The Sánchez Archives FIRST SUNDAY OF LENT YEAR A

By
Patricia Datchuck Sánchez

The Seeds of Evil

GENESIS 2:7-9, 3:1-7
ROMANS 5:12-19
MATTHEW 4:1-11

Few will dispute the fact that the world in which we live is fraught with evil. Any newspaper, periodical, radio or television broadcast will offer adequate proof of its presence. The starving in Somalia, Mozambique and Ethiopia, the victims of ethnic hatred in Northern Ireland and Bosnia-Hercegovina, the individuals being denied their basic human rights in China and Cuba, the homeless families in the streets of any U.S. city, those whose lives are scarred by the abuse or indifference of others. . . all these voices speak to the pervasive evil in human society. But while its existence goes unquestioned, the origin of evil and the tragedies it produces has been the subject of debate for centuries.

Contemporary analysts of society attribute the ills which plague it to conflicting ideologies, economic imbalances, or shifting demographics. A more simplistic understanding of evil’s roots can be found in the literatures of our ancient ancestors. Hesiod, the Greek poet, attributed the various and sundry manifestations of evil in the world to Pandora. According to Hesiod, Zeus commissioned Hephaestus to fashion a woman out of earth; on this first woman, the gods showered their choicest gifts, among which was a jar or box containing all manner of misery and evil. Although she had been forbidden to do so, Pandora opened the box and as a result, evil was irretrievably unleashed on the earth. Among the ancient Persians, evil was attributed to Ahiram, the author of lies and darkness, who constantly did battle with Ormazd, the good originator of truth and light. Dualisms such as this were prevalent, influencing most of the belief systems of the Greco-Roman world and persisting into the Christian era where they formed the bases of gnostic philosophy and Manichaeism.

As the season of Lent begins, the church affirms the fact that human beings continue to struggle with the reality of evil, in society at large, as well as in their individual lives. Each of the readings for today’s liturgy invites us to acknowledge the influence of evil and to trace its roots, not to an unclosable box of horrors, or to a cosmic battlefield where good and evil contend as perpetual sparring partners, but to the very doorstep of the free human heart. Recall that, in both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, the heart is the seat, not of the emotions, but of the intellect and will. Therefore, sin is the consequence of a free, knowledgeable and deliberate human decision. Moreover, each of the texts challenges us to understand evil and sin aberrations of the original goodness and integrity in which humanity was created and of the original justice (right relationship with God and others) to which each human person has been called. Therefore, rather than simply focus on evil as a consequence of sin and sin as a transgression of a law, the scriptural authors invite us to reflect on evil and sin as the negation of relationship which is the very source of human life and hope.

In scripture, sin is graphically described as: (1) hatta’t (Hebrew) or hamartia (Greek), which means to miss the mark or to fail to meet what is expected in relation to another person; (2) ⁽ awon (Hebrew), which means a twisted or distorted condition in which one deviates from the standard to which one has been called; (3) pesa⁽ (Hebrew) or parako (Greek), which means rebellion against someone; or (4) ma⁽al (Hebrew), which means infidelity to another or the breach of an obligation which was freely undertaken.

Given this understanding of sin, the authors of Genesis call us to reflect on a mythic and etiological presentation of its origins. Paul, in his letter to the church at Rome, asks believers to consider the wide-reaching ramifications, not only of sin, but also of its remedy in Jesus, while the Matthean gospel provides all sinners with a valuable lesson in resistance to evil.

GENESIS 2:7-9, 3:1-7

As part of the primeval history (Genesis 1-11), or more correctly, the time primeval, before recorded history actually began, this excerpted text from the collaborating authors of Genesis (Yahwist, Priestly) is the result of lengthy theological analysis and faith-filled reflection on the part of a people who were convinced of and committed to a caring, personal God. Like the rest of the first 11 chapters of the Hebrew scriptures, today’s reading represents an answer to one of life’s basic questions. In this particular text, the query is concerned with the origin of evil. Other questions answered in the primeval history are: How did this world, its creatures and humankind come into being? Why death? Why pain, suffering and hostility? Why hard work and perspiration? Why are the peoples of this earth estranged from one another by distance? Each of these questions is explored and solutions are proffered, not on the basis of scientific investigation, archaeological discoveries or chronicled historical developments. Rather the answers are couched in the language of myth, and are poetic and theological in character. Therefore, to expect scientific or strict historical accuracy is to miss the point of this very special literature.

