Today, we read of the Lukan version of the Lord's Prayer (Luke 11:2b-4). It is shorter than the Matthean version (Matthew 6:9b-13). Not only is the Lord's Prayer different, another allusion to the father's response to a son's request is also different. Luke employs fish/serpent and egg/scorpion pairs (Luke 11:11-12) while Matthew uses bread/stone and fish/serpent pairs (Matthew 7:9-10). How should we understand these differences?
To begin with, Luke sets up a different context to teach about prayers. The gospel of Luke is very prayerful. We find a lot of prayers (Benedictus, Ave Maria, Magnificat, Gloria and Nunc Dimittis etc in Luke 1-2) and Jesus is a man of prayer in Luke. In Luke 11, Jesus prays. When he finishes, one of the disciples asks Jesus to teach them to pray as John the Baptist has taught his disciples to pray. Fr. Milanese explains a very good point here. The disciples were Jews and Jews had a lot of Psalms to pray. They did not need any more new prayers. Therefore, they were motivated not by piety to God. Rather, they wanted an identity. They wanted to build up a sense of belonging to their community distinct from the others. I agree to this sense of identity but I have reservation about their knowledge of Psalms. My impression of the disciples of Jesus is that they were uneducated. I wonder if they knew much about Psalms even though they might have learnt them on Sabbath gatherings in the synagogues. Like ordinary Catholics, most of them recite the Rosary instead of praying the Liturgy of the Hours. Ordinary disciples need simple prayers instead of elitist Psalms. This is only my prejudice.
Therefore, Jesus taught them a simple version of the Lord's Prayer.
Jesus taught the Lukan community a simple and direct "Father", instead of "Our Father in Heaven". The "Your will be done on earth as in heaven" is also missing. Perhaps we should understand this as a theological expansion of the "Your Kingdom come". This tentative exploration points to the different backgrounds of the Lukan and Matthean communities.
The Lukan community was Gentile and lived in competition with the Baptist movement. Therefore, the motivation to learn a simple prayer was to distinguish themselves from the Baptist group. To meet their needs, the Lukan Lord's Prayer is more direct and simpler. The Matthean community seemed not to find the Baptist movement a rival because John the Baptist did not claim to be the Messiah. Therefore, the Matthean Lord's Prayer is more elaborate and liturgical to suit the Jewish Christian community. Historically, Jesus must have taught them the Lord's Prayer in some form. This prayer circulated in different communities and resulted in different adaptations. Let me assure you, the key phrases are identical.
Let me turn to the pairings of bread/stone, fish/snake and egg/scorpion. Bread and stone may look alike. Moreover, in the first temptation, the Devil asked Jesus to turn stones into bread. Fish and snake are rather different though both have scales. Egg and scorpion certainly find nothing in common. In Greek which the NT was written, the fish ἰχθὺν/snake ὄφιν and egg ᾠόν/ scorpion σκορπίον surely do not sound alike. Therefore, we have to look elsewhere, Hebrew and better Aramaic which Jesus speaks.
In Hebrew, bread לֶחֶם and stone אֶבֶן sound alike. Fish דָּגָה and snake נָחָשׁ alike and lastly, egg בֵּיצָה and scorpion עַקְרָב sound alike. Therefore, I would be satisfied to the choice of pairings because they sound alike in Hebrew/Aramaic.
Now, my mind is at relative peace. I can pray confidently and comfortably to my Father in heaven, to ask Him to give me the Holy Spirit to inflame my lukewarm heart. Amen.
Monday, 29 July 2013
Sunday, 21 July 2013
We need a pair of legs to walk
As a Christian, we need to pray and work (ora et labora) together. Lacking either one, our Christian life is lame. We need a pair of legs to walk. Of course, if you don't need to walk, say you have wings, you need a pair of wings to fly. This is the "fearful symmetry" popular scientists like to talk about. There is a certain amount of truth in it.
Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle, taught the mean in moral actions. Pushing things to either of two extremes will definitely end up in disasters. We are advised to steer across the middle course, the mean. For example, being a coward or an impulsive person cannot be a moral person. The middle course is courage. However, ancient Chinese philosophers taught 中庸之道", which is usually wrongly translated into the Middle Way. It is a big mistake because the 中 does not mean middle. Rather it means hit the mark, being impartial etc. For the Chinese, the Middle Way is not static. It is not always there. It is dynamic. When the situation changes, the Middle Way changes accordingly. For ethical purists, especially those Kantians who dislike "situational ethics", this Chinese "Middle Way" is too "prudent", too pragmatic to be meaningful at all. However, let me assure you that for Chinese morality, there are higher values than life. They are Benevolence 仁 and Justice 義. That is to say, in order to bring benevolence or justice to the others, Chinese moralists are willing to give up their life when the situation demands. The Greeks used a spatial image of the middle between two extremes. The Chinese used an archery imagery, something similar to Paul's teaching in the Romans when he says that sin is missing the mark, falling short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)
Indeed, Jesus was impartial. Between active life and contemplative life, Jesus passes no judgment. Though it seems that Jesus shows preference to Mary's choice, again, it is a happy misunderstanding. Let's read again.
"one thing is needful. Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her." (Luke 10:42)
What kind of a girl was THIS Mary? Was she always a contemplative? Was she the sinful woman who anointed Jesus in Simon, the Pharisee's house (Luke 7:36-50)? Surely she did not appear to be as outspoken as her elder sister Martha in John 11. Indeed, we have no evidence to make Mary a contemplative except for this one verse 10:39.
I prefer seeing Mary, the younger sister an energetic active girl most of the time. She needed to be more contemplative. When Jesus came, she did it. That is to say, Mary did the right thing at the right time. This is the true meaning of the Chinese "Middle Way".
Dear Lord, teach us not to despise either way of life. Help us do the right thing at the right time, like what Mary did. Amen.
Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle, taught the mean in moral actions. Pushing things to either of two extremes will definitely end up in disasters. We are advised to steer across the middle course, the mean. For example, being a coward or an impulsive person cannot be a moral person. The middle course is courage. However, ancient Chinese philosophers taught 中庸之道", which is usually wrongly translated into the Middle Way. It is a big mistake because the 中 does not mean middle. Rather it means hit the mark, being impartial etc. For the Chinese, the Middle Way is not static. It is not always there. It is dynamic. When the situation changes, the Middle Way changes accordingly. For ethical purists, especially those Kantians who dislike "situational ethics", this Chinese "Middle Way" is too "prudent", too pragmatic to be meaningful at all. However, let me assure you that for Chinese morality, there are higher values than life. They are Benevolence 仁 and Justice 義. That is to say, in order to bring benevolence or justice to the others, Chinese moralists are willing to give up their life when the situation demands. The Greeks used a spatial image of the middle between two extremes. The Chinese used an archery imagery, something similar to Paul's teaching in the Romans when he says that sin is missing the mark, falling short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)
Indeed, Jesus was impartial. Between active life and contemplative life, Jesus passes no judgment. Though it seems that Jesus shows preference to Mary's choice, again, it is a happy misunderstanding. Let's read again.
"one thing is needful. Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her." (Luke 10:42)
What kind of a girl was THIS Mary? Was she always a contemplative? Was she the sinful woman who anointed Jesus in Simon, the Pharisee's house (Luke 7:36-50)? Surely she did not appear to be as outspoken as her elder sister Martha in John 11. Indeed, we have no evidence to make Mary a contemplative except for this one verse 10:39.
I prefer seeing Mary, the younger sister an energetic active girl most of the time. She needed to be more contemplative. When Jesus came, she did it. That is to say, Mary did the right thing at the right time. This is the true meaning of the Chinese "Middle Way".
Dear Lord, teach us not to despise either way of life. Help us do the right thing at the right time, like what Mary did. Amen.
Sunday, 14 July 2013
「愛人如己」之不足
常年期第十五主日（丙年）
主題：愛近人如你自己
我們對聖經的內容，有很多「美麗的誤會」。例如創世紀中的「禁果」經常被人認為是蘋果，甚至將男人的喉核，解釋成為亞當正在吃禁果的時候被天主發現，慌亂中禁果卡在喉嚨，成為喉核，英文稱為 Adam’s Apple.
