THEY WILL EAT AND BE CHANGED

HOMILY FOR THE 17^TH SUNDAY IN THE ORDINARY TIME, YEAR B

Rev. Fr. Ezekoka Peter Onyekachi

Miracles are not ends in themselves. They point to something, and the stuff they point to can never be taken to be unserious. They gear towards change or an announcement of change. Its occurrence goes with and leads to a change in the persons involved. Allowing this faith to remain would now become the effort of the person who has experienced it. And therefore, approaching Jesus for the miracles he offers may not be bad in itself. What may be counted as evil would be the failure to remain with him after the miracle is performed. Remaining in him implies a change from a former life to a new life in Christ. With this in mind, we come to realize that the matter which may be termed as the ingredients for the miracle should not be the focus of the miracle, as the focus is on the human person. In the case of the feeding of the Five thousand (the Gospel of today; John 6:1-15) in which lies the miracle of multiplication, the ingredients become the five small loaves and the two small fish.

What may be termed a prefiguration of the Gospel is found in the First Reading (2 Kings 4:42-44) in which is contained the story of Elisha. Elisha had gone to the brotherhood of the prophets in Gilgah and after having performed the miracle of cleansing of the poisoned soup, a man (not a boy as in the Gospel), brought (was not discovered) twenty barley loaves and fresh grain (not five loaves and two fish) to be served to a hundred men (not five thousand and more), and Elisha simply mandated (no thanksgiving offered to God) his servant (and not shared by himself) who had raised some doubts about the sufficiency of the bread for the number of people to share in it. Elisha reminds the servant of the promise of Yahweh, and at the end it turned out to be that the men ate and had some left over (not twelve baskets full). This is indeed a miracle of multiplication which is indeed negligible when compared with the recipient population and the ingredients for the miracle in the case of Jesus.

Remember, we talked about the changes that every miracle initiates in the human person, it is now time to freely ask ourselves about these changes that the miracle of multiplication of loaves brought (can bring) to the lives of the people (and us). Hence, as one could have simply said that Elisha’s miracle of multiplication led the brotherhood of the prophets to a better faith in Yahweh, so too we can say that Jesus’ multiplication miracle of multiplication led to the faith in him as the messiah. But there is more to this. There are two major facets of change that one can perceive to be the goal of the miracle of multiplication; one is the change effected in the apostles, and the other is the change effected in the crowd. Concerning the apostles, the change effected in them is not unconnected to the questions asked by them. Concerning the people, the change effected in them is not also unconnected with their profession of faith and the perceived reaction from them to crown Jesus.

Out of his compassionate heart, Jesus asked Philip (most probably because he was from Bethsaida which was their location): where can we buy bread for these people to eat? The answer from Philip was despairing. Oh! What a pessimistic faith! But then, Andrew spoke up having known of a boy with some loaves and fish: but how far will they go among so many? The reaction of Andrew was helpful and helped to calm the situation. Oh! What an optimistic but questioning faith! Philip’s question reveals his interest on money and human resources more than on faith in Christ, a ridicule of the wages of the apostles and stresses the impossibility of the situation. In other words, the pessimistic faith sees the problem more than the power of God, and does not see the opportunity for the power of God to be demonstrated in conquering the problem. In crises, the power of God seems to be forgotten. Thus, the miracle led the apostles to learn to go beyond a pessimistic faith that sees tough situations above the power of God. It changed them that they developed a formidable faith in the messiah who was in their midst. It can also do the same for us.

Andrew’s reaction and question reveal his conviction that no matter how little the resources or how poor the quality, it is all laid before the Lord. But looking at the need and the meagre nature of the resources, the praiseworthy faith begins to question. Thus, the optimistic but questioning faith questions instead of believing God to take care of the situation. And so, it complains about the problem, grows anxious of the problem, and grumbles over the small provision. All that is needed is for one to learn to trust Christ and not to question and doubt his love and care, wisdom and power. Thus, this miracle led the apostles to a total trust in Christ, becoming more stable in their optimistic faith without having the need to doubt the power of God. It teaches us to quit the complaint and focus on the power of God, to have more hopes in God and to convert grumbling moments into praying opportunities.

