The term agape, which appears many times in the New Testament, indicates the self-giving love of one who looks exclusively for the good of the other. The word eros, on the other hand, denotes the love of one who desires to possess what he or she lacks and yearns for union with the beloved. The love with which God surrounds us is undoubtedly agape. Indeed, can man give to God some good that he does not already possess? All that the human creature is and has is divine gift. It is the creature, then, who is in need of God in everything. But God's love is also eros. In the Old Testament, the Creator of the universe manifests toward the people whom he has chosen as his own a predilection that transcends every human motivation. The prophet Hosea expresses this divine passion with daring images such as the love of a man for an adulterous woman (cf. 3: 1-3). For his part, Ezekiel, speaking of God's relationship with the people of Israel, is not afraid to use strong and passionate language (cf. 16: 1-22). These biblical texts indicate that eros is part of God's very Heart: the Almighty awaits the "yes" of his creatures as a young bridegroom that of his bride. Unfortunately, from its very origins, mankind, seduced by the lies of the Evil One, rejected God's love in the illusion of a self-sufficiency that is impossible (cf. Gn 3: 1-7). Turning in on himself, Adam withdrew from that source of life who is God himself, and became the first of "those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage" (Heb 2: 15). God, however, did not give up. On the contrary, man's "no" was the decisive impulse that moved him to manifest his love in all of its redeeming strength.

[Pope Benedict, Message for Lent 2007]

Building the new ethical sense through the rediscovery of values

1. We come in our analysis to the third part of Christ's statement in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:27-28). The first part was: "You have heard that it was said: you shall not commit adultery. The second: "But I say to you, whoever looks at a woman to lust after her", is grammatically connected to the third: "he has already committed adultery with her in his heart".

The method applied here, which is to divide, to "break" Christ's utterance into three parts, which follow one another, may seem artificial. However, when we are looking for the ethical sense of the whole utterance, in its entirety, the division of the text we use can be useful, provided it is not applied disjunctively but subjunctively. And this is what we intend to do. Each of the distinct parts has its own content and connotations that are specific to it, and this is precisely what we wish to emphasise by dividing the text; but at the same time it should be pointed out that each of the parts is explained in direct relation to the others. This refers in the first place to the main semantic elements by which the utterance constitutes a whole. Here are these elements: committing adultery, desiring, committing adultery in the body, committing adultery in the heart. It would be particularly difficult to establish the ethical meaning of 'desiring' without the element indicated here last, namely 'adultery in the heart'. The preceding analysis has already taken this element into account to a certain degree; however a fuller understanding of the component: "committing adultery in the heart" is only possible after a special analysis.

2.

As we already mentioned at the beginning, it is a question here of establishing the ethical sense. Christ's statement in Matthew 5: 27-28 begins with the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery", to show how it is to be understood and put into practice, so that the "righteousness" that God Yahweh as Lawgiver willed abounds in it: so that it abounds to a greater extent than the interpretation and casuistry of the Old Testament doctors. If Christ's words in this sense tend to build the new ethos (and on the basis of the commandment itself), the way to this is through the rediscovery of values, which - in the general anti-Constitution understanding and application of this commandment - have been lost.

3.

From this point of view, the wording of Matthew 5: 27-28 is also significant. The commandment 'thou shalt not commit adultery' is formulated as an interdiction that categorically excludes a certain moral evil. It is well known that the Law itself (Decalogue), besides the prohibition "thou shalt not commit adultery" also includes the prohibition "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" ( Ex 20:14 . 17 ; Deut 5:18 . 21 ). Christ does not nullify one prohibition over the other. Although it speaks of "desire", it tends towards a deeper clarification of "adultery". It is significant that after he mentions the prohibition "not to commit adultery", as known to his listeners, he later changes his style and logical structure from normative to narrative-affirmative. When it says: "Whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart", it describes an inner fact, the reality of which can be easily understood by the hearers. At the same time, through the fact thus described and qualified, he indicates how the commandment "thou shalt not commit adultery" is to be understood and put into practice, so that it leads to the "righteousness" desired by the Lawgiver.

4.

Thus we come to the expression 'he committed adultery in his heart', a key expression, as it seems, to understand its proper ethical meaning. This expression is at the same time the main source for revealing the essential values of the new ethos: of the ethos of the Sermon on the Mount. As is often the case in the Gospel, here too we encounter a certain paradox. How, in fact, can "adultery" take place without "committing adultery", that is, without the outward act, which enables the act prohibited by the Law to be identified? We have seen how committed the casuistry of the "doctors of the Law" was to specifying this problem. But even irrespective of the casuistry, it seems evident that adultery can only be detected "in the flesh" (cf. Gen 2:24 ), i.e. when the two: man and woman, who are joined together so as to become one flesh, are not legal spouses: husband and wife. What meaning, then, can "adultery committed in the heart" have? Is this not a merely metaphorical expression, used by the Master to highlight the sinfulness of concupiscence?

5.If we were to admit such a semantic reading of Christ's statement ( Mt 5:27-28 ), we would have to reflect deeply on the ethical consequences that would follow, i.e. the conclusions regarding the ethical regularity of the behaviour. Adultery occurs when the two: man and woman, who are joined together so as to become one flesh (cf. Gen 2:24 ), i.e. in the proper manner of spouses, are not legal spouses. The identification of adultery as a sin committed 'in the body' is strictly and exclusively linked to the 'outward' act, to marital cohabitation, which also refers to the status of the acting persons, recognised by society. In the case in question, this state is improper and does not authorise such an act (hence the name: "adultery").

6.

Moving on to the second part of Christ's utterance (i.e. the part in which the new ethos begins to take shape), one would have to understand the expression: "whoever looks at a woman to lust", in the exclusive reference to persons according to their marital status, i.e. recognised by society, whether or not they are married. Here the questions begin to multiply. Since there can be no doubt that Christ indicates the sinfulness of the inward act of concupiscence expressed through the gaze directed at any woman who is not the wife of the man who looks at her in this way, we can and even must ask ourselves whether by the same expression Christ admits and substantiates such a gaze, such an inward act of concupiscence, directed at the woman who is the wife of the man who looks at her in this way. In favour of an affirmative answer to this question seems to be the following logical premise: (in the present case) only the man who is the potential subject of 'adultery in the flesh' can commit 'adultery in the heart'. Since this person cannot be the man-husband with regard to his lawful wife, therefore the 'adultery in the heart' cannot refer to him, but can be blamed on any other man. If a husband, he may not commit it with regard to his wife. He alone has the exclusive right to 'desire', to 'look with concupiscence' at the woman who is his wife, and it can never be said that because of such an interior act he deserves to be accused of 'adultery committed in the heart'. If by virtue of marriage he has the right to "unite himself with his wife", so that "the two shall be one flesh", this act can never be called "adultery"; similarly, the inner act of "lust" referred to in the Sermon on the Mount cannot be called "adultery committed in the heart".

7.

