If you would like to catch up on some recent posts, here is a place where you can easily access some posts you might have missed. I hope it helps… enjoy.
Continue readingA quick look back
Featured
2
The Future and Judgment
This coming Sunday is the 32nd Sunday of Ordinary Time, Lectionary Cycle A. Our gospel is the parable of the Ten Virgins.
The gospel readings for the 29th through 31st Sundays in Lectionary Cycle A all describe a series of confrontations between Jesus and religious authorities of Jerusalem, namely the scribes and Pharisees. The reading for the 31st Sunday ends with Jesus warning the disciples to not become hypocrites like the scribes and Pharisees (Mt 23:12). It would seem like one more verse would have been a capstone to the warning: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites” (v.13)
And this was just the first of several “woes” cast upon the religious leaders. The “woe to you” verses continue unrelentingly through the end of Mt 23. The chapter’s penultimate end is the warning: “Amen, I say to you, all these things [the woes described] will come upon this generation.” The ultimate chapter-end are vv. 37-39, Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem with a denunciation of the current religious leadership. The verses also include a prophetic reference to the 70 AD Roman destructions of Jerusalem and the Temple: “Behold, your house will be abandoned, desolate.” (v.38) and the prophecy that after that event, “I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” – repeating the Palm Sunday proclamation for the Messiah, pointing ahead to Jesus’ return.
While not a part of Ordinary Time readings, Chapter 24 continues this theme of imminent destruction and coming tribulation (Mt 24:1-28) 1 Jesus left the temple area and was going away, when his disciples approached him to point out the temple buildings. 2 He said to them in reply, “You see all these things, do you not? Amen, I say to you, there will not be left here a stone upon another stone that will not be thrown down.” 3 As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately and said, “Tell us, when will this happen, and what sign will there be of your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Mt 24:1-3). This apocalyptic chapter ends with a description of the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 24:29-31) and final warnings about not knowing the time or date of the return of the Master. It is at this point that we turn the page to encounter our Sunday gospel: The Parable of the Ten Virgins (Mt 25:1-13).
It is here in Matthew 25 that we will finish the final three Sundays of this cycle of Ordinary Time:
- 32nd Sunday: The Wise and Foolish Maidens (vv. 1-13)
- 33rd Sunday: The Parable of the Three Servants (vv. 14-30)
- Christ the King: The Great Judgment (vv. 31-46)
The biblical scholar R.T. France (2007, 889) calls these two chapters, “The End of the Old Order and the Reign of the Son of Man”
This final Matthean discourse focuses on the future, with emphasis especially on the theme of judgment. It takes its cue from the disciples’ question in 24:3, which combines two aspects of the future, the predicted destruction of the temple and Jesus’ “coming (parousia) and the end of the age”. With regard to the former the question is “When?,” with regard to the latter “What will be the sign?” In either focus, they are precursors of judgment.
Image credit: Greek Fresco, “Bridal Chamber”, iconreader.wordpress.com, CC-BY
A Work In Progress
The earliest days of the Church were days of persecution by the Roman government. As a result, martyrs were especially honored. The local churches celebrated the martyr on the anniversary date of their death. They were examples of holiness. By the 4th century the list of martyrs grew quite large and the Church was caught between its desire to remember and celebrate the martyr’s witness and death, an ever expanding geography, and the practical matter of finding days to set aside to celebrate. As the persecutions abated, there were also more than just the martyrs – the remembrances soon included men and women who lived holy lives, whose piety and love of God and neighbor were examples to their communities. There is more history to tell, but in the end the Church established the Solemnity of All Saints, the day we celebrate, remember, and honor all the saints, known and unknown, the holy ones of God now in the heavenly courts. The women and men who figured out how to follow the two great commandments we discussed last Sunday: love of God and love of neighbor.
In my homily last Sunday I talked about our encounters with people in our lives. I offered four groups to consider: the ones we know and like to be around and look forward to seeing; the ones that are part of our life in some way and they’re OK; the ones whose company, shall we say, we do not prefer; and the great number of people we don’t really know: cashiers, wait staff, the person three pews behind you – and a whole lot of other folks. They cover the spectrum from those we like to those we’d rather avoid. But “like” has nothing to do with it. We are called to love; called to figure out a way in the encounter to recognize the dignity God gave them. We are called to allow them to interrupt our life and, even for just a moment, to serve them. That’s love – whether you like them or not. The Saints in heaven figured it out.
