Today (January 30), we read of the promise of an eternal kingdom for David in 2 Samuel 7.
David was really a good king for he always remembered God in his heart. He told Nathan the prophet that he felt uncomfortable because "... I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells in a tent" (2 Samuel 7:2). So, he wanted to build a Temple to house the ark of God. No doubt, David had a political agenda in mind when he moved the ark into Jerusalem, his city. He needed the ark to legitimize his rule over both Judah and Israel to show that he was not a usurper to the throne of Saul. Aside from that, David was no doubt a good humble servant of God.
His good intention was highly appreciated by God who needed no fixed abode on earth. "Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool; what is the house which you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? All these things my hand has made, and so all these things are mine, says the LORD. But this is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word" (Isaiah 66:1-2). Though God denied David the honour of building Him a Temple, He announced through Nathan that He would award him an eternal kingdom. "... the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever" (2 Samuel 7:11-13). The Temple would be built by his son, Solomon, and God promised to establish the throne of his kingdom forever. This is the famous Nathan's Oracle.
Reality is, the United Kingdom established by David was split after the death of Solomon. 10 tribes in the north formed the new state of Israel and the remaining 2 in the south Judah. Israel in the north was conquered by the Assyrians in 721 B.C. and Judah in the south by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. The northern tribes were exiled and vanished forever in history. Those of the south were also exiled but only for 50 years. Cyrus, the Persian king conquered Babylon and for unknown reasons, sent the captives home. He even financed them to rebuild the Solomon Temple in Jerusalem out of the coffers of his palace! No wonder Isaiah called Cyrus, the Messiah, God's anointed (Isaiah 45:1). Imagine, a Gentile Messiah. How unthinkable God's deed was! Be prepared. More is to come!
The Jews never regained national independence throughout the Persian Empire, Greek Empire and the Roman Empire, until 1948 A.D. [Except for a brief period from 164 B.C. to 63 B.C., the Hasmonean dynasty established by the Maccabees during the Greek Empire.] There is no more Davidic Empire, not even the modern Israel state. But God cannot tell lies. How shall God's vow to David come true? I believe the Jews solved this problem with the 'Messianic expectations'. They expected an Anointed One, a Messiah, a descendent of David (Isaiah 11:1), who would be sent by God to rebuild the kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:6). This was how most of the Jews, and even his disciples expected of the miracle-worker-cum-rabbi Jesus.
Of course, the Jewish expectation was a myopic nationalistic view. Jesus challenged their view in Mark 12:35-37. The Messiah is not only the son of David. He is also the Son of God! It was unthinkable for the Jews to dream of God coming in person to restore the kingdom of Israel. Naturally, they rejected Jesus. Of course, God does not think in terms of the kingdom of Israel, but the Kingdom of God. The Israelites rejected God's kingship over them (1 Samuel 8:5-7). Yet God would not reject them. Instead, He came to build up an eternal kingdom, including all Israelites as well as Gentiles. This was accomplished through Jesus, the incarnated 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Son of God.
My God, Your wisdom is beyond our understanding. To satisfy the Israelites' demand for a human king and Your vow to David of an eternal kingdom, You sent us Jesus to take up human flesh and blood. To satisfy, expiate our sins for all generations past and future, You pour out Your Son's blood, that is Your own blood, on the cross. How sweet and perfect Your love is! May we sing praises to You and glorify You for Your wonders forever and ever. Amen.
Thursday, 31 January 2008
Wednesday, 30 January 2008
The Ark moved to Jerusalem
At the beginning of 1 Samuel, the ark of God was housed in the temple at Shiloh. Eli, an old priest was administering. In the temple, God called Samuel to His service. When the people of Israel went to battle and were defeated, they carried the ark of God into the battle field, hoping to defeat the Philistines. In the end, the ark was captured and the Israelites lost. The 2 sons of Eli were killed. We could say that the 'reign of Eli' ended with the death of his two sons.
The ark of God had a life of its own. It wreaked havoc wherever it went among the enemy tribes of Israel. At last, it was returned to Israel and settled in the house of Abinadab for some twenty years (1 Samuel 7:1-2). When Saul became king of Israel, he carried the ark once into battle at Gibeah (1 Samuel 14:18). But it never entered the house of Saul.
After becoming king over Israel and Judah, David and his 30,000 men (2 Samuel 6:1) went out, not to war, but to bring back the ark of God to Jerusalem, in a new cart driven by oxen, from the house of Abinadab (2 Samuel 6:3). Ahio & Uzzah, sons of Abinadab, were driving an ox-cart with Ahio in the front. The procession was sing and dancing with all their might in the front (2 Samuel 6:5).
When the ark reached the threshing floor of Nacon, the oxen stumbled (2 Samuel 6:6). Uzzah put out his hand to take hold of, to stabilize the ark. But God was angry with Uzzah. For what? For using an ox-cart to carry the ark like what the Philistines had done in 1 Samuel 6:7-8? But what other options could they think of? The ark arrived there 20 years ago in an ox-cart. Wasn't it reasonable to send it out in similar manner? But God killed Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:7). How fearsome and unapproachable God is! Why did God kill Uzzah? But who can fathom the mind of God? It is indeed a mystery which, perhaps we will never know its true meaning. A probable explanation may run like this. The ark should go to its rightful place. The death of Uzzah, like the death of Eli's sons, probably marks the end of the custody of the ark of God in the house of Abinadab.
The scripture continues to say that David was angry (but does not mention with whom. God? or Uzzah?) and was afraid of the Lord (2 Samuel 6:8-9). Of course, you can be angry with and afraid of the same person at the same time. The ark was too holy and dangerous an object to reside in the capital. It remained in the house of Obededom for three months before entering Jerusalem. Only had the ark demonstrated that it was benign, was it allowed to enter Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:10-11)!
There was much pomp and reveling. David sacrificed an ox and a fatling every time the bearers (no more ox-cart this time! David was really smart!) of the ark moved 6 paces (2 Samuel 6:13). David himself was half-naked and danced before the ark with all his might (6:14). When Michal saw all these happenings, she despised David in her heart (6:16). What was worse, she could not hold her tongue. When David returned to bless the household, Michal said, "How the king of Israel honoured himself today, uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants' maids, as one of the vulgar fellows shamelessly uncovers himself" (6:20)! How dare Michal spoke to the king like that! In her eyes, was the king of Israel the same young lover 15 or more years ago, so that she might speak to him teasingly? Or else, what backings did she have to speak so arrogantly like that to the king?
The last time Michal saw David, he was a young, giant-killer but a fugitive whom she loved and for whom she lied to her father Saul in order to help her lover escape (1 Samuel 19:11-17). Subsequently, Saul gave Michal to Palti(el) as wife (1 Samuel 25:44). Michal and David must have been separated for about 15 years. Did Michal love David no more, who had already accumulated 6 wives and many more concubines? In her eyes, David's behaviour was unbecoming and inappropriate for a king because he acted like a vulgar fellow indecently uncovering himself before lowly maid servants (engaging in sex with lowly female janitors?) Who would these maid servants be? Michal, the daughter of king Saul, probably felt it below her to live in David's harem. "His servants' maids" probably refers to the wives and concubines of David.
Michal did not seem to understand the precarious situation she was in. Her father and brothers were all killed. Her second husband, Paltiel, was such a weakling that he wept all the way, accompanying Michal until Abner told him off (2 Samuel 3:15-16). That probably explains why Michal had grown from a romantic starry-eyed girl to an arrogant woman, harbouring no fear nor respect for this sophisticated David and the Lord above him. Her words did not endear her to David. They only earned her his displeasure instead. In the end, she bore no child for David to the day of her death (2 Samuel 6:23). "The episode serves to announce the end of any possibility of an heir to the throne through Michal." (Bruce Birch, NIB, Vol. 2, pg 1248). The character of Michal in the whole drama must be of great interest to modern scholars. I am afraid I have not done her enough justice in my reflection on the text.
In the Old Testament, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom (Job 28:28; Psalm 111:10; Proverb 9:10). But in the New Testament, Jesus taught us that God is our Father. He is no longer fearsome and unapproachable. "Perfect love casts out fear" (1 John 4:18). [Had Michal's love for David been a perfect one and had made her speak so fearlessly to David, she surely had not been fairly reciprocated.] No doubt, it is a big progress. However, I still maintain that a healthy dose of fear is essential for our well-being, both physically and spiritually. Fear will prevent us from entering into detrimental situations, endangering our body and soul. We should recognize our own imperfections.The holiness of God inspires awe and fear. It should not be tinkered with.
My God, You are our loving Father. Very often, we abuse Your love and indulge in harmful activities. May You instill in us a healthy dose of fear so that we are sober enough to treasure Your love in us. We are unworthy creatures of this grace of Yours. May our love of You grow day by day until it reaches perfection so that we may love You and our fellow men freely without fears. Amen.
The ark of God had a life of its own. It wreaked havoc wherever it went among the enemy tribes of Israel. At last, it was returned to Israel and settled in the house of Abinadab for some twenty years (1 Samuel 7:1-2). When Saul became king of Israel, he carried the ark once into battle at Gibeah (1 Samuel 14:18). But it never entered the house of Saul.
After becoming king over Israel and Judah, David and his 30,000 men (2 Samuel 6:1) went out, not to war, but to bring back the ark of God to Jerusalem, in a new cart driven by oxen, from the house of Abinadab (2 Samuel 6:3). Ahio & Uzzah, sons of Abinadab, were driving an ox-cart with Ahio in the front. The procession was sing and dancing with all their might in the front (2 Samuel 6:5).
When the ark reached the threshing floor of Nacon, the oxen stumbled (2 Samuel 6:6). Uzzah put out his hand to take hold of, to stabilize the ark. But God was angry with Uzzah. For what? For using an ox-cart to carry the ark like what the Philistines had done in 1 Samuel 6:7-8? But what other options could they think of? The ark arrived there 20 years ago in an ox-cart. Wasn't it reasonable to send it out in similar manner? But God killed Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:7). How fearsome and unapproachable God is! Why did God kill Uzzah? But who can fathom the mind of God? It is indeed a mystery which, perhaps we will never know its true meaning. A probable explanation may run like this. The ark should go to its rightful place. The death of Uzzah, like the death of Eli's sons, probably marks the end of the custody of the ark of God in the house of Abinadab.
The scripture continues to say that David was angry (but does not mention with whom. God? or Uzzah?) and was afraid of the Lord (2 Samuel 6:8-9). Of course, you can be angry with and afraid of the same person at the same time. The ark was too holy and dangerous an object to reside in the capital. It remained in the house of Obededom for three months before entering Jerusalem. Only had the ark demonstrated that it was benign, was it allowed to enter Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:10-11)!
There was much pomp and reveling. David sacrificed an ox and a fatling every time the bearers (no more ox-cart this time! David was really smart!) of the ark moved 6 paces (2 Samuel 6:13). David himself was half-naked and danced before the ark with all his might (6:14). When Michal saw all these happenings, she despised David in her heart (6:16). What was worse, she could not hold her tongue. When David returned to bless the household, Michal said, "How the king of Israel honoured himself today, uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants' maids, as one of the vulgar fellows shamelessly uncovers himself" (6:20)! How dare Michal spoke to the king like that! In her eyes, was the king of Israel the same young lover 15 or more years ago, so that she might speak to him teasingly? Or else, what backings did she have to speak so arrogantly like that to the king?
The last time Michal saw David, he was a young, giant-killer but a fugitive whom she loved and for whom she lied to her father Saul in order to help her lover escape (1 Samuel 19:11-17). Subsequently, Saul gave Michal to Palti(el) as wife (1 Samuel 25:44). Michal and David must have been separated for about 15 years. Did Michal love David no more, who had already accumulated 6 wives and many more concubines? In her eyes, David's behaviour was unbecoming and inappropriate for a king because he acted like a vulgar fellow indecently uncovering himself before lowly maid servants (engaging in sex with lowly female janitors?) Who would these maid servants be? Michal, the daughter of king Saul, probably felt it below her to live in David's harem. "His servants' maids" probably refers to the wives and concubines of David.
Michal did not seem to understand the precarious situation she was in. Her father and brothers were all killed. Her second husband, Paltiel, was such a weakling that he wept all the way, accompanying Michal until Abner told him off (2 Samuel 3:15-16). That probably explains why Michal had grown from a romantic starry-eyed girl to an arrogant woman, harbouring no fear nor respect for this sophisticated David and the Lord above him. Her words did not endear her to David. They only earned her his displeasure instead. In the end, she bore no child for David to the day of her death (2 Samuel 6:23). "The episode serves to announce the end of any possibility of an heir to the throne through Michal." (Bruce Birch, NIB, Vol. 2, pg 1248). The character of Michal in the whole drama must be of great interest to modern scholars. I am afraid I have not done her enough justice in my reflection on the text.
In the Old Testament, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom (Job 28:28; Psalm 111:10; Proverb 9:10). But in the New Testament, Jesus taught us that God is our Father. He is no longer fearsome and unapproachable. "Perfect love casts out fear" (1 John 4:18). [Had Michal's love for David been a perfect one and had made her speak so fearlessly to David, she surely had not been fairly reciprocated.] No doubt, it is a big progress. However, I still maintain that a healthy dose of fear is essential for our well-being, both physically and spiritually. Fear will prevent us from entering into detrimental situations, endangering our body and soul. We should recognize our own imperfections.The holiness of God inspires awe and fear. It should not be tinkered with.
My God, You are our loving Father. Very often, we abuse Your love and indulge in harmful activities. May You instill in us a healthy dose of fear so that we are sober enough to treasure Your love in us. We are unworthy creatures of this grace of Yours. May our love of You grow day by day until it reaches perfection so that we may love You and our fellow men freely without fears. Amen.
Tuesday, 29 January 2008
David consolidated his rule
Today (January 28) is the feast day of one of the greatest theologians, St. Thomas Aquinas. He was called by various titles, such as Doctor Angelicus, Doctor Universalis and Doctor Communis. His contribution to the Church is indisputable. May St. Thomas pray for us, his descendants to continue to contemplate the mystery of our dear Jesus. Amen.
The first book of Samuel finishes with the tragic death of Saul. Not wanting to die a humiliating death in the hands of the Philistines, Saul committed suicide in the battle at Gilboa (1 Samuel 31:4).
Today, we start reading the 2nd book of Samuel. It opened with the story of a young, opportunistic Amalekite. He took the crown and amulet from the corpse of Saul in the battle field, came before David to claim credit for killing Saul! The reasoning of this greedy Amelekite was wrong. Who would want to put on someone else's crown, especially a blood-stained one? This crown must carry such a curse with it that the king who wore it died violently. Indeed, if a potential king is happy to see the previous king dead, he must be a usurper. Sooner or later, he himself will be usurped. David would not allow such stupidity to stain his fame, creating unnecessary obstacles for his future rule. He knew the intention of the Amalekite. He would not allow such a liar any room in his court. David had this Amalekite killed because he claimed to have done something even David himself would not do --- to kill the Lord's anointed (2 Samuel 1:2-16). Had David rewarded this Amalekite, he would have invited more opportunists and even usurpers to encircle him in the future. Where and when did this shepherd boy learn such wisdom?
Then, David moved to Hebron and the men of Judah came to anoint him king over the house of Judah (2 Samuel 2:4). He began his manoeuvres to win over the rest of the 12 tribes. At the same time, Abner, the commander of Saul's army took Ishbosheth, the son of Saul to Mahanaim and made him king over all Israel (2 Samuel 2:8-9).
The house of Saul (Israel) in the north and the house of David (Judah) in the south were competing for the full control of the land. In a battle at Gibeon, Abner killed Asahel, one of 3 brothers. In that battle, Abner lost 360 men, while David 20 (2 Samuel 2:30-31). Obviously, David was militarily more superior and was on the rise. Abner had to plan for himself. Meanwhile, Abner was making himself strong in the house of Saul (2 Samuel 3:6). He was a potential usurper. He was prepared to hand Ishbosheth over to David to secure a covenant with David! Abner thought he knew David through and through, from his date with Goliath until this day. He was confident to be able to outwit David. Upon David's request, Abner brought Michal (David's former wife, daughter of Saul) along to negotiate a peace covenant. He promised to return to the north to persuade the other tribes to make David king. Winning your enemy without fighting was obviously a good option for David. Abner went away in peace (2 Samuel 3:21).
Unfortunately for Abner, Joab, a brother of the dead Asahel, returned from raids and knew of his whereabout. Joab caught Abner up and killed him in revenge for Asahel's death (2 Samuel 3:22-27). When David knew this, he distanced himself from Joab, cursed his house and made a public mourning for Abner (2 Samuel 3:28-34), calling Abner a prince and a great man (2 Samuel 3:38). David must have won a lot of good will from the leaders of the other tribes.
Meanwhile, two captains of Ishbosheth were eager to gain favour in David's eyes. They murdered Ishbosheth in his sleep and brought his head to David to claim reward. Instead, David had them killed, like the Amalekite (2 Samuel 4:2-12). Had Ishbosheth been handed over to David by Abner, he would not have died such a terrible death. David would surely treat him well. Remember, so far, none of the family members of Saul was directly killed by David. As for those 2 captains, had they not learnt the lesson of the Amalekite? Had they been duped by someone to think that David would welcome such a move, would reward someone to do the dirty job for him? Did David engineer all this? We could only speculate.
