人生到了某時候，就比較傾向回憶。回憶不是因為將來不屬於他（例如，他已趕不上急速步伐或時日無多），而是因為他發現這多年來的生命原來是這樣破碎、零亂或遺漏。破碎，是因為人生中實在有很多遺憾和失望。例如，年少時，我曾自豪地對父親說，「當長大後，我會駕車接你。｣然而，當我懂得駕車和有自己一輛車時，他已經不在人間了。零亂，是因為我們每日都被生活拉著走，卻沒有自己的生活。例如，我們不斷要滿足工作的要求，也每月努力為一層答應我們帶來安舒的房子供款，但卻忘記了自己的嚮往和夢想。遺漏，因為人生不可以再來一次，過去就是過去，沒有補救的可能。縱使因過去就是過去，以致人有將來時，但那不可重回的過去使我們對生命中的遺漏只有歎息。
所以，回憶不是懷舊，而是人生的整理。透過重述，希望零亂的人生找回秩序；透過重覆，希望遺漏的片刻可以填補。因此，每有機會到官塘，我總會繞月華街和功樂道一圈，因為這是我成長的地方。當中，我可以找回我的故事。同樣，我會選擇到蘇格蘭去，因為這留下我留學的片段。當中，我嘗試填補我人生的遺漏。回憶是一種向後的活動，但實際上，回憶是讓人生可以向前，即讓人生重整後，可以再聚焦。
相對地，年青人少對昔日嚮往，不是因為他們屬於將來，而是因為他們沒有能力去整理。相反，中年或以上人士多對回憶嚮往，不是因為他們已裝不入新事物，而是因為他們發現人生原來從整理開始。當將回憶放在如此重要地位時，我們卻至少面對兩個困難。第一，不是一切回憶都會帶來解放，因為它也可以是一種負面的吸納力量。負面，因為昔日跑到當下，並主導當下，使人看不見將來，甚至將來變成為昔日的重覆。吸納不一定因為被昔日的痛苦所困，也可以因昔日的快樂所致，以致流連在昔日中，不願意回到現在。一位朋友，他的妻子已離世六年了，但到今日，他還要服抗抑鬱藥。或許，昔日的快樂使他接受不了當下的孤獨。他也接受不了人生原來可以很荒謬。時間的熬練讓我學會了一件事，就是縱使昔日是曾在，但曾在已是一種存在了，而存在是不能被否定的。又縱使這曾在的存在不可能以當下的存在出現，但因任何存在都是獨特，我們就不需要將它重覆。重覆只會使他失去其獨特。回憶肯定他的存在，並他以其獨特向我存在。
第二，回憶不只是個人的活動，而是雙向性的。就此，我想起兩個場景。第一個場景，你對我的回憶不等於這也是我對你的回憶。當我認為我對你的回憶是如此寶貴時，但這不一定是你的想法。那麼，回憶就可能帶來痛苦了。老年癡呆症帶出第二個場景。一方面，患上老年癡呆症者逐漸發現自己記憶的衰退，而可能感到氣餒。事實上，這情境不一定只發生在老年癡呆症者身上。十一歲的女兒在三年前曾寫了一封信給已離世六年的母親：
「媽媽，我已很久沒有見你了。我真的很渴望能見你一面，只是一面，不是在相片中見你。我差不多已忘掉你的聲音，我也害怕終有一日也忘記你的樣貌。」
另一方面，就是如何對待一個對我已沒有回憶，但我對他仍充滿回憶的人。失去回憶，不能回憶和沒有對回憶有回應等等都使人陷於痛苦中。此刻，我慢慢體會回憶的重要在於我知道我是屬於誰。這是對回憶者來說，對被回憶者也是如此。所以，一個老年癡呆症者沒有因失去回憶而失去自己，因為他沒有被他所愛的遺忘。同樣，我的回憶使我知道我不是孤獨的，因為回憶使我存在。
基督教的上帝就是那位對我們說，祂從沒有忘記我們，並對我們說，「正像我創造的新天新地永遠長存，你們的子孫和你們的名也要長久流傳。」（以賽亞書六十六22）生命的破碎、零亂或遺漏, 也因著名字被長久流傳而得到救贖。
2009年10月24日 星期六
在學期中做閒人 (四)
短短在 Taize 逗留三天, 我就回到日內瓦, 準備由明天開始一連三天, 朝九晚六的會議. 會議議題是教會要求政府向公眾利益負責任. 參加者來自南非, Liberia, Madagascar, Namibia, Zimbawa, Argentina, Malaysia, Indonesia, Canada...... 小弟是大會講員之一, 並發表一篇 A Politics of Exchange Relation: Churches as Political Capital, Social Capital and Moral Capital in Asian Contex. 反應如何? 激發起很大討論, 因為有人認為我鼓勵向政府妥協, 而不是要求政府負責任. 當然, 有很多人基本上就沒有看完我整論文, 但卻不斷說話.至於那個聯合國高級官員的演說就是浪費時間. 縱使他是有料之人, 但沒有準備, 只是東拉西扯完成一個多小時的演講.