What about us? We who are works in progress. Are we “saints?” We Catholics have a formal system for sainthood (with a capital “S”) – but our reformed brothers and sisters in the Protestant and Reformed denominations, rightly point out that we are called, in this life, to be hagios, the holy ones, saints. St. Paul addressed his letters to “all the saints” in Rome, Ephesus, and Philippi. He is saying we are saints not because of our heroic deeds, virtuous character, or performance of miracles, but because God calls us to himself. Think of it this way. We are saints by our baptismal calling. We have been consecrated to God and called to be holy as He is holy, merciful as He is merciful, and and in those waters of redemption incorporated into the family of God. Consider our second reading in which St. John tells us: “Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we shall be has not yet been revealed.” You’re already saints! … and you’re thinking, “I don’t know about that…I mean, that person next to me in the pew…I love them like the baby Jesus, but are they a saint? Yeah, I don’t know about that.”
Ok, so you walk into an artist’s studio and there on the easel is a portrait of the person next to you in the pew. Even though it is not finished, you recognize the person. Parts, like the eyes, are nicely captured while other parts are only outlined. You can see places where the artist painted over something; others where adjustments were made to the coloration. You wouldn’t say, “I don’t know about that.. that’s not a portrait” It is a portrait, just one that isn’t finished. And therein lies a way to think about life as a Christian.
God has already begun his work in us. There are parts of our lives where Christ is clearly visible even as other parts are very much unfinished. The Divine Artists has begun but “Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we shall be has not yet been revealed.” We are His children now, not someday, not when we become sufficiently holy. Now. It is a portrait that captures the dignity of our life and baptism and the unfinished character of our life.
“sainthood” (small “s” variety) is not the final result of a successful Christian life. It is a mark of people who intentionally and mindfully struggle with their weaknesses, temptations, and more. People who are working out what it means to love God and our neighbor as ourselves. People who need to be reminded that we need to begin with what God has done and not what we have accomplished: “See what love the Father has bestowed on us that we may be called the children of God. Yet so we are.” (1 Jn 3:1) Yet so we are!
The Solemnity of All Saints is a celebration of the finished portraits of the holy ones who have lived this life and gone before us, now residing in the heavenly kingdom as part of the communion of Saints who pray for us. We celebrate what God’s grace accomplished in them as they lived out the deeper meaning of love. But let us also celebrate what God has begun in us and be mindful: “Beloved, we are God’s children now.” So that we accept the grace from prayer, from the Sacraments, and from the intercession of the Saints to become the holy people God has called us to be: for “what we shall be has not yet been revealed.”
Amen
Image credit: The Forerunners of Christ with Saints and Martyrs | Fra Angelico | ca. 1423 | The National Gallery, London | PD-US
An All Saints Sermon from St. Bernard
Let us make haste to our brethren who are awaiting us
Why should our praise and glorification, or even the celebration of this feast day mean anything to the saints? What do they care about earthly honors when their heavenly Father honors them by fulfilling the faithful promise of the Son? What does our commendation mean to them? The saints have no need of honor from us; neither does our devotion add the slightest thing to what is theirs. Clearly, if we venerate their memory, it serves us, not them. But I tell you, when I think of them, I feel myself inflamed by a tremendous yearning.
Calling the saints to mind inspires, or rather arouses in us, above all else, a longing to enjoy their company, so desirable in itself. We long to share in the citizenship of heaven, to dwell with the spirits of the blessed, to join the assembly of patriarchs, the ranks of the prophets, the council of apostles, the great host of martyrs, the noble company of confessors and the choir of virgins. In short, we long to be united in happiness with all the saints. But our dispositions change. The Church of all the first followers of Christ awaits us, but we do nothing about it. The saints want us to be with them, and we are indifferent. The souls of the just await us, and we ignore them.
Come, brothers, let us at length spur ourselves on. We must rise again with Christ, we must seek the world which is above and set our mind on the things of heaven. Let us long for those who are longing for us, hasten to those who are waiting for us, and ask those who look for our coming to intercede for us. We should not only want to be with the saints, we should also hope to possess their happiness. While we desire to be in their company, we must also earnestly seek to share in their glory. Do not imagine that there is anything harmful in such an ambition as this; there is no danger in setting our hearts on such glory.
