OBSERVATION:
- The passage points to the experience of Jesus AFTER the Resurrection. It shows that Jesus' Resurrection is more than resuscitation, but also transformation. He continues to be present, but not like before. The disciples did not right away recognize him. There's something more than just physical presence.
- Everytime characters and places are mentioned, then it indicates it is a very important passage - Cleopas is named and Emmaus. It features minor characters, not the apostles, so likely important to the early Christian communities for Luke to have included it.
- Note that it is Jesus that breaks the bread, and not the host, which is the custom, which means that Luke wishes to highlight a point.
- Luke is talking about the early Eucharist, which at that time were "discussion groups" in households very similar to a CC. There were prayers, readings, sharings, followed by a fellowship meal, just like a CC. Luke wanted to say that Jesus continues to be present with us, even though now invisible, but is present everytime we gather to break bread.
- Look at the flow of the gospel. From non-recognition to recognition. Now, in the middle part, there is a sharing of disappointments. "We had hoped," the two disciples said. We too, share in our CC's: we had hoped that my friend or relative didn't get sick, or our children were not such a problem, or things worked out in my job better than the way it did, and so on. "We had hoped" because God often does not meet our expectations.
- In answer, Luke says that it's because we look with our human eyes, and we do not see Jesus right there in front of us. If Jesus' death had meaning, then certainly our disappointments and sufferings have meaning too.
- After the sharing of disappointments, there is a meal sharing. Again, just like in a CC.
INTERPRETATION:
- Luke's purpose is to convince early Christians that Jesus presence continues even though he is now invisible. We experience him when we reflect on his life and teachings, when we share our lives (both high points and low points) with one another, and when we share a meal as a sign of our fellowship. When we do all these things, we "recognize" Jesus in our midst.
GENERALIZATION:
- Luke is describing the essence of Caring Circles.
- He is also describing the Eucharist as a sacrament, or sign of God's presence today. The Mass is a "larger CC." We reflect on the Word and share a meal. Just like a CC, it results (at least it should) to a closer bonding among all of us who are children in God's family.
APPLICATION:
- How can we contribute to ensure that our CC's become occasions of recognizing presence of Jesus among us?
- How do we behave after the Mass? How do we make it more than a private obligation, but an impetus for increasing our bonds with all of God's children, including those beyond our immediate family and friends.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Matthew 26:14-27 Jesus Betrayal and Last Supper
The gospel is recalled as the last hours of Jesus. We look poignantly at Jesus who says good-bye to his friends during dinner. Jesus strikes us as a pitiful figure who prays to the Father in the garden, while his disciples sleep after wining and dining, and while the armed servants of the high priest approach to arrest him.
Observation and Interpretation
The setting of this gospel passage is in Jerusalem during the twin Feast of Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Passover is regarded as one of the three most important feasts of the Jewish calendar, and is the oldest festival having been observed for the last three thousand years. It occurs in the spring, a time of renewal (in March or April, being a movable feast). It lasts eight days, and begins on the evening of the first day, with the Passover meal. For the next seven days, all leavened bread is taken out of the house (even crumbs are searched and thrown away), and all that is eaten is unleavened bread (hence the name of the feast). Unleavened bread reminds the people of the haste with which their ancestors left Egypt to escape the tyranny of the pharaoh. There was no time to make the bread rise as they ate their final meal as slaves of the Egyptians.
“The liberation from slavery was an historical process entailing political and spiritual dimensions of freedom. Freedom from political oppression was not an act by itself. Political freedom was the prelude, the preparation for a more total form of freedom, which is the spiritual liberation of Israel.”[1]
This saving event was later commemorated in the offering of the paschal lamb at the Temple. Thus, in this great feast, many Jews from all over Israel would go to Jerusalem to offer their lamb sacrifice in the Temple. (This is also why the Romans were extra wary during this feast since the population of Israel would swell as much as five times, and was therefore an opportune time to mount a revolt against them. Since Jesus claimed to be the new king of the Jews, hence a potential revolutionary, it was not that difficult for Pontius to dispense with him as a rebel and acquiesce for him to be crucified).
After the temple sacrifice, the Passover meal is then celebrated at the synagogue or at home. “The celebration at home is a re-enactment of the Exodus experience. The home is transformed into a sanctuary where rituals and observances change family life and where time, secular time, the time of everyday life experience, suffers a transfiguration: it becomes sacred time.”[2]
This was indeed a historic moment, and more than just a tearful goodbye for Jesus and the disciples. Jesus makes the Passover meal itself the occasion on which he explains the significance of his death to the disciples! Note the following:
- the actions of “taking the bread, blessing, breaking and distributing to the disciples” are the same actions that describes the action of Jesus in the two “multiplication of loaves” stories in Matthew. Yes, there are two such accounts in Matthew’s gospel, but the first (14:13-21) happens in Jewish land and the second (15:32-39) happen in the area of Tyre and Sidon, which are Gentile territories. Here we see the “universality of the Kingdom” theme of Matthew. God’s reign is for everyone, Jew or Gentile. Thus, what Jesus was about to do is also for everyone.
- In Jewish language, the term “body” does not refer only to the physical or flesh, but to the entire person – body, heart, mind and spirit.[3] The giving up of Jesus body (or entire being) points to His wholehearted obedience to the Father. The Father did not send Jesus to die, but to proclaim the Kingdom of God, and to do so even if the cost was to be His life. God’s Kingdom is a condition where God’s love and forgiveness reigns. Jesus proclaimed such a Kingdom through His teachings, miracles and whole life. He did so to the point that He questioned the entire value system of the Jewish religion and consequently antagonized the authorities who eventually plotted his capture and death. He showed them a different way of loving, which they rejected, but He loved them anyway even unto death.
