Reading 1, 2 Mc 6:18-23

18 Eleazar, one of the foremost teachers of the Law, a man already advanced in years and of most noble appearance, had his mouth forced open, to make him eat a piece of pork. 19 But he, resolving to die with honour rather than to live disgraced, walked of his own accord to the torture of the wheel,

20 having spat the stuff out, as befits those with the courage to reject what is not lawful to taste, rather than live.

21 The people supervising the ritual meal, forbidden by the Law, because of the length of time for which they had known him, took him aside and privately urged him to have meat brought of a kind he could properly use, prepared by himself, and only pretend to eat the portions of sacrificial meat as prescribed by the king;

22 this action would enable him to escape death, by availing himself of an act of kindness prompted by their long friendship.

23 But having taken a noble decision worthy of his years and the dignity of his great age and the well-earned distinction of his grey hairs, worthy too of his impeccable conduct from boyhood, and above all of the holy legislation established by God himself, he answered accordingly, telling them to send him at once to the underworld.

When Nicolas Sarkozy wants to ban Moslem women from wearing the burkha in public, he is behaving as did the Seleucid rulers of Israel: for the sake of uniting people in a culture regarded as superior, he will attempt to limit personal and religious freedoms, and may provoke violence. Those are subjected to such “laws” must make up their minds whether the injustice done is slight enough to be ignored, serious enough to be opposed with cunning and mockery, or oppressive enough to require total refusal. If you suspect that in the end of the day the authority will be happy to kill to implement its policy, the total refusal offered by Eleazar may be the right choice. He was saying to the state, “You cannot make me obey; I will die first.” This willingness to die rather than obey is the reason for Jesus’ crucifixion, and the martyrdom of many Christians since, when faced with oppressive demands. Christians should be very tender towards the consciences of Moslem brothers and sisters in Europe, while demanding that Moslem states pay equal respect to the religious minorities in their lands. Wherever the bully boys of the majority culture, political party or religion demand submission, in Iran for example, or Israel, the example of Eleazar is relevant.

Why is he eating at the sinner's house?

Gospel, Lk 19:1-10

1 He entered Jericho and was going through the town 2 and suddenly a man whose name was Zacchaeus made his appearance; he was one of the senior tax collectors and a wealthy man. 3 He kept trying to see which Jesus was, but he was too short and could not see him for the crowd; 4 so he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore tree to catch a glimpse of Jesus who was to pass that way.

5 When Jesus reached the spot he looked up and spoke to him, ‘Zacchaeus, come down. Hurry, because I am to stay at your house today.’ 6 And he hurried down and welcomed him joyfully.

7 They all complained when they saw what was happening. ‘He has gone to stay at a sinner’s house,’ they said. 8 But Zacchaeus stood his ground and said to the Lord, ‘Look, sir, I am going to give half my property to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody I will pay him back four times the amount.’

9 And Jesus said to him, ‘Today salvation has come to this house, because this man too is a son of Abraham; 10 for the Son of man has come to seek out and save what was lost.’

Zacchaeus was the sort who collaborates with the oppressor of his countrymen, not only out of fear, but even more, from greed: with the authority of the oppressor he preyed on his own people by collecting Roman taxes at a profit to himself. Perhaps he had used the back-up of the Roman army to threaten those who refused to pay what he demanded. He’s the ancient equivalent of the Mafia gangsters who collaborated with the Nazis. The example of Eleazar’s principled and costly refusal, points up how unprincipled is Zacchaeus’s compliance. Only by understanding how untouchable Z had become, can we understand the crowd’s reaction when Jesus accepted hospitality from him.

 Jesus offered Z an “advance of dignity”: by eating with him he conferred on him a worth he had not earned. In response Z showed himself worthy of what Jesus had given. He acted as a just and honourable person and was restored to the community ofhis people. This incident demonstrates why Jesus’ actions were offensive both to Jews and Romans. 

Understanding the consciences of those whom the state coerces, is one lesson we can learn from today’s readings. Understanding Jesus’ way of saving what is lost by means of an advance of dignity is another.