When we commemorate the saints we are inflamed with another yearning: that Christ our life may also appear to us as he appeared to them and that we may one day share in his glory. Until then we see him, not as he is, but as he became for our sake. He is our head, crowned, not with glory, but with the thorns of our sins. As members of that head, crowned with thorns, we should be ashamed to live in luxury; his purple robes are a mockery rather than an honor. When Christ comes again, his death shall no longer be proclaimed, and we shall know that we also have died, and that our life is hidden with him. The glorious head of the Church will appear and his glorified members will shine in splendor with him, when he forms this lowly body anew into such glory as belongs to himself, its head.
Therefore, we should aim at attaining this glory with a wholehearted and prudent desire. That we may rightly hope and strive for such blessedness, we must above all seek the prayers of the saints. Thus, what is beyond our own powers to obtain will be granted through their intercession.
Sermo 2: Opera omnia, Edit. Cisterc. 5 [1968], 364-368
Image credit: The Forerunners of Christ with Saints and Martyrs | Fra Angelico | ca. 1423 | The National Gallery, London | PD-US
Humility and Humanity
Note: Sunday, November 1, 2026 celebrates the Solemnity of All Saints in place of the 31st Sunday for Year A. Each day’s post will provide a link to the Gospel of All Saints – the Sermon on the Mount – which was read on the 4th Sunday of Year A. The main body of the post will discuss Mt 22:34-40, the Gospel for the 31st Sunday with a link to the readings from 2023. Relationship of The Two Stanzas of the Beatitudes
This coming Sunday is the 31st Sunday in Ordinary Time. This has been a series of posts critiquing the scribes and Pharisees and admonishing the disciples to take another path and follow Jesus as the authoritative teacher of the Law. 11 The greatest among you must be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Further sayings about status, already familiar from Jesus’ teaching in 18:1–5 and 20:26–27, complete the paragraph. Similar axioms appear in Prov 29:23 and in Luke (Luke 14:11; 18:14). These sayings encapsulate Jesus’ repeated assault on pomp and self-importance, and reinforce the portrait of Jesus’ disciples as a community of “little ones” which is important to Matthew.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church reflects on this teaching in Mt 23:11-12 in paragraph 2546, stating: “The ‘joy of God’ is ‘the gladness of humility.’ Humility makes us recognize that ‘God chose what is low and despised in the world to shame the strong.’ Humility is the foundation of prayer. Only when we humbly acknowledge that ‘we do not know how to pray as we ought,’ are we ready to freely receive the gift of prayer. ‘Man is a beggar before God.'”
This passage emphasizes that true exaltation, in the eyes of God, comes through humility. Humility is a virtue that recognizes our dependence on God, acknowledges our limitations, and places our trust in His mercy and grace. By humbling ourselves, we open our hearts to receive the abundant blessings that God desires to bestow upon us.
Furthermore, Jesus’ teaching on humility is echoed in the example of His own life. He, as the Son of God, humbled Himself by taking on human form, living a life of service, and ultimately sacrificing Himself on the cross for the salvation of humanity. Through His humility, Jesus was exalted by the Father, being raised from the dead and given the name above all names (Philippians 2:5-11).
A Final Thought
Eugene Boring notes that a modern reader of these verses may be prone to dismiss the concern as being of another time, especially the concern about phylacteries and tassels. A closer reading points to the “humanness” we share. We like to be acknowledged at social events, greeting in public (the marketplace). It is not hypocritical as much as it is being human, the social creatures that we are. It strikes at our self worth to be ignored or to be put down socially. We all experience internally imposed constraints of peer pressure and the desire to be accepted by others. Is it normal or is it the darker side of the cultural idol of self-esteem? [Boring, 1994, 432]
Image credit: Woe unto You, Scribes and Pharisees (Malheur à vous, scribes et pharisiens) James Tissot, 1886-1894, Brooklyn Museum, PD-US
Admonitions
Note: Sunday, November 1, 2026 celebrates the Solemnity of All Saints in place of the 31st Sunday for Year A. Each day’s post will provide a link to the Gospel of All Saints – the Sermon on the Mount – which was read on the 4th Sunday of Year A. The main body of the post will discuss Mt 22:34-40, the Gospel for the 31st Sunday with a link to the readings from 2023. The Second Stanza – Promises of Reward to the Virtuous
This coming Sunday is the 31st Sunday in Ordinary Time. In the previous posts we considered the three critiques of the scribes and Pharisees. At this point the conversation seems fully directed to Jesus’ disciples.