After the death of Ishbosheth, the only legitimate, surviving contender to the throne was the son of Jonathan, Mephibosheth who was crippled in his feet (2 Samuel 4:4). David treated him well. His throne had already been secured after Ishbosheth's death. It seems that the only way to survive these bloody royal feuds is to be crippled. Being crippled seems to be a blessing rather than a curse when you are in such a hopeless position. In fact, once when he was a fugitive running for his life from the murderous threat of Saul, David had to fake insanity in front of king Achish of Gath in order to keep his life (1 Samuel 21:10-15).
The elders of Israel came to David at Hebron and anointed him king over Israel (2 Samuel 5:3). That was some time around 1000 B.C. Therefore, David was anointed three times, by Samuel in Bethlehem (1 Samuel 16:13); and twice in Hebron by the elders of Judah (2 Samuel 2:4) and the elders of Israel (2 Samuel 5:3).
Coincidentally, one of the greatest Chinese military theorists, Sun Pun 孫臏 (300 BC), suffered the combined incidents of both Mephibosheth and David in his life. Pong Juan 龐涓 and Sun were fellow classmates in the art of war. Sun had greater achievement and Pong was jealous. Without finishing his studies, Pong left and became a military adviser in Kingdom Wei 魏. Later, when Sun paid him a visit, Pong tricked Sun and had his knee caps removed so that he became crippled. Sun had to fake insanity in order to fool Pong to retain his life. In the end, under the arrangement of Sun, Pong was shot a thousand arrows and died at a spot designated by Sun. Life can be such a blood and claws drama!
The first book of Samuel finishes with the tragic death of Saul. Not wanting to die a humiliating death in the hands of the Philistines, Saul committed suicide in the battle at Gilboa (1 Samuel 31:4).
Today, we start reading the 2nd book of Samuel. It opened with the story of a young, opportunistic Amalekite. He took the crown and amulet from the corpse of Saul in the battle field, came before David to claim credit for killing Saul! The reasoning of this greedy Amelekite was wrong. Who would want to put on someone else's crown, especially a blood-stained one? This crown must carry such a curse with it that the king who wore it died violently. Indeed, if a potential king is happy to see the previous king dead, he must be a usurper. Sooner or later, he himself will be usurped. David would not allow such stupidity to stain his fame, creating unnecessary obstacles for his future rule. He knew the intention of the Amalekite. He would not allow such a liar any room in his court. David had this Amalekite killed because he claimed to have done something even David himself would not do --- to kill the Lord's anointed (2 Samuel 1:2-16). Had David rewarded this Amalekite, he would have invited more opportunists and even usurpers to encircle him in the future. Where and when did this shepherd boy learn such wisdom?
Then, David moved to Hebron and the men of Judah came to anoint him king over the house of Judah (2 Samuel 2:4). He began his manoeuvres to win over the rest of the 12 tribes. At the same time, Abner, the commander of Saul's army took Ishbosheth, the son of Saul to Mahanaim and made him king over all Israel (2 Samuel 2:8-9).
The house of Saul (Israel) in the north and the house of David (Judah) in the south were competing for the full control of the land. In a battle at Gibeon, Abner killed Asahel, one of 3 brothers. In that battle, Abner lost 360 men, while David 20 (2 Samuel 2:30-31). Obviously, David was militarily more superior and was on the rise. Abner had to plan for himself. Meanwhile, Abner was making himself strong in the house of Saul (2 Samuel 3:6). He was a potential usurper. He was prepared to hand Ishbosheth over to David to secure a covenant with David! Abner thought he knew David through and through, from his date with Goliath until this day. He was confident to be able to outwit David. Upon David's request, Abner brought Michal (David's former wife, daughter of Saul) along to negotiate a peace covenant. He promised to return to the north to persuade the other tribes to make David king. Winning your enemy without fighting was obviously a good option for David. Abner went away in peace (2 Samuel 3:21).
Unfortunately for Abner, Joab, a brother of the dead Asahel, returned from raids and knew of his whereabout. Joab caught Abner up and killed him in revenge for Asahel's death (2 Samuel 3:22-27). When David knew this, he distanced himself from Joab, cursed his house and made a public mourning for Abner (2 Samuel 3:28-34), calling Abner a prince and a great man (2 Samuel 3:38). David must have won a lot of good will from the leaders of the other tribes.
Meanwhile, two captains of Ishbosheth were eager to gain favour in David's eyes. They murdered Ishbosheth in his sleep and brought his head to David to claim reward. Instead, David had them killed, like the Amalekite (2 Samuel 4:2-12). Had Ishbosheth been handed over to David by Abner, he would not have died such a terrible death. David would surely treat him well. Remember, so far, none of the family members of Saul was directly killed by David. As for those 2 captains, had they not learnt the lesson of the Amalekite? Had they been duped by someone to think that David would welcome such a move, would reward someone to do the dirty job for him? Did David engineer all this? We could only speculate.
After the death of Ishbosheth, the only legitimate, surviving contender to the throne was the son of Jonathan, Mephibosheth who was crippled in his feet (2 Samuel 4:4). David treated him well. His throne had already been secured after Ishbosheth's death. It seems that the only way to survive these bloody royal feuds is to be crippled. Being crippled seems to be a blessing rather than a curse when you are in such a hopeless position. In fact, once when he was a fugitive running for his life from the murderous threat of Saul, David had to fake insanity in front of king Achish of Gath in order to keep his life (1 Samuel 21:10-15).
The elders of Israel came to David at Hebron and anointed him king over Israel (2 Samuel 5:3). That was some time around 1000 B.C. Therefore, David was anointed three times, by Samuel in Bethlehem (1 Samuel 16:13); and twice in Hebron by the elders of Judah (2 Samuel 2:4) and the elders of Israel (2 Samuel 5:3).
Coincidentally, one of the greatest Chinese military theorists, Sun Pun 孫臏 (300 BC), suffered the combined incidents of both Mephibosheth and David in his life. Pong Juan 龐涓 and Sun were fellow classmates in the art of war. Sun had greater achievement and Pong was jealous. Without finishing his studies, Pong left and became a military adviser in Kingdom Wei 魏. Later, when Sun paid him a visit, Pong tricked Sun and had his knee caps removed so that he became crippled. Sun had to fake insanity in order to fool Pong to retain his life. In the end, under the arrangement of Sun, Pong was shot a thousand arrows and died at a spot designated by Sun. Life can be such a blood and claws drama!
Monday, 28 January 2008
Farewell to Fr. Andrew Kim
Today is the Sunday of the 3rd Ordinary Week, Year A. It is cold today. We said farewell to Fr. Andrew Kim, a Korean priest who has worked in our parish for 17 months. Within this short period of time, he is able to exert great influence among the youth. He is able to win over the hearts, not just of the young, but also of everyone he meets. We praise God for His grace, having sent us a dedicated and passionate pastor.
In the Mass he celebrated today, the parish priest Fr. John Kwan and the assistant parish priest Fr. Patrick Sun co-celebrated. The altar boys who led the procession into the church could not hide their tears. This Mass was also attended by more than 80 parishers from 'Star of the Sea', Chai Wan. Previously Fr. Kim served there for 5 years.
The Gospel, Matthew 4:12-23, was read by Fr. Sun. When he reached 4:18, "As he walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother ...", he stopped, struggled for more than a minute to withhold his tears, and at last began to sob. He could not continue any more. Fr. Kwan had to take over to finish the reading. Fr. Sun, not Fr. Kim, was the first not to be able to contain his sorrows and wept. It was touching and emotional.
Then, Fr. Kim delivered his homily. He shared with us his motto as a missionary. "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him" (1 Corinthians 2:9, Isaiah 64:3). As a missionary, he could not anticipate what God has prepared for him in the foreign lands he would visit. But he firmly believes that it must be the best for him. Today, he is able to see it with his own eyes and hear it with his own ears what his heart has not conceived. When he recalled his first years in Hong Kong, he was not able to speak Cantonese yet. He was very much like the illiterate fishermen Jesus called in Matthew 4. Yet, Jesus made them "fishers of men". Today, he is joyful to see the harvest in God's field. Fr. Kim is thankful to God and to us for allowing him to be a handy instrument of God's grace.
He is leaving us, returning to Korea to head a seminary. He promises to work his best to train up more missionary priests and send them to Hong Kong. His heart definitively remains with us. When asked what parting gift he wanted, he humbly asked us to send him Kung Kau Pao until the day he returns to Hong Kong in 5 years' time or at most 10. How truly he loves us! Fr. Kim is a missionary true to his call.
When the fishermen left behind their fishing nets and their family members (Matthew 4:20, 22), they must have experienced tremendous sorrow, like that the whole parish and Fr. Kim experienced today. But what lie ahead is more worthwhile than the tears we shed. The fishermen would become the pillars of the Church. We, with God's blessing, will bring a great light to the Tuen Mun citizens. We come together in order to separate. We separate in order to spread the love we have built up when we came together. What wisdom there is in Christian fellowship!
My God, we praise You and thank You for Your loving wonder. You call dedicated young men to spread Your saving love to people living in darkness and the cold. May more young men respond generously to Your call to harvest Your field. I pray for Hilary, my eldest son. He has not been practising his faith since secondary school. He has missed the opportunity to learn from the examples of these wonderful priests. He has been living away for so many years that I am not able to impart my faith in him. My God, if he finds favour in You, purify him so that he can be a vessel of noble use in Your household. Amen.
In the Mass he celebrated today, the parish priest Fr. John Kwan and the assistant parish priest Fr. Patrick Sun co-celebrated. The altar boys who led the procession into the church could not hide their tears. This Mass was also attended by more than 80 parishers from 'Star of the Sea', Chai Wan. Previously Fr. Kim served there for 5 years.
The Gospel, Matthew 4:12-23, was read by Fr. Sun. When he reached 4:18, "As he walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother ...", he stopped, struggled for more than a minute to withhold his tears, and at last began to sob. He could not continue any more. Fr. Kwan had to take over to finish the reading. Fr. Sun, not Fr. Kim, was the first not to be able to contain his sorrows and wept. It was touching and emotional.
Then, Fr. Kim delivered his homily. He shared with us his motto as a missionary. "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him" (1 Corinthians 2:9, Isaiah 64:3). As a missionary, he could not anticipate what God has prepared for him in the foreign lands he would visit. But he firmly believes that it must be the best for him. Today, he is able to see it with his own eyes and hear it with his own ears what his heart has not conceived. When he recalled his first years in Hong Kong, he was not able to speak Cantonese yet. He was very much like the illiterate fishermen Jesus called in Matthew 4. Yet, Jesus made them "fishers of men". Today, he is joyful to see the harvest in God's field. Fr. Kim is thankful to God and to us for allowing him to be a handy instrument of God's grace.
He is leaving us, returning to Korea to head a seminary. He promises to work his best to train up more missionary priests and send them to Hong Kong. His heart definitively remains with us. When asked what parting gift he wanted, he humbly asked us to send him Kung Kau Pao until the day he returns to Hong Kong in 5 years' time or at most 10. How truly he loves us! Fr. Kim is a missionary true to his call.
When the fishermen left behind their fishing nets and their family members (Matthew 4:20, 22), they must have experienced tremendous sorrow, like that the whole parish and Fr. Kim experienced today. But what lie ahead is more worthwhile than the tears we shed. The fishermen would become the pillars of the Church. We, with God's blessing, will bring a great light to the Tuen Mun citizens. We come together in order to separate. We separate in order to spread the love we have built up when we came together. What wisdom there is in Christian fellowship!
My God, we praise You and thank You for Your loving wonder. You call dedicated young men to spread Your saving love to people living in darkness and the cold. May more young men respond generously to Your call to harvest Your field. I pray for Hilary, my eldest son. He has not been practising his faith since secondary school. He has missed the opportunity to learn from the examples of these wonderful priests. He has been living away for so many years that I am not able to impart my faith in him. My God, if he finds favour in You, purify him so that he can be a vessel of noble use in Your household. Amen.
Sunday, 27 January 2008
Timothy
Today, we celebrated the Feast of Timothy and Titus. They were two prominent disciples of St. Paul, who consecrated them bishops and assigned them to take care of the churches he established on his missionary journeys.
Timothy was probably a bit green at that time. Paul wrote two letters to instruct and advise him. In the 2nd epistle to Timothy, we found some information of the problems he was facing.
Timothy came from a very good background. Paul mentioned his grandmother Lois and mother Eunice, both of them passed on the faith to Timothy (2 Timothy 1:5). Timothy was also trained in the holy scriptures since childhood (2 Timothy 3:15-16). Therefore, he was already a very highly qualified occupant of the chair (cathedral) of bishop.
The congregation was probably beset by controversies, especially the controversy over resurrection. Among them, Hymenaeus and Philetus, claimed "that the resurrection is past already" (2 Timothy 2:18). This rendered Christianity a dead faith. If resurrection were reserved for Jesus Christ alone, Christians would be the greatest fools in this world. Their life is based on this faith and hope in resurrection and thus eternal life. To attain this eternal life, Christians bear witnesses to God's love with their charity. This faith in resurrection needs to be defended at all costs. Timothy was probably overwhelmed by the gravity of this task.
Paul offered his advice. He encouraged Timothy that when he was consecrated bishop, he had been given, "not a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, love and self-control" (2 Timothy 1:6-7). Be prepared to suffer for testifying to the Lord. He further reminded Timothy of his own example.
To deal with the bigger issue of administering the congregation, Timothy must firstly strengthen himself (2:21-22). Avoid stupid controversies with godless people (2:23). Yet correct their mistakes with gentleness so that their souls might be saved (2:25-26). During these last days (at that time, the early church expected Jesus to return soon.) Timothy should expect most people to be self-centred, to love money more than God etc. (3:1-7). Paul advised him to keep studying the holy scriptures for his pastoral work and personal perfection (3:16-17). Moreover, people preferred myths to the truth. So, Paul urged Timothy to work hard to defend the truth with unfailing patience (4:1-4). These are indeed sound advice to bishops throughout the ages.
My God, I pray for our Pope, all the bishops, missionaries, priests and deacons. May they be strong defenders of Your truth. May they be patient pastors of Your flock on earth. In their calling to serve Your Word, may they attain perfection and unity with You. Amen.
Timothy was probably a bit green at that time. Paul wrote two letters to instruct and advise him. In the 2nd epistle to Timothy, we found some information of the problems he was facing.
Timothy came from a very good background. Paul mentioned his grandmother Lois and mother Eunice, both of them passed on the faith to Timothy (2 Timothy 1:5). Timothy was also trained in the holy scriptures since childhood (2 Timothy 3:15-16). Therefore, he was already a very highly qualified occupant of the chair (cathedral) of bishop.
The congregation was probably beset by controversies, especially the controversy over resurrection. Among them, Hymenaeus and Philetus, claimed "that the resurrection is past already" (2 Timothy 2:18). This rendered Christianity a dead faith. If resurrection were reserved for Jesus Christ alone, Christians would be the greatest fools in this world. Their life is based on this faith and hope in resurrection and thus eternal life. To attain this eternal life, Christians bear witnesses to God's love with their charity. This faith in resurrection needs to be defended at all costs. Timothy was probably overwhelmed by the gravity of this task.
Paul offered his advice. He encouraged Timothy that when he was consecrated bishop, he had been given, "not a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, love and self-control" (2 Timothy 1:6-7). Be prepared to suffer for testifying to the Lord. He further reminded Timothy of his own example.
To deal with the bigger issue of administering the congregation, Timothy must firstly strengthen himself (2:21-22). Avoid stupid controversies with godless people (2:23). Yet correct their mistakes with gentleness so that their souls might be saved (2:25-26). During these last days (at that time, the early church expected Jesus to return soon.) Timothy should expect most people to be self-centred, to love money more than God etc. (3:1-7). Paul advised him to keep studying the holy scriptures for his pastoral work and personal perfection (3:16-17). Moreover, people preferred myths to the truth. So, Paul urged Timothy to work hard to defend the truth with unfailing patience (4:1-4). These are indeed sound advice to bishops throughout the ages.
My God, I pray for our Pope, all the bishops, missionaries, priests and deacons. May they be strong defenders of Your truth. May they be patient pastors of Your flock on earth. In their calling to serve Your Word, may they attain perfection and unity with You. Amen.
Saturday, 26 January 2008
A grammatical point
Today, we celebrate the Feast of St. Paul's Conversion. The story is recorded in Acts 9. As a matter of literary interest, the story on the road to Damascus was told three times in Acts 9, 22 and 26. It would be a worthwhile exercise for Bible students (including me) to do a comparison and speculate why Luke told the same story three times, in different occasions, to the audience. Moreover, Paul's own testimony in Galatians 1:15-19 was different from that in Acts. Of course, it would be challenging and interesting to harmonize them.
Some scholars claim that Christianity was fathered by Paul rather than Jesus. They argued that the New Testament contains far more materials attributed to Paul than to Jesus. There are 14 epistles authored by Paul but only 4 canonical gospels. I use 'authored' instead of 'written' because scholars argue that only 7 were written by Paul. The rest only has the authority of Paul behind them. Well, I will leave the subtlety of arguments to biblical scholars. As for me, Jesus is my Christ, my Saviour and this is enough.
Tonight in the Hebrew lesson, I was able to read Exodus 3:6. This passage was quoted by Jesus to prove that the Sadducees were wrong in trying to prove that there is no resurrection (Mark 12:26-27). Of course, Mark was written in Greek and Exodus in Hebrew. Septuagint is the most likely link.
Ἐγὼ ὁ θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ καὶ [ὁ] θεὸς Ἰσαὰκ καὶ [ὁ] θεὸς Ἰακώβ; (Mark 12:26)
Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ θεὸς τοῦ πατρός σου, θεὸς Αβρααμ καὶ θεὸς Ισαακ καὶ θεὸς Ιακωβ.(Septuagint)
Ἐγώ is the first person singular pronoun, meaning I. εἰμι is the verb to be in present tense. Therefore, Ἐγώ εἰμι means 'I am'. Septuagint adds an 'am' in the translation. It is therefore not simply a translation but an interpretation because a 'was' is also a possible rendering.
