32ND SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME (YEAR B)

1st Reading               1 Kings 17: 10-16

Psalm                          146:7, 8-9, 9-10 (R. cf. 1b).

R//: Praise the Lord, my soul!

2nd Reading            Hebrews 9:24-28

Gospel                       Mark 13: 38-44

CONFRONT INJUSTICE; SUPPORT THE MARGINALIZED

Beloved, today is the 32nd Sunday in Ordinary Time (Year B). We are just two weeks away from the end of the liturgical year. Practically, we should begin to assess our journey through the year and see how well we can improve in the next. Let us take a quick look at the readings for today.

The first reading is from 1 Kings 17: 10-16. Elijah is asked to go to SIDON (or Zarephath) at the command of the Lord. To understand why he is going there, we need only to go a little backwards to get the whole picture right. In 1 Kings 17: 1, Elijah prophesied no rain or dew. But why is he doing that? Simply because of the situation of idolatry in the heart and life of the king, Ahab. Apparently, Ahab had married Jezebel, the daughter of Ethbaal, King of the Sidonians (1 Kgs. 16: 30-33). The people of Sidon worship Baal. That marriage is for political reasons but has a bad effect on the people of Israel. Ahab is seen worshipping the god of his wife, Jezebel. The king is committing idolatry. The implication is that the god of the king is the "god" of the nation. Ahab's action shows that YHWH is being replaced, and Elijah cannot take it anymore. Because of this disgraceful act, no rain. 

God tells Elijah to go to the Wadi Cherith so that he will be fed there. This is in a bid not to subject him to the draught. When the Wadi was dried, he was asked to go to Sidon. This is where today's first reading continues to tell us that Elijah the Prophet went off to Sidon (1 Kings 17: 10). Remember that Sidon is the centre for Baal worship, and Baal is the god of Jezebel. Additionally, Sidon is a Gentile region. If there is any place Elijah should seek solace and comfort in, it should not be Sidon. 

While Elijah is against the worship of Baal by Jews, his presence in the very epicentre of the worship of Baal will make a strong case for the powerlessness of Baal as will be seen in his Battle with the Prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18). 

Dear friends, sometimes you do not have to leave a particularly bad situation or condition simply because that bad condition is making life uncomfortable. Surely, Elijah did not run away. Our reaction should be to seek to know the root of some bad situations. Working on the root of a problem works faster. That is what we can deduce from Elijah being found in Sidon, the centre of Baal worship. 

Sometimes, God sends us into the camp of the enemy, not by accident but by order, to manifest his will. There are many situations we get into in life that are supposed to help us to render powerless certain opposing factors. Decipher your situation. God uses situations to manifest his greatness and render the enemy powerless. Be happy to be faced with certain situations. 

The second detail from the first reading is the mention of "city gate." Elijah met the widow at the city gate. The whole narrative is set around the "city gate", thus the city gate of Sidon. What is special about the "city gate"? A city gate is more than serving a security and defensive purpose. It is a place for economic activity, a kind of marketplace. Remember the words of Elisha about the activity at the city gate? (2 Kings 7:1). It becomes a social arena. The city gate is also a place for judicial activities. Elders and leaders resolved disputes and administered justice at the city gate (Deut. 21: 19; Ruth 4: 1-12). Hence, the life of a city is organized around the city gate. 

The woman in the first reading has a son. According to Numbers 27: 8, "If a man dies and has no SON, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter". This indicates that the inheritance goes to the son. However, the widow is found in the judicial place. This points to something interesting. Considering the city gate as a place for judicial activity, the widow's presence there can imply the search for justice, possibly because the inheritance of the son is not given. Additionally, she was "gathering sticks". Considering the city gate as a place for economic life, she was "buying" what she and her son would need for survival. Economically, she is struggling. God provided for this single parent. 

The Gospel passage (Mark 12: 38-44) continues in the same light of suffering and exploitation. The problem is simple. Some scribes are seeking forceful respect at two places: In the Synagogue and the Marketplaces. The Synagogue is the House of God, and the Marketplace is the secular place. In fact, the Greek word translated as "marketplace" is "αγοράς" (agoras). This word describes "common places, " "life outside the House of God," or "public places". The problem with such a person is that he has a conflicting personality, pride, and greed.

These Scribes "swallow the property of the widows" (Mk. 12: 40). The act is done by Scribes. These are scholars of the Law. They knew the right thing to do but did otherwise. It will surprise us what they are taking from widows. The Greek word translated as "property" is "οικίας" (oikias). This word relates to "oikos". "OIKOS" means House. It is from OIKOS that we get the English word ECONOMY. Practically, what the Scribes are doing is taking away everything that a widow has for survival, ranging from physical strength, and political and judicial capacity to economic power. This is what the "Economy" consists of. These Scribes, scholars of the Law, are aware that it is forbidden to afflict or oppress a widow (Exod. 22: 22-24). They did contrary to this law. That is why Jesus says, "The more severe will be the sentence they receive" (Mk. 12: 40). 

The observation by Jesus about the contribution made especially by the widow, based on our analysis of the text, I suggest, should not be taken as an act of generosity. I want to suggest that Jesus was giving an example of such exploitation of widows. While others gave out of their surplus, the widow gave out everything she had to live on. She could have been excused from giving, knowing that she was about to give her "oikos," her whole "economy." What is she going to survive on? Asking her to contribute still was an act of injustice. 

Dear friends, never use those who give everything they had to survive on to enrich yourself and promote your credentials. It is rather the responsibility of those who have honour and respect in places to help the oppressed and marginalized in society. The reversal should not be the case.

Pax et Bonum