own. What you eat, I eat myself. What you live on, I live on myself. We have a common storehouse in heaven: it is from there that the Word of God derives.”

In a scriptural homily the biblical text is scrutinised sentence by sentence, often word for word. One gets the impression that the preacher moves on to another phrase only when he has exhausted everything he could possibly say about the previous one. The homily may well be compared to a film in slow motion, or, rather, a film in which the frames which are normally projected at a speed of 20 per second, are projected on the screen one by one and examined in all their details. Or we could compare it to a theatre in which the whole stage is in darkness except for a strong beam of light that slowly travels from left to right and illumines individual persons and objects. Eventually the light will cover everything that is to be seen, but as long as the spotlight rests on a particular place it is as if this place is the only one that exists.

By way of example I will give here some excerpts from a sermon St. Augustine preached on the Lord’s prayer, known as Sermon LVI. (*2). The audience in this case was a group of so-called ‘combatants’, i.e. catechumens in their final stage of instruction before being admitted to the reception of Baptism.

‘… “and forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors”.

This petition needs no expounding in order to show that it is for ourselves that we make it, for by it we beg that our debts be forgiven us. And we are debtors, not in money, but in sins. Perhaps you now say to me: “Even you?” The answer, “Yes, even we”. “What! Even you holy bishops are debtors?” “Yes, even we are debtors”. “Even you? Far be it from you, my Lord; do not so unjustly accuse yourself”. “I do not unjustly accuse myself; I am speaking the truth, for we are debtors.” ‘If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us’ (1 Jn 1,8).

Though we have been baptised, yet we are debtors. Not that anything remains which was not remitted to us in baptism, but because in our lives we are contracting something which needs daily remission. As to those who are baptised and then depart from this life – they come forth from the font without any debt and they go forth from this life without any debt. But, as to those who are baptised and then continue to live – these contract some imperfections through the frailty of mortals. Even though the ship is not lost through these imperfections, the pumps must be used, for if the pumps are not used, there is a gradual leakage that may sink the whole ship. By making this petition, we make use of the pumps. Further, we ought not only to pray, but to give alms as well. For, when we are using the pumps to prevent the ship from sinking, we are using both our voice and our hands.

We use our voice when we say: “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors”, we use our hands when we fulfil this command: “Deal thy bread to the hungry, and bring the homeless needy into thy house” (Is 58,7), and “Shut up alms in the heart of the poor, and it shall intercede for thee before the Lord” (Sir 29,15)…

Every day, therefore, let us say: “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors”. Let us say it with sincerity of heart, and let us fulfil our promise, for we make a promise, a covenant and pleasing agreement with God. What the Lord your God says to you is this: ‘Forgive, and I will forgive. If you have not forgiven, then you yourself – not I – are retaining your sins against yourself.

Now, my most dearly beloved, give me your attention. I know what is especially applicable to you in the Lord’s Prayer, and, above all, in this sentence of it, “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors”. You are about to be baptised; forgive everything. Whatever anyone of you has in his heart against anyone let him dismiss it from his heart. Come to the font with this disposition, then rest assured that you are forgiven all the sins that you have contracted – both the sin that is yours by reason of your birth from parents with original sin according to Adam (for it is because of this sin that you join with babes hastening to the grace of the Saviour), and also whatever sins you may have committed during your lives, by word, or thought, or deed. All sins are forgiven you, and you shall come forth from the font, as from the presence of your Lord, with the assurance that all your debts are forgiven.

And now, what are you to do with regard to those sins of which I have spoken? For, it is on account of those sins that – as though by a kind of daily cleansing – you have to say: “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors”. Well, you have enemies. Indeed, who could live on this earth without having them? See to it that you love them. In no way can a raging enemy injure you as much as you injure yourself unless you love your enemy. He can damage your farm or your flock; he can injure your household – your man-servant or maidservant, your son or your wife, or at most, he can injure your body if he has been given the power. But – unlike you – can he injure the soul? Dearly beloved, strive towards this perfection, I exhort you….

You are still saying: “Who can do it, and who has ever done it?” May God do it in your hearts. Very few do it, I know. Those who do it are noble and spiritual. Is it true that all the faithful in the Church, all who approach the altar and receive the Body and Blood of Christ – is it true that all these are such as forgive their enemies? Yet, they all say: “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors”. Suppose God were to say to them: ‘Why do you ask me to do what I have promised, when you are not doing what I have commanded? What have I promised? I have promised to forgive your debts. What have I commanded? I have commanded you to forgive your debtors.

How can you do that, unless you love your enemies?’

Brethren, what, therefore, must we do? Is the flock of Christ reduced to such a few? If only those who love their enemies ought to say: “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors”, then I know not what to say, what to do. Must I tell you that unless you love your enemies, you are not to pray?

I would not dare to do that. Rather, pray that you may love them. But must I say to you: unless you love your enemies, then in the Lord’s Prayer do not say: “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors?” Suppose I tell you not to say it? Unless you say it, your debts are not forgiven; if you say it without doing it, your debts are not forgiven. Therefore, in order that our debts be forgiven, we must both say and do … ’

The above paragraphs are only a short extract from Augustine’s sermon. We can see that such a homily was very much what we would call a lecture or a conference today. Giving such elaborate treatment to each phrase in a longer passage is hardly possible in the time-conscious age in which we live. Rather than trying to imitate the classical homily for ordinary sermons, it may be better to adopt techniques that combine the virtue of thorough exposition with conciseness and brevity.

Yet I would not dismiss Augustine’s way of preaching as entirely impractical. For some of the biblical retreats I have been asked to give, I have tried it out with a good measure of success. I have found that the group should not be too big and that the setting should be arranged in such a way that all can feel comfortable (armchairs put in a circle usually creates the right atmosphere). I ask the group beforehand to bring their Bibles with them. The retreat conferences then consist of a slow reading of select books from the Bible, with plenty of explanations and reflections thrown in, not unlike the way St. Augustine did it. After each half hour of such a homily, there are shared reflection, discussions and prayer. The response from quite a few people has been that they have never felt so close to God’s Word. The danger is that it may deteriorate into a Scripture class.