It seems that Mark quoted Septuagint, omitting the 'am', but it is true to the Hebrew text. So, there is a possibility that Mark translated the Hebrew text himself. Moreover, the phrase "God of your father" was left out. (Would it be possible that Jesus was using an Aramaic version of the Pentateuch? The Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, Acts 7:32, Justinus have "God of your fathers" instead. I have to leave this to the experts.) That's all for the text. Let's go to the theology.
God exists in eternity. There is no past, present and future for God. All creatures have a beginning and an end. There is a past, a present and a future for them. Some elementary particles come into existence for less than a millionth of a second and exist no long, no more. Not a trace of them can be found in the physical world. What about man? Man is born and dies. He has a beginning and an end. At least for the Sadducees, after his death, man was and is no more. While he is alive, any relationship he has is a present tense. After his death, the relationship is a past tense. God exists in eternity, but not man. If man is like elementary particles and exists no long no more after death, his relationship with God will also be a past tense. A relationship is made up of at least two parties. It is mutual and when one party exists no more, the relationship exists no more. It becomes history. It is a past tense. (Of course, God remains self-sufficient in the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity, without any needs of human relationships.) Following the logic of the Sadducees, since Abraham existed no more after death, God could only mean "I was the God of Abraham." when He told Moses that "I, the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." (Exodus 3:6)
Septuagint adds an "am", telling us that not only does God continue to exist forever, but also man even after his death. Had man existed no more after death, Septuagint would have said "I was the God of Abraham ..." instead. I think Jesus based his argument on this grammatical point. Therefore, he concluded that "He is not God of the dead, but of the living" (Mark 12:27) Man exists beyond death and therefore, his relationship with God remains a present tense forever once it has been initiated. In the interpretation above, I keep my eyes on man, not on God; on man's relationship with God, not on God's relationship with man.
What was in the mind of Mark when he omitted the Septuagint "am"? To be sure, Jesus' debate with the Sadducees must have been conducted in either Hebrew or Aramaic. Therefore, it is likely that Mark did a free translation himself and betrayed some Hebrew traces (omission of verb to be). I said it was a free translation because the phrase 'God of your father' was also omitted. Very likely, Mark did not quote from Septuagint. Studying the Bible is great fun. The journey is like unto a detective story.
My God, I praise You because You are a God of the living. My existence after death is guaranteed. There is life unto eternity after death. I look forward to embracing death joyfully and uniting in Your Trinity mystery. I ask this, through Jesus Christ my Lord, Your Son, one God with the Holy Spirit, forever and ever. Amen.
Some scholars claim that Christianity was fathered by Paul rather than Jesus. They argued that the New Testament contains far more materials attributed to Paul than to Jesus. There are 14 epistles authored by Paul but only 4 canonical gospels. I use 'authored' instead of 'written' because scholars argue that only 7 were written by Paul. The rest only has the authority of Paul behind them. Well, I will leave the subtlety of arguments to biblical scholars. As for me, Jesus is my Christ, my Saviour and this is enough.
Tonight in the Hebrew lesson, I was able to read Exodus 3:6. This passage was quoted by Jesus to prove that the Sadducees were wrong in trying to prove that there is no resurrection (Mark 12:26-27). Of course, Mark was written in Greek and Exodus in Hebrew. Septuagint is the most likely link.
Ἐγὼ ὁ θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ καὶ [ὁ] θεὸς Ἰσαὰκ καὶ [ὁ] θεὸς Ἰακώβ; (Mark 12:26)
Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ θεὸς τοῦ πατρός σου, θεὸς Αβρααμ καὶ θεὸς Ισαακ καὶ θεὸς Ιακωβ.(Septuagint)
(BHS)אָנֹכִי֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י אָבִ֔יךָ אֱלֹהֵ֧י אַבְרָהָ֛ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִצְחָ֖ק וֵאלֹהֵ֣י יַעֲקֹ֑ב
Jacob, and God of, Isaac, God of, Abraham, God of, your father, God of, I
Hebrew is read from right to left and the verb to be is usually omitted.Ἐγώ is the first person singular pronoun, meaning I. εἰμι is the verb to be in present tense. Therefore, Ἐγώ εἰμι means 'I am'. Septuagint adds an 'am' in the translation. It is therefore not simply a translation but an interpretation because a 'was' is also a possible rendering.
It seems that Mark quoted Septuagint, omitting the 'am', but it is true to the Hebrew text. So, there is a possibility that Mark translated the Hebrew text himself. Moreover, the phrase "God of your father" was left out. (Would it be possible that Jesus was using an Aramaic version of the Pentateuch? The Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, Acts 7:32, Justinus have "God of your fathers" instead. I have to leave this to the experts.) That's all for the text. Let's go to the theology.
God exists in eternity. There is no past, present and future for God. All creatures have a beginning and an end. There is a past, a present and a future for them. Some elementary particles come into existence for less than a millionth of a second and exist no long, no more. Not a trace of them can be found in the physical world. What about man? Man is born and dies. He has a beginning and an end. At least for the Sadducees, after his death, man was and is no more. While he is alive, any relationship he has is a present tense. After his death, the relationship is a past tense. God exists in eternity, but not man. If man is like elementary particles and exists no long no more after death, his relationship with God will also be a past tense. A relationship is made up of at least two parties. It is mutual and when one party exists no more, the relationship exists no more. It becomes history. It is a past tense. (Of course, God remains self-sufficient in the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity, without any needs of human relationships.) Following the logic of the Sadducees, since Abraham existed no more after death, God could only mean "I was the God of Abraham." when He told Moses that "I, the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." (Exodus 3:6)
Septuagint adds an "am", telling us that not only does God continue to exist forever, but also man even after his death. Had man existed no more after death, Septuagint would have said "I was the God of Abraham ..." instead. I think Jesus based his argument on this grammatical point. Therefore, he concluded that "He is not God of the dead, but of the living" (Mark 12:27) Man exists beyond death and therefore, his relationship with God remains a present tense forever once it has been initiated. In the interpretation above, I keep my eyes on man, not on God; on man's relationship with God, not on God's relationship with man.
What was in the mind of Mark when he omitted the Septuagint "am"? To be sure, Jesus' debate with the Sadducees must have been conducted in either Hebrew or Aramaic. Therefore, it is likely that Mark did a free translation himself and betrayed some Hebrew traces (omission of verb to be). I said it was a free translation because the phrase 'God of your father' was also omitted. Very likely, Mark did not quote from Septuagint. Studying the Bible is great fun. The journey is like unto a detective story.
My God, I praise You because You are a God of the living. My existence after death is guaranteed. There is life unto eternity after death. I look forward to embracing death joyfully and uniting in Your Trinity mystery. I ask this, through Jesus Christ my Lord, Your Son, one God with the Holy Spirit, forever and ever. Amen.
Friday, 25 January 2008
How to lose people's hearts
David's popularity rose. He was able to win people's hearts, including Saul's son Jonathan, Saul's servants and the people (1 Samuel 18:5). He was far more popular than Saul. When they returned in triumph, the women sang praises to them: Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands (1 Samuel 18:7). Saul was angry: "They have ascribed to David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed thousands; and what more can he have but the kingdom?" (1 Samuel 18:8). Not only did David overshadow him, but also threatened to take away his kingdom. Not only did all Israel love David (18:28), but also his name was highly esteemed by the Philistines (18:30). Indeed, David was so successful as to win over both friends and enemies. But your boss is not your friend, nor your enemy! According to Chinese wisdom, overshadowing your boss is a big mistake. One day, you will pay for it with your life, with your tribe. This was the beginning of troubles Saul had against David.
How did Saul manage his anger? First, he removed David from his presence by making David a commander of a thousand (18:13). Then he gave his own daughter Michal to David for a wife. He intended to make use of his own daughter as a snare for David (18:21). Intending to make use of the Philistines to kill David, he demanded a dowry of 100 foreskins of Philistines (18:25). David submitted 200 instead (18:27)! Saul was a relentless strategist. He was determined to make use of anything available, his servants, the Philistines and even his own daughter in order to destroy David. How would Michal feel? She definitely would betray her father when chances arose. In trying to achieve his own goal, Saul had lost people's hearts.
Saul deteriorated into madness. When David soothed him with his lyre, Saul tried to pin David to the wall with his spear (19:10). When Saul sent his servants to watch over David in the night so that he might kill him in the morning, Michal let David down through the window to escape (19:12). In the meantime, she put a dummy in bed to fake a 'sick' David (19:13-14). When Saul came, David had already fled to Samuel (19:18).
While David was loved by his friends and respected by his enemies, jealousy had clouded the mind of Saul the strategist. His inflated ego was hurt and he became so self-centred that he could only treat everybody else, both friends and enemies, as his instruments to achieve his goal. When people feel that they are reduced to objects and instruments, they lose hearts in and loyalty to you. Can you not beware of this danger?
My God, You so love us as to give Your only beloved Son to die for us. You do not treat us, insignificant lowly creatures, as objects to please You. My Lord, my existence does not add to Your glory, but I am willing to become Your instrument to carry out Your will. So, make me a handy one that I may be able to channel Your grace to whoever I meet. Help me to win over people's hearts for Your greater glory. Amen.
How did Saul manage his anger? First, he removed David from his presence by making David a commander of a thousand (18:13). Then he gave his own daughter Michal to David for a wife. He intended to make use of his own daughter as a snare for David (18:21). Intending to make use of the Philistines to kill David, he demanded a dowry of 100 foreskins of Philistines (18:25). David submitted 200 instead (18:27)! Saul was a relentless strategist. He was determined to make use of anything available, his servants, the Philistines and even his own daughter in order to destroy David. How would Michal feel? She definitely would betray her father when chances arose. In trying to achieve his own goal, Saul had lost people's hearts.
Saul deteriorated into madness. When David soothed him with his lyre, Saul tried to pin David to the wall with his spear (19:10). When Saul sent his servants to watch over David in the night so that he might kill him in the morning, Michal let David down through the window to escape (19:12). In the meantime, she put a dummy in bed to fake a 'sick' David (19:13-14). When Saul came, David had already fled to Samuel (19:18).
While David was loved by his friends and respected by his enemies, jealousy had clouded the mind of Saul the strategist. His inflated ego was hurt and he became so self-centred that he could only treat everybody else, both friends and enemies, as his instruments to achieve his goal. When people feel that they are reduced to objects and instruments, they lose hearts in and loyalty to you. Can you not beware of this danger?
My God, You so love us as to give Your only beloved Son to die for us. You do not treat us, insignificant lowly creatures, as objects to please You. My Lord, my existence does not add to Your glory, but I am willing to become Your instrument to carry out Your will. So, make me a handy one that I may be able to channel Your grace to whoever I meet. Help me to win over people's hearts for Your greater glory. Amen.
Thursday, 24 January 2008
David and Goliath
God had provided (רָאָה) for Himself a king among the sons of Jesse (1 Samuel 16:1). He was David, the youngest of the 8 sons of Jesse. After his anointment by Samuel, David was filled with the Spirit of the Lord (1 Samuel 16:13). At the same time, the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul and his mental illness manifested (1 Samuel 16:14). Therefore, Saul followed the advice of his servants and asked them to provide (רָאָה)for him a man who could play (the lyre) well (1 Samuel 16:17). The same word רָאָה was used by God and King Saul. It shows that David, like Jesus, found favour in God and man (Luke 2:52). Here is how the author of Samuel described David: "... is skilful in playing, a man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech, and a man of good presence; and the LORD is with him" (1 Samuel 16:18).
David was put at the side of Saul in the court. He was able to learn first-hand the politics in the palace. He was at that time an apprentice. This was a time of king-making for his future kingship. God's arrangement is magnificent. He put Moses in the palace of Pharaoh to train him the art of leadership to disrupt the court of Pharaoh in the future. Similarly, David was coached at the side of Saul to unseat him in the future. This is the wisdom of God.
When time came, David was put in a real test. Goliath, whose height was six cubits and a span (1 Samuel 17:4) appeared on the scene. He was able to inspire terror among the soldiers of Israel. But in the eyes of David, Goliath was "this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God" (1 Samuel 17:26). David was determined to eliminate him in the name of the Lord of hosts. The rest is history.
A literary note: When we read 1 Samuel 17 in its entirety, we may notice some cut and paste feelings. In 17:37-38, Saul blessed David and clothed him with armour himself before sending him off to fight against Goliath. But in 17:55, Saul did not seem to know the young man going forth against Goliath. He asked his commander Abner to find out. In 17:54, David brought the head of Goliath to Jerusalem. But in 17:57, Abner brought David, who was still holding Goliath's head in his hand, to Saul. Probably, chapter 17 was not written in one go, but is a compilation of various sources or traditions.
David killed Goliath because he defiled God. But David never laid his hand on Saul whom God had once anointed, even though Saul chased after him to kill him. In the end, Saul killed himself in battle. Similarly, we should not lay our hands on the Principal. Let his destiny run its course. If he departs from the path of the Lord, God will take care of the rest.
My God, my mission is to glorify you. Restrain me from doing any stupid things against my Principal. If I be of any help to him, be with me to carry out Your will. I pray that You deliver him from his illusions. I pray for many of my friends who are now in the darkness of despairs. Let Your presence be felt among us. Amen.
David was put at the side of Saul in the court. He was able to learn first-hand the politics in the palace. He was at that time an apprentice. This was a time of king-making for his future kingship. God's arrangement is magnificent. He put Moses in the palace of Pharaoh to train him the art of leadership to disrupt the court of Pharaoh in the future. Similarly, David was coached at the side of Saul to unseat him in the future. This is the wisdom of God.
When time came, David was put in a real test. Goliath, whose height was six cubits and a span (1 Samuel 17:4) appeared on the scene. He was able to inspire terror among the soldiers of Israel. But in the eyes of David, Goliath was "this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God" (1 Samuel 17:26). David was determined to eliminate him in the name of the Lord of hosts. The rest is history.
A literary note: When we read 1 Samuel 17 in its entirety, we may notice some cut and paste feelings. In 17:37-38, Saul blessed David and clothed him with armour himself before sending him off to fight against Goliath. But in 17:55, Saul did not seem to know the young man going forth against Goliath. He asked his commander Abner to find out. In 17:54, David brought the head of Goliath to Jerusalem. But in 17:57, Abner brought David, who was still holding Goliath's head in his hand, to Saul. Probably, chapter 17 was not written in one go, but is a compilation of various sources or traditions.
David killed Goliath because he defiled God. But David never laid his hand on Saul whom God had once anointed, even though Saul chased after him to kill him. In the end, Saul killed himself in battle. Similarly, we should not lay our hands on the Principal. Let his destiny run its course. If he departs from the path of the Lord, God will take care of the rest.
My God, my mission is to glorify you. Restrain me from doing any stupid things against my Principal. If I be of any help to him, be with me to carry out Your will. I pray that You deliver him from his illusions. I pray for many of my friends who are now in the darkness of despairs. Let Your presence be felt among us. Amen.
Wednesday, 23 January 2008
God cheated
The love-hate relationship between Samuel and Saul was very complicated. Samuel's sons failed the people and their father. Would Samuel, in his old age, invest all of his fatherly love and expectations on Saul? It seemed probable. Such a speculation is able to explain why Samuel was angry (1 Samuel 15:11) and why Samuel mourned over Saul for a long time when God had rejected Saul (1 Samuel 16:1). The Hebrew word 'mourn' in this text is אָבַל which means 'mourn for the dead'. God's rejection is a death sentence and Samuel mourned for a long time. Samuel was very much attached to Saul.
However attached Samuel was to Saul, there would be time to terminate this emotional bond. "A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;" (Ecclesiastes 3:4). God sent Samuel to Bethlehem to anoint a new king when Saul was still alive and kicking. Samuel was afraid. Saul must have been closely watching Samuel's every movement since God had, through Samuel, made it known to Saul that He had given the kingdom of Israel to a neighbour of his, who is better than him (1 Samuel 15:28). Any irregular movement of Samuel would arouse Saul's suspicion. Not only would the life of Samuel, but also that of the future king would be at risk. Therefore, Samuel's concern was genuine (1 Samuel 16:2a). Did God deliberately provoke Saul into taking some stupid actions in order to kill him?
Now, the Lord taught Samuel how to deceive Saul: take a heifer with him to go down to Bethlehem. Tell everyone that he had come to sacrifice to the Lord and invite Jesse to the sacrifice (1 Samuel 16:2b-3). Is God allowed to do anything, even evil things in our eyes?
To a strategist, God is a greater strategist to outwit Saul. God had to protect Samuel and preserve David. He needed to ensure that His plan was unfolded to its fullness. The heifer was a simple decoy to confuse Saul of the real intention of God. Often, we employ such tactics without realizing it.
The tension between the Principal and the English Department is high. He is unable to reach out to the panel chairs of the Department. He needs to open up some inroads into the Department to get things done. Yesterday, the staff meeting was a stormy one. He failed to sell his staff deployment plan for the NSS. His salesmanship is poor. ("I don't bother to package my plan.") His logic is not consistent and hard to follow. ("You need to be patient. Let me finish first.") He doesn't like to be contradicted. ("Let us pray for more humbleness.") I am afraid nobody present would appreciate his ideas.
