These Lectionary readings cause me to wonder about class conflict.  The first reading is from the First Book of Kings.  There the Lectionary contrasts the prophet Elijah with Elisha who owns oxen and plowing equipment, which he uses to cook the oxen and feed his people.  Elisha burned the plow.  The message there can be taken to care for the underclass.

          Psalm 16 is about inheriting; about God being the inheritance of the Faithful. As the Creator of all classes of people, God levels all social classes. Galatians is about slavery transformed from a social class of this life into a social class of the next life.  My stress is on freedom, freedom to change the way in which society is organized.

          The key word in the Greek is devouring in 5:15.  Max Zerwick,[1] against William D. Mounce,[2] suggests exploit.  Exploitation of one class by another is characteristic of capitalism; as well as of feudalism.  While the issue includes human sexuality, the social-organization issue is not simply human sexuality, but, more importantly, total social organization, as to who gets what.

          In the Gospel, the problem is what to do with the Samaritans, a class of people inimical to the Jews.  When the Samaritans rejected Jesus and his disciples, they kept on going to Jerusalem, bypassing the Samaritan problem.  Jesus does not want to exacerbate class conflict.

          As Jesus puts it in Luke 9:55, “the Son of Man has nowhere to rest his head.”  Jesus is not among the class of people with the social goods of this life.  Class adhesion is dismissed by Jesus: (1) when he charges the son not to bother burying his father, but to proclaim the kingdom of God (Luke 9:60) and (2) when he bids another disciple not even to bother to say farewell to my family at home before following.

 

First Reading: 1 Kings 19:16b, 19-21

Nothing new available.

 

Responsorial Psalm 16:1-2, 5, 7-8, 9-10, 11 (cf. 5a)

          Psalm 16

          Paul Overland, “Did the Sage Draw from the Shema? A Study of Proverbs 3:1-12”[3]

          Shema is the Jewish confession of faith, made up of Deut 6:4-9, 11:13-21 and Num 15:37-41. At Acts 2:25-28 (Third Sunday of Easter, Lectionary reading 46A), Peter is offering an exegesis for Psalm 16:8-10, shown interlineally below:

 

Psalm 16:8    `I set the LORD ever before me;

Peter            I saw the Lord ever before me,

 

Psalm 16:8        with him at my right hand I shall not be disturbed.

Peter                with him at my right hand I shall not be disturbed.

 

Psalm 16:9    Therefore my heart is glad and my soul rejoices,

Peter            Therefore my heart has been glad and my tongue has exulted;

 

Psalm 16:9        my body, too, abides in confidence

Peter                 my flesh, too, will dwell in hope,

 

Psalm 16:10  because you will not abandon my soul to the netherworld,

Peter            because you will not abandon my soul to the netherworld,

 

Psalm 16:10      nor will you suffer your faithful one to undergo corruption.

Peter                 nor will you suffer your holy one to see corruption.

 

Psalm 16:11  You will show me the path to life,

Peter            You have made known to me the paths of life;

 

Psalm 16:11      fullness of joys in your presence, the delights at your right hand forever

Peter                 you will fill me with joy in your presence.’

 

Peter exhibits a deep, abiding, knowledge of Sacred Scripture.

 

Where Psalm 16:11 for this 13th Sunday in Ordinary Time; Easter Sunday—Easter Vigil, Cycles A, B, and C;  and 33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle B have fullness of joys, The Third Sunday of Easter, Cycle A, has abounding.  I do not understand why the difference.

 

          Psalm 16

          Richard J. Dillon, "The Benedictus in Micro- and Macrocontext"[4]

          I think of Christ’s resurrection as a promise for the resurrection of all. Dillon writes, “Peter and Paul both present the argument, based on Psalm 16, that David’s expectation of deliverance from death and corruption could not have been for himself but only for the one whose resurrection he, as psalmist, had foretold.”

 

Second Reading: Galatians 5:1, 13-18

          Gal 5:13

          Demetrius K. Williams, “The Bible and Models of Liberation in the African American Experience”[5]

          Galatians 5:13, referring to slavery, refers back to Galatians 3:28, about which Williams writes, “It is not surprising that it [Galatians 3:28] would come to occupy such a place [concerning the role of women] in this debate because it appears to suggest that those who are `in Christ’ have overcome the triple barriers of race, class, and gender that have been used historically to deny human freedom and equality.”

