Diocese of Chichester

THE FEASTS OF REPENTANCE –

ENCOURAGEMENT FOR TOILING ANGLICANS

“[Human] greatness rests solely on the fact that God in his incomprehensible goodness has bestowed his love upon [us]. God does not love us because we’re so valuable; we are valuable because God loves us”[1]

  1. Introduction – a question of who
  • A time of anxiety and chaos for Anglicans? – who are we as Anglicans? Marginal? Fractured? Laughing stock?
  • A time of anxiety and chaos for Christians? – who are we as Christians? Marginal? Dangerous? Idiots?

Against a background of

  • ‘The best lack all conviction,…..
  • while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.’[2]

H Thielicke’s analysis of nihilism – a ‘who am I?’ question

‘The fragmentation of reality is only a reflection of the catastrophic conflagration that is going on deep down in the world of the self. Because the “I” has lost itself, it necessarily loses its world.’[3]

have we lost ourselves, and have we lost having anything worth saying?

In what follows, I am aiming to move us beyond important but possibly pragmatic considerations towards a theological foundation for why as Anglicans we have something worth saying.

  1. Some Theses
  2. the Anglican “who am I?” question is related to the more general Christian “who am I?” question, which is in turn related to the still more general contemporary human question “who am I?”
  3. Among all the other answers, the Anglican “who am I?” question has an answer in our identity as the joyful repentant who love God much because he has forgiven us so much.

BUT

  • why is this an Anglican answer?

-Look at our liturgy: morning and evening prayer, holy Communion, the litany, night prayer, BCP and Common worship – lex orandi, lex credendi

-look at our formularies:

So that no doctrine is so necessary in the church of God, as is the doctrine of repentance and amendment of life[4]

  • why is this a Christian answer? And, why is this a joyful answer?

Let us spend some time in Luke finding out.

  1. Luke and repentance
  2. General
  3. repentance ‘book-ends’ the gospel - John the Baptist and Jesus
  4. John the Baptist introduces the theme of tax collectors who are there to repent but who must check fruits of repentance
  5. Luke works by drawing character, not stating raw theological syllogisms.

D. B. Gowler’s very useful description of Luke using two scales:-

- reliability of describer

- explicitness of description

Reliability is the measure of the extent to which a speaker can be trusted, whereas explicitness refers to the clarity of the message.[5]

3.1.4.Type scenes

scenes which arerecognisably similar, but have detailed variations, to provide depth and variety:-

-Meals

-Sabbaths

note that the association for a meal can be very positive:

  • The conventional expectation of a meal/feast – honour for guest and host, peacefulness and contentment
  • The background of e.g. Isaiah 55 of God’s final end-time banquet

BUT

The motifs of peace and contentment are marred by discord

This means that as we look at the feasts that Jesus takes part in there is a constant friction between the expectation that feast will be positive and the frequent occasions where there is conflict.

In fact we have 2 relational triangles:-

- triangle of hospitality, with three roles: host, guest, and third party.

Host

GuestThird party

- the triangle of conflict with three roles: critic, Jesus, and other.

Jesus

CriticOther

3.2.The Feasts

3.2.1.The first feast – Luke 5:27-32 and the feast with Levi

Context:-

-Peter

-The leper exclusion and separation

-The paralytic

Luke 5:29-30 is a triangle of hospitality and conflict. Levi is Host and Other; the Pharisees are Third Party and Critic, while Jesus is Guest.

Levi = Host and Other

Jesus =GuestPharisees =Third party and Critic

Levi called in the midst of his sin

Repentance as an occasion for festal joy ----- > remarkable!

3.2.2.The second feast - Luke 7:36-50 and the Feast with Simon

The accrued character of the Pharisees after

-the 2 Sabbath incidents of 6:1-11

-the description of 7:30

The triangle of relations is thus:

Simon the Host

Jesus the GuestWoman the Third party

The emergence of IDENTITY questions

  • who is Jesus? V 39 ‘if this man were a prophet…’
  • who is the woman v 39 ‘what kind of a woman….’
  • Who is Simon…. V 42 and v 47 ‘who loves….?’

context

-the cumulative character of the Pharisees

-the rejection of the purpose of God v 30

-Jesus a friend of tax collectors and sinners

double contrast

-Simon and the woman

Simon / The woman
named / un-named
Male / Female
Pharisee / Sinner
Formal host – a ‘belonger’ / Not formal host, not even guest – a ‘non-belonger’
Not really a host
- no water for feet
- no kiss
- no anointing of head with oil / Real host
- tears for water for feet
- kisses feet
- anoints feet with alabaster perfume
???? / Loves much
???? / Forgiven much

-two debtors

‘one’ / ‘the other’
500 denarii / 50 denarii
Forgiven / Forgiven
Loves more / Loves less
  • who is Jesus? Forgiver, not overlooker of sins
  • who is woman? Jesus’ real host who loves and honours him and has been forgiven by him – an insider
  • who is Simon? Respectable Pharisee host, or unloving, unforgiven non-host. – an outsider

----- > the unique dimension of the Christian believer: one who loves much because forgiven much.

