Being a Chinese in Hong Kong nowadays is very fortunate. We are privileged to enjoy the best of both worlds, to know both Western medicine and Chinese traditional medicine. When we are sick, we can choose treatments from Western general practitioners or Chinese herbalists. Both of them work, though the two systems are based on totally different philosophies.
Western medicine is reductionistic. The human body is built up of different systems: respiratory, circulatory and nervous etc. Each system is made up of different organs and tissues which in turn comprise of cells and, whichever micro-level you are comfortable with, molecular structures such as DNA. If you are sick, Western medical practitioners will diagnose the causes of ailments: tear and wear, micro-organisms or molecular biological level of DNA defects etc. People are X-rayed and surgeons will remove the failing parts of the body. In short, everything can be physically seen and touched. There is nothing metaphysical or mythical.
Not so is the traditional Chinese medicine. The human body is thought of as a holistic unit which is governed by the principles of Yin/Yang and the 5 elements. If you are healthy, these principles and elements are in harmony. If you are sick, this internal harmony must have been disrupted. Your symptoms are explained in terms of heat-chill, wetness-dryness or such pairs of polarities. The human body is wrapped by a kind of air-flow, which circulates along different meridians which parallel but are not identical with the blood vessels of the circulatory system in the West. In short, things are explained in metaphysical terms which you can neither see nor touch. Yet, it works. If you insist on truths which are based on physical evidence, you will rule out and miss out a whole lot of Chinese treasures.
Similarly, the success of science and technology in the Western civilization has numbed us of the existence of the spiritual dimension of human life. Advances in physical sciences and technologies have been so successful and provided us with so much convenience that we shy away from spiritual explanations of the phenomena of human life. We are conditioned to believe in what can be seen. Anything else doesn't count. We are made empiricists. Luckily, the traditional Chinese medicine says loud and clear that there is an alternative to this physical world. There is another possibility, another dimension.
In the Last Supper, Jesus told his disciples that he would be leaving them behind but there was no reason to panic because after he left them physically, God the Father would send the Holy Spirit to them.
If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,
even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you (John 14:15-17).
This Counsellor, this Advocate is the Spirit of truth and the world cannot receive it because the world neither sees this Spirit nor knows it. This world is very narrow-minded and does not allow dissidents to speak their minds. Even if they speak, this world does not listen because this world thinks that it is in the right and the dissidents are in the wrong. This world has closed itself to the spiritual dimension of human life and thus is unable to receive the Holy Spirit.
The Acts of the Apostles is sometimes called the Gospel of the Holy Spirit. All Christians should spend time studying this book in order to know the Holy Spirit better. Jesus said that we know the Holy Spirit. Do you?
If you find the Spirit of Truth too rational, perhaps you should know that the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of Love. It inspired the believers in the Church of Jerusalem to share all they had. That is why love is such an effective binding force which is able to bind us together, as husbands and wives, as parents and children, as sibling, friends, colleagues and countrymen. When we have love, we know that we possess the Holy Spirit who is God. If for some reasons we hate, we find faults, we punish and persecute, we will lose the Holy Spirit. To love is more an art than a science. It enriches our life and makes it more fulfilled. Mere survival without love would be nightmarish, would be hell broken loose.
Dear Lord, forgive us for not loving You and our neighbour enough. Send us the Holy Spirit to make our hearts aglow. Help us remember to find You among the needy. Amen.
Sunday, 29 May 2011
Sunday, 22 May 2011
A Tunnel Vision
Last Sunday when we prayed for priestly vocation, we read that Jesus claimed to be the door.
So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep." (John 10:7) When we read John, we have to keep a meditative mind because the images conjured up in the passages are very fluid. Take this passage as an example, Jesus said that those who did not enter by the door of the sheepfold were thieves and robbers. He who entered by the door was the shepherd of the sheep (John 10:1-2). Later in verse 7, Jesus claimed to be this door of the sheepfold. In verse 11, he became the good shepherd.
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep (John 10:11).
Never mind how Jesus transforms himself into a door and then a shepherd. If we have difficulty in envisioning this, how shall we see Jesus as a piece of wafer?
Now, keep this door image in mind and read what Jesus said about himself in the Last Supper. In the Gospel reading today, Jesus told his apostles that he was returning to his Father to prepare rooms for them. If Jesus had only said these words, life would have been easy. But Jesus made one last remark to stir up Thomas' protest.
And you know the way where I am going (John 14:4).
This statement was an enigma for all those present at the Last Supper. People, including the apostles of Jesus, had expectations on him. However, Jesus' actions after entering Jerusalem had surprised everybody. He did not work well with the Jewish authorities. Jesus must have some other agendas in his mind but he had not confided them to his disciples.
This morning, Fr. Lejeune told the congregation that we should thank Thomas for his candour. He did not pretend to understand and confessed his ignorance. Without this humility, we will never have the opportunity to learn a greater truth.
Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?"
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." (John 14:5-6)
Now, how do you transform or combine the image of a door with the image of a way?
There are several possibilities. For example, suppose we are going out. We go through the front door of the house and in front of us is the way. Jesus is the front door as well as the way!
Or perhaps we take a 3-D approach. The 4 sides of the door extend out and form a tunnel. The tunnel is both the door and the way. It is a secure way and usually opens up to a new world. Babies go through the vagina of their mothers to enter into this world. We dig tunnels to go through mountains which we do not need to climb any more. These tunnels save us a lot of time and energy. Prisoners dig tunnels to gain freedom. The lighting inside the tunnel may be good, may be bad. But to be sure, at the end of the tunnel, there will be a new light, a new world. In short, we may envision Jesus as a tunnel leading to the inner life of the Godhead.
The reading of Acts today encourages me once more on my diaconate vocation.
As the early Church expanded, complaints arose because some Greek-speaking widows were neglected in the daily distribution. The apostles needed helping hands. New needs demanded new structures. Seven deacons were elected to relieve the burden of the apostles.
Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty (Acts 6:3).
Here, three criteria are set: deacons must have a good reputation, must be full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom. Later, more criteria were set (1 Timothy 3:8-10). I should work hard towards satisfying these criteria. May God help me.
Dear Lord, I pray that we may pass through this tunnel of yours safe and sound to the eternal life in our Father. Amen.
So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep." (John 10:7) When we read John, we have to keep a meditative mind because the images conjured up in the passages are very fluid. Take this passage as an example, Jesus said that those who did not enter by the door of the sheepfold were thieves and robbers. He who entered by the door was the shepherd of the sheep (John 10:1-2). Later in verse 7, Jesus claimed to be this door of the sheepfold. In verse 11, he became the good shepherd.
