Wednesday, 20th October 2010, 00:21 hrs
Three interesting things happened on Monday afternoon. The first is a lunch conversation with a 'friend', who had planned to have lunch with me two weeks ago but, owing to the last-minute visit of an official guest, the originally planned lunch had to be cancelled. We then re-scheduled another day, which took place last Monday.
The conversation, on the face of it, appeared rather superficial and mild. We exchanged a little information of our activities the past couple of years, for me it was the past two years. The reason is that this was in fact our first lunch. The conversation had begun with a focus on my 'church life', that is, what church I was attending and what sort of tradition it was and the like. With that beginning, the focus shifted to our preference for sacred music. This led to a mutual exchange of, first, our views and then our ideas. It was impressed upon me that people, particularly the young of today looked at sacred music and its lyrics rather differently, and that the repetitive singing in many of the praise songs today was in fact calculated to ensure that the songs and their words would penetrate into the deeper levels of the worshippers.
I thought to myself. Perhaps, there remains a struggle between what N. T. Wright says 'a system of piped water' versus 'a bursting forth of the under-the-concrete-pavement water'. The former refers to the traditional philosophy that kept people and belief separate from everyday life, whereas the latter speaks of the longing, thirsting, and the consequent gushing forth of 'spiritualities' seen today in many different and varied forms, and in various religious garbs and unconventional apparatuses. While Wright has his own convictions re the many things Christian and secular, it is of fundamental importance that we consider the reformers' dictum of 'the reformation is always reforming'. It is true we need to adapt to the ever changing world and circumstances; but it is equally true of the never-changing foundation of the apostolic faith, which has given rise to the many traditions today, not least of which is the theologically founded and content-filled singing at formal worship. It must be mentioned though, that Wright is not to be misunderstood as opposing tradition. In fact, what he argues for in his Simply Christian (London: SPCK, 2006) is a call to a more biblical, more robust, much more solid faith.
The conversation has spurred me on to further reflections on some of my own recent struggles, in terms of cultural, theological and spiritual values. I have been rather vocal over several issues. However, I have been seen as possessing a different set of cultural values owing to the fact of my differing cultural background. Never mind the oft-repeated call for the celebration of diversity! I have now better understood the implications as well as ramifications of some of what I have raised, and the general discomfort of others resulting from it. The well nuanced conversation calls to mind Proverbs 19.20, which says, 'Listen to advice and accept instruction, that you may gain wisdom for the future'. I particularly love the next verse: 'The human mind may devise many plans, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will be established'. The Proverbs here does not advise against planning or discussion. In fact, it encourages planning, only that the planner should be sensitive to the fact that whatever one plans it is the Lord's purposes that are to be established. Thus every human's plan should rightly fit into God's purposes. What these purposes are is another question altogether.
I must say I would be a fool, indeed, not to heed the advice resulting from the lunch conversation.
The other interesting thing I happened to witness was how a wasp attacked a dragon-fly double its size. First the wasp flew on top of the dragon-fly and struggled and finally snipped off the latter's wings. It then drove its sting into the head of the dragon-fly and, with all its legs properly and firmly holding the dragon-fly, hoisted the latter and flew off, presumably to its lodging to feed its young.
I watched with amazement and felt a sense of wonder, though at the same time a sense of the seemingly animal-insect world in which we humans sometimes (or oftentimes?) live. It speaks of strategy, self-interest, annihilation of the other, and such like. But I do not wish to sound too despondent. The truth of the matter is that we live in a fallen world, in which most of the times our minds and thoughts are warped and crooked. Today, we are in such urgent need of justice. Yet, oftentimes what we regard as injustice in far away lands happens right in our midst and, sometimes, we even perpetuate such injustices as racism, discrimination against the poor and women, the ever widening divide between the rich and the poor, the use of authority in the name of religion to dominate and exercise hegemony over those under us, and the like. How can we as Christians reflect the justice of God, even as God has demonstrated his justice in the incarnation?
There is a third experience, that of discrimination I personally experienced at Wellcome. At the check-out counter, after picking up my groceries, I realised the counter staff spoke a brand of Cantonese that was simply too colloquial for me. Upon learning that I could not speak Cantonese, the staff immediately expressed her irritation and impatience, with explicit facial expressions. We tried to communicate in putonghua but, to my dismay, she simply could not understand my putonghua, nor I hers! She grew more impatient and turned to her colleague for help, who simply could not be bothered when she realised it was a putonghua speaker (assuming I came from the mainland). Behind me was another patron, a man about 1.8 metre in height, who looked at me with equal amount of unfriendliness. He then tried to help, as he would be held up if he didn't. But as he spoke, he gave me a look of utter contempt and in a tone that, though not raised, was sufficiently unfriendly for me to sense a certain animosity and dislike. At that very moment, the first in my almost half a century of my life on earth, I felt absolutely and totally discriminated against. I spoke so softly, as I had become so intimidated and, with trepidation, thanked the staff and the man and walked away shaken and in tremour. While on the light rail I felt, for the first time in my life, no anger but instead, almost driven to tears... I have thought to myself that from now on, I shall speak only English...but then was immediately reminded that earlier in the evening when I made a call to the Bank of China, the person answering the phone, upon hearing me speak English, banged the phone down.
What do I do in such unjust circumstances? I do not know. Perhaps, it tells me that this is but part and parcel of living in a broken and fallen world. While I may hope people will eventually grow and become mature, I cannot hold out much, or expect too much.
