四旬期第五主日，乙年
主題：憐愛猶達斯
這段沒有公開彌撒的日子，有很多慣常的工作都不能做，都生疏了，例如在彌撒中襄禮、講道和歌詠。於是趁不用在講壇上講道，每主日彌撒讀經的反省，可以毫無顧忌地試探神學的底線，可以想多一點福音的教訓與社會時事的關係…甚麼是我的信仰呢？
第一，天主憐憫罪人，祂派遣聖子救贖世界，並沒有走捷徑，而是用釘十字架的方式。「當我從地上被舉起來時，便要吸引眾人來歸向我。」（若12:32）耶穌基督不但為了我這個罪人釘十字架，為我所關心愛護的人，也為傷害我的人和我不喜歡的人釘十字架。因此，我不能排斥那些我不喜歡的人，包括我的仇人。
第二，耶穌基督不單死在十字架上，祂以言以行，示範了祂的教訓。祂的教訓就是「你們該彼此相愛，如同我愛了你們。」（13:34）所以祂愛那個想盡辦法置祂於死地的大司祭、那些與他作對的法利塞人、宗教權貴、政治權貴…還包括猶達斯。作為耶穌基督的門徒，我也要愛那些對我不利的人。
耶穌憐愛罪人的例子俯拾皆是，例如在十字架上，祂求天父寬恕殺害祂的人（路23:34）。至於猶達斯，耶穌怎樣具體地憐愛他呢？
今天讀的福音章節的前段，講述耶穌復活拉匝祿之後，在伯達尼的晚宴上，拉匝祿的姊妹瑪利亞用香液敷抹耶穌的腳，並用自己的頭髮擦乾（若12:3）。看見這個情景，猶達斯表示不滿，覺得不如賣了香液，把所得的錢賙濟窮人（12:5）。可惜在若望的筆下，猶達斯「是個賊，掌管錢囊，常偷取其中所存放的」（12:6）。死無對證，我們不能排除若望的描述，感情用事，影響了描述的客觀性。但毫無疑問，他這樣寫，完全可以代表當時所有信徒對猶達斯的印象。與現代人不同，在當時，同情一個賣主求榮的叛徒，是一件不可想像的事！
此外，按瑪竇福音的記載，耶穌在被捕的一刻，還稱呼猶達斯為朋友，對他說：「朋友，你來做的事，就做吧！」（瑪26:50）真奇怪，猶達斯還有甚麼事未做呢？他已口親耶穌，不是已經完成了任務嗎（26:48-49）？的確，出賣的任務是完成了，但猶達斯還沒有做的事，餘下兩件：退還三十塊銀錢，然後自殺！耶穌的話，好像鼓勵自己的隊員分頭行事，無論如何，也要徹底地完成來到世上的任務一樣！
可是，耶穌怎可以鼓勵他人自殺呢？豈不違反基本的倫理立場嗎？耶穌基督是天主子，雖然祂的行為是殉道的行為，與自殺無異，但祂死了可以復活。祂是生命的主宰，對於自己的生命，祂「有權捨掉它，也有權再取回它來」（若10:18）。但猶達斯不是天主子，沒有能力自我復活。鼓勵他去徹底完成任務，並不保證他「有權」復活。這「鼓勵」若不是為了一個高超的目的，不能滿足道德的要求，所以用「鼓勵」來理解這句經文，是有問題的！
且慢，耶穌基督的教訓，不是鼓勵我們「捨生取義」嗎？「愛惜自己性命的，必要喪失性命；在現世憎恨自己性命的，必要保存性命入於永生」（12:25）以功利主義的角度作長遠想，犧牲小我，完成大我是值得的。在造福大多數人的前題下，自殺是符合倫理的要求。可是，這祇是功利主義的立場，並不保證真的是符合倫理或真理的要求！而且，耶穌基督行事的模式，並不著意效益最大化。例如，倘若祂選擇過了安息日纔治病，如枯手人、胎生瞎子，既能解困，又避免了法利塞人的指摘，可謂兩全其美！但耶穌並沒有這樣做，可見耶穌不是功利主義者！不應採用功利主義解釋上述經文。
我們讀經不可以斷章取義。在之前的章節，耶穌談到「一粒麥子如果不落在地裡死了，仍祇是一粒；如果死了，纔結出許多子粒來。」（12:24）同樣，倘若以功利主義解釋，以一粒麥子比較許多子粒，恐怕又失去了耶穌基督的本意了。不如這樣考慮吧：「結出許多子粒」是潛質，祇有通過死亡，纔有機會發揮出來。沒有惡劣的環境，沒有失敗/死亡的磨練，這些潛質是發揮不來的。這就是「生於憂患，死於安樂」的正解。
我們很容易以「對比」的方式來解釋12章25節。但大家有沒有留意到「愛惜自己性命的」一句，並沒有冠之以「在現世」？所以前句後句是不對稱，不足以對比的。「愛惜自己性命的」是通用的，不但指現世，甚至包括永生！這樣的話，「必要喪失性命」不是結果，而是獲取永生的步驟！
那句「在現世憎恨自己生命的」，是否包括那些受情緒困擾而自殘的人呢？如果包括，那麼自殘，甚至自殺的人，可以「保存性命入於永生」嗎？
且讓我們退一步想。在正常的情況下，有誰願意自殘自殺呢？「因為從來沒有人恨過自己的肉身，反而培養撫育它」（弗5:29）誠然，很多時候，肉身是親近主的障礙，基督徒更情願出離肉身，與主同住（格後5:6-8）。但保祿對肉身的態度，絕對不是消極的，因為憑肉身，可以獲得工作的效果，對其他信徒是重要的（斐1:22-24）；肉身的受苦，甚至「補充基督的苦難所欠缺的」（哥1:24）。可見，這「在現世憎恨自己生命的」對基督徒的教訓，並不指需要心理輔導的自殘自殺，而是出於愛德的殉道精神！
各位兄弟姊妹，不要判斷猶達斯，也不必為猶達斯辯護，這樣做違反了與宗徒們的共融。若要辯護，主基督已經做了，不需要我們出手。倘若可以，學習怎樣憐愛猶達斯吧。
天主保祐！
2018年講道
圖片鳴謝：fineartamerica.com
Fifth Lent Sunday, Year B
Theme: Have Compassion On Judas
