Comparison and Contrast II – The Publican and the Pharisee

23rd Sunday after Pentecost (Ordinary Time/UM Kingdomtide), C
Reformation Sunday
October 27, 2013
Luke 18:9-14

Introduction

Last Sunday, did a comparison and contrast on the Parable of the Unjust Judge and the Persistent (or Tenacious) Widow (Luke 18:1-8) which teaches us about persistence or tenacity in prayer. Today we will compare and contrast two people who went up to the Temple to pray: the Publican and the Pharisee. One was considered righteous while the other was considered a sinner; both of them prayed but only one went home justified.

Among the Eastern Orthodox Churches, three Sundays before Lent, the tenth Sunday before Easter (also called Septuagesima Sunday, from the Greek word for ‘seventy’ because 10 weeks x 7 days = 70 days), is known as the “Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee”. Since the theme of this parable is on repentance, this text is read on that day to serve as a door to the observance of the Lenten season, which is called by the Orthodox as “Great Lent”.

After the Parable of the Persistent Widow which teaches perseverance in prayer, Jesus went on to teacher the Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee in order to teach sincerity or truthfulness in prayer. The reason why Jesus told this parable is clear: it was a warning against those who “who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others” (v. 9, John Wesley New Testament).

I. The Pharisee (Luke 18:11-12)

The Pharisees was a group within Judaism during the time of Jesus. According to Bishop Emerito P. Nacpil,

While the derivation of the word “Pharisee” is obscure, there is some measure of agreement among scholars that it comes from the Hebrew word parash, which means “one who is separate”…. To be separate means to be holy. The root meaning has a double sense. On the one hand, there is the sense of being separate from what corrupts. While this originally meant resisting the Hellenization of the Jewish faith by keeping away from it at a safe distance it eventually took on the meaning of separating from all that was regarded as “unclean” in the light of the Law….

On the other hand, there is the sense of sticking adhesively and rigorously to what makes for sanctity and purity, for holiness. This meant in practice a strict interpretation of the Law and scrupulous adherence to it…. This led to the development to an elaborate system of a legal and ritual tradition which the Pharisees observed with fanatical rigor. (Jesus’ Strategy for Social Transformation, 1998, p. 61)

A. “The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed…” (v. 11). Various translations of the Bible render as “prayed thus with himself” (New King James Version); “prayed about himself” (New International Version); and “took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself” (New American Bible). The Greek text says, ο φαρισαιος σταθεις προς εαυτον ταυτα προσηυχετο, ho farisaios statheis pros eauton tauta prosēucheto, ‘The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed thus…’ But the expression “pros eauton” can mean “about himself” or “to himself”. The point is, the Pharisee prayed about himself or to himself instead of praying to God!

B. “God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, rapactous [“extortioners”—NKJV], unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week: I give tithes of all that I possess” (vv. 11-12). This is the prayer of the self-righteous: they trust in their own righteousness (“I fast twice in the week: I give tithes of all that I possess”) and they despise others (“I am not as other men are… or even this publican”).

There is no indication that the Pharisee here was a hypocrite—that he was lying in his prayer. It is true that devout Jews fast twice a week (every Monday and Thursday, according to Notes Upon The New Testament) and tithe their income. The problem with this Pharisee is that he was self-righteous, i.e., he thinks that he is justified by his own works. Not only was he obedient to the Law, he even goes beyond the Law. For example, not all income is subject to tithing, like spices (cf. Matthew 23:23). These are called in our Articles of Religion as “works of supererogation” (super ‘above, beyond’ + rogare ‘to ask’ = ‘more than what is asked for’):

Article XI—Of Works of Supererogation

Voluntary works—besides, over and above God's commandments—which they call works of supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety. For by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required; whereas Christ saith plainly: When you have done all that is commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants.

It is easy to be like this Pharisee. In Jewish society during the time of Jesus, Pharisees were looked up upon (albeit perhaps grudgingly) while publicans were looked down upon. To the first-century hearers of Jesus, casting the publican in an unfavorable light must have been shocking. To reproduce the “shock value” of this parable, consider this modern retelling:

Two men went up to an ecumenical chapel to pray. One was a born-again Christian and the other a Roman Catholic. The born-again Christian stood by himself and prayed: “O God, I thank you that I am not a believer in the Rosary, or in Purgatory, or in Mary and the saints…not like that Roman Catholic over there. All of my beliefs are Bible-based and give all of my tithes to the church!” Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic, standing afar off and could not even raise his eyes to heaven, could only pray one of the prayers he knew by heart: “O God, be merciful to me, a sinner.”

It’s easy to point fingers at others and say that so-and-so as a “sinner”…until we look into a mirror and see ourselves!