一個同耶穌有關，最家傳戶曉的美麗誤會就是「東方三博士」。瑪竇福音記載耶穌出生時，從東方來了幾位賢士朝拜耶穌，並沒有說明是三位。但因為他們獻上黃金、乳香和末藥三份禮物，結果幾位賢士變成了「東方三博士」。
此外，很多人以為是耶穌教導人要「愛人如己」。根據《馬爾谷福音》的記載，有一位經師挑戰耶穌，要耶穌從大大小小613條法律中講出最大的誡命。耶穌從容不迫地答說，「你要全心、全靈、全意、全力愛天主。並且要愛人如己」。所以，「愛人如己」是耶穌教的。殊不知，耶穌是分別引用《申命紀》和《肋未紀》經文來回應那個經師。《申命紀》和《肋未紀》是梅瑟所寫的，所以「愛人如己」並不是耶穌所教導的，而是梅瑟。
可是，問題又出現了。根據《馬爾谷福音》的記載，是耶穌親口說出最大的誡命。但在剛才所聽的《路加福音》，講出最大的誡命是挑戰耶穌的經師。究竟是耶穌講還是經師講的呢？福音不是記載歷史事實的嗎？為何有兩個矛盾的版本？
雖然福音是「耶穌傳」，但福音的作者是懷有一個目的地寫福音的，他們根據一些與耶穌有關的歷史事件，再針對個別信徒團體不同的背景和因應宣講上的需要，加以修飾編輯，目的是為了使門徒認識耶穌，加深他們對耶穌的信仰，發揮福音的精神。
馬爾谷所寫的福音，講故事多，講教訓少。路加不但講故事，而且透過講耶穌的故事，幫助聽眾默想如何做一個好門徒。
根據馬爾谷的編排，這個故事發生在耶穌榮進耶路撒冷之後，即是在聖周之內。當時耶穌在聖殿舌戰群儒，續一擊退來自四方八面的挑戰。歷史上，可能真的是由耶穌講出最大的誡命，擊敗經師的挑戰，再沒有進一步發揮的必要。路加的版本不是在聖殿發生，耶穌並不是遭人圍攻。他安排由經師講最大的誡命，而且，經師不甘心耶穌輕易迴避了挑戰，想對耶穌進一步窮追猛打，結果反而給耶穌一個講慈善撒瑪黎雅人比喻的機會。路加的文學造詣，可見一斑。
其實大家有沒有留意到「愛近人如你自己」有甚麽不妥？
讓我們欣賞一下路加如何展現「愛人如己」的破綻吧。
比較一下經師和耶穌所問的問題，就可以看到「愛人如己」的破綻了。
經師追問耶穌「畢竟誰是『我』的近人？」
耶穌講完慈善撒瑪黎雅人比喻時是怎樣問的？「誰是『那遭遇強盜者』的近人呢？」
經師以自我為中心，以自我為出發點。耶穌教訓經師以別人為中心，以需要幫助的人為出發點。以自我做中心的所謂「愛」是自私，不是真心的愛。為別人著想的愛纔是真正的愛。「愛人如己」其實有破綻，破綻在於有自己。因此，做一個好基督徒，「愛人如己」是不足夠的。路加幫助聽眾默想「愛人」的真正意義。愛人不可以從自己的觀點，自己的利益出發，真正的愛要從對方的益處，對方的觀點出發。「愛人忘記自己」。
上星期一小六派位放榜，明天是第二屆文憑試放榜，做家長的忙得「不亦樂乎」。近年出現不少所謂「直昇機家長、怪獸家長」令人咎病。他們要求陪伴讀大學的子女到內地實習，他們想出席大一迎新營，保護自己的子女不受欺凌。小六的家長帶著子女四出奔波叩門，想子女入讀Band One名校，又向學校訓導老師說謊，坦護遲起床的子女…凡此種種都是出於一份對子女的愛，可惜是一份「錯愛」，因為並不是從子女的益處，子女的成長為出發點。所謂「好心做壞事」，都是因為沒從別人的真正需要為出發點。有人出於好意，不想自己的絕症加重親人的負載，用跳樓自殺或者「安樂死」的手段去處理問題，結果留給家人的是一份很難磨滅的内疚。如果能與家人一齊互相支持，渡過餘下的時日，自然地離世，反而是送給家人一份最好的，無悔的禮物。
雖然說「家家有本難唸的經」，不過，做天主教徒有一個優勢，希望大家多加運用。在俗世，我們有「明愛家庭服務部」，可以幫助我們處理家庭問題、兒女的問題。在靈性上，我們有天主聖神，祂既是真理之神，亦是天主的愛。讓我們向居住在我們心中的聖神祈求，不是在有困難的時候臨急抱天主的腳，而是平時多向聖神祈禱，求祂光照我們的明悟，懂得正確地愛，並暖化我們自私，對別人的困難視若無暏的冰心，慷慨地伸出援手。
天主保祐。
15th Ordinary Sunday, Year C
Theme: Love your neighbour as yourself
We have a lot of “beautiful misunderstandings” of the stories in the Bible. For example, people usually think that the “forbidden fruit” mentioned in Genesis was an apple. They even explain the origin of the laryngeal protuberance as a piece of forbidden fruit stuck at the throat when Adam was caught by God eating it. Thus, it is called Adam’s Apple.
Another well-known misunderstanding involving Jesus is the “Three Magi”. Matthew mentions that when Jesus was born, “several wise men” arrived from the East to worship him. Matthew did not say three but since they offered three gifts: gold, frankincense and myrrh, “several wise men” became “Three Magi”.
Moreover, many people think that Jesus teaches us to love our neighbour as ourselves. According to the gospel of Mark, a teacher of the Law challenged Jesus which was the greatest commandment among the 613 Jewish laws. Jesus leisurely told him that the greatest commandment is to love God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind and with all our strength; and the second greatest is to love our neighbour as ourselves. Therefore, it is Jesus who teaches us to love our neighbour as ourselves. They don’t know that Jesus was actually quoting Deuteronomy and Leviticus in answering the teacher of the Law. Deuteronomy and Leviticus were written by Moses. Therefore, Jesus did not teach us to love our neighbour as ourselves. Moses did.
Now, another problem arises. According to the gospel of Mark, the greatest commandment came from the lips of Jesus. However, from what we heard in Luke today, the greatest commandment came from the lips of the teacher of the Law who challenged Jesus. Now, who actually spoke it, Jesus or the teacher of the Law? Do the gospels not talk about historical truths? Why do we have two contradictory versions?
Although gospels are supposed to be biographies of Jesus, the Evangelists wrote with a purpose. They selected some historical events involving Jesus, edited and embellished these events in accordance with the circumstances of the community and the needs of proclamation. They wrote in such a way as to portray a particular image of Jesus, to deepen their faith in Jesus and to advocate the spirit of the gospel. Mark is more inclined to tell stories than to preach morals. Luke not only tells stories of Jesus, but he also wants to help the audience meditate how to be a good disciple.
According to Mark’s arrangements, the story happened after Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem, i.e. within the Holy Week. At that time, Jesus was surrounded and challenged by people of different religious shades and political alliances in the Temple. Jesus was able to ward them off one by one. In history, it was probably Jesus who spoke of the greatest commandment to defeat the teacher of the Law. Afterwards, there would be no more need to elaborate. Luke’s version did not take place in the Temple. Jesus was not surrounded by hostile challengers. Luke put the greatest commandment in the lips of the teacher of the Law who did not want to let Jesus off the hook too easily and wanted to keep the battle going. Inadvertently, he handed Jesus an opportunity to teach him a lesson with the parable of the Good Samaritan. Luke’s literary mastery surpasses Mark’s a lot.
In fact, do you see any flaw in the commandment of “loving your neighbour as yourself”?
Let us see how Luke unveils the loophole in “loving your neighbour as yourself.”
Contrasting how the teacher of the Law and Jesus asked the questions will reveal the flaw.
The teacher of the Law asked Jesus “who is my neighbour?” (Luke 10:29) After telling the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus asked, “Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbour to the man who fell among the robbers?” (Luke 10:36).
The teacher of the Law was self-centred. Jesus taught the teacher of the Law to be altruistic, to put on the shoes of the needy. Self-centred love is selfish love, not true love. True love is being considerate to the needs of the others. The loophole of “Love your neighbour as yourself” is the “self”. To be a good Christian, it is not enough to “love your neighbour as yourself”. Luke helps his audience meditate on the real meaning of love. Love your neighbour cannot begin with your own perspective, your own interests. True love begins from the interests of the others, the perspective of the others. “Love your neighbour forgets yourself”.
Last Monday, the results of Secondary School Places Allocation were released. Tomorrow, the results of Diploma of Secondary Education examination will be released. Many parents would be very busy. In recent years, there reported many “helicopter parents”, “monster parents” whose actions were widely criticized. They wanted to accompany their children in their internship in the mainland; they wanted to go to freshmen orientation camps to protect their children lest they would be bullied. Many primary six parents ran around the territory with their children to ‘knock the doors’ in order to have their children enrolled in Band One elite schools. Some even tell lies to discipline teachers so that their children would not be punished for returning to schools late ... All these actions are motivated by ‘parental love’ of their children. Unfortunately, it is a wrong kind of love because it does not start with the interests of the child, the growth and development of the child. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” It is all because the starting point is not the interests and needs of the others. Some patients of incurable diseases who do not want to burden their family members financially and emotionally decide to jump to their death or seek euthanasia to ‘solve the problem’. Consequently, the patient leaves his beloved ones an inerasable sense of guilt. If they support each other in the remaining days and let the patient die a natural death, it would be the best gift of no regret left behind for the family members.
Although “every family has her own difficult breviary to pray”, we are advantaged to be Catholics. In the real daily life, we have “Family Services of Caritas” which can help us solve family problems and child-raising problems etc. In our spiritual life, we have the Holy Spirit who is the spirit of truth and God’s love. Let us pray more to the Holy Spirit, not just in times of emergencies. We pray daily to the Holy Spirit to illuminate our intellect so that we may understand and love correctly; to inflame our callous hearts so that we may extend a helping hand generously when we see people in need.
God bless.
主題：愛近人如你自己
我們對聖經的內容，有很多「美麗的誤會」。例如創世紀中的「禁果」經常被人認為是蘋果，甚至將男人的喉核，解釋成為亞當正在吃禁果的時候被天主發現，慌亂中禁果卡在喉嚨，成為喉核，英文稱為 Adam’s Apple.
