Luke 14:25–33 ESV – Bible Gateway

---

In today’s Gospel, we see the cost of discipleship. In his introduction to today’s reading, John Bergsma brings up Bonhoeffer’s most famous work, a meditation on the Sermon on the Mount entitled (in English) The Cost of Discipleship[1]. That Bonhoeffer criticized “easy-believism” as “cheap grace”:

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession… . Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ.

Costly grace confronts us as a gracious call to follow Jesus, it comes as a word of forgiveness to the broken spirit and the contrite heart. Grace is costly because it compels a man to submit to the yoke of Christ and follow him; it is grace because Jesus says: “My yoke is easy and my burden is light.”[2]

Large crowds are accompanying Jesus at this point in his final journey to Jerusalem. These people essentially saw Jesus as a miracle worker and wanted these signs and wonders to fix problems in their own lives. While modern Christians now have a more theologically astute understanding of who Jesus is, we share this essential attitude with these crowds. We also must be reminded of the cost of discipleship and the priority of Christ in our life.

Jesus explains the radical commitment required of those who follow him. Three times he sets forth a condition without which a person, he says, cannot be my disciple (14:26, 27, 33). First, Jesus demands a commitment greater than one’s attachment to family members: parents, wife, children, and siblings (see 14:20; 18:29–30)[3]

There are a couple of aspects to the language Jesus is using here. First, he uses rabbinical hyperbole to make a point, “a dramatic overstatement that attracts attention and provokes thought.”[2] The word he uses translated into Greek does translate as hate. Used here primarily, it is used to shock and contrast, but the word for hate in scripture has a semantic range as:

An idiomatic term meaning “to love less” (Gen 29:31–33; Mal 1:2–3). Not even the sacredness of family loyalty should outweigh our commitment to Christ, since we must be willing to abandon even close relationships to follow him (Mt 10:37).[4]

We see this range, such as in Genesis 29, where it says, “Leah was hated,” which means that he loved Rachel more than Leah; he preferred Rachel to Leah. We also see, “elsewhere Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for using a loophole in the law to justify not caring for their parents (Mark 7:11), and Paul rebukes Christians who do not care for their own family (1 Tim 5:8).”[2]

We also see this point made in Matthew 10:37:

He who loves father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me. He who loves son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. And he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

While his audience would have understood some of these distinctions, what is shocking is that Jesus is revealing to them his divinity. As Brant Pitre references, “Jesus is divine. He’s making divine demands. He’s making demands that only God himself could make of an Israelite audience.”[3]

Jesus continues to shock them by telling them that discipleship will involve carrying his cross. We have gotten used to this imagery and likely have spiritually reduced the meaning. For his audience, crucifixion was a cursed death where you were stripped of all dignity and put on display. To follow Jesus, we also must be stripped of our pride and attachment to the things of the world.

St. John of the Cross in the Ascent of Mount Carmel writes:

“The doctrine that the Son of God came to teach was contempt for all things in order to receive as a reward the Spirit of God in himself. For, as long as the soul does not reject all things, it has no capacity to receive the Spirit of God in pure transformation”[5]

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible references that:

Discipleship is a serious commitment. It is not about testing the waters or holding ourselves back from God (9:62). A complete surrender to Christ is necessary to complete the tasks of Christian living[4]

---

Before mentioning the third condition (14:33), Jesus supports his teaching with two short parables. Most interpreters apply them to his disciples. Because of the commitment involved in following Jesus, potential disciples, according to both parables, should first sit down to deliberate. Following Jesus is not a decision to be made lightly.[6]

The Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture for the Gospel of Luke continues:

In the first parable, about building a tower, the issue is the cost involved. One must have enough financial resources to bring the project to completion, or else face mockery from onlookers. The message of this parable seems to support most closely the third condition of discipleship mentioned in this passage (v. 33), which similarly involves financial resources: deliberation is required before giving up one’s possessions to follow Jesus.

