Signs of the time: Jonah, Jesus Christ and John XXIII

John XXIII’s address on November 14, 1960, kicked off the work of the preparatory commissions for the Second Vatican Council (Komonchak, Joseph, 1995. “La lotta per il concilio durante la preparazione”. In Il cattolicesimo verso una nuova stagione. L`annuncio e la preparazione gennaio 1959 – settembre 1962. Vol. 1 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 177–380. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino. 1995, 177). There followed many sermons and speeches, where John XXIII explained his great vision of the historic opportunity of the Council, and on December 25, 1961, he convoked the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council with the Apostolic Constitution Humanae salutis (ibid.). All speeches of John XXIII in preparation for the Council testified to his faith in Christ and the Holy Spirit, and his conviction that this faith constitutes the foundation of a Church, that while witnessing a painful crisis in modern society, hears and feels the task of bringing the hope of the Gospel to the world and humanity. By learning to heed the rhythm of time John XXIII encourages us to follow the recommendation that Jesus gives in Mathew 16:4, where he speaks of the need to “discern the signs of the time” (ibid. 178).

John XXIII will repeatedly take up the concept of “the signs of the time”. The documents of the Second Vatican Council will use the concept extensively and the documents of the following Popes follow the easy habit on the use of the expression “signs of the time”. Generations of theologians, politicians, writers, and intellectuals have contributed to hollowing out the concept and continue to contribute to converting the concept of “the signs of the time” to an empty phrase. The meaning of the concept was evident to John XXIII, and he never extensively explained the biblical concept, because the biblical context is clear. However, the easy use without paying attention to the biblical context of the expression “the signs of the time” proved inflationary. Windbags’ reckless use of the phrase still produces hot air in the media, but does not produce a concrete picture of a state of affairs. It is important to clarify the concept “the signs of the time” that is to study the biblical use of the term. Therefore, I pause for a moment to meditate and reflect on the expression “discerning the signs of the time” or “judging correctly the signs of the time” in the Gospel of Mathew 16:1-4:

16.1: The Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to put him to the test they asked if he would show them a sign from heaven. 2: He replied, “in the evening you say, ‘It will be fine; there’s a red sky’ 3: and in the morning, ‘Stormy weather today; the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to read the face of the sky, but you cannot read the face of the times. 4: It is an evil and unfaithful generation asking for a sign, and the only sign it will be given is the sign of Jonah.” And he left them and went off.

(The New Jerusalem Bible. 1999)

When literally translating the Greek expression semaion (Nestle-Aland. 1995) in Mathew 16:3 I have to speak of a “sign” and not of “the face,” as The New Jerusalem Bible does. The following verse Mathew 16:4 makes clear that for Mathew there is but one sign and that is the sign of Jonah that is the death and resurrection of Jesus (Luz, Ulrich. 2007. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Mt 8–17). Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament I/2. Zürich, Düsseldorf: Benzinger. 445)

From Mathew’s confession of the death and resurrection of Jesus as “the sign of the times” John XXIII takes his use of the expression “the signs of the time.” We must not forget this origin of the term in the Gospel.

It is very interesting to observe that the reference for the expression “the signs of the times” to Mathew 16:4 in the speech by John XXIII is not correct . The term “the signs of the times” is found in Mathew 16:3. The Italian translation by the historian and the Latin text of John XXIII’s address on November 14, 1960 incorrectly refer to Mathew 16:4. I use the English translation: “Indeed, making our own Jesus' recommendation that we learn to discern ‘the signs of the times’ (Mathew 16:4)”. The original Latin text reads: “Immo vero monitis obsecuti Christi Domini nos hortantis ut ‘signa... temporum’ dignoscamus (Mathew 16:4).”

Mathew 16:4 does not speak of “the signs of the times” but speaks of “the sign of Jonah.” Why did John XXIII not refer “to the sign of Jonah”? I do not know if it happened by mistake or by intention. Actually, it is not important to know the answer, because verse 3 must be read together with verse 4. More important is the fact that there is a problem with the textual history of verses 2 and 3 of chapter 16 of Mathew. For the Editorial Committee of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, it was difficult to decide to keep these verses 2 and 3 of Mathew, chapter 16, in the text, “because the external evidence for the absence of these words is impressive” (Metzger 1994. 33). Since “most scholars regard the passage as a later insertion from a source similar to Luke 12:54-56, or from the Lukan passage itself” (ibid.), I would like to cite these verses from Luke:

Luke 12:54: He said again to the crowds, “When you see a cloud looming up in the west you say at once that rain is coming, and so it does. 55: And when the wind is from the south you say it’s going to be hot, and it is. 56: Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the face of the earth and the sky. How is it you do not know how to interpret these times?”

(The New Jerusalem Bible. 1999)

I read the verses of Luke and Mathew to understand the concept “the signs of the times” or “the signs of the time.” In Mathew Jesus speaks to Pharisees and Sadducees and in Luke he addresses the crowds. In Mathew Jesus actually realizes speech-acts, he answers a question. In Luke Jesus’ speech-act helps the crowds reflect on their own speech-acts concerning observations of the meteorological state of affairs and their consecutive interpretations for meteorological predictions of the state of affairs. In Luke 12:56 Jesus becomes angry and requests the people to interpret the times and not only nature. From this follows that the observation and expressions of a particular state of affairs of the times, that is of the actual political, cultural, economic, social, spiritual, etc. situation, do not qualify as “signs of the times”. A fact of the times, a state of affairs of the times is a fact or a state of affairs, but not by itself a “sign of the times” according to the use of the term in Mathew 16:3. In Luke the historic presence of Jesus in the described scene is evident (Bovon, Francois. 1996. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Lk 9,51–14,35. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament III/2. Neukirchen-Vluyin: Neukirchener Verlag., 345). Both scenes - Luke 12:54-56 and Mathew 16:1-4 - are addressed at readers. What is the social reality, the state of affairs that the crowd is not able to discern and interpret? I agree with the theologians who claim that the expression “these times” in Luke 12:56 refers to the mission of Jesus and the presence of Jesus Christ (ibid. 358-59). From this follows the description of a “sign of the times” as an interpretation of a particular situation, a particular state of affairs in light of the mission and Gospel of Jesus Christ by a man, woman, or queer (Sadducee, Pharisee or simply a member of a crowd of people). The Christian interpretation of the expression “sign of the times” is a confession of Christian faith, that is ultimately always connected with confessing the death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

