Today, we read of the Lukan version of the Lord's Prayer (Luke 11:2b-4). It is shorter than the Matthean version (Matthew 6:9b-13). Not only is the Lord's Prayer different, another allusion to the father's response to a son's request is also different. Luke employs fish/serpent and egg/scorpion pairs (Luke 11:11-12) while Matthew uses bread/stone and fish/serpent pairs (Matthew 7:9-10). How should we understand these differences?
To begin with, Luke sets up a different context to teach about prayers. The gospel of Luke is very prayerful. We find a lot of prayers (Benedictus, Ave Maria, Magnificat, Gloria and Nunc Dimittis etc in Luke 1-2) and Jesus is a man of prayer in Luke. In Luke 11, Jesus prays. When he finishes, one of the disciples asks Jesus to teach them to pray as John the Baptist has taught his disciples to pray. Fr. Milanese explains a very good point here. The disciples were Jews and Jews had a lot of Psalms to pray. They did not need any more new prayers. Therefore, they were motivated not by piety to God. Rather, they wanted an identity. They wanted to build up a sense of belonging to their community distinct from the others. I agree to this sense of identity but I have reservation about their knowledge of Psalms. My impression of the disciples of Jesus is that they were uneducated. I wonder if they knew much about Psalms even though they might have learnt them on Sabbath gatherings in the synagogues. Like ordinary Catholics, most of them recite the Rosary instead of praying the Liturgy of the Hours. Ordinary disciples need simple prayers instead of elitist Psalms. This is only my prejudice.
Therefore, Jesus taught them a simple version of the Lord's Prayer.
Jesus taught the Lukan community a simple and direct "Father", instead of "Our Father in Heaven". The "Your will be done on earth as in heaven" is also missing. Perhaps we should understand this as a theological expansion of the "Your Kingdom come". This tentative exploration points to the different backgrounds of the Lukan and Matthean communities.
The Lukan community was Gentile and lived in competition with the Baptist movement. Therefore, the motivation to learn a simple prayer was to distinguish themselves from the Baptist group. To meet their needs, the Lukan Lord's Prayer is more direct and simpler. The Matthean community seemed not to find the Baptist movement a rival because John the Baptist did not claim to be the Messiah. Therefore, the Matthean Lord's Prayer is more elaborate and liturgical to suit the Jewish Christian community. Historically, Jesus must have taught them the Lord's Prayer in some form. This prayer circulated in different communities and resulted in different adaptations. Let me assure you, the key phrases are identical.
Let me turn to the pairings of bread/stone, fish/snake and egg/scorpion. Bread and stone may look alike. Moreover, in the first temptation, the Devil asked Jesus to turn stones into bread. Fish and snake are rather different though both have scales. Egg and scorpion certainly find nothing in common. In Greek which the NT was written, the fish ἰχθὺν/snake ὄφιν and egg ᾠόν/ scorpion σκορπίον surely do not sound alike. Therefore, we have to look elsewhere, Hebrew and better Aramaic which Jesus speaks.
In Hebrew, bread לֶחֶם and stone אֶבֶן sound alike. Fish דָּגָה and snake נָחָשׁ alike and lastly, egg בֵּיצָה and scorpion עַקְרָב sound alike. Therefore, I would be satisfied to the choice of pairings because they sound alike in Hebrew/Aramaic.
Now, my mind is at relative peace. I can pray confidently and comfortably to my Father in heaven, to ask Him to give me the Holy Spirit to inflame my lukewarm heart. Amen.
Monday 29 July 2013
Sunday 21 July 2013
We need a pair of legs to walk
As a Christian, we need to pray and work (ora et labora) together. Lacking either one, our Christian life is lame. We need a pair of legs to walk. Of course, if you don't need to walk, say you have wings, you need a pair of wings to fly. This is the "fearful symmetry" popular scientists like to talk about. There is a certain amount of truth in it.
Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle, taught the mean in moral actions. Pushing things to either of two extremes will definitely end up in disasters. We are advised to steer across the middle course, the mean. For example, being a coward or an impulsive person cannot be a moral person. The middle course is courage. However, ancient Chinese philosophers taught 中庸之道", which is usually wrongly translated into the Middle Way. It is a big mistake because the 中 does not mean middle. Rather it means hit the mark, being impartial etc. For the Chinese, the Middle Way is not static. It is not always there. It is dynamic. When the situation changes, the Middle Way changes accordingly. For ethical purists, especially those Kantians who dislike "situational ethics", this Chinese "Middle Way" is too "prudent", too pragmatic to be meaningful at all. However, let me assure you that for Chinese morality, there are higher values than life. They are Benevolence 仁 and Justice 義. That is to say, in order to bring benevolence or justice to the others, Chinese moralists are willing to give up their life when the situation demands. The Greeks used a spatial image of the middle between two extremes. The Chinese used an archery imagery, something similar to Paul's teaching in the Romans when he says that sin is missing the mark, falling short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)
Indeed, Jesus was impartial. Between active life and contemplative life, Jesus passes no judgment. Though it seems that Jesus shows preference to Mary's choice, again, it is a happy misunderstanding. Let's read again.