在學期中做閒人 (三)
Taize是否適合成人? 我有些保留, 不但因為參加者佔了七成都是青年人, 更因為其節目的設計也沒有針對成年人. 相對於在蘇格蘭的Iona就很不一樣 (可以上網知道更多有關它的背景). 它每周有特別主題, 又有其他活動 (例如, 行山, 圖書館). 若不是Taize這樣有名氣, 我相信我會選擇到 Iona.
在Taize期間, 我有兩個問題. 第一, 修士們主要提供的活動, 就是早,午,晚三次祈禱會 (每次約40分鐘) 和查經. 雖然沒有做調查, 但參加的青年人大都不是基督徒, 只是學校活動之一. 奇怪的是, 沒有歷奇活動, 又沒有營火會, 但青年人沒有因此而不來. 或許, 香港的青年工作可能怕青年人悶, 以致要大攪活動. 結果, 我們以為接觸了青年人, 但卻沒有為他們提供另類選擇.
在Taize期間, 我有兩個問題. 第一, 修士們主要提供的活動, 就是早,午,晚三次祈禱會 (每次約40分鐘) 和查經. 雖然沒有做調查, 但參加的青年人大都不是基督徒, 只是學校活動之一. 奇怪的是, 沒有歷奇活動, 又沒有營火會, 但青年人沒有因此而不來. 或許, 香港的青年工作可能怕青年人悶, 以致要大攪活動. 結果, 我們以為接觸了青年人, 但卻沒有為他們提供另類選擇.
第二, 有別於其他朝聖之地, Taize沒有聖人顯現. 為何它成為朝聖之旅. 原因只有一個很簡單的故事, 就是Roger 兄弟對第二次世界大戰難民收留的故事. 一個由人的慈心而發展了今日的 Taize. 所以, 相對於其他地點, Iona, Assis等地, Taize 的環境沒有甚麼吸引. 它只是一條綁村, 沒有吸引的環境, 也沒有仔細的設計. 一條很簡單的綁村.
2009年10月16日 星期五
在學期中做閒人 (一)
工作到晚上七時, 才回家吃飯. 飯後, 趕著收拾行李, 跟孩子們說再見, 八時半就出發去機場. 上機後, 才發覺還有數件事還未完成. 到達瑞士日內瓦, 立即以SMS文代工作.
今年是加爾文誕辰500週年, 日內瓦有不少慶祝活動. 至於紀念品, 我買了兩樽加爾文品牌啤酒. 不知是否可用來作聖餐之用? 呀, 這是啤酒, 不是葡萄酒. 下午四時左右, 我將會搭火車到法國Macon, 行車時間只需兩小時. 但從Macon 到 Taize 的巴士就要等兩個小時 (行車只需30分鐘). 有兩個祈禱內容, 希望有順風車, 可以早一點到. 第二, 希望正確下車, 並成功入宿. Taize 是甚麼地方? 不認識的話, 可以上網找出來. 查實, 我早於1986年留學丹麥時曾計劃一訪, 奈何當時法國恐怖活動, 一切外國人入境變得嚴厲. 所以, 那時沒有去, 而去了奧地利. 時隔23年, 終於可一嘗心願.
今年是加爾文誕辰500週年, 日內瓦有不少慶祝活動. 至於紀念品, 我買了兩樽加爾文品牌啤酒. 不知是否可用來作聖餐之用? 呀, 這是啤酒, 不是葡萄酒. 下午四時左右, 我將會搭火車到法國Macon, 行車時間只需兩小時. 但從Macon 到 Taize 的巴士就要等兩個小時 (行車只需30分鐘). 有兩個祈禱內容, 希望有順風車, 可以早一點到. 第二, 希望正確下車, 並成功入宿. Taize 是甚麼地方? 不認識的話, 可以上網找出來. 查實, 我早於1986年留學丹麥時曾計劃一訪, 奈何當時法國恐怖活動, 一切外國人入境變得嚴厲. 所以, 那時沒有去, 而去了奧地利. 時隔23年, 終於可一嘗心願.
