14th Sunday in Ordinary Time

July 5, 2026

God will help us with the burdens we carry in this life.

Matthew 11:25-30

At that time Jesus exclaimed: "I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to little ones. Yes, Father, such has been your gracious will.
All things have been handed over to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him." "Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart;and you will find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light."

MATTHEW CHAPTER 11 FOR CONTEXT

When Jesus finished giving these commands to his twelve disciples,* he went away from that place to teach and to preach in their towns. When John heard in prison* of the works of the Messiah, he sent his disciples to him with this question, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?” Jesus said to them in reply, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the good news proclaimed to them. And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me.” As they were going off, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John, “What did you go out to the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind?Then what did you go out to see? Someone dressed in fine clothing? Those who wear fine clothing are in royal palaces. Then why did you go out? To see a prophet?* Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written: ‘Behold, I am sending my messenger ahead of you; he will prepare your way before you.’ Amen, I say to you, among those born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence,* and the violent are taking it by force. All the prophets and the law* prophesied up to the time of John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah, the one who is to come. Whoever has ears ought to hear. “To what shall I compare this generation?* It is like children who sit in marketplaces and call to one another, ‘We played the flute for you, but you did not dance, we sang a dirge but you did not mourn.’ For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they said, ‘He is possessed by a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they said, ‘Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is vindicated by her works.” Then he began to reproach the towns where most of his mighty deeds had been done, since they had not repented. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would long ago have repented in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And as for you, Capernaum: ‘Will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to the netherworld.’ For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.At that time Jesus said in reply, “I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike. Yes, Father, such has been your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him. “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened,* and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.”

REFLECTIONS ON THE GOSPEL

First Impressions by Jude Siciliano

In today’s gospel we have some of the most tender words in the Scriptures:  “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest.” These words are not spoken from a distance. They are not a command, advice, or instruction. They are an open invitation—not for a select few, but for anyone. Jesus opens a door and invites all who are in need to enter. And when someone responds, they are not handed a list of rules or a book of instructions; they are given Jesus himself. Notice to whom the invitation is directed. Not first to the successful, the self-sufficient, or the spiritually accomplished, but to the burdened and weary. And honestly, who among us is not carrying some burden? Illness, financial strain, wounded relationships, difficult decisions. Others carry burdens not visible from the outside: regret, anxiety, exhaustion, shame. Jesus does not begin by telling people to fix themselves before coming to him. He simply says, “Come.”There is a surprising contrast in today's Gospel. Jesus thanks the Father because these things are hidden from “the wise and learned” and revealed to “little ones.” We have a long tradition of scholarship and theological reflection in the Church, so Jesus is not being anti-intellectual. His words are a spiritual diagnosis. Some people possess knowledge that has become closed, self-assured, and self-protective. They are convinced they already understand everything. In contrast, there is a kind of openness that still knows how to receive, how to listen, and how to be surprised by God. The “little ones” Jesus speaks of are not necessarily naïve or uneducated. They are those who have learned  – often through suffering – that life cannot be mastered or controlled. They have discovered their limits. And, hard as it may be to believe, that is often where revelation begins. I am a city kid. When Jesus speaks of a “yoke,” I have to admit I had never seen one up close. Years ago, when I was preaching in Virginia, our community lived near Washington’s Birthplace. There was a reproduction of a colonial farm on the grounds,  much like one from Washington’s day. A guide showed us two oxen yoked together, pulling a wagon. They were joined to one another; where one went, so did the other. What one would not be able to do, both could. Jesus says, “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart.” A yoke is not a symbol of ease. It is a tool of labor, joining two together to pull a load. Yet Jesus offers a yoke that is “easy” and a burden that is “light.” Much of our exhaustion comes not only from the weight we carry, but from trying to carry it alone. Jesus is not promising a life without responsibility. He promises his presence within our responsibilities. We are yoked to him and he to us. To take up the yoke of Christ is to allow our life to be joined to his. The “rest” Jesus promises is not inactivity. Discipleship asked much of his followers. Rather, it is the rest that comes from trust – a rest that no longer needs to prove everything, control everything, or justify everything. “I am meek and humble of heart.” This is the only direct description Jesus gives of his own heart in the Gospels. Notice what he does not say: “Learn from my power” or, “learn from my wisdom.” Instead, he says, learn from my gentleness and humility. Our world often rewards force, speed, and dominance. No surprise there for those who watch the evening news or follow sports. But Jesus points to a different center of gravity: a heart that does not crush what is fragile and does not demand more than love can carry. The self-examination today's Gospel invites is simple: Where am I carrying what Jesus is asking me to put down? What burden am I trying to bear alone? What would it mean, concretely, to let my life be joined more closely to his – my decisions, my failures, my hopes, and my fears? The promise is not that life becomes weightless. The promise is that we do not carry its weight alone. And that makes all the difference. Today we also hear another section from Paul's Letter to the Romans. We have been listening to this letter week after week as it unfolds. Some preachers try to weave all the readings together. But the epistle readings, except in rare cases, are not chosen because they share a common theme with the other Scriptures. Often they do not fit neatly together. For that reason, I sometimes pass over the epistle. Today, however, let's pause and listen to Paul. He speaks with striking clarity about what makes the Christian life different from every other form of moral effort. It is not primarily about self-improvement but about the indwelling of God's Spirit. The Christian life is not moral athleticism or sheer willpower. The question is whether we are living from the life God has already placed within us. Paul does not deny our struggle; he names it honestly. There is a way of living “according to the flesh” – organizing life around ourselves, our fears, our cravings, and our need for control. Paul is blunt: that way leads to death. Not necessarily dramatic death, but a slow interior shrinking of the soul. But there is another way to live: according to the Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead and now dwells within us. The Spirit is the promise that our own lives can be raised even now – in hope, courage, and love. There is a harmony between Paul and the Gospel. Jesus speaks of a revelation given not to the wise and learned, but to the childlike. He says, “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest.” Paul describes what that rest looks like. It comes when we stop trying to live through anxious self-reliance and begin to live from the Spirit dwelling within us. Many people hear the Christian life as one more burden – more obligations, more demands, more strain. Paul and Jesus both challenge that misunderstanding. The Christian life is not heavier. What makes it possible is not our ability to carry more, but the presence of God's Spirit within us.

Quotable

“Artificial intelligence can be a construction site of history... if technical progress learns to serve human life.” —Pope Leo XIV (Magnifica Humanitas)\

Justice Bulletin Board by Barbara Molinari Quinby, MPS, Director Office of Human Life, Dignity, and Justice Ministries, Holy Name of Jesus Cathedral, Raleigh, NC

The Lord is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in love. The Lord is good to all, compassionate to every creature. —Psalm 145:8-9

This passage from today’s psalm got me thinking a lot about how we are made in the image of God. If we truly believe this, then we might re-work the words to read as follows: The Christian is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in love. The Christian is good to all, compassionate to every creature. The issue of immigration calls us to exercise these attributes of grace, mercy, consideration, compassionate love and goodness. Our broken immigration system has grown more stressed. As a response to a climate of fear, anxiety, and vilification surrounding immigrants in the United States, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a Special Pastoral Message on Immigration on November 12, 2025. This message represents a particularly urgent communication from the bishops and was approved by nearly 97% of the Fall Plenary Assembly. The bishops emphasize that nations have a responsibility to regulate borders and maintain a just immigration system, but this must be balanced with the Church’s foundational concern for the human person, created in the image of God. They highlight the priority of care for the most vulnerable, including widows, orphans, the poor, and strangers (Zechariah 7:10; Luke 10:30–25; 2 Corinthians 8:9). The key principles are solidarity with immigrants; opposition to mass deportations; protection of families and sensitive locations such as places of worship, schools, and healthcare facilities; promotion of safe and legal pathways; and advocacy for meaningful reform. The USCCB launched the “You Are Not Alone” initiative (You Are Not Alone), encouraging dioceses, parishes, schools, and Catholic organizations to provide accompaniment and support to immigrants & families affected by enforcement activities. This initiative focuses on solidarity through prayer, public witness, pastoral care, and community support programs by becoming “Keepers of Hope,” promoting active engagement in immigrant support and advocacy. Here, at HNOJ Cathedral, parishioners can join Justice for Immigrants.This crisis calls every Christian to respond with grace, mercy, consideration, compassionate love and goodness.  This 4th of July weekend, as we celebrate the birth of our national family--a family of immigrants and Native Americans--let us be open to welcome the immigrant and refugee.