"one thing is needful. Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her." (Luke 10:42)
What kind of a girl was THIS Mary? Was she always a contemplative? Was she the sinful woman who anointed Jesus in Simon, the Pharisee's house (Luke 7:36-50)? Surely she did not appear to be as outspoken as her elder sister Martha in John 11. Indeed, we have no evidence to make Mary a contemplative except for this one verse 10:39.
I prefer seeing Mary, the younger sister an energetic active girl most of the time. She needed to be more contemplative. When Jesus came, she did it. That is to say, Mary did the right thing at the right time. This is the true meaning of the Chinese "Middle Way".
Dear Lord, teach us not to despise either way of life. Help us do the right thing at the right time, like what Mary did. Amen.
Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle, taught the mean in moral actions. Pushing things to either of two extremes will definitely end up in disasters. We are advised to steer across the middle course, the mean. For example, being a coward or an impulsive person cannot be a moral person. The middle course is courage. However, ancient Chinese philosophers taught 中庸之道", which is usually wrongly translated into the Middle Way. It is a big mistake because the 中 does not mean middle. Rather it means hit the mark, being impartial etc. For the Chinese, the Middle Way is not static. It is not always there. It is dynamic. When the situation changes, the Middle Way changes accordingly. For ethical purists, especially those Kantians who dislike "situational ethics", this Chinese "Middle Way" is too "prudent", too pragmatic to be meaningful at all. However, let me assure you that for Chinese morality, there are higher values than life. They are Benevolence 仁 and Justice 義. That is to say, in order to bring benevolence or justice to the others, Chinese moralists are willing to give up their life when the situation demands. The Greeks used a spatial image of the middle between two extremes. The Chinese used an archery imagery, something similar to Paul's teaching in the Romans when he says that sin is missing the mark, falling short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)
Indeed, Jesus was impartial. Between active life and contemplative life, Jesus passes no judgment. Though it seems that Jesus shows preference to Mary's choice, again, it is a happy misunderstanding. Let's read again.
"one thing is needful. Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her." (Luke 10:42)
What kind of a girl was THIS Mary? Was she always a contemplative? Was she the sinful woman who anointed Jesus in Simon, the Pharisee's house (Luke 7:36-50)? Surely she did not appear to be as outspoken as her elder sister Martha in John 11. Indeed, we have no evidence to make Mary a contemplative except for this one verse 10:39.
I prefer seeing Mary, the younger sister an energetic active girl most of the time. She needed to be more contemplative. When Jesus came, she did it. That is to say, Mary did the right thing at the right time. This is the true meaning of the Chinese "Middle Way".
Dear Lord, teach us not to despise either way of life. Help us do the right thing at the right time, like what Mary did. Amen.
Sunday 14 July 2013
「愛人如己」之不足
常年期第十五主日（丙年）
主題：愛近人如你自己
我們對聖經的內容，有很多「美麗的誤會」。例如創世紀中的「禁果」經常被人認為是蘋果，甚至將男人的喉核，解釋成為亞當正在吃禁果的時候被天主發現，慌亂中禁果卡在喉嚨，成為喉核，英文稱為 Adam’s Apple.
