MODULE I

GOD’S REIGN OF LOVE, A CALL TO DIALOGUE

GOD’S REIGN OF LOVE, A CALL TO DIALOGUE

Content

The Jewish Society in the Time of Jesus

Social Hierarchy in the Time of Jesus

 UPPER CLASS
Herod’s royal households, aristocratic/priestly families
lay nobility, land owners

----------------------------------------------
MIDDLE CLASS
Professionals, shopkeepers, small businessmen, fishermen, carpenters

-----------------------------------------------
POOR AND OPPRESSED
unskilled laborers, peasants & slaves,
widows, orphans, women, children
beggars, sick and disabled, physically handicapped
sinners (social outcasts): prostitutes, robbers,
tax collectors usurers, herdsmen, gamblers,
uneducated since ignorant of scriptures hence lawless & immoral

 To be a sinner is to be a fate > frustration, guilt & anxiety

 Principal suffering: Shame and disgrace

  Jewish concept of sin: All misfortunes, sicknesses & other disorders
were evil afflictions sent by God as punishments from sin.
o Basic truth: link between sin & suffering BUT among the Jews sin
was misconceived to be a failure to observe laws not merely out
of volition but by mistake or ignorance (e.g. children of any
illegitimate sexual union and their children for 10 generations
were regarded as sinners)

------------------

Jesus Proclaiming God’s Reign of Love (see Slides_God’s Reign of Love and
Compassion)

-------------------

Jesus’ Love of Preference and Social Attitude

- came from the middle class

- remarkable thing about him: he mixed socially with the lowest of
the low & identified himself with them. i.e. he became an outcast by choice

Why did he do this? ---- Gospel’s answer: COMPASSION

✓ Mt. 4:14: “He was moved with compassion for the crowds & he healed
the sick.”
✓ Mt. 9:36: “He was moved with compassion because they were
distressed & dejected like sheep without a shepherd.”
✓ Lk. 7:13: “He was moved with compassion by the plight & the tears of
the widow of Nain. ‘Do not cry’.”
✓ Mk. 1:41: He had compassion on the leper.
✓ Mt. 20:34: He had compassion on two blind men.
✓ Mk. 8:2: compassion on those who had nothing to eat
✓ Mk. 5:36: 6:50; Mt. 6:25-34; Lk. 10:41: Over & over again Jesus says:
“Don’t cry”, “Don’t worry”, “Don’t be afraid”
 ✓ Mk. 12:41-44: moved by the poor widow who put her last cent into
the Temple treasury (Mk. 13:1-2: unmoved by the grandeur of the
great Temple)

Suffering of the poor and the oppressed had a powerful effect upon Jesus.
-------------------
GOD’S REIGN OF LOVE, A CALL TO DIALOGUE

Gospel Foundation: Lore about Compassion, Inclusivity and Dialogue

Backdrop
▪ Samaria formerly Kingdom of Israel
▪ Samaritans: mixed Israelite and Arab descent (pagan ancestry) >
antagonism
▪ Accepted the Torah only
▪ Religious enmity began with the return of the Jews from Babylonian
captivity when the Samaritans prevented the rebuilding of Jerusalem
- Further offended the Jews when the Samaritans assisted the armies of
Alexander the Great > in return the king permitted them to build a
temple on Mt. Gerizim where the Samaritans worshipped Yahweh,
their tribal gods and offered sacrifices
- Barred by the Jews from participating in the rebuilding of Jerusalem
- …..publicly cursed in the synagogues……considered as traitors… no
better than dogs…hated outsiders…..couldn’t serve as a witness in the
Jewish courts… couldn’t be converted to Judaism….excluded from the
afterlife
- to travel in the Samaritan country=to be polluted
- Jesus’ occasional travels to Samaria (cf Lk 9:51-62; 17:11; Jn4:4)

A. Good Samaritan (Lk 10:25-37)

- Being “half-dead”=being ritually impure
o The priest and the Levite striving to be faithful to their religion
by avoiding to be ritually contaminated
- Message: irrespective of his cultural or religious condition, the
‘outsider’ must be included
 o Jesus chose a radical outsider to be the primary catalyst of his
vision of radical inclusiveness
- Grave insult to Jesus’ contemporaries
(1) Samaritan as inclusive hero, model disciple
o Suffering man given the best treatment
(2) More provocative: Jesus embracing and endorsing such exemplary
subversive discipleship
o The one who questions the status quo is considered an insider
o Jesus transgressing normative Jewish faith and culture and
doesn’t even apologize or explain