Contrast:

“we live in an age in which everything is permitted and nothing is forgiven”.[6]

3.2.3.The third feast - Luke 11:37-54 and the feast with Pharisees and Lawyers

Context:-

  • The importance of repentance underlined in 10:13-15 and 11:29-32.
  • Jesus’ own ‘feast’ held as 5000 fed in 9:11-17 – the motif of abundance
  • the summary of the Law (10:25-29)
  • self-examination

The triangle of hospitality and conflict looks like this.

Pharisee = Host and Critic

Jesus = GuestLawyer = Third party and other

What are the Pharisees truly like?

-Outer clean-ness/inner uncleanness

-Secret/revealed

-Legalist/lawbreaker

-Hypocrisy – the ‘master-trait’

-corrupted love - ultimately a love of self and self-worth rather than a love of other. – the central category

3.2.4.The fourth feast – the leader of the Pharisees and the man with dropsy-Luke 14:1-24

Context

Note there has been another Sabbath incident in 13:10-17

This incident blends two different type-scenes:-

  • dispute at a meal
  • a sabbath healing (Luke14:1-6).

and

  • adds 2 parables
  • the warning about pride and self-appointment (14:7-14)
  • the great banquet (14:15-24) – self-exclusion from the banquet

3.2.5. The Fifth Feast – the lost son Luke 15:1-32

Again contained within a parable.

BUT note the context:-

  • v 1-2 the criticism for associating with tax collectors and sinners

--- > the urge to exclude on God-honouring grounds

Specifically Jesus:-

-receives

-eats

  • Lost sheep and lost coins

-joy in heaven (i.e. God) over the repentant.

-the repentant are sought and found,

-the finders expect others to join them

BUT

How different is the parable of the Lost Son?

Longer and more complex, with three central characters rather than two.

The Father:-

  • receives the repentant
  • eats with/feasts with
  • has compassion v 20
  • commands joy v 23, 32 – but the elder son disobeys
  • exclusion motifs – the prodigal ‘should’ be excluded, thinks the elder, and if he isn’t, the elder excludes himself

Relationally this creates a triangle of roles like this:-

Father = Host and impliedly God (or Jesus)

Younger Son = Guest+ OtherElder Son = third party and critic

What is the real difference between the elder and younger sons?

  • Both dishonour their father

but

  • The elder self-excludes

How does Jesus’ emphasis on receiving the repentant and rejoicing with God for them affect relationships within the local church and the wider denomination?

3.2.6. The Sixth Feast Luke 19:1-10 – the feast with Zacchaeus

Context:-

-The Pharisees and wealth.

-Those who trust in themselves for righteousness (Luke 18:9-14) – humility and self-exaltation

- the rich ruler of 18:18-25.

Zacchaeus: chief tax collector (architelōnēs) and wealthy (plousios).[7]

Three characters: Zacchaeus, Jesus and the crowd, which creates a triangle of relationships like this:

Zacchaeus = Host and Other

Jesus =GuestOnlookers =Third party and Critic

But

-critic = crowd, not Pharisee

-fruits of repentance

-Zacchaeus a son of Abraham

-Zacchaeus exemplifies Jesus’ mission

-Zacchaeus rejoices

-

3.3. Later material

3.3.1. The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector

  • Told to whom (v 9)?

-‘trust in themselves that they are righteous’ (dikaioi)

-Despise others

  • Two men in the Temple, a Pharisee and a tax collector (v10)

-Two of Luke’s ‘stock’ characters

-Apparently both are Jews, i.e. ethnic members of the covenant people

  • The Pharisee’s prayer (vv 11-12)

-Ambiguity – prayer to himself, or standing by himself?