 

II. The Publican (Luke 18:12)

Publicans were called “tax farmers” by the Romans in the sense that they “harvest” taxes from conquered peoples for them. Thus they are viewed as ‘traitors’ by their fellow Jews. Doubly so are priests and Levites who become publicans: the Apostle Matthew is also called Levi (Luke 5:27-32; thus his Hebrew name may have been Mati haLevi) which means that he is a Levite! Meanwhile the name of Zaccheus (a “chief publican”, Luke 19:1-10) is a form of Zechariah, which is only used in priestly families. (Both Zechariah the Prophet and Zechariah the father of St. John the Baptist are priests, descendants of Aaron the Priest. Zaccheus’ Hebrew name may have been Zacharyahu haKohēn, Zaccheus the Priest.) Thus they are doubly guilty: they are traitors against the own people and traitors against God!

We are not told of the identity of the Publican here, whether he is (as it is asked to newcomers in a synagogue) a “kohēn, Levi, or Israel” (a priest, a Levite, or an ordinary Israelite). He may have been an "extortionist" or "unjust" as the Pharisee alleges.

The Publican recognized his spiritual poverty. He knows that he has not done anything according to the Torah that would account him as righteous. On the contrary, he knows that what he has broken the Law. Thus he could only stand “afar off, “would not so much as lift his eyes to heaven” (Wesley: “Touched with shame, which is more ingenuous than fear”—Notes Upon The NT), smite his own breast (a gesture of repentance, cf. Luke 24:48), and say, “God be merciful to me a sinner” (v. 13).

Jesus pronounced a beatitude upon those who recognize their spiritual poverty: “Happy are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3). And thus Jesus said: “I tell you this man [the Publican] went down to his house justified rather than the other” (v. 14).

Conclusion: “For every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” (Luke 18:14)

Battle Meditation

Moses, Aaron, and Hur; with the name of Israel in Hebrew, Arabic, and English. (Image from USHMM.org)

  
The topic of last Sunday’s lectionary readings was on prayer; centered on the Gospel reading on the Parable of the Persistent Widow (Luke 18:1-8). In Roman Catholic churches, the first reading was Exodus 17:8-13, the story of the battle between the Israelites and Amalek.

According to the Torah, after the incident at Meribah and Massah (Exodus 17:1-7), the Amalekites, descendants of Esau (Genesis 36:12), “fought with Israel at Rephidim”. Joshua ben-Nun was chosen to lead the men of Israel into battle. Meanwhile, Moses ascended a hill taking with him “the rod of God.” Whenever his hands were raised, Israel “prevailed” in the battle; but when his hands became weary, the Amalekites got the better of the battle. Finally, a stone was taken for Moses to sit on; and Aaron and Hur helped Moses lift up his hands until sunset. “And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.”

I do not think that the winning of Israel because of Moses’ uplifted hands is superstition. In at least 13 instances in the Bible, the lifting up of hands is a symbol of prayer. Meanwhile, the rod of God is a symbol of God’s power. Thus, the act of Moses lifting up his hands is an act of prayer, or, as I would like to think of it, battle meditation.

In the Star Wars universe, “battle meditation” is an ability of the Jedi (and the Sith) to use the Force to strengthen their allies in battle (and at the same time, demoralize the enemy). According to Wookieepedia, the Star Wars Wiki:

Battle meditation was a Force ability which considerably boosted the morale, stamina, and overall battle prowess of an individual's allies while simultaneously reducing the opposition's combat-effectiveness by eroding their will to fight. With the Force, one could coordinate entire fleets of ships, allowing them to perform at maximum efficiency, acting as a single entity with the ability to counter every enemy move quickly and effectively. Though ideal for meditating large-scale conflicts, battle meditation was equally effective when employed for the benefit of one's comrades in small skirmishes, attacks, and duels.

For example, Master Yoda used battle meditation to help rally the Wookiees during the Battle of Kashyyk against the Droid army of the Trade Federation during the Clone Wars (as seen in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith).

 

Yoda using Battle Meditation during the Battle of Kashyyk.

What Star Wars calls “battle meditation”, we Christians call “prayer”.

In the passage on the armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-17), after Paul describes the various parts of the armor, he goes on to talk about prayer:

Praying always by the Spirit with all prayer and supplication, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints, And for me, that utterance may be given me, by the opening of my mouth to make known boldly the mystery of the gospel, For which I am an ambassador in bonds, that I may speak boldly therein, as I ought to speak. (Ephesians 6:18-20, John Wesley New Testament).

Prayer is related to warfare because wars are not just fought on earth, but ultimately in “the heavenly places”. Therefore, a battle in the heavenly places can only be fought with prayer. 

