Tonight, we practised Bible Study. We read the Sunday Gospel again. Deacon Chau and Deacon Yung were in our group. Candidate Charles Chu was the group leader. Bartha (wife of Candidate SaiLing) and I were group members. I was very much impressed by the views of Deacon Chau.
Bartha read the whole passage once for us. Charles put us in the roles of Jesus and the Samaritan woman to explore their feelings and reactions in the scene.
In our imagining, Jesus was passing through Samaria with his disciples. He had travelled for quite some time and was tired. He was sitting at the Jacob's Well. It was noon. Jesus must be hot and thirsty but he had no instrument to draw water from the well (John 4:6). Just then, a Samaritan woman appeared. She came at this hour to draw water in order to avoid meeting people. However, a Jewish man was sitting at the well. The Samaritan woman must be feeling very uneasy. How inconvenient! What was running through the mind of Jesus? and the woman's? After some verbal exchanges between Jesus and the woman, Jesus told the woman her private life: she had had five husbands and she was now living with another man who was not her husband (John 4:16-18).
The woman must have been unpopular or even infamous for her private life so that she came out at noon to draw water in order to avoid meeting her neighbour. That she had had five husbands before does not necessarily imply that she had an immoral/questionable personality. Each time, she might have obtained a divorce letter from her husband so that she was perfectly free and legal to marry another man. Of course, according to the teaching of Jesus in the Synoptic gospels, the woman should not have divorced in the first place. She had committed adultery. To make sure that the woman was leading an adulterous life, John made her living with another man who was not her husband. But this was only a very superficial reading of the story. We would meet more exciting things very soon.
Return to the story, the Samaritan woman was amazed at Jesus' ability to know her private life. She concluded that this Jewish man must be a prophet. Then she asked where they should worship God, in Mount Gerizim or in Jerusalem (John 4:19-20).
I was curious. I raised a question. Why, out of so many possible questions, did this Samaritan woman ask a prophet where people should worship God? Nobody was able to answer this question. Deacon Chau commented that perhaps this question had been in this woman's mind for a long time. Therefore, when opportunity arose, she asked Jesus. Only God knows why she had such a question in mind.
Deacon Yung briefly commented on Jesus' answer about worshipping God in Spirit and Truth (John 4:23-24). He brought out the Trinitarian dimension of this answer. We should worshipp God the Father in the Holy Spirit and in the Son (the Truth). The group did not follow up on this point. Perhaps it was too theological.
Then Deacon Chau described a new and exciting image of this scene: Jesus was wrestling verbally with this Samaritan woman!
First, Jesus asked for water to quench his thirst (John 4:7). The woman protested (John 4:9).
Then, Jesus told her that in fact, he wanted to give her water instead (John 4:10). The woman teased Jesus that he had nothing to draw water. Who do you think you are? Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob? (John 4:11-12).
Then, Jesus enticed her that the water he intended to give her would be living water, quenching her thirst forever (John 4:13-14). That would save her the trouble to come out at the most inconvenient time to draw water everyday. The woman wanted the water now (John 4:15).
Then, Jesus dealt her a fatal blow. He knew that she was living in adultery. Therefore, Jesus told her to call her husband along to get the living water (John 4:16). Of course, the woman defended that she had no husband (John 4:17a).
Then, Jesus revealed her private life (John 4:17b-18). The woman had no more defence and asked the worship question (John 4:19-20).
This image is beautiful. No wonder the scene took place here in Jacob's Well because Jacob had wrestled with God before he returned to meet his brother Esau (Genesis 32:24-32).
Oh my God! It suddenly dawned on me that like Jacob, like this Samaritan woman, I have been wrestling with God. I have been stubborn and refused to confess my sins.
Oh my Lord, when will You hit my weakest spot to unarm my defence? Come! Hit me and beat me up! Amen.
Monday 28 March 2011
Sunday 27 March 2011
To Worship God in Spirit and in Truth
Today is the third Sunday of the Lent Season. The Church celebrates the first Rite of Scrutiny for the catechumens who are going through their final preparation for theie baptism in Easter Eve. In the reading today, we heard the famous passage of the dialogue between Jesus and a Samaritan woman. In this story, there are many features to meditate upon. In particular, I would focus on the topic of worship.
The Samaritan woman did not have a happy background. She had had five husbands and the man she was living with at the moment was not her husband. Jesus started a dialogue with her and guided her gradually away from her plight at the moment and to seek eternal life. In their dialogue, the Samaritan woman asked Jesus where they should worship God. Since the Solomon kingdom was split, the Israelites in the north and those in the south worshipped God at different locations. Jesus answered the Samaritan woman.
But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him.
God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth (John 4:23-24).
What does it mean to worship God in spirit and truth?
In the gospel of John, the word "truth" appears 27 times in 22 verses. Sometimes, it simply means true --- "of a truth", e.g. 6:14, 7:40. It also appears in a few famous verses such as:
and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free (John 8:32).
Jesus said to him (Thomas), "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me (John 14:6).
In the Last Supper, Jesus mentioned the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Truth (14:17, 15:26, 16:13). In his long prayer during this Last Supper, Jesus prayed to God to sanctify his disciples through His word which is the truth (17:17, 19). Jesus is the Word of God. He is the truth.
When we read all the way back to John 1, we will see a favourite formula: "grace and truth" (John 1:14, 17), I am sure this phrase carries a special meaning other than the literal ones. So, what does it mean to worship God in spirit and truth?
In the study of Sacramental Theology, we came to the theory of Casel. In order to understand sacraments, Casel looked at the history of salvation which reached its climax in the redemptive work of Jesus. Today, the Church continues Jesus' redemptive project through the celebration of sacraments. Therefore, according to Casel, the highest form of God-man relationship is in man's worship of God. In worshipping God, man enters into the mystery of Christ, partaking in Christ's worship. On the one hand, Christ's worship glorifies God. On the other, it sanctifies man. The Church makes use of symbols and rituals to make this redemptive work present in liturgy (A Rendezvous with Christ --- from celebration to mystery, by Archbishop Savio Hon, SDB, 1995, pg. 385)
This theory offers a possible interpretation of the text. Jesus is the truth and we should worship God in the Holy Spirit and in Jesus. So, we have entered the New Testament. We no longer worship God through burnt offerings and holocaust etc. We worship God through Jesus.
Dear Lord, we can enjoy a foretaste of eternal life when we worship with You. I thank You. Hide me in the shadow of Your wings. Amen.
The Samaritan woman did not have a happy background. She had had five husbands and the man she was living with at the moment was not her husband. Jesus started a dialogue with her and guided her gradually away from her plight at the moment and to seek eternal life. In their dialogue, the Samaritan woman asked Jesus where they should worship God. Since the Solomon kingdom was split, the Israelites in the north and those in the south worshipped God at different locations. Jesus answered the Samaritan woman.
But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him.
God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth (John 4:23-24).
What does it mean to worship God in spirit and truth?
In the gospel of John, the word "truth" appears 27 times in 22 verses. Sometimes, it simply means true --- "of a truth", e.g. 6:14, 7:40. It also appears in a few famous verses such as:
and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free (John 8:32).
Jesus said to him (Thomas), "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me (John 14:6).
In the Last Supper, Jesus mentioned the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Truth (14:17, 15:26, 16:13). In his long prayer during this Last Supper, Jesus prayed to God to sanctify his disciples through His word which is the truth (17:17, 19). Jesus is the Word of God. He is the truth.
When we read all the way back to John 1, we will see a favourite formula: "grace and truth" (John 1:14, 17), I am sure this phrase carries a special meaning other than the literal ones. So, what does it mean to worship God in spirit and truth?
In the study of Sacramental Theology, we came to the theory of Casel. In order to understand sacraments, Casel looked at the history of salvation which reached its climax in the redemptive work of Jesus. Today, the Church continues Jesus' redemptive project through the celebration of sacraments. Therefore, according to Casel, the highest form of God-man relationship is in man's worship of God. In worshipping God, man enters into the mystery of Christ, partaking in Christ's worship. On the one hand, Christ's worship glorifies God. On the other, it sanctifies man. The Church makes use of symbols and rituals to make this redemptive work present in liturgy (A Rendezvous with Christ --- from celebration to mystery, by Archbishop Savio Hon, SDB, 1995, pg. 385)
This theory offers a possible interpretation of the text. Jesus is the truth and we should worship God in the Holy Spirit and in Jesus. So, we have entered the New Testament. We no longer worship God through burnt offerings and holocaust etc. We worship God through Jesus.
Dear Lord, we can enjoy a foretaste of eternal life when we worship with You. I thank You. Hide me in the shadow of Your wings. Amen.
Thursday 24 March 2011
Contextual Theology
In the seminar on Pastoral Theology, Dr. Victoria Yeung touched upon contextual theology. She gave us an introductory chapter from the book "Models of Contextual Theology" by Stephen Bevans. The author maintained that all theology must be contextual. There is no 'pure' universal theology per se. His arguments are persuasive, but I still have some reservation about it.
Contextual theology arose from a dissatisfaction of Classical Theology which is a kind of abstract and universal truth, an objective science of faith. The author proves that such a conception of theology is inadequate. The recognition of this inadequacy is the result of Enlightenment's discovery of subjectivity and the nineteenth century discovery of historical consciousness. These discoveries force us to recognize the importance of the history of theology. Classical theology is a production, an accumulation of historical efforts in response to the contemporary problems. Therefore, classical theology is also a product of historical context. The theologies in the Old and New Testaments are pluralistic. Many diverse and even contradictory theologies exist side by side in the Bible. At the time of the Church Fathers, they made use of Greek philosophy to explain Christian beliefs to the people. Nowadays, we understand that Greek philosophy is only one of the many pieces of jigsaw puzzle that make up the human civilizations. Therefore, Classical Theology has always been contextualized.
Asian civilizations think along different lines. They do not speak Greek philosophy. Therefore, there is a need to contextualize Christianity, put away its Greek way of reasoning and make it relevant to the local peoples. I agree. Theology, like Christ, must "incarnate" into the local culture. Furthermore, the Church is Catholic. She should embrace diversity and different expressions of the same truth which we have not been able to understand completely. The truth we proclaim is not yet the complete truth because God is a mystery that is beyond our ability to fathom.
I agree with all these. I accept the need of diverse theologies to voice the different aspirations of different peoples on earth. Together, our effort will not produce a one-dimensional theology.
Now, my reservations.
I still believe that there is an absolute, objective and universal truth which applies at all times and everywhere. Take the history of physics as an example. Currently, physical truths are approaching absolute truths. Our understanding is getting better and better through efforts in history. Can you imagine the existence of such contextualized physics as feminist physics, black physics, Asian physics etc.? Surely we have Aristotelian physics, Copernicus physics, Newtonian physics etc. to mark the historical development of physics. They are approximations to the objective physical truths. You may argue that there are Western and Chinese medicines. They are two different systems of healing and are clear and strong examples of contextualization. I would say that they are technologies and not sciences. Diversity and contextualization are most welcomed here.
Looking at theology. It is difficult to imagine theology being inferior to physics. If physics can be absolute, objective and universal, why not theology? It must be, though at the moment, we are nowhere near the complete truth.
On the other hand, if we advocate contextual theology too much, these theologies: feminist, black, Asian and African etc., will become another Babel tragedy. They will not be able to talk to each other because they do not share the same vocabulary. We still need a Classical Theology to provide the contextualized theologies with a common vocabulary.
In conclusion, we recognize the contribution of contextual theology, but their contribution is not absolute. There should still be room for Classical Theology.
Dear Lord, through Incarnation, You pitch Your tent among us to reveal Yourself to us. I pray that we don't impose our will onto our neighbour. Allow us to approach You at our pace. Amen.
