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

By
Patricia Datchuck Sánchez

Not Mere Words But Power

ISAIAH 45:1, 4-6
1 THESSALONIANS 1:1-5
MATTHEW 22:15-21

Ordinarily, the first reading and gospel coalesce around a particular theme and carry the tone of the liturgy for the day. This Sunday’s scripture selections are no exception. Both selections, from Isaiah and Matthew are concerned with recognizing the hand of God at work in human history and in bringing to bear a sense of the sacred upon even the most secular circumstance.

Isaiah encouraged his contemporaries with the news that their political fortunes were changing for the better, not simply because one earthly power had prevailed over another but because God had so willed and provided. The Matthean Jesus, when confronted by adversaries, counseled his listeners with regard to their proper and respective allegiances to civil authorities and to God.

While these themes certainly merit the assembly’s attention, there is a phrase in Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians that fairly demands careful consideration: “Our preaching of the gospel proved not a mere matter of words for you, but one of power” (v. 5). The good news, as Paul had proclaimed it among those ancient Greeks had not fallen on deaf ears and hardened hearts; it had been welcomed and allowed to take root in the fertile soil of their faith and hope. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, present within Paul and within those who received his message, the gospel of Jesus Christ became an incarnate, flesh and blood, palpable experience in Thessalonica.

Is not this the intended goal every time the good news is announced? But how can the words of the gospel leap from the pages of the lectionary and become power? How can these words leave the safe sanctuary of the church and become a lived reality and a force to be reckoned with in the street? the office?, the market?, the factory?, the school?, the club?, the restaurant?, the boardroom?

Words can become power only if we take them with us. The “portability” of the word is of course greatly enhanced by a good homily which arouses listeners in the pews to hunger for the nourishment it provides and then points them in the right direction in order to find it. In the end however, the decision to actually carry home something of the good news is a personal one.

For over twenty-five centuries believers have been counseled in this regard by the author of Deuteronomy who said: “Let these words I urge on you today be written on your heart. You shall repeat them to your children and say them over to them whether at rest in your house or walking abroad” (6:6-7). In a similar view, Jesus called blessed “those who hear the word of God and keep it” (Luke 11:28).

Keeping the word means that my life is woven together and supported upon a tapestry of weekly liturgies where I have been fed and feted. Keeping the word means that I am eager to carry with me from each Sunday’s liturgical celebration some sacred morsel of the good news, and that every day of the week, I am willing to return to that source of nourishment, unwrap it and let it speak to whatever new and different or routine and monotonous direction my path has taken. Keeping the word means that I will allow its message to challenge and to chastise me, to change and to move me, just as I expect the sweetness of the word to comfort and encourage me. Keeping the word means that I am no longer “flying solo” in this life. Nor am I sole master or mistress of my destiny: Rather, every word and work, every personal encounter, every relationship, every decision, every choice, every project, every goal and aspiration must be somehow informed and influenced by the word that I have heard, carried with me, and kept.

In this way, the gospel becomes not a mere matter of words but of power. This was the power that was unleashed and was transforming Thessalonica, believer by believer, day by day. The same power that can transform Chicago, Dallas, Muncie, Toronto, Orlando, Seattle, New York, etc. believer by believer, day by day. The prerogative of unleashing this power is yours and mine. Shall this gospel which we hear today remain a matter of mere words, or shall it become POWER?

ISAIAH 45:1, 4-6

Visitors to southern Iran can visit the remarkably well preserved tomb of Cyrus in Pasargadae. This funerary monument commemorated the accomplishments of the Persian king (known also as Cyrus II and Cyrus the Great), whose name was recorded no fewer than twenty-two times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Extra biblical authors, e.g. Herodotus and Xenophon, have also detailed the career of this son of Cambyses I, who succeeded his father on the throne of Anshan, part of the empire of the Medes. Cyrus’ victories began with the conquests of Media (549 B.C.E.) and Lydia (546 B.C.E.) and climaxed with the dramatic toppling of the Babylonian empire in 539 B.C.E. Although he died in battle against central Asian nomads only nine years later, Cyrus made an indelible impression on the Judaeo-Christian schema of salvation history.