- On the other hand, the term “blood of the covenant” recalls the covenant sacrifice of Exodus. After the animals had been slain, Moses took half of the blood and threw it against the altar (the symbol of Yahweh), and then he threw the other half of the blood upon the people, saying: “See the blood of the covenant.”[4] In this ritual, the blood of an animal symbolizes this union between God and humanity. In the last supper, Jesus declares the wine to be his blood, that is, it is Jesus himself who unites God and humanity.
Jesus therefore interprets, for his disciples, the meaning of his imminent death as the consequence of His unconditional love and commitment to the Kingdom, and that kind of love and commitment is what will unite God and all people. In other words, Jesus love and commitment was so total, He was willing to proclaim and live it, even if it meant His death.
In summary, Jesus last Passover meal was the occasion which remembers the political liberation of the Israelites, and which Jesus transformed into also containing a far more significant meaning: the liberation of the entire humanity from sin. The Passover ritual involving unleavened bread and cup of wine is also transformed by Jesus to his body and blood. We interpret this not just in terms of the sacrificial elements of Jewish sacrifices, but as also reflecting Jesus unconditional love and total commitment to the Kingdom of God. Such love is what can free us from the power of sin in the world.
Generalization and Application
The Mass is both a meal and sacrifice. It is the last supper and sacrifice of Jesus re-enacted. If the mass is a meal, and meals are shared in fellowship, then our attendance in the Mass should result to our bonding with others. We leave the Eucharist committed to be more responsible for those around us.
If the mass is sacrifice, then we should personally connect with the meaning of Jesus’ sacrifice, which is unconditional love for others and full commitment to the proclamation of God’s Kingdom. We should therefore leave the Eucharist also more committed to the values of the Kingdom: fraternal love, forgiveness, preference for those who have less, fairness, and equality. Mass comes from the Latin “missa” and “missio.” The mass should therefore inspire us with a sense of mission to live and spread the gospel values.
Guide questions:
- After going to mass, are you filled with a sense of mission or the sense of having fulfilled an obligation?
- What are the things we can do to make the celebration of the Mass more effective and life changing for us? (For example, make a concrete resolution on a specific value that is difficult for you to live.)
End
Other Ideas and Insights:
Jesus and Judas are therefore complete opposites. Jesus is the servant who delivers himself to death in order that others might gain life, while Judas delivers Jesus to death for his personal advantage. The 30 pieces of silver might appear to be a large sum of money but is actually a reference to Exodus 21:32 where 30 pieces of silver is the payment required in reparation to the master of a slave who is gored by an ox. It is meant to be demeaning: a paltry sum to be paid for the life of a slave.
Jesus is aware of the events that is about to unfold for him and links such events with several Old Testament passages, such as v. 24 “as it is written of him,” v. 31 “for it is written,” and v. 56 “and all this has come to pass that the writings of the prophets may be fulfilled. (This linking with the OT is a characteristic of Matthew in order to establish to his Jewish audience that Jesus is the messiah prophesied in the OT).
But Jesus is not simply a stringed puppet playing according to a script, but is guiding and predicting events such as the arrangements for the Passover meal, the betrayal of Judas, and the denial of Peter.
[1] Rabbi Leon Klenicki, ed. The Passover Celebration (Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, 1980), 1.
[2] Ibid, 2.
[3] Augustine Stock, The Method and Message of Matthew (Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1994), 400.
[4] Ibid, 400.
Observation and Interpretation
The setting of this gospel passage is in Jerusalem during the twin Feast of Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Passover is regarded as one of the three most important feasts of the Jewish calendar, and is the oldest festival having been observed for the last three thousand years. It occurs in the spring, a time of renewal (in March or April, being a movable feast). It lasts eight days, and begins on the evening of the first day, with the Passover meal. For the next seven days, all leavened bread is taken out of the house (even crumbs are searched and thrown away), and all that is eaten is unleavened bread (hence the name of the feast). Unleavened bread reminds the people of the haste with which their ancestors left Egypt to escape the tyranny of the pharaoh. There was no time to make the bread rise as they ate their final meal as slaves of the Egyptians.
“The liberation from slavery was an historical process entailing political and spiritual dimensions of freedom. Freedom from political oppression was not an act by itself. Political freedom was the prelude, the preparation for a more total form of freedom, which is the spiritual liberation of Israel.”[1]
This saving event was later commemorated in the offering of the paschal lamb at the Temple. Thus, in this great feast, many Jews from all over Israel would go to Jerusalem to offer their lamb sacrifice in the Temple. (This is also why the Romans were extra wary during this feast since the population of Israel would swell as much as five times, and was therefore an opportune time to mount a revolt against them. Since Jesus claimed to be the new king of the Jews, hence a potential revolutionary, it was not that difficult for Pontius to dispense with him as a rebel and acquiesce for him to be crucified).
After the temple sacrifice, the Passover meal is then celebrated at the synagogue or at home. “The celebration at home is a re-enactment of the Exodus experience. The home is transformed into a sanctuary where rituals and observances change family life and where time, secular time, the time of everyday life experience, suffers a transfiguration: it becomes sacred time.”[2]
This was indeed a historic moment, and more than just a tearful goodbye for Jesus and the disciples. Jesus makes the Passover meal itself the occasion on which he explains the significance of his death to the disciples! Note the following:
- the actions of “taking the bread, blessing, breaking and distributing to the disciples” are the same actions that describes the action of Jesus in the two “multiplication of loaves” stories in Matthew. Yes, there are two such accounts in Matthew’s gospel, but the first (14:13-21) happens in Jewish land and the second (15:32-39) happen in the area of Tyre and Sidon, which are Gentile territories. Here we see the “universality of the Kingdom” theme of Matthew. God’s reign is for everyone, Jew or Gentile. Thus, what Jesus was about to do is also for everyone.