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep (John 10:11).
Never mind how Jesus transforms himself into a door and then a shepherd. If we have difficulty in envisioning this, how shall we see Jesus as a piece of wafer?
Now, keep this door image in mind and read what Jesus said about himself in the Last Supper. In the Gospel reading today, Jesus told his apostles that he was returning to his Father to prepare rooms for them. If Jesus had only said these words, life would have been easy. But Jesus made one last remark to stir up Thomas' protest.
And you know the way where I am going (John 14:4).
This statement was an enigma for all those present at the Last Supper. People, including the apostles of Jesus, had expectations on him. However, Jesus' actions after entering Jerusalem had surprised everybody. He did not work well with the Jewish authorities. Jesus must have some other agendas in his mind but he had not confided them to his disciples.
This morning, Fr. Lejeune told the congregation that we should thank Thomas for his candour. He did not pretend to understand and confessed his ignorance. Without this humility, we will never have the opportunity to learn a greater truth.
Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?"
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." (John 14:5-6)
Now, how do you transform or combine the image of a door with the image of a way?
There are several possibilities. For example, suppose we are going out. We go through the front door of the house and in front of us is the way. Jesus is the front door as well as the way!
Or perhaps we take a 3-D approach. The 4 sides of the door extend out and form a tunnel. The tunnel is both the door and the way. It is a secure way and usually opens up to a new world. Babies go through the vagina of their mothers to enter into this world. We dig tunnels to go through mountains which we do not need to climb any more. These tunnels save us a lot of time and energy. Prisoners dig tunnels to gain freedom. The lighting inside the tunnel may be good, may be bad. But to be sure, at the end of the tunnel, there will be a new light, a new world. In short, we may envision Jesus as a tunnel leading to the inner life of the Godhead.
The reading of Acts today encourages me once more on my diaconate vocation.
As the early Church expanded, complaints arose because some Greek-speaking widows were neglected in the daily distribution. The apostles needed helping hands. New needs demanded new structures. Seven deacons were elected to relieve the burden of the apostles.
Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty (Acts 6:3).
Here, three criteria are set: deacons must have a good reputation, must be full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom. Later, more criteria were set (1 Timothy 3:8-10). I should work hard towards satisfying these criteria. May God help me.
Dear Lord, I pray that we may pass through this tunnel of yours safe and sound to the eternal life in our Father. Amen.
Sunday, 15 May 2011
Be my Brother's Keeper
After killing Abel, Cain left us an immortal epitaph: "Am I my brother's keeper?" (Genesis 4:9b)
Of course, Cain could not run away from his sins, his failures to fulfill the obligations towards his brother because God had been watching all along. He had forgotten this.
No man is an island. Whenever there is a relation, there are rights and duties accompanying the relation. That is the characteristics of Chinese Ethics. They seldom think in abstract terms or formulate universal ethical principles. They will not ask the following hypothetical question:
What if I am "forced" into a relation?
Sorry, there are only relations and there is no such thing as a "forced-into" relation. Do such relations ever exist?
Yes, they do. So, they do, but you have no choice.
Consider Cain again. Should Adam and Eve seek his consent before conceiving Abel? It is unthinkable. So, Cain could not disown this sibling relation and had to fulfill his duties as Abel's keeper and vice versa, however reluctant he was. Hard luck, Cain. The remaining sensible thing to do is to make the relationship as beneficial to both parties as possible, to build up a so called win-win situation. Very often, we have forgotten this.
There are a lot of relations into which we freely choose to enter. Some people weigh very carefully the costs and benefits before they do. Let's forget about the insincerity created by such calculations which in themselves are bad because nobody can accurately predict, not to mention measure, the potential benefits accrued in a relation. There are also unintended benefits (and of course unintended costs as well) arising from a relation. Relations are so full of promises and yet so easily destroyed by calculations! Forgive me here. I am not encouraging people to enter any relations blindly.
Some lack confidence and withdraw or keep a distance from a relation after the first few encounters. Alas! how they miss the new opportunities opened up in new relations. So, we see that self-confidence is also a factor in the building up and maintenance of relations. If your partner lack self-confidence, which is built up or destroyed in relations, you are doing humanity a favour by encouraging/building up his/her self-confidence through the relation. The human race will become one man (woman) better. Very often, we forget this. We tend to prefer eliminating one more competitor to edifying one more companion.
This Sunday is Vocation Sunday. We read John 10:1-10, just stopped short at "I am the Good Shepherd"! We only came to "I am the door" (John 10:9). This sounds very much like what Jesus would say in answering Thomas' question during the Last Supper that "I am the Way, and the Truth and the Life." (John 14:6). The meaning is clear enough. Jesus is the door. Through him, we enter eternal life.
Traditionally, we pray in particular for priestly vocation today. Fr. Martin reminded us to reflect on our own life to see whether we have come up to serve the Church, to serve the parishioners. All vocations are calls to serve and priestly vocation serves in a particular way. In my younger days, seeing the selfless dedication of the PIME priests, I once entertained the thought of becoming one. But I did not have the grace to receive this blessing. God has other plans for me. I know myself better today and I trust God's arrangement is best for me and for His Church. I am a sensuous man. My becoming a priest might have brought more harms and scandals than good to the Church. God is wise.
Now that I am married and have fathered four children, I have entered another stage of my life, hopefully older and wiser. I am contemplating the vocation of becoming a permanent deacon. Is God really calling me to serve His Church and His people? Is the wish of becoming a permanent deacon a compensation for the lost dream of becoming a priest? These day, I worry less about my own health because I trust that God will give me enough support to serve Him. Rather, am I serving His will or my own will? These are some of the questions occupying my mind.
Dear Lord, "when I am old, I will stretch out my hands, and another will gird me and carry me where I do not wish to go." (John 21:18b) May Your will be done. Amen.
Of course, Cain could not run away from his sins, his failures to fulfill the obligations towards his brother because God had been watching all along. He had forgotten this.
No man is an island. Whenever there is a relation, there are rights and duties accompanying the relation. That is the characteristics of Chinese Ethics. They seldom think in abstract terms or formulate universal ethical principles. They will not ask the following hypothetical question:
What if I am "forced" into a relation?
Sorry, there are only relations and there is no such thing as a "forced-into" relation. Do such relations ever exist?
Yes, they do. So, they do, but you have no choice.
