Let me state my beliefs.
First of all, I believe in a God of freedom. God is free in doing whatever emerges in His mind. When God created men in His image, God took a certain risk but it was worthwhile. Man is like God in many ways, e.g. his creativity and his freedom. Freedom is important in at least two ways. One, with freedom, man is able to fully develop his potentials. Two, man is responsible for the choices he freely makes. Therefore, a political system that promotes or permits freedom is beneficial for men. Democracy is not a perfect political system. It has its flaws but it is relatively better than other repressive totalitarian systems.
Secondly, I believe in a God who cares about His creatures, especially mankind. The God I believe in actively involves Himself in human history. God is the true master behind human history. It is His intention to help the poor and the oppressed and God is powerful enough to transform evil and sufferings into blessings. Without His permission, nothing can happen.
Thirdly, I do not fancy that the Communists would permit democracy for the political reform in Hong Kong, viz. allowing universal suffrage to elect the Chief Executive. How can you expect democracy from the Communists when they lack democracy. It is something alien and they fear that their grip on power would be destroyed by democracy. The Communists would never let go of their power because they do not have confidence in the people they rule and they would not have any chance to make money when their power is gone. When there is no democracy, there is no balance and check on their tendency to abuse power for corruption.
After stating my basic beliefs, I would like to make the following observations.
First of all, the organizers of OC are academics. They are too idealistic and inexperienced in organizing people. Their logistic is poor. My ex-engineer brother teases them that these organizers have only told the protesters to bring along rain coat, water, digestives and goggles but have not arranged temporary toilet facilities for the protesters! Some people accused them of naivety. Their political reform proposal has been "hijacked" by radical democrats etc. Now, they were forced to start OC prematurely. The students told the OC organizers that they had given them a hope. Now that the students were provoked to turn their class boycott into something more radical. Where are you adults? What have you done to fight for a true universal suffrage etc. This movement was doomed to fail from the very beginning. Once started, it would soon be out of their control.
Secondly, many adults blame the organizers for exploiting the young people, making them as their front-line soldiers while they remain safely in their comfort zone. I think this accusation is unfair to our younger generation. I think the new DSE syllabus is good in that it provides Liberal Studies to train our students to build up their independent thinking and presentation skills. Our last batch of AL students felt threatened by their juniors who had studied Liberal Studies. When students from the old syllabus met their S.6 counterparts, they found that their juniors were more outspoken and confident. From this. I conclude that our young people can be more mature and independent in their thoughts than some of our adults. Thank you, Liberal Studies.
Thirdly, I would rather blame the government for such an eventuality. To handle such a volatile situation, the police should dissipate the emotion of the crowd, channel it elsewhere instead of blocking it and provoking it. They are playing with fire!
Which of the two sons did the will of the father? (Matthew 21:31) Who are the hypocrites and who have repented?
Dear Lord, send Your Archangels to protect the people and shine Your glory upon us. Amen.
Sunday, 28 September 2014
Sunday, 21 September 2014
Is God being unfair (II)?
Three years ago, September 18, it was also the 25th Ordinary Sunday, Year A. I wrote a blog entitled "Is God being unfair?" Today, I thank God for allowing me to write again on the same topic. So, I entitled it "Is God being unfair (II)?" and renamed the previous one "Is God being unfair (I)?".
It is a grace of God that I can continue to reason and write because no matter how talented one is (I am not), one's health can only go in one direction. When I was younger, I was aggressive. I wanted to win. I wanted to get things done brilliantly. At this moment, I have lost that kind of passion. It no longer matters whether I win or not win. I am entering the rank of senior citizens.
In the parable, God seems to be guilty of creating in the first batch of workers a reasonable expectation which turned out to be unreasonable. I would defend God, arguing that this expectation came from a shaky moral principle. From another perspective, God wants to cure them of a utilitarian mentality which is very prevalent nowadays in Hong Kong --- people deserve to be rewarded more when they work more. Many Hong Kong citizens condemn newly arrived Chinese immigrants for collecting Comprehensive Social Security Allowance. They argue that these immigrants have not contributed to the economy of Hong Kong. Therefore, these immigrants do not deserve the benefits. Moreover, they will drain away our precious resources etc. Unfortunately, many people buy this idea because they see their "benefits" being rubbed. They see the immigrants as rivals rather than family members. Aren't we all Chinese? No. mainlanders are Communists! My overseas readers will be amazed by the in-fighting among us Chinese. No wonder Chinese have been colonized for more than two hundred years.
To illustrate the teaching of the poverty beatitude (Matthew 5:3), Jesus teaches us to pray to the Heavenly Father for our daily bread (6:11). Yes, daily. We trust that God will provide. Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow (6:34). There is no need to ask for a week's bread or a month's in advance. They will not be fresh anymore! In Jesus' time, a denarius is the wage of a day's labour, enough to feed a family. When the first batch of workers grumbled and wanted more, perhaps they wanted to save an extra denarius for tomorrow. That seems reasonable for most Hong Kong people. But perhaps they did not want to work the next day. Or they wanted a more secured retirement etc. In short, they felt insecure. They did not have faith in the owner, in God. In such case, nothing in the world would ever make them feel safe. God's providence is enough or rather more than enough to meet our needs because God is generous.
Some people were born lucky. They were talented and raised in well-off families with lucrative networks in the society. These people became successful early in their lives. People they met were less competent and less successful. Some might even losers throughout their lives. I am not suggesting categorizing people into different classes. Nor do I want to put the blame on the society for crimes people commit. Everybody is an image of God and like God we are free agents. We are free to make choices and we have to bear the consequences of our choices. This is our responsibility.
Since we live in a society, we expect fairness. We want a fair share of resources and opportunities. We don't want to be deprived of what is due us. Here lies the gap between God and men. God's righteousness is not man's justice. Righteousness for God is His salvation (various passages from Psalms and Isaiah). If God does not save us, it is for Him unrighteousness. For men, we want a fair share of rewards. So, God and man are speaking different languages here. So, when God calls us "friend" (Matthew 20:13), does God mean "friend" as we mean? Among the people called "friend" by God in Matthew, we have this unreasonable worker, an improperly prepared guest at the King's banquet (22:12) and lastly Judas (26:50).
What can we say? I am sure God wants to befriend us and to love us. Somehow, some people are more attracted by Him, some not. Some answer God's call early in their lives, some as late as at their last hour. This parable tells us not to be jealous of Jesus' generosity to one of the thieves who confessed Jesus' kingship while the other one cursed Jesus (Luke 23:39-43). The thief who cursed Jesus perhaps was harbouring an unreasonable expectation on Jesus like the first batch of workers. Therefore, the moral of this parable perhaps is to warn us of unreasonable expectations on God's reward. Trust Jesus. God will provide.
Dear Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom. Amen.
It is a grace of God that I can continue to reason and write because no matter how talented one is (I am not), one's health can only go in one direction. When I was younger, I was aggressive. I wanted to win. I wanted to get things done brilliantly. At this moment, I have lost that kind of passion. It no longer matters whether I win or not win. I am entering the rank of senior citizens.