SPOTLIGHT EXEGESIS

Spotlight exegesis is an approach in which we work out to the fullest extent possible all the implications of a particular phrase found in Scripture. It is an offshoot from the classical homily in the sense that it is based on free elaboration. But it differs from the homily by intentionally restricting itself to one particular phrase.

Fig. 36. ‘Return of the Prodigal Son’ by Rembrandt (1606-1669).

Notice how the artist emphasizes some parts of his painting by making light fall on them.

In its literal sense ‘exegesis’ means ‘drawing out’. Exegesis is the science of drawing the full meaning out of a text, of digging deep to make sure that a particular biblical statement yields up all the teaching it can give. Obviously we will have to select the particular phrase very carefully. It should be a phrase or sentence that contains a statement that can stand on its own. The phrase or sentence in question should almost cover the ‘fundamental assertion’ the author wants to make.

Spotlight exegesis achieves its purpose by elaborating the meaning in a variety of ways. Apart from adducing philological information, we can study the statement in question from many points of view.

To show how this approach can be worked out in practice, I will give here a rather long excerpt from a sermon preached by S. A Kierkegaard (1813-55) on the lilies of the field. (*3)

‘… In this sermon let us reflect how a person who is beset by anxieties can learn from the lilies in the field and the birds in the sky that he should be content with being human.

“Consider the lilies of the field”. Consider, that means: give them close attention, make them the object of careful study, not just of a glance while passing by. That is why Christ here uses the expression which a teacher may use in the most solemn and sacred moment when he says: “Let us in this hour of prayer consider this or that”. Christ’s invitation now is just as solemn. Perhaps there are many who live in a big city and who never see a lily. Perhaps many live in the country-side and pass the lilies by without giving them a second thought. How many will there be who, in accordance with the word of the Gospel, consider them properly?

“The lilies of the field”. There is no question here of rare plants that have been grown by a professional gardener and which are admired by experts. No, go to the field, where no one looks after those abandoned lilies and where one can all the same see so clearly that they have not been abandoned. If this exhortation were not to contain an invitation for a worried man, well then, this man would just be like the abandoned lilies, deserted, forgotten, slighted by others, passed by, lacking the care of other human beings, until by a proper consideration of those lilies he were to understand that in reality he has not been abandoned.

Worried man therefore enters the field and remains standing watching the lilies. He doesn’t stand near them as a happy child or a childish adult sometimes does who walks around to find the most beautiful flower to satisfy his curiosity by finding something rare. No, in a silent and elevated mood he considers them as they stand there next to one another, in a numerous, fresh-coloured multitude, one exactly like the other …

“How they grow”. Well, he doesn’t actually see how they grow, for the popular saying is true that one cannot see the grass grow. But all the same he sees how they grow, or precisely because he does not understand how they grow, he sees that there must be someone who knows them as well as the gardener who knows his rare plants; someone who watches them day by day, morning and evening, as a gardener keeps watch over his rare plants; someone who gives them the power to grow. Presumably that ‘someone’ is exactly the same person as the one who gives the power to grow to the rare plants of the gardener, except that in that case the activities of the gardener can so easily lead to misunderstanding. In those places where one sees a gardener at work, where neither cost nor effort is spared to grow the rare plants of a rich landlord, in those places one could perhaps get the impression that it is easy to understand how they grow; but, in contrast, in the fields, where no one, literally no one, bothers about those lilies, how can they grow? And yet they grow.

But then those poor lilies will have to work all the more! No, “they do not toil”. It is only the rare flowers that require so much toil to make them blossom. In the place where the tapestry is more precious than in the royal reception rooms, no work needs to be done. When the eye enjoys its beautiful sight, the soul need not be troubled by the enormous amount of work and toil which those poor lilies had to do in order to make the tapestry so beautiful. Only with the product of human artistry one often finds that the eye, while blinded by the splendour of the piece of art, is at the same time filled with tears at the thought of the suffering of those destitute artists who worked at it…

So then worried man, who carried his worries to the lilies, now stands in their midst in the field, surprised at the glory with which they are arrayed. He takes one of them into his hands. He did not choose. It did not occur to him to make a choice because he realises that there wouldn’t be anyone among them of which it could not be said that even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these.

Suppose that the lily could speak. Would it not say to this worried man: “Why are you so surprised at me? Is your being human not just as glorious? Could one not say with equal right that Solomon in all his glory is absolutely nothing in comparison with what each human person is, namely being human? Could it not be true that even Solomon, to be the most glorious thing he could be and to be aware of this, would need to detach himself from his external glory and try to be just human? Why would what is true of me, poor creature, not be true of a human being, considering that man is God’s masterpiece of creation?”

But the lily cannot speak. But exactly because it cannot speak, just because in the open air there is silence and no one else with it, therefore worried man, if he speaks and if he tries to speak to the lily, is speaking to himself. Yes, gradually he discovers that he is speaking about himself, that whatever he says about the lily, he is actually stating about himself. It is not the lily that tells him this, because it cannot speak; neither is it another human person who says it to him because when we meet another person, disquieting thoughts of comparison intrude so easily. Standing among the lilies, worried man is only man, and it is sufficient for him to be only man. For in exactly the same sense that the lily is lily, he, in spite of all his worries, is man; and in exactly the same sense as the lily – without work and without toil – is more beautiful than Solomon’s glory, in that sense man – without toil, without work, without all his own merits – is more glorious than Solomon’s glory, simply by being man. By the way, the Gospel doesn’t say that the lily is more glorious than Solomon; no, it says that it is better clothed than Solomon in all his glory. But in our daily involvement with other people, because of the many differences and the various relationships, distracted by our anxious sensitivity for comparisons, we forget what it is to be human; we forget it because of all those differences between one man and another. But when one stands in the field among the lilies, where the sky unfolds like a high canopy covering the head of a king, where one is free as the air which one breathes in the open space, where the great thoughts of the clouds chase away all narrow-mindedness, there worried man is the only man, and he learns from the lilies what he would perhaps not have been able to learn from another human being …

Let us examine the question a little further. Worried man who goes out to the lilies in the field is anxious to avoid any comparison with other people. He doesn’t want another human being to speak to him about his worries. That is why I will respect his anxieties. I shall not speak about one or other human person, neither shall I speak about one or other worried person. No, let me speak about the lily who had worries.

