In Genesis 18, we read of God appearing as three men before Abraham. I argued that this cannot be used as any evidence of proving the concept of the Blessing Trinity from the Old Testament. I quoted some pet theories of scholars such as "royal plurality" and "hosts of angels" to explain. I even hypothesized that this might be the leftovers, the fossil evidence of the transition from polytheism to monotheism. After reading further, the question should be settled once and for all.
The story continues with the famous Bargain Story between God and Abraham. It is a perpetual pleasure to read of the bargaining tactics of Abraham. He was arguing from an inferior position and knew where to stop. It goes like this.
The three men set off to Sodom. Abraham accompanied them to show them the way. He had already extended hospitality towards these strangers and fulfilled the obligations of Near East customs. Abraham was rewarded with the promise of the birth of a son from Sarah because of his generosity (Genesis 18:10). Now, he finished his obligations by setting these strangers on their way.
Then the men set out from there, and they looked toward Sodom; and Abraham went with them to set them on their way (Genesis 18:16).
Only then did God call Abraham by name. God showed His appreciation of Abraham's integrity.
The LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do,
seeing that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by him?
No, for I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice; so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him." (Genesis 18:17-19)
The language is a bit difficult for us to understand. God refers to Himself as a third person. Instead of saying my way, He said the way of the Lord instead. Instead of saying I may bring ... , He said the Lord may bring ... instead. Why? I have no satisfactory explanation.
So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham still stood before the LORD (Genesis 18:22).
Two of them went ahead, leaving God and Abraham to continue the Bargain Story. Later, we learn that these two men were angels.
The two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth (Genesis 19:1).
Therefore, we now know that God brought along two angels to meet Abraham. The "hosts of angels" explanation prevails.
Now let us turn to the Bargain Story. First of all, why did Abraham bother to save the two wicked cities? It was all because of Lot. When he separated with his uncle Abram, Lot moved to Sodom. He was captured and carried away as a bystander at the battle among 9 chieftains. Abraham saved him. Now, some 25 years later, Abraham took action again to save his nephew. Very likely, had Isaac not been born, Lot would have become the legitimate next-of-kin to inherit the estates after the demise of Abraham.
Abraham was a seasoned negotiator. Watch how he opened the bargain.
Then Abraham drew near, and said, "Wilt thou indeed destroy the righteous with the wicked?
Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt thou then destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it?
Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:23-25)
Abraham took the initiative and the role as a reminder to remind God that He was righteous. If God destroys the righteous with the wicked, God is not righteous. The logic was simple and persuasive. Of course, God needs no reminder. Then why did Abraham open with such a high bid --- 50 righteous men? I think in ancient Near East, bargaining had already been established into a kind of ritual. Setting a high opening bid was probably a sign of respect. If Abraham set the opening at a lower bid, there would not be much room for further bargain. Probably, the number of rounds was also an indicator of honour. In short, bargaining might have been a ritual as well as a means to achieve profit.
Then, Abraham began to play on margins. But first of all, he switched his role. Instead of reminding God of His kindness, Abraham acknowledged his lowliness.
Abraham answered, "Behold, I have taken upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes.
Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking? Wilt thou destroy the whole city for lack of five?" (Genesis 18:27-28a)
Gaining a toehold, Abraham advanced his foot.
Again he spoke to him, and said, "Suppose forty are found there." (Genesis 18:29a)
And Abraham elbowed his way further.
Then he said, "Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak. Suppose thirty are found there." (Genesis 18:30a)
And further Abraham went, forgetting to mention his lowliness.
He said, "Behold, I have taken upon myself to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there." (Genesis 18:31a)
Here came the closing bid.
Then he said, "Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak again but this once. Suppose ten are found there." (Genesis 18:32a)
After five rounds of bid, God left. Game over. A deal was struck.
And the LORD went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place (Genesis 18:33).
Some scholars speculate that had Abraham persisted, one righteous man would be enough to save the cities. This is likely. One righteous Jesus is enough to save the whole world!
I have to apologize to my lady readers for the indecent language I have to use. Genesis 19 is a disgusting story to read, hinting at sodomy, gang-bang and incest. The names of the two cities have become obscene. Sodomy (Sodom) is the sexual act of penetrating the anus with the penis and Gonorrhoea (Gomorrah) a sexually transmitted disease. A pillar of salt in the desert (Genesis 19:26) is a reminder of Lot's wife who did not obey the instruction of the two angels and looked back to see how God destroyed the two sinful cities with brimstones and fire (an asteroid of just the right size to annihilate them?). Moabites were the fruits of incest between Lot and his elder daughter (Genesis 19:37) and Ammorites that of his younger daughter (Genesis 19:38) after they escaped to Zoar. It is a racist etymology story. Other details in Genesis 19 are offending to the sensibilities of readers in general. Man can be very degrading indeed.
Last year, the undergrads of CUHK included an erotic section in their newspaper. The general public was outraged and sent it to the Obscene Articles Tribunal for scrutiny and classification. Immediately, the Tribunal received many complaints about obscene passages in the Old Testament. People wondered if ancient, classical and sacred texts could be exempted from classification. In the end, OAT returned a Category I verdict which drew criticisms of not being transparent and professional from the Court of Law in Hong Kong. The general public is in need of more "media education".
Dear Lord, righteousness and mercy belong to You. Look on the poverty of Your people and make us live. Amen.
Tuesday 30 June 2009
Monday 29 June 2009
Feast of Ss. Peter & Paul
Peter and Paul were two most unlikely people to whom God would entrust the building of the Church. On their own, Peter and Paul were not charismatic enough to lead even a tiny band of rebels. Yet, God did build the Church on them and the Church is still alive and kicking. That is why Christianity is a very special religion. It is not built, nor maintained by human wisdom and enlightenment alone. The hand of God is involved. Today, I want to focus on Peter because we have already spent one whole year with Paul, though I must confess that I have not understood St. Paul enough.
All the canonical gospels attest directly or indirectly that Simon was a fisherman (John 21). There are different versions of the call of Simon in the gospels. It will be an interesting topic for Bible students to explore. Anyway, from the gospel reading today, we learn that Jesus renamed him Peter.
He (Jesus) said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:15-18)
Peter means rock in Greek. Cephas also means rock in Hebrew. That is why we will come across Simon Peter in different names in the New Testament. Peter is the rock on which Jesus will build his church.
Earlier, when Matthew meditates on the Sermon on the Mount, he made the following conclusion through the words of Jesus.
Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock;
and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock (Matthew 7:24-25).
Therefore, did Simon hear the words of Jesus and practise them? If Simon himself were not able to build his house upon the rock, how would he be able to become the Rock? Unfortunately, the answer is negative. For example, Jesus taught us not to resist evil (Matthew 5:39). Simon Peter struck off the ear of the servant of the High Priest to resist (John 18:10). Jesus taught us to tell the truth (Matthew 5:33-37). Peter denied Jesus three times. Simon failed miserably and repeatedly. (For a more favourable comment on Simon Peter, click HERE.)
Jesus put up the question probably he wanted to identify the true leader God the Father had chosen to head the Church in the future. Now that he had identified Simon, it was time for him to tell his disciples God's salvation plan to prepare them psychologically for the upcoming upheavals. Peter failed to accept God's plan. Peter and all the Jews were expecting a powerful Messiah to drive away the Romans. We cannot blame Simon Peter because it was the ideology of the day.
From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.
And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, "God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you."
But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men." (Matthew 17:21-23)
But Peter was also flawed in his personality. Take a look at his performance after the Last Supper. Jesus had foretold the scattering of the disciples at the imminent arrest.
And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
Then Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away because of me this night; for it is written, 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'
But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee."
Peter declared to him, "Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away."
Jesus said to him, "Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times."
Peter said to him, "Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you." And so said all the disciples (Matthew 26:30-35).
I dislike this Peter because he boasted of himself at the expense of the others. It was good for him to demonstrate his loyalty to Jesus. But he should not do it by trampling on the other apostles.
It was bad for Judas to betray Jesus. But Simon Peter did not come off any better. He came down in history to be the person who denied Jesus three times out of cowardice.
Luke has a more generous treatment of Peter in the Last Supper incident.
"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,
but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." (Luke 22:31-32)
This unique quotation is not found in the other gospels. It shows that Peter has the full support of Jesus. Jesus would protect him against the assaults from Satan. Simon has the grave responsibility to return and strengthen the brethren because Jesus had promised that His Church would never fail.
The Catholic Church is blessed indeed because her Popes are able to trace the lineage back to Simon Peter, the first Pope. There have been sinners and saints among more than two hundred and fifty people who have assumed the titles of the Vicar of Christ and the Bishop of Rome. They are able to enjoy the same protection Peter had enjoyed despite the human weaknesses they all share.
After Pentecost, Peter was totally transformed. Not only was he able to work miracles effortlessly, he also knew the Scripture well (Acts 2:16); spoke eloquently (Acts 2:37); bore witness fearlessly (Acts 4:18-22) and showed signs of prudence (Acts 10:23). In Simon Peter, it is clearly demonstrated that God takes an active part in the shaping of human history. God is faithful. He will honour His promises.
Dear Lord, at this age of mine and in such a state of health, I have no aspiration to do any great. Keep me on my path and if it pleases You, allow me to serve You in Your way. Amen.
All the canonical gospels attest directly or indirectly that Simon was a fisherman (John 21). There are different versions of the call of Simon in the gospels. It will be an interesting topic for Bible students to explore. Anyway, from the gospel reading today, we learn that Jesus renamed him Peter.
He (Jesus) said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:15-18)
Peter means rock in Greek. Cephas also means rock in Hebrew. That is why we will come across Simon Peter in different names in the New Testament. Peter is the rock on which Jesus will build his church.
Earlier, when Matthew meditates on the Sermon on the Mount, he made the following conclusion through the words of Jesus.
Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock;
and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock (Matthew 7:24-25).
Therefore, did Simon hear the words of Jesus and practise them? If Simon himself were not able to build his house upon the rock, how would he be able to become the Rock? Unfortunately, the answer is negative. For example, Jesus taught us not to resist evil (Matthew 5:39). Simon Peter struck off the ear of the servant of the High Priest to resist (John 18:10). Jesus taught us to tell the truth (Matthew 5:33-37). Peter denied Jesus three times. Simon failed miserably and repeatedly. (For a more favourable comment on Simon Peter, click HERE.)
Jesus put up the question probably he wanted to identify the true leader God the Father had chosen to head the Church in the future. Now that he had identified Simon, it was time for him to tell his disciples God's salvation plan to prepare them psychologically for the upcoming upheavals. Peter failed to accept God's plan. Peter and all the Jews were expecting a powerful Messiah to drive away the Romans. We cannot blame Simon Peter because it was the ideology of the day.
From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.
And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, "God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you."
But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men." (Matthew 17:21-23)
But Peter was also flawed in his personality. Take a look at his performance after the Last Supper. Jesus had foretold the scattering of the disciples at the imminent arrest.
And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
Then Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away because of me this night; for it is written, 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'
But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee."
Peter declared to him, "Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away."
Jesus said to him, "Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times."
Peter said to him, "Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you." And so said all the disciples (Matthew 26:30-35).
I dislike this Peter because he boasted of himself at the expense of the others. It was good for him to demonstrate his loyalty to Jesus. But he should not do it by trampling on the other apostles.
It was bad for Judas to betray Jesus. But Simon Peter did not come off any better. He came down in history to be the person who denied Jesus three times out of cowardice.
Luke has a more generous treatment of Peter in the Last Supper incident.
"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,
but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." (Luke 22:31-32)
This unique quotation is not found in the other gospels. It shows that Peter has the full support of Jesus. Jesus would protect him against the assaults from Satan. Simon has the grave responsibility to return and strengthen the brethren because Jesus had promised that His Church would never fail.
The Catholic Church is blessed indeed because her Popes are able to trace the lineage back to Simon Peter, the first Pope. There have been sinners and saints among more than two hundred and fifty people who have assumed the titles of the Vicar of Christ and the Bishop of Rome. They are able to enjoy the same protection Peter had enjoyed despite the human weaknesses they all share.
After Pentecost, Peter was totally transformed. Not only was he able to work miracles effortlessly, he also knew the Scripture well (Acts 2:16); spoke eloquently (Acts 2:37); bore witness fearlessly (Acts 4:18-22) and showed signs of prudence (Acts 10:23). In Simon Peter, it is clearly demonstrated that God takes an active part in the shaping of human history. God is faithful. He will honour His promises.
Dear Lord, at this age of mine and in such a state of health, I have no aspiration to do any great. Keep me on my path and if it pleases You, allow me to serve You in Your way. Amen.
Sunday 28 June 2009
13th Ordinary Sunday (Year B)
Fr. Andrew Kim came all the way from Korea to celebrate the ordination anniversary mass of the three priests he had worked with one and a half years ago. He was excited and felt very much at home in our parish. This young priest has a lot of fans in Tuen Mun. In fact, he is currently holding a special kind of Korean ID card and passport, indicating his special status as half Korean and half alien. Perhaps it is the usual practice of a missionary priest. Perhaps he treats himself a half Hongkonger. Indeed, he requested a parting gift of a subscription of the local Chinese Catholic weekly magazine, the Kung Kao Pao. His heart truly finds its home in Hong Kong.
Fr. Martin Ip did not co-celebrated the 11 a.m. mass with him but took up the homily. He spared Fr. Kim the burden to address the congregation. Fr. Martin jokingly said that he deprived Fr. Andrew's opportunity to speak so that he had an even greater motivation to return soon to speak. We had a good laugh and the atmosphere was jovial. Then Fr. Martin turned to the two healing stories in Mark.
Jairus was one of the rulers of the synagogue (Mark 5:22). The fact that his name got recorded in the gospel showed that Jairus must have occupied quite a high status in the early Church. In contrast, the bleeding woman remained anonymous (Mark 5:25). She might not have contributed much to the building up of the early Christian Church. Disregarding their future contribution to the church, Jesus satisfied their unique needs. In short, Jesus has made them whole, restored their losses and transformed their lives. Jesus is our Master of Life, the fountainhead of our well-being.
Fr. Martin invited a member of one of the youth groups in our parish to share her encounters with God. She is called Christina. She is suffering from cancer. Undergoing chemotherapy, this young lady has consequently lost all her hair. She is very positive in her view of life, though we don't know whether she has always been like this or she has become positive after this illness. She admitted that when she knew of her situation, she wept for 10 to 15 minutes. But she knew that crying would not change the situation and it would make the life of her parents harder. She decided to hand her life over to God to help her go through this difficulty.
There was a huge chapel in the hospital at which she underwent treatment. She loved to spend her time, sitting alone in the chapel to pray. She gained much consolation and strength in the tranquility of God. She visited other patients whose courage to endure hardship encouraged her a lot. There are many who are immobilized, who have been battling against cancer for many years. She thanked God for her failing some tests and hence her chemotherapy session was delayed for one week, making it possible for her to be baptized in the presence of us all. Now, her relationship with her family, her friends, her instructor and fellow catechumens is much enriched. In short, she feels herself totally transformed by the love of God and men. She is confident that she will overcome because she has handed her life over to God. She is learning to love God more than her life. Her sharing was very touching and edifying.