One day some years ago, I wore a red jacket with golden buttons. The Principal asked if it was my secondary school jacket. I did not contradict him. It was too trivial. But yesterday, the plan he tabled had not been thoroughly thought out. It would tremendously affect the future development of the school. Of course, we had to voice our inability to understand. If he insists on pushing his plan forward, he will not have our understanding. The Principal is a PhD. But he fails miserably to win our hearts. Or does he not?
Today, he called me into his office to have a heart to heart dialogue. He stressed several times we were both Catholics. In fact, John told me that from his observation, the Principal had been very restrained in the staff meeting. He would have flared up but he didn't. In particular, he had been very very patient towards my 'challenges'.
In actual fact, he needs to build a bridge into the English Department. He has antagonized both panel chairs and the English Department Secretary. I am the weakest link in the Department and am chosen. Less than an hour after our heart to heart dialogue, the Principal called and asked me "to help Shung Tak, to help the English Department and to help Brenda compile a table of projected teacher deployment of the English Department!" But I am afraid I am in no position to pass on his requests to the panel chairs. I failed miserably in mending fences. To a strategist, the Principal needs to be a smarter strategist. Unfortunately, he is no God. Worse, he denies. He always asks others to be humble instead.
My God, NSS will roll over us whether we are prepared or not. We are ill-prepared and are heading nowhere under the present leadership. But we can't just sit here like a lame duck. You have entrusted 1200 students in our hands. We can't afford to fail them. Come to our aid, I beseech Thee. I can't bear seeing Shung Tak fold up after 50 years of prayers and labour. Come Lord Jesus. May Your name be praised. Amen.
However attached Samuel was to Saul, there would be time to terminate this emotional bond. "A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;" (Ecclesiastes 3:4). God sent Samuel to Bethlehem to anoint a new king when Saul was still alive and kicking. Samuel was afraid. Saul must have been closely watching Samuel's every movement since God had, through Samuel, made it known to Saul that He had given the kingdom of Israel to a neighbour of his, who is better than him (1 Samuel 15:28). Any irregular movement of Samuel would arouse Saul's suspicion. Not only would the life of Samuel, but also that of the future king would be at risk. Therefore, Samuel's concern was genuine (1 Samuel 16:2a). Did God deliberately provoke Saul into taking some stupid actions in order to kill him?
Now, the Lord taught Samuel how to deceive Saul: take a heifer with him to go down to Bethlehem. Tell everyone that he had come to sacrifice to the Lord and invite Jesse to the sacrifice (1 Samuel 16:2b-3). Is God allowed to do anything, even evil things in our eyes?
To a strategist, God is a greater strategist to outwit Saul. God had to protect Samuel and preserve David. He needed to ensure that His plan was unfolded to its fullness. The heifer was a simple decoy to confuse Saul of the real intention of God. Often, we employ such tactics without realizing it.
The tension between the Principal and the English Department is high. He is unable to reach out to the panel chairs of the Department. He needs to open up some inroads into the Department to get things done. Yesterday, the staff meeting was a stormy one. He failed to sell his staff deployment plan for the NSS. His salesmanship is poor. ("I don't bother to package my plan.") His logic is not consistent and hard to follow. ("You need to be patient. Let me finish first.") He doesn't like to be contradicted. ("Let us pray for more humbleness.") I am afraid nobody present would appreciate his ideas.
One day some years ago, I wore a red jacket with golden buttons. The Principal asked if it was my secondary school jacket. I did not contradict him. It was too trivial. But yesterday, the plan he tabled had not been thoroughly thought out. It would tremendously affect the future development of the school. Of course, we had to voice our inability to understand. If he insists on pushing his plan forward, he will not have our understanding. The Principal is a PhD. But he fails miserably to win our hearts. Or does he not?
Today, he called me into his office to have a heart to heart dialogue. He stressed several times we were both Catholics. In fact, John told me that from his observation, the Principal had been very restrained in the staff meeting. He would have flared up but he didn't. In particular, he had been very very patient towards my 'challenges'.
In actual fact, he needs to build a bridge into the English Department. He has antagonized both panel chairs and the English Department Secretary. I am the weakest link in the Department and am chosen. Less than an hour after our heart to heart dialogue, the Principal called and asked me "to help Shung Tak, to help the English Department and to help Brenda compile a table of projected teacher deployment of the English Department!" But I am afraid I am in no position to pass on his requests to the panel chairs. I failed miserably in mending fences. To a strategist, the Principal needs to be a smarter strategist. Unfortunately, he is no God. Worse, he denies. He always asks others to be humble instead.
My God, NSS will roll over us whether we are prepared or not. We are ill-prepared and are heading nowhere under the present leadership. But we can't just sit here like a lame duck. You have entrusted 1200 students in our hands. We can't afford to fail them. Come to our aid, I beseech Thee. I can't bear seeing Shung Tak fold up after 50 years of prayers and labour. Come Lord Jesus. May Your name be praised. Amen.
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
Saul fell from grace
Today is the feast day of St. Agnes. She dedicated herself to God and suffered martyrdom at the tender age of 13. Nowadays, Christians no longer suffer the same violent martyrdom as in ancient times. The greatest persecution confronting Christians may be a rising tide of daily indifference, rather than open hostility. Modern people simply ignore Christianity, brush it aside as irrelevant. So, modern Christians suffer a different type of martyrdom, not a bloodily short one but a quietly long one. Of course, you suffer only because you are dedicated, like Agnes. Otherwise, life would be easy.
Dear St. Agnes, you have set up for us a heroic example. In your dedication to God, you were willing to endure all sorts of tortures. Pray for us modern Christians. May our dedication to God be strong enough to follow your noble example. Happy Feast Day to you, Agnes (my dear lovely colleague in Shung Tak). Amen.
Today, we continue with the story of Saul in 1 Samuel 15. Two days ago, I tried to discover the merits of Saul, to defend his character. However, the author of Samuel was not as sympathetic. When God told Samuel that Saul had turned back from following Him, had not performed His commandments, Samuel was angry and cried to the Lord all night (1 Samuel 15:11). I think I would appreciate why Samuel cried all night to the Lord. As the Prophet of Israel, Samuel was probably interceding for Saul and Israel the whole night. But I am puzzled why Samuel was angry. What was he angry about? Was he angry that Saul, and Israel as a whole, had disobeyed God? "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." (15:22).
Saul was thick-skinned enough to claim that he had performed the commandment of the Lord (15:13). When Samuel confronted him with the fact, Saul put the blame on the people "... for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen to sacrifice to the Lord your God" (15:15). Now God was Samuel's God, not Saul's! All along, Saul did not accept Samuel's God as his own God. Poor Saul, he turned around to disown God who had made him king over Israel!
Samuel said, "Though you are little in your own eyes ..." (15:17). So, I was wrong to credit Saul as being humble. After all, Saul probably suffered from inferiority complex instead. Having denounced by Samuel, Saul still tried to save his face in front of the people by insisting that Samuel should return with him. "I have sinned; yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may worship the LORD your God." (15:30). Saul was willing to do whatever he could, even to admit his sins, in order to save his face before a disobedient people! Poor Saul, how his tragic character had wound him up in such a messy situation.
My God, You are my God, not just Samuel's God. My personality is flawed yet You still accept my imperfections. Enlighten me so that I may see them clearly and improve on them with Your help. Heal me of my many flaws so that I will not bring sufferings to others, to those dear to me. Teach me to obey Your divine will and never depart from Your path. Amen.
Dear St. Agnes, you have set up for us a heroic example. In your dedication to God, you were willing to endure all sorts of tortures. Pray for us modern Christians. May our dedication to God be strong enough to follow your noble example. Happy Feast Day to you, Agnes (my dear lovely colleague in Shung Tak). Amen.
Today, we continue with the story of Saul in 1 Samuel 15. Two days ago, I tried to discover the merits of Saul, to defend his character. However, the author of Samuel was not as sympathetic. When God told Samuel that Saul had turned back from following Him, had not performed His commandments, Samuel was angry and cried to the Lord all night (1 Samuel 15:11). I think I would appreciate why Samuel cried all night to the Lord. As the Prophet of Israel, Samuel was probably interceding for Saul and Israel the whole night. But I am puzzled why Samuel was angry. What was he angry about? Was he angry that Saul, and Israel as a whole, had disobeyed God? "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." (15:22).
Saul was thick-skinned enough to claim that he had performed the commandment of the Lord (15:13). When Samuel confronted him with the fact, Saul put the blame on the people "... for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen to sacrifice to the Lord your God" (15:15). Now God was Samuel's God, not Saul's! All along, Saul did not accept Samuel's God as his own God. Poor Saul, he turned around to disown God who had made him king over Israel!
Samuel said, "Though you are little in your own eyes ..." (15:17). So, I was wrong to credit Saul as being humble. After all, Saul probably suffered from inferiority complex instead. Having denounced by Samuel, Saul still tried to save his face in front of the people by insisting that Samuel should return with him. "I have sinned; yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may worship the LORD your God." (15:30). Saul was willing to do whatever he could, even to admit his sins, in order to save his face before a disobedient people! Poor Saul, how his tragic character had wound him up in such a messy situation.
My God, You are my God, not just Samuel's God. My personality is flawed yet You still accept my imperfections. Enlighten me so that I may see them clearly and improve on them with Your help. Heal me of my many flaws so that I will not bring sufferings to others, to those dear to me. Teach me to obey Your divine will and never depart from Your path. Amen.
Sunday, 20 January 2008
Christian Unity
Today is the Sunday of the 2nd Ordinary Week. We pray for Christian Unity. The theme is:
Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18a)
I am not in the position to comment on the teachings of the other religions. But I can confidently make the statement that Christian doctrines are prone to heresies. We believe in One God, yet there are Three Persons. We believe in Jesus who is God and man at the same time. Our God is all-knowing and almighty yet He allows evils to happen. We Catholics honour Mary as the Mother of God! etc. If we stress too much on one point, we easily fall victim to heresies. It is really very difficult to keep to a middle path, to maintain a proper balance of apparent contradictions in our beliefs.
In the Last Supper , Jesus prayed "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (John 17:21) This ideal of unity is noble. But the fact is, throughout the centuries, Christians have been splitting ever since the disciples started evangelising the world. Is it a bad thing?
I believe that Christian schism is necessarily not a bad thing. Peoples are different and each one of us is unique. We have different personalities and respond differently to the same message. We embrace and cherish different experiences. In a way, diversity is suitable and good for us. Had the Church been one and uniform in human history, less people would have accepted the faith of Christianity and be saved. Haven't we read the parable of the Mustard Seed that it grows and shoots out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it (Mark 4:32)? So it seems to me that Christian schism is a necessary evil.
Let's not forget the prophecy of Second Isaiah. "... I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth" (Isaiah 49:6). As long as Christians are a light to the Gentiles, it is perfectly acceptable (to me at least) for Christians to remain split. Christians should give thanks for this circumstance.
My God, I thank You for allowing me to know You. I am proud to be called a Christian and live among a community of fellow Christians. I pray for the unity of Christians to give light to the world. I pray that we put aside our differences in liturgy, in theology and in services and work towards a unified front to proclaim the good news of Christ. I pray that we work hand in hand in charity and social justice so that the world may know You, our Father of all humanity. Amen.
Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18a)
I am not in the position to comment on the teachings of the other religions. But I can confidently make the statement that Christian doctrines are prone to heresies. We believe in One God, yet there are Three Persons. We believe in Jesus who is God and man at the same time. Our God is all-knowing and almighty yet He allows evils to happen. We Catholics honour Mary as the Mother of God! etc. If we stress too much on one point, we easily fall victim to heresies. It is really very difficult to keep to a middle path, to maintain a proper balance of apparent contradictions in our beliefs.
In the Last Supper , Jesus prayed "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (John 17:21) This ideal of unity is noble. But the fact is, throughout the centuries, Christians have been splitting ever since the disciples started evangelising the world. Is it a bad thing?
I believe that Christian schism is necessarily not a bad thing. Peoples are different and each one of us is unique. We have different personalities and respond differently to the same message. We embrace and cherish different experiences. In a way, diversity is suitable and good for us. Had the Church been one and uniform in human history, less people would have accepted the faith of Christianity and be saved. Haven't we read the parable of the Mustard Seed that it grows and shoots out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it (Mark 4:32)? So it seems to me that Christian schism is a necessary evil.
Let's not forget the prophecy of Second Isaiah. "... I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth" (Isaiah 49:6). As long as Christians are a light to the Gentiles, it is perfectly acceptable (to me at least) for Christians to remain split. Christians should give thanks for this circumstance.
My God, I thank You for allowing me to know You. I am proud to be called a Christian and live among a community of fellow Christians. I pray for the unity of Christians to give light to the world. I pray that we put aside our differences in liturgy, in theology and in services and work towards a unified front to proclaim the good news of Christ. I pray that we work hand in hand in charity and social justice so that the world may know You, our Father of all humanity. Amen.
Saturday, 19 January 2008
Saul was anointed
The Bible is an honest book. It does not flush in singing praises to her kings, heroes and God. Nor does she shy away from reporting their weaknesses and sins. She does the same even to her God. However unreasonable and offending God's actions to our sense of morality, the Bible does not try to smooth them out, to harmonize or attenuate them.
The story of Saul, the first king of Israel, or as least its outline, is well-known. He was chosen and led Israel into battles against her neighbouring countries. Saul was a strategist and won many battles and the respect from the Israelites. Later, he did not obey God's command to exterminate the entire Amalekites. (Nowadays, had Saul done so, he would have been tried in an international court for ethnic cleansing. God's command is simply repugnant to our sensibility. Anyway, that was Old Testament time when even Abraham offered his beloved son Isaac as a human sacrifice. Simply put, they held a morality different from ours.) Consequently, Saul lost God's favour. God chose another king David instead. Out of jealousy, Saul spent almost all of his time chasing after David to kill him in his remaining career. In the end, Saul and one of his sons, David's best friend, Jonathan died in a battle against the Philistines. In short, Saul was a tragic character because of his personality flaw.
We have run too far ahead and let's rewind to examine the merits of Saul a bit closer. Here is how he first appeared in this Biblical tragedy. "... he (Kish) had a son whose name was Saul, a handsome young man. There was not a man among the people of Israel more handsome than he; from his shoulders upward he was taller than any of the people" (1 Samuel 9:2). A handsome and tall young man. A good-looking and promising stuff to make a king indeed.
Kish lost (all?) his asses and sent Saul and a servant to fetch them back. After a lengthy futile search, Saul wanted to return "... lest my father cease to care about the asses and become anxious about us" (1 Samuel 9:5). Here was a son full of filial piety. He could be a good king, as least from the standard of Chinese culture. He cared about family values first. After he ascended the throne, we would expect him to bring harmonious family relations among his subjects.
Later he met Samuel whom God had earlier revealed that He had chosen Saul to be king. When Samuel told him so, Saul answered "Am I not a Benjaminite, from the least of the tribes of Israel? And is not my family the humblest of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin? Why then have you spoken to me in this way?" (1 Samuel 9:21). A humble young man indeed. Aware of his lowly origin, he would not be an arrogant king in the future. Yawheh had made a smart choice. The next morning, Samuel anointed Saul (1 Samuel 10:1). Samuel sent him away and in a place called Gibe-ath-elohim, Saul met a band of prophets and he in turn was filled with the Spirit and began to prophesied among them (1 Samuel 10:10). It showed that Saul was indeed a vessel, an instrument of God.
Filial piety, humility, strategic prowess and the Spirit of God were Saul's initial asset. He was a successful warrior-king in his early career. He did not extract wealth from his subjects, nor did he carry away their children to serve him. None of Samuel's warnings came true in King Saul. Of course, with the wisdom of hindsight, we know why Saul fell from grace.
Here is a classical problem all theologians have to face squarely. Given that God is omniscient, why does He allow such things to happen? God knows the 'future' because He resides in eternity. For Him, all (past, present and future) is present. Why did He allow His chosen one to fall? Respecting the freedom of the chosen one does not seem a satisfactory answer. What else can be said to defend this omniscience nature of God?
The TV series 'Medium' did not attract my attention at first. I thought it was some combination of ghost and detective genres. I turn out to be wrong. The episodes are rather philosophical/ethical. The heroine has some incomplete knowledge of the future through dreams. Her job is to stop crime. What must she do? Sometimes, the script writer(s) chooses the following line: if one thing does not happen, something else (worse) will.
God has complete knowledge of the future. Yet, He allows bad and even evil things to happen. Otherwise, worse eventualities will. Of course, you are free to disagree. But this is our faith in God. He is our loving Father. We trust that He will arrange the best things for our good. Many times, we wonder why the bad are allowed to prosper and the good suffer, why the incompetent are allowed to occupy the top jobs while the capable left to rot quietly at the bottom. God knows. After all, the bad and the good; the incompetent and the capable are His children. We all share His image.
My God, enlarge our hearts so that Your wisdom may reside. Trample our pride to make room for Your loving knowledge. My God, remain not in silence. We long to hear Your reassuring whispers. Happy Birthday, Wulstan. Amen.
The story of Saul, the first king of Israel, or as least its outline, is well-known. He was chosen and led Israel into battles against her neighbouring countries. Saul was a strategist and won many battles and the respect from the Israelites. Later, he did not obey God's command to exterminate the entire Amalekites. (Nowadays, had Saul done so, he would have been tried in an international court for ethnic cleansing. God's command is simply repugnant to our sensibility. Anyway, that was Old Testament time when even Abraham offered his beloved son Isaac as a human sacrifice. Simply put, they held a morality different from ours.) Consequently, Saul lost God's favour. God chose another king David instead. Out of jealousy, Saul spent almost all of his time chasing after David to kill him in his remaining career. In the end, Saul and one of his sons, David's best friend, Jonathan died in a battle against the Philistines. In short, Saul was a tragic character because of his personality flaw.