Faith Book

Mini-reflections on the Sunday scripture readings designed for persons on the run. “Faith Book”is also brief enough to be posted in the Sunday parish bulletins people take home.

From today’s Psalm Response: Blessed are you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth: you have revealed to little ones the mysteries of the kingdom. R. Alleluia, alleluia.

Reflection: Jesus praises the Father because the deepest truths of God's kingdom are not grasped by power, status, or intelligence alone, but by hearts that are humble and open. Like little children, we are invited to trust God and receive his wisdom as a gift.

So, we ask ourselves:

• Do I approach God with humility and openness, or do I rely only on my own understanding?

• What "mystery" of God's love have I discovered through simple faith?

• How can I become more childlike in my trust of God today?

Closing Prayer

Loving God, thank you for revealing your love to humble hearts. Teach us to trust you more deeply, to listen with openness, and to receive your gifts with gratitude. May we walk as your children and rejoice in the mysteries of your kingdom. Amen.

What is a Yoke?

A yoke is a wooden frame fitted on working animals to evenly balance the load on each individual animal and allow them to work as a team. Jesus wears the yoke and we are yoked to him. A teacher read to her class the text, “My yoke is easy. “Who can tell me what a yoke is?” she asked. A boy said, “A yoke is something they put on the necks of animals.” Then the teacher asked, “What is the yoke God puts on us?” A little girl said, “It is God putting His arms around our necks.” Jesus’s yoke helps us to lay-down unnecessary burdens; to illustrate: Dr. George McCauslin was a very effective YMCA director. But some years ago, he was selected to serve at a particularly challenging YMCA in western Pennsylvania, near Pittsburgh. And that western Pennsylvania YMCA was losing membership, had financial difficulties and a multitude of staff problems, so George McCauslin found himself working 85 hours a week. He found himself getting little sleep at night. He took little to no time off. And when he was not working, he was worrying and fretting about the problems at his job. He went to a therapist who told him he was on the verge of a nervous breakdown. He realized that he had to learn somehow to let go and let God into his problems. He didn’t know quite how to do that. So George McCauslin took an afternoon off, took a pad and paper, and took a long, unhurried walk in the western Pennsylvania woods. As he walked through the cool woods, he could eventually start to feel his tight body and his tight neck start to relax. He kept walking, and eventually sat down under a tree and just sighed and breathed deeply. For the first time in months he felt relaxed. He got out his pad and paper, and he decided that although he would keep his job, he would release his mental “over-control” in trying to manage every detail. He wrote God a letter. He said, "Dear God, today I hereby resign as general manager of the universe. Love, George." Then, with a twinkle in his eye, George McCauslin said, "And wonder of wonders, God accepted my resignation." George McCauslin stopped his obsessive work habits. One lesson George teaches us is that if our religion is primarily about obsessively or fearfully meeting religious duties and other obligations, then it is indeed a hard yoke and heavy burden. Jesus wanted to free us from the burdensome religious and legal interpretations of the scribes and Pharisees, and our own. It is an act not of juggling balls on a stage, but of carrying eggs from a barn. Make no mistake: it is sometimes the act of carrying a cross. But it is "light" in the sense when our purpose and priorities in life are clear. Regarding George’s case, sometimes, among devout or practicing religious people, there can be a resistance to self-care because of fear of putting “self” at the center, as in self-centeredness. They would make the argument that we’re not the priority: the people we serve are. Yet, this concern may reflect an individualistic understanding of “self” shaped by the dominant culture. Self-care is not self-absorption or isolation, and self-care emphasizes the importance of relationships and community in the way we do self- care. The purpose of self-care is to put vitality back into one’s ministry and vocation over time. Like a woman who said that she used to obsess over her daughter’s mental illness, believing that the right combination of labels would lead to her daughter’s healing. The daughter now is hopefully receiving treatment, and the mother is hopefully leaving the labels or diagnosis to doctors so she can just concentrate in loving her daughter as a labor of love. The difficulty is when we take up the labor before love. When we get it right, the work of love is hardly work at all. What other “yokes” need to be broken today besides workaholism , and over-functioning by care-givers? The greatest yoke is the oppression and slavery of sin. It’s like “you used to hold the Yoke but now the Yoke holds you.” I am speaking of those who are tired and weighed down with the burden of self, those who want to be rid of the load but can’t. It’s a tiredness of spirit. It’s a call to those who are trapped in the prison of self by sin but know no way out. It’s okay to be absolutely powerless over self. This is where we join the human race. There is the help of grace that comes through powerlessness, because we are yoked to Jesus who is our highest power. Notice that, like George McCauslin, we first must come to the admission of powerlessness over our afflictions and powerlessness over our defects. E.g. Our Second Reading speaks of being freed from being “debtors to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.” The word in Greek is “sarx” which means the whole fleshy existence of persons, including all the human passions and emotions, which can range from greed, prestige to jealousy, and any kind of temptation such as the list given in Galatians 5:19. In that verse, St. Paul is telling of his response to God from his sin-enslaved “I” who cried for deliverance, and God’s intervention. Such a cry is the point where self-honesty begins to grow, e.g. in our Opening Prayer, we hear through the humiliated God, who was an “abasement,” a fallen world was raised up. So too with us, it is only by the humility of heart to make an admission of powerlessness over what afflicts us and then receiving victory through the grace of God, will we feel yoked to Jesus as our higher power. It is only by the Spirit, not raw willpower, that the deeds of the body are put to death or quieted. Galatians 5:22 is very enlightening: among the gifts of the spirit is love, generosity, self-control. It is true that spiritual warfare is part of our daily Catholic faith simply because fighting temptation and striving for virtue are themselves forms of spiritual warfare. Thankfully, God promises in Ezekiel 34:27, “I break the bars of their yoke and rescue them from the hands of those who enslaved them.” The enemy is constantly trying to force his own yoke upon us—a yoke of slavery and bondage of sin. In the Aramaic tradition, "yoke" and "lordship" were seen to be synonymous ideas. Jesus’ yoke helps us hold our tongue or choose encouraging words, to be giving to a person in material need, keeping holy the Sabbath by the Sunday Mass obligation. An easy yoke means we are not afflicted by an onslaught of greed, envy, greed, etc.; it’s the joy of a quiet conscience.

Poverty in Galilee

The social and economic policy of the Roman Empire could well be summarised in a phrase: 'the Roman system of inequality' (Garnsey & Saller 1987:125).1 Governing the entire Mediterranean world, Rome maintained its domination through judicial institutions developing legislation concerning property ownership and labour control - and through the use of brutal force. The whole system was based heavily on the inequality of people, which was thought to be either natural or at least inevitable, in order to secure peace and stability in the society.

For the Roman State, the provinces were a main source of revenue through taxes. A small number of Romans made large fortunes as provincial governors, tax collectors and moneylenders in the provinces, in the imperial service under the emperors. There were rich Romans who acquired extensive domains in the provinces, which they normally held as absentee landlords (Finley 1999:158). Most of the population of the empire lived either in rural areas or small towns. Only 10% - 15% of the population lived in cities that had more than 10 000 inhabitants. This means that some 80% - 90% got their living from agriculture and that any large-scale commercial or manufacturing activity was rare. There was no middle class at all. The majority of people in an agrarian society like the Roman Empire were peasants, living in villages that surrounded a city. The ancient city was largely parasitic on its surrounding villages. Cities extracted agricultural surpluses through taxes and rents. The benefits they supplied were cultic services and administration (Kloppenborg Verbin 2000:234).2

According to Bruce J. Malina, the first-century Mediterranean world is:

a nearly perfect example of what anthropologists call classic peasant society: a set of villages socially bound up with administrative preindustrial cities. … The term 'peasant' in the phrase 'peasant society' refers to persons, regardless of their occupation, who have been enculturated in and continue to be members of peasant society.

Malina speaks of:

a 'peasant mentality' of peasant society typical of beggar and king, of smallholder and large landowner, of prophet and scribe. This 'peasant mentality' is a societal characteristic, not a status or occupational feature. (Malina 2001:81)

Douglas E. Oakman (2008) summarises some definitions of a peasant:

A peasantry is a rural population, usually including those not directly engaged in tilling the soil, who are compelled to give up their agricultural (or other economic) surplus to a separate group of power holders and who usually have certain cultural characteristics setting them apart from outsiders. Generally speaking, peasants have very little control over their political and economic situation. In Mediterranean antiquity the overlords of the peasants tended to be city dwellers, and a culture-chasm divided the literate elite from the unlettered villager. (p. 167)

In agrarian society wealth was based on the ownership of land. Most land was controlled by a small number of wealthy, elite families. The landowners rented the land for tenant farmers, who - together with their families and possibly slaves - actually worked the land. The wealth and status of the elite families ensured their influence in politics, so that they were able to control both local and regional governance and also profit from taxation. The same families quite often controlled public religion as well (Friesen 2008:19).