Though the word has often been misconstrued, mythic is a perfectly valid term for describing the primeval history. “A myth is a narrative or theory which tries to give form and shape to something true but beyond literal description” (William J. O’Malley, Scripture and Myth, Paulist Press, New York: 1980). In today’s pericope, the truth consists in the fact that evil exists in the world. Myth enters in when the Genesis authors attempted to give form and shape to a reality which defies literal description. Besides their etiological function, (from the Greek, aitia, which means cause, and loggia, which means description), the mythic presentations in Genesis were also vehicles which communicated the developing theology of ancient Israel. Using traditional themes and motifs which were prevalent in the mythic literatures of many of their neighboring cultures (e.g. garden, tree of life, serpent, flood, ark, tower), the biblical authors, nevertheless, fully informed their presentations with the strict monotheism which was a distinctive mark of Israel’s faith.

As portrayed by the Genesis authors, man (or adam, in Hebrew) was formed by God from the clay of the earth (or adamah) but enlivened by the very breath of God who intended that humanity should live in happiness with him. Unfortunately today’s reading does not include Genesis 2:15-25 wherein God instructed humanity not to eat of the tree “of the knowledge of good and evil.” As Wilfrid Harrington noted, this was “not a testing of man but an instance of God’s solicitude. He knows that this ‘knowledge’ would be fatal for man; he seeks to save him from himself. More importantly, the omitted passage also narrated the formation of woman as man’s ezer, his treasured helpmate, whose equality with himself the man acknowledges.” (The Saving Word, Michael Glazier, Wilmington: 1980).

Though duly instructed and warned of the consequences of their actions, the primeval human beings freely chose to determine their futures apart from God. Having surrendered their original integrity, they were also deprived of the original justice, or right relationship with God, for which they had been created. During this Lent, each of us is afforded yet another season of coming to grips with the problem of evil. As we consider the times we have surrendered our integrity and have thus deprived ourselves of justice, we are also encouraged to be adamant in our resolve to be a part of the solution to evil in our world rather than a continual contributor to its cause.

ROMANS 5:12-19

When the participants at the second Vatican Council reflected upon the condition of humanity as a result of sin, they acknowledged, “What divine revelation makes known to us agrees with experience. Examining his heart, man finds that he has inclinations toward evil too, and is engulfed by manifold ills which cannot come from his good Creator. . . Indeed, man finds that by himself he is incapable of battling the assaults of evil successfully, so that everyone feels as though he is bound by chains.” (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, # 13). Paul, in his correspondence to the Christians in Rome described the chains which bind humanity as the reign of sin, condemnation and death, a reign which was broken only by Jesus Christ.

Often called Paul’s gospel, the apostle’s letter to the Romans “summarizes and develops the most important themes and thoughts of the Pauline message and theology and elevates his theology above the moment of definite situations and conflicts into the sphere of the eternally and universally valid.” (Gunther Bornkamm, “The Letter to the Romans as Paul’s Last Will and Testament”, The Roman Debate, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody: 1991).

In today’s second reading, Paul set forth his understanding of the universal experience of evil and of its eternal remedy, salvation. Using Adam as type and Christ as antitype, Paul compared human sin and its consequences to Christ’s saving action and its restorative effects on humankind. Although he traced the emergence of sin and evil in the world to one person or to one action, Paul also acknowledged that all people have subsequently sinned (vs. 12). The Council of Trent understood this text to refer to an original sin committed by Adam and inherited by all of humanity (5th session, canons 2,4). The Greek Fathers, however, described the universal repercussions of the first sin more as an environmental influence rather than a genetic inheritance. With Adam, a chain reaction of evil was set in motion and no one has been exempt from its effects. Later in his letter, Paul will clarify his point by describing the consequences of Adam’s sin as an inclination or proclivity to evil which is in every human person (Romans 6:12f, 7:7, 14-20). But the universal environment of evil and the innate tendency (also called concupiscence) to sin do not negate personal responsibility and culpability for our own sin. Just as Adam freely chose to surrender his original integrity, each of us is capable of freely following suit. In that way, Adam’s sin and rebellion are confirmed again and again. Only with Jesus is the chain reaction broken, and the situation reversed.

Whereas Adam’s sin and the subsequent sins of humanity constituted an offense (vs. 15), Christ’s appearance and his saving words and words were referred to by Paul as gift (vs. 16). However grave the offense and however dire and far-reaching its consequences, viz. death for all, the gracious gift of God in Christ is immeasurably greater. Through Christ, God’s grace and the gift of his justice (vs. 17) bring acquittal and life to all (vs. 18).