Comparison & Contrast I - The Unjust Judge and the Tenacious Widow

22nd Sunday after Pentecost (Ordinary Time/UM Kingdomtide), C

United Methodist Laity Sunday

Luke 18:1-8

October 20, 2013

(Image courtesy of Misioneros del Sagrada Corazon en el Peru)

Introduction

For two Sundays, we will be having two comparison-and-contrast texts. Today we have the Parable of the Unjust Judge and the Widow (Luke 18:1-8); next Sunday we will have the Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee (Luke 18:9-14).

As an English teacher, I cannot help but notice that the rhetorical pattern used in these patterns is comparison and contrast. According to Patterns of College Writing (8th ed.) by Laurie G. Kirzner and Stephen R. Mandell (2001), comparison “shows how two or more things are similar” while contrast “shows how they are different”. However, these related processes are often used together in writing situations.

In today’s Gospel reading, we compare the persistent widow with the “elect” (v. 7) and the unjust judge with God (v. 7).

The Parable. Jesus spoke this parable to his disciples (cf. 17:22, on one of Jesus’ sayings on the end times) “that they ought always to pray, and not faint” (v. 1, John Wesley New Testament). The two characters are “a judge which feared not God nor reverenced man” (v. 2) and a widow who is asking him to do her justice against her adversary (v. 3). The judge, though he admits that he does not fear God nor reverence man (v. 4) eventually did the widow justice because her continual coming will weary him out. (v. 5). Jesus goes on the compare the widow with the “elect” and contrast the unjust judge with God.

I. The Unjust Judge and God.

The unjust judge is described as one who “feared not God nor reverenced man” (v. 2)—and he himself admits that he is such (v. 4). Jesus used an unjust judge as a character in his parable not that God would be compared to him but so that God would be contrasted with him. This makes the contrast between the two even clearer.

Meanwhile, the Father is described to be good. In another passage on prayer in Luke, Jesus compares and contrasts “evil” fathers who are kind enough to provide for the food of their children to the heavenly Father:

If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, for fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he give him a scorpion? If ye then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? (Luke 11:11-13)

Another thing about the unjust just is that while the widow was asking for justice, “he would not for a while” (v. 4) (i.e., he would not give justice to the widow for a certain length of time). However, he finally relented because the widow “giveth me trouble” and he was worried that she would “by continual coming…weary me out”.

Meanwhile, Jesus said that God “will vindicate his own elect” (v. 7) and vindicate them “speedily” (v. 8). But does this mean that God gives the answer of prayers immediately? We will discuss this below.

II. The Persistent Widow and the Elect.

According to Bishop Emerito P. Nacpil (1998), in his book Jesus’ Strategy for Social Transformation, the widow, along with the orphan and the stranger, are symbols of poverty in the Bible.

The “widow” is one who through the death of her husband has been deprived of her means of support and protection. She has been rendered poor, and no one would provide for her. And so the widow symbolizes the deprived one, the one who has been made poor through no fault of her own, and for whose care, provisions, and protection no one is under any obligation to render. She is also completely dependent on the goodwill of others who would voluntarily help. (p. 42)

Since widows have been deprived of a husband who will protect and provide for her, we can imagine that they are often the victim of others. In the parable, the widow is asking the judge to “do justice” for her (Greek εκδικεω, ekdikeō, which means ‘to vindicate one’s right’ or ‘to avenge’) because of her adversary (αντιδικος, antidikos, ‘an opponent in a suit of law’). Her “adversary” may be someone who has hurt her in some way, or someone who is her opponent in court (or perhaps trying to defraud her in court?).

The widow needed to be persistent in this case because the unjust judge has been denying her justice for some time. And judge finally yielded because she was “troubling” and “wearing him out”. But God is not like the unjust judge. In the Apocrypha we read,

But offer no bribes [to God], these he does not accept!

Trust not in sacrifice of the fruits of extortion,

For he is a God of justice, who knows no favorites.

Though not duly partial toward the weak, yet he hears the cries of the oppressed.

He is not deaf to the wail of the orphan, nor to the widow when she pours out her complaint.

(Sirach 36:11-14, New American Bible, 1987)

The elect does not need to “trouble” or “wear out” God because he not an unjust judge. Jesus promised that God “shall…vindicate his own elect” because they “cry to him day and night” (v. 7).

Does Jesus promise that God will immediately answer all prayer? Because he said, “I tell you, he will vindicate them speedily” (v. 8). This would contradict the tenor of the whole passage, and the “whole tenor of Scripture” because immediately preceding Jesus said that the elect “cry to him day and night though he bear long (μακροθυμεω, makrothumeō; makro ‘large’ + thumeō ‘heat’ = ‘to be of a long spirit, not to lose heart’) with them” (v. 7).

Conclusion: Will he find faith upon earth?