B. Samaritan Woman at the Well (Jn 4:1-40)

- V. 7: disciples went to the Samaritan city of Sychar to buy food
o To buy food prepared by Samaritans=eat swine’s flesh, acc to a
rabbi
- Samaritan woman comes to draw water, meaning she’s poor, no
servants to do it
- Social taboo for a rabbi to be alone with a woman, worst ethnically
inferior and socially immoral
- Yes Jesus asks for a drink of water > woman shocked, baffled, confused
also since he, a Jew and a man at that, couldn’t share a vessel with her
for drinking water since it’s considered unclean
- Then begins an intriguing conversation
o V. 9: woman recognizes the societal barriers and boundaries
that keep her in place
o V. 12: but challenges Jesus’s authority over and against the
ancestors of her faith…..who’s leading the conversation: Jesus or
the woman? > don’t underestimate and subvert the prophetic
role of the woman
o Samaritans’ belief: no prophet except Moses, except the one of
whom Moses had spoken – “a prophet like me” (Dt
18:15)…..perhaps the woman is striving to discern if Jesus could
be the Messiah?
1st – she switches the conversation toward the topic of worship
> then the bombshell: why reduce worship to a specific religion,
 culture or place? (even more revolutionary than the strained
relationship bet the Jews and the Samaritans)
2nd – vv. 16-18: notion of 5 husbands
▪ One possibility: she was barren, hence the brothers’
dropping her to look for a fertile woman
o living with a man not her husband a lesser evil,
since the culture provided economic assistance only
with family structures.
▪ Alternative interpretation (Sandra Scheinders): 5 husbands
could be translated as gods or lords (background: in the
political history, Samaria has had 5 foreign gods), the one
Samaritans worship now is not Yahweh but the emperor <
need to view the woman not as a sinner but as a woman
theologian trying to discover her deepest truth, looking for
acceptance, love & trust
rd
3 – she leaves the water jars and returns to her people informing
them of her prophetic encounter and her new-found wisdom
(“many believe”)……
o but at the very end: “ we don’t believe because you,
a woman, has convinced us” (exclusionary
misogynist expression)

C. The Leper Who Gave Thanks (Lk 17:11-19)

- Leprosy: uncleanliness, obnoxious form of ritual impurity (white

patches on the skin, running sores, loss ofbody parts)
- Much worst: social castigation, social outcast, untouchable
- Plea of the leper: to be cleaned, not just cured > be allowed to
become a normal human being who can receive love, acceptance and
social approval
- Why send the leper to a priest?
▪ If the priest declares he’s ritually pure, then the priest is
unwittingly confirming the power of Jesus to clean a leper
 ▪ Priestly certification was the necessary testimony to the people
that he was indeed cleansed and could return to living a normal
life
▪ May also be a testimony to the healer, whose compassionate
mercy and healing empowerment has facilitated the man’s re-
entry into full fellowship with his community
- Explicit point of the story: the gratitude of the Samaritan
▪ Only the Samaritan gave thanks, a gesture usually of a Gentile
status
▪ Jews’ lack to gratitude: a sign that they did not want to welcome
and follow Jesus as Messiah…or….
▪ Failure to thank could also be an expression of their refusal to
include and embrace the barred and excluded
▪ the imperative of the Gospel inclusivity requires a deep change
of heart and spirit!

PART 2
THE PROCLAIMER AS PROPHET

Input for Discussion/Reflection

Prophetism in the Old Testament 79

The word prophet comes from the Greek word prophetes, a person
who speaks for God. The Hebrew word is nabi, God’s messenger or
mouthpiece. It is through the prophets that God brought people back to
faithfulness in the covenant. As men of God, they condemned the Israelites
for falling into idolatry and false worship. They brought the people to an
understanding of the current events they were in – those events that had
placed them afar from God. They did not speak for themselves but they
spoke for God. They served as the interpreters of God’s will. They made
people realize that God is active in history in His constant self-revelation,
making known His being a personal God who intervenes in history. In a
nutshell, the prophets assumed three roles: 1) to speak about the future of
God’s people, 2) to look back with gratitude to God’s liberating actions in
the past, and 3) to announce God’s message with authority.