This interpretation of Christ's words in Matthew 5: 27-28, seems to correspond to the logic of the Decalogue, in which, in addition to the commandment "thou shalt not commit adultery" (VI), there is also the commandment "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" (IX). Moreover, the reasoning that has been made in its support has all the characteristics of objective correctness and accuracy. Nevertheless, it remains open to question whether this reasoning takes into account all the aspects of revelation as well as the theology of the body that must be considered, especially when we want to understand Christ's words. We have already seen above what is the "specific weight" of this locution, how rich are the anthropological and theological implications of the only phrase in which Christ returns "to the origin" (cf. Mt 19:8 ). The anthropological and theological implications of the utterance of the Sermon on the Mount, in which Christ appeals to the human heart, also give the utterance a "specific weight" of its own, and at the same time determine its coherence with the whole of the Gospel teaching. And so we must admit that the interpretation presented above, with all its objective correctness and logical precision, requires some broadening and, above all, deepening. We must remember that the appeal to the human heart, expressed perhaps paradoxically (cf. Mt 5:27-28 ), comes from the One who "knew what is in every man" ( Jn 2:25 ). And if His words confirm the commandments of the Decalogue (not only the sixth, but also the ninth), at the same time they express that science about man, which - as we have noted elsewhere - enables us to unite the awareness of human sinfulness with the prospect of the "redemption of the body" (cf. Rom 8:23 ). Precisely such "science lies at the foundation of the new ethos" that emerges from the words of the Sermon on the Mount.Taking all this into consideration, we conclude that, just as in understanding "adultery in the flesh" Christ subjects to criticism the erroneous and one-sided interpretation of adultery that results from the non-observance of monogamy (i.e. marriage understood as the indefectible covenant of persons), so too in understanding "adultery in the heart" Christ takes into consideration not only the actual legal status of the man and woman in question. Christ makes the moral evaluation of 'desire' depend above all on the personal dignity of the man and woman themselves; and this has its importance both when they are unmarried and - perhaps even more so - when they are married, wife and husband. From this point of view, we should complete our analysis of the words of the Sermon on the Mount, and we will do so next time.

[Pope John Paul II, General Audience 1 October 1980]

Psychological and theological interpretation of the concept of concupiscence

1. Today I would like to complete the analysis of the words uttered by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount about "adultery" and "concupiscence", and in particular the last component of the utterance, in which "concupiscence of the eye" is specifically defined as "adultery committed in the heart".

We have already noted above that the above words are usually understood as the desire for another's wife (i.e. according to the spirit of the 9th commandment of the Decalogue). It seems, however, that this - more restrictive - interpretation can and should be broadened in the light of the global context. It seems that the moral evaluation of concupiscence (of "looking in order to lust"), which Christ calls "adultery committed in the heart", depends above all on the personal dignity of the man and woman themselves; this applies both to those who are not joined in marriage, and - and perhaps even more so - to those who are husband and wife.

2.

The analysis we have made so far of the statement in Matthew 5:27-28: "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery; but I say to you, whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart'", indicates the need to broaden and especially to deepen the interpretation presented above, regarding the ethical meaning that this statement contains. Let us dwell on the situation described by the Master, a situation in which the one who "commits adultery in his heart", by means of an inner act of concupiscence (expressed by looking), is the man. It is significant that Christ, when speaking of the object of such an act, does not emphasise that it is "someone else's wife", or the woman who is not one's own wife, but says generically: the woman. Adultery committed 'in the heart' is not circumscribed within the limits of the interpersonal relationship. It is not these limits that decide exclusively and essentially the adultery committed "in the heart", but the very nature of concupiscence, expressed in this case through the gaze, that is, through the fact that that man - of whom, by way of example, Christ speaks - "looks to lust". Adultery 'in his heart' is committed not only because the man 'looks' in this way at the woman who is not his wife, but precisely because he looks at a woman in this way. Even if he were to look in this way at the woman who is his wife, he would commit the same adultery "in the heart".

3.

This interpretation seems to take into account, in a broader way, what has been said in the present analysis on concupiscence, and in the first place on the concupiscence of the flesh, as a permanent element of man's sinfulness (status naturae lapsae). The concupiscence that, as an interior act, arises from this basis (as we have tried to indicate in the previous analysis), changes the very intentionality of the woman's existence "for" the man, reducing the richness of the perennial call to communion of persons, the richness of the profound attraction of masculinity and femininity, to the mere gratification of the sexual "need" of the body (to which the concept of "instinct" seems to be more closely connected). Such a reduction means that the person (in this case, the woman) becomes for the other person (for the man) above all the object of the potential fulfilment of his own sexual 'need'. This deforms the reciprocal 'for', which loses its character of communion of persons in favour of the utilitarian function. The man who 'looks' in this way, as Matthew 5:27-28 writes, 'makes use' of the woman, of her femininity, to satisfy his own 'instinct'. Although he does not do so by an outward act, he has already assumed this attitude in his innermost being, inwardly so deciding with respect to a particular woman. This is precisely what adultery 'committed in the heart' consists of. Such adultery 'in the heart' can also be committed by the man with regard to his wife, if he treats her merely as an object of gratification of instinct.

4.

It is not possible to arrive at the second interpretation of the words of Matthew 5: 27-28, if we limit ourselves to the purely psychological interpretation of concupiscence, without taking into account what constitutes its specific theological character, namely the organic relationship between concupiscence (as an act) and the concupiscence of the flesh, as, so to speak, a permanent disposition that derives from man's sinfulness. It seems that the purely psychological (i.e. 'sexual') interpretation of 'concupiscence' is not a sufficient basis for understanding the relevant text of the Sermon on the Mount. If, on the other hand, we refer to the theological interpretation, - without underestimating what in the first interpretation (the psychological one) remains unchangeable - it, that is, the second interpretation (the theological one) appears to us as more complete. Thanks to it, the ethical significance of the key statement of the Sermon on the Mount, to which we owe the proper dimension of the ethos of the Gospel, also becomes clearer.

5.

In delineating this dimension, Christ remains faithful to the Law: "Think not that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I came not to abolish, but to fulfil" ( Mt 5:17 ). Consequently, it shows how much we need to go deeper, how much we need to thoroughly unveil the darkness of the human heart, so that this heart can become a place of 'fulfilment' of the Law. The statement of Matthew 5: 27-28, which makes manifest the inner perspective of adultery committed "in the heart" - and in this perspective points out the right ways to fulfil the commandment: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" - is a singular argument. This utterance ( Mt 5,27-28 ) in fact refers to the sphere in which "purity of heart" (cf. Mt 5,8 ) (an expression which in the Bible - as is well known - has a wide meaning) is particularly dealt with. We shall also have occasion elsewhere to consider how the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" - which, in terms of the way it is expressed and its content, is an unequivocal and severe prohibition (like the commandment "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife") ( Ex 20:17 ) - is fulfilled precisely through "purity of heart". The severity and strength of the prohibition is indirectly testified to by the subsequent words of the text of the Sermon on the Mount, in which Christ speaks figuratively of "plucking out the eye" and "cutting off the hand", when these members were the cause of sin (cf. Mt 5:29-30 ). We noted earlier that the Old Testament legislation, while abounding in severe punishments, nevertheless did not contribute "to the fulfilment of the Law", because its casuistry was marked by multiple compromises with the concupiscence of the flesh. Christ, on the other hand, teaches that the commandment is fulfilled through "purity of heart", which is not imparted to man except at the price of firmness towards everything that originates from the concupiscence of the flesh. He acquires "purity of heart" who knows how to consistently demand it from his "heart" and from his "body".

