Called of God
Daily Reading for June 29 • St. Peter and St. Paul, Apostles
A certain man came near to Christ the Savior of us all, saying, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” Christ rejected the man, saying that the foxes have holes, and the birds of heaven a place to lodge in; but he had no place to lay his head. . . . It is easy for anyone that will examine such matters accurately to perceive that in the first place there was great ignorance in his manner of coming near. Second, it was full of excessive presumptuousness. His wish was not simply to follow Christ, but rather to thrust himself into apostolic honors. This was the following that he was seeking, being self-called. The blessed Paul writes that no one takes the honor to himself unless he is called of God, as Aaron also was. Aaron did not enter the priesthood through himself, but on the contrary, God called him. We find none of the holy apostles promoted himself to the office of apostle but rather received the honor from Christ. He said, “Come after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.” This man, as I said, boldly took upon himself honorable gifts, and, although no one called him, thrust himself into what was above his rank.
From Commentary on Luke 57 by Cyril of Alexandria, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament III, Luke, edited by Arthur A. Just, Jr. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003).
Why would you want to follow if you weren't called to do so? Isn't the desire to follow in itself evidence of calling?
Posted by Erika Baker![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/thesoul/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 29, 2010 7:35 AM
Preaching on this text Sunday, I reminded the congregation that there was a strong division in early Christology between Alexandria (like Cyril here) and Antioch. Alexandria's Jesus is the all-knowing, infallible, totally in control Jesus of John, because their Christology (and understanding of redemption) is cosmic. Alexandria lays the foundation for monophysitism, the teaching that the humanity of Jesus was simply transformed into divinity like dropping a drop of wine into the sea.
Antioch's preferred focus is Christ the Teacher, and the synoptics, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, variously offer more glimpses than John of a real teacher at work, including the stumbling, learning, and surprise that teaching asks us to accept. Luke's version of this saying is prefaced by Jesus setting 'his face toward Jerusalem.' In Sunday's Gospel the interchanges around the Samaritan village refusing him hospitality, and the strange, contradictory sequence of offers and invitations to follow Jesus sound to me like Luke offering us the picture of a fallible teacher, offering challenging words without really seeing or hearing the people he's talking to. His face is set to Jerusalem and as a teacher/leader, Jesus is off his game. How different these interchanges sound from the story of his encounter with the rich young ruler where Jesus 'looked at him and loved him.' Jesus in Sunday's Gospel sounds self-absorbed, preoccupied with his coming confrontation with the religious powers, wondering whether he's got it in him. The conclusion of yesterday's reading, when he says, 'whoever puts his hand to the plough and looks back is not worthy of the kingdom of God' sounds to me like he's talking more to himself than to the person who has offered to follow him.
Antioch's perspective (and the synoptics' struggle) is to explore the full, frail and fallible humanity of Jesus. I think Cyril has missed the point here.
Posted by Donald Schell![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/thesoul/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 29, 2010 1:14 PM