Consider Cain again. Should Adam and Eve seek his consent before conceiving Abel? It is unthinkable. So, Cain could not disown this sibling relation and had to fulfill his duties as Abel's keeper and vice versa, however reluctant he was. Hard luck, Cain. The remaining sensible thing to do is to make the relationship as beneficial to both parties as possible, to build up a so called win-win situation. Very often, we have forgotten this.
There are a lot of relations into which we freely choose to enter. Some people weigh very carefully the costs and benefits before they do. Let's forget about the insincerity created by such calculations which in themselves are bad because nobody can accurately predict, not to mention measure, the potential benefits accrued in a relation. There are also unintended benefits (and of course unintended costs as well) arising from a relation. Relations are so full of promises and yet so easily destroyed by calculations! Forgive me here. I am not encouraging people to enter any relations blindly.
Some lack confidence and withdraw or keep a distance from a relation after the first few encounters. Alas! how they miss the new opportunities opened up in new relations. So, we see that self-confidence is also a factor in the building up and maintenance of relations. If your partner lack self-confidence, which is built up or destroyed in relations, you are doing humanity a favour by encouraging/building up his/her self-confidence through the relation. The human race will become one man (woman) better. Very often, we forget this. We tend to prefer eliminating one more competitor to edifying one more companion.
This Sunday is Vocation Sunday. We read John 10:1-10, just stopped short at "I am the Good Shepherd"! We only came to "I am the door" (John 10:9). This sounds very much like what Jesus would say in answering Thomas' question during the Last Supper that "I am the Way, and the Truth and the Life." (John 14:6). The meaning is clear enough. Jesus is the door. Through him, we enter eternal life.
Traditionally, we pray in particular for priestly vocation today. Fr. Martin reminded us to reflect on our own life to see whether we have come up to serve the Church, to serve the parishioners. All vocations are calls to serve and priestly vocation serves in a particular way. In my younger days, seeing the selfless dedication of the PIME priests, I once entertained the thought of becoming one. But I did not have the grace to receive this blessing. God has other plans for me. I know myself better today and I trust God's arrangement is best for me and for His Church. I am a sensuous man. My becoming a priest might have brought more harms and scandals than good to the Church. God is wise.
Now that I am married and have fathered four children, I have entered another stage of my life, hopefully older and wiser. I am contemplating the vocation of becoming a permanent deacon. Is God really calling me to serve His Church and His people? Is the wish of becoming a permanent deacon a compensation for the lost dream of becoming a priest? These day, I worry less about my own health because I trust that God will give me enough support to serve Him. Rather, am I serving His will or my own will? These are some of the questions occupying my mind.
Dear Lord, "when I am old, I will stretch out my hands, and another will gird me and carry me where I do not wish to go." (John 21:18b) May Your will be done. Amen.
Sunday, 8 May 2011
Am I stubborn?
Yes, I am a stubborn man, but no more.
I believe in the teaching of E&RS in an English College in the medium of English. I believe that it is good for the students. However, the Diocesan secondary school I am working in follows the directives of the Catholic Church in Hong Kong to use mother tongue as the medium of instruction so as to be able to touch the hearts of the students. I do not buy this view and so I declined teaching the New Senior Secondary Ethics and Religious Studies in Chinese. The school had no choice but to hire another teacher to take up the teaching duties and the head of the RS Department.
Next year, the school will be offering the subject in three different levels from S4 to S6. It would be unhealthy for the Department to have only one teacher taking care of all levels. I would have been the most obvious choice, had I not insisted on teaching it in English. Our boss needed to persuade me to change my mind. His approach failed miserably.
The other day, he called me into his office and told me that I had to justify my being a Graduate Master! Either I teach an examination class or head a committee! It was unfair to Certificate Master teachers who are now teaching examination classes. (A fact in point, this is the first year I do not teach exam classes.) He had conceded. He "offered" me to teach E&RS in English.
I was turned off. I replied that it had always been my desire to teach E&RS in English. If he were able to convince the School Management Committee, I would be extremely happy to take up this offer. Of course, he failed but he could tell people that he had tried.
Then I wrote a letter to the Supervisor, applying to down grade my position to a Certificate Master. I offered three reasons. Firstly, if the school, as a Catholic school, does not think teaching Ethics and Religious Education in senior classes (S5 to S7) is enough to justify my being a GM, I have no more comment. Secondly, as an Ethics teacher, I teach my students the principle of Justice. If I do not practice what I teach, I am a Pharisee. Lastly, I expect my study load to be getting heavier. Therefore, I apply to down grade myself to a Certificate Master.
After knowing this news, John, Simon and Raymond tried to talk me over to change my mind. I should not have been so stubborn. I would be losing $16,000 a month. Even if I wanted to be a martyr, it would be unfair for my family members to bear this unnecessary burden. My students would not benefit anything. Moreover, my boss would bear a bad name because of my stepping down. In short, nobody benefits anything. It is against the principle of utility --- greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. I would be doing harm to everybody. It is against the principle of non-maleficence. I had been upset and impulsive.
Today, Fr. Martin Ip also talked about our stubbornness and prejudice as the causes of our failing to see Christ in our daily life. The experience of the two disciples on their way to Emmaus is instructive (Luke 24:13-35). They had a preconceived idea of the Messiah. They expected him to come like Moses to liberate them from the Roman rule. Jesus did not live up to their expectations. God had a better plan which looked stupid on the surface.
After the tragic crucifixion of their master, the two disciples left Jerusalem for Emmaus. Jesus appeared to them but they could not recognize him. Their false expectations had blocked their mind's eyes to see Jesus. It was only when Jesus performed an act they were familiar were they able to recognize him.
When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them.
And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight (Luke 24:30-31).
We too are like the two disciples. We cherish a lot of false expectations on our family members, friends, colleagues and government officials. We are not able to see their "true" faces even if they want to show them. We place a lot of unrealistic demands on ourselves. We are not able to live our "authentic" life even if we want to improve it.
John, Simon and Raymond are perfectly right. They encouraged me to accept the offer to teach E&RS in Chinese. I can give my students English vocabulary whenever I deem beneficial to them etc. I began to see the whole issue in a new light. The boss was trying to save my position which I gave up too easily. The Supervisor met me as soon as she could. The first sentences she spoke were that the school needs me. I am the best candidate to share the load. It would be bad for my partner to teach in Chinese while I teach in English etc. I no longer insist. The Supervisor kindly withdrew my application letter. It was a happy ending ...