6.

The commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" finds its justification in the indissolubility of marriage, in which man and woman, by virtue of the Creator's original design, are united so that "the two become one flesh" (cf. Gen 2:24 ). Adultery, by its very essence, contrasts with this unity, in the sense that this unity corresponds to the dignity of persons. Christ not only confirms this essential ethical meaning of the commandment, but tends to consolidate it in the very depths of the human person. The new dimension of the ethos is always connected with the revelation of that depth, which is called "heart" and with the liberation of it from "concupiscence", so that in that heart man can shine forth more fully: male and female in all the inner truth of their mutual "for". Freed from the constraint and impairment of the spirit that brings with it the concupiscence of the flesh, the human being: male and female, find themselves reciprocally in the freedom of the gift that is the condition of all cohabitation in truth, and, in particular, in the freedom of mutual self-giving, since both, as husband and wife, must form the sacramental unity willed, as Genesis 2,24 says, by the Creator himself.

7.

As is evident, the demand, which Christ poses in the Sermon on the Mount to all his current and potential listeners, belongs to the inner space in which man - the very one who listens to him - must see again the lost fullness of his humanity, and want to regain it. That fullness in the reciprocal relationship of persons: of man and woman, the Master vindicates in Matthew 5:27-28, having in mind above all the indissolubility of marriage, but also every other form of cohabitation of men and women, of that cohabitation which constitutes the pure and simple fabric of existence. Human life, by its very nature, is 'co-educative', and its dignity, its balance depend, at every moment in history and at every point of longitude and geographical latitude, on 'who' she will be to him, and he to her.

The words spoken by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount undoubtedly have such universal and at the same time profound significance. Only in this way can they be understood in the mouth of the One, who to the very depths "knew what is in every man" ( Jn 2:25 ), and who, at the same time, carried within himself the mystery of the "redemption of the body" as St. Paul would express it. Should we fear the severity of these words, or rather trust in their salvific content, in their power?In any case, the accomplished analysis of the words pronounced by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount opens the way to further reflections that are indispensable to be fully aware of 'historical' man, and especially of contemporary man: of his conscience and his 'heart'.

[Pope John Paul II, General Audience 8 October 1980]

A prayer "for discarded women, for used women, for girls who have to sell their dignity to get a job". The Pope asked for it in the homily of the Mass celebrated today at Santa Marta, in which, starting from today's Gospel, he recalled the words of Jesus: "Whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery" and "whoever repudiates his wife exposes her to adultery". Women are "what all men lack to be the image and likeness of God", said Francis, according to Vatican news reports: Jesus pronounced strong, radical words that "changed history" because up until that moment woman "was second class", to put it mildly, "she was a slave", "she did not even enjoy full freedom". "And Jesus' doctrine on the woman changes history," the Pope commented, "And it is one thing the woman before Jesus, another thing the woman after Jesus. Jesus dignifies the woman and puts her on the same level as the man because he takes that first word of the Creator, both are 'the image and likeness of God', both; not first the man and then a little lower the woman, no, both. And the man without the woman beside him - whether as mother, as sister, as wife, as workmate, as friend - that man alone is not the image of God'. "In television programmes, in magazines, in newspapers," he denounced, "women are made to be seen as an object of desire, of use," as in a "supermarket". The woman, perhaps in order to sell a certain quality "of tomatoes", becomes precisely an object, "humiliated, without clothes", causing the teaching of Jesus who "dignified" her to fall.We don't have to go 'that far', the Pope pointed out: it also happens 'here, where we live', in 'offices', in 'firms', women are 'the object of that disposable philosophy', like waste material', where they don't even seem to be 'people'. "This is a sin against God the Creator, to reject woman because without her we males cannot be the image and likeness of God," Francis' warning, according to which "there is a fury against woman, an ugly fury. Even without saying it... But how often do girls have to sell themselves as disposable objects to get a job? How many times? 'Yes, father I heard in that country...'. Here in Rome. Do not go far".The Pope then wondered what we would see if we made a 'night pilgrimage' to certain places in the city, where 'so many women, so many migrants, so many non-migrants' are exploited 'as in a market': to these women, he continued, men 'approach not to say: 'Good evening', but 'How much do you cost?' And to those who wash their 'consciences' by calling them 'prostitutes', the Pontiff said: 'You have made her a prostitute, as Jesus says: whoever repudiates exposes her to adultery, because you do not treat the woman well, the woman ends up like that, even exploited, a slave, many times. So it is good to look at these women and think that, in the face of our freedom, they are slaves to this thought of discard'. All this, for the Pope, 'happens here, in Rome, it happens in every city, the anonymous women, the women - we can say - 'without a look' because shame covers the look, the women who do not know how to laugh and many of them do not know, do not know the joy of breast-feeding and of being called mother. But, even in daily life, without going to those places, this ugly thought of rejecting the woman, she is a second-class object". "This passage from the Gospel helps us to think in the market of women, in the market, yes, the trafficking, the exploitation, that is seen; also in the market that is not seen, what is done and not seen. The woman is trampled on because she is a woman," Francis' exhortation. Jesus, the Pope concluded, 'had a mother', he had 'many friends who followed him to help him in his ministry' and to support him. And he found 'so many despised, marginalised, discarded women', whom he lifted up with such 'tenderness', giving them back their dignity.

[Pope Francis, homily s. Martha; https://www.agensir.it/quotidiano/2018/6/15/papa-francesco-a-santa-marta-sfruttare-le-donne-e-peccato-contro-dio/]

Pentecost Sunday (Year C)  [8 June 2025]

May God bless us and the Virgin protect us! On the feast of Pentecost, like Mary and the apostles, let us prepare our hearts to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit who transforms us into fire and light of love. Today, the first reading and the responsorial psalm are common to years A, B, and C, while the second reading and the Gospel are different each year.

*First reading from the Acts of the Apostles (2:1-11)

