There is nothing more certain than death. Most religions promise a transcendence of this inevitability, a life after death. Other moral philosophies are more down to earth. They are contended to make sense of death or more positively, to give life a purpose. There is a well known idiom among Chinese who are well known of their being pragmatic. It reads, "Deaths can be lighter than a feather or heavier than the Tai Mountains." It does not trivialize death, nor glorify it. It simply lays before you a guideline when you contemplate suicide. Is your death worthwhile? This Chinese proverb has an underlying assumption that some deaths do not contribute to the good of the others.
However, Jesus rules out such a classification of deaths. For him, all deaths are meaningful and worthwhile.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life." (John 12:24-25)
Of course, Jesus was not promoting suicide. He tells us to let go even our life to bring out more lives. Committing suicide so as to escape from suffering is selfish and an act of cowardice. Suicide is morally acceptable only when it saves more lives or gives the future generation a better tomorrow. Therefore, the deaths of martyrs and revolutionaries are laudable and deserve our respect.
What about the deaths of thousands of nameless people who are starved to death everyday because of poverty? What good do these deaths bring?
What about the deaths of terrorists who are killed in action? What fruit do they bear?
What about those aborted fetus which do not even have a chance to see the light of this world? ... These are just some of those perplexing questions which we may not be able to give a convincing answer. Perhaps in the eye of Jesus, these poor souls simply return to the comfort of the bosom of the Father.Whether they leave behind any legacy is the will of the Father. Whether their contribution is good or bad is the judgment of the Father, not us.
God makes it clear that He finds no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11). Is God foolish? Paul said, "For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." (1 Corinthians 1:25) There is wisdom in God's foolishness, in Jesus' refusal to distinguish among the worthiness of deaths.
Dear Lord, I feel grateful that all of us are precious in your eyes. You do not pass judgment on us. Your love is unsurpassable. Amen.
Sunday, 22 March 2015
Sunday, 15 March 2015
Seventy Years of Exile
Let's do some arithmetics. I rely on the Old Testament timeline provided by Bible Hub to do the following calculations in order to look at the 70-year Babylonian exile. It is commonly agreed that in 537 B.C., Cyrus decreed that the Jews should return to Jerusalem. Moreover, Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians in 586 B.C. Therefore, the exile lasted for 50 years only. However, prior to 586 B.C. the Babylonians had already begun deporting the nobles since 605 B.C. Therefore, a 70-year exile makes sense.
"to fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had been paid her sabbaths; for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years." (2 Chronicles 36:21)
This verse stirs up my speculation. The Israelites did not observe the law of sabbathetical year (Leviticus 25), 70 in total. Therefore, they were exiled for 70 years to repay the skipping of sabbathetical years.
Before we start calculating, we need to decide what to make of the Jubilee Year, the fiftieth year. Since the land rested in a Jubilee Year similar to that of sabbathetical years, I will count it a sabbathetical year. Therefore, in 50 years, there were 8 sabbathetical years. Now, the Jews were exiled for 70 years to repay for the skipping of sabbathetical years. Therefore 70 sabbathetical years were skipped. A total of 437.5 (70/8*50) years were covered. When did the Jews begin skipping sabbathetical years and jubilee years? 974 (537 + 437) B.C. During this time, David was fleeing from the onslaugh of his own son Absalom! It sounds reasonable. I speculate that after the death of Absalom, David returned to Jerusalem to mourn for his favourite son who tried to overthrow his own father. Meanwhile, David did not observe sabbathetical years anymore since his return to Jerusalem.
What if we do not count Jubilee Years as sabbathetical years? A total of 500 (70/7*50) years would be covered. That is to say, the Jews began skipping sabbathetical years since 1037 B.C. It was roughly 10 years before Saul openly disobeyed Samuel (1 Samuel 15). Saul had been king for about 6 years since he was anointed king in 1043 B.C. That is to say, ever since the appointment of kings, the Israelites no longer observed sabbathetical years. Both versions make sense. Yet, they are only speculations.
The author of Chronicles saw the Babylonian Exile as a repayment of sabbathetical years. This very idea warned the Jewish readers to keep God's commandments because they had to repay every cent they owed (Matthew 5:26) The reading of John is more consoling. God did not send Jesus to judge the world but to save it (John 3:17). Unlike Matthew, John was less legalistic.