In the second parable, about a king marching into battle against another king, the issue is the number of troops needed to win. The stakes are higher than in the first parable since one’s life is on the line in the decision whether to fight or to seek terms of peace (19:42, same Greek phrase as here). The message of this parable especially recalls the first condition of discipleship (14:26), in which Jesus calls his disciples to love him even more than their own lives.

In this extract from the Gospel, Jesus continues that discipleship requires total renunciation. We don’t get to decide what we want to renounce for our convenience. We don’t get to set the terms. We must strive to know God’s will and use prudence to live that out in our lives. Jesus doesn’t want just part of us; he wants the fullness of ourselves. St. Thérèse of Lisieux said, “You cannot be half a saint. You must be a whole saint or no saint at all.”

Peter Kreeft puts this succinctly:

If we preach Jesus, if we say we are Christians, that’s the deal. Give him everything. Trust him with everything. Your life, your death, your sanity, your happiness, your hope both for this life and for the next, your sex life, your financial life, your home life, your recreational life, your body, your mind, your soul, your feelings, your freedom, your rights, your time, your past, your future, your present. Give it to him now, with no conditions, no strings attached, no footnotes or fine print. Say and mean, “Thy will be done,” and then don’t duck. [7]

Sources and References

• The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year C – John Bergsma
• Catholic Productions, Commentaries by Brant Pitre
• The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible꞉ The New Testament
• The Gospel of Luke, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Rev. Pablo T. Gadenz
• Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year C
• Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

---

1. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (New York: Touchstone, 1995), 45.  ↩
2. The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year C, John Bergsma  ↩
3. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre  ↩
4. Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament  ↩
5. St John of the Cross, Ascent of Mount Carmel, book 1, chap. 5, 2.  ↩
6. The Gospel of Luke, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Rev. Pablo T. Gadenz  ↩
7. Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year C  ↩

Luke 14:1, 7–14 ESV – Bible Gateway

---

This is the third time in Luke that Jesus is invited to dine at the house of a Pharisee. This time by a man who is a ruler of the Pharisees. Like a prominent local leader who had political and/or economic clout in the community.[1] In the previous two encounters, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees and/or the scribes. So I find it interesting that he is still being invited, even if it seems apparent they are seeking ways to discredit him. The Sadducees never invited him to hear what he had to say.

St. Cyril of Alexandria noted:

Although our Lord knew the malice of the Pharisees, yet He became their guest, that He might benefit by His words and miracles those who were present.[2]

Today’s passage skips over Jesus asking the Scribes and Pharisees if it was lawful to hear on the Sabbath day and concentrates on the Pharisee’s flaw regarding humility. This first parable in today’s reading is addressed to the group in general. Since this takes place in the house of a ruler, no doubt, many were there seeking to raise their social position. To hobnob with those more powerful than them. Being totally concious of where they fit in the social order and determining what would be the highest seat they could take with no one objecting. Jesus reverses all of this in that we should be content to take the lowest place.

Peter Kreeft points out:[3]

So what is Jesus doing here? He’s coming down to the Pharisee’s own level and making the point that even on that low, egotistic, calculating, selfish level, humility lifts you up and pride goes before a fall. He’s bringing the Pharisee up from the lowest level to the middle level so that he can then bring him up to the highest level. The lowest level is overt pride: I deserve the highest place. The middle level is at least feigned humility: I will take the lowest level. The highest level is real humility: I really want the lowest level so you can have the highest one.

He goes on:

So there are really four levels of wisdom in this story. The lowest is the stupid Pharisee, who is the proud egotist who shows what’s in his heart by taking the highest seat. The next is the clever, calculating Pharisee, who is also a proud egotist but who hides what’s in his heart and pretends to be humble only to get the better reward and the higher place here on earth. Third, there is the even more clever and calculating Pharisee, who also pretends to be humble but not to get rewarded on earth but rewarded in heaven. That’s better but not the best; wiser but not the wisest.