Contextual theology arose from a dissatisfaction of Classical Theology which is a kind of abstract and universal truth, an objective science of faith. The author proves that such a conception of theology is inadequate. The recognition of this inadequacy is the result of Enlightenment's discovery of subjectivity and the nineteenth century discovery of historical consciousness. These discoveries force us to recognize the importance of the history of theology. Classical theology is a production, an accumulation of historical efforts in response to the contemporary problems. Therefore, classical theology is also a product of historical context. The theologies in the Old and New Testaments are pluralistic. Many diverse and even contradictory theologies exist side by side in the Bible. At the time of the Church Fathers, they made use of Greek philosophy to explain Christian beliefs to the people. Nowadays, we understand that Greek philosophy is only one of the many pieces of jigsaw puzzle that make up the human civilizations. Therefore, Classical Theology has always been contextualized.
Asian civilizations think along different lines. They do not speak Greek philosophy. Therefore, there is a need to contextualize Christianity, put away its Greek way of reasoning and make it relevant to the local peoples. I agree. Theology, like Christ, must "incarnate" into the local culture. Furthermore, the Church is Catholic. She should embrace diversity and different expressions of the same truth which we have not been able to understand completely. The truth we proclaim is not yet the complete truth because God is a mystery that is beyond our ability to fathom.
I agree with all these. I accept the need of diverse theologies to voice the different aspirations of different peoples on earth. Together, our effort will not produce a one-dimensional theology.
Now, my reservations.
I still believe that there is an absolute, objective and universal truth which applies at all times and everywhere. Take the history of physics as an example. Currently, physical truths are approaching absolute truths. Our understanding is getting better and better through efforts in history. Can you imagine the existence of such contextualized physics as feminist physics, black physics, Asian physics etc.? Surely we have Aristotelian physics, Copernicus physics, Newtonian physics etc. to mark the historical development of physics. They are approximations to the objective physical truths. You may argue that there are Western and Chinese medicines. They are two different systems of healing and are clear and strong examples of contextualization. I would say that they are technologies and not sciences. Diversity and contextualization are most welcomed here.
Looking at theology. It is difficult to imagine theology being inferior to physics. If physics can be absolute, objective and universal, why not theology? It must be, though at the moment, we are nowhere near the complete truth.
On the other hand, if we advocate contextual theology too much, these theologies: feminist, black, Asian and African etc., will become another Babel tragedy. They will not be able to talk to each other because they do not share the same vocabulary. We still need a Classical Theology to provide the contextualized theologies with a common vocabulary.
In conclusion, we recognize the contribution of contextual theology, but their contribution is not absolute. There should still be room for Classical Theology.
Dear Lord, through Incarnation, You pitch Your tent among us to reveal Yourself to us. I pray that we don't impose our will onto our neighbour. Allow us to approach You at our pace. Amen.
Wednesday 23 March 2011
A high concentration of wisdom
Deuteronomy 6 is saturated with wisdom. A casual survey will uncover the greatest commandment and two responses to Satan's three temptations. Why did I say wisdom? It is a conclusion drawn from many centuries of piety and worship. It reads
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." (Psalm 111:10, Proverbs 9:10)
Following God's command, Moses taught the Israelites the commandment, the statues and the ordinances of the Lord so that they may keep them (Deuteronomy 6:1), that they may fear the Lord (Deuteronomy 6:2) and that they might fulfill God's promises to Abraham (Deuteronomy 6:3). However, we find much fewer teachings of "fearing God" in the gospels. Usually, we hear "fear not" in the gospels because they are good news!
This is the first commandment Moses taught them. This is the famous Shema.
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD;
and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might (Deuteronomy 6:4-5).
Jesus defended himself with this when a teacher of the Law challenged him (Mark 12:29-30).
Of course, Jesus answered well. However, what can we do? Nobody can love God with all his heart, his soul and his might. We have a lot of daily cares which keep on bothering us so that we have no time even to read the Bible. Moreover, To love God with ALL is too demanding and not performable. Luckily, Shema does not specify the duration. Which means we still have a chance to totally love God, say for one minute. We would only do as much as it is within our capability. May God help us fulfil His good will.
Proceeding a few verses more, we find the line which Jesus quoted to refuse worshipping Satan.
You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve him, and swear by his name (Deuteronomy 6:13).
Jesus paraphrased it to answer Satan's challenge. Serve only the Lord.
This seems to be relatively easier to perform. Of course we should serve the Lord. Who would want to serve Satan? But nowadays, Satan shall not invite us in person to serve it. Rather, it shall send its representatives which are difficult to decline. Help us Lord.
A few lines below, we find the line which Jesus quoted to refuse throwing himself down from the top of the Temple.
You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah (Deuteronomy 6:16).
But it is too abstract. When have we put God to the test? What kind of test have we ask God to perform?
The clue lies in the story at Massah where the Israelites had no water to drink. They complained and in the end, Moses struck a rock with his staff to give them water. This was the same staff which Moses used to part the Red Sea for the Israelites to cross. I have difficulty explaining what made the incident at Massah a test of the Lord. When was the last time I tested the Lord?
Dear Lord, strengthen my feeble knees to proceed ahead. Amen.
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." (Psalm 111:10, Proverbs 9:10)
Following God's command, Moses taught the Israelites the commandment, the statues and the ordinances of the Lord so that they may keep them (Deuteronomy 6:1), that they may fear the Lord (Deuteronomy 6:2) and that they might fulfill God's promises to Abraham (Deuteronomy 6:3). However, we find much fewer teachings of "fearing God" in the gospels. Usually, we hear "fear not" in the gospels because they are good news!
This is the first commandment Moses taught them. This is the famous Shema.
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD;
and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might (Deuteronomy 6:4-5).
Jesus defended himself with this when a teacher of the Law challenged him (Mark 12:29-30).
Of course, Jesus answered well. However, what can we do? Nobody can love God with all his heart, his soul and his might. We have a lot of daily cares which keep on bothering us so that we have no time even to read the Bible. Moreover, To love God with ALL is too demanding and not performable. Luckily, Shema does not specify the duration. Which means we still have a chance to totally love God, say for one minute. We would only do as much as it is within our capability. May God help us fulfil His good will.
Proceeding a few verses more, we find the line which Jesus quoted to refuse worshipping Satan.
You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve him, and swear by his name (Deuteronomy 6:13).
Jesus paraphrased it to answer Satan's challenge. Serve only the Lord.
This seems to be relatively easier to perform. Of course we should serve the Lord. Who would want to serve Satan? But nowadays, Satan shall not invite us in person to serve it. Rather, it shall send its representatives which are difficult to decline. Help us Lord.
A few lines below, we find the line which Jesus quoted to refuse throwing himself down from the top of the Temple.
You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah (Deuteronomy 6:16).
But it is too abstract. When have we put God to the test? What kind of test have we ask God to perform?
The clue lies in the story at Massah where the Israelites had no water to drink. They complained and in the end, Moses struck a rock with his staff to give them water. This was the same staff which Moses used to part the Red Sea for the Israelites to cross. I have difficulty explaining what made the incident at Massah a test of the Lord. When was the last time I tested the Lord?
Dear Lord, strengthen my feeble knees to proceed ahead. Amen.
Tuesday 22 March 2011
Is there any limit in thinking theologically?
Tonight, we started the seminar on "Pastoral Theology". Dr. Victoria Yeung conducted this seminar. She whined that Pastoral Theology was a minority subject in the College. It could only be offered as a seminar held in term breaks. To be sure, this branch of theology is relatively new in the Catholic Church because pastoral care has always been the turf of the clergy. Had such a theology existed, it would have been a preparatory course for priests, giving them directives to handle pastoral work. After Vatican II, the Catholic Church has developed a new way to look at herself. Greater responsibilities have been opened up for the laity because they are the People of God. The clergy are only servants of this People. As a result, there is a newer understanding of the subject-matter, the objects and methodology of this discipline.
Pastoral Theology analyses and interprets the contemporary society theologically, tries to understand it better before offering practical directives to make Christianity relevant to the world. To press her point home, Dr. Yeung made use of the recent Japanese disaster as an illustration. She said that Japanese people would naturally ask the Church in Japan whether this disaster was God's punishment. Here, I beg to differ. Of course, people are free to ask questions. But sometimes, people ask the wrong question and it would be futile to try to answer it. The word "theological" has been abused.
To apply the Ockham's Razor, we don't need to apply the concept of God in order to understand the Japanese disasters. The disaster is explicable simply in terms of economics and politics. The management tried to cover up the flaws in the maintenance of the nuclear power plants. The tsunami exposed them. Period. We don't need God to explain these human flaws. Applying the concept of God in this case does not throw light upon our understanding of our salvation. Therefore, I think it is an abuse of theology.
Since ages immemorable, people have made use of disasters to challenge the idea of a merciful almighty God. They argue that if God is merciful, why does He allow innocent people to suffer? Either God is not merciful or He is not almighty. Therefore, when 911 tragedy happened, many people, including Christians, asked where God was. When South Asia tsunami claimed the lives of 260,000 victims, many people asked where God was. Again, these people have asked the wrong question. Why should God enter into these pictures?
Rather, I would ask what Christians have done to help the victims. Show me your charity. Then I know that you have faith, that you believe in God. Theology is to make sense of the Christian faith. The best way to make sense of this faith is to practise charity in time of disasters and not to ask irrelevant questions. Examining current issues with a theological perspective is an admirable attempt. But if it does not yield insight into our salvation, I prefer withholding my opinions and let experts in other areas have their say.
Dear Lord, allow us to humbly contemplate Your will. Allow us to see the universe in a grain of sand. Amen.
Pastoral Theology analyses and interprets the contemporary society theologically, tries to understand it better before offering practical directives to make Christianity relevant to the world. To press her point home, Dr. Yeung made use of the recent Japanese disaster as an illustration. She said that Japanese people would naturally ask the Church in Japan whether this disaster was God's punishment. Here, I beg to differ. Of course, people are free to ask questions. But sometimes, people ask the wrong question and it would be futile to try to answer it. The word "theological" has been abused.
To apply the Ockham's Razor, we don't need to apply the concept of God in order to understand the Japanese disasters. The disaster is explicable simply in terms of economics and politics. The management tried to cover up the flaws in the maintenance of the nuclear power plants. The tsunami exposed them. Period. We don't need God to explain these human flaws. Applying the concept of God in this case does not throw light upon our understanding of our salvation. Therefore, I think it is an abuse of theology.
Since ages immemorable, people have made use of disasters to challenge the idea of a merciful almighty God. They argue that if God is merciful, why does He allow innocent people to suffer? Either God is not merciful or He is not almighty. Therefore, when 911 tragedy happened, many people, including Christians, asked where God was. When South Asia tsunami claimed the lives of 260,000 victims, many people asked where God was. Again, these people have asked the wrong question. Why should God enter into these pictures?
Rather, I would ask what Christians have done to help the victims. Show me your charity. Then I know that you have faith, that you believe in God. Theology is to make sense of the Christian faith. The best way to make sense of this faith is to practise charity in time of disasters and not to ask irrelevant questions. Examining current issues with a theological perspective is an admirable attempt. But if it does not yield insight into our salvation, I prefer withholding my opinions and let experts in other areas have their say.
Dear Lord, allow us to humbly contemplate Your will. Allow us to see the universe in a grain of sand. Amen.
Monday 21 March 2011
Learning to do Biblical Sharing properly
These Mondays I am taking a Biblical Pastoral Formation course for the Deacons. The first few sessions are conducted by Catholic Hong Kong Bible Association「天主教聖經協會」. We spent 2 sessions to discuss the Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini promulgated by Benedict XVI on September 30, 2010. Then we also learned some Bible Sharing activities such as Bible snapshot, compressing a five-minute talk into one. Tonight, we practised some procedures in which some texts of the first chapter of John were shared. I am rather rational in Bible sharing and many times, I do exegesis rather than sharing. Tonight, it was no exception and I had difficulty staying at the sharing level. Of course, the host did not condemn me. She tried to explain away my shortcoming, saying that all of us had undergone rigorous theological trainings. Therefore, it was easy for us to go deeper and our sharings would turn into exegesis.
The spirit of Biblical sharing is to allow us to be moved by the Holy Spirit and to discover what messages the Holy Spirit tries to convey to us through the text. Everybody shares with the group what messages he receives and what changes in his religious life these messages call for. In the practice, I got stuck in some verses.
