The Sánchez Archives SEVENTH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME Year A

By
Patricia Datchuck Sánchez

Be Perfect

Leviticus 19:1-2, 17-18
1 Corinthians 3:16-23
Matthew 5:38-48

Be holy (perfect) as the Lord is holy (perfect): This exhortation forms an inclusion around our liturgical texts today (Leviticus, Matthew). Within the inclusion we can trace the development of Judaism’s ethical standard (Leviticus) and its subsequent reinterpretation by Jesus (Matthew) as well as its implications for the early Christian community (1 Corinthians).

Leviticus 19:1-2, 17-18.

Liturgy or the public worship of a community is, at its best, supposed to give expression to the life of the people. The book of Leviticus, for all its rubrics, rituals and “legalese,” does reflect for us the life of worship of the Jewish community as it had evolved by the sixth century B.C.E. Our name for the book is derived from the Vulgate or Latin translation of the fide in the Septuagint whereas the Hebrew name Wayyiqra (“and he called”) is from the first few words of the scroll.

While the book is truly informed by the spirit of Moses and as such is regarded as part of the Torah or Pentateuch, the detailed and elaborate system of sacrifice, as well as the evidence of a highly developed priesthood, cannot be traced to the wilderness time of the 13th century B.C.E. Indeed, the obvious sedentary life of the people as well as the existence of the temple with all the surrounding cultic activities reflect a much later period.

Though some of the material (viz., chapters 17-26) may be regarded as quite ancient, the book of Leviticus is more properly appreciated as the effort of many hands, throughout the centuries, adapting Israel’s worship to changing times according to principles given in the Mosaic era. Most probably, chapters 17-26 were the heart or kernel around which the rest of the book was built. A priestly editing is evident and probably took place in post-exilic times (sixth century B.C.E.) when the system of worship was undergoing reorganization. It should be noted that all the laws and regulations concerning the cult, whether early or late in origin, were determined by the principle that holiness should be a distinguishing characteristic of Israel, derived from and based on the holiness of its creator and Lord.

Our text for today is part of the longer, primitive “holiness code” (chapters 17-26) and more specifically, it is from chapter 19, a miscellaneous collection of statutes regarding social justice, charity and chaste behavior. While chapter 19 is certainly dependent on and inspired by the Decalogue, the repercussions of its prescriptions can be detected in post-exilic legislation as well. Verse two of chapter 19, with its injunction “to be holy for I am holy,” is adapted slightly by Matthew in the gospel (be perfect). However, the fact remains that God’s holiness was considered the basis for the human response to God in ethical, moral behavior. In v. 18 the reference to loving one’s neighbor comes at the end of a list of social offenses which should be avoided: theft, deceit, cruelty to handicapped, and so on. “Neighbor” was a term limited to that category of persons to whom one was related by familial or political bonds, e.g., same nation or tribe, fellow villager, and so on. Besides expanding this law to the love of one’s enemies, Jesus in the New Testament moved the parameters of neighborhood to include all the world and all humankind as well (Matthew 5:43; Luke 10:36-37).

1 Corinthians 3:16-23.

Desecration of a temple was considered a criminal and hateful offense by believers of all persuasion, Jews, Christians and those who subscribed to the Greek mystery cults. Paul’s use of the temple metaphor grew out of a longer pericope wherein the apostle compared the work of the servants or ministers of God to that of a builder and he likened the Christian community itself to a building (see I Corinthians 3:9-15). Describing himself and his efforts as those of a master builder, Paul saw Jesus Christ as the only firm and suitable foundation for the edifice of the church.

Elaborating on the temple metaphor, Paul’s query to the Corinthians (“Are you not aware that you are the temple of God?”) narrows the comparison to the Christian community at Corinth. Later, in 6:19, Paul applies this idea to the individual Christian as well. The word Paul uses for temple is naos, the sanctuary or innermost part of the building. In Judaism, this would correspond to the holy of holies, that sacred place wherein no one entered (except once a year) because the Lord Yahweh was thought to dwell there. In pagan temples, naos designated the small building within the temple which housed the statue of the god.

