Johnbritto Kurusumuthu, the founder of Rise&Inspire—a space where his passions for law, faith, technology, and personal growth come together. His journey began in teaching, government service, and policy work, always guided by a commitment to integrity and the public good. Over time, he discovered the joy of writing—not just to explain, but to empower. What started as a small blog has now grown into a platform where he shares reflections on faith, legal literacy, technology, and daily inspiration. He believes words can transform people, and people, in turn, can transform the world. For him, faith and reason walk hand in hand, and knowledge should always be accessible and practical. Open to collaborations in writing, research, digital outreach, and social impact, he extends an invitation:let’s rise and inspire together.
By John Britto Kurusumuthu · Rise & Inspire · 12 November 2026 · 6-minute read
Today’s prompt asks what I have forgiven but not forgotten. There is something. I will not name it here. Naming it would mean telling the story once more, and every retelling puts the same person back in the wrong. I stopped doing that some time ago.
The prompt quietly assumes that the “not forgotten” part is a leftover, a sign that the forgiving is unfinished. I have come to believe the opposite. You cannot forgive what you have forgotten.
IN BRIEF Forgiveness does not require forgetting; it requires memory. To forgive is to decide about a wrong you remember. What forgiveness releases is not the memory, but the resentment and the sense that a debt is still owed. Memory, kept without rehearsal, also protects the boundaries and the slow rebuilding of trust that forgiveness alone cannot restore.
1. Forgetting Is Not the Summit of Forgiveness; It Is Its Absence
Forgiveness is a decision about something you know. A debt can be cancelled only by someone who remembers that it is owed; a debt that has slipped off the books has not been cancelled, merely lost. Forgiveness is a gift precisely because the giver knows what it costs.
Psychology arrives at the same place. Robert Enright, a pioneer of forgiveness research, defines forgiveness in part as “a willingness to abandon one’s right to resentment.”1 No one can give up a right they have forgotten they hold.
2. “Forgive and Forget”: Why the Plea Often Comes from the Wrong Side
We say “forgive and forget.” Shakespeare has it the other way round. Near the end of King Lear (Act 4, Scene 7), the old king wakes in the care of Cordelia, the daughter he disowned. He tells her she has some cause not to love him. She replies, “No cause, no cause.” Later in the scene he pleads, “Pray you now, forget and forgive. I am old and foolish.”2
Notice who asks for forgetting, and that he puts it first. Forgetting is often the convenience of the one who caused the wound. Cordelia, for her part, never claims to have forgotten. She declares that what she remembers will no longer count as a cause. That is forgiveness in four words.
3. The Enemy Is Not Memory but Rehearsal
The Dhammapada, a Pali collection of the Buddha’s sayings, draws this line precisely. Its third verse lists four complaints: he insulted me, he struck me, he defeated me, he robbed me. Where such thoughts are constantly revisited, it says, hatred does not cease. The fourth verse repeats the four complaints word for word: where they are not revisited, hatred comes to rest.3
The wrong is named in both verses. What changes is not the memory but the habit of revisiting it: replaying the conversation, rehearsing the reply we should have given, reopening files we had long since closed.
Modern psychology has put this ancient intuition to the test. In three longitudinal studies, Michael McCullough and his colleagues found that as people ruminated more about a hurt, their forgiveness declined, largely because rumination kept their anger alive. In the third study, the evidence suggested that the rumination came first.4
There is a difference between remembering a wound and continuing to live inside it. The former can make us wiser; the latter can prevent us from finding peace.
4. Why Forgiveness Needs Memory to Stay Wise
Forgiveness settles the past. Trust is credit extended to the future, and it has to be earned again; forgiveness does not automatically hand back the keys. As the psychologist Everett Worthington puts it, “Forgiveness happens inside people’s skin. Reconciliation happens between people.”5
In The Book of Forgiving, Desmond Tutu and his daughter Mpho Tutu describe a fourfold path: telling the story, naming the hurt, granting forgiveness, and renewing or releasing the relationship.6 The first two steps are acts of remembering. The last admits that a relationship may be released without forgiveness being withdrawn.
We can forgive someone and still establish boundaries. We can wish them well without returning to the same relationship. We can treat them with kindness without giving them the same place in our lives. None of this is possible without memory.
5. Does the Highest Forgiveness Require Forgetting?
Some traditions seem to say so. Through the prophet Jeremiah, God promises, “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jeremiah 31:34). If God forgives by forgetting, why should we remember?
The Hebrew verb for “remember,” zakar, often means more than recall; it carries the sense of acting on what is remembered.7 When Genesis says that “God remembered Noah” (Genesis 8:1), it does not mean that God had lost track of him. The very next words tell of a wind sent over the earth to make the waters recede. To remember sin no more, then, is to promise never again to bring it forward as a charge. Paul speaks in the same spirit of the Lord choosing not to count sin against the forgiven (Romans 4:8). That is not amnesia. It is Cordelia’s answer: the memory remains, but it no longer counts as a cause.
I concede this much. Some hurts do fade with time, and we should let them go gratefully. But that fading is a mercy given to us, not a forgiveness given by us.
6. Forgiveness Is a Practice, Not a Single Event
Worthington distinguishes two movements within forgiveness. Decisional forgiveness is a resolve to treat the offender differently; emotional forgiveness is a slower change of heart in which resentment gives way to feelings such as empathy and compassion.5 The decision can be made in a day. The feelings follow at their own pace, and memory is where that work is done.
If forgiveness depends on memory, a memory’s return is not a failure. Each time it comes back, unbidden, it brings a fresh choice: to reopen the account and wait again for an apology that may never come, or to decline, once more, to treat it as a cause.
Conclusion: What I Have Forgiven but Not Forgotten
So what have I forgiven but not forgotten? I have answered without quite answering. I remember what happened. I have simply stopped keeping the account.
Perhaps that is the real strength of forgiveness: to remember without resentment, to forgive without losing wisdom, and to move forward without allowing yesterday’s pain to determine tomorrow’s happiness. Let us forgive where we can, learn where we must, and protect the peace we have worked so hard to find.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can you forgive someone without forgetting what they did?
Yes. Forgiveness releases resentment, not memory. The International Forgiveness Institute notes that forgiving does not erase the memory of the event; the two can exist side by side.1 In fact, you can forgive only a wrong you remember. What changes is not whether you remember, but whether the memory still demands payment.
Is forgiveness the same as reconciliation?
No. Forgiveness is an inner decision; reconciliation is a restored relationship, and it needs trust on both sides.5 You can forgive someone and still decide, with good reason, not to resume the relationship. Where both sides are willing, the work of reconciliation can begin.
Does forgiveness require an apology?
No, though an apology helps. Many people forgive while still waiting for an apology that never comes. Reconciliation is another matter: it is far more likely when there is a genuine apology and a real change of behaviour.
Why do painful memories return after I have forgiven?
Because the decision to forgive and the healing of feelings move at different speeds.5Hurts that are never examined tend to resurface as repeated patterns. A returning memory is not proof that forgiveness failed. It is an invitation to give it again, and to stop rehearsing the old complaint.
Does the Bible say God forgets our sins?
Jeremiah 31:34 promises that God will “remember their sin no more.” In Hebrew usage, however, to remember often means to act upon. The promise is that sin will no longer be held against the forgiven, not that divine knowledge has lapsed.7
A Question for Reflection
Is there something you have forgiven but not forgotten? When the memory returns, do you take it as proof that your forgiveness failed, or as a chance to give it again?
Strive to rise above resentment, learn from experience, and inspire others through the wisdom you gain.
Notes and References
1. Robert D. Enright’s definition of forgiveness, as presented in Rosemary Kite, “The Art and Science of Forgiveness,” International Forgiveness Institute, 5 October 2019. The same article notes that forgiving does not erase the memory of the event. internationalforgiveness.com
2. William Shakespeare, King Lear, Act 4, Scene 7. Online text: The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, MIT. shakespeare.mit.edu
3. Dhammapada, verses 3–4 (Yamakavagga, “The Pairs”), paraphrased. For a public-domain translation, see F. Max Müller, trans., The Dhammapada, Sacred Books of the East, vol. 10 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1881), Project Gutenberg eBook no. 2017. gutenberg.org
4. Michael E. McCullough, Giacomo Bono and Lindsey M. Root, “Rumination, Emotion, and Forgiveness: Three Longitudinal Studies,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92, no. 3 (2007): 490–505. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.490
5. Everett L. Worthington Jr., The Science of Forgiveness (Virginia Commonwealth University, April 2020; published online by the John Templeton Foundation), pp. 4 and 9. templeton.org
6. Desmond Tutu and Mpho Tutu, The Book of Forgiving: The Fourfold Path for Healing Ourselves and Our World (New York: HarperOne, 2014).
7. W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger and William White Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996), s.v. “remember”; see also Sandra Aviv, “What Does ‘Remember’ Mean in Hebrew?,” Israel Bible Center, 31 August 2026. israelbiblecenter.com
Scripture quotations are from the King James Version.
Today’s prompt asks which video game world I would choose to live in. I am the wrong person to ask. A fortnight ago I confessed that my first video game had no screen at all: a circle in the dust, a few marbles and two pieces of wood.
So I did what an outsider should do. I read what the players chose. Among today’s answers I found a quiet farming village, the world of Pokémon, even the bare court of Pong. Each was chosen with confidence, and each rested on the same unspoken assumption.
1. Every answer arrives as the hero
No one imagines entering a favourite world as the man who sweeps the tavern floor. We picture ourselves as the player: the one who explores, collects, grows stronger and saves the day. That is natural. In a game, you are always the player.
2. Most of a game world is scenery
Every game is built around one person. Everyone else is what gamers call a non-player character: the shopkeeper, the guard, the villager who repeats the same three lines whenever you pass. They exist so that the hero’s story can happen. To live in such a world, rather than play it, means you would very likely be one of them.
3. A test from philosophy
In 1971 the American philosopher John Rawls proposed a test for a fair society.[1] He said we should choose its rules from behind a “veil of ignorance”, not knowing whether we will be born rich or poor, strong or weak, favoured or forgotten. Rules you would accept from any position are fair rules.
4. Run our favourite worlds through it
They change shape at once. Pong has two paddles and one ball, so you have a one-in-three chance of spending eternity being struck back and forth. In the world of Pokémon the trainers are few and the creatures many; you are more likely to live in the ball than to throw it. In the heroic kingdoms, someone must be the villager whose house burns in the opening scene so that the adventure can begin. In the cozy farming village, someone runs the small shop that the big new store is driving out of business.
None of this is a complaint against games. It is simply what the word “live” adds to the word “play”.
5. A poet who measured a kingdom from the bottom
Kamban, the Tamil poet who retold the Ramayana, gives many verses to the prosperity of Kosala, Rama’s homeland.[2] The verse most often quoted describes no palace. In Kosala, it says, there was no charity, because there was no poverty. There was no show of valour, because there were no enemies. Truth needed no defending, because no one lied. Kamban did not measure his ideal kingdom from the throne. He measured it from the place where a beggar would have stood, and found no one standing there.
6. The city with one cellar
Ursula K. Le Guin imagined the opposite in her 1973 story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”.[3] Omelas is a city of music, festivals and contented people. Its happiness depends on one child kept alone in a dark cellar, and every citizen knows it. Most make their peace with that. A few quietly walk away. Choose a world as its hero, and you may never visit the cellar. Choose it from behind the veil, and the cellar might be yours.
7. The fair objection
A gamer will say I have missed the point. Games are escapes, and nobody plays to be the baker. That is true, and for an evening there is no harm in being the hero. But the prompt does not ask where we would spend an evening. It asks where we would live, and living means accepting the place we are given. None of us chose our character in this world either. That is exactly why the test is worth taking.
8. My choice
So I would not choose the world with the grandest adventure. I would choose the one in which I could be content as its least important person. That person never enters the hero’s story and keeps a small field at the edge of the map. He is still safe, fed and fairly treated when the hero rides past. A few of the gentler worlds in today’s answers might pass that test. I shall not name one, because the name matters less than the test.
And the test does not stay inside the screen. The world we already live in deserves the same question: how does it treat the people nobody would choose to be?
Your turn: If you couldn’t choose your character, would you still choose your world? Tell me which world, and who you think you would most likely be in it.
Notes for readers
[1] John Rawls (1921 to 2002) was an American political philosopher. He set out the “veil of ignorance” in his book A Theory of Justice (1971).
[2] Kamban composed the Ramavataram, popularly called the Kamba Ramayanam, usually dated to the twelfth century. The verse appears in the Nattu Padalam (the canto on the country) of the Bala Kandam; verse numbers differ between editions. Its opening line runs “Vanmai illai or varumai inmaiyal”: there is no charity, for there is no poverty.
[3] Ursula K. Le Guin (1929 to 2018) first published “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” in 1973, and it won the Hugo Award for best short story in 1974. She subtitled it “Variations on a theme by William James”. In his 1891 essay “The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life”, James imagined a world whose happiness was bought by the lonely suffering of one lost soul.
John Britto Kurusumuthu
Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in
In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt, 11 November 2026: If you got to live inside a video game world, which one would you choose?
For years I treated outcomes as my responsibility and my reactions as something that simply happened to me. Life taught me the reverse, and showed me where faith begins.
John Britto Kurusumuthu · Founder, Rise & Inspire · About 8 minutes’ reading
WordPress Daily Writing Prompt:What life lesson did you learn too late?
I had heard this lesson many times before I learned it. Some truths arrive early as information and late as understanding, and the distance between the two can take decades to cross.
Put simply, the lesson about control and faith that I learned too late is this: I cannot control everything, and I do not need all the answers to live by faith. What took me years to see was not the truth of it, but how completely I had been living against it.
Last month, answering a related prompt, I wrote that hindsight is a teacher, not a judge. Today’s question asks for something more personal: not what I would tell a younger self, but what I myself understood only late.
THE SHORT ANSWER
I had control the wrong way round. I spent years trying to manage outcomes that were never mine, and too little effort governing the responses that always were. Faith begins where control ends: it means doing my part fully and trusting God with the rest, even when no explanation is given.
1. I had the map upside down
For much of my life, I treated outcomes as my responsibility and my reactions as something that simply happened to me. I lost sleep over decisions that rested with other people: a promotion, a result, an opinion someone else would form. Yet when someone spoke harshly to me, I would say, “He made me angry,” as though my response were his to command.
Life taught me the reverse. Outcomes are seldom entirely mine. My choices, my attitude, my words and my response to difficulty always are. I had been guarding territory I did not own and neglecting the one place where I truly governed.
Psychologists have a name for the first half of this mistake. The psychologist Ellen Langer named it the illusion of control: the tendency to expect more influence over events than the facts allow.1 It is a flattering illusion. If everything depends on me, then every good outcome is my achievement and every bad one my failure. Both conclusions are usually wrong.
2. Worry is not the same as responsibility
I assumed that a person who cared would worry, and that a person who stopped worrying had stopped caring. Worry felt like conscientiousness. In practice, it mostly rehearsed futures that never arrived.
Research bears this out. In a study published in Behavior Therapy in 2020, Lucas LaFreniere and Michelle Newman of Penn State asked twenty-nine people with generalised anxiety disorder to record their worries over ten days and then track what actually happened. About 91 per cent of the worries did not come true, and the most common result for an individual participant was that none of them did.2 The sample was small and clinical, so it should not be stretched too far, but its direction matches what most of us discover by middle age.
Epictetus understood this without a study. Born a slave at Hierapolis in Phrygia and lame for much of his life, he controlled almost nothing about his circumstances. Yet the handbook his student Arrian compiled from his teaching opens with one plain sentence: “Some things are in our control and others not.”3 If a man with so little control could build a philosophy on that distinction, I had little excuse for confusing the two.
Today, when a worry arrives, I ask one question before any other: is this mine to act on? If it is, I act. If it is not, I pray, and I set it down. I have described the small, practical ways I set worries down elsewhere; the point here is simpler. Worry is not a duty I owe to the people I love.
3. Letting go of control is not giving up
This is where the lesson is most easily misread, and where I misread it longest. Giving up abandons the effort. Letting go releases my claim on the result.
The Bhagavad Gita draws the line with precision. Krishna tells Arjuna that his right is to the work alone, never to its fruits, and in the same verse warns him against clinging to inaction.4 Acceptance, then, is not permission to stop trying. It is permission to stop pretending that the harvest is mine to decree.
Nor is acceptance a reason to tolerate what I can and should change: an unfair arrangement, a neglected duty, a habit that harms. Letting go applies to outcomes, not to responsibilities. So I still plan, still work hard and still hope, and I try to commit the work to God rather than carry it alone. I simply no longer measure my worth by results that were never wholly in my hands.
4. Faith does not wait for explanations
Some questions stay unanswered. Why do sincere prayers sometimes seem unheard? Why do careful plans collapse? I once thought faith meant having answers to such questions. I now see it as the willingness to trust God when answers are unavailable.
“Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.”
Proverbs 3:5 (NIV)5
Notice what the verse does not say. It does not ask me to discard my understanding. It asks me not to lean on it, not to rest my whole weight on it as though it could bear everything. Elsewhere the same book admits that we cannot fully understand our own ways (Proverbs 20:24). Faith is what lets us keep walking anyway.
Faith, in this sense, is not passive resignation. It is doing my part sincerely, praying for guidance, and leaving the outcome in God’s hands. It also means making peace with the words “I don’t know”, which I now count as a mark of honesty rather than a failure of faith.
5. What I would tell my younger self
I once wrote that I would hand my younger self a compass rather than a map and say as little as possible. On this lesson I would make an exception and speak plainly:
Do your best, but do not assume that everything depends on you. Plan carefully, but remain flexible. Work sincerely, but do not measure your worth only by results. Care for people, but do not try to run their lives. And when circumstances move beyond your understanding, do not let uncertainty take away your faith.
The face that did not change
In the Kamba Ramayanam, the classical Tamil retelling of the Ramayana, the poet Kamban describes Sita, held captive in Lanka, remembering her husband’s face.6 When Rama was told he would be crowned, and when he was told to give up the kingdom and leave for the forest, his face looked the same: like a red lotus in a painting. A living lotus closes at dusk. A painted one stays open whatever the hour.
That is the composure I have come to admire. Not a life spared from reversal, but a spirit that reversal cannot fold shut. It does not come from controlling events. It comes from no longer staking one’s peace on them.
Too late, or just in time?
Did I learn this lesson too late? Late, certainly. But a lesson comes too late only if it changes nothing. Learned today, it still governs every day that remains.
Life is not always about finding answers. Sometimes it is about learning to live peacefully with unanswered questions. I cannot control every chapter of my life, nor understand every turn in its story. But I can live responsibly, respond with patience, treat others with kindness, and trust God with the pages I have not yet read.
A question for you, dear reader
Which lesson about control, acceptance or trust reached you later than you wish it had, and what changed once it arrived?
Share your thoughts in the comments. Your experience may offer someone else the wisdom they need today.
Frequently asked questions
What does it mean to let go without giving up?
Giving up abandons the effort; letting go releases your claim on the outcome. You keep doing your part fully, but you stop treating results that depend on other people, on timing or on chance as your personal responsibility.
What is the dichotomy of control?
It is the Stoic principle, set out at the start of Epictetus’s Handbook, that separates what is within our power (our judgements, intentions and actions) from what is not (other people, reputation, circumstances and outcomes). The Stoics held that peace comes from attending to the first and accepting the second.
Do most of our worries actually come true?
The evidence suggests not. In a small 2020 study of people with generalised anxiety disorder, about 91 per cent of recorded worries did not come true, and participants who saw more of their worries prove false improved more in treatment.
Does faith require having all the answers?
No. Proverbs 3:5 asks the believer to trust God rather than lean on their own understanding. Faith in this sense is not certainty; it is trust that continues when explanations are unavailable, alongside sincere effort and prayer.
Notes and references
Ellen J. Langer, “The Illusion of Control,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32, no. 2 (1975): 311–328, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.32.2.311. The general tendency to overestimate one’s influence over events is cited here. One well-known demonstration, that simply choosing a lottery ticket raises confidence of winning, was not supported by seventeen later experiments: Joowon Klusowski, Deborah A. Small and Joseph P. Simmons, “Does Choice Cause an Illusion of Control?” Psychological Science 32, no. 2 (2021): 159–172, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620958009. That experiment is therefore not relied on.
Lucas S. LaFreniere and Michelle G. Newman, “Exposing Worry’s Deceit: Percentage of Untrue Worries in Generalized Anxiety Disorder Treatment,” Behavior Therapy 51, no. 3 (2020): 413–423, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2019.07.003. Participants recorded worries for ten days and tracked their outcomes over thirty days.
Epictetus, Enchiridion 1, trans. Elizabeth Carter (1758), MIT Internet Classics Archive. Epictetus (c. 50–c. 135 CE) was born a slave at Hierapolis in Phrygia, in present-day Türkiye. He wrote nothing himself; his teaching was recorded by his student Arrian in the Discourses and the Enchiridion (Handbook), both of which open with the distinction between what is and is not in our power.
Bhagavad Gita 2.47, paraphrased. The Gita is a 700-verse dialogue between Krishna and the warrior prince Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, and forms part of the Mahabharata. Sanskrit text and translation: shlokam.org.
Kamban, Kamba Ramayanam (Iramavataram), Sundara Kandam, Kaatchi Padalam. Kamban, usually dated to the twelfth century, wrote the best-known Tamil version of the Ramayana. In this verse Sita, in the Ashoka grove, recalls that Rama’s face was like a red lotus in a painting both when he was told to take the throne and when he was told to renounce it: ‘மெய்த் திருப்பதம் மேவு’ என்ற போதினும், ‘இத் திருத் துறந்து ஏகு’ என்ற போதினும், சித்திரத்தின் அலர்ந்த செந்தாமரை ஒத்திருக்கும் முகத்தினை உன்னுவாள். Verse numbers differ between editions; the English rendering here is a paraphrase. Tamil text as reproduced by the Tamil Virtual Academy.
When I was younger, I thought friendship was about spending time together, sharing experiences, enjoying conversations and having people around me. A good friend was someone who made life more enjoyable, joined me in celebrations and shared my interests.
That view was not wrong. Shared time is how most friendships begin. But it was incomplete, because it measured friendship by what we enjoyed together. The passing years have taught me to measure it by something harder: what it can survive.
We are usually told that adversity is the real test. A friend in need is a friend indeed. The Roman poet Ennius said as much more than two thousand years ago, in a line preserved by Cicero: a sure friend is discerned in an unsure time.1 I do not doubt it. But growing older has shown me that hardship is not the only test of friendship, and perhaps not even the hardest.
1. Success is a harder test than sorrow.
Most decent people will stand by a friend in trouble, because sorrow invites sympathy. Success invites comparison instead. Many of us have received congratulations that arrived a day late and a word short. Oscar Wilde observed that anybody can sympathise with a friend’s sufferings, but it takes a very fine nature to sympathise with a friend’s success.2
The test runs both ways. One of India’s best-loved stories of friendship concerns the friend who prospered. When Kuchela, poor and threadbare, arrives at the palace of his boyhood friend Krishna carrying only a small bundle of flattened rice, the king rises to embrace him and relishes the humble gift as though it were a feast.3
Once, I assumed that a friendship that went quiet was dying. Now I know that people carry families, responsibilities and private struggles of their own. Some friendships fall silent for months, and then a call comes that picks up as though the last one ended yesterday. A sincere conversation after a long silence can mean more than countless casual exchanges.
The Lebanese-American poet Kahlil Gibran wrote that what we love most in a friend may be clearer in absence, as a mountain is clearer to the climber from the plain.4 I have learned not to judge friendship by how often someone calls, but by the sincerity behind the call.
3. Honest disagreement is a form of loyalty.
A friend who agrees with everything I say is pleasant company and little help. Often the most valuable words a friend can offer are the three nobody else will risk: “Are you sure?” I now value someone who tells me the truth, even when it is uncomfortable, and who can differ from me without letting the difference damage the relationship.
It may be objected that these standards are too high. Perhaps they are, and I have made peace with that. Not everyone who walks beside us is meant to remain. Some friendships belong to a particular season, and their ending need not be a betrayal. At this stage of life, I no longer feel the need to impress people or keep friendships for social recognition. I would rather have a few relationships in which I can be myself, speak honestly and be met with respect.
