March 2001 Sunday Homilies

The Faithfulness of God's Son in the Face of Temptations

By: Fr. Lope C. Robredillo

March 4, 2001
First Sunday in Lent
Dt 26:4-10; Rom 10:8-13; Lk 4:1-13

In Christian teaching, we become children of God through faith and baptism (John 1:12; 3:5). Because we are God's children, we have to behave as such. In Biblical studies, we call this indicative-imperative contrast. Thus, because Christians have been made holy, they must therefore act like holy people: "Since we have these promises, beloved, let us purify ourselves from every defilement of flesh and spirit, and in the fear of God, strive to fulfill our consecration perfectly" (2 Cor 7:1). But what should be the basic attitude of a Christian, how should he act, in a social context in which there is so much wealth, power, privileges and honor, and opportunity to abuse them? As God's children, our guide is none other than Jesus himself. And in the first chapters of his Gospel, Luke shows us that Jesus is God's Son ( Luke 1:35; 2:11). As such, he is the representative of all the sons/daughters or children of God — the people of God in the New Covenant. In today's Gospel, Luke gives us a summary of his whole life. That life relives the life of the people of God in the Old Covenant.

In the Old Testament, Israel is called God's son (Exod 4:22; Hosea 11:1). But to know the heart of the people of Israel, his first-born son, God tested them (Deut 8:2). So, they wandered in the desert for forty years, afflicted with hunger (Deut 8:3). Despite the seeming failure of natural means, He showed His care for them because He loved them. "It was he who led them forth, all the while performing wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, in the Red Sea, and for forty years in the desert" ( Acts 7:36). Despite his paternal care for them, however, the people became ungrateful. Instead of worshiping the true God, they even made for themselves a molten calf and offered sacrifices to it (Exod 32:1-9). They complained in the hearing of the Lord (Num 11:1-3); grumbling against Moses and Aaron, they wanted to return to their slavery in Egypt (Num 14:1-3). Some of them even staged a rebellion (Num 16). Because of their rebellion and disobedience, God did not allow them to enter into the Promised Land. Israel was a people of erring heart; they did not know the ways of God (Ps 95:10-11).

In today's narrative on the testing of the Son of God, Luke presents Jesus — being God's Son and representative of God's renewed people — as reliving the life of Israel in the New Covenant. Just as the people of Israel, in their exodus from Egypt, sojourned in the desert for forty years and were tested (Deut 8:2), so Jesus, in the new exodus, was in the desert for forty days and underwent temptations (Luke 4:1-2). The order of the three temptations in Luke is different from that in Matthew. In Luke, the temptations conclude on the parapet of the temple in Jerusalem, where Jesus will ultimately face his destiny (Luke 13:33). Nonetheless, the content is the same: the temptation to turn the stones into loaves of bread (Luke 4:3), the temptation to worship Satan in exchange of domination over the kingdoms of the world (v. 7), and the temptation to throw himself from the parapet of the temple (9). In the first temptation, Satan wanted Jesus to use his powers for his own purposes, rather than fulfill his messianic role as planned by the Father. In the second, he attempted to persuade Jesus to give him allegiance, rather than God. And in the third, he asked the Lord to test the word of the Father, rather than fulfill his mission on the basis of faith in that word. In all these, Satan tried to make Jesus, the Son of God, break his filial obedience to the Father. He even misused the Scriptures (v. 6), but Jesus used the same Scriptures to show his fidelity (vv. 4,7,10). Thus, unlike people of Israel of Old who manifested their disobedience, Jesus, far from succumbing to the three temptations, remained faithful to God ( Deut 6:8) and emerged victorious over them. That way, he, the true Israel and the true Son of God, showed himself faithful to God the Father.

One way of looking at the events that happened in our midst, culminating in the People Power II that eventually dislodged former President Joseph Estrada, is by considering them in the context of a battle between the sons of God and Satan. The Senators and those who joined the People Power II were, of course, sons of God — most of them anyway — by virtue of their faith and baptism. Like any Christian, the 21 senators, in the course of fulfilling their duties and exercising their power, faced the temptations of Satan. That it was perceived that the Senate itself was on trial is not incorrect. The challenge that confronted them was whether the principle Salus populi suprema lex should prevail, for the common welfare of the people is after all the will of God. And the salus of the people demands that truth be uncovered, even though it may hurt their patron across the Pasig River. At issue last January 16, 2001, on the 23rd day of the Impeachment Trial, was whether or not to open the Second Envelope that supposedly contains evidence on the extent to Estrada's corruption. Because the 11 senator-judges, led by Sen. Francisco Tatad and Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, opted not to have it opened, by that very act they succumbed to the temptation of Satan, the father of lies, not to bare the truth by hiding on legal technicalities and gobbledygook, even though it was clear to them from the beginning that the Impeachment Court was not a criminal one. By so doing they followed the life of God's people Israel, known for their obstinacy and unfaithfulness. On the other hand, the other senators, all ten of them, led by Senate President Aquilino Pimentel Jr., saw in that option, as it were, a pact with the devil which they could not compromise. Following their conscience, through which God the Father speaks to them, they voted "yes" to the opening of the envelope. Because those who wished to hide the truth were the majority, Pimentel even resigned as Senate President. These ten Senators proved themselves true sons of God. Despite the temptation of power, privilege and wealth, they endeavored to follow Jesus who stood victorious over the temptations of Satan. True to their name and vocation, they behaved as God's sons. Like Jesus, they were faithful to the Father.

