The Sánchez Archives FOURTEENTH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME Year B

By
Patricia Datchuck Sánchez

He was Too much For Them

EZEKIEL 2:2-5
2 CORINTHIANS 12:7-10
MARK 6:1-6

The annals of human history are replete with case after case of good people being rejected by those who knew them best. There is something about familiarity that sometimes casts a pall over the truth. Sadly it is precisely when we think we know another completely that we become most susceptible to faulty judgment, or, as is often the situation, of underestimating the capacity of the other to grow, develop, change and become surprisingly more wonderful and gifted than ever we expected them to be. This unfortunate penchant for labeling and thereby unjustly limiting the potential of others has claimed not a few victims through the centuries.

Beethoven, for example, had a rather awkward playing style and preferred to work at his own compositions rather than play the classical artists of his day. Disapproving of his technique, his teacher called him hopeless as a composer. Albert Einstein did not speak until he was four and could not read until age nine. He was described by his school master as “mentally slow, unsociable and adrift in his foolish dreams.” An expert once said of the great football coach, Vince Lombardi, “He possesses minimal football knowledge and lacks motivation.” Socrates was written off as “an immoral corruptor of youth.” Louisa May Alcott’s family thought she was hardly educable and encouraged her to find work as a seamstress or house-servant. When F. W. Woolworth first sought work at a dry goods store, his employers said he did not have the intelligence to wait on customers. Richard Hooker’s humorous war novel, MASH was rejected by 21 publishers before it became a bestseller, a movie, and long-running television series. Thomas Edison’s teachers advised his parents to keep him home from school, stating that he was “too stupid to learn anything.” In his autobiography, Charles Darwin wrote, “I was considered by all my masters and my father, a very ordinary boy, rather below the common standard in intellect.” Walt Disney was fired by a newspaper editor who complained that he was lacking in creative ideas. The father of the sculptor Rodin said, “I have an idiot for a son.” Described as the worst pupil in his school, Rodin failed three times to secure admittance to a school of art. After Fred Astaire’s first screen test, the memo from the testing director said, “Can’t act! Slightly bald! Can dance a little!”

Obviously, all of these people lived to contradict their naysayers and so excelled in their respective fields as to become a surprise to those who thought they knew them. So also Jesus. So also Paul. So also Ezekiel. Each of the readings for today’s liturgy challenges the human propensity for labeling and limiting and invites believers to begin to look at God, the world and one another with more open eyes and more receptive hearts.

Because his hometown neighbors and friends thought they knew all about Jesus, they did not expect greatness from him (gospel). Their lack of faith proved an obstacle; they found Jesus “too much for them.” In other words, Jesus did not fit into their stereotypical mold of the “boy next door and son of the carpenter.” Since they knew where he lived and who his family was, they also thought they knew what he could accomplish and who he would become. As a result of their myopia, Jesus “could work no miracle” among them.

Ezekiel faced similar rejection when he was empowered by the Spirit to minister to his rebellious contemporaries (first reading). Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians (second reading), reminds us of the conundrum which is Christian discipleship, viz. that it is precisely through weakness, distress and persecution that the power and grace of God find their fullest expression. Therefore, rather than label and limit, or overlook and deny, what we perceive as a weakness or a lack of promise and potential in another, we would do well to remember that the very people who are “too much for us” are the special venue for God’s special surprises.

EZEKIEL 2:2-5

Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi once said, “It is possible for a single individual to defy the whole might of an unjust empire to save his honor, his religion, his soul, and lay the foundation for that empire’s fall or its regeneration.” Gandhi, a twentieth century man of peace and leader of a nonviolent movement to improve conditions in his native India, was such an individual. So was Ezekiel and so were the other prophets of Israel and Judah. Acting as God’s mouthpieces (the meaning of the Greek prophetes), the prophets were empowered by the Spirit of God to call forth truth and justice and fidelity in situations where these qualities were overshadowed by the lies, frauds, injustice, and faithlessness of their contemporaries.