In the parable, God seems to be guilty of creating in the first batch of workers a reasonable expectation which turned out to be unreasonable. I would defend God, arguing that this expectation came from a shaky moral principle. From another perspective, God wants to cure them of a utilitarian mentality which is very prevalent nowadays in Hong Kong --- people deserve to be rewarded more when they work more. Many Hong Kong citizens condemn newly arrived Chinese immigrants for collecting Comprehensive Social Security Allowance. They argue that these immigrants have not contributed to the economy of Hong Kong. Therefore, these immigrants do not deserve the benefits. Moreover, they will drain away our precious resources etc. Unfortunately, many people buy this idea because they see their "benefits" being rubbed. They see the immigrants as rivals rather than family members. Aren't we all Chinese? No. mainlanders are Communists! My overseas readers will be amazed by the in-fighting among us Chinese. No wonder Chinese have been colonized for more than two hundred years.
To illustrate the teaching of the poverty beatitude (Matthew 5:3), Jesus teaches us to pray to the Heavenly Father for our daily bread (6:11). Yes, daily. We trust that God will provide. Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow (6:34). There is no need to ask for a week's bread or a month's in advance. They will not be fresh anymore! In Jesus' time, a denarius is the wage of a day's labour, enough to feed a family. When the first batch of workers grumbled and wanted more, perhaps they wanted to save an extra denarius for tomorrow. That seems reasonable for most Hong Kong people. But perhaps they did not want to work the next day. Or they wanted a more secured retirement etc. In short, they felt insecure. They did not have faith in the owner, in God. In such case, nothing in the world would ever make them feel safe. God's providence is enough or rather more than enough to meet our needs because God is generous.
Some people were born lucky. They were talented and raised in well-off families with lucrative networks in the society. These people became successful early in their lives. People they met were less competent and less successful. Some might even losers throughout their lives. I am not suggesting categorizing people into different classes. Nor do I want to put the blame on the society for crimes people commit. Everybody is an image of God and like God we are free agents. We are free to make choices and we have to bear the consequences of our choices. This is our responsibility.
Since we live in a society, we expect fairness. We want a fair share of resources and opportunities. We don't want to be deprived of what is due us. Here lies the gap between God and men. God's righteousness is not man's justice. Righteousness for God is His salvation (various passages from Psalms and Isaiah). If God does not save us, it is for Him unrighteousness. For men, we want a fair share of rewards. So, God and man are speaking different languages here. So, when God calls us "friend" (Matthew 20:13), does God mean "friend" as we mean? Among the people called "friend" by God in Matthew, we have this unreasonable worker, an improperly prepared guest at the King's banquet (22:12) and lastly Judas (26:50).
What can we say? I am sure God wants to befriend us and to love us. Somehow, some people are more attracted by Him, some not. Some answer God's call early in their lives, some as late as at their last hour. This parable tells us not to be jealous of Jesus' generosity to one of the thieves who confessed Jesus' kingship while the other one cursed Jesus (Luke 23:39-43). The thief who cursed Jesus perhaps was harbouring an unreasonable expectation on Jesus like the first batch of workers. Therefore, the moral of this parable perhaps is to warn us of unreasonable expectations on God's reward. Trust Jesus. God will provide.
Dear Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom. Amen.
Sunday, 14 September 2014
在生活中背負自己的十字架 To carry one’s own cross in the daily life
光榮十字聖架慶節
主題：在生活中背負自己的十字架
二千年前，聖保祿宗徒面對一個嚴峻的問題，而他的問題也是歷代基督徒要回答的問題：就是「基督徒憑甚麽可以令羅馬帝國的統治者，或者是當代的統治者，相信天主是存在的，天主是全能的，天主是美善的，天主特別對人類是慈愛的呢？」保祿是猶太人，猶太人深信梅瑟頒布的誡命是從天主來的，所以是最偉大的，最幫助他們得救的，最能指導他們如何過日常生活的。可是，保祿所愛護的誡命可以說服統治者嗎？如果這些誡命真是有效，猶太人為甚麽會亡國，會淪為羅馬殖民地呢？
你知道聖保祿的答案嗎？他的答案竟然是十字架。注意，在二千年前的羅馬帝國，十字架不單是令人聞風喪膽的死刑，而且還是對死囚極盡凌辱的能事。所以，用十字架令世人相信天主的全能，天主的慈愛，的確是匪夷所思。今天正值光榮十字架慶節，就讓我們默想十字架的奧妙。
【創世紀】用一個神話故事，表達人類生存的矛盾和罪惡的本質。人是按天主的肖像所造，具有天主的潛質。所以，人不甘心屈就在「受造物界」之中，不甘心祗是當大自然的管家(創1：26)。人類渴望與天主平起平坐，自己做天主。這就是人類生存的矛盾。【創世紀】再用「食禁果」的故事，說明罪惡的本質。罪不但令人懷疑天主對我們的慈愛，破壞了人與天主的關係，更進一步破壞人與人，人與大自然的和諧關係。原本是相稱的助手，反而成為推卸責任的替死鬼。罪惡帶來了痛苦，人要勞苦到汗流浹背纔有飯吃，女人和丈夫不能夠和諧地生活；而天主亦在迫不得已的情況下，引入死亡，暫時限制著罪惡的擴散。一個天主看了認為好的世界，一夜之間被罪惡污染成荊棘遍地的煉獄（創3）。但為長遠計，天主要想辦法徹底地消滅罪惡。天主是不會輕易放棄擁有祂的肖像的人類的。祂會不惜任何代價去拯救人類。這一個也就是天主的死穴，就是聖保祿後來所說的天主的愚妄、天主的懦弱。
罪惡的破壞力既有兩個向度，一個天主與人上下的向度，一個人與人橫面的向度；所以天主就決定以十字架，一個既縱且橫，令人聞風喪膽的刑具，來消滅罪惡，並償還一切罪債。其實十字架本身並沒有甚麽了不起的威力。配戴十字架並不能為你辟邪，不能為你擋刦，不能為你消災解難。十字架的威力來自天主的慈愛，來自釘在它上的耶穌基督。天主親身降生成人，為人頂罪，死在十字架上，償還一切罪債。再由死者中復活，徹底消滅死亡，賜予我們永生。今天第二篇讀經是聖保祿所寫的一首讚美耶穌基督的詩歌。當人類驕傲地想變成天主的時候，天主反而謙遜地空虛自己，取了奴僕的形體變成人。當人類不服從天主的命令時，耶穌反而服從至死，且死在十字架上。人類失敗之處，耶穌以人的身份幫助我們完成了（斐2：6-8）。
聖保祿很清楚明白宣講被釘的基督的困難。他曾經說過十字架為猶太人是絆腳石，為外邦人是愚妄。但他相信在聽眾之中總有蒙召的人。而為蒙召的人，十字架上的基督顯示了天主的德能，天主的智慧。聖保祿很肯定地說天主的愚妄總比人明智，天主的懦弱也總比人堅強（格前1：23-25）。
環看今天有關政改的爭論，基督徒逼不得已，不能置身事外，不能緘默。表面上，基督徒與當權者周旋，強弱懸殊，根本沒有招架之力。當雙方都抱著不是你死便是我亡，不能輸的心態，試問又怎會有好的結果呢？基督徒好像忘記了天主是歷史的主宰，是天主令埃及的法魯王心硬，令埃及的戰車在紅海全軍覆沒。我們忘記了耶穌基督與當權者周旋的榜樣，忘記了天主的愚妄，忘記了天主的懦弱，忘記了耶穌愛仇人的教訓，忘記了那些奉承主子的政客也有天主的肖像。
宣講是容易的，實踐纔顯出真功夫。宣講十字架的道理有怎麽難，難就難在實踐十字架的道理。耶穌曾教訓門徒說：「誰若願意跟隨我，該棄絕自己，背著自己的十字架，跟隨我。」（谷8：34）你和我有各自的十字架，各有各與天主、與人的關係上的困難。我們會因事業上的挫折、疾病和種種不幸怨限天主，懷疑天主；我會因人與人之間的恩恩怨怨而忿恨、執著、鬱鬱不得志。耶穌教我們用神貧、哀慟，溫良、飢渴慕義（即渴求天主的救恩）作為待人接物的態度；以憐憫（即寬恕仇人）、心裡潔淨（即目標專一，不會看風駛艃，知不可為而為）、締造和平（即修和），最後為義而忍受迫害作為在世建設天國的奮鬥目標，生活出基督徒作為地上的鹽與世界之光的使命呢。耶穌應許我們獲得天國，獲得天主的安慰，承受土地，獲得天主的憐憫寬恕，享見天主，成為天主的子女。我們輸得起嗎？我們可以接受政改失敗嗎？我們可以放下執著，設身處地體會當權者內心的恐懼嗎？
今天我們慶祝光榮十字架，因為它戰勝了人間的罪惡。讓十字架的道理，真福八端的生活取向，幫助我們認清在政改問題上、醫療、住屋、全民退保等民生問題上、社會公義問題上、國際販賣人口、恐怖主義等問題上，天主的旨意是甚麽。讓我們謙遜地服從天父的聖意。亞孟。天主保佑。
Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross
Theme: To carry one’s own cross in the daily life