We were sharing John 1:36-42. John the Baptist was standing with 2 of his disciples. They saw Jesus and the Baptist told his disciples that Jesus was the Lamb of God. The 2 disciples followed Jesus. Jesus turned around and asked, "What do you seek?" 「你們找什麼？」They answered, "Rabbi, where are you staying?" 「辣彼！你住在那裡？」 (John 1:38) The Chinese translation gives me a feeling that the disciples were not answering Jesus' question. It sounds a bit odd to answer a question with a question. "What are you looking for?" "Teacher, where do you live?" Perhaps it makes perfect sense for some people. For me, it is a bit odd. Perhaps I am not quite used to such a style of writing.
In another verse, I was puzzled by the statement of Andrew. John the Baptist said Jesus was the Lamb of God. But when Andrew went to Simon Peter, he told Simon that they had found the Messiah (John 1:41). Was that how Andrew understood the Baptist's testimony? There was a gap between these 2 titles. How did he equate the Lamb of God with the Messiah? Had Andrew understood the Baptist correctly?
In this verse, SaiLing saved me. He said that our students/catechumens usually do not understand us completely and correctly. It is a fact of life. At that moment, perhaps Andrew really misunderstood the testimony of the Baptist. Ah! That made sense to me.
In the second practice, we read the text John 1:45-51. We read the text 4 times, each time we labelled the text with special punctuation marks. The first time, we used question marks to label text we don't understand. The second time, we used exclamation marks to label text we agree. The third time, we used small circles to label exaggerated text. The last time, we used an up-arrow to label text relevant to our life. During the sharing, we explained why we had labelled the text in such ways. This procedure slows down my tendency to do exegesis. Still, I have a lot of question marks.
What did Nathanel do under the fig tree such that Jeus could conclude that Nathanel was an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile? (John 1:47) Of course, nobody could answer. But I am sure many people are curious like me to know what was going on.
When Jesus told Nathanel that he had seen him under the fig tree before Philip found him, Nathanel exclaimed that Jesus was the Son of God, the King of Israel (John 1:49). I did not understand the thinking of Nathanel. How could he equate the Son of God with the King of Israel? SaiLing also marked this verse with a question mark but for a different reason. He queried why Nathanel could have jumped to the conclusion that Jesus was the Son of God.
My next question mark went to the last verse. Where in the Bible can we find angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man (John 1:51)?
Many of us marked John 1:48 with an up-arrow. Jesus sees us all the time. This can be frightening for some of us but it can also be comforting when Jesus sees us unjustly treated by our boss.
Dear Lord, help me get Your message properly. Amen.
The spirit of Biblical sharing is to allow us to be moved by the Holy Spirit and to discover what messages the Holy Spirit tries to convey to us through the text. Everybody shares with the group what messages he receives and what changes in his religious life these messages call for. In the practice, I got stuck in some verses.
We were sharing John 1:36-42. John the Baptist was standing with 2 of his disciples. They saw Jesus and the Baptist told his disciples that Jesus was the Lamb of God. The 2 disciples followed Jesus. Jesus turned around and asked, "What do you seek?" 「你們找什麼？」They answered, "Rabbi, where are you staying?" 「辣彼！你住在那裡？」 (John 1:38) The Chinese translation gives me a feeling that the disciples were not answering Jesus' question. It sounds a bit odd to answer a question with a question. "What are you looking for?" "Teacher, where do you live?" Perhaps it makes perfect sense for some people. For me, it is a bit odd. Perhaps I am not quite used to such a style of writing.
In another verse, I was puzzled by the statement of Andrew. John the Baptist said Jesus was the Lamb of God. But when Andrew went to Simon Peter, he told Simon that they had found the Messiah (John 1:41). Was that how Andrew understood the Baptist's testimony? There was a gap between these 2 titles. How did he equate the Lamb of God with the Messiah? Had Andrew understood the Baptist correctly?
In this verse, SaiLing saved me. He said that our students/catechumens usually do not understand us completely and correctly. It is a fact of life. At that moment, perhaps Andrew really misunderstood the testimony of the Baptist. Ah! That made sense to me.
In the second practice, we read the text John 1:45-51. We read the text 4 times, each time we labelled the text with special punctuation marks. The first time, we used question marks to label text we don't understand. The second time, we used exclamation marks to label text we agree. The third time, we used small circles to label exaggerated text. The last time, we used an up-arrow to label text relevant to our life. During the sharing, we explained why we had labelled the text in such ways. This procedure slows down my tendency to do exegesis. Still, I have a lot of question marks.
What did Nathanel do under the fig tree such that Jeus could conclude that Nathanel was an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile? (John 1:47) Of course, nobody could answer. But I am sure many people are curious like me to know what was going on.
When Jesus told Nathanel that he had seen him under the fig tree before Philip found him, Nathanel exclaimed that Jesus was the Son of God, the King of Israel (John 1:49). I did not understand the thinking of Nathanel. How could he equate the Son of God with the King of Israel? SaiLing also marked this verse with a question mark but for a different reason. He queried why Nathanel could have jumped to the conclusion that Jesus was the Son of God.
My next question mark went to the last verse. Where in the Bible can we find angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man (John 1:51)?
Many of us marked John 1:48 with an up-arrow. Jesus sees us all the time. This can be frightening for some of us but it can also be comforting when Jesus sees us unjustly treated by our boss.
Dear Lord, help me get Your message properly. Amen.
Sunday 20 March 2011
A wandering Aramean
Entering the Second Sunday of the Lent Season, we read of the story of the call of Abram (Genesis 12:1-4) whom God later renamed as Abraham (Genesis 17:5). The major monotheist religions in the world (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) honour Abraham. He is respected as the Father of Faith, the blessing of the nations etc. He is the example of every Jew, Christian and Muslim.
Abraham had never settled down in one place. Throughout his life, Abraham kept travelling and moving from place to place. That is why the creed of Judaism begins like this.
A wandering Aramean was my father; and he went down into Egypt and sojourned there, few in number; and there he became a nation, great, mighty, and populous (Deuteronomy 26:5).
Fr. Milanese began his homily with the question of migration. Our parents came to Hong Kong as refugees. Many people left Hong Kong, migrated overseas in the advent of 1997. To a certain extent, they were forced to leave the place where they had grown up. They had to leave behind their many relatives and friends who could not "escape". They wanted to seek a better living environment. But such was not the case of Abraham. He left his kindred not because of famine, nor of disasters. He left because his God told him to do so.
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." (Genesis 12:1)
By the time he left, Abram must have been well established among his kindred. He brought along his household and in subsequent stories, he could raise an army to fight battles, to rescue his nephew Lot. To a certain extent, Abram was the first Apostle. God called him to give up his comfort zone, his turf to venture into an unknown future. What was in store for him in the future could only unfold if Abram was willing to take the first step. If not, don't forget God would perfectly respect his free will and would not force him to leave, the whole Bible would consist of eleven chapters of Genesis! Don't worry. The Bible is the Bible. There must exist somewhere, somehow a certain man, call him Abram or Adam or what not, who would answer the call of God in a positive manner. The Bible is a record of such stories.
Unlike those reluctant refugees, Abraham was going to be the Father of nations, the Father of faith. He moved around on the face of the globe to be a source of blessing, an ambassador of Yahweh.
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 12:2-3).
Nowadays, Israel is not numerically a great nation in terms of population or GDP. But if we count the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims together, this monotheistic "nation" is truly great. Because of the decision, the obedience of one man, many people have received blessings and lead a fulfilling life. Abraham would not be able to envision such an outcome. Nobody would. No rational cost-benefit analysis would come up with this option. This is faith.
In the Gospel reading today, we read of the Transfiguration of Jesus. After witnessing the glory of Jesus, Peter would like to continue staying in this comfort zone. He wanted to build three tents to worship Jesus, Moses and Elijah.
And Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is well that we are here; if you wish, I will make three booths here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah." (Matthew 17:4)
No way. If Peter/Jesus had not come down from the high mountain, we would not have had Christianity as it is today. The whole world would have been a totally different look. Truly, we need to come down from the high mountain even though it is so close to God. We need spirituality but we also need action.
Dear Lord, it is a pleasure to travel along with You. Stay by me in my journey. Amen.
Abraham had never settled down in one place. Throughout his life, Abraham kept travelling and moving from place to place. That is why the creed of Judaism begins like this.
A wandering Aramean was my father; and he went down into Egypt and sojourned there, few in number; and there he became a nation, great, mighty, and populous (Deuteronomy 26:5).
Fr. Milanese began his homily with the question of migration. Our parents came to Hong Kong as refugees. Many people left Hong Kong, migrated overseas in the advent of 1997. To a certain extent, they were forced to leave the place where they had grown up. They had to leave behind their many relatives and friends who could not "escape". They wanted to seek a better living environment. But such was not the case of Abraham. He left his kindred not because of famine, nor of disasters. He left because his God told him to do so.
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." (Genesis 12:1)
By the time he left, Abram must have been well established among his kindred. He brought along his household and in subsequent stories, he could raise an army to fight battles, to rescue his nephew Lot. To a certain extent, Abram was the first Apostle. God called him to give up his comfort zone, his turf to venture into an unknown future. What was in store for him in the future could only unfold if Abram was willing to take the first step. If not, don't forget God would perfectly respect his free will and would not force him to leave, the whole Bible would consist of eleven chapters of Genesis! Don't worry. The Bible is the Bible. There must exist somewhere, somehow a certain man, call him Abram or Adam or what not, who would answer the call of God in a positive manner. The Bible is a record of such stories.
Unlike those reluctant refugees, Abraham was going to be the Father of nations, the Father of faith. He moved around on the face of the globe to be a source of blessing, an ambassador of Yahweh.
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 12:2-3).
Nowadays, Israel is not numerically a great nation in terms of population or GDP. But if we count the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims together, this monotheistic "nation" is truly great. Because of the decision, the obedience of one man, many people have received blessings and lead a fulfilling life. Abraham would not be able to envision such an outcome. Nobody would. No rational cost-benefit analysis would come up with this option. This is faith.
In the Gospel reading today, we read of the Transfiguration of Jesus. After witnessing the glory of Jesus, Peter would like to continue staying in this comfort zone. He wanted to build three tents to worship Jesus, Moses and Elijah.
And Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is well that we are here; if you wish, I will make three booths here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah." (Matthew 17:4)
No way. If Peter/Jesus had not come down from the high mountain, we would not have had Christianity as it is today. The whole world would have been a totally different look. Truly, we need to come down from the high mountain even though it is so close to God. We need spirituality but we also need action.
Dear Lord, it is a pleasure to travel along with You. Stay by me in my journey. Amen.
Sharing Naboth's Vineyard with classmates
I wrote about Naboth's Vineyard in 2006. It was nearly five years ago. So, I feel I can be of some help to assist my classmates to do their Old Testament Historical Books assignment. In fact, I benefit when I brush up my knowledge of Deuteronomistic History as well.
The story was inserted in different places in different manuscripts. In LXX, it is chapter 20. In MT, it is chapter 21. The redactors of LXX put the story where it belonged --- the Elijah cycle. However, MT puts it between the war story to explain why King Ahab deserved to be bled to death in his chariot from a wound sustained by a stray arrow.
Now, we turn the focus to the text. In the story, Ahab wanted to buy Naboth's vineyard which was next to his palace. Ahab wanted to turn it into a "vegetable garden". On a symbolic level, a vineyard is the work of Yahweh whereas a "vegetable garden" is that of Pharaoh. There was no God in Ahab's heart which had turned away to baals. This is further demonstrated by the way he thought and the way he retold the incident to Jezebel.
Naboth refused the king's offer, saying "The LORD forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers." (1 Kings 21:3)
Ahab was unhappy but he could do nothing because Naboth's reply was totally legitimate. Inheritance of the ancestors was sacred because it showed that God honoured the covenant with the Israelites.
When the redactor reports the reaction of Ahab, he used a subtle way to show that there was no God in Ahab's heart.