To Speak About the Future of God’s People

Israel had faced most trying moments as a people (e.g division of the
Kingdom of Israel, Babylonian exile, destruction of the Temple, loss of land,
etc.). During these crises, the prophets had shown that God bears the
future. Although the bad events that befell on them were considered as
God’s punishment (e.g Zep 3:14-15; Dt 32:35), it remained in the heart of
Israel’s religious beliefs that God was their personal protector and helper.
Central to their conviction as a people is God’s justice. His faithfulness to the
covenant and His love for His people will prevail. God’s rescue is sure to
come.
The prophets were the bearers of God’s consolation and forgiveness.
Constantly, in the Bible, the reader is brought to an awareness of a God who
always extends Himself to His people who have gone astray. Through the
prophets, God has given His people hope.

To Look Back with Gratitude to God’s Liberating Actions in the Past

When they were stripped off of their identity as a people, at the time
of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, they remembered God’s
saving actions in history. Gathered around the bonfire, they shared stories
of hope. They looked back to the good old days –

79
The ideas presented in this section are primarily based on the following
sources:
Lawrence Boadt, Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction (Makati: St.
Paul Publications.
1993);
Sr. Yolanda Iglesias CM and Fr. Salvatore Putzu SDB, The Promise: An
Introduction to the Old
 Testament (Makati: Word & Life Publications, 1993);
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12477a.htm

What they held dearly in their hearts, together with the people, was their
gratefulness to God whose love is constant.

To Announce God’s Message with Authority

Being
communicators
of divine revelation,
they proclaimed the
message in God’s name
(e.g., “The Lord says”) in
order that their forceful
announcement of God’s
word would draw their
hearers to respond to
the call of God for
conversion. This was
meant to awaken a
people whose religious life had gone in crisis. Let us take for example
Ezekiel, a prophet with deep faith and passionate imagination. He defined
the
message of God
through pantomime, sometimes using unusual actions in order to catch the
interest of the crowd.
Unlike the rest of the prophets, Ezekiel’s authority was
shown differently. In his silence, he depicted God’s
message using vivid symbolic actions.

Jesus of Nazareth the Prophet1

1
Levy Lara Lanaria, “Jesus as Mangingisda in the Shallow Waters of Globalization,” Hapag 12, no. 1 (2015): 87-
100.
 Jesus’ contemporary Jews considered him a prophet in the long line of
prophetic tradition. Jesus, however, singled himself out from those prophets
who preceded him by claiming to himself divine authority. His words then
carry much more weight. What particularly was a kind of prophet he was?
At the outset Jesus wanted to bring humankind back to the fullness of
life precisely because this was his mission: “I came that they may have life,
and have it abundantly” (Jn 10:10).2 In fact he set out to begin his public
ministry by proclaiming that God’s kingdom or reign was drawing near. God’s
kingdom would usher in fullness of life. In Cebuano, one may think of
kahayahay or kaharuhay as manifestations of fullness of life. Since the poor
in the time of Jesus did not live lives which conformed, not of their own
making, to the Kingdom norm, the coming of God’s kingdom was particularly
good news for them. Luke addressing the sociologically poor assured them
that that God found favour with them. They who had been socially excluded
were now being included in the society that the Prophet envisioned.
Indeed Jesus’ proclamation of the coming of God’s reign/kingdom is a
proclamation of liberation or salvation directed primarily to the poor and the
oppressed in his society.3 He used the phrase ‘kingdom of God’ (in Luke) or
‘kingdom of heaven’ (in Matthew) as a culturally appropriate way of
affirming his Abba’s predilection for them. God’s kingdom is called such
precisely because there is only one Ruler/King/Emperor higher than any
earthly king and to whom everyone owes absolute allegiance. The King is not
just King of everybody, He is King particularly of the beggars, the social
outcasts, the sinners, the sick, the prostitutes, the criminals, the poor
peasants and fisherfolk and the like, the people whom the self-righteous
treat with disdain and contempt. In words and deeds, Jesus gave a concrete
expression to the envisaged God’s kingdom through his pagkabuutan (being
kind; being good) to the excluded (by the religious authority’s interpretation
of a religion that gives preferential option to those who have wealth,
prestige and power).4
The post-colonial Bible scholar, John Dominic Crossan has introduced a
novel English translation of the Greek basileia tou theou (“kingdom of God”):