At the height of his power, Cyrus’ empire extended from the Aegean Sea to the Indian frontier and included all of Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine. As the foundation of his vast realm, Cyrus established what has been called a pax orientalis, a unique policy of benevolence. “While he held firm control by placing Medes and Persians in highest offices, by establishing an efficient communications system, and by his armies, he respected the indigenous religious and cultural sensibilities” (E.A. Ballman, “Cyrus, King of Persia”, New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University Press, Washington, D.C.: 1981).

For the Israelites exiled in Babylonia, Cyrus’ policy meant that they were free to return to their homeland and rebuild their lives, politically and religiously. Cyrus provided skilled laborers and materials toward the reconstruction of the temple and returned the treasures that had been plundered by Nabuchodonosor (Ezra 1:1-4, 6:3-5; 2 Chronicles 36:22-23).

In Cyrus’ conquest of their enemies and in his pax orientalis, Deutero-Isaiah, the unnamed author of today’s first reading (and Isaiah 40-55) saw the hand of Yahweh at work on behalf of Israel. For this reason, Deutero-Isaiah enthusiastically acclaimed Cyrus as the anointed one or messiah of the Lord (v. 1). Earlier in his interpretation of their life and times, the prophet encouraged his contemporaries with the fact that God had seen their plight and had sent them a shepherd, viz., Cyrus! (Isaiah 44:28).

Shepherd and anointed one were titles given to Israelite kings beginning with Saul and David. The ceremonious act of anointing meant that a person or object was consecrated or set apart for a special purpose. Though not privy to that purpose, Cyrus was to be instrumental in its accomplishment.

Grasping by the right hand (v. 1) was a sign of friendship; “when done by a superior,” as John L. McKenzie explained, “it signified full acceptance.” (“Second Isaiah”, The Anchor Bible, Doubleday, New York: 1968). The divine promises of conquest (vv. 1-5) were similar to those bestowed upon the Israelite kings (see Pss. 2:8-10, 72:8-10). Although a Persian, and probably a worshiper of Ahura Mazda, Cyrus was nevertheless the anointed of Yahweh, who befriended the warrior and secured his success for the sake of Israel.

In evaluating Deutero-Isaiah’s unusual interpretation of history, viz. that the conquests of Cyrus were intended solely for the restoration of Israel, John L. McKenzie (op. cit.) admitted that such a view may appear intolerably narrow. However, it is a fact that the reconstruction of the Jewish community in Palestine has had a more lasting effect than any of Cyrus’ other accomplishments. Indeed, the prophet’s insights are more profound and astonishing than narrow. Whereas others perceived human history as a web of distinct peoples wending their separate ways under the auspices of different deities, Deutero-Isaiah shared a vision of one God, with a provident plan which reached out in a universal embrace to guide the destinies of all peoples of all times and in every place.

1 THESSALONIANS 1:1-5

In his account of the founding of the church in Europe, Luke (Acts 16:6-10) emphasized in vivid style the role played by the Holy Spirit in setting the course for Paul and those who accompanied him. Although the missionaries intended to travel to Bithynia in Asia Minor, the Spirit made it known that Macedonia was to be their destination. Accordingly, Paul et al. (Silas, Timothy, Luke?) set sail from Troas to begin their European mission. In his letter to the Thessalonians, Paul also underscored the role played by the Holy Spirit (v. 5) in helping the good news to take root in the new converts and by virtue of their efforts to spread far and wide.

Originally named Thermai (Hot Springs), ancient Thessalonica was an important harbor utilized by the successive waves of Persians, Greeks and Romans who controlled it. Renamed by Cassander as a tribute to his wife in 315 B.C.E., Thessalonica’s ideal location made it a strategic foundation for the early church. The city’s main thoroughfare was part of the Via Egnatia which stretched from Dyrrachium on the Adriatic Sea to Constantinople on the Bosphorus and then on to Asia Minor and the East. Described as being “in the lap of the Roman Empire,” the cosmopolitan Thessalonica welcomed traders and their wares from all over the then known world. If Christianity found a firm foothold in Thessalonica, it was virtually assured that the good news would travel from there to all points east and west. Obviously, this was Paul’s hope as he preached the message of salvation among the Thessalonians within two decades of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

After a short stint of preaching in Thessalonica’s synagogue, Paul and Silvanus were compelled to escape from the city; Luke explained that their forced departure was due to a riot that had erupted within the Jewish population because of the popularity of the Christian message (Acts 17:1-10). Undaunted, the early missionaries continued to travel and preach the good news to other Greek cities. Eventually Paul made his way to Corinth where Timothy rejoined him with good news and bad news. The good news is reflected in Paul’s effusive praise of the Christians at Thessalonica; they were proving their faith, laboring in love and showing constancy in hope (vv. 2-3). In other words, the gospel was not a matter of mere words to them, rather it had become the power which illumined their way and ignited their energies (v. 5).