2009年10月11日 星期日
When will the promise be cashed?
Making promise and keeping promise cannot be separated. Otherwise, there is no trust. Without trust, we can’t live. This is the logic of life. Some people may argue that it is better not to make any promise so that there is no breaking of promise. This can be true. But can we live in a life without making promise? I don’t think we can. When the promise is related to the future, the question of that ‘when will the promise be cashed?’ is valid. This is the concern of today’s reading.
Mk 10:17-31 tells us that the rich man considered eternal life important, but the importance of eternal life was not really important in comparison with the earthly riches. This was why he went away when he was requested to sell all that he had and gave it to the poor. This is the background that Jesus talks about what the importance in life is. Jesus agrees with the rich man that eternal life is importance, but eternal life is not understood as a matter of life after death. It is here and now. This is why Jesus said, ‘there is no one who has given up home, brothers or sisters, mother, father or children or land for my sake and for the Proclamation, who will not receive in this present age a hundred times as much.’ (v. 29) What Jesus has said is that eternal life is not just about non-material reward. On the contrary, it is very materialistic. In fact, this kind of understanding is reflected in Job’s experience in the Old Testament. Job has blessed more than he had blessed the first. Unfortunately, the rich man is leaving too quick so that he has failed to have a full picture of eternal life. Otherwise, he might be voluntarily to sell all he had for the poor. Is his decision to leave just a result of lack of a full picture of eternal life?
I would say that if he remained here to listen to what Jesus had explained what eternal life was, he might be further disappointed, because one would experience persecutions (v.30). I don’t think that this is something that the rich man expects. In other words, what Jesus requested from him to sell all his possessions is relatively soft and mild, for the worst is to be a beggar, but being persecuted is even worse. He may be jailed, exiled, homeless and tortured. Thus, what Jesus has said to the rich man reflects that Jesus really loves him, and even lowers the request in order that he is able to inherit eternal life.
However, the rich man finds it difficult to do what Jesus requests, because he does not have faith in the promise of eternal life. This is why Jesus said, ‘For men, this is impossible, but not for God.’ For the rich man, what is in hand is more important than what is not in hand. This is the background why Jesus makes his promise of eternal life related to the present age. The promise of eternal life is not just a matter of faith, but is something that we can experience in here and now. The next question then is whether you really have received a hundred times of what you have given up for God.
There are differences between Christians in city like Hong Kong and Christians in nations like Myanmar (Burma), North Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines and other nations in Africa. They have experienced persecutions due to their belief in Jesus Christ and their insistence in justice. They have experienced their families being killed. They have to take refuge in other nations, and become both homeless and stateless. Paradoxically, most Christian witnesses that we have heard in Hong Kong are more or less related to how God helps us to find a job, get a flat, overcome the difficulties and even heal the sickness. I never question the validity of these witnesses, but I am deeply stirred by Christian experience of being persecuted and suffering. What is the meaning of Jesus’ promise in Mk 10:29 to them? Is it better for Jesus to talk about eternal life in the coming age? What Jesus has promised in this present age has put him in a difficult situation.
My answer is that Jesus’ promise has to be understood with persecutions together. In other words, what Peter has said that they had left all to become Jesus’ followers (v.29) is not just about their sacrifice, but also about a result of fleeing or escape. In other words, it is not because a person has to leave all your home, family and land to follow Jesus, but because persecutions due to following Jesus make a person to flee from house to house, from family to family, from farm to farm. In this sense, the promise of that you would receive a hundred times as much does not mean that you would be rich enough to buy another piece of land, get a second wife and build a house, not flat, but rather that you would be received, cared and embraced in your life of persecutions and fleeing by the Christian community elsewhere. The promise that Jesus has made is not a reward, but a provision for need. Jesus never promises to get rid of persecutions and suffering in our lives, not because suffering leads to salvation, but because this is the reality of life. Even Jesus himself has no exemption. It is absolutely right to protest against injustice, but it is also equivalent important to show our solidarity as well as friendship to the persecuted and suffered. The promise that Jesus has made is that life is difficult, but God cares.
