The English Lions, the Polish Eagle, the Gallic Rooster… To the uninitiated ear, it might sound like a part of a zoo inventory while actually, all three terms relate to the national football teams taking part in the current World Cup in Qatar. In fact, animals might represent countries in more ways than sports. Many countries use animal imagery as their official coat of arms. Some of them are quite funny, like the two-headed Eagle of Russia (a genetic freak accident?), the Lion and Unicorn of the United Kingdom (a non-native and a fairy-tale species respectively). Then animals are commonly used to unofficially portray various countries, like the Russian Bear or Chinese Dragon, or to describe economic trends in stock markets (the bull and bear respectively). The two main political parties in the USA have the donkey and the elephant as their mascots. Calling an individual a specific animal can be an expression of a close, intimate relationship, or it can be an insult or unfavourable labelling. Overall, the use of animals in our social and political life is so widespread and common that we barely notice it. But if we recall this linguistic phenomenon, it will be much easier to understand today’s first reading.
It is a rather moving vision of the peaceful coexistence of various animals in nature hostile to each other. The natural predator and prey paired together would share the same space without harming each other and – even more – their young would play together and their adults would cooperate. It looks like a vegan paradise but this is not going to happen because animals always follow their instincts. Of course, we have domesticated some species and we are able to train them to a certain extent but they remain the exceptions rather than the norm. However, this vision of the prophet Isaiah didn’t address challenging behaviour among animals but among people whose attitudes and behaviours were represented by those animals. Such a dramatic change would be the result of a specific event: “A shoot springs from the stock of Jesse, a scion thrusts from his roots: on him the spirit of the Lord rests, a spirit of wisdom and insight, a spirit of counsel and power, a spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord.” This opening line referred to King David (whose father’s name was Jesse) and indirectly to the old prophecy that King David’s offspring would restore and re-establish the powerful, independent kingdom of Israel. Generally speaking, since its heyday in the times of King Solomon, the direct successor to David, that kingdom was in decline to the point when it eventually ceased to exist, conquered by much more powerful empires. What the Israelites were left with was the hope of restoration and this was what the prophet Isiah was feeding in his vision.
He saw such a revival as a result of the appearance of a champion, King David’s successor, who would lead to a renewal of the moral and social norms as set by Jewish Law. We tend to assume that it was inferior or even wrong because of multiple clashes between Jesus and his opponents, often described as proponents and defenders of the law. However, the overall meaning of the Law of Moses was in line with what Jesus taught. It’s self-evident in one exchange, when “a lawyer asked [Jesus] a question to test him. “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have given the right answer. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:34-40; Luke 10:25-28) The Law in itself wasn’t wrong or bad; the problem was that its implementation was often superficial and heartless. The term “loophole” might be relatively modern but the creative use of legal inconsistencies is as old as law itself. Allegedly, lawyers are the second oldest profession in the world…
That could explain John the Baptist’s reaction in today’s gospel when he’d spotted experts in the Jewish Law, “a number of Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism”. He called them the “brood of vipers”, which was hardly a pleasant welcome to give them. In fact, it could have easily been considered very harsh and deeply insulting for two reasons. Firstly, vipers or serpents had such a bad reputation that in the biblical tradition they symbolised the devil. Secondly, John’s opinion was the polar opposite of the Pharisees’ own perception of themselves as the vanguard, leaders and models of Jewish piety. However, we find the justification of John’s stern name-calling in the immediate follow-up: “if you are repentant, produce the appropriate fruit.” John’s thinly veiled accusation of the Pharisees was their superficial, customary adherence to the letter of the Law but not to its spirit. His assessment wasn’t unique; in fact, it won him a lot of support as it was shared by many common folk. John’s calls were to replace hypocritically superficial, habitual practices with intentional, deliberate acts of charitable love. Calls for such a change were timely in the era of the Old Testamental prophets, at the time of John the Baptist and Jesus’ respective ministries as well as in our times. Why? Because we are creatures of habit and we easily fall into a thoughtless, automatic rut. So, every now and again we need a wake-up call to refresh and renew our commitment to mindful and attentive charitable love.