Yesterday, Peter Lee, my "guardian angel" remarked how heavy the burden priests have to bear day in day out because they have to keep what they hear in the confessionals confidential for the whole life. I told him I understood perfectly the burden of keeping secrets. One of my colleagues told me that (s)he would resign and asked me to keep this secret. I was very upset, not only because of the burden of keeping secret, but also for the future development of the school.
Dear Lord, I am sorry for my stubbornness and impulsiveness. I have created too many troubles for my school. Forgive me Lord. Help me tidy up what havoc I have wreaked. Amen.
I believe in the teaching of E&RS in an English College in the medium of English. I believe that it is good for the students. However, the Diocesan secondary school I am working in follows the directives of the Catholic Church in Hong Kong to use mother tongue as the medium of instruction so as to be able to touch the hearts of the students. I do not buy this view and so I declined teaching the New Senior Secondary Ethics and Religious Studies in Chinese. The school had no choice but to hire another teacher to take up the teaching duties and the head of the RS Department.
Next year, the school will be offering the subject in three different levels from S4 to S6. It would be unhealthy for the Department to have only one teacher taking care of all levels. I would have been the most obvious choice, had I not insisted on teaching it in English. Our boss needed to persuade me to change my mind. His approach failed miserably.
The other day, he called me into his office and told me that I had to justify my being a Graduate Master! Either I teach an examination class or head a committee! It was unfair to Certificate Master teachers who are now teaching examination classes. (A fact in point, this is the first year I do not teach exam classes.) He had conceded. He "offered" me to teach E&RS in English.
I was turned off. I replied that it had always been my desire to teach E&RS in English. If he were able to convince the School Management Committee, I would be extremely happy to take up this offer. Of course, he failed but he could tell people that he had tried.
Then I wrote a letter to the Supervisor, applying to down grade my position to a Certificate Master. I offered three reasons. Firstly, if the school, as a Catholic school, does not think teaching Ethics and Religious Education in senior classes (S5 to S7) is enough to justify my being a GM, I have no more comment. Secondly, as an Ethics teacher, I teach my students the principle of Justice. If I do not practice what I teach, I am a Pharisee. Lastly, I expect my study load to be getting heavier. Therefore, I apply to down grade myself to a Certificate Master.
After knowing this news, John, Simon and Raymond tried to talk me over to change my mind. I should not have been so stubborn. I would be losing $16,000 a month. Even if I wanted to be a martyr, it would be unfair for my family members to bear this unnecessary burden. My students would not benefit anything. Moreover, my boss would bear a bad name because of my stepping down. In short, nobody benefits anything. It is against the principle of utility --- greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. I would be doing harm to everybody. It is against the principle of non-maleficence. I had been upset and impulsive.
Today, Fr. Martin Ip also talked about our stubbornness and prejudice as the causes of our failing to see Christ in our daily life. The experience of the two disciples on their way to Emmaus is instructive (Luke 24:13-35). They had a preconceived idea of the Messiah. They expected him to come like Moses to liberate them from the Roman rule. Jesus did not live up to their expectations. God had a better plan which looked stupid on the surface.
After the tragic crucifixion of their master, the two disciples left Jerusalem for Emmaus. Jesus appeared to them but they could not recognize him. Their false expectations had blocked their mind's eyes to see Jesus. It was only when Jesus performed an act they were familiar were they able to recognize him.
When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them.
And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight (Luke 24:30-31).
We too are like the two disciples. We cherish a lot of false expectations on our family members, friends, colleagues and government officials. We are not able to see their "true" faces even if they want to show them. We place a lot of unrealistic demands on ourselves. We are not able to live our "authentic" life even if we want to improve it.
John, Simon and Raymond are perfectly right. They encouraged me to accept the offer to teach E&RS in Chinese. I can give my students English vocabulary whenever I deem beneficial to them etc. I began to see the whole issue in a new light. The boss was trying to save my position which I gave up too easily. The Supervisor met me as soon as she could. The first sentences she spoke were that the school needs me. I am the best candidate to share the load. It would be bad for my partner to teach in Chinese while I teach in English etc. I no longer insist. The Supervisor kindly withdrew my application letter. It was a happy ending ...
Yesterday, Peter Lee, my "guardian angel" remarked how heavy the burden priests have to bear day in day out because they have to keep what they hear in the confessionals confidential for the whole life. I told him I understood perfectly the burden of keeping secrets. One of my colleagues told me that (s)he would resign and asked me to keep this secret. I was very upset, not only because of the burden of keeping secret, but also for the future development of the school.
Dear Lord, I am sorry for my stubbornness and impulsiveness. I have created too many troubles for my school. Forgive me Lord. Help me tidy up what havoc I have wreaked. Amen.
Sunday, 1 May 2011
Do we need to see in order to believe?
Today, we read of the famous story of the empiricist Apostle Thomas who was a typical theologian, someone who tries to make faith (Christianity) understandable in terms of our daily experience. If you look for a famous medieval theologian, it must be St. Thomas of Aquinas. Therefore, it seems that God has blessed the Thomases to be gifted theologians.
Let's take a look at Thomas, the Apostle. The gospel of John provides us with more details about him so that we can have a more than one-dimensinal picture of this Apostle. In John, we find three passages about Thomas.
Firstly, when Jesus decided to go to Bethany to raise the dead Lazarus, he told his apostles, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awake him out of sleep."(John 11:11).
When the apostles were puzzled, he made it clear that, "Lazarus is dead;
and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him."
Thomas, called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him." (John 11:14b-16).
What can we make of Thomas? Was he being sarcastic? Cynical? He couldn't be just playful. Otherwise the author wouldn't bother to record this piece of conversation. Did the author try to show that among the followers, some were still doubtful about resurrection? But surely in any community, there must be people holding views different from the official line. Thomas was made the mouthpiece of this group of people.
But there can be another interpretaton. Perhaps Thomas was sensitive enough to feel the dangers awaiting them in the near future. He believed that Jesus was able to raise Lazarus. Then a lot of people would believe in Jesus and the Jewish authority would take actions harmful to them. So, when they went into Bethany, they were going into troubles. In this light, Thomas was a man with a clear mind. He was perceptive.
Then, in the Last Supper, Jesus told the disciples that he would return to his Father to prepare room for them.
And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.
And you know the way where I am going (John 14:3-4).
Then Thomas asked Jesus a question, leading to one of the most famous line in the Bible.
Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?"
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me (John 14:5-6).
At least, Thomas was a candid and rational man, acknowledging his igorance, in contrast to Simon Peter who earlier passionately and blindly pledged to follow Jesus wherever he went, even laying down his life for Jesus (John 13:37).