5. Every test is one I must also pass.
This is the part I missed for years. Do I rejoice when a friend overtakes me? Do I let a friendship rest in silence without keeping score of who called last? Can I hear disagreement without becoming distant?
Friendship is not simply about what we receive; it is equally about what we contribute. Perhaps the real change in my understanding is this: I began by asking what makes a good friend, and I have ended by asking whether I am one. Becoming a better friend, I believe, is an important part of becoming a better human being.
When I was younger, I looked for friends who made my life enjoyable. As I grew older, I began to value friends who made my life meaningful.
A Thought to Reflect On
A true friend does not feel smaller when you rise, does not disappear when you struggle and does not demand that you become someone else to earn their acceptance.
Growing older does not make us need friendship less; it teaches us to recognise genuine friendship more clearly.
Which of these tests has your closest friendship passed, and which have you had to pass for someone else?
Strive to elevate in life.
Notes for Readers
1. Cicero, On Friendship (De Amicitia), section 64, quoting the Roman poet Quintus Ennius (239–169 BCE): Amicus certus in re incerta cernitur. In the same passage Cicero asks where one might find a person who places a friend’s advancement above his own.
2. Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism (1891).
3. The story is told in the tenth book of the Bhagavata Purana (chapters 80 and 81), a Sanskrit devotional text, where the friend is simply a poor, poorly dressed Brahmin. Later tradition names him Sudama in North India; in the South he is known as Kuchela, from the Sanskrit for “the poorly clad”.
4. Kahlil Gibran, The Prophet (1923), “On Friendship”.
5. Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Friendship”, Essays: First Series (1841).
John Britto Kurusumuthu
Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in
In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt, 9 November 2026: Has your idea of what makes a good friend changed as you’ve gotten older?
Ask people what they cannot live without, and the answers come quickly: food, water, shelter, the people they love. My answer is not on that list. Strictly speaking, I could survive without it. Many people do.
It is the desire to keep learning. More precisely, it is the question I have not yet answered.
That may seem a strange thing to depend on: something I do not yet possess. Yet I have come to believe that a mind is kept alive less by what it knows than by what it still wants to know.
When I was a postgraduate student of economics, the book I loved most was Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. Smith is usually remembered as the champion of self-interest. Yet seventeen years earlier he had published The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which opens by observing that however selfish a person may be, something in human nature makes us care about the fortunes of others. Read side by side, the two books say more than either says alone. A book I have loved for decades still had something to teach me, because I had not stopped asking it questions.
2. Experience is not the same as wisdom
I believe the greatest danger is not growing old but becoming intellectually stagnant. Age may bring experience, but experience alone does not guarantee wisdom. Left unexamined, it hardens into certainty.
Tamil grammarians conceded this about language itself. The Nannool [1], composed around the turn of the thirteenth century by the Jain scholar Pavanandi, accepts that old usages fall away and new ones come in. It declares this no fault: it is simply the way of time. If a grammar can concede that much, so can a mind. Letting an old certainty give way to a better understanding is not a betrayal of experience. It is what experience is for.
3. Every tradition begins with wanting
Many traditions begin not with knowledge but with the desire for it. The Brahma Sutra, a foundational text of Vedanta, opens with a single line: athato brahma jijnasa, “now, therefore, the desire to know Brahman” [2]. The word jijnasa does not mean knowledge. It means the wish to know. In the Qur’an, the Prophet is taught a prayer that asks not for completion but for more: “My Lord, increase me in knowledge” (Surah Ta-Ha 20:114).
Neither text treats the unanswered question as a failure. One places the wanting at the very beginning; the other turns it into a prayer. The more we discover, the more clearly we see how much remains unknown, and that is exactly what keeps the search fresh.
4. Must every question stay open?
Here I must argue against myself. A life made only of open questions would be a life without an anchor. Some things I hold firmly: my faith, my values, the people I love. I do not reopen them each morning, and I would be wary of anyone who did. Curiosity that refuses every conviction is not openness. It is drift.
The difference lies in the kind of question we keep. Anselm of Canterbury, the eleventh-century theologian, described his work as faith seeking understanding [3]. The question I cannot live without is rarely whether to keep what I hold. It is how to understand it more deeply. Conviction gives a question its roots; the question keeps the conviction alive.
5. The appetite has to be fed
Curiosity does not survive on good intentions alone. A few habits help at any age. Keep a list of questions, not only answers, and let some of them stay open for a while before asking a search engine or an AI to close them. Return to a book you think you know and ask it something new. Learn something from a person much younger than you, in a field they understand better. And once a year, take an opinion you have held for a long time, about people, work or the world, and ask honestly what would change your mind.
Age will take its share of things in time. I would rather it never took my questions.
I want to keep reading, writing, observing and questioning, and to learn from people, from nature, from technology and from the wisdom handed down through generations. I want each new day to show me something I did not understand yesterday. I may not discover everything, answer every question or master every subject. But I hope never to lose the enthusiasm to explore what I do not yet know.
So the one thing I cannot live without is, in the end, something I do not yet possess: the next question. I hope I never run out of them.
A question for you
What is the one thing you cannot imagine living without? Is it something you already have, or something you are still reaching for? Share your answer in the comments. It may help another reader see their own life a little differently.
Notes
[1] The Nannool (“the good book”) is a Tamil grammar composed between about 1178 and 1216 by Pavanandi Munivar, a Jain scholar. It is regarded as the most important Tamil grammar after the Tolkappiyam. The line paraphrased here, “Pazhaiyana kazhithalum puthiyana puguthalum vazhuvala kaala vagaiyinaane”, comes from its section on words (Sollathikaram). It is still quoted in Tamil Nadu at Bhogi, the festival on which old things are cleared away to make room for the new.
[2] The Brahma Sutra, traditionally attributed to Badarayana, is a foundational text of the Vedanta schools of Indian philosophy. Jijnasa is a Sanskrit desiderative form meaning, literally, “the desire to know”.
[3] Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) gave his Proslogion the original title Fides quaerens intellectum, “faith seeking understanding”.
John Britto Kurusumuthu
Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in
In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt, 8 November 2026: What is one thing you can’t live without?
Near Jerusalem, an inscription once set above an ancient tomb made one blunt promise to anyone who might break in: there is nothing of value inside. This week’s seven Scriptures take that old warning and turn it gently towards us, asking what we have quietly been calling ours and what was only ever placed in our keeping. They travel through a forbidden boast, a key laid on a servant’s shoulder and a prisoner who stood with nothing, and they arrive at an answer few of us would think to look for.
RISE & INSPIRE | SUNDAY BIBLE SERIESCategory: Wake-up CallsSunday Series No. 13 — 8 November 2026 · Thirty-Second Sunday in Ordinary TimeScriptures of the week: 2 – 8 November 2026
What Can You Truly Call Your Own?
A royal steward’s empty tomb, a key held in trust, a prisoner who owned nothing, and a song that outlasts every inventory
An Inventory Cut in Stone
In 1870 a young French scholar named Charles Clermont-Ganneau was studying the ancient tombs of Silwan, the village that spills down the eastern slope of the Kidron Valley, facing the old city of Jerusalem. Many of those tombs had long since been absorbed into village life — turned into cisterns, storerooms, the back walls of houses. Above the doorway of one of them, cut into the limestone, he found a line of old Hebrew letters, and beside it a shorter inscription. He could not read them. Afraid they would be lost, he had both panels cut out of the rock. Within a year they were in the British Museum in London, where they remain. The tomb still bears the two rectangular scars where they were removed.
For more than eighty years nobody could read them. Then, in 1953, the Israeli scholar Nahman Avigad, working from photographs and a cast sent from London, deciphered the longer text. Rendered into English, it says something very close to this:
This is [the tomb of …]yahu, who is over the house. There is no silver and no gold here — only [his bones] and the bones of his ʾamah with him. Cursed be whoever opens this.
The word ʾamah usually means a female servant, and can also describe a wife of lower, dependent status; some scholars have wondered whether it might be a title for a woman of rank. The inscription does not say which.
The name has broken away exactly where we most want it. But the title survived. “Who is over the house” — in Hebrew ʾasher ʿal-habbayit — was the title of the royal steward, the highest official of the king’s household and one of the most powerful men in the kingdom of Judah. The shape of the letters resembles the famous inscription found nearby in King Hezekiah’s water tunnel, and points to a date around 700 BC.
Anyone who knows the Book of Isaiah feels a small shiver at this point. Isaiah 22 contains a fierce oracle against a royal steward of that very period — “Shebna, who is master of the household,” bearing that very title — and the charge against him is precisely that he has cut a tomb for himself in the rock. Could this be his? Clermont-Ganneau suspected so. Avigad thought the idea worth weighing but called it conjectural, and honest readers must leave it there. Names ending in -yahu could be shortened, so a Shebanyahu could become a Shebna; but the Bible never spells his name the longer way. We do not know whose bones lay behind that door.
Nor should we read the inscription as a confession of humility. On the sarcophagus of Tabnit, a king of Sidon, a similar assurance appears: there is no silver or gold inside. It was a practical warning to tomb robbers. Don’t bother. There is nothing here worth stealing.
And yet the stone tells a truer story than its author meant to tell. Whatever that steward possessed in life — the keys of a king’s house, the seal of office, the chariots, the robe and sash, the authority to open and to shut — none of it went into the rock with him. The inventory of what remained fits into one line: bones. Every grave in the world could carry the same sentence.
This week’s verses began at the graves. The first of them reached us on Monday, 2 November — All Souls’ Day, when Catholic families from Thiruvananthapuram to Toronto stood among the tombs of people they love, lighting candles over names cut in stone. The last of them arrives this morning. In between, Scripture kept circling one question, and it is the question Isaiah put to the proud steward in a phrase that translations render in different ways:
The NRSV renders it idiomatically: “What right do you have here? Who are your relatives here?” The King James Version stays closer to the Hebrew: “What hast thou here? and whom hast thou here?” Biblical Hebrew has no verb to have; it expresses possession by saying that something is to someone. So beneath the prophet’s indignant question lies, quite naturally, a question about what a person has and holds.
Read in that light — and this is the reading of this study, not a translation — it becomes a question a lawyer would recognise: a question of title. Not what do you hold? but what do you own? Not what is in your hands? but what is truly yours?
So this is the question the week sets before us:
What can you truly call your own?
How This Study Is Built
This Sunday we will not walk through the seven verses in the order they arrived. We will follow the question the tomb at Silwan raises, in three movements.
The Claim listens to the voices that say mine: the self-made man of Deuteronomy, the gods bought with gold in Babylon, and the steward who carved his own name into the rock.
The Trust turns to what is placed in our keeping: a key laid on a servant’s shoulder, a little that is better than much, and a wealthy widow who named God by the people with nothing.
The Song stands before a prisoner who owned nothing and claimed everything, and ends with a psalm that has outlived every empire that ever drew up an inventory.
Along the way, each verse will add one line to a new inventory — a very different list from the one carved over the door at Silwan.
Scripture is quoted from the New Revised Standard Version, the translation in which this week’s verses were given, unless otherwise stated.
Movement One · The Claim
1. The Sentence Moses Forbade
Wednesday, 4 November · Deuteronomy 8:17
“Do not say to yourself, ‘My power and the might of my own hand have gotten me this wealth.'”
Last Sunday we stood in this same chapter, twelve verses earlier, where Moses looked back over forty years in the wilderness and called them a father’s schooling: hunger and manna, a long road and sandals that never wore out (8:2–5). Now he turns round and looks forward, across the Jordan, into the land Israel is about to enter.
What he sees there is not danger but abundance. “A land of wheat and barley, of vines and fig trees and pomegranates, a land of olive trees and honey” (8:8). A land where they will eat bread “without scarcity” and mine copper from the hills (8:9). And then he sketches, in a single breathless sentence, the shape of a prosperous life: “When you have eaten your fill and have built fine houses and live in them, and when your herds and flocks have multiplied, and your silver and gold is multiplied, and all that you have is multiplied …” (8:12–13). Listen to the verb. In Hebrew, multiply comes round three times in a single verse, like a ledger whose columns keep lengthening.
Then the warning: “do not exalt yourself, forgetting the LORD your God” (8:14). And then our verse.
The whole chapter turns on two verbs. Remember (8:2, 18). Do not forget (8:11, 14, 19). The wilderness was dangerous because Israel might die. The land would be dangerous because Israel might forget.
A sentence spoken in the heart
The NRSV’s “Do not say to yourself” translates a Hebrew phrase that means, literally, “and you say in your heart” (וְאָמַרְתָּ בִּלְבָבֶךָ, wəʾāmartā bilvāvekhā). The sin Moses names is not a public boast. It is a sentence spoken where no one else can hear it — in the private room where each of us narrates our own life to ourselves.
Deuteronomy uses the device more than once, and the twin of our verse comes in the very next chapter:
“When the LORD your God thrusts them out before you, do not say to yourself, ‘It is because of my righteousness that the LORD has brought me in to occupy this land.'” (9:4)
Read the two together and you have the two great self-made sentences of the human heart. My strength earned me this wealth.My goodness earned me this blessing. One is economic, the other spiritual. Moses forbids both, and for the same reason: neither is true.
The words in the sentence
Every word of the forbidden sentence repays a moment’s attention.
כֹּחִי וְעֹצֶם יָדִי עָשָׂה לִי אֶת־הַחַיִל הַזֶּהkōḥî wəʿōṣem yādî ʿāśāh lî ʾet-haḥayil hazzeh “My strength and the might of my hand has made for me this wealth.”
כֹּחַ (kōaḥ) means strength, power, ability — the capacity to do things. עֹצֶם יָד (ʿōṣem yād), the might of the hand, is a rare and emphatic phrase: muscle, grip, the force a person can exert. עָשָׂה לִי (ʿāśāh lî) means has made for me. And the object, חַיִל (ḥayil), is a word with a remarkable range. It can mean strength or ability; wealth; an army; valour. The gibbôr ḥayil is a mighty warrior. The ʾēšet ḥayil is the capable woman of Proverbs 31 and the worthy woman Boaz recognises in Ruth (Ruth 3:11). Ḥayil is wealth understood as strength — what you have because of what you can do.
Now read the very next verse:
“But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth.” (8:18)
The same two words come back — kōaḥ and ḥayil — but now they stand in their proper order. The power was given. The wealth was made with a gift.
Notice what Moses does not say. He does not say the Israelites will do no work. The phrase “to get wealth” — literally “to make ḥayil” — honours real effort: ploughing, herding, trading, building. He does not say wealth is evil; the land is good, and the chapter says so again and again. He does not even ask the people to feel guilty for eating well. On the contrary:
“You shall eat your fill and bless the LORD your God for the good land that he has given you.” (8:10)
That verse became the scriptural foundation of the Jewish grace after meals, the Birkat ha-Mazon. It is the antidote to verse 17. The cure for “my hand has made me this” is not refusing the meal. It is blessing the Giver at the table.
What Moses denies is not effort. It is title. You may work; you may not claim to be the author of your own capacity to work.
The word to remember for Thursday
When Jewish scholars in Alexandria translated the Law of Moses into Greek, in the third century before Christ, they rendered the forbidden sentence like this:
ἡ ἰσχύς μου καὶ τὸ κράτος τῆς χειρός μου ἐποίησέν μοι τὴν δύναμιν τὴν μεγάλην ταύτην “My strength (ischys) and the might (kratos) of my hand made for me this great power (dynamis).”
The Greek translators chose δύναμις (dynamis) for ḥayil — power. In Greek, the self-made man does not merely say I made this money. He says I made this great power for myself. And in verse 18, God “gives you strength to make power.”
Keep that word in mind. On Thursday it will reappear in a courtroom at night, on the lips of a prisoner, as a name for God.
The idolatry nobody notices
The Catechism, explaining the first commandment, insists that idolatry is not only a matter of ancient statues. It “remains a constant temptation to faith,” and among the creatures a person may revere in God’s place it lists, without embarrassment, money (CCC 2113). Deuteronomy 8:17 shows how quietly that happens. Nobody bows down to a bank balance. They simply say, in the heart, I did this — and from then on, the thing they did becomes the thing they trust.
On Wednesday, the day this verse arrived, the Church remembered a man who had every reason to say Moses’ forbidden sentence. Charles Borromeo was born into one of the great noble families of Lombardy and made a cardinal while still in his early twenties. When plague struck Milan in 1576, he spent his fortune on the sick and the hungry, and went into debt to feed them. He had wealth. He did not mistake it for his own making.
For the new inventory:Wealth — made with a strength that was given. Mine to use; not mine to boast of.
2. Gods Bought with Gold
Tuesday, 3 November · Isaiah 46:13
“I bring near my deliverance; it is not far off, and my salvation will not tarry.”
Deuteronomy warned about a man who makes himself. Isaiah 46 mocks people who make their god. In both cases the raw material is the same: their own wealth.
The chapter belongs to the second great movement of the Book of Isaiah (chapters 40–55), addressed to Judeans in exile in Babylon in the sixth century before Christ, as the Persian king Cyrus rose in the east (44:28; 45:1). It opens with a picture of Babylon’s great gods on the move:
“Bel bows down, Nebo stoops, their idols are on beasts and cattle; these things you carry are loaded as burdens on weary animals. They stoop, they bow down together; they cannot save the burden, but themselves go into captivity.” (46:1–2)
Bel — Lord — was the title of Marduk, the patron god of Babylon. Nebo, or Nabu, was his son, the god of scribes and writing, patron of the nearby city of Borsippa. Each spring, at the great New Year festival, their statues were carried in solemn procession. Isaiah sees them carried differently: loaded on exhausted animals, lurching out of the city, going into exile with the people who made them. The image was not far-fetched. When Cyrus took Babylon in 539 BC, his own propaganda boasted of sending back to their shrines the divine statues that the previous king had gathered into the capital. In that world, gods could be freight.
Some weeks ago, in this series, we looked at the contrast that follows — a god you have to carry, or a God who carries you (46:3–4). This week, look instead at what Isaiah says the gods are made of:
“Those who lavish gold from the purse, and weigh out silver in the scales — they hire a goldsmith, who makes it into a god; then they fall down and worship! They lift it to their shoulders, they carry it, they set it in its place, and it stands there; it cannot move from its place. If one cries out to it, it does not answer or save anyone from trouble.” (46:6–7)
The god is purchased. It is, quite literally, the worshipper’s money in another shape. And notice the verbs of the last sentence. It stands there. It cannot move from its place. It does not answer. It does not save.
Now hear how the chapter ends:
“Listen to me, you stubborn of heart, you who are far from deliverance: I bring near my deliverance, it is not far off, and my salvation will not tarry; I will put salvation in Zion, for Israel my glory.” (46:12–13)
Everything the purchased god cannot do, the living God does. The idol cannot move; God’s salvation comes near. The idol stands where it is put; God’s deliverance will not tarry. You must go to the idol. The true God comes to you.
Two words worth weighing
The NRSV’s “deliverance” translates צְדָקָה (ṣədāqāh), the word usually rendered righteousness — as the King James Version has it: “I bring near my righteousness.” Both translations are defensible, and the difference matters. In these chapters of Isaiah, God’s righteousness is not first of all a standard by which people are measured and found wanting. It is God’s faithfulness to his promises in action — and so, very often, it means rescue. That is why it stands here in parallel with תְּשׁוּעָה (təšûʿāh), salvation, a word from the root y-š-ʿ, the same root that gives the name Yeshua, Jesus: “you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21).
Now look at whom this is addressed to. אַבִּירֵי לֵב (ʾabbîrê lēv), “stubborn of heart,” is literally “mighty of heart” or “stout-hearted.” The word ʾabbîr is used of the strong — warriors, bulls, chieftains. These are people who are strong in themselves. And they are, the verse says, “far from deliverance.”
To them — not to the deserving, not to those already near — God says: I am bringing it near.
This is easy to miss and difficult to overstate. The salvation the idol could never provide is not offered as a prize to those who finally stop being stubborn. It is brought, on its own feet, towards those who are still far away. Deuteronomy’s self-made man and Babylon’s god-makers are not simply left with their claim. They are met by a gift.
For the new inventory:Salvation — never purchased, never carried home. Brought near, as a gift, to the far-off.
3. “What Have You Here?”
The steward who carved his own name — Isaiah 22:15–19
Saturday’s verse, as we shall see, is about a good steward. But it cannot be understood without the bad one who comes first, and he belongs to this movement.
Isaiah 22 opens with an oracle concerning “the valley of vision,” a picture of Jerusalem in a crisis — very probably a time of siege. The city’s leaders do everything a competent administration should do. They inspect the weapons in the royal armoury. They survey the breaches in the walls. They count the houses and pull some down to strengthen the fortifications. They build a new reservoir for the water supply (22:8–11). And then comes the sentence that judges the whole programme:
“But you did not look to him who did it, or have regard for him who planned it long ago.” (22:11)
It is Deuteronomy 8:17 on the scale of a city. The leaders’ competence is real. Their mistake is to trust it.
Immediately afterwards comes the oracle against one leader in particular:
“Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts: Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is master of the household, and say to him: What right do you have here? Who are your relatives here, that you have cut out a tomb here for yourself, cutting a tomb on the height, and carving a habitation for yourself in the rock?” (22:15–16)
Shebna was the king’s steward, and in a moment of national danger he was making arrangements for his own monument. Isaiah’s charge goes on: the LORD will hurl him away like a ball into a wide land, where “your splendid chariots shall lie, O you disgrace to your master’s house!” (22:18). Notice the phrase your master’s house. Shebna’s office existed for a house that was not his. He behaved as though it were.
The question God asks him — “What have you here, and whom have you here?” — is not only rhetorical. It is a question about belonging. Shebna had no ancestral claim to that hillside; no family of his lay in that rock. He was carving a permanent title out of a temporary office.
There is a quiet historical footnote. When the Assyrian army stood outside Jerusalem in 701 BC, the officials who went out to negotiate were “Eliakim son of Hilkiah, who was in charge of the palace, and Shebna the secretary” (Isaiah 36:3; compare 2 Kings 18:18). If the Shebna of chapter 36 is the same man — and most readers assume he is — then the oracle had already begun to take effect. The steward had become a secretary. Someone else now held the keys.
For the new inventory:Office — a robe that can be put on someone else. Never a monument to oneself.
Movement Two · The Trust
4. A Key on a Servant’s Shoulder
Saturday, 7 November · Isaiah 22:22
“I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open.”
Here is the oracle’s second half, and the contrast could hardly be sharper:
“On that day I will call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah, and will clothe him with your robe and bind your sash on him. I will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David …” (22:20–22)
Shebna had carved for himself. Eliakim is called עַבְדִּי (ʿavdî), “my servant.” Shebna’s robe and sash — the visible signs of office — are taken off him and put on another man. The office does not change. The holder does. That alone tells us what kind of thing authority is in Scripture: a garment, not a skin.
And the purpose of the office is named: “he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” The steward’s authority exists for the people of the house — for their protection and provision, as a father’s authority exists for his children.
The key and the shoulder
מַפְתֵּחַ (maftēaḥ), key, comes from the verb פָּתַח (pātaḥ), to open. A key is, by its very name, an opener. Its whole identity lies in what it does for a door and for the people who need to pass through it.
The key is laid עַל־שִׁכְמוֹ (ʿal-šikhmô), “on his shoulder.” Ancient keys could be large — wooden or bronze bars that worked the bolts inside a door — and some commentators picture one literally slung over the shoulder; others take the image as a symbol of office. We cannot be certain. But the same Hebrew phrase appears in one of the best-known prophecies of the same book:
“For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders.” (Isaiah 9:6)
Upon his shoulder — ʿal-šikhmô in both places. In Isaiah, authority is carried on the shoulder, the way a load is carried. It is a burden borne for others, not a jewel worn for oneself.
Then the decisive power: “he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open.” The steward’s decisions are real and binding within the house. But notice the first words of the verse: “I will place.” The authority is delegated. Eliakim does not seize the key. He is given it.
When the peg gives way
Isaiah does not end with a tidy happy ending, and neither should we. The oracle continues:
“I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his ancestral house. And they will hang on him the whole weight of his ancestral house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. On that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way; it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will perish.” (22:23–25)
Commentators have long debated these verses. Many think they come from a later moment, reflecting what eventually happened to Eliakim’s position; others read them as a warning built into the original oracle. Either way, the picture is unforgettable. The good steward’s relatives hang their whole family’s fortunes on him — every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons — until the peg pulls out of the wall.
