Matthew 13 is a collection of parables of the Kingdom of Heaven which is a difficult concept. In order to better understand it, Matthew put down 7 parables to shed light on different aspects of the Kingdom of Heaven. They are the parable of the sower (vv. 3-9, 18-23), of wheat and weeds (vv. 24-30, 37-43), of mustard seed (vv. 31-32), of leaven (33), of treasure in a field (44), of pearl (vv. 45-46) and of the net (vv. 47-50). All these parables have come up with a standard interpretation. There is little room for adventurous unorthodox interpretations.
The parable of sower tells us the reactions of different people towards the word of the kingdom. It is natural that some are more receptive than the others. Therefore, we have people who refuse to hear, people who accept it joyfully for the freedom it promises. However, they fail to develop 'roots' and wither away in view of difficulties and persecutions. Some are too much preoccupied with earthly worries and the word of the heaven is smothered. Some are receptive and take action to actualize the Kingdom. Some are more successful than the others.
If the parable of the sower gives you the impression that people are predestined and classified into 4 levels, such an interpretation is absolutely wrong. The parable of wheat and weeds tells us that there are good and evil people on earth. Their lives are inter-related. Therefore, God will only reward the good and punish the bad at the end of the world. God is very generous in giving everyone a chance to repent until the end. Repentance is possible. St. Paul is a living example.
The parable of the mustard seed tells us that the Kingdom of Heaven, embodied in the Church, began very humbly but would develop fully to embrace all peoples. Similarly, the parable of the leaven tells us that the gospel would be spread to all people.
Attention then switches to the role played by the recipient of the Kingdom. The parable of the treasure in a field and the parable of the pearl are interpreted to mean that the disciples should behave like the merchant. They should give the Kingdom the first priority and renounce all they have in order to obtain salvation. Lastly, the parable of the net repeats the message of the parable of wheat and weeds in that there are good people and bad people in the world. They would stay together, this time more closely in the net/Church and would only be separated in the end. Once again, the good would be rewarded and the bad punished.
These seven parables are core teachings of the Church. That is why she spends three Sundays to read them. However, I beg to differ in interpreting the parables of the treasure and the pearl.
First of all, without God's grace, we are not able to appreciate the value of the Kingdom, the value of our salvation. In reality, many people turn off their hearings if they sense that you are preaching Jesus. These people would not renounce all they have in order to receive the gospel and the Kingdom. So, these two parables refer to the people of "good soil" only. I feel rather uncomfortable with such an exclusive reading. The other five parables are inclusive, including both the good and the bad.
Secondly, the merchant in the parable of the treasure in the field, very typically Jewish, is rather street-wise/cunning/smart. He covers up the treasure and then purchases the field. Why doesn't he purchase it directly from the owner of the field, but covers up the treasure first? The merchant did so lest the owner of the field would charge him a far higher price! Who would be the owner of the field? In contrast, the merchant in the parable of the pearl is more honest. He does not play tricks. If we are the merchant, what does it mean for us to play tricks in order to obtain salvation?
Therefore, I suspect that these two parables are not telling us to renounce all we have in order to attain salvation. I propose another interpretation. The merchant is God. In his eyes, we are treasure and pearls of great value. Remember Genesis 1 in which God saw that everything that he had made was very good (Genesis 1:31). God is willing to redeem us, albeit tricking Satan, at all costs. The field is the world and the owner is, of course, Satan. God's love for us is so great that he is willing to pay a heavy price for our souls. This interpretation is inclusive and solves the ethical problem of playing trick on the owner of the field. This trick refers to the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity. I think this interpretation can be on a par with the traditional interpretation.
Dear Lord, I thank You for Your great love towards us. You value us when we don't value ourselves. Teach us the right ordering of the priorities in life. Amen.
Monday 28 July 2014
Monday 21 July 2014
The Proper Attitude of a Servant
The parable of the weeds of the field (Matthew 13:24-30) offers little for us to meditate because later at the request of the disciples, Jesus explained the meanings of the symbols (13:36-43).
This parable is eschatological. It talks about the end of the world, about the “kingdom”. In short, this parable describes the eschatological dimension of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus brought about its existence during his earthly ministry. The disciples continue to build up this kingdom on earth. This kingdom will be fully realized at the end of the world, thus eschatological.
Is this parable ethical, about ethics? Not quite, It describes the destinies of the good and the evil, of the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the evil one. However, the element of choice is implicit and the parable sounds very much like a political propaganda because of the we-they dichotomy. We are the good guys, the righteous ones who will shine like the sun in the kingdom (13:43). They are the bad guys, the sons of the evil one who will be thrown into the furnace of fire (13:42). Such an interpretation is understandable, keeping in mind the situation Jewish Christians found themselves in the first century. Now that the rivals have changed roles, the persecutors have become the persecuted. Therefore, the parable deserves a newer understanding in the modern, pluralistic context. We no longer claim exclusive privileges over and above non-Catholics. Post-Vatican II theology accepts the salvation of non-Catholics. We have less enemies and rivals than the previous generations and ages. We join hands with people-of-good-will to help the poor and the needy. Nowadays, where are the rivals and enemies of the Church?