Fr. Patrick made an announcement for those of us who did not attend the banquet last night. Brien, my ex-colleague in La Salle, quitted his Chinese Panel Head position to enter the Holy Spirit Seminary this September. He has been responding to God's call generously for the last couple of years. He has been spending a lot of time taking care of the Christian formation of the young LaSallians, instructing a catechumen class in the parish, working as a committee member in the Parish Council etc. The parish broke the news at the banquet last night in a gesture to support the Year of Vocation. Brien has all my supports. I am proud of him.
The youth choir has prepared a song and it was premiered last night at the banquet for the three priests. Twenty five years ago, a hymn "As a Deer" was written. It was based on a few lines in Psalm 42. When I first sang it in March, I wept. I wanted to share it so I asked Wulstan to translate the lyrics into Chinese. He did a wonderful job in including nearly every verse of the original psalm. He finished it in the Feast of the Birth of John the Baptist and we dedicate this hymn to the three priests. Here is the lyrics and my prayer.
像小鹿渴慕甜美溪水，我靈衷心渴慕祢。
我的心與靈魂願跟主共行，縱千千百里。
我要向天主高聲唱：「吾主天主我救援。」
我的心與靈魂願跟主共行，縱千千百里。
為甚麽將我遺忘？我怎麽為何應擔起壓迫？
受冤屈、眼淚流，但一心祗冀盼得主引領。
祢領我制敵得勝，我一生當堅信聽命。
依恃主，我的天主，祢恩光照永。
為甚麽憂苦？為何悲傷如冰中添雪霜？
但看見主面顏，我終於找到再生的志向。
讚美祢賜予生命，耶穌基督，恩愛慈祥。
願我不再徬徨，共天主一起愛歌歡快唱。
像小鹿渴慕甜美溪水，我靈衷心渴慕祢。
我的心與靈魂願跟主共行，縱千千百里。
我要向天主高聲唱：「吾主天主我救援。」
像小鹿渴慕甜美溪水，我靈魂深深愛祢。我真的渴慕祢。【詠42】
Fr. Martin Ip did not co-celebrated the 11 a.m. mass with him but took up the homily. He spared Fr. Kim the burden to address the congregation. Fr. Martin jokingly said that he deprived Fr. Andrew's opportunity to speak so that he had an even greater motivation to return soon to speak. We had a good laugh and the atmosphere was jovial. Then Fr. Martin turned to the two healing stories in Mark.
Jairus was one of the rulers of the synagogue (Mark 5:22). The fact that his name got recorded in the gospel showed that Jairus must have occupied quite a high status in the early Church. In contrast, the bleeding woman remained anonymous (Mark 5:25). She might not have contributed much to the building up of the early Christian Church. Disregarding their future contribution to the church, Jesus satisfied their unique needs. In short, Jesus has made them whole, restored their losses and transformed their lives. Jesus is our Master of Life, the fountainhead of our well-being.
Fr. Martin invited a member of one of the youth groups in our parish to share her encounters with God. She is called Christina. She is suffering from cancer. Undergoing chemotherapy, this young lady has consequently lost all her hair. She is very positive in her view of life, though we don't know whether she has always been like this or she has become positive after this illness. She admitted that when she knew of her situation, she wept for 10 to 15 minutes. But she knew that crying would not change the situation and it would make the life of her parents harder. She decided to hand her life over to God to help her go through this difficulty.
There was a huge chapel in the hospital at which she underwent treatment. She loved to spend her time, sitting alone in the chapel to pray. She gained much consolation and strength in the tranquility of God. She visited other patients whose courage to endure hardship encouraged her a lot. There are many who are immobilized, who have been battling against cancer for many years. She thanked God for her failing some tests and hence her chemotherapy session was delayed for one week, making it possible for her to be baptized in the presence of us all. Now, her relationship with her family, her friends, her instructor and fellow catechumens is much enriched. In short, she feels herself totally transformed by the love of God and men. She is confident that she will overcome because she has handed her life over to God. She is learning to love God more than her life. Her sharing was very touching and edifying.
Fr. Patrick made an announcement for those of us who did not attend the banquet last night. Brien, my ex-colleague in La Salle, quitted his Chinese Panel Head position to enter the Holy Spirit Seminary this September. He has been responding to God's call generously for the last couple of years. He has been spending a lot of time taking care of the Christian formation of the young LaSallians, instructing a catechumen class in the parish, working as a committee member in the Parish Council etc. The parish broke the news at the banquet last night in a gesture to support the Year of Vocation. Brien has all my supports. I am proud of him.
The youth choir has prepared a song and it was premiered last night at the banquet for the three priests. Twenty five years ago, a hymn "As a Deer" was written. It was based on a few lines in Psalm 42. When I first sang it in March, I wept. I wanted to share it so I asked Wulstan to translate the lyrics into Chinese. He did a wonderful job in including nearly every verse of the original psalm. He finished it in the Feast of the Birth of John the Baptist and we dedicate this hymn to the three priests. Here is the lyrics and my prayer.
像小鹿渴慕甜美溪水，我靈衷心渴慕祢。
我的心與靈魂願跟主共行，縱千千百里。
我要向天主高聲唱：「吾主天主我救援。」
我的心與靈魂願跟主共行，縱千千百里。
為甚麽將我遺忘？我怎麽為何應擔起壓迫？
受冤屈、眼淚流，但一心祗冀盼得主引領。
祢領我制敵得勝，我一生當堅信聽命。
依恃主，我的天主，祢恩光照永。
為甚麽憂苦？為何悲傷如冰中添雪霜？
但看見主面顏，我終於找到再生的志向。
讚美祢賜予生命，耶穌基督，恩愛慈祥。
願我不再徬徨，共天主一起愛歌歡快唱。
像小鹿渴慕甜美溪水，我靈衷心渴慕祢。
我的心與靈魂願跟主共行，縱千千百里。
我要向天主高聲唱：「吾主天主我救援。」
像小鹿渴慕甜美溪水，我靈魂深深愛祢。我真的渴慕祢。【詠42】
Saturday 27 June 2009
Did the concept of the Blessed Trinity appear in Genesis?
The Genesis story today is very appropriate for the occasion.
And the LORD appeared to him (Abraham) by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day.
He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the earth (Genesis 18:1-2)
Can Genesis 18:2 be a prooftext for the concept of the Blessed Trinity? I am afraid the matter is far from so simple. The outcome might be worse.
Throughout history, polytheism was the norm. There was a god to explain this phenomenon, another to take care of that. But things were not of equal standing. Some were surely more important than the others. Gradually, with the rise of some sort of chieftains, ancient people would project this kind of leadership among the gods. Some gods were more powerful than others. Gods were not of equal strengths. So, the idea of the God of gods, the Lord of lords would emerge (Psalm 136:2-3). He would be the Creator God of everything. Some civilizations took another path. They had two gods instead of one to explain the coexistence of good and evil in the world.
When God created man in Genesis 1, the plural case is employed.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26)
Isn't it amazing to find the monotheistic God referring to Himself as an "us"?
Scholars prefer to speak of "royal plurality". Kings and queens address themselves in plural, embodying the whole nation. That might not be the intention of the author of Genesis. But we will never know for sure. Some scholars prefer to include angels. That is more acceptable for me. But personal tastes do not dictate the truth. Personally, I prefer an evolutionary approach. Monotheism did not come into existence out of the blue. There are many passages in the Old Testament mentioning the existence of other gods. The existence of these gods is not denied. Yet, Yahweh is the God of gods. The Bible champions monotheism. It triumphs over polytheism.
When God appeared as three men in front of Abraham, it showed that Yahweh leads a community life. We have to wait until the apostolic age to know that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit resides in the Godhead. Sorry for the language. I will study theology and will understand and speak more correctly the properties of divinity. Be patient with me.
Today was a day of great festivity in our parish. We celebrated the Diamond Jubilee of the ordination of Fr. Lejeune, the Pearl Jubilee of Fr. John Baptist Kwan and the Silver Jubilee of Fr. Patrick Sun, a total of one hundred and fifteen years of priesthood! In their homilies, they all thanked God for the grace and blessings He had showered on them. They also thanked the congregation for their support so that their priesthood had been made possible and successful. The two "younger" priests thanked Fr. Lejeune for his generous mentorship. When they were newly ordained, they worked as assistant parish priests under Lejeune. They admitted that these early years of priesthood formation were very essential for their later years as parish priests. God has so arranged that they come together in Tuen Mun to serve this community. Fr. Patrick quoted a verse from the Psalm to express the joy of their life together.
Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity! (Psalm 133:1)
Life in the priest quarter is always fascinating to outsiders. But Fr. Lajeune is always the grandfather of our parish. His mere presence is enough to spell peace. But this peace has not come easily. The career of Fr. Lejeune is colourful, to say the least. His ambition was to become a missionary priest and was sent to some minority tribes in Northern Vietnam. He was expelled by Communists to the Chinese communities in South Vietnam. At the collapse of the Saigon regime, he was expelled again and ended up becoming a parish priest in Hong Kong ever since. He patiently accepts this arrangement of God and appreciates the value of services in the parishes. Personally, Fr. Lejeune has been an inspiration for me. I also owe him a teaching contract in Shung Tak after leaving La Salle. He is humble in a dignified way.
Fr. John Baptist Kwan has been a very capable parish priest, a perceptive administrator. He will be leaving for St. Margaret parish in Happy Valley. Fr. Patrick Sun is academic as well as spiritual at the same time. He identifies himself with the underprivileged and discovers his call to serve their needs in our community.
Dear Lord, bless all priests, especially the three of them. They have worked very hard to build up a lively parish life among us. I entrust them to Your loving care. Amen.
And the LORD appeared to him (Abraham) by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day.
He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the earth (Genesis 18:1-2)
Can Genesis 18:2 be a prooftext for the concept of the Blessed Trinity? I am afraid the matter is far from so simple. The outcome might be worse.
Throughout history, polytheism was the norm. There was a god to explain this phenomenon, another to take care of that. But things were not of equal standing. Some were surely more important than the others. Gradually, with the rise of some sort of chieftains, ancient people would project this kind of leadership among the gods. Some gods were more powerful than others. Gods were not of equal strengths. So, the idea of the God of gods, the Lord of lords would emerge (Psalm 136:2-3). He would be the Creator God of everything. Some civilizations took another path. They had two gods instead of one to explain the coexistence of good and evil in the world.
When God created man in Genesis 1, the plural case is employed.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26)
Isn't it amazing to find the monotheistic God referring to Himself as an "us"?
Scholars prefer to speak of "royal plurality". Kings and queens address themselves in plural, embodying the whole nation. That might not be the intention of the author of Genesis. But we will never know for sure. Some scholars prefer to include angels. That is more acceptable for me. But personal tastes do not dictate the truth. Personally, I prefer an evolutionary approach. Monotheism did not come into existence out of the blue. There are many passages in the Old Testament mentioning the existence of other gods. The existence of these gods is not denied. Yet, Yahweh is the God of gods. The Bible champions monotheism. It triumphs over polytheism.
When God appeared as three men in front of Abraham, it showed that Yahweh leads a community life. We have to wait until the apostolic age to know that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit resides in the Godhead. Sorry for the language. I will study theology and will understand and speak more correctly the properties of divinity. Be patient with me.
Today was a day of great festivity in our parish. We celebrated the Diamond Jubilee of the ordination of Fr. Lejeune, the Pearl Jubilee of Fr. John Baptist Kwan and the Silver Jubilee of Fr. Patrick Sun, a total of one hundred and fifteen years of priesthood! In their homilies, they all thanked God for the grace and blessings He had showered on them. They also thanked the congregation for their support so that their priesthood had been made possible and successful. The two "younger" priests thanked Fr. Lejeune for his generous mentorship. When they were newly ordained, they worked as assistant parish priests under Lejeune. They admitted that these early years of priesthood formation were very essential for their later years as parish priests. God has so arranged that they come together in Tuen Mun to serve this community. Fr. Patrick quoted a verse from the Psalm to express the joy of their life together.
Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity! (Psalm 133:1)
Life in the priest quarter is always fascinating to outsiders. But Fr. Lajeune is always the grandfather of our parish. His mere presence is enough to spell peace. But this peace has not come easily. The career of Fr. Lejeune is colourful, to say the least. His ambition was to become a missionary priest and was sent to some minority tribes in Northern Vietnam. He was expelled by Communists to the Chinese communities in South Vietnam. At the collapse of the Saigon regime, he was expelled again and ended up becoming a parish priest in Hong Kong ever since. He patiently accepts this arrangement of God and appreciates the value of services in the parishes. Personally, Fr. Lejeune has been an inspiration for me. I also owe him a teaching contract in Shung Tak after leaving La Salle. He is humble in a dignified way.
Fr. John Baptist Kwan has been a very capable parish priest, a perceptive administrator. He will be leaving for St. Margaret parish in Happy Valley. Fr. Patrick Sun is academic as well as spiritual at the same time. He identifies himself with the underprivileged and discovers his call to serve their needs in our community.
Dear Lord, bless all priests, especially the three of them. They have worked very hard to build up a lively parish life among us. I entrust them to Your loving care. Amen.
Friday 26 June 2009
From Promises to Covenants
The relationship between God and Abram was one based on promises. But gradually, it evolved into a covenant.
It all began when Abram was 75. We do not know how long he had been worshipping God. But that is not significant because once again, numbers don't count.
Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you.
And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves." (Genesis 12:1-3)
Then Abram began his adventure.
Let's take a look at this "promise" from God. God would give a piece of land to Abram and make a great nation out of him. He would become famous and a source of blessing of all the families of the earth. Therefore, through Abram, God intended to bring salvation to all nations, not just the Jews who did not even exist. Though God did not mention the descendants of Abram, it was understood. Nobody wants to build up a kingdom just for himself. Surely he wants his children to inherit and expand his kingdom.
Abram did not ask for it. It was God who had freely chosen him and would generously build a nation out of him. God could have chosen another person, probably a Chinese. Therefore, it was a promise, a free gift from God.
Of course, you will disagree and say that there is no free lunch in the world. Abram had to sacrifice his (paternal) family, relationships, comfort and security in order to obtain this gift from God. Therefore, it was not at all free. You may also look at Abram as a shrewd merchant, grasping a once-for-a-life-time investment opportunity. And investment involves risks. Therefore, it was not at all free.
I totally agree with this thinking. God's promise and any opportunity offered by God, always entails a certain amount of sacrifice. When Jesus called his disciples, he made it clear that they had to give up a lot of things: relationships, property, money and power etc. Therefore, let us day-dream not that all our problems will be solved once we follow Jesus.
After the separation of Lot from Abram in order to prevent further in-fighting between the herdsmen on both sides, God reaffirmed His earlier promise. This time, descendants were explicitly mentioned. Therefore, God's promise to Abram consists of two parts: children and land. Weren't these wishes/blessings very typical in Near East?
The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, "Lift up your eyes, and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward;
for all the land which you see I will give to you and to your descendants for ever.
I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your descendants also can be counted.
Arise, walk through the length and the breadth of the land, for I will give it to you." (Genesis 13:14-17)
Lot was caught in the cross-fire of two warring blocks of nine nations. He was captured and luckily, Abram saved him. After this event, God reaffirmed His promise in the form of a covenant. A heifer, a she-goat and a ram were cut into halves. God and Abram walked between the halves to show that this was a serious covenant. Whoever does not keep the covenant would pay with his life (Genesis 15:9-17).