Shebna treated his office as private property. Eliakim’s family treated it as family property. Both ended the same way. The key of the house of David was for the house of David — not for the man who carried it, and not for his cousins.
Anyone who has served in public office, sat on a governing board, led a parish committee or managed a family business knows exactly what this looks like. It rarely begins with corruption. It begins with a cup — one small favour hung on the peg — and then the flagons follow.
The keys of the kingdom
Christians have never read Isaiah 22:22 as only a story about two officials in Hezekiah’s court. The Book of Revelation applies its words directly to the risen Christ: “the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens” (Revelation 3:7). And when Jesus says to Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19), many interpreters, especially in the Catholic tradition, hear Isaiah’s steward in the background: a royal household, a king, and one servant entrusted with the keys. Matthew does not quote Isaiah directly, so the link is an inference rather than a citation — but it is an old and widely held one. The Catechism describes the power of the keys as “authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church” (CCC 553).
Every word of that sentence is a steward’s word. Authority — given. Govern — serve. The house of God — not Peter’s house. Since the time of Pope Gregory the Great, at the end of the sixth century, the Bishop of Rome has called himself servus servorum Dei, servant of the servants of God. The Church will celebrate the feast of the Dedication of the Lateran Basilica, the Pope’s own cathedral, on Monday, 9 November — a fitting occasion to remember that even the keys of Peter are held in trust.
And in a few weeks, as Advent draws towards Christmas, the Church will sing on 20 December the antiphon O Clavis David — O Key of David — praying to Christ as the One who opens what no one can shut. The key Eliakim carried for a palace, Christ carries for the world.
Title, possession and trust
Lawyers distinguish between possession and title. A tenant possesses a house; the owner holds title. A trustee may hold property, sometimes even in their own name, but holds it for the benefit of others. Roman law had a precise word for a related arrangement, inherited by many legal systems since: usufruct, the right to use and enjoy the fruits of something that belongs to someone else, provided its substance is not destroyed — a right that ended, in its classical form, with the death of the one who held it.
Scripture’s account of human ownership sounds very much like that. “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity,” God says in Leviticus, “for the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and tenants” (Leviticus 25:23). The Catechism puts it in a single sentence: “The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence” (CCC 2404). And Pope Francis, preaching on the seventh commandment, drew the conclusion in words worth memorising: “What I truly own is what I am able to give.” Whatever we cannot give, he went on to say, has begun to own us (General Audience, 7 November 2018).
Shebna had possession and mistook it for title. Eliakim was given possession and called to hold it as a father holds a house for his children.
For the new inventory:Authority — a key carried on the shoulder for the sake of the house. Kept only for yourself, a key stops being a key and becomes a trophy.
5. Better a Little
Monday, 2 November · All Souls’ Day · Psalm 37:16
“Better is a little that the righteous person has than the abundance of many wicked.”
The week’s first verse came to us on the day of the graves, and it comes from the mouth of an old man. “I have been young, and now am old,” the psalmist says, “yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging bread” (37:25). Psalm 37 is not the cry of someone in the middle of a crisis. It is the counsel of someone who has watched a great many lives from beginning to end.
It is a wisdom psalm, closer in spirit to Proverbs than to the hymns and laments around it, and it is an acrostic: its stanzas begin with the successive letters of the Hebrew alphabet, roughly one letter for every two verses. Our verse opens the stanza of the letter ṭet, and the word that opens it is טוֹב (ṭôv), “better” — in its broadest sense, simply good.
The psalm has one pastoral problem in view, and it is a very modern one: the prosperity of people who do wrong. Three times it says, “Do not fret” (37:1, 7, 8). The Hebrew verb, תִּתְחַר (titḥar), comes from a root meaning to burn; it describes heating yourself up, letting the comparison smoulder. Anyone who has watched a dishonest colleague promoted, a ruthless competitor thrive, or a careless neighbour’s fortunes multiply knows the feeling exactly.
The psalm’s answer is not that the wicked are secretly miserable. It is a comparison between two kinds of abundance.
A little, and a roar
The word translated “abundance” is הָמוֹן (hāmôn), and its range is revealing. It can mean wealth or plenty. But at its root it is a word of noise: the roar of the sea, the tumult of a crowd, the din of a marching army. Set against it is מְעַט (məʿaṭ), a little.
So the line can be heard as a contrast between a little and a roar. The wealth of the wicked is loud. The Book of Proverbs makes the same comparison in its own better-sayings: “Better is a little with the fear of the LORD than great treasure and trouble with it” (Proverbs 15:16), where trouble is a word for turmoil and confusion; and Ecclesiastes adds, “Better is a handful with quiet than two handfuls with toil, and a chasing after wind” (Ecclesiastes 4:6).
And notice what the meek receive in the same psalm: “the meek shall inherit the land, and delight themselves in abundant prosperity” (37:11). The Hebrew for “abundant prosperity” is rōv šālôm — literally abundance of peace. The psalm does not say the righteous will have nothing in abundance. It says they will have an abundance of a different kind. The wicked have plenty of noise. The meek have plenty of peace.
What the psalm does not say
It would be easy to read this verse as a praise of poverty, or as a promise that the righteous will always be poor and the wicked always rich. It says neither.
It does not praise having little. It praises the little that belongs to the righteous — and the psalm tells us what kind of little that is: “the righteous are generous and keep giving” (37:21); “They are ever giving liberally and lending, and their children become a blessing” (37:26). The little in Psalm 37:16 is a little that keeps leaving the hand. It is enough, held open.
Nor does the psalm deny that the righteous may hold land. On the contrary, five times it promises that they will inherit it (37:9, 11, 22, 29, 34). The verb is יָרַשׁ (yāraš), and it matters. In Israel’s theology, nobody earned the land. It was received as an inheritance from God, who remained its owner. The only secure title in this psalm is title by gift. Jesus would take up its eleventh verse in the Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5).
On All Souls’ Day the Church prays for those who have gone ahead of us, every one of whom left the land behind. The psalm of the old man reminds us that inheritance was always the right word. We received; we pass on.
For the new inventory:Enough — a little, held open, is better than much held tight.
6. The God of the Underdogs
Friday, 6 November · Judith 9:11
“For your strength does not depend on numbers, nor your might on the powerful. But you are the God of the lowly, helper of the oppressed, upholder of the weak, protector of the forsaken, savior of those without hope.”
The verse given to us on Friday was the second half of this sentence. The first half belongs with it, and it turns out to hold a key to the whole week.
A widow’s prayer before a battle
The Book of Judith belongs to the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, received by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and placed among the Apocrypha in Protestant Bibles. Its earliest surviving text is in Greek; its author and date are unknown, though many scholars place it in the second century before Christ. It opens with what seems a deliberate historical scramble — “Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh” (1:1), when the historical Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon and Nineveh had already fallen. Many interpreters take this as the author’s signal: this is a story told to teach, a theological drama rather than a chronicle. Its question is the one that has run through our whole week. Where does real power lie?
The Assyrian general Holofernes has besieged the Israelite town of Bethulia and cut off its water. The people are dying of thirst, and the town’s leaders promise to surrender if God has not rescued them within five days (7:30–31). Then Judith appears: a widow, devout, and — the book is explicit — very wealthy. Her husband Manasseh had left her “gold and silver, men and women slaves, livestock, and fields; and she maintained this estate” (8:7).
She rebukes the leaders for presuming to set God a deadline (8:11–17). And then she prays. She puts on sackcloth and ashes, and she times her prayer to the hour when the evening incense is being offered in the Temple in Jerusalem, far away (9:1) — joining her lone voice in a besieged hill town to the worship of the whole people.
The vocabulary of power, set right
Now read the first half of verse 11 in Greek:
οὐ γὰρ ἐν πλήθει τὸ κράτος σου, οὐδὲ ἡ δυναστεία σου ἐν ἰσχύουσιν “For your might (kratos) is not in numbers, nor your sovereignty (dynasteia) in the strong (ischyontes).”
These are the words of Deuteronomy 8:17. The Greek Deuteronomy had the self-made man say: my strength (ischys) and the might (kratos) of my hand made me this power (dynamis). Judith takes the same vocabulary and turns it the right way up. Kratos does not belong to the strong. It belongs to God, who does not need them. Three verses later she names him “the God of all power (dynamis) and might (kratos)” (9:14).
And notice what she asks for. Two verses earlier she has prayed, in the Greek, “give into my hand — a widow’s hand — the might (kratos) that I have planned” (9:9). Deuteronomy’s man claimed the might of his hand as his own. Judith, with an entire estate behind her, asks for it as a gift.
Five names for God
Then come the five titles of our verse. Each is worth hearing in the original:
θεὸς ταπεινῶν (theos tapeinōn), God of the lowly — people of low station, without standing, helpless before the powerful.
ἐλαττόνων βοηθός (elattonōn boēthos), helper of the “oppressed” — but the Greek literally means the lesser ones, the smaller, those ranked beneath others. One commentator on the Greek suggests the underdogs. They are the ones who always come off worse.
ἀντιλήμπτωρ ἀσθενούντων (antilēmptōr asthenountōn), upholder of the weak. The noun comes from a verb meaning to take hold of, to lay hold in order to support. God is the one who grips the weak and holds them up. And the weak here are not so much the physically frail as those who cannot defend themselves.
ἀπεγνωσμένων σκεπαστής (apegnōsmenōn skepastēs), protector of the forsaken. A skepastēs is one who covers, shelters, puts a roof over someone. The forsaken are those who have been given up on — written off by others, or by themselves.
ἀπηλπισμένων σωτήρ (apēlpismenōn sōtēr), savior of those without hope — literally, of those who have despaired, who have stopped expecting anything at all.
Three of those titles — helper, protector, saviour — appear in the same order in the Greek of the Song of Moses after the crossing of the Red Sea: “The Lord became my helper and protector, for salvation” (Exodus 15:2, Greek version). Judith is praying in the language of the Exodus. And the biblical scholar Toni Craven noticed something more: in verses 11 and 12, Judith’s divine titles are arranged with care, five on either side of her plea, “hear my prayer.” On one side: God of the lowly, helper of the lesser ones, upholder of the weak, protector of the forsaken, saviour of the hopeless. On the other: God of my father, God of the heritage of Israel, Lord of heaven and earth, Creator of the waters, King of all your creation (9:12).
The same God is named from the bottom of the world and from the top. The King of all creation chooses to be called the God of the underdogs.
What is easy to miss
The woman who prays this prayer is not poor. She is one of the wealthiest people in Bethulia. And she names God by his relation to the people with nothing — and places herself among them, in sackcloth, as a widow. Her estate did not tell her who she was.
The end of her story confirms it. Judith lived to the age of one hundred and five. She set her maid free. And before she died, she distributed her property among her husband’s relatives and her own (16:23–24). She held her wealth the way Psalm 37 asks: open.
Honesty requires one further word. Judith asks God to bless “the deceit of my lips” (9:10; compare 9:13), and she brings down Holofernes by guile. Readers have long found this troubling, and they are right to think about it carefully. The Church reads the Book of Judith as a story of faith and courage in a desperate hour, not as a manual of tactics. Her prayer is its heart, and it is her prayer that has entered the Church’s memory.
Where this prayer leads
The vocabulary of Judith 9:11 runs straight into the New Testament. Mary sings that God “has lifted up the lowly” and “has helped his servant Israel” (Luke 1:52, 54) — and the Greek verb for helped, antelabeto, belongs to the same family as Judith’s antilēmptōr, the one who takes hold. When Paul begs to be relieved of a weakness, the Lord answers him: “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:9). Power there is dynamis; weakness is astheneia, from the same family as Judith’s asthenountes, the weak.
Power belongs to God, and he does not need the strong to exercise it. That was Judith’s faith. In a courtroom in Jerusalem, on a night we are about to enter, it would be put to its ultimate test.
For the new inventory:Power — God’s might does not depend on the strong. It takes hold of the weak.
Movement Three · The One Who Owned Nothing
7. “I Am”
Thursday, 5 November · Mark 14:62
“Jesus said, ‘I am; and “you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power,” and “coming with the clouds of heaven.”‘”
Every voice we have heard so far has been speaking about what people own. Now we stand in a room with someone who owns nothing at all.
An inventory taken by night
Mark’s Gospel, which most scholars regard as the earliest of the four and which early tradition links with the preaching of Peter, tells the story of Jesus’ last night with stark economy. Read chapter 14 and watch how much is stripped away in a few hours.
His friends: “All of them deserted him and fled” (14:50).
The last possession of one follower: “A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked” (14:51–52). It is one of the strangest details in the Gospels, and its meaning has been debated for centuries. At the very least, it shows us a man who saved himself by letting go of the last thing he had.
His freedom: “Then they laid hands on him and arrested him” (14:46).
His right to a fair hearing. He is taken by night to the high priest’s house, where the council looks for testimony against him and cannot find any that agrees (14:55–59). The Law of Moses required that a charge be established “on the evidence of two or three witnesses” (Deuteronomy 19:15). This court cannot even make its evidence agree.
And outside, in the courtyard, his most prominent disciple. Peter has followed at a distance and is sitting with the guards, “warming himself at the fire” (14:54). Mark’s Greek says, literally, that he warmed himself at the light — pros to phōs.
Mark arranges these scenes with deliberate art. The story of Peter begins (14:54), the trial is told (14:55–65), and then the story of Peter resumes (14:66–72), so that each scene frames the other. Inside, in the dark house, Jesus will be asked who he is. Outside, at the light, Peter will be asked who he is.
The answer
For most of the trial Jesus says nothing (14:61), like the Servant of Isaiah, who “did not open his mouth” before his shearers (Isaiah 53:7). Then the high priest asks him directly:
“Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” (14:61)
The Blessed One is a reverent way of avoiding the divine name. And Jesus replies:
Ἐγώ εἰμι — Egō eimi — “I am.”
It is the plainest answer to that question in any of the Gospels. In Matthew he says, “You have said so” (Matthew 26:64); in Luke, “You say that I am” (Luke 22:70). Mark’s version has no veil at all. Throughout his Gospel Jesus has silenced those who announced who he was (for example, 8:29–30). Now, bound, accused and alone, he says it outright.
Does Egō eimi mean more than “Yes, I am he”? In its immediate setting, it is first of all a clear affirmative answer to the high priest’s question. But Mark has used the same words once before, when Jesus came walking across the sea to his terrified disciples: “Take heart, it is I [egō eimi]; do not be afraid” (6:50) — a scene full of echoes of the God who “trampled the waves of the Sea” (Job 9:8). In the Greek Old Testament, egō eimi is also how God speaks of himself (for example, Isaiah 43:10). Many interpreters believe Mark wants us to hear that further resonance here; others caution against reading too much into a simple reply. It is wise to hold both: the answer is a plain yes, and it is a yes spoken by the Son of the God whose name is I am.
“The Power”
Then Jesus goes further, joining two passages of Scripture. “Sit at my right hand” comes from Psalm 110:1, where the LORD invites the king to share his throne. “Coming with the clouds of heaven” comes from Daniel 7:13, where “one like a human being” — literally, one like a son of man — comes before the Ancient of Days.
And Jesus calls God ἡ δύναμις (hē dynamis), “the Power.” It is another reverent substitute for the divine name, as the Blessed One was. Later rabbinic texts use the Hebrew equivalent, ha-Gevurah, in the same way; the Talmud speaks of Israel hearing the first commandments “from the mouth of the Power” (Babylonian Talmud, Makkot 24a).
Do you remember Wednesday’s verse in its Greek dress? “My strength and the might of my hand made for me this great dynamis.” Here, at the far end of the week, the word has found its true owner. The self-made man called his wealth dynamis. Jesus, stripped of everything, calls God the Dynamis — and claims a place at his right hand.
Notice, too, that the place is given. In Psalm 110 the king sits because he is invited: “The LORD says to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand.'” In Daniel, the son of man does not seize the kingdom: “To him was given dominion and glory and kingship” (Daniel 7:14). The Catechism, explaining what it means that Christ is seated at the Father’s right hand, makes the connection explicit: it signifies “the inauguration of the Messiah’s kingdom,” the fulfilment of Daniel’s vision (CCC 664). Even the kingship Jesus claims on the night of his arrest is received, not grasped.
And the verb is plural: “you will see.” The judges will one day look upon the prisoner enthroned. The court sitting in judgment is itself under judgment.
The robe and the light
The high priest’s response is immediate: “Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, ‘Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy!'” (14:63–64). What exactly made Jesus’ answer blasphemous in their eyes is debated. Later Jewish law, recorded in the Mishnah, required the actual pronouncing of the divine name — which Jesus had carefully avoided. Many scholars therefore think the offence lay in the claim itself: to share God’s throne, and to come as the judge of his judges.
The man with the house, the office and the robe tears his robe. The man with nothing keeps the one thing that cannot be taken from him. He knows who he is before God, and he says so.
Outside, at the light, a servant-girl says to Peter, “You also were with Jesus.” And Peter, three times, refuses his own identity: “I do not know this man you are talking about” (14:67–71). Jesus, losing everything, kept his name. Peter, keeping warm, nearly gave his away.
Mark does not leave him there. On Easter morning the young man at the empty tomb tells the women: “go, tell his disciples and Peter” (16:7). The one who denied his identity is singled out by name.
What he would not grasp
Paul, writing perhaps a decade or so before Mark, had already put the meaning of this night into a hymn:
“Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave.” (Philippians 2:5–7)
The Greek word translated “something to be exploited,”ἁρπαγμός (harpagmos), comes from a verb meaning to seize, to snatch, to grasp. Set it beside Deuteronomy 8:17. The self-made man had nothing he had not been given, and grasped it as his own. The Son had everything by right, and did not grasp. “Though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich” (2 Corinthians 8:9).
For the new inventory:Identity — the one possession no court can confiscate: who you are before God.
The Song
“While I Have Being”
Sunday, 8 November · Psalm 104:33
“I will sing to the LORD as long as I live; I will sing praise to my God while I have being.”
After the tomb, the claim, the key and the courtroom, the week ends with music.
A walk through God’s property
Psalm 104 is one of the great creation hymns of the Bible, and it forms a pair with the psalm before it: both begin and end with the same words, “Bless the LORD, O my soul.” Psalm 103 blesses God for his mercy to sinners. Psalm 104 blesses him for the world.
It moves through creation almost like a guided walk. God is “wrapped in light as with a garment” (104:2). The waters are set within their bounds; springs run in the valleys; birds sing among the branches; the cattle graze; there is “wine to gladden the human heart, oil to make the face shine, and bread to strengthen the human heart” (104:15). There are cedars and storks, wild goats on the high mountains and small creatures sheltering in the rocks. The moon marks the seasons; the sun “knows its time for setting” (104:19). Lions roar at night; people go out to their work “until the evening” (104:23). There is the sea, “great and wide,” with its ships, and Leviathan, “that you formed to sport in it” (104:25–26).
Many scholars have noticed resemblances between parts of this psalm and the Great Hymn to the Aten, an Egyptian hymn to the sun-disc composed in the fourteenth century before Christ, under the pharaoh Akhenaten. Whether there is any direct connection is debated. But the comparison throws one difference into sharp relief. Near its close, the Egyptian hymn declares that no one truly knows the god except the king, his son. Knowledge of the divine belongs to the palace. In Psalm 104, the sun is not a god but a servant that knows when to set; every creature looks to the Creator; and the one who sings at the end is not a pharaoh but an ordinary worshipper. No one holds a monopoly on God.
Then comes the line that, for this week, matters most in the whole psalm:
“O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.” (104:24)
The Hebrew word translated “creatures” is קִנְיָנֶךָ (qinyānekhā). Creatures is the usual and entirely sound rendering here. But the noun קִנְיָן (qinyān) belongs to the vocabulary of acquisition and possession: Genesis uses it of the livestock and goods Jacob had acquired (Genesis 31:18); Proverbs uses it of everything a person gets (Proverbs 4:7). The King James Version translated our verse, “the earth is full of thy riches.” The root קָנָה (qānāh) can mean both to acquire and to create — Melchizedek blesses Abram by “God Most High, maker of heaven and earth” (Genesis 14:19), where older translations say possessor.
So the word carries a resonance that no single English word can hold. Without forcing the translation, we may hear in it, at the end of the walk through the whole created order, a verdict spoken in the language of ownership: the earth is full of what is yours. The cattle and the cedars, the ships and the sea, the wine and the oil and the bread — and the human beings who work until evening and call these things theirs — all belong to Someone else.
Breath on loan
And then the psalm shows what that means for the creatures:
“These all look to you to give them their food in due season; when you give to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are filled with good things. When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. When you send forth your spirit, they are created; and you renew the face of the ground.” (104:27–30)
Even breath is on loan. The Hebrew uses the same word, רוּחַ (rûaḥ), for the creatures’ breath that God takes away and the spirit that God sends forth. Life is not a possession we carry about. It is a gift we are continually receiving — and one day, like a Roman usufruct, it returns to its Owner. The Church prays verse 30 at Pentecost and in the familiar prayer to the Holy Spirit: “Send forth your Spirit, and they shall be created; and you shall renew the face of the earth.”
בְּחַיָּי (bəḥayyāy), “in my life” — as long as I live. And בְּעוֹדִי (bəʿôdî), “while I have being,” built on the little word ʿôd, which means still, yet, more. Literally: “while I am still.” The psalmist does not measure his life by its possessions, or even by its years. He measures it by the length of a song. As long as I am still here, I will be singing.
Now look at the possessives in the last verses of this enormous psalm — after the oceans, the mountains, the vineyards and the stars. “My God” (104:33). “My meditation” (104:34). “My soul” (104:35). After surveying everything God owns, the psalmist lays claim to exactly one thing in all creation: the God who made it. My God.
This is the answer the whole week has been walking towards.
Three psalms, one word
Psalm 104:33 has a twin. Psalm 146 opens with almost the same words — “I will praise the LORD as long as I live; I will sing praises to my God all my life long” (146:2) — and then, at once, warns: “Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help. When their breath departs, they return to the earth; on that very day their plans perish” (146:3–4). Princes, like stewards, are breathing on loan. The same psalm describes the God who “upholds the orphan and the widow” (146:9) — Judith’s God.
And this morning, at Mass, the responsorial psalm is Psalm 63: “Because your steadfast love is better than life, my lips will praise you. So I will bless you as long as I live” (63:3–4). “As long as I live” is בְחַיָּי (bəḥayyāy), the very word of this week’s verse. And “better than life” begins, in Hebrew, with טוֹב (ṭôv), the very word with which Psalm 37:16 began the week. Psalm 37 said that a little is better than much. Psalm 63 says that God’s love is better than life itself. The week that started at the graves with one better ends at the altar with a greater one.
Simply because he is
The Catechism describes praise as the form of prayer that most directly acknowledges God as God, honouring him not only for what he does but “simply because HE IS” (CCC 2639).
Set that beside Thursday’s verse. Before the high priest, the Son said, I am. Here the psalmist says he will sing while I am still. Our still depends entirely on his am. We have being on loan, for a while. He is. And the best use of borrowed being is to sing to the One who simply is.
A word of honesty here, too. The psalmist’s “as long as I live” was probably written before Israel had a developed hope of resurrection; for him, the song may have seemed to end with the breath. Christians read it in the light of Easter and of the vision in the Book of Revelation, where “every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea” sings to God and to the Lamb (Revelation 5:13). The song, it turns out, outlasts the singer’s breath.
For the new inventory:Breath — on loan, and best spent on praise. And one true possession: “my God.”
The Inventory, Rewritten
The tomb at Silwan offered an inventory of one line: no silver, no gold — only bones. This week’s Scriptures have drawn up another. Gather its lines together and they read:
Wealth — made with a strength that was given. Mine to use; not mine to boast of. (Deuteronomy 8:17)
Salvation — never purchased, never carried home. Brought near, as a gift, to the far-off. (Isaiah 46:13)
Office — a robe that can be put on someone else. Never a monument to oneself. (Isaiah 22:15–21)
Authority — a key carried on the shoulder for the sake of the house. (Isaiah 22:22)
Enough — a little, held open, is better than much held tight. (Psalm 37:16)
Power — God’s might does not depend on the strong. It takes hold of the weak. (Judith 9:11)
Identity — the one possession no court can confiscate: who you are before God. (Mark 14:62)
Breath — on loan, and best spent on praise. And one true possession: my God.(Psalm 104:33)
Read as a whole, the week seems to teach three things that are easily missed.