Today, at the 2nd Rite of Scrutiny in St. Francis of Assisi Church, I met a few La Salle old students. After leaving LSC for more than 20 years, some of them will be baptized this Easter. They are all grown-ups now. God is marvelous. I am touched and speechless as well. The Word of God is like a seed growing up on its own in their hearts. This is God's working, not mine.
Dear Lord, I praise you. You will not leave anybody unsaved. Amen.
"to fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had been paid her sabbaths; for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years." (2 Chronicles 36:21)
This verse stirs up my speculation. The Israelites did not observe the law of sabbathetical year (Leviticus 25), 70 in total. Therefore, they were exiled for 70 years to repay the skipping of sabbathetical years.
Before we start calculating, we need to decide what to make of the Jubilee Year, the fiftieth year. Since the land rested in a Jubilee Year similar to that of sabbathetical years, I will count it a sabbathetical year. Therefore, in 50 years, there were 8 sabbathetical years. Now, the Jews were exiled for 70 years to repay for the skipping of sabbathetical years. Therefore 70 sabbathetical years were skipped. A total of 437.5 (70/8*50) years were covered. When did the Jews begin skipping sabbathetical years and jubilee years? 974 (537 + 437) B.C. During this time, David was fleeing from the onslaugh of his own son Absalom! It sounds reasonable. I speculate that after the death of Absalom, David returned to Jerusalem to mourn for his favourite son who tried to overthrow his own father. Meanwhile, David did not observe sabbathetical years anymore since his return to Jerusalem.
What if we do not count Jubilee Years as sabbathetical years? A total of 500 (70/7*50) years would be covered. That is to say, the Jews began skipping sabbathetical years since 1037 B.C. It was roughly 10 years before Saul openly disobeyed Samuel (1 Samuel 15). Saul had been king for about 6 years since he was anointed king in 1043 B.C. That is to say, ever since the appointment of kings, the Israelites no longer observed sabbathetical years. Both versions make sense. Yet, they are only speculations.
The author of Chronicles saw the Babylonian Exile as a repayment of sabbathetical years. This very idea warned the Jewish readers to keep God's commandments because they had to repay every cent they owed (Matthew 5:26) The reading of John is more consoling. God did not send Jesus to judge the world but to save it (John 3:17). Unlike Matthew, John was less legalistic.
Today, at the 2nd Rite of Scrutiny in St. Francis of Assisi Church, I met a few La Salle old students. After leaving LSC for more than 20 years, some of them will be baptized this Easter. They are all grown-ups now. God is marvelous. I am touched and speechless as well. The Word of God is like a seed growing up on its own in their hearts. This is God's working, not mine.