There may be another and a very lovely explanation offered by Barclay. It remains scarcely to be thought that the crowds left on a nine-mile expedition without any preparations at all. We know that pilgrims always possess supplies for the journey, even though we may not say in surety that all in the crowd made preparations for food. The situation might have actually been that none would produce what he had for he selfishly (and very humanly) wished to keep it all for himself. It is not ruled out then that Jesus in the awareness of this, and with that rare smile of his, produced the little that he and his disciples had, and thanking God for it had to share it out. Moved by such example, everyone who had anything did the same and bore with one another through love (cf. Second Reading Eph. 4:1-6). And there was abundance for all. Thus, it may be that this is a miracle in which the presence of Christ changed selfish men and women into a fellowship of sharers. And so, this miracle might represent one which actually changed not loaves and fishes, but men and women.

The rest of the story demonstrated Jesus’ power over insufficiency to the extent of making something that was initially insufficient finally abundant as twelve baskets were collected, as waste is meant to be avoided. This is a lesson to all of us. This miracle of multiplication can actually be felt by each one of us. It does not follow that because somebody appears insufficient, he/she would not be efficient. Nick Vujicic (an Australian Christian) was born without arms or legs, and even attempted suicide at 10 for being bullied at school. He thought he would never get married. Nick got married in 2012, has a healthy child, and today a powerful evangelist and motivational speaker. Isn’t it great? The initial disability should not affect the final ability. One can be small, but accomplishes great things. One might not have enough intelligence but turns out to be the best. One can start small, but ends very big. One can have little talent (humour) but it turns out to be a talent that creates joy in so many people. Think about the businesses that had small beginnings but now wax strong. And finally, think about how that little embryo develops into a human being, and how that little infant grows into a big adult. Is it not true then that the miracle of multiplication is everywhere around us? Discover them and give God the praise. Happy New week. God bless you.

WHO IS THE COMPASSIONATE SHEPHERD?

HOMILY FOR THE 16^TH SUNDAY IN THE ORDINARY TIME YEAR B

Rev. Fr. Ezekoka Peter Onyekachi

Compassion is  etymologically traceable to the Latin word, compassio (sympathy). Compassio comprises of two words com (together) and pati (to suffer), which when combined gives the meaning: to suffer together. It has been explained to be a synonym for the word pity which some of the biblical translators preferred in their translations, and in fact is used in today’s Gospel (Mark 6:30-34) by our Lectionary. But, the word pity does not capture well what the word compassion depicts. Pity can be a feeling of sympathy at the misfortune or suffering of someone or something. But compassion goes beyond it; it is a deep awareness of the suffering of another, coupled with the wish to relieve it. There are three levels in a compassionate feeling: Looking to see, seeing to feel, and feeling to act. Pity as a word does not necessarily involve the third level. Pity can stop at the second level. This is why I favour compassion when linked with Jesus. And in fact, the Greek word used in Mark 6:34 confirms my proposition. Splagchizomai is a Greek word which denotes mercy and sympathy and a loving concern. The word denotes sympathy with a firm plan to assist.

The Gospel periscope started with the missionary account of the disciples, and would serve to be an introduction to the feeding of the Five thousand in Mark 6:35-44. The response of Jesus to his disciples that have done so well in their missionary work was to invite them to rest. Surely, after work comes rest. But even at that, people were still coming that they had no opportunity even to eat. They later on succeeded in getting a boat to go to a quiet place, and on discovering about their desired location, many of those people ‘made use of google map to decipher the shortest route’ to that place. And so, they reached there before Jesus and the disciples. One can then imagine the surprise on the faces of Jesus and his disciples on seeing this huge crowd. Instead of an expected expression of frustration and anger as a result of their privacy which has been invaded, Jesus felt compassion on them, for they were like sheep without shepherd. And without getting the rest they wanted or even eating the food they needed, He immediately began to teach them. Compassion breeds sacrifice. Jesus and his disciples have ended up sacrificing their vacation (rest, holiday, an hour off, a day off, sabbatical leave) and their meal (personal engagements, pleasures, leisure and recreational experiences) because they looked, saw and acted. And this is compassion.