We have run too far ahead and let's rewind to examine the merits of Saul a bit closer. Here is how he first appeared in this Biblical tragedy. "... he (Kish) had a son whose name was Saul, a handsome young man. There was not a man among the people of Israel more handsome than he; from his shoulders upward he was taller than any of the people" (1 Samuel 9:2). A handsome and tall young man. A good-looking and promising stuff to make a king indeed.
Kish lost (all?) his asses and sent Saul and a servant to fetch them back. After a lengthy futile search, Saul wanted to return "... lest my father cease to care about the asses and become anxious about us" (1 Samuel 9:5). Here was a son full of filial piety. He could be a good king, as least from the standard of Chinese culture. He cared about family values first. After he ascended the throne, we would expect him to bring harmonious family relations among his subjects.
Later he met Samuel whom God had earlier revealed that He had chosen Saul to be king. When Samuel told him so, Saul answered "Am I not a Benjaminite, from the least of the tribes of Israel? And is not my family the humblest of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin? Why then have you spoken to me in this way?" (1 Samuel 9:21). A humble young man indeed. Aware of his lowly origin, he would not be an arrogant king in the future. Yawheh had made a smart choice. The next morning, Samuel anointed Saul (1 Samuel 10:1). Samuel sent him away and in a place called Gibe-ath-elohim, Saul met a band of prophets and he in turn was filled with the Spirit and began to prophesied among them (1 Samuel 10:10). It showed that Saul was indeed a vessel, an instrument of God.
Filial piety, humility, strategic prowess and the Spirit of God were Saul's initial asset. He was a successful warrior-king in his early career. He did not extract wealth from his subjects, nor did he carry away their children to serve him. None of Samuel's warnings came true in King Saul. Of course, with the wisdom of hindsight, we know why Saul fell from grace.
Here is a classical problem all theologians have to face squarely. Given that God is omniscient, why does He allow such things to happen? God knows the 'future' because He resides in eternity. For Him, all (past, present and future) is present. Why did He allow His chosen one to fall? Respecting the freedom of the chosen one does not seem a satisfactory answer. What else can be said to defend this omniscience nature of God?
The TV series 'Medium' did not attract my attention at first. I thought it was some combination of ghost and detective genres. I turn out to be wrong. The episodes are rather philosophical/ethical. The heroine has some incomplete knowledge of the future through dreams. Her job is to stop crime. What must she do? Sometimes, the script writer(s) chooses the following line: if one thing does not happen, something else (worse) will.
God has complete knowledge of the future. Yet, He allows bad and even evil things to happen. Otherwise, worse eventualities will. Of course, you are free to disagree. But this is our faith in God. He is our loving Father. We trust that He will arrange the best things for our good. Many times, we wonder why the bad are allowed to prosper and the good suffer, why the incompetent are allowed to occupy the top jobs while the capable left to rot quietly at the bottom. God knows. After all, the bad and the good; the incompetent and the capable are His children. We all share His image.
My God, enlarge our hearts so that Your wisdom may reside. Trample our pride to make room for Your loving knowledge. My God, remain not in silence. We long to hear Your reassuring whispers. Happy Birthday, Wulstan. Amen.
Friday, 18 January 2008
Cost-Benefit Analysis
It is a pity that great men like Samuel did not leave any good children. Like the old priest Eli, whom he had served in his boyhood, whose two sons were "worthless men and had no regard for the Lord" (1 Samuel 2:12), Samuel also had two sons. When Samuel became old, he made his sons judges over Israel (1 Samuel 8:1). Yet, his sons did not walk in his ways, took bribes and perverted justice (1 Samuel 8:3).
Being the Judge over all of Israel, Samuel had a very busy schedule. He went on a circuit year by year to Bethel, Gilgal and Mizpah; and he judged Israel in all these places (1 Samuel 7:16). Can we conclude from Samuel's case that you need to pay a price in order to be a great man? Samuel simply had no time to take care of the rearing of his sons. Luckily for Samuel, he did not have to pay too heavy a price for this trade-off. His sons were corrupt, but the Bible is silent about their demise (at least, not that I am aware of). However, Eli's two sons had extracted a heavy toll on him. They died in the battle in which the Art of Covenant was captured by the Philistines. When a messenger brought this bad news to Eli, Eli fell over backward from his seat and died (1 Samuel 4:18).
Back to our story, the Israelites came before Samuel to demand an appointment of a king to rule over them like all the nations because:
Samuel did not see it this way. He was offended. His ego was hurt. God had to console him and persuade him to comply with the people's demand. "Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them" (1 Samuel 8:7).
OK. God had all along been their king! Now, they wanted a human king instead. From our perspective, we will be amazed how stupid they were. Samuel listed all the evils a human king would inflict on the people:
A king is more physically tangible. You can actually hear him, see him and catch him doing bad things red-handed. He could never become an absolute monarch because he is placed between God and men. Above him, there is still a God to watch over them. God (or even the people) would dethrone him any time he did not do his job properly. The cost? Feed his appetite. The benefit? Glory, vanity, prosperity and security.
But God is different. He is intangible. You cannot hear or speak to Him directly. You need a middleman, a Samuel of some sort. God is the Giver of the Law and is above the Law. He defines what is right and what is wrong. He can even bend physical laws to work miracles. In short, God is beyond your control. The cost? You only have to offer sacrifices to God and He would not take away your sons and daughters etc. But He is unpredictable and uncontrollable. Therefore, I don't think the Israelites were stupid to choose a human king over a God-king. The consequences were history.
Back to Samuel. He did not consciously do a cost-benefit analysis to become God's prophet. Samuel did not choose to be one. Hannah offered him. God took him. So, we cannot blame Samuel for being a 'lousy' father.
A few years ago when I contemplated the possibility to become a perpetual deacon, God gave me Symphorian. So, I thought being a perpetual deacon might not be my vocation. Furthermore, I have been rather hesitant because Hilary, my eldest son, has not been practising his faith for a long time. I feel that I am not keeping my household and my health well enough. I have to give up the thought of becoming a perpetual deacon. But after reading the story of Samuel, I want to reconsider seriously this vocation again.
My God, I have been serving You and my neighbours but not devotedly enough. How shall I proceed? Show me the way ahead. Guide my steps so that I may come closer to You day by day. I pray for my son Hilary. I am confident that the piety I picked up from my father is flowing in his bloodstream. Bring him home. Amen.
Being the Judge over all of Israel, Samuel had a very busy schedule. He went on a circuit year by year to Bethel, Gilgal and Mizpah; and he judged Israel in all these places (1 Samuel 7:16). Can we conclude from Samuel's case that you need to pay a price in order to be a great man? Samuel simply had no time to take care of the rearing of his sons. Luckily for Samuel, he did not have to pay too heavy a price for this trade-off. His sons were corrupt, but the Bible is silent about their demise (at least, not that I am aware of). However, Eli's two sons had extracted a heavy toll on him. They died in the battle in which the Art of Covenant was captured by the Philistines. When a messenger brought this bad news to Eli, Eli fell over backward from his seat and died (1 Samuel 4:18).
Back to our story, the Israelites came before Samuel to demand an appointment of a king to rule over them like all the nations because:
- Samuel was already old.
- His sons were bad, did not walk in his ways (1 Samuel 8:5).
- He would play the ceremonial role of a king like all the nations.
- He would go out before the Israelites and fight their battles (1 Samuel 8:20).
Samuel did not see it this way. He was offended. His ego was hurt. God had to console him and persuade him to comply with the people's demand. "Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them" (1 Samuel 8:7).
OK. God had all along been their king! Now, they wanted a human king instead. From our perspective, we will be amazed how stupid they were. Samuel listed all the evils a human king would inflict on the people:
- He would conscript their sons into battles (8:11-12).
- He would drag their daughters into his palace to serve him (8:13).
- He would take away their fields, vineyards, orchids and their produce (8:14-15).
- He would take away their servants and cattle (8:16).
- He would take away their flocks and made them slaves in the end (8:17).
A king is more physically tangible. You can actually hear him, see him and catch him doing bad things red-handed. He could never become an absolute monarch because he is placed between God and men. Above him, there is still a God to watch over them. God (or even the people) would dethrone him any time he did not do his job properly. The cost? Feed his appetite. The benefit? Glory, vanity, prosperity and security.
But God is different. He is intangible. You cannot hear or speak to Him directly. You need a middleman, a Samuel of some sort. God is the Giver of the Law and is above the Law. He defines what is right and what is wrong. He can even bend physical laws to work miracles. In short, God is beyond your control. The cost? You only have to offer sacrifices to God and He would not take away your sons and daughters etc. But He is unpredictable and uncontrollable. Therefore, I don't think the Israelites were stupid to choose a human king over a God-king. The consequences were history.
Back to Samuel. He did not consciously do a cost-benefit analysis to become God's prophet. Samuel did not choose to be one. Hannah offered him. God took him. So, we cannot blame Samuel for being a 'lousy' father.
A few years ago when I contemplated the possibility to become a perpetual deacon, God gave me Symphorian. So, I thought being a perpetual deacon might not be my vocation. Furthermore, I have been rather hesitant because Hilary, my eldest son, has not been practising his faith for a long time. I feel that I am not keeping my household and my health well enough. I have to give up the thought of becoming a perpetual deacon. But after reading the story of Samuel, I want to reconsider seriously this vocation again.
My God, I have been serving You and my neighbours but not devotedly enough. How shall I proceed? Show me the way ahead. Guide my steps so that I may come closer to You day by day. I pray for my son Hilary. I am confident that the piety I picked up from my father is flowing in his bloodstream. Bring him home. Amen.
Thursday, 17 January 2008
The Ark of Covenant
Chinese are very pragmatic. Self-interest is paramount in their mind. They are willing to bend all moral principles, to bribe all their ways to get their things done. Money don't just set the world running. With money, you can bribe the ghosts (not to mention gods) to grind the mills. So, their religious attitude is not admirable at all.
However, there is no single panacea to heal all illnesses. Even if we are in possession of the Philosopher Stone and live forever, we will only be troubled with all sorts of dismays for eternity, from our immediate family, our relatives, our friends, our neighbourhood, our ... What about the Ark of Covenant, where Yahweh of Hosts resides? Shall we be free from all troubles when we are in possession of the Ark? It depends.
In 1 Samuel 4-6, we read of how the Israelites were defeated by the Philistines. 4000 Israelites were killed. So, they then took the Ark of Covenant from Shiloh into their battle, hoping to destroy the Philistines. However, 30000 Israelites were killed instead and the Ark of Covenant fell into the hands of the Philistines. The Ark had a mind of its own. It sent terrors among the people in possession of it wherever it went, in Ashdod, in Ekron until it was returned to Israel.
So, we see that the Ark is really the residence of Yahweh of Hosts. He instructed the Israelites to build the Ark as a gift from heavens. But He is not confined to the Ark, nor to the Temple in Jerusalem. He is everywhere, omnipresent, Ark or no Ark. So, once again, it proves that hardware alone is of no use. It needs software to bring it to life. I always maintain that building a Marian Shrine is of no use. It serves only a decorative purpose and people will ignore its existence when they get used to it. Unless we work to cultivate an appropriate religious atmosphere, to gather praying people around it, a Marian Shrine is just part of a landscape.
Now that the Ark is lost, but Yahweh is still among us, believers. Yahweh does not promise any freedom from troubles. Instead, His love is steadfast. He wisely makes use of sufferings to prod us to maturity, to sanctification. For His sake, we suffer. Then, we will be sanctified. Actually, it is He who suffers for our sake in Jesus. So, why complain?
My God, we are fragile and weak. We are averse to sufferings and disappointments. Help me embrace them humbly, and enable me to see that You are suffering by my side. Amen.
However, there is no single panacea to heal all illnesses. Even if we are in possession of the Philosopher Stone and live forever, we will only be troubled with all sorts of dismays for eternity, from our immediate family, our relatives, our friends, our neighbourhood, our ... What about the Ark of Covenant, where Yahweh of Hosts resides? Shall we be free from all troubles when we are in possession of the Ark? It depends.
In 1 Samuel 4-6, we read of how the Israelites were defeated by the Philistines. 4000 Israelites were killed. So, they then took the Ark of Covenant from Shiloh into their battle, hoping to destroy the Philistines. However, 30000 Israelites were killed instead and the Ark of Covenant fell into the hands of the Philistines. The Ark had a mind of its own. It sent terrors among the people in possession of it wherever it went, in Ashdod, in Ekron until it was returned to Israel.
So, we see that the Ark is really the residence of Yahweh of Hosts. He instructed the Israelites to build the Ark as a gift from heavens. But He is not confined to the Ark, nor to the Temple in Jerusalem. He is everywhere, omnipresent, Ark or no Ark. So, once again, it proves that hardware alone is of no use. It needs software to bring it to life. I always maintain that building a Marian Shrine is of no use. It serves only a decorative purpose and people will ignore its existence when they get used to it. Unless we work to cultivate an appropriate religious atmosphere, to gather praying people around it, a Marian Shrine is just part of a landscape.
Now that the Ark is lost, but Yahweh is still among us, believers. Yahweh does not promise any freedom from troubles. Instead, His love is steadfast. He wisely makes use of sufferings to prod us to maturity, to sanctification. For His sake, we suffer. Then, we will be sanctified. Actually, it is He who suffers for our sake in Jesus. So, why complain?
My God, we are fragile and weak. We are averse to sufferings and disappointments. Help me embrace them humbly, and enable me to see that You are suffering by my side. Amen.
Wednesday, 16 January 2008
God's call
God does His things in various ways. Sometimes, He does them Himself. In other times, He calls different people to work out His decree. For example, Abraham, Moses, Samuel and the many prophets, even Babylonian and Persian kings in the Old Testament. Today, we read the call of Samuel in 1 Samuel 3:1-10, 19-20.
1 Samuel 3:1 sets the atmosphere at that time. The boy Samuel was ministering the Lord under a priest called Eli. But in those days, the revelation of God was rare. In 1 Samuel 3:3, we read of the existence of a temple in Shiloh where the Ark of Covenant dwelled. The temple was served by Eli. He was old and blind. The boy Samuel served him at that time. So, there was already a temple to house the Ark before Solomon's time.
1 Samuel 3:7 continues to explain that at that time, Samuel did not know the Lord. So, when God called Samuel, he thought that Eli was calling him at night. He ran to Eli who sent him back to sleep. God called Samuel three times. The third time, Eli understood that the Lord was calling Samuel to His service (3:8). So, he taught him how to respond to the call "Speak, LORD, for thy servant hears." (3:9). God called the fourth time and Samuel knew how to answer.
And Samuel grew, and the LORD was with him and let none of his words fall to the ground. (3:19)
The experience of Samuel was a true representation of many of us. Serving in the temple did not necessarily make Samuel know the Lord. Similarly, being baptised, going to church on Sundays, studying for a biblical diploma ... etc. do not necessarily guarantee us an intimate union with God. Of course, our title is still a Christian. Going into the classroom to teach does not make me a teacher. Of course, my title is but the children in the classroom do not necessarily learn anything at all from me. (Pardon me for the archaic language. Nowadays, instead of saying 'to learn with a teacher', it is more fashionable to say 'to learn from a teacher' instead.) Neither does holding a PhD make any man a competent enough principal of a school. At the end of the day, we have to admit humbly that we are all sinners in need of God's grace.
As a teacher, I cherish some convictions. I see my students as children entrusted into my hands from Jesus. It is my belief that on Judgment Day, I will be held accountable for all my failures, all the occasions in which I fail as a teacher. On the other hand, I have reasonable expectations on my students as well. But I can only feel pity on those who do not put in enough efforts in their studies, who spend their time on computer games and dating, who simply copy their homeworks to satisfy your requirements. Punishment is no longer an option these days. Saying the rosaries has been a constant source of support for me to go through these disappointments. If I have sounded too pessimistic, let me assure you that I have been much privileged to have been one of the teachers of very many professionals who are now contributing to this hustling city. Praise be to God!
My Lord, let me learn from blind Eli. Probably his blindness made him humble, patient, kind-hearted and wise. He had the wisdom to steer Samuel to You. May my illness make me humble and patient as well. May Your loving care warm my heart aglow. Grant me wisdom so that I may also be able to guide my students to know and love You more. Amen.
1 Samuel 3:1 sets the atmosphere at that time. The boy Samuel was ministering the Lord under a priest called Eli. But in those days, the revelation of God was rare. In 1 Samuel 3:3, we read of the existence of a temple in Shiloh where the Ark of Covenant dwelled. The temple was served by Eli. He was old and blind. The boy Samuel served him at that time. So, there was already a temple to house the Ark before Solomon's time.
1 Samuel 3:7 continues to explain that at that time, Samuel did not know the Lord. So, when God called Samuel, he thought that Eli was calling him at night. He ran to Eli who sent him back to sleep. God called Samuel three times. The third time, Eli understood that the Lord was calling Samuel to His service (3:8). So, he taught him how to respond to the call "Speak, LORD, for thy servant hears." (3:9). God called the fourth time and Samuel knew how to answer.
And Samuel grew, and the LORD was with him and let none of his words fall to the ground. (3:19)
The experience of Samuel was a true representation of many of us. Serving in the temple did not necessarily make Samuel know the Lord. Similarly, being baptised, going to church on Sundays, studying for a biblical diploma ... etc. do not necessarily guarantee us an intimate union with God. Of course, our title is still a Christian. Going into the classroom to teach does not make me a teacher. Of course, my title is but the children in the classroom do not necessarily learn anything at all from me. (Pardon me for the archaic language. Nowadays, instead of saying 'to learn with a teacher', it is more fashionable to say 'to learn from a teacher' instead.) Neither does holding a PhD make any man a competent enough principal of a school. At the end of the day, we have to admit humbly that we are all sinners in need of God's grace.