I thought to myself that every human person is a creature of the divine, wherever he/she comes from, whatever he/she may be (race, job, sex, health), whatever age he/she may be, I cannot and must not discriminate against him or her. It dawns on me that, as Christians, I would need to regard myself as a citizen of heaven, and therefore while I am on earth I will always be a traveller, and therefore I must embrace every other fellow traveller, ensuring therefore the exclusion of injustice.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Some Thoughts on John 5.1-18
Thursday, 21st October 2010, 22:29 hrs
Most of us would have heard, I assume, that God never forces us anything we never want or desire, for example, salvation. In other words, if we do not want to go to heaven, God is unlikely to carry us kicking into heaven! However, today we do hear often that there are sick people who in fact never want healed, much like those who, mistakenly, refuse salvation. One of the interpretations of the Gospel of John chapter 5 and verses 1-18 is precisely one such example of mistaken hermeneutics, which posits that the man paralysed for 38 years in fact did not wish to be healed.
If we examine more closely, the text has not an iota of hint that the man did not want to be healed. For in verses 2-5, the reader is introduced to the context in general, i.e. the place, the many different kinds of sick people, and then verse 5 zooms in on the paralysed man with these words, 'One man was there who had been ill...'. In other words, the writer of the Fourth Gospel did not intend to focus on healing per se, since only one out of so many was chosen for the story. Rather, the paralysed man plays only a small role in the larger scheme of things of the writer. And for all we know, this is not even the main focus of this passage! Still, we would need to clarify this particular point.
So clarify we must! We are told in verse 6 that Jesus 'saw him lying there and knew that he had been there a long time' (italics mine). In other words, Jesus must have observed for a while and so discovered about the paralysed man's desire and hope. And the end of verse 6 reports Jesus' question to the man if he would want to be healed. Verse 7 records the man's answer, almost as if he was saying to Jesus, 'What do you think? Just look at the situation I am in - whenever the water was stirred and I was trying to get in, someone would go ahead of me'. And the fact that this man had been there for so many years shows that he truly wanted to be made well. Thus, Jesus must have understood from the man's response that he genuinely wanted to be healed. That is why Jesus followed up with the imperative, 'Stand up, take your mat and walk' (v 8). This is where what Jesus has done is what we have said earlier, would Jesus impose healing upon the paralytic if the latter did not want healing? And as verse 9 tells us, 'At once the man was made well' (emphasis mine). The term for 'at once' in the Greek is eutheos, which hints at the possibility that the man did indeed want healing.
If we should accept the idea that the man in fact refuses healing, but that Jesus nonetheless made him well, then we are as good as making the suggestion that Jesus would impose on someone or, indeed, anyone or even everyone, what he or she does not want. And if we push this idea or argument to its logical conclusion, there would be no need for evangelism, since God will after all make everyone believe in him!
But the more important is that the healing of the paralytic is not even the central point of the story! We are told it was on a Sabbath that Jesus did the healing, and the Jews were displeased over the fact that this act of 'lifting' the mattress and the healing itself were both acts which broke the Sabbath rule. The act of Jesus in healing the man posed as a direct challenge to the Jewish authority, which in turn challenged the authority of Jesus. More interestingly, the act of healing speaks of Jesus' rule over sickness. This further puts him on a level quite above human ability. And later we are told that the Jews started persecuting Jesus because he healed on the Sabbath, and the Gospel's writer has Jesus say that he and God are one (v 18).
Indeed, the penultimate paragraph is further confirmed by the verses that follow, which focus on Jesus' authority as the son of God. The same theme then keeps running for many more paragraphs to come.
But interpreting the Fourth Gospel is not easy and cannot be done simply by looking at a little story without considering the overall structure of the Gospel, the overall theological thrust of the biblical author, and the literary and social contexts. For example, the question of the severity of breaking the Sabbath in John 5 cannot be overlooked, nor the structure of the 'Seven Sign's'.
We need to be strict and not draw applications in a haphazard manner. The overall theme of this passage is the authority of Jesus, we therefore cannot say that the intention of the biblical author is unimportant, or unnecessary. If the meaning of the base text is not established first, how can we ever go further? And if we do go further, without regard for the meaning of the text, then are we not guilty of corrupting the Word of God?
How then should I approach this passage? It depends on what I wish to do. If, supposing, I am going to preach on this particular passage, what I wil do is to set the text as deeply as I can in its social context. In other words, the first thing I will do is to draw attention to the Jewish setting as mentioned in verse 1. This will set the tone and mood of the story, and rightly! I would then focus on the 'implications of Jesus' healing on a Sabbath'. I think this is a far better title, and a more nuanced one. A rough outline would be as follows:
(1) Introduction - introduces the title, the text, the flow of the sermon.
(2) How the text came to focus on this healing event
(3) Implications of breach of the Sabbath - who Jesus really is!
(4) What theological meaing there might be for believers today
Blessed be the God who has given us his Word, so that we may not only study it, but also analyse it, debate it, quarrel with it, and above all, love it.
Most of us would have heard, I assume, that God never forces us anything we never want or desire, for example, salvation. In other words, if we do not want to go to heaven, God is unlikely to carry us kicking into heaven! However, today we do hear often that there are sick people who in fact never want healed, much like those who, mistakenly, refuse salvation. One of the interpretations of the Gospel of John chapter 5 and verses 1-18 is precisely one such example of mistaken hermeneutics, which posits that the man paralysed for 38 years in fact did not wish to be healed.