Leadership in a Christian Community

By: Fr. Lope C. Robredillo

March 11, 2001
Second Sunday in Lent
Gn 15:5-12.17-18; Phil 3:17-4:1 (or 3:20-4:1); Lk 9:28-36

As we note in this column, to be a Christian is to belong to a community. One cannot be a Christian in isolation. If we are baptized, it is for the purpose of belonging to the one body of Christ: "It is in one Spirit that all of us, whether Jew or Greek, slave or free, were baptized into one body" (1 Cor 12:13). This one Spirit gave us various gifts to build it up: "It is he who gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pas-tors and teachers in roles of service for the faithful to build up the body of Christ" (Eph 4:11-12). One of these gifts that build up the commu-nity is the gift of leadership. It may be considered a necessary gift because there cannot be a community without a leader, or a group of leaders. Leadership is a sign of the unity of the community in all its diversity. This is why in the Church we have the hierarchy: bishop in the diocese, pastor in the parish. We also have servant leaders in our small communities of faith. But what does Christ expect from his leaders in the Church — bishops, priests and lay leaders?

Today's Gospel, which, like those of the previous two Sundays, is part of Luke's Sermon on the Plain, has reference to the gift of leadership in the Church. This reference can be seen in the two brief sayings on the blind leading the blind (Luke 6:39-40) and on the beam and splinter in the eye (Luke 6:41-45). How are these short parables to be understood in the context of leadership? In our secular culture, we usually claim that our professional life should be held separate from our private life. It is all right for a leader to have three wives as long as these do not interfere in his life as a professional. We compartmentalize our behavior. For Luke, however, this should not happen in Church leadership. In saying that a blind man cannot act as guide to a blind man ( Luke 6:39), he warns that a leader cannot presume to guide others in matters that he has not personally known and done. What a leader tells his followers — he himself practices it. The point, of course, is not that there should be nothing wrong with the leader in the first place. Leadership is a human ministry, and we cannot expect perfection. Rather, the point is that he cannot be blind to his imperfections. He should be able to see himself honestly, and accept criticism.

When we say, however, that a leader must practice what he preaches, the point is not simply the correspondence of teaching and behavior. To put the matter more theologically, we might say that for Luke, all persons are blind, and as Jesus is the one who gives sight (Luke 18:42), one remains blind until Jesus gives him sight. So, the leader must first of all be grafted to him (see Rom 6:5) and be rooted in him (see Col 2:6). The life and teaching of Jesus, who is the embodiment of the will of God, must open his eyes. He cannot imitate the Pharisees who, blind as they were, could not see in Jesus the will of God, and who therefore refused to heed him (see Matthew 23:16.24; Rom 2:19). Blind as they were, they could not lead (Luke 6:39). But if a leader in the Christian community allows his eyes to be opened, he will recognize in Jesus the will of God. And in assuming the mind and eyes of Jesus, he will be transformed (see Gal 2:20). His teaching will be authoritative, because he embodies the life and teaching of Jesus. Luke gives us the example of Paul whose behavior was a light to his converts (Acts 20:22-25). Because he put on Christ, Paul has the authority to say, "Imitate me as I imitate Christ" (1 Cor 11:1; see also 1 Cor 4:15-17; Phil 3:17; 2 Thess 3:7).

Such is Luke's teaching on our leadership in the community. Our attitude toward our members and those under our care flows from our experience with the Lord Jesus. Only when we have put on the new man who is Jesus himself can we point to the splinter in our brother's eye (Luke 6:42). Of course, we know it is very to criticize. And it sometimes happens that we criticize because in fact we wish to hide our own shortcomings that we find difficult to accept. Our criticism is a way of covering up our own faults, our own splinter. The truth is, in leading others, we are often lenient with ourselves, but we do not apply this leniency toward others when we look at them. That is why it is necessary for our eyes — for ourselves — to be opened by Christ so that when looking at people, we are sure that our act of seeing has Jesus for its source. When we are able to see others as Christ did, then we can be sure that our leadership is credible to the community. The way we relate to the members of the community is linked with the quality of the lives we lead. Such being the case, our leadership is not one of hypocrisy (see Luke 6:42b). Our attitude, our behavior, toward our members comes from the inner self which is Christ-like, in the same way that a good fruit comes from a good tree (Luke 6:43). When we relate ourselves to our brothers, it is as if Jesus himself is telling them: we only speak from the abundance of our heart (Luke 6:45b). Our words to them are free of self-righteousness and the urge to dominate, and are full of tolerance, patience and understanding.

