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

By
Patricia Datchuck Sánchez

Turning Point

JOSHUA 24:1-2,15-17,18
EPHESIANS 5:21-32
JOHN 6:60-69

In the course of a given lifetime, individuals are confronted by a variety of crises. When serious illness strikes, the crisis is a medical one. Political crises accompany the wresting of power from one group or party by another. An economic crisis is occasioned by the collapse of a stock market, the devaluation of a major currency or the bankruptcy of some important financial organization. An international crisis occurs when one nation suddenly invades, blockades or otherwise encroaches upon another.

Lesser crises are also frequently encountered. . . the car won’t start and you have to give a presentation to your boss in twenty minutes. . . unexpected guests have arrived and you haven’t anything to offer them. . . However, as Richard P. McBrien (Catholicism, Harper and Row Pub., San Francisco: 1981) has noted, the word crisis is frequently misused. For many, the term has a consistently negative ring as in the above examples. Crises are thought of as bleak and foreboding events which are a threat to comfort, convenience and in some cases, to survival.

The term crisis belongs to a larger family of words: critic, critical, criticism, criterion, critique, etc. Each of these words is ultimately derived from the Greek verb, krinein, which means to sift and separate or to decide. Accordingly, critics sift and separate what they deem as having value from what is valueless. Critical skills refer to the ability to discern good from bad. A criterion is a standard or means of sifting, separating and deciding. It is within this framework of krinein-derivatives that the word crisis should be understood.

Quite literally, a crisis is a turning point, a moment of decision which will determine a future course of direction; it is a time of sifting and separating and being committed to a choice. Therefore, says McBrien, a crisis may not only be a time for worry in the face of perceived peril, but a time for exhilaration in the face of perceived opportunity.

In today’s excerpted first reading and in the gospel, readers of Joshua and John will detect an atmosphere of crisis. After they had settled in the land promised them by God, Joshua assembled the people of Israel and presented them with a crisis. Would they decide to remain faithful to God, to keep the law and thus be a nation in covenant with their creator. . . or not. Their decision was entirely free; God does not coerce. God simply invites.

The decision of the people for or against the covenant, represented a turning point. From the point of decision onward, their lives would be necessarily altered and redirected. No doubt, the decision was made less difficult by the fact that, in the past, God had proven to be a faithful and caring covenant partner. This, in itself, afforded Israel’s moment of crisis a sense of exhilaration because a future in God’s company promised to be full of blessings and opportunities.

Jesus, in today’s gospel, proffered a similar crisis situation to his disciples. In essence, he asked them to decide whether or not they would accept to be fed by the bread he offered. Did they have faith in him as God’s gift for the life of the world? or not? With a frightening exercise of their freedom, some chose to part company with Jesus. That decision was a turning point; from then on their lives would be influenced and affected by that choice. We can only hope that those who broke away that day remained sensitive to the many other overtures with which God relentlessly coaxes the unbelieving, the weak and the doubting.

Those who met the crisis Jesus proposed and chose to accept his gift of bread (sapiential and sacramental) in faith, had also arrived at a turning point. Forever thereafter, their decision for Christ would affect all their other decisions as well as their every word and work.

In today’s second reading, the Ephesians author reminds Christians that their free decision to be covenanted with Christ must be reflected in every other relationship. Those who enter into a marital covenant, for example, should love and submit to one another in mutual care, just as Christ submitted himself in loving sacrifice for the church.

In placing these readings before the gathered assembly today, the church is affirming the crisis which is at the heart of Christian commitment. Today is a turning point, yet another opportunity offered by God. . . how shall you decide? How will that decision affect the rest of today? How shall it reshape tomorrow?

JOSHUA 24:1-2,15-17,18

Every time a child is born into a family, the parents or guardians of this new life are faced with a crisis. They must decide, what shall I offer this child as it grows to maturity? Shall he/she be raised in the rich heritage which faith affords or not? In observant Jewish families, this turning point is met and answered with the rite of circumcision. As David A. Rausch (Building Bridges, Understanding Jews and Judaism, Moody Press, Chicago: 1988) has explained, the ceremony of b’rit milah serves as an outward sign of the covenant with God, a covenant through which all life is given meaning and a keen sense of responsibility is nurtured. So crucial is this concept, that in recent years, it has become customary to hold a religious ceremony to welcome female children as well into the covenantal life. In Judaism, the b’rit milah is a momentous occasion for the community as well as a personal milestone for parents and children. Responsibility before God, both collective and individual is deeply felt.

