HOMILY FOR 11TH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME—C


AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS THIRD APOSTOLIC JOURNEY AROUND THE YEAR 53, ST. PAUL WENT TO GALATIA TO VISIT THE CHURCHES THERE THAT HE HAD FOUNDED EARLY ON.  THEY WERE STILL DOING WELL WHEN HE VISITED THEM LATER DURING HIS SECOND JOURNEY.


 THE NEWS ON THE THIRD JOURNEY WAS NOT SO GOOD.  MANY OF THE GALATIAN CHRISTIANS WERE FORMER GENTILES AND THEY WERE BEING TOLD THAT IN ORDER TO BE CHRISTIAN, YOU ALSO HAD TO CONFORM TO THE MOSAIC LAW.  THAT MEANT THEY HAD TO BE CIRCUMCISED AND OBEY THE DIETARY REGULATIONS OF THE LAW.  IN SHORT, THE GALATIAN CHRUCHES HAD FALLEN UNDER THE CONTROL OF PEOPLE ST. PAUL CALLED JUDAIZERS OR FALSE BRETHERN.  THESE PEOPLE HAD COMPLETELY IGNORED THE DECISION OF THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM A FULL THREE YEARS EARLIER AND THAT WE HEARD ABOUT IN MASS ABOUT A MONTH AGO.


WHEN ST. PAUL REACHED EPHESEUS, HE WROTE THIS LETTER TO SEND BACK TO THE CHURCHES IN GALATIA.  THE LETTER REFUTES THE JUDAIZER’S ERRORS AND GOES INTO THE WHOLE QUESTION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GOSPEL AND THE MOSAIC LAW, BETWEEN THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW.


THE WHOLE POINT OF THE LETTER TO THE GALATIANS IS THIS:  ACCEPTING MOSAIC DOCTRINE WOULD ACTUALLY MEAN RENOUNCING THE SALVATION WON FOR US BY CHRIST.  IF YOU CAN BE SAVED BY ADHERENCE TO THE LAW, WHAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF CHRIST’S SACRIFICE FOR US?  THE JUDAIZERS, BY INSISTING ON THE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE LAW, IMPLIED THAT CHRIST’S DEATH ON THE CROSS WAS INEFFECTIVE.  IN SHORT, ADOPTING THEIR VIEW WOULD MEAN THAT CHRIST’S INCARNATION WASN’T EVEN NECESSARY AND CHRIST DIED FOR NOTHING.


 ST. PAUL POINTS OUT THE OPPOSITE IS REALLY THE TRUTH.  CHRIST’S DEATH ON THE CROSS MADE THE LAW IRRELEVANT.  IT’S REALLY THE LAW THAT IS INEFFECTIVE NOW.  IT’S FAITH IN CHRIST THAT NOW BRINGS SALVATION.  AND TO ST. PAUL, FAITH IN CHRIST MEANT A TOTAL PERSONAL COMMITMENT TO THE SAVIOUR.


THE MAJOR ENEMY OF A PERSONAL COMMITMENT TO CHRIST IS THAT WE THINK WE CAN GET BY WITHOUT HIM; IT’S THAT SENSE OF SELF-SUFFICIENCY THAT WE ARE SO PRONE TO.  IN TODAY’S FIRST READING FROM SAMUEL AND IN THE GOSPEL WE MEET SOME PEOPLE WHO ILLUSTRATE THAT.


SOME QUICK BACKGROUND ON TODAY’S READING FROM SAMUEL FIRST.  DAVID HAD FALLEN IN LOVE, OR MAYBE JUST LUST, WITH BATHSHEBA.  THE PROBLEM WAS BATHSHEBA WAS MARRIED TO URIAH, ONE OF DAVID’S SOLDIERS AND EVEN WORSE HIS FRIEND.  DAVID WAS SO CONSUMED BY BATHSHEBA THAT HE MANIPULATED THINGS SO THAT URIAH ENDS UP BEING KILLED IN BATTLE.  DAVID THEN MADE HER HIS OWN.


NOW THE JOB OF A PROPHET IS TO POINT OUT WHEN PEOPLE ARE BREAKING THE COVENANT WITH THE LORD.  SO NOW ALONG COMES THE PROPHET NATHAN WITH A LITTLE STORY FOR DAVID.  THERE WERE TWO MEN.  ONE WAS RICH AND THE OTHER POOR.  THE RICH MAN WANTED TO GIVE A TRAVELING VISITOR A NICE LAMB.  DESPITE HAVE COUNTLESS SHEEP OF HIS OWN, HE GIVES THE VISITOR THE PRIZED LAMB OF HIS POOR NEIGHBOR, THE ONLY LAMB THE NEIGHBOR HAD.  DAVID WAS OUTRAGED BY THE STORY AND DEMANDED THE RICH MAN GIVE RESTITUTION OR BE PUT TO DEATH.