一個同耶穌有關，最家傳戶曉的美麗誤會就是「東方三博士」。瑪竇福音記載耶穌出生時，從東方來了幾位賢士朝拜耶穌，並沒有說明是三位。但因為他們獻上黃金、乳香和末藥三份禮物，結果幾位賢士變成了「東方三博士」。
此外，很多人以為是耶穌教導人要「愛人如己」。根據《馬爾谷福音》的記載，有一位經師挑戰耶穌，要耶穌從大大小小613條法律中講出最大的誡命。耶穌從容不迫地答說，「你要全心、全靈、全意、全力愛天主。並且要愛人如己」。所以，「愛人如己」是耶穌教的。殊不知，耶穌是分別引用《申命紀》和《肋未紀》經文來回應那個經師。《申命紀》和《肋未紀》是梅瑟所寫的，所以「愛人如己」並不是耶穌所教導的，而是梅瑟。
可是，問題又出現了。根據《馬爾谷福音》的記載，是耶穌親口說出最大的誡命。但在剛才所聽的《路加福音》，講出最大的誡命是挑戰耶穌的經師。究竟是耶穌講還是經師講的呢？福音不是記載歷史事實的嗎？為何有兩個矛盾的版本？
雖然福音是「耶穌傳」，但福音的作者是懷有一個目的地寫福音的，他們根據一些與耶穌有關的歷史事件，再針對個別信徒團體不同的背景和因應宣講上的需要，加以修飾編輯，目的是為了使門徒認識耶穌，加深他們對耶穌的信仰，發揮福音的精神。
馬爾谷所寫的福音，講故事多，講教訓少。路加不但講故事，而且透過講耶穌的故事，幫助聽眾默想如何做一個好門徒。
根據馬爾谷的編排，這個故事發生在耶穌榮進耶路撒冷之後，即是在聖周之內。當時耶穌在聖殿舌戰群儒，續一擊退來自四方八面的挑戰。歷史上，可能真的是由耶穌講出最大的誡命，擊敗經師的挑戰，再沒有進一步發揮的必要。路加的版本不是在聖殿發生，耶穌並不是遭人圍攻。他安排由經師講最大的誡命，而且，經師不甘心耶穌輕易迴避了挑戰，想對耶穌進一步窮追猛打，結果反而給耶穌一個講慈善撒瑪黎雅人比喻的機會。路加的文學造詣，可見一斑。
其實大家有沒有留意到「愛近人如你自己」有甚麽不妥？
讓我們欣賞一下路加如何展現「愛人如己」的破綻吧。
比較一下經師和耶穌所問的問題，就可以看到「愛人如己」的破綻了。
經師追問耶穌「畢竟誰是『我』的近人？」
耶穌講完慈善撒瑪黎雅人比喻時是怎樣問的？「誰是『那遭遇強盜者』的近人呢？」
經師以自我為中心，以自我為出發點。耶穌教訓經師以別人為中心，以需要幫助的人為出發點。以自我做中心的所謂「愛」是自私，不是真心的愛。為別人著想的愛纔是真正的愛。「愛人如己」其實有破綻，破綻在於有自己。因此，做一個好基督徒，「愛人如己」是不足夠的。路加幫助聽眾默想「愛人」的真正意義。愛人不可以從自己的觀點，自己的利益出發，真正的愛要從對方的益處，對方的觀點出發。「愛人忘記自己」。
上星期一小六派位放榜，明天是第二屆文憑試放榜，做家長的忙得「不亦樂乎」。近年出現不少所謂「直昇機家長、怪獸家長」令人咎病。他們要求陪伴讀大學的子女到內地實習，他們想出席大一迎新營，保護自己的子女不受欺凌。小六的家長帶著子女四出奔波叩門，想子女入讀Band One名校，又向學校訓導老師說謊，坦護遲起床的子女…凡此種種都是出於一份對子女的愛，可惜是一份「錯愛」，因為並不是從子女的益處，子女的成長為出發點。所謂「好心做壞事」，都是因為沒從別人的真正需要為出發點。有人出於好意，不想自己的絕症加重親人的負載，用跳樓自殺或者「安樂死」的手段去處理問題，結果留給家人的是一份很難磨滅的内疚。如果能與家人一齊互相支持，渡過餘下的時日，自然地離世，反而是送給家人一份最好的，無悔的禮物。
雖然說「家家有本難唸的經」，不過，做天主教徒有一個優勢，希望大家多加運用。在俗世，我們有「明愛家庭服務部」，可以幫助我們處理家庭問題、兒女的問題。在靈性上，我們有天主聖神，祂既是真理之神，亦是天主的愛。讓我們向居住在我們心中的聖神祈求，不是在有困難的時候臨急抱天主的腳，而是平時多向聖神祈禱，求祂光照我們的明悟，懂得正確地愛，並暖化我們自私，對別人的困難視若無暏的冰心，慷慨地伸出援手。
天主保祐。
15th Ordinary Sunday, Year C
Theme: Love your neighbour as yourself
We have a lot of “beautiful misunderstandings” of the stories in the Bible. For example, people usually think that the “forbidden fruit” mentioned in Genesis was an apple. They even explain the origin of the laryngeal protuberance as a piece of forbidden fruit stuck at the throat when Adam was caught by God eating it. Thus, it is called Adam’s Apple.