For his part, Ezekiel ministered for God among his people in the chaotic years before and after Judah’s fall to Babylon in the sixth century B.C.E. Consequently, his prophecies were geared to the changing political and religious circumstances of the nation. Before Nebuchadnezzar’s troops began their siege of Judah, Ezekiel’s message was full of threats and warnings; after the conquest and subsequent exile of his people, the prophet’s tone softened as he offered comfort and encouragement to the suffering. In the Talmud (b. B. Bat. 14b) the prophet’s efforts are thus described: “Ezekiel begins with doom but ends with consolation.”

Today’s first reading is an excerpt from a longer passage (1:1-3:27) in which Ezekiel described his call to the prophetic ministry. As Lawrence Boadt (“Ezekiel”, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs: 1990) has pointed out, this introductory section includes all the major themes of the book: the presence of the divine glory or majesty in the events of the exile, the prophet’s responsibility to be a watchman on behalf of Judah, the accountability of each person for his or her actions, and the power of the word of God to act, despite the peoples; rebellion and refusal to listen or obey. Like Jeremiah and the Deuteronomist, Ezekiel attributed every misfortune that befell the people to their own sin. Likewise, Ezekiel promised that God would respond positively to the people’s sincere repentance by restoring them to their own land.

Called and charged by God to speak to the people, Ezekiel was also fully equipped by God for his mission. God’s ruah (Hebrew for breath) or life force entered into the prophet and remained with him, enabling him to understand and to communicate God’s message to his contemporaries (8:3; 9:24; 11:1). Regardless of their recalcitrance (v. 8 hard of face and obstinate of heart), the power of God, at work in Ezekiel, was such that even the most rebellious would be caused to acknowledge that a prophet had been among them (v. 9). The assurance that God’s word would prevail is further affirmed by the designation of the prophet as Son of man. Occurring more than 90 times in Ezekiel, this title underlines the contrast between the divine word and its mortal messenger, thereby emphasizing the fact that the message is God’s not Ezekiel’s and that reward and/or retribution will be decided by God alone.

The fact that God continued to raise up prophets to “defy the might of this world’s unjust empires” attests to the bounteousness of the divine mercy; the fact that the voices of these men and women often went unheeded attests to the continuing obstinacy of the human heart. Today, Ezekiel seems to be asking his twentieth century readers. . . Have you ever met a prophet? Would you welcome the opportunity? Would you listen to his/her message? Or do you believe prophecy to be passé? . . . It would seem that those who deny the continuing existence of prophets and prophecy also deny the power of God to continue to speak the message of salvation, in whom, through whom and to whomever will listen.

2 CORINTHIANS 12:7-10

So many of the people whom we regard of as great have had tremendous obstacles to overcome on their respective paths to greatness. John Milton was blind. Beethoven and Thomas Edison were deaf. Alexander the Great, Alexander Pope and Stephen A. Douglas and Franklin D. Roosevelt were crippled. Cervantes stuttered and Abraham Lincoln failed in two businesses, had a nervous breakdown, was rejected from law school, lost four jobs and eight elections before he was elected president of the United States.

In today’s second reading, Paul tells his Corinthian readers (and us) that his path, too, was fraught with struggles; however, it is difficult to determine precisely what great apostle meant by the phrases “thorn in the flesh” and “an angel of Satan to beat me” (v. 7). The so called golden-mouthed John Chrysostom thought that Paul was referring to his shortness of stature; “barely three cubits (a cubit is 18 inches) high” said Chrysostom, “yet he touched the stars.” Some believe Paul’s “thorn” was some spiritual force (a demon?) which God permitted to test him. Others suggest that Paul was afflicted with some psychological disorder such as anxiety or depression. Still others, basing their suppositions on Paul’s reference to a physical malady (Galatians 4:13-15), and his need to “write with large letters” (Galatians 6:11) propose that Paul had acute ophthalmia (Kevin Quast, Reading the Corinthian Correspondence, Paulist Press, New York: 1994). Further suggestions regarding Paul’s ailment include epilepsy, malaria, a speech impediment, or grotesque physical features. However, because the term “thorn in the flesh” in Hebrew ordinarily pertained to people (Numbers 33:55, Ezekiel 28:24), it seems more feasible that Paul was so describing his opponents and critics. It is also possible that Paul thought of the many pastoral problems that plagued the Corinthian church (factiousness, rebelliousness, licentiousness, proto-gnosticism, etc.) as his thorn in the flesh.