Jerusalem is not only the city where Jesus instituted the Eucharist, died and rose again, but it is also the city where the Spirit was poured out upon humanity. It was the year of Jesus' death, but the people in the city had probably never heard of his death, let alone his resurrection, so the feast of Pentecost was like any other for them. The Jewish Pentecost was very important because it was the feast of the giving of the Law, one of the three feasts of the year for which people went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and the list of all the nationalities present on that occasion proves its great interest. For the disciples of Jesus, who had seen, heard and touched him after his resurrection, nothing was the same as before, even if they did not expect what was about to happen. Luke helps us to understand what is happening by choosing his words carefully and evoking at least these three texts from the Old Testament: the gift of the Law at Sinai, a prophecy of Joel, and the episode of the Tower of Babel. First of all, Sinai. The tongues of fire and the sound like a mighty wind recall what happened at Sinai when God gave the tablets of the Law to Moses (Exodus 19:16-19).  Following this line, Luke helps us understand that Pentecost was not simply a traditional pilgrimage, but a new Sinai, where God gave his Law to teach the people how to live in the Covenant. At Pentecost, He gave His own Spirit, and from then on, His Law, the only true path to freedom and happiness, was no longer written on stone tablets but in the hearts of men, as Ezekiel had prophesied (Ezekiel 11:19-20; 36:26-27). The prophet Joel: Luke certainly wanted to evoke a word of Joel: 'I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, says God' (Joel 3:1), that is, on all humanity. For Luke, those devout Jews from all nations under heaven, as he calls them, are a symbol of the whole of humanity, for whom Joel's prophecy is finally fulfilled, and this means that the long-awaited 'Day of the Lord' has come. The Tower of Babel is an event that can be summarised in two acts: Act 1: Men, who speak the same language and the same words, decide to build an immense tower between the earth and the sky. Act 2: God stops them and scatters them across the earth, confusing their languages, and from that moment on they no longer understand each other. What is the meaning of this story? God certainly does not want to stifle man's potential, and if He intervenes, He does so to spare humanity the false path of single-minded thinking and a human project that excludes God. It is as if He were saying: you are seeking unity, which is a good thing, but you are going about it the wrong way, because unity in love does not come through standardisation, but through diversity. And this is the message of Pentecost: at Babel, humanity learns diversity; at Pentecost, it learns unity in diversity, 'conviviality' (as Don Tonino Bello writes), because all nations hear the proclamation, each in its own language, of the one message: 'Magnalia Dei, the great works of God' (Acts 2:11).

*Responsorial Psalm (103 (104), 1.24, 29-30, 31.34)

This psalm has 36 verses of praise and wonder at the works of God, a beautiful poem. It is proposed for the feast of Pentecost because Luke, in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, recounts that on the morning of Pentecost, the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit, began to proclaim in all languages the 'great works of God' of creation. All civilisations have poems about the beauty of nature. In particular, a poem written by the famous pharaoh Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) was found in Egypt in the tomb of a pharaoh, a hymn to the Sun God. Amenhotep IV lived around 1350 BC, at a time when the Jews were probably in Egypt and may have known this poem. There are similarities in style and vocabulary between the pharaoh's poem and Psalm 103/104, but what is interesting is to note the differences marked by God's revelation to the people of the Covenant. First difference: God alone is God, an essential difference for the faith of Israel: God is the only God, there are no others, and the sun is not a god. The account of creation in the book of Genesis puts the sun and moon in their place: they are not gods, but luminaries, themselves simple creatures. Several verses show God as the only Lord of creation using royal language: God presents himself as a magnificent, majestic and victorious king. Second peculiarity: Creation is all good, and here there is an echo of Genesis, which repeats tirelessly: 'And God saw that it was good'. This psalm evokes all the elements of creation with the same wonder: 'I rejoice in the Lord', and the psalmist adds (in a verse not read this Sunday): 'I will sing to the Lord as long as I live, I will sing praise to my God while I have my breath'. However, evil is not ignored: the end of the psalm mentions it and invokes its disappearance, since it was already understood in the Old Testament that evil does not come from God, because all creation is good and one day God will remove all evil from the earth: the victorious King will eliminate everything that hinders human happiness. Third peculiarity: Creation is continuous, not an act of the past, as if God had thrown the earth and man into space once and for all, but a perennial relationship between the Creator and his creatures. When we say in the Creed: "I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth," we are not only affirming our faith in an initial act, but we are recognising that we are in a necessary relationship with him, and this psalm reiterates this by speaking of God's constant action: "All wait for you... You hide your face, they are dismayed... You take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. You send forth your spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth." Another peculiarity: Man is the culmination of creation. According to the Jewish faith, man is at the summit of creation, the king of creation, and for this reason he is filled with the breath of God. And this is precisely what we celebrate at Pentecost: the Spirit of God who is in us vibrates and resonates with man and with all creation, and the psalmist sings: 'Let God rejoice in his works! I rejoice in the Lord." In conclusion, creation makes sense in the light of the Covenant: In Israel, every reflection on creation is placed in the perspective of the Covenant, since Israel first experienced liberation by God and only afterwards meditated on creation in the light of this fundamental experience. There are visible traces of this in the psalm: First of all, the name of God used is always the famous tetragrammaton YHWH, which we translate as Lord, the name of the God of the Covenant, revealed to Moses. Furthermore, in the expression, 'Lord, my God, how great you are', the possessive is a reference to the Covenant, since God's plan in the Covenant was precisely this: 'You shall be my people, and I will be your God'. This promise is fulfilled in the gift of the Spirit to all flesh, as the prophet Joel proclaims, and every person is invited to receive the gift of the Spirit to become a true child of God.

*Second Reading from the Letter of Saint Paul the Apostle to the Romans (8:8–17)

 The main difficulty in this text lies in the word 'flesh', which in St Paul's vocabulary does not have the same meaning as in our vocabulary, where the two components of the human being, body and soul, are often contrasted, with the risk of misinterpreting what Paul means when he speaks of flesh and Spirit. What he calls 'flesh' is not what we call body, and what he calls 'Spirit' does not correspond to what we call soul; indeed, he specifies several times that it is the Spirit of God, 'the Spirit of Christ'. He does not contrast two words, 'flesh' and 'Spirit', but two expressions: 'living according to the flesh' and 'living according to the Spirit', that is, choosing between two ways of living, or rather deciding whom to follow and what course of action to take. Here we return to the theme of the two paths that every Jew, like St Paul, knows well: choosing between two paths, between two possible attitudes in the face of difficulties or trials: trust in God or distrust; the certainty of never feeling abandoned by God or the doubt and suspicion that God does not really seek our good; fidelity to his commandments because we trust him, or disobedience because we consider ourselves capable of autonomous decisions. The history of Israel in the Bible (think of Massah and Meribah in the Book of Exodus) presents numerous examples of mistrust in the face of life's trials, especially in the desert, where the people faced many trials, including hunger and thirst. When the people suspected that God had abandoned them, they put God and Moses on trial. Even Adam, faced with the limits placed on his desires, suspected and disobeyed the Lord. The temptation of Adam and Eve in Eden is repeated in our lives every day: it is the constant problem of trust and distrust, the so-called 'original' sin in the sense that it is at the root of all human disasters. Opposed to suspicion and rebellion against God is Christ's attitude of trust and submission because he knows that God's will is only good. Especially in the face of the challenges of pain in all its forms and death, there are two opposing attitudes that Paul calls 'living according to the flesh' or 'living according to the Spirit'. For him, living according to the flesh means behaving like slaves who do not trust and obey out of obligation or fear of punishment. "Living according to the Spirit," on the other hand, means "behaving like children," that is, weaving relationships of trust and tenderness which, following Christ's example, lead to life. Living under the influence of the flesh (i.e., in an attitude of distrust and disobedience towards God) leads to death, while living through the Spirit is to put to death the works of sin. In other words, the attitude of a slave is destructive, while the attitude of a child is the way to peace and happiness. The Spirit of God, who dwells in us through baptism, enables us to call God 'Abba-Father', and on the day when all humanity recognises God as Father, the divine plan will be fulfilled, and we will all enter into his glory together. A few verses later, Paul notes that creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the children of God. Finally, today's text reminds us that since we are children of God, we are also heirs of God, co-heirs with Christ, on condition that we suffer with him in order to be with him in glory. This text can be read in two ways: the slave imagines a God who sets conditions on inheritance; instead, the son considers God as Father even and above all in suffering. Suffering is inevitable, as it was for Christ, but lived with him and like him, it becomes a path to resurrection, and then 'on condition that we suffer with him' means: on condition that we are with him, that we remain united to him at all times, even in inevitable suffering.