Last of all, we have the famous story of the empirist Thomas who wanted evidence for his faith in Jesus, his Master who had been crucified two days ago. Didn't he want to believe in Jesus? Of course he wanted to believe. Like the other apostles, he had given everything up in order to follow him. Two days ago, things deteriorated too quickly for him to recoup. Everybody was devastated. How he wished Jesus had not died! Before he could accept the reality that Jesus had died, his fellow disciples told him that they had seen the risen Lord. Nobody should blame Thomas, who had always been so perceptive, for being scientific (John 20:25).
Let me return to the question I post in the title. Do we need to see in order to believe? No.
If we see something, we have no choice but to acknowledge its existence. If we see Jesus today, we have no choice but to acknowledge him our Lord and God. We are "forced" to accept him as our Lord. But God doesn't want to force us to do anything. He respects our freedom of will so that we have nobody but ourselves to blame in the Last Judgment. Unfortunate for Thomas, Jesus had to force him to accept him as his Lord and God (John 20:28). That is why when we believe without being forced to believe, we are blessed (John 20:29).
Indeed, in many situations, we need to believe in order to see something. In Chinese History, there is a story around a famous piece of jade「和氏璧」. 卞和 had to pay the price with his pair of legs so that the jade buried within a piece of rock was able to see the light of the sun. This is experience and faith. Nowadays, oil drillers need experience and faith in their oil exploration. They don't see the oil to believe. They need faith to persevere so that they will see oil. Faith drops us the hints, points us the direction where to look for the things we want to look for, not the other way round. Faith will literally open your eyes to see God. Indeed, with faith we will be able to see Christ where we least expect him: the hungry, the sick, the imprisoned and the poor. Believing is seeing, not the other way round.
Dear Lord, may Your resurrection inject into us a new lease of life so that we may be able to continue building Your Kingdom on earth.
Blessed John Paul II, pray for us. Amen.
Let's take a look at Thomas, the Apostle. The gospel of John provides us with more details about him so that we can have a more than one-dimensinal picture of this Apostle. In John, we find three passages about Thomas.
Firstly, when Jesus decided to go to Bethany to raise the dead Lazarus, he told his apostles, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awake him out of sleep."(John 11:11).
When the apostles were puzzled, he made it clear that, "Lazarus is dead;
and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him."
Thomas, called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him." (John 11:14b-16).
What can we make of Thomas? Was he being sarcastic? Cynical? He couldn't be just playful. Otherwise the author wouldn't bother to record this piece of conversation. Did the author try to show that among the followers, some were still doubtful about resurrection? But surely in any community, there must be people holding views different from the official line. Thomas was made the mouthpiece of this group of people.
But there can be another interpretaton. Perhaps Thomas was sensitive enough to feel the dangers awaiting them in the near future. He believed that Jesus was able to raise Lazarus. Then a lot of people would believe in Jesus and the Jewish authority would take actions harmful to them. So, when they went into Bethany, they were going into troubles. In this light, Thomas was a man with a clear mind. He was perceptive.
Then, in the Last Supper, Jesus told the disciples that he would return to his Father to prepare room for them.
And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.
And you know the way where I am going (John 14:3-4).
Then Thomas asked Jesus a question, leading to one of the most famous line in the Bible.
Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?"
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me (John 14:5-6).
At least, Thomas was a candid and rational man, acknowledging his igorance, in contrast to Simon Peter who earlier passionately and blindly pledged to follow Jesus wherever he went, even laying down his life for Jesus (John 13:37).
Last of all, we have the famous story of the empirist Thomas who wanted evidence for his faith in Jesus, his Master who had been crucified two days ago. Didn't he want to believe in Jesus? Of course he wanted to believe. Like the other apostles, he had given everything up in order to follow him. Two days ago, things deteriorated too quickly for him to recoup. Everybody was devastated. How he wished Jesus had not died! Before he could accept the reality that Jesus had died, his fellow disciples told him that they had seen the risen Lord. Nobody should blame Thomas, who had always been so perceptive, for being scientific (John 20:25).
Let me return to the question I post in the title. Do we need to see in order to believe? No.
If we see something, we have no choice but to acknowledge its existence. If we see Jesus today, we have no choice but to acknowledge him our Lord and God. We are "forced" to accept him as our Lord. But God doesn't want to force us to do anything. He respects our freedom of will so that we have nobody but ourselves to blame in the Last Judgment. Unfortunate for Thomas, Jesus had to force him to accept him as his Lord and God (John 20:28). That is why when we believe without being forced to believe, we are blessed (John 20:29).
Indeed, in many situations, we need to believe in order to see something. In Chinese History, there is a story around a famous piece of jade「和氏璧」. 卞和 had to pay the price with his pair of legs so that the jade buried within a piece of rock was able to see the light of the sun. This is experience and faith. Nowadays, oil drillers need experience and faith in their oil exploration. They don't see the oil to believe. They need faith to persevere so that they will see oil. Faith drops us the hints, points us the direction where to look for the things we want to look for, not the other way round. Faith will literally open your eyes to see God. Indeed, with faith we will be able to see Christ where we least expect him: the hungry, the sick, the imprisoned and the poor. Believing is seeing, not the other way round.
Dear Lord, may Your resurrection inject into us a new lease of life so that we may be able to continue building Your Kingdom on earth.
Blessed John Paul II, pray for us. Amen.
Monday, 11 April 2011
The Disciple whom Jesus Loved
"The disciple whom Jesus loved," has traditionally been identified as John the Apostle, the author of the fourth gospel. But some modern biblical scholars have questioned the authorship of John the Apostle and suggests that he was an elder, not one of the Twelve Apostles. Therefore, it is more correct or safe to call him John the Evangelist.
Naturally, we would turn to examine "the disciple whom Jesus loved" under the microscope. In fact, it is more logical to have them separate first and see if we can find enough evidence to identify the two of them. Before we proceed, I would like to add a minor observation. Whenever John is mentioned in this gospel, it always refers to John the Baptist. The gospel according to John never name John the Evangelist directly.
Now, let us turn to "the disciple whom Jesus loved". This phrase appears five times in this gospel. It first appears in the Last Supper narrative in the fourth gospel.
Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
ἦν ἀνακείμενος εἷς ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς (John 13:23).
That this disciple was sitting or reclining so close to Jesus that he was leaning on Jesus' bosom suggests that he must be John, one of the Twelve. It is because we assume that Jesus ate the Last Supper with his Twelve Apostles only. Let's keep our mind open. There might be other diners.