First, Scripture is not against having. It is against claiming. Deuteronomy calls the land good and commands a feast. Psalm 37 promises an inheritance. Judith keeps an estate. Isaiah gives Eliakim real authority. What every one of these texts resists is the sentence in the heart that turns a gift into a title: my hand made this.
Second, the opposite of grasping is not merely giving things away. It is possessing the right Thing. We tend to think the cure for greed is simply to own less. The Bible’s deepest answer is stranger and more generous. The priests of Israel were given no land, because, God said, “I am your share and your possession” (Numbers 18:20). “The LORD is my chosen portion and my cup,” sings Psalm 16:5. And the psalmist of Psalm 104, surveying the whole of God’s property, claims only “my God.” The one thing Scripture lets us call our own, without qualification, is not a thing at all. It is God, who gives himself to be ours.
Third, the God who owns everything chooses to be named by those who own nothing.God of the lowly.Helper of the lesser ones. And in Mark’s courtroom, the Son who could have claimed everything stands with nothing — and, in that poverty, names God the Power and speaks of his throne. Paul’s question to the Corinthians becomes the question of the whole week: “What do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?” (1 Corinthians 4:7).
Where interpreters differ
Honesty about the texts belongs to faithfulness to them, and several questions raised this week remain open. Whether the tomb at Silwan belonged to the Shebna of Isaiah 22 is possible but unproven. Scholars debate whether Isaiah 22:24–25 belongs to the original oracle or reflects a later moment, and whether Eliakim’s key was literal or symbolic. The link between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:19 is widely held but rests on allusion rather than quotation. The date, setting and genre of Judith are uncertain, and its use of deception raises real moral questions. Interpreters weigh differently how much divine resonance Mark intends in Jesus’ “I am,” and what precisely the council judged to be blasphemy. And the relationship between Psalm 104 and the Egyptian hymn to the Aten — borrowing, shared tradition or independent creation — is still discussed. None of these questions changes what the week’s verses say together.
The Question Beneath the Week
Every one of this week’s verses stands at the meeting point of two ways of holding a life.
One way says mine. It says it quietly, in the heart, in the language of competence and achievement. It buys its gods and then has to carry them. It carves its name into the rock. It hangs its family’s cups on the peg of its office. It is loud — hāmôn, a roar of many things — and it is always slightly anxious, because whatever is truly mine can be truly lost.
The other way says entrusted. It works hard, and blesses God at the table. It carries a key, and uses it to open doors for others. It holds a little, and keeps giving. It calls God by the names of the poor, and finds itself among them. When everything is stripped away, it still knows its name. And it sings, while it has being.
So the tension at the heart of this week is not between wealth and poverty. It is between title and trust:
We claim to own what we were only lent — and we hold at arm’s length the One who has offered himself to be ours.
That is what this week asks each of us to confront. Not how much do I have? but:
Am I living as an owner or as a steward — and whose am I?
Living as Stewards
What does the week’s answer look like on an ordinary Monday?
At the table. Deuteronomy’s antidote to the self-made heart was a blessing at meals: “You shall eat your fill and bless the LORD your God” (8:10). Grace at table is not a pious decoration. It is a small, daily act of handing the title back to its Owner. A family that blesses God for its food is teaching its children, several times a day, that nothing on the table was simply made by anyone’s hand.
In work and achievement. Our age loves the word self-made. Deuteronomy 8:17 is the original self-made speech, and it is forbidden not because effort is wrong but because the story is false. No one is self-made. Behind every degree stand teachers; behind every promotion, colleagues who covered for us; behind every business, roads we did not build, laws we did not draft, and a body and mind we did not design. A Christian may be proud of hard work. A Christian may not forget the credits.
In office and authority. For anyone who holds a key — a public official, a manager, a headteacher, a member of a governing body, a priest, the office-bearer of a residents’ association, a parent — Isaiah 22 is a searching text. The key belongs to the house. Its purpose is to open doors for those who need them, as a father does for his household. Shebna’s temptation was to build a monument; the temptation of Eliakim’s household was to hang their cups on him. Both are with us still. The test is simple and severe: in whose interest am I using this key today?
In families and inheritance. Anyone who has worked near the courts knows how many family relationships founder on property, and how often a lifetime of affection ends in a partition suit. Psalm 37 calls what we pass on an inheritance — something received and handed on. Judith set her affairs in order and distributed her property before she died. Putting one’s own house in order — a clear will, settled papers, honest conversations with those who will come after — can be an act of love, and a quiet confession that we were only ever stewards.
In ageing and retirement. Psalm 37 is the counsel of an old man; Psalm 104 vows to sing as long as I live. Retirement can strip away titles that once seemed part of who we were. That loss can be frightening — or freeing. When the office is gone and the robe has been handed on, what remains is what Jesus kept in the high priest’s house: who we are before God. And praise, unlike employment, has no retirement age.
Among the lowly. Judith’s God is the God of the underdogs. Every household, office and parish has its lesser ones — the domestic worker, the contract labourer, the junior clerk, the elderly relative no one consults, the child with no one to speak for them. If God’s name is helper of the lesser ones, then one way to call on that name is to become, this week, the hand by which he takes hold of one of them.
In what we buy. Isaiah’s goldsmith is not out of business. A great deal of modern advertising is an invitation to purchase a small god — something that promises security, identity, belonging or rescue. Isaiah’s test still works: Can it move towards you? Can it answer when you call? Can it save you from trouble? If not, it is something to use, not something to trust.
A Rise & Inspire Moment
In many older households — in Kerala as in Lisbon or Lagos — there was one person who carried the keys. Often it was the grandmother: a heavy ring of iron and brass at her waist, keys to the storeroom, the rice bin, the cupboard where the good plates and the land documents were kept. Nothing in that house moved without her.
And yet everyone who watched her closely understood something. The keys were never hers. They belonged to the household. She carried them for everyone who ate at that table — for the children who would one day marry, for the workers who needed their rice, for the guest who arrived without warning. And on the day she grew too frail, the keys passed, sometimes with ceremony and sometimes in silence, to another pair of hands. The house remained. The keys moved on.
That is Isaiah 22:22 in a single domestic image. And it is the whole difference between Shebna and Eliakim.
Shebna — or whoever lay behind that door at Silwan — carved: There is no silver and no gold here. He meant, do not bother robbing me. Scripture reads his stone and quietly adds the lines he left out:
The silver and the gold were never yours.The key was only lent.The breath was only borrowed.But the song was yours to give —and you may give it while you have being.
A key kept only for yourself stops being a key and becomes a trophy. Hold everything you have the way a steward holds a key: for opening.
Five Ways to Hold Things Open This Week
1. Bless the table (Deuteronomy 8:10). At one meal every day this week, before or after eating, name aloud one thing on the table and where it came from — the farmer, the cook, the shop, the rain — and then bless God for it. If you live alone, do it anyway. It is the simplest way to say, daily, my hand did not make this.
2. Write the credits (Deuteronomy 8:18). Choose one achievement you are proud of — a degree, a position, a business, a home, a book, a family. On paper, list every person who made it possible, including the ones you never thanked. Then, before Friday, thank two of them by name: a call, a letter, a message they can keep.
3. Use your key to open one door (Isaiah 22:22; Judith 9:11). If you hold any authority — in an office, an institution, a committee, a profession, a family — use it once this week to open a door for someone with no influence: a recommendation written, a pending file cleared, a fair hearing granted, a young person introduced to someone who can help. And decline one small privilege of your position that you have come to take for granted.
4. Put your house in order (Isaiah 22:24; Judith 16:24). Check whether your will, nominations and important papers are clear enough that what you leave will never become your family’s quarrel. If that is already done, choose one thing you intend to give away one day — and consider giving it while you can still see it received.
5. Sing before you ask (Psalm 104:33; CCC 2639). Each morning this week, before you ask God for anything, praise him for one thing about who he is — not for what he has done for you, but simply because he is. Once this week, read Psalm 104 slowly from beginning to end, aloud if you can, and notice every creature in it. And if you are at Mass today, listen for this week’s word in the responsorial psalm: “I will bless you as long as I live.”
Questions to Sit With
In Deuteronomy 8:17–18, what exactly does Moses deny, and what does he deliberately not deny? Why does the difference matter?
If a stranger examined the inventory of my life — my bank statements, my calendar, my phone, the way I speak about my achievements — what would they conclude I believe I own?
Where might I be behaving like Shebna — carving my own name into something entrusted to me for the sake of others? And where have I let others hang their cups on a peg that was never meant to bear them?
Who are “the lesser ones” in my world — at home, at work, in my parish or neighbourhood — and what would it mean for God to take hold of one of them through me this week?
Before this week is over, what is one thing I will hold open, one door I will unlock, and one moment I will set aside simply to praise God because he is?
A Steward’s Prayer
God of the lowly and King of all creation, the earth is full of what is yours, and so am I.
Forgive me the sentence I speak in my heart when no one else is listening: my strength, my skill, my hand. Every strength I have, you gave; every good thing I have made, I made with your gift.
When I am tempted to buy a god I can carry, remind me that you come near on your own, even to the stubborn, even to me.
You have laid some keys on my shoulder. Teach me to carry them for the house and not for myself — to open doors, as a father opens them for his children, and to hand them on gladly when my time is done.
Make me content with a little held open, generous with what I cannot keep, and quick to take hold of the weak, as you take hold of me.
Lord Jesus, who stood with nothing before your judges and did not grasp at what was yours, keep me on the night when everything is taken. Let me know who I am before you, and never deny your name to keep myself warm.
Breath of God, I have my being on loan. While I am still here, let me sing — not only for what you give, but because you are.
You are my God. Let that be the one thing I call my own. Amen.
What to Carry
Everything else you hold in trust; only God gives himself to be called your own.
Lamps, Oil and Entrusted Gold
This morning, across India and far beyond it, our Hindu friends and neighbours are celebrating Deepavali, the festival of lights. Many of our streets will glow tonight with rows of lamps. Rise & Inspire offers them warm greetings, as the Holy See does each year; the Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue’s message for this year’s festival invites Hindus and Christians to forge pathways of peace together, recalling the fortieth anniversary of Pope Saint John Paul II’s day of prayer for peace at Assisi in 1986. Christians walking past those lamps tonight might remember this morning’s psalm, which pictures God “wrapped in light as with a garment” (Psalm 104:2) — a light no one owns, which falls on every doorstep.
Lamps are in this Sunday’s Gospel too. In the parable of the ten bridesmaids (Matthew 25:1–13), the foolish ones run short of oil and ask to borrow from the wise. The answer sounds harsh: “No! there will not be enough for you and for us” (25:9). But perhaps it says something this week has been teaching all along. Almost everything we have can be shared, lent, given away, handed on. One thing cannot. No one can lend you their readiness, their faith, their yes to God. That oil must be your own.
And next Sunday, the readings will carry this week’s question one step further. The first reading will be the portrait of the ʾēšet ḥayil, the “capable wife” of Proverbs 31 — that same word ḥayil that Moses feared would make Israel proud. Her ḥayil shows itself in this: “She opens her hand to the poor, and reaches out her hands to the needy” (Proverbs 31:20). And the Gospel will be the parable of the talents, in which a man going on a journey “summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them” (Matthew 25:14). Entrusted. Not given away, not sold — entrusted, to be used well until the master returns.
So this Sunday’s question does not close tonight. It walks with us, like a key on the shoulder, into the week ahead.
What can you truly call your own?
Everything you hold, you hold for a while. The One who holds you is yours for ever.
Which passage of Scripture would you like us to open together in a future Sunday Series? Share it in the comments. The verse you cannot stop thinking about may be the very one another reader needs.
Rise & Inspire — Sunday Bible SeriesDepth over speed. Understanding over volume. Formation over information.
Written by John Britto Kurusumuthu
Each morning, His Excellency, Rt. Rev. Dr. Selvister Ponnumuthan, Bishop of the Diocese of Punalur, shares a verse from the Bible. The seven verses received over the course of each week are brought together and serve as the scriptural foundation for that week’s Sunday Bible Series.
I have forgotten most of the files that crossed my desk in the Government Secretariat. The notes I wrote, the matters I helped process, the deadlines that once seemed so urgent: nearly all of them have faded.
But I have never forgotten one man standing before me with tears in his eyes.
A File That Was More Than Just a File
At the time, I was serving as an Under Secretary to Government. Over the years, many people had approached me with grievances that had remained unresolved for far too long, their files moving slowly or lying unattended in some section.
One day, I came to know of a person with a disability whose pension had been stopped. His case had been pending for a considerable time in another section of the Secretariat. It was not my file. It was not even my section. No one would have faulted me for leaving it alone.
But I knew that he depended on that pension. So I intervened. I made enquiries, followed the matter up and stayed with it until it moved. Eventually, his pension was restored.
The Tears I Never Forgot
After his pension was restored, he came to see me.
He stood before me with tears in his eyes. His expression conveyed a gratitude that no elaborate speech could have communicated.
For the government, it was a pension case.
For him, it was his livelihood, his financial security and perhaps the restoration of a little hope in his life.
I did not feel that I had accomplished something extraordinary. I simply felt grateful that I had been in a position to help.
Why This Moment Stayed
I have often asked myself why this memory outlived so many that seemed far more important at the time. I see three reasons.
First, I saw the other end of the file. Most administrative work is invisible in its effects. A file leaves your desk, and whatever it does to a life happens somewhere you will never see. This time, the consequence walked into my room.
Research suggests this matters more than we realise. In a 2007 study, the organisational psychologist Adam Grant and his colleagues worked with university fundraising callers who raised money for scholarships but had never met anyone who received one. One group was given a brief meeting with a scholarship student. A month later, those callers had more than doubled both their time on the phone and the money they raised.1 Their work had not changed. It had simply acquired a face.
Here lies the inversion. We assume that our largest achievements leave the deepest marks. This memory lasted for the opposite reason: the act was small enough to be seen whole, from the problem to the person.
Second, it was not required of me. Assigned duties tend to blur together precisely because they are assigned. What we choose to do, when we could easily have done nothing, belongs to us in a different way. Perhaps memory keeps our choices more faithfully than our obligations.
Third, the thanks came without ceremony. There was no certificate, no citation, no entry in a service register. Formal recognition passes through procedure; tears do not. Perhaps that is why his gratitude reached me in a way no official recognition could.
Impartial, But Not Indifferent
A caution belongs here. Administration rests on rules, and rightly so. Rules protect citizens from favouritism, and an officer who acts on sympathy alone, outside procedure, can do as much harm as one who never acts at all.
But impartiality is not indifference. Treating every applicant without favour does not mean forgetting that behind every file is a person, often waiting anxiously for a decision that could change his or her life. Within the rules, there is almost always room for initiative: an enquiry made, a reminder sent, a question asked on someone else’s behalf.
When we forget the person behind the file, administration becomes mechanical. When we remember that person, it becomes service. Nor is this true only of government. Teachers, doctors, managers and anyone entrusted with responsibility towards others carry files of their own, whether or not they are called files.
A Face to Recall
In the last months of his life, Mahatma Gandhi left a short note that came to be known as his talisman. Whenever we are in doubt, he advised, we should “recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man” we have seen, and ask whether the step we are about to take will restore to that person control over his own life and destiny.2
For years, I knew that test as a principle. That day gave it a face. A restored pension may be a small administrative act. For the man who received it, it was exactly what Gandhi described: control over his own life, given back.
I no longer need to imagine a face when I apply that test. I remember one.
A Thought to Carry Forward
We seldom know which of our actions will last. The achievements we are proudest of may fade, while a moment we barely noticed may be remembered for a lifetime, by us or by someone else.
So here is one small practice. This week, look for one matter that has been waiting too long on someone else’s behalf: an application, a request, an unanswered message. It may not be your responsibility. Within your role, ask about it anyway, and follow it through.
You may never see the result. But somewhere, someone may remember the day a difficult situation became a little easier because you did not look away.
1. Adam M. Grant, Elizabeth M. Campbell, Grace Chen, Keenan Cottone, David Lapedis and Karen Lee, “Impact and the Art of Motivation Maintenance: The Effects of Contact with Beneficiaries on Persistence Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103, no. 1 (2007): 53–67.
2. Gandhi’s talisman is reproduced in Pyarelal, Mahatma Gandhi: The Last Phase, Vol. II (Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1958), p. 65. Pyarelal was for many years Gandhi’s private secretary.
John Britto Kurusumuthu
Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in
In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt, 07 November 2026: What’s a small moment from your past that you still think about years later?
Today’s prompt asks how I define success in life. My first answer: personal growth, meaningful relationships, inner peace and contribution to others. I still believe every word. But nobody could disagree with it, and a definition nobody can disagree with has not yet decided anything.
So here is a harder one. A successful life is measured less by what reached than by what we refused to do to reach it.
1. Both lists avoid the same question
We often measure success by what we possess, the positions we hold, the money we earn and the recognition we receive. Thoughtful people offer a kinder list: character, family, peace, service. Yet both lists describe what we hope to be holding at the end. Neither mentions the price.
More than three thousand years ago, the Egyptian Book of the Dead pictured a person at the end of life, standing before divine judges.1 The words prepared for that moment do not recite offices, estates or honours. They are a long list of refusals. I have not caused pain. I have not caused hunger. I have not taken milk from the mouths of babes.
3. The beggar and the salary
In fourth-century BCE China, Mencius said that if he could not have both life and righteousness he would choose righteousness.2 Even a beggar, he says, will turn away food that has been trampled on, though his life depends on it. Yet a man offered a huge salary will accept it without asking whether it is right.
So refusal is no luxury of the comfortable. Success itself often teaches us to stop refusing.
4. The poet who would not pass the verse
Tamil tradition tells of Nakkeerar, chief poet at the Pandya court in Madurai. A poor man came to claim the king’s gold with a verse composed by the god Shiva himself. Nakkeerar found fault with it. Shiva appeared and opened his burning third eye. The poet would not withdraw: “Netrikkan thirappinum, kutram kutrame.” Even if the third eye opens, a fault is still a fault.3
The story does not even claim he was right. It remembers that he did not bend.
5. The petty bureaucrat
In 1960 the same scene played out in a government office. Frances Kelsey was less than a month into her job at the US Food and Drug Administration when her first file arrived: a sleeping pill popular in Europe, expected to pass routinely. She asked for better evidence. The company visited, phoned her superiors and called her a petty bureaucrat. She held out for nineteen months. Abroad, meanwhile, thousands of children were being born with severe deformities. The drug was thalidomide.4
The greatest achievement of her career was an approval she would not give.
6. The fair objection
Refusal carries two dangers. It can become a boast, like the Pharisee who thanks God that he is not like other people (Luke 18:9–14). And clean hands can simply be empty hands: the servant who buried his talent harmed nobody, and that was exactly his failure (Matthew 25:24–30).
So refusal is only half the definition. Frances Kelsey’s refusal served children she would never meet. The Egyptian text itself moves on: I have given bread to the hungry, beer to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, a boat to the boatless.
I consider it a success when I can look back without being ashamed of the choices I have made, acknowledge my mistakes without losing confidence, and look ahead with curiosity rather than fear. Inner peace does not mean giving up ambition. It means pursuing our ambitions without allowing them to control our happiness.
Try this tonight. Write down three things you would not do, even for the promotion, the sale or the applause. Then ask when each was last tested. A refusal that has never cost you anything is still only an opinion.
A successful life is not necessarily the one that leaves behind the greatest fortune or the loudest reputation. It may be the one that can answer a simpler question: Can I live peacefully with myself?
What about you? When you look back on your life, what would make you say, “Yes, I have lived a successful life”? And what did you refuse, so that you could say it?
Notes for readers
1Book of the Dead, Spell 125, often called the Negative Confession. The earliest known examples date from the reign of Hatshepsut in the fifteenth century BCE. Quotations follow the translation on University College London’s Digital Egypt site. This is a ritual text, prepared for those who could afford a copy, so it records an ideal of a good life and not proof of any owner’s conduct.
2 Mencius (c. 372 to 289 BCE) was the leading Confucian thinker after Confucius. The passage, Mencius 6A10, opens with the famous choice between fish and bear’s paw.
3 The story appears in the Thiruvilaiyadal Puranam of Paranjothi Munivar, a Tamil sacred narrative of about the sixteenth century, and reached a wide audience through the 1965 film Thiruvilaiyadal. The king had offered a thousand gold coins for the verse. The reply is given in the form Tamil speakers quote today. In the fuller story, Nakkeerar is burned and later restored by Shiva. It is legend, not history, though poets named Nakkeerar are known from classical Tamil literature.
4 Frances Oldham Kelsey (1914 to 2015). The company withdrew its application in March 1962. It had already given trial tablets to American doctors, and seventeen children in the United States were documented with thalidomide-related deformities. President Kennedy presented her with the President’s Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service on 7 August 1962.
John Britto Kurusumuthu
Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in
In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt, 06 November 2026: How do you define success in life?
Spell the word Malayalam backwards. You get Malayalam.
That is my answer to today’s prompt. Malayalam is the language of Kerala, where I spent most of my working life, and its name reads the same from either end. This has never solved a problem, won an argument or saved anyone a rupee.
It gets better. The trick fails in the language’s own script. Written മലയാളം, the word is no palindrome; its two l sounds, for one thing, are different letters. So the fact is not really about Malayalam, only about how the word happens to look in someone else’s alphabet. The language itself knows nothing about it.
I can hardly imagine anything more useless, and I intend to defend it on those terms.
1. The usual defence gives the game away.
Lovers of trivia have a comfortable reply to their critics: what we call useless knowledge is simply knowledge whose usefulness we have not yet discovered. In 1939 the American educator Abraham Flexner showed how radio grew out of the work of Maxwell and Hertz, men “without thought of use”.1
He was right about science. But notice the bargain. A useless fact may live only on the promise that it will one day pay. Flexner himself pleaded for “the abolition of the word ‘use’”. Nothing will ever be built on the backward spelling of Malayalam. If I defend it by its future employment, I have won it an adjournment, not an acquittal.
2. People have always spent real genius on such things.
In the seventh century the Tamil poet-saint Thirugnana Sambandar composed verses that read the same from the last letter to the first.2 Unlike Malayalam, they do it in their own script. The Greek line “Wash the sins, not only the face” does the same in Greek letters, and is said to have been carved on a font outside Hagia Sophia.3
A hymn does not praise better for being reversible. Holy water does not wash cleaner. Yet when people wanted to give their best, they gave skill that did no work.
3. A useless fact is the one thing we say that wants nothing.
Nearly everything that reaches us wants something. Advertisements want our money. News wants our attention. Advice, even good advice, wants us to change. This blog wants you to think, I admit.
A useless fact asks for nothing. That is why it crosses so easily between strangers in a waiting room. I hand you something worthless, we both know it, and for a moment neither of us is after anything. Try it today: offer someone a small fact with no moral attached, and stop there.
It may bring a smile, but a smile is a fruit, not a purpose. The moment I tell it to impress you, it has found a job and is no longer worth hearing. That is what is wrong with the guest who corrects every dinner table. His fault is not useless knowledge. He has found a use for it.
4. Some curiosity is only a way of hiding.
Here the critics have a point. In a Buddhist discourse, a man struck by a poisoned arrow refuses the surgeon until he knows the archer’s name and what the bowstring was made of. He would die, says the Buddha, with those things still unknown.4
I can know the history of every word and not know how my neighbour’s operation went. A useless fact is a fine dessert and a poor meal. Once it takes the place of something I owe someone, it has lost its innocence.
5. The harder question waits after retirement.
Retirement, changing responsibilities or the passing of years should never bring our learning to an end. Yet all our working lives we are asked what we are for. Then the asking stops, and we must ask what a thing is worth when it is no longer of use.
I had a glimpse of the answer on the old streets of Alexandria, Virginia, where I was known by no one. For the first time in years, nobody needed me to be anything, and I found I could simply be.