The lowest level is doing the wrong thing (the selfish thing) for the wrong reason (the selfish reason). Level two is doing the right thing (the unselfish thing) but for the wrong reason (the selfish reason). Level three is also doing the right thing for the wrong reason, but the wrong reason here is selfishness not in this life but in the next. And level four is doing the right thing for the right reason.

This reminds me of what Fr. Robert Spitzer, S.J. talks about in his book “Finding True Happiness” in regards to the four levels of happiness.[4]

1. Level 1 represents my fundamental drivers in life such as physical pleasure, immediate gratification, and excitement. This may be manifested in seeking my favorite food, new clothes, or a nice car. The “happiness” that results from this satisfaction, however, is typically short lived, shallow, and impacts no one else except me. Level 1 is not inherently bad, we all need to satisfy those basic pleasures like food and drink, but if we get stuck in level 1 our lives become a roller coaster constantly seeking to satisfy our next desire. After the food is consumed it isn’t long before I am hungry again.
2. Level 2 is most evident in the need to satisfy my ego. The universe exists to serve me.  I need to be constantly achieving and winning in my life, for example, being recognized at work, getting that next promotion, or making sure my project has top priority. In order for me to win, though, others must lose. I must keep my comparative advantage over others. My focus is on power and control. Like level 1, level 2 is not all bad. We all need to achieve in order to gain self-confidence, and credibility, but if my life gets stuck in level 2 as my dominant source of happiness, I will be constantly obsessed with seeking that next win, and paranoid that others are trying to keep me from it. This happiness is also not very pervasive, enduring or deep.
3. Level 3 is also somewhat about ego, but unlike level 2 it is turned outward. My skills and talents are aimed at serving others.  It is still about winning, but it’s now more about achieving Win-Win results rather than Win-Lose. My desire is in seeking that meaning and purpose in my life.  I want to make an optimal positive difference in the world. My happiness is now growing in its pervasiveness because it impacts other people.  It is also lasts much longer and is deeper.
4. Level 4 is what I ultimately seek in life. I fundamentally desire ultimate or perfect truth, beauty, love, goodness, and being. But I have to recognize that this ultimate goal is not found strictly in the material elements of the world, it is found in transcendence, what people of faith look for in God. Even if someone doesn’t subscribe to a specific religious faith, they still have the a fundamental yearning for perfect truth, beauty, love, goodness, and being. This happiness is the most pervasive, enduring, and deep.

A point that the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture for Luke brings out is:

In the parable, the meal is described as a wedding banquet, just as in Jesus’ parable about the servants awaiting their master’s return (Luke 12:36). Earlier, at Levi’s banquet (5:34), Jesus referred to himself as the bridegroom and his disciples as wedding guests. Therefore, the parable here, which superficially appears to be a lesson about social etiquette, is ultimately about how to enter and recline at table (12:37; 13:29–30) at the messianic wedding banquet in the kingdom.[5]

Jesus then shifts to telling the local ruler of the Pharisees a parable involving him directly. That when inviting people to a banquet not to do so in order that you will be repaid in kind by others. Instead, he should invite the “the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind” because they cannot repay him. He specifically references the resurrection of the just as to when he would be repaid.

This parable is about charity, in particular almsgiving. As Brant Pitre references “the word for almsgiving, eleēmosunē, literally means “to have mercy”; eleos is the word for mercy.”

if you invite the poor and the maimed and the lame and the blind to your banquet now on earth, you won’t be repaid in this life, but you will be repaid at the resurrection spoken of by the prophet Daniel, at the resurrection of the righteous in the age to come. So he’s talking about the importance (there) of humility and charity.[6]

A key reminder from St. John Chrysostom:

But thou sayest, the poor are unclean and filthy. Wash him, and make him to sit with thee at table. If he has dirty garments, give him clean ones. Christ comes to thee through him, and dost thou stand trifling?[7]

John Bergsma in his commentary says:

This leads us to see the evangelistic thrust of this Gospel. If the banquet table represents the Eucharistic fellowship of the Church, “the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind” are those broken with sins committed against them and sins they have committed themselves, people who need the good news. Jesus is calling us to go out and invite those outside the Church to come to his banquet.[8]