“Yet when the Son of man cometh, will he find faith upon earth?” (v. 8) These words of Jesus may seem cryptic at first, but we can see how this fits to the whole passage. Jesus told this parable so that the disciples—and we—ought always to pray, and not faint. Jesus gave us the parable of the persistent widow as an example of crying out to God day and night, though the answer may take long. It may take so long that perhaps some of us may lose heart. So when Jesus returns, will he still find us persistent in prayer and not faint? Will he still find faith upon the earth?”

Yet notwithstanding all the instances both of his long suffering and of his justice, whenever he shall remarkably appear, against their enemies in this age or in after ages, how few true believers will be found upon earth! (Notes Upon the New Testament)

* * *

Two of today’s lectionary readings in quoted in John Wesley’s sermon “The Means of Grace” (Sermon 16). Here we have the second reading, 2 Timothy 3:14-4:5, which is on Scripture, and the Gospel reading, Luke 18:1-8, which is on prayer. What does Wesley mean by “the means of grace”?

By “means of grace” I understand outward signs, words, or actions, ordained of God, and appointed for this end, to be the ordinary channels whereby he might convey to men, preventing [now called “prevenient”], justifying, or sanctifying grace.

 These “means of grace” include public and private prayer, searching the Scriptures, and receiving the Lord’s Supper.

He goes on to say that these outward means of grace are meaningless without the Spirit of God. On prayer, Wesley says, “[A]ll who desire the grace of God are to wait for it in the way of prayer. This is the express direction of our Lord himself.” One of the scriptures he uses on prayer is parable of the persistent widow.

The application of this our Lord himself hath made: “Hear what the unjust judge saith!” Because she continues to ask, because she will take no denial, therefore I will avenge her. “And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him? I tell you he will avenge them speedily,” if they pray and faint not.

On Scripture, Wesley says,

All who desire the grace of God are to wait for it in searching the Scriptures. Our Lord’s direction, with regard to the use of this means, is likewise plain and clear. “Search the Scriptures,” saith he to the unbelieving Jews, “for they testify of me.” (John 5:39.) And for this very end did he direct them to search the Scriptures, that they might believe in him.

And one of the scriptures Wesley uses in this section is 2 Timothy 3:14-4:5:

And that this is a means whereby God not only gives, but also confirms and increases, true wisdom, we learn from the words of St. Paul to Timothy: “From a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim. 3:15.) The same truth (namely, that this is the great means God has ordained for conveying his manifold grace to man) is delivered, in the fullest manner that can be conceived, in the words which immediately follow: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God;” consequently, all Scripture is infallibly true; “and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;” to the end “that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Tim. 3:16, 17.)

"Your Faith Has Made You Well"

21st Sunday after Pentecost (Ordinary Time/UM Kingdomtide), C
October 13, 2013
Luke 17:11-19

Introduction


Today’s Gospel reading is the Healing of the Ten Lepers. It has the characteristics of a typical miracle story. It begins with showing us a particular human need: There were ten lepers who are in need of healing. It also shows us the act of Jesus: Jesus hears their prayer and heals the lepers. The usual miracle story concludes with the person healed or the people around expressing their amazement (or fear) of the power of Jesus. But in this miracle story, one of the lepers who had been healed returned to Jesus and gave glory to God. This tells us the one of the fittest responses when one experiences the miracle of God is thanksgiving.

I. The human need: Leprosy. (Luke 17:11-12)

While Jesus was on his went to Jerusalem, “he passed thro’ the confines of Samaria and Galilee” (John Wesley New Testament) and as he was entering into a certain village, he met ten lepers “who stood afar off”.

In the Torah, the way lepers were treated was very severe. Leviticus 13 and 14 contains the laws regarding leprosy (or “infectious skin disease” as the New International Version translates the Hebrew phrase נגע צרעת  nega’ tsara’at, ‘the plague of leprosy’).

He is a leprous man, he is unclean; the priest shall surely pronounce him unclean: his plague is in his head. And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall go loose, and he shall cover his upper lip, and shall cry: 'Unclean, unclean.' All the days wherein the plague is in him he shall be unclean; he is unclean; he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his dwelling be. (Leviticus 13:44-46, Jewish Publication Society, 1917)

There is a whole book in the Talmud on the laws concerning leprosy, called Tractate Nega'im.

This explains why the ten lepers were outside of the village (“without”—or outside—“the camp” as the Torah says) that Jesus was about to enter and that they had to stand “afar off”.