 

          Gal 5:14

          Charles H. Cosgrove, "Did Paul Value Ethnicity?"[6]

          At Galatians 5:14, Paul regards the law as a revelation of the good. … the whole law is … love your neighbor as yourself.

 

          Gal 5:16-26

          Calvin J. Roetzel, review of John G. Lewis, Looking for Life: The Role of `Theo-Ethical Reasoning’ in Paul’s Religion[7]

          Lewis maintains that Paul is about discerning an ethical process about how to live a Christian life, rather than a micro-management of how that life ought to be lived.

 

Alleluia: 1 Samuel 3:9; John 6:68c

Nothing new available.

 


Gospel: Luke 9:51-62

          Luke 17:11-19

          Dennis Hamm, S.J., "What the Samaritan Leper Sees: The Narrative Christology of Luke 17:11-19"[8]

          Western linear readers expect a journey to go from point to point, rather than to jump around, as Luke does. Luke uses geography to frame his larger argument.  Here, in Chapter 9:51, Jesus resolutely determined to journey to Jerusalem, yet, much later, in Chapter 17, with the Samaritan Leper, Jesus still has not reached Jerusalem.

 

          Luke 9:52

          Warren Carter, "Getting Martha out of the Kitchen: Luke 10:38-42 Again"[9]

          Carter draws on entered in they entered a Samaritan village to Jesus entering the village of Martha and Mary.  The story of Martha and Mary is about organizing a social arrangement.  The point is that it is legitimate to rearrange social organization.

 

          Luke 9:51, 53

          Francis D. Weinert, “Luke, the Temple and Jesus' Saying about Jerusalem's Abandoned House (Luke 13:34-35)”[10]

          Weinert maintains that Luke is portraying Jerusalem as left alone as Jesus heads there.  Similarly, the earthly cities in which the Faithful live are left alone for them to develop.

 

          Luke 9:51—18:21

          Craig L. Blomberg, "Interpreting the Parables of Jesus: Where Are We and Where Do We Go from Here?"[11]

          Blomberg includes Luke 9:51, 53 for the central section of Luke arranging the teachings of Jesus in topical fashion (Luke 9:51—18:31).

 


          Luke 9:51

          Robert F. O’Toole, S.J., review of James L. Resseguie, Spiritual Landscape: Images of the Spiritual Life in the Gospel of Luke[12]

          Resseguie considers the journey of Jesus ending at Jerusalem; O’Toole as ending at the Ascension. O’Toole offers this caveat in a context of praise for what Resseguie has done. Resseguie “examines Luke’s physical, social and economic `landscapes’ along with the action and discourse of character  to develop and elaborate Luke’s understanding of the spiritual life.”  Examining such landscapes legitimates reexamining them with an eye to reorganization.

 

          Luke 9:51

          Richard Clifford, S.J. and Khaled Anatolois, "Christian Salvation: Biblical and Theological Perspectives”[13]

          Luke 9:51 is part of the prophetic model in which salvation takes place within history, through human instrumentality.

 

          Luke 9:51

          Gregory R. Perry, review of Filip Noel, The Travel Narrative in the Gospel of Luke: Interpretation of Lk 9:51—19:28[14]

          Scholars dispute where the travel narrative ends. I like ending positively, at the Ascension.

 

 

For more on sources see the Appendix file. Personal Notes are on the web site at www.western-civilization.com/CBQ/Personal%20Notes.

 



[1] Max Zerwick, S.J. and Mary Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament unabridged, 5th, revised edition (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico 1996) 575.

 

[2] William D. Mounce, Zondervan Greek Reference Series: The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House: A Division of HarperCollins Publishers, 1993) 274.

 

[3] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 62, No. 3 (July 2000) 424.

 

[4] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 3 (July 2006) 475.

 

[5] in Yet with a Steady Beat: Contemporary U.S. Afrocentric Biblical Interpretation, Randall C. Bailey, ed., (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003) 42.

 

[6] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 2 (April 2006) 289.

 

[7] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 2 (April 2007) 366.

 

[8] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 2 (April 1994) 274, 275, 276, 281, 282.

 

[9] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 2 (April 1996) 267, 268

 

[10] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 1 (January 1982) 73.

 

[11] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1 (January 1991) 58.

 

[12] Theological Studies, Vol. 66, No. 3 (September 2005) 712.

 

[13] Theological Studies, Vol. 66, No. 4 (December 2005) 746.

 

[14] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 2 (April 2006) 343.