During these days without public masses, many of my routines have turned rusty, for example, assisting mass, delivering homilies and singing hymns etc. Taking the opportunity of not needing to deliver homilies on the pulpit, I may be able to test theological baselines and comment more on social issues in my weekly reflections on Sunday readings …What do I believe in?
First of all, God is merciful towards sinners. He sent His Son to redeem the world, not taking any shortcut but through crucifixion. “When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself” (John 12:32). Not only was Jesus Christ crucified for me, a sinner and those I love and care, but He was also crucified for those who do me harm and those I hate. Thus, I can’t reject those I don’t like, including my enemies.
Secondly, not only did Jesus die on the cross, He manifested His teaching through His words and deeds. His teaching is “Love one another as I have loved you” (13:34). Thus, He loved the High Priest who took every opportunity to kill Him, those Pharisees, religious heavyweights and politicians who opposed Him … including Judas. As a disciple of Jesus Christ, I have to love those who threaten me.
There are many examples showing Jesus’ compassion on sinners. For example, He begged the Father to forgive those who killed Him (Luke 23:34). As for Judas, how did Jesus show compassion on him?
The passage before the one we read today talks about what happened to Jesus in a banquet at Bethany after raising Lazarus whose sister Mary anointed Jesus’ feet with expensive perfume and dried them with her hair (John 12:3). Seeing this, Judas complained why not selling the perfume and giving the proceeds to the poor (12:5). Unfortunately, John describes Judas as “a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions” (12:6). We have no evidence and cannot exclude the possibility that John’s emotion has coloured the objectivity of his narration. Without doubt, John’s narration represents the impression all contemporary believers had towards Judas. Unlike the modern, it was unthinkable for disciples at that time to sympathize a traitor!