In observant Christian families, the turning point occasioned by the birth of a child is met with the rite of baptism. Initiated into the life of Christ, the newly baptized are also incorporated into the life of the church and covenanted to God through the blood of Christ. Strengthened by the faith and life of its young members, the church, in turn, sustains and supports the growing faith of its newest covenant-partners.

In today’s excerpted pericope from Joshua, the centrality of the covenant for all of the heirs of the Judaeo-Christian faith is affirmed. Initiated by God with Abraham (Genesis 17), extended to Israel through the mediation of Moses (Exodus 19-24), the covenant with God became the framework which governed and fortified every other relationship. Therefore, upon their arrival at yet another turning point in their life as a people, viz., the final infiltration and settlement of the Israelite tribes in Canaan, the people were invited to decide for God or to reject God in favor of the idols of their neighbors. Their decision for God was to be reflected in their fidelity to the terms of the covenant, i.e. the law.

In a religious sense, this crisis was met and answered within the hearts of a people who were called and blessed by God. Geographically, this turning point took place at Shechem, a name which means shoulder due to its location between the “shoulders” of Mts. Gerizim and Ebal, ca. 40 miles north of Jersualem. An ancient shrine associated with the patriarchs, Abraham (Genesis 12:6ff) and Jacob (Genesis 33:18ff), Shechem may have, at one time, housed the ark of the covenant. A reference in Judges 9:46, describes the shrine at Shechem as the temple of El-berith, God of the Covenant.

The covenant ritual recorded in Joshua 24 is similar in structure to the suzerainty treaties imposed by the conquering Hittites tribes in the second millenium B.C.E., e.g.: (1) preamble, in which the titles of the parties are announced (24:2); (2) historical prologue, which included a narrative of the deeds performed by the sovereign for the vassal (24:2-13); (3) stipulations or obligations of vassal toward sovereign (24:14,25); (4) provision for recording, preservation and periodic reading of treaty (24:26); (5) invocation of witnesses to confirm treaty (24:22, 26-27); (6) sanctions consisting of blessings for fidelity to treaty and curses for any breach against it (24:20). Included in today’s reading are the preamble, identifying God and Israel (vv. 1-2), and the declaration of allegiance to God to which the people agreed (vv. 15-18).

In contrast to the suzerainty treaty which imposed terms and demanded that they be observed under pain of grievous sanctions, those whom whom God calls to covenant are free to decide, free to choose, free to love and obey, or not. Shall we follow Joshua’s lead in pledging, “As for me. . . I will serve the Lord?. . . or not?”

EPHESIANS 5:21-32

Through the centuries, the author of Ephesians has been roundly criticized for the exhortations included in this pericope, particularly for his insistence that wives be submissive to their husbands. Some contemporary theologians even cast blame on the ancient author, citing such writings as the cause of feminine degradation in human society. However, before coming to his defense, it should be understood that others could be similarly charged. As Craig S. Keener (Paul, Women and Wives, Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Peabody, MA: 1992) has observed, centuries before the New Testament Period, Aristotle argued that men were naturally superior and therefore fit to rule over women. Plato described a woman’s virtues as taking care of the home and obeying her husband. Plutarch insisted on the wife’s full submission in all social and religious matters; she was to share her husband’s friends and relinquish her own and to accept his gods and religion. Jewish writers from the first century were equally insistent; Philo and Josephus said that due to her inferiority, a woman was to be ruled by masculine authority. Was the Ephesians author simply following the lead of others before him? A careful, open-minded rending of the text will prove otherwise.

Borrowing from that form of advice called haustafel or household codes which were regularly featured in Greek and Jewish literature, the Ephesians author gave a decidedly different interpretation to the rules which should govern familial relationships. Contextually the call to submission (which meant give in, to cooperate and need not mean obey as per Markus Barth, “Ephesians” Anchor Bible, Doubleday and Co., Garden City: 1974, who distinguished between the active and middle/passive uses of verb) should be understood in light of the call to “defer to one another out of reverence for Christ” (v. 21). Moreover, the closest the author comes to actually defining submission comes in v. 33, where he summarizes his exhortation to wives with a call “to respect” their husbands.

Notice, also, that the author has further qualified this exhortation to wives by placing it side by side with that extended to husbands. Husbands and wives are to relate to one another in mutual love and submission (or respect) because they are believers in Jesus who, as their role model, gave of himself, fully and absolutely, to the church.

