The Sánchez Archives SEVENTEENTH SUNDAY OF THE YEAR Year A

By
Patricia Datchuck Sánchez

WHAT IF . . . ?

1 KINGS 3:5, 7-12
ROMANS 8:28-30
MATTHEW 13:44-52

What if? From time immemorial, flights of fancy and incredible imaginings have been launched by these two small words. What if you could be president (prime minister) for a day; . . . what would you do?

What if you won the lottery; how would you spend it? What if you could meet a person of your choice, past or present, living or dead; whom would it be? What if there really were a magic lamp and a genie who could grant you three wishes; what would they be? What if you could travel to any place in the world; where would you go? What if you had the opportunity to pass a law; what would it concern? What if you could cure one of the world’s illnesses; which one would it be?

Obviously, the answers to these “What if?” queries would vary, depending upon the respondent’s age, background, circumstances in life, preferences, etc. Young children, for example, may wish to meet Santa Claus or Superman. They may wish for cookies that grow on trees, a trip to Disneyworld or a shorter school day. But those who are more mature in the business of living the faith and making a living would probably reflect that maturity in their answers. Any serious response to a “What if” question would necessarily be rooted in and shaped by the values a person holds.

In their study on values, Merrill Harmin, Louis Raths and Sidney Simon (Values and Teaching, Charles E. Merrill Pub. Co., Columbus: 1966) have suggested that values can be authentically defined only if the following criteria and processes are met and followed: (1) Choosing. In order to be a value, there must be free choice from a variety of alternatives and a thoughtful consideration of the consequences of each alternative. (2) Prizing. Values flow from those things we prize, cherish, esteem and hold dear. By definition a value is a choice we are happy to make and which we are willing to affirm publicly. (3) Acting. When a value has been recognized and accepted, it will become a part of who we are and give direction and purpose to the way we live. Values are not unique choices or events which occur only once in a lifetime. Values persist and tend to exhibit a pattern in a life.

Each of the readings for today’s liturgy hinges on a value, the discovery of which has been prompted by a bout of “What if?” type of questions. Solomon in the first reading has been asked by God, What if? you could have anything you asked for; what would it be? His answer reflected the fact that his foremost values were not riches, or long life, or fame, but the gift of wisdom which would enable him to govern God’s people with care and discernment.

In the gospel the pair of parables about the treasure and the pearl offer a “what if?” challenge. What if you found a pearl, precious beyond any you had ever seen before; what would it be worth to you?. . . And again, what if you discovered a great treasure which had lain hidden in a field; to what extent would you go to make that field your own? The treasure and the pearl are metaphors of the kingdom which Jesus came to preach. Through these parables believers are invited to assess the value they place on the kingdom or reign of God and to decide if they: are willing to choose it freely, above all other alternatives; will be happy to make this choice and to affirm it publicly; will live each day in a manner reflective of their decision.

Paul (second reading) assures believers that those who value the kingdom and love God above all else will be blessed with goodness in this life and glory in the next.

Perhaps it would prove enlightening to spend a few moments today pondering the possibilities of What if . . . and assessing once again the values revealed in our responses.

KINGS 3:5, 7-12

When Saul became Israel’s first king, he was anointed by Samuel the prophet as a sign of divine approbation and royal legitimation (1 Samuel 10:1). The Deuteronomic historian also noted that the Spirit of the Lord descended upon Saul in confirmation of his anointing (1 Samuel 10:6). After Saul was deposed, David was approved and legitimized by a similar anointing and reception of the Spirit (1 Samuel 16:13). Later, David was also anointed by the tribes of Judah (2 Samuel 2:4) and Israel (2 Samuel 5:1-3) as a sign of their allegiance to him. While there is no account of Solomon’s anointing and reception of the Spirit (nor of any king after him), today’s first reading is an excerpt from what has been called a royal legitimation story (1 Kings 3:4-15).

Egyptian literature which exhibits similar legitimation stories with regard to the accession to power of the pharaohs, may have influenced the biblical author’s narrative. As in the Egyptian chronicles, the king received a message in a dream which communicated the divine purpose to him. Remember that dreams in scripture functioned as vehicles of divine revelation. After the dream, the newly legitimized leader offered sacrifice to God, or, in Egypt, the gods (see 1 Kings 3:15). Usually these legitimation accounts preceded some major undertaking of the pharaoh. In the book of 1 Kings, Solomon would soon begin the building of the temple (1 Kings 5:15-6:38).

Solomon’s revelatory dream and “ceremony” of legitimation took place at Gibeon, one of Israel’s high places or sanctuaries. At Yahweh’s request, Solomon began to pray. By mentioning his father David, he alluded to the divine promise that the Davidic dynasty would not end (2 Samuel 7:14) and acknowledged that that promise was being realized in his own accession as king. By his own admission, Solomon felt young and inadequate for the task of governing a people which had grown “so vast that it could not be numbered or counted.” Therefore he prayed for an understanding heart.

Literally translated the Hebrew leb shomea means a listening heart. Recall that for the ancient Hebrews, the heart was the seat of the intellect and will. Therefore the new king’s prayer was for a mind and will which were attuned to God, attentive to his people and capable of wise and discerning decisions. God’s approval of Solomon’s request is reflected in the fact that in addition to a listening heart, the king was also blessed with riches, glory, and a long life (see 1 Kings 3:14).

Evidence of Solomon’s wisdom and discernment are borne out in the ensuing chapters of 1 Kings wherein he settled the case of the women who claimed the same baby (3:16-28) and proved himself as an administrator (chapter 4), builder (chapters 5-7), businessman (chapter 9) and diplomat (chapter 10).

Unfortunately, Solomon’s service as king did not conclude as pristinely as it began thus affirming that God’s gifts do not manifest themselves ex opere operato but require continual tending and cooperation on the part of the one to whom they are given.

