[img]http://www.catholica.com.au/sunday/images/Y-not_an_640x166.gif[/img]
Solemnity of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist
June 24, 2012
Reading I: Isaiah 49:1-6
Responsorial Psalm: 139:1b-3, 13-14ab, 14c-15
Reading II: Acts 13:22-26
Gospel: Luke 1:57-66, 80
http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/062412-mass-during-the-day.cfm
The name means “Yahweh has shown favor” - indicating John’s role in salvation history.
When the time arrived for Elizabeth to have her child she gave birth to a son. Her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had shown his great mercy toward her, and they rejoiced with her. When they came on the eighth day to circumcise the child, they were going to call him Zechariah after his father, but his mother said in reply, “No. He will be called John.” But they answered her, “There is no one among your relatives who has this name.” So they made signs, asking his father what he wished him to be called. He asked for a tablet and wrote, “John is his name,” and all were amazed. Immediately his mouth was opened, his tongue freed, and he spoke blessing God. Then fear came upon all their neighbors, and all these matters were discussed throughout the hill country of Judea. All who heard these
things took them to heart, saying, “What, then, will this child be?” For
surely the hand of the Lord was with him.
Then fear came upon all their neighbors, and all these matters were discussed throughout the hill country of Judea. Reading this in the gospel we would realise that Luke is telling us not just that what happened to old Elizabeth was the gossip of the district at the time: I think he is saying that the facts became widely known and discussed, and that people recognised something quite odd, some glimmer of the Mystery in this, and began to ask: "What will this child become?" In other words, the author is already interpreting the historical facts and inviting his readers down the ages to take these matters to heart as the locals did at the time.
The short selection chosen for the liturgy of the day is not sufficient to provide any sort of perspective on this child or on what he might become. It would be a good idea to read the whole of Ch 1, and Ch 3:1-22 as well. (Easy access to the NAB here http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/1.)
The opening scenario is the simple human situation of an elderly couple, Zachariah and Elizabeth, who were childless. The story begins immediately: Once when he (Zechariah) was serving as priest in his division’s turn before God, according to the practice of the priestly service, he was chosen by lot to enter the sanctuary of the Lord to burn incense. Luke has the proclamation of the Good News begin in the temple, sacred site of old testament worship, custodian of ancient traditions and pride of a resurgent people - the temple in which Jesus will be presented eight days after he is born, where he will engage the learned men in debate at the age of 12, and which he will cleanse with fiery zeal at the climax of his mission. From the moment of his death temple worship will be superceded.
In the announcement of John's birth, notice is given that the old order is to end. If we are inclined to ask why Zechariah should be punished for asking a very natural question, seeing they had been hoping for a baby all their lives, it might help to consider that this old priest stands as a symbol of the whole institution of temple worship. If his fault was to doubt that new life could spring from such an old couple, the Establishment's fault was in its looking backwards to the glorious past, insisting on faithful observance of laws and prescriptions, in the hope of regaining strength and relevance and a leadership role in society. Jesus will declare many times that those leaders were blind to their destiny and deaf to the word calling them to move forward. The parallel with the "hermeneutic of continuity" of today's pope is unavoidable.
Another old man from the temple culture features in Luke's narrative a little later (Lk 2:25-32). Compare the way Simeon looked forward to the fulfillment of ancient promises while Zechariah's backward-looking doubt could only see the obstacles. Being struck dumb, then, is more than a personal punishment for a spontaneous reaction to a surprising prospect. It is a symbol, a myth, whose meaning is that the whole temple priesthood would be punished for having stopped believing and having closed its heart against the ever-active promptings of the Spirit.
The curse is lifted from Zechariah the moment he acknowledges that "John is his name", "John" meaning "God has shown favour". I was wondering why Luke did not give us the meaning of this name, until I realised that the entire Canticle of Zachariah, the "Benedictus", tells how God has shown favour. See verses 67-79. (I don't suppose the gospel writer is saying that Zechariah actually waxed lyrical at that moment, so we ought not take the introductory statement too literally: Then Zechariah his father, filled with the holy Spirit, prophesied, saying: “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, for he has visited and brought redemption to his people...")
On this framework of fact - a child born to an elderly couple, Luke weaves a tapestry of "religious" and "spiritual" themes, many explicit, others hidden in the warp and woof, waiting for the curious reader to ask a Why? or a What is the point of such a remark? Once we take an interest in the way the myths are interwoven we can be endlessly enthralled by the colours and lights revealed as we turn the tapestry this way and that. Over time I have learned to marvel at the inspired skill of those who put these narratives together. It is almost impossible, even today, to declare, let alone describe, a watershed moment of history. Luke manages this formidable task, touching on the broad and deep implications of these events without ever becoming banal or merely factual.
What John did turn out to be is told in chapter 3. He is the embodiment of the Old Testament challenge as he calls the present generation a "brood of vipers", declaring that the "axe is laid to the root" and "every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire." Note that his target is not the ordinary people, for Luke gives a list of such ones who ask him, What should I do? and his answers are both simple common sense advice and compassionate in tone.
John is more than an individual preacher, however remarkable for his single-minded dedication. As the precursor, or the herald, he represents the centuries-long time of preparation for the day of the Lord. When Jesus said he was the greatest, it was more for this role than for his personal faithfulness.
One small question for the very curious: Why would you say a precursor was necessary? Why was someone like John sent to announce the coming of the Saviour? Possibly the reason is to be found in the "rule" that no-one takes on the role of proclaiming a message from God of his own accord. Every prophet is "sent", every leader "commissioned". Always the people have the right to ask: By what authority? John was an "original" after the style of Isaiah and other great prophets. Luke has already drawn this parallel in his opening lines with the angel standing at the right of the altar to deliver his message to Zechariah. Read Chapter 6 of Isaiah to get the connection.
Jesus had no intention of being that sort of prophet or preacher. His was a new way, to mix with people, share their lives and gently help them discover a new awareness of god present in the ordinary, and so by enlightenment to liberate them from the bind of religious formalism. In this Jesus was an object of wonder and doubt, even to his disciples. He was so ordinary - and yet they knew for a fact that John had pointed him out as the one to follow, the one on whom the spirit had come, the one who would wash the world with the Holy Spirit and cleanse it with the Spirit's fire, and John's testimony could be relied on because he was every inch a prophet in whom the voice of God was heard.