Moreover, the parable sounds very fatalistic. The good will continue to be good until the end while the evildoers will continue to do evil until the reapers round them up and throw them into furnace of fire at the end of the world. Though the wheat and the weeds are closely intertwined, there does not seem to be any mutual influence. The good does not turn the bad into good and vice versa. Therefore, have we read too much into the parable when we say that God is patient in giving a lot of opportunities for the evil ones to repent? The most essential ethical element: free choice is missing in the story. Perhaps I have been too harsh towards first century authors in demanding them to meet our 21st century standard.
As for me, I am most impressed by the way the servants made their request to the master. Firstly, we do not understand why evil exists on earth. If God is almighty, He should be able to keep His creation free from evil. He doesn’t. If God is merciful, He should not have allowed bad things to happen to good people. But He did. Truly, we do not understand God’s way of doing things.
If God does not want to make His hands dirty to eradicate evils, we are all too eager to do His job. We want our will to be done. We want to take law into our own hands. Vigilante is acceptable for us …
To repeat, I am truly impressed by the wordings of the servants, “Then do you want us to go and gather them?” (13:28)
Truly, we want to punish the evildoers, we want to save our young. We want to build up a healthy society etc. These are our wishes but are they God’s will as well? Does God want us to go out to clean up the mess? All too often, we want to get things done. We want to feel good. Is this God’s will? This is the most crucial thing we need to clarify before we act.
Dear Lord, may all we do are done according to the will of our Father in heaven. Amen.
This parable is eschatological. It talks about the end of the world, about the “kingdom”. In short, this parable describes the eschatological dimension of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus brought about its existence during his earthly ministry. The disciples continue to build up this kingdom on earth. This kingdom will be fully realized at the end of the world, thus eschatological.
Is this parable ethical, about ethics? Not quite, It describes the destinies of the good and the evil, of the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the evil one. However, the element of choice is implicit and the parable sounds very much like a political propaganda because of the we-they dichotomy. We are the good guys, the righteous ones who will shine like the sun in the kingdom (13:43). They are the bad guys, the sons of the evil one who will be thrown into the furnace of fire (13:42). Such an interpretation is understandable, keeping in mind the situation Jewish Christians found themselves in the first century. Now that the rivals have changed roles, the persecutors have become the persecuted. Therefore, the parable deserves a newer understanding in the modern, pluralistic context. We no longer claim exclusive privileges over and above non-Catholics. Post-Vatican II theology accepts the salvation of non-Catholics. We have less enemies and rivals than the previous generations and ages. We join hands with people-of-good-will to help the poor and the needy. Nowadays, where are the rivals and enemies of the Church?
Moreover, the parable sounds very fatalistic. The good will continue to be good until the end while the evildoers will continue to do evil until the reapers round them up and throw them into furnace of fire at the end of the world. Though the wheat and the weeds are closely intertwined, there does not seem to be any mutual influence. The good does not turn the bad into good and vice versa. Therefore, have we read too much into the parable when we say that God is patient in giving a lot of opportunities for the evil ones to repent? The most essential ethical element: free choice is missing in the story. Perhaps I have been too harsh towards first century authors in demanding them to meet our 21st century standard.
As for me, I am most impressed by the way the servants made their request to the master. Firstly, we do not understand why evil exists on earth. If God is almighty, He should be able to keep His creation free from evil. He doesn’t. If God is merciful, He should not have allowed bad things to happen to good people. But He did. Truly, we do not understand God’s way of doing things.
If God does not want to make His hands dirty to eradicate evils, we are all too eager to do His job. We want our will to be done. We want to take law into our own hands. Vigilante is acceptable for us …
To repeat, I am truly impressed by the wordings of the servants, “Then do you want us to go and gather them?” (13:28)
Truly, we want to punish the evildoers, we want to save our young. We want to build up a healthy society etc. These are our wishes but are they God’s will as well? Does God want us to go out to clean up the mess? All too often, we want to get things done. We want to feel good. Is this God’s will? This is the most crucial thing we need to clarify before we act.
Dear Lord, may all we do are done according to the will of our Father in heaven. Amen.
