主題：耶穌試探斐理伯
四部福音從四個不同的角度，描繪出救主的容貎，使我們相信祂，從而得救。福音的作者從耶穌基督的生平，挑選出能幫助他們的教會團體成長的材料，編輯出一本反映到他們的教會團體所面對的困難的「耶穌傳」，幫助教會團體的成員，效法救主的榜樣。所以四部福音的內容是各有特色的，不是劃一的。
為甚麼說這神蹟是真實的呢？
這種解釋犯了斷章取義的毛病。首先，四部福音祗有若望記載「五餅二魚」的來源。馬爾谷和路加不是十二宗徒，不在場所以沒有記載是可理解的，但連瑪竇宗徒也沒有記載，那就有點兒奇怪了。可能瑪竇寫福音時認為這個細節不重要，沒有記載的必要。但更有可能的解釋是當時他不在附近。瑪竇可能在維持秩序，以免群眾擠擁著耶穌。倘若在場維持秩序的瑪竇也不知道這個小孩的存在，何況其他離耶穌更遠的群眾呢？他們又怎會被一個不存在的小孩所感動呢？
講完「五餅二魚」神蹟的真實性之後，讓我們反省它的重要性。「五餅二魚」的神蹟不單只証明了耶穌基督是天主子，而且這神蹟更是後來建立「聖體聖事」的綵排。
最後，讓我們來處理一個有關「試探」的議題。為甚麼耶穌要試探斐理伯呢？如果連親近耶穌的十二宗徒也受到耶穌的試探，我們這些門徒又可以怎麼辦呢？我們領聖體豈不是請耶穌來試探我們嗎？
那麼，我們應該如何理解聖經所記載的有關天主試探亞巴郎、試探約伯、耶穌試探斐理伯等故事呢？其實，與其說「試探」不如說是「考驗」。藉著這些考驗，天主讓亞巴郎、約伯和斐理伯更認識自己，加強他們的力量，去克服困難障礙，好能更愛祂。
各位兄弟姊妹，天主在我們在日常生活中給我們的各種考驗，有來自經濟資源上， 例如失業，供樓等，好像斐理伯一樣；有來自疾病健康的，好像約伯一樣；有來自親情的，好像亞巴郎所遇到的。這些考驗不是要我們表示對天主忠心，大義滅親；又或者患病是受到天主的懲罰；資源缺乏就想辦法賺錢，結果本末倒置，忘記了傳福音的使命。各位，我們有幸可以領聖體，迎接耶穌來臨我們的心中。不要妄想耶穌會幫我們供樓，耶穌會免除我們身患的絕症，或者把我們變成一個人見人愛，面面俱圓的人。讓我們感謝耶穌賜給我們的考驗，讓我們更認識了解自我。祈求耶穌聖化我們，賜我們足夠力量完成試煉。讓我們更能體驗天主對我們的慈愛。
有些事蹟祗有某一部福音有記載而其他三部沒有，例如醫治十個痲瘋病人祗有一個回來多謝耶穌，是路加的獨家記載，又或者耶穌在五餅二魚神蹟後步行海面，伯多祿也嘗試步行海面，走到耶穌面前的事蹟，是瑪竇的獨家報導。耶穌在復活後問伯多祿三次愛祂嗎，給他賠補三次背主的過錯，是若望獨有的記載。這些選材在在反映出每個作者編寫福音的目的。
有些事蹟是四部福音都一定有記載的。是哪些事蹟呢？聖誕故事？不是。對，是耶穌的受難復活，這是基督信仰的基礎。整個事蹟的大概輪廓是一致的，而細節就各有特色了。今天所聽的「五餅二魚」神蹟，都可以在四部福音找到，所以這個神蹟好像耶穌的受難復活一樣，是真實的，是重要的。
科技的進步令很多受過教育的人，認為聖經所記載的神蹟是迷信成份居多。所以部份聖經學者嘗試以科學知識去解釋聖經中的神蹟，想減少人們對基督信仰是迷信的偏見。例如BBC就製作了不少所謂「聖經之謎」的紀錄片，嘗試把聖經所記載的神蹟合理化，科學化。例如出谷紀所記載的十個災難和過紅海，BBC就以公元前一千五百年的地中海的一個島嶼上的火山爆發去解釋。至於耶穌治病的神蹟如瞎子癱子，他們都解釋成為「歇斯底里」精神病，把耶穌解釋成為一個精神病醫生。增餅的神蹟就解釋成為一個小孩子的無私，感動了全場的人也願意拿出自己所帶來的食物，與人分享，結果剩下十二籃碎塊。「五餅二魚」不是神蹟，祗不過是一個感動人心的故事而已。
首先，大家應該記得，耶穌受洗後，四十日在曠野守齋祈禱，接受魔鬼的試煉。當耶穌飢餓的時候，撒旦曾引誘耶穌把石頭變餅充飢，來証明祂是天主子。當時耶穌引用申命紀駁斥撒旦，並拒絕濫用天主子的能力。今天，耶穌把少許的五餅二魚變出足以令五千人吃飽而且有剩餘的糧食，不但滿足到世人的需要，更把撒旦教訓一頓，我們不應把天主所賜予的能力隨便濫用，而且更証明了祂的確是「天主子」。
其次，耶穌行這「五餅二魚」神蹟時所做的動作和所唸的祝謝辭，可能和在最後晚餐建立「聖體聖事」時的動作和祝謝辭是一致的。為甚麼有這個推測呢？因為耶穌復活後，用了四十天的時間召集了一百二十個信徒。他們不可能全部有份出席「最後晚餐」，見証耶穌建立聖體聖事。福音的另一處記載，耶穌復活後顯現給門徒時，他們大都認不出耶穌，直至耶穌在他們眼前擘餅，他們纔認出一路和他們同行的竟是復活的主。他們既沒有出席「最後晚餐」，惟一的可能性就是在「五餅二魚」神蹟的現場，而且不是在外圍，而是在看得到耶穌的附近。所以，「五餅二魚」的神蹟與建立「聖體聖事」是互相輝映的；一方面這神蹟可以想像為第一台露天彌撒，另一方面，這神蹟指出聖體聖事的確能滿足所有人的需要。
首先，天主是全知的，祂實在不用試探我們已知道我們對祂有多少信德，多少愛慕，正如伯多祿三次答覆耶穌詢問時所說：「主，祢原知道一切。」（若21:17）
相反，人所知的有限，因而信心有限，並且缺乏安全感。所以聖經反而記載了很多人類試探天主的事蹟。試探天主是因為缺乏信心，並為了增加安全感。天主是不需要增加信心和安全感。
今次，耶穌給斐理伯一個考驗，他表現如何呢？這事蹟反映到斐理伯是一個十分精算的人，他很快已經計算出要處理目前的局面所需要的資源：二百個德納的糧食。（v. 6:7）即二百個工作天，大概八個月，的工資。但是大家有沒有看到斐理伯其實答非所問，捉錯用神呢？耶穌是問他「從哪裡買餅？」但斐理伯卻說要二百個德納。試想想，就算有錢，也不能隨時有幾萬個餅供應給他們。當時臨急臨忙，除了天主之外，餅從哪裡來？
相對地，安德肋是個行動型，務實地想辦法處理困難的人，可是於事無補，杯水車薪。無論斐理伯如何精算，他仍算漏了天主；無論安德肋如何努力落實去解決問題，他仍要靠天主出力纔可真正解決問題。
天主保佑。
17th Ordinary Sunday (Year B)