Dear Lord, I praise you. You will not leave anybody unsaved. Amen.
Sunday, 8 March 2015
對天主所懷的熱忱 The zeal for God
四旬期第三主日（乙年）
主題：對天主所懷的熱忱
今天讀的出谷紀第二十章，與及申命紀第五章，就是「十誡」的出處。出谷紀與申命紀的記載，大同小異。但大家有沒有見到第一誡、第二誡等等的分界呢？如果沒有又怎樣知道是「十誡」而不是「八誡」或者「十二誡」呢？要知道在古代，連章節甚至標點符號也沒有。試想像沒有標點和段落的第一篇讀經是甚麼樣子呢？所以，把一堆密密麻麻的文字合理地分成「十誡」，一定是前人努力的成果。「十」是一個完滿的數目字，天主頒佈的法律當然是完美的，所以是「十誡」而不是其他數目。請大家留意在訂定誡命這件事上，有天人的合作。除了天主賜予誡命之外，人也有份參予釐訂。天主賜下誡命，人訂十誡。
雖然耶穌來到世上建立新約來取代舊約，但耶穌無意廢除舊約的法律。例如：當富少年問耶穌如何纔能獲得永生時，耶穌首先詢問他遵守誡命的情況，可見耶穌無意廢除舊約的法律。反而他是來使法律完滿。例如：在山中聖訓，耶穌就提昇了舊的法律。且看讀經一的最後一句【出20:17】。這誡命把妻子看待如婢女牛驢一樣，是男人的財產的一部份；所以對別人的妻子起淫念祗算是貪財，貪心沒有甚麼大不了。這樣，簡直在貶抑女性作為一個人的地位。
耶穌在瑪竇福音第五章論述「不可姦淫」的時候，把誡命的適用範圍擴闊到包括對女性起淫念。耶穌不把女性當作物件或者財產，而是有尊嚴的人。教會秉承耶穌的教導，把近人的妻子從婢女牛驢中抽起，為她們劃分了獨立的一條誡命，就是第九誡，「毋願他人妻」。
出谷紀二十章所記載的誡命，是天主與以色列人締結「西乃山盟約」的條款的一部份。天主在萬民中，揀選了以色列民族作為祂的特殊產業，要特別優待他們；而以色列人要履行的義務就是聽從天主的話，遵守天主的誡命與及由誡命所引申的其他法律，共613條。這些誡命和法律帶有以色列的文化特色，基督徒是不會照單全收，而是按照耶穌的教訓而有所提昇。剛纔提及的第九誡就是其中一個例子。又例如梅瑟准許離婚，但天主教徒的婚姻就是不可拆散的。
許多人誤會了星期日是安息日，因為星期日放假。其實，安息日是周末，一周的最後一天。因為天主用了六日創造天地，在第七日休息，並祝聖了第七日為安息日。星期日Sunday，是崇拜太陽的日子，是一周的第一天。因為耶穌在一周的第一天復活了。所以基督徒稱星期日為主日，慶祝耶穌的復活。公元第四世紀起，基督宗教成為羅馬帝國的國教，當然在主日放假了。因此，基督信徒不是守安息日，而是奉星期日為聖日，舉行彌撒，慶祝耶穌基督死而復活的逾越奧蹟。所以第三誡不是「守安息日」，而是「守瞻禮主日」。
除了十誡之外，天主教徒還有聖教四規，領聖體前又要守聖體齋，又要先辦妥告解，結婚又一定要在聖堂行禮，死後要葬在天主教墳場；四旬期又要拜苦路，聖母月玫瑰月又要唸玫瑰經等等這麼多繁文縟節。其實，天主所啟示的誡命，目的在於按步就班，由淺入深教導我們日進於德，提昇人性，幫助我們他日能分享聖三的天主性。所以，誡命、規矩是作為基督徒最低的要求，幫助我們在這個基本功之上，修德成聖，能夠與天主建立密切的關係。例如：十誡要求我們主日到聖堂望彌撒，這是最低的要求。可惜習慣了就開始麻木失去感覺，於是四出找尋不去望彌撒的藉口。例如：歌詠團唱的歌跟不上，讀經員又讀錯字，神父不是廣東話不正，就是講道沉悶。如果不是怕犯罪要辦告解，相信很多人不出半年就沒有興趣望彌撒了。這種心態實在太被動，太消極了。要建立並維持一段良好的關係，是需要付出努力，培養出一份感情，一份想親近對方的渴望。讀書如是，談戀愛如是，工作如是，愛國如是，信天主，與天主建立關係也是一樣。
試看看耶穌對天父的渴望。聖殿是天主臨在之所，耶穌是多麼渴望親近自己的父親。他十二歲就曾經離開聖母和聖若瑟，獨自留在聖殿三日三夜。今天的福音記載了耶穌清理聖殿的事蹟。這件事在門徒眼中，是耶穌應驗了聖詠69篇的預言：「我對祢殿宇所懷的熱忱，把我耗盡。」耶穌對聖殿的熱愛，導致他與猶太領袖衝突，種下禍根，為他將來的受難，埋下伏線。「耗盡」就是這個意思。
各位兄弟姊妹，我們懷有耶穌一樣的熱忱嗎？我們好像耶穌一樣非常渴望主日返聖堂親近天父嗎？非常渴望領聖體與耶穌結合為一嗎？抑或覺得返聖堂是一種負擔，有點兒麻煩呢？四旬期是皈依天主的時候。就讓我們好好地培養這份渴望親近天主的情懷。
天主保佑。
3rd Sunday of Lent (Year B)
Theme: The zeal for God
The Exodus 20 we read today and Deuteronomy 5 are the basis of our “10 Commandments”. Both versions are very similar. But do you see the numbering of 1st Commandment and 2nd Commandment etc.? No. Then how do we know that there are only 10 Commandments and not 8 or 12? In ancient time, there were not even punctuation marks or paragraphing. Imagine what it would be like if the 1st reading today were printed without punctuation marks and paragraphing. Therefore, delimiting a string of alphabets into a reasonably meaningful “10 Commandments” must be the fruit of the toil of some ancient people. 10 was regarded a perfect number in ancient time. Without doubt, the law of God must be perfect. Therefore, the number of Commandments cannot be anything but 10. Notice that there was a God-man cooperation in this incident. Besides the bestowal of Commandments by God, men took part in delimiting them. God gave the Commandments. We make them 10.