It is in this condition that the lepers “lifted up their voice” and cried out to Jesus: “Jesus, master, have mercy on us.” (v. 13)

II. The act of Jesus: The cleansing of leprosy. (Luke 17:13-14)

The lepers said, ιεσους επιστατα ελεησον ημας, Iesous, epistata, eleison imas. The word epistata (translated as ‘master’, in the sense of ‘one who stands over’) is a word only used in the Gospel of Luke. (It is used six times: 5:5, 8:24, 8:45; 9:33, 9:49, and here in 17:13). Meanwhile, the other words translated (the most common) as “master” is διδασκλος, didaskalos, ‘teacher’ and κυριος, kurios, ‘lord’. While Luke also uses didaskalos, he alone uses the title epistatēs. This means that the lepers recognize Jesus as “master” who alone can heal them of their leprosy. They use a formula that has since been used as a prayer: eleison imas, ‘have mercy on us’. In the Greek Orthodox Church, there is a prayer called the Trisagion (the ‘Thrice-Holy’):

Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός, Ἅγιος Ἰσχυρός, Ἅγιος Ἀθάνατος, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς.
Agios ho Theos, agios eschuros, agios athanatos, eleison imas.
Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us.

--They did not directly ask to be healed or to be cleansed, but they asked for him to have mercy on them.

Jesus hears their prayer and gives them an instruction: “Go, shew yourselves to the priests.” In the Torah, a person who has been healed of their leprosy to go and show themselves to the priests, who examine them and declare that they have been healed. Leviticus 14 contains the regulations regarding those who have been healed of leprosy:

And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: he shall be brought unto the priest. And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper… (Leviticus 14:1-3)

…the priest will now prescribe rituals for the healed lepers to undergo in order to be finally declared “clean”. This includes animal sacrifices and the setting free of a dove (probably to symbolize that the leper has finally been ‘set free’).

Jesus did not instantly heal the ten lepers and tell them, “Go, you are now healed”; he said “Go, shew yourselves to the priests.” And as they were walking, the Bible says, “they were cleansed” (v. 14). Here, once more, Jesus is seen to have power over disease, even over one as terrifying as leprosy.

III. The human response: Giving glory to God (Luke 17:15-19)

A. Giving glory to God. As human beings, one of our responses when we experience the power of God is giving him glory. As the lepers were going to show themselves to the priests, one of them, when he saw that he was healed (or more precisely, ‘cleansed’; Greek καθαριζω katharidzō) he turned back and “with a loud voice glorified God” (v. 15, 18). The word used here is δοξαζω, doxazō, which is where we get the word “Doxology” (literally, ‘word of praise’). Among us Protestants, the Doxology is the Trinitarian stanza sung after the offering. There are actually two Doxologies: The “lesser” Doxology is the Gloria Patri:

Greek:
Δόξα Πατρὶ καί Υιώ καί Αγίω Πνεύματι,
Καὶ νῦν καί αεί καί εις τους αιώνας των αιώνων. Αμην.
Doxa Patri kai Huiō kai Pneumati,
kai nun kai aei kai eis touc aiōnas aiōnōn. Amēn.

Latin:
Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto.
Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper,
et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

English:
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost;
as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be;
world without end, Amen. Amen.

...and the “greater” Doxology, which is called the "Glory to God in the Highest". It based on the angels' song at the birth of Christ, is often used as the opening hymn in Roman Catholic masses:

Latin:
Gloria in excelsis Deo. Et in terra pax hominibus bonæ voluntatis.
Laudamus te; benedicimus te; adoramus te; glorificamus te.
Gratias agimus tibi propter magnam gloriam tuam.
Domine Deus, Rex coelestis, Deus Pater omnipotens.
Domine Fili unigenite Jesu Christe.
Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius Patris.
Qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.
Qui tollis peccata mundi, suscipe deprecationem nostram.
Qui sedes ad dextram Patris, O miserere nobis.
Quoniam tu solus Sanctus, tu solus Dominus,
tu solus Altissimus, Jesu Christe.
Cum Sancto Spiritu in gloria Dei Patris. Amen.

English:
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will.
We praise You, we bless You, we adore You, we glorify You,
We give thanks to You for your great glory,
Lord God, Heavenly King, God the Almighty Father. Lord Only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father,
You Who take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
You Who take away the sins of the world, hear our prayer.
You Who sit at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.
For You alone are holy, you alone are the Lord, You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ,
With the Holy Spirit in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

Among Protestants, the stanza sung to “Old Hundredth” is commonly called "the" Doxology.

Praise God from whom all blessings flow,
praise him all creatures he below;
Praise him above, ye heavenly hosts,
praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.

The reason that we sing the (greater) Doxology after the offering is that we are praising God “from whom all blessings flow”, from which we get our offerings. We are offering only what God himself has given us.

B. Giving thanks to God. Another response that we can give when we experience the power of God is thanksgiving. One of the lepers, when he noticed that he was healed, returned to Jesus, “fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks” (v. 16). And this one was a Samaritan. The word used here is ευχαριστεω, eucharisteō, where we get the word “Eucharist”. During the liturgical renewal in The United Methodist Church in the late 80’s and 90’s (as expressed in our denomination’s official rituals, The United Methodist Hymnal, 1989 and The United Methodist Book of Worship, 1992), it was recognized that Holy Communion should be an integral part of worship. It is encouraging that more and more United Methodist local churches are now practicing weekly Eucharist. (Here in the Philippines, the practice is spreading in the Ilocos region after pastors there have studied This Holy Mystery.) I pray that this practice spreads to more and more of our local churches. Above all acts of worship, I believe that Holy Communion is the grandest way we can show our thanksgiving to God.