The “bad” news which Timothy brought to Paul concerned a misunderstanding which persisted among the Thessalonians. Many were preoccupied with Jesus’ second advent and worried about the fate of those who died beforehand. Later in his letter, Paul would deal with these matters (look for commentary on second reading for Thirty-Second and Thirty-Third Sundays of Ordinary Time).

For now, however, this gathered assembly is invited to admire the community of Thessalonica and to aspire to a similar commitment to the good news.

MATTHEW 22:15-21

In The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon listed the following reasons which contributed to Rome’s demise: (1) the rapid increase of divorce which undermined the sanctity of the family; (2) a mad craze for increasingly brutal and exciting sports; (3) the amassing of unnecessary armaments; (4) the decay of religion, and (5) higher and higher taxes. While every one of these causes is deserving of attention, none seems to provoke more discussion than the issue of taxes. As is reflected in today’s gospel, Rome’s policy of taxation was also a thorny issue for Jesus’ contemporaries.

The empire exacted three types of taxes, a ground tax, which required that ten per cent of all grain and twenty per cent of all oil and wine production be given to Rome; an income tax, equivalent to one per cent of a person’s income; and a poll tax, which amounted to a denarius or a full day’s wage.

When the Pharisees and Herodians broached the subject of taxes with Jesus, they instigated the first of a series of four disputes; their intention was not simply to engage Jesus in lively conversation but to trap him. Matthew underscored the insincerity of their motives by his use of a rare Greek term for trap (v. 15); ordinarily the word described the capturing of an animal in an often fatal snare.

Jesus’ opponents hoped that he would become terminally ensnared on the horns of the dilemma with which they confronted him. Are taxes lawful or not? Should the empire of their hated oppressors be fueled by the hard earned wages of Israelites, or not? While the Herodians (supporters of Herod whose power in Judah was secured by Rome) would not have been opposed to paying taxes to Rome, the Pharisees were vehemently opposed to what they regarded as an infringement on the sovereign authority of God. Natural enemies, the Herodians and Pharisees had nevertheless teamed up in a less than honest effort at discrediting Jesus.

If he agreed to the Roman tax, Jesus would have alienated the majority of the population who suffered under its tyranny. If he called Roman taxation unlawful, Jesus left himself open to charges of sedition and treason. In wise rabbinic fashion, Jesus cut through the legal wrangling by challenging his opponents to answer his questions. Whose likeness and whose inscription were on the Roman coinage?

With each new emperor who ascended to power in the empire, new coinage was minted; on the legal tender carried by all of his subjects the new emperor’s authority was affirmed and acclaimed. If they carried this coinage, and obviously they did (see vv. 19-20), then Jesus’ questioners were, in effect, acquiescing to the emperor, at least as regards civil concerns. No doubt, the Pharisees and Herodians had also been the beneficiaries of the healthy economy which the Pax Romana or enforced Roman peace encouraged. If, as John P. Meier explained, “they were so ready to acknowledge Caesar’s sovereignty when it was to their advantage, then they should pay up when Caesar demand tribute” (Matthew, Michael Glazier, Inc., Wilmington: 1983).

At this point in the argument, Jesus’ opponents were forced to feel the jab of his counter dilemma; if they were bound to render Caesar his due by virtue of their tacit approval of his limited and temporal authority, then how much more were they obligated to render to God supreme authority over and above all the universe. Their argument had dissolved into triviality; Jesus had evaded the trap, causing his opponents to retreat for a time and to allow the Sadducees their turn at him (vv. 23-33).

Perhaps it is tempting to be amused at the picayune bickering of the Pharisees and Herodians; but they were intelligent enough to realize that Jesus had given them cause to reflect. Rather than be entertained by Jesus’ one-upmanship it might be better to join the Pharisees and Herodians in considering his challenge, “give to God what is God’s.”

[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.]