ordinary time The Sánchez Archives

THIRTIETH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME
Year A

By
Patricia Datchuck Sánchez

The Contagion of Covenantal Love

EXODUS 22:20-26
1 THESSALONIANS 1:5-10
MATTHEW 22:34-40

In Calcutta, India, there is a children’s home named Shishu Bhavan; founded by Mother Teresa, the home continues to be operated by her community, the Missionaries of Charity. On the wall of the home hangs a sign which reads:

People are unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered.

LOVE THEM ANYWAY

If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish ulterior motives,

DO GOOD ANYWAY

If you are successful, you win false friends and true enemies,

SUCCEED ANYWAY

The good you do will be forgotten tomorrow,

DO GOOD ANYWAY

Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable,

BE HONEST AND FRANK ANYWAY

What you spent years building may be destroyed overnight,

BUILD ANYWAY

People really need help but may attack you if you help them,

HELP PEOPLE ANYWAY

Give the world the best you have and you’ll get kicked in the teeth,

GIVE THE WORLD THE BEST YOU’VE GOT ANYWAY

Mother Teresa counsels her young charges that the challenges offered by this sign can be met only if human beings are motivated by a love and a respect for one another which looks beyond faults, differences, ulterior motives, success and failure.

Love such as this originates in God who has taken the initiative of loving all people; once that love is known and experienced, it becomes contagious and must necessarily spill over and inform all other relationships. Because God loves each person without condition, neither may those beloved of God place conditions upon their love for others. Persons of every race, creed, nationality, social status, gender, and generation are to be lovingly accepted because each has been lovingly accepted by God.

Mother Teresa once said of herself, “By blood and origin, I am all Albanian. My citizenship is Indian. I am a Catholic nun. As to my calling, I belong to the whole world. As to my heart, I belong entirely to the heart of Jesus.” (A Simple Path, Ballantine Books, New York: 1995). Because of her profound sense of belonging to God, Mother Teresa also had a sense of belonging to the world. It is this relationship of belonging and the loving service which grows out of that belonging which the scriptural authors called covenant.

In both the first reading and gospel for today, the fact of humanity’s covenantal belonging to God is celebrated and the consequences of that belonging are spelled out for the covenant community.

As Michael Whelan has explained, “Among members of the covenant, life is marked by a certain ‘triangularity,’ viz., an ongoing correspondence between God, self and the world of other people, events and things.” The relationship with God --my primary relationship as creature-- is revealed, confirmed, enhanced and enlightened and forms the context for all relationships that are part of the structure of human existence in general and in particular.” (Living Strings, Morehouse Pub. Co., Ridgefield, CT: 1994).

One of the generalities of human existence lived in relationship to God is spelled out in the pericope from Matthew’s gospel. Loving God and one’s neighbor as oneself circumscribes and includes every covenantal obligation. One of the particulars of human existence, lived in relationship to God, is spelled out in the text from Exodus. Even those regarded in the ancient world as having no rights or social standing, viz., aliens, widows, orphans, and the poor, who must borrow in order to survive, were to be protected by the covenant. If God had compassion for these, then the members of the covenant community are bound to manifest a similar compassion so as to ameliorate the conditions of the unfortunate.

In today’s second reading, Paul’s enthusiasm for the Thessalonian Christians is quite evident; they had left behind the idols of their former way of life to fully embrace a relationship with the one true God. So authentic was their sense of belonging to God that Paul said their faith was being celebrated in every region of Macedonia and Achaia. So contagious was their commitment that others were seeking to share a similar belonging as members of the Christian covenant.

At each eucharistic gathering, the covenantal community is afforded an opportunity to renew its sense of belonging to God and to one another in the celebrating of its faith. Thus renewed, the congregation is called to spread the contagion of its faith and commitment to the world.

EXODUS 22:20-26

One of the great voices of contemporary literature, Maya Angelou once authored a poem entitled “Human Family” in which she reflected:

“I note the obvious differences in the human family. Some of us are serious, some thrive on comedy. . . The variety of our skin tones can confuse, bemuse, delight, brown and pink and beige and purple, tan and blue and white. . . I note the obvious differences between each sort and type, but we are more alike, my friends, than we are unalike”. . . (from the book I Shall Not Be Moved, Random House, Inc., New York: 1990).

In today’s first reading the differences in the human family are also noted. Some of this earth’s people are Israelite, others are not. Some are married, others are not. Some have parents, others have not. Some are poor, others not. But the one God extends his compassion over all, thereby eradicating their differences; Israel, by virtue of its relationship with God was called to do the same.