Sunday 13 July 2014
默想「撒種比喻」的教訓 The Messages of the Parable of Sower
常年期第十五主日（甲年）
主題：默想「撒種比喻」的教訓
耶穌來到世上，用不同的方法建設天國。他治病、驅魔、宣講福音、召選門徒、受難和復活升天等。講比喻是他宣講的一個方式。今天，讓我們一起默想有名的「撒種比喻」。福音記載了很多耶穌說過的比喻，大部份都沒有解釋的。而「撒種比喻」是少數有解釋的比喻。
耶穌為甚麽用比喻來講述天國的道理呢？
有人認為當時的聽眾教育水平低，沒有能力領悟高深的天國道理，所以耶穌遷就群眾的教育水平，用日常生活的經驗，例如耕田、牧羊、補衫、結婚擺酒等去講述天國的道理。這個答案很動聽，它令我們覺得自己比耶穌當代的群眾更聰明，更高級。可是，為甚麽耶穌答覆門徒的詢問時會說「天國的奧秘並不是給他們知道的」【瑪13:11】呢？為甚麽耶穌說「使他們視而不見，聽而不聞，使他們得不到醫治」【瑪13:15】呢？得不到醫治的「他們」又是誰呢？耶穌沒有理由那麽忍心，見死不救。所以，我們必須考究這個比喻的上文下理。講這個比喻之前發生了甚麽事？耶穌用比喻來回應甚麽處境呢？
根據福音的記載，耶穌在公開傳道之初已出師不利。他的言行，得罪了當時的宗教權貴：例如耶穌以人子的身份，赦免癱子的罪、不跟隨法利塞人一樣虔誠守齋、不守安息日，竟然在安息日治好枯手人、與羅馬百夫長來往、為了救一個附魔人而犧牲了全村的財產等等。因此，這些權貴反對耶穌，抹黑耶穌，最後甚至殺死他。就在這種敵意的環境下，耶穌開始改用比喻來講述天國的奧秘。
現在，讓我們運用想像力，幻想自己到了加里肋亞湖邊，在人群中聽耶穌講福音。在人群中，你發現了身邊的人是誰。聽眾中有想挑剔耶穌的宗教領袖，在這些平平無奇的日常生活經驗，他們找不到陷害耶穌的把柄。他們聽，卻拒絕聽到箇中的真理。聽眾中有想一睹這個出名行神蹟驅魔的神醫，但在耶穌身上，他們見不到令人狂熱興奮的默西亞，祗見到一個寒酸的木匠在講比喻。他們看，卻見不到光榮的天主子。聽眾中有慕名而來，好辯的法學士。但耶穌講的故事他們也會講，沒有甚麽與眾不同之處。他們的心想了解，但礙於種種因素，始終他們都沒有明白。聽眾中有內心謙遜的人，他們聽得出比喻中有「絃外之音」，但他們不敢肯定自己是否正確。所以他們放下自我，跟隨耶穌，接受耶穌的訓誨，從而結出豐盛的果實。
這就是耶穌講比喻的原因。「比喻」就好像一個「過濾器」一樣，篩走別具用心，混水摸魚的聽眾，而選出有心尋求真理的人。讓我們繼續深入反省這四種土壤的意義。
我們很容易「對號入座」，把人分了四類。我們把不信耶穌的人，迫害教會的政權歸入「路邊」，即聖言被魔鬼奪去的人【瑪13:19】。把到教會尋求利益的人歸入「石地」，指信仰沒有紮根的冷淡教友、麵粉教友。把那些有善心但忙於世俗事務的人歸入「荊棘叢生的土地」，即主日教友。最後，我們自己當然是「好地」的熱心教友喇！
如果真是這樣分類的話，我會問，冷淡的教友可否升級做主日教友，主日教友可否升級做熱心教友呢？反過來問，熱心教友會不會降級成為主日教友、冷淡教友甚至成為「魔鬼之友」呢？答案是絕對會。
大家可否留意到耶穌在講述「撒種比喻」和解釋「撒種比喻」之間透露了一些線索，去幫助我們正確地理解「撒種比喻」。耶穌好像講了一些不公義的言論。為甚麼天主那樣不公平，有的更加有，沒有的連僅有的也被奪去【瑪13:l2】。難道天主贊成「貧富懸殊」嗎？不是。天主是不會同意剝削窮人的社會制度的。在這裡，耶穌對結出30倍果實的人作出警惕。小心連僅有的也被奪去。
其實道理並不艱深。今天不信的並不表示將來的不信。今天未開發的土地，經過耕耘，一樣可以成為好地；相反，今天有收穫的土地，如果任由它荒廢了，一樣會荊棘叢生，甚至僵化、硬化，變成石地。可想而知，用「對號入座」方式把人分類的做法是不妥當的。今天你是好土地，你就永遠都是好土地嗎？所謂「學如逆水行舟，不進則退。」如果我們對聖經一知半解，對教會訓導非常陌生，試問我們又怎能掌握到得救的途徑呢？對教外人士的查詢可以對答如流嗎？
撒種的比喻給我們兩個啟示。第一，耶穌固然是撒種的人，我們也是。耶穌有教無類，不會因為大司祭是路邊人、法利塞人是石地人、富貴少年是荊棘地的人而不向他們宣講，祗向有機會跟隨他的人宣講。同樣，我們也不應事先認定家中的祖母拜慣觀音就不會信天主的、勸忙於工作賺錢的父親信耶穌是浪費時間，那些紋了身的人就無機會進入天國，於是就放棄向家人福傳，放棄向監獄裡的人福傳。
第二，「窮者愈窮，富者愈富」，我們作為接受福音的土地，我們必須妥善耕耘我們的內心這片土地：讀經、祈禱、領聖體、辦告解。一樣也不能少。這樣我們可以由30倍升格成60倍，60倍升格成100倍。否則，我們的靈性生命會由100倍降級成60倍、30倍。真是汲汲可危。各位兄弟姊妹，大家要努力。天主保祐。
15th Ordinary Sunday (Year A)
Theme: The Messages of the Parable of Sower
Jesus came to build up the kingdom of heaven in different ways. He heals, exorcises, proclaims the good news, calls disciples, dies, resurrects and ascends into heaven etc. Telling parables is one of his ways of proclaiming the gospel. Today, let us meditate the famous “Parable of the Sower”. The gospels have collected many parables most of which are unexplained. The “Parable of the Sower” is one of the few exceptions. Now, why does Jesus teach the kingdom of heaven in parables?
