Standing Under the Scriptures
February 1, 2009

Dear Fellow Voyagers,

Our readings for this Sunday are:

Deuteronomy 18.15-20: Moses foretells the coming of a prophet like himself, who will truly speak the word of the Lord.

Mark 1.21-28: Jesus is manifested to the world in his teaching and in his rebuking of an unclean spirit.

In our class discussions, of which these notices are a part, we are involved in a serious business. For we touch on issues, arising out of our encounters with Scripture, that are serious indeed. These weekly notices undertake to draw out points that arise and carry them to their conclusions. This is no light task; I think of Jacob’s wrestling with the angel: "I will not let you go unless you bless me.” But you are called to wrestle too, in all seriousness.

Our readings for last Sunday were not lacking in such seriousness. In our first one, Jonah 3.1-10, the Lord commands Jonah to go to Nineveh and warn its people of their impending destruction. Jonah does so. And the Ninevites heed him and repent, not only the people but also the king. Whereupon the Lord calls off the intended destruction. But this is only part of the story, the whole of which is necessary for the passage’s meaning. When the Lord called Jonah the first time, instead of complying he tried to flee, only to be swallowed by a great fish. In utter despair he prayed to the Lord, who caused the fish to spit him out. Our reading told of Jonah’s second chance. But despite his compliance with the Lord’s command this time, something of his cantankerousness remains. For instead of rejoicing at the success of his proclamation, he complains to the Lord about it.

There is no clear indication of the date of the book’s composition. We may suppose, though, that it is from the period after Israel’s exile in Babylon. And although I have not seen it elsewhere, the following interpretation seems to me plausible. The book is not a historical record but instead a tale intended to send a prophetic message. In it Jonah represents the people of Israel in their perverseness. Instead of heeding the Lord’s command they too have balked at and argued about it. Nineveh on the other hand represents Israel as it ought to be. For not only did the Ninevites repent when warned, as the prophets had repeatedly warned Israel. Their king, instead of attempting to prescribe how the Lord should respond to their repentance, is obedient, leaving the outcome to him: “Who knows? God may yet repent and turn from his fierce anger.” To be sure, Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, may seem an unlikely place to be held up as model for Israel, in view of the Assyrians’ destruction of the northern kingdom, centered on Samaria, in the 8th century B.C. But there is a New Testament parallel for such a selection. Jesus chooses a Samaritan, a member of a group looked down on by Jews, as his example of the good neighbor.

We may suppose that the strictures put forward in the Book of Jonah apply only to the ancient Israelites. For our part we would heed a prophetic warning as did the book’s Ninevites. But is this really the case? Or are we evading the truth about ourselves? On the honesty of our answer to this question might depend our salvation.

The implications of our second reading, Mark 1.14-20, are no less far-reaching. The passage brings Jesus, following his baptism by John and his wilderness temptation, to Galilee, the locale of most of his ministry. And there he begins by proclaiming, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the gospel.” We noted that the underlying Greek word here is kairos, denoting not just any time but the time of ripeness or fulfilment, in this case the supreme fulfilment. This concept of time is basic to the understanding of the New Testament and indeed of the early church with its tremendous missionary outreach. It appears not just here but throughout, as when Paul declares, “Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6.2). In our discussion we elucidated also the term repent. It is not just a matter of doing penance, although it tended to be viewed that way in the Middle Ages. Instead the underlying Greek word, metanoe, can best be rendered as, "Change the set of your mind, the way you look at things." This point was brought out, actually, by Erasmus, the Dutch humanist scholar, in the early 16th century. His edition of the Greek New Testament was the first good one. Prior to that the only New Testament text generally available was the Vulgate, in Latin, in which metanoe was taken to mean, "Do penance (poenitatem facere)." From this stemmed the works righteousness emphasis of the medieval church. All the major Reformers, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and the others, had read Erasmus’ edition and were profoundly influenced by it.

The main part of the passage, however, concerned Jesus’ calling first of Simon (Peter) and his brother Andrew and then of the brothers James and John. Interestingly, Peter, James, and John became the most prominent of Jesus’ disciples. At the time of their calling they were all Galilean fishermen, engaged in fishing. The conditions in which they were called---and unlike Jonah responded immediately---were different. But in both case they were highly significant.

Jesus said to Peter and Andrew, “Follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men.” This conveys that despite the differences between what they had been doing and what they were to do, there would be an essential continuity. I noted that the point was of particular significance to me, in view of the manifold connections that I had found between my Foreign Service career and my ordained ministry. A class member asked me to specify them. I demurred on the grounds that it would take far more time than the class afforded. But I could say that getting to know about and becoming engaged with the country in which one is posted, particularly a Third World country, is very like getting to know about and becoming engaged with the Bible. And as a Foreign Service officer I reported back to Washington, so as a teacher and preacher I report to the congregation. The main point, though, is the continuity between secular occupations, mine and yours, and what we can and should do in the church. In this lies, I believe, a major and indispensable resource for the church’s restoration, but one that is little understood and little exploited. And Jesus’ call of Peter and Andrew gives us a warrant for affirming it.

In the wake of their call by Jesus, James and John left their father Zebedee in the boat and followed him. We noted that this comported with Jesus’ saying in Luke that “If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother …, he cannot be my disciple” (14.26). This seemed unduly harsh to some. But it does not mean that filial ties are unimportant. On the contrary, they are the most important human ties of all, as shown by Jesus’ use of the father-son relationship to convey his own relation with God. It is precisely for this reason that he chooses them to demonstrate the absolute priority of following him.

And if we still have misgivings, we should remember that Jesus himself was obedient to this priority. In this respect as in others he embodied in his humanity what we in ours ought to be and are not. Thereby, in our falling short, he judges us. At the same time, in taking our humanity and its sinfulness upon himself, he redeems us, bearing in his Person the judgment that should fall on us. Thus we ought not to despair in the face of this judgment but rather to rejoice in it.

Going on from there, in connection with our Rite I Eucharistic liturgy I have wondered how we can so readily recite the Prayer of Humble Access with its drastic “We are not worthy so much to gather up the crumbs under they table.” I have sensed that this readiness is connected with what the Eucharistic Prayer declares at the outset: “All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou of thy tender mercy didst give thy only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption.” But I have not been sure what the connection was. Now I think it can be articulated in terms of the above coincidence of judgment with redemption. Specifically, in Christ’s taking on himself the burden of his obedience to the Father, which is so far above anything we are capable of, he judges us, bringing to light our utter inadequacy. At the same time, by his taking this burden on himself for our sake, he redeems us. And in the knowledge of this our redemption we are able freely to acknowledge our unworthiness.

Faithfully, Fr. Ted