*From the Gospel according to John (14:15-16, 23b-26)

 This well-known Gospel passage takes on new meaning today thanks to the other biblical texts proposed for the feast of Pentecost. For example, we are tempted to think of the Holy Spirit in terms of inspiration, ideas, discernment, intelligence, but for the feast of the gift of the Spirit, today's Gospel speaks only of love. Jesus says here that the Spirit of God is something else entirely: it is Love, Love personified. This means that on the morning of Pentecost in Jerusalem, when the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, it was love itself, which is God, that filled them. In the same way, we too, baptised and confirmed, know that our capacity to love is inhabited by the love of God himself. The responsorial psalm 103/104 reminds us of this when it proclaims: You send forth your Spirit, and we, created in the image of God, are called to resemble him more and more, constantly moulded by him in his image. The Spirit is the potter who works his clay, and every vessel becomes more and more refined in the hands of the craftsman. We are the clay in God's hands, so our likeness to Him is refined more and more as we allow ourselves to be transformed by the Spirit of Love. In the second reading, St. Paul speaks of our relationship with God, summarising it in one sentence: we are no longer slaves, but children of God, while in the Gospel, Jesus links our relationship with God to our relationship with our brothers and sisters: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (Jn 14:15), and we know well what his commandment is: 'that you love one another as I have loved you' (Jn 13:34).  If Jesus is referring to the gesture of washing feet, that is, to a decisive attitude of service, we can translate "if you love me, you will keep my commandments" as "if you love me, you will serve one another". God's love and love for our brothers and sisters are inseparable, so inseparable that it is by the quality of our service to our neighbour that the quality of our love for God is judged and therefore "if you do not serve your brothers and sisters, do not claim to love me!"  A little further on, Jesus takes up a similar expression and develops it: "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him" (Jn 14:23). This does not mean that the Father in heaven does not love us if we do not serve our brothers and sisters, because there are no conditions or blackmail in him. On the contrary, the characteristic of mercy is precisely to bend down even more towards the poor, as we are all poor, at least in terms of love and service to others. Love is learned by practising it, but what the Lord is telling us here is something we know well: the ability to love is an art, and every art is learned by practising it. The Father's love is boundless, infinite, but our capacity to receive it is limited and grows as we practise it. We can therefore translate this as follows: 'If anyone loves me, he will put himself at the service of others and little by little, his heart will expand; the love of God will fill him more and more, and he will be able to serve others even better... and so on to infinity," that is, in unlimited progress. Let us conclude by returning to the term "Paraclete," which can be translated as comforter and defender. Yes, we need a defender, but not before God, and St. Paul makes this clear in the second reading: The Spirit you have received does not make you slaves, people who are still afraid, but rather the Spirit who makes you children (cf. Rom 8:15).  We are therefore no longer afraid of God and we do not need a lawyer before Him. But then why does Jesus say that he will pray to the Father, and he will give us another defender, to remain with us forever? Yes, we need an advocate, who defends us from ourselves, from our reluctance to serve others, from our lack of trust in God's power, who constantly defends the cause of others against our selfishness because, in doing so, he actually defends us, since true happiness consists in allowing ourselves to be moulded every day by God in his image, overcoming all selfish resistance.

+Giovanni D'Ercole

God bless us and may the Virgin protect us! For the feast of the Ascension, the first reading and the psalm are common to years A, B, C, while the second reading and the gospel change 

*First Reading from the Acts of the Apostles (1:1-11)

These first verses of the Acts of the Apostles recall the conclusion of Luke's gospel, also addressed to a certain Theophilus, and it is interesting to note that one begins where the other ends, that is, with the account of Jesus' Ascension, even though the two narratives do not match perfectly as we can see when reading the texts of Year C. The gospel narrates the mission and preaching of Jesus, the Acts of the Apostles focuses on the missionary activity of the apostles, hence the title. Luke's gospel begins and ends in Jerusalem, the heart of the Jewish world and of the First Covenant; Acts begins in Jerusalem, because the New Covenant continues the First, but ends in Rome, the crossroads of all the world's roads, and the New Covenant goes beyond the borders of Israel. For Luke it is clear that this expansion is the fruit of the Holy Spirit, the inspirer of the apostles since Pentecost, so much so that Acts is often called 'the gospel of the Spirit'. Jesus, after his baptism, prepared himself for his mission with forty days of desert, so he prepares the Church for this new missionary phase by appearing to the apostles for forty days and "speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God". In fact, "while he was at table with them", thus during a last supper, he gives the apostles some instructions that can be summarised as: an order, a promise and a sending on mission.

The order: do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the fulfilment of the Father's promise that must be fulfilled in Jerusalem since all the preaching of the prophets, especially Isaiah, attributes to Jerusalem a central role in God's plan (cf. Is 60:1-3; 62:1-2). The promise: "John baptised with water, you on the other hand will be baptised in the Holy Spirit not many days from now". This too was known to the apostles, who remembered the prophecy of Joel: "I will pour out my spirit on every creature" (Joel 3:1), and the prophecies of Zechariah: (Zechariah 13:1; 12:10), and of Ezekiel: "I will pour out cleansing water on you and you will be purified... I will put a new spirit in you... I will put my spirit in you" (Ezek 36:25-27). When the apostles ask "whether this is the time when he will rebuild the kingdom for Israel", they show that they have understood that "the Day of the Lord" has dawned and God's plan now demands man's cooperation: with Christ, in fact, the promised Saviour has come, now it is up to human freedom to accept him, and for this the apostles' announcement is necessary. Hence the responsible mission of the apostles who receive the Holy Spirit: "You will receive the power of the Holy Spirit who will come upon you, and you will be my witnesses... to the ends of the earth". The plan that the book of Acts follows is in fact this: first the proclamation in Jerusalem, then throughout Judea and Samaria, and finally it must spread to the ends of the earth. Just as on Easter morning two men in shining garments aroused the women saying: "Why do you seek the Living One among the dead? He is not here, he is risen", so, on Ascension Day, "two men in white robes" do the same to the apostles: "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing into the sky? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven" (1:11). Jesus will return, we are certain of it, and we proclaim it in every Eucharist when we say 'In blessed hope of the coming of Jesus Christ our Saviour'. Finally, a cloud removes Jesus from human sight: his carnal presence ceases to usher in the spiritual one. A visible sign of this presence of God is the cloud already present at the Red Sea passage (Ex 13:21) and at the Transfiguration (Lk 9:34).