The church is a sign of God’s care. On the one hand, we are a community being cared by God. On the other, we are a community to show God’s care to the suffered. Through worship, prayer and fellowship, we embrace one another in love and tears, hope and frustration, solidarity and struggle to proclaim that ‘I believe in life before death’.
Mk 10:17-31 tells us that the rich man considered eternal life important, but the importance of eternal life was not really important in comparison with the earthly riches. This was why he went away when he was requested to sell all that he had and gave it to the poor. This is the background that Jesus talks about what the importance in life is. Jesus agrees with the rich man that eternal life is importance, but eternal life is not understood as a matter of life after death. It is here and now. This is why Jesus said, ‘there is no one who has given up home, brothers or sisters, mother, father or children or land for my sake and for the Proclamation, who will not receive in this present age a hundred times as much.’ (v. 29) What Jesus has said is that eternal life is not just about non-material reward. On the contrary, it is very materialistic. In fact, this kind of understanding is reflected in Job’s experience in the Old Testament. Job has blessed more than he had blessed the first. Unfortunately, the rich man is leaving too quick so that he has failed to have a full picture of eternal life. Otherwise, he might be voluntarily to sell all he had for the poor. Is his decision to leave just a result of lack of a full picture of eternal life?
I would say that if he remained here to listen to what Jesus had explained what eternal life was, he might be further disappointed, because one would experience persecutions (v.30). I don’t think that this is something that the rich man expects. In other words, what Jesus requested from him to sell all his possessions is relatively soft and mild, for the worst is to be a beggar, but being persecuted is even worse. He may be jailed, exiled, homeless and tortured. Thus, what Jesus has said to the rich man reflects that Jesus really loves him, and even lowers the request in order that he is able to inherit eternal life.
However, the rich man finds it difficult to do what Jesus requests, because he does not have faith in the promise of eternal life. This is why Jesus said, ‘For men, this is impossible, but not for God.’ For the rich man, what is in hand is more important than what is not in hand. This is the background why Jesus makes his promise of eternal life related to the present age. The promise of eternal life is not just a matter of faith, but is something that we can experience in here and now. The next question then is whether you really have received a hundred times of what you have given up for God.
There are differences between Christians in city like Hong Kong and Christians in nations like Myanmar (Burma), North Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines and other nations in Africa. They have experienced persecutions due to their belief in Jesus Christ and their insistence in justice. They have experienced their families being killed. They have to take refuge in other nations, and become both homeless and stateless. Paradoxically, most Christian witnesses that we have heard in Hong Kong are more or less related to how God helps us to find a job, get a flat, overcome the difficulties and even heal the sickness. I never question the validity of these witnesses, but I am deeply stirred by Christian experience of being persecuted and suffering. What is the meaning of Jesus’ promise in Mk 10:29 to them? Is it better for Jesus to talk about eternal life in the coming age? What Jesus has promised in this present age has put him in a difficult situation.
My answer is that Jesus’ promise has to be understood with persecutions together. In other words, what Peter has said that they had left all to become Jesus’ followers (v.29) is not just about their sacrifice, but also about a result of fleeing or escape. In other words, it is not because a person has to leave all your home, family and land to follow Jesus, but because persecutions due to following Jesus make a person to flee from house to house, from family to family, from farm to farm. In this sense, the promise of that you would receive a hundred times as much does not mean that you would be rich enough to buy another piece of land, get a second wife and build a house, not flat, but rather that you would be received, cared and embraced in your life of persecutions and fleeing by the Christian community elsewhere. The promise that Jesus has made is not a reward, but a provision for need. Jesus never promises to get rid of persecutions and suffering in our lives, not because suffering leads to salvation, but because this is the reality of life. Even Jesus himself has no exemption. It is absolutely right to protest against injustice, but it is also equivalent important to show our solidarity as well as friendship to the persecuted and suffered. The promise that Jesus has made is that life is difficult, but God cares.
The church is a sign of God’s care. On the one hand, we are a community being cared by God. On the other, we are a community to show God’s care to the suffered. Through worship, prayer and fellowship, we embrace one another in love and tears, hope and frustration, solidarity and struggle to proclaim that ‘I believe in life before death’.