THEN NATHAN DROPS THE BOMB.  THIS IS WHAT WE HEAR IN TODAY’S READING.  IS THIS NOT WHAT YOU HAVE DONE TO URIAH?  ARE YOU NOT AS GUILTY AS THE RICH MAN IN THE STORY?  DAVID SAW HIS SIN RIGHT AWAY AND ACKNOWEDGED HIS SIN BEFORE THE LORD AND SOUGHT THE LORD’S FORGIVENESS.  DAVID ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE IS NOT SELF-SUFFICIENT.  THERE IS ONE WHO IS GREATER THAN HE AND WHO SETS THE RULES.  WITH HIS REPENTANCE, DAVID RESTORES HIS CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD.


IN LUKE’S GOSPEL, WE MEET TWO PEOPLE.  WE MEET A PHARISEE WHO CONSIDERS HIMSELF PERFECT AND A WOMAN WHO KNOWS SHE IS A SINNER.  THE PHARISEE INVITES JESUS TO DINNER, IMPLYING THAT HE AND JESUS ARE EQUALS SINCE IN THOSE DAYS ONLY EQUALS INVITED EQUALS TO DINNER.  BUT WHEN JESUS ARRIVES, SIMON EFFECTIVELY INSULTS HIM.


THERE WERE THREE ACTIONS THAT COMMON HOSPITALITY DEMANDED BE DONE FOR A DINNER GUEST BACK IN THOSE DAYS.  THE GUEST WAS GREETED WARMLY WITH A KISS, HIS FEET WASHED WITH COOL WATER TO GET RID OF THE DUST FROM THE ROADS, AND EITHER INCENSE WAS BURNED OR A PERFUME PLACED ON THE GUEST’S HEAD.  SIMON THE PHARISEE DID NONE OF THAT.  SIMON WAS SELF-SUFFICIENT AND FELT NO NEED FOR JESUS.  SIMON’S IMPRESSION OF HIMSELF WAS THAT HE WAS A GOOD MAN IN THE SIGHT OF GOD AND THE WORLD.  IN HIS EYES, HE DIDN’T NEED FORGIVENESS AND DIDN’T’ NEED JESUS.  JESUS WAS NOTHING TO HIM.


YOU KNOW, JUST AS AN ASIDE, I REALLY CAN’T FIGURE OUT WHY SIMON THE PHARISEE INVITED JESUS TO DINNER IN THE FIRST PLACE IF ALL HE WANTED TO DO WAS TO PATRONIZE HIM.  MAYBE THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTED TO DO.  WE JUST DON’T KNOW.

THE WOMAN, ON THE OTHER HAND, WAS CONSCIOUS OF NOTHING ELSE BUT A CRYING NEED FOR FORGIVENESS AND JESUS COULD GIVE IT TO HER.  SHE, UNLIKE SIMON, WAS OVERWHELMED WITH LOVE FOR THE ONE WHO COULD PROVIDE THAT HEALING FORGIVENESS FOR HER.


THE ONE THING THAT SHUTS A PERSON OFF FROM FAITH AND TRUST IN JESUS IS SELF-SUFFICIENCY.  WHY RELATE TO SOMEONE ELSE WHEN YOU YOURSELF HAVE AND ARE EVERYTHING YOU NEED?  IF I’M THAT GREAT, WHAT CAN THIS JESUS DO FOR ME?  WHY DO I, WHO AM PERFECT, NEED FORGIVENESS FROM A POOR ITINERANT PREACHER?  WHY MUST I HAVE FAITH AND TRUST IN HIM?


THE STRANGE THING IS THAT THE REALLY BETTER PERSON TENDS TO FEEL THE WEIGHT OF SIN MORE THAN OTHERS.  IN THE FIRST LETTER TO TIMOTHY, ST. PAUL REFERS TO SINNERS AND SAYS HE IS THE WORST OF THEM ALL.  WE TEND TO THINK OF ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI AS ONE OF THE MOST GENTLE AND PIOUS OF PEOPLE.  YET HE CALLED HIMSELF AND SAW HIMSELF AS THE MOST WRETCHED AND MISERABLE OF SINNERS.


MAYBE THE GREATEST OF SINS IS TO BE UNAWARE OF OUR SIN; WITHOUT THAT SENSE OF NEED FOR FORGIVENESS, WE WOULD NOT OPEN THE DOOR OF FAITH TO GOD.  IT IS FAITH IN GOD, AS ST. PAUL POINTED OUT TO US IN THE GALATIONS READING, THAT SAVES US, NOT OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW AND MOST CERTAINLY NOT OURSELVES.