Once upon a time there was a lily that stood in an isolated spot on the bank of a small river near the babbling and rippling water. The lily was a good acquaintance of some nettles and other plants in the neighbourhood. As the Gospel describes so well, the lily was clothed more beautifully than Solomon in all his glory. All day she was happy and without worries. Unnoticed and joyfully time passed on like the water of the river that travelled by, humming its tune.

Now it happened one day that a swallow discovered the spot. He paid a visit to the lily, returned the next day, then stayed away for a few days to come back again at a certain moment. The lily found this surprising and unintelligible; she couldn’t understand why the swallow did not stay in the same spot as the flowers in her neighbourhood; she was surprised at the unpredictable way in which the swallow could act. But as things happen so often in life, so it happened to the lily: she started to love the swallow more and more, just because he was so unpredictable.

Fig. 37. There was a lily on the bank of a small river .. C. Poggenbeek (1853-1903).

The swallow was a naughty swallow; instead of showing an understanding for the situation of the lily, instead of rejoicing with her at her beauty and congratulating her on her innocent happiness, the swallow wanted to show off, he wanted to make her feel his freedom, and he wished to make the lily feel how restricted she was. And this is not everything; the swallow was talkative at the same time and he told stories, now about this, now about that; truth and falsehood mixed together, how in other places he had seen great multitudes of other, gorgeous lilies, how in those places he had found a joy and happiness, a smell, a wealth of colours, a music of birds, that defied all description. The swallow kept telling this kind of story; and he loved to finish his descriptions with the remark, so humiliating for the lily, that in comparison with such beauty found elsewhere she had no standing at all; that she was so insignificant that one could rightly ask the question by what right she could be called a lily at all.

In this way the lily got worried. The more she heard from the swallow the more her worries increased. She could no longer sleep peacefully at night. No longer did she awake with joy in the morning. She felt herself hampered and tied down. She started to take a dislike to the rippling sound of the river and the day became long and dreary. She now started to concern herself about her own position and her fate. “It wouldn’t be so bad”, she told herself, “to hear the sound of the rippling water from time to time, for a change, but actually to have the same thing, day after day, is terribly boring”. “No doubt it would be pleasant”, she thought “to be alone and by oneself in a quiet and solitary place, but to be forgotten like this for one’s whole life time, to spend one’s life without company or in the company of nettles, which after all can hardly be called good company for a lily, is hard to endure”. “To have such an ugly appearance as I have”, the lily remarked to herself, “to be as insignificant as the swallow is telling me I am; Oh, why was I not born somewhere else, under another constellation; why was I not born an orchid!” For the swallow had told the lily that the orchid was considered the most beautiful of all flowers so that all other flowers are jealous of her. To crown her misery, the lily noticed that she was beset with worries; that is why she had a rational argument with herself; not rational in the sense that she dismissed the worries as of no concern, but in the sense that she persuaded herself that her worries were reasonable. “For my wishes are not unreasonable”, she said. “I do not desire what is impossible, to become what I am not, for instance a swallow; I only wish to be a beautiful flower, the most beautiful there is”.

Meanwhile the swallow kept coming from time to time; with each visit and each departure the lily’s disquiet grew. In the end she entrusted herself totally to the swallow. One evening they agreed that they were to take action next morning; they were to make an end of those worries. In the morning the swallow returned; with his beak he dug in the earth round the lily’s root so that she could come free. When that had succeeded the swallow put the lily on his wings and flew away. For they had made the plan to fly together to that place where the beautiful lilies were growing. The swallow had promised to re plant the lily there, and then they thought there would be a chance, because of the change of place and the new surroundings, that the lily would become a really beautiful flower in the company of the other beautiful lilies, or perhaps that she might succeed in becoming an orchid, envied by other lilies.

While they were on the way the lily withered. If only that worried lily had been content to be a lily, she would not have known any worries. Not having any worries, she would have stayed in the place where she was born — where she stood in all her glory. If she had stayed there, she would have been that lily about which the preacher speaks on Sunday morning when he reads the Gospel text: “Consider the lily; I tell you that even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these” … If, being human, we cannot think without a smile of the worries of the lily which wanted to become an orchid but withered while she was on the way, should we not realise at the same time that it is just as ridiculous for a human being to have the same type of irrational worries? No, how would I dare to speak like this?

How would I dare in all seriousness to neglect those teachers God has pointed out to me: the lilies of the field. No, the lilies do not have this type of worry; that is why we have to learn from them. If, just like the lilies, a human being is content to be a human being, then he will not be weighed down with temporal worries; and if he has no temporal worries, then he will remain standing in the place that has been allotted to him; and if he remains there, then it will be true that he is more glorious than Solomon in all his glory just by being human …

COMPARATIVE GOSPEL STUDY

The Gospel will always remain the most prominent source for our preaching and instruction. Containing the life and teaching of Jesus Christ it is the part of Scripture we most naturally turn to for reflection and inspiration. But the Gospel’s prominence also poses a problem. Because its texts are used so often, because the incidents and examples given in it are so well known, there is a danger that an instruction taken from the Gospel will be experienced by the audience as dull and boring.