The fact that Paul prayed to be relieved of his “thorn” (v. 8) attests to the suffering it caused him. Nevertheless, his faith enabled him to accept his pain and struggle as a “teachable moment” through which he and others would learn of the power of God’s grace.

Rather than glory in his personal stamina to withstand the struggle or in the “extraordinary revelations” (v. 7) he had been given or even in the exceptional service he had rendered for the sake of the gospel, Paul understood that his true greatness lay in his reliance on God. For that reason, he freely “boasted”, i.e. openly recognized and publicly acknowledged, his weakness as a vehicle through which the power of God could be made manifest (vv. 9-10)

As Kevin Quast (op. cit.) has observed, the difficulties Paul faced and accepted in Corinth have proven to be a blessing for the church everywhere in every generation. Paul’s responses to his pastoral challenges have guided church leaders and congregations as these faced their own crises. Paul’s advice continues to encourage all who find a bit of the Corinthian in their own hearts and who must wrestle with whatever “thorn in the flesh” besieges them. Perhaps Paul’s words also issue a further and more subtle challenge to contemporary believers, viz., that in our efforts to live the gospel fully and courageously we might take care that we do not become a thorn in the flesh for our brothers and sisters in Christ.

MARK 6:1-6

Rejection is never pleasant, but rejection by those nearest and dearest seems the hardest cut of all. The refusal of Jesus’ friends and neighbors to welcome his words and works with faith was not the first such instance in the Marcan gospel. Prior to this experience, Jesus had met with opposition from the Jewish authorities. Mark 2:1-3:6 recounts a series of five controversies in which Jesus had to defend: (1) his power to forgive sin (2:1-12); his predilection for tax collectors and sinners (2:13-17); (3) his ideas about fasting (2:18-22); (4) his understanding of ritual purity (2:23-28); and (5) his power to heal on the sabbath (3:1-6). Besides squaring off with the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus was also misunderstood by his family (3:20-35) who thought him mad and wanted to curtail his public ministry. In today’s gospel, it is the hometown crowd that has rejected one of its own. As Wilfrid Harrington (Mark, Michael Glazier Inc. Wilmington: 1984) observed, this episode has deep meaning for the evangelist and he has placed it carefully at this point in his gospel. The rejection which Jesus encountered was also being shared by the Marcan community of the sixties C.E. Although many Gentiles were accepting and welcoming the gospel, the hometown crowd, i.e. the Jewish people, were, by and large, rejecting it, just as many of them had rejected Jesus (15:11-15).

Although the people of Nazareth were considerably impressed by Jesus’ teaching (v.2 “he kept his large audience amazed”) and admitted the miraculous nature of his deeds, they did not move beyond their amazement and questions (v.3 “Where did he get all this?” What kind of wisdom is he endowed with?) to faith. Instead, they took offense at him; he proved too much for them to accept because their capacity for acceptance had been narrowed by their preconceived notions and expectations. Their supposed familiarity with who Jesus was and what he could do bred an unfortunate contempt that precluded faith. Since faith was a necessary prerequisite for Jesus’ acts of power, he could, as Mark says, “work no miracle there.” Notice, however, the fact that Jesus’ lack of acceptance in his native place did not alter his message or deter his mission. He made the rounds of other villages, teaching and preaching wherever he was welcomed in faith.

Reginald Fuller (Preaching the New Lectionary, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville: 1974) suggests that there is a valuable lesson for the church in this gospel. If the church is true to its mission, as Jesus was, it too will encounter rejection. Of course, the church must not erect unnecessary stumbling blocks (e.g. outmoded terminology, philosophical concepts, etc.) before people and thus prevent their hearing the Christian message. But there are also limits to which the gospel can be accommodated to modern humanity. The scandal, i.e. the “too much-ness” of Jesus and the cross must never be mitigated. The truth of the gospel can never be watered down simply to be more palatable. The basic responsibility of the church is not to win converts and all costs or on any terms, but to proclaim the good news faithfully, in season and out of season, when people are listening as well as when they refuse to listen.

[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.]