And Ahab went into his house vexed and sullen because of what Naboth the Jezreelite had said to him; for he had said, "I will not give you the inheritance of my fathers." (1 Kings 21:4)
"The Lord forbid" is missing! Ahab heard but did not register it in his heart. There was no God in his heart.
This is further illustrated by the way Ahab told Jezebel the event.
And he said to her, "Because I spoke to Naboth the Jezreelite, and said to him, 'Give me your vineyard for money; or else, if it please you, I will give you another vineyard for it'; and he answered, 'I will not give you my vineyard.'"(1 Kings 21:6)
Now, it was no longer "inheritance of my fathers". It was only a "vineyard". And I am sure when he said "vineyard", Ahab meant a vineyard, a garden to grow vine and not the plantation of Yahweh.
All these are common sense. Everyone reading the text in attention will be able to see. Newer ideas popped up during our sharing.
First of all, somebody saw the parallel between David and Ahab! During war time, David stayed behind and had an affair with Bathsheba. In the case of Ahab, he was in the middle of a war (according to MT) and he coveted Naboth's vineyard. David had Uriah killed to take his wife and Ahab had Naboth stoned to death to take his vineyard. The LXX arrangement would not be able to show this. In the end, God sent Nathan to pronounce punishment. David immediately repented and the punishment was postponed. In Ahab's case, God sent Elijah to pronounce punishment. Ahab repented and his punishment was also postponed. This viewpoint is expressed in several commentaries. In helping my classmates, I learned.
Then, we turned to some kind of narrative criticism. We tried to figure out the portrait of Ahab as painted by the author of 1 Kings. From his "depressed" reaction after Naboth's rejection of the deal and allowing Jezebel a free hand to abuse royal authority to obtain what Ahab wanted, many commentators would like to believe that Ahab was a spoilt child. However, my classmates thought in a different fashion. Ahab was a calculated man. He did not have to make his hands dirty. He allowed Jezebel, a foreign princess who was not supposed to know and respect Israelite customs, to do things which were not "convenient/appropriate" for an Israel king to do. In short, Ahab was thoroughly bad, in and out.
When we came to the part of Ahab's renting his clothes, I brought to my classmates' attention the several occasions of people renting their clothes: e.g. King Josiah did it when the Law was read to him. Then he started religious reformation in Judah (2 Kings 22:11). The High Priest Caiaphas rented his clothes when Jesus admitted that he was the Son of God (Mark 14:62-63). On the surface, the High Priest was infuriated because Jesus had blasphemed. But this High Priest was known to speak God's will even though he had no intention to do so (John 11:49-52). Therefore, I speculate that when he tore his garment in front of Jesus, who is God, Caiaphas repented for himself and for the whole Sanhedrin!
In the evening, six of us, the Deacon aspirants, had dinner with B.B. Joe. We intended to hear about his decision to quit. But nobody raised the issue and we simply enjoyed a nice Chiu Chow dinner together. B.B. Joe is still study for his master degree. So, I suppose he has got over the issue.
Dear Lord, I am glad that I can be helpful. Make me Your handy instrument. Amen.
The story was inserted in different places in different manuscripts. In LXX, it is chapter 20. In MT, it is chapter 21. The redactors of LXX put the story where it belonged --- the Elijah cycle. However, MT puts it between the war story to explain why King Ahab deserved to be bled to death in his chariot from a wound sustained by a stray arrow.
Now, we turn the focus to the text. In the story, Ahab wanted to buy Naboth's vineyard which was next to his palace. Ahab wanted to turn it into a "vegetable garden". On a symbolic level, a vineyard is the work of Yahweh whereas a "vegetable garden" is that of Pharaoh. There was no God in Ahab's heart which had turned away to baals. This is further demonstrated by the way he thought and the way he retold the incident to Jezebel.
Naboth refused the king's offer, saying "The LORD forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers." (1 Kings 21:3)
Ahab was unhappy but he could do nothing because Naboth's reply was totally legitimate. Inheritance of the ancestors was sacred because it showed that God honoured the covenant with the Israelites.
When the redactor reports the reaction of Ahab, he used a subtle way to show that there was no God in Ahab's heart.
And Ahab went into his house vexed and sullen because of what Naboth the Jezreelite had said to him; for he had said, "I will not give you the inheritance of my fathers." (1 Kings 21:4)
"The Lord forbid" is missing! Ahab heard but did not register it in his heart. There was no God in his heart.
This is further illustrated by the way Ahab told Jezebel the event.
And he said to her, "Because I spoke to Naboth the Jezreelite, and said to him, 'Give me your vineyard for money; or else, if it please you, I will give you another vineyard for it'; and he answered, 'I will not give you my vineyard.'"(1 Kings 21:6)
Now, it was no longer "inheritance of my fathers". It was only a "vineyard". And I am sure when he said "vineyard", Ahab meant a vineyard, a garden to grow vine and not the plantation of Yahweh.
All these are common sense. Everyone reading the text in attention will be able to see. Newer ideas popped up during our sharing.
First of all, somebody saw the parallel between David and Ahab! During war time, David stayed behind and had an affair with Bathsheba. In the case of Ahab, he was in the middle of a war (according to MT) and he coveted Naboth's vineyard. David had Uriah killed to take his wife and Ahab had Naboth stoned to death to take his vineyard. The LXX arrangement would not be able to show this. In the end, God sent Nathan to pronounce punishment. David immediately repented and the punishment was postponed. In Ahab's case, God sent Elijah to pronounce punishment. Ahab repented and his punishment was also postponed. This viewpoint is expressed in several commentaries. In helping my classmates, I learned.
Then, we turned to some kind of narrative criticism. We tried to figure out the portrait of Ahab as painted by the author of 1 Kings. From his "depressed" reaction after Naboth's rejection of the deal and allowing Jezebel a free hand to abuse royal authority to obtain what Ahab wanted, many commentators would like to believe that Ahab was a spoilt child. However, my classmates thought in a different fashion. Ahab was a calculated man. He did not have to make his hands dirty. He allowed Jezebel, a foreign princess who was not supposed to know and respect Israelite customs, to do things which were not "convenient/appropriate" for an Israel king to do. In short, Ahab was thoroughly bad, in and out.
When we came to the part of Ahab's renting his clothes, I brought to my classmates' attention the several occasions of people renting their clothes: e.g. King Josiah did it when the Law was read to him. Then he started religious reformation in Judah (2 Kings 22:11). The High Priest Caiaphas rented his clothes when Jesus admitted that he was the Son of God (Mark 14:62-63). On the surface, the High Priest was infuriated because Jesus had blasphemed. But this High Priest was known to speak God's will even though he had no intention to do so (John 11:49-52). Therefore, I speculate that when he tore his garment in front of Jesus, who is God, Caiaphas repented for himself and for the whole Sanhedrin!
In the evening, six of us, the Deacon aspirants, had dinner with B.B. Joe. We intended to hear about his decision to quit. But nobody raised the issue and we simply enjoyed a nice Chiu Chow dinner together. B.B. Joe is still study for his master degree. So, I suppose he has got over the issue.
Dear Lord, I am glad that I can be helpful. Make me Your handy instrument. Amen.
Friday 18 March 2011
Sharing Deuteronomy for the first time
So far, this has been the third time Catholic teachers in Shung Tak meet and share together. It has been nearly 15 years since I came here and 35 years since I became a teacher in Catholic schools. Credit should go to Brenda to have started it.
For the first time, we met to recite the Vespers in the Ss Peter & Paul Church and went over to Brenda's house to dine and to whine. The second time, in response to a question raised by Vonnie about the extra books found in the Catholic Bible, I talked about 'A Tale of 3 Canons' in the School Heritage Room and later created a webpage about it. This time, I invited them all to read Deuteronomy during this Lent Season because Jesus answered Satan's temptations with quotations taken from Deuteronomy. Therefore, as followers of Christ, we should know what Deuteronomy talks about. In order to keep the momentum, we will meet on Fridays to share what we have read. This is our first meeting.
I understand that my colleagues have not built up a habit of reading the Bible daily. Therefore, whenever I met them during the week, I would push them a bit and check on their progress. Some are able to start but are put off by the language and unfamiliar names found in the first chapter of Deuteronomy. Some are apologetic about not being able to take up the Bible to study. It was my fault to have chosen a difficult book, a Law book for them. In order to ease their burden, I have prepared an outline, taken from an article in the Jerome Biblical Commentary edited by Fr. Raymond Brown.
Brenda supplied the bread and salmon spread. Zette offered her salad. I bought some fruits and we shared our lunch and Bible in the Teachers' Common Room. To kick off, I started with two other passages taken from the history books to demonstrate the importance of Deuteronomy: 2 Kings 22:10-11, Nehemiah 8:8-9. Why were king Josiah and later the Jews returned from exile so moved by Deuteronomy that they rent their clothes and wept?
Then I brought up the question of divorce in Deuteronomy 24 and Mark 10 to illustrate the relevance of Church teaching in our daily life. This topic turned out to be more attractive because Zette was newly married in February. The Catholic Church has always been conservative in people's mind and my colleagues were much fascinated to hear from me that there is a possibility to divorce even in the Catholic Church.
Lunch time did not allow us to indulge too much in endless sharing. I set the agenda for our next meeting: Compare the Ten Commandments as recorded in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. That should not be too overwhelming for my colleagues. Until then.
Dear Lord, guide us along. Amen.
For the first time, we met to recite the Vespers in the Ss Peter & Paul Church and went over to Brenda's house to dine and to whine. The second time, in response to a question raised by Vonnie about the extra books found in the Catholic Bible, I talked about 'A Tale of 3 Canons' in the School Heritage Room and later created a webpage about it. This time, I invited them all to read Deuteronomy during this Lent Season because Jesus answered Satan's temptations with quotations taken from Deuteronomy. Therefore, as followers of Christ, we should know what Deuteronomy talks about. In order to keep the momentum, we will meet on Fridays to share what we have read. This is our first meeting.
I understand that my colleagues have not built up a habit of reading the Bible daily. Therefore, whenever I met them during the week, I would push them a bit and check on their progress. Some are able to start but are put off by the language and unfamiliar names found in the first chapter of Deuteronomy. Some are apologetic about not being able to take up the Bible to study. It was my fault to have chosen a difficult book, a Law book for them. In order to ease their burden, I have prepared an outline, taken from an article in the Jerome Biblical Commentary edited by Fr. Raymond Brown.
Brenda supplied the bread and salmon spread. Zette offered her salad. I bought some fruits and we shared our lunch and Bible in the Teachers' Common Room. To kick off, I started with two other passages taken from the history books to demonstrate the importance of Deuteronomy: 2 Kings 22:10-11, Nehemiah 8:8-9. Why were king Josiah and later the Jews returned from exile so moved by Deuteronomy that they rent their clothes and wept?
Then I brought up the question of divorce in Deuteronomy 24 and Mark 10 to illustrate the relevance of Church teaching in our daily life. This topic turned out to be more attractive because Zette was newly married in February. The Catholic Church has always been conservative in people's mind and my colleagues were much fascinated to hear from me that there is a possibility to divorce even in the Catholic Church.
Lunch time did not allow us to indulge too much in endless sharing. I set the agenda for our next meeting: Compare the Ten Commandments as recorded in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. That should not be too overwhelming for my colleagues. Until then.
Dear Lord, guide us along. Amen.
Thursday 17 March 2011
To defend the position of Moses
The role of Moses is more than a Liberator, a Saviour. Once the Israelites were brought out of Egypt, Moses faced the problem of keeping this mob of slaves alive. To stay alive, they needed solidarity. In other words, Moses had to build a nation out of these reluctant freedmen. His task was daunting and he had always been challenged by this rebellious crowd. He needed to give them a Law to live by. So, Moses the Liberator became Moses the Law-Giver.
This people belong to God. Naturally, the Law to help this people lead their life and survive among hostile peoples must come from God. Moses was the middle-man, shuttling between God and the Israelites. In order to succeed, Moses needed the support of God to confront more than 600000 rebellious Israelites. God played His role impressively.