Another well-known misunderstanding involving Jesus is the “Three Magi”. Matthew mentions that when Jesus was born, “several wise men” arrived from the East to worship him. Matthew did not say three but since they offered three gifts: gold, frankincense and myrrh, “several wise men” became “Three Magi”.
Moreover, many people think that Jesus teaches us to love our neighbour as ourselves. According to the gospel of Mark, a teacher of the Law challenged Jesus which was the greatest commandment among the 613 Jewish laws. Jesus leisurely told him that the greatest commandment is to love God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind and with all our strength; and the second greatest is to love our neighbour as ourselves. Therefore, it is Jesus who teaches us to love our neighbour as ourselves. They don’t know that Jesus was actually quoting Deuteronomy and Leviticus in answering the teacher of the Law. Deuteronomy and Leviticus were written by Moses. Therefore, Jesus did not teach us to love our neighbour as ourselves. Moses did.
Now, another problem arises. According to the gospel of Mark, the greatest commandment came from the lips of Jesus. However, from what we heard in Luke today, the greatest commandment came from the lips of the teacher of the Law who challenged Jesus. Now, who actually spoke it, Jesus or the teacher of the Law? Do the gospels not talk about historical truths? Why do we have two contradictory versions?
Although gospels are supposed to be biographies of Jesus, the Evangelists wrote with a purpose. They selected some historical events involving Jesus, edited and embellished these events in accordance with the circumstances of the community and the needs of proclamation. They wrote in such a way as to portray a particular image of Jesus, to deepen their faith in Jesus and to advocate the spirit of the gospel. Mark is more inclined to tell stories than to preach morals. Luke not only tells stories of Jesus, but he also wants to help the audience meditate how to be a good disciple.
According to Mark’s arrangements, the story happened after Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem, i.e. within the Holy Week. At that time, Jesus was surrounded and challenged by people of different religious shades and political alliances in the Temple. Jesus was able to ward them off one by one. In history, it was probably Jesus who spoke of the greatest commandment to defeat the teacher of the Law. Afterwards, there would be no more need to elaborate. Luke’s version did not take place in the Temple. Jesus was not surrounded by hostile challengers. Luke put the greatest commandment in the lips of the teacher of the Law who did not want to let Jesus off the hook too easily and wanted to keep the battle going. Inadvertently, he handed Jesus an opportunity to teach him a lesson with the parable of the Good Samaritan. Luke’s literary mastery surpasses Mark’s a lot.
In fact, do you see any flaw in the commandment of “loving your neighbour as yourself”?
Let us see how Luke unveils the loophole in “loving your neighbour as yourself.”
Contrasting how the teacher of the Law and Jesus asked the questions will reveal the flaw.
The teacher of the Law asked Jesus “who is my neighbour?” (Luke 10:29) After telling the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus asked, “Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbour to the man who fell among the robbers?” (Luke 10:36).
The teacher of the Law was self-centred. Jesus taught the teacher of the Law to be altruistic, to put on the shoes of the needy. Self-centred love is selfish love, not true love. True love is being considerate to the needs of the others. The loophole of “Love your neighbour as yourself” is the “self”. To be a good Christian, it is not enough to “love your neighbour as yourself”. Luke helps his audience meditate on the real meaning of love. Love your neighbour cannot begin with your own perspective, your own interests. True love begins from the interests of the others, the perspective of the others. “Love your neighbour forgets yourself”.
Last Monday, the results of Secondary School Places Allocation were released. Tomorrow, the results of Diploma of Secondary Education examination will be released. Many parents would be very busy. In recent years, there reported many “helicopter parents”, “monster parents” whose actions were widely criticized. They wanted to accompany their children in their internship in the mainland; they wanted to go to freshmen orientation camps to protect their children lest they would be bullied. Many primary six parents ran around the territory with their children to ‘knock the doors’ in order to have their children enrolled in Band One elite schools. Some even tell lies to discipline teachers so that their children would not be punished for returning to schools late ... All these actions are motivated by ‘parental love’ of their children. Unfortunately, it is a wrong kind of love because it does not start with the interests of the child, the growth and development of the child. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” It is all because the starting point is not the interests and needs of the others. Some patients of incurable diseases who do not want to burden their family members financially and emotionally decide to jump to their death or seek euthanasia to ‘solve the problem’. Consequently, the patient leaves his beloved ones an inerasable sense of guilt. If they support each other in the remaining days and let the patient die a natural death, it would be the best gift of no regret left behind for the family members.
