主題：誰是這個「拉匝祿」？
為充滿「正義感」的讀者，他們會覺得富翁罪有應得，因為他為富不仁，鐵石心腸。雖然坐擁巨富，卻沒有為身邊的窮人解困。路加的故事，大快人心。路加的寫作優美，他並不用先知的咆哮口吻，並沒有把富翁「妖魔化」，亦沒有痛罵富翁的為富不仁。路加祗是客觀地對比富翁和拉匝祿：一個身穿紫紅袍細麻布，另一個祗有瘡痍作他的衣服；一個奢華宴樂，另一個連桌上掉下的碎屑也沒有。雖然沒有明顯說出，相信富翁身邊一定有不少人擁著他，最少也有五個兄弟罷。反觀拉匝祿，祗有狗隻陪伴著他，舐他的傷口，給他一點安慰。讀到這裡，你還需要對富翁，破口大罵嗎？
很奇怪，富翁在陰間，竟然還有一點兒愛心，關心到自己的兄弟，擔心他們也會淪落到好像他一樣的地步。富翁已超越了後悔的階段，他還會為自己的兄弟設想。那麼，他這微末的愛心，足夠拯救他脫離陰間嗎？這個問題，我暫時沒有足夠的神學可以答覆。在亞巴郎的觀念中，那裡有一個不能逾越的深淵（路16：26）。難道這深淵可隔絕天主的慈悲嗎？天主的慈悲是我們可以理解的嗎？到了陰間就不能逆轉了嗎？
說到這裡，各位可能會發覺到富翁竟然是無名無姓的，反而一個乞丐竟然有名字，而且是耶穌所愛的朋友的名字（若11:3）！為甚麼呢？是否路加覺得不值得為這個富翁取一個名字嗎？在默想福音教訓的時候，我們難免會不知不覺對人物下了判斷，這也是講故事者的目的。所以我們自然會把為富不仁與沒有名字掛鉤。富翁當然有自己的名字，但財富迷塞了他的心，令他迷失了自己的身份，迷失了自己與天主的關係，忘記了自己是誰。這個反省非常好，而且符合猶太的文化背景。因為在舊約中，沒有了名字，就好像沒有存在的價值一樣。例如：巴特舍巴與達味通姦所生的兒子，出生後七日，未及改名已經死了（撒下12:15）。
當然不是開玩笑，而是一個溫馨提示：乞丐是主耶穌的好朋友，既是主的好朋友，基督徒應該要善待他們。瑪竇福音第廿五章，更把這基督徒的愛心推前一步，乞丐就是主耶穌！既然是主耶穌自己，基督徒就應該要服事祂。聖德蘭修女是這樣說的：「今天，耶穌的苦難在受苦的人的生命中重現。受苦決不是懲罰。天主並不懲罰。」(http://www.suffering.net/servmo-t.htm)
今天，耶穌已復活了。耶穌在那裡？給我們看見，我們便相信。不要告訴我耶穌現在坐在天上，因為天上有佛祖，有玉皇大帝和觀音。如果信耶穌的話，為甚麼不信觀音？對！耶穌復活了，而且祂許諾天天與我們在一起，直到世界的終結（瑪28:20）。我們現在還未在天上，雖然耶穌升了天，但耶穌因著祂的許諾，仍然留在世上。在哪？耶穌又說：「凡你們對我這些最小兄弟的一個所做的，就是對我做的。」（25:40）即是說，耶穌就在最小兄弟的身上；更好說，耶穌就是那些飢渴、無衣、無家、有病、被囚和被遺棄的人。耶穌既然可以為了愛我們，真實地臨現在聖體聖事之中滋養我們，沒有理由不能臨現在受苦的人之中，一再為愛我們而受難！這些受苦的耶穌，為我們而飢渴、無衣、無家；為我們患病、被囚和被遺棄，不就是故事中的拉匝祿嗎？原來拉匝祿，就是耶穌。
你還可以像那富翁一樣，看見了拉匝祿，那個復活了的，卻為了他而一再受苦的耶穌，無動於衷嗎？慈悲禧年尚餘兩個月，快抓緊時間，去服事我們的主耶穌基督。
這個反省固然好，但路加寫了那麼多的比喻，倘若為每個故事中的人物取一個名字，未免太麻煩了；而且角色眾多，增加了讀者閱讀的困難，反為不美。所以我們不應問為甚麼富翁沒有名字，我們反而要問為甚麼路加為乞丐取個名字，而且取了耶穌所愛的朋友的名字。給他開玩笑嗎？
富翁與亞巴郎的對話中，也揭示了這個耶穌在受苦的人身上受苦的思想。富翁希望亞巴郎打發拉匝祿回去警告他的五個兄弟（路16:27）。打發拉匝祿還陽復活，亞巴郎豈不是天主？亞巴郎甚麼時候變成了天主？這真是很有趣的課題。今天姑且放下，有機會再談。不過，路加是保祿的門徒，他承襲了保祿的思想，就是復活是有次序的，「不過各人要依照自己的次第：首先是為初果的基督，然後是在基督再來時屬於基督的人。」（格前15:23）因此，拉匝祿是不會復活去警告富翁的五個兄弟，而是基督。路加寫福音在耶穌復活之後，所以亞巴郎所說的「縱使有人從死者中復活了」（路16:31），不是「縱使」，而是「真的」。耶穌的復活，祗感化到部份聽從梅瑟和先知的猶太人，對當代大部份對梅瑟和先知無動於衷的猶太人，耶穌的復活沒有說服到他們。
天主保祐。
Twenty Sixth Ordinary Sunday (Year C)
Theme: Who is this Lazarus?