8 As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven. 10 Do not be called ‘Master’; you have but one master, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you must be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
By the second century the title “Rabbi” (etymologically “my great one”) was properly used for those who had been trained and formally recognized as scribes (like our Catholic “Reverend”), but this technical use probably came in after the time of Jesus. In Jesus’ time it is thought to be an honorary title, based on the public’s perception of his ministry rather than his formal training and position.
Having set the stage, Jesus now turns to his disciples and admonishes them to avoid honorific titles. Could this be a simple warning or is Jesus addressing a problem already present among his disciples? In any case, the admonition makes clear that concern for status, a given in secular society, is not to be a factor among those who would call themselves followers and disciples of Jesus. Another scholarly view is that Matthew is using this incident to point out that the problem still exists in his time, some 40 years after the death of Christ. The three titles singled out were probably all being used in Matthew’s church. It is not difficult for a modern reader to think of similar honorifics in use today, and to discern behind the titles an excessive deference to academic or ecclesiastical qualifications.
In the same verse where Jesus says: “You have but one teacher” rather than students or disciples, Jesus reminds them they are all brothers. The point is not their training or results, but that what binds them together is not the Law, but it is the Law Giver. As a consequence, they are not to seek differences of status, but rather to act as brothers – or perhaps as “little ones.” (cf. Mt 18).
In Matthew’s gospel Jesus himself is addressed as “Teacher” only by outsiders, never by his disciples, and the actual Hebrew term “Rabbi” is heard only from the lips of Judas after his apostasy (26:25, 49). But the title is not in itself objectionable, since it is here forbidden not for Jesus himself but for his disciples, and the reason for the ban is to avoid confusion with the only true “teacher” they have, Jesus himself. To recognize him as such is not false adulation but sober fact, but not even the most prominent of his followers is to be placed alongside him in this position of authority. Cf. the comment in 7:28–29 on the unique authority of Jesus the teacher in contrast with “their scribes” who are here under the spotlight. If anyone is entitled to “sit on Moses’ chair,” it is Jesus. [R.T. France, 2007, 863]
The introduction of familial terminology in “you are all brothers” now leads into another family title, which is also open to abuse: “father.” It is found in the OT as a term of respect, usually applied to someone older and/or socially superior to the speaker. Its use in Judaism for an authoritative teacher is illustrated by the title of the mishnaic tractate ʾAbot, “The Fathers,” a collection of sayings of revered teachers past and present. But Jesus’ special emphasis on the disciple’s relationship with God as the one “heavenly Father” (especially prominent in the Sermon on the Mount) means that it should no longer be thoughtlessly used of other people—except of course in its literal sense. Paul will speak of his evangelistic role as that of a “father” to those whom he has brought to faith (1 Cor 4:15; cf. Phm 10), but there is no NT record of him or any other Christian leader being addressed as “father.”
Which raises the question of the Catholic use of the term “father” for ordained men. The Catholic Church refers to priests as “father” based on the understanding of their role as spiritual fathers in the Christian community. This practice finds its roots in the New Testament, where St. Paul refers to himself as a spiritual father to the early Christian communities he founded (1 Corinthians 4:15).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains the use of the title “father” for priests in paragraph 1540, which states: “The apostolic tradition of the Church has recognized men who are chosen for the ministerial priesthood to be configured to Christ the Priest in such a way that they can act in the person of Christ the Head. Because of this sacramental configuration, priests are called to exercise a spiritual paternity towards the faithful, leading them to spiritual birth and growth in Christ.” This spiritual paternity is understood to be a participation in the fatherhood of God, who is the ultimate source of all fatherhood. By using the title “father,” the Church acknowledges the priest’s role as a spiritual guide, teacher, and caregiver, who nourishes and nurtures the faith of the faithful.
