Holy Family Homily 12/26/04

Here are the readings followed by the homily final text, followed by preliminary notes I posted as I prepared it. Any comments are still welcome.

Sunday Liturgical Readings

Feast of the Holy Family

Individual Scripture References

Gospel: Matthew 2:13-15, 19-23
First Reading: Sirach 3:2-6, 12-14
Second Reading: Colossians 3:12-21 (or 3:12-17)

---

Often Jesus, Mary, and Joseph are pictured as a "model" family in terms that impossible for any real family to identify with — the virginal relationship of husband and wife, a harmony unmarred by normal disagreements and tensions, and a child-God who never protested being washed behind the ears. The down-to-earth picture in this Gospel speaks directly to situations that are faced in some way by the majority of families in our society today: poverty, displacement, alienation, and fear. Joseph, Mary, and Jesus are a model family because they experienced the same struggles we encounter.

After returning to Nazareth, what was the family life of Jesus like? For sure, it was not the way it is usually pictured in statues, paintings, or holy cards. Gospel references to the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus give us a clue. These were either children of Joseph by a previous marriage or were other relatives, cousins or other who may have lived in the same household. Perhaps these brothers and sisters were a mixture of both.

It’s not unlikely that Joseph could have been married before, fathered children, and his wife had died, possibly in childbirth as was not uncommon in those days. In analyzing the words used to describe family relationships in Greek and Aramaic, many scholars also conclude that the word used in the Gospels for “brother,” in Greek, “adelphoi,” can just as well refer to other relatives or even members of a close-knit community. The one thing that’s just about certain is that Jesus was not raised in a tiny quiet three-person household. The childhood of Jesus was a lot more normal, involving intensive living together of a good number of extended family members, than most of the images on holy cards would suggest. It was dynamic, vibrant, and noisy, with undoubtedly lots of conflicts as well as intense loyalty and support -- all of which are characteristic of both ancient and modern families of Mediterranean cultures. And immensely loving, of course. If you saw the movie “My Big Fat Greek Wedding,” you caught a glimpse of that kind of family living.

Where the Holy Family then serves as a model for us today, is not in their difference, but in their similarity to most family situations that we face. When husband and wife commit themselves to each other, to be faithful in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, until death,” they are establishing a community of life in which new life is welcome. What any real commitment requires is a willingness to lay aside one’s own priorities and agendas, and put the good of others before one’s own. This can be done only if God is truly at the center.

And so our question this week is, can we do that? In our family life, in our relationships with others, in our community, can we let go of our own agendas, and let God be the Lord of our lives?

---

Notes I made in preparation for the homily.

Today (Wednesday, 12/22) I had to take a fairly long trip in the car and I listened to a wonderful recording of Berlioz L'Enfance du Christ (The Infancy of Christ. (This rare recording of Jean Martinon conducting soloists and the orchestra/chorus of the French National Radio is available at a bargain price from "Locked in the Vault Reissues" --scroll down to Vol 71. The text is freely available online.) This marvelous piece of music really rewards careful listening -- something that might be possible for most of us only in the concert hall or a long trip alone in the car. Berlioz doesn't depict the whole infancy stories as related in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, but concentrates on Herod's raving and the family's flight into Egypt. It's very much a story for our time because Jesus, Mary and Joseph are given hospitality (and their lives are saved) by a generous family of Ishmaelites (the original Arab peoples, descended from Abraham's son, Ishmael, who kind of got a raw deal because he had the wrong mother; see Genesis 16-18:19; 21:1-21). In ancient times, hospitality, even toward a stranger, was seen as an important family value.

Another interesting insight, which will probably form the basis for my homily, is that given the high rate of mortality in childbirth, I think it is not unlikely that Joseph may have been married before and had other children, and was not necessarily an old man. In opposition to the image we usualy have of the holy family -- just the three of them -- isn't it more likely that Jesus was raised in a large and dynamic extended family household, where everybody knew and was involved in everyone else's business? A further perspective on his being normal, "like us in all things but sin." I suspect too, that means that normal childish naughtiness (like staying behind in Jerusalem without telling his parents) most likely isn't sinful!

The "brothers and sisters of Jesus" in the Gospels presents a perennial problem, especially if we hold, as the Church does, Mary's perpetual virginity. Fr. Pat Hartin, whom you may recall was the chaplain at the Claremont Colleges some years back and is one of the foremost scholars on the New Testament Letter of James, in his new book "James of Jerusalem," notes that there are three theories on the "brothers and sisters of Jesus":

• The oldest (2nd century), held by most eastern Orthodox and Catholic theologians, is that they were half-brothers or step-brothers, children of Joseph by a previous marriage (which, as noted above, I think is most logical).
• Another view, nearly as ancient (3rd century), held that the "brothers" were children of Mary and Joseph, younger siblings of Jesus. Of course, this is incompatible with the Catholic belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (of which there is no direct scriptural evidence), and was condemned as heretical by St. Jerome. It was revived with modern critical studies of the New Testament, and is probably the most generally accepted Protestant view.
• The third view was taught by St. Jerome (4th-5th century) to counter the second. He noted that the Greek word "brothers" can also refer to extended family members, such as cousins. This is the view most commonly held by western (Roman) Catholics. Note however, that the only thing taught de fide is Mary's perpetual virginity, and so one is free to accept the "half-brother" theory as more plausible -- as I do.
• However, in clear support of "brothers" meaning extended family members, we find that two of the "brothers of Jesus" named in Mark 6:3, James and Joses (or Joseph), are identified as the sons of Mary the wife of Clopas, who stood at the foot of the cross. Also, in the narratives of the passion, it is evident that the mother of the sons of Zebedee (James -- a different James -- and John) is identified as Salome, the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. (This Salome is no relation to the dancing girl over whom John the Baptist lost his head.) See Mark 15:40; Matthew 27:56; and John 19:25.

I think the import for us of these insights is that the childhood of Jesus was a lot more normal, involving intensive living together of a good number of extended family members, than most of the images on holy cards would suggest. It was dynamic, vibrant, and noisy, with lots of conflicts as well as intense loyalty and support -- all of which are characteristic of both ancient and modern families of Mediterranean cultures. And immensely loving, of course.

What other implications of this could be spelled out? (Hey, I'm an only child, so I identify more with the isolated threesome image.)