Conclusion

One of the ten lepers who cried out to Jesus for healing, only one returned to give thanks to Jesus: and he was a “stranger”, a Samaritan. (We can presume that the other lepers were Jews.) He receives and additional blessing: “Arise and go, thy faith hath saved thee”. In other translations, “thy faith hath made thee whole (KJV)” or “your faith has you well (NIV)” or “your faith has healed you (Recovery Version, 1985). The Greek word used here is σωζω, sōzō, which is can be translated as ‘to be saved’ is also the same word for ‘to be healed’. Not only has the Samaritan recognized Jesus as “Master”, in fall down before him, he recognizes Jesus as God. So in this story, all ten were “healed” but only one was “saved”.

Play Review – Der Kaufmann

“Der Kaufmann” is Tanghalang Pilipino’s third offering for their 27^th theater season, after the children’s musical “Sandosenang Sapatos” and the epic musical “Ibalong”. “Der Kaufmann” is an adaptation of “The Merchant of Venice” by William Shakespeare based on the Tagalog translation “Ang Negosyante ng Venecia” by National Artist Rolando Tinio and set in a Nazi concentration camp during World War II.

Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice” is mind-blowing in itself; but to have it translated in Tagalog? When I shared this experience to my friends, they were incredulous:  How can one translate the famous speeches in the play, like Shylock’s “Hath not a Jew eyes?” (Act 3, Scene 1) and Portia’s “The quality of mercy” (Act 3, Scene 5)? Furthermore, “Merchant” deals with themes of anti-Semitism and homophobia, and ends with legalistic maneuvering in a courtroom. Shakespeare’s play itself is tough going already, but “Der Kaufmann” dares to add the additional layers of rendering it in Tagalog and setting it in a Nazi concentration camp.

In preparing to watch and to review this play, I read a lot—perhaps the most that I had to do with any of the plays I’ve reviewed so far. I downloaded Shakespeare’s original play (courtesy of ManyBooks.Net and downloadable here) and read books on Judaism, anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust (HaShoah in Hebrew). My references are listed below at the end of the review.

I watched the play (once more ticket courtesy of my former student Lhorvie Ann—bless her heart!) last October 5. In this play she plays Jessica, the daughter of the Jewish moneylender, Shylock. Since the play had been running since September 27, I had to resist the temptation of reading other online reviews and perusing TP’s Facebook group page. (Lhorvie insisted that I watch this showing because last week it was her alternate playing the role.) It had been worth the wait.

Summary

The play is a “play within a play” where the Jews were forced by the Nazis to stage Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice". (For a summary of the story, see the version of this review in Instructional Minutes.) Culminating with the reunion of Antonio and Portia, the Jews, together with the homosexuals and the Gypsies, were gassed to death.

After the curtain call, it was announced that they will be an open forum to answer any questions that the audience may have. The director and playwright, Rody Vera, and dramaturge Giselle Garcia also joined the cast. I was seated on the upper balcony but Regina saw me when I raised my hand. I commended that cast and crew for a job well done and extended my hand in the Birkat Kohanim (Priestly Blessing) gesture and gave them a form of a Jewish blessing: “Live long and prosper!”

I taught Trixie how to make the Birkat Kohanim gesture.

Technical Notes: Stage, Lights, Sounds

The play was staged at the Bulwagang Huseng Batute, the “studio theater”. The stage is arranged in an inverted “V” shape. There is an upper level which where scenes in Belmont were usually played. The lower level is composed of sliding frames with “cyclone wire” which represents cages. There is a square open area at the center where most of the action happens. In the middle of the play, during the wedding or Portia and Bassiano, Bassiano and his friends were revealed to be Nazis. They strapped the Nazi insignia on their left arms. To complete the effect, the red banner emblazoned with that hateful symbol, the swastika, was hoisted up from the sides. Portia and the rest give the one-armed Nazi salute. (It has been said that Hitler got the idea from Mussolini.) The transformation has been completed: The set is now a concentration camp.

Huseng Batute is a smallish venue so the cast did not need to use microphones. Also, only recorded music was used. There was only one musical number: a comical piece by Launcelot announcing his intend to depart from his Jewish master.

The set gave me the creeps.

The sounds are the work of TJ Ramos and the lights were by John Batalla (who also did “Sandosenang Sapatos” and “Ibalong”) .