Some people think that the literacy of his contemporary audience was low. They did not have the ability to understand the difficult and abstract messages of the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, to cater for their intellectual level, Jesus made use of daily experiences: farming, shepherding, mending clothes and marriage banquets etc. to explain the truth about the kingdom of heaven. This answer sounds attractive. It makes us feel that we are smarter, more advanced than Jesus’ contemporary audience. However, why, in answering the same question from the disciples, did Jesus say that the secret of the kingdom of heaven had not given them (Matthew 13:11)? Why did Jesus say that they look but not see, listen but not hear, lest they would be healed (Matthew 13:15)? Who were these “they”? It is impossible that Jesus did not want them to be healed. Therefore, we need to examine the context of this parable. What happened before Jesus told this parable? What was the situation in response to which Jesus told this parable?
From the gospels, we learn that Jesus clashed with the Jewish authority at the very beginning of his ministry. His words and deeds antagonized many religious leaders: For example, Jesus forgave the sins of a paralyzed man in the capacity of the Son of Man; he did not follow the example of pious Pharisees to fast; he healed a man with a withered hand on Sabbath; he befriended a Roman centurion; he sacrificed the property of the whole village when he exorcized demons from a possessed man etc. Because of this, those in authority opposed Jesus, bad-mouthed him and at last killed him. It was under this hostile situation that Jesus changed tactics to speak of the secrets of the kingdom in parables.
Now, let us call up our imagination and put ourselves at the shore of the Sea of Galilee. You are among the listeners. In the crowd, what people do you discover? Among the audience, you see some religious leaders who come to find fault with Jesus. In these ordinary daily experience described in the parables, they find nothing to indict Jesus. They listen but refuse to hear the truth. You also find people who are excited to see a famous exorcist and miracle worker. But in the person of Jesus, they cannot find a Messiah who could inspire frenzy, but a humble carpenter telling parables. They look and yet not see the glorious Son of God. You also find some argument-happy scribes who are attracted by the fame of Jesus. However, they do not find Jesus’ parables impressive. They too can tell even better stories. They want to understand, but for various reasons, they fail to know. Among the crowd, you find people who are humble at heart. They can hear some “overtones” in the parables but they are not sure. So, they renounce themselves, follow Jesus, accept his teaching and bear many fruits.
This, I believe, is the motive why Jesus speaks in parables. Parables are like a filter which sieves out people of ulterior motives, leaving behind people who genuinely seek the truth. Let us continue to reflect on the meaning of the four types of soil.
It is easy for us to pigeonhole people into four classes. Those who don’t believe in Jesus, those who persecute the Church, are soil along the path. God’s word in them is snatched away by the evil one (Matthew 13:19). Those who come to the Church to gain benefits are the soil on rocky ground. Their faith has no root and they are no longer practicing. Those who are good-hearted but busy with mundane chores are soil infested with thorny bushes, those Sunday Catholics. At last, we are of course the good soil, those devoted-Catholics.
If we can really classify people like this, I would ask if those non-practising Catholics are able to upgrade to Sunday Catholics and Sunday Catholics promoted to devoted-Catholics. Or on the contrary, will devoted-Catholics be downgraded to Sunday Catholics, non-practising Catholics and even Satan-friendly-Catholics? The answer is a categorical yes.
Do you notice that between the telling of the parable and its explanation, Jesus gives us some clues to correctly understand this parable? Jesus seems to be advocating some injustice. How can God be so unfair, “to him who has will more be given, but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away” (Matthew 13:12)? Would God support the polarization of wealth? No. God will never endorse social institutes that exploit the poor. Here, Jesus warns those who produce 30-fold of fruits that the little they have would be taken away.