Although “every family has her own difficult breviary to pray”, we are advantaged to be Catholics. In the real daily life, we have “Family Services of Caritas” which can help us solve family problems and child-raising problems etc. In our spiritual life, we have the Holy Spirit who is the spirit of truth and God’s love. Let us pray more to the Holy Spirit, not just in times of emergencies. We pray daily to the Holy Spirit to illuminate our intellect so that we may understand and love correctly; to inflame our callous hearts so that we may extend a helping hand generously when we see people in need.
God bless.
主題：愛近人如你自己
我們對聖經的內容，有很多「美麗的誤會」。例如創世紀中的「禁果」經常被人認為是蘋果，甚至將男人的喉核，解釋成為亞當正在吃禁果的時候被天主發現，慌亂中禁果卡在喉嚨，成為喉核，英文稱為 Adam’s Apple.
一個同耶穌有關，最家傳戶曉的美麗誤會就是「東方三博士」。瑪竇福音記載耶穌出生時，從東方來了幾位賢士朝拜耶穌，並沒有說明是三位。但因為他們獻上黃金、乳香和末藥三份禮物，結果幾位賢士變成了「東方三博士」。
此外，很多人以為是耶穌教導人要「愛人如己」。根據《馬爾谷福音》的記載，有一位經師挑戰耶穌，要耶穌從大大小小613條法律中講出最大的誡命。耶穌從容不迫地答說，「你要全心、全靈、全意、全力愛天主。並且要愛人如己」。所以，「愛人如己」是耶穌教的。殊不知，耶穌是分別引用《申命紀》和《肋未紀》經文來回應那個經師。《申命紀》和《肋未紀》是梅瑟所寫的，所以「愛人如己」並不是耶穌所教導的，而是梅瑟。
可是，問題又出現了。根據《馬爾谷福音》的記載，是耶穌親口說出最大的誡命。但在剛才所聽的《路加福音》，講出最大的誡命是挑戰耶穌的經師。究竟是耶穌講還是經師講的呢？福音不是記載歷史事實的嗎？為何有兩個矛盾的版本？
雖然福音是「耶穌傳」，但福音的作者是懷有一個目的地寫福音的，他們根據一些與耶穌有關的歷史事件，再針對個別信徒團體不同的背景和因應宣講上的需要，加以修飾編輯，目的是為了使門徒認識耶穌，加深他們對耶穌的信仰，發揮福音的精神。
馬爾谷所寫的福音，講故事多，講教訓少。路加不但講故事，而且透過講耶穌的故事，幫助聽眾默想如何做一個好門徒。
根據馬爾谷的編排，這個故事發生在耶穌榮進耶路撒冷之後，即是在聖周之內。當時耶穌在聖殿舌戰群儒，續一擊退來自四方八面的挑戰。歷史上，可能真的是由耶穌講出最大的誡命，擊敗經師的挑戰，再沒有進一步發揮的必要。路加的版本不是在聖殿發生，耶穌並不是遭人圍攻。他安排由經師講最大的誡命，而且，經師不甘心耶穌輕易迴避了挑戰，想對耶穌進一步窮追猛打，結果反而給耶穌一個講慈善撒瑪黎雅人比喻的機會。路加的文學造詣，可見一斑。
其實大家有沒有留意到「愛近人如你自己」有甚麽不妥？
讓我們欣賞一下路加如何展現「愛人如己」的破綻吧。
比較一下經師和耶穌所問的問題，就可以看到「愛人如己」的破綻了。
經師追問耶穌「畢竟誰是『我』的近人？」
耶穌講完慈善撒瑪黎雅人比喻時是怎樣問的？「誰是『那遭遇強盜者』的近人呢？」
經師以自我為中心，以自我為出發點。耶穌教訓經師以別人為中心，以需要幫助的人為出發點。以自我做中心的所謂「愛」是自私，不是真心的愛。為別人著想的愛纔是真正的愛。「愛人如己」其實有破綻，破綻在於有自己。因此，做一個好基督徒，「愛人如己」是不足夠的。路加幫助聽眾默想「愛人」的真正意義。愛人不可以從自己的觀點，自己的利益出發，真正的愛要從對方的益處，對方的觀點出發。「愛人忘記自己」。
上星期一小六派位放榜，明天是第二屆文憑試放榜，做家長的忙得「不亦樂乎」。近年出現不少所謂「直昇機家長、怪獸家長」令人咎病。他們要求陪伴讀大學的子女到內地實習，他們想出席大一迎新營，保護自己的子女不受欺凌。小六的家長帶著子女四出奔波叩門，想子女入讀Band One名校，又向學校訓導老師說謊，坦護遲起床的子女…凡此種種都是出於一份對子女的愛，可惜是一份「錯愛」，因為並不是從子女的益處，子女的成長為出發點。所謂「好心做壞事」，都是因為沒從別人的真正需要為出發點。有人出於好意，不想自己的絕症加重親人的負載，用跳樓自殺或者「安樂死」的手段去處理問題，結果留給家人的是一份很難磨滅的内疚。如果能與家人一齊互相支持，渡過餘下的時日，自然地離世，反而是送給家人一份最好的，無悔的禮物。
雖然說「家家有本難唸的經」，不過，做天主教徒有一個優勢，希望大家多加運用。在俗世，我們有「明愛家庭服務部」，可以幫助我們處理家庭問題、兒女的問題。在靈性上，我們有天主聖神，祂既是真理之神，亦是天主的愛。讓我們向居住在我們心中的聖神祈求，不是在有困難的時候臨急抱天主的腳，而是平時多向聖神祈禱，求祂光照我們的明悟，懂得正確地愛，並暖化我們自私，對別人的困難視若無暏的冰心，慷慨地伸出援手。
天主保祐。
15th Ordinary Sunday, Year C
Theme: Love your neighbour as yourself
We have a lot of “beautiful misunderstandings” of the stories in the Bible. For example, people usually think that the “forbidden fruit” mentioned in Genesis was an apple. They even explain the origin of the laryngeal protuberance as a piece of forbidden fruit stuck at the throat when Adam was caught by God eating it. Thus, it is called Adam’s Apple.
Another well-known misunderstanding involving Jesus is the “Three Magi”. Matthew mentions that when Jesus was born, “several wise men” arrived from the East to worship him. Matthew did not say three but since they offered three gifts: gold, frankincense and myrrh, “several wise men” became “Three Magi”.
