Arulvakku

27.09.10 LEAST IS GREATEST

Posted under Reflections on September 26th, 2010 by

An argument arose among the disciples about which of them was the greatest. Jesus realized the intention of their hearts and took a child and placed it by his side and said to them, "Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me. For the one who is least among all of you is the one who is the greatest." Then John said in reply, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow in our company." Jesus said to him, "Do not prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you." (Lk 9:46-50)

 

 

Does Jesus mean that child friendly people are God friendly people? He says that receiving a child is receiving Jesus and that in turn mean receiving God. Children depend on elders. Children do not argue. They only have needs and wants. Does Jesus identify himself with a child? For he says: ‘whoever receives a child receives me’.

 

‘Least among you is the greatest’. Any institution or organization or structure works on the principles of ‘greatest’, ‘least’. It is very obvious that Jesus was not bothered about institution/organization/structure. He was interested in people/person. Every person is important and there is no distinction among persons. Each person has his own worth and value. That is why Jesus equated ‘greatest’ with ‘least’.

 

‘Doing good’ should not be prevented on any account. Jesus tells his disciples not to distinguish/differentiate people on any criteria (even as followers and non-followers and much less as groups, castes, sects, religions, classes etc.). If a person does good or removes evil (casting out demon) then he should be encouraged to carry on be he whatever or whoever.

 

  

26.09.10 RICH AND POOR

Posted under Reflections on September 25th, 2010 by

  "There was a rich man who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day. And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps that fell from the rich man's table. Dogs even used to come and lick his sores. When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.  And he cried out, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.'…

 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'" (Lk 16:19-31)

 

 

The rich man has no name. Among the Jews name revealed the character of the individual. It revealed who he was and what was his life etc. The poor man had a name. He is a man of character. Does the parable say that the wealth destroy the identity or the character of the person?

 

Before death there was a difference between the two. One who was rich was at table and lived a life of luxury. The poor man had nothing to eat. After death also there was difference between the two. The poor man was with ‘Father Abraham’ while the rich man was suffering in the nether world. Both had something in common. They were equal at one thing and that was ‘death’.

 

Neither the heaven (Abraham) nor the nether world could do anything to change the people of the world. Only the people of the world (Moses and prophets) could do anything to change the heart of the people who are living. Signs and wonders from above or below will not change people. Probably that is why Jesus came into the world like one of us to change our way of life: to lead us to the kingdom.

 

  

1 2,377 2,378 2,379 2,380 2,381 2,513