Theme: Jesus tempted Philip
The 4 canonical gospels paint the countenance of our Saviour from 4 different perspectives so that we may believe in him and be saved. The Evangelists picked up teachings and events in the life of Jesus Christ, which helped their communities grow, to write up biographies of Jesus which reflect the difficulties the church communities met. They helped church members imitate the examples of the Saviour. Thus, we have 4 gospels with different characteristics and they are not harmonized.
Some incidents were reported by one single gospel only while the other 3 have not. E.g. the healing of 10 lepers where only one of them returned to thank Jesus is reported exclusively by Luke. When Jesus walked on the sea after the 5 loaves 2 fish miracle, only Matthew wrote about Peter’s walking on the waters towards Jesus. After resurrection, Jesus asked Peter 3 times whether he loved him more than the others to forgive his 3 denials. This is found in John alone. These examples show that each Evangelist had different intentions in writing the gospels.
Some events are recorded by all 4 gospels. Which ones? Nativity story? No. Which? Yes, the passion and resurrection of Jesus. This is the foundation of Christian faith. The overall outline is the same among the 4 gospels but the details vary. The miracle of 5 loaves and 2 fish is also found in all 4 gospels. Therefore, this miracle, like the passion and resurrection of Jesus, is authentic and important.
Why did I say the miracle is authentic?
This kind of explanation makes the mistake of reading an incident out of context. First of all, only John among the 4 gospels mentions the source of these 5 loaves and 2 fish. Mark and Luke were not the Twelve. It is understandable that they might not be on the spot. But don’t you find it strange that even Matthew does not mention? Perhaps Matthew thought that this piece of detail not worth mentioning. But a more probable explanation would be that Matthew was not in the vicinity. Perhaps he was doing crowd control to prevent people from crushing Jesus. If even Matthew, who was controlling the crowd on the spot, did not know of the existence of the boy, what about those people who were farther away from Jesus? How could they be touched by a boy whom they did not know existing?
Now let us turn to the importance of this miracle. Not only did this miracle prove that Jesus is the Son of God, but it was also a rehearsal of the subsequent institution of the Sacrament of Eucharist.