If we examine more closely, the text has not an iota of hint that the man did not want to be healed. For in verses 2-5, the reader is introduced to the context in general, i.e. the place, the many different kinds of sick people, and then verse 5 zooms in on the paralysed man with these words, 'One man was there who had been ill...'. In other words, the writer of the Fourth Gospel did not intend to focus on healing per se, since only one out of so many was chosen for the story. Rather, the paralysed man plays only a small role in the larger scheme of things of the writer. And for all we know, this is not even the main focus of this passage! Still, we would need to clarify this particular point.
So clarify we must! We are told in verse 6 that Jesus 'saw him lying there and knew that he had been there a long time' (italics mine). In other words, Jesus must have observed for a while and so discovered about the paralysed man's desire and hope. And the end of verse 6 reports Jesus' question to the man if he would want to be healed. Verse 7 records the man's answer, almost as if he was saying to Jesus, 'What do you think? Just look at the situation I am in - whenever the water was stirred and I was trying to get in, someone would go ahead of me'. And the fact that this man had been there for so many years shows that he truly wanted to be made well. Thus, Jesus must have understood from the man's response that he genuinely wanted to be healed. That is why Jesus followed up with the imperative, 'Stand up, take your mat and walk' (v 8). This is where what Jesus has done is what we have said earlier, would Jesus impose healing upon the paralytic if the latter did not want healing? And as verse 9 tells us, 'At once the man was made well' (emphasis mine). The term for 'at once' in the Greek is eutheos, which hints at the possibility that the man did indeed want healing.
If we should accept the idea that the man in fact refuses healing, but that Jesus nonetheless made him well, then we are as good as making the suggestion that Jesus would impose on someone or, indeed, anyone or even everyone, what he or she does not want. And if we push this idea or argument to its logical conclusion, there would be no need for evangelism, since God will after all make everyone believe in him!
But the more important is that the healing of the paralytic is not even the central point of the story! We are told it was on a Sabbath that Jesus did the healing, and the Jews were displeased over the fact that this act of 'lifting' the mattress and the healing itself were both acts which broke the Sabbath rule. The act of Jesus in healing the man posed as a direct challenge to the Jewish authority, which in turn challenged the authority of Jesus. More interestingly, the act of healing speaks of Jesus' rule over sickness. This further puts him on a level quite above human ability. And later we are told that the Jews started persecuting Jesus because he healed on the Sabbath, and the Gospel's writer has Jesus say that he and God are one (v 18).
Indeed, the penultimate paragraph is further confirmed by the verses that follow, which focus on Jesus' authority as the son of God. The same theme then keeps running for many more paragraphs to come.
But interpreting the Fourth Gospel is not easy and cannot be done simply by looking at a little story without considering the overall structure of the Gospel, the overall theological thrust of the biblical author, and the literary and social contexts. For example, the question of the severity of breaking the Sabbath in John 5 cannot be overlooked, nor the structure of the 'Seven Sign's'.
We need to be strict and not draw applications in a haphazard manner. The overall theme of this passage is the authority of Jesus, we therefore cannot say that the intention of the biblical author is unimportant, or unnecessary. If the meaning of the base text is not established first, how can we ever go further? And if we do go further, without regard for the meaning of the text, then are we not guilty of corrupting the Word of God?
How then should I approach this passage? It depends on what I wish to do. If, supposing, I am going to preach on this particular passage, what I wil do is to set the text as deeply as I can in its social context. In other words, the first thing I will do is to draw attention to the Jewish setting as mentioned in verse 1. This will set the tone and mood of the story, and rightly! I would then focus on the 'implications of Jesus' healing on a Sabbath'. I think this is a far better title, and a more nuanced one. A rough outline would be as follows:
(1) Introduction - introduces the title, the text, the flow of the sermon.
(2) How the text came to focus on this healing event
(3) Implications of breach of the Sabbath - who Jesus really is!
(4) What theological meaing there might be for believers today
Blessed be the God who has given us his Word, so that we may not only study it, but also analyse it, debate it, quarrel with it, and above all, love it.
I'm Just a Poor Wayfaring Stranger...
Friday, 22nd October 2010, 22:32 hrs
During teenage years, my eldest brother taught me a Christian folk song that belonged to the conservative evangelical ethos and is eschatologically orientated. It goes as follows:
I'm just a poor wayfaring stranger
A-traveling through, this world of woe.
Yet there's no sickness, toil nor danger
In that bright land, to which I go.
I'm going there to see my father
I'm going there no more to roam;
I'm just a go-ing over Jordan
I'm just a go-ing over home.
I know dark clouds will gather round me
I know my way is rough and steep;
Yet beauteous fields lie just before me
Where God's redeemed, their vigils keep
I'm going there to see my mother
She said she'd meet me when I come;
I'm just a go-ing over Jordan
I'm just a go-ing over home.
I'll soon be free from every trial,
From every sorrow, and each deep grief,
Stressed by Christians I feel so tired,
I wish to leave this world in peace.
I'm going there to meet my dear wife,
Who's waiting for me everyday;
I'm just a go-ing over Jordan
I'm just a go-ing over home.
I want to sing salvation's story,
In concert with the blood-washed band;
I want to be with my dear Jesus,
When I get home to that good land.