- In Jewish language, the term “body” does not refer only to the physical or flesh, but to the entire person – body, heart, mind and spirit.[3] The giving up of Jesus body (or entire being) points to His wholehearted obedience to the Father. The Father did not send Jesus to die, but to proclaim the Kingdom of God, and to do so even if the cost was to be His life. God’s Kingdom is a condition where God’s love and forgiveness reigns. Jesus proclaimed such a Kingdom through His teachings, miracles and whole life. He did so to the point that He questioned the entire value system of the Jewish religion and consequently antagonized the authorities who eventually plotted his capture and death. He showed them a different way of loving, which they rejected, but He loved them anyway even unto death.
- On the other hand, the term “blood of the covenant” recalls the covenant sacrifice of Exodus. After the animals had been slain, Moses took half of the blood and threw it against the altar (the symbol of Yahweh), and then he threw the other half of the blood upon the people, saying: “See the blood of the covenant.”[4] In this ritual, the blood of an animal symbolizes this union between God and humanity. In the last supper, Jesus declares the wine to be his blood, that is, it is Jesus himself who unites God and humanity.
Jesus therefore interprets, for his disciples, the meaning of his imminent death as the consequence of His unconditional love and commitment to the Kingdom, and that kind of love and commitment is what will unite God and all people. In other words, Jesus love and commitment was so total, He was willing to proclaim and live it, even if it meant His death.
In summary, Jesus last Passover meal was the occasion which remembers the political liberation of the Israelites, and which Jesus transformed into also containing a far more significant meaning: the liberation of the entire humanity from sin. The Passover ritual involving unleavened bread and cup of wine is also transformed by Jesus to his body and blood. We interpret this not just in terms of the sacrificial elements of Jewish sacrifices, but as also reflecting Jesus unconditional love and total commitment to the Kingdom of God. Such love is what can free us from the power of sin in the world.
Generalization and Application
The Mass is both a meal and sacrifice. It is the last supper and sacrifice of Jesus re-enacted. If the mass is a meal, and meals are shared in fellowship, then our attendance in the Mass should result to our bonding with others. We leave the Eucharist committed to be more responsible for those around us.
If the mass is sacrifice, then we should personally connect with the meaning of Jesus’ sacrifice, which is unconditional love for others and full commitment to the proclamation of God’s Kingdom. We should therefore leave the Eucharist also more committed to the values of the Kingdom: fraternal love, forgiveness, preference for those who have less, fairness, and equality. Mass comes from the Latin “missa” and “missio.” The mass should therefore inspire us with a sense of mission to live and spread the gospel values.
Guide questions:
- After going to mass, are you filled with a sense of mission or the sense of having fulfilled an obligation?
- What are the things we can do to make the celebration of the Mass more effective and life changing for us? (For example, make a concrete resolution on a specific value that is difficult for you to live.)
End
Other Ideas and Insights:
Jesus and Judas are therefore complete opposites. Jesus is the servant who delivers himself to death in order that others might gain life, while Judas delivers Jesus to death for his personal advantage. The 30 pieces of silver might appear to be a large sum of money but is actually a reference to Exodus 21:32 where 30 pieces of silver is the payment required in reparation to the master of a slave who is gored by an ox. It is meant to be demeaning: a paltry sum to be paid for the life of a slave.
Jesus is aware of the events that is about to unfold for him and links such events with several Old Testament passages, such as v. 24 “as it is written of him,” v. 31 “for it is written,” and v. 56 “and all this has come to pass that the writings of the prophets may be fulfilled. (This linking with the OT is a characteristic of Matthew in order to establish to his Jewish audience that Jesus is the messiah prophesied in the OT).
But Jesus is not simply a stringed puppet playing according to a script, but is guiding and predicting events such as the arrangements for the Passover meal, the betrayal of Judas, and the denial of Peter.
[1] Rabbi Leon Klenicki, ed. The Passover Celebration (Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, 1980), 1.
[2] Ibid, 2.
[3] Augustine Stock, The Method and Message of Matthew (Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1994), 400.
[4] Ibid, 400.
Friday, November 12, 2004
The Crucifixion - Luke 23: 35-43
Introduction and Observation:
It should be noted that Luke’s account of the crucifixion is different from the other three Gospels in the case of the two criminals crucified with Jesus. Only in Luke is there a repentant thief. In the three other gospels, it is simply mentioned that there were two criminals crucified with Jesus.
Also, note the characters mentioned by Luke BEFORE and AFTER the crucifixion. Before the crucifixion, there were Simon of Cyrene (who helped Jesus carry the cross), a large crowd, and the women. After the crucifixion, there were the Roman centurion (who declares Jesus innocent), the large crowd (who were beating their breasts in mourning), and the women who followed him. (Did you notice the pattern of three’s, which, in the bible usually means “completeness”?)
DURING the crucifixion, Jesus is surrounded also by three groups: the rulers, the soldiers, and one of the co-crucified, all mocking Jesus.
Both the groups BEFORE and AFTER were favourable towards Jesus. Imagine therefore the flow of the story. There are those for and against Him, but observe what Jesus chose to do to those against Him. He keeps silent throughout, and when He chose to speak, it was to invite a criminal to be with Him.
Interpretation
The crucifixion scene is regarded as a “masterpiece of Lucan theology.”[1] Up to last moment before His death, Luke paints Jesus as the person of love and forgiveness. This is shown in the following:
- Only in the gospel of Luke is there a repentant thief. Crucifixion is the Roman’s worst punishment and is reserved for the vilest of criminals, so both thieves were no ordinary robbers. Yet, Jesus had only one requirement: repentance. Even a last minute one was good enough.
- It was pointed out that the groups BEFORE and AFTER the crucifixion were all favourable towards Jesus. But did you notice the presence of non-Jews (or Gentiles) among these groups? These were Simon of Cyrene and the Roman centurion. The rest were Jews. You recall that for the Jews, all non-Jews were excluded from God’s Reign. They were not part of the chosen people. Luke’s theme of universal salvation is once again highlighted: God’s message of love, forgiveness, and invitation to be part of the Reign of God is open to everyone.