But how are they like sheep without a shepherd? A sheep without a shepherd cannot find its way. This means that such a sheep will get lost. If the people were left to themselves, they would probably grope in the darkness of evil, and losing their souls. A sheep without a shepherd cannot find its pasture and food. This means that such a sheep will go hungry and die off. And so, leaving the people to themselves would probably lead to spiritual starvation, denying them of the salvation needed by our souls. A sheep without a shepherd is defenceless against dangers. This means that such a sheep is prone to several attacks, planned or unplanned. Therefore, leaving the people to themselves would tantamount to their exposition to danger and to an easy attack from the arch enemy of God -the Devil- and his messengers -the demons. Thus, Jesus Christ as the compassionate Shepherd forfeited his rest and his meal to become the shepherd. He is the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep (cf. John 10:15). He began to teach them. The teacher desires to dispel ignorance from the mind and character of the student. My people perished for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6). And so, the act of teaching the people was salvific in itself. Jesus does not want them (and us) to perish but to be taught to know God and follow his will.

God desires that we have shepherds that can gather us, his flocks. The First Reading (Jeremiah 23:1-6) saw the promise of God to his people of a good shepherd. I will appoint shepherds for them who will shepherd them so that they need no longer fear and tremble, and none shall be missing, says the Lord. The absence of compassion in these shepherds led them to be regarded as fake. They did the opposite of what a good shepherd should do. They left the sheep to go astray and failed to care for them. For this, they would be punished and a new shepherd from the shoot of David (the Christ) would rise and save the people. Indeed, he would be called “the Lord of Justice.” This title would be his, because according to the Second Reading (Eph. 2:13-18), he would abolish the law and its claims “that he might create in himself one new person in place of the two, thus establishing peace…through the cross.” On the one hand, the law Jesus abolished was the law that had no compassion and sympathy for the human person; and on the opposite hand, the law Jesus inaugurated was the law which has as its foundation compassion for justice and order. And that is the law of love and sacrifice.

The stories of great personalities who have shown compassion for their fellow humans, for the society and for the Church becomes an encouragement and a calling to become extensions of the compassionate Shepherd in the areas we find ourselves. We too are called to be compassionate. Maximilian Maria Kolbe, OFM who was proclaimed the patron saint of our Difficult Century by John Paul II was a Polish Conventual Friar volunteered to die in place of a stranger in the German death camp of Auschwitz. He was canonized on 10 October, 1982. Mother Teresa of Calcutta who was canonized on 4 September, 2016 devoted her life to the care of the sick/dying, abandoned children and the education of street children. John Mary Vianney, canonized in 1925 and the patron saint of Parish priests in his compassion to liberate the people from the slavery of sin became very outstanding in his persevering ministry in the sacrament of confession. These are great acts of compassion. If such stories make us want to be like them, we may need to think how others would want our stories to make them want to be like us. We can imagine a world in which every person in it ever desires to reach out and touch another human being not just with our eyes or with our hands, but with our hearts. Indeed, compassion is a necessity; without it, humanity cannot survive.  Compassion is the key. Happy New Week. God bless you.

‘I WAS NO PROPHET’ BUT SENT AS ONE

HOMILY FOR THE 15^TH SUNDAY IN THE ORDINARY TIME, YEAR B

Rev. Fr. Ezekoka Peter Onyekachi

Some persons seek job while some jobs seek persons. There is a story of a young man who passed out from the university with the best result of his set. Many Companies and Firms began writing to him and begging him to come and work for them. They needed him to come translate the wonderful result in their job places. They needed efficiency, and for these Firms, efficiency is dependent of academic excellence. Surely, this is true, but there is an extent where it does not apply. Some persons may not do excellent academically, but are excellent in the field. Some persons are powerful painters and artists even when they had not studied anything theatrical and aesthetic. Thus, we may say that Amos never received the training for prophecy but he had the character. You need just to do it well, and the job will seek you. Yes, some jobs seek persons; persons who have characters and qualities needed for the job. For instance, if we assume God to be an employer, what do you think would be his needed qualities in men for the role of prophesy?