Part of the complex of laws, traditionally known as the Book of the Covenant (20:22-23:33), this section of Exodus details the obligations of the people with whom God had forged a covenant. In the excerpt offered for consideration today, the ancient law attended to various forms of oppression of the poor and disadvantaged members of society, viz., aliens or foreigners, widows, orphans, and the poor. As Brevard S. Childs has explained: “The grounds for the prohibition of such oppression were threefold: (1) Israel knows from her own experience what it is like to be a stranger (v. 20). (2) It belongs to the nature of God that he is compassionate (v. 26). (3) The fact of a covenant with God (‘my people’, v. 24) rules out exploitation with this relationship.” (The Book of Exodus, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia: 1974).

Aliens were vulnerable because they lacked the protection that, in their own homeland, would have been provided by their tribe or clan. Widows were considered to be without rights because these were generally accorded to men in patriarchal societies such as Israel’s. “Widowhood was perceived by some to be a disgrace; death before old age was probably viewed as a judgment upon sin and the reproach extended to the missing spouse.” (James L. Price, “Widows”, Harper’s Bible Dictionary, Harper and Row, Pub., San Francisco: 1985). Although some provision was prescribed by law for the care of widows (levirate marriage, Deuteronomy 25:5-10), it was not always honored.

If their father died, children were regarded as orphans, even if their mother still survived. Widows and orphans, with no one to speak for or defend them were particularly susceptible to mistreatment. At the very least they were neglected; this in itself was enough to place them in jeopardy. As is reflected in today’s reading, God proclaimed a special, personal concern for the plight of widows and orphans; Israel was to do no less.

In the legislation regarding the loaning of money to the poor (vv. 24-26) readers will detect an underlying reference to the odiousness that frequently accompanied such a practice. An inordinate amount of interest was frequently exacted from those least capable of paying it. According to the ancient rabbinical commentator Rashi, the root of interest is nsk meaning to bite; “it resembles the bite of a snake . . . inflicting a small wound in a person’s foot which he does not feel at first, but all at once it swells, and distends the whole body up to the top of his head. So it is with interest.” By law, a pledge could be required as security that the loan be repaid (Deuteronomy 24:17). For a poor person, the best, and perhaps only thing, which could be offered as a pledge might be his/her cloak. This cloak was a multi-purpose garment, serving as wardrobe by day and night clothes and blanket by night. By requiring creditors to return the cloak before sunset, the poor person was at least somewhat protected against the cold night air. Moreover, the inconvenience of having to return the cloak each evening was intended to discourage the practice altogether.

Because of their covenant with God, Israelites were to replace prejudice, inequity and crass business practices with compassion, charity and concern for the welfare of others. Christians understood that Jesus’ new covenant extended these obligations to include love.

1 THESSALONIANS 1:5-10

In last Sunday’s second reading, Paul had written to Thessalonica to commend the newly founded Christian community for proving their faith, laboring in love and showing constancy in hope. Although, these three qualities had not yet been defined as theological virtues, the caliber of the Thessalonians’ commitment to a life of faith, hope and love had begun to attract others to Christ. For this reason, Paul, in today’s second reading, called them models, or examples, or witnesses, in whom others could read and understand the message of the gospel.

In what must have been a fairly populated city (given the fact that Thessalonica was a great sea port and a crossroads for major sea and land trade routes) the Christians were no doubt in the minority. Nevertheless their zeal for the faith had an impact throughout the region.

In his commentary on this text, Karl Rahner noted that this notion of giving public Christian witness may be difficult “for us Christians of today precisely because we are Christians of today. Contemporary persons have a way of losing themselves in the crowd. They do not want to attract attention. They want to be everyman and everywoman. Now, there is something to be said for this attitude. It may even be thoroughly Christian: being plain and ordinary, unobtrusive, patient with the monotony of an average undistinguished life. Yet this odd instinct to be retiring --and it is odd-- may conceal a form of cowardice.” (The Great Church Year, Crossroads Press, New York: 1994).

Obviously, the Thessalonian Christians could not be accused of cowardice; they were truly enthusiastic in their ministry. The word enthusiasm is derived from the Greek term enthusiasmos which means entheos: a god within, or en + theos: in god. In the ancient world, when someone was particularly eager and excited, it was assumed that a god had taken possession of them. Certainly, this was the case for the Thessalonian believers. They had left their former way of life and through baptism had become the special possession, (the elect, v. 4) of God and the dwelling places of the Holy Spirit. The realization of their new life in God filled them with joy, even in the midst of great affliction (v. 6). As Raymond F. Collins has explained, the Greek word for affliction or thlipsis “is almost a technical term to denote eschatological distress, sometimes described in other literature as a final battle, the onslaught of both physical and moral evil, or the messianic woes” (“1 Thessalonians”, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs: 1990). Whatever suffering they experienced for the sake of the gospel (e.g. ridicule, mistreatment, persecution, ostracization from society), the Thessalonians regarded their plight as a necessary prelude to the parousia which they understood to be very close at hand.