On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates,
the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites,
the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim,
the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites." (Genesis 15:18-21)
So, God's promise had been elevated to the level of a covenant.
To extend this covenant to the descendants of Abram, God renamed Abram to Abraham (Genesis 17:5) when he was 100. Then, God institutionalized circumcision so that this covenant would cover all the descendants of Abraham. He also renamed Sarai to Sarah (Genesis 17:15), who was 90. She would bear a son to be called Isaac.
God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.
As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him and make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.
But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year." (Genesis 17:19-21)
Circumcision becomes a sign of covenant. No wonder the Jewish Christians had difficulty accepting uncircumcised Gentiles to the congregation of the redeemed.
God has His own time frame. He reveals gradually His salvation plan.
Dear Lord, You are our Creator and Redeemer. You have never given up Your Creation. May we follow Your wisdom on our way home. Amen.
It all began when Abram was 75. We do not know how long he had been worshipping God. But that is not significant because once again, numbers don't count.
Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you.
And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves." (Genesis 12:1-3)
Then Abram began his adventure.
Let's take a look at this "promise" from God. God would give a piece of land to Abram and make a great nation out of him. He would become famous and a source of blessing of all the families of the earth. Therefore, through Abram, God intended to bring salvation to all nations, not just the Jews who did not even exist. Though God did not mention the descendants of Abram, it was understood. Nobody wants to build up a kingdom just for himself. Surely he wants his children to inherit and expand his kingdom.
Abram did not ask for it. It was God who had freely chosen him and would generously build a nation out of him. God could have chosen another person, probably a Chinese. Therefore, it was a promise, a free gift from God.
Of course, you will disagree and say that there is no free lunch in the world. Abram had to sacrifice his (paternal) family, relationships, comfort and security in order to obtain this gift from God. Therefore, it was not at all free. You may also look at Abram as a shrewd merchant, grasping a once-for-a-life-time investment opportunity. And investment involves risks. Therefore, it was not at all free.
I totally agree with this thinking. God's promise and any opportunity offered by God, always entails a certain amount of sacrifice. When Jesus called his disciples, he made it clear that they had to give up a lot of things: relationships, property, money and power etc. Therefore, let us day-dream not that all our problems will be solved once we follow Jesus.
After the separation of Lot from Abram in order to prevent further in-fighting between the herdsmen on both sides, God reaffirmed His earlier promise. This time, descendants were explicitly mentioned. Therefore, God's promise to Abram consists of two parts: children and land. Weren't these wishes/blessings very typical in Near East?
The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, "Lift up your eyes, and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward;
for all the land which you see I will give to you and to your descendants for ever.
I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your descendants also can be counted.
Arise, walk through the length and the breadth of the land, for I will give it to you." (Genesis 13:14-17)
Lot was caught in the cross-fire of two warring blocks of nine nations. He was captured and luckily, Abram saved him. After this event, God reaffirmed His promise in the form of a covenant. A heifer, a she-goat and a ram were cut into halves. God and Abram walked between the halves to show that this was a serious covenant. Whoever does not keep the covenant would pay with his life (Genesis 15:9-17).
On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates,
the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites,
the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim,
the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites." (Genesis 15:18-21)
So, God's promise had been elevated to the level of a covenant.
To extend this covenant to the descendants of Abram, God renamed Abram to Abraham (Genesis 17:5) when he was 100. Then, God institutionalized circumcision so that this covenant would cover all the descendants of Abraham. He also renamed Sarai to Sarah (Genesis 17:15), who was 90. She would bear a son to be called Isaac.
God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.
As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him and make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.
But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year." (Genesis 17:19-21)
Circumcision becomes a sign of covenant. No wonder the Jewish Christians had difficulty accepting uncircumcised Gentiles to the congregation of the redeemed.
God has His own time frame. He reveals gradually His salvation plan.
Dear Lord, You are our Creator and Redeemer. You have never given up Your Creation. May we follow Your wisdom on our way home. Amen.
Thursday 25 June 2009
Family disputes
Man is mortal. One day, he will return to dust whether he likes it or not. Some people will die unfulfilled because there are a lot of things unaccomplished. Many want someone to continue their ambitions. Others have accumulated a lot of wealth and naturally they don't want their hard-earned estates to be inherited by someone unrelated. Naturally, they want not just to pass on their land and property. They want to pass on their genes and have these genes well provided for. The institution of marriage satisfies this requirement. Marriage legitimizes the inheritors. Of course, nowadays, people are more open-minded so that illegitimate children born out of wedlock are entitled to inherit the estates of their parents.
Abram's family was far from being ideal. Sarai failed to bear him a son to inherit his property. To solve this problem, Sarai came up with an idea.
and Sarai said to Abram, "Behold now, the LORD has prevented me from bearing children; go in to my maid; it may be that I shall obtain children by her." And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai (Genesis 16:2).
This would be unimaginable in China. If the wife bore no child to the husband, the law allowed the busband to divorce her. It was the common practice in ancient China up to the Qing dynasty. Of course, Abram loved Sarai very much and divorce was out of question. Ancient law also allowed a husband to get a concubine to bear him children. But usually, it was the husband who initiated the move, not the wife. Sarai was a very good wife indeed. She cared about Abram and took the initiative.
So, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife (Genesis 16:3).
Notice the status of Hagar. She became a wife, not a concubine. Abram was then 85.
A maid remains always a maid. Hagar became arrogant once she was conceived.
And he went in to Hagar, and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked with contempt on her mistress (Genesis 16:4).
Sarai had never treated Hagar as equals. She remained the mistress of Hagar and treated her like a maid as before. Hagar would never gain the status of a wife. Again, Kant would frown on such an arrangement which violates the second maxim of his Categorical Imperative.
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end.
The end was to produce a son for Abram to inherit his property. Hagar was the means. This was blatant patriarchism. It reduced women to the status of a child-bearing machine. In modern eyes, both Sarai and Hagar were victims of such a pungent system. What was more sinister was the fact that one of the victims, in this case Sarai, had a share in the exploitation of a fellow victim. Here, I see the darker side of an etymology story. I have probably supplied ammunitions for feminist authors to attack the Bible and the patriarchic system it puts into writing.
Infuriated by her maid, Sarai complained to Abram.
And Sarai said to Abram, "May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my maid to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May the LORD judge between you and me!" (Genesis 16:5).
Sarai was truly a matriarch. She invoked God to judge between Abram and her, putting herself on equal footing with Abram the patriarch. She saw Hagar a challenge, a threat to her status. It was intolerable. Hagar was no sister, but a maid!
But Abram said to Sarai, "Behold, your maid is in your power; do to her as you please." Then Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her. (Genesis 16:6)
Abram's reaction was mind-boggling for us Chinese. Cornered by Sarai, Abram did not defend Hagar and his own genes! It is incredible! No such thing could have happened in any Chinese family. Chinese, men and women, put top priority on the sons. A husband favours whoever bearing his child. A barren wife will only resign to her fate. Abram's reaction was mind-boggling, mind-boggling.
God appeared and sent Hagar back, telling her to submit to her mistress, sanctioning the patriarchic system (Genesis 16:9).
This is an etymology story. It explains the meaning of Ishmael.
you shall call his name Ish'mael; because the LORD has given heed to your affliction (Genesis 16:11b)
"Thou art a God of seeing"; for she said, "Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?"
Therefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi; (Genesis 16:13b-14a).
Dear Lord, teach me the true meaning of this story. It is too unpalatable for me for now. Monogamy is good enough. Amen.
Abram's family was far from being ideal. Sarai failed to bear him a son to inherit his property. To solve this problem, Sarai came up with an idea.
and Sarai said to Abram, "Behold now, the LORD has prevented me from bearing children; go in to my maid; it may be that I shall obtain children by her." And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai (Genesis 16:2).
This would be unimaginable in China. If the wife bore no child to the husband, the law allowed the busband to divorce her. It was the common practice in ancient China up to the Qing dynasty. Of course, Abram loved Sarai very much and divorce was out of question. Ancient law also allowed a husband to get a concubine to bear him children. But usually, it was the husband who initiated the move, not the wife. Sarai was a very good wife indeed. She cared about Abram and took the initiative.
So, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife (Genesis 16:3).
Notice the status of Hagar. She became a wife, not a concubine. Abram was then 85.
A maid remains always a maid. Hagar became arrogant once she was conceived.
And he went in to Hagar, and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked with contempt on her mistress (Genesis 16:4).
Sarai had never treated Hagar as equals. She remained the mistress of Hagar and treated her like a maid as before. Hagar would never gain the status of a wife. Again, Kant would frown on such an arrangement which violates the second maxim of his Categorical Imperative.
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end.
The end was to produce a son for Abram to inherit his property. Hagar was the means. This was blatant patriarchism. It reduced women to the status of a child-bearing machine. In modern eyes, both Sarai and Hagar were victims of such a pungent system. What was more sinister was the fact that one of the victims, in this case Sarai, had a share in the exploitation of a fellow victim. Here, I see the darker side of an etymology story. I have probably supplied ammunitions for feminist authors to attack the Bible and the patriarchic system it puts into writing.
Infuriated by her maid, Sarai complained to Abram.
And Sarai said to Abram, "May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my maid to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May the LORD judge between you and me!" (Genesis 16:5).
Sarai was truly a matriarch. She invoked God to judge between Abram and her, putting herself on equal footing with Abram the patriarch. She saw Hagar a challenge, a threat to her status. It was intolerable. Hagar was no sister, but a maid!
But Abram said to Sarai, "Behold, your maid is in your power; do to her as you please." Then Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her. (Genesis 16:6)
Abram's reaction was mind-boggling for us Chinese. Cornered by Sarai, Abram did not defend Hagar and his own genes! It is incredible! No such thing could have happened in any Chinese family. Chinese, men and women, put top priority on the sons. A husband favours whoever bearing his child. A barren wife will only resign to her fate. Abram's reaction was mind-boggling, mind-boggling.
God appeared and sent Hagar back, telling her to submit to her mistress, sanctioning the patriarchic system (Genesis 16:9).
This is an etymology story. It explains the meaning of Ishmael.
you shall call his name Ish'mael; because the LORD has given heed to your affliction (Genesis 16:11b)
יִשְׁמָעֵאל כִּי-שָׁמַע יְהוָה אֶל-עָנְיֵךְ
and Beerlahairoi."Thou art a God of seeing"; for she said, "Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?"
Therefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi; (Genesis 16:13b-14a).
אַתָּה אֵל רֳאִי כִּי אָמְרָה הֲגַם הֲלֹם רָאִיתִי--אַחֲרֵי רֹאִי
עַל-כֵּן קָרָא לַבְּאֵר, בְּאֵר-לַחַי-רֹאִי
The runaway story will continue in Genesis 21 for good. עַל-כֵּן קָרָא לַבְּאֵר, בְּאֵר-לַחַי-רֹאִי
Dear Lord, teach me the true meaning of this story. It is too unpalatable for me for now. Monogamy is good enough. Amen.
Wednesday 24 June 2009
Feast of the Birth of John the Baptist
According to the Gospel of Luke, six months before angel Gabriel visited Mary, announcing God's plan to kick start His salvation project, the angel visited Zechary in the Temple to tell this old man that he would have a son whom he should name John. Later, this John baptized the Jews in River Jordan. That is why he is called John the Baptist to differentiate him from John the Evangelist. A simple calculation shows that John the Baptist was six months older than Jesus. Therefore, the Church celebrates his birth six months before Christmas. That is today.
Christians look up to the Baptist as the Precursor of Christ, the forerunner of Christ. His mission was to prepare the hearts of the Jews so that they would be receptive to the coming Christ. He did so through his preaching and baptizing.
John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins (Mark 1:4-5).
On the other hand, the Jews believed that at the end of the world, Elijah would return to prepare the coming of the Messiah. Putting the two together, we come to the understanding that the Baptist was this Elijah. Indeed, this was how Jesus answered the question of his disciples after his Transfiguration.
And the disciples asked him, "Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?"
He replied, "Elijah does come, and he is to restore all things;
but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of man will suffer at their hands.
Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist (Matthew 17:10-13).
Wait a minute, did Jesus really say so? Not at all. Matthew was responsible for putting this interpretation into writing.
Indeed, it is always revealing to contrast the way the Evangelists told the same story. Take a look at Mark.
And they asked him, "Why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?"
And he said to them, "Elijah does come first to restore all things; and how is it written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt?
But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him." (Mark 9:11-13)
Matthew had simplified Mark a bit, rearranging the verse about the maltreatment of the Son of Man to make it clearer. He added an interpretation not explicitly stated in Mark. I think this lends a greater weight for the priority of Mark, that Mark was written before Matthew. Therefore, though Jesus had not explicitly stated that John the Baptist was Elijah, the disciples understood it this way. That Mark did not put down this interpretation does not mean Mark, or even Peter, did not understand it this way.
Naturally, we may ask why Jesus did not say it explicitly?
Then, what did Jesus say about John the Baptist?
Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he (Matthew 11:11).
That isn't strong enough to prove that John the Baptist was Elijah. The Gospel only acknowledges the status of the Baptist. Yet, I still harbour the view that the Matthew community was trying to assert herself against challenges from the Baptist Movement. As discussed before, the Christian community had to fend off the embarrassment caused by Jesus' baptism. Yes, Jesus (Christians) acknowledged that the Baptist was the greatest among men. Yet he was insignificant in the Kingdom of Heaven. He was even unworthy to untie the sandals of Christ.
John answered them all, "I baptize you with water; but he who is mightier than I is coming, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." (Luke 3:16)
This famous formula is recorded in all the Synoptic gospels. The Christians understood that the Holy Spirit was the defining factor. They had the Holy Spirit while the Baptist Movement had not. Granted that the Baptist Movement was inferior to the Christ Movement, what was the relation between the two movements? Chronologically speaking, the Baptist Movement emerged first and Jesus was among one of the baptized, one of the members of the Baptist Movement. Then, the Christ Movement was a spin-off from the Baptist Movement. Christians should acknowledge the priority and even the primacy of John the Baptist. This would not be admissible in the Christ Movement. The viable option was to make the Baptist the Precursor of Christ. He came first. This much was undeniable. Yet, he was only "a voice in the wilderness" to prepare the way of the Lord. Was the Baptist Elijah? Jesus was silent.
The gospel of John, which I think retains the authentic voices of the Baptist, flatly denies that the Baptist was Elijah.
And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"
He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ."
And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the prophet?" And he answered, "No."
They said to him then, "Who are you? Let us have an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?"
He said, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way of the Lord,' as the prophet Isaiah said." (John 1:19-23)
Here, John contradicts Matthew, but not Jesus. The question remains open.
Dear Lord, may we follow the example of the Baptist, faithfully prepare the way for the people to receive You. Amen.
Christians look up to the Baptist as the Precursor of Christ, the forerunner of Christ. His mission was to prepare the hearts of the Jews so that they would be receptive to the coming Christ. He did so through his preaching and baptizing.
John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins (Mark 1:4-5).
On the other hand, the Jews believed that at the end of the world, Elijah would return to prepare the coming of the Messiah. Putting the two together, we come to the understanding that the Baptist was this Elijah. Indeed, this was how Jesus answered the question of his disciples after his Transfiguration.
And the disciples asked him, "Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?"
He replied, "Elijah does come, and he is to restore all things;
but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of man will suffer at their hands.
Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist (Matthew 17:10-13).
Wait a minute, did Jesus really say so? Not at all. Matthew was responsible for putting this interpretation into writing.
Indeed, it is always revealing to contrast the way the Evangelists told the same story. Take a look at Mark.
And they asked him, "Why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?"
And he said to them, "Elijah does come first to restore all things; and how is it written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt?
But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him." (Mark 9:11-13)
Matthew had simplified Mark a bit, rearranging the verse about the maltreatment of the Son of Man to make it clearer. He added an interpretation not explicitly stated in Mark. I think this lends a greater weight for the priority of Mark, that Mark was written before Matthew. Therefore, though Jesus had not explicitly stated that John the Baptist was Elijah, the disciples understood it this way. That Mark did not put down this interpretation does not mean Mark, or even Peter, did not understand it this way.
Naturally, we may ask why Jesus did not say it explicitly?
Then, what did Jesus say about John the Baptist?
Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he (Matthew 11:11).
That isn't strong enough to prove that John the Baptist was Elijah. The Gospel only acknowledges the status of the Baptist. Yet, I still harbour the view that the Matthew community was trying to assert herself against challenges from the Baptist Movement. As discussed before, the Christian community had to fend off the embarrassment caused by Jesus' baptism. Yes, Jesus (Christians) acknowledged that the Baptist was the greatest among men. Yet he was insignificant in the Kingdom of Heaven. He was even unworthy to untie the sandals of Christ.
John answered them all, "I baptize you with water; but he who is mightier than I is coming, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." (Luke 3:16)
This famous formula is recorded in all the Synoptic gospels. The Christians understood that the Holy Spirit was the defining factor. They had the Holy Spirit while the Baptist Movement had not. Granted that the Baptist Movement was inferior to the Christ Movement, what was the relation between the two movements? Chronologically speaking, the Baptist Movement emerged first and Jesus was among one of the baptized, one of the members of the Baptist Movement. Then, the Christ Movement was a spin-off from the Baptist Movement. Christians should acknowledge the priority and even the primacy of John the Baptist. This would not be admissible in the Christ Movement. The viable option was to make the Baptist the Precursor of Christ. He came first. This much was undeniable. Yet, he was only "a voice in the wilderness" to prepare the way of the Lord. Was the Baptist Elijah? Jesus was silent.
The gospel of John, which I think retains the authentic voices of the Baptist, flatly denies that the Baptist was Elijah.
And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"
He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ."
And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the prophet?" And he answered, "No."
They said to him then, "Who are you? Let us have an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?"
He said, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way of the Lord,' as the prophet Isaiah said." (John 1:19-23)
Here, John contradicts Matthew, but not Jesus. The question remains open.
Dear Lord, may we follow the example of the Baptist, faithfully prepare the way for the people to receive You. Amen.
Tuesday 23 June 2009
The Geography of Abram's journey
Reading Genesis, we meet a particular difficulty. Geography. We encounter many ancient names of places which very few people on this planet nowadays are able to identify with certainty.
When Abram continued the unfinished journey started by his father Terah, he went through several places.
Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land (Genesis 12:6).
There God appeared to Abram and he built an altar.
Then Abram moved to a mountain between Bethel and Ai, built another altar and called on the name of God (Genesis 12:8).
Then he journeyed on to Negeb but there was a famine. He went to Egypt where the wife-sister story took place.
He returned to Negeb. The Bible said Abram was very rich in cattle, in gold and in silver (Genesis 13:2).
Abram did not stay in Negeb for long and returned to the mountain between Bethel and Ai. Abram and his nephew Lot had too many herds for the land to support. They had to part company in order to reduce conflicts and disputes between their herdsmen. Even though Abram was the uncle, he allowed his nephew to choose first. All along, Abram probably had Lot in mind to make Lot inherit his estate because his wife Sarai was barren. Lot chose the more fertile land. He occupied Jordan Valley and pitched his tent in Sodom (Genesis 13:12) and Abram stayed in Canaan. To be exact, he settled by the oaks of Mamre in Hebron (Genesis 13:18). They parted company.
Genesis 14 begins with the joint forces of 4 kings.
Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim (Genesis 14:1).
These kings subdued a lot of peoples in the region. These included
the Rephaim in Ashterothkarnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shavehkiriathaim,
and the Horites in their Mount Seir as far as Elparan on the border of the wilderness;
then they turned back and came to Enmishpat (that is, Kadesh), and subdued all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who dwelt in Hazazontamar (Genesis 14:5-7).
What an impressive conquer! Now, they turned against the joint forces of 5 kings.
Then Bera the king of Sodom, Birsha the king of Gomorrah, Shinab the king of Admah, Shemeber the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) went out, and they joined battle in the Valley of Siddim (Genesis 14:8).
The five were defeated.
So the enemy took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their provisions, and went their way;
they also took Lot, the son of Abram's brother, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed (Genesis 14:11-12).
I am not a history student. But I think these kings were probably tribal chieftains. The wars mentioned above were probably no more than tribal wars of a confined region. Now that Lot was captured. Abram came into scene.
Then one who had escaped came, and told Abram the Hebrew, who was living by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and of Aner; these were allies of Abram (Genesis 14:13).
Now, we are able to know something more about Mamre. He was an Amorite. Eschcol and Aner were his brothers and these three were allies of Abram. What was the armed force of Abram? How did he rescue Lot?
When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan.
And he divided his forces against them by night, he and his servants, and routed them and pursued them to Hobah, north of Damascus.
Then he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his kinsman Lot with his goods, and the women and the people (Genesis 14:14-16).
Abram led only 318 trained men, divided them and attacked by night. He was able to route the joint forces of 4 kings! The scale of battle was small compared with those recorded in the books of Judges and Samuel. That was why I suspected that those kings were simply chieftains. Of course, if God was fighting the battle with Abram, number and size would not count.
When Abram returned, the king of Sodom came to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh, that is, the King's Valley (Genesis 14:17). Then, the mysterious Melchizedek king of Salem appeared. His name appears only twice in the Old Testament. Yet, he was mentioned 8 times in the epistle to the Hebrews in which we learn that Abram gave him a tenth of everything. To my surprise, it was not mentioned in Genesis but in Hebrews.
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.
And he blessed him and said, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth;
and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!" (Genesis 14:18-20)
Therefore, in Genesis, Abram was not the only person who worshipped God. There was already a priest of God Most High.
When the king of Sodom offered to Abram all the spoils of battle, Abram gracefully declined.
But Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have sworn to the LORD God Most High, maker of heaven and earth,
that I would not take a thread or a sandal-thong or anything that is yours, lest you should say, `I have made Abram rich.'
I will take nothing but what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me; let Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre take their share." (Genesis 14:22-24)
Abram was already very rich. He had no need of these spoils. What was more, Abram had demonstrated to us the virtue of justice. From the city he ruled, we can perhap hypothesize that the king of Sodom was a corrupt man. Abram did not want the king's riches. He set us an example not to accept favour from corrupt people. Any connection with these corrupt people will undermine our integrity and honour.
Dear Lord, You have chosen Your friend (James 2:23) well. From his treatment of Lot, his allies and the king of Sodom, we see that Abram was truly a man of integrity. You have set up a perfect model for us to follow. Through him, may we receive Your blessings. Amen.
When Abram continued the unfinished journey started by his father Terah, he went through several places.
Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land (Genesis 12:6).
There God appeared to Abram and he built an altar.
Then Abram moved to a mountain between Bethel and Ai, built another altar and called on the name of God (Genesis 12:8).
Then he journeyed on to Negeb but there was a famine. He went to Egypt where the wife-sister story took place.
He returned to Negeb. The Bible said Abram was very rich in cattle, in gold and in silver (Genesis 13:2).
Abram did not stay in Negeb for long and returned to the mountain between Bethel and Ai. Abram and his nephew Lot had too many herds for the land to support. They had to part company in order to reduce conflicts and disputes between their herdsmen. Even though Abram was the uncle, he allowed his nephew to choose first. All along, Abram probably had Lot in mind to make Lot inherit his estate because his wife Sarai was barren. Lot chose the more fertile land. He occupied Jordan Valley and pitched his tent in Sodom (Genesis 13:12) and Abram stayed in Canaan. To be exact, he settled by the oaks of Mamre in Hebron (Genesis 13:18). They parted company.
Genesis 14 begins with the joint forces of 4 kings.
Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim (Genesis 14:1).
These kings subdued a lot of peoples in the region. These included
the Rephaim in Ashterothkarnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shavehkiriathaim,
and the Horites in their Mount Seir as far as Elparan on the border of the wilderness;
then they turned back and came to Enmishpat (that is, Kadesh), and subdued all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who dwelt in Hazazontamar (Genesis 14:5-7).
What an impressive conquer! Now, they turned against the joint forces of 5 kings.
Then Bera the king of Sodom, Birsha the king of Gomorrah, Shinab the king of Admah, Shemeber the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) went out, and they joined battle in the Valley of Siddim (Genesis 14:8).
The five were defeated.
So the enemy took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their provisions, and went their way;
they also took Lot, the son of Abram's brother, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed (Genesis 14:11-12).
I am not a history student. But I think these kings were probably tribal chieftains. The wars mentioned above were probably no more than tribal wars of a confined region. Now that Lot was captured. Abram came into scene.
Then one who had escaped came, and told Abram the Hebrew, who was living by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and of Aner; these were allies of Abram (Genesis 14:13).
Now, we are able to know something more about Mamre. He was an Amorite. Eschcol and Aner were his brothers and these three were allies of Abram. What was the armed force of Abram? How did he rescue Lot?
When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan.
And he divided his forces against them by night, he and his servants, and routed them and pursued them to Hobah, north of Damascus.
Then he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his kinsman Lot with his goods, and the women and the people (Genesis 14:14-16).
Abram led only 318 trained men, divided them and attacked by night. He was able to route the joint forces of 4 kings! The scale of battle was small compared with those recorded in the books of Judges and Samuel. That was why I suspected that those kings were simply chieftains. Of course, if God was fighting the battle with Abram, number and size would not count.
When Abram returned, the king of Sodom came to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh, that is, the King's Valley (Genesis 14:17). Then, the mysterious Melchizedek king of Salem appeared. His name appears only twice in the Old Testament. Yet, he was mentioned 8 times in the epistle to the Hebrews in which we learn that Abram gave him a tenth of everything. To my surprise, it was not mentioned in Genesis but in Hebrews.
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.
And he blessed him and said, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth;
and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!" (Genesis 14:18-20)
Therefore, in Genesis, Abram was not the only person who worshipped God. There was already a priest of God Most High.
When the king of Sodom offered to Abram all the spoils of battle, Abram gracefully declined.
But Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have sworn to the LORD God Most High, maker of heaven and earth,
that I would not take a thread or a sandal-thong or anything that is yours, lest you should say, `I have made Abram rich.'
I will take nothing but what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me; let Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre take their share." (Genesis 14:22-24)
Abram was already very rich. He had no need of these spoils. What was more, Abram had demonstrated to us the virtue of justice. From the city he ruled, we can perhap hypothesize that the king of Sodom was a corrupt man. Abram did not want the king's riches. He set us an example not to accept favour from corrupt people. Any connection with these corrupt people will undermine our integrity and honour.
Dear Lord, You have chosen Your friend (James 2:23) well. From his treatment of Lot, his allies and the king of Sodom, we see that Abram was truly a man of integrity. You have set up a perfect model for us to follow. Through him, may we receive Your blessings. Amen.
Monday 22 June 2009
The Biblical Abraham
Abraham is honoured by all three monotheist religions in the world: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. He was the common ancestor, so to speak. Therefore, it is profitable to know about his story in Genesis. I hope someone will enlighten me on how the Koran presents his story. His story began at the last few verses of Genesis 11, which lay down the background of Abraham.
Shem was one of the three sons of Noah. Among his descendants, there was a Terah who lived in Ur of Chaldeans.
When Terah had lived seventy years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran (Genesis 11:26).
From this reading, Abram seemed to be the first born of Terah. The children of Haran were Lot, Milcah and Iscah. Haran died before Terah.
Abram told a wife called Sarai and Nahor took Milcah, his niece as his wife (Genesis 11:29).
According to another tradition, Sarai was the sister of Abram, the daughter of Terah, but not the daughter of the mother of Abram (Genesis 20:12). Then the story continues with Terah moving to Canaan.
Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law כַּלָּתוֹ , his son Abram's wife, and they went forth together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan; but when they came to Haran, they settled there (Genesis 11:31).
Haran, the city, not the son of Terah, was probably a fertile place and Terah did not continue his journey. Had he continued, Terah, instead of Abraham, would have been the Patriarch of the salvation history. Of course, God had not chosen Terah for some unknown reasons. Probably he was not adventurous enough to explore new ground. He was probably forced to leave Ur and settled himself at the first place of comfort. The mission to inherit Canaan was left to Abram to accomplish.
They must have stayed in Haran for a long time for it to be called Abram's country. One day, God called Abram who was then 75.
Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you.
And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves." (Genesis 12:1-3)
Throughout the salvation history, God always takes the initiative. He takes the initiative to search for the appropriate candidates. When He has found one, He would revealed Himself and made promises. Was the other party required to perform any obligation in return? Yes, when the situation arose such as God's demand of the sacrifice of Isaac some thirty two years later. Some centuries later, the relationship between God and His people was formalized in the form of the Sinai Covenant.
Abram took Sarai and Lot along, passing through Shechem, Bethel and moving towards Negeb. There was a severe famine in the region and they moved into Egypt (Genesis 12:10). One of the three wife-sister narratives in Genesis then took place. The honesty of Abram was called into question.
When he was about to enter Egypt, he said to Sarai his wife, "I know that you are a woman beautiful to behold;
and when the Egyptians see you, they will say, 'This is his wife'; then they will kill me, but they will let you live.
Say you are my sister, that it may go well with me because of you, and that my life may be spared on your account." (Genesis 12:11-13)
Pharaoh took Sarai and gave Abram a lot of cattle. Consequently, God afflicted the house of Pharaoh with great plagues. So, Pharaoh returned Sarai to Abram and sent them away. Abram left Egypt richer (Genesis 12:16-20).
On the surface, Abram had cheated Pharaoh in order to save his own life. If we apply the Kantian Categorical Imperative to analyze this case, Abram had told a lie. It was unethical. I discussed with my son Wulstan. He said we could look at the incident from another angle. Abram took an action to prevent the Egyptians from committing murder. This case is similar to Abigail's attempt to prevent David from killing her husband Nabal (1 Samuel 25:24-26). Therefore, Abram was not unethical. This is a good piece of argument. I still have a lot to learn from my son.
Moreover, we understand very little about ancient customs in the Near East. It was possible that a wife took on the status of a daughter. That probably explains why the wife of a son is called the daughter-in-law in relation to the parents. Therefore, an ethical analysis must take into consideration a wide range of knowledge. It is really challenging. Abram's integrity remains untarnished.
Dear Lord, I praise You for Your wisdom. I humble myself in front of You. Grant me the wisdom to lead a faithful life. Amen.
Shem was one of the three sons of Noah. Among his descendants, there was a Terah who lived in Ur of Chaldeans.
When Terah had lived seventy years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran (Genesis 11:26).
From this reading, Abram seemed to be the first born of Terah. The children of Haran were Lot, Milcah and Iscah. Haran died before Terah.
