A WIDOW'S WISDOM - B: 32nd Sun in OrdTime

First Reading: 1 Kgs 17:10-16 (7 November 2021)

“Just now I was collecting a few sticks, to go in and prepare something for myself and my son; when we have eaten it, we shall die” (2 Kgs 17:12b).

This was the response of a certain widow of Zarephath of Sidon to Elijah’s request that she provides him with water (v. 10) and bread (v. 11) as the Lord had earlier assured him (v. 9). As the whole land of Israel was stricken by famine (v. 1), naturally thIS widow was also in dire need of provisions for herself and her son. But instead of thinking first of her own family, she heeded Elijah’s demand. Her ultimate sacrifice paid off since hereafter “[s]he had enough to eat for a long time—he and she and her household. The jar of flour did not go empty, nor the jug of oil run dry, according to the word of the Lord spoken through Elijah” (vv. 15-16).

Reading this beautiful story of sacrifice reminds us of the narrative of the test of Abraham in Mt. Moriah (cf. Gen 22:1-19) when he blindly followed God’s command to sacrifice his son Isaac to him (v. 2). In the whole episode, never did Abraham complain to nor reason with God as to why he was viciously taking his only begotten son. Instead, “he bound his son Isaac, and put him on top of the wood on the altar” (v. 9). Seeing Abraham’s fidelity and fear of the Lord, God provided a ram in Isaac’s place (13) and promised Abraham with numerous descendants, possessions, and blessings in life (vv. 17-18).

In both biblical accounts, what we encounter is a seeming blind obedience of indiscriminately following the commands of God without understanding the reasons behind them. However, this obedience is not necessarily blind, so to say, as there are robust reasons behind the protagonists’ decisions to agree and commit into them. On the former, the widow conformed to Elijah since she had nothing to lose anyway. Keeping “the handful of flour” and “the little oil” (1 Kgs 17:12a) could certainly sustain her and her son for few days, but such would not guarantee their subsequent survival from the famine in their land that year.

Furthermore, she probably understood that Elijah is God’s envoy and speaks for God. She was probably aware that if it was through Elijah that the famine came about (v. 1), he could easily lift it up by his intercession as what really occurred in the following episode (1 Kgs 18:41, 45).

Likewise, Abraham could keep Isaac alive longer by disobeying God, but such would not guarantee that his clan could survive the intermittent attacks of neighboring tribes in their midst especially since “Abraham resided in the land of the Philistines for a long time” (Gen 21:34). He would surely need God’s extraordinary protection against his potential enemies and conquerors.

At the threshold of the Philippine national elections, many feel that the Filipino electorate will simply cast a “blind” vote on the country’s next president since every candidate has his/her imperfections anyway: It is a choice on who is the lesser evil, in other words. Such a fatalistic disposition should be eschewed since, by proper educated discernment, one can arrive at an intelligent decision on who among the presidentiables is the best person who can salvage the country from poverty, moral decadence, and the misery brought by the pandemic crisis.

If the widow in the first reading was able to realize that Elijah was a trustworthy and holy man who could end the pestilence, we, too, can choose wisely, guided by sound logic and faith in God.

It is noteworthy that a widow of Zarephath, despite her lowly social status, could be a person of wisdom. Actually, the Filipinos had faith in a widow in 1986 to restore our freedom from a dictatorial rule; it is very feasible that another widow can repeat this collective vision of bringing back democracy, moral ascendancy, and good governance 36 years after.

- Rex Fortes, CM