Notice Paul’s use of the present participle in verse 10: “Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come.” By virtue of his resurrection, the process of deliverance has already begun and will move forward until its ultimate climax at Jesus’ second coming. The Thessalonians understood that through Jesus, and by faith (v. 8), they had been delivered from a life of idolatry in order to serve the living and true God (v. 9). Raymond F. Collins (op. cit.) has further noted that Paul used living and true in an apologetic sense to distinguish the monotheistic God from inert and false gods. Living is a typically biblical description which acclaimed God’s roles as creator, and as an active participant in human history. True suggests God’s faithfulness, particularly as regards the covenant.

Because of their experience of covenant with the living and true God, the first century C.E. Thessalonians lived and served with an enthusiasm so contagious as to attract others to the church. Can Christians of this century be characterized as similarly contagious?

MATTHEW 22:34-40

With this argument concerning the greatest commandment, the Pharisees had come back for “round two” in their attempt to befuddle Jesus (for the first round, see gospel for Twenty-Ninth Sunday in Ordinary Time). In between the Pharisees’ confrontations with Jesus, the Sadducees had come forward with a preposterous line of questioning (“Whose wife will she be?”, Matthew 22:23-33), based on the resurrection, in which they did not believe!

Rabbis were frequently consulted for their opinions concerning the law, by students who were eager to learn, or by experts and colleagues desirous of brainstorming or a good debate. In this particular instance, however, there seemed to be a certain degree of insincerity in those who came to question Jesus, prompted no doubt, by a desire to save face after having been beaten at their own game.

“Which commandment of the law is the greatest?” could have been handled in two ways. As William Barclay (“Matthew”, The Daily Study Bible, The St. Andrew Press, Edinburgh: 1978), has observed, there was the tendency in Judaism to expand the law limitlessly into hundreds and thousands of precepts. Indeed, the Pharisees had succeeded in developing an oral law which consisted of 613 distinct commandments. It was believed that this oral law “built a fence” around the decalogue and made it more difficult to violate. But there was also the tendency to gather the law into one general statement, a concise compendium of its whole message. In today’s gospel, the debate attended to this latter tendency.

When asked his opinion concerning the linchpin of the law, Rabbi Akiba had offered, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” For his part, Rabbi Hillel had answered, “What you hate for yourself do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole law, the rest is commentary. Go and learn.” Sammlai taught that David had succeeded in reducing the 613 precepts to 11 in Psalm 15. Isaiah further reduced them to six (Isaiah 33:15), while Micah (6:8) distilled the multiplicity of laws to three. Deutero-Isaiah (56:1) pared the trio of laws to two and Habakkuk (2:4) reduced them all to one: “The righteous shall live by faith.” Centuries later, Augustine would add his opinion, “Love and do what you like!”

When Jesus was confronted with this popular question, his response was not an original one. Elsewhere in the pseudepigraphical literature of Judaism similar answers had been given. In the series of tractates known as The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (ca. 100, B.C.E.) one can read the following: “Love the Lord and love your neighbor; have compassion on the poor and weak” (Testament of Issachar 5:2), and “Love the Lord through all your life and one another with a true heart” (Testament of Dan 5:3).

The uniqueness of Jesus’ response consisted in the fact that he understood the two laws as having equal value or importance. The scribes and Pharisees taught that certain laws were heavy or greater, while others were light or lesser. The command to love God with the totality of heart, soul and mind was based on Deuteronomy 6:5 and was valued as a heavy law. As Benedict T. Viviano noted (“Matthew”, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs: 1990), this love is not primarily a feeling, but covenant fidelity, a matter of willing and doing . . . The rabbis taught that heart meant will, soul meant life, and strength (Matthew has mind) meant wealth. The command to love neighbor as self was derived from Leviticus 19:18 and was regarded as a light or lesser law. That Jesus valued both laws as equally weighty and interdependent was a unique and important moral advance over rabbinical teaching.

Recall also, the fact that Jesus had redefined the traditional Israelite concept of neighbor. Ordinarily the term described a fellow Israelite; as brothers and sisters of the same covenant, Israelites were called to love one another as they loved themselves. Concerning those outside the bonds of the covenant there was an obligation to compassion (see first reading) but not love. The Manual of Discipline at Qumran bears evidence of a lesser tolerance of outsiders: “And that they may love all the sons of light each according to his lot in the Council of God; and that they may hate all the sons of darkness, each according to his fault in the vengeance of God” (1 QS 1:9-10).

For Jesus and his disciples, there were to be no aliens or outsiders. Each person, having been created in God’s image was and is to be loved and valued as neighbor. Love God and one another; this was and continues to be the whole law and the covenantal obligation of every believer.

[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.]

http://www.ncrpub.org
e-mail the Celebration editor at patmarrin@aol.com



Copyright © 2000 Celebration Publications

Illustration prepared by Julie Lonneman.

The National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company
Celebration Publications
115 E. Armour Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64111
1-816-531-0538