To Opt for the Poor

Reversal of fortunes is one of the themes of Luke. It is beautifully sung within the Magnificat (Luke 1:51-53). It is plaintly narrated in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus today (vv 16:19-31).

Fr. Milanese demonstrated once more his profund biblical training. First of all, he drew my attention to the anonymity of the rich man. While the poor beggar had a name, Lazarus, which means "God has helped", the rich man remains nameless. What kind of a world is the gospel talking about? Throughout our history and in our daily life today, only the rich and powerful are known. Today, we know of Li Kar Shing whose name will go down in the history of Hong Kong, if not world history. Who will bother and can afford to remember the poor, which are many? However, in the world of the gospel, the world of eternal life, the rich is nameless. We may draw whatever lesson that fits our purpose from this point. An obvious one is that the Church should opt for the poor. This agrees with the teaching of Matthew 25:40.

Never mind whether Hades is the same as Hell or part of it, the fact that the rich man landed in Hades while Lazarus in Abraham's bosom must be an act of justice on the part of God. Even if we don't want to put God into our equation, "eating the cake we bake" is definitely a reasonable kind of justice. Therefore, we cannot ignore the lesson of justice in this parable. In the Old Testament, the rich was justified to be rich because it was a blessing from God. The poor deserved to suffer. In this parable, the rich man had done nothing terribly evil, no murder, no adultery, no theft nor false witness etc. Moreover, there is still a bit of love in his heart. The rich man still cared about the fate of his brothers (vv 27-28). So, what kind of justice is Luke, or his community, advocating? Loving one's family members is not enough for Luke's community. It is our duty and is a minimum requirement. Love should be more inclusive and not loving the poor is evil. Not caring about the plights of the poor, the rich man develops a hardened heart. He did not even know himself. Taking the cue of burning thirst (v 24), Fr. Milanese suggests that perhaps the torment in Hades is to be a quest of one's true self. Lazarus has found his and rests comfortably in Abraham's bosom. The rich man has never known himself completely because he spent his life enjoying only good things.

In short, for the community of Luke, eternal life is a sort of "mirror image", a reversal of present day fortune. Being rich is not an evil thing as long as you make good use of your riches to help relieve the plights of the poor. The teaching of the gospel does not deny the morality of the Old Testament. No doubt, it is more sympathetic towards the poor and it wants to restore a certain kind of social justice.

Now, I would like to warn of a problem with the Chinese translation of Luke 16:25.
εἶπεν δὲ Ἀβραάμ Τέκνον μνήσθητι ὅτι ἀπέλαβες σὺ τὰ ἀγαθά σου ἐν τῇ ζωῇ σου καὶ Λάζαρος ὁμοίως τὰ κακά νῦν δὲ ὅδε παρακαλεῖται σὺ δὲ ὀδυνᾶσαι
But Abraham said, "Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. (RSV)
亞巴郎說：孩子，你應記得你活著的時候，已享盡了你的福，而拉匝祿同樣也受盡了苦。現在，他在這裡受安慰，而你應受苦了。(思高聖經）
The Chinese translation adds an extra nuance into text: you have exhausted your blessings and Lazarus his sufferings. This translates fits well with the Chinese mentality. For example, superstitious Chinese never accept gifts in full, because "accepted in full受盡" sounds identical with "exhausted one's life span夀盡". They will return part of the gift or its equivalence. The way I see it, this translation will encourage charity in a negative manner. When there is a possibility of exhausting blessings, ways must be found to conserve and to increase the existing blessings. Abuse and corruption will result. You may accuse me of "slippery slope" thinking. Still, this is my worry and I am just pointing out the potential dangers.

Dear Lord, who can be truly rich without You? And You like to be found among the poor. Train us to recognize You in the poor we meet. Amen.