一個同耶穌有關，最家傳戶曉的美麗誤會就是「東方三博士」。瑪竇福音記載耶穌出生時，從東方來了幾位賢士朝拜耶穌，並沒有說明是三位。但因為他們獻上黃金、乳香和末藥三份禮物，結果幾位賢士變成了「東方三博士」。
此外，很多人以為是耶穌教導人要「愛人如己」。根據《馬爾谷福音》的記載，有一位經師挑戰耶穌，要耶穌從大大小小613條法律中講出最大的誡命。耶穌從容不迫地答說，「你要全心、全靈、全意、全力愛天主。並且要愛人如己」。所以，「愛人如己」是耶穌教的。殊不知，耶穌是分別引用《申命紀》和《肋未紀》經文來回應那個經師。《申命紀》和《肋未紀》是梅瑟所寫的，所以「愛人如己」並不是耶穌所教導的，而是梅瑟。
可是，問題又出現了。根據《馬爾谷福音》的記載，是耶穌親口說出最大的誡命。但在剛才所聽的《路加福音》，講出最大的誡命是挑戰耶穌的經師。究竟是耶穌講還是經師講的呢？福音不是記載歷史事實的嗎？為何有兩個矛盾的版本？
雖然福音是「耶穌傳」，但福音的作者是懷有一個目的地寫福音的，他們根據一些與耶穌有關的歷史事件，再針對個別信徒團體不同的背景和因應宣講上的需要，加以修飾編輯，目的是為了使門徒認識耶穌，加深他們對耶穌的信仰，發揮福音的精神。
馬爾谷所寫的福音，講故事多，講教訓少。路加不但講故事，而且透過講耶穌的故事，幫助聽眾默想如何做一個好門徒。
根據馬爾谷的編排，這個故事發生在耶穌榮進耶路撒冷之後，即是在聖周之內。當時耶穌在聖殿舌戰群儒，續一擊退來自四方八面的挑戰。歷史上，可能真的是由耶穌講出最大的誡命，擊敗經師的挑戰，再沒有進一步發揮的必要。路加的版本不是在聖殿發生，耶穌並不是遭人圍攻。他安排由經師講最大的誡命，而且，經師不甘心耶穌輕易迴避了挑戰，想對耶穌進一步窮追猛打，結果反而給耶穌一個講慈善撒瑪黎雅人比喻的機會。路加的文學造詣，可見一斑。
其實大家有沒有留意到「愛近人如你自己」有甚麽不妥？
讓我們欣賞一下路加如何展現「愛人如己」的破綻吧。
比較一下經師和耶穌所問的問題，就可以看到「愛人如己」的破綻了。
經師追問耶穌「畢竟誰是『我』的近人？」
耶穌講完慈善撒瑪黎雅人比喻時是怎樣問的？「誰是『那遭遇強盜者』的近人呢？」
經師以自我為中心，以自我為出發點。耶穌教訓經師以別人為中心，以需要幫助的人為出發點。以自我做中心的所謂「愛」是自私，不是真心的愛。為別人著想的愛纔是真正的愛。「愛人如己」其實有破綻，破綻在於有自己。因此，做一個好基督徒，「愛人如己」是不足夠的。路加幫助聽眾默想「愛人」的真正意義。愛人不可以從自己的觀點，自己的利益出發，真正的愛要從對方的益處，對方的觀點出發。「愛人忘記自己」。
上星期一小六派位放榜，明天是第二屆文憑試放榜，做家長的忙得「不亦樂乎」。近年出現不少所謂「直昇機家長、怪獸家長」令人咎病。他們要求陪伴讀大學的子女到內地實習，他們想出席大一迎新營，保護自己的子女不受欺凌。小六的家長帶著子女四出奔波叩門，想子女入讀Band One名校，又向學校訓導老師說謊，坦護遲起床的子女…凡此種種都是出於一份對子女的愛，可惜是一份「錯愛」，因為並不是從子女的益處，子女的成長為出發點。所謂「好心做壞事」，都是因為沒從別人的真正需要為出發點。有人出於好意，不想自己的絕症加重親人的負載，用跳樓自殺或者「安樂死」的手段去處理問題，結果留給家人的是一份很難磨滅的内疚。如果能與家人一齊互相支持，渡過餘下的時日，自然地離世，反而是送給家人一份最好的，無悔的禮物。
雖然說「家家有本難唸的經」，不過，做天主教徒有一個優勢，希望大家多加運用。在俗世，我們有「明愛家庭服務部」，可以幫助我們處理家庭問題、兒女的問題。在靈性上，我們有天主聖神，祂既是真理之神，亦是天主的愛。讓我們向居住在我們心中的聖神祈求，不是在有困難的時候臨急抱天主的腳，而是平時多向聖神祈禱，求祂光照我們的明悟，懂得正確地愛，並暖化我們自私，對別人的困難視若無暏的冰心，慷慨地伸出援手。
天主保祐。
15th Ordinary Sunday, Year C
Theme: Love your neighbour as yourself
We have a lot of “beautiful misunderstandings” of the stories in the Bible. For example, people usually think that the “forbidden fruit” mentioned in Genesis was an apple. They even explain the origin of the laryngeal protuberance as a piece of forbidden fruit stuck at the throat when Adam was caught by God eating it. Thus, it is called Adam’s Apple.
Another well-known misunderstanding involving Jesus is the “Three Magi”. Matthew mentions that when Jesus was born, “several wise men” arrived from the East to worship him. Matthew did not say three but since they offered three gifts: gold, frankincense and myrrh, “several wise men” became “Three Magi”.
Moreover, many people think that Jesus teaches us to love our neighbour as ourselves. According to the gospel of Mark, a teacher of the Law challenged Jesus which was the greatest commandment among the 613 Jewish laws. Jesus leisurely told him that the greatest commandment is to love God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind and with all our strength; and the second greatest is to love our neighbour as ourselves. Therefore, it is Jesus who teaches us to love our neighbour as ourselves. They don’t know that Jesus was actually quoting Deuteronomy and Leviticus in answering the teacher of the Law. Deuteronomy and Leviticus were written by Moses. Therefore, Jesus did not teach us to love our neighbour as ourselves. Moses did.
Now, another problem arises. According to the gospel of Mark, the greatest commandment came from the lips of Jesus. However, from what we heard in Luke today, the greatest commandment came from the lips of the teacher of the Law who challenged Jesus. Now, who actually spoke it, Jesus or the teacher of the Law? Do the gospels not talk about historical truths? Why do we have two contradictory versions?
Although gospels are supposed to be biographies of Jesus, the Evangelists wrote with a purpose. They selected some historical events involving Jesus, edited and embellished these events in accordance with the circumstances of the community and the needs of proclamation. They wrote in such a way as to portray a particular image of Jesus, to deepen their faith in Jesus and to advocate the spirit of the gospel. Mark is more inclined to tell stories than to preach morals. Luke not only tells stories of Jesus, but he also wants to help the audience meditate how to be a good disciple.
According to Mark’s arrangements, the story happened after Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem, i.e. within the Holy Week. At that time, Jesus was surrounded and challenged by people of different religious shades and political alliances in the Temple. Jesus was able to ward them off one by one. In history, it was probably Jesus who spoke of the greatest commandment to defeat the teacher of the Law. Afterwards, there would be no more need to elaborate. Luke’s version did not take place in the Temple. Jesus was not surrounded by hostile challengers. Luke put the greatest commandment in the lips of the teacher of the Law who did not want to let Jesus off the hook too easily and wanted to keep the battle going. Inadvertently, he handed Jesus an opportunity to teach him a lesson with the parable of the Good Samaritan. Luke’s literary mastery surpasses Mark’s a lot.
In fact, do you see any flaw in the commandment of “loving your neighbour as yourself”?
Let us see how Luke unveils the loophole in “loving your neighbour as yourself.”
Contrasting how the teacher of the Law and Jesus asked the questions will reveal the flaw.
The teacher of the Law asked Jesus “who is my neighbour?” (Luke 10:29) After telling the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus asked, “Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbour to the man who fell among the robbers?” (Luke 10:36).
The teacher of the Law was self-centred. Jesus taught the teacher of the Law to be altruistic, to put on the shoes of the needy. Self-centred love is selfish love, not true love. True love is being considerate to the needs of the others. The loophole of “Love your neighbour as yourself” is the “self”. To be a good Christian, it is not enough to “love your neighbour as yourself”. Luke helps his audience meditate on the real meaning of love. Love your neighbour cannot begin with your own perspective, your own interests. True love begins from the interests of the others, the perspective of the others. “Love your neighbour forgets yourself”.
Last Monday, the results of Secondary School Places Allocation were released. Tomorrow, the results of Diploma of Secondary Education examination will be released. Many parents would be very busy. In recent years, there reported many “helicopter parents”, “monster parents” whose actions were widely criticized. They wanted to accompany their children in their internship in the mainland; they wanted to go to freshmen orientation camps to protect their children lest they would be bullied. Many primary six parents ran around the territory with their children to ‘knock the doors’ in order to have their children enrolled in Band One elite schools. Some even tell lies to discipline teachers so that their children would not be punished for returning to schools late ... All these actions are motivated by ‘parental love’ of their children. Unfortunately, it is a wrong kind of love because it does not start with the interests of the child, the growth and development of the child. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” It is all because the starting point is not the interests and needs of the others. Some patients of incurable diseases who do not want to burden their family members financially and emotionally decide to jump to their death or seek euthanasia to ‘solve the problem’. Consequently, the patient leaves his beloved ones an inerasable sense of guilt. If they support each other in the remaining days and let the patient die a natural death, it would be the best gift of no regret left behind for the family members.