ROMANS 8:28-30

According to the Johannine account of the good news, the impetus for Peter’s rehabilitation after denying Jesus was love. Three times Jesus, who knew Peter’s heart, asked the fallen man, “Do you love me?” and three times Peter professed his love. Their relationship set right once again (or justified), Jesus called Peter to himself with a renewed invitation to “Follow me”. Then he went on to explain the manner in which Peter would share his image (on the cross) and thereby enter into glory (John 21:15-19). The pattern of Peter’s rehabilitation or his transformation from struggling sinner to redeemed participant in God’s glory is the same pattern reflected in today’s second reading. Like Peter, those who love God are called by him. Foreknown by him, God intends that those he has called will be conformed to the image of Christ, justified through his cross and glorified with him.

Joseph Fitzmyer has suggested that “those who love God” is Paul’s definition of a Christian. But it can also be the definition of any sincere believer. Recall that the call to love God was first issued in the decalogue (Exodus 20:6, Deuteronomy 5:10) and was echoed several times thereafter, in both the canonical Hebrew scriptures (Deuteronomy 6:5, 7:9, 10:12, Ps 31:24, Ps 97:10) and in writings not accepted into the Palestinian canon (Sirach 1:10, 2:15-16). Quoting the Reformer John Calvin’s comment on this text, Fitzmyer agrees that “The love of God, which is commanded in Scripture, is nothing less than the response of a man in the totality of his being to the prior love of God. It thus includes the whole of religion.” (Spiritual Exercises Based On Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Paulist Press, New York: 1995).

However, there can be no agreement with Calvin or Augustine regarding the interpretation of the word predestined (vs. 29). By the use of this term, Paul reminds us that the scriptural authors did not distinguish between God’s active will, which intends the salvation of all and his passive or permissive will, which respects individual human freedom to appropriate salvation or not. It was Paul’s intent to assure believers that salvation was a certainty because God had so planned it. Yet, due to his limited, albeit otherwise brilliant, theological categories, some have misconstrued Paul to imply that a certain elect are predestined to be saved while others are not. As Wilfrid Harrington once noted, “The unhappy theories of predestination raised on this text agree in their abysmal ignorance of biblical language and the God of the Bible” (The Saving Word, Michael Glazier, inc., Wilmington: 1980).

Suffice it to say, the technical theological rigidity of predestinarianism falls far short of the all encompassing love and mercy which God extends to all people. Heaven has no quotas; salvation is God’s gracious gift to all who believe, and for those who love him, all things work together for good.

MATTHEW 13:44-52

Born in Seville in 1599, Diego Rodriguez de Silva Velázquez became the most important Spanish painter of the seventeenth century and is universally acclaimed as one of the world’s greatest artists. Near the end of his life Velázquez painted one of his most memorable works, a portrait of the Infanta Maria Teresa and her maids of honor. Known as Las Meninas, the striking portrait is made all the more unusual because it includes the artist’s signature in the form of a self-portrait. Today’s gospel is likewise striking in that the evangelist has included his own pen portrait in his description of a scribe who is learned in the reign of God (vv. 51-52).

As one learned, or more correctly, discipled in God’s reign, the Christian scribe serves a purpose similar to that of the scribes of the old Covenant, viz. of teaching, interpreting, and aiding their contemporaries in the application and living of the law. A scribe of the new covenant, or reign of God as established in Jesus, would also teach, interpret and aid his/her contemporaries in applying and living the fulfillment of the law as taught by Jesus in the Great Sermon.

Notice the hermeneutic or method of interpretation which Matthew offers. The Christian scribe brings forth the old from his store, the old being the law and the prophets and messianic tradition as preserved in Judaism and aids others in interpreting the old through the new hermeneutic of Jesus’ words and works.

From another perspective, Benedict Viviano (“Matthew”, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs: 1990) has suggested that verses 51-52 constitute a parable about making parables or a metaparable that invites the reader to enter into the parabolic process by creating new parables to add to the old ones. Viviano would therefore include Jesus’ teaching among the “things old” and understand the church’s interpretation of Jesus’ parabolic teaching as the “things new”. This hermeneutic would appear to be borne out in the multi-leveled parable of the sower (13:1-9, 18-23).

The three parables which comprise the remainder of today’s gospel represent the last of the series of seven included in Matthew 13. Through the pair of parables about the treasure and the pearl, disciples of the reign of God are assured of its supreme value. Indeed, the kingdom is of such vital importance that a person should gladly relinquish whatever base of security he/she had in order to attain it. Notice that the man who discovered the treasure and the merchant sold all they had and rejoiced to do so. Careful investors would regard such behavior as risky and foolish; but the treasure of the reign of God warrants any cost and any risk.

Similar to the parable of the weeds and wheat (16th Sunday of the Year, A), the dragnet parable was drawn straight from the everyday experience of its hearers. Small nets could be cast into the Sea of Galilee by hand or trawled through the sea by boat. In either method, the nets gathered in all manner of things, good and bad, useful and not. Not all of the more than twenty species of fish which made their habitat in the Sea of Galilee were of equal value. Nevertheless, all were caught up together in the net. Only after the nets were hauled to shore could the process of separation begin.

Like the net, so Jesus’ teaching of the reign of God indiscriminately and non-exclusively encompassed all with its good news. So also, those whom Jesus had called to be fishers of people were to extend his ministry of salvation to all without distinction as to their worthiness or appropriate candidacy. Sorting out or judgment as to who shall enjoy the kingdom eternally will come only at the end of the process and will be God’s prerogative alone. For now, each disciple of the reign of God must tend to its treasures both old and new and welcome all others to be similarly engaged.

[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.]