Abram told a wife called Sarai and Nahor took Milcah, his niece as his wife (Genesis 11:29).
According to another tradition, Sarai was the sister of Abram, the daughter of Terah, but not the daughter of the mother of Abram (Genesis 20:12). Then the story continues with Terah moving to Canaan.
Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law כַּלָּתוֹ , his son Abram's wife, and they went forth together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan; but when they came to Haran, they settled there (Genesis 11:31).
Haran, the city, not the son of Terah, was probably a fertile place and Terah did not continue his journey. Had he continued, Terah, instead of Abraham, would have been the Patriarch of the salvation history. Of course, God had not chosen Terah for some unknown reasons. Probably he was not adventurous enough to explore new ground. He was probably forced to leave Ur and settled himself at the first place of comfort. The mission to inherit Canaan was left to Abram to accomplish.
They must have stayed in Haran for a long time for it to be called Abram's country. One day, God called Abram who was then 75.
Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you.
And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves." (Genesis 12:1-3)
Throughout the salvation history, God always takes the initiative. He takes the initiative to search for the appropriate candidates. When He has found one, He would revealed Himself and made promises. Was the other party required to perform any obligation in return? Yes, when the situation arose such as God's demand of the sacrifice of Isaac some thirty two years later. Some centuries later, the relationship between God and His people was formalized in the form of the Sinai Covenant.
Abram took Sarai and Lot along, passing through Shechem, Bethel and moving towards Negeb. There was a severe famine in the region and they moved into Egypt (Genesis 12:10). One of the three wife-sister narratives in Genesis then took place. The honesty of Abram was called into question.
When he was about to enter Egypt, he said to Sarai his wife, "I know that you are a woman beautiful to behold;
and when the Egyptians see you, they will say, 'This is his wife'; then they will kill me, but they will let you live.
Say you are my sister, that it may go well with me because of you, and that my life may be spared on your account." (Genesis 12:11-13)
Pharaoh took Sarai and gave Abram a lot of cattle. Consequently, God afflicted the house of Pharaoh with great plagues. So, Pharaoh returned Sarai to Abram and sent them away. Abram left Egypt richer (Genesis 12:16-20).
On the surface, Abram had cheated Pharaoh in order to save his own life. If we apply the Kantian Categorical Imperative to analyze this case, Abram had told a lie. It was unethical. I discussed with my son Wulstan. He said we could look at the incident from another angle. Abram took an action to prevent the Egyptians from committing murder. This case is similar to Abigail's attempt to prevent David from killing her husband Nabal (1 Samuel 25:24-26). Therefore, Abram was not unethical. This is a good piece of argument. I still have a lot to learn from my son.
Moreover, we understand very little about ancient customs in the Near East. It was possible that a wife took on the status of a daughter. That probably explains why the wife of a son is called the daughter-in-law in relation to the parents. Therefore, an ethical analysis must take into consideration a wide range of knowledge. It is really challenging. Abram's integrity remains untarnished.
Dear Lord, I praise You for Your wisdom. I humble myself in front of You. Grant me the wisdom to lead a faithful life. Amen.
Sunday 21 June 2009
The Twelfth Ordinary Sunday (Year B)
People try to make sense of evils and sufferings happening around us. One of the possible "benefits" of sufferings is to provide a chance for us to mature, to grow out of our old self. Note that they provide a chance only. They don't guarantee success. Therefore, some mature while others succumb.
Today, we read of the miracle of Jesus calming the sea (Mark 4:35-41). Father Martin brought our attention to the fact that Jesus started the whole incident.
On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, "Let us go across to the other side." (Mark 4:35)
Jesus must have known what would happen next. He knew a storm would rise up in Lake Galilee. He knew his disciples would panic. He also knew that the storm would obey his command. He knew ... Yet , he put his disciples in such a situation. Why? Couldn't they delay the journey to avoid the storm or go to the other side with other means of transportation?
The same question is often raised why God deliberately put our first parents to the test. He created Adam and Eve and put them in the garden of Eden. He created the forbidden fruit. He knew the Serpent would tempt the woman. He knew our first parents were no match against the temptation of the Serpent and would succumb. He knew ... Yet, He put our Adam and Eve in such a situation (Genesis 3). Why?
Among the passengers on the boat, there were fishermen. They had weathered through many storms before but this particular storm must have been a very severe one. Now, they feared for their lives and woke Jesus up.
And a great storm of wind arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already filling.
But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him and said to him, "Teacher, do you not care if we perish?" (Mark 4:37-38)
Of course, Jesus cared. He immediately calmed the storm. After that, he questioned their faith.
He said to them, "Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?" (Mark 4:40)
Have we no faith? Yes, we have but we our faith is too weak. We know that Jesus is with us but we don't know Jesus enough. The disciples had seen many miracles of Jesus. He healed. He cast out demons. But that was not enough for them in view of life and death. What about us? How much faith do we have in Jesus? We really don't know until the situation arises.
Father Martin told us that he was impressed by the remark made by a 16-year-old girl who collapsed about taking ketamine. She is studying Form One in Tuen Mun. The normal age should be 13. This Form One girl must have a complicated family background. The situation in which she experimented with ketamine is now revealed. Is she undergoing some relationship problem with her peers? Is she frustrated in her studies? Has someone pushed her the drug? We don't know.
In the ward, she confessed that she had been naive in experimenting with drugs. After seeing her mother weeping over her bed the whole night, she would never forget how much she had hurt her mother. She promised never to touch drugs anymore. Father Martin sees goodness arise out of evil. The girl has matured. He encourages the congregation to embrace storms in our life with faith so that we may grow out of our old selves.
Dear Lord, we hide in our old selves in comfort. Bring us liberation. You know how much we are able to endure. You will not bring us into tests which we cannot bear. Amen.
Today, we read of the miracle of Jesus calming the sea (Mark 4:35-41). Father Martin brought our attention to the fact that Jesus started the whole incident.
On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, "Let us go across to the other side." (Mark 4:35)
Jesus must have known what would happen next. He knew a storm would rise up in Lake Galilee. He knew his disciples would panic. He also knew that the storm would obey his command. He knew ... Yet , he put his disciples in such a situation. Why? Couldn't they delay the journey to avoid the storm or go to the other side with other means of transportation?
The same question is often raised why God deliberately put our first parents to the test. He created Adam and Eve and put them in the garden of Eden. He created the forbidden fruit. He knew the Serpent would tempt the woman. He knew our first parents were no match against the temptation of the Serpent and would succumb. He knew ... Yet, He put our Adam and Eve in such a situation (Genesis 3). Why?
Among the passengers on the boat, there were fishermen. They had weathered through many storms before but this particular storm must have been a very severe one. Now, they feared for their lives and woke Jesus up.
And a great storm of wind arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already filling.
But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him and said to him, "Teacher, do you not care if we perish?" (Mark 4:37-38)
Of course, Jesus cared. He immediately calmed the storm. After that, he questioned their faith.
He said to them, "Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?" (Mark 4:40)
Have we no faith? Yes, we have but we our faith is too weak. We know that Jesus is with us but we don't know Jesus enough. The disciples had seen many miracles of Jesus. He healed. He cast out demons. But that was not enough for them in view of life and death. What about us? How much faith do we have in Jesus? We really don't know until the situation arises.
Father Martin told us that he was impressed by the remark made by a 16-year-old girl who collapsed about taking ketamine. She is studying Form One in Tuen Mun. The normal age should be 13. This Form One girl must have a complicated family background. The situation in which she experimented with ketamine is now revealed. Is she undergoing some relationship problem with her peers? Is she frustrated in her studies? Has someone pushed her the drug? We don't know.
In the ward, she confessed that she had been naive in experimenting with drugs. After seeing her mother weeping over her bed the whole night, she would never forget how much she had hurt her mother. She promised never to touch drugs anymore. Father Martin sees goodness arise out of evil. The girl has matured. He encourages the congregation to embrace storms in our life with faith so that we may grow out of our old selves.
Dear Lord, we hide in our old selves in comfort. Bring us liberation. You know how much we are able to endure. You will not bring us into tests which we cannot bear. Amen.
Saturday 20 June 2009
Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
The Catholic Church continues to celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary takes on a different character from that to the Sacred Heart of Jesus which signified the despised love of the Saviour for all mankind. The Heart of Mary also signifies love but it is the maternal love for her children.
The crucified Lord asked Mary to take care of the congregation of believers.
When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" (John 19:26)
From then on, Mary became the mother of the disciples who stayed on despite the apparent failure of the Christ movement . She prayed with the disciples after Jesus' ascension.
All these (the 11 remaining apostles) with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers (Acts 1:14).
Though her name was not explicitly mentioned, Mary must have been present on Pentecost.
When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place (Acts 2:1).
Why not? She was also the first person in the New Testament to receive the Holy Spirit. How could she be absent on the birthday of the Church on Pentecost? In a sense, just as she delivered Jesus on Christmas day, Mary delivered the Church on Pentecost. The Catholic Church rightly calls the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church.
Many people reject the maternal love of Mary. Therefore, in a way, her love for mankind is similar to that of Jesus' despised love.
The late Pope Paul VI wrote a letter to all bishops in 1967, called Signum Magnum on the devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. It explains clearly why we should honour the Blessed Virgin Mary.
First of all, we should meditate the virtues of Mary. She is the first Christian and she brought Christ to the world. While the whole world rejects her son, Mary never deserts him. We Christians should follow her example to bring Christ to the world and never depart from him.
The BVM is privileged and unique among all mankind in nurturing Christ.
As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!"
But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" (Luke 11:27-28)
The BVM heard and keep the word of God. She kept pondering it in her heart (Luke 2:19, 2:51).
Let us follow her example to ponder Christ all the days of our life.
Dear Lord, I thank You for Your treating us as Your brethren, giving Your mother to us. We are unworthy servants and yet, You gave Your mother to us to share her maternal love. Blessed Virgin, pray for us sin, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
The crucified Lord asked Mary to take care of the congregation of believers.
When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" (John 19:26)
From then on, Mary became the mother of the disciples who stayed on despite the apparent failure of the Christ movement . She prayed with the disciples after Jesus' ascension.
All these (the 11 remaining apostles) with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers (Acts 1:14).
Though her name was not explicitly mentioned, Mary must have been present on Pentecost.
When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place (Acts 2:1).
Why not? She was also the first person in the New Testament to receive the Holy Spirit. How could she be absent on the birthday of the Church on Pentecost? In a sense, just as she delivered Jesus on Christmas day, Mary delivered the Church on Pentecost. The Catholic Church rightly calls the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church.
Many people reject the maternal love of Mary. Therefore, in a way, her love for mankind is similar to that of Jesus' despised love.
The late Pope Paul VI wrote a letter to all bishops in 1967, called Signum Magnum on the devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. It explains clearly why we should honour the Blessed Virgin Mary.
First of all, we should meditate the virtues of Mary. She is the first Christian and she brought Christ to the world. While the whole world rejects her son, Mary never deserts him. We Christians should follow her example to bring Christ to the world and never depart from him.
The BVM is privileged and unique among all mankind in nurturing Christ.
As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!"
But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" (Luke 11:27-28)
The BVM heard and keep the word of God. She kept pondering it in her heart (Luke 2:19, 2:51).
Let us follow her example to ponder Christ all the days of our life.
Dear Lord, I thank You for Your treating us as Your brethren, giving Your mother to us. We are unworthy servants and yet, You gave Your mother to us to share her maternal love. Blessed Virgin, pray for us sin, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
Friday 19 June 2009
Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus
True to their analytic tradition, the Greeks had at least five different words for love: αγάπη, ερως, φιλία, στοργή and θέλημα. Such a phenomenon shows that the Greeks were able to label different forms of emotions and actions with different words. It does not necessarily imply that the Greek mind was sharper in differentiation.
Unlike Westerners, Chinese seldom make use of the word love in their social intercourse. Does it mean the Chinese mind is less sophisticated in dealing with emotional issues? Not necessarily. Rather, Chinese are very specific in describing and prescribing all interpersonal relationships.
For parental love, the word is 「慈」. For example, we have 「慈母」to describe a loving mother. In order to highlight the loving aspect, the term is expanded to 「慈愛」. To describe the love parents bestow on children, it is specifically described as the benevolence of raising one up 「養育之恩」.
Between brothers, the term is 「兄友弟恭」, roughly translated as elder brothers should be friendly and younger brothers respectful. So, fraternal love is specifically stipulated as a friendly and respectful interaction between siblings.
What about husbands and wives? Surely, you expect to find a lot of love between a couple, right? You will be disappointed to find that intimacy is unheard of in the description of marital relationship. You may argue that the Chinese Psalm 【詩經】begins with dating because Chinese attach great importance to family. Still, "a husband sings and his wife follows 夫唱婦隨" is the standard phrase to describe a harmonious relationship between the husband and wife. Of course, there are many other romantic poems and sonnets but I am afraid words of love and intimacy are wanting. So, some scholars tease the Chinese that they don't talk "love". They make it only. Does such a cultural peculiarity pose any difficulties for missionaries to preach Chinese the love of God?
The Catholic Church celebrates the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus today. It had been a private devotion since 11th and 12th century and took seven more centuries before Pope Pius IX extended this devotion to the universal church in 1856. St. Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647-1690) was instrumental in spreading this devotion. Here, the Sacred Heart symbolizes the love of Jesus for us. In particular, we can clearly see a wound on this heart. It was caused by the spear a soldier used to pierce the side of Jesus during his crucifixion to make sure that Jesus actually died (John 19:34). The Sacred Heart is a very powerful expressive symbol to point to the love of Jesus, the love of God for mankind. To be precise, it is a love despised and outraged. Jesus, the Son of God, poured out his life for us. Yet, this love has been despised by many since the moment he was nailed on the cross. Therefore, the key element of this devotion to the Sacred Heart is the reciprocation of love, to return love for his despised love 「以愛還愛，以心體心」. Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart is expressed by acts of atonement and reparation.
Does this Sacred Heart ring in the Chinese culture?
I am afraid not. The heart is not the seat of love in the Chinese tradition. It is roughly equivalent to the mind. For example, the Major Study 大學 discusses the procedure of character formation of a person in this way.
格物、致知、誠意、正心、修身、齊家、治國、平天下。【大學】The word heart is more like the mind than the seat of love.
Indian Buddhism underwent a metamorphosis in the Chinese soil. In return, the Chinese culture absorbs a lot of Buddhist elements. Therefore, when Chinese talk about the heart, they may not be talking about the Confucian heart, but the Buddhist heart which is the collection of all consciousness. It is a collection of perceptions, thoughts, desires, cares etc. Again, it is not the seat of love. In order to discern the true nature of man, his heart, this collection of consciousness needs to be enlightened 「明心見性」. Love is nowhere to be seen. Woe to us Chinese, we don't have the concept of this particular brand of love. Chinese are even more stubborn than the Israelites who have repeatedly rejected God's love. Luckily, in the epistles written by St. Paul (e.g. 1 Corinthians 13) and St. John (1 John 4), we will find very detailed explanation of the concept of Christian love.
Dear Lord, I pray that someday, someone will show me my heart as a seat of love. Then, I will be able to appreciate the love You offer us. Amen.