From Paragraph 546 of the Catechism:

546 Jesus’ invitation to enter his kingdom comes in the form of parables, a characteristic feature of his teaching. Through his parables he invites people to the feast of the kingdom, but he also asks for a radical choice: to gain the kingdom, one must give everything. Words are not enough; deeds are required. The parables are like mirrors for man: will he be hard soil or good earth for the word? What use has he made of the talents he has received? Jesus and the presence of the kingdom in this world are secretly at the heart of the parables. One must enter the kingdom, that is, become a disciple of Christ, in order to “know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven.” For those who stay “outside,” everything remains enigmatic.

Sources and References

Finding True Happiness – Magis Center
The Gospel of Luke, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Rev. Pablo T. Gadenz
Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers, Volume 3: St. Luke – Verbum
Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year C
– The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year C – John Bergsma
– Catholic Productions, Commentaries by Brant Pitre
– Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition
– Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

---

1. Paraphrased content from Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre  ↩
2. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Archbishop of Alexandria, A.D. 412. Catena Aurea: St. Luke  ↩
3. Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year C  ↩
4. Fr. Robert Spitzer, https://spitzercenter.org/what-we-do/educate/four-levels-of-happiness/  ↩
5. The Gospel of Luke, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Rev. Pablo T. Gadenz  ↩
6. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre  ↩
7. St. John Chrysostom, Abp. of Constantinople, A.D.398. Catena Aurea: St. Luke  ↩
8. The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year C, John Bergsma  ↩

Luke 13:22–30 ESV – Bible Gateway

---

As Jesus and his disciples continue their final trip to Jerusalem together the last several Sundays, we have been given in the lectionary readings that are much more somber in tone. This Sunday’s Gospel is not an exception to this. Previously he had been asked questions related to individual salvation, such as the rich young man who asked him, “What must I do to inherit eternal life.” This time a man asks a more general question “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” As Brant Pitre references[1], this was likely a debated question at the time Jesus lived. Some held more universalist opinions for Jews as part of the covenant, and others a more restrictive view. So likely, the question was to find out where Jesus falls in this debate.

Again, we get another example: “If you ask Jesus a question, you will not get what you expected.”

As Peter Kreeft writes:

So did Jesus answer their question, and was the answer that most people are going to hell and only a minority are going to heaven? No. Why not? Did he give either of the other two answers? No. He did not answer their question at all. He questioned their question. He turned the tables on them, as he always did when he was asked a question. He saw that the questioner was the real question; that the disciples were avoiding the real question. The real question was the question that the Philippian jailer asked St. Paul, “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30). They were asking a different question, a question about other people, or people in general.[2]

Jesus turns the question around from the general back to the individual. “Strive to enter through the narrow door.” The danger in asking about the demographics of Hell is that often the assumption is that you are not one of those “losers” yourself and that you have a needless interest in the fate of others. This can take the form of the Pharisee boasting about himself and being glad he isn’t like those tax collectors.

St. Basil of Caesarea wrote:

For as in earthly life the departure from right is exceeding broad, so he who goes out of the path which leads to the kingdom of heaven, finds himself in a vast extent of error. (int. 241.). But the right way is narrow, the slightest turning aside being full of danger, whether to the right or to the left, as on a bridge, where he who slips on either side is thrown into the river. [3]

As John Bergsma notes:

Jesus is telling the questioner: “Do not worry about abstract questions like the exact number or percentage of people who will end up being saved. Such knowledge will not be revealed to you and in any event would do you no good, one way or the other. Your concern should be for your own salvation because the path of salvation is not easy.” [4]

Jesus goes on to address those presumptions that they will be saved. This presumption is usually based on false ideas such as meriting salvation because you are part of a specific covenant or church or are basically a “good” person and not as bad as others. That God owes you salvation. You did “churchy” stuff even if you never got around to having a personal relationship with God. Or perhaps presuming on God’s mercy because you are “only human” and never made a serious attempt at repenting of your manifest sins.