Acting

(Photo courtesy of Tanghalang Pilipino)

Regina de Vera gave an excellent performance as the wealthy heiress of Belmont. Previously she played the sweet older sister in “Sandosenang Sapatos” (albeit a static character). But in “Kaufmann” Regina was perfect in her haughty, upturned-nosed portrayal of Portia. One by one she deprecated her suitors, but melted like wax at the sight of Bassanio. She was also able to portray Portia’s alter-ego, the doctor of law, as a legal eagle, trapping Shylock in a web of legal technicalities. Overall, Regina gave a strong performance portraying a strong woman. There is no question “Kaufmann” is Regina’s play. Kudos, Miss de Vera!

(Photo courtesy of Tanghalang Pilipino)

The play guest-stars comedian par excellance Mr. Lou Veloso, who played Gobo, the bumbling father of Launcelot, Shylock’s friend Tubal, and the Duke of Venice. As he was presiding over the trial of Antonio, high upon the upper level and dressed in a Nazi uniform, Lou Veloso looked every inch the Füehrer. Great work, sir!

Too bad “Kaufmann” was not a musical so we were not regaled with the rich baritone of Jonathan “Tad” Tadionan (the father in “Sandosena” and Aswang in “Ibalong”), but he ably played the role of Shylock, complete with a grimace on his face and a limp in his gait. Tad is a good actor but infinitely better as a singer.

(Photo courtesy of Tanghalang Pilipino)

One of the surprises of the play is that Shylock is played not by one but three actors. Miss Raquel Pareño displayed great acting cred by portraying Shylock the mother. Her scenes were especially memorable: the “Hath not the Jew eyes?” speech and the scene where she was schizophrenically distressed over Jessica’s elopement while rejoicing over the loss of Antonio’s ships. Another memorable scene is when she rushed over to the fallen Shylock the father during the trial and delivered some of Shylock’s lines.

I also found it too bad that my favorite child stage actress, Trixie Esteban, only had a few lines in the play. (“Pahinga nga po ako ngayon eh,” she chirped as we talked after the play.) She played Shylock the daughter, who delivered the final lines assigned to Shylock in the play. While we were not treated to her sweet singing voice, her clear, innocent voice seems to hang in the air as she delivered her lament.

The comedic foils were also very effective in the play (“Merchant” is a comedy, after all): Kristofer Kliatchko as the Prince of Morocco, Aldo Vencilao as Launcelot and the Prince of Aragon.

Antonio and Bassanio. (Photo courtesy of Tanghalang Pilipino)

Hands down the most controversial roles went to Marco Viaña as Antonio and Ricardo Magno as Bassanio, friends and lovers in the play.

Theological Reflections

Anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is hatred towards the Jewish people (who descended from Shem, son of Noah). The Jews here were not depicted as “Christ-killers” but as usurious moneylenders. The Catholic Church used to forbid its members from engaging in moneylending. But the Jews follow Deuteronomy 28:20-21:

Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals [food], interest of any thing that is lent upon interest. Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it. (Jewish Publication Society, 1917)

--which means Jews may lend money without interest to fellow Jews (“thy brother”) but may charge interest to non-Jews, i.e., “foreigners”. Hence that there is a conspiracy theory that Jews are “international bankers” and that they control the international banks, the press, etc.

In my observation, Jews are perceived in this country either as fairies or Christ-killers. A lot of Filipinos thought that Jews only existed in the Bible. A lot of people I talked to were surprised when I told them that there is actually a Jewish synagogue in Makati. (A Jewish doctor I talked to related a story of a nun who told him, “I’ve never met a Jew before!” He then pointed to Jesus on a Cross and said, “He’s Jewish.”)

But the more sinister perception is that Filipinos (and a lot of other misinformed people) think that the Jews are Christ-killers. One member from one of my former church assignments described the ugly features of “Jews” who are whipping Jesus in a tableau that Catholics parade around during Holy Week. I would like to point out that while Jesus was indeed condemned by Jewish religious leaders (the Sanhedrin), the execution was authorized by a Roman governor and carried out by Roman soldiers!  If one asks who is guilty of killing Jesus, both Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews) are guilty! But it doesn’t matter: Jesus died for the forgiven of everyone’s sins, Jew or Gentile (Romans 1:16)!

Let me highlight a little-known chapter in Philippine history. In the story, Shylock is forced to convert to Christianity. For centuries European Jews had been forced to convert to Christianity but they still secretly observed Jewish religious customs. One little-known part of Philippine history is that these so-called nuevos cristianos (‘New Christians’) or Marranos (secret Jews) fled here to the Philippines to be able to escape persecution from in Spain and to be able to practice their religion freely. In World War II, President Manuel L. Quezon granted sanctuary to the Jews escaping the Holocaust in Europe. After the War, most of these Jews immigrated to the US or made aliyah to Israel. The remaining Jews compose the Jewish community in the Philippines. Most of us Filipinos are unaware that the Philippines was responsible for saving the lives about 1,200 Jews from the horrors of the Holocaust!