Unlike Westerners, Chinese seldom make use of the word love in their social intercourse. Does it mean the Chinese mind is less sophisticated in dealing with emotional issues? Not necessarily. Rather, Chinese are very specific in describing and prescribing all interpersonal relationships.
For parental love, the word is 「慈」. For example, we have 「慈母」to describe a loving mother. In order to highlight the loving aspect, the term is expanded to 「慈愛」. To describe the love parents bestow on children, it is specifically described as the benevolence of raising one up 「養育之恩」.
Between brothers, the term is 「兄友弟恭」, roughly translated as elder brothers should be friendly and younger brothers respectful. So, fraternal love is specifically stipulated as a friendly and respectful interaction between siblings.
What about husbands and wives? Surely, you expect to find a lot of love between a couple, right? You will be disappointed to find that intimacy is unheard of in the description of marital relationship. You may argue that the Chinese Psalm 【詩經】begins with dating because Chinese attach great importance to family. Still, "a husband sings and his wife follows 夫唱婦隨" is the standard phrase to describe a harmonious relationship between the husband and wife. Of course, there are many other romantic poems and sonnets but I am afraid words of love and intimacy are wanting. So, some scholars tease the Chinese that they don't talk "love". They make it only. Does such a cultural peculiarity pose any difficulties for missionaries to preach Chinese the love of God?
The Catholic Church celebrates the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus today. It had been a private devotion since 11th and 12th century and took seven more centuries before Pope Pius IX extended this devotion to the universal church in 1856. St. Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647-1690) was instrumental in spreading this devotion. Here, the Sacred Heart symbolizes the love of Jesus for us. In particular, we can clearly see a wound on this heart. It was caused by the spear a soldier used to pierce the side of Jesus during his crucifixion to make sure that Jesus actually died (John 19:34). The Sacred Heart is a very powerful expressive symbol to point to the love of Jesus, the love of God for mankind. To be precise, it is a love despised and outraged. Jesus, the Son of God, poured out his life for us. Yet, this love has been despised by many since the moment he was nailed on the cross. Therefore, the key element of this devotion to the Sacred Heart is the reciprocation of love, to return love for his despised love 「以愛還愛，以心體心」. Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart is expressed by acts of atonement and reparation.
Does this Sacred Heart ring in the Chinese culture?
I am afraid not. The heart is not the seat of love in the Chinese tradition. It is roughly equivalent to the mind. For example, the Major Study 大學 discusses the procedure of character formation of a person in this way.
格物、致知、誠意、正心、修身、齊家、治國、平天下。【大學】The word heart is more like the mind than the seat of love.
Indian Buddhism underwent a metamorphosis in the Chinese soil. In return, the Chinese culture absorbs a lot of Buddhist elements. Therefore, when Chinese talk about the heart, they may not be talking about the Confucian heart, but the Buddhist heart which is the collection of all consciousness. It is a collection of perceptions, thoughts, desires, cares etc. Again, it is not the seat of love. In order to discern the true nature of man, his heart, this collection of consciousness needs to be enlightened 「明心見性」. Love is nowhere to be seen. Woe to us Chinese, we don't have the concept of this particular brand of love. Chinese are even more stubborn than the Israelites who have repeatedly rejected God's love. Luckily, in the epistles written by St. Paul (e.g. 1 Corinthians 13) and St. John (1 John 4), we will find very detailed explanation of the concept of Christian love.
Dear Lord, I pray that someday, someone will show me my heart as a seat of love. Then, I will be able to appreciate the love You offer us. Amen.
Thursday 18 June 2009
You had better not be a teacher
Many people envy teachers in Hong Kong because they have many holidays, especially the long summer holiday beginning in mid-July. In effect, they receive salaries of twelve months while working for roughly only nine months! Their working environment is rather stable though in recent years, quite a number of educational reforms have been initiated by ambitious politicians. Teachers proved to be the greatest resistance to these reforms. It is more difficult to teach these teachers new tricks than German Shepherds. They are worse students than the students entrusted in their hands. Whether it be ancient times or modern times, teachers have been at the receiving end of torrents of complaints. Even Confucians criticized teachers. 養不教，父之過；教不嚴，師之惰。【三字經】Woe to us teachers! Even the Model Teacher of Ten-Thousand Æons criticized us, instead of supporting us.
I cannot remember since when I have begun a strange ritual. In the morning assemblies, when students forgot to bring their prayer books, we used to send them to a separate line for the prefects to jot down their names. Recently, instead of sending them away, I hit my own forehead with my prayer book several times in their face. Sometimes, I lent them my copy of prayer book. I cannot explain my behaviour. Probably it is a way for me to vent my frustration. Students couldn't care less my being upset.
In view of the H1N1 pandemic, students are required to record their body temperature on a card before they go to school. They have to show the card to the teachers/prefects on duty at the school main-gate.
The other day, I saw a student, probably an S1 student, take the short-cut. Before he entered the school, he took out his body temperature record card and wrote down a number. If he had taken his body temperature before he left home, he would have had it written down already. So, what have we teachers taught our students? What kind of students are we moulding for the society?
Of course, I cannot deny the satisfaction we teachers gain when we see our students becoming professionals contributing to the society. But such satisfaction only goes to a lucky few. Not all teachers have the luck to teach public examination classes. Many are working quietly and thanklessly throughout the years without any recognition. If you teach in a lower-banding school, your achievement might be a baby-sitter or even worse.
Sorry, I have probably gone too far. But my faith in our young people remains. Though homes and schools have over-provided for our youngsters for too long, I am confident that they will learn and transform when they work in the society in the future.
Return to the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. In a sense, Paul was also a great teacher for all the churches he had established. He appointed bishops to oversee them. He sent his co-workers to visit, inspect and encourage them. Of course, he wrote them epistles to advise them. In the chapter we are reading today, we see that Paul was frustrated because many of his "students" were attracted by boastful and more eloquent preachers.
For they say, "His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account." (2 Corinthians 10:10)
We have not had the grace to hear Paul's sermons or his arguments with the Jews. There are only epistles which can be deceptively strong because an author can polish his work until he is satisfied. However, in a speech or an argument, what is uttered cannot be retracted or embellished anymore. A Chinese idiom says 「一言既出，駟馬難追。」 When a word is uttered, it is hard even for a four-horse chariot to chase.
From the verse quoted above, we might deduce what Paul's contemporaries thought about him. Paul was not strongly built. He probably was not a fluent speaker. No doubt, his strength lies in his epistles.
Paul despised boastful people but there were too many around. So, he played along their line like Mencius did 予豈好辯哉？予不得已也。【孟子‧滕文公下】 Do I enjoy arguing? I have no choice!
To fight against boastful people, Paul boasted with them.
I repeat, let no one think me foolish; but even if you do, accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little (2 Corinthians 10:16).
Yet, Paul boasted of his weaknesses and his sufferings for Christ.
To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that! But whatever any one dares to boast of -- I am speaking as a fool -- I also dare to boast of that.
Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I.
Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one -- I am talking like a madman -- with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death.
Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one.
Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea;
on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren;
in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.
And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure upon me of my anxiety for all the churches.
Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant?
If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness (2 Corinthians 10:21-30).
What a magnificent CV!
Therefore, pardon me for hitting my own forehead with my prayer book. It is nowhere near death and I know that I still have a long way to go.
Dear Lord, I thank the saints who prod us along. May their soft talks as well as sharp tongues carry me through. Amen.
I cannot remember since when I have begun a strange ritual. In the morning assemblies, when students forgot to bring their prayer books, we used to send them to a separate line for the prefects to jot down their names. Recently, instead of sending them away, I hit my own forehead with my prayer book several times in their face. Sometimes, I lent them my copy of prayer book. I cannot explain my behaviour. Probably it is a way for me to vent my frustration. Students couldn't care less my being upset.
In view of the H1N1 pandemic, students are required to record their body temperature on a card before they go to school. They have to show the card to the teachers/prefects on duty at the school main-gate.
The other day, I saw a student, probably an S1 student, take the short-cut. Before he entered the school, he took out his body temperature record card and wrote down a number. If he had taken his body temperature before he left home, he would have had it written down already. So, what have we teachers taught our students? What kind of students are we moulding for the society?
Of course, I cannot deny the satisfaction we teachers gain when we see our students becoming professionals contributing to the society. But such satisfaction only goes to a lucky few. Not all teachers have the luck to teach public examination classes. Many are working quietly and thanklessly throughout the years without any recognition. If you teach in a lower-banding school, your achievement might be a baby-sitter or even worse.
Sorry, I have probably gone too far. But my faith in our young people remains. Though homes and schools have over-provided for our youngsters for too long, I am confident that they will learn and transform when they work in the society in the future.
Return to the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. In a sense, Paul was also a great teacher for all the churches he had established. He appointed bishops to oversee them. He sent his co-workers to visit, inspect and encourage them. Of course, he wrote them epistles to advise them. In the chapter we are reading today, we see that Paul was frustrated because many of his "students" were attracted by boastful and more eloquent preachers.
For they say, "His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account." (2 Corinthians 10:10)
We have not had the grace to hear Paul's sermons or his arguments with the Jews. There are only epistles which can be deceptively strong because an author can polish his work until he is satisfied. However, in a speech or an argument, what is uttered cannot be retracted or embellished anymore. A Chinese idiom says 「一言既出，駟馬難追。」 When a word is uttered, it is hard even for a four-horse chariot to chase.
From the verse quoted above, we might deduce what Paul's contemporaries thought about him. Paul was not strongly built. He probably was not a fluent speaker. No doubt, his strength lies in his epistles.
Paul despised boastful people but there were too many around. So, he played along their line like Mencius did 予豈好辯哉？予不得已也。【孟子‧滕文公下】 Do I enjoy arguing? I have no choice!
To fight against boastful people, Paul boasted with them.
I repeat, let no one think me foolish; but even if you do, accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little (2 Corinthians 10:16).
Yet, Paul boasted of his weaknesses and his sufferings for Christ.
To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that! But whatever any one dares to boast of -- I am speaking as a fool -- I also dare to boast of that.
Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I.
Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one -- I am talking like a madman -- with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death.
Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one.
Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea;
on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren;
in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.
And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure upon me of my anxiety for all the churches.
Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant?
If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness (2 Corinthians 10:21-30).
What a magnificent CV!
Therefore, pardon me for hitting my own forehead with my prayer book. It is nowhere near death and I know that I still have a long way to go.
Dear Lord, I thank the saints who prod us along. May their soft talks as well as sharp tongues carry me through. Amen.
Wednesday 17 June 2009
How do you encourage people to be generous?
I did not study Communication, Mass Media etc. in my university time. But I am always fascinated to see how people working in the advertising industry can come up with brilliant ideas to persuade people to buy the products of their clients. Times and again, we receive appeal letters from charities such as UNICEF, Orbis, Oxfam and Community Chest etc. Again, I would put myself on the shoes of the authors of these letters. How am I going to persuade the recipients of these appeal letters to open up their wallets and send me a cheque?
I think it is impossible to do a cost-benefit analysis to persuade people to buy a product or to donate money. You cannot just reason rationally with their brains, listing the advantages of using this product rather than that, citing the amount of money you will save etc. The advertising people know very well how to trigger people's wish to spend money by appealing to more primitive and powerful instincts, viz. beauty/youthfulness, sex and money/power etc. That is why in the study of ethics, utilitarianism theory is losing appeal. Cost-benefit analysis may render some justification in taking this action instead of that. But it cannot dictate the final decision.
Due to their job nature, religious people have little choices available to persuade people to do good. Unlike their counterparts in the advertising industry, pastors, imams, monks and popes cannot appeal to money, power and sex to persuade people to lead a virtuous life. They can only appeal to the afterlife. Do evil and you are condemned to the eternal fire in hell. You had better do good. Fear seems to be their primary weapon. Of course, it is not the only path. Many other brave souls have explored other means to persuade people to do good. In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul told the readers to honour their promises to send alms to Jewish brethren. He appealed to their sense of honour.
for I know your readiness, of which I boast about you to the people of Macedonia, saying that Achaia has been ready since last year; and your zeal has stirred up most of them (2 Corinthians 9:2).
Whether the Corinthians were truly eager and ready to donate or not, Paul said that they were. Moreover, Paul was responsible for publicizing their generosity among the Macedonians. Back to the Corinthians, Paul told them that their eagerness had in effect, stirred up the generosity of the Macedonians. Paul was not telling lies. Generosity did inspire generosity among others. The ingenuity of Paul was that he pitched the Corinthians against the Macedonians, creating a virtual rivalry that generated greater contributions from both sides. The rest of the argument does not seem to be crucial.
The point is this: he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully
Each one must do as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver (2 Corinthians 9:6-7).
Be generous for God will reward you generously in the future. Who cares? This piece of advice is effective only if people believe in God and/or in an afterlife. Otherwise, it is less effective than using honour as an incentive.
Of course, Paul could not force the Corinthians. They must donate voluntarily. Otherwise, their generosity would not be counted as a virtue and neither would it win the Corinthians any (spiritual) benefit. The whole project would be ruined.
Take the case of the recent controversy created by the relocation of the rehabilitation centre for young drug addicts. There is a conflict of needs. The College and the society need a bigger premises. The local residents need a secondary school. The government needs to appeal to the generosity of the local residents in order to relocate the College. But how could the government persuade the local residents to be generous by sacrificing their secondary school? Most of the local people might believe in an afterlife but they do not believe in God. Therefore, it would not be effective to appeal to the spirituality of the local residents. If in the end, the government forces the local residents to be generous, she will create more resentment. The whole project would be ruined. Can the government give them honour in exchange for their secondary school? This is a viable option.
Dear Lord, I know You will give the College a perfect site. I pray for the government to come up with a win-win solution. I pray for the local residents of Mui Wo that they open their hearts wide for the benefit of the society at large and for their own good. Amen.
Appendix:he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.
ὁ σπείρων φειδομένως φειδομένως καὶ θερίσει, καὶ ὁ σπείρων ἐπ' εὐλογίαις ἐπ' εὐλογίαις καὶ θερίσει. (2 Corinthians 9:6)
One man gives freely, yet grows all the richer; another withholds what he should give, and only suffers want.
A liberal man will be enriched, and one who waters will himself be watered.
εἰσὶν οἳ τὰ ἴδια σπείροντες πλείονα ποιοῦσιν, εἰσὶν καὶ οἳ συνάγοντες ἐλαττονοῦνται.
ψυχὴ εὐλογουμένη πᾶσα ἁπλῆ, ἀνὴρ δὲ θυμώδης οὐκ εὐσχήμων (Proverbs 11:24-25).
He scatters abroad, he gives to the poor; his righteousness endures for ever.
Ἐσκόρπισεν, ἔδωκεν τοῖς πένησιν, ἡ δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (2 Corinthians 9:9b, Psalm 111:9, LXX, 112:9 MT).
I think it is impossible to do a cost-benefit analysis to persuade people to buy a product or to donate money. You cannot just reason rationally with their brains, listing the advantages of using this product rather than that, citing the amount of money you will save etc. The advertising people know very well how to trigger people's wish to spend money by appealing to more primitive and powerful instincts, viz. beauty/youthfulness, sex and money/power etc. That is why in the study of ethics, utilitarianism theory is losing appeal. Cost-benefit analysis may render some justification in taking this action instead of that. But it cannot dictate the final decision.