If everything must earn its keep, what shall we say of the aged parent in the next room, the infant who can do nothing yet, the friend whose illness has ended his work, and, in time, ourselves? The instinct that spares a useless fact is, on a smaller scale, the one that keeps a chair at the table for someone who can no longer pay for it.
You will say I have just made this fact work for nearly eight hundred words. I plead guilty. Tomorrow it goes back to doing nothing.
A fact need not earn its keep. Neither, in the end, need we.
What about you? Do you have a curious, unusual or seemingly useless fact that you love sharing? And do you believe any knowledge is truly useless?
Notes
1. Abraham Flexner, “The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge”, Harper’s Magazine, October 1939. Flexner was the founding director of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton.
2. Sambandar, who is said to have died at sixteen, composed hymns to Shiva that form the first three volumes of the Tirumurai, the Tamil Shaiva canon. His reversible hymn, in the third volume, is in the form called maalai maatru, likened to a garland that runs the same from either end. Its first verse reads: யாமாமாநீ யாமாமா யாழீகாமா காணாகா / காணாகாமா காழீயா மாமாயாநீ மாமாயா
3.Nipson anomemata me monan opsin, attributed to Gregory of Nazianzus, a fourth-century bishop. It is a palindrome only in Greek letters, ΝΙΨΟΝ ΑΝΟΜΗΜΑΤΑ ΜΗ ΜΟΝΑΝ ΟΨΙΝ, in which ps is the single letter psi.
4. The Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 63), from the Pali Canon. The Buddha’s target there is speculation about the cosmos, not trivia. I borrow the picture for a smaller purpose.
Rise & Inspire — Strive to elevate in life.
John Britto Kurusumuthu
Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in
In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt, 05 November 2026: What’s a completely useless fact you love sharing?
I have never been frightened by a ghost. I have been frightened by a small boy holding a few pebbles.
My first answer to today’s prompt said that no book or film had ever truly scared me. I can close a frightening book, switch off a movie or walk away from a disturbing scene. Real life, I wrote, is what I fear. It was a comfortable answer, and too quick. One story does not stay shut when the book is closed: Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery”.1
1. Nothing in it happens in the dark.
A clear June morning in a small village. The men talk of planting and taxes. The boys fill their pockets with smooth stones. It will all be over in time for lunch. A name is drawn from a shabby black box, and only in the last lines do we learn what the winner has won. Her neighbours stone her to death.
As they close in on Tessie Hutchinson, someone hands her small son, Davy, a few pebbles.
Someone. Jackson never tells us who.
2. Its first readers proved its point.
The New Yorker had never received so much mail about a work of fiction. Some readers cancelled in disgust. Others took the story for fact, and wrote to ask where such lotteries were held and whether they could go and watch.
Whether they could go and watch. I find that more chilling than the ending. Jackson said she had hoped to shock readers with “the pointless violence and general inhumanity in their own lives”. Some of them asked for directions.
3. This is a different kind of fear.
I was right that real life frightens us more. Losing someone we love, an unexpected illness, betrayal: these are fears of what may be done to us. Jackson awakens another fear, of what may be done through us.
No one in that square is a monster. They have forgotten most of the ritual and lost the original box, yet they have kept the stones. I might have stood there too, stone in hand, telling myself I was only keeping a custom.
4. A crowd has no first person.
It speaks only in the third person: someone, they, everyone. It never has to say “I”.
Tyrants have always known this. When the Thirty ruled Athens, they ordered Socrates and four others to fetch Leon of Salamis for execution. Plato says they gave such orders to implicate as many people as possible.2 Divide a deed among enough hands and no one owns it. Tamil has it in two words: Koottathodu Govinda,3 to cry “Govinda” because the crowd is crying it.
Sometimes the crowd only looks at the floor. In the Mahabharata,4 Draupadi, gambled away by her husband at dice, is dragged into the assembly and asks the great men there whether she was lawfully won. Most lower their eyes. Bhishma, the most revered of them, tells her that morality is subtle.
5. One sentence can break a crowd.
John’s Gospel holds the scene Jackson never wrote. Accusers bring a woman to Jesus and remind him that the law commands stoning. He does not argue. He says: “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” They go away, one by one, beginning with the elders.5
He asked the crowd for a first person, and it came apart.
Athens found one too. Four men went to Salamis. Socrates went home. He did not save Leon, and he might have paid with his life. Courage is sometimes that modest.
6. A fair objection.
A story is only a story, you may say, and a diagnosis or a death in the family asks far more of us than any book. That is true. But those fears we can only endure. Whether I pick up the stone is my decision.
7. Our stones are lighter now.
A rumour forwarded without checking. A laugh at someone who has left the room. A silence while the wrong person is blamed in a meeting. I have held that last one myself. Before joining in, one question will do: would I do this if I had to go first? To rise, sometimes, is simply to put the stone down.
8. So what genuinely scared me?
Not a ghost. A sunny morning, a shabby box, and a crowd of decent people who wanted to be home for lunch. Fictional monsters may entertain me. This story stays, because Jackson left a blank where a name should be, and I cannot swear it is not mine.
Perhaps the greatest fear is not what might emerge from the darkness, but what we sometimes encounter in the light of day: ourselves, holding a stone.
A question for my readers
Has a particular story ever changed the way you understand fear? And when did you last find a stone in your hand that you never meant to pick up?
I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Notes
1 Shirley Jackson was an American writer. “The Lottery” was first published in The New Yorker on 26 June 1948. The account of readers’ letters follows Ruth Franklin, Shirley Jackson: A Rather Haunted Life (2016). Jackson’s comment appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on 22 July 1948.
2 Plato, Apology 32c–d. The Thirty were the oligarchy that briefly ruled Athens after its defeat by Sparta in 404 BCE.
3 A Tamil saying. Govinda is a name of Krishna, called out by devotees. The saying describes someone who joins a cry simply because everyone else is crying it.
4 The Mahabharata is the great Sanskrit epic of ancient India. Draupadi’s question and Bhishma’s reply appear in its second book, the Sabha Parva (the Book of the Assembly Hall).
5 John 8:7, 9 (NRSV). This passage does not appear in the earliest surviving manuscripts of John, though it has long been received as Scripture.
John Britto Kurusumuthu
Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in
In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt, 04 November 2026: What’s a book or movie that genuinely scared you?
Offer me a free round-trip ticket to anywhere in the world, and I will thank you warmly. Then I will ask you a few questions.
It was not always so. In July 2023, answering a similar prompt on this blog, I declared myself “bursting with excitement” and chose Iceland and Japan. I asked nothing about cost, safety or health.
Today I could choose Switzerland, explore the historic streets of Rome, visit Jerusalem or discover a country I have always dreamed of seeing. But would I immediately accept the offer and start packing?
Not necessarily. The prompt asks where. At my age, my first question is whether.
1. Is an air ticket the same as a free holiday?
An airline ticket may be free, but accommodation, meals, local transportation, sightseeing and insurance are not. Nor does a ticket guarantee entry. To reach Rome or Switzerland on an Indian passport, I would need a Schengen visa, which requires medical insurance of at least €30,000 and bank statements showing that I can pay for the trip.1 So before I may use the free ticket, I must prove that I can afford the journey.
The word “free” also clouds our judgement. In a well-known experiment, most buyers preferred a fine Lindt truffle to a cheap Hershey’s Kiss. When both prices fell by one cent, making the Kiss free, the preference reversed.2 Nothing about the chocolates had changed; only the word “free” had appeared.
I would not travel merely because the airfare was free.
2. Has the world become a less predictable place?
Places once associated with peace and stability are experiencing conflict and unrest. The Gulf, once regarded as a peaceful destination for work and travel, was drawn into a war this year that closed airspace and stranded hundreds of thousands.3 Youth-led protests have spread across Europe. Within the past week, thousands of students and workers marched past the Colosseum in Rome, and young protesters in Zurich and Basel set barricades alight under the slogan “We’ve had enough, in Switzerland too.”4
Yet I must be fair. The 2026 Global Peace Index finds global peace at its lowest since the index began, and it still ranks Iceland first, Switzerland third and Japan tenth in the world.5 A protest is not a war, and a ticket to anywhere lets me avoid the real trouble spots. The world gives me a reason for caution, but not an excuse. If I hesitate, the reason lies closer to home.
3. Does age change the way we travel?
In 2023 I read the map. Today I read the fine print. Three years is not long, but the distance between those two answers is.
As we grow older, our priorities naturally change. The enthusiasm to explore new places may remain, but physical comfort, health, accessibility and medical facilities deserve greater attention.
There is no shame in recognising one’s limitations. Wisdom sometimes lies in knowing when to travel and when to remain where one is.
4. Is staying home a failure of imagination?
An older voice than mine has said no, and said it grandly.
The Tamil poem Pattinappalai spends more than two hundred lines on the splendour of Puhar, the great Chola port where the goods of distant lands lay piled in the streets. Then the speaker, urged by his own heart to leave his beloved and go in search of wealth, gives his answer: even if that city were his, he would not go.6 Old Tamil poetics even has a name for this: selavazhungudhal, the giving up of a journey. That man refused a city. I am only hesitating over a seat.
I have not lost my curiosity about the world. Through books, documentaries, photographs and the experiences shared by other travellers, I can discover much of it from home. Yet I will not pretend that a photograph of a cathedral gives me its silence.
5. So where would I go?
If the other expenses were taken care of and the arrangements suited my needs, I would go to Switzerland for its mountains, and then to the historic streets of Rome. The train between them, naturally, would be at my own expense.
Rome, because someone I trust knows it. His Excellency, Rt. Rev. Dr. Selvister Ponnumuthan, Bishop of the Diocese of Punalur, who has shared a verse of Scripture with me every day for more than three years, studied in Rome, returns there often and speaks warmly of it. A free fare tells me what a journey costs. A trusted witness tells me what it is worth.
But the word on that ticket I would value most is the one nobody dreams about. “Anywhere” excites the imagination. “Round-trip” comforts the traveller. It promises that however far I go, my own front door is waiting at the end.
6. What matters more than reaching a destination?
We often associate freedom with the ability to go anywhere. Yet true freedom also includes the ability to make sensible choices without pressure, financial worry or unnecessary risk.
The questions I put to this ticket work for any free offer, whether a trip, an upgrade or a new responsibility. What will it cost beyond its price? What might it put at risk? Has someone I trust walked this road? Does it suit the person I am now, or the person I used to be?
At Rise&Inspire, I believe that rising in life does not always mean going farther. Sometimes it means choosing well.
After all, the world is worth exploring, but peace of mind is worth preserving.
A question for my readers:
If you were offered a free round-trip ticket to anywhere in the world, would you accept it immediately, or would you first consider safety, additional expenses and your stage of life? And would you have answered the same way ten years ago? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Notes
1 EU Visa Code, Regulation (EC) No 810/2009, Article 15. Switzerland lies outside the European Union but belongs to the Schengen area.
2 Kristina Shampanier, Nina Mazar and Dan Ariely, “Zero as a Special Price: The True Value of Free Products,” Marketing Science 26, no. 6 (2007): 742–757.
3 The 2026 Iran war began on 28 February 2026. Airspace closed in several countries, and flights across the region were cancelled.
4 Agence France-Presse on Rome, 30 October 2026; Keystone-ATS and Swissinfo on Zurich and Basel, night of 31 October 2026. The slogan in French: “On en a marre – en Suisse aussi.”
5 Institute for Economics and Peace, Global Peace Index 2026, published in June 2026.
6 Pattinappalai is one of the Ten Idylls (Pattuppattu) of classical Tamil Sangam poetry, attributed to Kadiyalur Uruttirangannanar. Puhar, also called Kaveripoompattinam, stood where the river Kaveri meets the sea. The refusal comes at lines 218 to 220.
John Britto Kurusumuthu
Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in
In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt, 03 November 2026: If you had a free round-trip ticket to anywhere, where would you go?
Today’s prompt asks for a song that changed my life. I have searched my memory honestly, and I cannot name one.
I cannot even name a hymn, though a man of faith might be expected to. Many songs have moved me over the years. Some brought back faces I had not thought of in decades. Some put words to feelings I had never managed to say. But none of them, as far as I can tell, turned my life in a new direction.
The longer I stayed with the question, the more I suspected it had things the wrong way round. Perhaps the songs did not change my life. Perhaps my life kept changing the songs.
1. The song is the one thing that stays the same
A recording is fixed. In fifty years, not one note moves. The listener is another matter.
A song heard at twenty and the same song heard at sixty are not the same experience. A love song that once sounded like a promise may later sound like a memory. A song of parting that seemed overly sentimental in youth may, after a real loss, sound simply true. The melody remains unchanged; something within us has changed. In that sense, we never hear the same song twice.
2. Every song waits for a listener to complete it
Two ancient civilisations, far apart, each found they needed a word for this.
Classical Indian thinkers held that the emotional essence of art comes fully alive only in a receptive listener, whom they called the sahridaya, literally “one who has heart.”1
China has an old story of Bo Ya, a master of the qin, and his friend Zhong Ziqi.2 When Bo Ya played with high mountains in mind, Zhong saw Mount Tai rising. When the music turned to flowing water, Zhong saw great rivers. When Zhong died, Bo Ya broke his qin and, the old texts say, never played again. No one was left to complete his music. From that story comes the word zhiyin, “one who knows the music,” which in Chinese still means a true friend.
3. A song needs a heart, not a creed
Tamil has an old saying about the hymns of the poet-saint Manikkavacakar: whoever does not melt at Thiruvasagam will melt at no words at all.3 It praises the hymns, but it also says something about listeners: even the finest words wait for a heart willing to melt.
That heart need not share the singer’s faith. When the Christian missionary and scholar G. U. Pope translated Thiruvasagam into English, he wrote to a friend that his tears had fallen on the pages. The hymns did not convert him. They found what was already in him.
4. Yes, songs have changed lives
It would be dishonest to deny it. In Homer’s Odyssey, the Sirens sing so beautifully that sailors steer towards them and perish; their meadow is heaped with bones. Odysseus wants to hear the song and live. So he stops his crew’s ears with wax and has himself bound to the mast.
One song, three kinds of listener: the sailors who came before and died, the crew who heard nothing, and Odysseus, who heard everything and sailed on. The song did not change. What decided each fate was how each listener came to it. Even when a song changes a life, it works through what the listener brings.
5. Let your songs measure you
A better question, then, is not which song changed us, but how we have changed. Our songs can help us answer it.
Parents sometimes mark a child’s height on a doorframe, one pencil line each year. Familiar songs are such marks for the inner life. The next time a song from long ago finds you, on the radio, at a wedding, or drifting from a neighbour’s window, do not ask only what it means. Ask what it means now. Does it make you smile where it once made you sad, or ache where it once only cheered? That difference is not in the song. It is a record of what you have gained, lost, and learned to value.
6. The music that remains
I still cannot name a song that changed my life, and I no longer think I need to. Not every meaningful experience must redirect a life; some simply enrich it, and they are no less precious for being quiet. The songs have done something else for me. They have stayed exactly where I left them, so that each time I return, I can see how far I have travelled.
Is there a song you have heard in two different seasons of your life that seemed to mean two different things? What changed: the song, or you?
I’d love to hear your story.
Notes
[1] Rasa theory, the classical Indian account of aesthetic emotion, originates in the Natyashastra, the Sanskrit treatise on the performing arts attributed to Bharata. The idea of the sahridaya, the sensitive and receptive spectator or listener, was developed by later thinkers, notably the Kashmiri philosopher Abhinavagupta (c. 10th to 11th century CE).
[2] The story of Bo Ya and Zhong Ziqi, set in China’s Spring and Autumn period, is preserved in early texts including the Lüshi Chunqiu and the Liezi. The qin is a seven-stringed zither long associated with Chinese scholars.
[3] Thiruvasagam (“Sacred Utterance”) is the collection of devotional hymns by the Tamil Shaiva poet-saint Manikkavacakar. It forms the eighth book of the Tirumurai, the Tamil Shaiva canon, and is still sung today. The saying in Tamil runs: “Thiruvasagathukku urugaathaar oru vasagathukkum urugaar.” G. U. Pope’s English translation was published in 1900.
John Britto Kurusumuthu
Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in
In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt, 02 November 2026: What’s a song that changed your life?
Not everything new in the world needs to be understood immediately, but everything that influences our lives deserves our attention.
Today’s WordPress prompt asks: “What are your thoughts about cryptocurrency?”
Let me begin with a confession. I have never bought a single coin, and I do not fully understand how cryptocurrency works. Yet one thing about it needs no technical knowledge to see. Cryptocurrency was built so that no one would need to trust anyone. For most ordinary people, it asks for more trust than any bank ever has.
1. It began with a bold promise.
In simple terms, cryptocurrency is digital money that no central bank issues. Bitcoin, the best known, appeared in 2009, soon after a global financial crisis had shaken faith in banks. Its anonymous creator, writing as Satoshi Nakamoto, described a payment system that would not rely on trust. In its place stood the blockchain: a shared record book, copied across thousands of computers, which no one person keeps or can quietly change. The message was simple. Do not trust bankers. Trust mathematics.
2. Every money in history has rested on someone we trust.
That was a genuine break with the past. On the island of Yap in the western Pacific, people once used huge stone discs as money, some taller than a man.1 They were too heavy to move, so ownership passed by common agreement while the stone stayed where it stood. One stone is said to have sunk to the sea floor on its way to the island, yet its owners were still counted wealthy, because everyone remembered it. The ledger was the village’s memory.
In ancient India, Kautilya’s Arthashastra2 provided for a royal examiner of coins, who decided which coins could pass in the market and enter the treasury. And when Marco Polo reached the court of Kublai Khan in the thirteenth century, he marvelled that paper made from mulberry bark passed as money across the empire. No one dared refuse it. The emperor stood behind every note.
Neighbours, an examiner, an emperor. Cryptocurrency set out to replace them all with code.
3. Here is the quiet reversal.
Most of us cannot read that code or check the ledger ourselves. We buy through an app, on the advice of a friend, a video or a message forwarded in a group. We trust the platform to hold our coins safely, the stranger to be honest, and ourselves to guard a secret recovery phrase that no one can restore once it is lost.
In 2022, one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges collapsed almost overnight. Its customers discovered that the coins they thought they owned had been held, and misused, by people they had simply trusted. The blockchain did not fail. The people around it did.
For most of us, money without trust has quietly become trust without understanding.
4. The old trust at least had a face.
The people of Yap knew one another. Kautilya’s examiner answered to the king. Here in India, many of us now pay the vegetable seller by scanning a QR code, and that digital change never asked us to stop trusting our banks. The new middlemen of cryptocurrency are often faceless, unaccountable and impossible to find when something goes wrong.
5. A fair objection deserves a fair hearing.
Supporters will reply that the system is open, so anyone can verify it. They are right. For those with the knowledge, cryptocurrency can truly work without trust. And where banks have frozen savings or national currencies have collapsed, some families have found in it a protection their own institutions failed to give. But the promise belongs mainly to those who understand the system. For everyone else, “trustless” usually means trusting someone who says they have checked.
6. So, can we embrace what we do not fully understand?
We can, but we should be honest about what we are doing. We are not trusting mathematics. We are trusting whoever explained it to us. Before buying any coin, one question is worth more than any price chart: whom am I really trusting, and could I find them if something went wrong? If not, I am not investing in cryptocurrency. I am investing in a stranger.
I am neither an advocate nor an opponent of cryptocurrency. I am an interested observer, willing to learn but unwilling to follow a trend blindly. Technology may change the way we create, exchange and preserve wealth, but wisdom must continue to guide the way we use it. The greatest investment we can make is still in our own knowledge and judgement.
A question for my readers
Before you trust any new form of money, whom are you really trusting? I would love to hear your thoughts and learn from your experiences.
Notes for readers
[1] Yap is an island in the Federated States of Micronesia. Its stone money, known as rai, was quarried on the islands of Palau, several hundred kilometres away, and carried home by canoe. The story of the sunken stone was recorded by the American ethnographer William Henry Furness III in The Island of Stone Money (1910).
[2] The Arthashastra is an ancient Indian treatise on statecraft and economics attributed to Kautilya, also known as Chanakya, and traditionally placed in the fourth century BCE, though scholars date its present form somewhat later. The examiner of coins (rupadarshaka) appears in its second book, among the duties of state officials.
Rise&Inspire — Strive to elevate in life.
John Britto Kurusumuthu
Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in
In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt, 01 November 2026: What are your thoughts about cryptocurrency?
This week’s Sunday study takes the seven verses of the week and reads them as the seven hours of the Church’s daily prayer, from the night watch to the last prayer before sleep. It begins with Jesus’ warning in Luke 12:40, You also must be ready, and ends on this All Saints’ Day with John 6:40, I will raise them up on the last day.
A few things surprised me along the way. The verse Agree with God was spoken by Job’s friend Eliphaz, and God rebuked him for the way he used it. The prophets James holds up as models of patience complained bitterly to God, and stayed. And in Luke’s parable, when the master finally comes home and finds his servants awake, he ties on his own belt and serves them at the table.
The line I keep coming back to is this one: we fear the last hour, and waste the others.
It is a long study, meant to be read slowly. Tell us in the comments which hour of your day is hardest to give to God.
RISE & INSPIRE | SUNDAY BIBLE SERIESCategory: Wake-up CallsSunday Series No. 12 — 1 November 2026 · Solemnity of All SaintsScriptures of the week: 26 October – 1 November 2026
If the Last Hour Is Hidden, What Should We Do With the Others?
Seven verses, seven hours of prayer, and the saints who were found ready
Before the First Bell
In the Basque country of south-western France, a few kilometres from the Spanish border, the village of Urrugne keeps a church dedicated to Saint Vincent. Its bell tower rises some forty-five metres, and on its south face, where the sun can reach it, there is a sundial. The dial bears a Latin motto of four words:
Vulnerant omnes, ultima necat.
They all wound; the last one kills. The “they” are the hours.
It is a hard sentence, and an honest one. The same motto, and others like it, can be found on old sundials across Europe, because the people who made sundials understood something that we now spend a great deal of money and effort trying to forget. Every hour takes something from us. One of them will take everything. And no shadow on any wall will tell us in advance which hour that will be.
Most of us do not need Latin to learn this. We learn it in a hospital corridor, or from a telephone that rings at an hour when telephones should not ring, or at the funeral of someone who stood beside us at a wedding only a few months before. We learn it more slowly, too, on the morning we notice that our parents have grown old — or that we have.
But a bell tower holds more than a dial. It holds bells. And for centuries, across the Christian world, bells did something a sundial cannot do. The dial measures time. The bell interrupts it. Morning, noon and evening — and in monasteries far more often — the bells called people to stop what they were doing and pray. Saint Benedict, writing his Rule for monks in sixth-century Italy, explained why his communities rose in the dark and laid down their work seven times a day: because one psalm says, “Seven times a day I praise you,” and another, “At midnight I rise to praise you” (Psalm 119:164, 62; Rule of Saint Benedict, chapter 16).
The sundial and the bell look at the same truth from opposite sides. The dial says: the last hour is coming, and you cannot know which one it is. The bell says: then give each hour to God as it arrives.
The first verse of this week’s Wake-up Calls stands exactly between them. Jesus said:
“You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” (Luke 12:40)
And the last verse of the week, given to us this morning, answers the fear that the first might raise:
“This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day.” (John 6:40)
Between those two lie five more: a sentence from the Book of Job, a prayer of the prophet Jeremiah, a word from James about patience, a word from Moses about discipline, and a promise from Sirach about blessing that blossoms in a single hour. They reached us one a day, from Monday to Sunday. Read together, they turn out to describe not seven unrelated ideas but a single day — a whole day, from the darkness before dawn to the last prayer before sleep.
And this is the day to read them. Today is the Solemnity of All Saints, which this year, in the Roman Rite, takes the place of the Thirty-First Sunday in Ordinary Time. Tomorrow the Church commemorates All the Faithful Departed. For two days the Church looks steadily at people for whom the last hour has already struck, and asks what made the difference.
So this is the question the week sets before us:
If the last hour is hidden, what should we do with the others?
A Week That Keeps the Hours
This Sunday’s study is built differently from those that came before it. Rather than taking the seven verses in sequence as seven separate lessons, we will let them become seven hours of one day — the day the Church has prayed for nearly two thousand years.