Two thousand years ago, St. Paul had to handle a challenging problem which Christians of all generations likewise have to answer, “With what can Christians make the rulers of the state believe that God exists, that God is almighty and good and that God is merciful to mankind in particular?” Paul was a Jew and Jews believed that the commandments they lived by were given by God, were the best and helped them attain salvation and guided them in their daily life. However, would these commandments convince the state rulers? Obviously not. Had these commandments been effective, the Jews would not have been conquered and Judaea had become a Roman colony.
Do you know the solution of Paul? The Cross! Notice that 2000 years ago, crucifixion was not only a torture that scared people to death, the cross was also a public display of shame on the part of the condemned. So, making use of the cross to convince people of the omnipotence and mercy of God was mind-boggling. Today is the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. Let us meditate the mystery of the cross.
It all began with the myth of the Creation of mankind in Genesis. The myth expresses the existential contradictions of mankind and the nature of sins. According to Genesis, man was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26). Man has God’s potentials. Therefore, man was reluctant to remain in the realm of creatures. Man felt unfulfilled to be the steward of the universe only. Man desired to be equal to God, to take the place of God. These are the existential contradictions of human existence. Genesis 3 continues to tell the myth of the Forbidden Fruit to articulate the nature of sins. Sins cast a shadow of doubt over God’s love for mankind, thus soured the relationship between God and men. Furthermore, sins destroyed the harmonious relations among men and between man and the universe. The fit helper God made for man had turned into a scapegoat for blame. Sins brought in sufferings. Man had to labour until his face sweat before he could eat. Woman and her husband could not lead a harmonious life. God had no choice but to bring in death to contain the spread of sins. A world which God had seen to be good turned into a hell of thorns overnight. In the long run, God had to think of a way to destroy evil completely. God would not easily abandon mankind who possess His image. God would redeem mankind at all costs. This is the Achilles’ heel of God. This is also what subsequently Paul called the foolishness of God, the weakness of God.
The destructiveness of sins has two dimensions, a vertical one between God and men and a horizontal one between man and his fellow men. Therefore, God decided to use a dreadful cross, which is made of a vertical as well as a horizontal bars, to destroy evil and to repay all its prices. As a matter of fact, the cross has no miraculous power in itself. Wearing it would not ward off demons, nor unlucky events. The power of the cross comes from the love of God, from Jesus Christ who was crucified on it. God incarnated to become a man, to die for mankind on the cross to repay all the prices. Then he came back to life to annihilate death completely and to give us eternal life. The second reading today is a hymn St. Paul wrote in praise of Jesus Christ. When man arrogantly wanted to play God, God humbly emptied Himself, took the image of a slave to become man. When man disobeyed God, Jesus obeyed unto death, even death on a cross. What man has failed, Jesus accomplishes as a man (Philippians 2:6-8).
St. Paul understood clearly the difficulty of proclaiming the crucified Christ. Once he said that to the Jews, the crucified Christ is a stumbling block and to Gentiles, a folly. But he believed that among his audience, there had to be someone called and elected. For the called, the crucified Christ is the power and the wisdom of God. St. Paul firmly believed that the foolishness of God is wiser than men and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1Corinthians 1:23-25)
Take a look at the political reform controversy today. Reluctantly Christians could not stay out of the issue, could not remain reticent. On the surface, Christians are on the losing side of the engagement with the rulers of the state. They do not have the power and the resources. But when both sides are locked into a mortal combat with a mind that refuses to lose, what good can come out? Christians, have you forgotten that your God is the master of human history? It was He who hardened Pharaoh’s heart and consequently annihilated all his chariots in the Red Sea. Have you forgotten how Jesus engaged with the Jewish and Roman authorities during his Passion, forgotten the foolishness and weakness of God, forgotten Jesus’ teaching to love your enemies and forgotten the image of God in those political shoe-shiners?
Words are easier said than done. Living the truth is what makes a Christian true. Proclamation of the truth of the cross is not difficult. What is difficult is to put it into practice. Jesus said to his disciple, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” (Mark 8:34) You and me have our own crosses, all kind of difficulties in the relations with God and with men. We would doubt God, curse God for frustrations in career, for sicknesses and all sorts of misfortunes. We would be angry, would refuse to let go and would lose hope in all sorts of inter-personal estrangements. Jesus taught us to be poor in spirit, be mournful, be meek and hungry for God’s justice, i.e. God’s salvation, as our attitudes in inter-personal interactions; to show mercy, (i.e. to forgive your enemy), to be pure in heart, (i.e. will not be easily swayed by circumstances and give up, to persist despite slim chances), to make peace (i.e. to reconcile), and at last to be persecuted for building the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, to live up the Christians mission as the salt on earth and the light of the world. Jesus has promised us the Kingdom of Heaven, the consolation from God, the inheritance of land, the forgiveness of God, the beatific vision of God and sonship of God. Can we afford to lose? Can we accept the failure of political reform? Can we put down our insistence and put ourselves in the shoes of state rulers to feel their fears?