Although “every family has her own difficult breviary to pray”, we are advantaged to be Catholics. In the real daily life, we have “Family Services of Caritas” which can help us solve family problems and child-raising problems etc. In our spiritual life, we have the Holy Spirit who is the spirit of truth and God’s love. Let us pray more to the Holy Spirit, not just in times of emergencies. We pray daily to the Holy Spirit to illuminate our intellect so that we may understand and love correctly; to inflame our callous hearts so that we may extend a helping hand generously when we see people in need.
God bless.
Monday, 8 July 2013
Christian Peace
The Word of God is truly alive. Every time we hear the Gospel read to us, there will always be new discoveries, new understandings.
In the reading of Luke 10:1-9 today, for the first time, we hear of Jesus' appointing other seventy disciples to go out, two by two, to preach the gospel before he himself visited those town (Luke 10:1). These 70 disciples were not found in the other three gospels. Naturally, one may wonder where these 70 disciples came from? This tradition is peculiar to the Lukan community, like other famous parables such as the Good Samaritan (Luke 10) and the Prodigal Son (Luke 15). We cannot deny their authenticity. We can only speculate their origins.
These 70 disciples appeared after the miracle of 5 loaves and 2 fish in Luke 9. In my previous blog, I questioned how 12 apostles were able to control a crowd of 5000 people. Perhaps these 70 disciples could relief a little bit of the tension. I speculate that when the 12 apostles tried to arrange the people to sit down in groups of 50 (Luke 9:14), some people volunteered to help out. These volunteers, say one per group, might be the origin of these subsequent 70 disciples. The miracle provided an opportunity for their leadership to stand out. Among them, some left and some continued to follow Jesus. 70 may also be a symbolic number. In the case of Moses who was overburdened with settling disputes among the Israelites in the wilderness, God told Moses to gather seventy elders to share his workload (Numbers 11). Similarly, in the case of Jesus, the harvest is plentiful but the labourers are few (Luke 10:2). God sent these 70 disciples to share the workload of evangelization. My conclusion is that there must be a situation in order to draw out the potentials of people. The miracle of 5 loaves and 2 fish is a miracle of cooperation between God and men. God gives us not only what is wanting, but also an opportunity for us to cooperate with Him to channel His grace where it is needed.
How should we understand the 'peace' Jesus mentioned in Luke 10:6?
Whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace εἰρήνη be to this house!'
And if a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you. (Luke 10:5-6)
We usually understand "peace" in terms of an absence of conflict. Here, a relation is involved. The relation between people can be full of conflicts or full of peace. But in this particular verse, peace sounds like an object which can travel across space: "rest upon this house/him ... return to you". It doesn't seem to mean a relation. Alone, a person can be in peace with himself. He has no regret, no worries and no fear (John 14:27). It is not relational. Of course, on a deeper, more transcendental level, it can be relational with God. When we are able to stand blameless before God, we have no regret, no worries and no fear. In Paul's jargon, we are justified and according to Paul, our faith in Jesus justifies us before God. Why should I bring in Paul? It is because Luke was a disciple of Paul.
So, how shall we understand this verse?
First of all, the disciple himself must be at peace with God. Otherwise, how can he bring the peace of God to other people. The disciple must have already reconciled with God before he can be God's ambassador of reconciliation.
Second, his gospel message is "Peace be to this house". He brings the good news of reconciliation to people. Here, we see that peace is not an object, or rather say, not a finite object. No matter how much you "give away" your peace, you do not have "less" peace. You lose nothing, but increase more peace.
Thirdly, if there is somebody who is "a son of peace", somebody who desires the reconciliation with God, the peace you bring, your peace, will rest on him. This "son of peace" is reconciled with God.
Lastly, if he rejects this opportunity of reconciliation, he has to wait for some other opportunities. I am sure if you fail to be a channel of reconciliation, God will find some other channels. If the peace you bring goes out in vain, you lose nothing. You are still in peace with God. So, it appears that the peace returns to you. Indeed, it has always been in you.
In conclusion, if I am not in peace with God, I cannot bring His peace to other people. If I am in peace with God, this peace will not diminish.
Lord of Peace, may You peace covers the whole Creation. May Your Kingdom of Love and Peace come. Amen.
In the reading of Luke 10:1-9 today, for the first time, we hear of Jesus' appointing other seventy disciples to go out, two by two, to preach the gospel before he himself visited those town (Luke 10:1). These 70 disciples were not found in the other three gospels. Naturally, one may wonder where these 70 disciples came from? This tradition is peculiar to the Lukan community, like other famous parables such as the Good Samaritan (Luke 10) and the Prodigal Son (Luke 15). We cannot deny their authenticity. We can only speculate their origins.
These 70 disciples appeared after the miracle of 5 loaves and 2 fish in Luke 9. In my previous blog, I questioned how 12 apostles were able to control a crowd of 5000 people. Perhaps these 70 disciples could relief a little bit of the tension. I speculate that when the 12 apostles tried to arrange the people to sit down in groups of 50 (Luke 9:14), some people volunteered to help out. These volunteers, say one per group, might be the origin of these subsequent 70 disciples. The miracle provided an opportunity for their leadership to stand out. Among them, some left and some continued to follow Jesus. 70 may also be a symbolic number. In the case of Moses who was overburdened with settling disputes among the Israelites in the wilderness, God told Moses to gather seventy elders to share his workload (Numbers 11). Similarly, in the case of Jesus, the harvest is plentiful but the labourers are few (Luke 10:2). God sent these 70 disciples to share the workload of evangelization. My conclusion is that there must be a situation in order to draw out the potentials of people. The miracle of 5 loaves and 2 fish is a miracle of cooperation between God and men. God gives us not only what is wanting, but also an opportunity for us to cooperate with Him to channel His grace where it is needed.
How should we understand the 'peace' Jesus mentioned in Luke 10:6?
Whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace εἰρήνη be to this house!'
And if a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you. (Luke 10:5-6)
We usually understand "peace" in terms of an absence of conflict. Here, a relation is involved. The relation between people can be full of conflicts or full of peace. But in this particular verse, peace sounds like an object which can travel across space: "rest upon this house/him ... return to you". It doesn't seem to mean a relation. Alone, a person can be in peace with himself. He has no regret, no worries and no fear (John 14:27). It is not relational. Of course, on a deeper, more transcendental level, it can be relational with God. When we are able to stand blameless before God, we have no regret, no worries and no fear. In Paul's jargon, we are justified and according to Paul, our faith in Jesus justifies us before God. Why should I bring in Paul? It is because Luke was a disciple of Paul.
So, how shall we understand this verse?
First of all, the disciple himself must be at peace with God. Otherwise, how can he bring the peace of God to other people. The disciple must have already reconciled with God before he can be God's ambassador of reconciliation.
Second, his gospel message is "Peace be to this house". He brings the good news of reconciliation to people. Here, we see that peace is not an object, or rather say, not a finite object. No matter how much you "give away" your peace, you do not have "less" peace. You lose nothing, but increase more peace.
Thirdly, if there is somebody who is "a son of peace", somebody who desires the reconciliation with God, the peace you bring, your peace, will rest on him. This "son of peace" is reconciled with God.
Lastly, if he rejects this opportunity of reconciliation, he has to wait for some other opportunities. I am sure if you fail to be a channel of reconciliation, God will find some other channels. If the peace you bring goes out in vain, you lose nothing. You are still in peace with God. So, it appears that the peace returns to you. Indeed, it has always been in you.
In conclusion, if I am not in peace with God, I cannot bring His peace to other people. If I am in peace with God, this peace will not diminish.
Lord of Peace, may You peace covers the whole Creation. May Your Kingdom of Love and Peace come. Amen.
Sunday, 23 June 2013
Who do you think Jesus is?
This is the key question we have to wrestle with throughout our life.
Luke does not mention the location. Mark tells us that it took place in Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:27). Matthew takes this opportunity to establish the primacy of Simon Peter whom Jesus made the rock on which to build his Church (Matthew 16:18).
On the other hand, Luke puts this story immediately after the miracle of the 5 loaves and 2 fish, where in the other two synoptic gospels, it was another miracle in which Jesus walked on the water. In Luke, Jesus was praying alone and his disciples were with him (Luke 9:18).Usually, such an introduction to a story in Luke signifies some very important events such as selection of 12 apostles (6:12), Transfiguration (9:28), teaching of the Lord's Prayer (11:1) and the Agony (22:40) etc.
Jesus' ministry reached its zenith at the miracle of the 5 loaves and 2 fish. A crowd of nearly 10,000 people gathered around him. Jesus was more than capable to mobile them to march to Jerusalem and started a political/military venture against the Roman dominion. He did not choose this path of political Messiah. His mission is to execute God's will to die obediently for our sake. But first of all, in order to effect this redemption project, Jesus needs to win our hearts over. But he respects our freedom. He simply asks us what we think of him.
From his fearless criticism of the corrupt authority, people saw a John the Baptist or an Elijah of old. From the miracles he worked, people could see an Elijah or some other prophets of the Old Testament. After eating to their full in the feeding miracle, the people would naturally say that Jesus was a miracle worker, a man of God, a prophet of old. Such an understanding was not wrong. It was incomplete.
When Jesus asked his disciples, he first began with an easier question. What the general public, the others said about him. Then came the incisive question, "But who do you say that I am?" (9:20). Peter's answer, viz. the Christ of God, was political. This was the Messianic expectation of the contemporary people. Peter was not completely right. It takes time, a life time for Peter and everybody to come to a correct understanding of Jesus.