Even though Jesus came to establish the New Testament to replace the Old one, Jesus had no intention to abolish the laws in the Old Testament. For example, when the rich young man asked Jesus what to do to attain eternal life, Jesus asked about how he had observed the commandments. From this, we conclude that Jesus had no intention to abolish the laws in the Old Testament. Moreover, Jesus came to fulfil the Law. For example, in the discourse of the Beatitudes, Jesus elevated the Old laws. Let’s read the last verse in the 1st reading (Exodus 20:17). This commandment put wives among the manservants, maidservants, oxen and asses. Wives were part of the property of husbands. Therefore, lust counted as greed and greed was no big deal. The status of woman as a human person was trampled upon.
When Jesus discusses the Commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, he extended its application to include lust. Jesus did not treat a woman as an object, as a piece of goods. He treats her as a person with dignity. Following the teaching of Jesus, the Church removed the neighbour’s wife from servants, oxen and asses and gave her an independent commandment. It is the 9th Commandment, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife.”
The commandments in Exodus 20 were a portion of articles stipulated in the Sinai Covenant between God and the Israelites. Among the peoples on earth, God chose Israel to be his own possession and gave them special privileges. In return, the Israelites would obey God, keep the commandments and laws derived from these commandments, 613 in total. These commandments and laws carry the cultural characteristics of Israel. We Christians cannot take them over without modification. We upgrade them according to the teaching of Jesus. The 9th Commandment we mentioned previously is one such example. Another example is that Moses allows divorce whereas Christian marriages are indissoluble.
Many people mistake Sunday for Sabbath because Sunday is a holiday. In fact, Sabbath is the last day of a week because God spent 6 days to create the world and rested on the 7th day. He consecrated the 7th day to be the Sabbath. Sunday was the day to worship the sun, the first day of the week. On the first day of the week, Jesus came back to life. Therefore, Christians call Sunday, the Lord’s Day to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus. Since the 4th century when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, Sunday had become a holiday. Therefore, Christians do not keep the Sabbath holy. They keep Sunday instead. On Sunday, they offer masses to celebrate the Paschal mystery of the passion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the 3rd Commandment is not “Keep the Sabbath holy”, but “Keep Sunday holy”.
Besides the 10 Commandments, there are many rules and regulations for Catholics to follow. For example, there are 4 precepts of the Church, the one-hour fast before Communion, Confession before Communion, marriage in the Church, burial in Catholic cemetery, Stations of the Cross in Lent, Rosaries in the months of May and October etc. In fact, the purpose God reveals the commandments is to help bring about our sanctification step by step, from shallow to deep; and to elevate our humanity so that we may partake in the divinity of the Blessed Trinity in the end. Therefore, these commandments and rules are minimum requirements only. They are the foundation upon which we build up our sanctification and establish an intimate relationship with God. For example, the obligation to attend Sunday masses. This is only a minimum requirement. Unfortunately, when we get used to it, we begin to feel bored and lose the feeling. So, we actively seek excuses not to at attend mass. For example, the songs the choir sings are difficult to follow; the lectors mispronounce; the Cantonese of the priests is poor and their homilies are boring. Had we not been forced to follow the rules lest we had to do confession, I am afraid many of us would not have had any motivation to attend masses after six months. This kind of mentality is too passive and negative. In order to establish and maintain a good relationship, we need to put up effort, to cultivate a passion, a desire to come close to the other party. It is true for studies, for dating, for work and for patriotism. Believing in God and building a close relationship with God is not different from the other relationships.