I’m goin' home to see my Savior;
Who shed for me his precious blood;
I’m just a-goin' o'er Jordan,
I’m just a-goin' o'er home.
The above folk song somehow captures my thoughts and, perhaps, some of my 'emotions' (if there are any). I have reflected over the past two years on my journey to Hong Kong. I've wondered about the things that have happened to me and understood that in life, there would always be good and bad decisions, choices, regrets, and such like. What decisions and choices I have made and how I feel, I do not think it wise to explicitly express them here, since I'm in a community of rumour mongers. But the title of the song and some of the lyrics are so well written and reflect so much of what I feel.
Thank God for songs!
During teenage years, my eldest brother taught me a Christian folk song that belonged to the conservative evangelical ethos and is eschatologically orientated. It goes as follows:
I'm just a poor wayfaring stranger
A-traveling through, this world of woe.
Yet there's no sickness, toil nor danger
In that bright land, to which I go.
I'm going there to see my father
I'm going there no more to roam;
I'm just a go-ing over Jordan
I'm just a go-ing over home.
I know dark clouds will gather round me
I know my way is rough and steep;
Yet beauteous fields lie just before me
Where God's redeemed, their vigils keep
I'm going there to see my mother
She said she'd meet me when I come;
I'm just a go-ing over Jordan
I'm just a go-ing over home.
I'll soon be free from every trial,
From every sorrow, and each deep grief,
Stressed by Christians I feel so tired,
I wish to leave this world in peace.
I'm going there to meet my dear wife,
Who's waiting for me everyday;
I'm just a go-ing over Jordan
I'm just a go-ing over home.
I want to sing salvation's story,
In concert with the blood-washed band;
I want to be with my dear Jesus,
When I get home to that good land.
I’m goin' home to see my Savior;
Who shed for me his precious blood;
I’m just a-goin' o'er Jordan,
I’m just a-goin' o'er home.
The above folk song somehow captures my thoughts and, perhaps, some of my 'emotions' (if there are any). I have reflected over the past two years on my journey to Hong Kong. I've wondered about the things that have happened to me and understood that in life, there would always be good and bad decisions, choices, regrets, and such like. What decisions and choices I have made and how I feel, I do not think it wise to explicitly express them here, since I'm in a community of rumour mongers. But the title of the song and some of the lyrics are so well written and reflect so much of what I feel.
Thank God for songs!
I Life up My Eyes...
Co-workers’ Prayer Meeting
5th November 2010; 0800 hours
Psalm 121: The title – Song of Ascent
This is in fact a Song of Ascents, which really means ‘going up’. It means both a physical move upwards, suggesting a physical expression of worship, and a mental upward look, suggesting a certain psychological hope. But it also suggests to the congregation that the ‘song’ is meant to move up in tune, reaching a climax at the end where the people would declare and affirm the everlasting presence of Yahweh, and therefore of his ever abiding protection.
We do not know who in fact penned the psalm, nor can we tell who its author is. It has both very early wilderness connotations as well as post-exilic tones. Perhaps this is why we are able to use it more freely.
Verse 1
In verse one, the psalmist speaks of lifting his eyes to the hills, and there he raises a question: from whom does my help come? And he goes on to answer it himself.
‘Hill’ or ‘mountain’ in the Ancient Near East represented a dwelling of the divine, where worship usually took place. Thus, we read in the Old Testament that the kings of Israel committed sins by building places of worship on high places. Of course, ‘mountain’ also reminds us of the story of Moses’ ascent to Mount Sinai where Yahweh met and gave him the Ten Commandments. Similarly, we learn that Elijah encountered God in the mountains.
But over here in this verse, the psalmist uses the plural ‘hills’, as if to ask if all the gods might be able to help. He then goes on, in verse two, to refer to the God who created the heavens and the earth – thus he looks beyond hills and mountains to the one who transcends all creation.
Verse 2
Verse two is almost a declaration against all the gods of the nations by focusing on Yahweh as the creator of the heavens and the earth. What we see here is the ‘sovereignty’ of Yahweh, a concept of God that is relatively well developed, and therefore the verse suggests a relatively late date for this psalm.
Verses 3-4
When Israel was in the wilderness, and later during the exile, they had their own arrangements for centry and guards. They know how difficult it is to stay awake. But in the process they have experienced God’s protection and so concluded that the God who created the heavens and the earth does not slumber nor sleep (不打盹，也不睡覺). For they realise that those times when they fell asleep, it was their creator who preserved them and therefore ensured their continued existence.
Verse 5
Therefore in verse five, the psalmst is able to say that Yahweh is Israel’s ‘keeper’ (保護者) and ‘your shade’ (蔭庇者). Thus we see a move from understanding Yahweh as the creator of the heavens and earth, as someone who transcends the creation, to a national ‘keeper’ and ‘shade’.
This understanding shows us how they have come to understand God as not only universal but also national, and indeed personal.
Verse 6
That is why in verse six, the psalmist speaks about the sun and the moon (白日太陽和夜間月亮). Israel was in the wilderness and knew well the summer heat in the desert. The term ‘strike’ might well be a reference to ‘heatwave’ or ‘extreme sun-burns’. And the ‘moon’ will not pose a problem. The Chinese translation is interesting (夜間月亮不會害你). We know it is in the ‘dark’ that evil schemes plotted. The Israelites experienced sudden attacks in the night (突擊). The ‘sun’ and ‘moon’ also represent something beyond them, over which they have no control. But Yahweh is the creator and therefore is sovereign over his creation.