However, this question is crucial for us as a Christian because this is what we preach to non-believers. Of course, we may follow the book. We tell people what we know from the gospels. We share our interpretation of the gospel with people who want to know more about this Jesus. That is why the question is crucial.
The Psalmist gave us many images of God. For example, the Lord is my shield (Psalm 3:3), my rock (Psalm 18:2), and my shepherd (Psalm 23:1) etc. These images are vivid and are not theological jargon. They don't have to be theologically precis and correct. They are authentic and can offer us a reference. In the last analysis, they can mean nothing to us if we cannot find personal experiences that echo similar sentiment.
Fr. Milanese is a good pastor. In his homily this morning, he pointed out another dimension of the question. In trying to answer Jesus' question, we also answer who we are.
Dear Lord, You are my boss. Let me be Your handy instrument to reconcile the world. Amen.
Luke does not mention the location. Mark tells us that it took place in Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:27). Matthew takes this opportunity to establish the primacy of Simon Peter whom Jesus made the rock on which to build his Church (Matthew 16:18).
On the other hand, Luke puts this story immediately after the miracle of the 5 loaves and 2 fish, where in the other two synoptic gospels, it was another miracle in which Jesus walked on the water. In Luke, Jesus was praying alone and his disciples were with him (Luke 9:18).Usually, such an introduction to a story in Luke signifies some very important events such as selection of 12 apostles (6:12), Transfiguration (9:28), teaching of the Lord's Prayer (11:1) and the Agony (22:40) etc.
Jesus' ministry reached its zenith at the miracle of the 5 loaves and 2 fish. A crowd of nearly 10,000 people gathered around him. Jesus was more than capable to mobile them to march to Jerusalem and started a political/military venture against the Roman dominion. He did not choose this path of political Messiah. His mission is to execute God's will to die obediently for our sake. But first of all, in order to effect this redemption project, Jesus needs to win our hearts over. But he respects our freedom. He simply asks us what we think of him.
From his fearless criticism of the corrupt authority, people saw a John the Baptist or an Elijah of old. From the miracles he worked, people could see an Elijah or some other prophets of the Old Testament. After eating to their full in the feeding miracle, the people would naturally say that Jesus was a miracle worker, a man of God, a prophet of old. Such an understanding was not wrong. It was incomplete.
When Jesus asked his disciples, he first began with an easier question. What the general public, the others said about him. Then came the incisive question, "But who do you say that I am?" (9:20). Peter's answer, viz. the Christ of God, was political. This was the Messianic expectation of the contemporary people. Peter was not completely right. It takes time, a life time for Peter and everybody to come to a correct understanding of Jesus.
However, this question is crucial for us as a Christian because this is what we preach to non-believers. Of course, we may follow the book. We tell people what we know from the gospels. We share our interpretation of the gospel with people who want to know more about this Jesus. That is why the question is crucial.
The Psalmist gave us many images of God. For example, the Lord is my shield (Psalm 3:3), my rock (Psalm 18:2), and my shepherd (Psalm 23:1) etc. These images are vivid and are not theological jargon. They don't have to be theologically precis and correct. They are authentic and can offer us a reference. In the last analysis, they can mean nothing to us if we cannot find personal experiences that echo similar sentiment.
Fr. Milanese is a good pastor. In his homily this morning, he pointed out another dimension of the question. In trying to answer Jesus' question, we also answer who we are.
Dear Lord, You are my boss. Let me be Your handy instrument to reconcile the world. Amen.
Sunday, 16 June 2013
Love/Faith and Forgiveness
When we reach the end of Luke 7, we expect Jesus to say "Your love has saved you; go in peace." Instead, he said, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." (Luke 7:50). What is the logic? Nowhere in the story did faith play any role. Why does faith suddenly pop up and occupy the centre of the stage?
It all began with an eating at a Pharisee's house. The Pharisee was called Simon. In Matthew's version, this Simon was a leper (Matthew 26:6-13). Probably out of gratitude, he invited Jesus to dinner to thank Jesus. A sinful woman knew about it, came and anointed Jesus with expensive ointment (Luke 7:36-50). In Mark and Matthew, Jesus defended the action of the woman by saying that she was preparing his burial in advance. However, this story was handled in a different manner in the hand of Luke. Jesus defended the woman and turned the situation into a discourse on forgiveness. Luke wants to tell his readers that forgiveness is closely related to love. Or does he? Let us analyze the logic of Luke.
First of all, Jesus told a parable of two debtors, both of whom were unable to repay. The creditor forgave them both. Jesus did not explain why the creditor did so. He simply asked Simon which debtor loved the creditor more. Cautiously, Simon answered correctly that the one who was forgiven more (7:43). Obvious enough. The act of forgiving elicits gratitude and love.
Then, Jesus took the offensive to spell out how Simon had neglected his manners as the host in contrast to lavishness of the sinful woman's love (7:44-46). And Jesus drew the conclusion that because the sinful woman loved more, therefore she was forgiven more.
"her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much;
ἀφέωνται αἱ ἁμαρτίαι αὐτῆς αἱ πολλαί, ὅτι ἠγάπησεν πολύ" (7:47).
Immediately, Jesus put his words into action and forgave the sins of the woman (7:48). Now, it seems that the logic is turned around. Love elicits forgiveness. Did Jesus really mean this? Not quite.
Let us read the complete verse 47.
"Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little."
The first part seems to say that because she loves more, therefore she is forgiven more. However, the second part seems to be out of place. It seems to complete Jesus' question in saying that he who is forgiven little and therefore loves little in return.
The key word is "for" but the Greek original "ὅτι" can simply means "that" and does not make "LOVE" the requirement/reason for obtaining forgiveness. Of course, we should encourage people to love God more. But our love cannot be a kind of bargain. God, see how much I love you. Therefore, forgive me more. This kind of motive is wrong. Love should be love for love's sake.
It is always God who loves us first. We do not deserve such unreserved love. It is only right that we love God in return. The creditor loves the two debtors. He has mercy and compassion on them. Therefore, he forgave them. It so happened that one debtor owed more than the other. One sinner sins more than the other sinner. Therefore, the sinner who sins more, or rather who knows that he sins more, loves God more. Love is the consequence, not the cause. Faith in God is the cause.
One the other hand, Simon is not guiltless. Yet, he does not know his sins. He was not aware of his "negligence". His lack of faith in Jesus "... if this man were a prophet" (7:39) was the cause of his inhospitality shown to Jesus. In other words, we are not aware of our sins when our faith in God is wanting. The "advantage" of a public sinner is that she knows her sins.
No wonder Jesus took the offensive to spell out the "sins" of Simon. No wonder it was faith and not love that saved the sinful woman.
Dear Lord, open my heart so that I may know my sins more, that I may love You more. Amen.
p.s.
I brought up the same question to my colleagues to bring to their attention that we cannot take the Sunday Gospel reading for granted. It took some time for them to know the problem. Then during lunch time, a brave Pastoral Assistant, Natalie Wu, attempted to explain why Jesus said the faith of the sinful woman had saved her, not her gratitude or love. I challenged her arguments and asked her to show me which part of the story mentioned the faith of the sinful woman. None! However, in the end, she came up with a beautiful solution.
Jesus forgave the woman (7:48). The audience openly queried Jesus' authority (7:49). Jesus pronounced the teaching (7:50). The sentence was meant for the audience who questioned Jesus' authority to forgive sins. These people, including Simon, did not have enough faith in Jesus.
A very brave attempt. I like the answer.
p.p.s.
The story is too good a challenge to allow it to fly in my face too easily. Moreover, the attempt to discuss this story with Wulstan, my second son, led to an unhappy experience. But I have run out of my wits. So, I sought help from Fr. Placid Wong, OFM again. He kindly replied promptly and I think I have cracked the hard nut.
Here are the exchanges.
On June 21, 2013.
Dear Father,
It all began with an eating at a Pharisee's house. The Pharisee was called Simon. In Matthew's version, this Simon was a leper (Matthew 26:6-13). Probably out of gratitude, he invited Jesus to dinner to thank Jesus. A sinful woman knew about it, came and anointed Jesus with expensive ointment (Luke 7:36-50). In Mark and Matthew, Jesus defended the action of the woman by saying that she was preparing his burial in advance. However, this story was handled in a different manner in the hand of Luke. Jesus defended the woman and turned the situation into a discourse on forgiveness. Luke wants to tell his readers that forgiveness is closely related to love. Or does he? Let us analyze the logic of Luke.
First of all, Jesus told a parable of two debtors, both of whom were unable to repay. The creditor forgave them both. Jesus did not explain why the creditor did so. He simply asked Simon which debtor loved the creditor more. Cautiously, Simon answered correctly that the one who was forgiven more (7:43). Obvious enough. The act of forgiving elicits gratitude and love.
Then, Jesus took the offensive to spell out how Simon had neglected his manners as the host in contrast to lavishness of the sinful woman's love (7:44-46). And Jesus drew the conclusion that because the sinful woman loved more, therefore she was forgiven more.
"her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much;
ἀφέωνται αἱ ἁμαρτίαι αὐτῆς αἱ πολλαί, ὅτι ἠγάπησεν πολύ" (7:47).
Immediately, Jesus put his words into action and forgave the sins of the woman (7:48). Now, it seems that the logic is turned around. Love elicits forgiveness. Did Jesus really mean this? Not quite.
Let us read the complete verse 47.
"Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little."
The first part seems to say that because she loves more, therefore she is forgiven more. However, the second part seems to be out of place. It seems to complete Jesus' question in saying that he who is forgiven little and therefore loves little in return.
