Wednesday, June 26, 2019

不得回頭

新盟約時代已像黎明般展開,回頭不再是一個可行的選擇;「延遲對天國的承諾無異於拒絕它」


本主日的讀經聚焦於兩個不同的片段,都是關於人在被召叫執行來自天主的神聖使命時,要求回頭去處理個人事務。它們分別來自舊約和新約:厄里叟在接替厄里亞為先知前,想告別父母;福音中的兩個人在接受耶穌的召喚,跟隨祂之前,希望「埋葬我的父親」及「告別我的家人」(路 9:59,61)。在舊約片段中,厄里叟的請求被答允,他亦完成了繼承先知的使命。在新約片段中,兩人的請求都被駁回,耶穌召叫他們作門徒的建議遂不能成事。為什麼兩者的結果不同?耶穌的駁斥是否過於苛刻?以下的反思嘗試回答這兩個問題。讓我們從耶穌的駁斥開始。

無論意圖有多好,回頭這行為表明了人的決心並不足夠。這人已決定了值得他立即關注和行動的事,並不是天主對他的邀請;與他個人比較喜歡做的事情相比,他被召叫去實行天主的使命相對地沒有那麼重要。在厄里叟的事件中,由於告別父母對他來說更重要,繼承厄里亞的先知事工必須退居二線。至於福音中那兩人,埋葬父親和告別家人是他們的當務之急;因此,跟隨耶穌是他們必須暫時擱置的次要任務。

我們不論以任何方式去看,這兩個片段背後的問題癥結,就是世俗的事情─無論事情是多麼美好和崇高─被看作比起天主的召喚更值得人毫無保留地忠誠奉獻。這就是聖經教導上主是一個「忌邪的天主」的原因(出 34:14)。我們與天主的關係就像婚姻:必須帶有基督和教會夫妻之愛的標記(參見 弗 5:22-30);這愛的關係,不僅是自由、忠信和有成果的,也是完全的─毫無保留的!

我們現已理解為什麼耶穌對這兩人的駁斥並非嚴厲,但仍然有一個問題有待解答:為什麼厄里叟可以回頭,但福音中的兩人卻不能做同樣的事情?

我們要牢記一個理解聖經的首要原則,天主就像一位優秀的教師,祂會考慮到學生不同的成熟程度,並相應地教育他們。《天主教教理》稱之為「天主救恩之愛的整個神性教育法」(教理 122)。天主向舊約時代的人啟示時,由於他們對來自天主計劃的理解在某程度上是很初步的,並未得到基督降生成所啟示的真理的益處,因著這神聖教育法,舊約時期的啟示可能「含有一些短暫和不完美的事」,但為了他們屬靈上的得益,這都是必需的(教理 122)。在舊約時期,當天主準備祂的子民去迎接基督的來臨時,祂允許了,或者我們可以說,暫時容忍了厄里叟的回頭。但現在當祂已經清楚地啟示了祂的救恩計劃,救贖也藉着基督完全實現了; 衪對祂子民─現在已成為天主的義子及「基督的同繼承者」(羅 8:17)─所要求的是一份完全的聖德,以及對祂聖意毫無保留的接受。任何低於山中聖訓所要求的美德的標準─「你們應當是成全的,如同你們的天父是成全的一樣」─都不會被接受(瑪5:48)。

新盟約時代已像黎明般展開─一個以基督無條件和毫無保留的自我奉獻的愛作為標誌的年代─教會作為基督的淨配,也需要具備同樣無條件和毫無保留的自我奉獻的愛。回頭不再是一個可行的選擇;「延遲對天國的承諾無異於拒絕它」(Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament on 路加福音 9:59ff)。


No Turning Back

Turning back is no longer an option; “postponing commitment to the kingdom is tantamount to rejecting it”


The readings of this Sunday put the spotlight on two different episodes about people turning back to take care of personal matters when called upon to undertake a divine mission, one each from the OT and the NT: Elisha wanting to bid his parents farewell before taking Elijah’s mantle of prophecy; two men in the gospel hoping to “bury my father” and “say farewell to my family” before accepting Jesus’ call to follow him (Luke 9:59, 61). In the OT episode, Elisha’s request is granted, and the succession completed. In the NT episode, both men’s requests are refuted, and Jesus’ discipleship propositions come to no avail. Why the difference? Are Jesus’ refutations too harsh? This reflection will attempt to answer these two questions. Let’s begin with Jesus’ refutations.

No matter how good the intention, turning back is an act indicative of a less than total commitment. The person has decided that the task deserving his immediate attention and action somehow is not the divine invitation being extended; and that compared to the task that he personally prefers to work on, the divine mission he is called upon to do somehow has less of a priority. In Elisha’s case, since bidding his parents farewell is more important to him, succeeding Elijah’s prophetic ministry must take a back seat. In the case of the two men in the gospel, the burial of father and the farewell to family are their immediate preoccupations; following Jesus is, therefore, a secondary undertaking that must be temporarily put on hold.

Every which way we look at it, the problem underlying both episodes is that earthly undertakings, no matter how good and noble, are allowed to take precedence over divine callings worthy of unreserved dedication. This is why the Scripture teaches that the LORD is a “jealous God” (Exodus 34:14). Our relationship with God is like a marriage: it must bear the mark of the spousal love of Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:22-30); it’s a loving relationship that is not only free, faithful, and fruitful; it’s also TOTAL – unreserved!

Now that we understand why Jesus’ refutations of the two men are not harsh, one more question still remains to be answered: Why is it OK for Elisha to turn back, and somehow not OK for the two men in the gospel to do the same?

One overarching principle to keep in mind for understanding the Bible is that God is like a good school teacher who takes into consideration His students’ different levels of maturity and educates them accordingly. The Catechism calls this the “divine pedagogy of God’s saving love” (CCC 122). As a result of this divine pedagogy, what God revealed to the OT people, whose understanding of the divine plan was somewhat rudimentary without the benefit of the revelation of the incarnate Christ, may “contain matters imperfect and provisional” but were somehow needed for their spiritual well-being (CCC 122). Elisha’s turning back was permitted or, shall we say, tolerated by God in the OT time as a provisional measure when the people of God were being prepared for the coming of Christ. But now that His plan of salvation has been clearly revealed, and the economy of redemption fully accomplished through Christ; what is required of His people – now the adopted children of God and “joint heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:17) - is complete holiness and unreserved acceptance of His divine will. Anything less than the virtue of the Sermon on the Mount – “be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect” – will be unacceptable (Mt. 5:48).

With the dawning of the New Covenant era - an era marked by Christ’s unconditional and unreserved self-giving love - what is required of the Church, the spouse of Christ, is the same unconditional and unreserved self-giving love. Turning back is no longer an option; “postponing commitment to the kingdom is tantamount to rejecting it” (Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament on Luke 9:59ff).