We celebrate the Exaltation of the Holy Cross today because it has conquered the evils on earth. Let the truth of the cross, the option of the Beatitudes help us discern the will of God in political reform, in medicine, housing, universal pension, social justice, international human trafficking and terrorism etc. Let us humbly submit to the will of the Father. Amen.
God bless.
Sunday, 7 September 2014
Forgiveness within the Church
Before we proceed to deal with the theme of the three readings today, let me settle a curious detail --- the order of the Ten Commandments. Nowadays, the order we know goes like this: ... thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shall not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour, thou shalt not covet ... etc. (Exodus 20:13-17, Deuteronomy 5:17-21). Even between Exodus and Deuteronomy, there is a variation between Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21. Even here, it is difficult to defend the position that Moses wrote the whole of Torah. If he did, he must have been a rather poor proofreader because it is easy to spot inconsistent texts within the Pentateuch.
I have to confess that despise teaching the gospel of Mark for more than 35 years, I allow an instance of inconsistency to tease me right under my nose for so many years without noticing it! I discovered it only last night and it was rather indirect. The offending verse came from Romans 13:9. Suddenly, I noticed that the Pharisaic Paul wrote adultery, kill, steal, false witness and covet. Why? Was there any significance?
Then it dawned to me that there are also similar lists of the Ten Commandments in the gospels (Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20 and Matthew 19:18). Like Paul who wrote to Gentiles, Mark and Luke began with "adultery". Matthew begins with "kill". The discrepancy can be traced to LXX. In the Greek translation of Exodus and Deuteronomy, "adultery" goes before "kill"! Again, Exodus and Deuteronomy differ, not just in the explanation of Sabbath, but also the order of the commandments. Exodus goes like this: adultery, steal, kill, false witness, covet ...
Deuteronomy: adultery, kill, steal, false witness, covet ...
Therefore, the authors of the New Testament followed the order of Deuteronomy, except for Matthew who wrote for Jewish Christians.
The logical follow-up question to ask is why LXX translated the Ten Commandments in an order different from the Hebrew text such as MT? This is an interesting project which this limited space cannot contain. I had better return to the main theme of the three Sunday readings.
Ezekiel 33:8-9 make it the duty of believers to warn their brothers of God's punishments for the wrong things they are doing. If we evade this duty or tell a white lie out of embarrassment, God will hold us responsible for the blood of our brothers. Our duty is communal, like the duty of a watchman warning the people of the approach of enemies (vv.33:2-6). This is the basis for the teaching in Matthew 18:15-17.
In his homily, Deacon Tsang brought our attention to a similar passage in Luke 17:3-4. The treatments of the issue are totally different. Luke took forgiveness personally while Matthew communally. Matthew's approach is the same as Ezekiel's. It is for the good of the community that we reconcile. Like what Paul teaches in the Romans, love fulfills all commandments. So, it should be out of love that we reconcile. We reconcile for the good of our brothers.
In reality, our brothers may be stubborn and irreconcilable. So, Matthew outlines the procedure of reconciliation. Assuming that you are on the right side and your brother "sins against you". If you are on the wrong side, of course you should be the one to apologize. But I don't think Matthew intends to talk about personal grudges. If it were and you brought the Church in to fight on your side against your brother, it would be an abuse of church authority. You outnumber your brother with the Church. God forbids! Of course, every believer should be a peacemaker, an ambassador of reconciliation and the Church as a whole should also work as a peacemaker and ambassador of reconciliation in the world. There is no doubt about it.
If the whole issue escalates to the Church level, it must be something about faith and morality. The teaching of the Church, the Magisterium has the final say. Does "treating him as a Gentile and tax-collector (v.18:17)" mean excommunication? Not quite. Matthew himself had been a tax-collector before following Jesus and Gentiles were targets of evangelization. Excommunication is out-of-fashion nowadays. We should keep the dialogue open. A day will come for our reconciliation.
Another line of argument against understanding the conflict on the personal level comes from v.18:18. In v.16:19, Simon Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and to loose. Without v.18:18, Peter's personal power is absolute. With v.18:18, the authority to forgive is also shared by the Church. Therefore, it is impossible to interpret the whole text on the personal level, Though it is understandable that if I forgive my brother, heaven forgives because God requires us to forgive, it is mind-boggling if I refuse to forgive, I am able to mobilize the heavenly court to bind my brother! How can it be possible? It is impossible, unless it is the Church. Verse 18:20 gives us the answer. Jesus is in our midst when we gather in his name. Then the Church is able to define her articles of faith and morality. A single person cannot form a community, a community of the redeemed, the Church.
Dear Jesus, I am sorry for all the controversies and division among us. I am sorry for my arrogance and pride. Forgive me for I have offend my brethren with my arrogance and if I have become the cause of divisions, cut me short. Amen.
I have to confess that despise teaching the gospel of Mark for more than 35 years, I allow an instance of inconsistency to tease me right under my nose for so many years without noticing it! I discovered it only last night and it was rather indirect. The offending verse came from Romans 13:9. Suddenly, I noticed that the Pharisaic Paul wrote adultery, kill, steal, false witness and covet. Why? Was there any significance?
Then it dawned to me that there are also similar lists of the Ten Commandments in the gospels (Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20 and Matthew 19:18). Like Paul who wrote to Gentiles, Mark and Luke began with "adultery". Matthew begins with "kill". The discrepancy can be traced to LXX. In the Greek translation of Exodus and Deuteronomy, "adultery" goes before "kill"! Again, Exodus and Deuteronomy differ, not just in the explanation of Sabbath, but also the order of the commandments. Exodus goes like this: adultery, steal, kill, false witness, covet ...
Deuteronomy: adultery, kill, steal, false witness, covet ...
Therefore, the authors of the New Testament followed the order of Deuteronomy, except for Matthew who wrote for Jewish Christians.
The logical follow-up question to ask is why LXX translated the Ten Commandments in an order different from the Hebrew text such as MT? This is an interesting project which this limited space cannot contain. I had better return to the main theme of the three Sunday readings.
Ezekiel 33:8-9 make it the duty of believers to warn their brothers of God's punishments for the wrong things they are doing. If we evade this duty or tell a white lie out of embarrassment, God will hold us responsible for the blood of our brothers. Our duty is communal, like the duty of a watchman warning the people of the approach of enemies (vv.33:2-6). This is the basis for the teaching in Matthew 18:15-17.
In his homily, Deacon Tsang brought our attention to a similar passage in Luke 17:3-4. The treatments of the issue are totally different. Luke took forgiveness personally while Matthew communally. Matthew's approach is the same as Ezekiel's. It is for the good of the community that we reconcile. Like what Paul teaches in the Romans, love fulfills all commandments. So, it should be out of love that we reconcile. We reconcile for the good of our brothers.
In reality, our brothers may be stubborn and irreconcilable. So, Matthew outlines the procedure of reconciliation. Assuming that you are on the right side and your brother "sins against you". If you are on the wrong side, of course you should be the one to apologize. But I don't think Matthew intends to talk about personal grudges. If it were and you brought the Church in to fight on your side against your brother, it would be an abuse of church authority. You outnumber your brother with the Church. God forbids! Of course, every believer should be a peacemaker, an ambassador of reconciliation and the Church as a whole should also work as a peacemaker and ambassador of reconciliation in the world. There is no doubt about it.