As a teacher, I cherish some convictions. I see my students as children entrusted into my hands from Jesus. It is my belief that on Judgment Day, I will be held accountable for all my failures, all the occasions in which I fail as a teacher. On the other hand, I have reasonable expectations on my students as well. But I can only feel pity on those who do not put in enough efforts in their studies, who spend their time on computer games and dating, who simply copy their homeworks to satisfy your requirements. Punishment is no longer an option these days. Saying the rosaries has been a constant source of support for me to go through these disappointments. If I have sounded too pessimistic, let me assure you that I have been much privileged to have been one of the teachers of very many professionals who are now contributing to this hustling city. Praise be to God!
My Lord, let me learn from blind Eli. Probably his blindness made him humble, patient, kind-hearted and wise. He had the wisdom to steer Samuel to You. May my illness make me humble and patient as well. May Your loving care warm my heart aglow. Grant me wisdom so that I may also be able to guide my students to know and love You more. Amen.
Tuesday, 15 January 2008
God remembered
Today, the reading covered a huge chunk of materials (1 Samuel 1:9-2:10). It covers the story of the birth of Samuel.
Hannah prayed to the Lord and vowed to dedicate her son to the Lord for life even before his conception (1 Samuel 1:11). A dedication meant a separation from the mundane world. Hannah's dedication was very much stronger than a temporary dedication, that of becoming a 'Nazarite' mentioned in Numbers 6. In both cases, the hair on the head would not be shaved within the period of dedication/separation. For a Nazarite, he should shave his head at the end of this separation period and the hair would be burnt in the fire of peace offerings (Numbers 6:18). However, for Samuel, it means he would not shave for his whole life!
The birth of Samuel restored Hannah's honour once and for all. Didn't she need to care about security in her old age? Her action made it clear that security was not her major concern. For Hannah, she believed that God would take care of her. What she did was to make a vow and ask the Lord to remember her (1 Samuel 1:11). The Lord did remember her, answered her prayer and gave her a son (1 Samuel 1:19). Indeed, Hannah gave birth to 3 more sons and 2 more daughters in the future (1 Samuel 2:21). From her story, we should have confidence in God's providence and there is no need to calculate the costs of putting our faith in God.
The Psalter always sang praises to the faithfulness, the steadfast love of Yahweh (Psalm 89). New Testament writers also claimed that even "... if we are faithless, He remains faithful" (2 Timothy 2:13). So, unlike many of us who casually make promises to ward off annoying as well as inconvenient subordinates and forget as soon as the annoying person disappears, our God will never do this however insignificant we are.
In the Old Testament, the faithfulness of God is usually expressed as God remembered. For example, God remembered the following people: Noah (Genesis 8:1); Abraham (Genesis 19:29); Rachel (30:22); Samson (Judges 16:28), Hannah (1 Samuel 1:19), Hezekiah (2 KIngs 20:5) etc. When they suffered and cried to God, the Lord remembered. How reassuring! We can boldly walk on His path and whatever setbacks we encounter, God will deliver us.
However, Samson's was a tragic story. Samson's mother was anonymous in book of Judges. All we know is that she was barren. She was instructed by an angel that a son would be born to her. This boy would be a Nazarite to God from birth (Judges 13:3-5). However, when boy Samson grew up, he went astray. Probably Samson was too strong to restrain and his parents did not raise him up, instruct him properly of the way of the Lord. Consequently Delilah, a money-loving woman, betrayed him. His eyes were gouged out and became a slave for the Philistines. Samson cried to God. God answered him but Samson had to pay for his follies with his own life. (Judges 16)
Consider a life dedicated to God. God calls many but not as many answer. Some, like me, are not courageous enough to commit. Some answer, but turn out not to be a successful venture, even a harmful one to His Church. Most likely, they have abandoned God and His grace along the way after the initial call. Their love of God fades. They have fallen victims to some Delilahs.
My God, rekindle my love for You. Make it glow until it bursts into flame to consume and purify me. Let its warmth and heat radiate to make this world a warmer place to live and to glorify You. Amen.
Hannah prayed to the Lord and vowed to dedicate her son to the Lord for life even before his conception (1 Samuel 1:11). A dedication meant a separation from the mundane world. Hannah's dedication was very much stronger than a temporary dedication, that of becoming a 'Nazarite' mentioned in Numbers 6. In both cases, the hair on the head would not be shaved within the period of dedication/separation. For a Nazarite, he should shave his head at the end of this separation period and the hair would be burnt in the fire of peace offerings (Numbers 6:18). However, for Samuel, it means he would not shave for his whole life!
The birth of Samuel restored Hannah's honour once and for all. Didn't she need to care about security in her old age? Her action made it clear that security was not her major concern. For Hannah, she believed that God would take care of her. What she did was to make a vow and ask the Lord to remember her (1 Samuel 1:11). The Lord did remember her, answered her prayer and gave her a son (1 Samuel 1:19). Indeed, Hannah gave birth to 3 more sons and 2 more daughters in the future (1 Samuel 2:21). From her story, we should have confidence in God's providence and there is no need to calculate the costs of putting our faith in God.
The Psalter always sang praises to the faithfulness, the steadfast love of Yahweh (Psalm 89). New Testament writers also claimed that even "... if we are faithless, He remains faithful" (2 Timothy 2:13). So, unlike many of us who casually make promises to ward off annoying as well as inconvenient subordinates and forget as soon as the annoying person disappears, our God will never do this however insignificant we are.
In the Old Testament, the faithfulness of God is usually expressed as God remembered. For example, God remembered the following people: Noah (Genesis 8:1); Abraham (Genesis 19:29); Rachel (30:22); Samson (Judges 16:28), Hannah (1 Samuel 1:19), Hezekiah (2 KIngs 20:5) etc. When they suffered and cried to God, the Lord remembered. How reassuring! We can boldly walk on His path and whatever setbacks we encounter, God will deliver us.
However, Samson's was a tragic story. Samson's mother was anonymous in book of Judges. All we know is that she was barren. She was instructed by an angel that a son would be born to her. This boy would be a Nazarite to God from birth (Judges 13:3-5). However, when boy Samson grew up, he went astray. Probably Samson was too strong to restrain and his parents did not raise him up, instruct him properly of the way of the Lord. Consequently Delilah, a money-loving woman, betrayed him. His eyes were gouged out and became a slave for the Philistines. Samson cried to God. God answered him but Samson had to pay for his follies with his own life. (Judges 16)
Consider a life dedicated to God. God calls many but not as many answer. Some, like me, are not courageous enough to commit. Some answer, but turn out not to be a successful venture, even a harmful one to His Church. Most likely, they have abandoned God and His grace along the way after the initial call. Their love of God fades. They have fallen victims to some Delilahs.
My God, rekindle my love for You. Make it glow until it bursts into flame to consume and purify me. Let its warmth and heat radiate to make this world a warmer place to live and to glorify You. Amen.
Monday, 14 January 2008
How do you live with 2 wives?
Today is the Feast day of St. Hilary, a bishop who fought against the Arian heresy.
It is also the birthday of my boss and my eldest son. Happy Birthday to you all. Wish you two a fruitful and successful year ahead.
The Christmas season ended yesterday with the feast of the Baptism of Jesus. Today, we begin the first ordinary week of the liturgical year. The reading today is 1 Samuel 1:1-8. It lays the background of the birth of Samuel, the last Judge and the first Prophet in the Old Testament. (Of course, Moses remains the greatest prophet of the Old Testament). It was a time of transition to a united Kingdom in the near future. After Exodus and entry into the Promised Land, the 12 tribes of Israel partitioned the land and lived in a federation without any central government. They remained autonomous and only came together in battles against invading Philistines. They had no kings, but judges to settle disputes among themselves and led them into battles against aliens. The book of Judges is a collection of incidents during this period of time.
Elkanah (God has acquired) had 2 wives: Hannah whom he loved but who bore him no child and Peninnah who bore him sons and daughters. Of course, these two women would not live peacefully with each other. Peninnah kept provoking and irritating Hannah because of her barrenness. The bible does not mention Elkanah talking to her. So, Peninnah did not seem to be a happy wife though she and her children were well provided with (1 Samuel 1:4). Given such a barren relation with Elkanah, probably she could have suffered post-natal depressions. Therefore, it was only too natural for Peninnah to vent her anger and frustration towards Hannah who could command nearly all of Elkanah's love.
Hey, do women need to be bitchy in order to remain sane in a patriarchal society? Indeed, both women suffered 'barrenness' in different areas, one physiologically and the other emotionally! Both were victims! United should they stand, victimized women of all lands! Bicker no more with each other! To live as fully human as possible, you have the right to demand more than material goods to be satisfied. You need sweet talks.
"Am I not more to you than 10 sons?" Elikanah consoled Hannah (1 Samuel 1:8). One son was enough to bring honour to a woman as well as security in her old age. 10 would be a luxury not many women dare to dream of. What's more? It took 4 women to give birth to 12 sons for Jacob. So, Elkanah claimed to bring the total honour and security of nearly four women into one Hannah! He was willing to invest into one Hannah nearly as much love as a Jacob gave to 4 women. (In fact, Jacob had only one true love, Rachel. So the Bible goes.) Even though Elkanah already had one Peninnah, he probably could still intensely love one Hannah with the love for 4 women. Wasn't it sweet?
Many a man harbours the fantasy of secret lovers, sex or no sex. Elkanah must be their dream boy. Let a woman labelled 'housewife' take care of all the chores at home. This Peninnah is usually not perfect and is troublesome. Her character is flawed. Hannah must be a dream woman who is able to satisfy all the libido of an Elkanah and never complains!
However, in monogamous societies like Hong Kong, unless a woman is capable of performing the duties of a mother as well as a vehicle of love for her man, it is little wonder that extra-marital affairs flourish. She must perform the dual duties of Peninnah and Hannah, a housewife and a lover at the same time! What a burden. With so many uncertainties around, many couples prefer not to give birth to the next generation these days. Wives can now enjoy the monopoly of their husbands' love! Lovers pure and simple. No more roles of a Peninnah. But can they or their Elkanahs do so for long? Man has to do more than providing material goods. He needs to do more than 10 sons, to love as much as a Jacob! Enough, Alex! What fantasy!
Let's not forget Elkanah's love for his God. Annually, he travelled to Shiloh to worship and offer sacrifice to Him (1 Samuel 1:3). Probably, it was only an ordinary cultic and routine duty. Still, we should cast no doubt on his piety. On the path of spirituality, we need to build up virtues from good habits. Of course, God's grace is essential. But spiritual growth requires constant efforts on our part. Opportunity knocks at the door of those who are ready, who are prepared.
My God, my heart has no room for other women besides Erminia. She is my Hannah and my Peninnah. In her, I find joy. I find You. But let my love for You and my Jesus grow beyond her. I have not loved her enough. My illness is an obstacle. I have not loved You enough. My sins are obstacles. Cleanse me of my sins so that I may love You more deeply. Heal me of my illness so that I may love Erminia more intensely. Amen.
It is also the birthday of my boss and my eldest son. Happy Birthday to you all. Wish you two a fruitful and successful year ahead.
The Christmas season ended yesterday with the feast of the Baptism of Jesus. Today, we begin the first ordinary week of the liturgical year. The reading today is 1 Samuel 1:1-8. It lays the background of the birth of Samuel, the last Judge and the first Prophet in the Old Testament. (Of course, Moses remains the greatest prophet of the Old Testament). It was a time of transition to a united Kingdom in the near future. After Exodus and entry into the Promised Land, the 12 tribes of Israel partitioned the land and lived in a federation without any central government. They remained autonomous and only came together in battles against invading Philistines. They had no kings, but judges to settle disputes among themselves and led them into battles against aliens. The book of Judges is a collection of incidents during this period of time.
Elkanah (God has acquired) had 2 wives: Hannah whom he loved but who bore him no child and Peninnah who bore him sons and daughters. Of course, these two women would not live peacefully with each other. Peninnah kept provoking and irritating Hannah because of her barrenness. The bible does not mention Elkanah talking to her. So, Peninnah did not seem to be a happy wife though she and her children were well provided with (1 Samuel 1:4). Given such a barren relation with Elkanah, probably she could have suffered post-natal depressions. Therefore, it was only too natural for Peninnah to vent her anger and frustration towards Hannah who could command nearly all of Elkanah's love.
Hey, do women need to be bitchy in order to remain sane in a patriarchal society? Indeed, both women suffered 'barrenness' in different areas, one physiologically and the other emotionally! Both were victims! United should they stand, victimized women of all lands! Bicker no more with each other! To live as fully human as possible, you have the right to demand more than material goods to be satisfied. You need sweet talks.
"Am I not more to you than 10 sons?" Elikanah consoled Hannah (1 Samuel 1:8). One son was enough to bring honour to a woman as well as security in her old age. 10 would be a luxury not many women dare to dream of. What's more? It took 4 women to give birth to 12 sons for Jacob. So, Elkanah claimed to bring the total honour and security of nearly four women into one Hannah! He was willing to invest into one Hannah nearly as much love as a Jacob gave to 4 women. (In fact, Jacob had only one true love, Rachel. So the Bible goes.) Even though Elkanah already had one Peninnah, he probably could still intensely love one Hannah with the love for 4 women. Wasn't it sweet?
Many a man harbours the fantasy of secret lovers, sex or no sex. Elkanah must be their dream boy. Let a woman labelled 'housewife' take care of all the chores at home. This Peninnah is usually not perfect and is troublesome. Her character is flawed. Hannah must be a dream woman who is able to satisfy all the libido of an Elkanah and never complains!
However, in monogamous societies like Hong Kong, unless a woman is capable of performing the duties of a mother as well as a vehicle of love for her man, it is little wonder that extra-marital affairs flourish. She must perform the dual duties of Peninnah and Hannah, a housewife and a lover at the same time! What a burden. With so many uncertainties around, many couples prefer not to give birth to the next generation these days. Wives can now enjoy the monopoly of their husbands' love! Lovers pure and simple. No more roles of a Peninnah. But can they or their Elkanahs do so for long? Man has to do more than providing material goods. He needs to do more than 10 sons, to love as much as a Jacob! Enough, Alex! What fantasy!
Let's not forget Elkanah's love for his God. Annually, he travelled to Shiloh to worship and offer sacrifice to Him (1 Samuel 1:3). Probably, it was only an ordinary cultic and routine duty. Still, we should cast no doubt on his piety. On the path of spirituality, we need to build up virtues from good habits. Of course, God's grace is essential. But spiritual growth requires constant efforts on our part. Opportunity knocks at the door of those who are ready, who are prepared.
My God, my heart has no room for other women besides Erminia. She is my Hannah and my Peninnah. In her, I find joy. I find You. But let my love for You and my Jesus grow beyond her. I have not loved her enough. My illness is an obstacle. I have not loved You enough. My sins are obstacles. Cleanse me of my sins so that I may love You more deeply. Heal me of my illness so that I may love Erminia more intensely. Amen.
Sunday, 13 January 2008
This is my beloved son
Today is the Feast of the Baptism of Jesus. This is Year A and we have Matthew's version of the story. In Matthew's story, we have a section about John's reluctance to baptize Jesus which is not found in Mark. The Baptist's disciples were most probably recruited among the Jews and the Baptist Movement did not survive in history. We have only some meagre records found in the Gospels and Acts. They posed a particular embarrassment among the early Jewish Christians because of the fact that Jesus was baptized by John. That probably explains why Matthew has this unique section of the story to defend the superior Christian position over that of the Baptist's.
Jesus told John to proceed in order "to fulfil all righteousness πληρῶσαι πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην" (Matthew 3:15). The term 'righteousness' appears 7 times in Matthew. Some are ethical in nature and in this particular passage, it is not. It is best understood as 'the will of God'. Therefore, sinless Jesus also received his baptism from John in total obedience to the will of God, just like his total submission to God's will to die on the cross for all men. Thus, God said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17). Contrast Mark's story in which God said. "You are my beloved Son ... " (Mark 1:11) which sounds more like a private revelation to Jesus alone. Matthew's is definitely a public proclamation, to the Baptist's disciples in particular.
Nowadays in Hong Kong, relationship between many fathers and their sons may be a stormy one. Men are rather reticent, in particular are afraid to reveal their feelings. Probably, due to their upbringing, men have difficulty in articulating their feelings. They are taught to be tough, to shed blood but not tears. Sons have to pick up cues to learn from their fathers who seldom speak to them and teach them face to face.
On my part, I pick up diligence, loyalty and piety from my father, a very hardworking man before his retirement. Before he left for work, he offered incense sticks to ancestors and the Bodhisattva. He had served only two employers in his entire shopkeeper career. In his earlier career, he had to work for more than 12 hours a day. There was a time in my primary schooling when he returned home after I went to bed and I had to leave for school before he rose. We were unable to speak to each other, not to mention teaching me to read and write. His working hours shortened only after he had suffered from high-blood pressure. My mum told me that when I was a toddler, he used to carry me in his arms on nightly strolls to listen to the chimes of trams. I feel sad not to be able to remember his holding my hand, walking me in a nearby football pitch in Wanchai in the evenings.
The other day, I was talking with him on the phone. I could not hold my tears back. Suddenly I realized that my father is aging.
Dear father, I am your beloved son. I love you.