Secondly, the actions and prayer Jesus used to multiply the loaves are very likely the same as those in the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Why do we have this hypothesis? After resurrection, Jesus spent 40 days to call back 120 believers. It is impossible for all 120 of them to attend the Last Supper to witness the institution of the Eucharist. In another story, when Jesus appeared to the disciples after resurrection, they could not recognize him until he broke the bread before their eyes. Only then could they realize that the resurrected Lord had accompanied them all along the way. Since they had not attended the Last Supper, the only possibility for them to know the gestures was that they were present at the miracle of multiplication of loaves. They were on the spot, not at the perimeter but close enough to be able to see Jesus. Therefore, the multiplication miracle and the institution of the Eucharist are tightly coupled. On one hand, the miracle could be thought of as the first open air mass. On the other hand, this miracle shows that the Eucharist can satisfy the need of all.
Lastly, let us deal with the issue of temptation. Why did Jesus tempt Philip? If Jesus tempted even the Twelve who were close to him, what shall we, ordinary believers, do? When we receive the Holy Communion, are we inviting Jesus to come into us to tempt us?
Then how shall we understand the temptation stories of Abraham, Job and Philip? Indeed, it would be better to speak of tests rather than temptations. With these tests, God lets Abraham, Job and Philip know themselves better, to empower them to overcome difficulties and obstacles so as to love Him better.
Dear brethren, God gives us different kinds of tests in our daily life. Some are financial, like unemployment and mortgage, similar to the one which Philip handled; some are health and sickness like those of Job’s and some are relational like that of Abraham’s. These tests do not demand us to kill our children to prove our loyalty; or to suffer sickness as punishments from God; or in view of the lack of resources, to make more money instead of the mission of evangelization. Brethren, we are blessed to be able to receive the Holy Communion, to invite Jesus to come into our hearts. Do not fantasize that Jesus would come to redeem your flats, to heal you of your incurable diseases or to make you an all-rounding likeable person. Let us rather thank Jesus for giving us these tests, to let us know ourselves better. Pray to Jesus to sanctify us, to give us enough strength to complete these trials. Let us cherish better God’s mercy on us.
The advance in technology makes educated people think that the miracles recorded in the Bible were superstitions. Therefore, some biblical scholars try to explain biblical miracles in scientific terms to lessen people’s prejudice of Christianity being superstitious. For example, BBC has produced many “Mysteries of the Bible” documentaries, trying to make biblical miracles more reasonable and scientific. BBC made use of a volcanic eruption on an island in the Mediterranean Sea in 1500 B.C. to explain away the 10 plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea in Exodus. As for the healing miracles of Jesus, such as the blind and the paralytic, they explained that those were hysteria symptoms. Jesus became a faith healer, a psychiatrist. This miracle of multiplication of loaves is an edifying touching story in which the action of an altruistic boy so moved the whole crowd that people surrendered and shared the food they had brought. Consequently, 12 baskets of leftover were collected. The 5 loaves and 2 fish is not a miracle. It is only an edifying morality story.
Firstly, as you all know, after baptism, Jesus stayed in the wilderness for 40 days to fast, pray and to receive temptations from the Devil. When Jesus was hungry, Satan persuaded Jesus to turn stones into bread to prove that he was the Son of God. At that time, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy to refute Satan. The Son of God refused to abuse his power. Today, Jesus made use of a small amount of bread to feed 5000 people with surplus. Not only is Jesus able to provide for our physical needs, but he also rebuts Satan that we should not abuse the powers God bestows on us. Moreover, this multiplication of loaves proves that Jesus is truly the Son of God.
First of all, God is omniscient. It is truly unnecessary for God to tempt us in order to know how much we believe in Him, we love Him. Like Peter who answered Jesus 3 times, “Lord you know all things. You know that I love you.” (John 21:17)
On the contrary, what man can know is finite, thus our faith is finite and we lack a sense of security. Actually, we find in the Bible more stories of men tempting God than vice versa. We test God because of a lack of faith and to enhance our sense of security. God does not need to increase faith and a sense of security.
So, how did Philip fare in this test? This incident shows that Philip was apt at calculation. He was able to calculate very quickly how much was needed to deal with the situation: 200 denarii worth of bread (v. 6:7). 200 denarii were the wages of 200 days, about 8 months. But have you noticed that Philip did not answer the question correctly, that he misunderstood the question? Jesus asked him where to buy bread but Philip answered 200 denarii. Just think about it, even if you had the money, you would not have tens of thousands of loaves immediately ready to distribute. At such a short notice, besides God, where can you get the amount of loaves?
In comparison, Andrew was an action man who handled difficult situations in a pragmatic way. Unfortunately, the problem was too huge for him. No matter how well Philip calculated, he left out God in his calculation. No matter how hard Andrew tried to solve a problem, he still needed God to really solve the problem.
God bless.
No comments:
Post a Comment