Let the Dead Bury Their Dead 任憑死人去埋葬自己的死人

Thirteenth Ordinary Sunday, Year C
Theme: Let the Dead Bury Their Dead 任憑死人去埋葬自己的死人

The first impression, which one gets from Jesus’ reply to the second aspirant in the gospel reading today, is rather offensive. We should give the man a benefit of doubt that his father had actually died. Then how could Jesus be so insensible to the filial piety of a man towards his father?
Let’s put the incident in context. Jesus had made the second prediction of His imminent Passover and started heading towards Jerusalem. His movements were closely monitored by the Jewish Sanhedrin as well as the crowd. Everybody was anxiously anticipating the coming of the Messiah. John the Baptist had been a likely candidate but he had openly denied (Luke 3:15-16). Then Jesus came along like a whirlwind with miracles and authoritative teachings. In the eyes of the contemporary Jews, Jesus of Nazareth would most likely be the Anointed One! That probably explains why some people, very likely opportunists, ventured to follow Him. Jesus did not reject them outright but clearly advised them to weigh soberly the costs and benefits of following Him (14:26-33). So He told the first aspirant, “Foxes have dens and birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to rest his head.” (9:58)

The third aspirant also wanted to follow Jesus but added a condition: “I will follow you, Lord, but let me say farewell to my family at home.” (9:61) Well, that looked pretty good because he seemed to be determined to cut off his family ties for good. The first reading today tells a similar story about Elisha whom Elijah threw his cloak on him to make Elisha a prophet to succeed him (1 Kings 19:16, 19). Elisha left his twelve pairs of oxen and requested Elijah to allow him to say farewell to his parents and Elijah consented (19:20) But Jesus told the third aspirant, “No one who sets a hand to the plough and looks to what was left behind is fit for the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:62) Jesus seemed to be more demanding than Elijah and again being insensible. But on a second thought, we find that Jesus had not forbidden the aspirant from saying farewell to his family. He simply and mildly reminded the aspirant not to look back after saying farewell. Otherwise, the aspirant would be carrying a burden which would hinder his mission in the kingdom of God. Neither did Jesus disapprove Elijah’s action of allowing Elisha to return home to say farewell. It was because Elisha slaughtered the oxen, used the ploughing equipment for fuel to boil their flesh and gave it to the people to eat. Then he followed Elijah as his attendant. (1 Kings 19:21) Elisha had set a very clear example of total cut-off from the past for all would-be Christians.

It’s high time we turned to the second aspirant. Actually, that person was not yet an aspirant. Among the three, he did not take the opportunity to approach Jesus to show his intention of becoming a disciple. It was Jesus who took the initiative to call him. Of course, the Lord is always the one who initiates the call. Our vocation originates from Him. He once says, “It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain.” (John 15:16) Perhaps the person was not yet ready and he politely declined Jesus’ invitation. “Lord, let me go first and bury my father.” (Luke 9:59). It didn’t matter whether the father was still alive and the person made use of his father as an excuse to decline Jesus’ invitation. When a person is not ready, he is not ready and Jesus respects our freedom however stupid our decisions are. He would and could never impose His will upon us. Therefore, perhaps we have misunderstood Jesus’ intended meaning of “Let the dead bury their dead. But you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God” (9:60) and blamed Him for being insensible to the person’s filial piety to his father. Let us meditate further.

In my meditation, I see that it is a choice between life and death! The potential aspirant focused on his filial responsibility but Jesus lay before him a choice between life, i.e. to proclaim the kingdom of God, and death, i.e. to fulfil his filial responsibility in this case. But you may object. You may think that at most, it is a choice between a good and a better good. How can it be a choice between life and death?
Alas! Woe to us who have spent so lengthy a time in a stinking environment that we are no longer able to smell the disgusting odour anymore. As a Chinese aphorism goes, “Like living inside a warehouse of dried abalone, one doesn’t smell the stink after some time!” It is a temptation to lower our alert and get used to slow poisoning of life!

Don’t take me wrong. Filial piety is not evil but whenever we push something good to the extreme or to the exclusion of a better good or the common good, virtues can become stumbling blocks. For example, in ancient China, encouraging widows to remain celibate was good for the purpose of advocating chastity in a community and raising its moral milieu. It was edifying for the community as a whole. However, when it is pushed to the extreme, morality becomes oppressive instead of edifying, and chastity becomes a smothering death and is evil. Tradition is NOT always good. When it becomes “man-eating” instead of “soul-building”, tradition is evil and it has become a tradition of the dead for the dead.
Let’s take a look at the gospels to see how men turned tradition into man-eating. The first Psalms advises people not to stay in the company of the wicked. It lays before the readers a choice between life and death. “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, nor stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in company with scoffers. Rather, the law of the Lord is his joy; and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted near streams of water …” (Psalms 1:1-3) However, the Jewish authority accused Jesus of dining with tax-collectors and sinners (Luke 5:30). Take another example. The tradition of Sabbath observance celebrates the liberation of humanity from slavery. It is good and edifying. But out of jealousy, Jewish authority made use of this tradition to accuse Jesus of breaching Moses’ law when Jesus cured on Sabbath days! Which is edifying, curing illnesses or observing Sabbath?

In ancient times, Chinese emperors advocated filial piety because of its corollary: loyalty to the emperor! Filial piety was pushed to the extreme so that absolute obedience, even to death, was demanded of children and court officials. One of the ten unpardonable crimes is filial impiety! Was this soul-building or man-eating? Judge for yourself. Was this a tradition of life or of death?
On the other hand, in the kingdom of God, everyone enjoys the freedom of full manifestation of his image of God which has been tarnished by sins in this world. Everybody is able to develop his God-given potentials to the full. Therefore, the expansion of the kingdom of God will liberate more souls. When Christians proclaim the kingdom of God, they are discharging their kingship which was conferred them in baptism. It is edifying and should occupy the topmost priority in the Christian agenda.

For the Son of God and all Christians, death is not an annihilation but the portal to eternal life. We still bury our dead in a dignified manner for the corpse, remembering how the corruptible body has been spent in glorifying God. Our funerals are edifying for the living, reminding them of our ultimate destination --- our Creator and Father. Then, we are not “the dead burying their dead”. Once again, Jesus is warning us of the temptation of turning good into evil and laying before us a choice of life and death.
Brethren! Which choice is the wise one? We agree that choosing life is rewarding but perseverance in life-building is extremely difficult. Let’s invoke the Holy Spirit to give us the strength to follow God’s call. Amen.
God bless!
2019 Reflection
Picture Credit: twitter.com