#dom henry wansbrough
Amid the challenging prophecies of persecution for His followers comes Jesus’ promise of the witness of the Paraclete, The [Holy Spirit Himself, Who] is to be the backbone or mainstay of the [nascent] Christian movement as [either] the substitute for, or [altered] Presence of, the physical Jesus. [Initially] the help provided by this ‘Advocate’ concerned the truth of the [internalized] message: the Paraclete would make clear to the disciples the implications and the fullness of the message of Christ. Now, [this depth being grasped,] the Paraclete faces outwards in bearing witness to that truth.
‘Paraclete’ is obviously a sort of work-name for the Spirit. In the Book of Judges, the spirit of God – not yet understood as a separate Person – comes suddenly upon God’s chosen agent (Gideon, Samson, Saul), giving power to lead Israel to confront enemies and conquer them. Here, however, [coming upon those chosen by the Son,] the Spirit bears witness by giving the strength to confront opposition and speak out boldly, as we see the apostles doing in the Book of Acts. [The Holy Spirit remains willing and able to bestow this strength upon all Christians facing spiritual warfare, both within and without,] but we still retain free will, and no strength will come from the Paraclete unless our own spirit is moved to stand firm. In the daily calls to bear witness by putting ourselves out [onto the front lines], by risking loss of ease, credit, or comfort, let alone actual pain, [injury, or even death], our own resolution is needed too.
Dom Henry Wansbrough; Commentary on John 15:26
The description of the New Jerusalem, the bride of Christ, [is] highly symbolic. The twelve gates (drawn from Ezekiel’s prophecy) face the four quarters of the compass, to show that it embraces the whole universe and is four-square solid. They symbolise the twelve tribes of Israel and so also the twelve apostles. The richness and contentment [thereof] is hinted by the sparkle of precious stones, not only diamonds but many others too. The dimensions of the city are vast: a cube of 1,500 miles in each direction. [For scale, that measures approximately from present-day Jerusalem to Afghanistan and Ethiopia! Yet even across all this space, there is] no need for the light and warmth of the sun, for the Lord God and the Lamb provide a single source of its nourishment and illumination. [And there is] no need for a sacred area, for the presence of the Lord God and the Lamb make the whole city a sacred area.This [description, as a whole,] is the ultimate goal of Creation, when all is absorbed into God, the ultimate fulfilment of ‘Thy Kingdom come’. The Letter to the Ephesians expresses it as the whole universe ‘headed up’ into Christ– [restoring His rightful position of universal authority as a head to the body, or a groom to a bride– and thus] making sense of Creation and bringing Creation to its completion.
Dom Henry Wansbrough; Commentary on Revelation 21
From the very beginning of Christianity the followers of Christ lived under threat [from both religious and secular powers], as the Acts of the Apostles makes clear. The martyrdom of Stephen and the floggings of Paul show the danger from the [misguidedly zealous] Jews. The refusal of Christians to proclaim that ‘Caesar is Lord’, [yet] their obstinacy at proclaiming, ‘Christ is Lord’ soon brought whippings to Paul and martyrdom to the Apostles [at the hands of the Roman Empire]. In many lands [even today,] Christianophobia– the hatred of Christians– is rife to the point of death or flight. In more sophisticated lands, [where blatant violence is largely disdained], there is a muted derision for those ‘soft enough in the head’ to believe the story of Christianity, building on a deserved contempt for the real failures of Christians to live out our ideals. [We tragically fail to truly imitate our Master, Who meekly endured far more persecution than we ever will, and Who was completely innocent of their charges. Nevertheless,] yes, 'they will persecute you too;’ [and so we should humbly accept our rightful crosses in return. This has been, and shall remain, our paradoxically blessed lot from the beginning].
Dom Henry Wansbrough; Commentary on John 15:20
The vine had long been a beloved symbol of Israel… in the Last Supper discourse, on the way to Gethsemane, it acquires a new dimension, the pain of pruning. However, the suffering of Jesus is not the principal point here: [rather, it is that all] disciples of Jesus must be prepared to bear the pain of pruning. The image is a powerful one. To an uninstructed onlooker, the wretched, seemingly lifeless twigs left on the vines appear totally unable to burgeon in a few months into the rich harvest of grapes. The most powerful of all the aspects of the symbol is the sap pulsing through those apparently dead branches. There is all the difference in the world between those docked shoots [still thriving within], and the dead twigs scattered on the ground, [their wild growth availing nothing.Humble] adherence to the vine, to Christ himself, alone gives life to the Church.
Dom Henry Wansbrough; Commentary on John 15
The word ‘commandment’ often implies coercion and regimentation, and ‘obedience’ implies an unwilling or even a sulky child. In the case of God’s commands, however, a commandment is a gift, indicating the way in which love can be expressed; and obedience is a way of seeking to draw closer to God by imitation. The lover seeks to act like the beloved, to be modelled on the qualities which are loved and admired. The commands of God are not random or domineering, but are indications of the ways in which we can draw just a little nearer to the infinite qualities which are seen in the creating and redeeming God. The generosity seen in the beauties of nature and humanity, in the beauty of tolerance and forgiveness, are reflections of the divine qualities. This [humble, constant, compassionate “reflecting”] is how Jesus kept His Father’s commandments and remained in His love, and how we too may do the same.
