The Church–A Community of Lovers
An exegetical reflection on the Gospel of the
Sixth Sunday of Easter B (John 15:9-17)
May 13, 2012
By Msgr. Lope C. Robredillo, SThD
IN LAST SUNDAY’S Gospel (John 15:1-8), we draw an ecclesiological implication of the parable on the vine and the branches, namely, the principle of unity. We noted that in the Church, the one that binds the members to the head and to one another is a person—Christ himself, unlike in government and other organizations where law and authority gather the members into one. In the Church, he dwells in the members, even as the members dwell in him; there is a mutual indwelling: “Live on in me, as I do in you… I am the vine, you are the branches… A man who does not live in me is like a withered, rejected branch, picked up to be thrown in the fire and burnt” (John 15:4a.5a.6). From today’s Gospel (John 15:9-17), one may draw a theme that continues the ecclesiological implication of last Sunday’s. It could be taken as answering the question: how do we know that we remain or live on in Christ?
If we ask the question, “what is the evidence that one is an Israeli?” probably one will say, “his citizenship, which is printed in his passport.” The evidence that one is a lawyer is his membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. But what is one to show that he is a Christian? Time was when one can easily distinguish a Catholic from a Protestant, since the latter was identified with the Bible, whereas the former was associated with the Rosary or devotion to Mary. But neither the Bible nor the devotion to Mary gives testimony to one’s being Christian, even though to be one, he ultimately has to have both. According to the Gospel reading, our abiding in Christ is validated by love. “As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you. Live on in my love. You will live in my love if you keep my commandments, even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and live in his love,… The command I give you is this, that you love one another” (John 15:9-10.17).
But we should take a special note about this love. This love is not our feeling for Jesus, or our good disposition toward other members of the Church. It is not even our effort, however heroic, to serve the community. Rather, this love results from chain of loving that begins with God the Father himself. First of all, the Father loves Jesus; then Jesus loves the disciple; and finally, the community members love one another. It is not, then, a question of our own love. It is rather about divine love itself. We love the brothers with the love that, through his resurrection, we share with the Lord, whose love comes from the Father. And the greatest love one can exhibit in the community is love unto death. This is the love which Jesus had for us, and we are to imitate this love in the community of brothers. “This is my commandment: love one another, as I have loved you. There is no greater love than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:12-13). John expresses this different in his letter: “The way we come to understand love was that he laid down his life for us; we too must lay down our lives for our brothers” (1 John 3:16).
Today’s gospel, then, makes precise what was initially described in last Sunday’s. In the latter, it was noted that what primarily unites the community is not law, but Jesus himself, for the Church is not first and foremost a legal society. Ours is not a religion of the code, even though law has a place in it. We do not call one a Christian simply because he perfectly obeys the Ten Commandments of Moses and the Five Commandments of the Church, although if one is a Christian, his religion will include both. On the contrary, it is first of all a community of personal relationships, whose center is Christ, the one who makes it one community. It is a community where there is a mutual indwelling: Christ abides in the members, and the members abide in Christ. In the Gospel reading today, John adds a precisely description of that indwelling: it is an indwelling of love. In the Church, the members allow themselves to be loved by Jesus who himself is the bearer of the Father’s love. With this transforming love of Jesus they love one another.
The Church, therefore, is a community of lovers, of disciples who abide in the love of Jesus. Their love for Jesus is evidenced in their laying down of their lives for the members of the community. It is through this love that we know one abides in Christ. This implies, of course, that abiding in Christ and loving one’s fellow members cannot be separated. The one who abides in Christ is one who loves the members of the community, and one who loves necessarily believes in Christ who sustains him. One cannot love without being a believer.
The Church—An Organization of Laws?