Relatedly, Matthew 7:21 says:

“Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’

When God, the master of the house, says, “I do not know you,” this is a fundamental error on our part. He has created us to give him glory, and as St. Irenaeus of Lyons said, “The glory of God is man fully alive.” Jesus loves us with a passionate love; his passion on the cross was to forgive our sins and bring us back into a relationship with him. God has weighted reality for our salvation and is constantly giving us grace. Many will seek and be unable if they rely on their own will and merit. It is only through Christ that we can be saved. For those not invincibly ignorant of Christ, it is of the utmost importance that we come to know him via a relationship with him.

(Galatians 4:4–7). God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

He gives us everything to bring this relationship about so that we can know him and that he can know us. Our free will rejection of this relationship can cause us to be cast out with “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” still not realizing our fault.

Jesus finishes talking about the type of presumption where we assume others are damned.

As the Catholic Commentary on this passage in Luke says:

In the banquet, some are last ❲eschatos❳ who will be first ❲prōtos❳, and some are first who will be last. For example, some who are Gentiles will enter into eternal life in the kingdom, whereas some in Israel may be judged unworthy to enter (see Acts 13:46–48). This message of reversal will be developed in two upcoming parables, where Jesus contrasts the leaders in Israel with the poor (Luke 14:13, 21). In one parable, the person who goes to the “lowest” or last (eschatos) place is then invited higher, whereas the one who went to the seat of honor ends up in the “lowest” (i.e., last) place (14:9–10). In the other parable, the one invited “first” (prōtos, 14:18) ends up not even tasting the dinner (14:24). [5]

While the specific context is Israel and the Gentiles, this presumption occurs with many other prejudices where we wrongly judge others while elevating ourselves.

In Vatican II, Lumen gentium, paragraph 16:

Everyone is called to form part of the Kingdom of God, for he “desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4). “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience: those too may achieve eternal salvation. Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life. Whatever good or truth is found among them is considered by the Church to be a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life”

Peter Kreeft puts this all succinctly:

So if you wonder whether so-and-so is going to heaven or not, Jesus’ answer is: Mind your own business. Keep your feet on your own path, which is me. Look up, not sideways. Looking sideways is a good way to fall off the straight and narrow path. Don’t play God. You’re not the judge, thank God. Literally: thank God that you’re not the judge and that I’m not the judge and that neither Jonathan Edwards nor Oprah Winfrey is the judge. Just be sure you know the judge yourself. Because when it comes to getting into that place, as with some places on earth, it’s not what you know, it’s who you know.[2]

Sources

• Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year C
• The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year C – John Bergsma
• Catholic Productions, Commentaries by Brant Pitre
• The Gospel of Luke, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Rev. Pablo T. Gadenz
• Lumen gentium
• Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

---

1. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre  ↩
2. Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year C  ↩
3. Basil1  ↩
4. The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year C, John Bergsma  ↩
5. The Gospel of Luke, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Rev. Pablo T. Gadenz  ↩

Luke 12:49–53 ESV – Bible Gateway

---

This Gospel passage is short and packed with meaning, alluding to the Old Testament and other Jewish writing. It can cause some cognitive dissonance with the culturally peaceful non-judgemental Jesus. Or that this is just a form of rabbinical hyperbole to make a point. There is undoubtedly an aspect of that when it seems Jesus is saying that his mission is to bring division.

The first two lines involve casting fire and a baptism that Jesus is to receive. We have the imagery of fire and water. As Brant Pitre refers, this is “a pretty standard Jewish theme in apocalyptic Jewish writings (prophetic writings)”[1] along with outside the Bible. That the earth was destroyed the first time through water and later destroyed through fire, this destruction by fire is also a New Testament theme such as in 2 Peter 3, saying “the heavens and the earth will be dissolved with fire”.