-Thanks for what he is not

-What he does

  • Tax collector (v 13)

-Posture, position, action ----- > humility

-Request

-Self-identification

  • The sequel (v 14)

-The tax collector goes home justified (dedikaiōmenos) ---- > implies the other did not

-The rationale – reversal: self-exalting humbled, humble exalted

But the subversiveness of the parable continues….

----- > the reader is tempted to say, ‘Thank you Lord, that I am not like this Pharisee’

------> justification language linked to repentance.

3.3.2. The Penitent Thief Luke 23:39-43

Two men alike:-

-Guilty

-Excluded

Two men unlike:-

-Self-accusing (which is only who the thief is)

-Jesus acclaiming (which is who Jesus is)

3.3.3. the supper at Emmaus Luke 24:13-35

3.3.4. Repentance and Forgiveness of Sins- Luke 24:46-48

-Recalling the beginning

-connecting with the repentant criminal of Luke 23:39-43.

3.4. Conclusion

Two kinds of people

3.4.1. The repentant appear as the group tax collectors and sinners.

self-humbling, admission of guilt, sorrow but also with joy and feasting and trust in Jesus. And fruit- bearing

3.4.2. The unrepentant are largely represented by the character group the Pharisees. --- likened to/reduced to the level of tax collectors:

-Proud, self-reliant and hypocritical, but self-deceived.

-Rejecting God’s purpose

NOTE the ambiguity of the disciples at points. Betrayal, denial, and seeking to be the greatest Luke 9:46ff; 22:24ff

---- > who do they love?

  1. Repentance and righteousness

4.1. Repentance as a forensic concept

The presupposition of a law that has been broken

e.g. the prayer of repentance in Dan 9

- acknowledgement of legal breach

4.2. universal repentance required

Implicitly universal given:

-Presentation of Pharisees as on the inside no better than tax collectors ---- > rapacity

-Simon and the sinful woman in Lk 7 – both are debtors

-Implicit in the message that goes out Lk 24

-Confirmed in Acts 17:30

4.3. Repentance as double anagnorisis

4.3.1. recognition (anagnorisis)

I want here to develop a notion from the (?earliest) literary critic, Aristotle. He spoke of the way some great tragedies used the device of anagnorisis, or recognition.

The great example, Sophocles’ play King Oedipus, which is, amongst other things, about Oedipus finding out his real identity.

4.3.2. double recognition

We can in fact see two kinds of anagnorisis

  • characters recognise who another character is
  • characters recognise who they are.

----- > add in the way that we as readers or audience identify with characters in a text, and we have the material for several levels of anagnorisis

Why stress the double nature of anagnorisis in Luke?

----- > Luke 1:4 – the certainty of the things in which you were instructed – the

reference to the things fulfilled takes us back to Jesus and his

recognition/non-recognition

----- > but the aim is also that ‘Theophilus’ knows: the reader is meant to be changed in some way – who is he/will he be?

4.3.3. Recognition and reversal

Recognition scenes in literature are often linked to reversal.

E.g. the beggar is recognised as long lost son and his situation is reversed.

Or HMS Pinafore

So, in Luke:-

the double recognition < ------allows ------> double reversal

(who is Jesus, who are others) (Jesus ascended, the others…..?)

Short Bibliography

Bock, D.L.,1994 Luke Leicester/DownersGrove:IVP

------., 1996 Luke Grand Rapids: Baker 2 vols.

Duke, P.D.,1995. ‘A Festive Repentance’ Christian Century 112.29:957.

Forbes, G.,1999. ‘Repentance and Conflict in the Parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15:11-32)’ JETS 42.2:211-229.

Gowler, D.B.,1989.‘Characterisation in Luke: A Socio-Narratological Approach’ BTB 19:54-62

-----.,1991. Host, Guest, Enemy and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts. New York: Peter Lang.

Marshall, I.H.,1988. 3ed. Luke –Historian and Theologian. Carlisle: Paternoster.

Tannehill, R.C., 1986. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: a literary interpretation (2 vols). Philadelphia: Fortress.

© M. J. Ovey 2014Page 1

[1] H. Thielicke Nihilism: Its Origin And Nature – With A Christian AnswerNew York: Schocken Books. 1969:110

[2] W.B. Yeats The Second Coming 1919

[3] H. Thielicke 1969:105.

[4] from the Homily on Repentancehomily 32, book 2 of the homilies

[5] Gowler 1989:55.

[6] Dean Alan Jones of San Francisco quoted by G. O Forde On Being A Theologian Of The Cross: Reflections On Luther's Heidelberg Disputation Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans. 1997. Location 44.

[7] Luke 19:1