Moreover, many people think that Jesus teaches us to love our neighbour as ourselves. According to the gospel of Mark, a teacher of the Law challenged Jesus which was the greatest commandment among the 613 Jewish laws. Jesus leisurely told him that the greatest commandment is to love God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind and with all our strength; and the second greatest is to love our neighbour as ourselves. Therefore, it is Jesus who teaches us to love our neighbour as ourselves. They don’t know that Jesus was actually quoting Deuteronomy and Leviticus in answering the teacher of the Law. Deuteronomy and Leviticus were written by Moses. Therefore, Jesus did not teach us to love our neighbour as ourselves. Moses did.
Now, another problem arises. According to the gospel of Mark, the greatest commandment came from the lips of Jesus. However, from what we heard in Luke today, the greatest commandment came from the lips of the teacher of the Law who challenged Jesus. Now, who actually spoke it, Jesus or the teacher of the Law? Do the gospels not talk about historical truths? Why do we have two contradictory versions?
Although gospels are supposed to be biographies of Jesus, the Evangelists wrote with a purpose. They selected some historical events involving Jesus, edited and embellished these events in accordance with the circumstances of the community and the needs of proclamation. They wrote in such a way as to portray a particular image of Jesus, to deepen their faith in Jesus and to advocate the spirit of the gospel. Mark is more inclined to tell stories than to preach morals. Luke not only tells stories of Jesus, but he also wants to help the audience meditate how to be a good disciple.
According to Mark’s arrangements, the story happened after Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem, i.e. within the Holy Week. At that time, Jesus was surrounded and challenged by people of different religious shades and political alliances in the Temple. Jesus was able to ward them off one by one. In history, it was probably Jesus who spoke of the greatest commandment to defeat the teacher of the Law. Afterwards, there would be no more need to elaborate. Luke’s version did not take place in the Temple. Jesus was not surrounded by hostile challengers. Luke put the greatest commandment in the lips of the teacher of the Law who did not want to let Jesus off the hook too easily and wanted to keep the battle going. Inadvertently, he handed Jesus an opportunity to teach him a lesson with the parable of the Good Samaritan. Luke’s literary mastery surpasses Mark’s a lot.
In fact, do you see any flaw in the commandment of “loving your neighbour as yourself”?
Let us see how Luke unveils the loophole in “loving your neighbour as yourself.”
Contrasting how the teacher of the Law and Jesus asked the questions will reveal the flaw.
The teacher of the Law asked Jesus “who is my neighbour?” (Luke 10:29) After telling the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus asked, “Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbour to the man who fell among the robbers?” (Luke 10:36).
The teacher of the Law was self-centred. Jesus taught the teacher of the Law to be altruistic, to put on the shoes of the needy. Self-centred love is selfish love, not true love. True love is being considerate to the needs of the others. The loophole of “Love your neighbour as yourself” is the “self”. To be a good Christian, it is not enough to “love your neighbour as yourself”. Luke helps his audience meditate on the real meaning of love. Love your neighbour cannot begin with your own perspective, your own interests. True love begins from the interests of the others, the perspective of the others. “Love your neighbour forgets yourself”.