One can claim or belong to the company of prophets but has lost his prophetic voice, while another who does not belong to that group can be called by God to do the job. After all, God is the employer. This was simply the case of Amos in the First Reading (Amos 7:12-15) of today. There was a group for prophets known in Israel from the early monarchical years. They were so to speak the professional prophets. They were respected and sometimes paid for their prophecies by the people who listened to them; and this led them to corruption. They expected gifts for their prophecies; little wonder then they carried collecting bags which Jesus warned His disciples against. In some other Ancient Near Eastern religious practices, it was worse. The servants of their gods and goddesses went about with bags to collect contributions for the temple and for their gods. They were regarded as pious robbers. There was even an inscription in which a man who regarded himself as a slave of the Syrian goddess said that he brought in seventy bags full each journey for his lady. Most probably, the professional Israelite prophets of the time may not deny being influenced by such a practice.

Now, we understand better why Amaziah had to tell Amos to leave their land and go back to Judah; there he could earn his bread by prophesying. Thus, Prophesy became for these men a source of liveliness. And so, God had to select and elect some other person(s) that would relay His message in an unflinching manner and with no corruption. Thus, when Amos stated that he was not a prophet, he made it clear that he was not in the ‘guilds’ of prophets known in Israel. He denies relationship with the professional prophets. This denial could become a denial against their practices of prophesy for money, for firm and for themselves, which led them to prophesy what was only pleasant to the people. His prophetic call was not his choosing but the choosing of God who called him out of his major means of livelihood, which was shepherding and dressing of sycamore. This reminds us of God’s choice of David who was called from the pasture to be prince over Israel (cf. 2 Sam. 7:8). Amos, by this answer too appears to us as a simple person who, with no thought of personal advancement or motivation, responded to a spontaneous call of God to serve in a special and authoritative capacity. It therefore stresses the claim to authority on the part of the prophet; that is, he did not want the job, but the job came seeking for him, as he was compelled by God to do it anyway. This answer thus serves as a preparation to the new prophetic role which would be set by Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

This new role and the rules that would guide it are seen in the Gospel of today (Mark 6:7-13). Jesus summoned (called/elected) the twelve and sent them out two by two (mission) and gave them authority over unclean spirits (the role of prophecy). Jesus elected his new people and gave them mission to become prophets of the new age. Since the Old dispensation of the prophets had failed to work according to the mind of God, Jesus would now inaugurate a new people who would pattern their prophetic life in line with the prophetic role of Amos which is according to the way God wants it. Since the New age has come, Jesus would now give them some instructions so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past. 1) They were to take nothing for the journey (no food, no sack, and no money). 2) They were to take only the most necessary things (walking stick, sandals). 3) They were to be contented with the available homes for mission work 4) They were to leave any house that refuses their message. Having kept the instructions, they returned successful from the mission.

These instructions were geared towards the disciples’ training in detachment and contentment (not accumulation and luxury in material things), total resignation to the will of God (who would be with them in the person of the hospitable), total dependence on the good will of the people (not an imposition or forced charity), and humility to discover that they were merely sent and must not be accepted everywhere. And because of the transitory nature of their work, it becomes more understandable why they should not be overloaded. It would not be wise to waste time on a particular place of rejection to the detriment on so many other areas of possible acceptance. These would become some kind of missionary manual for the apostles of the early Christian community, and can also become our manual in the present world bereft of contentment and detachment. We are today faced with the problems of materialism, insecurity based on care of missionaries, frustration that may come from aversion and rejection from the people ministered to. This is also some bit of encouragement to all those who take care of prophets of today not to give up in their spirit of hospitality and charity.