Verse 7
So from a high and lofty creator, the psalmist gradually comes to understand Yahweh as Israel’s ‘keeper’ and ‘shade’.
Here the term ‘keeper’ carries the concept of ‘保守’. And the psalmist understands this as ‘keeping Israel from all evil’; and the other way of looking at it is that Yahweh gives life when he keeps it (保守).
But how do we explain human plight, both natural and bilateral or transnationl?
Verse 8
In fact, this psalm was written for the purpose of Israel’s plight as well as restoration. Thus, the psalmist in this verse speaks about ‘your coming in and your going out’ (你出你入). The ‘going out’ and ‘coming in’ are not the ‘出入平安’ that we Chinese refer to, but are a reference to Israel’s history during which Yahweh was her ‘keeper’. Whether it was ‘going in’ to Egypt, ‘coming out of’ Egypt, ‘going into’ the wilderness’, ‘coming out of’ the wilderness’ and ‘going into’ the promised land, ‘being deported out of’ Jerusalem’ and later ‘back into’ Jerusalem’ (i.e. return), the high and lofty creator is their protector.
This final verse therefore suggests that the psalm was penned years after the return (post-exilic), after the destruction of the temple. That is why it is called Song of Ascent, perhaps there is no temple for them to go up to.
Conclusion
The psalm brings to mind the everlasting Yahweh, as the final clause says, who does not ‘slumber’ nor ‘sleep’. And the clause ‘henceforth and forever more’ became a central thought on which the people of Israel could draw for their national restoration in 1948, the years before which Jews everywhere basically kept in mind the ‘land of Israel’ (eretz Izra-el) as given by Yahweh.
He (Yahweh) goes on to deliver his people years later through Jesus Christ, so that a ‘new Israel’ was formed and ‘new people’ created. Today, believers in Christ Jesus are part of this ‘new people’, ‘new Israel’. And indeed, we are part of this.
It therefore calls for our similar act in ‘lifting up our eyes to the hills’ and re-affirm the fact that our help comes from Yahweh who made the heavens and the earth.
Let us pray:
Dear creator God and father of humanity, grant us eyes that lift up to the hills, and hearts that understand you as our ‘keeper’ and ‘shade’, our deliverer who will guard our ‘coming in’ and our ‘going out’, now and forever. Thank you in Jesus Christ. Amen.
5th November 2010; 0800 hours
Psalm 121: The title – Song of Ascent
This is in fact a Song of Ascents, which really means ‘going up’. It means both a physical move upwards, suggesting a physical expression of worship, and a mental upward look, suggesting a certain psychological hope. But it also suggests to the congregation that the ‘song’ is meant to move up in tune, reaching a climax at the end where the people would declare and affirm the everlasting presence of Yahweh, and therefore of his ever abiding protection.
We do not know who in fact penned the psalm, nor can we tell who its author is. It has both very early wilderness connotations as well as post-exilic tones. Perhaps this is why we are able to use it more freely.
Verse 1
In verse one, the psalmist speaks of lifting his eyes to the hills, and there he raises a question: from whom does my help come? And he goes on to answer it himself.
‘Hill’ or ‘mountain’ in the Ancient Near East represented a dwelling of the divine, where worship usually took place. Thus, we read in the Old Testament that the kings of Israel committed sins by building places of worship on high places. Of course, ‘mountain’ also reminds us of the story of Moses’ ascent to Mount Sinai where Yahweh met and gave him the Ten Commandments. Similarly, we learn that Elijah encountered God in the mountains.
But over here in this verse, the psalmist uses the plural ‘hills’, as if to ask if all the gods might be able to help. He then goes on, in verse two, to refer to the God who created the heavens and the earth – thus he looks beyond hills and mountains to the one who transcends all creation.
Verse 2
Verse two is almost a declaration against all the gods of the nations by focusing on Yahweh as the creator of the heavens and the earth. What we see here is the ‘sovereignty’ of Yahweh, a concept of God that is relatively well developed, and therefore the verse suggests a relatively late date for this psalm.
Verses 3-4
When Israel was in the wilderness, and later during the exile, they had their own arrangements for centry and guards. They know how difficult it is to stay awake. But in the process they have experienced God’s protection and so concluded that the God who created the heavens and the earth does not slumber nor sleep (不打盹，也不睡覺). For they realise that those times when they fell asleep, it was their creator who preserved them and therefore ensured their continued existence.
Verse 5
Therefore in verse five, the psalmst is able to say that Yahweh is Israel’s ‘keeper’ (保護者) and ‘your shade’ (蔭庇者). Thus we see a move from understanding Yahweh as the creator of the heavens and earth, as someone who transcends the creation, to a national ‘keeper’ and ‘shade’.
This understanding shows us how they have come to understand God as not only universal but also national, and indeed personal.
Verse 6
That is why in verse six, the psalmist speaks about the sun and the moon (白日太陽和夜間月亮). Israel was in the wilderness and knew well the summer heat in the desert. The term ‘strike’ might well be a reference to ‘heatwave’ or ‘extreme sun-burns’. And the ‘moon’ will not pose a problem. The Chinese translation is interesting (夜間月亮不會害你). We know it is in the ‘dark’ that evil schemes plotted. The Israelites experienced sudden attacks in the night (突擊). The ‘sun’ and ‘moon’ also represent something beyond them, over which they have no control. But Yahweh is the creator and therefore is sovereign over his creation.