Last Monday, the results of Secondary School Places Allocation were released. Tomorrow, the results of Diploma of Secondary Education examination will be released. Many parents would be very busy. In recent years, there reported many “helicopter parents”, “monster parents” whose actions were widely criticized. They wanted to accompany their children in their internship in the mainland; they wanted to go to freshmen orientation camps to protect their children lest they would be bullied. Many primary six parents ran around the territory with their children to ‘knock the doors’ in order to have their children enrolled in Band One elite schools. Some even tell lies to discipline teachers so that their children would not be punished for returning to schools late ... All these actions are motivated by ‘parental love’ of their children. Unfortunately, it is a wrong kind of love because it does not start with the interests of the child, the growth and development of the child. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” It is all because the starting point is not the interests and needs of the others. Some patients of incurable diseases who do not want to burden their family members financially and emotionally decide to jump to their death or seek euthanasia to ‘solve the problem’. Consequently, the patient leaves his beloved ones an inerasable sense of guilt. If they support each other in the remaining days and let the patient die a natural death, it would be the best gift of no regret left behind for the family members.
Although “every family has her own difficult breviary to pray”, we are advantaged to be Catholics. In the real daily life, we have “Family Services of Caritas” which can help us solve family problems and child-raising problems etc. In our spiritual life, we have the Holy Spirit who is the spirit of truth and God’s love. Let us pray more to the Holy Spirit, not just in times of emergencies. We pray daily to the Holy Spirit to illuminate our intellect so that we may understand and love correctly; to inflame our callous hearts so that we may extend a helping hand generously when we see people in need.
God bless.
Monday 8 July 2013
Christian Peace
The Word of God is truly alive. Every time we hear the Gospel read to us, there will always be new discoveries, new understandings.
In the reading of Luke 10:1-9 today, for the first time, we hear of Jesus' appointing other seventy disciples to go out, two by two, to preach the gospel before he himself visited those town (Luke 10:1). These 70 disciples were not found in the other three gospels. Naturally, one may wonder where these 70 disciples came from? This tradition is peculiar to the Lukan community, like other famous parables such as the Good Samaritan (Luke 10) and the Prodigal Son (Luke 15). We cannot deny their authenticity. We can only speculate their origins.
These 70 disciples appeared after the miracle of 5 loaves and 2 fish in Luke 9. In my previous blog, I questioned how 12 apostles were able to control a crowd of 5000 people. Perhaps these 70 disciples could relief a little bit of the tension. I speculate that when the 12 apostles tried to arrange the people to sit down in groups of 50 (Luke 9:14), some people volunteered to help out. These volunteers, say one per group, might be the origin of these subsequent 70 disciples. The miracle provided an opportunity for their leadership to stand out. Among them, some left and some continued to follow Jesus. 70 may also be a symbolic number. In the case of Moses who was overburdened with settling disputes among the Israelites in the wilderness, God told Moses to gather seventy elders to share his workload (Numbers 11). Similarly, in the case of Jesus, the harvest is plentiful but the labourers are few (Luke 10:2). God sent these 70 disciples to share the workload of evangelization. My conclusion is that there must be a situation in order to draw out the potentials of people. The miracle of 5 loaves and 2 fish is a miracle of cooperation between God and men. God gives us not only what is wanting, but also an opportunity for us to cooperate with Him to channel His grace where it is needed.
How should we understand the 'peace' Jesus mentioned in Luke 10:6?
Whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace εἰρήνη be to this house!'
And if a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you. (Luke 10:5-6)
We usually understand "peace" in terms of an absence of conflict. Here, a relation is involved. The relation between people can be full of conflicts or full of peace. But in this particular verse, peace sounds like an object which can travel across space: "rest upon this house/him ... return to you". It doesn't seem to mean a relation. Alone, a person can be in peace with himself. He has no regret, no worries and no fear (John 14:27). It is not relational. Of course, on a deeper, more transcendental level, it can be relational with God. When we are able to stand blameless before God, we have no regret, no worries and no fear. In Paul's jargon, we are justified and according to Paul, our faith in Jesus justifies us before God. Why should I bring in Paul? It is because Luke was a disciple of Paul.
So, how shall we understand this verse?
First of all, the disciple himself must be at peace with God. Otherwise, how can he bring the peace of God to other people. The disciple must have already reconciled with God before he can be God's ambassador of reconciliation.