These elite families, the 'urban elite' (Rohrbaugh 1993:383), consisted of the rulers and the governing class. According to Gerhard Lenski, agrarian societies3 consisted usually of following classes, the four first-mentioned forming the privileged elements of an agrarian society (Lenski 1984:189-296):

· the rulers and the governing class, consisting rarely more than 2% of the population

· the retainer class (perhaps some 5%), consisting of a small army of officials, professional soldiers, household servants4 and personal retainers

· the merchant class, that seems to have evolved slowly from the ranks of peasants, many of whom remained poor, but the leading members might have been wealthier than the lesser members of the governing class

· the priestly class, whose size and prosperity varies a lot among the agrarian societies

· the peasant class, constituting the substantial majority of the population, and having the biggest burden of supporting the state and the privileged classes

· the artisan class (3% - 7%), that was economically quite close to the peasant class, but often with lower income

· unclean and degraded classes who occupied a position in society which was clearly inferior to that of the masses of common people

· the expendables, at the bottom of the class system, consisting of petty criminals and outlaws, beggars, underemployed itinerant workers and people who lived solely by their wits or by charity.

According to Lenski (1984:210), typical to agrarian societies is the fact of marked social inequality. In these societies the institutions of government are the primary source of social inequality

The rulers were the heads of the empire and the centralised states, whereas the governing class formed the local administration. Together these privileged elite, very few in numbers, drew its wealth from the products of peasants and herders, craftsmen and traders. These products funded a lavish lifestyle for the ruling class and its priests, scribes and bureaucrats, as well as palaces, temples, fortifications, monuments and a forceful army. Members of the imperial ruling class enjoyed a comfortable and privileged standard of living without engaging in any productive labour on behalf of society and with no obligation to those they ruled other than to assure that they were able to produce sufficient wealth to sustain the rulers in their privilege (Gottwald 2008:10-11).5 It has been estimated that at least half of the annual production went to the urban elite, no less than a quarter to the ruling class and approximately the same to the local governing class (Lenski 1984:220). However, as the land and its products was the main resource for wealth in agrarian society, there were continuous tensions between the rulers and the governing class, sometimes even struggles on the distribution of the income (Lenski 1984:241). Religion was needed for authorising this oppression system, therefore also the priests belonged usually to the few privileged, but of course there might have been great regional differences concerning the social strata of the priestly class in the mighty empire. However, the priestly class tended to function as the preserver of the ancient redistributive ethic of primitive societies (Lenski 1984:266).

In the Roman Empire only the governing class and some of its retainers were literate. Most men and some women of the urban elite aristocrats could read, although they often had educated slaves to read to them and write letters and other documents for them. But literacy was not used in most social and economic interaction, certainly not among the ordinary people. The culture was predominantly oral (Horsley 2008:28-29, 89-92; Oakman 2008:300-303).

The state granted 'use ownership' of the land to the peasants, but it claimed entitlement to tax the villages, first in the form of payments in kind and second in the form of conscription to public labour or military service. Often the tax quota was laid on an entire village and the local officers had to raise the demanded amount. Internal corruption occurred when tax gatherers and village headmen took possession of goods and produce over and above the quota assigned them by the central government. The taxation was double: Rome demanded taxes from its provinces in order to sustain the government and the army and to build roads which were essential to the empire. The local vassal kings took their share in order to sustain their own privileged life and to build palaces, new cities and monuments dedicated to the Caesar.

The taxes were extracted at the time of the harvest and transported to the city. In times of poor harvests this meant that the farmer was left to suffer or even starve (Garnsey & Saller 1987:97). Besides direct taxation, villagers were subject to a variety of other impositions, including forced labour and the requisitioning of carts and animals for transport. This further impinged on the viability of economically marginal farming operations. In addition to imperial levies, cities derived revenues from capitation, rents, tolls, salt taxes and sales taxes (Kloppenborg Verbin 2000:235).

Many peasants, already living at the margin of subsistence, were further impoverished and driven into debt by harsh annual exactions. They had to take out loans at staggering amounts of interest offered by money-lending merchants and absentee landlords. The debtors were obligated to pay back the value of the loan from the forthcoming harvest, plus the value-added interest. Repayment of loans depended on good harvests, which often failed because of drought, floods, disease and the ravages of warfare. Foreclosure on debts could force peasants into debt servitude, one-sided client relationship with their patron creditors, or outright loss of land that turned them into day labourers or beggars (Gottwald 2008:10-11).6

Poverty was widespread both in rural and urban areas. According to Friesen, biblical scholars tend to underestimate the overwhelming poverty that characterised the Roman Empire. Therefore, he developed a poverty scale that, more accurately than Lenski's quite general one, provides seven categories for describing economic resources especially in the ancient city of Rome (Friesen 2008:19-20):

1. imperial elites: consisting of 0.04% of the population: imperial dynasty, Roman senatorial families, a few retainers, local royalty and a few feedpersons

2. regional or provincial elites (1%): equestrian families, provincial officials, some retainers, some decurial families, some freedpersons, some retired military officers

3. municipal elites (1.76%): most decurial families, wealthy men and women who do not hold office, some freedpersons, some retainers, some veterans, some merchants

4. moderate surplus resources (7% estimated): some merchants, some traders, some freedpersons, some artisans (especially those who employ others) and military veterans

5. stable near subsistence level with reasonable hope of remaining above the minimum lever to sustain life (22% estimated): many merchants and traders, regular wage earners, artisans, large shop owners, freed persons and some farm families

6. at subsistence level and often below minimum level to sustain life (40%): small farm families, labourers (skilled and unskilled), artisans (especially those employed by others), wage earners, most merchants and traders, small shop or tavern owners

7. below subsistence level (28%): some farm families, unattached widows, orphans, beggars, disabled, unskilled day labourers and prisoners.

The percentages in Friesen's scale are based on data from urban centres of 10 000 inhabitants or more. In rural areas poverty was even worse: although super-wealthy elites (categories 1-3) made up about 3% of an urban population, they were only about 1% of the total imperial population (Friesen 2008:19; Stegemann & Stegemann 1999:81-85).7

So, according to Friesen, the wealthy elites formed only 1% - 3% of the whole population of the empire. Friesen does not, for some reason, include the priestly class in his table at all, but I assume that the priestly class would have belonged to all three groups that formed the elite. In some areas, like Jerusalem, though, the number of the priests (some 20 000 together with the lower clergy, the Levites) was so high that the majority of them belonged most probably to categories 4 and 5.8 Also, Friesen does not explicitly mention the scribes, who served the regional administration, but according to his stratification they must have belonged either to category 2 as regional or provincial elites, or to category 3 belonging to municipal elites (Friesen's 'retainers' includes probably the scribes mentioned in the New Testament). In Lenski's social stratification there is a social class called 'retainers', which consists of some 5% of the population just below the urban elite on the top of the society (Lenski 1984:243). In Friesen's stratification that would form the categories 3 and 4.

Those who had no problems with sustenance were altogether at most 10%, whereas in continuous problems of sustenance were living some 90% of the population, more than two thirds of them in severe or extreme poverty.

Naturally, poverty is a more complicated phenomenon than the mere possession of financial resources. However, in the early Roman Empire financial resources were, according to Friesen, probably the single most influential factor in determining one's place in the social economy, but not the only one. Other factors would have included gender, ethnicity, family lineage (common or noble), legal status (slave, freed, of freeborn), occupation and education. Patronage relationships were especially important in one's economic survival, for a patron gave one access to restricted resources that were otherwise unavailable (Friesen 2008:20-21).