The Church still keeps the bell’s discipline. Its official daily prayer, the Liturgy of the Hours or Divine Office, is prayed by priests and religious and by a growing number of lay men and women across the world. The Catechism describes it as the way the mystery of Christ, celebrated in the Eucharist, “permeates and transfigures the time of each day” (CCC 1174). Since the Second Vatican Council, which suppressed the old hour of Prime (Sacrosanctum Concilium 89), the full daily round, when every part of it is prayed, has seven moments: the Office of Readings, heir to the ancient night vigil; Morning Prayer; short prayers at the third, sixth and ninth hours of the day; Evening Prayer; and Night Prayer.
Seven hours. Seven verses. And each verse, as we shall see, fits its hour with a surprising aptness — not because anyone arranged it, but because Scripture keeps returning to the same few human moments: watching in the dark, beginning again at dawn, being tested once the day is under way, enduring its heat, growing weary in the afternoon, receiving at evening what the day has yielded, and lying down to sleep.
The Night Watch (Vigils) — Monday, 26 October — Luke 12:40: be ready.
Dawn (Lauds) — Tuesday, 27 October — Job 22:21: agree with God.
The Third Hour (Terce) — Wednesday, 28 October — Jeremiah 17:17: you are my refuge.
Noon (Sext) — Thursday, 29 October — James 5:10: the patience of the prophets.
The Ninth Hour (None) — Friday, 30 October — Deuteronomy 8:5: the discipline of a parent.
Evening (Vespers) — Saturday, 31 October — Sirach 11:22: blessing that blossoms.
Night Prayer (Compline) — Sunday, 1 November — John 6:40: raised on the last day.
Strictly speaking, the Church’s liturgical day for a Sunday or a solemnity begins on the evening before. This year the Solemnity of All Saints began with Evening Prayer on Saturday night — the very evening on which Sirach’s verse was given to us. For this study, though, we will follow the natural order of a single day, from the night watch to the last prayer before sleep.
One small discovery is worth making before we begin. Three of the Church’s hours are crowned every day by a song taken from the Gospels: the Benedictus at dawn (Luke 1:68–79), the Magnificat at evening (Luke 1:46–55) and the Nunc Dimittis at night (Luke 2:29–32). All three come from the first two chapters of Luke, and they are sung by three people: an elderly priest, a young woman, and a very old man. Luke also wrote Monday’s verse. The evangelist who tells us that the hour is unknown is the same evangelist who gave the Church the songs with which it keeps the hours. We will meet all three singers along the way.
Scripture is quoted from the New Revised Standard Version and its Updated Edition — the translation in which this week’s verses were given — unless another version is named.
I. The Night Watch ·Vigils
Monday, 26 October · Luke 12:40
“You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”
The oldest Christian prayer of the day was prayed in the dark. Long before there were clocks in church towers, communities of monks and nuns rose in the middle of the night to sing psalms and listen to Scripture while the world slept. The Second Vatican Council kept that night office alive, reshaped as what is now called the Office of Readings; it may be prayed at any hour of the day, though when celebrated in choir it was to keep its character as praise in the night (Sacrosanctum Concilium 89). Why did Christians ever choose to lose sleep for prayer? In large part because Jesus told a story about servants who stayed awake.
A wedding that runs late
Luke sets this saying on the long road to Jerusalem, the journey that begins when Jesus “set his face to go to Jerusalem” (9:51) and occupies ten chapters of the Gospel. In chapter 12 a crowd of many thousands has gathered (12:1). A man calls out from among them, asking Jesus to make his brother share an inheritance (12:13). Jesus refuses to arbitrate and instead tells the story of a rich farmer whose harvest is so large that he plans bigger barns and a long, comfortable retirement — until God says to him: “You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you” (12:20). Then comes the great teaching on anxiety — the ravens, the lilies, the futility of worry — which ends with one of the gentlest sentences in the Gospels: “Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (12:32).
Only then does Jesus speak of readiness:
“Be dressed for action and have your lamps lit; be like those who are waiting for their master to return from the wedding banquet, so that they may open the door for him as soon as he comes and knocks.” (12:35–36)
Several details would have been obvious to Luke’s first readers.
“Be dressed for action” translates a Greek phrase that means, literally, “let your loins be girded.” People in the ancient Mediterranean wore long, loose robes; to work, run or travel, you gathered the skirt up and tucked it into your belt. The image had a famous ancestor. On the night of the first Passover, Israel was told to eat the meal “your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand” (Exodus 12:11), ready to leave Egypt the moment the word came. To be girded was to be ready to move.
Lamps in the ancient world burned olive oil. They had to be trimmed and refilled; a lamp left alone through a long night would go out. To keep one lit was to keep watching.
A wedding banquet was not over in an evening. Village weddings could run for days — Samson’s lasted seven (Judges 14:12) — so servants waiting for a master to come home from one had no way of knowing when he would appear.
And the hour of his arrival might be “the middle of the night, or near dawn” (12:38). Luke’s Greek speaks of the second or third watch. Jewish custom traditionally divided the night into three watches, Roman custom into four; Mark’s Gospel uses the Roman pattern (Mark 13:35). Whichever Luke has in mind, the point is the same: these are the hours when sleep is deepest and watching is hardest.
Then Jesus changes the image, abruptly and unsettlingly, from a returning master to a burglar: “if the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into” (12:39). The comparison was remembered. Paul, in what is probably his earliest surviving letter, written around AD 50, tells the Thessalonians that “the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night” (1 Thessalonians 5:2). And then our verse: “You also must be ready.”
The words to stay with
ἕτοιμοι (hetoimoi), “ready.” The adjective means prepared, at hand, in a state of readiness. It is used of a meal that is ready to be served — “everything is ready; come to the wedding banquet” (Matthew 22:4) — and of people who are ready for what is coming. In Matthew’s parable of the bridesmaids, “those who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet; and the door was shut” (Matthew 25:10). The related verb appears in one of the most consoling promises of the Gospels: “I go to prepare a place for you” (John 14:2). There is a quiet symmetry here that is easy to miss. The Lord asks us to be prepared for him because he is already preparing a place for us. Readiness is not a test we sit alone; it is two parties making ready for the same meeting.
ὥρα (hōra), “hour.” Luke uses it three times in this short passage (12:39, 40, 46). Keep it in mind. It will return on Saturday in a very different mood.
οὐ δοκεῖτε (ou dokeite), “you do not expect.” The verb δοκέω (dokeō) means to think, suppose, imagine, or seem. Literally, the Son of Man comes “at an hour you do not think.” This is subtly different from another famous saying, “But about that day or hour no one knows” (Mark 13:32). Mark speaks of what is hidden from everyone. Luke’s phrase points to something closer to home: the hour falls outside our thinking — outside the schedule we have quietly drawn up for our own lives, in which there is always a little more time.
What Jesus does not say
It is worth reading slowly enough to notice what is absent.
Jesus does not say be afraid. Ten verses earlier he has said the opposite, and the whole chapter is addressed to a “little flock” to whom the Father is pleased to give the kingdom.
He does not give a date, a sign or a method for calculating one. Readiness is not achieved by knowing more about the timetable.
He does not describe readiness as religious intensity. When Peter asks whether the parable is meant for the disciples or for everyone (12:41), Jesus answers with a picture of a steward put in charge of a household “to give them their allowance of food at the proper time” — and adds: “Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives” (12:42–43). The servant who is ready is found doing his ordinary job, at the ordinary time.
And the danger Jesus names is not, first of all, a lack of devotion. It is what one does with the delay. The unfaithful servant says to himself, “My master is delayed in coming,” and begins to beat the other servants and to eat and drink and get drunk (12:45). He does not deny that the master will return. He simply assumes that there is plenty of time — and uses it to harm the people in his care.
The master who ties on his own belt
Here is the detail that, more than any other, changes the meaning of this whole passage, and it lies just three verses before our own:
“Blessed are those slaves whom the master finds alert when he comes; truly I tell you, he will fasten his belt and have them sit down to eat, and he will come and serve them.” (12:37)
In the Greek, the verb for “fasten his belt” (περιζώσεται, perizōsetai) is the same verb as the “be dressed for action” of verse 35. The servants were told to gird themselves; now the master girds himself — not to be served, but to serve. He seats his servants at his own table and waits on them.
No master in the ancient world behaved like this. But one did. “For who is greater,” Jesus asks at the Last Supper in Luke’s Gospel, “the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves” (Luke 22:27). And in John’s account of the same night, he “tied a towel around himself” and washed his disciples’ feet (John 13:4–5).
This should reshape how we hear Monday’s verse. The One whose coming we are told to watch for is not a creditor arriving to inspect the accounts. He is the Lord who, when he finds us waiting, ties on an apron.
Notice, too, that this short passage contains three beatitudes: “Blessed are those slaves” (12:37), “blessed are those slaves” (12:38), “Blessed is that slave” (12:43). On All Saints’ Day, when the Gospel at Mass is the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1–12a), it is good to know that Luke has three more — and that all three are beatitudes of readiness.
Your last day, and the world’s
What exactly is the “hour” Jesus speaks of? In its setting, the primary reference is to the coming of the Son of Man at the end of history — the figure of Daniel’s vision who comes “with the clouds of heaven” to receive everlasting dominion (Daniel 7:13–14), and whom Jesus identified with himself. Yet Luke has placed the saying only a few verses after the rich fool, whose “this very night” concerns one man’s death, not the end of the world. Interpreters weigh these two horizons differently, but Luke seems to want both in view.
Saint Augustine made the connection memorably at the beginning of the fifth century. Writing to Hesychius, a bishop who had asked him about the end of the world, and commenting on the servant who says “my master is delayed,” he observed: “In whatever state each person’s own last day finds him, in that state the last day of the world will overtake him; for as each one is on the day he dies, so will he be judged on that day” (Letter 199). The Church holds both truths together. Each of us will meet Christ at death, and the Church speaks of a particular judgment at that moment (CCC 1021–1022); and Christ will come in glory at the end of time for the Last Judgment (CCC 1038–1041). Death, the Catechism says, “puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ” (CCC 1021).
That is why the monks rose at midnight. They did not imagine that Christ was more likely to come at three in the morning. They wanted to become the kind of people who would be awake whenever he came. The night office is a practice, not a prediction — and so is readiness.
II. Dawn ·Lauds
Tuesday, 27 October · Job 22:21
“Agree with God, and be at peace; in this way good will come to you.”
Morning Prayer is the Church’s first word to God after the night, prayed as the sun comes up. It is full of light: psalms of praise, the remembrance of the resurrection that happened “very early on the first day of the week” (Mark 16:2), and, as its climax, the song of Zechariah, which ends with the dawn breaking “to guide our feet into the way of peace” (Luke 1:79). Peace, at the start of the day. It is exactly what Tuesday’s verse promises.
But this verse comes with a surprise, and the surprise is the most important thing about it.
A true sentence in the wrong mouth
The words are spoken by Eliphaz the Temanite, the first and apparently the senior of the three friends who come to comfort Job after he has lost his children, his wealth and his health (Job 2:11). For seven days they sit with him in silence — perhaps the wisest thing they do. Then the arguing begins.
The Book of Job is a poem framed by a story. A prose prologue (chapters 1–2) and epilogue (42:7–17) enclose a long poetic dialogue in which Job and his friends speak in turn through three cycles of speeches (chapters 3–27), followed by a poem on wisdom, Job’s final defence, the speeches of a younger man named Elihu, and at last the voice of God from the whirlwind (chapters 38–41). No one knows when the book was written; scholars have proposed dates across several centuries, and the honest answer is that its date and authorship are unknown. Its setting is deliberately timeless and foreign — “the land of Uz” (1:1) — because its question belongs to everyone: why do the innocent suffer?
The friends have a confident answer. God is just; therefore suffering is punishment; therefore Job must have sinned. Their arguments grow harsher with each cycle, and chapter 22 is the third and last speech of Eliphaz. In it he finally says what the others had only implied. He accuses Job of specific crimes: taking pledges from relatives for nothing, stripping the naked of their clothing, refusing water to the weary and bread to the hungry, sending widows away empty-handed and crushing orphans (22:6–9). None of it is true. Job’s own testimony later describes the opposite: he was “eyes to the blind, and feet to the lame,”“a father to the needy” (29:15–16; see the whole of chapters 29 and 31).
It is in the middle of this speech, after the false accusations, that Eliphaz says our verse: Agree with God, and be at peace. What he means is: Stop protesting. Admit that you deserve this. Confess the sins I have just listed. Then God will restore your fortune — and he goes on to promise, quite literally, gold (22:23–25).
And here is the end of the story. When God finally speaks, he turns to Eliphaz and says: “My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has” (42:7).
So the verse we were given on Tuesday is a true sentence spoken by a man whom God rebuked. That is not a reason to discard it. Scripture does not discard it; Paul even quotes another line of Eliphaz as the word of Scripture (“He catches the wise in their craftiness,” 1 Corinthians 3:19, quoting Job 5:13). But it is a reason to read it with care. A sentence can be true and still be used as a weapon. The question is not only what is said about God but why, and to whom, and at what cost to the person listening.
What “agree” means in Hebrew
The phrase that the NRSV translates “Agree with God” is, in Hebrew, הַסְכֶּן־נָא עִמּוֹ (haskēn-nāʾ ʿimmô), literally “come, be accustomed with him.” The verb סָכַן (sakan) has an interesting range.
In its simplest form it means to be of use, to benefit. Eliphaz used it at the very start of this chapter, in a question that reveals his whole picture of God: “Can a mortal be of use to God? Can even the wisest be of service to him?” (22:2). For Eliphaz, God is self-sufficient and unaffected; nothing Job does can matter to him one way or the other.
In the causative form used in our verse, the standard Hebrew lexicon gives the sense to be used to, to be in the habit of, and so to be in harmony with someone. The clearest example is one of the most charming verses in the Old Testament. When the prophet Balaam beats his donkey, the animal protests: “Am I not your donkey, which you have ridden all your life to this day? Have I been in the habit of treating you this way?” (Numbers 22:30). Have I been in the habit — that is our verb, used twice. And in Psalm 139 the same form is used, on most readings, of God’s intimate knowledge of us: “you are acquainted with all my ways” (Psalm 139:3).
That is why translations of Job 22:21 vary so widely. The King James Version has “Acquaint now thyself with him, and be at peace.” The NRSV and RSV have “Agree with God.” The NIV has “Submit to God.” Each catches part of the word: acquaintance, harmony, habit, yielding.
The second verb, וּשְׁלָם (ûšəlām), “and be at peace,” comes from the root that gives us shalom. Its range includes peace, wholeness, completeness — and also repayment, the settling of an account.
Put Eliphaz’s two uses of sakan side by side and his theology becomes clear. A God to whom human beings cannot be of use (22:2) can only be come to terms with (22:21): you settle your account, and the payment follows. It is a transaction. But the deeper sense of the verb — to become accustomed to someone, to know their ways by long familiarity — points somewhere Eliphaz never went. To “agree with God” in that sense is not to sign a confession someone else has drafted. It is to become so familiar with God that you know his ways the way an old servant knows his master’s step on the stairs. That kind of agreement is not a contract. It is a habit of the heart. And it is exactly the readiness Monday’s verse asked for.
How Job agreed with God
Job, in the end, did agree with God — but not on Eliphaz’s terms. He refused to agree with a false account of God, even when it would have been easier. He brought his whole case, angry and bewildered, to God himself.
One of Job’s most famous lines captures the struggle in a curious way. In Job 13:15, the Hebrew text as written says something like “he will kill me; I have no hope”; but an ancient marginal reading, preserved by the scribes alongside the written text, changes one small word so that it reads “in him I will hope.” The King James Version followed the marginal reading — “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him” — while the NRSV follows the written text: “See, he will kill me; I have no hope; but I will defend my ways to his face.” The tradition kept both. Perhaps that is fitting. Job’s faith lived precisely in the gap between those two readings, between despair and trust — and it lived there to God’s face, not behind his back.
When God finally answers from the whirlwind, he does not explain Job’s suffering. He shows Job the immensity of creation. And Job’s response is not an argument won or lost but an encounter: “I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you” (42:5). Hold on to that sentence. The week will end, on Sunday, with a promise to “all who see the Son.”
There is one last irony. Near the end of his speech, Eliphaz had promised Job that if he repented, God “will deliver even those who are guilty; they will escape because of the cleanness of your hands” (22:30, NRSV; the Hebrew is difficult and translations differ). Many readers have noticed how that promise comes true — but not as Eliphaz imagined. At the end of the book, God tells Eliphaz and his friends to go to Job and ask him to pray for them, “for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly” (42:8). The guilty man who was delivered by the clean hands of Job was Eliphaz himself.
The priest who wrote a name
Every morning, the Church answers Eliphaz with a song.
Zechariah was an elderly priest who, while offering incense in the Temple, was told by the angel Gabriel that his wife Elizabeth would bear a son, to be called John. He did not believe it — “How will I know that this is so?” (Luke 1:18) — and was struck mute until the promise was fulfilled. When the child was born, the relatives assumed he would be named after his father. Elizabeth said no; his name was John. They turned to Zechariah, who asked for a writing tablet and wrote: “His name is John.” And “immediately his mouth was opened and his tongue freed, and he began to speak, praising God” (1:63–64).
That is what agreeing with God looks like in the Gospel. Not consenting to a friend’s theology, but consenting to God’s word — even when it means disagreeing with family custom, with what everyone in the room expects. Zechariah’s tongue was freed the moment he agreed. And the song that poured out of him, the Benedictus, ends where Job 22:21 begins: “the dawn from on high will break upon us, to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace” (1:78–79). A few verses earlier, a young woman in Nazareth had agreed with God in the simplest words ever spoken: “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word” (1:38).
So the dawn hour teaches us how to hear Tuesday’s verse rightly. Agree with God — yes. But that means becoming accustomed to the real God, whose ways we learn by long familiarity, not settling terms with the God of someone’s tidy explanation. And it will often mean refusing to agree with what is said about God when it is not true.
III. The Third Hour ·Terce
Wednesday, 28 October · Jeremiah 17:17
“Do not become a terror to me; you are my refuge in the day of disaster.”
By the third hour of the Roman day — about nine in the morning — the work is under way, and the day has begun to show what kind of day it will be. Christians remembered two things at this hour. It was the hour of Pentecost: “these are not drunk, as you suppose,” Peter told the crowd, “for it is only nine o’clock in the morning” (Acts 2:15). And in Mark’s Gospel it was the hour of the crucifixion: “It was nine o’clock in the morning when they crucified him” (Mark 15:25). The ancient hymn traditionally sung at this hour, Nunc, Sancte, nobis, Spiritus, asks the Holy Spirit to come now and fill the heart. Terce is the prayer of people for whom the day has turned difficult, and who need courage to stay at their post.
No one in the Old Testament needed that courage more than Jeremiah.
A prophet in the gap
Jeremiah was the son of a priestly family from the village of Anathoth, a few kilometres north of Jerusalem. He was called to be a prophet as a young man, in the thirteenth year of King Josiah (Jeremiah 1:1–2), about 627 BC, and he was still prophesying after Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians in 587. For four decades he told his people what they did not want to hear: that their trust in the Temple, in alliances and in their own cleverness would not save them, and that disaster was coming. For this he was mocked, beaten and put in the stocks (20:2), plotted against by his own townspeople (11:21), and lowered into a muddy cistern to die (38:6).
His book contains something found nowhere else among the prophets with such intensity: a series of raw, personal prayers that scholars call the “confessions” or laments of Jeremiah (11:18–12:6; 15:10–21; 17:14–18; 18:18–23; 20:7–18). In them we hear the prophet speaking not to the people on God’s behalf but to God on his own behalf — and some of what he says is startling. “Truly, you are to me like a deceitful brook, like waters that fail” (15:18). “O LORD, you have enticed me, and I was enticed” (20:7). And yet: “there is something like a burning fire shut up in my bones; I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot” (20:9).
Wednesday’s verse belongs to the third of these prayers:
“Heal me, O LORD, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved; for you are my praise. See how they say to me, ‘Where is the word of the LORD? Let it come!’ But I have not run away from being a shepherd in your service, nor have I desired the fatal day. You know what came from my lips; it was before your face. Do not become a terror to me; you are my refuge in the day of disaster. Let my persecutors be shamed, but do not let me be shamed; let them be dismayed, but do not let me be dismayed; bring on them the day of disaster; destroy them with double destruction!” (17:14–18)
Look at what the mockers say: “Where is the word of the LORD? Let it come!” Jeremiah had announced a day of disaster, and it had not yet arrived. Every year it failed to come, his credibility sank further. He was living in the gap between a word spoken and a word fulfilled — and being taunted for the delay.
That should sound familiar after Monday. It is the situation of the servants waiting for a master who does not come, and of the unfaithful servant who decides, “My master is delayed.” It is also, almost word for word, the taunt that the Second Letter of Peter puts in the mouths of scoffers who mocked the early Christians: “Where is the promise of his coming?” (2 Peter 3:4). Jeremiah is the patron of everyone who has staked their life on a promise that has not yet come true.
Notice, too, what comes just before this prayer in chapter 17. “Blessed are those who trust in the LORD,” the prophet has written. “They shall be like a tree planted by water, sending out its roots by the stream. It shall not fear when heat comes, and its leaves shall stay green; in the year of drought it is not anxious, and it does not cease to bear fruit” (17:7–8). And then: “O hope of Israel! O LORD! All who forsake you shall be put to shame… for they have forsaken the fountain of living water, the LORD” (17:13). Jeremiah’s lament is not prayed in ignorance of these truths. It is prayed by a man who has just written them down, and is now trying, in the heat, to be the tree he described.
Two words that sound alike
Jeremiah 17:17 turns on two Hebrew words that look and sound strikingly alike.
מְחִתָּה (məḥittāh), “terror,” comes from a root, חתת (ḥtt), that means to be shattered, broken down, dismayed. The noun can mean terror, ruin, destruction — the thing that breaks you.
מַחְסֶה (maḥseh), “refuge,” comes from a different root, חסה (ḥsh), to seek shelter. It is one of the great words of the Psalms: “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble” (Psalm 46:1); “I will say to the LORD, ‘My refuge and my fortress; my God, in whom I trust'” (Psalm 91:2).
The two words are unrelated in origin, but in the verse they almost touch: limḥittāh … maḥsî. Read aloud, the line hangs on the narrow difference between them. The same God, Jeremiah is saying, can be experienced as the thing that breaks me or the place where I hide. Do not be the first. You are the second.
The root of məḥittāh appears twice more in the very next verse — “let them be dismayed (yēḥattû), but do not let me be dismayed (ʾēḥattāh)” (17:18). And it reaches back, perhaps, to the day of his call. When God first sent the young Jeremiah out, he told him: “But you, gird up your loins; stand up and tell them everything that I command you. Do not break down before them, or I will break you before them” (1:17). Break down and break are both this same root. Notice, too, the girded loins — the image of readiness we met on Monday. The prophet who was told at the start, do not be shattered, now prays decades later, do not let me be shattered, and do not become my shattering yourself.
One more phrase deserves attention: בְּיוֹם רָעָה (bəyôm rāʿāh), “in the day of disaster,” literally “in a day of evil.” It appears in verse 17 and again in verse 18, and verse 16 speaks of “the fatal day.” Jeremiah’s prayer is about a day — just as Luke’s saying was about an hour. Neither man knows when it will come. Both are being asked how they will meet it.
Praying the whole sentence
What does this prayer teach us that a more polished prayer could not?
First, that it is possible to experience God as part of the threat. People who have lived through a terrifying diagnosis, the sudden death of a child, a collapse of faith, or long years of unanswered prayer will recognise this. God does not always feel like a refuge. Sometimes the very thought of him adds to the fear. Jeremiah does not pretend otherwise. He names it — do not become a terror to me — and he names it to God.
Second, that naming it is not the end of faith but a form of it. In the same breath Jeremiah says, you are my refuge. He does not wait until he feels safe to say it. He says both halves of the sentence together. The Catechism, describing the prayer of the prophets, puts it with remarkable frankness: “At times their prayer is an argument or a complaint, but it is always an intercession that awaits and prepares for the intervention of the Savior God, the Lord of history” (CCC 2584). An argument or a complaint — and still prayer.