2
Putting the humanity of Jesus on the centerstage of theological discourse is not a negation of his divinity. It is
just a matter of epistemological emphasis and methodological option. A writer may opt to shift the spotlight on
Jesus’ divinity using a descending approach but that does not deny as well his full humanity. Likewise an academic
treatise can be written dealing with the relationship between his divinity and humanity as a doctrinal concern.
Arguably Vatican II has provided a major impetus for the production of theological-pastoral writings dealing for
the most part with Jesus’ humanity and its ethical implications to the contemporary world.
3
See Albert Nolan, Jesus Before Christianity (Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 2008), 27-36, 55-61 and Lk
4:1630.
4
Nolan, Jesus Before Christianity, 62-88.
 “The Companionship of Empowerment.”5 O’Murchu explains in behalf of
Crossan why “The Companionship for Empowerment” is closer than the
generally known “Kingdom of God” to what Jesus stands for and envisions as
expressed in his teachings and deeds. For one thing, Jesus spoke in Aramaic,
not Greek but the language of the gospels is Greek. He further points out
that “the parables, the Sermon on the Mount, and many of the witty, pithy
sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were originally spoken in Aramaic.
The English words ‘Kingdom of God’ are a direct translation from the Greek:
basileia tou theou. Aramaic renders a somewhat different construct based on
much more nuanced meanings.”6 He continues: “The Aramaic word for the
kingdom is malkuta, formed around the root kut, which carries strong
connotations of empowerment power with rather than power over.” Here,
“(e)mpowerment can be facilitated by a benign patriarchal ruler:
empowerment from the top down.” O’Murchu asserts that “it seems that
even this mediation of empowerment was not acceptable to Jesus. It had to
be empowerment through the process of mutuality. The pyramid had to
become a circle. Gospel empowerment was to be circular, mutual,
interactive, mobilizing diverse gifts, interpersonal, and lateral. It was not to
be linear in any sense.”7
Jesus’ brand of companionship is meant to empower those who are
socially excluded. [The Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP II)
equates empowerment with that unique gift the Filipino people has given to
the world: people power. People power, according to the document of the
local church, includes “greater involvement in decision-making, greater
equality in both political and economic matters, more democracy, more
participation”8].
Jesus’ companionship of equals runs contrary to what the earthly
kingdoms represent: kingship, royal privilege, and royal power over.11 A
contemporary Christian author is equally blunt: “the notion of the ‘Kingdom
of God’ was not in fact an endorsement of everything that kingship
represented.”9 The title given by the Christian Roman Empire, to the Imperial
Christ as the Pantocrator, the ruler of the universe, is a reversal of what the
Kingdom of God stands for, a turn-around from a Jesus who, in fact,

5
John Dominic Crossan, “Jesus and the Kingdom,” in Jesus at 2000, ed. Marcus Borg (Boulder, Colo.: Westview
Press, 1997), and idem, The Birth of Christianity (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998), 337 cited in
O’Murchiu, Christianty’s Dangerous Memory, 30.
6
O’Murchu, Christianity’s Dangerous Memory, 30.
7
O’Murchu, Christianity’s Dangerous Memory, 30-31.
8
PCP II, n. 326. A couple paragraphs after the document declares that “(e)mpowering people is . . . a
prerequisite in the renewal of the country. Without it, our destiny as a people would remain in the hands of the
few” (n. 329). 11 See Sebastian Kappen, Jesus and Society II (Delhi: ISPKC, 2002), 106-110.
9
O’Murchu, Christianity’s Dangerous Memory, 29.
 shunned kingly titles.10 Contemporary biblical scholarship reveals a Jesus
who “used the phrase in a highly equivocal and provocative manner. (He)
challenged kingship and all its inherent values; more shocking still he
denounced it to the point of ridicule and insignificance . . . . Jesus was laying
the foundation for ‘an upside-down Kingdom’.”11 The gospels offer us a
reliable faith-testimony about Jesus “not only by cataloguing his actions but
by recording his associations” with the powerless, poor, despised and
excluded of his society.12 Donald Senior notes that the gospels’ account of
the Jewish leaders’ hostile reaction to his social mixing with the excluded
“emphasizes the singularity of his behaviour.”13 Sebastian Kappen identifies
meal-fellowship with political contestation: “To inaugurate a new social
praxis is to come into collision with the ruling classes; all the more so in pre-
capitalist societies where religious and political power tended to fuse into
one. Jesus’ meals with social outcasts posed a serious threat to all who in
one way or another wielded power in Judaism.”14
Given the subversive actions of Jesus, he is not just a person who is
buutan (benevolent; good-natured) companion. He is definitely a prophetic-
‘countercultural’ human being who is not afraid to stand up for the poor and
the oppressed against any form of imperialism with its ‘power over’ ideology.
In Bisaya, this is being isog (brave; daring; assertive). The adjective is aptly
used to describe someone who dares assert or put up a fight with another
who has power over him/her. Or to dare enter into risky endeavors which
angels fear to tread. Such tactlessness and temerity, at times bordering on
recklessness, one may say, cost Jesus his life. He is buutan yes particularly
to those in the margins of the social order but his pagkabuutan is neither
‘neutral’ nor indifferent to the social injustices of his day. Jesus in the gospels
is not only buutan, he is nakiglambigit or nakigbisog (socially involved as in
standing up for the rights of the poor and the oppressed of his time) as well.
Take away the first six letters of the verb nakigbisog and what you have is
isog, a Cebuano qualifier which in English is rendered as “brave” or “bold” or
“daring,” and all that is synonymous to it. Someone does not dare
makigbisog if he is not isog. On the other hand, pagkaisog (being brave) may