These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more.
(Deuteronomy 5:22a).
God spoke out of the midst of the fire, the cloud and the thick darkness with a loud voice. Surely, such a show inspired awe and fear in the audience. They were afraid and this was the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 111:10, Proverbs 9:10).
Meanwhile, at the request of the people, Moses became the go-between. He went before the Lord to receive instructions and passed on God's words to the Israelites.
Go near, and hear all that the LORD our God will say; and speak to us all that the LORD our God will speak to you; and we will hear and do it (Deuteronomy 5:27).
After passing on the Ten Commandments to the Israelites in a spectacular manner, Moses' role as the Law-Giver was established. On the other hand, God did not need Moses to report to Him how the Israelites behaved. He could see and hear them all by Himself. He sent Moses back to assure the people.
and the LORD said to me, 'I have heard the words of this people, which they have spoken to you; they have rightly said all that they have spoken.
Oh that they had such a mind as this always, to fear me and to keep all my commandments, that it might go well with them and with their children for ever! (Deuteronomy 5:28b-29)
God wished that the Israelites would hear and do His commandments forever so that they would live forever. That was and is the will of God, that we listen to Him and do His commands.
Moses had played his role and God His. It remained for the Israelites to play theirs. Unfortunately, the Israelites had failed.
Dear Lord, You always wish that we may share Your eternal life. You have done a lot and I do not see what else You have not done. I pray that I may listen to You and do Your will. I pray that my life can be a prayer of praises to You. Amen.
This people belong to God. Naturally, the Law to help this people lead their life and survive among hostile peoples must come from God. Moses was the middle-man, shuttling between God and the Israelites. In order to succeed, Moses needed the support of God to confront more than 600000 rebellious Israelites. God played His role impressively.
These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more.
(Deuteronomy 5:22a).
God spoke out of the midst of the fire, the cloud and the thick darkness with a loud voice. Surely, such a show inspired awe and fear in the audience. They were afraid and this was the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 111:10, Proverbs 9:10).
Meanwhile, at the request of the people, Moses became the go-between. He went before the Lord to receive instructions and passed on God's words to the Israelites.
Go near, and hear all that the LORD our God will say; and speak to us all that the LORD our God will speak to you; and we will hear and do it (Deuteronomy 5:27).
After passing on the Ten Commandments to the Israelites in a spectacular manner, Moses' role as the Law-Giver was established. On the other hand, God did not need Moses to report to Him how the Israelites behaved. He could see and hear them all by Himself. He sent Moses back to assure the people.
and the LORD said to me, 'I have heard the words of this people, which they have spoken to you; they have rightly said all that they have spoken.
Oh that they had such a mind as this always, to fear me and to keep all my commandments, that it might go well with them and with their children for ever! (Deuteronomy 5:28b-29)
God wished that the Israelites would hear and do His commandments forever so that they would live forever. That was and is the will of God, that we listen to Him and do His commands.
Moses had played his role and God His. It remained for the Israelites to play theirs. Unfortunately, the Israelites had failed.
Dear Lord, You always wish that we may share Your eternal life. You have done a lot and I do not see what else You have not done. I pray that I may listen to You and do Your will. I pray that my life can be a prayer of praises to You. Amen.
Wednesday 16 March 2011
The Second Law
Deuteronomy begins with a narrator (Deuteronomy 1:1-5) who sets the context for the speeches of Moses. After a not too long a speech by Moses describing their Exodus journey, the narrator appears again to give an introduction to the Law about which Moses, earlier on, praised as enshrining the wisdom and righteousness of the Israelites (Deuteronomy 4:6, 8). Starting from Deuteronomy 4:21, the narrator described the setting up of three refuge cities and in Deuteronomy 5, Moses began to comment on the Ten Commandments once more. It is a good exercise to compare these 10 Commandments with those in Exodus 20.
The first difference is geography. In Exodus, the covenant was set up at Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:23) whereas in Deuteronomy, it was in Mount Horeb (Deuteronomy 5:2). Were they the one, same Mount but having different names; or were they different? They are the same. The northern kingdom called it Horeb while the southern Sinai. Elijah, a prophet in Israel the northern kingdom, once hid in Mount Horeb and Yahweh appeared to him there (1 Kings 19:1-21). This different convention of naming the same location suggests that the Pentateuch, the Five Books of Moses, were actually a collection of texts from different traditions. At most, Moses was one of the redactors, not the author.
The next difference deals with the Commandment about Sabbath. It is good to compare the two versions side by side.
The crucial difference lies in the reasons to rest. In Exodus, it was because of Creation. In Deuteronomy, it was Redemption. Truly, both are good reasons for celebration but the theologies are totally different. In Deuteronomy, it is about social justice, about the abolition of slavery whereas in Exodus, it is about cultic rituals, about priestly roles of prayers and offering of sacrifices. It seems that there existed/developed two different traditions about Sabbath. Both traditions survive and occupy two different niches.
Minor differences can be found in the Commandment to honour one's parents.
The difference is obvious. No wonder the book is called Deuteronomy, the Second Law. Its elaboration shows that it appeared in the later development of the understanding of the Law.
The difference in the last Commandment is more dramatic.
Pay attention to the position of wife. Women were not treated as an object belonging to the husband just like any other property. Rather, she had an outstanding status gained from her faith and humility. Therefore, the Catholic Church is justified in separating the wife from the rest of the property to make an independent Commandment.
Dear Lord, I have invited my colleagues to read Deuteronomy in this Lent season. I pray that we may be able to share our reflections and build up the habit of reading the Bible more in the future. Amen.
The first difference is geography. In Exodus, the covenant was set up at Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:23) whereas in Deuteronomy, it was in Mount Horeb (Deuteronomy 5:2). Were they the one, same Mount but having different names; or were they different? They are the same. The northern kingdom called it Horeb while the southern Sinai. Elijah, a prophet in Israel the northern kingdom, once hid in Mount Horeb and Yahweh appeared to him there (1 Kings 19:1-21). This different convention of naming the same location suggests that the Pentateuch, the Five Books of Moses, were actually a collection of texts from different traditions. At most, Moses was one of the redactors, not the author.
The next difference deals with the Commandment about Sabbath. It is good to compare the two versions side by side.
| Exodus 20:8-11 | Deuteronomy 5:12-15 |
| Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it. | Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, or your manservant, or your maidservant, or your ox, or your ass, or any of your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your manservant and your maidservant may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out thence with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day. |
Minor differences can be found in the Commandment to honour one's parents.
| Exodus 20:12 | Deuteronomy 5:16 |
| Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the LORD your God gives you. | Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God commanded you; that your days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with you, in the land which the LORD your God gives you. |
The difference in the last Commandment is more dramatic.
| Exodus 20:17 | Deuteronomy 5:21 |
| You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's | Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife; and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's. |
Dear Lord, I have invited my colleagues to read Deuteronomy in this Lent season. I pray that we may be able to share our reflections and build up the habit of reading the Bible more in the future. Amen.
Tuesday 15 March 2011
To fly in the face of reality
We must bear in mind the historical situation in the writing of the Torah. The fragmentary materials might have existed for a long time. One or several redactors compiled them during the Persian Kingdom. The memory of Babylonian Captivity was still fresh and naturally the presentation of the materials showed a certain theological bending. To lend authority to this compilation of traditional materials, Moses was made the author.
Sometimes, we might read of a certain piece of prophecy which in fact was only a reporting of certain historical events. For example, the exiles which began in 721 B.C. up to 536 B.C. When the reporting was put in the mouth of Moses who lived in 1250 B.C., these historical events became prophecies. Therefore, we have the following warnings from Moses.
I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that you will soon utterly perish from the land which you are going over the Jordan to possess; you will not live long upon it, but will be utterly destroyed.
And the LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the LORD will drive you.
And there you will serve gods of wood and stone, the work of men's hands, that neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.
But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.
When you are in tribulation, and all these things come upon you in the latter days, you will return to the LORD your God and obey his voice,
for the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not fail you or destroy you or forget the covenant with your fathers which he swore to them (Deuteronomy 4:26-31).
A historical-critical reading of the text would tell you that this is not a prophecy, but a retelling of historical events. They had sinned. They had done what was evil in the sight of the Lord. They had been conquered and humiliated. At last, they repented. The Lord is a merciful God. He would honour the covenant He made with their ancestors. This is their theology.
Or take another piece of text as an example. The Jews had been conquered, sent into exiles and humiliated in front of their captors, the Gentiles. These memories were still fresh while the redactor wrote the following.
Keep them (the statues and ordinances) and do them; for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.'
For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the LORD our God is to us, whenever we call upon him?
And what great nation is there, that has statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law which I set before you this day? (Deuteronomy 4:6-8)
These words fly in the face of reality. The redactors must have been day-dreaming of another world. Had they been a great nation of wise and understanding people or had the Lord been so near to them, they would not have been conquered and sent into exile. Historical-critical reading would cast doubt upon these words. At most, the text is a psychological compensation for their defeat.
Therefore, it is not enough to employ the historical-critical method to the exclusion of other perspectives. Even so, we should take a longer time-reference and see the contribution of Jews throughout human history, especially in the last century. The Jews are really an admirable people.
From the spiritual perspective, Paul had already demonstrated the importance of faith over the Law which is inadequate without the former. "Inadequate" means keeping the Law alone does not guarantee salvation. Therefore, there is nothing to boast about in having the Law and keeping it.
Moreover, the text above affirms the superiority of Christianity over other religions in her more direct access to God. In an age of pluralism and mutual respect, it is a pity to see many Christians fail to share/uphold and insist their positions when they enter into dialogues with other religions.
In conclusion, historical-critical method helps us broaden the reading horizon and understand the text better. But it is wrong to employ it exclusively. We need to keep an open mind and allow a text to be reread in the light of modern contexts. The meanings of a text can never be exhausted in one go.
Dear Lord, Your Law is sweet and cheers up my heart. Your Law is wise and brightens up my eyes. May it guide me to come closer to You. Amen.
Sometimes, we might read of a certain piece of prophecy which in fact was only a reporting of certain historical events. For example, the exiles which began in 721 B.C. up to 536 B.C. When the reporting was put in the mouth of Moses who lived in 1250 B.C., these historical events became prophecies. Therefore, we have the following warnings from Moses.
I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that you will soon utterly perish from the land which you are going over the Jordan to possess; you will not live long upon it, but will be utterly destroyed.
And the LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the LORD will drive you.
And there you will serve gods of wood and stone, the work of men's hands, that neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.
But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.
When you are in tribulation, and all these things come upon you in the latter days, you will return to the LORD your God and obey his voice,
for the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not fail you or destroy you or forget the covenant with your fathers which he swore to them (Deuteronomy 4:26-31).
A historical-critical reading of the text would tell you that this is not a prophecy, but a retelling of historical events. They had sinned. They had done what was evil in the sight of the Lord. They had been conquered and humiliated. At last, they repented. The Lord is a merciful God. He would honour the covenant He made with their ancestors. This is their theology.
Or take another piece of text as an example. The Jews had been conquered, sent into exiles and humiliated in front of their captors, the Gentiles. These memories were still fresh while the redactor wrote the following.
Keep them (the statues and ordinances) and do them; for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.'
For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the LORD our God is to us, whenever we call upon him?
And what great nation is there, that has statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law which I set before you this day? (Deuteronomy 4:6-8)
These words fly in the face of reality. The redactors must have been day-dreaming of another world. Had they been a great nation of wise and understanding people or had the Lord been so near to them, they would not have been conquered and sent into exile. Historical-critical reading would cast doubt upon these words. At most, the text is a psychological compensation for their defeat.
Therefore, it is not enough to employ the historical-critical method to the exclusion of other perspectives. Even so, we should take a longer time-reference and see the contribution of Jews throughout human history, especially in the last century. The Jews are really an admirable people.
From the spiritual perspective, Paul had already demonstrated the importance of faith over the Law which is inadequate without the former. "Inadequate" means keeping the Law alone does not guarantee salvation. Therefore, there is nothing to boast about in having the Law and keeping it.
