‘Et erat subditus illis’

THE Latin expression means “he was subject to them,” or

“he was obedient to them.” This is lifted from the gospel of St. Luke

(2,51) in that episode where the child Jesus was lost and then found

in the temple.

  

            In the concluding part of that episode, Mary, the mother,

asked the child, “Why did you do this to us?” To which the child Jesus

replied, “Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” And

yet in spite of that reply, Mary took no offense and the child went

back home and was “subject to them,” referring to Christ subjecting

himself to Mary and Joseph.

  

            These passages of the gospel somehow show us how we can

integrate our dual duty of obeying first the will of God and that of

obeying our earthly authorities and subjecting ourselves to the many

temporal and human conditionings in our life.

  

            While Christ did nothing other than to do the will of his

Father in heaven (cfr. Jn 5,30; Jn 6,38), he also willed that he

subjected himself to human authorities and to the different

conditionings of any person at any given time and place. Thus, he also

paid his taxes (cfr. Mt 17,24-27), attended the synagogue (cfr. Lk

4,16), worked as a carpenter (cfr. Mk 6,3), etc.

  

            In theory, Christ, being God, should have been exempted

from all these, but as man, he has to live like any other man who is

always subject to some human authorities and to the conditionings in

the world.

             And when finally asked what to do when God’s authority and

the human authority appear to clash, Christ replied: “Render to Caesar

the things of Caesar, and to God the things of God.” (Mt 22,21)

  

            The lesson we can derive from this consideration is most

helpful especially to those who enter into some commitments—whether to

marriage or to a particular vocation and spirituality. A commitment

usually restricts or conditions a person to behave in a particular way

even if there are other legitimate ways of behaving in a given

situation.

  

            Thus, in the way of living the virtue of poverty, for

example, a Franciscan has to live it the Franciscan way, even if the

Dominican way of living it is also good but different from the

Franciscan way. Same with a person who is married as compared to an

unmarried one, and also with a lay person as compared to a consecrated

one. It is the same virtue but lived and expressed in different ways.

  

            Same with the practice of prayer. The ordinary person in

the middle of the world would have a different way of doing it

compared to how a contemplative nun would do it.

  

            There should be no comparing actually, and much less,

envying. A commitment is not so much a restriction or a conditioning

as an expression of a more fervent love and fidelity for God and for

everyone else. A commitment would only show how fervent one’s love is

that he chooses to confine himself to a particular way when many other

ways can also be availed of.

  

            This clarification is relevant these days because many

people are falling into some kind of wistful thinking, like “if I were

not married,” or “if I did not enter the priesthood,” or “if I did not

have this vocation or spirituality, I would have been more free,” etc.

              We need to follow Christ in living out our commitments

that would involve doing God’s will and our unavoidable subjection to

some earthly authorities and conditionings or concrete ways of doing

things. Let’s always remember that Christ “erat subditus illis,” he

subjected himself to his earthly parents and to the human

conditionings even if could be exempted from them.