See how much Jesus desired to be in the presence of his heavenly Father. The Temple was the visible presence of God. Jesus longed for coming close to his Father. When he was 12, he did not follow the BVM and St. Joseph home but stayed behind in the Temple for 3 days and 3 nights. In the story of the cleansing of the Temple, the disciples saw the fulfilment of Psalm 69, “Zeal for thy house shall consume me.” (John 2:17) Jesus’ passion for the Temple made him clash with the Jewish authority. This antagonism led to his Passion in the future. This is the meaning of “consume me”.
Dear brethren, do we harbour such zeal as Jesus? Do we long for coming back to Church on Sundays to come close to our heavenly Father? Do we desire to receive the Holy Communion to be in union with Christ? Or do we feel going to Church is a burden, is troublesome? Lent is a season to turn back to God. Let us foster a zeal for God similar to Jesus’.
God bless.
主題：對天主所懷的熱忱
今天讀的出谷紀第二十章，與及申命紀第五章，就是「十誡」的出處。出谷紀與申命紀的記載，大同小異。但大家有沒有見到第一誡、第二誡等等的分界呢？如果沒有又怎樣知道是「十誡」而不是「八誡」或者「十二誡」呢？要知道在古代，連章節甚至標點符號也沒有。試想像沒有標點和段落的第一篇讀經是甚麼樣子呢？所以，把一堆密密麻麻的文字合理地分成「十誡」，一定是前人努力的成果。「十」是一個完滿的數目字，天主頒佈的法律當然是完美的，所以是「十誡」而不是其他數目。請大家留意在訂定誡命這件事上，有天人的合作。除了天主賜予誡命之外，人也有份參予釐訂。天主賜下誡命，人訂十誡。
雖然耶穌來到世上建立新約來取代舊約，但耶穌無意廢除舊約的法律。例如：當富少年問耶穌如何纔能獲得永生時，耶穌首先詢問他遵守誡命的情況，可見耶穌無意廢除舊約的法律。反而他是來使法律完滿。例如：在山中聖訓，耶穌就提昇了舊的法律。且看讀經一的最後一句【出20:17】。這誡命把妻子看待如婢女牛驢一樣，是男人的財產的一部份；所以對別人的妻子起淫念祗算是貪財，貪心沒有甚麼大不了。這樣，簡直在貶抑女性作為一個人的地位。
耶穌在瑪竇福音第五章論述「不可姦淫」的時候，把誡命的適用範圍擴闊到包括對女性起淫念。耶穌不把女性當作物件或者財產，而是有尊嚴的人。教會秉承耶穌的教導，把近人的妻子從婢女牛驢中抽起，為她們劃分了獨立的一條誡命，就是第九誡，「毋願他人妻」。
出谷紀二十章所記載的誡命，是天主與以色列人締結「西乃山盟約」的條款的一部份。天主在萬民中，揀選了以色列民族作為祂的特殊產業，要特別優待他們；而以色列人要履行的義務就是聽從天主的話，遵守天主的誡命與及由誡命所引申的其他法律，共613條。這些誡命和法律帶有以色列的文化特色，基督徒是不會照單全收，而是按照耶穌的教訓而有所提昇。剛纔提及的第九誡就是其中一個例子。又例如梅瑟准許離婚，但天主教徒的婚姻就是不可拆散的。
許多人誤會了星期日是安息日，因為星期日放假。其實，安息日是周末，一周的最後一天。因為天主用了六日創造天地，在第七日休息，並祝聖了第七日為安息日。星期日Sunday，是崇拜太陽的日子，是一周的第一天。因為耶穌在一周的第一天復活了。所以基督徒稱星期日為主日，慶祝耶穌的復活。公元第四世紀起，基督宗教成為羅馬帝國的國教，當然在主日放假了。因此，基督信徒不是守安息日，而是奉星期日為聖日，舉行彌撒，慶祝耶穌基督死而復活的逾越奧蹟。所以第三誡不是「守安息日」，而是「守瞻禮主日」。
除了十誡之外，天主教徒還有聖教四規，領聖體前又要守聖體齋，又要先辦妥告解，結婚又一定要在聖堂行禮，死後要葬在天主教墳場；四旬期又要拜苦路，聖母月玫瑰月又要唸玫瑰經等等這麼多繁文縟節。其實，天主所啟示的誡命，目的在於按步就班，由淺入深教導我們日進於德，提昇人性，幫助我們他日能分享聖三的天主性。所以，誡命、規矩是作為基督徒最低的要求，幫助我們在這個基本功之上，修德成聖，能夠與天主建立密切的關係。例如：十誡要求我們主日到聖堂望彌撒，這是最低的要求。可惜習慣了就開始麻木失去感覺，於是四出找尋不去望彌撒的藉口。例如：歌詠團唱的歌跟不上，讀經員又讀錯字，神父不是廣東話不正，就是講道沉悶。如果不是怕犯罪要辦告解，相信很多人不出半年就沒有興趣望彌撒了。這種心態實在太被動，太消極了。要建立並維持一段良好的關係，是需要付出努力，培養出一份感情，一份想親近對方的渴望。讀書如是，談戀愛如是，工作如是，愛國如是，信天主，與天主建立關係也是一樣。
試看看耶穌對天父的渴望。聖殿是天主臨在之所，耶穌是多麼渴望親近自己的父親。他十二歲就曾經離開聖母和聖若瑟，獨自留在聖殿三日三夜。今天的福音記載了耶穌清理聖殿的事蹟。這件事在門徒眼中，是耶穌應驗了聖詠69篇的預言：「我對祢殿宇所懷的熱忱，把我耗盡。」耶穌對聖殿的熱愛，導致他與猶太領袖衝突，種下禍根，為他將來的受難，埋下伏線。「耗盡」就是這個意思。
各位兄弟姊妹，我們懷有耶穌一樣的熱忱嗎？我們好像耶穌一樣非常渴望主日返聖堂親近天父嗎？非常渴望領聖體與耶穌結合為一嗎？抑或覺得返聖堂是一種負擔，有點兒麻煩呢？四旬期是皈依天主的時候。就讓我們好好地培養這份渴望親近天主的情懷。
天主保佑。
3rd Sunday of Lent (Year B)
Theme: The zeal for God
