In
terms of Catholic “preachability,” this Sunday’s Readings are a soft-ball
pitch, a long high arc that every homilist ought to be able to knock out of the
park. The lectionary readings have been
set up for a clear explanation of the nature of the Papacy and its basis in
Scripture.
The
context of the Old Testament reading should be explained. During the lifetime of the prophet Isaiah,
the royal steward of the palace, a certain Shebna, was arrogating himself by
adopting royal privileges. In
particular, he was having a tomb cut for himself in the area reserved for the
royal sons of David. Like Denethor in
the Return of the King (not an accidental parallel, by the way—Tolkien was a devout Catholic), he was forgetting his place as steward and confusing his
role with that of the king. As a result,
the LORD sends an oracle to Shebna via Isaiah, to the effect that Shebna will
be replaced in his position by a more righteous man, a certain Eliakim son of
Hilkiah:
Is 22:19-23
Thus says the LORD to
Shebna, master of the palace:
"I will thrust you from your office
and pull you down from your station.
On that day I will summon my servant
Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
I will clothe him with your robe,
and gird him with your sash,
and give over to him your authority.
He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
and to the house of Judah.
I will place the key of the House of David on Eliakim's shoulder;
when he opens, no one shall shut
when he shuts, no one shall open.
I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot,
to be a place of honor for his family."
"I will thrust you from your office
and pull you down from your station.
On that day I will summon my servant
Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
I will clothe him with your robe,
and gird him with your sash,
and give over to him your authority.
He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
and to the house of Judah.
I will place the key of the House of David on Eliakim's shoulder;
when he opens, no one shall shut
when he shuts, no one shall open.
I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot,
to be a place of honor for his family."
The
role of “master of the palace,” literally “the one over the house” (Heb. ‘asher ‘al-habayith), was the Number Two
position of authority after the King (observe the dynamic in 1 Kings 18:1-5,
for example). The office was first
established by Solomon (1 Kings 4:6).
Apparently the badge of his office was the wearing of the key to the
palace on his shoulder (Isa 22:22). He controlled
access to the king, either by unlocking or locking the palace doors to those
who sought the king’s presence. This is
what the text means by “what he opens, none shall shut, etc.” This statement will be paralleled in the
Gospel: “what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, etc.”
Michael
Barber has done work showing that the royal steward was understood as a
priestly character. I cannot repeat all
his evidence, but I will point out the connections of which I am aware: (1) the
girdle (Heb. ‘abnet) mentioned in the passage (“sash” in the Lectionary
translation) is only mentioned elsewhere in the OT as a priestly garment,
usually along with the robe (Heb. kuttonet) (Ex.
28:4, 39, 40; 29:9; 39:29; Lev. 8:7, 13; 16:4). (2) The steward is said to be a
father to the House of Judah. “Father” is a title for “priest” in the Old
Testament (Gen 45:8; Judg 17:10; 18:19). (3) Eliakim is the son of
Hilkiah. Although we are not sure which
Hilkiah this is, it is notable that the name “Hilkiah” is only used by Levites
in the Old Testament (Jeremiah, a Levite, is also “son of Hilkiah,” Jer 1:1),
and at least two Hilkiahs were in fact High Priests (2 Kings 22:4 etc. and
parallels in 2 Chron 34; Neh 12:7).
In summary, the Kingdom of David included the office of the Royal
Steward (‘asher ‘al-habayit), a
position associated with priesthood and second only to the king in authority. Let’s not forget, too, that this was an office: a continuing role that was
filled by one man succeeding another, as opposed to a charism given to one
person that ceases with his death.
2. The Responsorial Psalm is Ps 138:1-2, 2-3, 6, 8:
R/
(8bc) Lord, your love is eternal; do not forsake the work of your hands.
I will give thanks to you, O
LORD, with all my heart,
for you have heard the words of
my mouth;
in the presence of the angels I
will sing your praise;
I will worship at your holy
temple.
R/
Lord, your love is eternal; do not forsake the work of your hands.
I will give thanks to your name,
because of your kindness and your
truth:
When I called, you answered me;
you built up strength within me.
R/
Lord, your love is eternal; do not forsake the work of your hands.
The LORD is exalted, yet the
lowly he sees,
and the proud he knows from afar.
Your kindness, O LORD, endures
forever;
forsake not the work of your
hands.
R/
Lord, your love is eternal; do not forsake the work of your hands.
Psalm 138 is a Psalm of David, in which David praises God for
God’s covenant faithfulness (Heb. hesed). The Hebrew hesed is translated as “kindness” in the final stanza of our
liturgical translation (“your kindness, O Lord, endures forever”) and as “love”
in the response (“Your love is eternal”), both of which are renderings of Ps
138:8. “Kindness” and “love” are both
certainly aspects of hesed, but neither
catches the full force of the Hebrew term, which pervades the Psalter.