To his Christians of Corinth, Paul taught that the presence of God’s Holy Spirit dwelling in them made of their community at Corinth a holy temple, the naos of God. In warning them of possible desecration or destruction, Paul assumes once again his comparison of worldly and divine wisdom. Describing that worldly wisdom which favored one preacher (or builder) over another as folly and a threat to the sacredness and unity of the temple, Paul counseled the Corinthians to focus on Christ. With a rather liberal translation of Job 5:13 and Psalm 94:11 respectively, Paul concludes his preaching with the exhortation to seek wisdom in the foundation of Jesus Christ to whom all ‘builders and preachers are subordinate and in whom the believer can find a life and a future in God.’

Matthew 5:38-48.

Incredible as it may seem, the law of retaliation (lex talionis, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”) was instituted in the ancient Near Eastern world as a safeguard. More often than not, the person, who had sustained some injury or insult at the hand of another, would undertake to avenge himself with such fury that the guilty party often died as a result. The Mosaic law which Jesus cites here (Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21) is an adaptation from the Code of Hammurabi and was seen as just legislation in that it limited the injury one could inflict so as to be proportionate to that inflicted by the aggressor. In referring to this long standing principle of acceptable self-defense, Jesus proceeded to replace it with his principle of non-resistance.

Lest anyone misunderstand, Jesus illustrated his principle (“Offer no resistance to injury”) with some concrete examples. That physical violence was not to be parried in kind was simple enough. But the next illustration concerning one’s shirt (tunic) and coat (cloak) moved on to the kind of conduct Jesus advocated in the case of a legal suit (no pun intended). Not only should one not contest the legal action but one should yield what is contested and yield even more. The garments in question, the tunic (shirt) and coat (cloak), were the only garments owned and worn by the poor. Mosaic law permitted the cloak of a borrower to be held by a creditor as a pledge, but since this garment served as blanket, bed, raincoat and so on, it was to be returned at sundown, lest the borrower suffer the cold of the night (Exodus 22:25-26).

Jesus does not advocate loaning. Rather, he says, “give” to the one who begs. It seems to be implicit in his examples that Jesus would have his followers exact no pledge, even though it had been permitted by law for centuries. No amount of rationalization and/or accommodation can dilute the powerful challenge of Jesus’ interpretation.

With the command to love enemies and to pray for persecutors we have Matthew’s sixth in the series of six antitheses (begun in last week’s gospel). As the last in the series, it is the greatest and it sums up the other five antitheses by providing the rationale for Jesus’ reinterpretations of the law. Neither the law nor the rabbinical writings contained any citation about hating enemies. In adding this to his command to love one’s neighbor or countryman (Leviticus 19:18), Jesus was probably verbalizing a popular attitude of his day. Indeed, it seems that hatred of those outside the community was considered normal. Jesus extended the narrow concept of neighbor to include even enemies. The injunction to pray for persecutors could certainly have been Jesus’ advice but the fact that the same word is translated “as those who treat you badly” by Luke in his 6:28 may reflect the situation in Matthew’s church in the 80s. Persecution was directed at the Christians not only from the Jews who had recently expelled them by edict from the synagogues, but also by the Romans who subsequently regarded the Christians as an illegal sect.

The followers of Jesus were to interpret the law of love of neighbor in a magnanimous way, not judging between people or bestowing charity selectively. Just as God allowed his sun to shine on all, so must Christians let their love shine like a city on a hill and a lamp on a stand (see Matthew 5:14-16) for all. Called beyond the mere ethical humanism which even pagans and tax collectors practiced, the disciples of Christ were vowed to divine perfection. The norm for living was no longer the Decalogue carved in stone, but the holiness of the Lord himself, To be true sons and daughters of their Father, Christians had to sublimate their human capacities for revenge, favoritism and prejudice in order to embrace the Father’s holiness of loving, giving and forgiving.

1. The whole of the Israel was called. Holiness is not just for a few (Leviticus).

2. The Christian is a sacred place where love is free to happen (1 Corinthians).

3. How does today’s Christian answer Jesus’ call for nonresistance and non-violence (Matthew)?

[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.]