A linguistic note before moving forward. The next title after “Father” and “Rabbi” is kathegetai. The word means instructor and in the Catholic tradition is the source of our word “catechist.” Virtually all Bibles translate the word as “instructor” which helps separate it from v.8 where Rabbi and “teacher” are combined. The Catholic New American, the word is translated as “Master” which in American English takes on the sense Master-servant/slave, which is unfortunate. In the Vulgate (Latin) the word is magister which is an academic term
The third title, “instructor,” occurs only here in the NT, nor is it found in the LXX. Its original sense was “leader” or “guide,” one who shows the way, but it came to be more commonly used for teachers, those who show the way intellectually or spiritually. It may therefore be a virtual synonym of “teacher” in v. 8; perhaps our term “mentor” might convey the same sense. As in v.8, Jesus is the only person who truly fulfills that role for his followers.
It is surprising that Matthew here portrays Jesus as using “the Messiah” as a third-person title (Mark 9:41 is the only other synoptic example), especially as he has forbidden his disciples to use that term to describe him (16:20) and has previously carefully avoided doing so himself. His disciples were, of course, well aware by now that Jesus did see his mission in messianic terms, and would have understood him here to be speaking of himself, as in v.8. But the audience is still, according to v. 1, the general public as well as his disciples. We noted above, however, that from v. 8 the primary audience is clearly Jesus’ disciples, and in such a context Matthew has not found the title inappropriate, perhaps because the wording does not actually say that “the Messiah” is Jesus, however obvious this must have been to his disciples at the time, as it would be also to Matthew’s Christian readers. [R.T. France, 2007, 864]
Image credit: Woe unto You, Scribes and Pharisees (Malheur à vous, scribes et pharisiens) James Tissot, 1886-1894, Brooklyn Museum, PD-US
More critique
Note: Sunday, November 1, 2026 celebrates the Solemnity of All Saints in place of the 31st Sunday for Year A. Each day’s post will provide a link to the Gospel of All Saints – the Sermon on the Mount – which was read on the 4th Sunday of Year A. The main body of the post will discuss Mt 22:34-40, the Gospel for the 31st Sunday with a link to the readings from 2023. The First Stanza – Promises of Reversals to the Unfortunate
This coming Sunday is the 31st Sunday in Ordinary Time. In the previous post we considered the second of the three critiques of the scribes and Pharisees: they burden others while failing to act themselves. This post considers the final critique: they act for the wrong reasons: to make an impression on others
5 All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. 6 They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, 7 greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation ‘Rabbi.’
This charge levied against the scribes and Pharisees addressed some degree of vainglory. Jesus judges that their religious practices were designed to win the approval of other people rather than that of God. These verses strongly echoes Matthew 6, where Jesus has already spoken of their absorption and focus in gaining human approbation for piety rather than God’s approval – in this matter they are hypocrites. There is a contrast in their “performance.” One part is for the masses of people in their “accessories” in dress (phylacteries and tassels). Another part is aimed at their peers and those who can confer higher social status. Combined this performance extended into worship.
Scholars who hold that Matthew is also commenting on the circumstances faced by his community of Christians, note that post the 70 AD-destruction of the Jerusalem Temple by the Roman army, the emerging rabbinic leadership emphasized eternal signs of piety, not because they were hypocrites interested in externals, but because it served as distinctive markers for the holy people of God in a pluralistic society. While this is perhaps a minority view, it is still a pathway for what begins as a worthy endeavor (distinctive markers) soon becomes the very problem that the verses describe as hypocritical.
The Lukan narrative of people clamoring for “higher” seats at the dinner gathering is perhaps also reflected in the archaeological recovering of early Jewish synagogues which seems to have individual places of seating apart from the benches for the people.
Phylacteries were the small leather boxes (tefillîn) containing key texts from the law which were (and are) worn on the forehead and arm in literal fulfillment of Deut 6:8; 11:18. They were presumably intended as a spiritual aid for the wearer, but they provided an opportunity for religious ostentation: either the boxes themselves or the straps by which they were fastened could be made more conspicuous by making them wide. The “fringes” are the tassels (ṣîṣît) on the corners of Jewish cloaks which were required by Num 15:38–39; Deut 22:12. In biblical times they were worn on the ordinary outer garment, as Jesus himself did (9:20; 14:36); it is only in subsequent Judaism that the ṭallît, the fringed shawl worn especially for prayer, has developed. The fringes too were intended as spiritual visual aids (Num 15:39), but to increase their length was an obvious way to draw people’s attention to one’s piety. Their length was discussed in Jesus’ day, the school of Shammai favoring longer tassels than that of Hillel (Sipre on Num 15:37–41). [R.T. France, 2007, 861]
Image credit: Woe unto You, Scribes and Pharisees (Malheur à vous, scribes et pharisiens) James Tissot, 1886-1894, Brooklyn Museum, PD-US
Feeling at home
Today is the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude. The first reading is from St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians which begins with the memorable: “You are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God.” It is Paul’s message to the community at Ephesus, Jew and Gentile, that at long last they are truly home and can at last rest and be at peace.