An exegetical reflection on the Gospel of the
Fifth Sunday of Easter B (John 15:1-8)
May 6, 2012
By Msgr. Lope C. Robredillo, SThD
WHEN SOME PEOPLE think of a church, they usually associate it with an organization, governed by laws that define the relationship among the members. In their view, it is a society as visible as the political set-up, hierarchically structured, that mediates salvation to all its members by means of the preaching of the Word, prayer, and the administration of the sacraments. And as in any organization, what unites the members is law that regulates the life of the church. Law, in other words, is the principle that binds the members to one another. This Sunday, however, John provides us an alternative view of its principle of unity.
Admittedly, today’s Gospel (John 15:1-8) is not primarily about the Church. It is obviously about Jesus who, in contrast with Israel of old, came to fulfill the calling to be fruitful for God. In the Old Testament, the image of the vine is used to describe Israel (Hos 10:1; Ezek 15:1-6; 17:5-11; 19:10-14; Jer 2:21). Despite Yahweh’s lavish care for her, Israel bore bitter or non-existent fruits. Now in the gospel, Jesus claims to be the true vine. But in portraying himself as the vine, Jesus describes the relationship that ought to exist between him and the disciples, that is to say, between the head of the Church and its members. For this reason, the parable can be applied to the Church. In a passage that has ecclesiological overtones, Jesus says: “Live on in me and I do in you… I am the vine, you are the branches” (John 15:4a-5a). And one way of looking at this text is to interpret it in terms of what binds the members of the community to their head and their fellow members.
Unlike in the government where people are bound to their head by virtue of law, the members of the Church are linked to Christ in virtue of the fact that Christ himself calls each one and sustains them. The members, on the other hand, are to be committed to him in person. The Church, therefore, is a relationship of persons, and the principle of unity, the one that binds the head and the members, is the person of Jesus himself. A comparison is probably in order. In the government, one need not be sustained by Noynoy Aquino or believe in his slogan Matuwid na Daan to be a functionary. As long as one believes in the class struggle and the revolution, one can be called a communist without having the follow the footsteps of Karl Marx, the founder of communism. But in Christianity, it is entirely different. To be called a Christian is not a matter of following a law or a principle. In Christianity, the central place is not given to the law, or even the Ten Commandments. There is only one who grafts a person to the Church—Christ, who binds all the members in unity, and all of them are personally bound to him. This is why St Paul can even say that it is Christ who makes us grow and joins each member to the body: “Through [Christ] the whole body grows, and with the proper functioning of the members joined firmly together by each supporting ligament, builds itself in love”(Eph 4:16).
Since the principle of unity in the Church is Christ, binding each member to himself and to one another, it is obvious that for one to be a part of the Church, he has to live or abide in Christ. As the Johannine Jesus declares, “Live on in me, as I do in you” (John 15:4a). One then has to be faithful, and make a constant decision for faith. His existence is always in relation to Christ, both as a purpose and as a norm. It is too obvious to note that one cannot be a Christian apart from Christ. Just as a branch that is severed from the vine dies, so it is with a Christian in relation to Christ. For it is Christ who nourishes the Christian, and once he no longer lives on in him, the Christian dies. “A man who does not live in me is like a withered, rejected branch, picked up to be thrown in the fire and burnt” (John 15:6). This means, of course, that the personal relationship is mutual. Christ must remain in the Christian, just as the Christian must abide in Christ. Both are aspects forming one reality, which is the unity of persons in the Church.
Obviously, we have here a different perspective of what unity in the Church is all about. Law, of course, has a place in the Church. As a hierarchical body, it shares the nature of human organizations that need laws to put order to human relations. But to make law the sole principle to regulate the relationship between the head and the members, and among the members, and to unite them into one body is certainly inadequate. What the Gospel today emphasizes is that personal relationship between Jesus and the disciples has a central place in the unity of the Church. The Acts of the Apostles expresses the unity in quite similar language: “The community of believers was of one heart and one soul” (Acts 4:32). Christianity, after all, is a religion of a person, not of law. Being Christian is not about laws to be fulfilled, but about life—the life of Christ—to be lived in the body of relationships: the vine sustaining the branches, and the branches remaining in the vine.
Are all religions of equal value?