Due to their job nature, religious people have little choices available to persuade people to do good. Unlike their counterparts in the advertising industry, pastors, imams, monks and popes cannot appeal to money, power and sex to persuade people to lead a virtuous life. They can only appeal to the afterlife. Do evil and you are condemned to the eternal fire in hell. You had better do good. Fear seems to be their primary weapon. Of course, it is not the only path. Many other brave souls have explored other means to persuade people to do good. In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul told the readers to honour their promises to send alms to Jewish brethren. He appealed to their sense of honour.
for I know your readiness, of which I boast about you to the people of Macedonia, saying that Achaia has been ready since last year; and your zeal has stirred up most of them (2 Corinthians 9:2).
Whether the Corinthians were truly eager and ready to donate or not, Paul said that they were. Moreover, Paul was responsible for publicizing their generosity among the Macedonians. Back to the Corinthians, Paul told them that their eagerness had in effect, stirred up the generosity of the Macedonians. Paul was not telling lies. Generosity did inspire generosity among others. The ingenuity of Paul was that he pitched the Corinthians against the Macedonians, creating a virtual rivalry that generated greater contributions from both sides. The rest of the argument does not seem to be crucial.
The point is this: he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully
Each one must do as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver (2 Corinthians 9:6-7).
Be generous for God will reward you generously in the future. Who cares? This piece of advice is effective only if people believe in God and/or in an afterlife. Otherwise, it is less effective than using honour as an incentive.
Of course, Paul could not force the Corinthians. They must donate voluntarily. Otherwise, their generosity would not be counted as a virtue and neither would it win the Corinthians any (spiritual) benefit. The whole project would be ruined.
Take the case of the recent controversy created by the relocation of the rehabilitation centre for young drug addicts. There is a conflict of needs. The College and the society need a bigger premises. The local residents need a secondary school. The government needs to appeal to the generosity of the local residents in order to relocate the College. But how could the government persuade the local residents to be generous by sacrificing their secondary school? Most of the local people might believe in an afterlife but they do not believe in God. Therefore, it would not be effective to appeal to the spirituality of the local residents. If in the end, the government forces the local residents to be generous, she will create more resentment. The whole project would be ruined. Can the government give them honour in exchange for their secondary school? This is a viable option.
Dear Lord, I know You will give the College a perfect site. I pray for the government to come up with a win-win solution. I pray for the local residents of Mui Wo that they open their hearts wide for the benefit of the society at large and for their own good. Amen.
Appendix:he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.
ὁ σπείρων φειδομένως φειδομένως καὶ θερίσει, καὶ ὁ σπείρων ἐπ' εὐλογίαις ἐπ' εὐλογίαις καὶ θερίσει. (2 Corinthians 9:6)
One man gives freely, yet grows all the richer; another withholds what he should give, and only suffers want.
A liberal man will be enriched, and one who waters will himself be watered.
εἰσὶν οἳ τὰ ἴδια σπείροντες πλείονα ποιοῦσιν, εἰσὶν καὶ οἳ συνάγοντες ἐλαττονοῦνται.
ψυχὴ εὐλογουμένη πᾶσα ἁπλῆ, ἀνὴρ δὲ θυμώδης οὐκ εὐσχήμων (Proverbs 11:24-25).
He scatters abroad, he gives to the poor; his righteousness endures for ever.
Ἐσκόρπισεν, ἔδωκεν τοῖς πένησιν, ἡ δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (2 Corinthians 9:9b, Psalm 111:9, LXX, 112:9 MT).
Tuesday 16 June 2009
On Social Justice
We live in a world with limited resources. Whenever we need to handle the problem of the allocation of resources, we cannot run away from the question of fairness. What is the fairest way to allocate the limited resources in the society, be they money, power, prestige etc.?
To divide up the resources equally by quantity may not be the best way. I am a diabetic. Say, if we share equally and eat on the spot three birthday cakes among a construction worker, a clerk in the school office and me, I will surely die.
If sharing equally by quantity is not good enough, would sharing according to each one's need better? One small slice of cake is enough to satisfy my needs. The clerk may need two slices and the construction worker half a cake. We can even leave the remaining two cakes in the freezer for tomorrow! It seems to be a better arrangement.
Indeed, some of these resources such as prestige, popularity etc. cannot be equally shared. Some movie stars are just more charismatic than the others. They attract more attention and become more popular. In fact, they need more popularity than the others to stay in the business. Therefore, sharing according to needs is apparently better. Of course, you can fight for equal opportunity of media coverage. But what about your personal charisma? We are not born equal.
And all who believed were together and had all things in common;
and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need (Acts 2:44-45).
This is an ideal advocated in the Bible. An ideal picture was painted by Luke in the Acts. But to be realistic, I am afraid there might not be enough resources to satisfy all our needs. There may not be enough birthday cakes, media coverage etc. to start with. In reality, scarcity of supply is a fact of life. Otherwise, Jesus would not have said the following.
For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me (Mark 14:7).
Nowadays, many people suffer poverty not because they are lazy or unlucky but because the structure of the society has so changed that these people are deprived of opportunities to make money, to move up the society etc. We are seeing this phenomenon more clearly these days. The recipients of Comprehensive Social Assistance cannot afford a decent enough education for their children and consequently, they continue to stay at the bottom of the social ladder. Fairness is difficult to achieve.
These few days, media attention is directed to the emotional opposition of Mui Wo residents to the relocation of a rehabilitation centre for young drug addicts there. Christian Zheng Sheng College 正生書院 in Ha Keng on the Lantau Island has been very successful in rehabilitating young drug addicts. Its present premises are overcrowded and need to expand to meet the increasing demand from the society. Indeed, more students are found to be abusing substances even in elite schools in Hong Kong. Therefore, the relocation of the College to a defunct secondary school in Mui Mo seems to be the best option in the eyes of the Educational Administrators in Hong Kong. The school was closed down in 2007 because there were not enough students in Mui Wo. These government officials have not anticipated the strong opposition from local residents! Meanwhile, the local residents demand the Educational Administrators to restore the secondary school for them so that their children do not have to travel all the way to school in the Central/Western District on Hong Kong Island. But they could not hide their discrimination against these young addicts from the eyes of all the people in this city.
Here, we cannot equally share the secondary school building. Here, both parties have legitimate needs. Here, discrimination, hypocrisy and short-sightedness are rampant. Here generosity and tolerance are missing. I find Paul's request on the Corinthians very meaningful here. Paul was urging the Corinthian believers to continue their donation to support the Jewish brethren who were suffering a famine.
I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened,
but that as a matter of equality your abundance at the present time should supply their want, so that their abundance may supply your want, that there may be equality.
As it is written, "He who gathered much had nothing over, and he who gathered little had no lack." (2 Corinthians 8:13-15)
Paul was taking a long term view. The abundance of the Corinthians at the moment supplied the needs of the Jewish brethren. God is fair. In time of their needs, the Corinthians would rest assured that supply was on the way.
Over this relocation controversy, government officials know that the society is going to pay a huge price if the College fails to relocate and expand. Unfortunately, society is such a vague and distant idea that many people will not see that they are the ones to pay this price. Naturally enough, the local residents will only see to their immediate interests. They think that they are fighting for their natural rights. Government officials might not think that their children will abuse substances. Perhaps they have lost touch with the local reality for too long. It is high time they resumed their responsibility to allocate these resources in a fair manner.
Dear Lord, I am sure the College will find a perfect site because they call on Your Holy name. May the community learn a lesson in generosity and tolerance. Amen.
Appendix:
He who gathered much had nothing over, and he who gathered little had no lack.ὁ τὸ πολὺ οὐκ ἐπλεόνασεν, καὶ ὁ τὸ ὀλίγον οὐκ ἠλαττόνησεν. (2 Corinthians 8:15)
οὐκ ἐπλεόνασεν ὁ τὸ πολύ, καὶ ὁ τὸ ἔλαττον οὐκ ἠλαττόνησεν (Exodus 16:18b).
To divide up the resources equally by quantity may not be the best way. I am a diabetic. Say, if we share equally and eat on the spot three birthday cakes among a construction worker, a clerk in the school office and me, I will surely die.
If sharing equally by quantity is not good enough, would sharing according to each one's need better? One small slice of cake is enough to satisfy my needs. The clerk may need two slices and the construction worker half a cake. We can even leave the remaining two cakes in the freezer for tomorrow! It seems to be a better arrangement.
Indeed, some of these resources such as prestige, popularity etc. cannot be equally shared. Some movie stars are just more charismatic than the others. They attract more attention and become more popular. In fact, they need more popularity than the others to stay in the business. Therefore, sharing according to needs is apparently better. Of course, you can fight for equal opportunity of media coverage. But what about your personal charisma? We are not born equal.
And all who believed were together and had all things in common;
and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need (Acts 2:44-45).
This is an ideal advocated in the Bible. An ideal picture was painted by Luke in the Acts. But to be realistic, I am afraid there might not be enough resources to satisfy all our needs. There may not be enough birthday cakes, media coverage etc. to start with. In reality, scarcity of supply is a fact of life. Otherwise, Jesus would not have said the following.
For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me (Mark 14:7).
Nowadays, many people suffer poverty not because they are lazy or unlucky but because the structure of the society has so changed that these people are deprived of opportunities to make money, to move up the society etc. We are seeing this phenomenon more clearly these days. The recipients of Comprehensive Social Assistance cannot afford a decent enough education for their children and consequently, they continue to stay at the bottom of the social ladder. Fairness is difficult to achieve.
These few days, media attention is directed to the emotional opposition of Mui Wo residents to the relocation of a rehabilitation centre for young drug addicts there. Christian Zheng Sheng College 正生書院 in Ha Keng on the Lantau Island has been very successful in rehabilitating young drug addicts. Its present premises are overcrowded and need to expand to meet the increasing demand from the society. Indeed, more students are found to be abusing substances even in elite schools in Hong Kong. Therefore, the relocation of the College to a defunct secondary school in Mui Mo seems to be the best option in the eyes of the Educational Administrators in Hong Kong. The school was closed down in 2007 because there were not enough students in Mui Wo. These government officials have not anticipated the strong opposition from local residents! Meanwhile, the local residents demand the Educational Administrators to restore the secondary school for them so that their children do not have to travel all the way to school in the Central/Western District on Hong Kong Island. But they could not hide their discrimination against these young addicts from the eyes of all the people in this city.
Here, we cannot equally share the secondary school building. Here, both parties have legitimate needs. Here, discrimination, hypocrisy and short-sightedness are rampant. Here generosity and tolerance are missing. I find Paul's request on the Corinthians very meaningful here. Paul was urging the Corinthian believers to continue their donation to support the Jewish brethren who were suffering a famine.
I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened,
but that as a matter of equality your abundance at the present time should supply their want, so that their abundance may supply your want, that there may be equality.
As it is written, "He who gathered much had nothing over, and he who gathered little had no lack." (2 Corinthians 8:13-15)
Paul was taking a long term view. The abundance of the Corinthians at the moment supplied the needs of the Jewish brethren. God is fair. In time of their needs, the Corinthians would rest assured that supply was on the way.
Over this relocation controversy, government officials know that the society is going to pay a huge price if the College fails to relocate and expand. Unfortunately, society is such a vague and distant idea that many people will not see that they are the ones to pay this price. Naturally enough, the local residents will only see to their immediate interests. They think that they are fighting for their natural rights. Government officials might not think that their children will abuse substances. Perhaps they have lost touch with the local reality for too long. It is high time they resumed their responsibility to allocate these resources in a fair manner.
Dear Lord, I am sure the College will find a perfect site because they call on Your Holy name. May the community learn a lesson in generosity and tolerance. Amen.
Appendix:
He who gathered much had nothing over, and he who gathered little had no lack.ὁ τὸ πολὺ οὐκ ἐπλεόνασεν, καὶ ὁ τὸ ὀλίγον οὐκ ἠλαττόνησεν. (2 Corinthians 8:15)
οὐκ ἐπλεόνασεν ὁ τὸ πολύ, καὶ ὁ τὸ ἔλαττον οὐκ ἠλαττόνησεν (Exodus 16:18b).
Monday 15 June 2009
Can a Christian marry an unbeliever?
Paul urged the Corinthian believers to be ambassadors for reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:20). As Christians, we have an obligation to reconcile the world to God. We are followers of Christ, in whom God reconciles the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). Therefore, Christians should try their best to reconcile the world to God. Consequently, it is inevitable for Christians to interact with non-believers because they are the very people who are in need of reconciliation. Nearly half way through the epistle, Paul began to quote the Old Testament.
At the acceptable time I have listened to you, and helped you on the day of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:2a, Isaiah 49:8).
I always wonder why Paul quoted so many passages from the Old Testament in letters written to Gentile believers, from the Prophets as well as the Torah. How much would these Gentiles know of the Old Testament? How much would they accept Paul's arguments based on these quotations from the Old Testament?
Take the example above, Paul made use of it to urge the Corinthians to keep an open heart to reconcile. Immediately after quoting the passage from Isaiah, he added his own commentary.
For he says, "At the acceptable time I have listened to you, and helped you on the day of salvation." Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:2).
Here and now, the Corinthians should make good use of this opportunity to reconcile to God. But what had prevented the Corinthians from reconciling to God? Paul thought that it was the obstacle which the circumcision party had tried to impose on the Gentiles. Paul opposed this.
We put no obstacle in any one's way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry (2 Corinthians 6:3).
If there were any obstacles, Paul did not put them there. Rather, Paul had made every effort to ensure that the Corinthians could reconcile to God through Jesus Christ. He did not mind suffering for the sake of the Corinthians.
but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: through great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities,
beatings, imprisonments, tumults, labors, watching, hunger;
by purity, knowledge, forbearance, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love,
truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left;
in honor and dishonor, in ill repute and good repute. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true;
as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold we live; as punished, and yet not killed;
as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing everything (2 Corinthians 6:4-10).
He suffered affliction and hardship for them. He made use of God's power to serve them and he thought he was successful despite all apparent failures. In his words, "as having nothing, and yet possessing everything". His heart was wide and he urged them to widen their hearts to embrace all (2 Corinthians 6:11-13).
Abruptly, he reversed gears and told them not to marry with unbelievers! Did Paul really intend this interpretation?
Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?
What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God (2 Corinthians 6:14-16a);
Protestants like to quote these verses to forbid followers from dating/marrying with unbelievers.
The word "mismated ἑτεροζυγοῦντες " appears only once in the whole New Testament. It means "be yoked with an animal of a different kind" and the Chinese Bibles, Catholic as well as Protestant, translate it as 「共負一軛」. Surely it requires an imaginative leap of logic to apply this to marriage.
Can a Christian marry an unbeliever? The answer is affirmative.
In discussing divorce in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul followed Jesus' line and forbade it. The only exception he allows is the divorce between a Christian and an unbelieving spouse. The divorce can only be initiated by the unbelieving spouse.
But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace. (1 Corinthians 7:15).
The marriage between Christians and unbelievers must have been very common in those days as in today and Paul saw the value of this kind of marriage.
For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy (1 Corinthians 7:14).
Of course, you may argue that Paul was discussing the case of one partner becoming a Christian after marriage. He was only considering whether they should divorce after the conversion of one partner. I think it is too narrow an interpretation. Why wait for unbelieving couples to convert? Why not allow Christians to marry unbelievers to consecrate them? It goes against his appeal to reconcile the world to God if we forbid Christians to marry unbelievers.