It is not a pleasant experience to feel “out of place.” Have you ever been in a place where you feel as though you are a bit of an intruder. The realization can come upon you unexpectedly and you enter into a liminal space where time freezes and you quickly process what is unfolding. You are entering a party at the home of a friend and you sense these folks are not your acquaintances. You feel underdressed – too casual in a room full of fashionistas. A beer-will-be-just-fine person in a room of upscale wine aficionados whose vocabulary is foreign. Surrounded by discussions of foreign films among people for whom “the MCU” [Marvel Comic Universe] has no meaning. But it was your good friend who invited you and has warmly welcomed you and you feel out of place.
The same basic phenomena can happen at church. In your home parish you are known, people chat away in the pews before Mass, and folks wave across the aisle. At the church you are visiting, there is a monastic silence with people praying or just sitting there grimly, reflecting the granite walls of their ancient and venerable sanctuary. The tone is different with a 1950s feel. You know you are at home, but feel out of place.
Perhaps at the same moment, there is a visitor at your home parish who likes the welcoming atmosphere of your community but feels out of place when they enter the sanctuary, which to them, has the feel of a buzzing marketplace. Why aren’t people preparing for Mass? They miss the pre-Mass silence and the granite walls of their ancient and venerable sanctuary. They long for their home church.
And no matter what parish church you are attending, in the pews are the content, the worried, the suffering, the distracted, the searching, the overdressed and underdressed, the ones who feel at home and the ones who long for the familiar – all come to take their place at the family table. The ones next to us and across the table from us are fellow children of God.
We have all been given dignity as a member of God’s household is not something that we deserve or earn. It is God’s gracious gift, given in love. It is Christ who invites you and warmly welcomes you from the highways and byways. “You are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God” (Eph 2:19)
Image credit: BibleProject, “Exile” | CC-NC-BY
The stringent path
Note: Sunday, November 1, 2026 celebrates the Solemnity of All Saints in place of the 31st Sunday for Year A. Each day’s post will provide a link to the Gospel of All Saints – the Sermon on the Mount – which was read on the 4th Sunday of Year A. The main body of the post will discuss Mt 22:34-40, the Gospel for the 31st Sunday with a link to the readings from 2023. Beatitudes: scripture, culture and theology
Beatitudes: structure
This coming Sunday is the 31st Sunday in Ordinary Time. In the previous post we considered the first of the three critiques of the scribes and Pharisees: they teach but they don’t practice what they preach. In this post we move to the second: They burden others while failing to act themselves.
4 They tie up heavy burdens (hard to carry) and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.
In general, the Pharisees encouraged the people as a whole to live out their vocation to be a priestly nation (Ex 19:6). This was especially important given the destruction of the Temple and end of the role of the priests (all this in Matthew’s time). This meant applying the priestly purity laws to the people as a whole. It was particularly onerous. But the additional criticism is that they did not practice what they preach (v. 3). The scribes and Pharisees imposed rules on other people but gave them no help in understanding the deeper meaning within the rules. So in contrast with the “gentle yoke” and “light burden” of following Jesus, those who follow the scribes and Pharisees find themselves burdened, struggling under the weight of an arcane and complex legal code. Those who followed Jesus did not necessarily have a less stringent path, but it was oriented in a different direction.
At this point one needs to remember the refrain from Jesus’ “Sermon on the Mount” – “You have heard it said, but I say to you…” From that “launch” of his public ministry, Jesus has been working to have people understand the heart of the law and commandments and not just the rote following of rules and regulations – and in many cases to understand rightly, the real meaning and intent of the Law and commandments.