Homosexuality and homophobia. One of the questions posed by the audience is the homosexual relationship of Antonio and Bassanio (“My Husband’s Lover,” as many in the audience commented, referring to a local television program where a husband has an affair with another man.) According to the all-knowing Wikipedia, the homosexual angle between Antonio and Bassanio has been long a topic of scholarly debate. The play also pointed out that the Nazis not only committed genocide against the Jews but they also mass murdered homosexuals.

The issue on homosexuality is currently a hot issue of debate even within religious circles. I don’t wish to write at length on this topic now. Suffice it to say that I wholeheartedly subscribe to the official position of my denomination, The United Methodist Church as stated in the Social Principles:

Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God's grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.

As people of “sacred worth” “no less than heterosexual people”, homophobia has no place in the Church. However, the Church is currently against the ordination of “self-avowed” homosexuals and forbids its pastors to conduct same-sex marriages and the use of our churches for such ceremonies. I do not see the end of the homosexuality debate anywhere in sight. Suffice it for me to say for now that I believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin; and that such people, just like all of us common sinners, need the ministry of the Church. Jesus died on the Cross for them as much as he died for us “ordinary” sinners.

Excursus: Feminism. Perhaps what is not much discussed is the portrayal of Portia as a powerful woman. She is shown as a woman in charge; even if the choice for her husband is left to a game of chance. When the news of Antonio’s trouble reached Belmont, it was Portia who give Antonio the money—double of the amount owed—to Bassanio. Then, disguised as a man, she managed to outmaneuver Shylock in an example of courtroom cunning—the sort of judicial jujitsu that would make any defense lawyer proud. I have always wondered: How did Portia become so well versed in law?

For me, the play would have ended at the trial of Antonio where Shylock was defeated. I’m wondering why it had to end with the Portia tricking her husband. Bassanio, grateful for the help of the doctor of law but Portia instead asks for his ring. Likewise, Nerissa, disguised as the doctor of law’s secretary, asks for his husband Gratiano’s ring. In Belmont, Portia and Nerissa confronted their husbands for losing their rings and accuse them of lying and infidelity, only to reveal that the rings were in their possession all along. Is it just female nature to put men to the test? (If you have any insights on this, please drop a comment below!)

Personal Notes

After the play, we had a “meet and greet” and picture-taking with the cast in the cramped lobby just outside Batute. I wanted to have my picture taken with Regina de Vera and Mr. Lou Veloso, but alas, too much competition for me. Even my student Lhorvie had her share of attention for a “daring” scene as Jessica. (I could not bring myself to write about it!)

Lhorvie Ann, I (wearing an amice-tallit) and Trixie.

Trixie had already gone back in but Lhorvie went to fetch her for me. I presented her a gift: since she was playing the role of a little Jewish girl I gave her mezuzah, a Jewish scroll case. “Totoo po iyan?” she said, eyes wide in amazement. Of course, I told her; and showed her the one I was wearing on a chain. I showed her the symbols on the mezuzah:  the Star of David (which she was wearing on her chest), the letter shin and the tablets of the Ten Commandments.  I also asked if it’s ok to pray for her so Lhorvie, Trixie, and I prayed right there at the lobby.

R E F E R E N C E S

“Der Kaufmann” (playbill). (2013). Philippines: Tanghalang Pilipino/Cultural Center of the Philippines.

Einstein S. J. & Kukoff, L. (1983). Introduction to Judaism: A course outline. New York: United American Hebrew Congregations. An excellent textbook on Judaism; includes the topics of anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, and Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Harlow, J. (ed.) (1989). Siddur Sim Shalom. New York: The Rabbinical Assembly, The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. A Jewish prayer book “for Shabbat, festivals, and weekdays”; includes readings for Yom HaShoah from accounts of Holocaust victims.

Michener, J. A. (1965). The source. New York: Fawcett Crest. A fictional novel on the history of the Jewish people through “the wonders of archeology” (Einstein & Kukoff, 1983). I perused the section on the same time period “Merchant” is set, where the Jews were shown as unscrupulous moneylenders and ultimately as international bankers.

Shakespeare, William. “The Merchant of Venice” (Craig, Oxford edition) (e-book). Illinois: Project Gutenberg. (Downloaded from ManyBooks.Net).

Wouk, H. (1978). War and remembrance. New York: Pocket Books. A grand World War II novel, it depicts life in the concentration camps and the systematic execution of the Jews. Made into a television miniseries.

---------. (2000). The will to live on: This is our heritage.. New York: HarperCollins. A non-fiction book, from the author of the novel War and Remembrance; it is an update on of the non-fictional This is our God.