The Sánchez Archives TWENTY-FIRST SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME Year A

By
Patricia Datchuck Sánchez

Who’s in Charge?

ISAIAH 22:15,19-23
ROMANS 11:33-36
MATTHEW 16:13-20

Each of the readings for this week’s Sunday liturgy puts before the gathered assembly for its consideration the notion of authority. In the first reading, Isaiah recounts the transference of power, from one who has proven unworthy of the responsibility to another. The gospel narrative (Matthew) is comprised of Jesus’ designation of Peter as rock and leader of the community of believers. Paul in the second reading bows before the authority of God, whose ways are inscrutable and unsearchable but full of wisdom (Romans).

In his excellent study, Catholicism, Richard McBrien (Harper and Row Publishers, San Francisco: 1981) has noted that authority is not an easy concept to define. Although it is perhaps most often associated with legitimate power, authority and power are not necessarily the same thing. For example, a mugger with a weapon has power over his/her victim, but no valid authority. On the other hand, authentic authority does have something to do with influencing the thinking and behavior of people.

Derived from the Latin word auctor, or author, all authority is rooted in God who is the author of all that exists. As such, authority may be de iure or de facto. De iure means by right or by law and describes that authority which is associated with and supported by the power of an office. A police officer or a judge has de iure authority. Authority is de facto, which means in fact, or the way it really is, when it is actually obeyed and thereby achieves its intended effect. A political columnist whose writing influences governmental policy has de facto authority. Ideally, those who hold and exercise de iure authority should also possess de facto authority. This being so, then the police officer who enforces the law should also be perceived as a law-abiding citizen who commands authority, not only by virtue of his/her office, but also because of his/her character and behavior. This is the quality of authority at issue in both the first reading and the gospel for Sunday.

In the Hebrew scriptures all authority was ascribed to God who in turn entrusted it to humankind in general (Genesis 1:28) and to particular leaders, e.g. Moses, the prophets, the priests, the kings, etc. In the Christian scriptures Jesus is presented as having authority to: preach (Mark 1:22); forgive sins (Matthew 9:6-8); cast out demons and cure illness (Matthew 12:27-28); interpret the law (Matthew 7:28-29); and work on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28). When Jesus exercised his authority, he did so in the manner of a servant (Mark 10:45, Luke 22:27) in order to bring others to know the saving power of God. Before commissioning his disciples to continue his ministry, Jesus counseled them to cooperate with one another in following his example (Luke 22:25-26, John 13:14-15).

In a dramatic return to the spirit of the apostolic church, the participants at the Second Vatican Council affirmed the teaching of Jesus, in that, authority is always to be exercised as a service and in a collegial manner for the building up of the community (Dogmatic Constitution on The Church, # 27).

Following Vatican II, a number of ecumenical dialogues have resulted in more of a consensus among Christians concerning authority in the church. The Anglican, Roman-Catholic International Commission issued a document entitled “An Agreed Statement on Authority in the Church“ (1977). According to this commission, the model of authority in the church is not political, sociological, structural or juridical but rather one of koinonia, viz., a union based on mutual loving service in the truth of Christ, activated by the Holy Spirit in order to create community with God and all persons. Similar statements by the Lutheran Catholic Dialogue remind contemporary disciples of Jesus that all Christian authority is rooted in Christ and the Gospel which is a word of power from God (Romans 1:16) and is proclaimed by various witness-servants who are given a share in the authority of Christ, the Witness-Servant-Model for us all.

ISAIAH 22:15, 19-23

Concerning his tenure as chief executive and the quality of presidential authority he hoped to exercise, John F. Kennedy once said, “With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that, here on earth, God’s work must truly be our own.”

For his part, Shebna could claim neither good conscience or deeds, nor a selfless love of his land and people. Described by Isaiah as master of the palace (vs. 15), Shebna was one of the principal ministers of state in the royal court of Hezekiah. As majordomo or prime minister, it was Shebna’s prerogative to admit or not to admit, into the presence of the king, those who wished to see him. Shebna’s position of authority at court as keeper of the keys of the House of David was signified by the great key of the palace which was worn ceremoniously on a loop slung over his shoulder.

Earlier in chapter 22 (vv. 15-18), Isaiah had given the reasons for the deposition of Shebna. Rather than exercise his authority for the good of the king and the people of Judah, Shebna had evidently used his office for self-aggrandizement. He had ordered the construction of an elaborate tomb for himself specifying that it should be hewn from a rock on a high place. Tombs of this sort were usually constructed for nobility or the wealthy who believed that their burial place would provide a lasting reminder to the world of their greatness. In his exposition of this text, G.G.D. Kilpatrick (The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol.5, Abingdon Press, New York: 1956) observed, “Shebna’s case raises the question of any person’s memorial: Where is it? In the cemetery or in men’s lives? It is a poor immortality that is bought from the stonemason; but a man has not lived in vain if he is remembered gratefully for what he did and was to his fellows.”

Isaiah’s defamation of Shebna also suggested an inordinate preoccupation with chariots. However, since neither the tomb nor the chariot seemed to warrant such a harsh judgment, scholars believe that Isaiah may have held Shebna responsible for helping to frame Hezekiah’s fatal policy of alliance with Egypt against Assyria. Shebna will be mentioned again later in Isaiah, as holding an inferior position (36:2).