But what was Jesus’ reaction? Jesus understands the human nature well (2:25). How could He fail to know the hypocrisy of Judas? But Jesus did not expose him point-blank because doing so would trigger his determination to betray Him. Thus Jesus chose to mildly remind Judas, “You do not always have me” (12:8). The “you” in Greek is plural, not singular. It was not directed against one person. On one hand, Jesus defended Mary. On the other, He defended Judas’ face. Jesus shows the Beatific meekness to all.
Moreover, according to the Matthean account, the moment Jesus was arrested, He still called Judas friend. Jesus says, “Friend, do what you have come for.” (Matthew 26:50) Isn’t it strange? What had Judas not done? He had already kissed Jesus, finishing his mission (26:48-49)! Indeed, the betrayal mission had done. But two more things needed to be done: to return the 30 silver coins and to commit suicide! Jesus’ words seem to encourage His team member to clean up what they were sent to accomplish on earth!
But how could Jesus encourage people to kill themselves? Doesn’t it go against basic morality? Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Although His martyrdom did not differ much from suicide, He was able to come back to life because He is the Author of Life. As for His own life, He has “power to lay it down, and power to take it up again.” (John 10:18) But Judas is not the Son of God. He does not have the power to take back his life. Encouraging him to thoroughly accomplish his mission does not guarantee that he has the power to resurrect. If this “encouragement” does not fulfil a noble course, it does not meet moral requirements. Thus it is problematic to interpret the text in terms of “encouragement”.
Wait! Doesn’t Jesus’ teaching encourage us to forsake our lives for the sake of righteousness? “Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will preserve it for eternal life.” (12:25) From a utilitarianism perspective, in the long run, there is more benefit than cost for altruistic sacrifice for a bigger cause. With the premise of contributing benefit to the majority, suicide (of the minority) meets moral requirements. But meeting the utilitarian requirements does not guarantee that it meets the requirements of morality and truth. Furthermore, the modus operandi of Jesus Christ does not maximize utility. For example, had He chosen to heal after Sabbath, like the man with a withered hand and the born bland, He would have done the best of both worlds, healing the sick without receiving complaints from the Pharisees. Yet, Jesus didn’t. He is not a utilitarian! We should not interpret the text from a utilitarian perspective.
We should also not read text out of context. Before this verse, Jesus says, “Unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit.” (12:24) Again, if we take a utilitarian approach to interpret, comparing one grain with much fruit, I’m afraid we would miss Jesus’ intention. Why don’t we try to think along this line: “produces much fruit” is a potential. Only through death could this potential have the opportunity to manifest. Without adversity, without failures and death, this potential would have no chance to develop/manifest. This should be the proper understanding of “living in adversity and die in comfort”.
We’ll easily take a comparison approach to interpret verse 25 of chapter 12. But have you ever noticed that the “whoever loves his life” does not have the “in this world” tag? The two parts are not symmetric and does not guarantee a meaningful comparison. “Whoever loves his life” is universal. Not only does it refer to life in this world but it even includes eternal life! In this way, “loses it” is not a consequence but the procedure to attain eternal life!
Does the phrase “whoever hates his life in this world” include those who mutilate themselves under mental stresses? If it does, would self-mutilation and even suicide “preserve it for eternal life”?
Let’s take a step back and meditate. Under normal circumstances, who want to mutilate themselves or kill themselves? “For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it” (Ephesians 5:29). To be candid, most of the time, our flesh is an obstacle that prevents us from approaching the Lord. Christians would rather leave the body and go home to the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:6-8). But Paul’s attitude towards the body is absolutely not negative at all. Living in the flesh means fruitful labour and more necessary for the benefit of the faithful (Philippians 1:22-24). Sufferings in flesh would be filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ. (Colossians 1:24) Thus, for Christians, this “whoever hates his life in this world” does not refer to self-mutilations which need counselling or to suicides but martyrdom out of love!
Brethren! Don’t judge Judas nor to defend him lest you breach the communion with the apostles. Had there been such a need to defend Judas, the Lord would have done it already. It’s none of your business. If you care, learn to have compassion on Judas.
God bless!
No comments:
Post a Comment