Jesus told John to proceed in order "to fulfil all righteousness πληρῶσαι πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην" (Matthew 3:15). The term 'righteousness' appears 7 times in Matthew. Some are ethical in nature and in this particular passage, it is not. It is best understood as 'the will of God'. Therefore, sinless Jesus also received his baptism from John in total obedience to the will of God, just like his total submission to God's will to die on the cross for all men. Thus, God said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17). Contrast Mark's story in which God said. "You are my beloved Son ... " (Mark 1:11) which sounds more like a private revelation to Jesus alone. Matthew's is definitely a public proclamation, to the Baptist's disciples in particular.
Nowadays in Hong Kong, relationship between many fathers and their sons may be a stormy one. Men are rather reticent, in particular are afraid to reveal their feelings. Probably, due to their upbringing, men have difficulty in articulating their feelings. They are taught to be tough, to shed blood but not tears. Sons have to pick up cues to learn from their fathers who seldom speak to them and teach them face to face.
On my part, I pick up diligence, loyalty and piety from my father, a very hardworking man before his retirement. Before he left for work, he offered incense sticks to ancestors and the Bodhisattva. He had served only two employers in his entire shopkeeper career. In his earlier career, he had to work for more than 12 hours a day. There was a time in my primary schooling when he returned home after I went to bed and I had to leave for school before he rose. We were unable to speak to each other, not to mention teaching me to read and write. His working hours shortened only after he had suffered from high-blood pressure. My mum told me that when I was a toddler, he used to carry me in his arms on nightly strolls to listen to the chimes of trams. I feel sad not to be able to remember his holding my hand, walking me in a nearby football pitch in Wanchai in the evenings.
The other day, I was talking with him on the phone. I could not hold my tears back. Suddenly I realized that my father is aging.
Dear father, I am your beloved son. I love you.
Saturday, 12 January 2008
Maggie's Wedding
Today, I am supposed to discuss the rest of 1 John. But I will leave it for some future occasions if God wishes. Instead, I would like to share some thoughts on Maggie's wedding.
Though you may have the impression that I distance myself from my mum and in fact you may be right to a certain extent because I live far away from her. She lives in Chai Wan with my younger brother who is 2 years my junior and unmarried, and I live in Tuen Mun. However, I know very well that her blood is flowing in my veins. Half of her DNAs are in every one of my cells and I have inherited much of her personality. What is more, she gave me a dramatic voice. I regret that I do not develop it well. Teaching and pipe-smoking take their toll on my voice. Anyway, I keep singing in the church choir. In particular, I like to sing in wedding ceremonies.
In one of the wedding masses I attended, the priest told the congregation that many participants were probably non-Catholics and they would be much impressed by the liturgy. I told myself that it is an excellent opportunity of evangelization! So, I try my best to satisfy all requests of singing in wedding ceremonies.
Reluctantly, I have to decline Maggie's invitation to sing in her wedding mass because I am attending a Biblical Spirituality course. Earlier, another parisher asked me to sing in her son's wedding and regrettably, I declined as well because of a crash with this course. In fact, even if I attended Maggie's wedding, I would not be unfair to this young gentleman. After all, Maggie was my colleague. Love overcomes justice!
Maggie is a lovely bride. She has been very active in the diocese, especially in the Justice and Peace Commission. I was able to see her pleasant character shine forth when we attended a seminar for New Senior Secondary E&RS. She is such an adorable young lady. I feel indebted for failing to attend her wedding.
I tried my best to do something in compensation. An occasion arose when my 5J students wanted to offer a popular wedding song in her wedding mass. Maggie taught them English last year. I took the opportunity. None of them is Catholic. But we have a topic on Family & Marriage in the HKCEE RS exam syllabus. It is indeed a golden learning opportunity for them to attend a wedding mass. So, I decided to spend 3 RS lessons to train them all other hymns in the wedding mass. However, they would not have me to conduct them in the ceremony because I would be attending my Biblical Spirituality course at the same moment. This is the crown jewel of all the courses I have attended.
Why should I attend the courses of Catholic Biblical Institute? Do I covet the diploma from Jerusalem? Of course! Do I desire to accumulate more biblical knowledge? Of course! But diploma and knowledge alone will not bring me any closer to my God and my Saviour. I need to learn and practise spirituality in order to attain a transformative union with my God.
Today my heart accompanies my 5J boys and girls and I wish they sing with their hearts too. I believe they do. I also wish they would be inspired by the liturgy and the vow of commitment the bride and the groom make in front of the whole congregation. For us married couples, this will be a wonderful occasion to renew our commitment to each other, an assurance of our sanctification vocation in the married state. For unmarried young people, this will be a solemn occasion for them to reflect on their election. For widows and widowers, this will be a sweet memory and a source of joy from the station of life they have once occupied. For those who has chosen celibacy for noble reasons, this occasion will throw their election in sharp contrast and spur them on.
May God shower us all with abundant grace to follow the paths He has arranged for us to home in to Him. Amen.
Comment from Maggie:
Thank you so much.......It's the grace from God that we could be colleagues, even though it's just a short time. Yes, they were excellent!!! I could feel their blessings from their hearts, even though none of them are Catholics, they tried their best to take part in the entire ceremony.
Thank you so much.....In fact, I have learnt another lesson from you and through them I could GET your blessings and prayers, really!!! Thanks again for your gift.
I would not let you down and I could tell you, we, me and Dickson, would try our best to be the witness of God's love.
Though you may have the impression that I distance myself from my mum and in fact you may be right to a certain extent because I live far away from her. She lives in Chai Wan with my younger brother who is 2 years my junior and unmarried, and I live in Tuen Mun. However, I know very well that her blood is flowing in my veins. Half of her DNAs are in every one of my cells and I have inherited much of her personality. What is more, she gave me a dramatic voice. I regret that I do not develop it well. Teaching and pipe-smoking take their toll on my voice. Anyway, I keep singing in the church choir. In particular, I like to sing in wedding ceremonies.
In one of the wedding masses I attended, the priest told the congregation that many participants were probably non-Catholics and they would be much impressed by the liturgy. I told myself that it is an excellent opportunity of evangelization! So, I try my best to satisfy all requests of singing in wedding ceremonies.
Reluctantly, I have to decline Maggie's invitation to sing in her wedding mass because I am attending a Biblical Spirituality course. Earlier, another parisher asked me to sing in her son's wedding and regrettably, I declined as well because of a crash with this course. In fact, even if I attended Maggie's wedding, I would not be unfair to this young gentleman. After all, Maggie was my colleague. Love overcomes justice!
Maggie is a lovely bride. She has been very active in the diocese, especially in the Justice and Peace Commission. I was able to see her pleasant character shine forth when we attended a seminar for New Senior Secondary E&RS. She is such an adorable young lady. I feel indebted for failing to attend her wedding.
I tried my best to do something in compensation. An occasion arose when my 5J students wanted to offer a popular wedding song in her wedding mass. Maggie taught them English last year. I took the opportunity. None of them is Catholic. But we have a topic on Family & Marriage in the HKCEE RS exam syllabus. It is indeed a golden learning opportunity for them to attend a wedding mass. So, I decided to spend 3 RS lessons to train them all other hymns in the wedding mass. However, they would not have me to conduct them in the ceremony because I would be attending my Biblical Spirituality course at the same moment. This is the crown jewel of all the courses I have attended.
Why should I attend the courses of Catholic Biblical Institute? Do I covet the diploma from Jerusalem? Of course! Do I desire to accumulate more biblical knowledge? Of course! But diploma and knowledge alone will not bring me any closer to my God and my Saviour. I need to learn and practise spirituality in order to attain a transformative union with my God.
Today my heart accompanies my 5J boys and girls and I wish they sing with their hearts too. I believe they do. I also wish they would be inspired by the liturgy and the vow of commitment the bride and the groom make in front of the whole congregation. For us married couples, this will be a wonderful occasion to renew our commitment to each other, an assurance of our sanctification vocation in the married state. For unmarried young people, this will be a solemn occasion for them to reflect on their election. For widows and widowers, this will be a sweet memory and a source of joy from the station of life they have once occupied. For those who has chosen celibacy for noble reasons, this occasion will throw their election in sharp contrast and spur them on.
May God shower us all with abundant grace to follow the paths He has arranged for us to home in to Him. Amen.
Comment from Maggie:
Thank you so much.......It's the grace from God that we could be colleagues, even though it's just a short time. Yes, they were excellent!!! I could feel their blessings from their hearts, even though none of them are Catholics, they tried their best to take part in the entire ceremony.
Thank you so much.....In fact, I have learnt another lesson from you and through them I could GET your blessings and prayers, really!!! Thanks again for your gift.
I would not let you down and I could tell you, we, me and Dickson, would try our best to be the witness of God's love.
January 15, 2008.
Friday, 11 January 2008
3 witnesses
We continue to read 1 John 5:5-13.
John maintained that Jesus is the Son of God who came by water and blood διʼ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος. He emphasizes that it was not just the water, but with the water and the blood ἀλλʼ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι (1 John 5:6). What does he mean? Jesus, the Son of God, came by/with the water and the blood. Does John refer to the scene of the piercing of the side of Jesus at crucifixion (John 19:34-35)? Why were water and blood so important for John and his community?
John said that there are three witnesses, not just 2: the Spirit, which is the truth (1 John 5:7), the water and the blood, and these three agree (1 John 5:8). So, according to John, the water and the blood are witnesses to some crucial moments in the life of Jesus. In these moments, Jesus' identity as the Son of God is demonstrated.
Was it his baptism? No, because no blood was involved. Was it his transfiguration? No, there was neither blood nor water. But in both occasions, the voice from heaven bore witnesses that Jesus is the beloved Son of the Father. However, this is not the case in the gospel of John. The Baptist, rather than the voice from heaven, said that Jesus is the Son of God (John 1:34). Obviously, here we are dealing with a Johannine tradition which is different from the traditions from the other communities. Moreover, the Johannine community did not hand down any account of the Transfiguration. Therefore, the author of 1 John did not have the baptism of Jesus in mind to demonstrate the Son of God identity.
Now, let's turn to the passion scene. There were water and blood, which in John's framework, bore witnesses to Jesus. But to which aspect of Jesus? On the surface, we can safely hypothesize that it was the humanity of Jesus. The water and the blood were visible. They bore witness to the humanity of Jesus. Jesus had surely died to clean us of our sins.
But John would not be satisfied with just the humanity of Jesus! The divinity of Jesus was always in his mind. However, in Jesus' death scene, in the darkest moment of known human history, no voice came down from heaven, like baptism or transfiguration. The Father was nowhere to be found. If the Father was not there, would the Holy Spirit do the job instead?
What did the Spirit bear witness to Jesus?
Unlike the brevity of the Synoptic gospels (less than half a verse), John records the Baptist's witness that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit in a more elaborate manner (John 1:29-34) There, not only was Jesus' identity as the Son of God highlighted, but also that of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου (John 1:29). It is interesting to see that 'the sin' is singular.
So, in John's tradition, the Holy Spirit, not the Father, bore witness to the divinity of Jesus in the baptism scene. It will be interesting to find out the whereabout of the Holy Spirit in the Passion scene.
For the time being, to keep this daily reflection simple, it is easier to handle 1 John 5:8 as if it refers to different moments in Jesus' life --- his baptism where the Holy Spirit bore witness to his divinity and his passion where the water and the blood bore witness to his humanity. If we can locate the Holy Spirit in the Passion scene, we can even do away with the baptism as well!
Does the passion scene tell us that Jesus is the Son of God? In Luke, it is very explicit. Jesus prayed for those who nailed him. "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). Jesus uttered this prayer with his last breath. "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!" (Luke 23:46).
Unluckily, there is no such records in the tradition of the Johannine community. Jesus was still the son of Mary (John 19:26). The details of his Passion fulfilled prophecies in the Old Testament:
In Old Testament thoughts, the term 'the son(s) of God' usually refers to angels. Later, it refers to kings who are adopted at the enthronement ceremony by God as sons to rule the people, but never as the Son of God as understood in New Testament theology. However, it was possible that John wanted to enrich and extend the scope of meaning of the son of God by applying these psalms and Zechariah prophecy to the details in Jesus' passion. (Am I guilty of anachronism, for projecting present day understanding back to ancient writers?)
In sum, the passion narratives of the gospels have demonstrated not only the humanity but also the divinity of Jesus as well. Jesus, the Son of God as well as the Lamb of God, is truly human and has truly died on the cross to save us.
Back to 1 John 5:8. The author was referring to the passion scene where water & blood had demonstrated the humanity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, through the psalms and prophecy it inspired, bore witness to Jesus' divinity. What is more, the author claims that these 3 witnesses agree! It is NOT contradictory to combine the divinity of Jesus with his humanity. The divine God is capable of suffering and death.
What a mystery! The Holy Spirit told us that Jesus is divine (the Son of God). This is not only shown in the miracles he had worked, but also in his bleeding, in his death! Jesus is God who bled, who died and had overcome death in order to bring eternal life to whoever put their faith in him. Halleluia!
This is a huge topic and I'm afraid I did not treat it proficiently enough.
Today, I attended the CEO E&RS panel heads meeting. I belong to the Curriculum Unit. I find that the members are young and energetic. I am deeply impressed and congratulate the schools they are working in. On the other hand, I feel more unfulfilled in my present situation.
My God, help me open up. Energize me with Your Holy Spirit so that in my remaining years, I may bring Jesus into the lives of my students, that they may also receive Your Holy Spirit and eternal life. Amen.
John maintained that Jesus is the Son of God who came by water and blood διʼ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος. He emphasizes that it was not just the water, but with the water and the blood ἀλλʼ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι (1 John 5:6). What does he mean? Jesus, the Son of God, came by/with the water and the blood. Does John refer to the scene of the piercing of the side of Jesus at crucifixion (John 19:34-35)? Why were water and blood so important for John and his community?
John said that there are three witnesses, not just 2: the Spirit, which is the truth (1 John 5:7), the water and the blood, and these three agree (1 John 5:8). So, according to John, the water and the blood are witnesses to some crucial moments in the life of Jesus. In these moments, Jesus' identity as the Son of God is demonstrated.
Was it his baptism? No, because no blood was involved. Was it his transfiguration? No, there was neither blood nor water. But in both occasions, the voice from heaven bore witnesses that Jesus is the beloved Son of the Father. However, this is not the case in the gospel of John. The Baptist, rather than the voice from heaven, said that Jesus is the Son of God (John 1:34). Obviously, here we are dealing with a Johannine tradition which is different from the traditions from the other communities. Moreover, the Johannine community did not hand down any account of the Transfiguration. Therefore, the author of 1 John did not have the baptism of Jesus in mind to demonstrate the Son of God identity.
Now, let's turn to the passion scene. There were water and blood, which in John's framework, bore witnesses to Jesus. But to which aspect of Jesus? On the surface, we can safely hypothesize that it was the humanity of Jesus. The water and the blood were visible. They bore witness to the humanity of Jesus. Jesus had surely died to clean us of our sins.
But John would not be satisfied with just the humanity of Jesus! The divinity of Jesus was always in his mind. However, in Jesus' death scene, in the darkest moment of known human history, no voice came down from heaven, like baptism or transfiguration. The Father was nowhere to be found. If the Father was not there, would the Holy Spirit do the job instead?
What did the Spirit bear witness to Jesus?
Unlike the brevity of the Synoptic gospels (less than half a verse), John records the Baptist's witness that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit in a more elaborate manner (John 1:29-34) There, not only was Jesus' identity as the Son of God highlighted, but also that of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου (John 1:29). It is interesting to see that 'the sin' is singular.
So, in John's tradition, the Holy Spirit, not the Father, bore witness to the divinity of Jesus in the baptism scene. It will be interesting to find out the whereabout of the Holy Spirit in the Passion scene.
For the time being, to keep this daily reflection simple, it is easier to handle 1 John 5:8 as if it refers to different moments in Jesus' life --- his baptism where the Holy Spirit bore witness to his divinity and his passion where the water and the blood bore witness to his humanity. If we can locate the Holy Spirit in the Passion scene, we can even do away with the baptism as well!
Does the passion scene tell us that Jesus is the Son of God? In Luke, it is very explicit. Jesus prayed for those who nailed him. "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). Jesus uttered this prayer with his last breath. "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!" (Luke 23:46).
Unluckily, there is no such records in the tradition of the Johannine community. Jesus was still the son of Mary (John 19:26). The details of his Passion fulfilled prophecies in the Old Testament:
- division of his garment (Psalm 22:18)
- drinking of vinegar (Psalm 69:21)
- not a bone shall be broken (Psalm 34:20)
- look on him who was pierced (Zechariah 12:10)
In Old Testament thoughts, the term 'the son(s) of God' usually refers to angels. Later, it refers to kings who are adopted at the enthronement ceremony by God as sons to rule the people, but never as the Son of God as understood in New Testament theology. However, it was possible that John wanted to enrich and extend the scope of meaning of the son of God by applying these psalms and Zechariah prophecy to the details in Jesus' passion. (Am I guilty of anachronism, for projecting present day understanding back to ancient writers?)
In sum, the passion narratives of the gospels have demonstrated not only the humanity but also the divinity of Jesus as well. Jesus, the Son of God as well as the Lamb of God, is truly human and has truly died on the cross to save us.
Back to 1 John 5:8. The author was referring to the passion scene where water & blood had demonstrated the humanity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, through the psalms and prophecy it inspired, bore witness to Jesus' divinity. What is more, the author claims that these 3 witnesses agree! It is NOT contradictory to combine the divinity of Jesus with his humanity. The divine God is capable of suffering and death.