It is significant that the husband’s submission to his wife is described in much greater detail. Called to love as Christ loved and to love and care for their wives as they love themselves. Christian husbands were being challenged to a life-style which was considerably much more progressive than that of their contemporaries. Comparing the covenant of marriage to the covenant between Christ and the church, the author lifted Christian marriage to a height far beyond the cultural mores of his day. By referencing the text from Genesis 2:24 (v. 31), the author further affirmed and reinforced the mutuality of the marital covenant (“the two shall become one”) and the sacramentality, or sign value, of Christian marriage as a type of Christ and the church.

While some advice in scripture is obviously culture-bound, i.e. determined by the customs, and/or situation which occasioned its being written (e.g., as regards slaves) there are also exhortations which reach beyond culture with a truth whose challenge remains ever relevant and timely.

JOHN 6:60-69

How ironic! The gift of living bread, which was to be His source of covenantal union between Christ and the believer and the means by which all other sharers in the covenant would be united to one another in Christ. . ., that very gift had become the reason why many broke away and severed ties with Jesus. It was understandable that many in the crowd, who were not very familiar with Jesus would have murmured and departed. But, as is reflected in this pericope, even those most readily disposed to Jesus chose to leave him. “This is hard talk”, they complained and could not believe he was serious.

No less surprising is the fact that Jesus offered no easy remedy to the doubts and disillusionment of his disciples. He worked no further sign; he offered no further explanation. He simply challenged them to open themselves to the gift of faith that was God’s gift to them: “no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father” (v. 65).

Moreover, Jesus proffered the additional challenge that the gift of living bread was to be understood as a fuller revelation which he had come to make known. As Stanley B. Marrow (The Gospel of John, Paulist Press, New York: 1995) has explained, the revelation Jesus brings is integral; one aspect might prove unacceptable to some, another aspect to others. But the whole revelation stands or falls together.

Because revelation has no “optional parts”, the gift of living bread is no less credible that the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. If their faith was shaken at this point, how then could they ever put faith in what was yet to come!? Only with faith would they be able to see and grasp the triple mystery which was being revealed among them, viz., (1) the incarnation (I am the bread that came down from heaven, 6:41); (2) the redemption (the bread that I give is my flesh for the life of the world, 6:51); (3) the ascension and glorification (the Son of Man will ascend to where he was before, 6:62). The “bad news” was that some did not accept the gift of faith, they refused to believe (v. 64) and withdrew from the ranks of the disciples (v. 66). The “good news” is that others, by faith, confirmed Jesus’ teaching as good news, as gospel and the way of salvation.

Many have suggested that Jesus’ question to Peter and the apostle’s response are the Johannine parallel of Peter’s confession of faith at Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:27-30; Matthew 16:13-20; Luke 9:18-21). There is, however, a major difference in the two versions. Whereas the Synoptics portrayed Jesus as asking “Who do you say I am?”, the Johannine Jesus inquires “Do you want to leave me too?” (v. 67). Marrow (op.cit.) picks up on this distinction and explains that, in John 6, the question does not concern Jesus’ identity and therefore, what is required is not recognition or acknowledgement. What is required, is a decision.

Like Joshua and the Israelites in the first reading, the disciples of Jesus had arrived at a crisis or turning point. Like Joshua and the Israelites, who were asked to decide whether or not they would remain covenanted to God in loving service, Peter and our ancestral brothers and sisters were being asked whether or not they chose to remain in the discipleship of Jesus. Jesus’ question challenged those who had first inquired of him, “Where do you stay?” (1:38) and who were invited to “Come and see!” (1:39) to choose whether or not they would stay with him. This choice, as Jesus explained (v.65) can only be made by a grace-supported faith.

Peter’s response, “Lord to whom shall we go?. . .” (v.68) reflects the faith-filled, free and whole-hearted decision of the early Christian community. They had come to know and believe that Jesus spoke the words of spirit and life (v. 63) and that he was indeed the Way to the Father. By faith, they accepted to be nourished by Jesus’ gift of living bread and by faith they experienced the joy of eternal life.

At every eucharistic encounter, each believer in the gathered assembly is invited to maneuver, yet again, the crisis or turning point which is the bread of life. Internally bound up with the gift of this bread is the option to remain with or depart from Jesus’ company. . .

. . . Lord, to whom shall we go?. . . you have the words of eternal life!

[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.]