The imagery of the scribes tying up these loads before placing them on people’s shoulders is perhaps intended to allude to the extensive study and debate which have gone into formulating the scribal rules (e.g., 12:1–14 concerning the sabbath regulations). Yet they are not willing to help those whose troubles they have themselves caused; far from reaching out to the people, the Pharisees kept them at a distance (see 9:10–11). Contrast Jesus himself, who offers rest to the burdened (11:28–30). [R.T. France, 2007, 861]
Image credit: Woe unto You, Scribes and Pharisees (Malheur à vous, scribes et pharisiens) James Tissot, 1886-1894, Brooklyn Museum, PD-US
Critique of the Scribes and Pharisees
Note: Sunday, November 1, 2026 celebrates the Solemnity of All Saints in place of the 31st Sunday for Year A. Each day’s post will provide a link to the Gospel of All Saints – the Sermon on the Mount – which was read on the 4th Sunday of Year A. The main body of the post will discuss Mt 22:34-40, the usual Gospel for the 31st Sunday with a link to the readings from 2023. Sermon on the Mount: nature and outline
This coming Sunday is the 31st Sunday in Ordinary Time. In Matthew’s timeline it is (still) Tuesday of Holy Week and Jesus is still in Temple precincts. The audience continues to be the crowds gathered around the man from Galilee, but the conversation will soon pivot to the disciples – in each case a critique and warning. Jesus’ critique of the scribes and Pharisees will have three elements
- They teach but they don’t practice what they preach;
- They burden others while failing to act themselves; and
- They act for the wrong reasons: to make an impression on others.
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. 3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice
Teachers normally sat to teach (see 5:1; and cf. 13:1–2; 24:3), and 26:55 will tell us that Jesus followed this custom during this period in the temple courtyard. Given that cultural norm it is likely that to “sit on Moses’ chair” is simply a figurative expression (cf. our professorial “chair”) for teaching with an authority derived from Moses. Moses himself gave Israel the basic law, but ever since then it had been necessary for other teachers to expound and apply it, and those who did so with due authority “sat on Moses’ chair.” There is evidence of special front seats for synagogue leaders at the time of Jesus (see v. 6), but the suggestion that such a chair was literally described as the “chair of Moses” lacks clear evidence. There are scholars that suggests that the word ἐκάθισαν (ekathisan) should be read as “have seated themselves” meaning that they have “assumed to themselves the duties of this office” with the suggestion of bit of usurping or self-appointment. But the question that lingers is that while Moses was not questioned as to his authority to interpret the Law given, by Jesus’ time there was no clear legacy or magisterium of authoritative interpretation. In fact, differing rabbinic leaders had different views on a whole range of matters.
In addition, many modern scholars wonder if the reference to the “chair of Moses” also points to a powerful political, religious and social position – in addition to simply teaching. Surprisingly, and in contrast both to what precedes (16:6,12) and to what immediately follows (23:4, 16–22), Jesus condemns only the practice of the scribes and Pharisees, not their teaching. There are many scholars that would see a large degree of overlap in the teachings of Jesus and the Pharisees.
“Scribes” and “Pharisees” are two distinct groups – but together they represented the leadership of Matthew’s time – although not necessarily Jesus’ time. A scribe could be part of the Pharisee movement. Scribes were a professional class with formal training, somewhat like lawyers in contemporary American society. They were schooled in the history and tradition of the rabbis that had come before them and their interpretation/application of the Torah to current issues. Pharisees were a group within Judaism defined by strictly religious rules, composed mostly of laypersons without formal theological training. They were committed to the ideal that the holiness prescribed for the priestly class was a goal for all people.
Not all Pharisees occupied a formal teaching role, but they no less than the scribes saw themselves as the true successors to the Mosaic tradition. On the face of it Jesus’ words acknowledges the legitimate teaching authority of the scribes, but in what follows Jesus will dispute their right to that authoritative role. There are some scholars that offer v.3a as evidence both that Jesus himself conformed to the scribal tradition and also that Matthew’s church still operated within the confines of rabbinic law, and was not yet in conflict with the Jewish establishment. But the words must be read in their context.
From Mt 23:13 ff (the verses immediately following our gospel) Jesus begins the eight “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites…” in which these people are declared quite unfit to guide God’s people. The rhetorical effect might be better paraphrased: “Follow their teaching if you must, but be sure not to follow their example.” But then, their behavior in effect annuls their “Mosaic” authority. Jesus has already clashed with these groups regarding their teaching on the sabbath (12:1–14), purity (15:1–20) and divorce (19:3–9) and in more general terms in 16:6–12. [R.T. France, 2007,859-861]
Image credit: Woe unto You, Scribes and Pharisees (Malheur à vous, scribes et pharisiens) James Tissot, 1886-1894, Brooklyn Museueem, PD-US
More on free speech
As noted in the blog’s “About”, “…when I have time and inspiration, I muse on things.” Apparently I had time this morning. And so, I mused about free speech.