An exegetical reflection on the Gospel of the
Fourth Sunday of Easter B (John 20:19-31)
April 29, 2012
By Msgr. Lope C. Robredillo, SThD
MORE THAN EVER before, today we realize that the world is characterized by a diversity of religions and sects. In the Philippines, we find a number of them: Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity and, lately, New Age. And even in Christianity itself, we are aware of the various churches and communities that claim to be the true Church founded by Christ: in addition to the Roman Catholic Church, we have the various Protestant Churches, the Iglesia ni Cristo, Ang Dating Daan, Jesus the Healer and various fundamentalist and Pentecostal churches, movements and sects.
In face of this diversity of religious beliefs, there seems to be an attitude of many, even Catholics, from one which is skeptical toward non-Christian religions and Christian sects to one which accepts any form of religion. For them, since all religions and sects are means to have contact with the divine world and to salvation, it does not matter whether one is a Muslim or Christian, or whether one is a born-again Christian or a Catholic. According to this view, all religions are of equal value; ours is not any better than any other religion. What is of utmost importance, it is proposed, is that one is sincere in one’s religious belief, and one can be saved in it.
Such an attitude, however, seems not grounded in Christian faith, nor in the Sacred Scriptures. In the 1stReading, Peter’s apologia, trying to explain the source of the power that healed the crippled man, points to the name of Jesus apart from whom no one can be saved. “There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be saved” (Acts 4:12). (“Name” here probably reflects a healing formula used by exorcists in the early Church; it does not mean the word that identifies a person, but the person of Jesus Christ himself, the risen One.) Through his death and resurrection, God gave Jesus power to heal and to save. In the Gospel, John presents Jesus as the Good Shepherd, who laid down his life for his sheep (John 10:11,15b,17a). In the Johannine literature, the “laying down of one’s life” is associated with the image of the Lamb of God who was slain to take away the sins of the world (Rev 5:6; John 1:29). Precisely because he was slain and was justified by God, the Lamb became a fountain of life (Rev 7:17; 22:1). In other words, since Jesus laid down his life for others, he was constituted the means through which salvation is given.
What are we to make of this biblical teaching? Does this mean that there is no other means of salvation apart from Jesus, since it was only he who underwent passion, death and resurrection in obedience to the Father? If the body of Jesus is the Church, does this imply that outside the Church there is no salvation, and therefore the individual attains salvation only through his explicit membership in the Church, which is the sole mediator of Christ’s salvation? Are we then to affirm that all other non-Christian religions are false, Christian sects are in error, mere human attempts at coming in contact with the divine world which is revealed in Jesus Christ? Are we then to propose that we must bring everybody to the Church if all are to be saved? Can we tell those outside the Church that they cannot partake of eternal life, since the grace of salvation comes only through the Church?
Probably not. It does mean, however, that since it is only in the name of Jesus that salvation is possible, persons can be saved only by the grace of Christ. Admittedly, this grace is offered to all, even to those who have not heard of him. When the Bible says that God has spoken in Jesus and that salvation is possible through him, it teaches that he is the constitutive mediator of salvation; without him, no salvation is possible. As the readings today emphasize, precisely because Jesus laid down his life for us, precisely because he suffered, died and rose from the dead, salvation flows from him. Since Jesus is constitutive of salvation, no one could be saved apart from his life, death and resurrection.
SIt is in this sense that we have to understand Peter’s claim that there is no name in the world given to men by which we can be saved except through Jesus. For this reason, it cannot be said that all religions are of equal value. Because the Church is closely linked with Christ, the sign of his presence among men, salvation is mediated through her. Consequently, the grace of salvation is available to those outside the believing community through the Church. One cannot just say that as long as I do good works and not offend my neighbor, I am sure I will be saved. It matters whether one belongs to the Church or not.