If we find ourselves in this predicament and especially if our audience is well educated, it could be an idea to approach the Gospel with a more sophisticated technique. One such technique is the ‘comparative Gospel study’. It starts from the recognition that the Gospel has been presented to us in four editions, in four gospels, for a special reason. If the words and deeds of Jesus had been presented to us by only one evangelist, we would have had a rather one-sided interpretation of them. Comparing what is common and what is different between them offers a wealth of material for study and reflection. It is one way of entering more deeply into the essential preaching of the Gospel.

Fig.38    “The four evangelists” by J Jordaens (1593-1678

The gospels are made up of smaller units, of ‘passages’. St. Matthew’s gospel, for instance, has a total of 196 passages (18,518 words in the Greek text). Of those passages, about 100 are ‘parallel’ with Luke and Mark. Matthew has 49 passages ‘parallel’ with Luke and 47 of his pasages are ‘proper’ (they have no parallel in another gospel).

As is well known, parallel passages derive from the same tradition in oral catechesis of the early Church (which explains their similarity) while retaining some of the special motifs and interests of the evangelist or the particular school of thought they stand for (and this explains the differences). The variations of expression, the different emphasis, the distinct interpretations of particular words or deeds of Jesus, may seem small and insignificant to a superficial reader of the gospels. But when one makes a close comparative study, it yields a very rich harvest of profound reflections and insights.

Some comparative studies are of considerable theological importance. All the gospels agree in relating that Christ commanded his apostles to preach the Good News to the whole world. But the words used to characterise this mission are different in all of them. In Matthew’s Gospel we read that Christ instructed them “to make disciples of all nations” (Mt 28,19) . We find here a basic concept according to which Jesus is the Master (Rabbi) and all Christians are his disciples (talmudim). It is a Jewish way of thinking and stresses the personal relationship between Christ and each of his followers. In line with his own hellenistic background and missionary experience, Luke reformulates Christ’s command as the commission to go as ‘witnesses to the ends of the world’ (Acts 1,8). In the notion of the ‘witness’ (martur) a Christian is looked upon from the point of view of his personal commitment to the faith he professes. In John’s Gospel the dimension stressed is the one of God’s self-revelation. Jesus reveals the Father. Every Christian too reveals God from the depth of his own experience. These are the implications of Christ’s words: “As the Father sent me, so I send you” (Jn 20,21). It is not difficult to see that such a reflection, if properly worked out, can provide the substance for a good sermon. It can also form the basis for a demanding catechetical instruction or conference.

To do justice to this kind of comparative study, each of the following elements is essential:

1. We should first accurately determine the difference between the various parallel passages. Our exposition should be based on the original Greek or at least on a literal translation.
2. We should be aware of what modern commentaries say about the comparison. A good grasp of present-day research on gospel formation is no luxury.

3.We should work out the implications of the differences for our practical understanding of the Gospel message.

Sometimes a comparative study can be linked with a motif. Suppose I am attending a five day seminar and I have been asked to prepare for each day a small “Bible study” at the opening of the morning sessions. As many of the participants will be persons with responsibility and leadership, I could choose the motif of ‘the man in charge’ as I find it in Luke’s gospel. My approach could be that I show how Luke interprets five short parables of Christ as having a special message for those in charge.

Christ said “If one blind man leads another, both will fall into a pit”. In Matthew Christ applied this to the Pharisees who are leading innocent people astray (Mt 15,14). From the context in which it occurs in St. Luke’s gospel, we know he applied this text especially to those who had been appointed as elders or leaders over a particular community (Lk 6,39). If we are in charge, we should first take the trouble of acquiring correct knowledge.

Christ has said that the disciple is not superior to his teacher. From Matthew’s gospel we learn the original circumstances in which Jesus spoke these words. He meant that, just like himself, his disciple too should expect opposition and suffering (Mt 10,24-25). In Luke’s gospel the phrase has been elevated into a universal principle. Whoever is in charge of a Christian community should strive to be perfect as Christ was (Lk 6,40).

Christ chided those who see the splinter in their brother’s eye, but don’t know the plank in their own. In Matthew’s gospel it belongs to a precept of charity. No man should judge his brother (Mt 7,1-5). In Luke the text is given special relevance in the context of a Christian leader correcting those entrusted to his care. The man in charge should be careful first to correct himself, before correcting his brother (Lk 7,41-42).

Jesus stated that a bad tree could not produce good fruit. His purpose was to teach his disciples how they could distinguish true prophets from false prophets (Mt 7,15-20). The context of Luke’s gospel, again, presents it as a warning to Christian leaders. If one’s own life is not sound, one cannot produce good fruit in others (Lk 6,43-45).

The parable of the servant waiting for his master’s return serves as a general exhortation to readiness for the Last Day in Matthew’s gospel (Mt 24,45-51). In Luke’s gospel the parable is worked out at more length and given a special application to those who are put in charge of others. The Christian leader will be judged more severely because a great deal has been given him on trust (Lk 12,41 -48).

“No sandals, nor staff..A Conference for Priests (worked out by way of example)

When sending out his twelve apostles, Jesus gave them the following instructions:

“Do not carry any gold, silver, or copper money in your pockets. Do not carry a travelling bag for the journey or an extra shirt, or sandals, or a walking stick”. (Mt 10,9-10)

“Do not take anything with you for the journey: no walking stick, no travelling bag, no food, no money, not even an extra shirt”. (Lk 9,3)

The seventy two disciples received the same injunction: “Do not take a purse with you, or a travelling bag, or sandals”. (Lk 10,4)

The general purpose of these admonitions seems to be clear enough. Jesus wanted his disciples to be detached, and to practise a high degree of real poverty. He did not want them to worry about their own provisions. He wanted them to be free from the spiritual load of having many possessions. However, are we sure that such general considerations will really do justice to Jesus’ words? Do we not too easily pass over the specific examples he mentions? Is our tendency to resolve his demands into principles acceptable to all, perhaps not an escape from the particular vocation to which he may call us?