This Sunday’s Readings are all about God’s faithfulness to his
covenant with David. In the First
Reading, during a time when the integrity of the Davidic dynasty and kingdom was
being threatened by an aggressively self-interested royal steward, God promises
to replace him with one who will administer the kingdom of David wisely. In the Gospel Reading, Jesus appoints Peter
as royal steward of the renewed Kingdom of David that Jesus is re-establishing,
which will come to be called the ekklesia,
the church. In the time of Jesus,
the Kingdom of David had been dormant for almost six hundred years, and some
considered the promises of the covenant with David a distant memory, as irrelevant
as legends of King Arthur. Yet for all
that, God had not forgotten his promises, and Jesus the Son of David appears on
the stage of history to fulfill the word of God. Psalm 138, then, functions in this Mass as an
expression of our praise to God, that despite human failures and the passing of
centuries, his hesed is eternal and
he will not forsake the work of his hands.
The greatest work of his hands is his own people, the Church. We may and must be confident that, despite
the turmoil, violence, and widespread falsehoods of our own age, God will
preserve and defend his Church, until the end of time.
3. Our Second Reading is Rom 11:33-36:
Oh, the depth of the riches and
wisdom and knowledge of God!
How inscrutable are his judgments
and how unsearchable his ways!
For who has known the mind of the
Lord
or who has been his counselor?
Or who has given the Lord
anything
that he may be repaid?
For from him and through him and
for him are all things.
To him be glory forever. Amen.
This is another situation in which the Lectionary does not provide
us enough context to understand what is going on in the text, and the homilist
needs to provide it if the congregation is to comprehend God’s Word.
This passage is Paul’s doxology in praise of God’s mysterious
providence. In particular, Paul has been
developing, in Romans 9–11, a theological explanation of the role and fate of
ethnic Israel now that Jesus has come and begun to be embraced by the Gentiles
as their Lord and King. Paul affirms
that “the gifts and call of God” to Israel is “irrevocable,” which is similar
to the affirmation of Psalm 138: “your hesed
endures forever.” God does not break
his covenants, and even stays faithful when we break them. Paul is assured that, in the end, “all Israel
will be saved” (11:26). Most of Israel,
the Ten Tribes, have already been dispersed and assimilated among the nations,
the “Gentiles.” So now, in Jesus, the
word of salvation goes out to the nations and reaps a harvest among them. As these Gentiles come into the Church, among
them are the descendants of Israel who no longer even know their identity: “the
full number of the Gentiles [will] come in, and so all Israel will be saved”
(Rom 11:25-26). Paul sees in all of this
a profound beauty and mystery to the workings of God’s providence. Despite human sin and rejection of God, and
despite appearances to the contrary, God is actually working out his plan in
human history, and saving the people to whom he made his covenant promises.
4. As we move toward
today’s Gospel reading, let’s not forget that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke
both take great pains in their opening chapters to emphasize Jesus’ royal
Davidic lineage. He is the Son of David
come to fulfill all the promises of the Davidic Covenant (see Jer 33:15,
19-21). However, we as Christian readers
usually practice a sort of literary schizophrenia when reading the
Gospels. We do not connect the Kingdom
of David promised to Jesus with the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus proclaims:
Luke 1:31 And behold, you
will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name
Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High;
and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33
and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there
will be no end.”
Matt 4:17 From that time Jesus began
to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
However,
already in the Old Testament, there was an awareness that the Kingdom of David
was a manifestation of God’s own Kingdom:
2Chr. 13:8 “And now you
think to withstand the kingdom of the
LORD in the hand of the sons of
David?
This Old Testament background elucidates the
Gospel reading, a controversial one whose meaning is hotly debated, because of
the importance of its implications:
Mt 16:13-20
Jesus went into the region
of Caesarea Philippi and
he asked his disciples,
"Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah,
still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter said in reply,
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus said to him in reply,
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Then he strictly ordered his disciples
to tell no one that he was the Christ.
he asked his disciples,
"Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah,
still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter said in reply,
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus said to him in reply,
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Then he strictly ordered his disciples
to tell no one that he was the Christ.
Even
some non-Catholic commentators (most notably, W.F. Albright, father of American
biblical archeology and Old Testament studies) recognize that, in Matt 16,
Jesus is investing Peter with role of royal steward in the Kingdom that Jesus
is establishing. Isaiah 22 is clearly
the background for the promise of the “keys to the Kingdom.” Aside from Judges
3:23-25, which has no thematic parallels, Isaiah 22 is the only passage of the
Old Testament where the word “key” even occurs.
The thematic parallels are strong: the promise to Eliakim concerning
“opening” and “shutting” is repeated to Peter, although using the terms
“binding” and “loosing.” “Binding” and
“loosing” were technical terms in first century Judaism referring to the
authority to decide matters of halakhah (lit.
“the walk”, i.e. “the behavior” or “how one
behaves”), that is, the practical application of divine law.