Verse 7
So from a high and lofty creator, the psalmist gradually comes to understand Yahweh as Israel’s ‘keeper’ and ‘shade’.
Here the term ‘keeper’ carries the concept of ‘保守’. And the psalmist understands this as ‘keeping Israel from all evil’; and the other way of looking at it is that Yahweh gives life when he keeps it (保守).
But how do we explain human plight, both natural and bilateral or transnationl?
Verse 8
In fact, this psalm was written for the purpose of Israel’s plight as well as restoration. Thus, the psalmist in this verse speaks about ‘your coming in and your going out’ (你出你入). The ‘going out’ and ‘coming in’ are not the ‘出入平安’ that we Chinese refer to, but are a reference to Israel’s history during which Yahweh was her ‘keeper’. Whether it was ‘going in’ to Egypt, ‘coming out of’ Egypt, ‘going into’ the wilderness’, ‘coming out of’ the wilderness’ and ‘going into’ the promised land, ‘being deported out of’ Jerusalem’ and later ‘back into’ Jerusalem’ (i.e. return), the high and lofty creator is their protector.
This final verse therefore suggests that the psalm was penned years after the return (post-exilic), after the destruction of the temple. That is why it is called Song of Ascent, perhaps there is no temple for them to go up to.
Conclusion
The psalm brings to mind the everlasting Yahweh, as the final clause says, who does not ‘slumber’ nor ‘sleep’. And the clause ‘henceforth and forever more’ became a central thought on which the people of Israel could draw for their national restoration in 1948, the years before which Jews everywhere basically kept in mind the ‘land of Israel’ (eretz Izra-el) as given by Yahweh.
He (Yahweh) goes on to deliver his people years later through Jesus Christ, so that a ‘new Israel’ was formed and ‘new people’ created. Today, believers in Christ Jesus are part of this ‘new people’, ‘new Israel’. And indeed, we are part of this.
It therefore calls for our similar act in ‘lifting up our eyes to the hills’ and re-affirm the fact that our help comes from Yahweh who made the heavens and the earth.
Let us pray:
Dear creator God and father of humanity, grant us eyes that lift up to the hills, and hearts that understand you as our ‘keeper’ and ‘shade’, our deliverer who will guard our ‘coming in’ and our ‘going out’, now and forever. Thank you in Jesus Christ. Amen.
不再是个孤零零的老头子
週四、2010年11月11日、21:16時
在一個冬天的夜晚中，一個孤零零的中年人踏進他的晚年，成為一個老年人……