Luke 16:10-12 is a hard nut to crack

The Unfaithful Steward parable was a hard nut to crack for many biblical scholars until David Landry and Ben May published their article "Honor Restored: New Light on the parable of Prudent Steward (Luke 16:1-8a)" in the Journal of Biblical Literature #119 number 2. These two authors interpreted the steward's action as a win-win situation for all three parties: the master, the debtors and the steward himself. In 2007, I commented in my valedictory speech that had these scholars known some Chinese history, they would not have had to spend nearly 4 decades to solve the puzzle. Today, when I meditated on the parable again, I discovered more puzzles to play with.

Structurally speaking, the parable finishes at 16:8 and 16:9-13 is an interpretation of the parable. However, verses 9-13 seem to be an after thought, an uneasy appendix that tries to build up an argument through association.
"And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal habitations. 
He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he who is dishonest (unrighteous) in a very little is dishonest (unrighteous) also in much.
If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will entrust to you the true riches? 
And if you have not been faithful in that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own? 
No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Luke 16:9-13)
The word "mammon" is an inclusio device to bracket out the text. The word "dishonest" in verse 10 is actually not a good translation. The Greek original is "unrighteous". So, the word "unrighteous" runs through verses 9 to 11 and "(not) faithful" from verses 10 to 12. That is to say, verses 9 to 12 form a rather coherent unit which is inserted between the end of the parable and verse 13. That explains why verse 13 looks like an odd, out of place appendix rather unrelated to the preceding verses. In fact, as far as the interpretation of the parable is concerned, verse 9 alone is enough. Making good use of the (unrighteous) money you have to help the needy, then, when money is of no more use in your life, i.e. at your death, your charity would win you a seat in heaven. Developing from this interpretation, we may conclude that one may choose either to make use of money to serve God, or to ignore God and become a slave of money. In short, the parable together with its interpretation are coherent even if we remove verses 10 to 12. So, what purpose does the inclusion of verses 10 to 12 serve?

Verse 10 seems to comment on the behaviour of the steward. It seems obvious that if one is (not) trustworthy in small matters, people will (not) trust him in big matters. However, such a reasoning is flawed. First of all, being trustworthy in small matters does not guarantee the same outcome in big matters. The person might not be capable enough to accomplish big things. He might fail you.
Secondly, there are people who do not bother to put up enough efforts to accomplish small things because  those things are trivial. Failure to deliver in trivial things is not evident enough that they would fail in big things.
Thirdly, there are people who are not given the opportunity to show their capability so that they cannot be shown to be trustworthy even in small matters.
Lastly, this reasoning suggests that one must undergo tests of faithfulness in a proving ground, like Abraham, before they can be rewarded with God's grace. This reasoning makes theologians feel uneasy because grace is not earned through one's efforts but is given away by God in his pleasure.

The "dishonest (unrighteous)" in verse 10 is narrowed down into "not faithful", the "very little" into "unrighteous mammon" and the "much" into "true riches" in verse 11. In this way, verse 10 is transformed into a religious statement. If you are not faithful in handling money in this life, say not helping the needy, you will not be rewarded eternal life in heaven. This seems to agree with the teaching of Matthew 25. But then, Luke will be contradicting himself in the story of repentant thief who acknowledged Jesus on the cross. As of this writing, I do not have a satisfactory solution to this puzzle.

Verse 12 is puzzling in itself. If something is "your own", why will it be given you? So, it is something not yet of "your own". It will be given later in the future. However, a string is attached. You have to demonstrate that you are faithful in "that which is another's" in order to earn it. The smell of Pelagianism is in the air and makes theologians uneasy. Verses 10 to 12 are a hard nut to crack. Any suggestion?

Sweet Jesus, You humiliate me to teach me humility. I know I am unworthy. May Your faithfulness prevail. Amen.

Do we have enough moral strength to forgive?

The Prodigal Son is one of the most familiar and touching parables we know. New messages keep coming up when we meditate on it. The plot is simple. A father, who represents God and/or Jesus, has two sons. The elder son represents the self-righteous Pharisees and the younger son sinners. Jesus came to save us sinners. Yet, the Pharisees were unhappy because they were brought up into thinking that a righteous Jew should not mix with sinners (Psalm 1:1). Jesus’ mixing with sinners offended them, offended their sensitivity.