Second, his gospel message is "Peace be to this house". He brings the good news of reconciliation to people. Here, we see that peace is not an object, or rather say, not a finite object. No matter how much you "give away" your peace, you do not have "less" peace. You lose nothing, but increase more peace.
Thirdly, if there is somebody who is "a son of peace", somebody who desires the reconciliation with God, the peace you bring, your peace, will rest on him. This "son of peace" is reconciled with God.
Lastly, if he rejects this opportunity of reconciliation, he has to wait for some other opportunities. I am sure if you fail to be a channel of reconciliation, God will find some other channels. If the peace you bring goes out in vain, you lose nothing. You are still in peace with God. So, it appears that the peace returns to you. Indeed, it has always been in you.
In conclusion, if I am not in peace with God, I cannot bring His peace to other people. If I am in peace with God, this peace will not diminish.
Lord of Peace, may You peace covers the whole Creation. May Your Kingdom of Love and Peace come. Amen.
In the reading of Luke 10:1-9 today, for the first time, we hear of Jesus' appointing other seventy disciples to go out, two by two, to preach the gospel before he himself visited those town (Luke 10:1). These 70 disciples were not found in the other three gospels. Naturally, one may wonder where these 70 disciples came from? This tradition is peculiar to the Lukan community, like other famous parables such as the Good Samaritan (Luke 10) and the Prodigal Son (Luke 15). We cannot deny their authenticity. We can only speculate their origins.
These 70 disciples appeared after the miracle of 5 loaves and 2 fish in Luke 9. In my previous blog, I questioned how 12 apostles were able to control a crowd of 5000 people. Perhaps these 70 disciples could relief a little bit of the tension. I speculate that when the 12 apostles tried to arrange the people to sit down in groups of 50 (Luke 9:14), some people volunteered to help out. These volunteers, say one per group, might be the origin of these subsequent 70 disciples. The miracle provided an opportunity for their leadership to stand out. Among them, some left and some continued to follow Jesus. 70 may also be a symbolic number. In the case of Moses who was overburdened with settling disputes among the Israelites in the wilderness, God told Moses to gather seventy elders to share his workload (Numbers 11). Similarly, in the case of Jesus, the harvest is plentiful but the labourers are few (Luke 10:2). God sent these 70 disciples to share the workload of evangelization. My conclusion is that there must be a situation in order to draw out the potentials of people. The miracle of 5 loaves and 2 fish is a miracle of cooperation between God and men. God gives us not only what is wanting, but also an opportunity for us to cooperate with Him to channel His grace where it is needed.
How should we understand the 'peace' Jesus mentioned in Luke 10:6?
Whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace εἰρήνη be to this house!'
And if a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you. (Luke 10:5-6)
We usually understand "peace" in terms of an absence of conflict. Here, a relation is involved. The relation between people can be full of conflicts or full of peace. But in this particular verse, peace sounds like an object which can travel across space: "rest upon this house/him ... return to you". It doesn't seem to mean a relation. Alone, a person can be in peace with himself. He has no regret, no worries and no fear (John 14:27). It is not relational. Of course, on a deeper, more transcendental level, it can be relational with God. When we are able to stand blameless before God, we have no regret, no worries and no fear. In Paul's jargon, we are justified and according to Paul, our faith in Jesus justifies us before God. Why should I bring in Paul? It is because Luke was a disciple of Paul.
So, how shall we understand this verse?
First of all, the disciple himself must be at peace with God. Otherwise, how can he bring the peace of God to other people. The disciple must have already reconciled with God before he can be God's ambassador of reconciliation.
Second, his gospel message is "Peace be to this house". He brings the good news of reconciliation to people. Here, we see that peace is not an object, or rather say, not a finite object. No matter how much you "give away" your peace, you do not have "less" peace. You lose nothing, but increase more peace.
Thirdly, if there is somebody who is "a son of peace", somebody who desires the reconciliation with God, the peace you bring, your peace, will rest on him. This "son of peace" is reconciled with God.
Lastly, if he rejects this opportunity of reconciliation, he has to wait for some other opportunities. I am sure if you fail to be a channel of reconciliation, God will find some other channels. If the peace you bring goes out in vain, you lose nothing. You are still in peace with God. So, it appears that the peace returns to you. Indeed, it has always been in you.
In conclusion, if I am not in peace with God, I cannot bring His peace to other people. If I am in peace with God, this peace will not diminish.
Lord of Peace, may You peace covers the whole Creation. May Your Kingdom of Love and Peace come. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)