Generalization
The reason that the cross is the mark of a Christian is not to glorify suffering, but to symbolize that love and forgiveness is what being a Christian is all about. This love and forgiveness is all-inclusive, no one is excluded; not even the person that hurt you the most.
Application
We cannot avoid but be occasionally critical of others: the corrupt people in government, the “inconsistent” or “non-active” Renewal member, our parents, children and friends, or those who simply disagree with our views. Jesus, too, was critical when He saw wrong. Only Jesus had the right to criticize and correct others. Yet at end of his life, all the wrongs in the world did not overcome his love and compassion.
Discussion Questions:
- What makes forgiveness difficult for you?
- Share how you were able to overcome the difficulty of forgiving someone.
[1] Raymond E. Brown, SS, An Introduction to the New Testament, New York: Doubleday, 1997, 260.
It should be noted that Luke’s account of the crucifixion is different from the other three Gospels in the case of the two criminals crucified with Jesus. Only in Luke is there a repentant thief. In the three other gospels, it is simply mentioned that there were two criminals crucified with Jesus.
Also, note the characters mentioned by Luke BEFORE and AFTER the crucifixion. Before the crucifixion, there were Simon of Cyrene (who helped Jesus carry the cross), a large crowd, and the women. After the crucifixion, there were the Roman centurion (who declares Jesus innocent), the large crowd (who were beating their breasts in mourning), and the women who followed him. (Did you notice the pattern of three’s, which, in the bible usually means “completeness”?)
DURING the crucifixion, Jesus is surrounded also by three groups: the rulers, the soldiers, and one of the co-crucified, all mocking Jesus.
Both the groups BEFORE and AFTER were favourable towards Jesus. Imagine therefore the flow of the story. There are those for and against Him, but observe what Jesus chose to do to those against Him. He keeps silent throughout, and when He chose to speak, it was to invite a criminal to be with Him.
Interpretation
The crucifixion scene is regarded as a “masterpiece of Lucan theology.”[1] Up to last moment before His death, Luke paints Jesus as the person of love and forgiveness. This is shown in the following:
- Only in the gospel of Luke is there a repentant thief. Crucifixion is the Roman’s worst punishment and is reserved for the vilest of criminals, so both thieves were no ordinary robbers. Yet, Jesus had only one requirement: repentance. Even a last minute one was good enough.
- It was pointed out that the groups BEFORE and AFTER the crucifixion were all favourable towards Jesus. But did you notice the presence of non-Jews (or Gentiles) among these groups? These were Simon of Cyrene and the Roman centurion. The rest were Jews. You recall that for the Jews, all non-Jews were excluded from God’s Reign. They were not part of the chosen people. Luke’s theme of universal salvation is once again highlighted: God’s message of love, forgiveness, and invitation to be part of the Reign of God is open to everyone.
Generalization
The reason that the cross is the mark of a Christian is not to glorify suffering, but to symbolize that love and forgiveness is what being a Christian is all about. This love and forgiveness is all-inclusive, no one is excluded; not even the person that hurt you the most.
Application
We cannot avoid but be occasionally critical of others: the corrupt people in government, the “inconsistent” or “non-active” Renewal member, our parents, children and friends, or those who simply disagree with our views. Jesus, too, was critical when He saw wrong. Only Jesus had the right to criticize and correct others. Yet at end of his life, all the wrongs in the world did not overcome his love and compassion.
Discussion Questions:
- What makes forgiveness difficult for you?
- Share how you were able to overcome the difficulty of forgiving someone.
[1] Raymond E. Brown, SS, An Introduction to the New Testament, New York: Doubleday, 1997, 260.
Friday, October 15, 2004
The Pharisee and the Tax Collector - Luke 18:9-14
The gospel passage is about a tax collector and a Pharisee who both went to the temple to pray. The tax collector brags about his righteousness, but the Pharisee is humble and repentant. According to Jesus, it is the latter that went home justified (which means, in the Jewish context, the person was judged not guilty or considered innocent and righteous before God).
It should be noted that the Pharisee and tax collector described in the passage are extremes. Not all Pharisees were cocky and self-righteous, many of them followed the requirements of the Law and were good examples to others. Also, not all tax collectors were repentant. Many of them were extortionists, collecting money in behalf of the Roman empire and making fat commissions. So we should bear in mind that the ones described in the passage are not prototypes, but tendencies that were apparent among these groups at that time.
Observation and Interpretation
While this is a lesson on humility and in accepting our sinfulness before God, an understanding of some Jewish religious practices would help provide depth and nuance in the message of this passage.
- The setting in the story is a public worship in the temple, and not a private or devotional visit by the tax collector and the Pharisee. When a Jew says that he or she is going to the temple to pray, that most likely means attending a public worship activity. In the parable, this would refer to the atonement ritual, which is done twice daily, and is the only daily service in the temple. Many attend these services.
- The Pharisees believe that one must strictly follow all the requirements of the Law (the Ten Commandments, plus so many other additional laws regarding rituals, fasting, and prayers) in order to be righteous before God. The tax collector, on the other hand, violated several of these laws and were despised. Given his situation, there was no way he could ever become righteous because the Law required returning the money that he has stolen (by over-collecting taxes), and there was no way he could possibly find all the people that he stole from. He was doomed.
- Since this was a public worship, one can now imagine how physically apart the two characters were from each other. The tax collector “stood off at a distance” (verse 18) and the Pharisee was likely away from the rest of the crowd as well because he was grateful he was not like “the rest of humanity.” Being a Pharisee, he was also quite careful of being in contact with the crowd since there may be some of them who were “unclean”, and that would contaminate him and certain cleansing rituals would then be required.
This distance between the two characters provides a significant nuance in the story. They were very much apart from the crowd and from each other, and yet… the Pharisee looked around and noticed the tax collector; enough for the former to compare himself with the latter. The Pharisee saw the tax collector and used him to further prop up himself.