The key word is "for" but the Greek original "ὅτι" can simply means "that" and does not make "LOVE" the requirement/reason for obtaining forgiveness. Of course, we should encourage people to love God more. But our love cannot be a kind of bargain. God, see how much I love you. Therefore, forgive me more. This kind of motive is wrong. Love should be love for love's sake.
It is always God who loves us first. We do not deserve such unreserved love. It is only right that we love God in return. The creditor loves the two debtors. He has mercy and compassion on them. Therefore, he forgave them. It so happened that one debtor owed more than the other. One sinner sins more than the other sinner. Therefore, the sinner who sins more, or rather who knows that he sins more, loves God more. Love is the consequence, not the cause. Faith in God is the cause.
One the other hand, Simon is not guiltless. Yet, he does not know his sins. He was not aware of his "negligence". His lack of faith in Jesus "... if this man were a prophet" (7:39) was the cause of his inhospitality shown to Jesus. In other words, we are not aware of our sins when our faith in God is wanting. The "advantage" of a public sinner is that she knows her sins.
No wonder Jesus took the offensive to spell out the "sins" of Simon. No wonder it was faith and not love that saved the sinful woman.
Dear Lord, open my heart so that I may know my sins more, that I may love You more. Amen.
p.s.
I brought up the same question to my colleagues to bring to their attention that we cannot take the Sunday Gospel reading for granted. It took some time for them to know the problem. Then during lunch time, a brave Pastoral Assistant, Natalie Wu, attempted to explain why Jesus said the faith of the sinful woman had saved her, not her gratitude or love. I challenged her arguments and asked her to show me which part of the story mentioned the faith of the sinful woman. None! However, in the end, she came up with a beautiful solution.
Jesus forgave the woman (7:48). The audience openly queried Jesus' authority (7:49). Jesus pronounced the teaching (7:50). The sentence was meant for the audience who questioned Jesus' authority to forgive sins. These people, including Simon, did not have enough faith in Jesus.
A very brave attempt. I like the answer.
p.p.s.
The story is too good a challenge to allow it to fly in my face too easily. Moreover, the attempt to discuss this story with Wulstan, my second son, led to an unhappy experience. But I have run out of my wits. So, I sought help from Fr. Placid Wong, OFM again. He kindly replied promptly and I think I have cracked the hard nut.
Here are the exchanges.
On June 21, 2013.
Dear Father,
Sorry to bring you trouble again.
The story of the sinful woman is a difficult nut to crack.
First of all, Jesus' parable of two debtors and a creditor in Luke 7:41-42 has drawn out the conclusion that forgiveness gives rise to gratitude (7:43). Love is a consequence of forgiveness. However, in 7:47, Jesus gives an opposite conclusion that Love is the cause of forgiveness. In between, he simply contrasts what Simon the Pharisee had failed to do with what the sinful woman had done. This contrasting does not seem to warrant the conclusion that Love is the cause of forgiveness. Moreover, this conclusion seems to be guilty of Pelagianism. The more love/work you do, the more grace you obtain!
Then at the end of the story, we all expect Jesus to say "Your love/charity has saved you; go in peace." Instead, he said, "You faith ... etc." Faith suddenly jumped out from nowhere in the story! This is really hard to follow.
I checked the Greek original of 7:47 and found the word ὅτι, which is usually translated into since, because. It can also be translated into "that". I wonder if it is possible to translated it into "so that". In this way, verse 7:47 will agree with 7:43 and 7:47 will not be guilty of Pelagianism. But still, I cannot figure out where "faith" came from. Have I misunderstood the theology behind the story? Or would it be possible for some exhausted monks to copy the wrong verse into the wrong location?
On June 22, 2013, Fr. Placid replied.
Dear Alex,
Since o[ti can be understood as "so that" (you may find this significance in a more comprehensive Greek Dictionary in the HSSC library), I think the first problem solved as you said. But be careful, don't mix up "grace" with "love", "grace" definitely granted to men by God unconditionally for his "love".
From "love" to "faith" in the passage seems to be odd, but it's true when you read slowly the passgage especially the part about the reaction of the people in verse 49, "Who is this who even forgives sins?" after Jesus says to the woman "Your sins are forgiven." What they think is "only God can forgive sins", thus it shows that they do not believe Jesus is God. They think Jesus is just a prophet in verse 39. On the contrary, the woman repents of her sins with tears before Jesus and anoint Him. This shows the woman loves Jesus and believe Him as God. Therefore Jesus says that she is saved by her faith.
From "love" to "faith" was not uncommon concept in the New Testament, in the Letter of James 2:17, "if it (faith) does not have work, is dead". What work does James mean is the work of charity, that is "love" in the context of the same chapter. We may conclude that the appearance of faith is deeds of love.
Hoping that the explanation is clear.
Regards.
Fr Placid Wong ofm
With this inspiration, I came up with the following reconstruction of the whole story.
Dear Father,
Thanks very much for your prompt reply. Things begin to fall into places now.
First of all, I equate "forgiveness" of Jesus with "grace" and "love/gratitude" of the woman with "work". That is why I feel the whole story sounds like Pelagianism. In fact, the layout of the story gives the impression that the gratitude/love of the sinful woman earned her forgiveness from Jesus. That is one of the reasons why Jesus insisted that it was faith, not work/gratitude/love that saved the woman.
If we assume that the whole story starts with something outside the story, then our theory, i.e. forgiveness/grace generates love and work, can stand.
Why did the woman come to anoint Jesus in the first place? Something must have happened to touch/move her. That something I could only speculate. Perhaps she had heard Jesus' preaching before. She felt that in the teaching of Jesus, she could find a new beginning in her life. She felt forgiven or even better, Jesus had actually told her that her sins had been forgiven. Sin no more (John 8). Therefore, she came to anoint Jesus.
Then, we have to explain why Jesus forgave her twice.
I think Jesus did it deliberately to provoke the audience. In order to restore her social status and to make her as well as all the people around NOT to make the mistake in thinking that work would earn grace, Jesus stated unequivocally that her faith had saved her, not her love/gratitude/work. A similar case can be found in the story of the bleeding woman. "Your faith has saved you, go in peace" is meant not just for the woman, but for the people who doubted Jesus' authority to forgive sin.
Wow, my chest is clear now. Thank you very much, Father, for your inspiration.
Have I missed anything?
On the Feast of the Nativity of John the Baptist, Fr. Placid Wong gave me more encouragement to keep exploring the teachings of the Bible.
Fr Placid Wong ofm
On June 25, I replied.
Dear Father,
On the Feast of the Nativity of John the Baptist, Fr. Placid Wong gave me more encouragement to keep exploring the teachings of the Bible.
Dear Alex,
It's nice to know that you felt it clearer.
From the view of exegesis, we may explain the Biblical Text in different ways when the description of text is not so detailed, we have a lot of space to speculate providing that our explanation or interpretation is not against our faith.
Probably Lk 7:36-50 is an example, even the passage is quite long but it is not so detailed to tell us what happened to the woman before. You have raised some queries. In fact we may ask more. Why this woman could access to Jesus so easily when He had dinner with the Pharisee in his house? If the woman was sinner known by the public, why the family members of the Pharisee did not stop her in the first place from entering their house? Was this the first time she encountered Jesus? Did she repent and sin again then come to ask once more for the forgiveness of her sins?...
I think it was not the purpose of the author of the Gospel to tell the readers the complete story of the woman. His aim was to tell the readers who Jesus was, how much love as God He laid on them, how merciful He was even they were great sinners. The author tried to call the readers to believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and to repent and confess their sins in order to be saved. That was why the author skipped many of the details.
It is quite interesting to explore the meaning of the Bible Text. Keep it up.
Regards.
On June 25, I replied.
Dear Father,
Thank you.
Studying the Bible has been my life-long passion. In the valedictory speech I delivered at the CBI Graduation Mass in 2007, I thanked God for giving me the opportunity to earn a living by teaching/studying the Bible!
I am grateful for your support. May the good Lord continue to bless us in our service for the Word.
Sunday, 9 June 2013
納因的寡婦在哪？
When I delivered my homily on widows this morning, I was hesitant because a friend of mine was widowed recently. Among the audience, I recognized one or two more widows. God helps me.