The truth is not difficult to grasp. Those who do not believe today may believe tomorrow. The undeveloped land today may, after groundbreaking and tilling, become a piece of good land tomorrow. On the contrary, if we allow a good piece of land to waste, thorns will infest the ground which may harden into rocky ground. Therefore, it is improper to pigeonhole people. Today you are good. Can you guarantee to be good forever? A Chinese proverb says, “Learning is like canoeing against the current. You will be carried away if you make no progress.” If we know very little about the Bible, know nothing about the magisterium of the Church, how can we know the path to salvation? How can we answer the queries of non-Christians?
The parable of the sower gives us two messages. Firstly, Jesus is the Sower. So are we. Jesus teaches without discrimination. He would not exclude the High Priest because he was the sidewalk, the Pharisees who were rock ground, the rich young man who was a thorny ground, but preached to those who would follow him. Similarly, we should not prejudge our grandma who worships Guanyin and think that she will never believe in God, or our father who is busy making money and think that it is a waste of time to tell him to believe in Jesus, or those tattooed people who will never make to heaven. If we do, we will give up evangelizing our family members and those imprisoned.
Secondly, “the poor will become poorer and the rich richer”. We are the soil that receives the gospel, the seed of salvation. We should diligently cultivate this piece of ground: study the Bible, pray, receive the Holy Communion and Reconciliation etc. None is dispensable. Then, we may upgrade from 30-fold to 60-fold, from 60-fold to 100-fold. Otherwise, our spiritual life will downgrade from 100-fold to 60-fold to 30-fold. The situation is precarious.
Dear Brethren, let us work hard. God bless us all.
主題：默想「撒種比喻」的教訓
耶穌來到世上，用不同的方法建設天國。他治病、驅魔、宣講福音、召選門徒、受難和復活升天等。講比喻是他宣講的一個方式。今天，讓我們一起默想有名的「撒種比喻」。福音記載了很多耶穌說過的比喻，大部份都沒有解釋的。而「撒種比喻」是少數有解釋的比喻。
耶穌為甚麽用比喻來講述天國的道理呢？
有人認為當時的聽眾教育水平低，沒有能力領悟高深的天國道理，所以耶穌遷就群眾的教育水平，用日常生活的經驗，例如耕田、牧羊、補衫、結婚擺酒等去講述天國的道理。這個答案很動聽，它令我們覺得自己比耶穌當代的群眾更聰明，更高級。可是，為甚麽耶穌答覆門徒的詢問時會說「天國的奧秘並不是給他們知道的」【瑪13:11】呢？為甚麽耶穌說「使他們視而不見，聽而不聞，使他們得不到醫治」【瑪13:15】呢？得不到醫治的「他們」又是誰呢？耶穌沒有理由那麽忍心，見死不救。所以，我們必須考究這個比喻的上文下理。講這個比喻之前發生了甚麽事？耶穌用比喻來回應甚麽處境呢？
根據福音的記載，耶穌在公開傳道之初已出師不利。他的言行，得罪了當時的宗教權貴：例如耶穌以人子的身份，赦免癱子的罪、不跟隨法利塞人一樣虔誠守齋、不守安息日，竟然在安息日治好枯手人、與羅馬百夫長來往、為了救一個附魔人而犧牲了全村的財產等等。因此，這些權貴反對耶穌，抹黑耶穌，最後甚至殺死他。就在這種敵意的環境下，耶穌開始改用比喻來講述天國的奧秘。
現在，讓我們運用想像力，幻想自己到了加里肋亞湖邊，在人群中聽耶穌講福音。在人群中，你發現了身邊的人是誰。聽眾中有想挑剔耶穌的宗教領袖，在這些平平無奇的日常生活經驗，他們找不到陷害耶穌的把柄。他們聽，卻拒絕聽到箇中的真理。聽眾中有想一睹這個出名行神蹟驅魔的神醫，但在耶穌身上，他們見不到令人狂熱興奮的默西亞，祗見到一個寒酸的木匠在講比喻。他們看，卻見不到光榮的天主子。聽眾中有慕名而來，好辯的法學士。但耶穌講的故事他們也會講，沒有甚麽與眾不同之處。他們的心想了解，但礙於種種因素，始終他們都沒有明白。聽眾中有內心謙遜的人，他們聽得出比喻中有「絃外之音」，但他們不敢肯定自己是否正確。所以他們放下自我，跟隨耶穌，接受耶穌的訓誨，從而結出豐盛的果實。
這就是耶穌講比喻的原因。「比喻」就好像一個「過濾器」一樣，篩走別具用心，混水摸魚的聽眾，而選出有心尋求真理的人。讓我們繼續深入反省這四種土壤的意義。
我們很容易「對號入座」，把人分了四類。我們把不信耶穌的人，迫害教會的政權歸入「路邊」，即聖言被魔鬼奪去的人【瑪13:19】。把到教會尋求利益的人歸入「石地」，指信仰沒有紮根的冷淡教友、麵粉教友。把那些有善心但忙於世俗事務的人歸入「荊棘叢生的土地」，即主日教友。最後，我們自己當然是「好地」的熱心教友喇！