It might even be said that Jesus needed to suffer so that we might see that God too can endure suffering. Suffering and the supreme suffering of death are human experiences which cannot [derive from] God, [nor can they be said to reflect any quality of divine perfection, for sin and death only entered the human experience through sin]. And so Jesus Himself took them on to share and ennoble these also, [transmuting death itself into a door to life– a paradox only God Himself could accomplish]. Jesus showed His love of the Father and His love of humanity by adopting and enduring the experiences which cannot touch an impassive God– [by being so touched, He proved His tender heart forever.] Such is the full meaning of the love expressed by ‘as the Father has loved Me, so have I loved you.’
Dom Henry Wansbrough; Commentary on John 15:9-17
To love Jesus means to keep His commandments. [Such keeping] is not a matter of mere obedience but of loving imitation. [Try as one might, it is impossible to honestly obey anyone unless one also loves them; neither pride nor indifference can even feign the virtues of humility and dedication required to observe another’s commands. On the other hand,] if I love a person, I want to keep that person’s commandments, both out of loyalty and out of respect for that person’s qualities: [for as one who loves will easily discern,] the commandments [given] will reveal and mirror that person’s qualities. So, the Law given by Moses reveals God’s nature by what He commands. Just so, the actions of Jesus reveal His and the Father’s nature: He heals, He loves, He judges, He forgives, He commands. To obey the commands [given by our loving God] is a response in love, [not legalism. To keep them, like a gift, is the natural and necessary consequence of our personal relationship to Him]: we need to do just that.
Dom Henry Wansbrough; Commentary on John 14:15
[John 13:31] is the start of John’s report of the great final teaching of Jesus at the Last Supper about the future of His Church and His disciples. [It is] a great discourse of Jesus about the obligations, duties and dangers which will come upon His disciples after His own death and resurrection, [a time we also live in. So, like the Apostles,] as we approach the Birth of the Church at Pentecost, we need to listen to how Jesus envisaged His community. [This discourse immediately] gives the essentials. At the head of the Christian community stands [Christ,] the glorified Son of Man, in Whom God is glorified. But this is no distant figurehead, for He will come to be present among His disciples. And how? In the love which His disciples show for one another. One is reminded of the legend about the aged Saint John, wheeled into the church at Ephesus. When asked for the message of Jesus, all he would say was, ‘My little children, love one another.’
Dom Henry Wansbrough; Commentary on John 13:31-35
As we prepare for the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost and prepare for the renewal of our own mission to the world, we begin [to ready our hearts] with a firm demand for faith in Jesus, which is the same as belief in the Father. Faith is not just an intellectual assent but includes trust, a confidence that we can leave everything in the hands of Jesus.
Dom Henry Wansbrough
The [Christian] community at Antioch was the first established community of which we hear outside Judaea and Samaria… [and it is in Antioch] that the group received a name, and so became a coherent recognisable entity. [This was an] important step forward in the development of the Church; [after all, even the first] Adam had to name the creatures before their creation could be completed! The Greek name Χριστιανούς (“Christianoi”) has the shape and sound which suggests slight contempt, a sort of nickname. It means, of course, ‘Messianists’, those who distinguished themselves from their fellow-Jews by thinking that the Messiah had actually come.
Dom Henry Wansbrough; Commentary on Acts 11:26
The context of the annual Festival of Dedication of the Temple gives a special meaning to Jesus’ claim [of His divinity in John 10:30]. On this festival of the return of the LORD to his Temple (after its desecration by the Syrian King Antiochus Epiphanes) Jesus is claiming that He Himself is the abode of God. [Indeed,] throughout the Gospel, Jesus has been making His own the institutions of Judaism. At Cana, He takes over the jars of water for Jewish rites of purification, making them the wine of His wedding-feast. Then He goes to Jerusalem and [functionally] replaces the perishable Temple with the Temple which is His Body. He makes the Sabbath His own by working on it as only God may do. He, rather than the manna provided by Moses, is the life-giving Bread from heaven. At Tabernacles, the festival of light and water, He declares that He is the Light of the world and the Source of Living Water. Finally, He will make the Passover His own at the Last Supper, and as the paschal lamb. It is this [record of so acting and speaking with Divinely transmutative religious authority] which gives the context and significance to the claim that ‘I and the Father are one.’ [Tragically, even though] the hostile question of the Jews [sparked] off Jesus’ sayings, [they are still unwilling to accept His unchanging response] and immediately after this passage they take up stones to throw at Him, [only misunderstanding] His claim to be one with the Father as blasphemy [rather than Truth].
Dom Henry Wansbrough; Commentary on John 10:22-30
[Acts 11:1-18] is not the actual [or ‘real-time’] narration in Acts of the conversion of Cornelius– [that is recorded in 10:1-29–] but Peter’s rendering of it to the community [of Jewish converts to Christianity] when he is justifying his action [of not only visiting but also eating with the Gentiles]. Like the story of Paul’s conversion, this story therefore occurs three times in Acts– [first as narrative, then twice again as speech–]showing the importance of this moment when the first gentile is received into the Church, [and the need to continually proclaim this universal heart of the Good News]. Nevertheless, Peter is humble and witty enough to include his little tiff with the Voice from heaven, whose liberalism so scandalised him, and which [therefore] ended up by roundly ticking him off for his criticism of God’s creation [as 'unclean’]! Peter also amusingly stresses that the Holy Spirit, and not himself, was responsible for the acceptance of the first gentile: in the original account the Spirit merely 'interrupted’ Peter (10:44), whereas now Peter [himself] says, [in effect, that his speech was neither a requirement nor a cause for grace– emphasizing that] he hardly had time to begin speaking when the Spirit poured down!
Dom Henry Wansbrough; Commentary on Acts 11:1-18