常年期第十主日（丙年）
主題：教會把耶穌的救恩帶給眾人
當聖經提到「寡婦」的時候， 大家一定會想起那個將她全部所有的兩個銅錢都奉獻了的「窮寡婦」。於是在不知不覺中，以為聖經中提及的寡婦一定是很窮，很可憐的。其實不一定這樣的。所以，今天想同大家一齊初步探討一下「寡婦」在聖經中的角色。
舊約的倫理道德，首推「十誡」。「十誡」是天主賜下的法律，但過於空泛，實行起來有太多破綻。於是梅瑟按環境的需要，訂立了613條法律。其中，就有一條很有名的「為兄立嗣」的法律。假如已婚的兄長去世，沒有兒子，弟弟有責任依法娶嫂，為兄立嗣（申25:5-7）。所以古代雖然沒有社會福利署的綜援，一樣可以照顧無依的寡婦。而且法律規定收割時不可割盡，要留下一些農作物讓孤兒寡婦和外人收集，使他們得以糊口，以解燃眉之急 (肋19:9-10)。在【馬爾谷福音】記載了耶穌和門徒在安息日掐食麥穗的故事，就是同這些充滿愛德的法律有關。
以色列的寡婦大致可分三類：第一類的寡婦最不幸，她們沒有兒子，亡夫沒有兄弟，或者有兄弟但她們過了生育年齡，亡夫的兄弟無法依照梅瑟的法律娶她們。於是她們孓然一身，無兒無女、無田無地、一無所有，可謂「Ｎ無人士」。惟有投靠外家，或者倚靠梅瑟的法律，君王的救濟，繼續生存下去。福音中慷慨的窮寡婦可能屬於這一類。以色列和猶大先後亡國，充軍亞述和巴比倫，沒有子民，沒有土地，變成名副其實，無依無靠的「寡婦」，等待天主的救贖。在舊約聖經中，「寡婦」成為了「等待救贖的人」的代表。例如一些賣身為奴的以色列人，他們沒有能力還債，惟有等待同鄉為他們贖身(肋25：25-27)，他們都是等待救贖者的例子。
第二類的寡婦沒有兒子，但仍有生育能力，亡夫的兄弟便可以娶她們，為兄立嗣，照顧她們。在某程度上，她們得到救贖。【盧德傳】的主角就是一個例子，後來盧德下嫁波亞次，成為達味的曾祖母，出現在耶穌的族譜中。
第三類的寡婦有兒子，她們「母憑子貴」，可以繼承丈夫的產業，直到兒子長大成人，繼承父業。納因城中的獨子的寡婦應該屬於這一類。厄里亞先知故事中的寡婦雖然是外邦人，未必有「為兄立嗣」的法律。不過【列王紀上】已交代過她的家勢。她們的生計暫時沒有問題。
第二及第三類的寡婦沒有丈夫保護，又要管理產業，是最容易受欺負的人。耶穌在【馬爾谷福音】中，曾批評那些利用自己專業知識來侵吞寡婦家產的經師，而【路加福音】亦有一個「寡婦與不義法官」的比喻，寡婦可能受了經師欺負，想找法官為她出頭。作為一個寡婦的不幸，可想而知。而且好景不常，一旦兒子死了，又過了生育的年齡，亡夫的兄弟可能會上門追討遺產，那時她們便會變成第一類「Ｎ無寡婦」，唯有等待天主的救贖。福音中「一大夥人陪著她」的人當中，可能就有那些虎視眈眈的亡夫兄弟，準備追討遺產。就在這時候，耶穌來了。
當時耶穌會想甚麽呢？
耶穌一看見她，自然會想到自己的母親瑪利亞。聖若瑟已經過身，聖母就是獨子的寡婦。自然耶穌便有同病相憐的感受，對納因城寡婦動了憐憫的心，安慰她不要哭。耶穌知道自己要復活，救贖人類，於是復活了寡婦的獨生子，救贖了納因城的寡婦。
今天的社會，女性多數能獨立生活，而且又沒有「貞節牌坊」的壓力，寡婦已很少見了。那麽，納因城寡婦的故事在今天的香港社會，又有甚麽意義呢？寡婦既然象徵「等待天主救贖的人」，那麽教會在香港又怎樣繼承耶穌的使命，救贖那些「等待天主救贖的人」呢？ 教會自從1891年，教宗良十三世頒布「新事物通諭」起，開始放眼世界，探索如何在世上建設天國，實踐正義與和平，對社會問題發表了有很多指示。或者你會覺得教宗的通諭，社會訓導，在世上建設天國，實踐正義與和平等高不可攀，不是我們這些平信徒可以做到的事。
我認為「認識」是行動的第一步，我們有責任認識教會的社會訓導，並且關心時事，在我們的生活中將耶穌的救恩帶給那些「等待天主救贖的人」。
如果大家覺得自己力有不逮，耶穌會幫助你。大家不妨翻開【瑪竇福音】第廿五章，最後審判一段，找到耶穌吩咐我們照顧哪六種人？就是那些饑餓、口渴、無家可歸、衣不蔽體、患病和被囚的人。這些都是古今中外都有，不用費多大氣力就可以找到的人，除非我們已變得鐵石心腸、麻木不仁。否則，總可以在我們的身邊見到他們，去服侍他們。
天主保祐。
10th Ordinary Sunday, Year C
Theme: The Church brings Jesus’ salvation to all
When we hear the mention of widows in the Bible, the image of the generous poor widow who offered all that she had, viz. 2 bronze coins, will come up in our mind. Imperceptibly, we come to think that widows in the Bible must be poor and pitiful. This is not necessarily true. Today, let us tentatively explore the role widows play in the Bible.
When we come to the morality of the Old Testament, the “Ten Commandments” are the undisputed champion. The Ten Commandments were given by God but they are too general. When they are put into practice, many loopholes appear. To meet the needs of real life situations, Moses made up 613 laws and regulations. One of them is the famous Levirate law. When a man died without a male heir, the brother of the dead man would marry the widow to keep the lineage of the dead man (Deuteronomy 25:5-7). Though there was no Social Welfare Department, nor comprehensive social security assistance in ancient Israel, the widows, who would otherwise live without any support, were taken care of. Furthermore, there were laws which forbade the Israelites from wholly reaping the corners of the field, leaving some produce for the poor and strangers (Leviticus 19:9-10) to sustain their lives. In the gospel of Mark, the story of Jesus’ disciples plucking corns on Sabbath was related to this charitable law.
Because of this law of levirate marriage, three types of widows could be found in Israel. Type I was the most unfortunate. They had no child. The deceased man had no brothers or there were brothers but the widow had passed her childbearing age. The brothers could not follow Moses’ law to marry her. These widows had nothing: no child, no land and nobody to support them. They could return to their patrilineal family, or relied on the charitable laws of Moses or humanitarian aid from the kings in order to survive. The generous poor widow in the gospel probably belongs to this type. Israel and Judah were conquered and exiled by Assyria and Babylon respectively. They had no subjects and no land. Literally, they had become widows waiting for the redemption of God. Thus, in the Old Testament, widows became the representative of those who waited for redemption. One more example, when an Israelite could not repay his debt and was sold as a slave, he could only wait for his kinsmen to redeem him (Leviticus 25:25-27).
Type II widows had no child but they still were able to bear children. In this case, the brothers of the deceased men would marry them to beget heir for their brothers. The widows were taken care of and to a certain extent, they were redeemed. Ruth was such an example. Boaz married her to become the great grandmother of King David. Her name appears in the genealogy of Jesus.
Type III widows had sons. They could inherit the estate of the deceased husbands until the sons grew up to take over the estate. The widow of Nain belonged to this type. Though the widow in the Elijah story was a Gentile and there might not be levirate law, 1 Kings mentions the household of the widow. Therefore, so far, their livelihood was not a problem.
Widows of Type II and III did not have husbands to protect them. They had to manage the estates of their deceased husbands and would easily fall prey to greedy people. In the gospel of Mark, Jesus criticizes the teachers of the law who made use of their professional knowledge to devour the houses of widows. There is also a parable of the widow and an unrighteous judge in the gospel of Luke. The widow was probably exploited by teachers of the law and so sought help from the unrighteous judge. The plight of these widows could be imagined. However, good days do not last forever. Once the son died and the widow had passed her childbearing age, the brothers of the deceased husband would appear to take back the estate. Then, the widows would become Type I widows, waiting for the redemption of God. Within the large crowd from the town might be predatory brothers of the deceased husband waiting to devour her estate. At this moment, Jesus came.
What was on Jesus’ mind at that moment?
When Jesus saw the widow, naturally he would think of his mother Mary. St. Joseph was dead and the BVM was a widow with an only son. Jesus must have empathy with the widow and had compassion on her. Jesus consoled her and told her not to weep. Jesus knew he would rise to life to redeem mankind. So, he raised the only son of the widow of Nain and redeemed her.
In the society nowadays, most women can lead an independent life. There is no more pressure of “chastity plaques”. Widows are rare. So, what meaning can be found in the story of the widow of Nain for Hong Kong today? Widows symbolize “people waiting for the redemption of God”. How does the Church in Hong Kong continue to carry out the mission of Jesus to redeem these people? Since 1891 when Pope Leo XIII promulgated Rerum Noravum, the Church began to address social injustice, to explore ways to build the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, to promote justice and peace and build up a body of social teachings. Perhaps you might feel that these papal encyclicals, social teachings, building Kingdom of Heaven on earth and promoting justice and peace are too lofty to be accessible. These are not stuff for us ordinary faithful.
I believe that knowledge is the first step of action. We have the duty to know the social teachings of the Church and care about current affairs so as to bring Jesus salvation to those who wait for the redemption of God in our daily life. If you feel you are not capable of doing so, Jesus will help you. Turn to Matthew 25, the section on the Last Judgment to find out the six types of people Jesus commands us to take care of. They are the hungry, the thirsty, the homeless, the naked, the sick and the imprisoned. They were, are and will always be with us anywhere we go. We don’t need much energy to locate them. Unless our hearts are hardened, we will always find them around us and serve them.
God bless.