The Exodus 20 we read today and Deuteronomy 5 are the basis of our “10 Commandments”. Both versions are very similar. But do you see the numbering of 1st Commandment and 2nd Commandment etc.? No. Then how do we know that there are only 10 Commandments and not 8 or 12? In ancient time, there were not even punctuation marks or paragraphing. Imagine what it would be like if the 1st reading today were printed without punctuation marks and paragraphing. Therefore, delimiting a string of alphabets into a reasonably meaningful “10 Commandments” must be the fruit of the toil of some ancient people. 10 was regarded a perfect number in ancient time. Without doubt, the law of God must be perfect. Therefore, the number of Commandments cannot be anything but 10. Notice that there was a God-man cooperation in this incident. Besides the bestowal of Commandments by God, men took part in delimiting them. God gave the Commandments. We make them 10.
Even though Jesus came to establish the New Testament to replace the Old one, Jesus had no intention to abolish the laws in the Old Testament. For example, when the rich young man asked Jesus what to do to attain eternal life, Jesus asked about how he had observed the commandments. From this, we conclude that Jesus had no intention to abolish the laws in the Old Testament. Moreover, Jesus came to fulfil the Law. For example, in the discourse of the Beatitudes, Jesus elevated the Old laws. Let’s read the last verse in the 1st reading (Exodus 20:17). This commandment put wives among the manservants, maidservants, oxen and asses. Wives were part of the property of husbands. Therefore, lust counted as greed and greed was no big deal. The status of woman as a human person was trampled upon.
When Jesus discusses the Commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, he extended its application to include lust. Jesus did not treat a woman as an object, as a piece of goods. He treats her as a person with dignity. Following the teaching of Jesus, the Church removed the neighbour’s wife from servants, oxen and asses and gave her an independent commandment. It is the 9th Commandment, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife.”
The commandments in Exodus 20 were a portion of articles stipulated in the Sinai Covenant between God and the Israelites. Among the peoples on earth, God chose Israel to be his own possession and gave them special privileges. In return, the Israelites would obey God, keep the commandments and laws derived from these commandments, 613 in total. These commandments and laws carry the cultural characteristics of Israel. We Christians cannot take them over without modification. We upgrade them according to the teaching of Jesus. The 9th Commandment we mentioned previously is one such example. Another example is that Moses allows divorce whereas Christian marriages are indissoluble.