10
See O’Murchu, Catching Up with Jesus: A Gospel Story for Our Time (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 2005),
716.
11
O’Murchu, Christianity’s Dangerous Memory, 30. See Donald B. Kraybill, The Upside Down Kingdom
(Scottdale,
Pa.: Herald Press, 1990); cf. Georges Casalis, “Jesus – Neither Abject Lord nor Heavenly Monarch,” in Faces of
Jesus: Latin American Christologies, ed. José Miguel Bonino (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1984), 72-
76; also Sebastian Kappen, Jesus and Freedom, 81-104; idem, Jesus and Society II (Delhi: ISPKC, 2002), 56-61,
106110.
12
Donald Senior, Jesus: A Gospel Portrait, new & rev. ed. (Makati: St. Paul’s, 1992), 63.
13
Senior, Jesus: A Gospel Portrait, 63 in 47-73.
14
Sebastian Kappen, Jesus and Society II (Delhi: ISPKC, 2002), 87 in 83-92.
 degenerate into an intensely strong dislike or hatred or a domineering
attitude/behaviour (see Jn 18:10). This is definitely out of Jesus’s character.
His selfless and heroic kind of pagkaisog is rooted in his pagkabuutan (again,
buut as one’s interiority).
As the gospels testify his pagkabuutan (compassion as Nolan would so
emphasize) is consistently demonstrated in his personal decision to be in
solidarity with the poor and the oppressed in this time of his society.15 Jesus’
pagkaisog spills over his denunciations of what his society represents: love of
wealth, love of prestige, love of power, exclusiveness.21 The kaisog that he
exhibits is not an outcome of a bruised ego or a self-serving desire for
recognition or power but an outpouring of his (righteous) indignation at
hypocrisy and social discrimination objectified in the social structure of the
day and subjectified by those in authority. His pagkabuutan is love- or
compassion-driven which seeks solidarity with the dispossessed and may rise
up righteously in anger when people are made to suffer by a de-humanizing
social structure.
If love is understood as solidarity, then love is not incompatible with
indignation and anger. On the contrary, if one genuinely concerned
about people as people and painfully aware of their sufferings, one
will necessarily be indignant and angry, sometimes very angry, with
those who were ruining themselves and others. . . . He was angry
with them for the sake of all the people including themselves. In
fact the surest proof that Jesus loved all people was this very
pronounced indignation with the enemies of everyone’s humanity,
their own included.16
An eloquent example of this is the behaviour Jesus displayed in the famous
episode so-called cleansing in the Temple. He got mad because the
moneychangers and merchants were raking in so much profit in the Temple
courtyard at the expense of the poor.17 His prophetic denunciation is
reminiscent of the prophet Jeremiah’s task as commanded by God to warn
worshippers that the practice of worship is inseparable from the practice of