NOTE: The events between the Resurrection and Ascension cannot be reconstructed exactly. In Luke's texts (Gospel and Acts) the narration is essentially identical: Jesus leaves Bethany and takes the disciples to the Mount of Olives recommending that they not leave Jerusalem until they have received the Holy Spirit. The only difference concerns the duration: in the gospel it appears that the Ascension takes place on the evening of Easter itself, whereas in Acts it is made clear that forty days elapse between Easter and Ascension - hence the feast forty days later. In the other gospels little is found about the Ascension: Matthew does not speak of it at all, reporting only the apparition to the women and the sending to Galilee (Matthew 28:18-20). John narrates several apparitions, but omits the Ascension. Mark mentions the Ascension briefly at the end (Mk 16:19). The differences show that the gospels do not aim at a precise geographical account but at emphasising theological aspects: Matthew insists on Galilee, Luke on Jerusalem. In fact, it is in Jerusalem that Jesus had ordered to wait for the Spirit: "Behold, I send upon you him whom my Father has promised; but you remain in the city until you are clothed with power from on high" (Lk 24:49).

*Responsorial Psalm (46 (47),2-3,6-7,8-9)

In this psalm Israel sings and acclaims God not only as its king, but as king of the whole earth. Before the exile in Babylon, no king of Israel had imagined that God could be the Lord of the whole universe, and therefore the psalm dates from a late period in Israel's history. God is the king of Israel and therefore in Israel the king did not hold all power because the true king was God himself. The king could not dispose of the law as he pleased and, like everyone else, had to submit to the Torah, i.e. the rules that God had given to Moses on Sinai. On the contrary, according to the book of Deuteronomy, he had to read the entire Law every day and, even sitting on the throne, he was (in principle) no more than an executor of God's orders, transmitted to him by the prophets. In the Books of Kings, kings sought the advice of the prophet in charge before embarking on a military campaign or, in the case of David, before starting the building of the Temple, so that the prophets freely intervened in the lives of kings, strongly criticising their actions. Such a conception of God's sovereignty was even an obstacle to the establishment of monarchy, as was the case when the prophet Samuel, in the time of the Judges, reacted strongly towards the tribal leaders who demanded a king to be like all other nations. To desire to be like other peoples, when one is God's chosen people and in covenant with Him, was something blasphemous, and if Samuel gave in to the pressure, he did not fail to warn of the ruin they were bringing upon themselves. When he anointed the first king, Saul, he took care to point out that he became the custodian of God's heritage because the people remained God's people, not the king's, and the king himself was only a servant of God. During the years of the monarchy, the prophets were charged with reminding the kings of this essential truth. One understands then that in honour of God, this psalm uses the vocabulary that was elsewhere reserved for kings. Even 'terrible' is an expression typical of court jargon and should be understood as follows: the king (God) does not frighten his subjects, but reassures them, and so the enemies are warned that 'our king' will be invincible. The God king of the universe, "the great king over all the earth" (v. 3), acclaimed in every verse of the psalm is precisely the God of Sinai, the "Lord" and in this feast all peoples participate: "All peoples clap your hands, acclaim God with shouts of joy!" so that the universal dimension profoundly pervades the psalm to the point of saying "God reigns over the nations" (v. 9) recognising him as the only God of the entire universe.

NOTE: The real discovery of monotheism occurred only with the Babylonian exile: until then Israel was not monotheist in the full sense of the term, but monolatrist, i.e. it recognised as its own one God - the God of the Sinai Covenant - but admitted that the neighbouring peoples each had their own god, sovereign in their own land and defender in battle. This psalm was therefore probably composed after the return from exile, not in the throne room, but in the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem, in a liturgical context evoking God's great plan for humanity, anticipating the day when God will finally be recognised as the Father of all good. We Christians make this psalm our own, and the expression "God ascends amid acclamations" seems well suited for today's celebration of Jesus' Ascension. In paying this splendid homage to Christ, King of the Universe, we anticipate the song that on the last day the children of God finally gathered together will intone: "All peoples, clap your hands! Acclaim God with shouts of joy".

*Second Reading from the Letter to the Hebrews (9:24-28 ; 10:19-23)     

In the first part of this text, the author meditates on the mystery of Christ; in the second part, he draws the consequences for the life of faith with the intention of reassuring his readers, Christians of Jewish origin, who felt a certain nostalgia for ancient worship since in Christian practice there is no longer a temple, nor blood sacrifice, and wondered if this is really what God wants. The author goes through all the rituals and realities of the Jewish religion showing that they are now outdated. He deals especially with the Temple, called the sanctuary, and makes it clear that one must distinguish the true sanctuary in which God dwells - heaven itself - from the temple built by men, which is only a pale image of it. The Jews were rightly proud of the Temple in Jerusalem, but they did not forget that every human construction, by definition, remains weak, imperfect and destined to perish. Moreover, no one in Israel claimed that one could enclose the presence of God in a building, no matter how majestic. The first builder of the Temple, King Solomon, had already said this: "Would God dwell on earth? The heavens and the heaven of heavens cannot contain you; let alone this House that I have built!" (1 Kings 8:27).  For Christians, the true Temple - the place of encounter with God - is no longer a building, because the Incarnation of the Word has changed everything. The place of encounter between God and man is Christ, the God made man, and St John explains this when he narrates Jesus driving the money changers and animal sellers out of the Temple. To those who asked him: "What sign will you show us to do this?" (i.e. "in whose name are you making this revolution?) he replied: "Destroy this temple and in three days I will restore it". Only after the resurrection will the disciples understand that he was talking about his body (Jn 2:13-21). Here, in the Letter to the Hebrews, the same thing is affirmed: only by being grafted into Christ, nourished by his body, do we enter into the mystery of the God who "entered not into a sanctuary made by human hands, a figure of the true one, but into heaven" (Heb 9:24). This occurred with the death of Christ, making clear the centrality of the Cross in the Christian mystery, as confirmed by all New Testament authors. The author of the Letter to the Hebrews specifies later that the culmination of Christ's life-offering is his death, but his sacrifice embraces his entire existence, not just his Passion (cp10). In the passage we read today, the focus is on the sacrifice of the Passion, as opposed to that which the high priest offered each year on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). He entered alone into the Holy of Holies, pronounced the unspeakable name of God (YHVH), shed the blood of a bull for his own sins and that of a goat for those of the people, thus solemnly renewing the covenant, and when he left, the people knew that their sins were forgiven. That covenant had to be renewed every year, but the new covenant established with the Father is final in Christ crucified and risen. On the cross, the true face of God is revealed, who loves us to the uttermost, the Father of each one of us, for whom there is no longer any fear of God's judgement. When we proclaim in the Creed that Jesus will come to judge the living and the dead, we know that, in God, judgement means salvation, as we read here: "Christ, having offered himself once to take away the sin of many, will appear a second time, without any relation to sin to those who wait for him for their salvation" (Heb 9:28). This certainty of faith enables us to live our relationship with God in full serenity and thanksgiving. But it is important to bear witness to it, as this text exhorts us: "Let us continue without hesitation to profess our hope, for He who promised is faithful" (Heb 10:23). Jesus Christ is "the high priest of future goods" (Heb. 9:11).