A perfect corollary to the first reading which detailed humankind’s undoing of integrity and justice, Paul’s words to the Romans describe humanity’s rehabilitation by grace. In the gospel which follows, the Matthean Jesus will offer an example of how believers are to appropriate God’s gracious gifts in their continuing struggle with Adam’s legacy.

MATTHEW 4:1-11

Ordinarily, the English word temptation has a pejorative connotation which involves a seduction to evil or an enticement to sin or to take the wrong path. In Greek, however, the term used by Matthew to describe Jesus’ experience in the wilderness was peirazein, which means to test. Just as tempered steel is tested to ascertain its strength and its resistance to stress and strain, so the experience of Jesus was intended to ascertain the degree of his strength and ability to withstand difficulties. As William Barclay once explained, temptation is not meant to lead us into sin but to enable us to conquer it: “It is not meant to make us bad or to weaken us but to make us good, stronger, purer and finer. Temptation is not the penalty of being a man; temptation is the glory of being a man.” (“Matthew”, Vol. I, Daily Study Bible, The St. Andrew Press, Edinburgh: 1975).

Readers of the gospel should not overlook the fact that Matthew (as did the other Synoptics) placed the account of Jesus’ testing immediately after his baptism. Having been identified as the “beloved Son”, who was endowed “with the Spirit of God”, with whom “the Father was well pleased” (3:22-23), Jesus was then tested in his capacity as Son and Servant of the Father. The indication that he “was led into the desert by the Spirit” affirms the fact that his experience was in accord with God’s saving plan.

In each of his three confrontation with the tempter, Matthew has portrayed Jesus as the New Israel. In his infancy narrative and throughout the gospel, the evangelist represented Jesus as recapitulating in himself the history of Israel. Just as God had called Israel out of Egypt to be his people, so God called Jesus out of Egypt (2:15). And just as God led his people through the sea to the desert where they remained for forty years, so did Jesus come up from the baptismal waters and depart to the desert for forty days and nights (3:16, 4:1). But whereas Israel’s experience in the desert was marked by repeated failures and infidelities to God, Jesus remained faithful and did not waver in his loyalty to his mission.

Jesus first temptation recalled God’s gift of manna to Israel in the desert (Exodus 16:4-8) and tested him in his capacity as the Son of God. Would he use his powers as God’s Son to play the role of a “political and social messiah by feeding a hungry mankind?” (John P. Meier, Matthew, Michael Glazier, Inc., Wilmington: 1983). Jesus’ response, a citation of Deuteronomy 8:3, indicated that God’s word and will would be his food and the sustenance which he, in turn, would offer to a hungry humankind.

The second temptation, also a test of Jesus’ authentic sonship, recalled the wilderness incidents wherein Israel complained against God and goaded Moses into asking God for a show of power saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?!” (Exodus 17:7). Refusing to test God or to force his hand, Jesus’ reply (vs. 9) cited another text from Deuteronomy (6:16) which reads in full, “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test, as you did at Massah.”

Then in the third test, Jesus is offered a vision of all the world’s kingdoms in their splendor. No doubt Matthew’s readers were intended to remember two scripture texts; one described Moses atop Mt. Nebo surveying the promised land (Deuteronomy 34:1-4), and the other referenced an enthronement psalm which described God giving his messiah-son-king the nations of the earth as an inheritance (Ps. 2:6-8). Jesus’ response, again from Deuteronomy (6:13), recalled Israel’s dalliances into idolatry. But for Jesus, the new Moses and the New Israel, there would be no such dalliances. Refusing to worship his tempter, he remained a faithful Son of the Father. Later in the gospel, when Peter attempted to divert Jesus from his Father’s saving plan, Jesus would dismiss him just as he did the tempter, “Away with you Satan” (vss. 10; 16:23). Not ended here, Jesus’ testing as God’s Son would be reprised during his passion. . . “If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross” (27:40). But Jesus was not to be deterred either from living or from dying in fulfillment of his Father’s will.

Here at the outset of Lent, Matthew offers the example of Jesus as a lesson in resistance to evil and reminds all who are baptized in Jesus’ name that they have been similarly endowed by the Spirit, nourished by the Word of God and commissioned for service as sons and daughters of the Father.

[NOTE TO USERS: This archive is available for use without charge, but it remains the property of the author and under copyright with Celebrations Publications. Users are permitted to print individual Sunday commentaries for pastoral use, but are prohibited from downloading or copying files or printing any portion of this for sale or distribution.]