Returning to Brant Pitre:

So this image of water and fire, of destruction by flood and then destruction by fire, is not just standard Jewish eschatology, it’s also the teaching of the New Testament. It’s standard Christian Eschatology that in the Second Coming the world will be cleansed by fire and not by flood.[1]

Jesus uses baptism as referring to his crucifixion and death in other places, such as when James and John request that they will be placed on his left and right side when he comes into glory. Jesus replies, ‘You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?’ There is a connective thread between baptism and fire when John the Baptist predicts, “he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” Both are used for cleansing and purification.

Paragraph 696 of the Catechism says:

While water signifies birth and the fruitfulness of life given in the Holy Spirit, fire symbolizes the transforming energy of the Holy Spirit’s actions. The prayer of the prophet Elijah, who “arose like fire” and whose “word burned like a torch,” brought down fire from heaven on the sacrifice on Mount Carmel. This event was a “figure” of the fire of the Holy Spirit, who transforms what he touches. John the Baptist, who goes “before [the Lord] in the spirit and power of Elijah,” proclaims Christ as the one who “will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” Jesus will say of the Spirit: “I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled!” In the form of tongues “as of fire,” the Holy Spirit rests on the disciples on the morning of Pentecost and fills them with himself. The spiritual tradition has retained this symbolism of fire as one of the most expressive images of the Holy Spirit’s actions. “Do not quench the Spirit.”[2]

Chapter 12 of Luke goes into the details of what discipleship means. That there will be persecution, and you will be accountable and must remain vigilant. In this passage, Jesus warns that discipleship is not a cakewalk. That following him will mean that there will be division among family members. “Salvation history is full of familial conflict that has its origins in differing relationships to God.”[3]

As John Bergsma notes:

Jesus’s primary mission was not to establish social peace in this world and in this life. If that had been his mission—and many think it was!—he obviously has failed. Instead, Jesus’s mission was to reveal, to those who desire it, the “narrow gate” that leads to salvation (Matt 7:13–14, RSV2CE), the Way that is himself (John 14:6). There is a price too high to pay for peace. And that price is infidelity to Christ. [3]

What Jesus is saying can be seen as a reference to Micah 7:6–7:

for the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies are the men of his own house. But as for me, I will look to the Lord, I will wait for the God of my salvation; my God will hear me.

Peter Kreeft describes this concretely:

Jesus came to bring peace with God, not the devil; with ourselves, our true selves, not our foolish flesh; and with our neighbors, not with the world order that so often pits us against our neighbors. Jesus came to make war against the devil because the devil is at war with God. Jesus came to make war against the flesh because the flesh is at war with the Spirit, the Holy Spirit (not with the soul; the soul is part of the flesh). And Jesus came to make war against the world because the world is at war with the Church, which is the communion of saints. So much so that in every culture saints are martyred, whether in red or in black and white, whether in blood or in print.[4]

Elsewhere Jesus tells us to pick up the cross daily. He never downplays the cost of discipleship. Following Christ can mean that our self-inflicted wounds can be healed, where we are suffering because of our sins. To love others is to enter into suffering. This suffering-love is why the Father sent Jesus and the Holy Spirit to us.

Jesus is telling us that our problems will not go away and that there will be dissension even within our own families.

In John 16:33 Jesus says:

I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”

I know I was somewhat naive on my journey and conversion to Christ. I believed a host of problems would disappear, but instead, some of the most challenging parts of my life immediately followed.

As Brant Pitre puts it:

“There’s not going to be any salvation without tribulation first. There’s not going to be any kingdom of peace without a time of division first. I have to cast a fire of judgment upon the world and go through the waters of the cross before we can reach the resurrection.” Does that make sense? There’s no resurrection without a cross. There’s no kingdom without tribulation. There’s no restoration without division. He’s correcting an overly optimistic eschatology, or expectation that his disciple might be thinking.

References Used

• Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year C
• The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year C – John Bergsma
• Catholic Productions, Commentaries by Brant Pitre
• Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition
• Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

---

1. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre  ↩
2. Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed). United States Catholic Conference.  ↩
3. The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year C, John Bergsma  ↩
4. Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year C  ↩