如果真是這樣分類的話，我會問，冷淡的教友可否升級做主日教友，主日教友可否升級做熱心教友呢？反過來問，熱心教友會不會降級成為主日教友、冷淡教友甚至成為「魔鬼之友」呢？答案是絕對會。
大家可否留意到耶穌在講述「撒種比喻」和解釋「撒種比喻」之間透露了一些線索，去幫助我們正確地理解「撒種比喻」。耶穌好像講了一些不公義的言論。為甚麼天主那樣不公平，有的更加有，沒有的連僅有的也被奪去【瑪13:l2】。難道天主贊成「貧富懸殊」嗎？不是。天主是不會同意剝削窮人的社會制度的。在這裡，耶穌對結出30倍果實的人作出警惕。小心連僅有的也被奪去。
其實道理並不艱深。今天不信的並不表示將來的不信。今天未開發的土地，經過耕耘，一樣可以成為好地；相反，今天有收穫的土地，如果任由它荒廢了，一樣會荊棘叢生，甚至僵化、硬化，變成石地。可想而知，用「對號入座」方式把人分類的做法是不妥當的。今天你是好土地，你就永遠都是好土地嗎？所謂「學如逆水行舟，不進則退。」如果我們對聖經一知半解，對教會訓導非常陌生，試問我們又怎能掌握到得救的途徑呢？對教外人士的查詢可以對答如流嗎？
撒種的比喻給我們兩個啟示。第一，耶穌固然是撒種的人，我們也是。耶穌有教無類，不會因為大司祭是路邊人、法利塞人是石地人、富貴少年是荊棘地的人而不向他們宣講，祗向有機會跟隨他的人宣講。同樣，我們也不應事先認定家中的祖母拜慣觀音就不會信天主的、勸忙於工作賺錢的父親信耶穌是浪費時間，那些紋了身的人就無機會進入天國，於是就放棄向家人福傳，放棄向監獄裡的人福傳。
第二，「窮者愈窮，富者愈富」，我們作為接受福音的土地，我們必須妥善耕耘我們的內心這片土地：讀經、祈禱、領聖體、辦告解。一樣也不能少。這樣我們可以由30倍升格成60倍，60倍升格成100倍。否則，我們的靈性生命會由100倍降級成60倍、30倍。真是汲汲可危。各位兄弟姊妹，大家要努力。天主保祐。
15th Ordinary Sunday (Year A)
Theme: The Messages of the Parable of Sower
Jesus came to build up the kingdom of heaven in different ways. He heals, exorcises, proclaims the good news, calls disciples, dies, resurrects and ascends into heaven etc. Telling parables is one of his ways of proclaiming the gospel. Today, let us meditate the famous “Parable of the Sower”. The gospels have collected many parables most of which are unexplained. The “Parable of the Sower” is one of the few exceptions. Now, why does Jesus teach the kingdom of heaven in parables?
Some people think that the literacy of his contemporary audience was low. They did not have the ability to understand the difficult and abstract messages of the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, to cater for their intellectual level, Jesus made use of daily experiences: farming, shepherding, mending clothes and marriage banquets etc. to explain the truth about the kingdom of heaven. This answer sounds attractive. It makes us feel that we are smarter, more advanced than Jesus’ contemporary audience. However, why, in answering the same question from the disciples, did Jesus say that the secret of the kingdom of heaven had not given them (Matthew 13:11)? Why did Jesus say that they look but not see, listen but not hear, lest they would be healed (Matthew 13:15)? Who were these “they”? It is impossible that Jesus did not want them to be healed. Therefore, we need to examine the context of this parable. What happened before Jesus told this parable? What was the situation in response to which Jesus told this parable?
From the gospels, we learn that Jesus clashed with the Jewish authority at the very beginning of his ministry. His words and deeds antagonized many religious leaders: For example, Jesus forgave the sins of a paralyzed man in the capacity of the Son of Man; he did not follow the example of pious Pharisees to fast; he healed a man with a withered hand on Sabbath; he befriended a Roman centurion; he sacrificed the property of the whole village when he exorcized demons from a possessed man etc. Because of this, those in authority opposed Jesus, bad-mouthed him and at last killed him. It was under this hostile situation that Jesus changed tactics to speak of the secrets of the kingdom in parables.