For his failures to use his authority well, Shebna was to be replaced by Eliakim. Invested with the robe, sash and key of his new office (vv. 21-22), Eliakim’s authority to grant access (or not) to the royal court was officially affirmed. The image of a peg in a sure spot (v. 23) conveys a sense of the security and permanence of Eliakim’s position. But, if this excerpt from Isaiah had been allowed to continue to its conclusion, the reader would be more correctly apprised of the rest of the story. In Isaiah 22:24-25, these verses (very probably later appended to the present text by the prophet or a redactor) indicated that despite the fact that Eliakim had been divinely designated and installed in his position, he also betrayed the trust of those to whom he was to minister. The “peg in a sure spot” was pulled out and everything and everyone which had depended upon Eliakim fell with him (vs. 25). Suffice it to say that the experiences of Shebna and Eliakim remind each of us of the tenuousness of authority and of the great care with which it must be exercised.

The early Christian community understood that the role of keeper of the keys of the House of David was ultimately fulfilled by Jesus Christ (Revelation 3:7); as is reflected in today’s gospel a share of that authority was conferred upon Peter and the church.

ROMANS 11:33-36

The prayer of praise which comprises today’s second reading represents the conclusion of the doctrinal section of Romans and the end of Paul’s discussion of the place of his beloved Israel in the schema of salvation history. It could be said perhaps, that Paul had come to the end of his “theological rope” and, having let go, flung himself across the crevasse of God’s mysterious ways, with only his parachute of faith to save him. In other words, the apostle to the Gentiles had exhausted every attempt to understand why things had evolved as they did for God’s chosen people.

Israel had been the first to receive the good news of salvation in the person and mission of Jesus. But, many of his coreligionists had not yet come to accept Christ as he had, whereas Paul saw many gentiles openly welcoming the gospel and the salvation it promised. Having exhausted every plausible and implausible explanation for these events, Paul realized that for all his theologizing and logic, he had not even approached any semblance of a solution. Therefore he resolved that, even if he could not probe and comprehend God’s ways, he would accept and believe. In a similar assessment of Paul’s attitude, Reginald Fuller observed, “No theologian has ever known the mind of the Lord. . . There comes a time when the theologian must lay down his (her?) pen and confess the relativity of all his formulations. Theology is therefore always subject to change. And theology must be done in the context of liturgy. It must be doxological.” (Preaching the New Lectionary, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville: 1974).

In Paul’s prayerful surrender of his desire to make sense of life, there are echoes of Job and his struggle to understand why good people suffer. Whereas Paul alone, argued the case of Israel, Job’s friends represented what they believed to be the causes of his situation. In the end, both Job and Paul made what Soren Kierkegäard called the “leap of faith”. Content not to comprehend, they entrusted themselves, their world and their futures to the God whose authority and wisdom they could not plumb but only praise.

With Job and Paul and so many other believers throughout the ages, we praise this God who is at once the beginning (from him), the end (for him), and the sole reason (through him) for all that is.

MATTHEW 16:13-20

In order to understand all the implications of today’s gospel pericope, it may be beneficial to spend a moment (as was done in the first reading) in telling the rest of the story. If verses 21-23 are included, the account is more complete. As Thierry Maertens and Jean Frisque have noted, Matthew’s account was actually built upon a double exchange of titles between Jesus and Peter.

Both verses, 13 and 21, introduce the issue of Jesus’ messiahship. In verse 13 a question is posed as to the identity of the Son of Man; verse 21 indicates that Jesus’ messianic activity would entail suffering. In both verses 16 and 22, Peter intervenes, first (vs. 16) to identify Jesus as the Messiah, Son of the living God, and then to remonstrate with him (vs. 22) for allowing the notion of suffering to enter into the picture. Verses 17 and 23 are sharply contrasted in that Peter is first blessed for receiving the revelation of the Father concerning Jesus’ identity (vs. 17) and then harshly rebuked for following human opinion as regards the messiah. In verse 18, Peter is called a rock on which the church will be built and in verse 23 he is called an obstacle or a rock of scandal which causes the faithful to stumble.

By virtue of this exchange, contemporary readers of the gospel are reminded that “uneasy lies the head that wears a crown” (Shakespeare, 2 Henry IV). In other words, authority within the church is a tenuous responsibility, requiring continual contact with and recourse to its author and source. In order to remain Peter, the rock of foundation, and not Peter, the stumbling rock, the apostle had to model himself after the person and mission of Jesus, servant and shepherd, to accept, along with the adulation, the suffering and daily denial which is integral to the life of every disciple. See Matthew 16:24-28 for yet another chapter of the story.

A consensus of scholars believes that this gospel should be acknowledged as having been informed with post-resurrection faith because it appears to reflect the understanding of a very early Aramaic speaking community, when Peter’s role did become foundational and the need to exercise the ministry of the keys became necessary. Binding and loosing were technical terms (asar, sera`) used by rabbis; when employed by the early church, these terms referred to the prerogative of the church to grant or to revoke membership in the community for reasons of unrepentant sinfulness. At the earliest level of gospel development, binding and loosing may have described the church’s right to grant or withhold baptism depending upon the initiate’s acceptance or rejection of the kerygma (proclamation of the good news). That these prerogatives were exercised in collegiality with other disciples is borne out elsewhere in the gospels (see Matthew 18:18, John 20:22-23).

Today, the church which is built upon Peter the rock with the authority to bind and to loose, to admit or not to admit another into the communal presence of God must bear in mind the example set by its cornerstone, Jesus. Those whom others avoided, he welcomed; those whom others judged unworthy of a place at the table, he sought out to feed and to forgive.

[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.]