According to Church Tradition, Joachim and Anna had three daughters. One married Joseph the carpenter. The other married Zebedee the fisherman and the last one married Cleopas (Luke 24:18). Therefore, Jesus and John were cousins and that partly explains why Jesus loved him so much. According to Church Tradition, among the Twelve, John was the only one who did not die a violent death.
The next time we meet him, it was already under Jesus' cross.
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Ἰησοῦς οὖν ἰδὼν τὴν μητέρα καὶ τὸν μαθητὴν παρεστῶτα ὃν ἠγάπα, λέγει τῇ μητρί, Γύναι, ἴδε ὁ υἱός σου (John 19:26).
Well, can we conclude that this must be John, the cousin of Jesus? The word on the cross suggests so. Treating the son of a sister's son as her own son is logically and emotionally reasonable enough.
Next, it was Easter morning.
Then she (Mary Magdalene) runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him."
τρέχει οὖν καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς Σίμωνα Πέτρον καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἄλλον μαθητὴν ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Ἦραν τὸν κύριον ἐκ τοῦ μνημείου καὶ οὐκ οἴδαμεν ποῦ ἔθηκαν αὐτόν (John 20:2).
This is the only time the word φιλέω is used to describe the disciple whom Jesus loved. In the other 4 times, the word ἀγαπάω is used. A lot have been written about the differences between these two types of love. Interested readers should read the first encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI, God is love.
The remaining two ἀγαπάω are found in Chapter 21 but many scholars believe that this chapter is an appendix.
Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord.
λέγει οὖν ὁ μαθητὴς ἐκεῖνος ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῷ Πέτρῳ, Ὁ κύριός ἐστιν (John 21:7a).
Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
Ἐπιστραφεὶς ὁ Πέτρος βλέπει τὸν μαθητὴν ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀκολουθοῦντα, ὃς καὶ ἀνέπεσεν ἐν τῷ δείπνῳ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπεν, Κύριε, τίς ἐστιν ὁ παραδιδούς σε; (John 21:20)
The following verse makes this chapter an appendix.
This is the disciple (refers to John 21:20) who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true (John 21:24).
A disciple bore witness and had written the things mentioned earlier in the gospel. That makes this chapter an appendix. Curiously enough, this verse also points to a tradition that the disciple whom Jesus loved authored this gospel. So, as early as the end of the first century, Christians had generally believed that this gospel was authored by John. This appendix bears witness to such a tradition. Therefore, circumstantial evidences strongly suggest that John, one of the Twelve Apostle, the cousin of Jesus, was the "disciple whom Jesus loved" and that he penned the fourth gospel.
But there are other contenders. In particular, one of them was the Lazarus in this gospel! Today, we read of the story of his death and resurrection in John 11. Scholars quoted verse 3 in support.
Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.
ἀπέστειλαν οὖν αἱ ἀδελφαὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν λέγουσαι, Κύριε, ἴδε ὃν φιλεῖς ἀσθενεῖ (John 11:3).
Notice the use of φιλέω in this verse. It is used by a character in the narrative.
Further down, the author explains.
Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.
ἠγάπα δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὴν Μάρθαν καὶ τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτῆς καὶ τὸν Λάζαρον (John 11:5).
Notice the use of ἀγαπάω in this verse. It is used by the omniscient narrator.
Further down in front of the grave, Jesus wept for his friend.
Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!
ἔλεγον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, Ἴδε πῶς ἐφίλει αὐτόν (John 11:36).
Again, φιλέω is used by the characters in the story.
What conclusion can we draw? I would say, from the perspective of men, the love between Jesus and Lazarus is φιλέω. But from the perspective of the author, from that of God, it is ἀγαπάω. This is further illustrated by the three "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me?" questions. In the first two times, Jesus used ἀγαπάω, but Peter answered with φιλέω. The third time, Jesus condescended himself and used φιλέω. All along, Peter answered with φιλέω (John 21:15-17).
Now, Lazarus remains a good contender. Unfortunately, Jesus treated Lazarus as a friend, not necessarily as a disciple. Hear this.
Thus he spoke, and then he said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awake him out of sleep.” (John 11:11)
Of course, a friend could also be Jesus' disciple just as John, his cousin could be. Therefore, Lazarus could still be the disciple whom Jesus loved. After all, Jesus loves us too. We too are disciples whom Jesus loves.
In the end, these biblical enigmas remain elusive. They continue to sit there to tease the scholars.
Dear Lord, Your love knows no bound. We are not capable to love You as You have loved us. But I know that loving You will sublime us, elevate and transform us. It is good for us. Amen.
Naturally, we would turn to examine "the disciple whom Jesus loved" under the microscope. In fact, it is more logical to have them separate first and see if we can find enough evidence to identify the two of them. Before we proceed, I would like to add a minor observation. Whenever John is mentioned in this gospel, it always refers to John the Baptist. The gospel according to John never name John the Evangelist directly.
Now, let us turn to "the disciple whom Jesus loved". This phrase appears five times in this gospel. It first appears in the Last Supper narrative in the fourth gospel.
Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
ἦν ἀνακείμενος εἷς ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς (John 13:23).
That this disciple was sitting or reclining so close to Jesus that he was leaning on Jesus' bosom suggests that he must be John, one of the Twelve. It is because we assume that Jesus ate the Last Supper with his Twelve Apostles only. Let's keep our mind open. There might be other diners.
According to Church Tradition, Joachim and Anna had three daughters. One married Joseph the carpenter. The other married Zebedee the fisherman and the last one married Cleopas (Luke 24:18). Therefore, Jesus and John were cousins and that partly explains why Jesus loved him so much. According to Church Tradition, among the Twelve, John was the only one who did not die a violent death.
The next time we meet him, it was already under Jesus' cross.
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Ἰησοῦς οὖν ἰδὼν τὴν μητέρα καὶ τὸν μαθητὴν παρεστῶτα ὃν ἠγάπα, λέγει τῇ μητρί, Γύναι, ἴδε ὁ υἱός σου (John 19:26).
Well, can we conclude that this must be John, the cousin of Jesus? The word on the cross suggests so. Treating the son of a sister's son as her own son is logically and emotionally reasonable enough.
Next, it was Easter morning.
Then she (Mary Magdalene) runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him."
τρέχει οὖν καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς Σίμωνα Πέτρον καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἄλλον μαθητὴν ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Ἦραν τὸν κύριον ἐκ τοῦ μνημείου καὶ οὐκ οἴδαμεν ποῦ ἔθηκαν αὐτόν (John 20:2).