The Pharisees were no better than the public sinners of their days. St. Paul, himself a fervent Pharisee, knows it very well. However, their self-righteousness hindered them from recognizing their need of redemption. Jesus did not rub salt on their wounds. He told them three parables, hoping that they would accept God's invitation to repentance. He reassured them that God would be very happy to see sinners repent. Jesus stopped short of telling them directly that they were sinners. He understands human nature very well. He knows that the more you point out one's mistake, the stronger their denials.

Sibling rivalry is a major theme that runs through the Bible. It is also a true reflection of human history. Men fight against each other for the allocation of resources, be they food, water, money, status, power and the favour of the bosses. Luckily, the grace of our God is unlimited. We don't have to fight with each other to obtain it. The only person we need to rival is ourselves. The only obstacle that blocks us from obtaining God's grace is our own arrogance, our own self-righteousness. It is not easy to admit our own faults and weaknesses. We like to play the not-me game to protect our ego. It hurts to admit failures. No. It is not our fault. It is his. If it is not his, it must be the society's fault. It is never ours.

We tend to think that our sins offend God and God alone and therefore we only need to ask God to forgive our sins. Period. If we think in this way, we make use of God to soothe our ego. We can never reconcile with God if we do not reconcile with our brethren. Why? The parable of the Prodigal Son illustrates it well.

The elder son was angry with the apparent favouritism of the father and refused to enter the house. He put the blame on the father. It was the father's fault to raise up such an irresponsible wayward son. When the younger son had suffered enough and returned, the father did not mete out any punishment. On the contrary, the father embraced him and gave him the fattened calf! That was unfair. He was angry with both the father and the younger brother. The elder son even did not bother to ask, like Cain, whether he was his brother's keeper. Was he responsible for the sins of his younger brother?

The problem is very complicated because as an adult, a person is autonomous. He is solely responsible for his own choices and actions. This is true. However, as his brother's keeper, the elder son should at least attempt to talk the younger son out of dividing the family fortune. He has the responsibility to ensure the well-being of his younger brother. Therefore, if we do not reconcile with our brethren, we cannot achieve true reconciliation with God.

Father Martin Ip said very well this morning that many people are victims of structural sins. There are victims who bear the brunt of evil directly. However, even the perpetrators of evil are themselves victims of the situation. Their hands are forced to inflict evils on others. They have no choice. In many such loss-loss situations nowadays, both parties are victims. Usually, we are sympathetic towards the victims. But Jesus is sympathetic towards the perpetrators as well. That is why, Jesus reminds us in the Lord's Prayer that while we ask God to forgive our sins, we should also forgive our brethren. Elsewhere, he taught that we should forgive seventy times seven (Matthew 18:22). Forgiveness relieves us of heavy burdens in our conscience. It brings us true joy and real peace.

Dear Lord, grant us enough wisdom to recognize our own faults, enough courage to confess our weaknesses and enough strength to forgive those who hurt us. Amen.

憎惡父母

常年期第廿三主日（丙年）
主題：知罪蒙恩

聖經中有些章節，驟眼看來非常不近人情，叫人難以接受。尤其是向來強調「孝道」的中國人社會，會對這些令中國人尷尬的章節，避而不談。例如創世紀所記載的造女人，建立婚姻的故事，教人「離開父母，與妻子結合，二人成為一體」的一段，雖然個中有很深刻的道理，不竟是向中國人傳教的一大絆腳石。今天的福音教人做耶穌的門徒，要惱恨自己的父母，解釋起來的確困難重重。所以，我覺得做一個中國天主教徒是一個很大的挑戰，我們生活在兩個偉大的文化之間，我們有責任使耶穌的教訓在中國的文化土壤中，紥根成長，並把它昇華，將它基督化。