It’s
worth quoting what the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia has to say about this passage,
which helps us to understand the force of Jesus’ words here in a Jewish
context:
Rabbinical term for
"forbidding and permitting." The expression "asar" (to bind
herself by a bond) is used in the Bible (Num. xxx. 3 et seq.) for a vow which
prevents one from using a thing. It implies binding an object by a powerful
spell in order to prevent its use (see Targ. to Ps. lviii. 6; Shab. 81b, for
"magic spell"). The corresponding Aramean "shera" and
Hebrew "hittir" (for loosing the prohibitive spell) have no parallel
in the Bible.
The power of binding and
loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the
Pharisees, says Josephus ("B J." i, 5, § 2), "became the
administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and
readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind." This does not
mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law,
was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of
tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they
could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a
person. The various schools had the power "to bind and to loose";
that is, to forbid and to permit (Ḥag. 3b); and they could bind any day by
declaring it a fast-day (Meg. Ta'an. xxii.; Ta'an. 12a; Yer. Ned. i. 36c, d).
This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the
Sanhedrin (see Authority), received its ratification and final sanction from
the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, ix.; Mak. 23b).
In this sense Jesus, when
appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula
(Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). By these words he virtually invested them with the
same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees
who "bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but will not move
them with one of their fingers"; that is, "loose them," as they
have the power to do (Matt. xxiii. 2-4). In the same sense, in the second
epistle of Clement to James II. ("Clementine Homilies,"
Introduction), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his
successor, saying: "I communicate to him the power of binding and
loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth,
it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound
and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church."
—from the Jewish
Encyclopedia, http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3307-binding-and-loosing
Jesus
did not decide all matters of the application of divine law himself. Nor did he write down a book with the answers
to all controversies in this area that would ever arise in the history of the
Church. He did, however, invest Peter
with the authority to make decisions in this regard.
The
Church has always held that Peter’s authority—like the authority of the
apostles in general—was passed down to his successors. Otherwise, passages like Matt 16:13-20, and
others which speak to us of the authority of the apostles, would simply be matters
of historical curiosity for us. One
would have to suppose that Jesus invested Peter and the apostles with authority
over the Church, but after they died, Jesus left no provision for the
governance of the Church, so now it is every believer for him- or herself. Apparently Jesus didn’t recognize the
continuing need for authoritative leadership in the Church. Maybe Jesus thought he was going to return
before the apostles died (but he was mistaken).
Or maybe he thought that while the Church was small, it would need strong
and visible leadership, but in subsequent generations, when it spread all over
the world to a host of cultures and a host of controversies would arise, there
would no longer be the need for strong and visible leadership to maintain the
Church’s unity and doctrine.
Let
me voice my disagreement with the above-mentioned positions. I do not think Jesus made a mistake about the
timing of his return, nor that he did not foresee the continuing need for
leadership in the Church. The succession
of subsequent generations to the authority of the apostles is already visible
in Scripture itself (Acts 6:1-6; Titus 1:5; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Peter 5:1-2). The Church was not mistaken in understanding
Peter’s authority to be passed to his successors. So we see already in the first century St. Clement
of Rome exercising a spiritual authority over churches far away from his
immediate geographical jurisdiction (i.e. Corinth).
The
priestly and paternal roles of the Royal Steward, Peter and his successors, is
reflected in titles given to the Bishop of Rome: “pontifex maximus” (“greatest
priest”) and “Papa” or “Pope,” meaning “Father.” This reflects the prophetic typology of Isa
22: “He shall be a father to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem.” The Church is
the New Jerusalem (see Heb 12:22-24).
The
successor of Peter continues to authoritatively “bind” and “loose,” making
decisions of halakhah for the People
of God. A pertinent modern example: how
does divine law apply to physical and chemical contraceptives, which were not
as widely available in previous centuries?
Paul VI gave an authoritative halakhic
decision: they are impermissible. The
decision remains universally controversial, but Christians who will not accept
it, I am afraid, will find themselves voluntarily extinguishing their own
communities as the generations pass.
It’s already happening. It’s often
remarked, for example, that some long-established Christian communities in
various parts of the world are being dwarfed by populations of other
religions—for example, Islam. What is
not often said, however, is that some of those Christian communities are less
open to life than followers of other religions.
They prefer to limit their family size by artificial contraception or
sterilization in an attempt to attain and enjoy a high standard of living. OK, fine: but then let us not be surprised or
complain when Christians make up an ever-smaller percentage of the population
in that area. It's also true that many
traditionally Catholic countries of Europe, for example (notably Italy),
have birth rates as low or lower than secularized and communist
countries. How sad that the baptized
children of God would not be generously open to children God would like to send
them.
On
a more positive note, the force of the Readings for this Sunday is resoundingly
encouraging. Despite our sins and
failings, God is continuously faithful to his Church. In the gates of hell will not withstand the
power of the Church. She will never be
extinguished from the earth, until Christ comes to fulfill all things. Moreover, Jesus has provided her with
continuing leadership, especially the successor of Peter, so that we need not
debate endlessly about the application of the Gospel to the present day, but
rather have authoritative guidance. May
God be praised for providing for his people.
No comments:
Post a Comment