If the whole issue escalates to the Church level, it must be something about faith and morality. The teaching of the Church, the Magisterium has the final say. Does "treating him as a Gentile and tax-collector (v.18:17)" mean excommunication? Not quite. Matthew himself had been a tax-collector before following Jesus and Gentiles were targets of evangelization. Excommunication is out-of-fashion nowadays. We should keep the dialogue open. A day will come for our reconciliation.
Another line of argument against understanding the conflict on the personal level comes from v.18:18. In v.16:19, Simon Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and to loose. Without v.18:18, Peter's personal power is absolute. With v.18:18, the authority to forgive is also shared by the Church. Therefore, it is impossible to interpret the whole text on the personal level, Though it is understandable that if I forgive my brother, heaven forgives because God requires us to forgive, it is mind-boggling if I refuse to forgive, I am able to mobilize the heavenly court to bind my brother! How can it be possible? It is impossible, unless it is the Church. Verse 18:20 gives us the answer. Jesus is in our midst when we gather in his name. Then the Church is able to define her articles of faith and morality. A single person cannot form a community, a community of the redeemed, the Church.
Dear Jesus, I am sorry for all the controversies and division among us. I am sorry for my arrogance and pride. Forgive me for I have offend my brethren with my arrogance and if I have become the cause of divisions, cut me short. Amen.
Sunday, 31 August 2014
Was Peter a "Scandal" or a "Stumbling Rock/Block" to Jesus?
Last week, I lamented that the meaning of a word changes over time. This week, a good example springs up. Let me give a few examples before taking up the key word today.
The most infamous example is the word "suffer" which nowadays refers to pains, discomfort and sorrows. However, in 9 out of 13 occurrences of "suffer" in KJV, it means "allow/tolerate" and only 4 of them mean "suffer" as we know it nowadays. The word "spell" meant an announcement/news and now a charm / incantation etc. Today, we will look at another S-word: scandal.
Let's begin in Latin!
Qui conversus dixit Petro: Vade post me Satana, scandalum es mihi: quia non sapis ea quæ Dei sunt, sed ea quæ hominum. (Vulgate)
Seeing some keywords such as Petro, Satana, Dei, hominum, I am sure you have guessed it right. Yes, it is Matthew 16:23 in which Jesus scolded Peter, calling him Satan when he tried to dissuade Jesus from suffering martyrdom. The Latin translation is a good approximation of the Greek original, which is
ὁ δὲ στραφεὶς εἶπεν τῷ Πέτρῳ Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου Σατανᾶ σκάνδαλον μου, εἶ ὅτι οὐ φρονεῖς τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (GNT)
How do the English translations go?
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. (KJV)
But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men." (RSV)
and he having turned, said to Peter, 'Get thee behind me, adversary! thou art a stumbling-block to me, for thou dost not mind the things of God, but the things of men.' (YLT)
What about the Chinese translations?
耶穌轉過來，對彼得說：撒但，退我後邊去吧！你是絆我腳的；因為你不體貼神的意思，只體貼人的意思。(和合本Union version)
耶穌轉身對伯多祿說：「撒殫，退到我後面去！你是我的絆腳石，因為你所體會的，不是天主的事，而是人的事。」(思高Catholic Version)
"Scandal" which causes public outrage nowadays was only a hindrance, a stumbling block in the age of the Apostles!
Let's do a little statistics.
σκάνδαλον appears 14 times in LXX and another 14 times in GNT (in various forms). However, scandalum appears 57 (17 in OT and 40 in NT) times in Vulgate. Within a short span of about 250 years, more things (from 14 to 40) were regarded as "scandalous"!
Now, is "stumbling-block" a proper rendering of σκάνδαλον?
Let us see how Matthew make use of the word (RSV).
The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers (13:41).
But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men." (16:23)
Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the man by whom the temptation comes! (18:7)
So Matthew restricts the usage to hindrance.
Paul does not apply σκάνδαλον to Peter. He applies it to Christ instead! E.g. the scandal/stumbling block of the Cross (1 Corinthians 1:23, Galatians 5:11). He also applies it to the Torah which caused some Israelites to reject the gospel (Romans 9:30, 11:9) and warns the believers not to become stumbling blocks to each other (Romans 14:13, 16:17).
Peter also refers to Jesus as the stumbling block of the Israelites (1 Peter 2:8).
John's use is similar to that of Matthew. σκάνδαλον is something upon which people would stumble. (1 John 2:10, Revelation 2:14).
Was Peter Satan?
Remember that Jesus once said that God allows Satan to attack Peter (Luke 22:31). Therefore, when Jesus scolded Peter, it sounds more like an exorcism to me than anything. Jesus chased Satan, not simply any other ordinary evil spirit, away from Peter in order to protect him. Then Jesus explains to Peter, and to us, that we should mind the things of God, not things of men. Satan will make use of our human weaknesses to hinder, to cause troubles to the redemptive project of Jesus. Let us be vigilant.
Dear Lord, exorcise the demons in us so that we will not be a stumbling block to our brethren. Amen.
The most infamous example is the word "suffer" which nowadays refers to pains, discomfort and sorrows. However, in 9 out of 13 occurrences of "suffer" in KJV, it means "allow/tolerate" and only 4 of them mean "suffer" as we know it nowadays. The word "spell" meant an announcement/news and now a charm / incantation etc. Today, we will look at another S-word: scandal.
Let's begin in Latin!
Qui conversus dixit Petro: Vade post me Satana, scandalum es mihi: quia non sapis ea quæ Dei sunt, sed ea quæ hominum. (Vulgate)
Seeing some keywords such as Petro, Satana, Dei, hominum, I am sure you have guessed it right. Yes, it is Matthew 16:23 in which Jesus scolded Peter, calling him Satan when he tried to dissuade Jesus from suffering martyrdom. The Latin translation is a good approximation of the Greek original, which is
ὁ δὲ στραφεὶς εἶπεν τῷ Πέτρῳ Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου Σατανᾶ σκάνδαλον μου, εἶ ὅτι οὐ φρονεῖς τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (GNT)
How do the English translations go?
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. (KJV)
But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men." (RSV)
and he having turned, said to Peter, 'Get thee behind me, adversary! thou art a stumbling-block to me, for thou dost not mind the things of God, but the things of men.' (YLT)
What about the Chinese translations?
耶穌轉過來，對彼得說：撒但，退我後邊去吧！你是絆我腳的；因為你不體貼神的意思，只體貼人的意思。(和合本Union version)
耶穌轉身對伯多祿說：「撒殫，退到我後面去！你是我的絆腳石，因為你所體會的，不是天主的事，而是人的事。」(思高Catholic Version)
"Scandal" which causes public outrage nowadays was only a hindrance, a stumbling block in the age of the Apostles!
Let's do a little statistics.
σκάνδαλον appears 14 times in LXX and another 14 times in GNT (in various forms). However, scandalum appears 57 (17 in OT and 40 in NT) times in Vulgate. Within a short span of about 250 years, more things (from 14 to 40) were regarded as "scandalous"!
Now, is "stumbling-block" a proper rendering of σκάνδαλον?