Now, let us call up our imagination and put ourselves at the shore of the Sea of Galilee. You are among the listeners. In the crowd, what people do you discover? Among the audience, you see some religious leaders who come to find fault with Jesus. In these ordinary daily experience described in the parables, they find nothing to indict Jesus. They listen but refuse to hear the truth. You also find people who are excited to see a famous exorcist and miracle worker. But in the person of Jesus, they cannot find a Messiah who could inspire frenzy, but a humble carpenter telling parables. They look and yet not see the glorious Son of God. You also find some argument-happy scribes who are attracted by the fame of Jesus. However, they do not find Jesus’ parables impressive. They too can tell even better stories. They want to understand, but for various reasons, they fail to know. Among the crowd, you find people who are humble at heart. They can hear some “overtones” in the parables but they are not sure. So, they renounce themselves, follow Jesus, accept his teaching and bear many fruits.
This, I believe, is the motive why Jesus speaks in parables. Parables are like a filter which sieves out people of ulterior motives, leaving behind people who genuinely seek the truth. Let us continue to reflect on the meaning of the four types of soil.
It is easy for us to pigeonhole people into four classes. Those who don’t believe in Jesus, those who persecute the Church, are soil along the path. God’s word in them is snatched away by the evil one (Matthew 13:19). Those who come to the Church to gain benefits are the soil on rocky ground. Their faith has no root and they are no longer practicing. Those who are good-hearted but busy with mundane chores are soil infested with thorny bushes, those Sunday Catholics. At last, we are of course the good soil, those devoted-Catholics.
If we can really classify people like this, I would ask if those non-practising Catholics are able to upgrade to Sunday Catholics and Sunday Catholics promoted to devoted-Catholics. Or on the contrary, will devoted-Catholics be downgraded to Sunday Catholics, non-practising Catholics and even Satan-friendly-Catholics? The answer is a categorical yes.
Do you notice that between the telling of the parable and its explanation, Jesus gives us some clues to correctly understand this parable? Jesus seems to be advocating some injustice. How can God be so unfair, “to him who has will more be given, but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away” (Matthew 13:12)? Would God support the polarization of wealth? No. God will never endorse social institutes that exploit the poor. Here, Jesus warns those who produce 30-fold of fruits that the little they have would be taken away.
The truth is not difficult to grasp. Those who do not believe today may believe tomorrow. The undeveloped land today may, after groundbreaking and tilling, become a piece of good land tomorrow. On the contrary, if we allow a good piece of land to waste, thorns will infest the ground which may harden into rocky ground. Therefore, it is improper to pigeonhole people. Today you are good. Can you guarantee to be good forever? A Chinese proverb says, “Learning is like canoeing against the current. You will be carried away if you make no progress.” If we know very little about the Bible, know nothing about the magisterium of the Church, how can we know the path to salvation? How can we answer the queries of non-Christians?
The parable of the sower gives us two messages. Firstly, Jesus is the Sower. So are we. Jesus teaches without discrimination. He would not exclude the High Priest because he was the sidewalk, the Pharisees who were rock ground, the rich young man who was a thorny ground, but preached to those who would follow him. Similarly, we should not prejudge our grandma who worships Guanyin and think that she will never believe in God, or our father who is busy making money and think that it is a waste of time to tell him to believe in Jesus, or those tattooed people who will never make to heaven. If we do, we will give up evangelizing our family members and those imprisoned.
Secondly, “the poor will become poorer and the rich richer”. We are the soil that receives the gospel, the seed of salvation. We should diligently cultivate this piece of ground: study the Bible, pray, receive the Holy Communion and Reconciliation etc. None is dispensable. Then, we may upgrade from 30-fold to 60-fold, from 60-fold to 100-fold. Otherwise, our spiritual life will downgrade from 100-fold to 60-fold to 30-fold. The situation is precarious.
Dear Brethren, let us work hard. God bless us all.
Sunday 6 July 2014
The Confession of an arrogant man
Father, I have sinned. Allow me to do my confession. I cannot remember when I last confessed. It must have been more than four years ago.
On June 28, a deacon sent a WhatsApp message to the Group of deacons. It was a translation of an article from a conservative Christian web. The message began with an email from Fr. Najeeb Michael [sic] which requested prayer for their safety. They were surrounded by Muslim rebels and etc. The email ended rather abruptly, suggesting that the sender was in great danger. The message continued to describe how Christians in Iraq fled from Muslim massacres. The message ended with a request for prayer. A search on the Internet yielded a notice Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P. put up on June 12, explaining that his fellow brother in the order, Fr. Najeeb Mikhal’s request on June 10 was based on false information. All requests for prayers on the web should be removed! I was not surprised. Just think about it. Fr. Najeeb requested prayer on June 10. The deacon forwarded the message on June 28. Wouldn’t it be too little, too late? What is worse, the message was forwarded by a deacon who, without thinking, added weight behind the credibility of a hoax! Shouldn’t clergy be more cautious in forwarding messages? They should at least take the trouble to try their best to verify the sources before sending them to the others. This time, I WhatsApp the deacon group what I had found together with my opinion on deacon’s credibility. Though I tried to use humble wordings, I am sure I have offended many of them. Who am I to correct them? I am only a candidate. I am not yet a deacon.