The message of this passage is more than just humility versus self-righteousness. Jesus also deplores the self-righteousness based on comparing one’s self with others.
Generalization:
While we are generally conscious of our sinfulness before God, a genuine humble attitude requires we stand alone before God, and never beside someone else. When we say, “I know am not perfect, but at least I am not like him who has another woman,” or “I know I spend a lot on myself and I should think of others, but I don’t have as much jewelry as she does," are we not being like a Pharisee? There may be other quotes such as: “At least I go to prayer meetings and go to confession regularly,” or “Did you fast for the SE Weekend? (I did.)”
Application:
- In what ways do we compare our goodness (or lack of it) with others?
- Next time you pray and fast for someone, keep it a secret; don’t let anyone know. It’s just between you and Jesus.
(Trivia: The tax collector was described as having “beat his breast.” This is usually not done by men, but by women. The only time that men would do this gesture is to show extreme remorse.)
Luke 18:
9 He then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else.
10 “Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.
11 The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector.
12 I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’
13 But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’
14 I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”
It should be noted that the Pharisee and tax collector described in the passage are extremes. Not all Pharisees were cocky and self-righteous, many of them followed the requirements of the Law and were good examples to others. Also, not all tax collectors were repentant. Many of them were extortionists, collecting money in behalf of the Roman empire and making fat commissions. So we should bear in mind that the ones described in the passage are not prototypes, but tendencies that were apparent among these groups at that time.
Observation and Interpretation
While this is a lesson on humility and in accepting our sinfulness before God, an understanding of some Jewish religious practices would help provide depth and nuance in the message of this passage.
- The setting in the story is a public worship in the temple, and not a private or devotional visit by the tax collector and the Pharisee. When a Jew says that he or she is going to the temple to pray, that most likely means attending a public worship activity. In the parable, this would refer to the atonement ritual, which is done twice daily, and is the only daily service in the temple. Many attend these services.
- The Pharisees believe that one must strictly follow all the requirements of the Law (the Ten Commandments, plus so many other additional laws regarding rituals, fasting, and prayers) in order to be righteous before God. The tax collector, on the other hand, violated several of these laws and were despised. Given his situation, there was no way he could ever become righteous because the Law required returning the money that he has stolen (by over-collecting taxes), and there was no way he could possibly find all the people that he stole from. He was doomed.
- Since this was a public worship, one can now imagine how physically apart the two characters were from each other. The tax collector “stood off at a distance” (verse 18) and the Pharisee was likely away from the rest of the crowd as well because he was grateful he was not like “the rest of humanity.” Being a Pharisee, he was also quite careful of being in contact with the crowd since there may be some of them who were “unclean”, and that would contaminate him and certain cleansing rituals would then be required.
This distance between the two characters provides a significant nuance in the story. They were very much apart from the crowd and from each other, and yet… the Pharisee looked around and noticed the tax collector; enough for the former to compare himself with the latter. The Pharisee saw the tax collector and used him to further prop up himself.
The message of this passage is more than just humility versus self-righteousness. Jesus also deplores the self-righteousness based on comparing one’s self with others.
Generalization:
While we are generally conscious of our sinfulness before God, a genuine humble attitude requires we stand alone before God, and never beside someone else. When we say, “I know am not perfect, but at least I am not like him who has another woman,” or “I know I spend a lot on myself and I should think of others, but I don’t have as much jewelry as she does," are we not being like a Pharisee? There may be other quotes such as: “At least I go to prayer meetings and go to confession regularly,” or “Did you fast for the SE Weekend? (I did.)”
Application:
- In what ways do we compare our goodness (or lack of it) with others?
- Next time you pray and fast for someone, keep it a secret; don’t let anyone know. It’s just between you and Jesus.
(Trivia: The tax collector was described as having “beat his breast.” This is usually not done by men, but by women. The only time that men would do this gesture is to show extreme remorse.)
Luke 18:
9 He then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else.
10 “Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.
11 The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector.
12 I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’
13 But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’
14 I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Sunday, October 03, 2004
The Prodigal Son - Luke 15: 4-32
This Sunday’s gospel consist of three parables. Each is most likely already quite familiar to all of us. In all three of them, Jesus shows the priority He places on the sinner and the outcast. This is a key theme of the Gospel of Luke, he is very harsh against the Pharisees and scribes. By the way, the parable of the Prodigal Son is one parable that is found ONLY in Luke, which suggests that the gospel writer really found this to be quite important to the overall message he wants his gospel to bring out.
Observation and Interpretation
First, we observe that the audience of Jesus when he told these three parables were two opposing kind of audiences: the sinner and tax collectors (which were considered the worst kind of sinner) on the one hand, and the Pharisees and scribes on the other hand (who were generally considered the pure, the clean, and the saved because they followed the cleansing laws to the letter, practicing much fasting and conforming to tithing requirements at that time). By doing so, the Pharisees were following a legalistic approach towards salvation.
It is also noteworthy to note that the criticism of the Pharisees is that Jesus “eats” with sinners. Eating with someone is a serious expression of one’s fellowship with that person, and violates the rabbinical rule: Let no man associate with the wicked, not even to bring him near to the Law. That suggests that one should not even bother trying to convert a sinful person.
In the parable of the prodigal son, it should be noted that the younger son, upon running out of money, decides to finally return to his father. But did you notice that he had a spiel ready which goes: “Father I have sinned against heaven and against you, I no longer deserve to be called your son, treat me as you would treat one of your hired servants.” While this could mean a sign of humility, in the Jewish context, it also meant that this was a face saving plan of the son since being a hired servant, he could earn a decent living, remain independent and be able to secure a future without asking favors of anybody. In this plan of his, the approach was totally legalistic, and the Pharisees knew that Jesus was trying to hint at their legalistic approach to salvation.