Moreover, the text above affirms the superiority of Christianity over other religions in her more direct access to God. In an age of pluralism and mutual respect, it is a pity to see many Christians fail to share/uphold and insist their positions when they enter into dialogues with other religions.
In conclusion, historical-critical method helps us broaden the reading horizon and understand the text better. But it is wrong to employ it exclusively. We need to keep an open mind and allow a text to be reread in the light of modern contexts. The meanings of a text can never be exhausted in one go.
Dear Lord, Your Law is sweet and cheers up my heart. Your Law is wise and brightens up my eyes. May it guide me to come closer to You. Amen.
Monday 14 March 2011
Making sense of God's decision
Over glasses of whiskey, we talked about local politics and the Bible. I encouraged everybody to read the book of Deuteronomy during this Lent season because Jesus answered Satan's temptations with quotations from it. Therefore, we should follow the footsteps of our Saviour to know this Law book better. Meanwhile, I brought up the question of why God did not allow Moses to enter the Promised Land. I myself was not able to think up a reasonable enough reason to convince myself.
Erminia is always better than me in her faith in God and men. Without any effort, she immediately came up with the view that God had exempted Moses from extra efforts and troubles in the Promised Land and took him directly into heaven. It was not bad at all for Moses, though he might not appreciate God's good will in his earthly life. In view of all the murmurings, disputes and challenges over his leadership during Exodus, life would not be easy for Moses once the Israelites had entered the Promised Land. To spare him from the anticipated toil in the Promised Land, God denied Moses his entry for his good. Our faith tells us that God will always arrange the best things for us. Therefore, denying him entry into Canaan was the best for Moses.
But that doesn't reason well. Moses had faced a lot of troubles during Exodus. With God's supports, Moses weathered through them all. The same should apply in the Promised Land. There was no good reason for God to withdraw His supports for Moses once the Israelites entered Canaan.
Another idea popped up while I was eating my BigMac before the workshop tonight. Since Moses is a pre-figure of Jesus, perhaps his dying outside the Promised Land can find a correspondence in the life of Jesus. Let me explain a bit about this typology. There are many parallel elements between Moses and Jesus to qualify him to be a pre-figure of Jesus. First of all, Moses was brought up in an alien place, the Egyptian court. Jesus was the Word made flesh, living in an alien place. Moses was "betrayed" by a fellow Hebrew and Jesus was betrayed by Judas. Consequently, Moses returned to deliver his fellow Hebrews and Jesus redeemed us all. In Transfiguration, we see clearly that Moses represented the Old Law and Jesus is the giver of the New Law. Therefore, we can say that Moses and the Joseph in Genesis are "types" of Jesus in the Old Testament. Thinking along this line, I may argue that Moses dying outside the Promised Land pre-figured Jesus dying outside Jerusalem. I wonder if I have read too much into the text.
Verbum Domini #37 discusses the literal and spiritual sense of a piece of text. The literal sense is clear. God did not allow Moses to enter Canaan. What about the spiritual sense? According to The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church II, A, 2 and Verbum Domini #37, the spiritual sense is subdivided into 3 senses which deal with the contents of the faith, with the moral life and with our eschatological aspiration. I suppose the interpretation Erminia proposed belongs to "our eschatological aspiration". I don't know to which sense my typological interpretation belongs. By elimination, it is not the moral sense. Can it be the content of Christian faith? I am not sure. Anyway, enough is enough. It is impossible to exhaust the meanings of a piece of Biblical text in one go. I think I should proceed to Deuteronomy 4.
Dear Lord, who can fathom Your wisdom? I pray that You continue to illuminate my senses and make my heart glow. Amen.
Erminia is always better than me in her faith in God and men. Without any effort, she immediately came up with the view that God had exempted Moses from extra efforts and troubles in the Promised Land and took him directly into heaven. It was not bad at all for Moses, though he might not appreciate God's good will in his earthly life. In view of all the murmurings, disputes and challenges over his leadership during Exodus, life would not be easy for Moses once the Israelites had entered the Promised Land. To spare him from the anticipated toil in the Promised Land, God denied Moses his entry for his good. Our faith tells us that God will always arrange the best things for us. Therefore, denying him entry into Canaan was the best for Moses.
But that doesn't reason well. Moses had faced a lot of troubles during Exodus. With God's supports, Moses weathered through them all. The same should apply in the Promised Land. There was no good reason for God to withdraw His supports for Moses once the Israelites entered Canaan.
Another idea popped up while I was eating my BigMac before the workshop tonight. Since Moses is a pre-figure of Jesus, perhaps his dying outside the Promised Land can find a correspondence in the life of Jesus. Let me explain a bit about this typology. There are many parallel elements between Moses and Jesus to qualify him to be a pre-figure of Jesus. First of all, Moses was brought up in an alien place, the Egyptian court. Jesus was the Word made flesh, living in an alien place. Moses was "betrayed" by a fellow Hebrew and Jesus was betrayed by Judas. Consequently, Moses returned to deliver his fellow Hebrews and Jesus redeemed us all. In Transfiguration, we see clearly that Moses represented the Old Law and Jesus is the giver of the New Law. Therefore, we can say that Moses and the Joseph in Genesis are "types" of Jesus in the Old Testament. Thinking along this line, I may argue that Moses dying outside the Promised Land pre-figured Jesus dying outside Jerusalem. I wonder if I have read too much into the text.
Verbum Domini #37 discusses the literal and spiritual sense of a piece of text. The literal sense is clear. God did not allow Moses to enter Canaan. What about the spiritual sense? According to The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church II, A, 2 and Verbum Domini #37, the spiritual sense is subdivided into 3 senses which deal with the contents of the faith, with the moral life and with our eschatological aspiration. I suppose the interpretation Erminia proposed belongs to "our eschatological aspiration". I don't know to which sense my typological interpretation belongs. By elimination, it is not the moral sense. Can it be the content of Christian faith? I am not sure. Anyway, enough is enough. It is impossible to exhaust the meanings of a piece of Biblical text in one go. I think I should proceed to Deuteronomy 4.
Dear Lord, who can fathom Your wisdom? I pray that You continue to illuminate my senses and make my heart glow. Amen.
1st Week of Lent 2011 (Year A)
If man does not have to satisfy his needs, there is no temptation. As long as we remain human, we have needs to satisfy and thus, temptation is inevitable.
Abraham Maslow proposed a hierarchy of human needs: physiological, security, belonging, self-esteem and finally self-actualization. His model is intuitive and widely adopted in the business sector. Managers want to know how to motivate their subordinates to work harder. If there is anything we can criticize it, it fails to account for the spiritual dimension of men. Besides those physical, psychological and social needs, there are spiritual needs as well.
Applying Maslow's model, we can understand Jesus' temptations from an alternative perspective. World hunger and poverty are realities of human life. The causes are many. At present, it is estimated that there are 6.91 billion mouths to feed. To compound the problem, there is an uneven distribution of food and wealth around the earth. In short, world hunger and poverty are rather inevitable. No wonder Jesus defended Magdalene's anointing him in Bethany with the following comment.
But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me.
For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me (Matthew 26:10-11).
Which means God will not solve the problem of world hunger for us because we can solve it by ourselves without God's intervention.
Now, return to Jesus' temptation. Though he is the Son of God, Jesus refuses to abuse his omnipotence to solve the hunger problem. After 40 days of fasting, Jesus was hungry. Satan took this opportunity to test Jesus.
And the tempter came and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread."
But he answered, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.' " (Matthew 4:3-4)
Jesus' answer is a paraphrase of a verse from the Deuteronomy.
And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know; that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but that man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD (Deuteronomy 8:3).
However, the gospels were written in Greek and Jesus' answer is a direct quotation from Septuagint, word for word.
Οὐκ ἐπ᾽ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι ἐκπορευομένῳ διὰ στόματος θεοῦ.
Here, Jesus highlighted the spiritual dimension of men. Not only does man have a stomach to fill up, he also has a spirit which may rest only after it has found God, its Creator.
Remember. Man was created in the image and likeness of God. We are created in such a way that we are able to communicate with Him. We are enabled to enter into a dialogue with our Creator. If this spiritual craving is denied, man suffers unspeakably.
In the Eucharistic liturgy, the Word of God and the Body of Christ are both emphasized. We may unite intimately with Christ when we receive his Body. But even if you are a sinner or just a catechumen waiting to be baptized, you can still be able to unite with Christ by listening to his words. Both his Word and his Body satisfy our hunger and quench our thirst.
Let's imagine what would happen if Jesus turned the stones into bread to satisfy his own hunger and that of the world. Such an intervention would surely disrupt the economic order of the world with dire consequences. Immediately, man has no incentive to work to earn his bread. What is there to motivate man to work? When bread (actually stones) were freely available like air and sunshine, man would return to his primitive stage of civilization.
Admittedly, the global economic order is not fair, nor is it healthy. Still, it would even be better to leave it alone, allowing it to run its full course than to meddle with it. Raining manna from heaven was an extraordinary means to handle an extraordinary situation. There was no market in the Sinai desert. Such is not the case in the modern world. There is economic wisdom in Jesus' spiritual answer.
Dear Lord, it is difficult to defend Your position in natural disasters such as the earthquakes and subsequent tsunamis. May we contemplate on Your Word and draw strength from it. Amen.
Abraham Maslow proposed a hierarchy of human needs: physiological, security, belonging, self-esteem and finally self-actualization. His model is intuitive and widely adopted in the business sector. Managers want to know how to motivate their subordinates to work harder. If there is anything we can criticize it, it fails to account for the spiritual dimension of men. Besides those physical, psychological and social needs, there are spiritual needs as well.
Applying Maslow's model, we can understand Jesus' temptations from an alternative perspective. World hunger and poverty are realities of human life. The causes are many. At present, it is estimated that there are 6.91 billion mouths to feed. To compound the problem, there is an uneven distribution of food and wealth around the earth. In short, world hunger and poverty are rather inevitable. No wonder Jesus defended Magdalene's anointing him in Bethany with the following comment.
But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me.
For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me (Matthew 26:10-11).
Which means God will not solve the problem of world hunger for us because we can solve it by ourselves without God's intervention.
Now, return to Jesus' temptation. Though he is the Son of God, Jesus refuses to abuse his omnipotence to solve the hunger problem. After 40 days of fasting, Jesus was hungry. Satan took this opportunity to test Jesus.
And the tempter came and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread."
But he answered, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.' " (Matthew 4:3-4)
Jesus' answer is a paraphrase of a verse from the Deuteronomy.
And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know; that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but that man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD (Deuteronomy 8:3).
However, the gospels were written in Greek and Jesus' answer is a direct quotation from Septuagint, word for word.
Οὐκ ἐπ᾽ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι ἐκπορευομένῳ διὰ στόματος θεοῦ.
Here, Jesus highlighted the spiritual dimension of men. Not only does man have a stomach to fill up, he also has a spirit which may rest only after it has found God, its Creator.
Remember. Man was created in the image and likeness of God. We are created in such a way that we are able to communicate with Him. We are enabled to enter into a dialogue with our Creator. If this spiritual craving is denied, man suffers unspeakably.
In the Eucharistic liturgy, the Word of God and the Body of Christ are both emphasized. We may unite intimately with Christ when we receive his Body. But even if you are a sinner or just a catechumen waiting to be baptized, you can still be able to unite with Christ by listening to his words. Both his Word and his Body satisfy our hunger and quench our thirst.
Let's imagine what would happen if Jesus turned the stones into bread to satisfy his own hunger and that of the world. Such an intervention would surely disrupt the economic order of the world with dire consequences. Immediately, man has no incentive to work to earn his bread. What is there to motivate man to work? When bread (actually stones) were freely available like air and sunshine, man would return to his primitive stage of civilization.
Admittedly, the global economic order is not fair, nor is it healthy. Still, it would even be better to leave it alone, allowing it to run its full course than to meddle with it. Raining manna from heaven was an extraordinary means to handle an extraordinary situation. There was no market in the Sinai desert. Such is not the case in the modern world. There is economic wisdom in Jesus' spiritual answer.