Third, that Scripture records even what it does not commend. Verse 18 asks God to destroy Jeremiah’s persecutors “with double destruction.” The Bible preserves that cry honestly, as it preserves the angriest of the Psalms, but it does not ask us to copy it. Jesus would teach his disciples to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). What Jeremiah does model is where he takes his rage: not into action against his enemies, but into prayer, where God can receive it, judge it and transform it. Paul would later give the principle: “never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God” (Romans 12:19).
And fourth, that this prayer belongs, as Terce reminds us, to the morning of Pentecost and the morning of the cross. Jeremiah was remembered by Christians as a figure of the suffering Christ — the prophet who said, “I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter” (11:19). At the third hour, Jesus too was mocked by people who demanded proof: “save yourself, and come down from the cross!” (Mark 15:30). And at the third hour, weeks later, the Spirit came upon frightened disciples and made them bold. The prayer of Jeremiah — you are my refuge — was answered, in the end, by a refuge that was not a place but a Person.
IV. Noon ·Sext
Thursday, 29 October · James 5:10
“As an example of suffering and patience, brothers and sisters, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.”
Noon is the hour of greatest heat. In the Church’s prayer at midday, an ancient hymn — traditionally attributed, though not with certainty, to Saint Ambrose — makes the burning sun a picture of what burns inside us:
Exstingue flammas litium,aufer calorem noxium,confer salutem corporumveramque pacem cordium.
“Quench the flames of strife, take away harmful heat, grant health to our bodies and true peace to our hearts.” At midday, when the work is half done and the end is not yet in sight, tempers flare. The heat is not only in the sky.
The long middle
The Letter of James is attributed by its opening line to “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:1), traditionally identified with James “the Lord’s brother” (Galatians 1:19), the leader of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:13–21; 21:18). The Jewish historian Josephus records that this James was stoned to death in Jerusalem in AD 62 (Antiquities 20.200). If he wrote the letter, it comes from before that date; many scholars accept this, while others think it was written later in his name. It is addressed “to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion” (1:1) — Jewish believers in Jesus scattered beyond the land of Israel — and it reads less like a letter than a collection of wisdom, close in spirit to the Sermon on the Mount.
Chapter 5 opens with fierce words to rich landowners: “Listen! The wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts” (5:4). Then James turns to the poor who have been wronged, and speaks to them about waiting:
“Be patient, therefore … until the coming of the Lord. The farmer waits for the precious crop from the earth, being patient with it until it receives the early and the late rains. You also must be patient. Strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. … do not grumble against one another, so that you may not be judged. See, the Judge is standing at the doors! As an example of suffering and patience … take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. Indeed we call blessed those who showed endurance. You have heard of the endurance of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful.” (5:7–11)
Several threads of this week are tied together in those five verses.
“You also must be patient” (5:8) echoes, in shape, Monday’s “You also must be ready” (Luke 12:40). The waiting is for the same coming of the Lord.
“The Judge is standing at the doors” (5:9) recalls the master in Luke who comes and knocks (Luke 12:36), and anticipates the risen Christ of the Book of Revelation: “Listen! I am standing at the door, knocking” (Revelation 3:20). The One at the door is both Judge and Friend.
“The prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord” (5:10) points, more than to anyone, to Jeremiah — Wednesday’s prophet, who suffered precisely because he spoke in the Lord’s name.
And “the endurance of Job” (5:11) brings back Tuesday’s book. James did not know our arrangement of verses. But his letter holds the prophet and Job side by side as the two great examples of waiting faith.
The farmer’s image would have been vivid to the first readers. In the land of Israel the “early rain” comes in October and November, softening the ground for sowing; the “late rain” comes in March and April, swelling the grain before harvest (Deuteronomy 11:14). Between them lie months in which nothing can be hurried. The early rains fall, in that land, at exactly this season of the year. Readers in Kerala, who know the southwest monsoon of June and the northeast monsoon of October, will understand the image at once; so will anyone who has ever planted a garden and waited for frost to lift. You cannot make the sky obey your schedule. You can only prepare the ground and stay.
Long-tempered
James uses two words for what the Church usually calls patience, and the difference between them is worth knowing.
The first, in our verse, is μακροθυμία (makrothymia). It is built from makros, “long,” and thymos, “passion” or “temper.” It means, almost literally, being long-tempered — the opposite of short-tempered. It is first of all a quality of how we treat people. That is why, in the middle of this passage about waiting, James suddenly says: “do not grumble against one another” (5:9). Long waiting makes people short with each other. The farmer who cannot hurry the rain takes it out on his family.
The second word, in verse 11, is ὑπομονή (hypomonē), “endurance” — literally remaining under a weight. It is the patience that holds up under circumstances: illness, poverty, persecution, loss. The nineteenth-century scholar Richard Chenevix Trench famously distinguished the two words this way — makrothymia towards persons, hypomonē towards things — and while the distinction is not watertight, it is useful. The prophets needed both: long temper with a people who mocked them, and endurance under what that people did to them.
And there is one more thing about makrothymia that changes everything. Before it is a human virtue, it is a description of God. When God revealed his name to Moses on Sinai, he called himself “merciful and gracious, slow to anger” (Exodus 34:6). The Greek translation of the Old Testament rendered “slow to anger” with the adjective makrothymos. God is long-tempered. Our patience is a borrowed likeness of his.
The word ὑπόδειγμα (hypodeigma), “example,” also repays a moment’s thought. It means a pattern or model to be copied. Jesus uses it on the night before he died, after washing his disciples’ feet: “For I have set you an example (hypodeigma), that you also should do as I have done to you” (John 13:15). The prophets are a pattern of suffering patience; Jesus is the pattern of the servant who ties on a towel. Both examples belong to the same picture of readiness.
Patience that argues
Here is something easy to miss. The two examples James chooses — the prophets and Job — are not examples of silent, uncomplaining submission. Jeremiah complained bitterly to God. Job protested so loudly that his friends were scandalised. If James had wanted examples of serene, unruffled calm, he chose badly.
Unless biblical patience means something other than serenity.
What the prophets and Job share is not that they never cried out, but that they never walked away. They argued with God rather than about him. They stayed in the relationship through the delay, through the darkness, through the long noon of waiting. That is what makrothymia and hypomonē look like in Scripture: not the absence of anguish, but the refusal to let anguish end the conversation.
James 5:11 adds a phrase that interpreters read in two ways: “you have seen the purpose (telos) of the Lord.” The word telos means end, goal or outcome. Most modern commentators take it to refer to the outcome God brought about for Job — his restoration at the close of the book. Some early Christian readers heard in it a reference to the Lord’s own end, his death and resurrection. Either way, the point is that the story did not end at noon. “The Lord is compassionate and merciful.”
The noonday demon
The monks of the Egyptian desert in the fourth century gave a name to the special temptation of midday. Psalm 91 speaks of “the destruction that wastes at noonday” (91:6), and the ancient Greek translation of that line reads “the noonday demon.” The monk Evagrius Ponticus took up the phrase, and identified it with what the tradition calls acedia: a restless, listless weariness of spirit. It strikes, he wrote, in the middle of the day, when the sun seems hardly to move and the day feels fifty hours long; the monk keeps looking out of the window, finds his cell intolerable and his brothers irritating, and begins to imagine that he would be holier somewhere else.
We do not need to live in a desert to recognise that. It is the temptation of the long middle — of a marriage in its twentieth year, of a vocation in its third decade, of a career that has stopped being new, of an illness that has stopped being dramatic and become simply daily. It is the hour in which we are most likely to grumble against one another, and most likely to give up quietly while appearing to carry on.
James’s answer to the noonday demon is not excitement but patience: long temper with the people beside us, and endurance under the weight of the day. And his reason is the same as Jesus’ reason on Monday: “the coming of the Lord is near.”
V. The Ninth Hour ·None
Friday, 30 October · Deuteronomy 8:5
“Know, then, in your heart that, as a parent disciplines a child, so the LORD your God disciplines you.”
The ninth hour — about three in the afternoon — was an hour of prayer long before Christians kept it. It was the hour of the afternoon offering in the Temple, which is why Peter and John were going up to pray “at the hour of prayer, at three o’clock in the afternoon,” when they met a lame man at the Beautiful Gate (Acts 3:1). For Christians it became, above all, the hour of Jesus’ death: “At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?'” (Mark 15:34). It is also, for most of us, the hour when energy drains away, when the morning’s resolution has worn thin and the evening’s rest is not yet in sight.
Friday’s verse is a verse for the tired middle of the afternoon — and for the long middle of a journey.
A sermon on memory
Deuteronomy presents itself as Moses’ farewell: a series of speeches on the plains of Moab, as Israel waits to cross the Jordan into the land he himself will not enter (1:1–5). Readers who were with us last week will remember the setting, and the scholarly discussion of the book’s origins; what matters here is that chapter 8 is a sermon about memory.
“Remember the long way that the LORD your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, in order to humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commandments. He humbled you by letting you hunger, then by feeding you with manna, with which neither you nor your ancestors were acquainted, in order to make you understand that one does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD. The clothes on your back did not wear out and your feet did not swell these forty years. Know then in your heart that as a parent disciplines a child so the LORD your God disciplines you.” (8:2–5)
The chapter then looks forward to the good land — “a land of wheat and barley, of vines and fig trees and pomegranates” (8:8) — and warns that prosperity is more dangerous than the desert ever was. “Do not say to yourself, ‘My power and the might of my own hand have gotten me this wealth'” (8:17). The wilderness taught Israel dependence. The danger of the land would be forgetting it.
Discipline as schooling
The Hebrew verb behind “disciplines” is יָסַר (yāsar), and its noun is מוּסָר (mûsār). Both are common in the Book of Proverbs, where mûsār is usually translated instruction: “Hear, my child, your father’s instruction, and do not reject your mother’s teaching” (Proverbs 1:8). The range runs from teaching, through correction, to chastisement. English discipline covers the same range — and has the same root as disciple, a learner.
The Greek translation of Deuteronomy rendered the verb with παιδεύω (paideuō), from pais, “child.” It means to bring up a child, to educate and train, and also to correct. It gives us words like pedagogy. The Letter to the Ephesians uses the noun when it tells fathers to bring up their children “in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). In the Bible, discipline is first of all education. Correction is part of it, but it is not the whole of it.
And the verb יָדַע (yādaʿ), “to know,” threads through these few verses like a refrain. God tested Israel “to know what was in your heart” (8:2). He fed them with manna that neither they nor their ancestors had known (8:3), “in order to make you know” that one does not live by bread alone (8:3). And now: “Know then in your heart” (8:5). In the wilderness, God came to know Israel’s heart. Now Israel is asked to come to know God’s.
The sandals that did not wear out
Read verse 5 by itself, as a single verse on a screen, and it sounds stern: God disciplines you. Read it where Moses placed it, and something else appears.
Immediately before it stands this sentence: “The clothes on your back did not wear out and your feet did not swell these forty years” (8:4).
The discipline Moses means is a discipline that included hunger and manna, the long road and the sandals that never wore through. Forty years of walking, and no one’s feet swelled. It was a hard school, but it was a school in which the Teacher fed the pupils every morning. The chapter even tells us the purpose in so many words: God fed them with manna “to humble you and to test you, and in the end to do you good” (8:16). The Greek translation renders “in the end” as “in the last of your days” — a phrase that will echo on Sunday.
Earlier in the book, Moses had put the same truth more tenderly still: “the LORD your God carried you, just as one carries a child, all the way that you traveled until you reached this place” (1:31). The God who disciplines like a parent and the God who carries like a parent are one God. The verse does not set discipline against tenderness. It assumes they come from the same hands.
Your heart, not your neighbour’s
There is a phrase in Deuteronomy 8:5 that guards against a very common misuse of it: “Know thenin your heart.” The Hebrew is literally “know with your heart.” It is addressed to Israel about Israel’s own story. And it is retrospective: it comes at the end of a call to remember the long way (8:2). Discipline, in this passage, is something you recognise looking back on your own life, prayerfully, with the help of God’s word.
It is not a tool for explaining other people’s suffering.
We have already met a man who used it that way. In his very first speech, Eliphaz told the grieving Job: “How happy is the one whom God reproves; therefore do not despise the discipline of the Almighty” (Job 5:17). The word he uses for discipline is mûsār — the same family as our verse. It is a true sentence. Proverbs says almost the same (Proverbs 3:11–12), and the Letter to the Hebrews quotes Proverbs with approval. But spoken by Eliphaz, over a man who had just buried his children, it became a cruelty. God’s verdict on that kind of speech is the end of the Book of Job.
So this week’s verses guard each other. Deuteronomy tells us that God does discipline his people as a loving parent forms a child. Job warns us that we have no right to diagnose someone else’s catastrophe as God’s correction. You may, over years, come to see your own wilderness as a school. You may never stand at another person’s graveside and tell them that theirs is one. The Catechism draws a related distinction in its teaching on the Lord’s Prayer, between trials that serve the growth of the inner person and temptations that lead towards sin (CCC 2847); but it never invites us to sort other people’s sufferings into categories on their behalf.
A word for readers whose own parents disciplined harshly. For some, the comparison in this verse is painful, because the discipline they knew as children was not formation but fear. Scripture’s analogy does not run upwards from our worst human experiences to God; it runs downwards from God’s goodness to what parenting should have been. Jesus put it plainly: “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:13). And a psalmist who knew abandonment could still pray: “If my father and mother forsake me, the LORD will take me up” (Psalm 27:10). If these memories are heavy for you, it is worth speaking to someone you trust — a priest, a counsellor, a wise friend.
Three in the afternoon
Why does this verse belong to the ninth hour? Because the New Testament connects the discipline of God’s children with the hour when the Son of God died.
The Letter to the Hebrews, after its long roll-call of the faithful in chapter 11, begins chapter 12 with words that could stand over today’s solemnity: “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses…” (12:1). It tells us to look to Jesus, “who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross,” and to consider him “so that you may not grow weary or lose heart” (12:2–3) — the very temptation of the afternoon. Then, quoting Proverbs, it speaks of God’s discipline: “Endure trials for the sake of discipline. God is treating you as children” (12:7). And it ends with a promise that gathers several of this week’s words into one sentence: “Now, discipline always seems painful rather than pleasant at the time, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it” (12:11).
Hebrews does not call the cross a discipline imposed on Jesus for any fault of his own; he had none. But it places the Son who endured beside the sons and daughters who are being trained, so that we can see where the road leads. Elsewhere the same letter says something astonishing: “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered” (5:8). At the ninth hour, the Son who had quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 in the desert — “One does not live by bread alone” (Luke 4:4) — gave himself as bread. And on Sunday, in John 6, the manna of Deuteronomy 8 will become the Bread of Life.
VI. Evening ·Vespers
Saturday, 31 October · Sirach 11:22
“The blessing of the Lord is the reward of the pious, and quickly his blessing flourishes.”
In the early Church, evening prayer began with the lighting of the lamps as darkness fell. A psalm traditionally sung at this hour gives it its spirit: “Let my prayer be counted as incense before you, and the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice” (Psalm 141:2). Evening is the hour of looking back over the day, and of receiving what the day has yielded. In the ancient world it was also, quite literally, payday. The Law required that a hired labourer be paid before the sun went down: “You shall pay them their wages daily before sunset” (Deuteronomy 24:15; compare Leviticus 19:13).
Saturday’s verse is about wages. And it was given to us on the evening of 31 October — All Hallows’ Eve, the vigil of All Saints, when Evening Prayer of the solemnity began.
A book the Church kept
The Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach — called Sirach or Ben Sira, and in older Catholic Bibles Ecclesiasticus — is one of the few books of the Old Testament whose author gives us his name: “Jesus son of Eleazar son of Sirach of Jerusalem” (50:27). He was a scribe and teacher of wisdom, writing in Hebrew in Jerusalem, probably around 190–180 BC. His grandson translated the book into Greek in Egypt, and tells us in a prologue that he arrived there “in the thirty-eighth year of the reign of Euergetes” — 132 BC.
The book belongs to the Catholic and Orthodox canons of Scripture; Protestant traditions place it among the Apocrypha. Its Latin name, Ecclesiasticus, is usually explained as “the church book,” reflecting how widely the early Church used it in teaching. For centuries it was known chiefly in Greek, but from 1896 onwards large portions of the Hebrew text were recovered from a storeroom of old manuscripts in a Cairo synagogue (the Cairo Geniza), and further fragments were found at Masada and Qumran. Verse numbers differ slightly in some older Catholic Bibles based on the Latin Vulgate.
Chapter 11 is a set of reflections on reversals of fortune. Kings have ended up sitting on the ground, ben Sira observes, while someone nobody had thought of has worn the crown (11:5). The pace of the chapter then slows around a contrast between two kinds of person. There is the anxious worker who toils, strains and hurries, and only falls further behind (11:11). And there is the slow, needy person on whom the Lord looks kindly, whom he lifts out of his lowly condition and whose head he raises, to the astonishment of many (11:12–13).
Then comes a portrait every reader of Luke will recognise:
“One becomes rich through diligence and self-denial, and the reward allotted to him is this: when he says, ‘I have found rest, and now I shall feast on my goods!’ he does not know how long it will be until he leaves them to others and dies.” (11:18–19)
It is, almost exactly, the rich fool of Luke 12 — the parable told a few verses before Monday’s verse. Commentators have long noticed the resemblance. Two centuries before Jesus, a Jerusalem sage had already sketched the man who thinks he has time.
And then ben Sira gives his counsel:
“Stand by your agreement and attend to it, and grow old in your work. Do not wonder at the works of a sinner, but trust in the Lord and keep at your job; for it is easy in the sight of the Lord to make the poor rich suddenly, in an instant. The blessing of the Lord is the reward of the pious, and quickly his blessing flourishes.” (11:20–22)
The chapter goes on: “it is easy for the Lord on the day of death to reward individuals according to their conduct” (11:26), and — in words that echo an old Greek proverb — “Call no one happy before his death” (11:28).
Two wages
Read verse 22 beside verse 18, and a small but telling detail appears in the Greek. The word translated “reward” in our verse is μισθός (misthos) — the ordinary word for wages, the pay of a hired worker. And it has appeared already, four verses earlier, in the portrait of the self-made man: “the reward allotted to him” (11:18) is, literally, “the portion of his wage (misthos).”
So ben Sira sets two wages side by side.
The wage of the self-made man is a pile of goods and a moment of saying, “I have found rest” — followed by the discovery that he must leave it all to others.
The wage of the devout is “the blessing of the Lord.”
The second wage is not a larger pile. It is a different kind of payment altogether: God’s own favour, God’s own good word over a life. The word for blessing, εὐλογία (eulogia), means literally a good word — the word from which English gets eulogy. And the word for pious, εὐσεβής (eusebēs), describes a person whose life is turned reverently towards God. A few verses earlier ben Sira has said that “the Lord’s gift remains with the devout” (11:17). The wage of the devout is not what God gives. It is that God gives.
Jesus told a parable about evening wages. When the owner of a vineyard settled accounts at the end of the day — “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his manager, ‘Call the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last'” (Matthew 20:8) — the workers hired at the eleventh hour received the same as those who had worked since dawn. The word for pay is misthos. And when the early workers grumbled — the noonday sin of Thursday — the owner asked: “Or are you envious because I am generous?” (20:15). The evening wage, in the kingdom, is grace.
A swift hour
Now the second half of the verse: “and quickly his blessing flourishes.” The Greek is more vivid than any English translation can easily be: ἐν ὥρᾳ ταχινῇ ἀναθάλλει (en hōra tachinē anathallei) — “in a swift hour he makes [his blessing] blossom.” The United Bible Societies’ handbook on Sirach notes that “in a swift hour” is a distinctive poetic phrase of the Greek translator. The verb ἀναθάλλω (anathallō) is used of a plant springing up, putting out new shoots, blossoming again; Paul uses it when he tells the Philippians that their concern for him has “revived” — blossomed again (Philippians 4:10).
Do you remember the word hōra from Monday? “The Son of Man is coming at an hour (hōra) you do not expect.” Here it is again. For the unprepared, the unknown hour is a thief in the night. For the devout, the unexpected hour is the hour in which God’s blessing suddenly bursts into flower. It is the same unknown hour. What it brings depends on what it finds.
What ben Sira could not yet see
Theological honesty requires one more observation. When ben Sira speaks of the Lord rewarding people “on the day of death,” he probably does not mean what a Christian would mean. Most scholars think that Sirach, like much of the Old Testament before the later prophets and the Maccabean period, had no developed belief in personal resurrection. For him, the reward of the righteous is seen at the close of their earthly life — in its ending, in the children and the good name they leave — and “call no one happy before his death” means that you cannot judge a life until you have seen the whole of it.
The Church does not read his words as though he had already seen Easter. It reads them as a true insight that would later be opened much wider: by Daniel’s vision of those who “sleep in the dust” and “shall awake” (Daniel 12:2), by the Maccabean martyrs, and above all by the One who would say on Sunday, “I will raise them up on the last day.” Ben Sira saw that the end of a life reveals its meaning. He did not yet see that the end of a life would not be its end.
Two saints of the Carmelite tradition — and today is their feast as much as anyone’s — spoke of the evening of life in words the Catechism has made its own. Saint John of the Cross: “At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love” (quoted in CCC 1022). And Saint Thérèse of Lisieux, in her Act of Oblation to Merciful Love: “In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works” (quoted in CCC 2011). Thérèse had understood ben Sira’s second wage. The reward of the devout is not a payment for services rendered. It is the Lord himself. The Catechism puts it simply: “The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God” (CCC 2011).
The song sung at lamplighting
Every evening, at Vespers, the Church sings the song of a young woman who was the most devout person in Luke’s Gospel:
“My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant. … He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things.” (Luke 1:46–48, 52–53)
Place Mary’s song beside Sirach 11 in the Greek, and a remarkable correspondence of vocabulary appears. Ben Sira says that “the eyes of the Lord looked upon (epeblepsan)” the needy one “for good,” and “raised him from his lowliness (tapeinōseōs)” and lifted up his head (11:12–13). Mary sings that God “has looked (epeblepsen) on the lowliness (tapeinōsin) of his servant,” has “lifted up the lowly,” and filled the hungry with good things (Luke 1:48, 52–53). The same verb; the same noun. We need not claim that Luke was quoting Sirach. They shared the language of Israel’s Scriptures, and the conviction that God’s eyes rest on the lowly.
And in Mary, ben Sira’s promise was fulfilled beyond anything he imagined. “Blessed are you among women,” Elizabeth said to her, “and blessed is the fruit of your womb” (Luke 1:42). The blessing of the Lord, in a swift hour, had blossomed.
VII. Night Prayer ·Compline
Sunday, 1 November · John 6:40
“This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day.”
The last prayer of the day is the gentlest. Night Prayer begins with a short examination of conscience. Its responsory takes the words of Psalm 31 that Jesus spoke from the cross at the ninth hour: “Into your hands, Lord, I commend my spirit” (Psalm 31:5; Luke 23:46). Its Gospel song is framed by one of the loveliest antiphons in the Church’s prayer: “Protect us, Lord, as we stay awake; watch over us as we sleep, that awake, we may keep watch with Christ, and asleep, rest in his peace.” And it ends with a blessing that, in English, asks the Lord to grant “a restful night and a peaceful death.” The Latin original is plainer still: noctem quietam et finem perfectum — “a quiet night and a perfect end.”
Every night, then, the Church goes to sleep rehearsing its death. That sounds morbid only until you see how it is done: not in dread, but in the posture of a child who lies down knowing the house is guarded. Saint Benedict counted among the tools of the spiritual life “to keep death daily before one’s eyes” (Rule, chapter 4). Compline does it with a lullaby.
Bread in Capernaum
Sunday’s verse comes from the long sixth chapter of John’s Gospel. The Fourth Gospel is traditionally associated with the disciple “whom Jesus loved” and probably reached its final form late in the first century; its chapters move at a slower, more meditative pace than the other Gospels, and its long discourses unfold a single sign in depth.
The sign in chapter 6 is bread. Near Passover (6:4), by the Sea of Galilee, Jesus feeds five thousand people with five barley loaves and two fish (6:1–14). The crowd wants to seize him and make him king (6:15). The next day they find him across the lake, in the synagogue at Capernaum (6:59), and he tells them bluntly: “you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves” (6:26). They bring up the manna — “Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness” (6:31) — the very manna of Friday’s chapter in Deuteronomy. And Jesus answers: “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty” (6:35).