他坐下來，把放在床底下的箱子拉出來，箱子蓋充滿了灰塵，還有個鎖，他便把它打開，嘩啦一聲……哇，他一生的積蓄全都落出來……有銅幣、瑪瑙戒指 、金鏈子、鈔票、古董銅幣……他看著這些積蓄一陣子，舉起頭來望著在牆上的一面鏡子，看到自己所剩的頭髮都白了許多，面上也多了許多皺紋，兩字眼睛也沒什麼精神。他再往上望，看到自己家裡掛著的一副十字架，這麼久了，也已經充滿灰塵了。原來他是個基督徒，因十字架是個空的，他並非天主教徒……
他坐在那裡發呆一陣子，突然間客廳的時鐘響了，啊？他已經發呆了兩個半小時了！他開始想了……我是個基督徒……又怎樣呢？
他想到曾經在教會火熱的做事，即是所謂的“服事”，但是到頭來，他的家人一個一個的過世了，開始的時候，教會還鼓勵他，但是他的失去也改變了他，使他多想一些人生的事，因此他也變成一個很靜的人，教會就慢慢的拒絕他，最終，他就停止去教會了。最後，人人所說的“耶穌的愛”全都不知去了哪裡……
可是，他繼續的信下去，因為這是他唯一的信仰，也是他這麼多年來所得到的教導。雖然身旁沒有人，他總可以跟自己說話，跟自己說笑……
這一個晚上，他看著自己的樣子，想起年輕時的頭髮、精神的眼神、光滑的皮膚、寬闊的肩膀，但是現在的他卻只剩沒幾根白頭髮、一個稍微凸出的肚腩、兩隻沒什麽力量的腳，全身都在疼；而在這一個晚上，他又發覺他兩隻手已經不聽使喚，它們一直不停的抖，他問自己：“我是否患上了帕金森氏病？”然而，他也似乎不太憂慮，或許只有他自己一個人吧？
不久前，他結交了一些朋友，他們起初跟他挺好的，但是後來卻開始跟他爭這爭那，他不明白一個老頭子，爲什麽人家還要這麼對待他，後來他發覺，原來他一生中給他問題的人都有一個共同點：他們都是信耶穌基督的，且都炫耀自己很有靈命。他終於學習到，人生不是學習信仰，而是活出信仰……
老頭子在這一個晚上就坐在那兒，想啊想啊……
一個星期後，終於有人發覺在元朗的一間房子里，有個老頭子坐在那裡發呆，他身旁有一個箱子……他們報警了，後來證實了，他已經發呆一個星期了……
一個星期前，在天堂里有一個客人到訪，他是一個有一頭黑髮的年輕人，眼神很有精神，身體結實，許多天堂的人都伸出手來歡迎他……
在一個冬天的夜晚中，一個孤零零的中年人踏進他的晚年，成為一個老年人……
他坐下來，把放在床底下的箱子拉出來，箱子蓋充滿了灰塵，還有個鎖，他便把它打開，嘩啦一聲……哇，他一生的積蓄全都落出來……有銅幣、瑪瑙戒指 、金鏈子、鈔票、古董銅幣……他看著這些積蓄一陣子，舉起頭來望著在牆上的一面鏡子，看到自己所剩的頭髮都白了許多，面上也多了許多皺紋，兩字眼睛也沒什麼精神。他再往上望，看到自己家裡掛著的一副十字架，這麼久了，也已經充滿灰塵了。原來他是個基督徒，因十字架是個空的，他並非天主教徒……
他坐在那裡發呆一陣子，突然間客廳的時鐘響了，啊？他已經發呆了兩個半小時了！他開始想了……我是個基督徒……又怎樣呢？
他想到曾經在教會火熱的做事，即是所謂的“服事”，但是到頭來，他的家人一個一個的過世了，開始的時候，教會還鼓勵他，但是他的失去也改變了他，使他多想一些人生的事，因此他也變成一個很靜的人，教會就慢慢的拒絕他，最終，他就停止去教會了。最後，人人所說的“耶穌的愛”全都不知去了哪裡……
可是，他繼續的信下去，因為這是他唯一的信仰，也是他這麼多年來所得到的教導。雖然身旁沒有人，他總可以跟自己說話，跟自己說笑……
這一個晚上，他看著自己的樣子，想起年輕時的頭髮、精神的眼神、光滑的皮膚、寬闊的肩膀，但是現在的他卻只剩沒幾根白頭髮、一個稍微凸出的肚腩、兩隻沒什麽力量的腳，全身都在疼；而在這一個晚上，他又發覺他兩隻手已經不聽使喚，它們一直不停的抖，他問自己：“我是否患上了帕金森氏病？”然而，他也似乎不太憂慮，或許只有他自己一個人吧？
不久前，他結交了一些朋友，他們起初跟他挺好的，但是後來卻開始跟他爭這爭那，他不明白一個老頭子，爲什麽人家還要這麼對待他，後來他發覺，原來他一生中給他問題的人都有一個共同點：他們都是信耶穌基督的，且都炫耀自己很有靈命。他終於學習到，人生不是學習信仰，而是活出信仰……
老頭子在這一個晚上就坐在那兒，想啊想啊……
一個星期後，終於有人發覺在元朗的一間房子里，有個老頭子坐在那裡發呆，他身旁有一個箱子……他們報警了，後來證實了，他已經發呆一個星期了……
一個星期前，在天堂里有一個客人到訪，他是一個有一頭黑髮的年輕人，眼神很有精神，身體結實，許多天堂的人都伸出手來歡迎他……
狗是人的好友！
周二、2010年11月16日、22：51时
众所周知，狗是人的最好朋友！小时候，母亲经常喊着我们六个兄弟姐妹帮她做事，有时，我们的狗比我们抢先跑到母亲面前，故母亲经常说：“狗比你们好几十倍！”
是的，无论你的心情多么的差，在两条天真无瑕疵，可爱又无知的小狗面前，它们蹦蹦跳跳的向你叫、向你要，这就足以把你一切的烦恼都暂时抛到九云外了！
狗，我们中宣的两条狗，在上周五大约下午五时左右，天正下着雨，它们出现在我们学院，孤零零的，好可怜。但这两条可怜的无名小狗却唤起了我们人的一点本性：救它们！
这使我想起了我们自己，从一个保守神学的角度来看，我们就有如这两条孤零零的狗，无家可归，到处流浪，然后上帝看到我们了，便伸出祂那怜悯的双手，把我们抱了上来，洁净了我们，赐我们吃的，并以祂的爱来暖和我们。祂不要求什么，只要求我们忠心。
好多时候，我们想超越我们自己的身份、能力，自以为如此便能讨上帝的喜悦。我们大大声的祷告，或装出一副敬虔的样子，就是把背弯一弯，嘴唇拉直，皮笑肉不笑的把头点一点，然后说：“平安”，或“感谢主！”等等。但是，很多时候，上帝并不需要我们做这些，祂只需要我们忠诚于他，正如这两条可爱、天真、没有野心、没有勾心斗角的态度的狗，它们或许就是上帝赐给我们的一点小智慧。