In Ancient Mediterranean culture wealth was not, however, the most important value. Even more important, the fundamental value was honour and the public reputation of the family and its members. It has to be remembered that the culture was not individualistic; therefore the honour of the family and the kin was superior to that of an individual. Honour was achieved by being born in an honourable family or gained with some honourable deeds. It was challenged all the time and could be lost quite easily. Honour was a limited good related to control of scarce resources including land, crops, livestock, political clout and female sexuality. Honour determined the position of the family in public and granted access to a better life. The counterpart of honour is shame. Being poor and especially falling to extreme poverty was never just the matter of survival of the economic crisis; much worse was the lost honour and becoming publicly despised. It was rare for the poor to be publicly respected, and very difficult to gain back honour that was once lost.9

The state did not show much concern for the poor. The city of Rome appeared to be an exception, because feeding the populace became a political necessity from the time of tribune Gaius Gracchus (154-121 BCE),10 but similar generosity shown by the officials to the poor is not recorded in ancient sources elsewhere. In the ancient world, generosity was directed rather to community, not to the needy, who were rather despised more than pitied. Liberty was highly valued: the ideal person is a free man in the sense that he is independent economically from others. 'The condition of the free man', wrote Aristotle (Rhetoric 1367:a32), 'is that he not live under the constraint of another', and it is clear from the context that his notion of living under restraint was not restricted to slaves but was extended to wage labour and to others who were economically dependent (Finley 1999:40-41). In Greek language, an independent person was called plousioi, which means 'wealthy'. Such a man11 was rich enough to live properly on his income that was derived from the property, most often from owned land that was hired to tenant farmers or worked by slaves or wage labour (Finley 1999:41). Following the stratification by Friesen, these  plousioibelonged to categories 1-3 forming only a maximum 3% of the total population.

In the Roman Empire there was not an actual middle class, but between the plousioi and the destitute, ptokhoi, were peneis, the 'working class' that were not free because of their ties to toil and were compelled to devote themselves to gaining a livelihood. A penes did not necessarily lack property and was not considered poor. Such a person could even own a farm or slaves and have some monetary savings. These people belonged to Friesen's categories 4-6, thus forming approximately 70% of the population. The ptokhoi were the lowest class of people, who had no resources and whose daily life was a continuous struggle between life and death (Finley 1999:41). They were beggars, robbers, bandits, prostitutes and other despised people. The number of these destitute was, according to Friesen, remarkably high, some 28% of all.

However, ptokhoi is not used only referring to the destitute as the lowest social or economic class. In ancient Mediterranean culture it was very important to maintain one's honourable status. It was rare that somebody could get a higher status in the society, because people tended to think that all the resources of life were limited - so it was not possible to get more wealth without deprivation from others, which was condemned as greed - and as such shameful. Normally people did not even try to get higher positions in their life and career. The landless tenant did not become a landowner; a craftsman selling his productions did not become a wealthy trader. One's status in life was thought to have been inherited by birth. It was not reasonable and honourable to try to achieve a higher status. But losing one's status was shameful. Those people, who lost their status, were also called poor, ptokhoi, independent of their earlier or comparative status in life. The status could be lost when people became incapable to pay their debts, were imprisoned, lost their inherited land or got severe illnesses, for example. Being classified as poor was the result of some unfortunate turn of events or some untoward circumstances. Consequently, the poor would not necessarily be a permanent social standing but a sort of revolving category of people who unfortunately cannot maintain their inherited status. Thus day labourers, landless peasants and beggars born into their situation were not always considered poor persons in first-century society (Malina 2001:99-100).

