Today is the feast day of the archangels. They are Michael, the warrior angel; Gabriel, the messenger angel and Raphael, the healer angel. We know very little about their properties. They are beyond our understanding and our imagination. All of us, angels and men, are creatures of God. Each one of us has a different role to play in the grand plan of salvation. Therefore, let us pray to these superior beings so that we may work together to bring forth the gospel of our Lord to the whole Creation.
In the reading today, we have the following heavenly scene.
Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought,
but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.
And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world -- he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him (Revelation 12:7-9).
Revelation is not an easy book to read. Its genre is one of its own. In the Old Testament, we find a similar genre in part of Daniel. The genre is apocalyptic. God is transmitting some messages to us. However, our limited capacity is unable to receive them and express them in full.
Firstly, we cannot interpret it literally. There are larger meanings than those words and images can express. Most of the images are symbols. The lampstand, the seal, the horsemen the great dragon etc. represent something other than themselves.
Secondly, we cannot rule out the possibility that the author actually saw in his visions what he had written down.
Thirdly, the time scale is missing. When will these things happen? Were they happening at the time of writing? Was the author actually telling history stories in a new package? How long will those events last?
Fourthly, what was the social context? What was the cultural, political background when the author wrote the story? What was the intention of the author?
Therefore, will there be such a battle between Michael and Satan? Or was it actually a repackaging of a battle in history? If it was a heavenly vision, how accurately was the author able to express the throwing down of Satan and his angels? If the vision was symbolic, how are we going to interpret it? What clues and rules can we follow?
Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought,
but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.
And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world -- he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him (Revelation 12:7-9).
Revelation is not an easy book to read. Its genre is one of its own. In the Old Testament, we find a similar genre in part of Daniel. The genre is apocalyptic. God is transmitting some messages to us. However, our limited capacity is unable to receive them and express them in full.
Firstly, we cannot interpret it literally. There are larger meanings than those words and images can express. Most of the images are symbols. The lampstand, the seal, the horsemen the great dragon etc. represent something other than themselves.
Secondly, we cannot rule out the possibility that the author actually saw in his visions what he had written down.
Thirdly, the time scale is missing. When will these things happen? Were they happening at the time of writing? Was the author actually telling history stories in a new package? How long will those events last?
Fourthly, what was the social context? What was the cultural, political background when the author wrote the story? What was the intention of the author?
Therefore, will there be such a battle between Michael and Satan? Or was it actually a repackaging of a battle in history? If it was a heavenly vision, how accurately was the author able to express the throwing down of Satan and his angels? If the vision was symbolic, how are we going to interpret it? What clues and rules can we follow?
In our Moral Theology course, we came to the relation between the scripture and morality. It is perfectly appropriate to look up the Bible for ethical inspiration. However, the Bible cannot be interpreted literally. At this point, Fr. Ng introduced the idea of "exegesis" and pointed out the dangers of reading the Bible out of context. Go back to the basic. What was the intention of the author and his cultural background?
To make his point, Fr. Ng quoted the gospel reading last Sunday. Jesus told people to punish those who led the weaker faith to commit sin by hanging a millstone around his neck and throwing him into the sea (Mark 9:42). Fr. Ng explained the cultural background of this text. The Jews feared this punishment more than crucifixion because the criminal would never receive a proper burial. Similarly for Chinese, it is a curse to die without a burial place 「死無葬身之地」.
Again, Jesus told people to amputate their limbs in order to avoid sins (Mark 9:43-47). Did the Jesus of Mark intend heaven to admit only the physically handicapped? Immediately, I could imagine some who insist on interpreting the Bible literally that Jesus indeed intended to admit only those who were courageous and determined enough to amputate themselves in order to avoid sin because Jesus would restore their missing limbs in heaven! Fr. Ng found such an interpretation unreasonable. He pointed out that this amputation was therapeutic. [I take this interpretation with reservation. Luke, a physician, did not copy this amputation verses from Mark. After mentioning the millstone warning, Luke talked about rebuking a brother who sinned (Luke 17:1-4).] Even in ancient times, when the limbs were rotting and threatening the life of a patient, doctors would recommend amputation even though they did not have any medical term to describe blood poisoning. In short, it is foolish and unreasonable to draw moral conclusions literally from the Bible.
To make his point, Fr. Ng quoted the gospel reading last Sunday. Jesus told people to punish those who led the weaker faith to commit sin by hanging a millstone around his neck and throwing him into the sea (Mark 9:42). Fr. Ng explained the cultural background of this text. The Jews feared this punishment more than crucifixion because the criminal would never receive a proper burial. Similarly for Chinese, it is a curse to die without a burial place 「死無葬身之地」.
Again, Jesus told people to amputate their limbs in order to avoid sins (Mark 9:43-47). Did the Jesus of Mark intend heaven to admit only the physically handicapped? Immediately, I could imagine some who insist on interpreting the Bible literally that Jesus indeed intended to admit only those who were courageous and determined enough to amputate themselves in order to avoid sin because Jesus would restore their missing limbs in heaven! Fr. Ng found such an interpretation unreasonable. He pointed out that this amputation was therapeutic. [I take this interpretation with reservation. Luke, a physician, did not copy this amputation verses from Mark. After mentioning the millstone warning, Luke talked about rebuking a brother who sinned (Luke 17:1-4).] Even in ancient times, when the limbs were rotting and threatening the life of a patient, doctors would recommend amputation even though they did not have any medical term to describe blood poisoning. In short, it is foolish and unreasonable to draw moral conclusions literally from the Bible.
Dear Lord, I thank You for sending angels to help us. May we work together to honour Your glory. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment