This is the key question we have to wrestle with throughout our life.
Luke does not mention the location. Mark tells us that it took place in Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:27). Matthew takes this opportunity to establish the primacy of Simon Peter whom Jesus made the rock on which to build his Church (Matthew 16:18).
On the other hand, Luke puts this story immediately after the miracle of the 5 loaves and 2 fish, where in the other two synoptic gospels, it was another miracle in which Jesus walked on the water. In Luke, Jesus was praying alone and his disciples were with him (Luke 9:18).Usually, such an introduction to a story in Luke signifies some very important events such as selection of 12 apostles (6:12), Transfiguration (9:28), teaching of the Lord's Prayer (11:1) and the Agony (22:40) etc.
Jesus' ministry reached its zenith at the miracle of the 5 loaves and 2 fish. A crowd of nearly 10,000 people gathered around him. Jesus was more than capable to mobile them to march to Jerusalem and started a political/military venture against the Roman dominion. He did not choose this path of political Messiah. His mission is to execute God's will to die obediently for our sake. But first of all, in order to effect this redemption project, Jesus needs to win our hearts over. But he respects our freedom. He simply asks us what we think of him.
From his fearless criticism of the corrupt authority, people saw a John the Baptist or an Elijah of old. From the miracles he worked, people could see an Elijah or some other prophets of the Old Testament. After eating to their full in the feeding miracle, the people would naturally say that Jesus was a miracle worker, a man of God, a prophet of old. Such an understanding was not wrong. It was incomplete.
When Jesus asked his disciples, he first began with an easier question. What the general public, the others said about him. Then came the incisive question, "But who do you say that I am?" (9:20). Peter's answer, viz. the Christ of God, was political. This was the Messianic expectation of the contemporary people. Peter was not completely right. It takes time, a life time for Peter and everybody to come to a correct understanding of Jesus.
However, this question is crucial for us as a Christian because this is what we preach to non-believers. Of course, we may follow the book. We tell people what we know from the gospels. We share our interpretation of the gospel with people who want to know more about this Jesus. That is why the question is crucial.
The Psalmist gave us many images of God. For example, the Lord is my shield (Psalm 3:3), my rock (Psalm 18:2), and my shepherd (Psalm 23:1) etc. These images are vivid and are not theological jargon. They don't have to be theologically precis and correct. They are authentic and can offer us a reference. In the last analysis, they can mean nothing to us if we cannot find personal experiences that echo similar sentiment.
Fr. Milanese is a good pastor. In his homily this morning, he pointed out another dimension of the question. In trying to answer Jesus' question, we also answer who we are.
Dear Lord, You are my boss. Let me be Your handy instrument to reconcile the world. Amen.
Sunday 23 June 2013
Sunday 16 June 2013
Love/Faith and Forgiveness
When we reach the end of Luke 7, we expect Jesus to say "Your love has saved you; go in peace." Instead, he said, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." (Luke 7:50). What is the logic? Nowhere in the story did faith play any role. Why does faith suddenly pop up and occupy the centre of the stage?
It all began with an eating at a Pharisee's house. The Pharisee was called Simon. In Matthew's version, this Simon was a leper (Matthew 26:6-13). Probably out of gratitude, he invited Jesus to dinner to thank Jesus. A sinful woman knew about it, came and anointed Jesus with expensive ointment (Luke 7:36-50). In Mark and Matthew, Jesus defended the action of the woman by saying that she was preparing his burial in advance. However, this story was handled in a different manner in the hand of Luke. Jesus defended the woman and turned the situation into a discourse on forgiveness. Luke wants to tell his readers that forgiveness is closely related to love. Or does he? Let us analyze the logic of Luke.
First of all, Jesus told a parable of two debtors, both of whom were unable to repay. The creditor forgave them both. Jesus did not explain why the creditor did so. He simply asked Simon which debtor loved the creditor more. Cautiously, Simon answered correctly that the one who was forgiven more (7:43). Obvious enough. The act of forgiving elicits gratitude and love.
Then, Jesus took the offensive to spell out how Simon had neglected his manners as the host in contrast to lavishness of the sinful woman's love (7:44-46). And Jesus drew the conclusion that because the sinful woman loved more, therefore she was forgiven more.
"her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much;
ἀφέωνται αἱ ἁμαρτίαι αὐτῆς αἱ πολλαί, ὅτι ἠγάπησεν πολύ" (7:47).
Immediately, Jesus put his words into action and forgave the sins of the woman (7:48). Now, it seems that the logic is turned around. Love elicits forgiveness. Did Jesus really mean this? Not quite.
Let us read the complete verse 47.
"Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little."
The first part seems to say that because she loves more, therefore she is forgiven more. However, the second part seems to be out of place. It seems to complete Jesus' question in saying that he who is forgiven little and therefore loves little in return.
The key word is "for" but the Greek original "ὅτι" can simply means "that" and does not make "LOVE" the requirement/reason for obtaining forgiveness. Of course, we should encourage people to love God more. But our love cannot be a kind of bargain. God, see how much I love you. Therefore, forgive me more. This kind of motive is wrong. Love should be love for love's sake.
It is always God who loves us first. We do not deserve such unreserved love. It is only right that we love God in return. The creditor loves the two debtors. He has mercy and compassion on them. Therefore, he forgave them. It so happened that one debtor owed more than the other. One sinner sins more than the other sinner. Therefore, the sinner who sins more, or rather who knows that he sins more, loves God more. Love is the consequence, not the cause. Faith in God is the cause.
One the other hand, Simon is not guiltless. Yet, he does not know his sins. He was not aware of his "negligence". His lack of faith in Jesus "... if this man were a prophet" (7:39) was the cause of his inhospitality shown to Jesus. In other words, we are not aware of our sins when our faith in God is wanting. The "advantage" of a public sinner is that she knows her sins.
No wonder Jesus took the offensive to spell out the "sins" of Simon. No wonder it was faith and not love that saved the sinful woman.
Dear Lord, open my heart so that I may know my sins more, that I may love You more. Amen.
p.s.
I brought up the same question to my colleagues to bring to their attention that we cannot take the Sunday Gospel reading for granted. It took some time for them to know the problem. Then during lunch time, a brave Pastoral Assistant, Natalie Wu, attempted to explain why Jesus said the faith of the sinful woman had saved her, not her gratitude or love. I challenged her arguments and asked her to show me which part of the story mentioned the faith of the sinful woman. None! However, in the end, she came up with a beautiful solution.
Jesus forgave the woman (7:48). The audience openly queried Jesus' authority (7:49). Jesus pronounced the teaching (7:50). The sentence was meant for the audience who questioned Jesus' authority to forgive sins. These people, including Simon, did not have enough faith in Jesus.
A very brave attempt. I like the answer.
p.p.s.
The story is too good a challenge to allow it to fly in my face too easily. Moreover, the attempt to discuss this story with Wulstan, my second son, led to an unhappy experience. But I have run out of my wits. So, I sought help from Fr. Placid Wong, OFM again. He kindly replied promptly and I think I have cracked the hard nut.
Here are the exchanges.
On June 21, 2013.
Dear Father,
It all began with an eating at a Pharisee's house. The Pharisee was called Simon. In Matthew's version, this Simon was a leper (Matthew 26:6-13). Probably out of gratitude, he invited Jesus to dinner to thank Jesus. A sinful woman knew about it, came and anointed Jesus with expensive ointment (Luke 7:36-50). In Mark and Matthew, Jesus defended the action of the woman by saying that she was preparing his burial in advance. However, this story was handled in a different manner in the hand of Luke. Jesus defended the woman and turned the situation into a discourse on forgiveness. Luke wants to tell his readers that forgiveness is closely related to love. Or does he? Let us analyze the logic of Luke.
First of all, Jesus told a parable of two debtors, both of whom were unable to repay. The creditor forgave them both. Jesus did not explain why the creditor did so. He simply asked Simon which debtor loved the creditor more. Cautiously, Simon answered correctly that the one who was forgiven more (7:43). Obvious enough. The act of forgiving elicits gratitude and love.
Then, Jesus took the offensive to spell out how Simon had neglected his manners as the host in contrast to lavishness of the sinful woman's love (7:44-46). And Jesus drew the conclusion that because the sinful woman loved more, therefore she was forgiven more.
"her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much;
ἀφέωνται αἱ ἁμαρτίαι αὐτῆς αἱ πολλαί, ὅτι ἠγάπησεν πολύ" (7:47).
Immediately, Jesus put his words into action and forgave the sins of the woman (7:48). Now, it seems that the logic is turned around. Love elicits forgiveness. Did Jesus really mean this? Not quite.
Let us read the complete verse 47.
"Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little."
The first part seems to say that because she loves more, therefore she is forgiven more. However, the second part seems to be out of place. It seems to complete Jesus' question in saying that he who is forgiven little and therefore loves little in return.
The key word is "for" but the Greek original "ὅτι" can simply means "that" and does not make "LOVE" the requirement/reason for obtaining forgiveness. Of course, we should encourage people to love God more. But our love cannot be a kind of bargain. God, see how much I love you. Therefore, forgive me more. This kind of motive is wrong. Love should be love for love's sake.
It is always God who loves us first. We do not deserve such unreserved love. It is only right that we love God in return. The creditor loves the two debtors. He has mercy and compassion on them. Therefore, he forgave them. It so happened that one debtor owed more than the other. One sinner sins more than the other sinner. Therefore, the sinner who sins more, or rather who knows that he sins more, loves God more. Love is the consequence, not the cause. Faith in God is the cause.
One the other hand, Simon is not guiltless. Yet, he does not know his sins. He was not aware of his "negligence". His lack of faith in Jesus "... if this man were a prophet" (7:39) was the cause of his inhospitality shown to Jesus. In other words, we are not aware of our sins when our faith in God is wanting. The "advantage" of a public sinner is that she knows her sins.
No wonder Jesus took the offensive to spell out the "sins" of Simon. No wonder it was faith and not love that saved the sinful woman.
Dear Lord, open my heart so that I may know my sins more, that I may love You more. Amen.
p.s.
I brought up the same question to my colleagues to bring to their attention that we cannot take the Sunday Gospel reading for granted. It took some time for them to know the problem. Then during lunch time, a brave Pastoral Assistant, Natalie Wu, attempted to explain why Jesus said the faith of the sinful woman had saved her, not her gratitude or love. I challenged her arguments and asked her to show me which part of the story mentioned the faith of the sinful woman. None! However, in the end, she came up with a beautiful solution.
Jesus forgave the woman (7:48). The audience openly queried Jesus' authority (7:49). Jesus pronounced the teaching (7:50). The sentence was meant for the audience who questioned Jesus' authority to forgive sins. These people, including Simon, did not have enough faith in Jesus.
A very brave attempt. I like the answer.
p.p.s.
The story is too good a challenge to allow it to fly in my face too easily. Moreover, the attempt to discuss this story with Wulstan, my second son, led to an unhappy experience. But I have run out of my wits. So, I sought help from Fr. Placid Wong, OFM again. He kindly replied promptly and I think I have cracked the hard nut.
Here are the exchanges.
On June 21, 2013.
Dear Father,
Sorry to bring you trouble again.
The story of the sinful woman is a difficult nut to crack.
First of all, Jesus' parable of two debtors and a creditor in Luke 7:41-42 has drawn out the conclusion that forgiveness gives rise to gratitude (7:43). Love is a consequence of forgiveness. However, in 7:47, Jesus gives an opposite conclusion that Love is the cause of forgiveness. In between, he simply contrasts what Simon the Pharisee had failed to do with what the sinful woman had done. This contrasting does not seem to warrant the conclusion that Love is the cause of forgiveness. Moreover, this conclusion seems to be guilty of Pelagianism. The more love/work you do, the more grace you obtain!
Then at the end of the story, we all expect Jesus to say "Your love/charity has saved you; go in peace." Instead, he said, "You faith ... etc." Faith suddenly jumped out from nowhere in the story! This is really hard to follow.
I checked the Greek original of 7:47 and found the word ὅτι, which is usually translated into since, because. It can also be translated into "that". I wonder if it is possible to translated it into "so that". In this way, verse 7:47 will agree with 7:43 and 7:47 will not be guilty of Pelagianism. But still, I cannot figure out where "faith" came from. Have I misunderstood the theology behind the story? Or would it be possible for some exhausted monks to copy the wrong verse into the wrong location?
On June 22, 2013, Fr. Placid replied.
Dear Alex,
Since o[ti can be understood as "so that" (you may find this significance in a more comprehensive Greek Dictionary in the HSSC library), I think the first problem solved as you said. But be careful, don't mix up "grace" with "love", "grace" definitely granted to men by God unconditionally for his "love".
From "love" to "faith" in the passage seems to be odd, but it's true when you read slowly the passgage especially the part about the reaction of the people in verse 49, "Who is this who even forgives sins?" after Jesus says to the woman "Your sins are forgiven." What they think is "only God can forgive sins", thus it shows that they do not believe Jesus is God. They think Jesus is just a prophet in verse 39. On the contrary, the woman repents of her sins with tears before Jesus and anoint Him. This shows the woman loves Jesus and believe Him as God. Therefore Jesus says that she is saved by her faith.
From "love" to "faith" was not uncommon concept in the New Testament, in the Letter of James 2:17, "if it (faith) does not have work, is dead". What work does James mean is the work of charity, that is "love" in the context of the same chapter. We may conclude that the appearance of faith is deeds of love.
Hoping that the explanation is clear.
Regards.
Fr Placid Wong ofm
With this inspiration, I came up with the following reconstruction of the whole story.
Dear Father,
Thanks very much for your prompt reply. Things begin to fall into places now.
First of all, I equate "forgiveness" of Jesus with "grace" and "love/gratitude" of the woman with "work". That is why I feel the whole story sounds like Pelagianism. In fact, the layout of the story gives the impression that the gratitude/love of the sinful woman earned her forgiveness from Jesus. That is one of the reasons why Jesus insisted that it was faith, not work/gratitude/love that saved the woman.
If we assume that the whole story starts with something outside the story, then our theory, i.e. forgiveness/grace generates love and work, can stand.
Why did the woman come to anoint Jesus in the first place? Something must have happened to touch/move her. That something I could only speculate. Perhaps she had heard Jesus' preaching before. She felt that in the teaching of Jesus, she could find a new beginning in her life. She felt forgiven or even better, Jesus had actually told her that her sins had been forgiven. Sin no more (John 8). Therefore, she came to anoint Jesus.
Then, we have to explain why Jesus forgave her twice.
I think Jesus did it deliberately to provoke the audience. In order to restore her social status and to make her as well as all the people around NOT to make the mistake in thinking that work would earn grace, Jesus stated unequivocally that her faith had saved her, not her love/gratitude/work. A similar case can be found in the story of the bleeding woman. "Your faith has saved you, go in peace" is meant not just for the woman, but for the people who doubted Jesus' authority to forgive sin.
Wow, my chest is clear now. Thank you very much, Father, for your inspiration.
Have I missed anything?
On the Feast of the Nativity of John the Baptist, Fr. Placid Wong gave me more encouragement to keep exploring the teachings of the Bible.
Fr Placid Wong ofm
On June 25, I replied.
Dear Father,
On the Feast of the Nativity of John the Baptist, Fr. Placid Wong gave me more encouragement to keep exploring the teachings of the Bible.
Dear Alex,
It's nice to know that you felt it clearer.
From the view of exegesis, we may explain the Biblical Text in different ways when the description of text is not so detailed, we have a lot of space to speculate providing that our explanation or interpretation is not against our faith.
Probably Lk 7:36-50 is an example, even the passage is quite long but it is not so detailed to tell us what happened to the woman before. You have raised some queries. In fact we may ask more. Why this woman could access to Jesus so easily when He had dinner with the Pharisee in his house? If the woman was sinner known by the public, why the family members of the Pharisee did not stop her in the first place from entering their house? Was this the first time she encountered Jesus? Did she repent and sin again then come to ask once more for the forgiveness of her sins?...
I think it was not the purpose of the author of the Gospel to tell the readers the complete story of the woman. His aim was to tell the readers who Jesus was, how much love as God He laid on them, how merciful He was even they were great sinners. The author tried to call the readers to believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and to repent and confess their sins in order to be saved. That was why the author skipped many of the details.
It is quite interesting to explore the meaning of the Bible Text. Keep it up.
Regards.
On June 25, I replied.
Dear Father,
Thank you.
Studying the Bible has been my life-long passion. In the valedictory speech I delivered at the CBI Graduation Mass in 2007, I thanked God for giving me the opportunity to earn a living by teaching/studying the Bible!
I am grateful for your support. May the good Lord continue to bless us in our service for the Word.
Sunday 9 June 2013
納因的寡婦在哪？
When I delivered my homily on widows this morning, I was hesitant because a friend of mine was widowed recently. Among the audience, I recognized one or two more widows. God helps me.
常年期第十主日（丙年）
主題：教會把耶穌的救恩帶給眾人
當聖經提到「寡婦」的時候， 大家一定會想起那個將她全部所有的兩個銅錢都奉獻了的「窮寡婦」。於是在不知不覺中，以為聖經中提及的寡婦一定是很窮，很可憐的。其實不一定這樣的。所以，今天想同大家一齊初步探討一下「寡婦」在聖經中的角色。
舊約的倫理道德，首推「十誡」。「十誡」是天主賜下的法律，但過於空泛，實行起來有太多破綻。於是梅瑟按環境的需要，訂立了613條法律。其中，就有一條很有名的「為兄立嗣」的法律。假如已婚的兄長去世，沒有兒子，弟弟有責任依法娶嫂，為兄立嗣（申25:5-7）。所以古代雖然沒有社會福利署的綜援，一樣可以照顧無依的寡婦。而且法律規定收割時不可割盡，要留下一些農作物讓孤兒寡婦和外人收集，使他們得以糊口，以解燃眉之急 (肋19:9-10)。在【馬爾谷福音】記載了耶穌和門徒在安息日掐食麥穗的故事，就是同這些充滿愛德的法律有關。
以色列的寡婦大致可分三類：第一類的寡婦最不幸，她們沒有兒子，亡夫沒有兄弟，或者有兄弟但她們過了生育年齡，亡夫的兄弟無法依照梅瑟的法律娶她們。於是她們孓然一身，無兒無女、無田無地、一無所有，可謂「Ｎ無人士」。惟有投靠外家，或者倚靠梅瑟的法律，君王的救濟，繼續生存下去。福音中慷慨的窮寡婦可能屬於這一類。以色列和猶大先後亡國，充軍亞述和巴比倫，沒有子民，沒有土地，變成名副其實，無依無靠的「寡婦」，等待天主的救贖。在舊約聖經中，「寡婦」成為了「等待救贖的人」的代表。例如一些賣身為奴的以色列人，他們沒有能力還債，惟有等待同鄉為他們贖身(肋25：25-27)，他們都是等待救贖者的例子。
第二類的寡婦沒有兒子，但仍有生育能力，亡夫的兄弟便可以娶她們，為兄立嗣，照顧她們。在某程度上，她們得到救贖。【盧德傳】的主角就是一個例子，後來盧德下嫁波亞次，成為達味的曾祖母，出現在耶穌的族譜中。
第三類的寡婦有兒子，她們「母憑子貴」，可以繼承丈夫的產業，直到兒子長大成人，繼承父業。納因城中的獨子的寡婦應該屬於這一類。厄里亞先知故事中的寡婦雖然是外邦人，未必有「為兄立嗣」的法律。不過【列王紀上】已交代過她的家勢。她們的生計暫時沒有問題。
第二及第三類的寡婦沒有丈夫保護，又要管理產業，是最容易受欺負的人。耶穌在【馬爾谷福音】中，曾批評那些利用自己專業知識來侵吞寡婦家產的經師，而【路加福音】亦有一個「寡婦與不義法官」的比喻，寡婦可能受了經師欺負，想找法官為她出頭。作為一個寡婦的不幸，可想而知。而且好景不常，一旦兒子死了，又過了生育的年齡，亡夫的兄弟可能會上門追討遺產，那時她們便會變成第一類「Ｎ無寡婦」，唯有等待天主的救贖。福音中「一大夥人陪著她」的人當中，可能就有那些虎視眈眈的亡夫兄弟，準備追討遺產。就在這時候，耶穌來了。
當時耶穌會想甚麽呢？
耶穌一看見她，自然會想到自己的母親瑪利亞。聖若瑟已經過身，聖母就是獨子的寡婦。自然耶穌便有同病相憐的感受，對納因城寡婦動了憐憫的心，安慰她不要哭。耶穌知道自己要復活，救贖人類，於是復活了寡婦的獨生子，救贖了納因城的寡婦。
今天的社會，女性多數能獨立生活，而且又沒有「貞節牌坊」的壓力，寡婦已很少見了。那麽，納因城寡婦的故事在今天的香港社會，又有甚麽意義呢？寡婦既然象徵「等待天主救贖的人」，那麽教會在香港又怎樣繼承耶穌的使命，救贖那些「等待天主救贖的人」呢？ 教會自從1891年，教宗良十三世頒布「新事物通諭」起，開始放眼世界，探索如何在世上建設天國，實踐正義與和平，對社會問題發表了有很多指示。或者你會覺得教宗的通諭，社會訓導，在世上建設天國，實踐正義與和平等高不可攀，不是我們這些平信徒可以做到的事。
我認為「認識」是行動的第一步，我們有責任認識教會的社會訓導，並且關心時事，在我們的生活中將耶穌的救恩帶給那些「等待天主救贖的人」。
如果大家覺得自己力有不逮，耶穌會幫助你。大家不妨翻開【瑪竇福音】第廿五章，最後審判一段，找到耶穌吩咐我們照顧哪六種人？就是那些饑餓、口渴、無家可歸、衣不蔽體、患病和被囚的人。這些都是古今中外都有，不用費多大氣力就可以找到的人，除非我們已變得鐵石心腸、麻木不仁。否則，總可以在我們的身邊見到他們，去服侍他們。
天主保祐。
10th Ordinary Sunday, Year C
Theme: The Church brings Jesus’ salvation to all
When we hear the mention of widows in the Bible, the image of the generous poor widow who offered all that she had, viz. 2 bronze coins, will come up in our mind. Imperceptibly, we come to think that widows in the Bible must be poor and pitiful. This is not necessarily true. Today, let us tentatively explore the role widows play in the Bible.
When we come to the morality of the Old Testament, the “Ten Commandments” are the undisputed champion. The Ten Commandments were given by God but they are too general. When they are put into practice, many loopholes appear. To meet the needs of real life situations, Moses made up 613 laws and regulations. One of them is the famous Levirate law. When a man died without a male heir, the brother of the dead man would marry the widow to keep the lineage of the dead man (Deuteronomy 25:5-7). Though there was no Social Welfare Department, nor comprehensive social security assistance in ancient Israel, the widows, who would otherwise live without any support, were taken care of. Furthermore, there were laws which forbade the Israelites from wholly reaping the corners of the field, leaving some produce for the poor and strangers (Leviticus 19:9-10) to sustain their lives. In the gospel of Mark, the story of Jesus’ disciples plucking corns on Sabbath was related to this charitable law.
Because of this law of levirate marriage, three types of widows could be found in Israel. Type I was the most unfortunate. They had no child. The deceased man had no brothers or there were brothers but the widow had passed her childbearing age. The brothers could not follow Moses’ law to marry her. These widows had nothing: no child, no land and nobody to support them. They could return to their patrilineal family, or relied on the charitable laws of Moses or humanitarian aid from the kings in order to survive. The generous poor widow in the gospel probably belongs to this type. Israel and Judah were conquered and exiled by Assyria and Babylon respectively. They had no subjects and no land. Literally, they had become widows waiting for the redemption of God. Thus, in the Old Testament, widows became the representative of those who waited for redemption. One more example, when an Israelite could not repay his debt and was sold as a slave, he could only wait for his kinsmen to redeem him (Leviticus 25:25-27).
Type II widows had no child but they still were able to bear children. In this case, the brothers of the deceased men would marry them to beget heir for their brothers. The widows were taken care of and to a certain extent, they were redeemed. Ruth was such an example. Boaz married her to become the great grandmother of King David. Her name appears in the genealogy of Jesus.
Type III widows had sons. They could inherit the estate of the deceased husbands until the sons grew up to take over the estate. The widow of Nain belonged to this type. Though the widow in the Elijah story was a Gentile and there might not be levirate law, 1 Kings mentions the household of the widow. Therefore, so far, their livelihood was not a problem.
Widows of Type II and III did not have husbands to protect them. They had to manage the estates of their deceased husbands and would easily fall prey to greedy people. In the gospel of Mark, Jesus criticizes the teachers of the law who made use of their professional knowledge to devour the houses of widows. There is also a parable of the widow and an unrighteous judge in the gospel of Luke. The widow was probably exploited by teachers of the law and so sought help from the unrighteous judge. The plight of these widows could be imagined. However, good days do not last forever. Once the son died and the widow had passed her childbearing age, the brothers of the deceased husband would appear to take back the estate. Then, the widows would become Type I widows, waiting for the redemption of God. Within the large crowd from the town might be predatory brothers of the deceased husband waiting to devour her estate. At this moment, Jesus came.
What was on Jesus’ mind at that moment?
When Jesus saw the widow, naturally he would think of his mother Mary. St. Joseph was dead and the BVM was a widow with an only son. Jesus must have empathy with the widow and had compassion on her. Jesus consoled her and told her not to weep. Jesus knew he would rise to life to redeem mankind. So, he raised the only son of the widow of Nain and redeemed her.
In the society nowadays, most women can lead an independent life. There is no more pressure of “chastity plaques”. Widows are rare. So, what meaning can be found in the story of the widow of Nain for Hong Kong today? Widows symbolize “people waiting for the redemption of God”. How does the Church in Hong Kong continue to carry out the mission of Jesus to redeem these people? Since 1891 when Pope Leo XIII promulgated Rerum Noravum, the Church began to address social injustice, to explore ways to build the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, to promote justice and peace and build up a body of social teachings. Perhaps you might feel that these papal encyclicals, social teachings, building Kingdom of Heaven on earth and promoting justice and peace are too lofty to be accessible. These are not stuff for us ordinary faithful.
I believe that knowledge is the first step of action. We have the duty to know the social teachings of the Church and care about current affairs so as to bring Jesus salvation to those who wait for the redemption of God in our daily life. If you feel you are not capable of doing so, Jesus will help you. Turn to Matthew 25, the section on the Last Judgment to find out the six types of people Jesus commands us to take care of. They are the hungry, the thirsty, the homeless, the naked, the sick and the imprisoned. They were, are and will always be with us anywhere we go. We don’t need much energy to locate them. Unless our hearts are hardened, we will always find them around us and serve them.
God bless.
常年期第十主日（丙年）
主題：教會把耶穌的救恩帶給眾人
當聖經提到「寡婦」的時候， 大家一定會想起那個將她全部所有的兩個銅錢都奉獻了的「窮寡婦」。於是在不知不覺中，以為聖經中提及的寡婦一定是很窮，很可憐的。其實不一定這樣的。所以，今天想同大家一齊初步探討一下「寡婦」在聖經中的角色。
舊約的倫理道德，首推「十誡」。「十誡」是天主賜下的法律，但過於空泛，實行起來有太多破綻。於是梅瑟按環境的需要，訂立了613條法律。其中，就有一條很有名的「為兄立嗣」的法律。假如已婚的兄長去世，沒有兒子，弟弟有責任依法娶嫂，為兄立嗣（申25:5-7）。所以古代雖然沒有社會福利署的綜援，一樣可以照顧無依的寡婦。而且法律規定收割時不可割盡，要留下一些農作物讓孤兒寡婦和外人收集，使他們得以糊口，以解燃眉之急 (肋19:9-10)。在【馬爾谷福音】記載了耶穌和門徒在安息日掐食麥穗的故事，就是同這些充滿愛德的法律有關。
以色列的寡婦大致可分三類：第一類的寡婦最不幸，她們沒有兒子，亡夫沒有兄弟，或者有兄弟但她們過了生育年齡，亡夫的兄弟無法依照梅瑟的法律娶她們。於是她們孓然一身，無兒無女、無田無地、一無所有，可謂「Ｎ無人士」。惟有投靠外家，或者倚靠梅瑟的法律，君王的救濟，繼續生存下去。福音中慷慨的窮寡婦可能屬於這一類。以色列和猶大先後亡國，充軍亞述和巴比倫，沒有子民，沒有土地，變成名副其實，無依無靠的「寡婦」，等待天主的救贖。在舊約聖經中，「寡婦」成為了「等待救贖的人」的代表。例如一些賣身為奴的以色列人，他們沒有能力還債，惟有等待同鄉為他們贖身(肋25：25-27)，他們都是等待救贖者的例子。
第二類的寡婦沒有兒子，但仍有生育能力，亡夫的兄弟便可以娶她們，為兄立嗣，照顧她們。在某程度上，她們得到救贖。【盧德傳】的主角就是一個例子，後來盧德下嫁波亞次，成為達味的曾祖母，出現在耶穌的族譜中。
第三類的寡婦有兒子，她們「母憑子貴」，可以繼承丈夫的產業，直到兒子長大成人，繼承父業。納因城中的獨子的寡婦應該屬於這一類。厄里亞先知故事中的寡婦雖然是外邦人，未必有「為兄立嗣」的法律。不過【列王紀上】已交代過她的家勢。她們的生計暫時沒有問題。
第二及第三類的寡婦沒有丈夫保護，又要管理產業，是最容易受欺負的人。耶穌在【馬爾谷福音】中，曾批評那些利用自己專業知識來侵吞寡婦家產的經師，而【路加福音】亦有一個「寡婦與不義法官」的比喻，寡婦可能受了經師欺負，想找法官為她出頭。作為一個寡婦的不幸，可想而知。而且好景不常，一旦兒子死了，又過了生育的年齡，亡夫的兄弟可能會上門追討遺產，那時她們便會變成第一類「Ｎ無寡婦」，唯有等待天主的救贖。福音中「一大夥人陪著她」的人當中，可能就有那些虎視眈眈的亡夫兄弟，準備追討遺產。就在這時候，耶穌來了。
當時耶穌會想甚麽呢？
耶穌一看見她，自然會想到自己的母親瑪利亞。聖若瑟已經過身，聖母就是獨子的寡婦。自然耶穌便有同病相憐的感受，對納因城寡婦動了憐憫的心，安慰她不要哭。耶穌知道自己要復活，救贖人類，於是復活了寡婦的獨生子，救贖了納因城的寡婦。
今天的社會，女性多數能獨立生活，而且又沒有「貞節牌坊」的壓力，寡婦已很少見了。那麽，納因城寡婦的故事在今天的香港社會，又有甚麽意義呢？寡婦既然象徵「等待天主救贖的人」，那麽教會在香港又怎樣繼承耶穌的使命，救贖那些「等待天主救贖的人」呢？ 教會自從1891年，教宗良十三世頒布「新事物通諭」起，開始放眼世界，探索如何在世上建設天國，實踐正義與和平，對社會問題發表了有很多指示。或者你會覺得教宗的通諭，社會訓導，在世上建設天國，實踐正義與和平等高不可攀，不是我們這些平信徒可以做到的事。
我認為「認識」是行動的第一步，我們有責任認識教會的社會訓導，並且關心時事，在我們的生活中將耶穌的救恩帶給那些「等待天主救贖的人」。
如果大家覺得自己力有不逮，耶穌會幫助你。大家不妨翻開【瑪竇福音】第廿五章，最後審判一段，找到耶穌吩咐我們照顧哪六種人？就是那些饑餓、口渴、無家可歸、衣不蔽體、患病和被囚的人。這些都是古今中外都有，不用費多大氣力就可以找到的人，除非我們已變得鐵石心腸、麻木不仁。否則，總可以在我們的身邊見到他們，去服侍他們。
天主保祐。
10th Ordinary Sunday, Year C
Theme: The Church brings Jesus’ salvation to all
When we hear the mention of widows in the Bible, the image of the generous poor widow who offered all that she had, viz. 2 bronze coins, will come up in our mind. Imperceptibly, we come to think that widows in the Bible must be poor and pitiful. This is not necessarily true. Today, let us tentatively explore the role widows play in the Bible.
When we come to the morality of the Old Testament, the “Ten Commandments” are the undisputed champion. The Ten Commandments were given by God but they are too general. When they are put into practice, many loopholes appear. To meet the needs of real life situations, Moses made up 613 laws and regulations. One of them is the famous Levirate law. When a man died without a male heir, the brother of the dead man would marry the widow to keep the lineage of the dead man (Deuteronomy 25:5-7). Though there was no Social Welfare Department, nor comprehensive social security assistance in ancient Israel, the widows, who would otherwise live without any support, were taken care of. Furthermore, there were laws which forbade the Israelites from wholly reaping the corners of the field, leaving some produce for the poor and strangers (Leviticus 19:9-10) to sustain their lives. In the gospel of Mark, the story of Jesus’ disciples plucking corns on Sabbath was related to this charitable law.
Because of this law of levirate marriage, three types of widows could be found in Israel. Type I was the most unfortunate. They had no child. The deceased man had no brothers or there were brothers but the widow had passed her childbearing age. The brothers could not follow Moses’ law to marry her. These widows had nothing: no child, no land and nobody to support them. They could return to their patrilineal family, or relied on the charitable laws of Moses or humanitarian aid from the kings in order to survive. The generous poor widow in the gospel probably belongs to this type. Israel and Judah were conquered and exiled by Assyria and Babylon respectively. They had no subjects and no land. Literally, they had become widows waiting for the redemption of God. Thus, in the Old Testament, widows became the representative of those who waited for redemption. One more example, when an Israelite could not repay his debt and was sold as a slave, he could only wait for his kinsmen to redeem him (Leviticus 25:25-27).
Type II widows had no child but they still were able to bear children. In this case, the brothers of the deceased men would marry them to beget heir for their brothers. The widows were taken care of and to a certain extent, they were redeemed. Ruth was such an example. Boaz married her to become the great grandmother of King David. Her name appears in the genealogy of Jesus.
Type III widows had sons. They could inherit the estate of the deceased husbands until the sons grew up to take over the estate. The widow of Nain belonged to this type. Though the widow in the Elijah story was a Gentile and there might not be levirate law, 1 Kings mentions the household of the widow. Therefore, so far, their livelihood was not a problem.
Widows of Type II and III did not have husbands to protect them. They had to manage the estates of their deceased husbands and would easily fall prey to greedy people. In the gospel of Mark, Jesus criticizes the teachers of the law who made use of their professional knowledge to devour the houses of widows. There is also a parable of the widow and an unrighteous judge in the gospel of Luke. The widow was probably exploited by teachers of the law and so sought help from the unrighteous judge. The plight of these widows could be imagined. However, good days do not last forever. Once the son died and the widow had passed her childbearing age, the brothers of the deceased husband would appear to take back the estate. Then, the widows would become Type I widows, waiting for the redemption of God. Within the large crowd from the town might be predatory brothers of the deceased husband waiting to devour her estate. At this moment, Jesus came.
What was on Jesus’ mind at that moment?
When Jesus saw the widow, naturally he would think of his mother Mary. St. Joseph was dead and the BVM was a widow with an only son. Jesus must have empathy with the widow and had compassion on her. Jesus consoled her and told her not to weep. Jesus knew he would rise to life to redeem mankind. So, he raised the only son of the widow of Nain and redeemed her.
In the society nowadays, most women can lead an independent life. There is no more pressure of “chastity plaques”. Widows are rare. So, what meaning can be found in the story of the widow of Nain for Hong Kong today? Widows symbolize “people waiting for the redemption of God”. How does the Church in Hong Kong continue to carry out the mission of Jesus to redeem these people? Since 1891 when Pope Leo XIII promulgated Rerum Noravum, the Church began to address social injustice, to explore ways to build the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, to promote justice and peace and build up a body of social teachings. Perhaps you might feel that these papal encyclicals, social teachings, building Kingdom of Heaven on earth and promoting justice and peace are too lofty to be accessible. These are not stuff for us ordinary faithful.
I believe that knowledge is the first step of action. We have the duty to know the social teachings of the Church and care about current affairs so as to bring Jesus salvation to those who wait for the redemption of God in our daily life. If you feel you are not capable of doing so, Jesus will help you. Turn to Matthew 25, the section on the Last Judgment to find out the six types of people Jesus commands us to take care of. They are the hungry, the thirsty, the homeless, the naked, the sick and the imprisoned. They were, are and will always be with us anywhere we go. We don’t need much energy to locate them. Unless our hearts are hardened, we will always find them around us and serve them.
God bless.
Sunday 2 June 2013
Mission Impossible
I am sure all of you have heard of the miracle of the feeding of 5000, or the multiplication of loaves, or five loaves and two fish etc., depending on your perspective. This miracle is found in all four canonical gospels. For a while in the early 20th century, scholars tended to demystify the miracles of Jesus. They tried to explain away his miracles with some scientific evidences. For example, some diseases were actually psychosomatic. Therefore, Jesus was no more than a faith-healer. In the case of this "5 loaves and 2 fish" miracle, the crowd were so touched/moved by the generosity of the boy who gave up his "5 loaves and 2 fish" that they shared the food they had brought along. Therefore, Jesus was just a persuasive preacher.
I no long buy this kind of exegesis. These scholars did not think of the impossible mission of crowd control. Assuming that the 5000 was no exaggeration, it was indeed a miracle for Jesus, without amplifiers, "to speak to them of the kingdom of God ... in a lonely place" (Luke 9:11-12). It was not an indoor evangelization event held inside a concert hall with good acoustics but an outdoor open space. Moreover, how could you coordinate 5000 men with only 12 apostles, a ratio of 1:417, not counting women and children?
If you do not have any idea of how many people 5000 are, just imagine the morning assembly of a school of 1200 students. There are usually around 60 teachers, a ratio of 1:20 required by the Education Department of Hong Kong. So, 5000 people is similar to a joint morning assembly of 4 schools. If you think morning assembly in a school is a special case, let's take a look at another situation.
A search on the Internet for "deployment in crowd control" yields this information. 400 Massachusetts National Guardsmen were deployed to maintain public order for 2009 Boston Marathon in which there were 26,000 runners, a ratio of 1:65. These Guardsmen were deployed for security purposes only. There were other workers to manage the event so that the deployment ratio would be lower. These two examples are non-violent events like the gathering of 5000 men who gathered to hear Jesus speak of the kingdom of heaven. I don't have any experience organizing mass programs to entertain thousands of people. Those organizers are in a better position to prove me wrong or how to maintain peace with a deployment ratio of 1:400 plus. I still think that such a deployment ratio is really mission impossible, unless you have Jesus.
I do not blame the Evangelists for exaggerating the number of people. Instead, I meditate on the excitement of serving Jesus. I am sure the apostles would feel what I feel when Jesus told them to feed the crowd. At first sight, the situation would surely be an impossible mission, money-wise or management-wise. How would it be possible for 12 apostles to go into a sea of 5000 people to organize them into groups of 50? Altogether, the 12 apostles have to settle down 100 groups of 50 people each. Then they returned to Jesus and went out again to distribute the 5 loaves and 2 fish among these 100 groups of 50 people. Such is the miracle of the feeding of 5000. I would rather close my eyes to imagine the excitement the 12 apostles felt when they collected 12 baskets of leftovers, when the mission was accomplished.
Our task as servants of Jesus is to distribute his love among the needy, both physical and spiritual. The task is huge. The burden is heavy and looks impossible in many situations. But with Jesus, the burden will become light and the mission becomes possible. Unreservedly, Jesus gives himself totally to us. There is nothing to separate us from his love. What more can we demand?
Dear Jesus, serving You is my privilege. In serving You and my neighbour, I am enriched. Amen.
I no long buy this kind of exegesis. These scholars did not think of the impossible mission of crowd control. Assuming that the 5000 was no exaggeration, it was indeed a miracle for Jesus, without amplifiers, "to speak to them of the kingdom of God ... in a lonely place" (Luke 9:11-12). It was not an indoor evangelization event held inside a concert hall with good acoustics but an outdoor open space. Moreover, how could you coordinate 5000 men with only 12 apostles, a ratio of 1:417, not counting women and children?
If you do not have any idea of how many people 5000 are, just imagine the morning assembly of a school of 1200 students. There are usually around 60 teachers, a ratio of 1:20 required by the Education Department of Hong Kong. So, 5000 people is similar to a joint morning assembly of 4 schools. If you think morning assembly in a school is a special case, let's take a look at another situation.
A search on the Internet for "deployment in crowd control" yields this information. 400 Massachusetts National Guardsmen were deployed to maintain public order for 2009 Boston Marathon in which there were 26,000 runners, a ratio of 1:65. These Guardsmen were deployed for security purposes only. There were other workers to manage the event so that the deployment ratio would be lower. These two examples are non-violent events like the gathering of 5000 men who gathered to hear Jesus speak of the kingdom of heaven. I don't have any experience organizing mass programs to entertain thousands of people. Those organizers are in a better position to prove me wrong or how to maintain peace with a deployment ratio of 1:400 plus. I still think that such a deployment ratio is really mission impossible, unless you have Jesus.
I do not blame the Evangelists for exaggerating the number of people. Instead, I meditate on the excitement of serving Jesus. I am sure the apostles would feel what I feel when Jesus told them to feed the crowd. At first sight, the situation would surely be an impossible mission, money-wise or management-wise. How would it be possible for 12 apostles to go into a sea of 5000 people to organize them into groups of 50? Altogether, the 12 apostles have to settle down 100 groups of 50 people each. Then they returned to Jesus and went out again to distribute the 5 loaves and 2 fish among these 100 groups of 50 people. Such is the miracle of the feeding of 5000. I would rather close my eyes to imagine the excitement the 12 apostles felt when they collected 12 baskets of leftovers, when the mission was accomplished.
Our task as servants of Jesus is to distribute his love among the needy, both physical and spiritual. The task is huge. The burden is heavy and looks impossible in many situations. But with Jesus, the burden will become light and the mission becomes possible. Unreservedly, Jesus gives himself totally to us. There is nothing to separate us from his love. What more can we demand?
Dear Jesus, serving You is my privilege. In serving You and my neighbour, I am enriched. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)