Poverty in Galilee

In order to understand the activity of Jesus and the early Jesus movement, it is essential to know the social and economic context where Jesus and his followers came from. The principal literary source in first-century Galilee is Josephus, who provides a very incomplete glimpse of the political and economic character of Galilee and his account is both tendentious and self-serving. From a much later period, rabbinic literature gives a rich view of political and economic life in the Galilee, but between the first century and the time of the rabbis, the face of the Galilean society changed dramatically, because of the failure of the Second Jewish Revolt (132-135) and the large-scale displacement of Judaeans in the Galilee following it. The archaeological evidence is also quite fragmentary and still open to debate (Kloppenborg Verbin 2000:215). First-century Palestine was, besides being an advanced agrarian society, shaped by several dominant forces: the Israelite tradition (linguistic, cultural and religious heritage), the Roman Empire (political control) and Hellenism (the pervasive cultural influence over the whole Mediterranean and Middle East) (Hanson & Oakman 1998:7). Most probably the forefathers of Jesus migrated like many other Judeans from Judea to Galilee at the time of the Hasmoneans in the last third of the second century BCE, when Judea got independency after the harsh domination of the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes. 13 Contrary to Judea there was plenty of fertile soil available in Galilee to cultivate. The area had been virtually uninhabited from the eighth to the second century BCE. 14 The Hasmonean regime made it not only possible for the Judeans to immigrate to Galilee. In 104 BCE, having conquered Samaria and destroyed its temple on mount Gerizim, the Hasmoneans took over Galilee and required the local inhabitants to live according to the laws of Judea. Galilee was thus brought together with other Israelite people under the Temple and high priesthood, with the taxation system connected to the temple (Horsley 2008:25). It is not clear whether all the inhabitants of Galilee, at that time, were already originally from Judea, or if some other people were there as well. Horsley seems to count on the latter possibility, because he claims that these people now became under Judean domination for the first time. Horsley's view is based on Josephus' note that Aristobulus (104-103 BCE) 'compelled the inhabitants, if they wished to remain in the country, to be circumcised and to live in accordance with the Laws of the Judeans' (Ant. 13.318-319). However, Josephus might have been exaggerating commonalities between Judaea and Galilee for his own apologetic reasons (Kloppenborg Verbin 2000:221-223). When the Romans occupied Palestine in 63 BCE, radical changes happened in landowning in Galilee. After the Roman civil war in 40 BCE, the whole territory was placed under the dominion of Herod, a vassal king of the Roman Emperor. Herod, later called 'the Great', had the power to distribute the land however he wanted and to whomever he wanted. He was known as a cruel ruler who did not tolerate any opposition and even had his own family members executed. Herod's kingship was approved and enlarged by Octavian in 31-30 BCE. He executed Jewish high priest Hyrcanus 2 in 30 BCE and his own wife Mariamme 2 in 29 BCE, together with some of his own sons, whom he feared to settle against him for the kingship. 15 According to Josephus, he first 'secured' Galilee by capturing the Hasmonean garrison town Sepphoris and from there began to root out all opposition to his rule (Crossan & Reed 2001:55). However, his domination seems not to have brought only violence and destitution. Under his reign Judea grew economically because of his large construction projects that brought employment. His building projects included the reconstructed ancient capital of the Northern Kingdom, Samaria - now called Sebaste, the new harbour city Caesarea Maritima, the inaccessible fortress palaces at Masada and Jericho, and in Jerusalem the Fortress Antonia, a Royal Palace and a massive extension of the Temple. On the one hand, these projects increased the economic value of the whole territory to Rome, which was certainly also the purpose of Herod. On the other hand, the economic growth did not correlate to improved working and living conditions of the poor, especially not for the Galileans, because all the building projects were somewhere else. Herod himself got the biggest profit of all the growth. It must be remembered that the building projects were also aimed to Romanise the territory, because all the new cities were named to honour the Emperor and housed pagan temples to the goddess Roma and Augustus. Herod was also tolerant of the Jewish religion, which can be seen above all from his largest building project: the restoration of the temple of Jerusalem. He even lived as a Jew and defended Jewish worship outside Palestine. His tolerance was most probably a way to appease Jewish subjects, keep the peace and ensure the acceptance and compliance of the Jewish aristocracy. Maybe the reason for this was the plan of the eventual takeover of the temple and the assimilation of the Jewish people. He also remitted taxes during times of famine, because he wanted to recover their good will (Josephus, Ant. 15.10.4) - or perhaps to secure the income from Galilee also in the future (Crossan & Reed 2001:194). 16'Peace reigned during his rule, and the economic situation created by him was beneficial to the nation' (Räisänen 2010:23). 17 That peace was, however, achieved and supported only by force and violence. The Galileans at the time of Herod the Great had a threefold taxation system: tribute to Rome, taxes to Herod and tithes and offerings to the Temple and priesthood (Horsley 2008:25; Kloppenborg Verbin 2000:224-226). 18 After the death of Herod the situation in Judea and Galilee soon grew much worse. His kingdom was divided among his three sons. Archelaus became the ethnarch (ruler of the people) of Judea, Samaria and Idumea. His reign was short-lived because his rule was so autocratic and aroused the hatred of his subjects to the extent that, in 6 CE, they sent a delegation to Rome to ask for his removal. Judea became directly under Roman control. The new governor, Quirinius, the Roman legate of Syria, conducted a census for tax purposes as part of the Roman takeover (Brown 1997:60). 19 The census produced a rebellion led by Judas the Galilean. The rebellion was defeated cruelly by the Romans. However, this uprising is the only one recorded in Judea at the first three decades of the Common Era. The Roman prefects of the era were Valerius Gratius and Pontius Pilate, both of whom ruled 10 years, which has often been regarded as an indication of no severe violent uprisings at the time. Also the Roman historian Tacitus (History 5.9) reports that in Judea under the Emperor Tiberius (14-37 CE) 'things were quiet' (Brown 1997:60). However, under the Roman governors, recorded or not, there was plenty of violence in Judea and Galilee. Valerius Gratius (15-26 CE) was the first procurator who arbitrarily appointed and deposed the high priests. Josephus portrayed Gratus as manipulating Jerusalem's temple politics by deposing the incumbent Sadducean high priest Hanan 1 (6-15 CE), as well as three short-termed successors, before finally finding Joseph Kayyafa (Caiaphas), who had a long tenure collaborating with Roman military rule (18-37 CE). 20 He put down two formidable bands of robbers that infested Judea during his government, and killed with his own hand the captain of one of them, Simon, formerly a slave of Herod the Great. 21 Gratus assisted the proconsul Quintilius Varus in quelling an insurrection of the Jews. 22 Pontius Pilate's first serious clash with the Jews took place in his very first year in office when his troops marched into Jerusalem at night with their regimental standards bearing medallions with the emperor's image. Jewish reaction included a large delegation to Caesarea. The very next year, 27 CE, Pilate attempted to have an aqueduct built. The point of conflict seemed to have been around the use of sacred temple money set aside for sacrificial animals for God, for the project. Indignant at this proceeding, the populace formed a ring round the tribunal of Pilate then on a visit to Jerusalem, and besieged him with angry clamour. Pilate took money from the Temple treasury to build an aqueduct for Jerusalem. His disguised troops slaughtered Jewish people in the temple courts during their protest. 23 In 29-30 CE Pilate introduced coins engraved with symbols of Emperor-worship on one side and Jewish symbols on the other. In 32 CE he attempted - again - to bring in golden standards honouring Tiberius into Herod's Palace in Jerusalem. In 36 CE a Samaritan would-be-messiah asked the Samaritan people to go up to Mount Gerizim with him, where he promised to show them sacred vessels hidden by Moses. Pilate blocked their route of ascent with cavalry and heavily armed infantry. In the clash that followed, some were killed and the rest scattered or taken prisoners. Pilate then executed the ringleaders and those who were most influential. Soon after Tiberius, when Emperor Caligula reigned for four years (37-41 CE), things got even worse in Judea. Caligula wanted to show his authority over Judea by attempting to have a statue divinising him erected at the Jerusalem temple. The resistance of the peasants and the untimely death of Caligula stopped the project, anyhow. Galilee, and part of the Transjordan, was given after Herod the Great under the dominance of his son Antipas, who was named the tetrarch (ruler of a quarter-kingdom). This renewal led to many problems. It was not easy to accept the new regime, even though now the Galileans for the first time in their history had their ruler living himself in Galilee. The location of the administration within a view of nearly every village meant greater efficiency in tax collection. Also, now they were no longer under Jerusalem's control (Horsley 2008:26, 46). Many riots occurred in Galilee that were forcefully vanquished. One such incidence happened at Sepphoris, a Jewish town close to Jesus' home town Nazareth, already when the news of the death of Herod the Great reached the people there. Some of the city dwellers believed that Herod's death offered them a fine possibility to found a Jewish government of their own. They rallied against foreign rule and taxation and acclaimed kingship to Judas, son of Hezekiah, but were quickly crushed by the Syrian-based Roman legate. The Romans defeated the riot with force, burned the city and sold its inhabitants to slavery. 24 Sepphoris was subsequently rebuilt by Herod Antipas into Galilee's largest city and the first capital of the lands Antipas inherited from his father. Obviously members of the Herodian family belonged to the elite of the city. At the time of Jesus, Nazareth was in the shadow of Sepphoris and under Herod Antipas's political control (Crossan & Reed 2001:33). No doubt the cruelties caused by the Romans at the era just before Jesus was born were in good memory of local peasants and had an effect on popular life in Nazareth and other Galilean and Judean villages (Horsley 2008:40). As typical for agrarian societies, Galilee was dominated by only a few major families, including most probably the families of Caesar, Pilate and other prefects, Herods and especially Antipas's court officials, high priests and possibly some successful merchants and a few overseers of the collection of taxes and tolls. When peasant families grew larger it was no more possible to cultivate new land for new generations as it was earlier done. In biblical scholarship, it was earlier presumed that Galilee would have had important trading routes for international use because of its location, and that the Galileans themselves would have traded their products to big cities around the eastern part of the empire. This view was based on lively counteractions between Galilean cities and villages, for example, it was argued that Galilean villagers used to sell their products at the markets in Sepphoris and Tiberias. Concluding from some remains of coinage the Galileans were supposed to have had even remarkable trading with olive oil to Syria, especially to its big trading city Tyros. Richard Horsley has, however, questioned the view of Galilee as a relatively lively trading area. Ancient Tyrian coins found from Galilee show most of all what kind of money was normally used in Galilee, and as such it is no evidence from any trade at the area, because the same coinage was used widely in the eastern part of the empire. The other archaeological remains from first-century Galilee refer rather to a remote region, with little influence from Greek-speaking Tyros. For example, the pottery remains show that the pottery distribution was not wide outside Galilee (Horsley 1996:83-85). Herod Antipas, needing to expand his revenues in order to fund his ambitious city-building, developed fishing into an industry. Working through brokers as intermediaries, the king supplied the equipment, especially the costly large (26-foot) boats that required a crew of five or six. 25 Collaborative crews evidently contracted to deliver a certain percentage or amount of their catch to the processing depots in return for keeping the rest (somewhat like sharecroppers). The principal processing centre for the fish was Magdala ('tower of fish' in Aramaic), where people cut loose from their ancestral lands and village communities found work (Hanson & Oakman 1998:106-110; Horsley 2008:48). Recent excavations in Magdala have revealed Roman-type city architecture, but the results of the excavations have not yet been published, so the dating of the Roman type of buildings is still open. Antipas wanted to honour the Emperor by building two Roman cities in Galilee. These cities, that were under the construction process when Jesus was a young man, were Sepphoris and Tiberias, which became the only cities in Galilee with all the pagan buildings like temples and theatres (if the Romanised Magdala is not from the same time period). Sepphoris was rebuilt after the destruction by the Romans, now in a more Roman style as a new capital of Galilee. At the time of Antipas, Sepphoris was, however, not yet totally pagan, which might tell of the carefulness of Antipas not to irrigate the Jewish population at the area - like his father he wanted respect also from the Jews (Crossan & Reed 2001:64; Kloppenborg Verbin 2000:242-245; Reed 1994:203-219). 26 Tiberias was built some 20 years after Sepphoris on the former Jewish cemetery as the new capital of Antipas and named for the emperor Tiberius. As Horsley writes: Both cities, built in Roman style by a king who had been educated in Rome, must have seemed like alien urban culture set down into the previously Israelite rural landscape remote from the dominant high culture. (Horsley 2008:46) The construction projects brought employment for many landless people, but at the same time aroused critics because they were regarded as Antipas's tendency to Romanise Galilee and at least partly funded by taxation. As peasant families could not meet the demands of taxes or became indebted by buying the necessities they used to grow, possession of their land was transferred elsewhere. Estates grew and tenancy increased. Architectural grandeur increased at one end of Galilean society by making poverty increase at the other (Crossan & Reed 2001:70; Freyne 1995:23-46). Both cities were the centres of taxation with collection and storage points for tax revenues and they housed the debt archives. The wealthy inhabitants of the cities differed significantly from those living in villages. This was the substratum for several movements opposing Rome (Freyne 1988:166; Kloppenborg Verbin 2000:235, 237, 246-247; Meier 1991:282-283; Oakman 2008:21, 168-171).27 One of these, and the most influential as it appeared to be, was the Jesus movement. It seems to have attracted especially, like some other anti-Roman movements, the landless: peasant children without inheritance, expropriated smallholders and all kinds of people who were deprived of access to the land. The changed situation from a landowner, a peasant farmer, into a tenant farmer or day labourer was dramatic for many Galileans. The peasant farmers were permanently poor and in continuous danger to fall under the subsistence level. One bad harvest or one serious misfortune might mean the loss of everything, since the new patronal class, already viewed with distrust, could not be depended upon for help. (Kloppenborg Verbin 2000:261) If they lost the essential resources of living, they became destitute. That caused banditry, itinerancy, slavery, prostitution and robbery. Especially Richard Horsley has pointed out that 'social banditry' was typical for Galilee. It was a prepolitical and non-organised form of protest against injustice and resistance to occupation and its deleterious effects. Supposedly many of the bandits were dispossessed peasants, who were supported by the peasantry in Galilean villages (Horsley 1987:38). Crossan and Reed argue that the reason for Jesus' itinerant lifestyle might not have been a voluntary abandonment of normal family life or some ideological reasons or of some crisis in the family relations, but simply a loss of everything because of the harsh taxation, strong indebtedness and bad crop. Only later it became idealistic asceticism (Crossan & Reed 2001:127-128). A distinguishing view is offered by Horsley, who thinks it was just the strongly indebted peasant farmers in danger of losing their ancestral land who formed the Jesus movements. Horsley's description of peasant life in Galilean villages is also quite convincing, but from it one gets the impression that itinerancy was a choice of some followers of Jesus to spread the movement from village to village, not necessarily caused by extreme poverty and loss of land and permanent household (Horsley 2008:46-55). So, first-century Galilee was mainly agricultural, with little fishing industry, and its population was economically strongly dependent on the wealthy elite, the majority of whom lived in Sepphoris and Tiberias, some even in Jerusalem. The elite lived by depriving the Galilean rural population, with no direct connection to the ordinary people. Their agents collected taxes, and usually the villagers had the opportunity to deal with minor legal things themselves in local assemblies, the synagogues. The poverty in Galilee is also reflected by the fact that almost no remains of storage buildings for grain or other products have been found in archaeological excavations in Galilee and no shops at all. The Galileans seem to have consumed all they produced. Having paid the rents, taxes, loan remissions and interests there simply was nothing left to trade with. Literacy was even more limited in Judea and Galilee than in the rest of the Roman Empire. Writing was confined mainly to scribal circles and high priestly administrations. Oral communication dominated at all levels of the society, completely so in the villages (Horsley 2008:29). Horsley notes that [t]his makes the old depiction of the ancient Jews as generally literate and a 'people of the book' highly dubious. So, too, it also calls into question the frequent assumption that early Christians were also literate and quickly also became a 'people of the book.' This means, for example, that Judean texts from around the time of Jesus do not provide evidence for what the Jews in general believed and practiced, but only for the literate circles that produced those texts. (Horsley 2008:29) Even if the Galilean villagers would have had possession of some scrolls, which they most probably did not, they would not have understood it read to them, because they spoke a dialect of Aramaic that deviated from the Hebrew of the sacred texts. They would have known the existence of the sacred scriptures, because it was deposited in the Temple and supposedly to be read or rather recited on ceremonial occasions. Some fragmentary knowledge of the scripture may also have been mediated to villagers through Pharisees and other scribal representatives of the temple-state. Having some knowledge of the scriptures and even the ability to recite them did not, however, mean literacy in the sense of ability to read (Horsley 2008:29, 89-92). Most probably, Jesus could not read or write (Oakman 2008:171). 28 The social stage of Jesus and his family is not easy to determine. All the archaeological evidence from the Roman period points to a simple peasant existence at Nazareth. It also points to a Jewish Nazareth. The size of the village was small. It could have been inhabited by about 200-400 people, which means several extended families or clans (Crossan & Reed 2001:34-35). 29 Many scholars are of the opinion that the poor in Galilee were small farmers with inadequate or barren land, or serfs on large estates. Under heavy taxation and debts they lived continuously at subsistence level or below it. Typical to Mediterranean peasantry, they most probably practiced viticulture, arboriculture and agriculture and had a vegetable diet, supplemented by yoghurt and cheese, and in rare occasions with poultry, lamb or beef. Productivity was relatively low. Excess peasant labour may be devoted to craft specialisation if agricultural opportunities dwindle and tax pressures are high (Oakman 2008:167). 30 Many peasants had lost their ancestral land. Also surplus children of peasant households were often forced to leave the village in search of livelihood (Lenski 1984:278). In Friesen's categories the majority of the farmers would have belonged to groups 6 and 7. It seems to me that in the first-century-Galilee many families moved from group 6 to group 7 and even to slavery. When it comes to Jesus, in the Gospel of Mark (6:3) there is a brief mention of his trade: he was a tekton. 31 This Greek word is traditionally translated as 'carpenter', which is probably because of middle-age paintings. Indeed, tekton basically means a builder of any kind. So, Jesus was not necessarily a carpenter or a 'wood-worker, who made doors or furniture for the stone or mud-brick houses and ploughs and yokes for farmers' (Brown 1997:67). A tekton could have referred as well to a sculptor or - most probably in this case - to a craftsman who works at the buildings made of stone (Batey 1984:249-258). 32 It has to be remembered that there were large building projects in Galilee at the time of Jesus, and an especially important one just a few miles (one hour's walk) from Nazareth, his childhood home town. When the Romans built Sepphoris they certainly used local people, both slaves and waged labourers from nearby villages. If Jesus' family had the same difficulties that almost every family at that time had, they could not afford a large family and some members of the family had to leave farming and find a job elsewhere (Oakman 2008:171). 33 It might as well be that the tekton in Mark 6:3 refers to a stoneworker, city builder, in which case the word gives a slightly negative impression - as it is indeed clear from the context: the people in Nazareth do not accept Jesus, who is a 'tekton', but implies to have more wisdom than the others. It looks like Jesus was despised because he had worked in the Roman building project, constructing a pagan city of Sepphoris. If this were the case, Jesus might not be compared to 'a blue collar worker in lower-middle-class America' (Meier 1991:276-285). 34 Rather, he would have belonged to Friesen's group 6 or 7 (at subsistence level or below it), depending on his skill, as a landless peasant who worked some time as a labourer in the nearby city. 35 The movement led by him promised subsistence in the Kingdom of God (Mk 10:30; Lk 12:22-31/Mt 6:25-33). He spoke about debts, and taught his disciples to pray for the forgiving of debts (Mt 6:12; Lk 7:41-42; Lk 11:4). At least from the beginning, the Jesus movement seemed to be 'a movement of the poor for the poor' (Stegemann 1984:23). The third part of Herod the Great's kingdom, the areas north and east of the Lake of Galilee, including Decapolis, was given to Herod's son Philip. The kingdom of Herod was re-established by Emperor Claudius (41-54 CE), who gave the areas ruled by Herod's sons to Herod's grandson and the emperor's good friend Agrippa. The new governor first appeared tolerant to Jewish inhabitants of the territory, but his rule was to become fatal for the Jesus-believing Jews in Jerusalem: according to Acts 12 he was responsible for the persecution that killed James the brother of John, son of Zebedee. After Agrippa's death the rule of Palestine was again given under direct Roman rule. The procurators of the period 44-66 CE were, however, 'of low calibre, vicious and dishonest, provoking intense unrest by their injustice' (Brown 1997:61). Their misrule gave rise to Sicarii (knife-wielding terrorists, who attacked especially pro-Roman Jewish elites), Zealots (ruthless adherents of the Law), and a major Jewish revolt against the Romans (the Jewish war in 66-70 CE). The Roman legions led by Vespasian marched from Syria to Judea to quell the revolt. When Vespasian became an Emperor after Nero, his son Titus conquered Jerusalem, destroyed the temple and burned the city. Most of the surviving Jews, including the Jesus-believers who did not take part of the armed revolt, had to leave the city (Brown 1997:61). 36 The defeat in the Jewish war and the religious crisis followed by the destruction of the temple made life for Jews everywhere in the Empire difficult. They were now publicly shamed. The war inevitably increased poverty in Palestine. The Jews were obliged to pay a new punitive tax of two drachmas for the support of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome.