Did you also notice that when the son finally returned, he was ready with his spiel “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you, I no longer deserve to be called your son,” but the Father butts in and does not allow him to say the latter part of his spiel which asks that he be treated as a hired servant. For the father, the son’s intention to return, regardless of his motivations, was sufficient.
The elder son could very well be the Pharisees who were more concerned about the legal obligations of the son to the father. The Pharisees believe that the way to the Father is through following a set of laws such as tithing, fasting and other cleansing laws.
Generalization
Feeling of unworthiness has no place in a Christian’s life. The prodigal son, who had ulterior motives, was accepted back. What more those who truly wish to turn back to the Father, regardless of their past. I have often also heard some who say “I am not worthy to serve (because of their sinfulness or unworthiness).” This parable ought to convince us that this is no valid reason. A sincere desire to convert and transform is enough. Making up for your sins is not a requirement before the Father embraces you. You may even be criticized as a Pharisee or elder son. Just come back. This is not to disparage good works, for indeed they are pleasing to God and completes our transformation; so long as one does not treat them as God’s prerequisites and conditions.
Application:
- What sinfulness do you have that you feel may be difficult to be forgiven?
- If there are none, what feelings of unworthiness do you have that may be holding you back from serving in the community?
I have rated myself quite high in God’s Worthiness Scale, for after all I have and am giving so much. This gospel made me realize that God does not have such a scale, for if He did we would all be found wanting. Insisting on such a scale is also not God’s way. Now I also realize that it is much more wonderful to simply rely on His love especially for the unworthy. End of sharing.
------
Other interesting things about this gospel:
The "100 sheep" can mean more than just a metaphorical number, but an actual number that an extended family in Palestine could have since one family could have around 5 to 10 sheep. So this is the number of sheep owned by say, 10 families, and usually more than one, commonly three members of that extended family will shepherd their sheep.
When a sheep is lost, one of the three shepherds will look for it while the other two bring the rest of the flock home. Thus, when this happens, the extended family is concerned not only for the sheep but more so for the shepherd who remained behind to look for the lost sheep. Thus, we can appreciate the joy that the family feels when both shepherd and sheep returns, for both could have been in danger.
Observation and Interpretation
First, we observe that the audience of Jesus when he told these three parables were two opposing kind of audiences: the sinner and tax collectors (which were considered the worst kind of sinner) on the one hand, and the Pharisees and scribes on the other hand (who were generally considered the pure, the clean, and the saved because they followed the cleansing laws to the letter, practicing much fasting and conforming to tithing requirements at that time). By doing so, the Pharisees were following a legalistic approach towards salvation.
It is also noteworthy to note that the criticism of the Pharisees is that Jesus “eats” with sinners. Eating with someone is a serious expression of one’s fellowship with that person, and violates the rabbinical rule: Let no man associate with the wicked, not even to bring him near to the Law. That suggests that one should not even bother trying to convert a sinful person.
In the parable of the prodigal son, it should be noted that the younger son, upon running out of money, decides to finally return to his father. But did you notice that he had a spiel ready which goes: “Father I have sinned against heaven and against you, I no longer deserve to be called your son, treat me as you would treat one of your hired servants.” While this could mean a sign of humility, in the Jewish context, it also meant that this was a face saving plan of the son since being a hired servant, he could earn a decent living, remain independent and be able to secure a future without asking favors of anybody. In this plan of his, the approach was totally legalistic, and the Pharisees knew that Jesus was trying to hint at their legalistic approach to salvation.
Did you also notice that when the son finally returned, he was ready with his spiel “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you, I no longer deserve to be called your son,” but the Father butts in and does not allow him to say the latter part of his spiel which asks that he be treated as a hired servant. For the father, the son’s intention to return, regardless of his motivations, was sufficient.
The elder son could very well be the Pharisees who were more concerned about the legal obligations of the son to the father. The Pharisees believe that the way to the Father is through following a set of laws such as tithing, fasting and other cleansing laws.
Generalization
Feeling of unworthiness has no place in a Christian’s life. The prodigal son, who had ulterior motives, was accepted back. What more those who truly wish to turn back to the Father, regardless of their past. I have often also heard some who say “I am not worthy to serve (because of their sinfulness or unworthiness).” This parable ought to convince us that this is no valid reason. A sincere desire to convert and transform is enough. Making up for your sins is not a requirement before the Father embraces you. You may even be criticized as a Pharisee or elder son. Just come back. This is not to disparage good works, for indeed they are pleasing to God and completes our transformation; so long as one does not treat them as God’s prerequisites and conditions.
Application:
- What sinfulness do you have that you feel may be difficult to be forgiven?
- If there are none, what feelings of unworthiness do you have that may be holding you back from serving in the community?
I have rated myself quite high in God’s Worthiness Scale, for after all I have and am giving so much. This gospel made me realize that God does not have such a scale, for if He did we would all be found wanting. Insisting on such a scale is also not God’s way. Now I also realize that it is much more wonderful to simply rely on His love especially for the unworthy. End of sharing.
------
Other interesting things about this gospel:
The "100 sheep" can mean more than just a metaphorical number, but an actual number that an extended family in Palestine could have since one family could have around 5 to 10 sheep. So this is the number of sheep owned by say, 10 families, and usually more than one, commonly three members of that extended family will shepherd their sheep.
When a sheep is lost, one of the three shepherds will look for it while the other two bring the rest of the flock home. Thus, when this happens, the extended family is concerned not only for the sheep but more so for the shepherd who remained behind to look for the lost sheep. Thus, we can appreciate the joy that the family feels when both shepherd and sheep returns, for both could have been in danger.
The Dishonest Steward - Luke 16, 1-13
Luke 16, 1-13 – The Dishonest Steward
This is a rather difficult parable to interpret because it seems to suggest that a dishonest man can get away with dishonesty. He appears to be even praised by Jesus himself: in verse 8, it reads, “And the master commended that dishonest steward for acting prudently.” Further, Jesus says, “for the children of this world are more prudent in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light.” It seems that the obvious lesson of the parable is to be as smart and shrewd as dishonest people, so long as you do it for God’s work.