Many people mistake Sunday for Sabbath because Sunday is a holiday. In fact, Sabbath is the last day of a week because God spent 6 days to create the world and rested on the 7th day. He consecrated the 7th day to be the Sabbath. Sunday was the day to worship the sun, the first day of the week. On the first day of the week, Jesus came back to life. Therefore, Christians call Sunday, the Lord’s Day to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus. Since the 4th century when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, Sunday had become a holiday. Therefore, Christians do not keep the Sabbath holy. They keep Sunday instead. On Sunday, they offer masses to celebrate the Paschal mystery of the passion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the 3rd Commandment is not “Keep the Sabbath holy”, but “Keep Sunday holy”.
Besides the 10 Commandments, there are many rules and regulations for Catholics to follow. For example, there are 4 precepts of the Church, the one-hour fast before Communion, Confession before Communion, marriage in the Church, burial in Catholic cemetery, Stations of the Cross in Lent, Rosaries in the months of May and October etc. In fact, the purpose God reveals the commandments is to help bring about our sanctification step by step, from shallow to deep; and to elevate our humanity so that we may partake in the divinity of the Blessed Trinity in the end. Therefore, these commandments and rules are minimum requirements only. They are the foundation upon which we build up our sanctification and establish an intimate relationship with God. For example, the obligation to attend Sunday masses. This is only a minimum requirement. Unfortunately, when we get used to it, we begin to feel bored and lose the feeling. So, we actively seek excuses not to at attend mass. For example, the songs the choir sings are difficult to follow; the lectors mispronounce; the Cantonese of the priests is poor and their homilies are boring. Had we not been forced to follow the rules lest we had to do confession, I am afraid many of us would not have had any motivation to attend masses after six months. This kind of mentality is too passive and negative. In order to establish and maintain a good relationship, we need to put up effort, to cultivate a passion, a desire to come close to the other party. It is true for studies, for dating, for work and for patriotism. Believing in God and building a close relationship with God is not different from the other relationships.
See how much Jesus desired to be in the presence of his heavenly Father. The Temple was the visible presence of God. Jesus longed for coming close to his Father. When he was 12, he did not follow the BVM and St. Joseph home but stayed behind in the Temple for 3 days and 3 nights. In the story of the cleansing of the Temple, the disciples saw the fulfilment of Psalm 69, “Zeal for thy house shall consume me.” (John 2:17) Jesus’ passion for the Temple made him clash with the Jewish authority. This antagonism led to his Passion in the future. This is the meaning of “consume me”.
Dear brethren, do we harbour such zeal as Jesus? Do we long for coming back to Church on Sundays to come close to our heavenly Father? Do we desire to receive the Holy Communion to be in union with Christ? Or do we feel going to Church is a burden, is troublesome? Lent is a season to turn back to God. Let us foster a zeal for God similar to Jesus’.
God bless.
Sunday, 1 March 2015
Was there fatherly love when Abraham offered Isaac?
In his younger days, my father had to work more than 12 hours a day as a shopkeeper to earn a living for the family. When I went to school in the morning, he was not yet out of bed. When he returned from work, I was already sound asleep. I grew up like children from single-parent families. Somehow, I was badly in need of a father-figure in my later life. Even when I became a father myself, my wife kept complaining that I was too emotionally distant from the children. I have to admit that it is something beyond my control no matter how deeply I love my children. Of course, in time I have changed and my children have matured.
I cannot imagine the trauma Isaac suffered when Abraham offered him as a holocaust to the Lord (Genesis 22). Compared with Abraham and Jacob, Isaac was scantly reported. His story is less dramatic, lacks lustre and is rather uneventful. Most likely, Isaac suffered from Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder and led a rather withdrawn life. Isaac experienced no fatherly love from Abraham. Compared with Abraham who had more than 75 years of friendship with the Lord and whom the letter to the Hebrews explains that he believed God would raise the dead (Hebrews 11:19), Isaac suffered more because he was no more than 7 years old, less than one tenth in length of his father's relationship with God. The trauma was too harsh for Isaac to bear. Some theologians brush aside the feelings of both Abraham and Isaac; and try to explain that God wants to make use of this incident to abolish the practice of human sacrifice. Though Yahweh does not demand human sacrifice, other deities do. Even kings burned their first-born sons, who were supposed to inherit the throne, to invoke the help of their gods (e.g. 2Kings 3:27). Therefore, human sacrifice was too deep-seated a custom for an Abraham story to abolish.