ENCOUNTER CHRIST REFLECTIONS AND MEDITATIONS

Preparation for the Session

Presence of God: Jesus, As I come to you today, fill my heart, my whole being, with the wonder of your sacred presence.  Help me to become more aware of your presence in my life, and more receptive to that presence. I desire to love you as you love me.  May nothing ever separate me from you. (1-2 minutes of silence)

Freedom: Jesus, Grant me the grace to have freedom of spirit. Keep me from being bound by desires and actions that are not good for me or others. Cleanse my heart and soul that I may live joyously in your love. (1-2 minutes of silence)

Consciousness: Where am I with God?  With others in my life? What am I grateful for?  Is there something I am sorry for, words or actions that have hurt others, and which I now regret?  I take a moment to ask forgiveness of God and of those whom I have hurt.  God, I give you thanks for your constant love and care for me. Keep me always aware of your presence in my life. (2-3 minutes of silence)

Opening Prayer

I ask, Lord, for the grace to be among the little ones, able to thank you for your greatness and to wonder at your love for me. Give me, as well, the grace to recognize my own arrogance and exaggerated sense of  self-worth based upon what I know or my position in life.  Help me to be open to your invitation to lay down my burdens and rest in the peace of your presence in my life.  Help me to be a place of refuge  for others who are burdened at this time with worry or grief.  Give me your compassionate heart.