若是我们能够像这两条狗这么纯、真，我想我们很快就能看到善和美了！
众所周知，狗是人的最好朋友！小时候，母亲经常喊着我们六个兄弟姐妹帮她做事，有时，我们的狗比我们抢先跑到母亲面前，故母亲经常说：“狗比你们好几十倍！”
是的，无论你的心情多么的差，在两条天真无瑕疵，可爱又无知的小狗面前，它们蹦蹦跳跳的向你叫、向你要，这就足以把你一切的烦恼都暂时抛到九云外了！
狗，我们中宣的两条狗，在上周五大约下午五时左右，天正下着雨，它们出现在我们学院，孤零零的，好可怜。但这两条可怜的无名小狗却唤起了我们人的一点本性：救它们！
这使我想起了我们自己，从一个保守神学的角度来看，我们就有如这两条孤零零的狗，无家可归，到处流浪，然后上帝看到我们了，便伸出祂那怜悯的双手，把我们抱了上来，洁净了我们，赐我们吃的，并以祂的爱来暖和我们。祂不要求什么，只要求我们忠心。
好多时候，我们想超越我们自己的身份、能力，自以为如此便能讨上帝的喜悦。我们大大声的祷告，或装出一副敬虔的样子，就是把背弯一弯，嘴唇拉直，皮笑肉不笑的把头点一点，然后说：“平安”，或“感谢主！”等等。但是，很多时候，上帝并不需要我们做这些，祂只需要我们忠诚于他，正如这两条可爱、天真、没有野心、没有勾心斗角的态度的狗，它们或许就是上帝赐给我们的一点小智慧。
若是我们能够像这两条狗这么纯、真，我想我们很快就能看到善和美了！
见不到，记不记得！
周四、2010年12月30日、23：07时
周二抵达新加坡，出来机场时已经大约半夜十二点多，福安已经到了，很快的，我们就回到三一神学院。接下来，就忙着安顿，一切做好之后已经是将近凌晨两点。第二天见了一位朋友，是目前新加坡神学院中文部主任，曾在英国的时候跟他在电话上聊过，后来就是在新加坡见面，以及在新加坡神学院有几次的交谈。不过，我们都是长老会之下的传道，他后来终于在2008年完毕博士学位。这就是我们的一些历史；我们在昨日早晨一起吃早餐、叙叙旧，也挺好的。
随着，我就到了医院，没想到从早上十点二十分，就一直在医院跑来跑去，跑上跑下，医生竟然特别的让我在同一日见他，而医院的护士也帮我安排在当日就做扫描（一般上必须先由医生写信，然后到扫描室申请一个日期，然后再跟医生安排扫描报告出来后下一次见面的时间等等），而且当日医生就能直接在他自己房间从电脑上看到我扫描的照片，而我下午见他时竟然不需要再付钱！从始至终，护士、医生、技术人员、行政人员等等特别的有耐性和专业，这也是一项让我感到欣慰的事。
今早，有两位过去的学生和我吃早餐，并向请教写作的一些技巧。她们俩是多么的认真，我们就足足谈了一个半小时。但是其他整天自己还是第一次不知道要做什么。虽然接着有时间见了岳母和二哥，但是每个人都似乎挺忙的。
这一次，我的岳母也似乎不太显得那么急着要见我。在我来说，这是个好的现象；这说明她开始有自己想做的事，且有自己独立的空间。然而，我反倒觉得好寂寞；或许我老二说的是很正确的：当一个人在自己的国家没有自己的房子，他将不会觉得有任何归属感。我许多朋友都不知在哪里，或许，英文的一句话说得蛮好的：当人见不到你，很快就会忘掉你。
其实，能够被人忘掉并非不好；我觉得当人人都忘了我的时候，我反而有了一个新的空间、新的机会、新的生命、新的自由。当然，被忘记或被忘掉有它自己的代价，但是这个代价很快就会过去的。
当我发觉我不要求别人记得我的时候，我反而不觉得怎样。当我发觉别人不需要记得我的时候，我反而得到释放。当别人忘了我、不记得我，我就可以更自由的当自己，好好的做一个人，做一个真正的人。
周二抵达新加坡，出来机场时已经大约半夜十二点多，福安已经到了，很快的，我们就回到三一神学院。接下来，就忙着安顿，一切做好之后已经是将近凌晨两点。第二天见了一位朋友，是目前新加坡神学院中文部主任，曾在英国的时候跟他在电话上聊过，后来就是在新加坡见面，以及在新加坡神学院有几次的交谈。不过，我们都是长老会之下的传道，他后来终于在2008年完毕博士学位。这就是我们的一些历史；我们在昨日早晨一起吃早餐、叙叙旧，也挺好的。
随着，我就到了医院，没想到从早上十点二十分，就一直在医院跑来跑去，跑上跑下，医生竟然特别的让我在同一日见他，而医院的护士也帮我安排在当日就做扫描（一般上必须先由医生写信，然后到扫描室申请一个日期，然后再跟医生安排扫描报告出来后下一次见面的时间等等），而且当日医生就能直接在他自己房间从电脑上看到我扫描的照片，而我下午见他时竟然不需要再付钱！从始至终，护士、医生、技术人员、行政人员等等特别的有耐性和专业，这也是一项让我感到欣慰的事。
今早，有两位过去的学生和我吃早餐，并向请教写作的一些技巧。她们俩是多么的认真，我们就足足谈了一个半小时。但是其他整天自己还是第一次不知道要做什么。虽然接着有时间见了岳母和二哥，但是每个人都似乎挺忙的。
这一次，我的岳母也似乎不太显得那么急着要见我。在我来说，这是个好的现象；这说明她开始有自己想做的事，且有自己独立的空间。然而，我反倒觉得好寂寞；或许我老二说的是很正确的：当一个人在自己的国家没有自己的房子，他将不会觉得有任何归属感。我许多朋友都不知在哪里，或许，英文的一句话说得蛮好的：当人见不到你，很快就会忘掉你。
其实，能够被人忘掉并非不好；我觉得当人人都忘了我的时候，我反而有了一个新的空间、新的机会、新的生命、新的自由。当然，被忘记或被忘掉有它自己的代价，但是这个代价很快就会过去的。
当我发觉我不要求别人记得我的时候，我反而不觉得怎样。当我发觉别人不需要记得我的时候，我反而得到释放。当别人忘了我、不记得我，我就可以更自由的当自己，好好的做一个人，做一个真正的人。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)