Dear Lord, it is difficult to defend Your position in natural disasters such as the earthquakes and subsequent tsunamis. May we contemplate on Your Word and draw strength from it. Amen.
Friday 11 March 2011
Has God been unfair to Moses?
God had prepared Moses for his mission to deliver the Israelites from Egypt. Since his birth, Moses was well taken care of despite the hostility imposed by Pharaoh (Exodus 1:16). He was able to survive and brought up in the Egyptian court by the daughter of Pharaoh, learning all the skills and crafts of the Egyptians. He was truly an Egyptian prince (Exodus 2:10).
Exodus does not explain why Moses was sympathetic with the Israelite slaves. How did Moses know of his Hebrew origin? Exodus is silent about it.
The contradiction of God's character appears for the first time after He had picked up Moses to deliver the Israelites (Exodus 3:1-4:17). There is a mysterious verse leaving behind by the redactor of Exodus. It reads.
At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to kill him (Exodus 4:24).
Why did the Lord want to kill Moses after choosing him to be the Saviour of Israelites? The following text suggests that it was because Moses had never been circumcised (Exodus 4:25-26)! What a legalist! However, what Zipporah had done was sympathetic magic! Either way, this piece of text is really troublesome! Nobody is perfect and God should make do with the shortcomings of Moses. Furthermore, isn't God good at making good things out of bad things?
When Moses spent 40 days on Mount Sinai to get the 10 Commandments, the Israelites had become impatient and built a golden calf to lead them. Of course, God was angry and wanted to destroy the Israelites. God proposed to make Moses a great nation instead. But Moses did not seek his personal glory. He successfully dissuaded God from destroying the Israelites. Indeed, Moses had saved God from doing evil (Exodus 32:11-14). Moses should have scored high in staff appraisal. Why then was God so petty as denying Moses from entering the Promised Land?
And I besought the LORD at that time, saying,
'O Lord GOD, thou hast only begun to show thy servant thy greatness and thy mighty hand; for what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do such works and mighty acts as thine?
Let me go over, I pray, and see the good land beyond the Jordan, that goodly hill country, and Lebanon.'
But the LORD was angry with me on your account, and would not hearken to me; and the LORD said to me, `Let it suffice you; speak no more to me of this matter.
Go up to the top of Pisgah, and lift up your eyes westward and northward and southward and eastward, and behold it with your eyes; for you shall not go over this Jordan.
But charge Joshua, and encourage and strengthen him; for he shall go over at the head of this people, and he shall put them in possession of the land which you shall see.' (Deuteronomy 3:23-28)
Numbers gives an account why the Lord was angry with Moses. It was the story of extracting water from the rock in Meribah. God told Moses to tell the rock to yield water. But Moses struck the rock instead. God was displeased. He said that Moses did not believe in Him (Numbers 20:8-12). Exodus tells the same story but God told Moses to strike the rock. Therefore, there was no mention of the anger of God over Moses (Exodus 17:5-6). The Numbers verse better explains why Moses was denied entry into the Promised Land. Was the redactor of Exodus unaware of this conflicting story line? This is another piece of problematic text to explore.
If I were Moses, what would I do? I had played my role but all my efforts and loyalty seemed to have gained me nothing. Worst of all, there would be no higher authority to appeal.
My God, are You doing me any good in denying my entry into the Promised Land? It is not fair!
Exodus does not explain why Moses was sympathetic with the Israelite slaves. How did Moses know of his Hebrew origin? Exodus is silent about it.
The contradiction of God's character appears for the first time after He had picked up Moses to deliver the Israelites (Exodus 3:1-4:17). There is a mysterious verse leaving behind by the redactor of Exodus. It reads.
At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to kill him (Exodus 4:24).
Why did the Lord want to kill Moses after choosing him to be the Saviour of Israelites? The following text suggests that it was because Moses had never been circumcised (Exodus 4:25-26)! What a legalist! However, what Zipporah had done was sympathetic magic! Either way, this piece of text is really troublesome! Nobody is perfect and God should make do with the shortcomings of Moses. Furthermore, isn't God good at making good things out of bad things?
When Moses spent 40 days on Mount Sinai to get the 10 Commandments, the Israelites had become impatient and built a golden calf to lead them. Of course, God was angry and wanted to destroy the Israelites. God proposed to make Moses a great nation instead. But Moses did not seek his personal glory. He successfully dissuaded God from destroying the Israelites. Indeed, Moses had saved God from doing evil (Exodus 32:11-14). Moses should have scored high in staff appraisal. Why then was God so petty as denying Moses from entering the Promised Land?
And I besought the LORD at that time, saying,
'O Lord GOD, thou hast only begun to show thy servant thy greatness and thy mighty hand; for what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do such works and mighty acts as thine?
Let me go over, I pray, and see the good land beyond the Jordan, that goodly hill country, and Lebanon.'
But the LORD was angry with me on your account, and would not hearken to me; and the LORD said to me, `Let it suffice you; speak no more to me of this matter.
Go up to the top of Pisgah, and lift up your eyes westward and northward and southward and eastward, and behold it with your eyes; for you shall not go over this Jordan.
But charge Joshua, and encourage and strengthen him; for he shall go over at the head of this people, and he shall put them in possession of the land which you shall see.' (Deuteronomy 3:23-28)
Numbers gives an account why the Lord was angry with Moses. It was the story of extracting water from the rock in Meribah. God told Moses to tell the rock to yield water. But Moses struck the rock instead. God was displeased. He said that Moses did not believe in Him (Numbers 20:8-12). Exodus tells the same story but God told Moses to strike the rock. Therefore, there was no mention of the anger of God over Moses (Exodus 17:5-6). The Numbers verse better explains why Moses was denied entry into the Promised Land. Was the redactor of Exodus unaware of this conflicting story line? This is another piece of problematic text to explore.
If I were Moses, what would I do? I had played my role but all my efforts and loyalty seemed to have gained me nothing. Worst of all, there would be no higher authority to appeal.
My God, are You doing me any good in denying my entry into the Promised Land? It is not fair!
The Biblical Israelites as a showcase
The Israelites were chosen to showcase how God and men proceed in their dialogue.
I always fancy how God had tried to rebuild His contact with men once the first family has fallen. God must have travelled around the globe, reaching out to different civilizations until at last, a man responded positively with Him, Noah and his descendants. Then entered Abraham who was able to demonstrate many facets of the interaction between God and man. It is not necessary to be an impeccably virtuous person to find favour in God. Abraham was important because he showed us the importance of faith, rather than virtues, in the interaction with God. Faith, rather than personal moral achievements, is the key element for the salvation of man.
God is faithful and keeps His promises with Abraham. Firstly, God moved Jacob's family to Egypt to multiply it. Then He sent Moses to deliver them out to settle them in Canaan. This is the story of Exodus. Deuteronomy 1 retells, summarizes and highlight the crucial events in this journey. It should not take more than a few months for even a large crowd of 600 thousands (Exodus 12:37) to move from Egypt to Canaan. In the end, the journey took 40 years, all because of their lack of faith in God. In Deuteronomy 1, at the end of their journey, Moses explained to the new generation of Israelites why they took so long to reach the Promised Land.
Soon (11 days) after they had received the 10 Commandments in Mount Horeb, they reached Kadesh-barnea (Deuteronomy 1:2). God instructed them to attack the hill country of the Amorites to occupy it (Deuteronomy 1:20-21). The Israelites hesitated (Deuteronomy 1:27-28). God was angry and swore that none of them might enter the Promised Land, not even Moses (Deuteronomy 1:34-40).
The Israelites knew their mistakes. They were willing to go up to fight just as God had commanded them (Deuteronomy 1:41). But it was too late. God did not give them a second chance. God told them that He would not fight this battle for them. Without God in their midst, they would not succeed. But they did not listen to God again. They fought and lost (Deuteronomy 1:43-44). They wept before the Lord but the Lord would not listen to them (Deuteronomy 1:45).
From then on, they wandered in the wilderness, passing through different places without conquering or occupying them until the stiff-necked generation had died out.
And the time from our leaving Kadesh-barnea until we crossed the brook Zered was thirty-eight years, until the entire generation, that is, the men of war, had perished from the camp, as the LORD had sworn to them (Deuteronomy 2:14).
When the time came, God began to fight battles for them. The first to fall was Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon (Deuteronomy 2:24-25). This event is sung Psalms 135, 136.
So, what have we learnt?
Following the instructions from God is the safest bet. But before we listen to Him, we must build up our faith in Him first. To build up our faith in Him, we must turn/return to Him first and when is the right time to turn to Him if not now?
For he says, "At the acceptable time I have listened to you,
and helped you on the day of salvation." (quoting Isaiah 49:8)
Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:2).
Dear Lord, give me one chance more. Amen.
I always fancy how God had tried to rebuild His contact with men once the first family has fallen. God must have travelled around the globe, reaching out to different civilizations until at last, a man responded positively with Him, Noah and his descendants. Then entered Abraham who was able to demonstrate many facets of the interaction between God and man. It is not necessary to be an impeccably virtuous person to find favour in God. Abraham was important because he showed us the importance of faith, rather than virtues, in the interaction with God. Faith, rather than personal moral achievements, is the key element for the salvation of man.
God is faithful and keeps His promises with Abraham. Firstly, God moved Jacob's family to Egypt to multiply it. Then He sent Moses to deliver them out to settle them in Canaan. This is the story of Exodus. Deuteronomy 1 retells, summarizes and highlight the crucial events in this journey. It should not take more than a few months for even a large crowd of 600 thousands (Exodus 12:37) to move from Egypt to Canaan. In the end, the journey took 40 years, all because of their lack of faith in God. In Deuteronomy 1, at the end of their journey, Moses explained to the new generation of Israelites why they took so long to reach the Promised Land.
Soon (11 days) after they had received the 10 Commandments in Mount Horeb, they reached Kadesh-barnea (Deuteronomy 1:2). God instructed them to attack the hill country of the Amorites to occupy it (Deuteronomy 1:20-21). The Israelites hesitated (Deuteronomy 1:27-28). God was angry and swore that none of them might enter the Promised Land, not even Moses (Deuteronomy 1:34-40).
The Israelites knew their mistakes. They were willing to go up to fight just as God had commanded them (Deuteronomy 1:41). But it was too late. God did not give them a second chance. God told them that He would not fight this battle for them. Without God in their midst, they would not succeed. But they did not listen to God again. They fought and lost (Deuteronomy 1:43-44). They wept before the Lord but the Lord would not listen to them (Deuteronomy 1:45).
From then on, they wandered in the wilderness, passing through different places without conquering or occupying them until the stiff-necked generation had died out.
And the time from our leaving Kadesh-barnea until we crossed the brook Zered was thirty-eight years, until the entire generation, that is, the men of war, had perished from the camp, as the LORD had sworn to them (Deuteronomy 2:14).
When the time came, God began to fight battles for them. The first to fall was Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon (Deuteronomy 2:24-25). This event is sung Psalms 135, 136.
So, what have we learnt?
Following the instructions from God is the safest bet. But before we listen to Him, we must build up our faith in Him first. To build up our faith in Him, we must turn/return to Him first and when is the right time to turn to Him if not now?
For he says, "At the acceptable time I have listened to you,
and helped you on the day of salvation." (quoting Isaiah 49:8)
Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:2).
Dear Lord, give me one chance more. Amen.
Wednesday 9 March 2011
Ash Wednesday 2011
It is my habit to reflect on the daily readings during the Lent season. This year, I have other plans. At first, I intended to read some papal encyclicals, such as the latest Apostolic Exhortation, Verbum Domini. On Monday, after attending the Biblical Formation workshop in which we did Lectio Divina on the Temptation of Jesus, I changed my mind. I decided to spend time reflecting on the book of Deuteronomy first. And if I am able to finish the book before Palm Sunday, I will switch back to the reading of Verbum Domini.
Deuteronomy begins with the setting of the location and time.