For readers who are passionate about "justice", they will feel that the rich man deserved hell because he was callous. He had a heart of stone. Although he possessed huge treasures, he did not relieve his poor neighbour of their plights. Luke's story is uplifting. Luke wrote gracefully. He did not bark like prophets, nor did he demonize the rich man. He did not scold him for his indifference. He only contrasts objectively the situations of the rich man and Lazarus: one "was clothed in purple and fine linen" and the other was clothed, was "full of sores"; one "feasted sumptuously every day" while the other did not even have "what fell from the rich man's table". Though not explicitly written, I believe that the rich man must have been surrounded by many people, at least his five brothers. Look at Lazarus, only dogs gave him company, licking his sores to comfort him. After reading up to here, do you need to vent your anger against the rich man?
Surprising, the rich man was able to show some charity in Hades. He cared about his brothers and worried that they would end up in Hades like him. The rich man had passed beyond regret. He was able to think about his brothers. Then, would this little charity be sufficient to deliver him out of Hades? At the moment, I do not have enough theology to answer this question. In the mind of Abraham, there was an unsurpassable chasm between them (Luke 16:26). Could this chasm separate us from the mercy of the Father? Do we understand enough God's mercy? Is landing in Hades irreversible?
Up to here, perhaps you may notice the anonymity of the rich man. In contrast, the beggar had a name, even the name of the friend whom Jesus loved (John 11:3)! Why? Did Luke think it not worthwhile to give the rich man a name? In meditating the teaching of this story, we will inevitably and imperceptibly pass judgment on the characters. This is one of the purposes of storytelling. Thus we will naturally link up the callousness of the rich man and his anonymity. Of course the rich man had a name. But his heart was smothered by wealth. Consequently he lost his identity and his relationship with God. He even forgot who he was. This reflection is commendable and compatible with Jewish culture. It is because in the Old Testament, a person without a name seemed not worth living at all. For example, the baby born out of adultery between Bathsheba and David died within seven days without a name (2 Samuel 12:15).
Of course he was not joking. Rather, it is a gentle reminder: the beggar is a good friend of Lord Jesus. As the Lord's good friends, Christians should treat the beggar well. Matthew 25 pushes this Christian charity even further. The beggar is Lord Jesus! Since he is Lord Jesus himself, Christians should serve him. St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta said, "Today the passion of Christ is being relived in the lives of those who suffer. Suffering is not a punishment. God does not punish." (http://www.suffering.net/servmo-t.htm)
The dialogue between Abraham and the rich man also reveals this idea of Jesus' presence among the suffering. The rich man wanted Abraham to send Lazarus back to warn his five brothers (Luke 16:27). Sending Lazarus back to life, wouldn't Abraham be God? When did Abraham become God? This is an interesting topic. Let us handle it later in another occasion. But Luke was a disciple of Paul. He inherited the idea of Paul. That is there is an order of resurrection. "But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ." (1 Corinthians 15:23) Thus, Lazarus would not come back to life to warn the five brothers of the rich man. Christ would. Luke wrote after the resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, when Abraham said, "... if someone should rise from the dead" (Luke 16:31), it is not "if someone should ..." but "someone is really ..." The resurrection of Jesus could only convert some Jews who listened to Moses and the prophets. For most of the contemporary Jews who were not touched by Moses and the prophets, Jesus' resurrection did not convince them.
Today, Jesus is already risen. Where is Jesus? Show me and I shall believe. But don't tell me that Jesus is now sitting in heavens. It is because there are also Buddha, the Jade Emperor and Avalokiteśvara. If we believe in Jesus, why don't we believe in Avalokiteśvara? Right! Jesus is risen and he promises to stay with us until the end of the age (Matthew 28:20). We are not yet in heavens. Although Jesus has ascended into heavens, because of his promise, he still stays on earth. Where? Jesus also said, "As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me." (25:40) That is to say, Jesus is present among the least of these. Better still, Jesus is the hungry, thirsty, naked, homeless, sick, imprisoned and abandoned. Since out of love, he is present in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist to nourish us, there is no reason why he cannot be present among the suffering, to love us and suffer for us once more. Aren't these suffering Jesus's, who are hungry, thirsty, naked, homeless, sick, imprisoned and abandoned for us Lazarus? Lazarus is Jesus.
Can you, like the rich man who saw Lazarus, the risen Jesus in disguise who relived suffering for him, not be touched? Only two months are left in the Jubilee of Mercy. Seize the moment to serve our Lord Jesus Christ.
This reflection is good but Luke had written many parables. If he gave each character a name, wouldn't it be troublesome? Moreover, readers would find it difficult to navigate among so many names, thus decreasing the readability. Therefore, we should not ask why the rich man did not have a name. Rather, we should ask why Luke gave the beggar a name, even the name of a man whom Jesus loved. Was Luke joking?
God bless.
No comments:
Post a Comment