This is the only time the word φιλέω is used to describe the disciple whom Jesus loved. In the other 4 times, the word ἀγαπάω is used. A lot have been written about the differences between these two types of love. Interested readers should read the first encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI, God is love.
The remaining two ἀγαπάω are found in Chapter 21 but many scholars believe that this chapter is an appendix.
Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord.
λέγει οὖν ὁ μαθητὴς ἐκεῖνος ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῷ Πέτρῳ, Ὁ κύριός ἐστιν (John 21:7a).
Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
Ἐπιστραφεὶς ὁ Πέτρος βλέπει τὸν μαθητὴν ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀκολουθοῦντα, ὃς καὶ ἀνέπεσεν ἐν τῷ δείπνῳ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπεν, Κύριε, τίς ἐστιν ὁ παραδιδούς σε; (John 21:20)
The following verse makes this chapter an appendix.
This is the disciple (refers to John 21:20) who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true (John 21:24).
A disciple bore witness and had written the things mentioned earlier in the gospel. That makes this chapter an appendix. Curiously enough, this verse also points to a tradition that the disciple whom Jesus loved authored this gospel. So, as early as the end of the first century, Christians had generally believed that this gospel was authored by John. This appendix bears witness to such a tradition. Therefore, circumstantial evidences strongly suggest that John, one of the Twelve Apostle, the cousin of Jesus, was the "disciple whom Jesus loved" and that he penned the fourth gospel.
But there are other contenders. In particular, one of them was the Lazarus in this gospel! Today, we read of the story of his death and resurrection in John 11. Scholars quoted verse 3 in support.
Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.
ἀπέστειλαν οὖν αἱ ἀδελφαὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν λέγουσαι, Κύριε, ἴδε ὃν φιλεῖς ἀσθενεῖ (John 11:3).
Notice the use of φιλέω in this verse. It is used by a character in the narrative.
Further down, the author explains.
Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.
ἠγάπα δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὴν Μάρθαν καὶ τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτῆς καὶ τὸν Λάζαρον (John 11:5).
Notice the use of ἀγαπάω in this verse. It is used by the omniscient narrator.
Further down in front of the grave, Jesus wept for his friend.
Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!
ἔλεγον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, Ἴδε πῶς ἐφίλει αὐτόν (John 11:36).
Again, φιλέω is used by the characters in the story.
What conclusion can we draw? I would say, from the perspective of men, the love between Jesus and Lazarus is φιλέω. But from the perspective of the author, from that of God, it is ἀγαπάω. This is further illustrated by the three "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me?" questions. In the first two times, Jesus used ἀγαπάω, but Peter answered with φιλέω. The third time, Jesus condescended himself and used φιλέω. All along, Peter answered with φιλέω (John 21:15-17).
Now, Lazarus remains a good contender. Unfortunately, Jesus treated Lazarus as a friend, not necessarily as a disciple. Hear this.
Thus he spoke, and then he said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awake him out of sleep.” (John 11:11)
Of course, a friend could also be Jesus' disciple just as John, his cousin could be. Therefore, Lazarus could still be the disciple whom Jesus loved. After all, Jesus loves us too. We too are disciples whom Jesus loves.
In the end, these biblical enigmas remain elusive. They continue to sit there to tease the scholars.
Dear Lord, Your love knows no bound. We are not capable to love You as You have loved us. But I know that loving You will sublime us, elevate and transform us. It is good for us. Amen.
Monday, 4 April 2011
Various degrees of blindness
Everybody suffers various degrees of blindness.
Blindness can be physical. Our vision is impaired to different severities and we wear eye glasses to remedy. Some are more serious and need to undergo surgery.
Sometimes, blindness can be psychological. There are cases in which the patients, whose eyes are perfectly normal and healthy and yet due to some traumatic experiences, refuse to see. These are cases of hysterical blindness. Today, in the gospel, we read of spiritual blindness. These cases are similar to hysterical blindness in that the patients refuse to see the truth. That is why Jesus passes the following judgment onto his contemporaries.
Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.”(John 9:39)
This verse puzzles me a bit because early in the gospel, John made a comment that God sent the Son not to condemn the world but to save it (John 3:17).
And in a subsequent occasion, Jesus contradicted 9:39 by saying the opposite.
If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. (John 12:47)
That is why I felt a bit uneasy when I heard that Jesus came into this world to judge it. Of course, in reading the Bible, we should always be aware of these built-in tensions. The Bible is not doctored, not harmonized. Readers have to put in efforts to maintain these apparent contradictions and tensions. The other day when the Catholic teachers were Deuteronomy 6, Donna raised an objection against the language of the Old Testament. Not to mention the contents, the language itself is already very offensive to modern ears. She felt that the God of the Old Testament was barbaric, brutal and very much unlike God the Father portrayed by Jesus in the New Testament. She wondered why we still keep the Old Testament. An image popped up my mind. It was a beautiful green plant. Therefore, the New Testament and even the Church today is the green plant. But its roots draw nutrients from the soil, the dirt below. The Old Testament is the root of God's revelation. We have not exhausted its full meanings yet. Therefore, we cannot simply throw the Old Testament out of the window. Otherwise, the New Testament is rootless, groundless and the Church will withered. The "puzzle" we find in the gospel of John above demonstrates clearly that even in the New Testament, the readers have yet to learn to maintain the tension, to harmonize the contradictions.
Let us return to the spiritual blindness discussed in John 9 in which Jesus cured a man born blind. Traditional Jewish thinking would ascribe this blindness to the sins of the man or his parents. Blindness was God's punishment. Jesus disagreed.
Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him." (John 9:3)
Not only did Jesus rectify the wrong concepts of the Jews, he also gave a new meaning to our sufferings. Our sufferings can be meaningful in many ways. They can be sacrificial and benefit others. Here, Jesus points out that the works of God might be made manifest in those who suffer.
When we turn to the reactions of the neighbours after the cure, we see two different approaches to life. Some are more receptive to miracles. Others shut them out. Which one is a more probably explanation, that a miracle had taken place on the blind man whom they had known or that the man they were seeing was a different person who looked like the blind beggar? If you think the second explanation is more scientific and more probable, think one step more. If there had been such a man with a similar look as the beggar, why had they not seen him before? The beggar had been around for many years. Under pressure, his parents said that he was of age (at least 13 years old). He would speak for himself (John 9:21). Nay, long before the the dawn of scientific revolution, the hearts of the people had already shut God out of their equations of life.