*From the Gospel according to Saint Luke (24:46-53)

The synoptics, Matthew, Mark, and Luke differ in their account of the Lord's Ascension, 

Matthew places it on a mountain in Galilee, where Jesus had fixed his appointment with the apostles; Mark gives no geographical indication; Luke, on the contrary, places the event on the Mount of Olives towards Bethany. Thus he ends the gospel where it began, in Jerusalem: the holy city of the chosen people from which the revelation of the one God had radiated to the world; the city of the temple-sign of God's presence among men. But also the city of the fulfilment of salvation through Christ's death and resurrection, and the city of the gift of the Spirit. Finally, the city from which the final revelation is to radiate over the universe, and Luke makes Jesus' words ring in our ears: "Was it not necessary that Christ should suffer these things in order to enter into his glory?" (Lk 24:26). What is new here, in comparison to the three prophecies of his passion uttered by Jesus before the events and the two statements immediately after the resurrection and on the road to Emmaus, is the conclusion of the sentence, which takes the form of a missionary sending of the apostles: "Thus it is written: 'Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and in his name shall be preached to all nations repentance and forgiveness of sins, beginning at Jerusalem. Of this you are witnesses (Lk 24:46-49) For the first Christians it was difficult to explain which passage of Scripture had announced the sufferings of the Messiah and his resurrection on the third day; among the last prophets of the Old Testament the prophecies about the conversion of all nations, beginning with Jerusalem, were much more widespread, as we read in Jeremiah: "On that day they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; all nations shall flock there, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem" (3:17); and in the third Isaiah: "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples" (56:7); "From moon to moon, from Sabbath to Sabbath, every creature shall come and bow down before me" (66:23). Zechariah then develops this theme: "On that day many nations will gather to the Lord and will be a people to me" (Za 2:15), "Many peoples and mighty nations will come to Jerusalem to seek the Lord of hosts" (8:22).Exegetes state that although these reflections are present in numerous psalms, it was above all the songs of the Servant in Deutero-Isaiah (Is 42; 49; 50; 52-53) that inspired the evangelists' meditation and clarified Jesus' expression "It was necessary that::" because in these four canticles emerges the figure of the suffering and glorified Messiah and the proclamation of good for all the nations: "I, the Lord," have called you with righteousness, I have taken you by the hand, I have formed you; I have made you a covenant of the people, a light of the nations" (Is 42:6);

"The righteous, my servant, will justify the multitudes" (Is 53:11). This conclusion of Luke's gospel thus takes on the tones of the liturgy: Jesus, the true High Priest, blesses his own and sends them out into the world, and the people worship and give thanks: "Lifting up his hands, he blessed them. And as he blessed them, he departed from them and was taken up into heaven. And they prostrated themselves before him; then they returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and stood in the temple praising God" (Lk 24:50-53). Luke's gospel closes by going back to its beginning, when Zechariah, a priest of the Old Covenant, had heard the announcement of God's salvation (Lk 1:5-19), and the last image that the disciples kept of the Master is a gesture of blessing. This explains why they return to Jerusalem with great joy. In this concluding image is enclosed the mystery of the light and joy of the Ascension, a departure that is not abandonment but the certainty of a different presence, invisible but even more powerful and effective.

+Giovanni D'Ercole

6th Easter Sunday (year C) [25 May 2025]

God bless us and may the Virgin protect us. We walk with swift steps towards the Ascension of the Lord and Pentecost.  Jesus' words prepare us to receive the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, Parakletos, an untranslatable Greek word. Five times it appears in the N.T. only in John and the possible meanings are: Defender/Advocate; Comforter; Intercessor/Mediator, Inner Teacher/Spirit of truth. 

*First Reading From the Acts of the Apostles (15:1-2.22-29)

The first Christian communities were faced from the very beginning with a serious crisis that poisoned their existence for a long time. Let me explain: in Antioch of Syria, there were Christians of Jewish origin and Christians of pagan origin, and their coexistence had become increasingly difficult because their lifestyles were too different. Christians of Jewish origin were circumcised and considered those of pagan origin as pagans, and in daily life itself, everything pitted them against each other because of all the Jewish practices to which Christians of pagan origin had no desire to submit: numerous rules of purification, ablutions and above all very strict rules regarding food.  Some Christians of Jewish origin came on purpose from Jerusalem to exacerbate the dispute, explaining that only Jews were admitted to Christian baptism and therefore invited pagans first to become Jews (including circumcision) and then Christians. Three fundamental questions: 1. Is it necessary to have the same ideas, the same rites, the same practices in order to experience unity? 2. The second question was that Christians of all origins wanted to be faithful to Jesus Christ, but concretely, what does this faithfulness consist of? If Jesus was Jewish and circumcised, does this mean that to become a Christian one must first become a Jew like him? Furthermore, is it to Israel that God entrusted the mission to be his witness in the midst of humanity, and therefore one must be part of Israel to enter the Christian community? The conclusion was that one had to be Jewish before becoming a Christian, and concretely it was accepted to baptise pagans on condition that they first had themselves circumcised. 3. Third question, even more serious: is salvation given by God unconditionally or not? If by not accepting circumcision according to the tradition of Moses one cannot be saved, it is like saying that God Himself cannot save non-Jews and we decide instead who can or cannot be saved.  The first council of Jerusalem was convened where there were three positions on the matter: Paul wanted total openness, Peter was rather hesitant, and it was James, bishop of Jerusalem, who came to an agreement with a double decision: 1. Christians of Jewish origin should not impose circumcision and Jewish practices on Christians of pagan origin; 2. on the other hand, Christians of pagan origin, out of respect for their brothers of Jewish origin, should refrain from anything that might disturb their common life, especially during meals. The argument that prevailed over everything was the overcoming of the logic of Israel's election, having entered a new stage of history: the prophet Joel had well said: "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Joel 3:5) and Jesus himself: "Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved" (Mark 16:16). Everyone means everyone, not just Jews and, even more concretely, being faithful to Jesus Christ does not necessarily mean reproducing a fixed model since faithfulness is not mere repetition. History shows that, through the vicissitudes of humanity, the Church always retains the ability to adapt in order to remain faithful to Christ. Finally, it is interesting to note that only the rules that allow fraternal communion to be maintained are imposed on the Christian community, and this is indicated from the outset as the best way to be truly faithful to Christ who said: "By this all will know that you are my disciples: if you have love for one another" (Jn 13:35).

*Responsorial Psalm (66 (67) 2-3,5,7-8)