If we examine the words of Jesus quoted above, we will notice that he also forbids the use of sandals or of a walking stick. I would like to restrict my reflection to the prohibition of these two articles because the force of the Lord’s words speaks most clearly through this prohibition. Wearing sandals and the use of a stick were generally considered necessary for those travelling through the Holy Land in Jesus’ time. The Palestinian roads were, as they still are today, covered with small sharp stones. The roads were narrow, dusty and rough on one’s feet. One frequently had to walk through thombushes or jump over holes and ditches. Having sandals on one’s feet and a stick in one’s hand was no luxury in those circumstances.

It is well known how demanding the Jewish scribes could be in interpreting the strictness of their sacred traditions. One such tradition was that while fasting one was not allowed to wear sandals or use a walking stick. Yet, an exception was made for those persons who went on a journey during a fast: they were allowed to make use of sandals and a staff outside the town: “He who may not wear sandals because of a fast, may put them on when he leaves the town. On the approach of another town he should pull them off again. This also applies to a person who has been put under a ban or who is in mourning” (Taanith, 11,6). “Whenever it is stated that it is

forbidden to wear sandals, it must be understood as being meant only for walking inside the town. But on a journey one may always wear sandals. What then should one do in practice? When going on a journey, the sandals may be put on; when entering a town, they should be pulled off” (Taanith, 13a). Narrow-minded legalists though they were, the scribes thought it too much hardship for anyone to have to make a journey without sandals or a walking stick!

Only the poorest of the poor could not afford these simple pieces of equipment. The Jews knew the saying: “Who rides on horseback is a king. Who rides a donkey is his own boss. But the person with sandals on his feet is an ordinary man” (Shabbat 152a). Non-Jews who converted to the Jewish faith had no claims to any privilege, because – as the saying went – “they had just passed into Judaism with no more than a travelling bag and a walking stick” (i.e. with nothing to boast of; Shabbat 31a). Rabbi Jehuda (AD 299) repeated what another scribe had handed on to him: “If necessary, one should even sell the crossbeams of one’s house to buy sandals for one’s feet. Only if a person has just lost blood and has absolutely nothing to eat may he sell the sandals on his feet to buy the food he needs” (Shabbat 129a). The Jewish commentator Rabbi Shelomoh Yitshaki (AD 1105) adds: “For there is nothing so humiliating as having to walk barefoot through the streets”.

Sandals and a walking stick then were no signs of luxury at the time of Jesus and they were universally thought indispensable for travel. If we keep this in mind, Jesus’ prohibition cannot but strike us as uncommonly strict. What is more, Jesus would not have imposed such a demanding prohibition on his disciples if he were not practising it himself. Jesus and his close followers walked barefoot through Palestine. They did not permit themselves this everyday equipment, which lay within reach of the common man. I believe that there is no need for me to dwell long on the prophetic value which this gesture must have had for those who met Jesus. The fact that so many flocked to Jesus may not only be explained by the miracles he performed. His true detachment, clear from the joyful way he could live a life of the utmost simplicity, drew many more. At the Last Supper, Jesus was to ask his disciples: “When I sent you out that time without purse, travelling bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” They were joyfully to respond: “Nothing, Lord” (Lk 22,35). A marvellous disposition to which we may fruitfully compare our own. Does our apostolic poverty measure up to this? Is our joyful detachment a prophetic sign to others?

To the Jews it was obvious that Jesus and his apostles practised such utter detachment for religious motivations. To them it was a clear sign of self-humiliation, taken upon oneself when fasting, or in mourning, or when entering the courts of the Temple. Thus by their practice Jesus and the apostles were known as people totally dedicated to a sacred task. When Jesus added that they “should salute anyone on the road” (Lk 10,4), that they “should let the dead bury their own dead” (Lk 9,60), that they should be ready to live “without a stone to lay their heads on” (Lk 9,58), he indicated the same requirement of undivided dedication to their task of proclaiming the Kingdom. While examining the motives for and the expressions of our apostolic poverty, let us not forget this element of sacred dedication. Does our detachment identify us, in an unmistakable manner, as persons committed.to Christ and his work and to nothing else?

It may be that we have been somewhat taken aback by the strictness and apparent rigidity of Jesus’ practice of apostolic poverty. Perhaps we have asked ourselves: “Will everyone be able to go to such limits of detachment as Jesus demanded?” If so, we will find consolation in the way in which Christ’s instructions have been recorded in St. Mark’s Gospel. For, in St. Mark’s version, Christ does allow the use of sandals and a walking stick:

“Don’t take anything with you on the trip, except a walking stick; no bread, no travelling bag, no money in your pockets.

You may wear sandals but do not wear an extra shirt”.

(Mk 6,8-9)

There have been many attempts to explain away the contradiction between this text and Mt 10,9-10 or Lk 9,3; 10,4 which have been quoted above. It has been suggested that Our Lord forbade the use of boots or shoes (Matthew; Luke), but allowed simple sandals (Mark) and that he did not want his apostles to use a stick for self-defence (Matthew; Luke), but permitted a staff for travelling (Mark). However, such explanations fail to do justice to the texts. They do not face up to the fact that Mark does give a different interpretation to Christ’s words.

How are we to solve the puzzle? As we have seen above, there is no doubt about the utter strictness of the apostolic poverty practised by Jesus and the apostles. We may also take it for certain that Jesus’ original instructions did not allow the use of sandals or a walking stick. Matthew or Luke could never have introduced such a strict prohibition if it did not originate from Jesus himself. On the other hand, the words in Mark bear the characteristics of being a pastoral interpretation. They reflect a later stage in the life of the Early Church, a period when it had become obvious that Our Lord’s instructions could not be followed by all his followers with the same degree of strictness. The prohibition of sandals and a walking stick, a prohibition which was – remember – extraordinarily hard indeed, had become an obstacle when practical situations had to be judged. In these circumstances St. Peter, whose teaching underlies Mark’s Gospel, must have given an authentic interpretation of Our Lord’s words, making it clear that it was the mind of Christ to allow sandals and a walking stick for such occasions.