The location was:
These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan in the wilderness, in the Arabah over against Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Dizahab.
It is eleven days' journey from Horeb by the way of Mount Seir to Kadesh-barnea.(Deuteronomy 1:1-2)
The time was:
And in the fortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh month, Moses spoke to the people of Israel according to all that the LORD had given him in commandment to them,
after he had defeated Sihon the king of the Amorites, who lived in Heshbon, and Og the king of Bashan, who lived in Ashtaroth and in Edrei (Deuteronomy 1:3-4).
Moses retold what they had gone through, how the Israelites had multiplied and it became too heavy a burden for Moses to settle their disputes alone so that Moses appointed "heads" to share his administrative work (Deuteronomy 1:9-17).
Now that they had arrived at the hill country of the Amorites which the Lord had given them to take possession of and that they had sent spies to inspect the terrains and found that it was a good land (Deuteronomy 1:19-25), yet they hesitated and thought up stupid reasons not to go ahead to occupy the land.
and you murmured in your tents, and said, 'Because the LORD hated us he has brought us forth out of the land of Egypt, to give us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us.
Whither are we going up? Our brethren have made our hearts melt, saying, "The people are greater and taller than we; the cities are great and fortified up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakim there."'(Deuteronomy 1:27-28)
The Israelites had come all the way there after spending 40 years. Why then did they still doubt the promises of God? While the readers should feel sorry for this people, we don't need to go too far to find one modern day example. My boss.
We organized an Ash Wednesday Prayer Service and Hunger Meal today. The Supervisor would come to celebrate with us and would impose ash on the foreheads of the Catholic students and teachers who presented themselves in this activity. Due to the "unhappy" experience of the blessing of the renovated staff room and school library, my boss doubted very much whether a nun had the authority to impose ash. Today, he did not go out to receive the imposition of ash from the Supervisor, his boss!
What a pity! Why should he doubt and lose this opportunity to receive the blessing from God? Of course, he has no obligation to go out to receive the ash. He is free not to receive, just like everyone else who has the freedom not to receive God's grace. He has a doubtful conscience but it is his responsibility to clarify. Of course, he might have a certain, but wrong conscience. He wrongly believed that a nun did not have the authority to impose the holy ash and he acted accordingly.
What a pity! The ash is not a sacrament, like the Holy Communion. In that case, even a layman, an extraordinary minister can give the consecrated Holy Communion to people who cannot attend masses in the Church. Our Supervisor did not bless the ash in our prayer service. She brought the blessed ash from the parish. Even if the Bishop's approval is required, we don't need to query our Supervisor. It is her responsibility to obtain the approval and if she has done it before, she has already obtained the approval. We should give her the benefit of doubt. What is the problem of receiving the ash from a female? Bigotry is truly disabling and unfortunate.
Dear Lord, may we keep our hearts open to receive graces of which we dare not to dream. May the reflections in Lent purify our souls so that we shall be able to receive Your blessings more fully. Amen.
Deuteronomy begins with the setting of the location and time.
The location was:
These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan in the wilderness, in the Arabah over against Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Dizahab.
It is eleven days' journey from Horeb by the way of Mount Seir to Kadesh-barnea.(Deuteronomy 1:1-2)
The time was:
And in the fortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh month, Moses spoke to the people of Israel according to all that the LORD had given him in commandment to them,
after he had defeated Sihon the king of the Amorites, who lived in Heshbon, and Og the king of Bashan, who lived in Ashtaroth and in Edrei (Deuteronomy 1:3-4).
Moses retold what they had gone through, how the Israelites had multiplied and it became too heavy a burden for Moses to settle their disputes alone so that Moses appointed "heads" to share his administrative work (Deuteronomy 1:9-17).
Now that they had arrived at the hill country of the Amorites which the Lord had given them to take possession of and that they had sent spies to inspect the terrains and found that it was a good land (Deuteronomy 1:19-25), yet they hesitated and thought up stupid reasons not to go ahead to occupy the land.
and you murmured in your tents, and said, 'Because the LORD hated us he has brought us forth out of the land of Egypt, to give us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us.
Whither are we going up? Our brethren have made our hearts melt, saying, "The people are greater and taller than we; the cities are great and fortified up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakim there."'(Deuteronomy 1:27-28)
The Israelites had come all the way there after spending 40 years. Why then did they still doubt the promises of God? While the readers should feel sorry for this people, we don't need to go too far to find one modern day example. My boss.
We organized an Ash Wednesday Prayer Service and Hunger Meal today. The Supervisor would come to celebrate with us and would impose ash on the foreheads of the Catholic students and teachers who presented themselves in this activity. Due to the "unhappy" experience of the blessing of the renovated staff room and school library, my boss doubted very much whether a nun had the authority to impose ash. Today, he did not go out to receive the imposition of ash from the Supervisor, his boss!
What a pity! Why should he doubt and lose this opportunity to receive the blessing from God? Of course, he has no obligation to go out to receive the ash. He is free not to receive, just like everyone else who has the freedom not to receive God's grace. He has a doubtful conscience but it is his responsibility to clarify. Of course, he might have a certain, but wrong conscience. He wrongly believed that a nun did not have the authority to impose the holy ash and he acted accordingly.
What a pity! The ash is not a sacrament, like the Holy Communion. In that case, even a layman, an extraordinary minister can give the consecrated Holy Communion to people who cannot attend masses in the Church. Our Supervisor did not bless the ash in our prayer service. She brought the blessed ash from the parish. Even if the Bishop's approval is required, we don't need to query our Supervisor. It is her responsibility to obtain the approval and if she has done it before, she has already obtained the approval. We should give her the benefit of doubt. What is the problem of receiving the ash from a female? Bigotry is truly disabling and unfortunate.
Dear Lord, may we keep our hearts open to receive graces of which we dare not to dream. May the reflections in Lent purify our souls so that we shall be able to receive Your blessings more fully. Amen.
Sunday 6 March 2011
Action speaks louder than words
What makes idolatory attractive?
Many of the hand-made idols look monstrous and scary. Shouldn't idolatory be repulsive? Many of these cults engage in morally debasing practices such as sexual orgies and even human sacrifices. We find in history and archeology, records of temple prostitutes and King Ahaz burned his children after Canaan deities (2 Chronicles 28:3). Shouldn't idolatory be despised?
I think idolatory meets the human needs of security and autonomy. That explains why it is wide-spread even though it is repulsive.
Mother nature is unpredictable and our God is elusive. Therefore, we cannot blame ancient people for engaging in idolatory because those deities were more controllable and manageable than our God. Those fertility deities appear to answer our needs, give us abundant harvest though the harvest comes from God.
On the other hand, deep down in man's psyche, there has always been a denial of his being a creature. Man wants to take full control over his destiny. He wants autonomy. That is why man works hard to drive God out of his world and wants to become a god himself.
Well, like it or not, it is a price God and man must pay to honour the free will God gives us. God does not want to force man to worship HIm. He paid a heavy price by sending His Son to die on the cross for us. Man is free to choose. He pays a heavy price if he chooses the wrong way of life. This cosmic game is played out in human history, in the salvation history recorded in the Bible.
God helped man by making his life more manageable and controllable. Through Moses, God lay down the rules of the game: keep the commandments and do not worship idols.
Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse:
the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day,
and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside from the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods which you have not known (Deuteronomy 11:26-28).
Nothing can be simpler. But why then did man continue to turn to idols? Were the commandments too difficult to observe? Men were able to do more challenging and heroic feats. So, what's wrong with man?
Man has created a new kind of idols. God intended man to turn to Him through keeping the law. However, man went to the extreme and wrongly believed that by working hard himself in keeping the law, he would be blameless and justified before God. He turned the law into idols and forgot his Creator. St. Paul pointed out that this was an illusion. Justification is not achieved through hard work. Rather, it is through our faith in Jesus, in his death and resurrection.
they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,
whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith (Romans 3:24-25a).
Many were not convinced. They still cling to something tangible. They are insecure and need to hold on to something more concrete. They hang on to the idols they create. Miserable, isn't it?
If Paul's message has not driven home, Jesus' stunning words should.
On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'(Matthew 7:22-23)
Working miracles, driving out demons and prophesying in Jesus' name. Aren't these what every Christian should be envy of? Yet, Jesus called them evildoers! What's wrong with these miraculous works? Without God's blessing, who could do these feats? Yet, Jesus called them evildoers! What is missing?
Jesus does not want these spectacular and popular feats. He wants something else.
Well, we need to know the context. The gospel reading today is the summary of the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, when Jesus told his listeners to put what they had heard into practice (Matthew 7:24), it was putting the whole of chapters 5 to 7 of St. Matthew into practice. We cannot be selective and do things that are convenient, those that make us look good in front of the others. Often, the Sermon on the Mount turns the ethical positions upside down. It is a very demanding way of life, a life of those who are strengthened with God's grace, whose life has been touched by God's love. Otherwise, it would be too easy to resign into impossibility.
Dear Lord, for Your greater glory, give us the grace to practise what we have heard from You. Amen.
Many of the hand-made idols look monstrous and scary. Shouldn't idolatory be repulsive? Many of these cults engage in morally debasing practices such as sexual orgies and even human sacrifices. We find in history and archeology, records of temple prostitutes and King Ahaz burned his children after Canaan deities (2 Chronicles 28:3). Shouldn't idolatory be despised?
I think idolatory meets the human needs of security and autonomy. That explains why it is wide-spread even though it is repulsive.
Mother nature is unpredictable and our God is elusive. Therefore, we cannot blame ancient people for engaging in idolatory because those deities were more controllable and manageable than our God. Those fertility deities appear to answer our needs, give us abundant harvest though the harvest comes from God.
On the other hand, deep down in man's psyche, there has always been a denial of his being a creature. Man wants to take full control over his destiny. He wants autonomy. That is why man works hard to drive God out of his world and wants to become a god himself.
Well, like it or not, it is a price God and man must pay to honour the free will God gives us. God does not want to force man to worship HIm. He paid a heavy price by sending His Son to die on the cross for us. Man is free to choose. He pays a heavy price if he chooses the wrong way of life. This cosmic game is played out in human history, in the salvation history recorded in the Bible.
God helped man by making his life more manageable and controllable. Through Moses, God lay down the rules of the game: keep the commandments and do not worship idols.
Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse:
the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day,
and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside from the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods which you have not known (Deuteronomy 11:26-28).
Nothing can be simpler. But why then did man continue to turn to idols? Were the commandments too difficult to observe? Men were able to do more challenging and heroic feats. So, what's wrong with man?
Man has created a new kind of idols. God intended man to turn to Him through keeping the law. However, man went to the extreme and wrongly believed that by working hard himself in keeping the law, he would be blameless and justified before God. He turned the law into idols and forgot his Creator. St. Paul pointed out that this was an illusion. Justification is not achieved through hard work. Rather, it is through our faith in Jesus, in his death and resurrection.
they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,
whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith (Romans 3:24-25a).
Many were not convinced. They still cling to something tangible. They are insecure and need to hold on to something more concrete. They hang on to the idols they create. Miserable, isn't it?
If Paul's message has not driven home, Jesus' stunning words should.
On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'(Matthew 7:22-23)
Working miracles, driving out demons and prophesying in Jesus' name. Aren't these what every Christian should be envy of? Yet, Jesus called them evildoers! What's wrong with these miraculous works? Without God's blessing, who could do these feats? Yet, Jesus called them evildoers! What is missing?
Jesus does not want these spectacular and popular feats. He wants something else.
Well, we need to know the context. The gospel reading today is the summary of the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, when Jesus told his listeners to put what they had heard into practice (Matthew 7:24), it was putting the whole of chapters 5 to 7 of St. Matthew into practice. We cannot be selective and do things that are convenient, those that make us look good in front of the others. Often, the Sermon on the Mount turns the ethical positions upside down. It is a very demanding way of life, a life of those who are strengthened with God's grace, whose life has been touched by God's love. Otherwise, it would be too easy to resign into impossibility.
Dear Lord, for Your greater glory, give us the grace to practise what we have heard from You. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)