Daily Retreat 08/14/06
2006 Aug 14 Mon: Maximilian Mary Kolbe, p, mt M
Ez 1: 2-5. 24-28c/ Ps 148: 1-2. 11-12. 13. 14/ Mt 17: 22-27
From today’s readings: “Like the bow which appears in the clouds on a rainy day was the splendor that surrounded Him. Such was the vision of the likeness of the glory of the LORD.... Praise the LORD from the heavens; praise Him in the heights; Praise Him, all you His angels; praise Him, all you His hosts.... The Son of Man is to be handed over to men, and they will kill Him, and He will be raised on the third day....”
Pragmatic Idealism
In the best sense of the words, Jesus was at the same time both an idealist and pragmatist - He demonstrated how the highest principles could and should be applied to real world situations. For instance, when Peter was asked whether or not his Master paid the temple tax, Peter affirmed that indeed He did. Yet Jesus points out the incongruity of a king collecting taxes from his own sons, so as God’s Son, He is clearly exempt from this assessment. Even the temple tax collectors perhaps recognized something of the Lord’s unique status, since they approach Peter with the question, “Does your teacher pay the tax?” instead of the simple demand, “Pay up!”
It’s particularly clear in Matthew’s Gospel that, while Jesus took issue with hypocrisy, He nonetheless had no objection to legitimate religious institutional practices - He prayed and taught in local synagogues and in the Jerusalem Temple. He recognized the need for upkeep of the Temple and the importance of personal example, but He also needed His Apostles to recognize the full implications of His distinction as God’s Son. His instructions for Peter to pay the tax from the fish’s mouth upholds His “exempt” status and avoids scandal.
So often, such a solution is available to us as well. While it’s tempting to constantly insist on one’s legitimate rights, the Lord’s example shows us that sometimes, the confident self-assurance of one’s rights enables one to be especially generous and edifying in providing an example to others in order to promote peace and avoid scandal.
NB: In Matthew 17:25-26, the revised NAB translation substitutes “subjects” for “sons.” Although Semitic usage would occasionally allow this rendering (cf. Matthew 8:12 and 13:38), in the present context, it is decidedly awkward, since, for instance, kings do collect taxes from their subjects, but not from their sons! Since I certainly recognize my own limitations, I generally refrain from critiquing translation choices, but in this case, the NAB seems needlessly contradictory.
Ez 1: 2-5. 24-28c/ Ps 148: 1-2. 11-12. 13. 14/ Mt 17: 22-27
From today’s readings: “Like the bow which appears in the clouds on a rainy day was the splendor that surrounded Him. Such was the vision of the likeness of the glory of the LORD.... Praise the LORD from the heavens; praise Him in the heights; Praise Him, all you His angels; praise Him, all you His hosts.... The Son of Man is to be handed over to men, and they will kill Him, and He will be raised on the third day....”
Pragmatic Idealism
In the best sense of the words, Jesus was at the same time both an idealist and pragmatist - He demonstrated how the highest principles could and should be applied to real world situations. For instance, when Peter was asked whether or not his Master paid the temple tax, Peter affirmed that indeed He did. Yet Jesus points out the incongruity of a king collecting taxes from his own sons, so as God’s Son, He is clearly exempt from this assessment. Even the temple tax collectors perhaps recognized something of the Lord’s unique status, since they approach Peter with the question, “Does your teacher pay the tax?” instead of the simple demand, “Pay up!”
It’s particularly clear in Matthew’s Gospel that, while Jesus took issue with hypocrisy, He nonetheless had no objection to legitimate religious institutional practices - He prayed and taught in local synagogues and in the Jerusalem Temple. He recognized the need for upkeep of the Temple and the importance of personal example, but He also needed His Apostles to recognize the full implications of His distinction as God’s Son. His instructions for Peter to pay the tax from the fish’s mouth upholds His “exempt” status and avoids scandal.
So often, such a solution is available to us as well. While it’s tempting to constantly insist on one’s legitimate rights, the Lord’s example shows us that sometimes, the confident self-assurance of one’s rights enables one to be especially generous and edifying in providing an example to others in order to promote peace and avoid scandal.
NB: In Matthew 17:25-26, the revised NAB translation substitutes “subjects” for “sons.” Although Semitic usage would occasionally allow this rendering (cf. Matthew 8:12 and 13:38), in the present context, it is decidedly awkward, since, for instance, kings do collect taxes from their subjects, but not from their sons! Since I certainly recognize my own limitations, I generally refrain from critiquing translation choices, but in this case, the NAB seems needlessly contradictory.
posted by FrPitstick | 8/11/2006
<< Home