Let us see how Matthew make use of the word (RSV).
The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers (13:41).
But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men." (16:23)
Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the man by whom the temptation comes! (18:7)
So Matthew restricts the usage to hindrance.
Paul does not apply σκάνδαλον to Peter. He applies it to Christ instead! E.g. the scandal/stumbling block of the Cross (1 Corinthians 1:23, Galatians 5:11). He also applies it to the Torah which caused some Israelites to reject the gospel (Romans 9:30, 11:9) and warns the believers not to become stumbling blocks to each other (Romans 14:13, 16:17).
Peter also refers to Jesus as the stumbling block of the Israelites (1 Peter 2:8).
John's use is similar to that of Matthew. σκάνδαλον is something upon which people would stumble. (1 John 2:10, Revelation 2:14).
Was Peter Satan?
Remember that Jesus once said that God allows Satan to attack Peter (Luke 22:31). Therefore, when Jesus scolded Peter, it sounds more like an exorcism to me than anything. Jesus chased Satan, not simply any other ordinary evil spirit, away from Peter in order to protect him. Then Jesus explains to Peter, and to us, that we should mind the things of God, not things of men. Satan will make use of our human weaknesses to hinder, to cause troubles to the redemptive project of Jesus. Let us be vigilant.
Dear Lord, exorcise the demons in us so that we will not be a stumbling block to our brethren. Amen.
Sunday, 24 August 2014
Peter is the Rock on which Christ builds his Church
In all fairness, we should respect the views of each other. You must have received a lot of training and done your own research before you draw your conclusion. I have done mine too. Indeed, I have no intention to change your mind. You don't have to buy my ideas. We agree to disagree. OK?
Aramaic and Greek are not our languages. So, the bibles we use are translations and quite a lot of information and elegance of the prose is lost through translations. At the moment, the only verse I know which the Latin translation surpasses the Greek original is "Ego sum Via, et Veritas, et Vita" vs. "ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή" (John 14:6) The New Testament was written mostly in Greek, interspersed with Aramaic which Jesus and his disciples spoke. (Don't worry, in the 19th century, some brave scholars, Salkinson and Ginsburg, had already translated the New Testament back into Hebrew.) Therefore, we need to know a bit of Greek when we want to clarify some points of contention. Alas, even the meaning of the same word changes through time!
The verse in debate is Matthew 16:18. Before we proceed, let us keep one important point in mind and two. The Bible is not self-explanatory. It cannot speak for itself. It relies on human beings to interpret it. Using verses from other parts of the Bible to prove, to clarify the messages of another verse can be one of the many methods. Still, the choice itself depends also on the theology, the conviction of the scholars. Moreover, one single verse is not enough to build up a theological point. Articles of faith are historical products. There is a history in every theological idea such as the Trinity, communion of idioms and primacy of Peter etc. With the limitation of space and time, I can only touch on one microscopic linguistic point in the debate.
Let's begin.
There are a lot of wordplays in the Bible. Genesis gives us a lot of etymology examples. Why is this person/place given this name? For example, Jacob.
"And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob" (Genesis 25:26) In Hebrew, heel is 'aqeb and Jacob is Ya'aqob. The wordplay is lost through translation.
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (KJV)
Again, the wordplay is lost in English. Take one step back. Latin.
"Et ego dico tibi: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificabo Ecclesiam meam; et portæ inferi non prævalebunt adversum eam" (Vulgate)
Now, we can see that Jesus was playing on the words "petrus" which is masculine and "petram" feminine. The word petroleum immediately comes to mind. They share the same prefix "petro"
The more meticulous souls will not be satisfied and want to read the Greek original. Perhaps there is something more.
"κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς" (GNT) Again, πέτρος is masculine and πέτρᾳ feminine.
Many Protestants don't agree to the Roman Catholics' using this verse to support the primacy of Peter. For example, the CARM, gotquestion.org and many more. They argue that in Greek, petros is only a stone, a pebble while petra is a solid bedrock. Therefore, Jesus did not mean to build his Church on this unsteady pebble Simon Peter. Look at how he lost his faith when he tried to walk on the water towards Jesus, how he boosted to die with Jesus during the Last Supper and yet denied Jesus three times to save his skin! Very true indeed. But is it a correct interpretation?
First of all, Jesus might not be speaking in Greek to Simon Peter. Nowadays, many scholars believed that Mark wrote the first gospel, not Matthew. However, some other scholars still maintain the priority of Matthew because they believe that there was a lost Aramaic Matthew. The Greek Matthew we have today was translated from Aramaic. The clue comes from another word Cephas. Simon Peter was also known as Cephas in John, 1Corinthians and Galatians. Cephas is Peter in Aramaic. What would Matthew 16:18 be like in Hebrew? Here it is from Salkinson-Ginsburg translation.
I highlighted "my Church" Qehilati in blue. Read them, Kepha', keph, qəhilati. Jesus was playing on the words "Peter", "rock" as well as "my assembly of Israel"! The wordplay was gradually lost through Greek/Latin, English and finally, totally lost in Chinese! So, it is worth the effort to learn some biblical language in order to appreciate the elegance of the text.
Let me put forth my interpretation. Even if Peter had been impulsive and unsteady before the resurrection of Jesus, it would not stop Jesus from transforming this feeble pebble into a robust rock later. In the Last Supper, Jesus had made it clear that Peter would be a prime target of attack by Satan. But Jesus had prayed for him so that later he would strengthen his fellow brethren (Luke 22:31-32). The gospels are silent on special prayer by Jesus for any other apostles. (Of course, that does not prove Jesus had not prayed individually for each and every apostle like Jacob on his deathbed in Genesis 49. Absence of evidence does not prove that the evidence is non-existent.) Therefore, attack on Peter is to be expected. That would not stop him from dying on the cross for the love of Jesus. (If you want to stick to sola scriptura, you can find the way Peter died hinted at in John 21:18.) When the Son of God decided to incarnate, he chose to become a human being, a weakling in comparison to the impeccable cherubim. In building his Kingdom of God on the feeble human nature, he demonstrates his compassion and power. This is his MO --- to raze the haughty but raise the lowly.
Dear Lord, I praise you for your unfathomable wisdom. May glory and honour be yours, forever and ever. Amen.
Aramaic and Greek are not our languages. So, the bibles we use are translations and quite a lot of information and elegance of the prose is lost through translations. At the moment, the only verse I know which the Latin translation surpasses the Greek original is "Ego sum Via, et Veritas, et Vita" vs. "ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή" (John 14:6) The New Testament was written mostly in Greek, interspersed with Aramaic which Jesus and his disciples spoke. (Don't worry, in the 19th century, some brave scholars, Salkinson and Ginsburg, had already translated the New Testament back into Hebrew.) Therefore, we need to know a bit of Greek when we want to clarify some points of contention. Alas, even the meaning of the same word changes through time!