解釋任何經文，無論是中國的經典，抑或是聖經，最忌「斷章取義」，按文字的表面意思，望文生義，甚至穿鑿附會。解經須要看上下文的關係，看文字背後的文化背景。聖經的教訓是天主的教訓，是絕對不會互相矛盾的。「十誡」既然命令我們孝敬父母，福音又怎能同時要求我們離棄自己的父母，惱恨自己的父母呢？反過來說，福音既然要求我們惱恨父母，我們又如何既惱恨又孝敬父母呢？所以當中一定有更深層的意義，不可以按字面斷章取義地解釋。

創世紀的人物之中，以雅各伯最有人性。他既信頼天主，又能運用天生的聰明才智克服逆境；既欺騙孿生兄弟的長子名份和祝福，又用二十年的時間賺取本錢與兄弟和解。娶了兩個表妹，並生了十二個兒子，獲得天主的祝福。原來，以色列人的文學作品中，要表達對兩個妻子，子女等親人不同程度的愛護時，除了說「雅各伯愛辣黑耳甚於肋阿」之外，接著又說「肋阿被雅各伯憎惡」。
如果雅各伯真的憎惡肋阿，肋阿又怎樣可以為雅各伯生下六個兒子及一個女兒呢？所以，對親人的所謂「惱恨，憎惡」，是指愛得不夠多，不能與憎恨仇人，憎恨惡事同日而語。所以解經須要掌握經文的文學背景。
另外，「以經解經」亦都是一個可取的辦法。例如瑪竇福音也有與今天的福音同樣的記載，瑪竇的寫法是「誰愛父親或母親超過我，不配是我的；誰愛兒子或女兒子超過我，不配是我的。」（瑪10:37）瑪竇加上了自己的演繹，這樣寫令讀者更容易明白了。

既解決了「惱恨父母」的經文問題，讓我們回頭默想今天福音的教訓。今天的福音之中，最矚目的是三句「不能做我的門徒」。從經文的表面看，耶穌好像開出三個做他門徒的條件，不能滿足其中任何一個條件，都不能做他的門徒。愛親人多過愛耶穌的，不能做門徒；不背起自己的十字架的，不能做門徒；不捨棄一切所有的，不能做門徒。隨後，耶穌說了兩個籌算的比喻，教我們先籌算能否付出代價，才做他的門徒。耶穌真是這樣苛刻嗎？如果真是這樣，當今世上，恐怕祗有孤兒和乞丐纔能做耶穌的門徒了！

所以，讓我們試用「以經解經」的方法，看看耶穌的真正教訓是甚麽。
路加福音第四章記載了耶穌受魔鬼試探後，開始他的傳福音的任務。在安息日，他在會堂宣讀了依撒意亞先知有關默西亞的預言，作為他來到世上的任務的宣言。依撒意亞的預言這樣說：默西亞的任務是「向貧窮人傳報喜訊，向俘虜宣告釋放，向盲者宣告復明，使受壓迫者獲得自由。」當中並沒有一句要求那些窮人愛他多過愛父母，沒有一句要求那些盲人背十字架，沒有一句要求那些俘虜捨棄一切所有的。可見耶穌來到世界拯救世人，並無對人要求任何條件。
其實，當我們認識到自己的缺失，了解到自己的軟弱不足，感受到自己被罪惡奴役，陷於水深火熱，不能自拔的狀態時，我們接受並相信耶穌從天而降，死而復活救贖了我們。這生命是耶穌為我們爭取回來的，我們還有甚麽可以保留呢？以往我們因為罪性，可能出於利害關係去愛我們的親人，如今，我們愛得更真。以往我們會因為挫拆，病苦而盲目地埋怨，如今，我們樂意背起自己的十字架與耶穌一同救贖世界。這種再造之恩，我們就算傾家蕩產，亦難以為報。

可是，為何耶穌開出這三個條件呢？原來，當時耶穌在上耶路撒冷的途中，吸引了大批投機份子，以為耶穌是推翻羅馬帝國統治的「默西亞」，想跟隨耶穌去打天下。所以耶穌開出這三個條件，要他們反省自己是否知罪蒙恩。如果不是知罪蒙恩，而是想投機取巧，渾水摸魚，跟隨耶穌祗會浪費時間，白費心機。