The resurrection as vindication of Jesus and His mission
An exegetical reflection on the Gospel of the
Third Sunday of Easter B (Luke 24:35-48)
April 22, 2012
By Msgr. Lope C. Robredillo, SThD
FROM HINDSIGHT, IT became clear how the death of Ninoy Aquino galvanized the Filipinos into a formidable opposition to the Marcos dictatorship; it served as a rallying point for the hitherto disparate or disorganized opponents of the regime to unify them into a mammoth opposition that finally dislodged the Marcoses. But as the events of the 1980s were still unfolding, his death was seen differently. Among others, it was considered as a signal that the era of traditional politics which revolved around the charisma of politicians was about to end. Or, he was viewed as simply one more victim of the repressive martial law regime. His death, however, acquired a new meaning when seen from the perspective of the events after his assassination and from the impact it made in Philippine history. Today, most tend to regard him as martyr of Filipino freedom.
This observation gives us an inkling of the meaning of Jesus’ fate, and its place in God’s plan of salvation.
What happened to Jesus must be seen in the context of God’s plan to save us. Divorced from the resurrection event, his fate, as most Jews would have perceived it, resulted from his claims and activities which raised the question of the origin of his authority. Examples of such claims and activities were his interpretation of the law contrary to traditional interpretation (Matt 5:21-48), his assumption of divine prerogative (Mark 2:1-11), his teaching (Mark 1:22.27) and his preaching (Mark 1:15). In terms of Old Testament criteria as read by the Jews, he was a false prophet (Deut 18:20-22), a rebellious son (Deut 21:18-21), and a beguiler who led people astray (Deut 17:1-13). Eventually, the religious leaders saw him as a threat to the nation, because of what he taught to the people and his action that threatened the Temple (John 11:45-53). Of course, these accusations would not make sense in a Roman Court, and so the Jewish authorities had to present him as a messianic pretender, a political insurgent who claimed to be a king of the Jews. And when he was put to death, the Jewish authorities thought that it was the end of him.
But he rose from the dead. Hence, the resurrection vindicated the person and mission of Jesus. Condemned as a false prophet, a rebellion son, a beguiler, a messianic pretender, Jesus was confirmed God’s faithful son who obeyed the Father’s will. From hindsight, his fate came to be understood as similar to the fate of all God’s messengers. In their faithfulness to the mission given them, they encountered opposition, even violent, from ungodly men, secular powers, or people of stony heart who did not want to listen. “Though you refused to listen or pay heed, the Lord has sent you without fail all his servants the prophets with this message: Turn back, each of you, from your evil way and from your evil deeds; then you shall remain in the land which the Lord gave you and your fathers, from of old and forever”(Jer 25:4-5). One such messenger was Jeremiah whom the Lord called to prophesy against Israel in the hope that they would turn back from their evil ways (Jer 36:2-3). For this King Jehoiakim many times attempted to kill him. According to tradition, he was in the end murdered in Egypt by his fellow countrymen.
Jesus was therefore God’s faithful servant, and his resurrection was a vindication of his faithfulness, and proves that the human judgment on him—a blasphemer, a wayward son, a heretic and false prophet and a messianic pretender—was wrong. The Jews were wrong in their interpretation of the Scriptures. “You put to death the Author of life. But God raised him from the dead” (Acts 3:15, 1st Reading). The resurrection was God’s declaration that Jesus was the Messiah. Therefore, they misread what was written concerning God’s servant. That is why, in today’s Gospel (Luke 24:36-48), Jesus reminded his disciples: “Recall those words I spoke to you when I was still with you: everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and psalms had to be fulfilled”(Luke 24:44). Of course, one cannot find a specific reference to the suffering Messiah in each of these groups of writings. But then, to look for it is to miss the point of Luke. For according to the evangelist, the whole of Hebrew Scriptures—Law, Prophets, Writings—found fulfillment in Christ. Hence, it had to be reread in the light of the resurrection. It is not so much about understanding Jesus from the point of view of the Old Testament as about understanding it in the light of what happened to Jesus.
Read in the light of what happened after his death, Jesus, in other words, was not what human judgment thought of him, but the Messiah to which the Scriptures testified. He was approved and vindicated by God.