The verse in debate is Matthew 16:18. Before we proceed, let us keep one important point in mind and two. The Bible is not self-explanatory. It cannot speak for itself. It relies on human beings to interpret it. Using verses from other parts of the Bible to prove, to clarify the messages of another verse can be one of the many methods. Still, the choice itself depends also on the theology, the conviction of the scholars. Moreover, one single verse is not enough to build up a theological point. Articles of faith are historical products. There is a history in every theological idea such as the Trinity, communion of idioms and primacy of Peter etc. With the limitation of space and time, I can only touch on one microscopic linguistic point in the debate.
Let's begin.
There are a lot of wordplays in the Bible. Genesis gives us a lot of etymology examples. Why is this person/place given this name? For example, Jacob.
"And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob" (Genesis 25:26) In Hebrew, heel is 'aqeb and Jacob is Ya'aqob. The wordplay is lost through translation.
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (KJV)
Again, the wordplay is lost in English. Take one step back. Latin.
"Et ego dico tibi: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificabo Ecclesiam meam; et portæ inferi non prævalebunt adversum eam" (Vulgate)
Now, we can see that Jesus was playing on the words "petrus" which is masculine and "petram" feminine. The word petroleum immediately comes to mind. They share the same prefix "petro"
The more meticulous souls will not be satisfied and want to read the Greek original. Perhaps there is something more.
"κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς" (GNT) Again, πέτρος is masculine and πέτρᾳ feminine.
Many Protestants don't agree to the Roman Catholics' using this verse to support the primacy of Peter. For example, the CARM, gotquestion.org and many more. They argue that in Greek, petros is only a stone, a pebble while petra is a solid bedrock. Therefore, Jesus did not mean to build his Church on this unsteady pebble Simon Peter. Look at how he lost his faith when he tried to walk on the water towards Jesus, how he boosted to die with Jesus during the Last Supper and yet denied Jesus three times to save his skin! Very true indeed. But is it a correct interpretation?
First of all, Jesus might not be speaking in Greek to Simon Peter. Nowadays, many scholars believed that Mark wrote the first gospel, not Matthew. However, some other scholars still maintain the priority of Matthew because they believe that there was a lost Aramaic Matthew. The Greek Matthew we have today was translated from Aramaic. The clue comes from another word Cephas. Simon Peter was also known as Cephas in John, 1Corinthians and Galatians. Cephas is Peter in Aramaic. What would Matthew 16:18 be like in Hebrew? Here it is from Salkinson-Ginsburg translation.
וְגַם־אַנִי אַגִּיד לְךָ כִּי אַתָּה הוּא כֵּיפָא וְעַל־הַכֵּף הַזֶּה אֶבְנֶה אֶת־קְהִלָּתִי וְשַׁעֲרֵי שְׁאוֹל לֹא יִגְבְּרוּ עָלֶיהָ׃
The word keph has a Strong number 3710. It appears in Job 30:6 and Jeremiah 4:29 only. In these two verses, keph is a rock, not a pebble. It also refers to a hollow of a rock to hide from enemies. Draw whatever conclusion you want from the Aramaic Matthew.I highlighted "my Church" Qehilati in blue. Read them, Kepha', keph, qəhilati. Jesus was playing on the words "Peter", "rock" as well as "my assembly of Israel"! The wordplay was gradually lost through Greek/Latin, English and finally, totally lost in Chinese! So, it is worth the effort to learn some biblical language in order to appreciate the elegance of the text.
Let me put forth my interpretation. Even if Peter had been impulsive and unsteady before the resurrection of Jesus, it would not stop Jesus from transforming this feeble pebble into a robust rock later. In the Last Supper, Jesus had made it clear that Peter would be a prime target of attack by Satan. But Jesus had prayed for him so that later he would strengthen his fellow brethren (Luke 22:31-32). The gospels are silent on special prayer by Jesus for any other apostles. (Of course, that does not prove Jesus had not prayed individually for each and every apostle like Jacob on his deathbed in Genesis 49. Absence of evidence does not prove that the evidence is non-existent.) Therefore, attack on Peter is to be expected. That would not stop him from dying on the cross for the love of Jesus. (If you want to stick to sola scriptura, you can find the way Peter died hinted at in John 21:18.) When the Son of God decided to incarnate, he chose to become a human being, a weakling in comparison to the impeccable cherubim. In building his Kingdom of God on the feeble human nature, he demonstrates his compassion and power. This is his MO --- to raze the haughty but raise the lowly.
Dear Lord, I praise you for your unfathomable wisdom. May glory and honour be yours, forever and ever. Amen.
Sunday, 17 August 2014
The Jewishness of Jesus
In modern times, it is sometimes rather embarrassing to defend some actions of Jesus. They offend the sensibility of modern men. The rudeness of Jesus towards a Gentile woman in the district of Tyre and Sidon was one such case. (Matthew 15:21-28, Mark 7:24-30) Jesus was born a Jew. Though he is the Son of God and should be able to transcend the limitations of his humanity, his Jewishness was a reality of his human life, like his growth from a baby to an adult. To a certain extent, Jesus had to outgrow his Jewishness. How his divinity and humanity interact within the Person of the Son of God is a Christology topic. It is a hotbed of heresies and have to be handled carefully. Let me deal with an easier problem first and I will return to this issue later.
In the second reading today, we met another hard nut to crack. No translation of Romans 11:32 is satisfactory. Let me give just a few after the Greek original.
συνέκλεισεν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τοὺς πάντας εἰς ἀπείθειαν ἵνα τοὺς πάντας ἐλεήσῃ (GNT)
Conclusit enim Deus omnes in incredulitatem, ut omnium misereatur! (Vulgate)
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. (KJV)
For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all. (RSV)
因為天主把眾人都禁錮在背叛之中，是為要憐憫眾人。【思高】
因為 神將眾人都圈在不順服之中、特意要憐恤眾人 。【和合本】
The word συνέκλεισεν appears only 4 times in the New Testament and have been translated as "enclosed" (Luke 5:6), "concluded" (Romans 11:32, Galatians 3:22) and "shut up" (Galatians 3:33). Basically, it seems to suggest some kind of imprisonment. God imprisons all in some bad things so that he may have mercy on all! This is a very Jewish expression, reminds one of what God did to Pharaoh in Exodus. God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he refused to let the Israelites go so that God might punish the Egyptians by killing all their firstborns. Of course, this made sense from the perspective of the Israelites. In a pluralistic world we live nowadays, God's action is outrageous. Were the Egyptians not God's creation? Therefore, we should read this kind of Jewish expressions with suspicion. These expressions cannot be read literally.
When we try to read further back in time and search the LXX, the word συνέκλεισεν appears only once in Psalms.
καὶ οὐ συνέκλεισάς με εἰς χεῖρας ἐχϑροῦ, ἔστησας ἐν εὐρυχώρῳ τοὺς πόδας μου. (30:9 LXX)
And hast not shut me up into the hand of the enemy: thou hast set my feet in a large room.(31:8 KJV)
and hast not delivered me into the hand of the enemy; thou hast set my feet in a broad place (RSV)
Therefore, the word συνέκλεισεν is best understood as "allowed to be under the control of". God is autonomous. We are created in the image of God. Therefore, we are autonomous beings and God respects our autonomy. God did not harden Pharaoh's heart. He allowed Pharaoh to harden his heart. God does not imprison us in obedience. He allows us to disobey and go against his will. Later, he shall still forgive us and show us his mercy. This is not my ideas. It comes from John of Damascus (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Bk IV, Ch. 19)
Now, let me return to the interaction between Jesus and the Canaanite woman. Of course, her faith was great and commendable. She was an exemplar of faith for all Christians to follow. Her perseverance was admirable. However, I think Matthew had reworked and elaborated Mark's account to suit his Jewish community. Matthew's story is more elaborate in that at the beginning, the woman begged Jesus from the back and later moved to the front. In Mark, the woman simply begged Jesus without a clear indication of her location. When we make further comparison, we will find more curious things. It seems that Matthew's community was trying to deal with something inevitable: the admission of Gentiles into their community.