Then, immediately before our verse, comes a sequence that is worth reading slowly:
“But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away; for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.” (6:36–39)
The discourse goes on to speak of eating his flesh and drinking his blood — “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day” (6:54) — words the Church has always heard as the promise of the Eucharist. Many disciples find this too hard and leave. Jesus asks the Twelve whether they too will go, and Peter answers for every Christian who has ever stayed through a hard saying: “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life” (6:68).
The will we were afraid of
The word that opens our verse is θέλημα (thelēma), “will.” It is a word many people have learned to fear. It was God’s will, someone says at a funeral, and it lands like a sentence pronounced from a distant bench. Thy will be done can be prayed through clenched teeth, as a surrender to something we suspect we will not like.
John 6 tells us what the Father’s will actually is. “That I should lose nothing of all that he has given me.”“That all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life.”“I will raise them up.” And in verse 37 Jesus says, with an emphatic double negative in the Greek (οὐ μὴ ἐκβάλω ἔξω, ou mē ekbalō exō), that he will certainly not drive away anyone who comes to him.
So the will of God, in this passage, is not a hidden decree to be dreaded. It is a rescue plan. It is the same will Jesus announced on Monday, at the top of the chapter on readiness: “it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (Luke 12:32). Paul states it as plainly as anyone: God “desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4).
Here, at last, is what Tuesday’s verse was reaching for. Agree with God, said Eliphaz, and meant: accept my verdict on your guilt. But this is what there is to agree with in God: a Father who wills to lose nothing, and a Son who has come to do that will. To “agree with God” in the deepest sense is to consent to being found.
Seeing is not yet believing
The verse speaks of “all who see the Son and believe in him.” In Greek both verbs are present participles — ὁ θεωρῶν (ho theōrōn) and πιστεύων (pisteuōn): the one who keeps looking at the Son and keeps believing in him. The verb θεωρέω (theōreō) means to look at attentively, to behold, to contemplate; it is related to our word theatre.
But notice the sentence three verses earlier: “you have seen me and yet do not believe” (6:36). The crowd in Capernaum had seen Jesus. Some of them had eaten the bread he multiplied. Seeing was not enough. What the verse promises is not to those who merely look, but to those who look and trust. Faith is seeing that has become surrender.
What do they receive? ζωὴ αἰώνιος (zōē aiōnios), “eternal life” — literally “the life of the age,” the life of the world to come. Readers who were with us last week will remember the Hebrew phrase behind it, ḥayyê ʿôlām, in Daniel 12:2. In John, this life is both a present gift and a future hope. “Whoever believes has eternal life,” Jesus says a few verses later (6:47) — has, already, now. And yet: “I will raise them up on the last day.”
The Greek of that promise ends with an emphatic pronoun — ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐγώ (anastēsō auton egō), “I myself will raise him up.” And the phrase “on the last day” (ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, en tē eschatē hēmera) occurs four times in this one discourse (6:39, 40, 44, 54). Martha will use it, in grief, outside her brother’s tomb: “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day” (11:24). Some twentieth-century scholars, notably Rudolf Bultmann, argued that these references to the last day were added by a later editor to a Gospel that originally spoke only of eternal life as a present reality. Many interpreters today see the present and the future as deliberately held together in John, and the Church has always read them so. The Catechism, answering the question when the dead will rise, quotes these very verses: “Definitively ‘at the last day,’ ‘at the end of the world'” (CCC 1001). And it adds that “in a certain way, we have already risen with Christ,” because the Christian life is already a share in his death and resurrection (CCC 1002).
The hour of Monday, the day of Wednesday, the swift hour of Saturday — all of them meet here, in the last day. And the last day, in John, is not a threat. It is the day on which the Son keeps his word: I will raise them up.
An old man ready to sleep
Every night, at Compline, the Church sings the song of a man who saw the Son and believed.
His name was Simeon, and Luke tells us that he was “righteous and devout, looking forward to the consolation of Israel” (Luke 2:25). It had been revealed to him that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah (2:26). When Mary and Joseph brought the infant Jesus to the Temple, Simeon took the child in his arms and said:
“Master, now you are dismissing your servant in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation.” (2:29–30)
The Greek words are worth hearing. “Master” is δέσποτα (despota), the word a slave used for his owner. “Servant” is δοῦλον (doulon), a slave. And “you are dismissing” is ἀπολύεις (apolyeis), a verb used of releasing someone — a slave set free, a soldier discharged, a watchman relieved at the end of his watch. Simeon is the servant of Luke 12, still at his post after a lifetime of waiting, who has seen his master come at last. He can go to sleep now. He has seen, and he has believed. Monday’s verse and Sunday’s verse meet in his arms.
Beside him in the Temple that day was Anna, a prophet, eighty-four years old, who “never left the temple but worshiped there with fasting and prayer night and day” (2:37). If James wanted an example of the “suffering and patience” of the prophets, he might have pointed to her: decades of night and day, keeping the hours, until the hour came.
This is who the saints are. Not people who calculated the hour, but people who kept watch — who saw the Son, believed, and spent their hours in that faith until the last one came. The Church honours them today, the canonised and the countless unnamed, proposing them, as the Catechism says, “as models and intercessors” (CCC 828). And the Church sings Simeon’s song every night so that we might learn to go to sleep the way he did.
Midnight, Again: The Tension Beneath the Week
Psalm 119 rises at midnight to praise God, and so the day of prayer comes round again to where it began. Before we draw the threads together, we need to name what this week’s Scriptures are asking us to face.
There are two ways to live with an hour you cannot know.
The first is the way of the sundial. You watch the shadow. Either you fear it — and the fear makes it impossible to live in the hour you are actually in — or, far more often, you quietly assume that the shadow has a long way still to travel. This week has shown us that second figure again and again. The rich farmer saying to his soul, “relax, eat, drink, be merry” (Luke 12:19). Ben Sira’s self-made man: “I have found rest.” The servant who says, “My master is delayed,” and spends the delay mistreating the people in his care. The mockers in Jeremiah’s day: “Where is the word of the LORD?” Israel in the good land, forgetting the desert. None of them denies that the last hour will come. They simply live as though it belongs to someone else.
The second is the way of the bell. You do not try to read the shadow at all. You give each hour to God as it comes — the night watch, the dawn, the hard middle of the morning, the heat of noon, the long afternoon, the evening, the night. The servants with their belts tied and their lamps lit. Zechariah writing a name. Jeremiah staying at his post and telling God the truth. The prophets and Job, staying in the conversation. Simeon and Anna in the Temple, for years, until the day.
So the tension at the heart of this week is not, in the end, between fear and faith. It is sharper and more ordinary than that:
We fear the last hour, and waste the others.
And here is the insight that changes how the whole week reads. Why is the hour unexpected? Why is there a delay at all? Thursday’s word gives the answer. “The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness,” writes the Second Letter of Peter, “but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). The verb is μακροθυμεῖ (makrothymei) — God is being long-tempered. And a few verses later: “regard the patience of our Lord as salvation” (3:15).
The delay is not God’s absence. It is God’s patience. Every hour we are given before the last one is not time in a waiting room; it is mercy extended. The servant who says “my master is delayed” has read the delay exactly backwards. He takes the master’s patience as permission. The saints took it as an invitation.
So this is what the week asks each of us to confront:
Am I treating the hours I have as an extension of God’s mercy — or as a postponement of the person I keep meaning to become?
What the Seven Hours Say Together
Stepping back from the day, seven insights emerge — one, it happens, for each hour.
1. Readiness is a habit, not a forecast. Jesus gives no date; he gives a posture. The monks who rose at midnight did not expect Christ at three in the morning; they were forming themselves into people who would be awake whenever he came. Even the Hebrew verb of Tuesday’s verse leans this way: to “agree with God” is, at its root, to become accustomed to him. The question is not when will he come? but what will he find?
2. The One who comes is the One who serves. The easiest detail to miss in Luke 12 is the master who ties on his belt and waits on his servants at table (12:37). Sunday’s verse says the same in another key: the Father’s will is that the Son “should lose nothing” (John 6:39). Christian readiness grows out of trust, not dread. We watch for the One who has promised not to drive us away.
3. Agreeing with God is not the same as agreeing with a theology about God. Eliphaz spoke true words about God and was rebuked for them, because he used them to crush a suffering man. Job argued with God and was vindicated. Zechariah found his voice when he consented to God’s word against the expectations of everyone in the room. The test of our speech about God is not only whether it is orthodox but whether it is truthful, humble and merciful — and whether it leads people to God’s face or keeps them at a distance from it.
4. Honest lament can be a form of readiness. Jeremiah prayed, “Do not become a terror to me,” and the Catechism calls such prayer “an argument or a complaint” that is still intercession (CCC 2584). James holds up the prophets and Job — two of Scripture’s great complainers — as models of patience. Biblical patience is not the absence of anguish. It is staying in the relationship through the anguish.
5. Patience belongs to God before it belongs to us.Makrothymia — long temper — is first a name of God: “slow to anger” (Exodus 34:6). It is God’s patience that explains the delay of the last hour (2 Peter 3:9). Our patience with one another is a small reflection of the patience we ourselves are living on.
6. Discipline is discerned in your own story, never pronounced over someone else’s. Deuteronomy says, “know in your heart” — your heart, looking back on your road. Eliphaz said the same truth over Job’s grief and became the book’s warning. You may come to see your own wilderness as God’s school, and notice the sandals that did not wear out. You may not explain another person’s catastrophe.
7. The reward is the Rewarder. Ben Sira set two wages side by side: a pile you must leave to others, and the blessing of the Lord. Jesus paid the eleventh-hour workers a full day’s wage. Thérèse of Lisieux planned to arrive “with empty hands.” The saints did not earn heaven by accumulating merit like savings. They received the Lord himself — and their good works, the Catechism teaches, are themselves his gift (CCC 2008, 2011).
Where interpreters differ. It is worth being honest about the questions this week’s texts leave open. Scholars weigh differently whether Luke 12:40 speaks chiefly of the end of history or also of each person’s death; the Church’s tradition holds both. The Hebrew of Job 22:30 is difficult, and the irony we noted depends on a reading the NRSV adopts but not every translation shares. The exact sense of the verb in Psalm 139:3 is debated. James 5:11’s “purpose of the Lord” may refer to God’s outcome for Job or, as some early readers thought, to Christ’s own end. The dates of Job and of James, and the origins of Deuteronomy, remain matters of discussion. Ben Sira’s view of life after death was almost certainly less developed than the later New Testament hope. And scholars have long debated how John holds together present and future eternal life. None of these debates touches the heart of what the week says: that the hour is hidden, that the One who comes is merciful, and that the hours before it are given to be given back.
Keeping the Hours in an Ordinary Week
You do not need to live in a monastery to keep the hours. You need only to notice that every day already has them.
At work. The servant who is ready is “found at work” (Luke 12:43), distributing food “at the proper time” (12:42). Ben Sira says: “grow old in your work … keep at your job” (Sirach 11:20–21). Readiness at work is rarely heroic. It looks like the report finished honestly, the file closed properly, the client told the truth, the junior colleague treated with patience on a difficult afternoon. For anyone who supervises others — managers, teachers, officials, parents, those who hold office in the Church — Luke’s warning is pointed. The unfaithful steward’s sin was what he did to the people under him while he thought the master was far away (12:45). Authority is stewardship of other people’s hours.
With money. Neither Jesus nor ben Sira condemns saving, planning or providing for one’s family. The rich farmer’s mistake was not building barns; it was saying to his soul “relax” as though the barns were his rest, and failing to be “rich toward God” (Luke 12:19, 21). Pensions and property are ordinary prudence. The question these verses ask is whose wage we are really working for.
In the family. Deuteronomy’s picture of discipline is a parent who teaches and corrects while still feeding the child every morning. That is a demanding standard for anyone raising children or guiding younger relatives: correction that never withdraws provision, firmness that never withdraws love. And James has a word for every household in its long middle years: do not grumble against one another. Long temper at the dinner table may be the most ordinary form of readiness there is.
With our screens. The noonday demon now carries a phone. The restlessness Evagrius described — the sense that the day will never end and that something more interesting must be happening elsewhere — is exactly what endless scrolling feeds on. The Church’s hours are an ancient protest against fragmented time. They divide the day not into notifications but into offerings. You do not have to pray all seven to learn from them. Deciding that the last thing you look at before sleep will be a prayer and not a screen is already a small way of keeping Compline.
In ageing. Ben Sira says, grow old in your work; Luke gives us Simeon and Anna, two very old people who were still watching. In Scripture, old age is not a waiting room. It can be the season in which a whole life finally becomes prayer. And to anyone who feels they came to faith, or to seriousness about faith, too late: the parable of the eleventh-hour workers was told for you. The evening wage is the same.
In grief. Tomorrow, on All Souls’ Day, many families — in Kerala as in much of the Catholic world — will visit the graves of the people they love. Jeremiah gives us permission to bring the whole truth of grief to God, including the part that feels like terror. John 6 gives us the reason we can stand at a grave without despair: “I should lose nothing of all that he has given me.” The Church’s prayer for the dead rests on that promise.
In anxious times. News of war, disaster and uncertainty now reaches us by the hour. Jeremiah lived to see his city destroyed. His prayer did not deny that “the day of disaster” was real. It refused to let disaster have the last word about God: you are my refuge.
An Examination for the End of the Day
Night Prayer begins with an examination of conscience. Let this week’s verses lead one — slowly, honestly and without fear, because the One who examines us is the One who ties on his belt to serve.
At the night watch: What am I assuming I still have time for? Is there a reconciliation, a confession, a conversation with God or with someone I love, that I keep postponing to an hour I have simply assumed I will be given?
At dawn: Whose account of God have I accepted that is not true — that he is distant, or indifferent, or keeping a ledger against me? And what is the real God asking of me that I keep refusing to agree to?
At the third hour: Is there a fear I have never said to God out loud? Have I been praying around my anger instead of bringing it to him?
At noon: Whom am I grumbling against? Where has the long middle of my life — my marriage, my work, my vocation, my illness — made me short-tempered, or quietly ready to give up while appearing to carry on?
At the ninth hour: What wilderness in my own life have I never looked back on with gratitude? And whose suffering have I tried to explain when I should simply have stayed beside them?
At evening: What wage am I actually working for? If the evening of my life came tonight, would I want God to count my works — or would I be glad to come with empty hands?
At night: Do I believe that the will of the Father is to lose nothing — including me?
These are not questions to answer in one sitting. They are questions to carry through the week, one hour at a time.
The Bell and the Sundial
The sundial at Urrugne tells the truth: every hour wounds; the last one kills.
The bell in the same tower tells a larger truth. Every hour can be offered. And for those who belong to Christ, the last one does not kill. It opens a door — and on the other side of the door is a Master who has tied on his belt to serve.
We are not given the last hour. We are given this one.
You cannot choose the hour he comes. You choose, hour by hour, what he will find.
Five Small Hours for the Coming Week
1. Give the day its first sentence. Each morning this week, before you look at your phone, say one line to God. Zechariah’s is enough: “Guide my feet into the way of peace.” Then name one thing you already know God is asking of you that day — the apology, the call, the honest answer — and agree to it before the day can talk you out of it.
2. Keep a noon pause. Set a quiet reminder for midday. When it sounds, stop for one minute. Pray the old hymn’s line — “Quench the flames of strife” — for one person you are tempted to grumble against (James 5:9). Then, for the rest of that day, say nothing about that person behind their back.
3. Look back on one wilderness. On Friday afternoon — at three o’clock, if you can — write down one hard stretch of your own life. Beside it, write one “sandal that did not wear out”: the provision you did not notice at the time. Keep this exercise for your own story only. If someone near you is suffering this week, do not explain it; sit with them.
4. Settle the day’s wages before sunset. Each evening, before supper, pay one debt the day has created — the thank-you you owe, the promise you made, the person you kept waiting. And name, silently, one thing you did that day that only God saw.
5. End with Night Prayer, and remember the dead by name. On at least three nights this week, put the screen away half an hour before sleep and pray Night Prayer from a breviary or a reliable Liturgy of the Hours resource — or simply Simeon’s song (Luke 2:29–32) and the words “Into your hands, Lord, I commend my spirit.” Tomorrow, on All Souls’ Day, read John 6:37–40 slowly for someone you have lost, and say their name aloud at the words “I should lose nothing.” If you can, visit their grave.
Questions to Carry Through the Day
In Luke 12:35–48, what does the master do when he finds his servants ready — and what is the one thing the unfaithful servant does with the delay? What do those two details tell you about the One who is coming?
Which figure from this week’s seven hours do I most resemble right now: the servant who assumes there is time, Eliphaz with his explanations, Jeremiah with his complaint, the grumbler at noon, the Israelite who forgets in plenty, the man who has “found rest,” or Simeon still watching?
Where am I using the delay — the quiet belief that there will always be more time — to postpone a reconciliation, a confession, a decision or a change?
Whose suffering have I tried to explain, and what would it mean to stay beside them instead?
If the Lord came at this hour tomorrow, what would I want him to find me doing — and what will I do each day this week to make that more likely?
A Prayer at the Closing of the Day
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of Man, who will come at an hour we do not expect, and who, when you find us waiting, tie on your belt and serve us at your table:
In the night, keep us watching — not anxious, but awake to you.
At dawn, make us familiar with your ways, so that we agree with you, and not with every voice that claims to speak for you.
When the day turns against us, be our refuge and not our terror; and when we cannot feel that you are near, give us Jeremiah’s honesty to tell you so.
In the heat of noon, quench the flames of strife in us. Make us long-tempered with the people beside us, as you are long-tempered with us.
When the afternoon is long and we grow weary, let us remember the road behind us and the sandals that did not wear out.
At evening, let us want no wage but your blessing, and come before you, as your saints did, with empty hands.
And when we lie down to sleep, let us sleep as Simeon slept, having seen your salvation.
You will lose nothing of all the Father has given you. Do not lose us. On the last day, raise us up with all your saints, to see you as you are.
Into your hands, Lord, we commend our spirits. Amen.
What to Carry
The hour he comes is hidden from you; the hour you are in is not — give him this one.
When the Lamps Are Lit Again
On this Solemnity, the responsorial psalm at Mass carries a refrain that could stand over the whole week: “Lord, this is the people that longs to see your face” (Psalm 24). The second reading makes a promise: “when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). And the Gospel blesses the pure in heart, “for they will see God” (Matthew 5:8).
The week we have walked ends in seeing. Job, after all his argument: “now my eye sees you.” Simeon, with the child in his arms: “my eyes have seen your salvation.” Jesus, in Capernaum: “all who see the Son and believe in him.” The saints are those who have arrived where that seeing is complete — “a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” (Revelation 7:9). Among them, we dare to hope, are the people whose names many of us will speak tomorrow.
Tonight, in monasteries and parishes and homes, the Church will close this solemnity with Night Prayer and sing Simeon’s song once more. Tomorrow, on the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed, many will hear John 6:37–40 among the readings offered for the day: “I should lose nothing of all that he has given me.” And next Sunday, in parishes of the Roman Rite, the Gospel will be the parable of the ten bridesmaids, whose lamps burned or failed while “the bridegroom was delayed” (Matthew 25:5), and which ends with this week’s question in Jesus’ own words: “Keep awake therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour” (25:13).
So this Sunday’s question does not close tonight. It walks with us into November.
The sundial is right: we do not know which hour will be the last. The bell is right too. This one can still be given.
Which passage of Scripture would you like us to keep watch with in a future Sunday Series? Share it in the comments. The verse that has been keeping you awake may be the one another reader is waiting for.
Rise & Inspire — Sunday Bible SeriesDepth over speed. Understanding over volume. Formation over information.
Written by John Britto Kurusumuthu
Each morning, His Excellency, Rt. Rev. Dr. Selvister Ponnumuthan, Bishop of the Diocese of Punalur, shares a verse from the Bible. The seven verses received over the course of each week are brought together and serve as the scriptural foundation for that week’s Sunday Bible Series.
Is Your Life Philosophy a Sentence or Just a List?
Today’s WordPress prompt asks: “If you had to sum up your life philosophy in one sentence, what would it be?”
My first answer came quickly: live with faith, gratitude, courage, kindness, and a commitment to making the world better. It sounded right. Then I read it again and saw what I had actually written. Five virtues joined by commas. That is not a sentence. It is an inventory.
I suspect most of us would answer the same way. The hard word in this prompt is not “philosophy.” It is “one.”
1. A list tells you what you value. A philosophy tells you what to do when your values collide.
Courage and kindness are both good, until the day courage says “speak the hard truth” and kindness says “spare his feelings.” Faith and gratitude sit comfortably together, until a loss arrives that leaves no room for thanks. A list cannot settle such moments, because it treats every item as equal. A real philosophy has a centre of gravity, and everything else bends towards it.
So the honest question is not “What do I believe?” It is “What do I keep when I can keep only one thing?”
2. The wisest teachers refused to give lists.
In the Talmud, a man asked the sage Hillel to teach him the entire Torah while standing on one foot. Hillel answered in a single line: what is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. Then he added the part we tend to forget: the rest is commentary; now go and learn.
In the Analects, a disciple asked Confucius whether one word could guide a whole life. Confucius named it: shu, usually translated as reciprocity, not imposing on others what you would not choose for yourself. Elsewhere he said his entire way was held together by a single thread.
The Tamil mystic Thirumoolar left some three thousand verses, yet the line he is remembered by is two words: Anbe Sivam, Love is God. The unwise, he wrote, think love and God are two; those who know they are one come to rest as love itself.
None of them offered a balanced list of virtues. Each chose one thread and trusted it to hold the rest.
3. So here is my sentence.
Receive everything as a gift, and hold everything in trust.
It took me years to see that my five virtues were really one. Gratitude is the first half of the sentence. Faith is the recognition that a gift implies a Giver; for me, that Giver has a name. Kindness, sharing, and leaving the world better belong to the second half, because what I hold in trust is never held only for myself.
To me, this means recognising that our knowledge, opportunities, relationships and abilities are not possessions to be guarded. They are gifts entrusted to us, carrying a responsibility to use them wisely and share their benefits with others.
And the sentence does what my list could not. It decides. When I retired, I could have treated nearly four decades of work as something I had earned and could now set down. The sentence said otherwise. What I learned came through teachers, colleagues, mistakes, and people patient enough to correct me. It is held in trust. That is why Rise&Inspire still appears every day.
It even settles the question of courage. A trustee who buries what he holds for fear of losing it fails the trust as surely as one who wastes it.
4. The honest objection.
A one-sentence philosophy can shrink into a slogan. Augustine once told his congregation, “Love, and do what you will,” and people have quoted it ever since as permission to do as they please, quietly dropping the love. Any sentence cut away from the life meant to carry it can be made to mean almost anything.
I also fall short of my own sentence. Some days I treat a gift as an entitlement. Some days I keep what I ought to pass on. A sentence does not make me consistent. It only makes my inconsistency harder to ignore.
5. The inversion.
Which brings me back to Hillel’s last words: the rest is commentary; go and learn.
The prompt assumes we compress a life into a sentence. I have come to believe it works the other way round. The sentence comes first. The life is the commentary written beneath it, one day at a time, sometimes badly, sometimes well.
My sentence does not sum up my life. My life is still writing the commentary on my sentence.
A Thought to Reflect On
If someone read only your actions from this past week, what sentence would they say you live by? Is it the one you would have chosen?
Share yours in the comments. I would genuinely like to read it.
Notes for readers
Hillel the Elder was a Jewish sage of the first century BCE; the story appears in the Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
Confucius discusses shu (reciprocity) in Book 15 of the Analects and the “single thread” of his teaching in Book 4.
Thirumoolar (also spelt Tirumular) was a Tamil Saiva mystic and the author of the Thirumanthiram, the tenth book of the Tamil Saiva sacred canon. Sivam refers to Shiva, the Supreme Being in Saiva tradition; Anbe Sivam is commonly rendered “Love is God.”
Augustine of Hippo’s line comes from his seventh homily on the First Epistle of John.
John Britto Kurusumuthu
Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in
In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt, 31 October 2026: If you had to sum up your life philosophy in one sentence, what would it be?