As a deacon candidate, I entertain certain expectations on my fellow deacons and clergy in general. I feel it an obligation for a clergy to present information to his audience as accurately as possible. For example, during the celebration of the feast of Ss. Peter and Paul, a clergy was contrasting the occupations of Peter and Paul during his homily. Of course, everybody knows that Peter was a fisherman before he followed Jesus. But the clergy said that Saul was a high-paid government official before he was converted on the road to Damascus. I just could not believe my ears. I felt an impulse to correct him. Of course I did not. But the arrogant me began to check out answers from the other priests. I am sorry to say that some of them did not give good enough answers.
I am tired. I am heavy laden (Matthew 11:28). It is because I have been arrogant. I know that I should let go. Yet, knowing does not necessarily result in doing. In me, humility is in short supply. My arrogance makes me a formidable person to live with. Many people I meet, I keep a distance. Perhaps underneath, I feel that they are not on a par with me. Consequently, team building is not my strength and most of the time, I single handedly finish my assignments with minimum collaboration. I become a perfectionist and delegate very little, preferring getting my jobs done myself. Thus, I am not a good mentor. Apprentices benefit very little from my guidance. Most of the time, my hands are full and I have very little time for my family and my spiritual health. I am sorry for these and all the sins of my past life.
Deus meus, ex toto corde pænitet me omnium meorum peccatorum, eaque detestor, quia peccando, non solum poenas a te iuste statutas promeritus sum, sed præsertim quia offendi te, summum bonum, ac dignum qui super omnia diligaris.
Ideo firmiter propono, adiuvante gratia tua, de cetero me non peccaturum peccandique occasiones proximas fugiturum. Amen
On June 28, a deacon sent a WhatsApp message to the Group of deacons. It was a translation of an article from a conservative Christian web. The message began with an email from Fr. Najeeb Michael [sic] which requested prayer for their safety. They were surrounded by Muslim rebels and etc. The email ended rather abruptly, suggesting that the sender was in great danger. The message continued to describe how Christians in Iraq fled from Muslim massacres. The message ended with a request for prayer. A search on the Internet yielded a notice Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P. put up on June 12, explaining that his fellow brother in the order, Fr. Najeeb Mikhal’s request on June 10 was based on false information. All requests for prayers on the web should be removed! I was not surprised. Just think about it. Fr. Najeeb requested prayer on June 10. The deacon forwarded the message on June 28. Wouldn’t it be too little, too late? What is worse, the message was forwarded by a deacon who, without thinking, added weight behind the credibility of a hoax! Shouldn’t clergy be more cautious in forwarding messages? They should at least take the trouble to try their best to verify the sources before sending them to the others. This time, I WhatsApp the deacon group what I had found together with my opinion on deacon’s credibility. Though I tried to use humble wordings, I am sure I have offended many of them. Who am I to correct them? I am only a candidate. I am not yet a deacon.
As a deacon candidate, I entertain certain expectations on my fellow deacons and clergy in general. I feel it an obligation for a clergy to present information to his audience as accurately as possible. For example, during the celebration of the feast of Ss. Peter and Paul, a clergy was contrasting the occupations of Peter and Paul during his homily. Of course, everybody knows that Peter was a fisherman before he followed Jesus. But the clergy said that Saul was a high-paid government official before he was converted on the road to Damascus. I just could not believe my ears. I felt an impulse to correct him. Of course I did not. But the arrogant me began to check out answers from the other priests. I am sorry to say that some of them did not give good enough answers.
I am tired. I am heavy laden (Matthew 11:28). It is because I have been arrogant. I know that I should let go. Yet, knowing does not necessarily result in doing. In me, humility is in short supply. My arrogance makes me a formidable person to live with. Many people I meet, I keep a distance. Perhaps underneath, I feel that they are not on a par with me. Consequently, team building is not my strength and most of the time, I single handedly finish my assignments with minimum collaboration. I become a perfectionist and delegate very little, preferring getting my jobs done myself. Thus, I am not a good mentor. Apprentices benefit very little from my guidance. Most of the time, my hands are full and I have very little time for my family and my spiritual health. I am sorry for these and all the sins of my past life.
Deus meus, ex toto corde pænitet me omnium meorum peccatorum, eaque detestor, quia peccando, non solum poenas a te iuste statutas promeritus sum, sed præsertim quia offendi te, summum bonum, ac dignum qui super omnia diligaris.
Ideo firmiter propono, adiuvante gratia tua, de cetero me non peccaturum peccandique occasiones proximas fugiturum. Amen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)