But beyond looking at this in its direct application to the Church, we can also apply it to see ourselves as missionaries to one another, to the world of pleasure and discontentment, to the world of generosity and hospitality, to the world of rancour and hatred, to the world that shuts out other persons who are not of the same family, group or society, to the world that grows selfish day by day, to the world that sees the visit of other people as a threat to their strength or economy, to the world that trades togetherness, love and unity for national security, boundary protection and national pride. This also makes a call to the world that abuses hospitality to inflict pains on people, to the world that plays goodness in the guise of treachery, and to the world that plays down on truth in the guise of diplomacy. We therefore pray that Jesus raises among us more successful missionaries for our world of today. Amen. Happy new week. God bless you.

THE SCANDALS OF FAMILIARITY AND OF BACKGROUNDS

Would it not be true that sometimes we find ourselves growing so familiar with success that we fail to realize the hand of God? Would it be an overstatement that we may also find ourselves being so acquainted with things and persons that we meet everyday than those we rarely meet and see? Would it be a lie to say that sometimes we are inclined to respect and honour those who are more politically and economically successful than others?Would it be false to allude that we find ourselves having the tendency to discredit people because of their backgrounds?

In the Gospel passage, we find Jesus with his disciples making a trip to his hometown. And he had the experience of rejection because they knew him and his background. This is what we may call the scandals of familiarity and the scandals of background. We must not forget that this is the same Jesus who was constantly being sought after in the districts of Capernaum and Gerasenes and who continually withdrew to a lonely place, sometimes because of the crowd that pressed round him (cf. Mark 1:37, 2:2, 3:7, 5:21). But now in his hometown, there was no crowd that pressed round him or a crowd that was searching for him. In fact, the first two lines of the Gospel reading captured this so well. Jesus entered his hometown almost unnoticed, as it took the Sabbath day for him to be noticed. Here is a scandal of familiarity playing out. It played out fully when after his preaching; well, yes, they were firstly amazed, but they did not sustain their amazement as they asked derogatory questions and finally they would not accept him.

They say that familiarity breeds contempt. But I think that familiarity can actually breed more love and affection. Think about how often we come inside the church without reverence and genuflection. Think about how often we are distracted during worship because we feel it as monotonous. Think about the few times we are too near people to see their greatness, or the many times we are too near the Holy Communion to feel its efficacy.

And by the way, why did they not accept Jesus? This is because people would always judge your worth based on your background or your job. Here comes the scandal of backgrounds. They most probably saw him grow up, saw his mother change his diapers, saw him during the children liturgy, and saw him playing around in the garden. For all these, they made conclusions about him based on his backgrounds. This had a consequence. Their minds were so blocked to see and experience the power of God and the miracles the Lord had in stock for them. Jesus was amazed at their lack of faith.

Is it not true that sometimes we expect our miracles and salvation to come in a package we desire (Just like a boy who a desired a car key on his birthday from his Father, but got to reject it because the father gave him the key hidden inside the Bible, only to discover that the gift of the car came in a different package after the burial of the father)? Is it not also true that sometimes when this miraculous package comes, we tend to reject it just because of the channel of arrival? Today becomes a reminder that familiarity can actually breed love, and not contempt, and that people’s backgrounds and jobsmost times do not define their efficiency and proficiency. God uses any one. All we need do is to be ready always. Continue to remain blessed.Father Peter Ezekoka

THE SCANDAL OF FAMILIARITY

HOMILY FOR THE 14^TH SUNDAY IN THE ORDINARY TIME, YEAR B

Rev. Fr. Ezekoka Peter Onyekachi

We may find ourselves achieving success so easily that we fail to realize the hand of God in it to the extent that we relegate grace. We may also find ourselves being so used to the sacred worship and practices in the Church to the extent of seeing them as routines. We may again find ourselves having more time and respect for people who are not always with us than for people who are always with us, laughing and drinking with us. We may equally find ourselves relegating to the background persons that actually would be our potential saviour.  These and many of their likes are the scandals of familiarity. One may not categorically state the reason for these scandals. They vary. A priest disguised himself as a dirty beggar. Some time before the actual time for worship, he went about on the nearby streets asking people for help. Some despised him, some abused him, some rejected him, and a great number of people were indifferent to his plight. No one wanted him to come any closer, because of who he was (a dirty beggar) and what he did (begging). 