Companions for the Journey

From “First Impressions 2023”. A service of the Southern Dominican Province

There is a tone of mystery in the opening verse of today’s gospel as Jesus praises God for having, “hidden these things from the wise and learned....” What does he mean and why would God do that? Jesus has just finished speaking to his disciples --  the “little ones.” They have received his message and are about to go out to spread it.  The gospel begins with verse 25, but it always helps to check the context from which a passage is taken.  Looking back at the sequence leading up to today’s passage we notice: John the Baptist is in prison (11:2) and  Jesus responds to criticism against himself with the complaint that his generation acts like finicky and self-willed children (vs. 16-19), who want things their way and no other.  Both John and Jesus just haven’t conformed to the people’s expectations about what God’s salvation should look like. So, Jesus accuses them of being  stubborn.  He tells them that they are never satisfied: they didn’t accept a strict John the Baptist, nor a freer Jesus, who opened his arms to sinners and sat at table with those beyond the religious pale. It’s obvious that finicky religious people didn’t just exist 2,000 years ago! People (us too?) never seem satisfied with the way the church and local parish are.  There is always much to criticize and we have plenty of excuses to hold back fuller participation.  It’s possible though, that our closer involvement might help the community and the leadership we criticize become a better reflection of Christian living and worship. Or, are we also guilty of Jesus’ charge against the stubborn generation?  It’s true we don’t have a perfect church, or world.  So, what are we going to do about it? One response, in the light of today’s gospel, is to pray for a deeper commitment and response to Christ and to ask to be open to the revelation he has for us this day. How can we be less stubborn and more fully responsive to his invitation, “Come to me...”? We learn still more about today’s gospel by looking back to what leads up to it. Jesus has met rejection in Galilee by a stubborn generation.  Hostility is growing, particularly from the religious leaders, the very ones who, if they had accepted him, could have promoted his message to the ordinary people. Jesus hoped for a better response to his ministry, how hard it must have been for him to see his project of spreading the good news thwarted.  From this point in Matthew’s gospel those who accept Jesus are fewer in number. It looks like the result of his work is on a downward curve. Nevertheless, what sounds mysterious to us is that he gives thanks to God for those few who are receiving him and his message.  He isn’t focused on the many who are rejecting, but on the few who are accepting him.  They are the ones he calls, the “little ones” -- little in religious and social importance, and little/few in numbers. In his prayer, Jesus shows his acceptance of God’s plan. The episode opens with, “at that time....”  What time is that?  It is the time when: Jesus’ Galilean ministry is facing the population’s rejection and his message (“these things”) is “hidden...from the wise and learned.”  But the “little ones,” who know nothing about the fine points of theology and few things of religion, who are considered unclean and sinners by the establishment -- they get the message. They hear what it offers, God’s grace for them through Jesus, and they accept it.  The sinners, prostitutes and tax collectors, who don’t even know religious law, much less keep it, are the ones to receive forgiveness and welcome at Jesus’ table. There are “little ones” a preacher meets along the way.  Some may be very educated, others may not have much education, or sophistication in religious matters.  But they do seem to have grasped the essence, or heart of Jesus’ teachings.  They possess a wisdom, given them through their life experience which enables them, as if by second nature: to know right from wrong; respond heroically to those in need; make large sacrifices of time, energy and money for their families and community and take the side of the outsider, poor and vulnerable.  Jesus says, “No one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal God.”  When we meet a “little one,” we sense they “know” Jesus and his Father in a unique and intimate way.  These are the kind of people over whom Jesus rejoices today, they are the gifts God gave to Jesus in his lifetime and continues to give now. For them, then and now, Jesus is most grateful and filled with joy, even though he has plenty of reason to be disappointed in the response he is getting more and more from his contemporaries. Today we sense the relationship Jesus has with his Father.  When he talks about “knowing” the Father and “knowing” Jesus, he is talking about knowledge in the biblical sense.  While we know topics by studying and though we can even know a person by reading and getting information about him or her, to “know” someone in the bible is to have an experience of them.  So God’s knowledge of Jesus is very personal and direct, as is Jesus’ knowledge of God. Jesus says to his disciples, the “little ones,” by their coming to know him, they now know God. They know, through Jesus, that the Father has the same concern and love for us that Jesus showed.  We too “know” God because of the life Jesus has lived for us and the relationship he offers us.  There is an equality between Jesus and his Father, they know each other intimately and are working “hand in glove” together for our well-being. Religion could be a terrible burden for the unlettered and untutored of Jesus’ day.  So much to know and, for desperately poor peasants, so little leisure time to learn.  For those who were burdened by the guilt incurred by numerous violations of religious law, the “yoke” Jesus offers is his own “yoke.”  It is rest and welcome for the religious outsider. The very ones religion considers unworthy of God are the ones Jesus is reaching out to welcome, “Come to me all who labor and are burdened....Take my yoke....”  What book would someone study who wants to follow Jesus’ way?  What tomes, laws and religious commentaries?  How will they get his way right? Jesus invites the “little ones” to come to him -- to “read” and “study” him.  Matthew’s gospel has a strong wisdom theme, reminiscent of the wisdom books of the Hebrew scriptures. Jesus is a wisdom teacher and today’s reading captures a moment in which he is teaching us wisdom. “Come to me,” he is saying, “and in me you will discover divine wisdom.”  “What must I know?” we might ask. “Know me,” would be his response. It is sobering to realize that Jesus’ wisdom was rejected by those in the know and  yet accepted by the “don’t knows.”  Today’s gospel passage calls us to another kind of wisdom than what mere information and learning give. The wisdom Jesus offers is not a series of teachings, things we must learn or achieve through our own pursuits. The  wisdom he offers is not book knowledge, but a Person -- himself.  We get that wisdom by following and staying close to him; observing his actions ; listening to his words; imitating him and seeing the world from his perspective.  That’s what makes the “don’t knows” wise and those who claim they know, foolish.  What a twist;  but it is a gospel twist: the wise are foolish, and the “little ones” wise; or put in another way,  the first shall be last and the last shall be first.

Living the Good News

What action can you take in the next week as a response to today's reading and discussion? Keep a private journal of your prayer/actions responses this week. Feel free to use the personal reflection questions which follow.

Reflection Questions: 

Do I consider myself one of Jesus’ “little ones”?
What would give me “rest”?
How am I burdened by the unknown?
Do I talk to God honestly about what is worrying me?
Is there resistance in me to sharing this with Jesus?  
What causes this resistance (shame, guilt, pride, stubbornness)?
Being really angry with someone is a deep burden.  Can I bring my troubles and failings in this regard to Jesus?
Forgiving those who  dislike or even hate us is desperately difficult.  Can I pray for the grace to do that?

Do I think Jesus understands weaknesses, struggles or disappointments?   
Did he have any in his life?
What can I learn about better behavior from watching Jesus?

How can prayer give me perspective?
How can prayer lead to acceptance?

What do I really want?  
What are my deepest desires?   
Are they a comfort or a burden to me?

Are there religious or civil rules that are personally burdensome and troubling to me?

What is my personal comfort zone (what situations have to exist for me to avoid stress?
Am I out of my comfort zone often?  Right now?

How does lack of control over the events of one’s life become a burden?
How great is my need for control?

How often am I tempted to use force and intimidation to get my way?

I think of a time in my life when I was "burdened"? 
Did I share my troubles with anyone?   
What happened?

What burden am I carrying that I want to lay at the feet of Jesus?

Do I know of someone who is particularly burdened right now?

Whose burden can I relieve or take away?

Closing Prayer

Don’t forget to provide some prayer time at the beginning and at the end of the session (or both), allowing time to offer prayers for anyone you wish to pray for. 