The Faithfulness of God's Son in the Face of Temptations

By: Fr. Lope C. Robredillo

March 18, 2001
Third Sunday in Lent
Ex 3:1-8.13-15; 1 Cor 10:1-6.10-12; Lk 13:1-9

The Parable of a Father's Love

By: Fr. Lope C. Robredillo

March 25, 2001
Fourth Sunday in Lent
Josh 5:9.10-12; 2 Cor 5:17-21; Lk 15:1-3.11-32

How do we treat the members of our community who do not behave according to the standard of the dominant society?

In today's Gospel, we have an example of such a person: a prodigal son who, selfish and extravagant, got his inheritance and squandered his money on whores and on dissolute living. Having become destitute, he even longed to eat the husks that were fodder for pigs, but no one gave him anything (Luke 15:12-16). Philosophers might describe him as a short-lived epicurean — "Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" — but we who have no leisure for the abstract would call him profligate. Obviously, such a man has nothing to contribute to progress and development. On the contrary, if his behavior were conducted on the national level, he would ruin the economy. We really have no use for him. How do we treat people like him? In our society, we expect him to be in jail, if merely to ignore him would not suffice. Of course, he has nothing that we can be proud of; we would disinherit him for shaming us. Such is our usual thinking and attitude.

But as Christians, how do we deal with such a person?

The parable, which is traditionally known as the parable of the prodigal son, provides two answers we can learn from. The first one is given by the first son. Having learned that his profligate brother is back, he did not even bother to see him, still less join the merry-making. For him, since his brother was unredeemable, dissolute and sinful, the book should be thrown at him. He should suffer the consequences of his action. Having squandered his share of the estate and therefore having lost his rights to partake of what now belongs to him, why should he receive a ring, the finest robes and a new pair of shoes? Why give a party and kill the fatted calf? (Luke 15:22-23). Since he sinned seriously, he did not deserve this royal welcome. There is simply no justice there, especially in view of the fact that his father did not even give him, the elder brother, so much as a kid goat to celebrate with his friends, even though he never disobeyed his orders ( Luke 15:29). Logically enough, he would not join a sinner in a party. The thinking and attitude of the elder son is easily identified with those of the Pharisees and Scribes. They criticized Jesus for welcoming sinners into his company, and eating with them.

The second one is given by the father. In the parable, the father of the two sons was so loving to his prodigal younger son that he did not even allow him to finish his prepared piece. What was important to him was that he was back, and so it was time to hold a feast. He overlooked the sinfulness of his son; instead of severely reprimanding his son, he embraced him without any criticism, recriminations, but with total forgiveness and mercy. The fact is, he had been longing for his son to come back (Luke 15:20a). And now that he was back, it was time to put the past into oblivion and to make merry. "Let us eat and celebrate because this son of mine was dead and has come back to life. He was lost and is found" (Luke 15:23). Such an attitude and behavior may be, in our all too human thinking, very inappropriate, for we usually think that one must first pay his debts before he could be accepted into the normal society again. But God's behavior is different from ours. And that is how He wants us to behave and treat the sinful members of our community. That is why Jesus welcomed sinners and ate with them. God is generous and extravagant in His love. Like the father in the parable, He takes the initiative of reconciling Himself with sinners. Paul explicitly asserts: "It is precisely in this that God proves His love for us: that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" ( Rom 5:8). In Christ, he even went to the extent of identifying himself with them: "For our sakes God made him who did not know sin to be sin, so that in him we might become the very holiness of God" (2 Cor 5:21). That is why it is preferable to title this story as a parable of a father's love, instead of the parable of the prodigal son, for the focus, no doubt about it, is God's love for sinners. His life is so different from ours!

It is worth emphasizing that God's love is not only shown to the outcast of the society, like the prodigal son. He also loves the self-righteous, like the Pharisees and the Scribes, whom the elder son represents. In the parable, the elder son resents that his father, instead of punishing his brother for wantonness, gave him a ring and new clothes and threw a party for his homecoming. It is as if he did wish his brother to be entirely forgiven. He was righteously indignant that his father wholly welcomed his wayward brother. When we are righteous, we are often jealous that God cares for sinners. But the truth is, we are no less sinful, because we are trapped in our own righteousness. That is why the father in the parable sought the elder brother too! He said that everything he had was his. Thus, he reminded the elder brother that everything the latter had comes from him. Moreover, what the elder brother needed was a lesson on fraternal charity and forgiveness.

A community, of course, does not grow merely by following the rules of the society. There may be order, which is the purpose of law, but that would not necessarily create an atmosphere that is conducive to authentic living. For a community grows when there is love, which law cannot give. Law without love is like a body without spirit — it is dead. But when there is love, there is also forgiveness and reconciliation, and the good of the beloved is sought. A society that kills its sinful members will end up killing itself — none will be left, for we are all sinners. But when there is love and forgiveness among the brothers, even what seems to be impossible emerges. A new man, a new community looms in the horizon.