各位，這個星期，讓我們默想，我們知罪嗎？上一次辦告解是幾時呢？我們蒙恩嗎？上一次感謝耶穌賞賜恩寵是幾時呢？我們跟隨耶穌，是否出於知罪蒙恩，抑或是渾水摸魚呢？

天主保祐。

---

23^rd Ordinary Sunday, Year C
Theme: Know our sins and receive pardon
Superficially, some biblical passages are unreasonable and difficult to accept, especially for the Chinese communities which emphasize filial piety a lot. They will avoid mentioning some embarrassing passages. For example, in the story of making woman and establishing the institution of marriage, the Bible teaches a man to leave their parents, cleave to his wife and they become one flesh (Genesis 2:24). Although the teaching is profound, the passage is a major stumbling block to evangelization among Chinese. Today, the gospel teaches us to hate our parents in order to become Jesus' disciples (Luke 14:26). It is truly difficult to explain. I always feel that it is a big challenge to be a Chinese Catholic. We live within two great cultures. We have the responsibility to make Jesus' teaching "incarnate" and grow in the Chinese soil, to sublime it, Christianize it.

Reading out of context is the most unforgivable mistake in the exegesis of sacred scriptures and Chinese classics. In a proper interpretation of scripture, the location of a piece of text and its relation with the preceding text and the text that follows has to be understood. We need to know the cultural background as well. The teachings of the Bible are the teachings of God. They can never be contradictory. Since the Ten Commandments order us to honour our parents, how can the gospel demands us to leave our parents and hate our parents? On the contrary, since the gospel requires us to hate our parents, how can we hate and honour our parents at the same time? Therefore, there must be some deeper meanings and we should not interpret the passage literally.

Among the personalities in Genesis, Jacob is the most human. He believes in God and makes use of his inborn wits to overcome adversities. He cheated his twin brother Esau of his birthright and blessing and yet, Jacob spent twenty prime years of his life to make enough money to reconcile with Esau. He marries two cousins who gave birth for him 12 sons. Jacob receives many blessings from God. From his story, we learn that Hebrew literature expresses different degrees of love in a peculiar way. Besides saying "Jacob loves Rachel more than Leah", the Bible immediately says that Leah was hated by Jacob (Genesis 29:30-31). Had Jacob truly hated Leah, how would Leah have given birth to six sons and one daughter for Jacob? Therefore "hating family members" means "not loving them enough". It is not the same as hating an enemy or hating evil. We need to understanding the cultural background in doing exegesis.
Furthermore, explaining the scripture with scriptures is also a helpful skill. For example, the gospel of Matthew also carries the same teaching found in today's gospel. Yet, Matthew puts it this way, "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;" (Matthew 10:37) Matthew's interpretation makes it easier for the readers to understand Jesus' intended teaching.

After untying the knot of "hating one's parents", let us meditate on the teaching of today's gospel. The most conspicuous elements in the gospel today are the three "whoever … cannot be my disciple." Superficially, Jesus laid down three criteria, failing anyone of which, one cannot be his disciple. Loving one's family members more than Jesus cannot be a disciple; not bearing one's cross cannot be a disciple; not renouncing all one has cannot be a disciple. To substantiate, Jesus told two parables, teaching us to count the cost before becoming his disciple. Were Jesus really so demanding? If he were, I am afraid only orphans and beggars could qualify.