This is one instance wherein we can clearly apply the principle that we use the Bible to interpret the Bible. We cannot take a passage or verse out of context. Instead, we interpret and compare with the other message in other parts of the bible and clearly, God does not condone dishonesty, even if for noble ends.
Observation and Interpretation
It is important therefore to really understand the culture at that time to appreciate the parable. Let’s consider the following:
- first, the position of steward is a trusted position. He becomes the manager of the master’s estate, which can be very large, so there must have been a long period of friendship and trust that precedes any appointment of a steward.
- this long relationship probably explains why, firstly, the steward did not anymore bother to deny or appeal the decision of the master to dismiss him (which is unlikely in the culture); and secondly, why the master did not sue him which could have likely landed him in jail. The relationship was still worth something, and the steward therefore felt that his master was generous to him to the very end, despite of his fault.
- secondly, it would be helpful if we knew exactly what is the scheme that the steward try to pull off in order to be ingratiated to the tenants later on? Did he overprice the rental initially and simply brought it back to the original amount? This is unlikely since the rent was generally known to everyone and it would be easy to discover if one has been overcharged, and tenants could even go straight to the master to appeal the rates. It seems that the what the steward did was to simply reduce the expected rental from the tenants. The rent is usually paid after the harvest, and can be reduced due to many stipulated reasons like bad weather, crop disease, drought, and others. Thus, their anticipated payment was reduced, and therefore perceived as an act of generosity by the steward and, obviously, of the master as well, since the former would not have the authority to act without permission of the master. This act of the steward therefore served two purposes: it ingratiated him to the tenants (which he would now need that he is fired), and it also projected the master as generous and understanding.
The master compliments the steward not only for being sly and scheming, but also in recognizing his generosity and projecting such generosity to the tenants.
This interpretation make sense when we notice that while this parable was being told to the disciples, verse 14 also says that the Pharisees were part of the audience and could hear what he was saying. The Pharisees sneered at Jesus “dahil alam nila na sila ang pinatatamaan.”
The Pharisees firmly believed that obeying the law was the way to righteousness. Jesus had another message: God is not legalistic but merciful and generous, to the extent of even complimenting a sinner who recognizes such characteristics of our true Father. By the way, verse 10 when he repudiates the dishonest person in small matters.
Generalization:
When we look at God as an accountant who keeps a record of our rights and wrongs, then we overlook his mercy and generosity.
Application:
- Share an experience when you felt God’s generosity exceeded God’s justice.
Personal
I have always felt that I got more than I deserve during times I have turned to God, and less than I deserve when I have turned away from Him. When I was young and foolish, I went home intoxicated and slept while driving. I woke up a split second before hitting a parked truck and while I hit it anyway, I escaped with minor injuries and it became a wake up call to turn back to him. Jesus used a mishap to bless me. Such generosity. End of sharing.
This is a rather difficult parable to interpret because it seems to suggest that a dishonest man can get away with dishonesty. He appears to be even praised by Jesus himself: in verse 8, it reads, “And the master commended that dishonest steward for acting prudently.” Further, Jesus says, “for the children of this world are more prudent in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light.” It seems that the obvious lesson of the parable is to be as smart and shrewd as dishonest people, so long as you do it for God’s work.
This is one instance wherein we can clearly apply the principle that we use the Bible to interpret the Bible. We cannot take a passage or verse out of context. Instead, we interpret and compare with the other message in other parts of the bible and clearly, God does not condone dishonesty, even if for noble ends.
Observation and Interpretation
It is important therefore to really understand the culture at that time to appreciate the parable. Let’s consider the following:
- first, the position of steward is a trusted position. He becomes the manager of the master’s estate, which can be very large, so there must have been a long period of friendship and trust that precedes any appointment of a steward.
- this long relationship probably explains why, firstly, the steward did not anymore bother to deny or appeal the decision of the master to dismiss him (which is unlikely in the culture); and secondly, why the master did not sue him which could have likely landed him in jail. The relationship was still worth something, and the steward therefore felt that his master was generous to him to the very end, despite of his fault.
- secondly, it would be helpful if we knew exactly what is the scheme that the steward try to pull off in order to be ingratiated to the tenants later on? Did he overprice the rental initially and simply brought it back to the original amount? This is unlikely since the rent was generally known to everyone and it would be easy to discover if one has been overcharged, and tenants could even go straight to the master to appeal the rates. It seems that the what the steward did was to simply reduce the expected rental from the tenants. The rent is usually paid after the harvest, and can be reduced due to many stipulated reasons like bad weather, crop disease, drought, and others. Thus, their anticipated payment was reduced, and therefore perceived as an act of generosity by the steward and, obviously, of the master as well, since the former would not have the authority to act without permission of the master. This act of the steward therefore served two purposes: it ingratiated him to the tenants (which he would now need that he is fired), and it also projected the master as generous and understanding.
The master compliments the steward not only for being sly and scheming, but also in recognizing his generosity and projecting such generosity to the tenants.
This interpretation make sense when we notice that while this parable was being told to the disciples, verse 14 also says that the Pharisees were part of the audience and could hear what he was saying. The Pharisees sneered at Jesus “dahil alam nila na sila ang pinatatamaan.”
The Pharisees firmly believed that obeying the law was the way to righteousness. Jesus had another message: God is not legalistic but merciful and generous, to the extent of even complimenting a sinner who recognizes such characteristics of our true Father. By the way, verse 10 when he repudiates the dishonest person in small matters.
Generalization:
When we look at God as an accountant who keeps a record of our rights and wrongs, then we overlook his mercy and generosity.
Application:
- Share an experience when you felt God’s generosity exceeded God’s justice.