St. Peter may have found the justification for this interpetation in Jesus’ own practice. It is quite likely that there have been occasions when – for practical reasons – Jesus allowed some of his disciples to deviate from the common rule by wearing sandals. Had he not made a similar exception to the norm of “not having a purse”, by appointing Judas as treasurer for some gifts he and his apostles had received (Jn 13,29)? Moreover, it always was far from Our Lord’s mind to replace the formalistic practice of rabbinic rules and regulations by another set of rules. Jesus did not teach rules, but a new spirit, a new ideal of life, new norms and principles of sanctity. Even on his own authority St. Peter could have given an authentic interpretation of what Christ meant. For, like the other apostles, he too had been commissioned to teach Jesus’ followers about the things Jesus had taught (Mt 28,20)and this with authority: “Who hears you, hears me” (Lk 10,16). Like the other apostles, he too could teach with the special guidance of the Holy Spirit who would lead them into all truth (Jn 16,13) and who would teach them everything and make them remember all Jesus had told them (Jn 14,26). Through this Spirit Peter could give a new authentic rendering of Jesus’ words regarding the sandals and the walking stick too.

The Gospels mutually complement one another. As in other instances, so also in this matter of apostolic poverty we should give a hearing to the fulness of Christ’s teaching. We should try to live the various realities that make up the fulness of Christ’s life. While maintaining an attitude of common sense and while having consideration for our human limitations (see Mk 6,8-9), we should at the same time leave scope for genuinely prophetic poverty as part of our apostolate (Mt 10,9-10; Lk 9,3,19,4). Jesus’ undivided dedication to the preaching of the Kingdom should be made manifest also in the Church of the present day. To do this effectively and with true prophetic vigour may be the special charism of certain individuals and groups who should be helped and encouraged to do so. But even if we have to acknowledge that we ourselves have not received this gift, let us be animated by the same spirit that is expressed by it. If we cannot do without a walking stick, it need not have an ivory knob.

LAWS AND PROVERBS

The Old Testament has six collections of laws, which in order of age and historical composition could be listed as follows:

1. the decalogue (Ex 20,1-17; Dt 5,11-21; cf. Dt 27,11-26);
2. the sanctuary code (Ex 23,20-33; 34,1-28);
3. the book of the covenant (Ex 20,22-23, 33);
4. the deuteronomic code (Dt 5,1-28, 89);
5. the code of sanctity (Lev 17,1 -26 ;46);

6.the priestly code (Ex 25-31; 35-40; Lev 1-16; Num 5-9; 27- 36).

The distinct laws contained in these codes, even if we do not subdivide them, amount to over 300.

The Bible has also preserved many proverbs. Most of them can be found in Proverbs, Kohelet (also called Ecclesiastes), Sirach (which has the alternative name Ecclesiasticus) and Wisdom. They contain a total of more than 1500 proverbs.

Some of the laws and proverbs are out-of-date. They have been abolished by the coming of Christ. To this category bplong especially the ceremonial laws (such as how to bring a peace offering, Lev 3) and the ritual sanctions (“No Ammonite shall enter the assembly of God”; Dt 23,3). Some proverbs reflect the social prejudices of those times: “One (good) man in a thousand I may find, but never a woman better than the rest” (Koh 7,29); “Fodder, the stick and burdens for a donkey; bread, discipline and work for a slave” (Sir 33,25). Old Testament morality was crude in many ways and such laws and proverbs must be evaluated in the light of the New. They served their purpose long ago. Now they are obsolete.

But the limited value of those abrogated rules of conduct should not make us lose sight of the valuable instruction contained in many others. Many of the prescriptions and suggestions, the commandments and counsels of wisdom contained in the Old Testament have a real message for us today. They touch on many practical and everyday aspects of life which are not mentioned in the New Testament. They give numerous tips on our relationships with other people and how to improve them.

Often a particular law or proverb may prove to be an interesting and profound topic for a biblical instruction. When we make the selection, we make sure that the proverb or law in question is not one of those abrogated through the New Testament. We then gather our material in the following way:

(a) We ask ourselves what the law or proverb meant in the Old Testament situation. Why was it considered important? What did it want to achieve?

(b) We investigate whether the New Testament confirmed it or extended it in any way. How would Christ look upon it?

(c) We apply it to our own situation. What would it mean if we were to put it into effect in our own lives?

To show the usefulness and viability of this approach I will give four examples that have been worked out as short homilies: two are based on laws, two on proverbs. In my experience I have found proverbs easier to explain as they require less technical introduction.

Having leisure for one’s family. Reflection on a Law

In ancient times the king had the right to requisition services from his subjects. When a war broke out, he could make them join his army as soldiers. In peace time he could impose work on them both on his agricultural estates and in his palaces. The book of Samuel mentions: “Ploughing the king’s land, harvesting his harvest, making his weapons of war, cooking in his palaces and looking after flocks” (1 Sam 8,11-18). King Solomon raised an annual levy of forced labour throughout Israel of 30,000 men, apart from the casual labour that could include as many as 70,000 porters (1 Kings 5,27-32). Rehoboam built 15 fortresses in Judah with requisitioned labour (II Chron 11,5-12). An Old Testament law I should like to reflect on today gives exemption to newly married men from such public services.

“If a man is newly married, he may not be forced to join the army or to perform public service. He shall be left at home free of all obligations for one year to bring joy to the wife he has taken”. (Dt24,5)

The exemption goes back to a very ancient custom dating from the time of Israel’s holy war. It is also known from Ugaritic literature. According to this custom a person who had just built a new house, planted a vineyard and married a wife should not take part in a battle (Dt 20,5-7). If such a person were to die he would be prevented from enjoying the fruits of the new family he was building up. It would amount to the so-called frustration curse (Dt 28,30) for which the Jews nurtured a deep-seated fear.