Now, it was the Pharisees' turn. There was a division among the Pharisees. Some argued that the miracle worker could not possibly be a man from God because he did not observe the Sabbath. Others argued that no sinners could perform such a miracle. They remained legalistic. Of course, both arguments are flawed. If we accept that miracles are the works of God and that God does not have to observe the Sabbath, the first argument is down. The second argument also does not stand because God is free to choose His instruments, be it a saint or a sinner. The ability to work miracles is no proof that the worker is not a sinner. I appeal to the mercy of God to prove both sides wrong. Both parties were blind to the love of God. What was worse, they did not want to credit Jesus with the cure despite the fact that the beggar had earlier explained to his neighbours that it was Jesus who cured him (John 9:11).
The blind man was courageous in bearing witness to Jesus. For the first time in his life, he was able to see, to see the world and to see the truth. Yet, this ability to see the truth brought him persecutions as bearers of the truth always do. No wonder so many people prefer remaining blind. It would be more comfortable to remain blind. But remaining blind proves fatal, more so spiritually than physically. If you are physically blind, you make your other senses keener in order to survive. If you are spiritually blind, most likely you are stubborn and refuse to see the truth. Then only God's mercy will redeem you. That is why Jesus made the following remark to sum up the whole incident.
Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains (John 9:41).
Throughout the story, we see how helpless sinners are. The blind beggar could not cure himself. The Pharisees could not free themselves from their stubbornness. The parents were pressurized not to defend their son. There is nothing they can do on their own to obtain salvation. Throughout the story, we see how Jesus took the initiative to seek out to save the blind man. As for the Pharisees, he could only pass them judgment to warn them of pitfalls lying before them, just as God had warned Cain before he killed Abel (Genesis 4:7).
Dear Lord, open our hearts. Cure us of our blindness. Let us taste Your mercy. Amen.
Blindness can be physical. Our vision is impaired to different severities and we wear eye glasses to remedy. Some are more serious and need to undergo surgery.
Sometimes, blindness can be psychological. There are cases in which the patients, whose eyes are perfectly normal and healthy and yet due to some traumatic experiences, refuse to see. These are cases of hysterical blindness. Today, in the gospel, we read of spiritual blindness. These cases are similar to hysterical blindness in that the patients refuse to see the truth. That is why Jesus passes the following judgment onto his contemporaries.
Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.”(John 9:39)
This verse puzzles me a bit because early in the gospel, John made a comment that God sent the Son not to condemn the world but to save it (John 3:17).
And in a subsequent occasion, Jesus contradicted 9:39 by saying the opposite.
If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. (John 12:47)
That is why I felt a bit uneasy when I heard that Jesus came into this world to judge it. Of course, in reading the Bible, we should always be aware of these built-in tensions. The Bible is not doctored, not harmonized. Readers have to put in efforts to maintain these apparent contradictions and tensions. The other day when the Catholic teachers were Deuteronomy 6, Donna raised an objection against the language of the Old Testament. Not to mention the contents, the language itself is already very offensive to modern ears. She felt that the God of the Old Testament was barbaric, brutal and very much unlike God the Father portrayed by Jesus in the New Testament. She wondered why we still keep the Old Testament. An image popped up my mind. It was a beautiful green plant. Therefore, the New Testament and even the Church today is the green plant. But its roots draw nutrients from the soil, the dirt below. The Old Testament is the root of God's revelation. We have not exhausted its full meanings yet. Therefore, we cannot simply throw the Old Testament out of the window. Otherwise, the New Testament is rootless, groundless and the Church will withered. The "puzzle" we find in the gospel of John above demonstrates clearly that even in the New Testament, the readers have yet to learn to maintain the tension, to harmonize the contradictions.
Let us return to the spiritual blindness discussed in John 9 in which Jesus cured a man born blind. Traditional Jewish thinking would ascribe this blindness to the sins of the man or his parents. Blindness was God's punishment. Jesus disagreed.
Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him." (John 9:3)
Not only did Jesus rectify the wrong concepts of the Jews, he also gave a new meaning to our sufferings. Our sufferings can be meaningful in many ways. They can be sacrificial and benefit others. Here, Jesus points out that the works of God might be made manifest in those who suffer.
When we turn to the reactions of the neighbours after the cure, we see two different approaches to life. Some are more receptive to miracles. Others shut them out. Which one is a more probably explanation, that a miracle had taken place on the blind man whom they had known or that the man they were seeing was a different person who looked like the blind beggar? If you think the second explanation is more scientific and more probable, think one step more. If there had been such a man with a similar look as the beggar, why had they not seen him before? The beggar had been around for many years. Under pressure, his parents said that he was of age (at least 13 years old). He would speak for himself (John 9:21). Nay, long before the the dawn of scientific revolution, the hearts of the people had already shut God out of their equations of life.
Now, it was the Pharisees' turn. There was a division among the Pharisees. Some argued that the miracle worker could not possibly be a man from God because he did not observe the Sabbath. Others argued that no sinners could perform such a miracle. They remained legalistic. Of course, both arguments are flawed. If we accept that miracles are the works of God and that God does not have to observe the Sabbath, the first argument is down. The second argument also does not stand because God is free to choose His instruments, be it a saint or a sinner. The ability to work miracles is no proof that the worker is not a sinner. I appeal to the mercy of God to prove both sides wrong. Both parties were blind to the love of God. What was worse, they did not want to credit Jesus with the cure despite the fact that the beggar had earlier explained to his neighbours that it was Jesus who cured him (John 9:11).
The blind man was courageous in bearing witness to Jesus. For the first time in his life, he was able to see, to see the world and to see the truth. Yet, this ability to see the truth brought him persecutions as bearers of the truth always do. No wonder so many people prefer remaining blind. It would be more comfortable to remain blind. But remaining blind proves fatal, more so spiritually than physically. If you are physically blind, you make your other senses keener in order to survive. If you are spiritually blind, most likely you are stubborn and refuse to see the truth. Then only God's mercy will redeem you. That is why Jesus made the following remark to sum up the whole incident.
Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains (John 9:41).
Throughout the story, we see how helpless sinners are. The blind beggar could not cure himself. The Pharisees could not free themselves from their stubbornness. The parents were pressurized not to defend their son. There is nothing they can do on their own to obtain salvation. Throughout the story, we see how Jesus took the initiative to seek out to save the blind man. As for the Pharisees, he could only pass them judgment to warn them of pitfalls lying before them, just as God had warned Cain before he killed Abel (Genesis 4:7).
Dear Lord, open our hearts. Cure us of our blindness. Let us taste Your mercy. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)