Of course, it is a common knowledge in our world that any person who begs on the street is wretched and therefore belongs to the lowest rank in the society. This was the experience of this priest who wanted to teach his congregation the need for love and charity. But beyond this lesson is a highlight of the persuasive inclination of man to despise that which for them has no value, and which for them is not worthy to be honoured. One needed to have seen the reaction of the people when the priest finally revealed who he really was to the congregation that was now waiting for their minister. They never knew that the same minister they were waiting for was the same filthy beggar they had seen on the pavements and at the entrance gate of the church. There were cries and regrets. This was a man who had long queues of people waiting to see him in his office; and now he was out of the office, on the streets, and no one desired to look at him again. This is the world for us. Many a time, someone’s ‘background’ (nationality, family, work, etc) can be the reason for being despised.

This was the experience of Jesus in the Gospel (Mark 6:1-6) of today. The people of his hometown despised him simply because they knew him. Familiarity they say breeds contempt. Sometimes, we are too near people to see their greatness. We are too near the Holy Communion to feel its efficacy. They were amazed about what Jesus did and said, but then they did not take him serious because they knew his father, mother, brothers and sisters. They already knew the occupation of his father. A carpenter was just regarded as a lay man in the society. He can be good with hand work; yes, but not among the learned of the society. So, when a person from such a background rises as a prophet, people are surprised and most times disregard him. However, their contempt did not stop Jesus from doing his work among them. The only consequence of their lack of faith blocked them from encountering the power of God.

God knew why he chose to be born in a lowly state for the accomplishment of his mission on earth. But human beings have failed to learn from this divine approach to mission. We may start small, but that does not mean we shall end small. We may be disabled, but that does not mean that God is not able. But we must work not to disable others because they are familiar with us. Familiarity can actually breed love, and not contempt. It should be more appreciated when the redeemer is from our home and not from our neighbour’s home. It should be more honourable if the prophet rises from my home. At least, one becomes sure that charity has got to begin at home. In fact, God desires that he raises prophets from our homes. This was the message he wanted to pass to the Israelites in the First Reading (Ezekiel 2: 2-5); the call of Ezekiel. Ezekiel was commissioned to speak to his own people. We must therefore learn to rise against being contemptuous to our household who work for God.

Paul, in the Second Reading (2 Cor. 12:7-10) had felt weak as a preacher. Most probably, what he regarded as thorn in the flesh made him weak and slightly unable to move around for the gospel message. But, it was at that point that he realized that the grace of God is made more manifest in our weakness. God does not despise the weak; rather he raises the weak to shame the strong. Weakness then becomes an easy invitation to grace. So, when we feel weak over anything, especially over the type of family we are born into, or over our work, we must remember that weakness plus grace will be equal to divine strength. It is the grace of God amidst our effort that can convert the humble beginning to a robust ending. Success is not achieved without grace.

The Lord is free to use any human being to accomplish his purpose. When we honour one another, we do that because of the God in Him. We do that because of what the Lord will certainly do with him. We must grow beyond ephemeral honour to discover the major reason why we must respect one another. We do not need to know someone’s class before we respect him. We need not know where someone comes from before we respect him. We need not know the name one bears before we honour him. We need not know the type of Institution someone attended before we regard him as intelligent. We need not base our employment criterion on qualifications that are exotic.

We need not reject listening to people because they are not learned or because they are not from our desired place. We need not despise people because of the type of work they do. We need not reduce others to nothing based on one disability or the other. One thing is common. We are all human beings created by God and for God. And thus, I dream of a world where respect and honour will no longer be based on the class of persons, but on the dignity of the human person. I dream of a world where equal opportunities are offered to everyone. I dream of a world where men would start to acknowledge fellow men not because of an exotic or luxurious manner of life, but because of simplicity and humility. I dream of a world where faith goes beyond religious figures and are based on principles that actually improve and enhance the real humanity of mankind. Amen. God bless you.