To put it in simple words: the man who is just building up a new family should not be disturbed. Otherwise the whole of society could be affected. He should have time to give joy to his wife and to get to know her. He should be free to construct his house and to lay out the vineyard on which his wife and children would have to live. The undisturbed peace of a new family was for the Jews an external manifestation of God’s blessing. This peace should not be disturbed even for such necessary things as warfare and public services.

“If a man is newly married, he may not be forced to join the army or to perform public service. He shall be left at home free of all obligations for one year to bring joy to the wife he has taken”. (Dt 24,5)

Modern society makes a heavy demand on persons engaged in public services. A feeling of responsibility for his work may leave many a teacher, doctor, social worker or nurse to spend much of his or her time in work outside the home. In fact, it frequently happens that people with many responsibilities and a high record of service find hardly any time to spend at home with their wives and children. The law of Deuteronomy may help such persons to reflect on their basic position in life. However much society may benefit from their services, the building up of their own family should not be neglected. No family can prosper if father or mother has no time for its members. The undisturbed peace of a Christian family is in itself a blessing for society and should not be sacrificed to external pressures.

The law tells us that the newly married man should be exempted from all obligations, so as “to give joy to his wife”. What a beautiful definition of family life! The secret of a happy family or community does not lie in a self- centred seeking of comfort and security. Rather it lies in the determination of the members to give joy to one another: the husband to his wife, the wife to her husband, the parents to their children and the children to their parents. In human life, family means growth. The giving of joy is the environment in which growth is possible.

It is persons that count, not things. A life without joy is a wasted life. Serving society at the cost of your family is like planting a tree but cutting its roots. Scripture reminds us: “If a man is mean to himself, to whom will he be good?” (Sir 14,5).

Religious tolerance. Reflection on a Law

The Jews were not allowed to eat animals that had died by themselves. The reason was that such animals had died with the blood remaining in their flesh. The Jews were instructed to remove all the blood from the animal after slaughtering it (Gen 9,4: Lev 17,10-14). The blood of the animal to be eaten had to be poured out because the blood was life itself (Lev 17,11; II Sam 23,17). Life was considered to be sacred. It played a special function in sacrifice (Ex 29,16; Lev 1,5.11). Blood could reconcile God and men (Lev 17,11). It could consecrate people to God (Ex 12,22-23; 29,21). It could ratify a covenant (Ex 24,3-8). For all these reasons, Jews were forbidden to eat blood. Their respect for blood gave expression to their respect for life itself and for God, the giver of life.

So we are not suprised to find this law in the Old Testament code:

“You may not eat any animal that dies of itself’.

What is remarkable, however, is the addition to the law:

“You may give it as food to the stranger who lives in your community or you may sell it to a foreigner” (Dt 14,21).

The Jews considered themselves an especially “holy” people, a people dedicated to God. At the same time, they realized that some of the obligations put on them by God’s covenant did not necessarily apply to others. The interesting element in this particular law is that the lawgiver gives explicit permission to the Jews to give meat from animals that died by themselves to their non-Jewish brethren. Meat, of course, was rare in Palestine especially for poor people, as it is for many today. It would be a pity if the poor non-Jews were not allowed to benefit from the availability of meat, on account of some special prohibition for the Jews alone.

This illustrates in a concrete instance that Almighty God, the Supreme Lawgiver, acknowledges different applications of morality for different people. God could not tolerate a Jew to eat flesh with blood in it, since the Jew saw the connection between blood, life and God as life-giver. But non- Jews, with their different concepts and their different religious approach, could not be judged by the same moral principle. The non-Jew should be judged by the principle which he had formulated in his conscience and in his religious traditions. As St. Paul was to say much later: Jews will be judged by the Law of Moses, but non-Jews will be judged by their conscience (Rom 2,12-29).

“You may not eat any animal that dies of itself’.

“You may give it as food to the stranger who lives in your community or you may sell it to a foreigner”.

It is obvious that this law has much application today. When judging Sikhs, Hindus or Muslims, for instance, we should allow them to serve God in the way dictated by their own consciences and by their own religious traditions. Things that may not be allowed to us because of our religious principles, may be perfectly allowable to them on account of the different understanding of morality found with them. We have to tolerate in them things which are not wrong in themselves, but which we ourselves would never do.

The law says that this particular kind of meat should be given freely to the stranger or may be sold to the foreigner. Here the lawgiver distinguishes two kinds of persons. In those times there were quite a few poor people, many of them of non-Jewish origin, who lived in Palestinian cities. To such “poor” strangers the meat should be given free of cost. The lawgiver’often reminded the people of their duty of charity towards the non-Jewish poor living among them. They should not be oppressed (Dt 24,14). They had to be protected in court (Dt 24,17). They ought to be given a share of the tithe (Dt 14,28-29). They had to be given a share in the sacrifices at Pentecost (Dt 16,11). The command to give this meat freely to such strangers was therefore a reminder that the Jew should not draw financial profit from the fact that his animal died. Rather, he should be happy that his poor non- Jewish neighbour could enjoy the meat which he himself was not allowed to eat.

The “foreigner” to whom he could sell the meat was a different person. From a comparative study of the laws we know that he was some kind of businessman, often a money-lender, perhaps representing houses of import and export with the countries of trade. The lawgiver allowed his people to be strict with such “foreigners” when demanding the repayment of debts (Dt 15,3) or the taking of interest (Dt 23,21). Also in this case, he allowed his people to gain financial profit when handing over a dead animal to such a merchant.

“You may not eat any animal that dies of itself’

“You may give it as food to the stranger who lives in your community or you may sell it to a foreigner”

The literal details of this law are no longer applicable to us. Most of us do not possess cattle and even if an animal dies of itself we would be allowed to eat the meat. What remains a lesson for us is the attitude taught with regard to those belonging to other religious traditions. We should be tolerant towards them and not treat them according to our own norms, but according to the norms which they understand and according to which they worship God.