2009年10月4日 星期日
沒有籬笆的教會
可10: 1-16
「誰是小孩子？」和「為甚麼門徒要阻止小孩子來見耶穌？」是這故事的核心。但這兩個問題是否有關聯？所謂關聯，就是若換了人（即不是小孩子），門徒就會讓他們來見耶穌。從耶穌的反應，我認為這兩個問題是有關聯的，因為耶穌肯定小孩子在上帝國的角色。那麼，為何門徒要阻止小孩子來見耶穌？這些小孩子是甚麼的小孩子？
按經文所說，不是小孩子主動來找耶穌，而是有人帶他們來。這些帶小孩子來的人應該是小孩子的母親，因為按當時社會習慣，母親是必然照顧孩子。她們要見耶穌的目的就是想耶穌摸她們的孩子。為甚麼她們想耶穌摸她們的孩子？當時的人應該聽聞耶穌治好患癲癇病的人，甚至瞎子的事蹟。那麼她們想耶穌摸她們的孩子就有兩個可能。第一，她們的孩子是患病的，所以，她們希望耶穌可以醫好他們。從這角度來看，來見耶穌的孩子是那些智障、殘障和患重病。他們的面容並不天真可愛，反而扭曲。他們的外貌可能令人產生同情，但同時也使人遠離。這解釋了為何門徒阻止他們來見耶穌，因為連門徒都不想看見這些孩子。第二，母親們想耶穌摸她們的孩子，因為她們希望耶穌祝福他們的孩子。一方面，這些母親們很實際；另一方面，這就是母親的特性。每年小一入學，我們豈不看見母親比兒女更緊張嗎？例如，當她的兒女成功考進一間心怡學校時，流淚的是母親，而不是孩子本身。從這角度來看，門徒阻止小孩子不只是阻止小孩子，更是他們的母親，因為她們太功利了。若接受這兩個門徒阻止小孩子來見耶穌原因的話，我們對耶穌接待小孩子一事就有新的體驗。
第一，耶穌對小孩子的接待正要肯定上帝國是開放。上帝國不是只為成人世界而設，更是為當時沒有地位的小孩子而設；上帝國不是只為四肢健全和身心健康的人而設，更是為身體有缺憾和心靈有痛楚的人而設。拒絕他們是違反上帝國。教會（我們）的責任是宣揚上帝國，而不是自告奮勇為上帝國把關，判斷誰可以進入，誰不可以進入。可惜的是，有太多時候，教會（我們）代上帝國發言，代上帝國宣判，而忘記自己只是上帝國的管子。門徒被責備，不是因為他們沒有原則，而是因為他們的原則是排他，不是歡迎。數日前，有一位同學跟我說，她的教會將有一位變性的信徒。按她教會的立場，變性是不可以接受的（我不知道為甚麼）。所以，教會決定送走他，安排他上基恩之家（基督徒同性戀團體）。我明白教會的憂慮，我也不知道若這變性的主內留下會否被它所屬教會歧視，但要離開教會的是那些歧視者，而不是受歧視者。
第二，耶穌對小孩子的接待反映他對小孩子母親的接待。在耶穌時代，沒有可以獨立討論小孩子。所以，接待小孩子就是接待母親。可惜的是，女人的角色和地位沒有因為她們的付出而得到平等對待。教會的女人比男人多，參與事奉比男人積極，但領導的卻是男人。又當我們看見孩子的成就時，卻看不見母親的辛苦。弔詭的是，當孩子發生事時，社會就將矛頭指向母親。當耶穌說，「若不像子孩子，不能進上帝國」不是一個個人的概念，而是一個關係的概念。重點不是你要成為一個小孩子，而是要成為一個母親的孩子，即顧念你的母親。換句話說只有一個對母親顧念的人，才可以進上帝國。對父母來說，他們並不期望看見一個不會獨立的孩子，但獨立不是切割。父母們仍渴望著已長大了的孩子可以間中回來吃飯，飲湯。但長大了的孩子明白他仍是母親的孩子嗎？
對你們來說，我以上的分享有點奇怪，因為聖經沒有描述小孩子是殘疾，聖經也沒有提到孩子的母親。我是否有太多個人想像？若留意可十1-12，耶穌是對無故休妻者和另嫁者的批判，這是律法。然而，律法不是最後，福音才是。這正是可十13-16對律法的回應。又若留意十17-31時，我們就發現十13-16是理解十17-31很重要的基礎。第一，是上帝對人恩典先於人對上帝的回應；第二，十29所說對父母的撇下是在肯定你是母親的孩子下來理解。基於此，我以上的詮釋是可接受的。