So, let us try to explain the scripture with other scriptures to find out the real teaching of Jesus.
In Luke 4, after the temptation, Jesus began his public ministry. On the Sabbath he read Isaiah's prophecy about the Messiah to declare his Mission Statement on earth. According to the prophecy of Isaiah, the Messiah's mission is "to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim release to captives and recovering of sight to the blind and to set at liberty those who are oppressed." (Luke 4:18) In his Mission Statement, Jesus does not ask the poor to love him more than their parents, does not require the blind to bear their crosses, nor impose any demand on the captives to renounce all they have. Thus, when Jesus comes to save the world, he does not set up any condition for us to meet.
Indeed, when we know our faults, understand our weakness and inadequacies, feel the bondage of sin and discover that we land in hot troubles from which we cannot extract ourselves, we accept and believe that Jesus came down to die and to rise in order to save us. This life is earned for us by Christ, what else can we reserve for ourselves? In the past, because of our sinfulness and concupiscence, we love our family members out of advantages. Now, we truly love them. In the past, we are easily and blindly frustrated by our failures and sufferings. Now, we are willing to bear our crosses to save the world together with Jesus. We are not able to repay this grace of rebirth even with all our possessions.

But why then did Jesus lay down these three criteria? It was because Jesus was on his final trip to Jerusalem. He had attracted many opportunists who thought that Jesus was the Messiah to overthrow the Roman sovereignty over the Jews. They wanted to follow Jesus to make a fortune. Therefore, Jesus laid down these three criteria, forcing them to rethink whether they knew their sins and whether they were prepared to receive God's grace. If they did not undergo conversion but only wanted to make a fortune, they would be wasting their time and disappointed.

Dear brothers and sisters. This week, let us meditate if we know our sins. When did we last make our confession? Have we received God's grace? When was the last time we thanked Jesus for the grace we received? We are Jesus' disciples. Do we follow him because we know our sins and have received grace or do we follow him to make a fortune?

God bless.

Is humility a hypocrisy?

When a rich man donates money to help the needy anonymously, it is a good action. We admire such an action because there is no ulterior motive. An action must be judged together with the motive in order to determine if the action is good or bad. Therefore, I feel a bit uncomfortable when Jesus teaches us to take the lowest seat in order to be exalted.
"But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he may say to you, 'Friend, go up higher'; then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at table with you." (Luke 14:10).
Taking the lowest seat is being humble, therefore it is laudable. However, Jesus seems to suggest an ulterior motive and thus spoils the whole noble virtue of humility, turning it into hypocrisy!

Before we consider the motive, let us look at the action of taking the lowest seat first. There are actually two possibilities. For simplicity, the gospel mentions only one of them. The host comes over to invite you to a higher place. However, it is possible that you have taken the right seat, the lowest seat! Then, you will stay where you are and go up no higher. Therefore, the prudent choice is to go to the lowest seat, then wait and see.
Now, we may turn to the motive and I suggest the following three, knowing that they are not exhaustive.
If your motive is to avoid embarrassment and take the lowest seat, you are being prudent.
If your motive is to expect exaltation and take the lowest seat, you might be disappointed.
If your motive is to enjoy being invited to the banquet and take the lowest seat, good of you. Being exalted will be a bonus.
Can you come up with any other motives of interest? Anyway, motive seems not to be crucial in this consideration.

Now, how shall we understand Jesus' teaching?
Luke summarizes Jesus' teaching in verse that follows. It deals with motives.
"For every one who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 14:11)
If our motive is to expect exaltation and we take a place of honour (Luke 14:8), in most of the cases, we will be humiliated. Taking a place of honour is thus rather risky.
If our motive is to expect exaltation and we make the prudent choice of taking the lowest seat, we might stay where we are and disappointed. Even if the host comes to move us up a higher place, we might still be disappointed because we might not be satisfied with where we end up. It might not be as high a status as we expect. Therefore, the expectation of being exalted is never a good motive.
On the other hand, if our motive is humility. That is to say, we know our unworthiness and our lowly status. We are already honoured to be invited into the eschatological banquet. We would be very grateful to occupy a place in the heavenly court. What more shall we ask for? The Chair of St. Peter? No, I am not worthy even to receive the Lord into my heart. Any place in heaven will do for me, even the perimeter of the outer court. My heart is contented. There is no room for exaltation for me in my heart. Being invited is more than enough, more than I deserve.

Dear Lord, I am an unworthy servant. Being able to serve You is already an undeserved honour. Help me discharge my duties faithfully and truthfully. Amen.