On honesty in business. The lesson of a proverb

The Old Testament has a lovely proverb for shoppers:

“ ‘Bad, bad’ says the buyer,

But when he has gone, then he boasts” (Prov. 20,14).

I remember it as if were yesterday. I was shopping with a friend. He wanted to buy a second-hand army jacket offered in a cheap ready-made garment store. “It is useless”, he said to the shop attendant. “It is old, it has stains, it is worn at the elbows”. He got it at a forty percent discount. When we had left the shop, he turned to me and said: “This was a very good bargain! The jacket is worth at least twice as much”.

I am sure that, like many other people, my friend considers buying and selling a game. They think we can virtually say anything we like, as long as it is to our own advantage. They argue that when closing a deal, we should not rely on the word of the other, but should depend on our own commercial knowledge. If someone else allows himself to be fooled by our talk, it is his own fault!

“ ‘Bad, bad’ says the buyer,

But when he has gone, then he boasts”.

There is some truth in the contention that we should not expect straightforward speech between people representing different sides in a business deal. It is natural for man to stress what is to his own profit. We cannot realistically expect that a salesman would give an absolutely objective picture of the article he is trying to sell. “Do not ask a merchant for advice about prices, or a buyer about selling” (Sir 37,11).

On the other hand, there is a big difference between stressing our own good points and telling outright lies. However great the temptation may be, neither the buyer nor the seller may say something that they know to be false. It is in this context that the Bible remarks that it is difficult for a merchant to avoid doing wrong in his business (Sir 26,29). But, thanks be to God, honest business men do exist and in the long run they will profit from their honesty, even in the commercial sense of the word.

At the same time, we should be aware that there are people who deceive us. If we are constantly being taken in by others, it may be that we lack essential realism. Being a simpleton who is easily deceived by others, is nothing to be proud of, but a defect. If we stand with our two feet on the solid earth, we will know that there are people who pretend to be our friends, while they are only friends in name (Sir 37,1). It is sad, but true, that there are people who flatter us to our face, but who say the opposite when we have turned our back (Sir 27,23). The Bible says: “I have found many things to hate but nothing to equal such a man. And the Lord hates him too” (Sir 27,24). We may dislike such people, but they exist.

“ ‘Bad, bad’ says the buyer,

But when he has gone, then he boasts”

However, we should not make the opposite error of not trusting any person. Rather, we should gladly extend our trust and confidence to others, while remaining realists. Readiness to believe others does not mean that we should take every statement at its face value. Joshua was tricked by the Gibeonites on account of such credulity (Jos 9,4-7). The truly experienced person will learn how to detect the words that cannot be trusted, “just as the palate distinguishes the taste of meat” (Sir 37,19). Not being a simpleton, he will raise his eyebrows when a customer says “bad, bad!”

Love requires speech. The lesson of a proverb

We live in a century that has become aware of man’s psychological needs. Freud helped us realize that man’s actions are often motivated by what goes on in his subconscious. Through transactional analysis, Berne has demonstrated that people play deep and complicated games under the surface of their everyday relationships. Man’s mental make-up is not as simple as it looks. The true reasons for a man’s actions are often quite the opposite of what they pretend to be. In psychology one and one don’t make two.

The proverb we study today, although it is 2500 years old, offers a remarkably clear insight into the psychological complexity of man. It states the fact that we may hurt other people more by not speaking to them than by telling them off. Or, to put it in different words: human love can only exist where there is communication. The proverb reads:

“Better open scolding

than love without speaking” (Prov 27,5).

In other Wisdom texts, stress is laid on the usefulness of correction. A father may have to show his love by using the stick (Prov 13,24). Punishment can be a true sign of parental affection (Sir 30,1). A teacher who always reproves his pupils will be more appreciated in the end than the person who always flatters (Prov 28,3). Scolding another person can therefore be an expression of one’s love. But that isn’t precisely the point here.

Every human person needs encouragement and affection. Psychologists tell us that many children are emotionally starved because their parents or teachers do not show them enough attention and interest. All of us have experienced the strain of living with a person who is not “on speaking terms” with us. The lack of spoken affection and love creates a similar tension in those with whom we live. It is this so truly human need which the sacred author is speaking about.

Parents and those who hold similar positions in life often forget this need of speaking to their children or others entrusted to them. A father may be proud of his daughter who is doing well at college. If he never expresses his satisfaction, the daughter may feel disillusioned and unhappy without ever realizing the reason for it. A religious sister may do some wonderful work in a difficult mission. If her superior rarely speaks a word of appreciation, the sister may be put under a psychological strain which she herself may find it difficult to understand.

“Better open scolding than love without speaking”

People who have studied human relations tell us that the lack of sufficient personal communication is a more frequent occurrence than we might think. In his terrifying novel The Vipers’ Nest, Francois Mauriac describes a family in which husband and wife have given up direct heart-to- heart conversation with one another. Both of them suffer deeply from the lack of affection which they would like to give and receive. But having begun their routine of petty squabbles and mutual silence, they never come to a personal communication. What a real tragedy! What could have been a happy home has thus been turned into a vipers’ nest.

It may be good for each one of us to look around and see if we neglect others by such love-destroying silence. As the inspired author teaches us in the proverb, it is not enough to esteem and love people in secret. By not communicating with others, by not speaking to them in a really human and personal fashion, we may hurt them much more than if we were to scold them with harsh abuse. He who scolds at least treats the other as a person. The silence of non-interest hurts deeper and destroys more. We can be sure that at the last judgement Christ will not only speak of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. He may well say to us: “I was in need of a human word, but you did not speak to me”.

Footnote (*1) Epigrams from Gandhiji, S.R. Tikekar, (passim). (*2) Selected Sermons, St Augustine in The Fathers of the Church ed. D.J. Kavanagh, (Vol.XII, Sermon 56). (*3) Kierkegaard’s Redevoeringen, H. A. van Munster, (pp.96-105), (author’s translation).