Second Sunday in Lent; 25 February 2024; Lent 2B (RCL); Genesis 17:1-7, 15-16; Psalm 22:22-30; Romans 4:13-25; Mark 8:31-38.
In our Old Testament readings this Lent, we seem to be on a march through stories of various covenants between God and God’s creation. Last week, it was the covenant with Noah and all living creatures of all flesh on the earth. This week, it is a restatement, or renewal, or revision of the covenant between God and Abram, first established in Genesis 15. Here God renames Abraham, and in verses we don’t read, requires circumcision. Abram means something like revered ancestor. Abraham something like ancestor of many nations (or so the narrative tells us). This will happen through Sarai, now Sarah, not through Hagar.
Paul uses the story of this covenant as a springboard for his distinction between righteousness based on the law, and righteousness based on (God’s) faithfulness. Abraham trusted in God’s faithfulness, despite all evidence to the contrary, that God would fulfill God’s covenant, and that trust was reckoned to him as righteousness. It will be reckoned to all who trust in God’s faithfulness, not just the adherents of the law, but all who trust what God is up to, despite all evidence to the contrary. That trust is what makes a person a descendant of Abraham, who is the father of many nations (recalling that the word in Greek, τὰ ἔθνη ta ethnē, for nations is the same word used for Gentiles — Abraham is the ancestor of the Gentiles who share his trust in God — it holds true for the Hebrew word goyim as well — it means “nations” and by extension, Gentiles).
This is Paul’s profound insight — that Abraham’s covenant was meant to bring blessing to all the nations, or to phrase it another way, that Israel’s election was on behalf of the whole cosmos (note that he uses the word cosmos when he says that the promise to Abraham was that he should inherit the world, which implies only humans — cosmos implies something more, well, cosmic), not just for their own good. The law, on the other hand, only drew distinctions between those inside and those outside (and thus brought condemnation for those outside, though Paul is careful to point out it brought condemnation to those inside its boundaries as well, since none have been able to keep it).
It is this “rethinking” of the covenant that is involved in the repentance required as we think about the Kingdom of God. It’s not what we expected. That’s Peter’s problem in the Gospel reading. He has just identified (in the verses immediately before these) Jesus as the Messiah of God. When Jesus then says that the Son of Man must be betrayed, suffer, and die, Peter can’t get his head around that. Jesus accuses him of thing in human terms, not God’s terms.
The saying about taking up one’s cross is as striking as anything in the New Testament. Although scholars have argued about the meaning of the phrase, but given its situation in Mark’s Gospel here, I think it can only conjure the image of a condemned criminal carrying the crossbar to the place of execution. To be a follower of Jesus requires accepting condemnation by the world. And then comes the requirement to rethink: what is owed a person if he or she profits the whole world, but suffers the loss of his or her soul? The language is exactly the language of profit and loss from the world of finance. Or what can a person give in exchange (to redeem) the soul?
What Mark leaves as an open question is the difference between human things and the things of God (Jesus’ statement to Peter: You are setting your mind (or intending) human things, not the things of God). What are the things of God? This leaves open a whole new way of thinking and living, to fill in that blank. These verses occur at a turning point in Mark’s Gospel after which Jesus performs no deed of power (except the exorcism after the Transfiguration), and begins to his journey to the cross, where he is enthroned. Mark’s Gospel, and its ending point us toward a standard to discern the things of God versus human things. Human things bring violence; the things of God accept violence to bring a victory in different terms.