「誰是小孩子？」和「為甚麼門徒要阻止小孩子來見耶穌？」是這故事的核心。但這兩個問題是否有關聯？所謂關聯，就是若換了人（即不是小孩子），門徒就會讓他們來見耶穌。從耶穌的反應，我認為這兩個問題是有關聯的，因為耶穌肯定小孩子在上帝國的角色。那麼，為何門徒要阻止小孩子來見耶穌？這些小孩子是甚麼的小孩子？
按經文所說，不是小孩子主動來找耶穌，而是有人帶他們來。這些帶小孩子來的人應該是小孩子的母親，因為按當時社會習慣，母親是必然照顧孩子。她們要見耶穌的目的就是想耶穌摸她們的孩子。為甚麼她們想耶穌摸她們的孩子？當時的人應該聽聞耶穌治好患癲癇病的人，甚至瞎子的事蹟。那麼她們想耶穌摸她們的孩子就有兩個可能。第一，她們的孩子是患病的，所以，她們希望耶穌可以醫好他們。從這角度來看，來見耶穌的孩子是那些智障、殘障和患重病。他們的面容並不天真可愛，反而扭曲。他們的外貌可能令人產生同情，但同時也使人遠離。這解釋了為何門徒阻止他們來見耶穌，因為連門徒都不想看見這些孩子。第二，母親們想耶穌摸她們的孩子，因為她們希望耶穌祝福他們的孩子。一方面，這些母親們很實際；另一方面，這就是母親的特性。每年小一入學，我們豈不看見母親比兒女更緊張嗎？例如，當她的兒女成功考進一間心怡學校時，流淚的是母親，而不是孩子本身。從這角度來看，門徒阻止小孩子不只是阻止小孩子，更是他們的母親，因為她們太功利了。若接受這兩個門徒阻止小孩子來見耶穌原因的話，我們對耶穌接待小孩子一事就有新的體驗。
第一，耶穌對小孩子的接待正要肯定上帝國是開放。上帝國不是只為成人世界而設，更是為當時沒有地位的小孩子而設；上帝國不是只為四肢健全和身心健康的人而設，更是為身體有缺憾和心靈有痛楚的人而設。拒絕他們是違反上帝國。教會（我們）的責任是宣揚上帝國，而不是自告奮勇為上帝國把關，判斷誰可以進入，誰不可以進入。可惜的是，有太多時候，教會（我們）代上帝國發言，代上帝國宣判，而忘記自己只是上帝國的管子。門徒被責備，不是因為他們沒有原則，而是因為他們的原則是排他，不是歡迎。數日前，有一位同學跟我說，她的教會將有一位變性的信徒。按她教會的立場，變性是不可以接受的（我不知道為甚麼）。所以，教會決定送走他，安排他上基恩之家（基督徒同性戀團體）。我明白教會的憂慮，我也不知道若這變性的主內留下會否被它所屬教會歧視，但要離開教會的是那些歧視者，而不是受歧視者。
第二，耶穌對小孩子的接待反映他對小孩子母親的接待。在耶穌時代，沒有可以獨立討論小孩子。所以，接待小孩子就是接待母親。可惜的是，女人的角色和地位沒有因為她們的付出而得到平等對待。教會的女人比男人多，參與事奉比男人積極，但領導的卻是男人。又當我們看見孩子的成就時，卻看不見母親的辛苦。弔詭的是，當孩子發生事時，社會就將矛頭指向母親。當耶穌說，「若不像子孩子，不能進上帝國」不是一個個人的概念，而是一個關係的概念。重點不是你要成為一個小孩子，而是要成為一個母親的孩子，即顧念你的母親。換句話說只有一個對母親顧念的人，才可以進上帝國。對父母來說，他們並不期望看見一個不會獨立的孩子，但獨立不是切割。父母們仍渴望著已長大了的孩子可以間中回來吃飯，飲湯。但長大了的孩子明白他仍是母親的孩子嗎？
對你們來說，我以上的分享有點奇怪，因為聖經沒有描述小孩子是殘疾，聖經也沒有提到孩子的母親。我是否有太多個人想像？若留意可十1-12，耶穌是對無故休妻者和另嫁者的批判，這是律法。然而，律法不是最後，福音才是。這正是可十13-16對律法的回應。又若留意十17-31時，我們就發現十13-16是理解十17-31很重要的基礎。第一，是上帝對人恩典先於人對上帝的回應；第二，十29所說對父母的撇下是在肯定你是母親的孩子下來理解。基於此，我以上的詮釋是可接受的。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)