All speeches of John XXIII in preparation for the Council testified to his faith in Christ and the Holy Spirit. John XXIII was conscientious that the Roman Catholic Church faces a deep crisis in modern society. John XXIII followed his mission to bring back to the world that evolves after World War II the hope of the Gospel. John XXIII’s words reached the hearts of millions of women, men and queer. Speaking of a sign of the times inspired his listeners who were longing for living their Christian faith in liberty and free responsibility of active participation in Church life. For John XXIII is sure that the sign of the time refers to the faith in Jesus Christ, his teaching by healing and healing by teaching, his death and faith in resurrection. This faith constitutes the foundation of the Church, and John XXIII communicates his conviction. The sign of the time is the sign of Jonah, and the Jew Matthew confesses his interpretation of the sign of Jonah as the sign of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The strength of John XXIII’s theological arguments originates in his studying and meditating the Church Fathers, the Christian theologians of the first two centuries of CE. The Church Fathers used the Hebrew and the Christian Bible in order to encourage the first Christian communities to persevere on the way of Jesus Christ in the midst of their daily problems, difficulties, doubts, insecurities, conflicts and even dissociating crisis. Therefore, a use of the biblical term of “the sign of the time” by a Christian has to acknowledge the sign of Jonah and a meditation of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the end, the use of the biblical term “sign of the time” reflects the search of the way of faith in the footsteps of Abraham who was ready hoping for a present and future life of promised happiness.

Abrahm’s faith, the sign of Jonah, the sign of Jesus Christ and the sign of John XXIII point the way to the One and Only, to the invisible Go’d. Understanding language means understanding that we learn the use of words, we do not learn the use of objects. We learn to use words and we are empowered to use words to describe states of affairs that obey to a three valued logic. Speaking of the invisible Go’d we cannot use the truth values true and false, we have to use the truth value “I do not know”. After having assessed that we cannot verify or falsify who Go’d is, or if Go’d is at all, we are empowered to say what we mean when speaking of Go’d. I follow the faith tradition of Abraham. Noah speaks of a faith perspective that is central for the belief in Go’d. Noah had to learn and experience that he is but a messenger, but he is not the one who makes perform the message. The Ninevites are turning their hearts and life to Go’d, Go’d spoke to them, not Jonah. Jesus Christ was failing to realize the message of the just world of Go’d too, he died and his followers dissociated in despair. According to Abraham’s tradition Go’d made stand up Jesus Christ in the lives of the faithful. John XXIII wanted a reform of the Roman Catholic Church, he wanted a pastoral Council, that is he wanted to overcome the credibility crisis of the Roman Catholic Church by turning to the healing powers and teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ did not exclude anybody from the just world of Go’d that he was about to realize. Jesus Christ included everybody. John XXIII wanted a pastoral reform of the Church without the participation of the so called lay faithful. He excluded them from directly participating in the preparation of the Second Vatican Council, he wanted reforming the Church without regarding the faithful of the Church (Komonchak, Joseph, 1995. “La lotta per il concilio durante la preparazione”. In Il cattolicesimo verso una nuova stagione. L`annuncio e la preparazione gennaio 1959 – settembre 1962. Vol. 1 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 177–380. 188f. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Under John XXIII the lay faithful and the priests were not allowed to actively participate at the Second Vatican Council. They were not even allowed to be present in the aula of St. Peter’s cathedral silently assisting the debates and votings. Reluctantly Pope Paul VI allowed the presence of some lay observers in the aula. And at the last session of the Second Vatican Council in the fall of 1965 the lay had increased to 23 women and 29 men and for the first time a couple, the Alvarez from Mexico, was present in the aula of Saint Peter’s (Routhier, Gilles. 2001. “Portare a termine l’opera iniziata: la faticosa esperienza del quarto periodo.” In In Concilio di transizione. Il quarto period e la conclusion del concilio (1965). Vol. 5 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 73–196. 79 Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino).

John XXIII excluded the faithful from actively participating at the Second Vatican Council and the pastoral pope excluded also the priest doing the daily pastoral work in the parishes of the Roman Catholic Church. John XXIII wanted the cardinals and bishops reform the Church, not the faithful. John XXIII held the lay incapable of participating in the government of the Church, in the argumentation and preaching the faith of the Gospel and in taking a leading role in the communities and celebration of the eucharist. John XXIII forgot about the empowerment of liberty and freedom of the faithful by their faith in Jesus Christ and the just world of Go’d. Go’d did not forget the faithful. In the 1970ies the masses of the faithful turned away from the religious institution that is the Roman Catholic Church and assess their faith in Go’d according to their experiences. The meditation of Jesus Christ comforts the Christian woman, man and queer in times of suffering with hope and promises hope for a suffering world. Thanks to Go’d John XXIII insisted on the message of the sign of Jonah that announces the presence of Go’d despite the failure of Jonah to believe. Thanks to Go’d the faithful once again were shown that faith is not possible without freedom. It is a social choice believing the Lord, the One and Only, whom we call Go’d.