15
Nolan claims that Jesus in the economic standards of his time belonged to the middle class. But what is
remarkable with him is that he “became an outcast by choice.” (Nolan, Jesus Before Christianity, 34). 21 Nolan,
Jesus Before Christianity, 67-68, 73-74, 83-87.
16
Nolan, Jesus Before Christianity 78-79.
17
See Nolan, Jesus Before Christianity, 124-130; cf. Crossan, God & Empire, 131-136 where the author re-
interprets the famous accounts of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem and the cleansing of the Temple. Both
events are neither ‘triumphal’ nor about ‘cleansing.’ The first is “actually an anti-triumphal entry, a calculated
alternative to imperial normalcy with a prophetic pedigree going back to an oracle added to the book of Zechariah
in the fourth century BCE” (132) while the second “a symbolic destruction of the Temple, and it too had an ancient
prophetic pedigree going back to Jeremiah at the end of the seventh century BCE” (133). Both dramatic
demonstrations are twin aspects of the same nonviolent protest against any collaboration between religious
authority and imperial violence (134).
 justice (Jer 7, 26). “Their use of divine worship to avoid divine justice had
turned the Temple into a safehouse, a refuge, a hideaway, a ‘den of
robbers’” (7:11).18
So Jesus the prophet is not buutan unto himself but his being such is
indispensably linked to the welfare of the other and others. He is isog in
situations where ang mga yanong tao (ordinary people) are discriminated
upon, or abused, where the 3Ps of possessions, prestige and power take
precedence over only one P (persons; people). Jesus’ kaisog in other words
springs forth from his deep-rooted (or buot-rooted) mercy and compassion
for the little ones. For this he was not afraid to foment further conflicts and
divisions in an otherwise conflictive and divisive situation. Juan Luis Segundo
asserts that “if we examine the most original preaching of Jesus, we cannot
help but find a conflict not only assumed but sharpened and fomented by
him. His statement that the kingdom of God is coming to make the poor
happy is not as innocent as it may seem.”19 Jesus was forthright in saying
that “his mission prompts him to provoke the most profound and cruel
enmities (Mt 10:34-36; also 10:21).20
Partaking of meal in the Companionship of Empowerment is inclusive,
thus, a powerful criticism against the wealthy who are wallowing in
extravagance while the poor can only enjoy the crumbs which fall from the
master’s table (Mt 15:27.21 Jesus’ eating with the crumb-takers is a tangible
expression of God’s solidarity with them and constitutes “a partial
anticipation of the New Humanity in which all the children of God will gather
around to sit at table with him in total love and self-giving.”22 This is “open
common table (commensality),” which has a prophetic significance in the
ministry of Jesus of Nazareth at the core of which is the Reign or Kingdom of
God.23 More sharply open commensality symbolizes and embodies “radical
egalitarianism, of an absolute equality of people that denies the validity of
any discrimination between them and negates the necessity of any hierarchy

18
Crossan, God & Empire, 133.
19
Juan Luis Segundo, An Evolutionary Approach to Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus of Nazareth Yesterday and Today,
vol. V (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1988), 89.
20
Juan Luis Segundo, An Evolutionary Approach to Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus of Nazareth Yesterday and Today,
vol. V (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1988), 89. 27 Segundo, An Evolutionary Approach, 89.
21
Filipino Catholics have actually a “strong food culture and . . . penchant for the image of the Last Supper.”
Culture and religion must partner to resist “the present economic and political system of the country (which)
caters for globalization in total disregard for the values of sharing that is inherent to Filipinos, specifically a
sharing between rich and poor that can be translated into policies which will assure that all, not just some, have
food to eat at table” (Ma. Marilou Ibita, “Dining with Jesus in the Third Gospel: Celebrating Eucharist in the
Third Word,” East Asian Pastoral Review 42 (2005): 25).
22
Sebastian Kappen, Jesus and Freedom (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1977), 101.
23
Diarmuid O’Murchu, Christianity’s Dangerous Memory: A Rediscovery of the Revolutionary Jesus (Quezon
City: Claretian Publications, 2012), 94 in 94-110; cf. C.S. Song, Jesus and the Reign of God (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1993), 24-29.
 among them.”24 For the cause of commensality Jesus would not mind being
called “a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinner” (Matt.
11:19; Mark 2:15-17).
Jesus’ table fellowship is an emphatic demonstration of where his heart
lies. The seemingly innocuous meals (he could dine with the rich) turned out
to be “a serious threat to all who in one way or another wielded power in
Judaism.”25 To cut the story short, the very insecure power holders plotted
to get rid of him, the Companion of Empowerment. So they made the
empowerer the scapegoat. Jesus paid the price, and the authorities had him
tortured and crucified on the cross, that “form of Roman execution not for
common criminals, or even outrageous ones, but for subversives who were
perceived as posing a serious threat to the establishment!”26 Still his
pagkabuutan was with him till the very end of his earthly life: “Father,
forgive them for they do not know what they are doing” (Lk 23:34).