Two years ago College Pulse and FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) surveyed 55,000 undergraduates. Nate Silver, commenting on the resulting analysis and report, wrote: “Long story, told short, college students are not very enthusiastic about free speech. Particularly true for progressive/left wing students at elite institutions but also more broadly across all colleges. In general student support for free speech is tepid and [citing the report] ‘A significant minority of students don’t even have much tolerance for controversial speech on positions they presumably agree with…When it comes to controversial speakers, students at non-elite colleges are just as intolerant as their Ivy League counterparts.’” I think the point being is that over the last decade (maybe longer) we have collectively raised a generation that is risk-averse in general. Perhaps they have reason to be. Its has been a tumultuous last 20 years.
In the general population, within and outside of the political sphere, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and everyone in general has concerns over misinformation and are more supportive of governmental restrictions on misinformation. There are calls for governmental censorship on misinformation although no agreement on the standard and who enforces it. Meanwhile the social media conglomerates push for self-regulation.
In some sectors, there is concern that the United States may be reverting to the statistical mean of free-speech tolerance as seen in other western nations who have a more restrictive understanding of free speech. I think we are all finding out what happens when someone stands up for a controversial, unpopular position. How tolerant are we willing to be of the rights of others to express themselves? Because unless we are willing to do that, as Nate Silver commented: “to defend free speech in a principled, non-hypocritical way — the game theory says it’s just going to be a race to the bottom. And given the increasingly tenuous commitment to it in many corners of American society, free speech is going to lose out.”
Here in the United States, free speech is protected by an absolutist constitutional First Amendment. Not so in, for example, Britain. Their free expression operates under the laws of parliament. There is no First Amendment equivalent, rather the milieu of general freedoms protected via common law and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), incorporated into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998. Britain balances those freedoms against the parliamentary sense of what is needed for public order, the control of hate speech, and, in general, defamation laws. In other words, it can and has changed.
Legislation in the UK is highly subjective with standards such as “grossly offensive” or whether the expression is deemed to demonstrate “hostility”. Enforcement by local authorities and adjudication by the courts can be somewhat fluid, seeming to shift with politics, cultural norms, and local discretion. If that all seems to paint the picture of a moving target, I don’t think you are incorrect – at least from the standard of free speech that is just part of the American “DNA.”
Legislation and enforcement can vary within the UK. Scotland’s recent hate-crime laws criminalizes behavior that “stirs up hatred” against protected groups, even within the privacy of one’s own home. As you might expect, as soon as the law was passed the police were inundated with anonymous complaints against public figures, private citizens, and neighbors. Besides being overloaded with such reports, under law, it can lead to the police placing a notation of a non-hate crime incident in the person’s record, even if no crime was committed. Different regional police forces interpret the guidance differently, meaning a controversial blog post or workplace comment might be officially logged in Manchester but dismissed in London.
JK Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, immediately posted a thread on X detailing various high-profile transgender women, explicitly calling them men, and critiquing the law. At the end of the thread she invited the police to arrest her, writing: “If what I’ve written here qualifies as an offence under the terms of the new act, I look forward to being arrested when I return to the birthplace of the Scottish Enlightenment.”
As you can imagine the police were flooded with complaints which, after a few days, announced they did not consider it a hate crime or even an incident. Was it a realization that it was more a public challenge to the law, purposefully incendiary? Was it the reluctance to engage in what would be a public relations nightmare with a person who had the financial means and access to counter punch? And should they have gone to trial, they’d be facing someone who could afford a stable of lawyers to make the battle protracted and public. Or was it a recognition of a fundamental flaw in the law that the police recognized would keep them from applying resources against real-world violent crime?
All something to think about when someone’s free speech has you grinding your teeth and raising your ire.
What are we to do? Remember and act upon this morning’s first reading: “Brothers and sisters: Be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another as God has forgiven you in Christ. Be imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in love as Christ loved us…” (Eph 4:32 – 5:1)