I used to explain away the story by arguing that the Jewish author wanted to boast that Abraham their ancestor passed God's test with flying colours. God's test was an occasion for Abraham to show off his faith in God. So, the trauma Isaac suffered was neither the fault of God, nor that of Abraham. It was irrelevant to the story. My thesis gains support from Paul's lips. He said that God did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all (Romans 8:32). Why did God not spare his own Son? For a Jewish Paul, Abraham would "defeat" God if God did not outdo him by giving Jesus up to be crucified by the Romans. Therefore, the salvation project was a contest story between God and Abraham. Love is not a crucial element in the equation of this contest story. Faith is. Man's faith in God and God's faith in man. So far, I have not yet discovered a better answer which gives LOVE a more prominent place in the equation.
In Chinese history, there is also a famous story in which a father sacrificed his own son to save the orphan of his lord 趙氏孤兒. The story came alive in drama and was translated into French, L'Orphelin de la Maison de Tchao. Here, loyalty and justice dominate the scene. Love is barely mentioned. In God's story, love occupies the whole scene. God is love. Of course God loves His Son and His creatures, in particular, man the crowning jewel of His creation. The Son also loves the Father and thus sacrifice himself to fulfil the will of His Father. In the human stories, the sons did not sacrifice themselves out of their free will. There is something higher, be it faith or loyalty, than fatherly love in the human sacrifice stories.
Dear Lord, I marvel at how in you, love overwrites justice. Amen.
I cannot imagine the trauma Isaac suffered when Abraham offered him as a holocaust to the Lord (Genesis 22). Compared with Abraham and Jacob, Isaac was scantly reported. His story is less dramatic, lacks lustre and is rather uneventful. Most likely, Isaac suffered from Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder and led a rather withdrawn life. Isaac experienced no fatherly love from Abraham. Compared with Abraham who had more than 75 years of friendship with the Lord and whom the letter to the Hebrews explains that he believed God would raise the dead (Hebrews 11:19), Isaac suffered more because he was no more than 7 years old, less than one tenth in length of his father's relationship with God. The trauma was too harsh for Isaac to bear. Some theologians brush aside the feelings of both Abraham and Isaac; and try to explain that God wants to make use of this incident to abolish the practice of human sacrifice. Though Yahweh does not demand human sacrifice, other deities do. Even kings burned their first-born sons, who were supposed to inherit the throne, to invoke the help of their gods (e.g. 2Kings 3:27). Therefore, human sacrifice was too deep-seated a custom for an Abraham story to abolish.
I used to explain away the story by arguing that the Jewish author wanted to boast that Abraham their ancestor passed God's test with flying colours. God's test was an occasion for Abraham to show off his faith in God. So, the trauma Isaac suffered was neither the fault of God, nor that of Abraham. It was irrelevant to the story. My thesis gains support from Paul's lips. He said that God did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all (Romans 8:32). Why did God not spare his own Son? For a Jewish Paul, Abraham would "defeat" God if God did not outdo him by giving Jesus up to be crucified by the Romans. Therefore, the salvation project was a contest story between God and Abraham. Love is not a crucial element in the equation of this contest story. Faith is. Man's faith in God and God's faith in man. So far, I have not yet discovered a better answer which gives LOVE a more prominent place in the equation.
In Chinese history, there is also a famous story in which a father sacrificed his own son to save the orphan of his lord 趙氏孤兒. The story came alive in drama and was translated into French, L'Orphelin de la Maison de Tchao. Here, loyalty and justice dominate the scene. Love is barely mentioned. In God's story, love occupies the whole scene. God is love. Of course God loves His Son and His creatures, in particular, man the crowning jewel of His creation. The Son also loves the Father and thus sacrifice himself to fulfil the will of His Father. In the human stories, the sons did not sacrifice themselves out of their free will. There is something higher, be it faith or loyalty, than fatherly love in the human sacrifice stories.
Dear Lord, I marvel at how in you, love overwrites justice. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)