My Lord, I am not a marriage counsellor and I have stepped out of my tuff. Allow me to work as Your instrument of reconciliation. Amen.
Appendix:
At the acceptable time I have listened to you, and helped you on the day of salvation.καιρῷ δεκτῷ ἐπήκουσά σου κ αὶ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σωτηρίας ἐβοήθησά σοι (2 Corinthians 6:2, Isaiah 49:8).
I will live in them and move among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.ἐνοικήσω ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐμπερ ιπατήσω καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτῶν θεὸς καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μου λαός. (2 Corinthians 6:16b)
καὶ ἐμπεριπατήσω ἐν ὑμῖν κα ὶ ἔσομαι ὑμῶν θεός, καὶ ὑμεῖς ἔσεσθέ μου λαός (Leviticus 26:12).
Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean; then I will welcome you, διὸ ἐξέλθατε ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν καὶ ἀφορίσθητε, λέγει κύριος, καὶ ἀκαθάρτου μὴ ἅπτεσθε· κἀγὼ εἰσδέξομαι ὑμᾶς (2 Corinthians 6:17)
ἀπόστητε ἀπόστητε ἐξέλθατ ε ἐκεῖθεν καὶ ἀκαθάρτου μὴ ἅπτεσθε, ἐξέλθατε ἐκ μέσου αὐτῆς ἀφορίσθητε, οἱ φέροντες τὰ σκεύη κυρίου, (Isaiah 52:11).
and I will be a father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.καὶ ἔσομαι ὑμῖν εἰς πατέρα κ αὶ ὑμεῖς ἔσεσθέ μοι εἰς υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας, λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ. (2 Corinthians 6:18)
ἐγὼ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱόν, (2 Samuel 7:14a).
At the acceptable time I have listened to you, and helped you on the day of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:2a, Isaiah 49:8).
I always wonder why Paul quoted so many passages from the Old Testament in letters written to Gentile believers, from the Prophets as well as the Torah. How much would these Gentiles know of the Old Testament? How much would they accept Paul's arguments based on these quotations from the Old Testament?
Take the example above, Paul made use of it to urge the Corinthians to keep an open heart to reconcile. Immediately after quoting the passage from Isaiah, he added his own commentary.
For he says, "At the acceptable time I have listened to you, and helped you on the day of salvation." Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:2).
Here and now, the Corinthians should make good use of this opportunity to reconcile to God. But what had prevented the Corinthians from reconciling to God? Paul thought that it was the obstacle which the circumcision party had tried to impose on the Gentiles. Paul opposed this.
We put no obstacle in any one's way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry (2 Corinthians 6:3).
If there were any obstacles, Paul did not put them there. Rather, Paul had made every effort to ensure that the Corinthians could reconcile to God through Jesus Christ. He did not mind suffering for the sake of the Corinthians.
but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: through great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities,
beatings, imprisonments, tumults, labors, watching, hunger;
by purity, knowledge, forbearance, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love,
truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left;
in honor and dishonor, in ill repute and good repute. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true;
as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold we live; as punished, and yet not killed;
as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing everything (2 Corinthians 6:4-10).
He suffered affliction and hardship for them. He made use of God's power to serve them and he thought he was successful despite all apparent failures. In his words, "as having nothing, and yet possessing everything". His heart was wide and he urged them to widen their hearts to embrace all (2 Corinthians 6:11-13).
Abruptly, he reversed gears and told them not to marry with unbelievers! Did Paul really intend this interpretation?
Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?
What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God (2 Corinthians 6:14-16a);
Protestants like to quote these verses to forbid followers from dating/marrying with unbelievers.
The word "mismated ἑτεροζυγοῦντες " appears only once in the whole New Testament. It means "be yoked with an animal of a different kind" and the Chinese Bibles, Catholic as well as Protestant, translate it as 「共負一軛」. Surely it requires an imaginative leap of logic to apply this to marriage.
Can a Christian marry an unbeliever? The answer is affirmative.
In discussing divorce in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul followed Jesus' line and forbade it. The only exception he allows is the divorce between a Christian and an unbelieving spouse. The divorce can only be initiated by the unbelieving spouse.
But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace. (1 Corinthians 7:15).
The marriage between Christians and unbelievers must have been very common in those days as in today and Paul saw the value of this kind of marriage.
For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy (1 Corinthians 7:14).
Of course, you may argue that Paul was discussing the case of one partner becoming a Christian after marriage. He was only considering whether they should divorce after the conversion of one partner. I think it is too narrow an interpretation. Why wait for unbelieving couples to convert? Why not allow Christians to marry unbelievers to consecrate them? It goes against his appeal to reconcile the world to God if we forbid Christians to marry unbelievers.
My Lord, I am not a marriage counsellor and I have stepped out of my tuff. Allow me to work as Your instrument of reconciliation. Amen.
Appendix:
At the acceptable time I have listened to you, and helped you on the day of salvation.καιρῷ δεκτῷ ἐπήκουσά σου κ αὶ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σωτηρίας ἐβοήθησά σοι (2 Corinthians 6:2, Isaiah 49:8).
I will live in them and move among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.ἐνοικήσω ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐμπερ ιπατήσω καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτῶν θεὸς καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μου λαός. (2 Corinthians 6:16b)
καὶ ἐμπεριπατήσω ἐν ὑμῖν κα ὶ ἔσομαι ὑμῶν θεός, καὶ ὑμεῖς ἔσεσθέ μου λαός (Leviticus 26:12).
Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean; then I will welcome you, διὸ ἐξέλθατε ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν καὶ ἀφορίσθητε, λέγει κύριος, καὶ ἀκαθάρτου μὴ ἅπτεσθε· κἀγὼ εἰσδέξομαι ὑμᾶς (2 Corinthians 6:17)
ἀπόστητε ἀπόστητε ἐξέλθατ ε ἐκεῖθεν καὶ ἀκαθάρτου μὴ ἅπτεσθε, ἐξέλθατε ἐκ μέσου αὐτῆς ἀφορίσθητε, οἱ φέροντες τὰ σκεύη κυρίου, (Isaiah 52:11).
and I will be a father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.καὶ ἔσομαι ὑμῖν εἰς πατέρα κ αὶ ὑμεῖς ἔσεσθέ μοι εἰς υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας, λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ. (2 Corinthians 6:18)
ἐγὼ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱόν, (2 Samuel 7:14a).
Sunday 14 June 2009
Corpus Christi
The Year of St. Paul will end this June 29. Therefore, I intended to go through the life of St. Paul with the choir members within these remaining weeks. I was amazed that some of the younger members mixed up Peter and Paul, probably because of the similarity in their names in Chinese 伯多祿 and 保祿. One of them thought that Paul was the rock on which Jesus said he would build his church. Therefore, I knew that I still have a lot of work to do to help these young people know their faith. In fact, they know quite a bit. They are familiar with the story of the conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus. I was much relieved. To consolidate their knowledge a little, I asked them how the two saints died and why they died in different manners. They know that Paul was beheaded and Peter crucified upside down. I added that Paul was a Roman citizen and would die in a more dignified way whereas Peter was not. Therefore he died in a shameful way like a Roman slave.
Some of them were quick to point out that Peter was our first Pope. I did not go into the detail of the meaning of a Pope and asked them to find out how many Popes we have. From the Catholic Directory, they know that Benedict XVI is the 254th Pope. Then I brought up the issue of Peter being the first Pope and the Pope enjoyed infallibility. We turned to Galatian 2 to read the story of the Antioch incident which the Protestants love to quote to discredit Peter as the first Pope and the infallibility a Pope enjoyed.
But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity (Galatians 2:11-13).
Cephas was Peter in Hebrew. James was the brother of the Lord and the head of the church in Jerusalem. Barnabas was a partner of Paul in his missionary journeys. Circumcision was important for Jews because it defined their identity as the Chosen People. Jewish Christians were very much concerned and confused because without circumcision, how the Gentile Christians would be saved. If circumcision were not essential for salvation, the Jews would be disillusioned. They would lose their identity. The "circumcision party" was a group of Jewish Christians, probably from Jerusalem, advocating the circumcision of Gentile Christians in order to avoid attacks from Jews who were not Christians. Paul debated hotly with them because they imposed unnecessary burden on those who wanted to become Christians. This much was the background.
Paul respected and harboured high expectation on Peter. Therefore Paul was even more greatly disappointed by Peter's behaviour and scolded him in public because he had set a bad example of insincerity and led others, including even Barnabas, to follow him. His fury was justified. But does this mean that popes also make mistakes and not infallible? If Popes are infallible, Peter was not a pope. If Peter was the first Pope, then popes do not enjoy infallibility. This Protestant argument is impeccable.
I am afraid many Catholics, not just Protestants, do not know that the privilege of papal infallibility is confined within a very narrow scope.
The Pope is infallible only when exercising his office as the pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine of faith and moral.
Obviously, the Antioch incident was not such a situation. Peter did not define or proclaim any doctrine of faith and moral. His behaviour might be questionable, but that did not disqualify him as the first Pope, nor that Popes were fallible.
We then speculated why Peter avoided the Gentile Christians when men from the Jerusalem Church arrived in Antioch. What was his motive?
Then we turned to a passage written by Paul himself, chapter 8 in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. It is a discussion on whether Christians should eat food offered to idols. To set his tone, Paul wrote the following famous line.
Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up (1 Corinthians 8:1b).
Our faith is mature. We know that there is only one true God. Idols are no god at all (1 Corinthians 8:4-5). Therefore food offered to idols is not contaminated. It remains what it is --- food for our belly. Possessing this knowledge, Christians of course may eat any food, whether it be offered to idols or not.
However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through being hitherto accustomed to idols, eat food as really offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled (1 Corinthians 8:7).
However, that is a big "however"! Paul brought out the theme he would elaborate later --- charity is greater than faith.
Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.
Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak (1 Corinthians 8:8-9).
To add weight to his argument, Paul pushed it a step further that such a stumbling action is a sin against the Lord (1 Corinthians 8:12)!
And so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died.
Thus, sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.
Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother's falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brotTher to fall (1 Corinthians 8:11-13).
I am not defending Peter's behaviour. We can never know what was going on in his mind when he avoided Gentile Christians in the presence of the circumcision party. Was Peter concerned about the conscience of the circumcision party? Did Peter want to look good in front of the circumcision party? We will never know. But charity remains a possibility.
Today, we celebrate the feast of Corpus Christi. It is a mystery which we will never fathom. No theological speculations will ever exhaust the richness of it. How can it possible be? Love can only be sung, not to be reasoned.
Today, Fr. Patrick Sun quoted the tragedy of the father who covered with his own body his three-year-old son when a mental patient chopped the boy to death. Love involves sacrifice and Jesus has shown his great love for us, not just through dying on the cross to cleanse us of all sins, but also in offering himself to us in the Holy Eucharist. (Of course, Richard Dawkins would smilingly congratulate himself of his ingenious explanation --- The Selfish Gene. The Self Gene was just trying to preserve itself.) But love cannot be explained. It can only be demonstrated and Jesus has demonstrated his love beyond any doubt.
My sweet Jesus, I am not worthy to receive You. But I know that You will never depart from me. Let me go to You and surrender myself. Amen.
Some of them were quick to point out that Peter was our first Pope. I did not go into the detail of the meaning of a Pope and asked them to find out how many Popes we have. From the Catholic Directory, they know that Benedict XVI is the 254th Pope. Then I brought up the issue of Peter being the first Pope and the Pope enjoyed infallibility. We turned to Galatian 2 to read the story of the Antioch incident which the Protestants love to quote to discredit Peter as the first Pope and the infallibility a Pope enjoyed.
But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity (Galatians 2:11-13).
Cephas was Peter in Hebrew. James was the brother of the Lord and the head of the church in Jerusalem. Barnabas was a partner of Paul in his missionary journeys. Circumcision was important for Jews because it defined their identity as the Chosen People. Jewish Christians were very much concerned and confused because without circumcision, how the Gentile Christians would be saved. If circumcision were not essential for salvation, the Jews would be disillusioned. They would lose their identity. The "circumcision party" was a group of Jewish Christians, probably from Jerusalem, advocating the circumcision of Gentile Christians in order to avoid attacks from Jews who were not Christians. Paul debated hotly with them because they imposed unnecessary burden on those who wanted to become Christians. This much was the background.
Paul respected and harboured high expectation on Peter. Therefore Paul was even more greatly disappointed by Peter's behaviour and scolded him in public because he had set a bad example of insincerity and led others, including even Barnabas, to follow him. His fury was justified. But does this mean that popes also make mistakes and not infallible? If Popes are infallible, Peter was not a pope. If Peter was the first Pope, then popes do not enjoy infallibility. This Protestant argument is impeccable.
I am afraid many Catholics, not just Protestants, do not know that the privilege of papal infallibility is confined within a very narrow scope.
The Pope is infallible only when exercising his office as the pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine of faith and moral.
Obviously, the Antioch incident was not such a situation. Peter did not define or proclaim any doctrine of faith and moral. His behaviour might be questionable, but that did not disqualify him as the first Pope, nor that Popes were fallible.
We then speculated why Peter avoided the Gentile Christians when men from the Jerusalem Church arrived in Antioch. What was his motive?
Then we turned to a passage written by Paul himself, chapter 8 in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. It is a discussion on whether Christians should eat food offered to idols. To set his tone, Paul wrote the following famous line.
Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up (1 Corinthians 8:1b).
Our faith is mature. We know that there is only one true God. Idols are no god at all (1 Corinthians 8:4-5). Therefore food offered to idols is not contaminated. It remains what it is --- food for our belly. Possessing this knowledge, Christians of course may eat any food, whether it be offered to idols or not.
However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through being hitherto accustomed to idols, eat food as really offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled (1 Corinthians 8:7).
However, that is a big "however"! Paul brought out the theme he would elaborate later --- charity is greater than faith.
Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.
Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak (1 Corinthians 8:8-9).
To add weight to his argument, Paul pushed it a step further that such a stumbling action is a sin against the Lord (1 Corinthians 8:12)!
And so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died.
Thus, sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.
Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother's falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brotTher to fall (1 Corinthians 8:11-13).
I am not defending Peter's behaviour. We can never know what was going on in his mind when he avoided Gentile Christians in the presence of the circumcision party. Was Peter concerned about the conscience of the circumcision party? Did Peter want to look good in front of the circumcision party? We will never know. But charity remains a possibility.
Today, we celebrate the feast of Corpus Christi. It is a mystery which we will never fathom. No theological speculations will ever exhaust the richness of it. How can it possible be? Love can only be sung, not to be reasoned.
Today, Fr. Patrick Sun quoted the tragedy of the father who covered with his own body his three-year-old son when a mental patient chopped the boy to death. Love involves sacrifice and Jesus has shown his great love for us, not just through dying on the cross to cleanse us of all sins, but also in offering himself to us in the Holy Eucharist. (Of course, Richard Dawkins would smilingly congratulate himself of his ingenious explanation --- The Selfish Gene. The Self Gene was just trying to preserve itself.) But love cannot be explained. It can only be demonstrated and Jesus has demonstrated his love beyond any doubt.
My sweet Jesus, I am not worthy to receive You. But I know that You will never depart from me. Let me go to You and surrender myself. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)