February 3, 2012
Sunday Scripture
Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time
BY FATHER DONALD DILGER
Jesus has quickly acquired fame through his authoritative teaching, exorcisms and multiple healings. After his visit to the Capernaum synagogue on the Sabbath, he immediately went to the house of Simon and Andrew, which was next door to the synagogue. James and John, the two young brothers who had been called to follow Jesus along with Simon (Peter) and Andrew, accompanied them. Simon’s mother-in-law was ill with a fever. Their hospitality to Jesus is rewarded by a return favor. Jesus took her by the hand and pulled her to her feet. Her fever was gone and she served them a meal.
Besides a display of Jesus’ compassion toward women as well as toward men in the preceding miracle, there is an obvious conclusion — Jesus did not demand celibacy from those called to be his immediate disciples, not even for the Twelve. St. Paul reveals in 1 Corinthians 9:5 that Simon Peter (Cephas) and the other apostles took their spouses with them on their missions. Mandatory celibacy took many centuries to become established in the Church. There are valid reasons for it. There have always been exceptions to it, even as there are today, especially in the eastern Churches in union with Rome. Exceptions are even made within the Roman Catholic Church. Mandatory celibacy for Roman Catholic priests has never rested easily in our Church, but it is doable, for “those to whom it has been given to make themselves eunuchs (spiritually) for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,” Matthew 19:11-12.
A problem could have arisen from the healing of Simons mother-in-law. It was done on the Sabbath. There was no trouble at this time, but in Mark 3:1-6 healing on the Sabbath became a major issue between Jesus and his critics. At that point Mark notes that they began to plan how to destroy Jesus. In the meantime, restoration of health to a mother-in-law was followed by multiple healings and exorcisms in the courtyard and at the very door of the house of Simon and Andrew. Their home had become Jesus’ home in Capernaum. Mark notes that Jesus would not allow the exorcised demons to speak, “because they knew him.” Last Sunday’s commentary on the gospel explained what is known to scholars as ‘the Messianic Secret.” Jesus’ identity as Son of God could not be revealed until it was understood in view of his suffering and death. Until Jesus had died on the cross, no human actor in Mark’s gospel will identify him as Son of God. The demons could have, but Jesus did not permit it.
After this day of activity in Capernaum, Jesus went in search of privacy — a place and a time for prayer. For the next action in the story, we must recall that Simon and Andrew were successful businessmen. They must have seen Jesus’ absence out in the hills praying as a missed opportunity. Thus Mark writes, “Simon and those with him went in hot pursuit.” They found him, and said to Jesus, “Everyone is looking for you.” His reply, “Let’s go to another town, that I may preach there, for this is why I left.” There are other translations of Jesus’ response to Simon and Company. The most probable meaning is that Jesus’ activity was not to be restricted to one place only. The universality of his mission to humankind would only gradually unfold. The most pointed reminder of this universality will be at his death, when a Gentile observer remarks, “Indeed this man was Son of God.”
No medical practitioner would recommend this reading for anyone suffering from depression. Here are some of its expressions for our consideration and perhaps also amusement. The Scriptures do not have to be read or contemplated with a furrowed brow, but often with a smile. Job’s thoughts: life on earth is drudgery. Like the hired employee looks for the end of the day and a slave for a shade tree, such are the miseries of life. Job suffers miserable days and troubled nights. He wants the night to end but also the day to end. His days are without hope, his life like the wind that blows and disappears. He will never again know happiness. No doubt there are hearers and readers of this passage who can see themselves in it. They should recall that at the end of this long debate of forty-two chapters over the theme of why good people suffer. Job finds happiness.
Another reading that cries out for context. Paul engages in a discussion about whether or not he has a right to be paid for his work in evangelization. He demands recognition of this right. He calls on an animal-rights passage from Deuteronomy 25:4 to justify his right to a salary, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain.” It’s a stretch to reinterpret this as Paul does, that God was not concerned about the oxen, but that animal-rights legislation of a half millennium earlier was directed to those who work for the Gospel. His message in this reading is that he must preach the gospel, “A curse on me if I don’t,” but he refuses his right to a salary. He works free of charge and is therefore not obligated to anyone. This allowed him to become all things to all. In our modem circumstances it would probably be impossible to work in the Gospel without a salary. So we do not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain, but neither should the ox overeat.