Personal
I have always felt that I got more than I deserve during times I have turned to God, and less than I deserve when I have turned away from Him. When I was young and foolish, I went home intoxicated and slept while driving. I woke up a split second before hitting a parked truck and while I hit it anyway, I escaped with minor injuries and it became a wake up call to turn back to him. Jesus used a mishap to bless me. Such generosity. End of sharing.
Sunday, September 26, 2004
The Rich Man and Lazarus
Luke 16, 19-31: The Rich Man and Lazarus
This parable is found only in the gospel of Luke. It is consistent with Luke’s very critical position on the love of wealth, and his stance which is very pro-poor.
Observation and Interpretation
We should note the following in this parable:
- First, this is the only parable where Jesus puts the name of a character in the parable: Lazarus. Do we know the name of the prodigal son? Or the Good Samaritan? Or of the dishonest steward? Or of the persistent neighbor? This must mean that this parable is very important for Jesus, and for Luke the gospel writer. It also suggests that the rich man knew Lazarus personally. He did mention Lazarus’ name in his plea after his death: in verse 24, Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip his finger in water so as to cool off my tongue. So, the rich man personally knew him, but ignored him anyway.
- Second, observe the phrase “he dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day.” Each day. Every day, wearing fine clothes and dining sumptuously. EVERY DAY. ARAW-ARAW. Can you imagine that? I think we all treat ourselves to really fine dining once in a while. But this rich man could afford to do so every day.
- Third, the parable tells us in verse 20 that “Lazarus, would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps that fell from the rich man’s table,” which means that he did not get anything, not even the scraps. This rich man who dined sumptuously everyday did not even give table scraps to Lazarus, and thus he could not be with Abraham, and instead ended up in the netherworld.
The message of the parable is: Just as the rich man ended in the netherworld for not even giving table scrap to Lazarus, then conversely, had he given even scraps, then he could have been saved.
Generalization:
It does not take much, it only takes scraps for us to show concern, and that would be good enough. This parable is the foundational Gospel verse of the on-going program of Archbishop Rosales named “Pondo ng Pinoy.” It aims to raise funds to help those in need by asking everyone to simply donate 25 centavos every day to the Pondo ng Pinoy fund. I shall not discuss the mechanics here, but the point of the Archbishop is this: the small things we give to others, if given consistently, every day, becomes part of our habit, and consequently transforms us. The slogan of Pondo ng Pinoy is thus: Ang magaling, kahit malimit, basta malimit, ay papuntang langit.
I believe this is why Luke emphasized that the rich man dined sumptuously every day. He could have done good little things everyday too, and he would have not only saved himself, but also saved others, starting with Lazarus.
Application:
- What little good things can you commit to do everyday for others?
Personal sharing:
That gospel has affected me some time back that I now buy sampaguita from every streetchild who knocks on my car window. But let me share something personal with you. Being a former corporate executive, I could not help but always think in terms of big plans and big activities. This gospel makes me realize that in doing so, I may have forgotten the little things. In answer to the discussion question, I can commit an extra small dose of patience to those who disagree with me. More concretely, I will pause for at least five seconds before arguing with someone who disagrees with me, hoping that within that time, I may be able to first understand and appreciate the point of the other. End of sharing.
This parable is found only in the gospel of Luke. It is consistent with Luke’s very critical position on the love of wealth, and his stance which is very pro-poor.
Observation and Interpretation
We should note the following in this parable:
- First, this is the only parable where Jesus puts the name of a character in the parable: Lazarus. Do we know the name of the prodigal son? Or the Good Samaritan? Or of the dishonest steward? Or of the persistent neighbor? This must mean that this parable is very important for Jesus, and for Luke the gospel writer. It also suggests that the rich man knew Lazarus personally. He did mention Lazarus’ name in his plea after his death: in verse 24, Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip his finger in water so as to cool off my tongue. So, the rich man personally knew him, but ignored him anyway.
- Second, observe the phrase “he dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day.” Each day. Every day, wearing fine clothes and dining sumptuously. EVERY DAY. ARAW-ARAW. Can you imagine that? I think we all treat ourselves to really fine dining once in a while. But this rich man could afford to do so every day.
- Third, the parable tells us in verse 20 that “Lazarus, would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps that fell from the rich man’s table,” which means that he did not get anything, not even the scraps. This rich man who dined sumptuously everyday did not even give table scraps to Lazarus, and thus he could not be with Abraham, and instead ended up in the netherworld.
The message of the parable is: Just as the rich man ended in the netherworld for not even giving table scrap to Lazarus, then conversely, had he given even scraps, then he could have been saved.
Generalization:
It does not take much, it only takes scraps for us to show concern, and that would be good enough. This parable is the foundational Gospel verse of the on-going program of Archbishop Rosales named “Pondo ng Pinoy.” It aims to raise funds to help those in need by asking everyone to simply donate 25 centavos every day to the Pondo ng Pinoy fund. I shall not discuss the mechanics here, but the point of the Archbishop is this: the small things we give to others, if given consistently, every day, becomes part of our habit, and consequently transforms us. The slogan of Pondo ng Pinoy is thus: Ang magaling, kahit malimit, basta malimit, ay papuntang langit.
I believe this is why Luke emphasized that the rich man dined sumptuously every day. He could have done good little things everyday too, and he would have not only saved himself, but also saved others, starting with Lazarus.
Application:
- What little good things can you commit to do everyday for others?
Personal sharing:
That gospel has affected me some time back that I now buy sampaguita from every streetchild who knocks on my car window. But let me share something personal with you. Being a former corporate executive, I could not help but always think in terms of big plans and big activities. This gospel makes me realize that in doing so, I may have forgotten the little things. In answer to the discussion question, I can commit an extra small dose of patience to those who disagree with me. More concretely, I will pause for at least five seconds before arguing with someone who disagrees with me, hoping that within that time, I may be able to first understand and appreciate the point of the other. End of sharing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)