1) It was highly unlikely for the Canaanite woman to call Jesus, "Son of David". This was a highly charged Messianic title. If the Canaanite woman represented Gentiles who wanted to enter the Jewish Christian community, it seems that they had to accept Jesus as their Messiah as well.
2) In Mark's account, the story is completely between Jesus and the woman. In Matthew, the disciples (church leaders) came to the woman's aid (Matthew 15:23). It suggests that Matthew's community was trying to handle the issue of admitting Gentile believers.
3) Matthew states the mission of Jesus while Mark does not (15:24). This was the initial understanding of Jewish Christians in relation to Gentiles. God elected the Israelites first. They had the priority. All of Jesus' first disciples were Jews. In short, Jesus was very Jewish.
4) Agreeing with Paul, Matthew's Jesus praised the great faith of the woman while Mark's Jesus did not commend her faith. The Jews took it for granted that they were God's Chosen People. If you were born a Jew and kept all the commandments of covenant, you would be saved. Faith in Jesus in order to be saved was something new to most Jewish Christians. Paul was revolutionary in that he broke through the confines of rules and commandments and argued that faith is more essential than obedience for salvation. In Mark's community, they had no Torah and covenant. They had faith instead. Therefore, faith was taken for granted and was not mentioned.
In my previous blog, I argued that the Gentile woman was actually teasing Jesus instead of showing her humility. This peculiar reading of the story is clearer in Mark's version. The woman teased Jesus that his effort among the Jews had been futile. He had antagonized the Pharisees and fled from further confrontations. Jesus had to seek shelter in a Gentile land. In Matthew, the whole teasing undertone was drowned out by the loud voice of great faith. Remember, in Nazareth, Jesus had lamented that prophets were not welcomed in their home town. The reality of life can be harsh.
Dear Lord, help us outgrow our limitations. Amen.
In the second reading today, we met another hard nut to crack. No translation of Romans 11:32 is satisfactory. Let me give just a few after the Greek original.
συνέκλεισεν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τοὺς πάντας εἰς ἀπείθειαν ἵνα τοὺς πάντας ἐλεήσῃ (GNT)
Conclusit enim Deus omnes in incredulitatem, ut omnium misereatur! (Vulgate)
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. (KJV)
For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all. (RSV)
因為天主把眾人都禁錮在背叛之中，是為要憐憫眾人。【思高】
因為 神將眾人都圈在不順服之中、特意要憐恤眾人 。【和合本】
The word συνέκλεισεν appears only 4 times in the New Testament and have been translated as "enclosed" (Luke 5:6), "concluded" (Romans 11:32, Galatians 3:22) and "shut up" (Galatians 3:33). Basically, it seems to suggest some kind of imprisonment. God imprisons all in some bad things so that he may have mercy on all! This is a very Jewish expression, reminds one of what God did to Pharaoh in Exodus. God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he refused to let the Israelites go so that God might punish the Egyptians by killing all their firstborns. Of course, this made sense from the perspective of the Israelites. In a pluralistic world we live nowadays, God's action is outrageous. Were the Egyptians not God's creation? Therefore, we should read this kind of Jewish expressions with suspicion. These expressions cannot be read literally.
When we try to read further back in time and search the LXX, the word συνέκλεισεν appears only once in Psalms.
καὶ οὐ συνέκλεισάς με εἰς χεῖρας ἐχϑροῦ, ἔστησας ἐν εὐρυχώρῳ τοὺς πόδας μου. (30:9 LXX)
And hast not shut me up into the hand of the enemy: thou hast set my feet in a large room.(31:8 KJV)
and hast not delivered me into the hand of the enemy; thou hast set my feet in a broad place (RSV)
Therefore, the word συνέκλεισεν is best understood as "allowed to be under the control of". God is autonomous. We are created in the image of God. Therefore, we are autonomous beings and God respects our autonomy. God did not harden Pharaoh's heart. He allowed Pharaoh to harden his heart. God does not imprison us in obedience. He allows us to disobey and go against his will. Later, he shall still forgive us and show us his mercy. This is not my ideas. It comes from John of Damascus (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Bk IV, Ch. 19)
Now, let me return to the interaction between Jesus and the Canaanite woman. Of course, her faith was great and commendable. She was an exemplar of faith for all Christians to follow. Her perseverance was admirable. However, I think Matthew had reworked and elaborated Mark's account to suit his Jewish community. Matthew's story is more elaborate in that at the beginning, the woman begged Jesus from the back and later moved to the front. In Mark, the woman simply begged Jesus without a clear indication of her location. When we make further comparison, we will find more curious things. It seems that Matthew's community was trying to deal with something inevitable: the admission of Gentiles into their community.
1) It was highly unlikely for the Canaanite woman to call Jesus, "Son of David". This was a highly charged Messianic title. If the Canaanite woman represented Gentiles who wanted to enter the Jewish Christian community, it seems that they had to accept Jesus as their Messiah as well.
2) In Mark's account, the story is completely between Jesus and the woman. In Matthew, the disciples (church leaders) came to the woman's aid (Matthew 15:23). It suggests that Matthew's community was trying to handle the issue of admitting Gentile believers.
3) Matthew states the mission of Jesus while Mark does not (15:24). This was the initial understanding of Jewish Christians in relation to Gentiles. God elected the Israelites first. They had the priority. All of Jesus' first disciples were Jews. In short, Jesus was very Jewish.
4) Agreeing with Paul, Matthew's Jesus praised the great faith of the woman while Mark's Jesus did not commend her faith. The Jews took it for granted that they were God's Chosen People. If you were born a Jew and kept all the commandments of covenant, you would be saved. Faith in Jesus in order to be saved was something new to most Jewish Christians. Paul was revolutionary in that he broke through the confines of rules and commandments and argued that faith is more essential than obedience for salvation. In Mark's community, they had no Torah and covenant. They had faith instead. Therefore, faith was taken for granted and was not mentioned.
In my previous blog, I argued that the Gentile woman was actually teasing Jesus instead of showing her humility. This peculiar reading of the story is clearer in Mark's version. The woman teased Jesus that his effort among the Jews had been futile. He had antagonized the Pharisees and fled from further confrontations. Jesus had to seek shelter in a Gentile land. In Matthew, the whole teasing undertone was drowned out by the loud voice of great faith. Remember, in Nazareth, Jesus had lamented that prophets were not welcomed in their home town. The reality of life can be harsh.
Dear Lord, help us outgrow our limitations. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)