常年期第十主日（丙年）
主題：教會把耶穌的救恩帶給眾人
當聖經提到「寡婦」的時候， 大家一定會想起那個將她全部所有的兩個銅錢都奉獻了的「窮寡婦」。於是在不知不覺中，以為聖經中提及的寡婦一定是很窮，很可憐的。其實不一定這樣的。所以，今天想同大家一齊初步探討一下「寡婦」在聖經中的角色。
舊約的倫理道德，首推「十誡」。「十誡」是天主賜下的法律，但過於空泛，實行起來有太多破綻。於是梅瑟按環境的需要，訂立了613條法律。其中，就有一條很有名的「為兄立嗣」的法律。假如已婚的兄長去世，沒有兒子，弟弟有責任依法娶嫂，為兄立嗣（申25:5-7）。所以古代雖然沒有社會福利署的綜援，一樣可以照顧無依的寡婦。而且法律規定收割時不可割盡，要留下一些農作物讓孤兒寡婦和外人收集，使他們得以糊口，以解燃眉之急 (肋19:9-10)。在【馬爾谷福音】記載了耶穌和門徒在安息日掐食麥穗的故事，就是同這些充滿愛德的法律有關。
以色列的寡婦大致可分三類：第一類的寡婦最不幸，她們沒有兒子，亡夫沒有兄弟，或者有兄弟但她們過了生育年齡，亡夫的兄弟無法依照梅瑟的法律娶她們。於是她們孓然一身，無兒無女、無田無地、一無所有，可謂「Ｎ無人士」。惟有投靠外家，或者倚靠梅瑟的法律，君王的救濟，繼續生存下去。福音中慷慨的窮寡婦可能屬於這一類。以色列和猶大先後亡國，充軍亞述和巴比倫，沒有子民，沒有土地，變成名副其實，無依無靠的「寡婦」，等待天主的救贖。在舊約聖經中，「寡婦」成為了「等待救贖的人」的代表。例如一些賣身為奴的以色列人，他們沒有能力還債，惟有等待同鄉為他們贖身(肋25：25-27)，他們都是等待救贖者的例子。
第二類的寡婦沒有兒子，但仍有生育能力，亡夫的兄弟便可以娶她們，為兄立嗣，照顧她們。在某程度上，她們得到救贖。【盧德傳】的主角就是一個例子，後來盧德下嫁波亞次，成為達味的曾祖母，出現在耶穌的族譜中。
第三類的寡婦有兒子，她們「母憑子貴」，可以繼承丈夫的產業，直到兒子長大成人，繼承父業。納因城中的獨子的寡婦應該屬於這一類。厄里亞先知故事中的寡婦雖然是外邦人，未必有「為兄立嗣」的法律。不過【列王紀上】已交代過她的家勢。她們的生計暫時沒有問題。
第二及第三類的寡婦沒有丈夫保護，又要管理產業，是最容易受欺負的人。耶穌在【馬爾谷福音】中，曾批評那些利用自己專業知識來侵吞寡婦家產的經師，而【路加福音】亦有一個「寡婦與不義法官」的比喻，寡婦可能受了經師欺負，想找法官為她出頭。作為一個寡婦的不幸，可想而知。而且好景不常，一旦兒子死了，又過了生育的年齡，亡夫的兄弟可能會上門追討遺產，那時她們便會變成第一類「Ｎ無寡婦」，唯有等待天主的救贖。福音中「一大夥人陪著她」的人當中，可能就有那些虎視眈眈的亡夫兄弟，準備追討遺產。就在這時候，耶穌來了。
當時耶穌會想甚麽呢？
耶穌一看見她，自然會想到自己的母親瑪利亞。聖若瑟已經過身，聖母就是獨子的寡婦。自然耶穌便有同病相憐的感受，對納因城寡婦動了憐憫的心，安慰她不要哭。耶穌知道自己要復活，救贖人類，於是復活了寡婦的獨生子，救贖了納因城的寡婦。
今天的社會，女性多數能獨立生活，而且又沒有「貞節牌坊」的壓力，寡婦已很少見了。那麽，納因城寡婦的故事在今天的香港社會，又有甚麽意義呢？寡婦既然象徵「等待天主救贖的人」，那麽教會在香港又怎樣繼承耶穌的使命，救贖那些「等待天主救贖的人」呢？ 教會自從1891年，教宗良十三世頒布「新事物通諭」起，開始放眼世界，探索如何在世上建設天國，實踐正義與和平，對社會問題發表了有很多指示。或者你會覺得教宗的通諭，社會訓導，在世上建設天國，實踐正義與和平等高不可攀，不是我們這些平信徒可以做到的事。
我認為「認識」是行動的第一步，我們有責任認識教會的社會訓導，並且關心時事，在我們的生活中將耶穌的救恩帶給那些「等待天主救贖的人」。
如果大家覺得自己力有不逮，耶穌會幫助你。大家不妨翻開【瑪竇福音】第廿五章，最後審判一段，找到耶穌吩咐我們照顧哪六種人？就是那些饑餓、口渴、無家可歸、衣不蔽體、患病和被囚的人。這些都是古今中外都有，不用費多大氣力就可以找到的人，除非我們已變得鐵石心腸、麻木不仁。否則，總可以在我們的身邊見到他們，去服侍他們。
天主保祐。
10th Ordinary Sunday, Year C
Theme: The Church brings Jesus’ salvation to all
When we hear the mention of widows in the Bible, the image of the generous poor widow who offered all that she had, viz. 2 bronze coins, will come up in our mind. Imperceptibly, we come to think that widows in the Bible must be poor and pitiful. This is not necessarily true. Today, let us tentatively explore the role widows play in the Bible.
When we come to the morality of the Old Testament, the “Ten Commandments” are the undisputed champion. The Ten Commandments were given by God but they are too general. When they are put into practice, many loopholes appear. To meet the needs of real life situations, Moses made up 613 laws and regulations. One of them is the famous Levirate law. When a man died without a male heir, the brother of the dead man would marry the widow to keep the lineage of the dead man (Deuteronomy 25:5-7). Though there was no Social Welfare Department, nor comprehensive social security assistance in ancient Israel, the widows, who would otherwise live without any support, were taken care of. Furthermore, there were laws which forbade the Israelites from wholly reaping the corners of the field, leaving some produce for the poor and strangers (Leviticus 19:9-10) to sustain their lives. In the gospel of Mark, the story of Jesus’ disciples plucking corns on Sabbath was related to this charitable law.
Because of this law of levirate marriage, three types of widows could be found in Israel. Type I was the most unfortunate. They had no child. The deceased man had no brothers or there were brothers but the widow had passed her childbearing age. The brothers could not follow Moses’ law to marry her. These widows had nothing: no child, no land and nobody to support them. They could return to their patrilineal family, or relied on the charitable laws of Moses or humanitarian aid from the kings in order to survive. The generous poor widow in the gospel probably belongs to this type. Israel and Judah were conquered and exiled by Assyria and Babylon respectively. They had no subjects and no land. Literally, they had become widows waiting for the redemption of God. Thus, in the Old Testament, widows became the representative of those who waited for redemption. One more example, when an Israelite could not repay his debt and was sold as a slave, he could only wait for his kinsmen to redeem him (Leviticus 25:25-27).
Type II widows had no child but they still were able to bear children. In this case, the brothers of the deceased men would marry them to beget heir for their brothers. The widows were taken care of and to a certain extent, they were redeemed. Ruth was such an example. Boaz married her to become the great grandmother of King David. Her name appears in the genealogy of Jesus.
Type III widows had sons. They could inherit the estate of the deceased husbands until the sons grew up to take over the estate. The widow of Nain belonged to this type. Though the widow in the Elijah story was a Gentile and there might not be levirate law, 1 Kings mentions the household of the widow. Therefore, so far, their livelihood was not a problem.
Widows of Type II and III did not have husbands to protect them. They had to manage the estates of their deceased husbands and would easily fall prey to greedy people. In the gospel of Mark, Jesus criticizes the teachers of the law who made use of their professional knowledge to devour the houses of widows. There is also a parable of the widow and an unrighteous judge in the gospel of Luke. The widow was probably exploited by teachers of the law and so sought help from the unrighteous judge. The plight of these widows could be imagined. However, good days do not last forever. Once the son died and the widow had passed her childbearing age, the brothers of the deceased husband would appear to take back the estate. Then, the widows would become Type I widows, waiting for the redemption of God. Within the large crowd from the town might be predatory brothers of the deceased husband waiting to devour her estate. At this moment, Jesus came.
What was on Jesus’ mind at that moment?
When Jesus saw the widow, naturally he would think of his mother Mary. St. Joseph was dead and the BVM was a widow with an only son. Jesus must have empathy with the widow and had compassion on her. Jesus consoled her and told her not to weep. Jesus knew he would rise to life to redeem mankind. So, he raised the only son of the widow of Nain and redeemed her.
In the society nowadays, most women can lead an independent life. There is no more pressure of “chastity plaques”. Widows are rare. So, what meaning can be found in the story of the widow of Nain for Hong Kong today? Widows symbolize “people waiting for the redemption of God”. How does the Church in Hong Kong continue to carry out the mission of Jesus to redeem these people? Since 1891 when Pope Leo XIII promulgated Rerum Noravum, the Church began to address social injustice, to explore ways to build the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, to promote justice and peace and build up a body of social teachings. Perhaps you might feel that these papal encyclicals, social teachings, building Kingdom of Heaven on earth and promoting justice and peace are too lofty to be accessible. These are not stuff for us ordinary faithful.
I believe that knowledge is the first step of action. We have the duty to know the social teachings of the Church and care about current affairs so as to bring Jesus salvation to those who wait for the redemption of God in our daily life. If you feel you are not capable of doing so, Jesus will help you. Turn to Matthew 25, the section on the Last Judgment to find out the six types of people Jesus commands us to take care of. They are the hungry, the thirsty, the homeless, the naked, the sick and the imprisoned. They were, are and will always be with us anywhere we go. We don’t need much energy to locate them. Unless our hearts are hardened, we will always find them around us and serve them.
God bless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)