The psalm takes us inside the Temple of Jerusalem while a great celebration is taking place and at the end the priests bless the assembly in a solemn way and the faithful respond: "Let the peoples praise you, O God, let all the peoples praise you!" The psalm alternates between the priests' phrases, sometimes addressed to the assembly and sometimes to God, and the assembly's responses, which resemble refrains. The first phrase: "May God have mercy on us and bless us, may he make his face to shine upon us" takes up exactly the famous text from the book of Numbers that is the first reading on 1 January of each year, "The Lord spoke to Moses and said: 'Speak to Aaron and his sons and tell them: Thus you shall bless the Israelites: You shall say to them, 'May the Lord bless you and keep you. May the Lord make his face shine for you and give you grace. May the Lord turn his face to you and grant you peace.' So they shall put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them' (Nm 6:24-26). An ideal text for wishes and good wishes because a blessing is a wish for happiness. In fact, blessings are always formulated in the subjunctive: "may God bless you, may God keep you" and yet God knows how to do nothing but bless us, love us, fill us at every moment. So when the priest says 'may God bless you', it is not because God might not bless us, but to arouse our desire to enter into the blessing that, on his part, God continually offers us. It is the same when the priest says "May the Lord be with you": God is always with us and the subjunctive "be" expresses our freedom because we are not always with him; or "May God forgive you": God always forgives us but it is up to us to welcome the forgiveness and enter into the reconciliation that he proposes. Permanent are God's desires for our happiness as Jeremiah states: "For I know the plans I have made for you - the Lord's oracle - plans of peace and not of misfortune, to grant you a future full of hope" (Jer 29:11). God is Love and all his thoughts about us are nothing but desires for happiness. In this psalm, the response of the faithful is the refrain: 'Praise thee, O God, may all nations praise thee! A splendid lesson in universalism: the chosen people reflect the blessing they receive for themselves on the whole of humanity, while the last verse is a synthesis of these two aspects: 'May God bless us (we, his chosen people) And may all the ends of the earth fear him'. Israel does not forget its vocation/mission to the service of all mankind and knows that on its fidelity to the freely received blessing depends the discovery of God's love and blessing by all mankind.

*Second Reading from the Apocalypse of St John (21: 10-14.22-23)

In last Sunday's passage, John said he saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven, from near God, ready for the wedding, like a bride adorned for her bridegroom. This time he describes it at length, fascinated by its light so strong that it obscures the glare of the moon and even that of the sun: it resembles a precious jewel, a precious stone sparkling in the light. And he immediately explains the reason for such extraordinary brightness, repeating twice: 'shining with the glory of God', 'the glory of God illuminates it'. These two statements, one at the beginning and the other at the end of the text, with the literary procedure called 'inclusion' that serves to highlight the phrases between the beginning and the end, indicate what strikes John, that is, the glory of God illuminating the holy city that descends from near Him. An angel has transported him to a great and high mountain and is holding his hand as he shows him the city from afar. In his left hand the angel holds a golden rod that he will use to measure the size of the city. The city is square: the number four and the square are a symbol of what is human and indicate here that the city is built by human hand, illuminated by the glory and radiance of God's presence. Since the number three evokes God, it is not surprising that the description of the city abundantly uses a multiple of three and four: twelve, which is a way of saying that God's action is manifested in this human work. In St John's time, a city without walls was not conceived: and this one has them, indeed a wall as great and as high as the mountain, and we know that in the Bible, the mountain is the place of encounter with God. Twelve gates are opened in the wall, which, according to the following text, never close so that all may enter and no one must find a closed gate. The twelve gates, distributed on the four sides of the square, three to the East, three to the North, three to the South, three to the West, are guarded by twelve angels and on each is written the name of one of the twelve tribes of Israel. The people of Israel have in fact been chosen by God to be the gate through which all mankind will enter the final Jerusalem.The wall rests on foundations on which the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are written: as in architecture, there is continuity between the foundations and the walls, so here there is continuity between the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles, and this is a way of saying that the Church founded by Christ fully realises God's plan that unfolds throughout history. Upon entering, John is surprised because he is looking for the Temple, being the living sign that God did not abandon his people, but in the city "I saw no temple" yet he is not disappointed because now "the Lord God, the Almighty and the Lamb. are his temple". He continues: 'The city has no need of the light of the sun nor of the moon, for the glory of God illuminates it, and its lamp is the Lamb'. Bearing in mind that in the book of Genesis, from the very first day at creation, light appears: God said, "Let there be light!". And the light was', the statement in Revelation takes on its full weight: the old creation has passed: no more sun, no more moon because we are now in the new creation and God's presence radiates the world through Christ. Jerusalem retains its name and indicates that it is a city built by human hand, a way of saying that our efforts to collaborate in God's project are part of the new creation and human work will not be destroyed, but rather transformed by God. The Christians who were then the recipients of the Apocalypse, were the object of scorn and often persecuted, they needed these words of victory to sustain their faithfulness, and it is good for us too to hear that the heavenly Jerusalem begins with our humble efforts every day.

*From the Gospel according to John (14:23-29)

We relive Jesus' last moments immediately before the Passion: the hour is grave and we can sense the anguish of the apostles from the words of reassurance that Jesus addresses to them several times. At the beginning of this chapter he had said "Let not your heart be troubled" (v. 1). His long discourse was interrupted by several questions from the apostles that revealed their distress and incomprehension. Jesus, however, remains serene: throughout the Passion, John describes him as sovereignly free; indeed, it is he who reassures the disciples as he announces in advance what would happen because when it happens, they would believe. Not only does he know what will happen, but he accepts it and does not try to escape it. He announces his departure and presents it as a condition and beginning of a new presence: I am leaving, but I am coming back to you. This departure of his will only be interpreted after the resurrection as the Passover of Jesus.  John says in chapter 13: "Before the feast of Passover, knowing that his hour had come to pass from this world to the Father": the evangelist deliberately uses the verb pass, because Passover means passage and with this, he wants to parallel Jesus' Passion with the liberation from Egypt, relived at every Jewish feast of Passover. If it is liberation, this departure must not throw the apostles into sadness: "If you loved me, you would rejoice, because I am going to the Father" (v.28). This is a surprising sentence for the disciples who see the Master now being pursued by the religious authorities, that is, by those who, in the name of God, were held to be the repositories of the truth about what concerns God, and it is they who are Jesus' greatest opponents. The prophets fought against every obstacle to maintain faith in the one God who is both God close to man and God totally Other, the Holy One. Jesus preaches a God who is close to man, especially the little ones, but declares God himself, which in the eyes of the Jews, is blasphemy, an offence against the one God, the Holy One. In this Sunday's text, Jesus insists on the bond that unites him to the Father, whom he names five times, going so far as to speak in the plural: "If anyone loves me...we will come to him, and we will dwell with him". It is not the first time he has said this: a little earlier, to Philip who asked him "Show us the Father", he replied calmly: "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9), while here he reiterates: "The word you hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me". Jesus is the Envoy of the Father, the word of the Father, and from now on the Holy Spirit will make us understand this word and keep it in the memory of the disciples. The key to this text is probably precisely the word "word": it recurs several times and, from what precedes, we understand that this "word" to be guarded is the "commandment of love": love one another, that is, put yourselves at the service of one another and, to be clear, Jesus himself gave a concrete example by washing the disciples' feet. To be faithful to his word therefore simply means to put oneself at the service of others. And today's text: 'If anyone loves me, he will keep my word,' can be translated as follows: If anyone loves me, he will put himself at the service of his neighbour, and anyone who does not love me refuses to put himself at the service of others, so if anyone does not put himself at the service of others, he is not faithful to Christ's word. In this light, the role of the Holy Spirit is better understood: it is he who teaches us to love, reminding us of the commandment of love.  Jesus calls him Paraclete, Defender, because he protects and defends us from ourselves since the worst of evils is to forget that the essence of the gospel is to love one another and to serve one another. In today's first reading, we saw the Defender at work in the first community at the first Council of Jerusalem, where there were serious difficulties of coexistence between Christians of Jewish origin and those of pagan origin, and the Spirit of love inspired the disciples to maintain unity at all costs.

+Giovanni D'Ercole