What a mystery! The Holy Spirit told us that Jesus is divine (the Son of God). This is not only shown in the miracles he had worked, but also in his bleeding, in his death! Jesus is God who bled, who died and had overcome death in order to bring eternal life to whoever put their faith in him. Halleluia!
This is a huge topic and I'm afraid I did not treat it proficiently enough.
Today, I attended the CEO E&RS panel heads meeting. I belong to the Curriculum Unit. I find that the members are young and energetic. I am deeply impressed and congratulate the schools they are working in. On the other hand, I feel more unfulfilled in my present situation.
My God, help me open up. Energize me with Your Holy Spirit so that in my remaining years, I may bring Jesus into the lives of my students, that they may also receive Your Holy Spirit and eternal life. Amen.
Thursday, 10 January 2008
How do we love God?
Today, we continue to read 1 John 4:19-5:4
John continues to explain his idea of loving God through loving our brothers.
First of all, we are able to love because someone has loved us first. This someone is God "We love; because He first love us ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν, ὅτι αὐτὸς πρῶτος ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς"(1 John 4:19).
Secondly, no man has seen God. Therefore, how can we prove that we love God? Love our brothers! "... for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen ὁ γὰρ μὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ὃν ἑώρακεν, τὸν θεὸν ὃν οὐχ ἑώρακεν οὐ δύναται ἀγαπᾶν" (1 John 4:20).
When we read this verse casually, we definitely agree with John and probably think that he has proved that to love God, we must love our brothers. No. Not yet! Even if this statement of John is true, it is not very encouraging because its negation does not guarantee that we can love God.
This is a simple exercise of logic. Given "If P then Q", we cannot conclude that "not P then not Q". So, let P be (he does not love his brother) and Q be (he cannot love God). 1 John 4:20 can be expressed as "If P then Q". Sadly, we cannot conclude that "not P then not Q" which is "if he loves his brother, he can love God". In John's own words, we cannot draw the conclusion that we love God when we love our brothers! We can only say that we love our brothers if we love God.
So, where is the ground for John's position that we love God through loving our brothers? This is expressed as a commandment, not as a conditional: And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also (1 John 4:21). When it is a commandment from God, it allows for no exceptions. (The previous statement is shaky because God forbids killing men in the Ten Commandments, but in real world, sometimes we must kill in order to save lives and to protect the innocent!) Loving God is equated with loving one's brothers. We show our love of God by obeying His commandments (1 John 5:2).
How do we know God's commandments? From the Bible. God gave His commandments to Moses to pass them on to the Israelites. This is the Old Testament. In these last days, God spoke to us through Jesus (Hebrews 1:2). This is the New Testament. Christians see the fulfillment of all the promises God made in the time of Old Testament in the New.
This epistle of John has a particular theology. Earlier on, the author of this epistle talks about keeping Jesus' commandments as if they are God's commandments. He also talks about perfecting our love for God and about abiding in Jesus (1 John 2:3-6). Therefore, the epistle as a whole, does not attempt to distinguish vigorously between Jesus and God. Now, life becomes easier for Christians because they don't have to worship a God who cannot be perceived through their senses. They have a more tangible Jesus instead. Jesus did not claim his divine status in order to make God more accessible to mankind. Now, by keeping Jesus' commandments, Christians are obeying God's commandments. They are loving God.
Shung Tak is a Catholic Diocesan school in Hong Kong. However, her religious atmosphere is thin. Religious Studies as a public examination subject is not popular like Economics or Physics. Students are pragmatic and find little utility in RS. The school administration is not putting enough effort in uplifting the morale, not to mention the mission of evangelization. School administrators are apologetic for the inconvenience caused by the religion of the school and are always ready to concede. Religion is dispensable.
Example #1:
As a Catholic school, RS used to be a compulsory public examination subject offered to all 5 classes of S5. Two of them study science. There was one stronger class which took Additional Maths. The weaker class had no Additional Maths and took Computer Studies instead. In order to boost the result of CS in the public exam., the school 'yielded' to the demand from the stronger class to have the best of both worlds. The students wanted to take both Add. Maths. and CS. As a result, the school allowed the stronger class to drop RS in order to take CS. Religion is dispensable.
Example #2:
When I first came to Shung Tak, the RS panel-chair told me that the school did not respect RS. I thought respect had to be earned. Catholic teachers in the school should work in more visible ways to allow their faith to shine forth.
Later, I discovered that the Principal did not get along well with the parish priest and took the earliest opportunity to move the school away from the church to the present site where the nearest chapel is a 10-minute walk away. I further discovered that despite the heavy marking load of RS paper (9 pieces of composition), it is always assigned near the end of S5 Mock Examination schedule. The administration has a very laudable and legitimate reason: they simply follow the public exam schedule! My God! Only a tiny percentage of candidates in Hong Kong take RS. So it is reasonable to assign RS to a later time. But here in Shung Tak, 80% of students take the subject!
A Catholic school should tell her students that she takes RS seriously. The proper place of RS in the mock exam schedule should be the first! Religion is indispensable.
My God. You know my frustrations through and through. Grant me strength so that I may be able to suffer humbly for Your sake. Bestow on me patience and faith so that I may continue to love my students you have entrusted in my hand. Be with me so that I will be able to love and support my colleagues. Amen
John continues to explain his idea of loving God through loving our brothers.
First of all, we are able to love because someone has loved us first. This someone is God "We love; because He first love us ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν, ὅτι αὐτὸς πρῶτος ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς"(1 John 4:19).
Secondly, no man has seen God. Therefore, how can we prove that we love God? Love our brothers! "... for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen ὁ γὰρ μὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ὃν ἑώρακεν, τὸν θεὸν ὃν οὐχ ἑώρακεν οὐ δύναται ἀγαπᾶν" (1 John 4:20).
When we read this verse casually, we definitely agree with John and probably think that he has proved that to love God, we must love our brothers. No. Not yet! Even if this statement of John is true, it is not very encouraging because its negation does not guarantee that we can love God.
This is a simple exercise of logic. Given "If P then Q", we cannot conclude that "not P then not Q". So, let P be (he does not love his brother) and Q be (he cannot love God). 1 John 4:20 can be expressed as "If P then Q". Sadly, we cannot conclude that "not P then not Q" which is "if he loves his brother, he can love God". In John's own words, we cannot draw the conclusion that we love God when we love our brothers! We can only say that we love our brothers if we love God.
So, where is the ground for John's position that we love God through loving our brothers? This is expressed as a commandment, not as a conditional: And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also (1 John 4:21). When it is a commandment from God, it allows for no exceptions. (The previous statement is shaky because God forbids killing men in the Ten Commandments, but in real world, sometimes we must kill in order to save lives and to protect the innocent!) Loving God is equated with loving one's brothers. We show our love of God by obeying His commandments (1 John 5:2).
How do we know God's commandments? From the Bible. God gave His commandments to Moses to pass them on to the Israelites. This is the Old Testament. In these last days, God spoke to us through Jesus (Hebrews 1:2). This is the New Testament. Christians see the fulfillment of all the promises God made in the time of Old Testament in the New.
This epistle of John has a particular theology. Earlier on, the author of this epistle talks about keeping Jesus' commandments as if they are God's commandments. He also talks about perfecting our love for God and about abiding in Jesus (1 John 2:3-6). Therefore, the epistle as a whole, does not attempt to distinguish vigorously between Jesus and God. Now, life becomes easier for Christians because they don't have to worship a God who cannot be perceived through their senses. They have a more tangible Jesus instead. Jesus did not claim his divine status in order to make God more accessible to mankind. Now, by keeping Jesus' commandments, Christians are obeying God's commandments. They are loving God.
Shung Tak is a Catholic Diocesan school in Hong Kong. However, her religious atmosphere is thin. Religious Studies as a public examination subject is not popular like Economics or Physics. Students are pragmatic and find little utility in RS. The school administration is not putting enough effort in uplifting the morale, not to mention the mission of evangelization. School administrators are apologetic for the inconvenience caused by the religion of the school and are always ready to concede. Religion is dispensable.
Example #1:
As a Catholic school, RS used to be a compulsory public examination subject offered to all 5 classes of S5. Two of them study science. There was one stronger class which took Additional Maths. The weaker class had no Additional Maths and took Computer Studies instead. In order to boost the result of CS in the public exam., the school 'yielded' to the demand from the stronger class to have the best of both worlds. The students wanted to take both Add. Maths. and CS. As a result, the school allowed the stronger class to drop RS in order to take CS. Religion is dispensable.
Example #2:
When I first came to Shung Tak, the RS panel-chair told me that the school did not respect RS. I thought respect had to be earned. Catholic teachers in the school should work in more visible ways to allow their faith to shine forth.
Later, I discovered that the Principal did not get along well with the parish priest and took the earliest opportunity to move the school away from the church to the present site where the nearest chapel is a 10-minute walk away. I further discovered that despite the heavy marking load of RS paper (9 pieces of composition), it is always assigned near the end of S5 Mock Examination schedule. The administration has a very laudable and legitimate reason: they simply follow the public exam schedule! My God! Only a tiny percentage of candidates in Hong Kong take RS. So it is reasonable to assign RS to a later time. But here in Shung Tak, 80% of students take the subject!
A Catholic school should tell her students that she takes RS seriously. The proper place of RS in the mock exam schedule should be the first! Religion is indispensable.
My God. You know my frustrations through and through. Grant me strength so that I may be able to suffer humbly for Your sake. Bestow on me patience and faith so that I may continue to love my students you have entrusted in my hand. Be with me so that I will be able to love and support my colleagues. Amen
Wednesday, 9 January 2008
Does God's love need further perfection?
We continue to read 1 John 4:11-18.
John has written some puzzling statements. For example, 1 John 4:12. He said, "No man has ever seen God; ..." This is obviously true.
"... if we love one another, God abides in us ..." So far, so good. We can understand what John meant even literally. It follows logically from the reading of previous verses.
But the remaining part is puzzling: "... and his love is perfected in us καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν τετελειωμένη ἐστίν." (RSV) There is no ambiguity in this translation. Compare Matthew 5:48 which reads "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑμεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν."
So, what did John mean in 1 John 4:12? Has God's love not been perfect all along and needs be perfected in us? How is this 'perfection' idea related to the idea of 'seeing God'?
May be by its very nature, love is never perfect, never complete. Love is imperfect and incomplete by nature. Therefore, it seeks its fulfillment in others. It reaches perfection and completion only through another party or even the third party, the fourth etc. The Greek myth of Narcissus tells of the existential problem of self-love. Self-love is doomed to failure. Therefore, like the magnetic poles in the natural world which go in pairs, love must exist in a relationship involving 2 or more parties. Indeed, scientists are unable to isolate any 'mono' north poles or south in the natural world. Even from the perspective of evolution, higher organisms have evolved sexual reproduction which speeds up the evolution of the species concerned. For higher organisms, self-love will not be able to leave any offsprings.
God's wisdom and power are transcendantal, infinitely more potent than the human counterparts. Now, imagine God's love. If human love is incomplete and imperfect, then God's love will be the most imperfect thing in the whole universe, more infinitely imperfect and incomplete than any human love! (Am I bordering on some heresy? Please correct me!) But our God is one and trinite at the same time. In the Blessed Trinity, God's love must have been perfected and completed. Why then does God need us to perfect His love?
This is a mistake of reading a verse out of context. "No man has ever seen God." Therefore, we cannot love God directly in return. (Of course, the story of Daddy Long Leg is a fantasy.) Given that love needs another party, we will be doomed to hell if the love which God has initiated in us remains a self-love. In such case, God's love will be incomplete and imperfect. That's how the idea of 'perfection' gets related with the idea of 'seeing God'. That's how the love which God has given us is perfected if we love one another. This is the creative power of God's love. It spreads like fire and whatever it touches, the object touched will glow and burst into flames.
Again, several verses below, we read "In this is love perfected with us, that we may have confidence for the day of judgment ..." (1 John 4:17). Here John further developed the idea of perfection by pointing out to the readers that not just God's love which is in us is perfected, but we ourselves will be perfected (together with God's love τετελείωται ἡ ἀγάπη μεθʼ ἡμῶν). The confidence question is dealt with in 4:18 "... but perfect love casts out fear ἀλλʼ ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη ἔξω βάλλει τὸν φόβον)". Hopefully, we will be able to explore this topic in the future. For the time being, remember to read the verses in context.
Conclusion: God's love is perfect and complete even without us. He is generous in creating and giving us His love. This love in us will be perfected and completed if we spread it, if we love one another. Moreover, we ourselves will be perfected together with this love.
Today, Mr Yuen, the class teacher of 5J, arranged a coach to take the students to Maggie's wedding on Saturday. Once again, Shung Tak is all protective to her students. John, our vice-principal, has been complaining about our way of spoon-feeding our students to sit for public examinations. Teachers give extra lessons, pre-mocks, marking schemes etc. to the students, shoving all the materials down their throats. As a result, Shung Tak students lack the initiative, the responsibility to take care of their own learning. Can't we instead show them the map of the church where the wedding will be held and allow them to take care of the rest?
My mum has been over-protective and dominating since my childhood. I can't blame her for her good intentions. In the end, what is me? I decline all offers of responsible posts throughout my teaching career. I remain a happy and competent GM, doing everything in perfection within my duties. Panel chair? No way! Am I a victim of over-protective child-rearing practices? Sometimes, I have to admit, I vaguely feel unfulfilled somewhere, somehow!
My God, You have always been protective for my good. You allow me to make mistakes and readily forgive me. You patiently wait for me to repent. Have I been too narcissistic? Guide me and help me reach out. Teach me to let go. Amen.
John has written some puzzling statements. For example, 1 John 4:12. He said, "No man has ever seen God; ..." This is obviously true.
"... if we love one another, God abides in us ..." So far, so good. We can understand what John meant even literally. It follows logically from the reading of previous verses.
But the remaining part is puzzling: "... and his love is perfected in us καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν τετελειωμένη ἐστίν." (RSV) There is no ambiguity in this translation. Compare Matthew 5:48 which reads "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑμεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν."
So, what did John mean in 1 John 4:12? Has God's love not been perfect all along and needs be perfected in us? How is this 'perfection' idea related to the idea of 'seeing God'?
May be by its very nature, love is never perfect, never complete. Love is imperfect and incomplete by nature. Therefore, it seeks its fulfillment in others. It reaches perfection and completion only through another party or even the third party, the fourth etc. The Greek myth of Narcissus tells of the existential problem of self-love. Self-love is doomed to failure. Therefore, like the magnetic poles in the natural world which go in pairs, love must exist in a relationship involving 2 or more parties. Indeed, scientists are unable to isolate any 'mono' north poles or south in the natural world. Even from the perspective of evolution, higher organisms have evolved sexual reproduction which speeds up the evolution of the species concerned. For higher organisms, self-love will not be able to leave any offsprings.
God's wisdom and power are transcendantal, infinitely more potent than the human counterparts. Now, imagine God's love. If human love is incomplete and imperfect, then God's love will be the most imperfect thing in the whole universe, more infinitely imperfect and incomplete than any human love! (Am I bordering on some heresy? Please correct me!) But our God is one and trinite at the same time. In the Blessed Trinity, God's love must have been perfected and completed. Why then does God need us to perfect His love?
This is a mistake of reading a verse out of context. "No man has ever seen God." Therefore, we cannot love God directly in return. (Of course, the story of Daddy Long Leg is a fantasy.) Given that love needs another party, we will be doomed to hell if the love which God has initiated in us remains a self-love. In such case, God's love will be incomplete and imperfect. That's how the idea of 'perfection' gets related with the idea of 'seeing God'. That's how the love which God has given us is perfected if we love one another. This is the creative power of God's love. It spreads like fire and whatever it touches, the object touched will glow and burst into flames.
Again, several verses below, we read "In this is love perfected with us, that we may have confidence for the day of judgment ..." (1 John 4:17). Here John further developed the idea of perfection by pointing out to the readers that not just God's love which is in us is perfected, but we ourselves will be perfected (together with God's love τετελείωται ἡ ἀγάπη μεθʼ ἡμῶν). The confidence question is dealt with in 4:18 "... but perfect love casts out fear ἀλλʼ ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη ἔξω βάλλει τὸν φόβον)". Hopefully, we will be able to explore this topic in the future. For the time being, remember to read the verses in context.
Conclusion: God's love is perfect and complete even without us. He is generous in creating and giving us His love. This love in us will be perfected and completed if we spread it, if we love one another. Moreover, we ourselves will be perfected together with this love.
Today, Mr Yuen, the class teacher of 5J, arranged a coach to take the students to Maggie's wedding on Saturday. Once again, Shung Tak is all protective to her students. John, our vice-principal, has been complaining about our way of spoon-feeding our students to sit for public examinations. Teachers give extra lessons, pre-mocks, marking schemes etc. to the students, shoving all the materials down their throats. As a result, Shung Tak students lack the initiative, the responsibility to take care of their own learning. Can't we instead show them the map of the church where the wedding will be held and allow them to take care of the rest?
My mum has been over-protective and dominating since my childhood. I can't blame her for her good intentions. In the end, what is me? I decline all offers of responsible posts throughout my teaching career. I remain a happy and competent GM, doing everything in perfection within my duties. Panel chair? No way! Am I a victim of over-protective child-rearing practices? Sometimes, I have to admit, I vaguely feel unfulfilled somewhere, somehow!
My God, You have always been protective for my good. You allow me to make mistakes and readily forgive me. You patiently wait for me to repent. Have I been too narcissistic? Guide me and help me reach out. Teach me to let go. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)