Teach me to go to this country beyond words and beyond names.
Teach me to pray on this side of the frontier, here where these woods are.
I need to be led by you.
I need my heart to be moved by you.
I need my soul to be made clean by your prayer. I need my will to be made strong by you.
I need the world to be saved and changed by you.
I need you for all those who suffer, who are in prison, in danger, in sorrow.
I need you for all the crazy people.
I need your healing hand to work always in my life.
I need you to make me, as you made your Son, a healer, a comforter, a savior.
I need you to name the dead.
I need you to help the dying cross their particular rivers.
I need you for myself whether I live or die.
It is necessary.
Amen.

By Thomas Merton

For the Week Ahead

Weekly Memorization: (Taken from the gospel for today's session) My yoke is easy and my burden light.

Meditations

A Meditation in the Dominican Style/Asking Questions: We can divide our human burdens in to three categories. The first is the burden of daily irritations—standing in line at the post office, finding a parking space, being on endless hold listening to bad elevator music, trying to figure out legal forms, watching bad behavior of an out-of-control child, being the embarrassed parent of said child. The list goes on. And the more stressed we are, the more these irritations are, well, IRRITATING! The second burden includes some serious worries like money, illness, job loss, a bad relationship, hurts we can’t heal, anger that won’t go away. Some of these issues may be ours or they may be serious issues for someone we love.  In any event, these things burden us and sometimes, make us a burden to others. The third burden runs the deepest, often because we suppress it. It is the burden of personal identity. Who am I? We live in a world that tells us we are what we have; we are what we do; we are what we look like; we are what degrees we possess; we are what others say about us. We put an awful lot of energy into maintaining our beliefs about identity. It is exhausting. And scary. What happens when I lose what I have, lose what I do, or lose what I look like? What happens when I have shaped my identity to impress or please others? How does this erode my sense of my true self?  Jesus’ temptation in the Desert was basically all about these identity issues.  How did he respond? What difference did it make to Jesus what others said about him? How did his relationship with his father (His ABBA) sustain him in difficult and burdensome times?
Questions:  Which of these burdens is troubling me most right now?
Do I believe that God wishes to lighten my personal burden?
Do I believe I am beloved of God?
Do I believe that what I have or do does not matter to God?
Prayer: I ask God for the reassurance of being blessed I ask God for patience with myself and others I ask God for hope: trust that God is looking out for me.

A Meditation in the Ignatian Style/Imagination: Parables help us to see life from another person’s point of view and, using our imagination, to examine our own lives: The Parable, the Return of the Prodigal Son from Luke, illustrates the burdens of insecurity that we all carry, and how God is there to reassure us that we are the beloved, just as we are.  Father Henri Nouwen reflects on this parable in light of Jesus’ own experience, Nouwen’s own experience, and Rembrandt’s vision: Soon after Jesus had heard the voice calling him the beloved, he was led to the desert to hear those other voices.  They told him to prove that he was worth love in being successful, popular, powerful. Almost from the moment that I had ears to hear, I heard those voices and they have stayed with me ever since.  The have come to me through my parents, my friends, my teachers, and my colleagues, but most of all, they have come and still come through the mass media that surround me.  And they say:  Show me that you are a good boy.  You had better be better than your friend!  Be sure you can make it through school!  I sure hope you can make it on your own!  Are you sure you want to be friends with those people?  These trophies certainly show what a good player you were!  Don’t show your weakness, you’ll be used!  When you stop being productive, people lose interest in you”.  Parents, friends, and teachers, even those who speak to me through the media, are mostly very sincere in their concerns.  In fact, they can be limited human expressions of an unlimited divine love.  But when I forget that voice of first unconditional love, then these innocent suggestions can easily start dominating my life and pull me into a “distant country”. (40-41) The world says: "Yes, I love you if you are good-looking, intelligent, and wealthy.  I love you if you have a good education, a good job, good connections.  I love you if you produce much, seek much, buy much.  There are endless "ifs" hidden in the world's love....The world's love is and always will be, conditional. As long as I keep looking for my true self in the world of conditional love, I will remain "hooked" to the world(42)….I am the prodigal son every time I search for unconditional love where it cannot be found….I am constantly surprised at how I keep taking the gifts God has given me--my health, my intellectual and emotional gifts--and keep using them to impress people, receive affirmation and praise, and compete for rewards, instead of developing them for the glory of God. Yes, I often carry them off to a "foreign country" and put them at the service of an exploiting world that does not know their true value. (43) Jesus has made it clear to me that the same voice he heard at the River Jordan and on Mount Tabor can also be heard by me. Faith is the radical trust that home has always been there and always will be. The somewhat stiff hands of the father rest on the prodigal’s shoulders with the everlasting blessing: “You are my beloved, on you my favor rests.” Yet over and over again I have left home. I have fled the hands of blessing and run off to faraway places searching for love! This is the great tragedy of my life and of the lives of so many I meet on my journey. Somehow I have become deaf to the voice that calls me the Beloved, have left the only place where I can hear that voice, and have gone off desperately hoping that I would find somewhere else what I could no longer find at home. Rembrandt’s painting of the father welcoming the son displays scarcely any external movement….(this painting is one of utter stillness.} The father’s touching the son is an everlasting blessing; the son resting against his father’s breast is an eternal peace. Jakob Rosenberg summarizes this vision beautifully when he writes: “the group of father and son is outwardly almost motionless, but inwardly all the more moved….the story deals not with the human love of an earthly father….what is meant and represented here is the divine love and mercy in its power to transform death into life.” “Coming home” meant for me, walking step-by-step toward the One who awaits me with open arms and wants to hold me in an eternal embrace. Reflect on this meditation from Nouwen in the light of this gospel passage. 

A Meditation in the Franciscan Style/Action: Read the following excerpt from Father Thomas Keating's book Intimacy with God, pp 159-160: Prayer cannot stand alone without action emerging from it. Contemplative prayer without action stagnates, and action without contemplative prayer leads to burn-out or running around in circles. Contemplative prayer sifts our contemplative vision and our ideas about what we should be doing…. We are coming from an inner freedom that more and more without our thinking about it, expresses the mind of Christ in our particular daily lives through the welling up and flowing over of the fruits of the Spirit and the Beatitudes. p. 159-160. After reflecting on the scriptures, what action can you take this week to lift the burden of someone you know--family member, friend, someone in the larger community who is weighed down by poverty, fear, sadness or doubt?  If you do not know anyone personally, get in touch with Catholic Worker House in Redwood City, a group that cares for those who have no one to care about them. In the Franciscan manner, roll up your sleeves and be Jesus for someone in need of a helping hand to carry his cross. 

A Meditation in the Augustinian Style/Relationship: This Sunday’s psalm is 145. It is a message of hope in these troubled days. Read it to yourself several times, picking out the phrases which have the most meaning for you. Then write your own thank-you note to God for the times you have been sustained when you have felt burdened or troubled:

Psalm 145

I will extol you, my God and king, and bless your name forever and ever.
I will bless you day after day, and praise your name forever and ever.
The LORD is great and highly to be praised; his greatness cannot be measured.
Age to age shall proclaim your works, shall declare your mighty deeds.
They will tell of your great glory and splendor, and recount your wonderful works.
They will speak of your awesome deeds, recount your greatness and might.
They will recall your abundant goodness, and sing of your just deeds with joy.
The LORD is kind and full of compassion, slow to anger, abounding in mercy.
How good is the LORD to all, compassionate to all his creatures.
All your works shall thank you, O LORD, and all your faithful ones bless you.
They shall speak of the glory of your reign, and declare your mighty deeds,
To make known your might to the children of men, and the glorious splendor of your reign.
Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom; your rule endures for all generations. 
The LORD is faithful in all his words, and holy in all his deeds.
The LORD supports all who fall, and raises up all who are bowed down.
The eyes of all look to you, and you give them their food in due season.
You open your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing.
The LORD is just in all his ways, and holy in all his deeds.
The LORD is close to all who call him, who call on him in truth.
He fulfills the desires of those who fear him; he hears their cry and he saves them.
The LORD keeps watch over all who love him; the wicked he will utterly destroy.
Let my mouth speak the praise of the LORD; let all flesh bless his holy name forever, for ages unending.

Poetic Reflection

This poem from Ed Ingebretzen, S.J. reminds us that God does not wish to burden us, but to comfort and mother us.

From Narrow Places

From narrow places
the strength of our voice
rises:
our every breath 
is prayer,
the great poem of need,
a constant scattering
of praise.
Early
we reach to God
in the claim of our hearts,
while he,
our father,
mothers us 
in his