Engaging in Dialogue as a Prophet

To be a prophet in dialogue implies assuming the three roles of

listening, proclaiming the Good News and denouncing evil realities. The
need to listen to the other partner in dialogue is predicated on the
understanding that God has already spoken to both or all the parties
involved in the dialogue before the dialogue has started. This being the case,
the first missionary task is to listen attentively to the message of God as
channeled through the other party or partner in dialogue.27
It needs much sensitivity and humility to understand the situation and
needs of others as well as a broad comprehension of the realities going on

24
John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (HarperSanFrancisco: HarperCollins), 71. The
author argues that a hierarchy-less egalitarianism is neither simply of contemporary democracy or an
anacharonistic retrojection of the past (see Ibid., 71-74). The gospel-based egalitarianism is founded on the
personal worth of every human being regardless of his/her social status as stressed by Jesus. He proclaimed the
good news that God is “Our Father,” hence all human beings are brothers and sisters to whom God is present
(Tissa Balasuriya, Jesus Christ and Human Liberation, Quest Series 48 [Colombia, Sri Lanka: A Centre for
Society and Religion Publications, 1981], 32 in 31-36).
25
Sebastian Kappen, Jesus and Society II (Delhi: ISPKC, 2002), 87 in 83-92.
26
O’Murchu, Christianity’s Dangerous Memory, 31. Hellwig writes: “The tragedy of Jesus begins . . . long before
his arrest, trial and execution. It begins when his listeners . . . balk at the simple totality of the leap of faith which
his teaching on the Reign of God demands. It does not seem to be the case that he was misunderstood, but rather
that he was understood too clearly. The implications of his teaching were revolutionary in a more radical sense
than even the courageous revolutionaries of this time were prepared to follow” (Hellwig, Jesus: The Compassion
of God, 86). Cf.
27
“Prophetic Dialogue,” In Dialogue with the Word, 2001, # 32 p.
28. c 47 “Prophetic Dialogue,” In Dialogue with the Word, 2001, 32,
p. 29.
 around. Listening also implies having the humility and openness to criticisms
and even purifications47 once the truth exposes to light all evil and negative
realities within and outside the person.
Denunciation of evil realties – following after the proclamation of the Good
News – is not the end of the process of dialogue. It must be followed by the
offering of “an alternative proposals” lest condemnation of evil will “remain
as sterile criticism.”28

Supplementary

[OPINION] A prophetic oracle against murderers

AUGUST 18, 2018

PABLO VIRGILIO DAVID

28
“Prophetic Dialogue,” In Dialogue with the Word, 2001, 35, p. 32.
Woe to you who call yourselves 'Christians' but do not care an iota about
the victims of extrajudicial killings

If the Israelite prophet Amos or Ezekiel were to prophesy in the

Philippines today, this is what he would say:
The word of the Lord came to me thus: "Son of Man, I appointed you as a
watchman for my people. Proclaim this oracle from housetops!"
Woe to you who call addicts "non-humans" deserving of death. Who
gave you the right to pass judgment on people who are sick? You claim
to care about the future of young people in this country. What future
awaits them if they end up dead on a street alley after a "legitimate police
operation"?
Woe to you who arrest and detain "drug suspects" without charges and
extort ransom money from them and their relatives! You call yourselves
"law enforcers" but have no regard for the law! You break into homes
without search warrants; you arrest suspects without arrest warrants, you
force "drug suspects" to work as assets and force them to point at other
suspects for summary execution!
Woe to you who drive the poor victims of drugs more deeply into poverty
and misery! You who neither respect human rights nor human lives. You
who trample on people's dignity because they are poor and are unable to
defend themselves! You who eliminate addicts like chickens infected with
avian flu – do you not care at all that your victims have wives who are
driven into despair and hopelessness, and children who end up like stray
dogs and cats in the streets, sniffing solvents to forget their hunger?
Woe to you who indiscriminately submit names of alleged "drug suspects"
to the police, or casually drop their names in drop boxes, knowing that the
"drug watch list" is also used as a "kill list"? Do you even realize that in
doing so you are practically pronouncing the death sentence of a fellow
human being? Listen! The voice that cries "Where is your brother?" now
confronts you and asks, "What have you done? Your brother’s blood cries
out from the ground!" (Genesis 4:10)
Woe to you who claim to be waging a war against illegal drugs but are
killing its victims instead of saving them! You who order law enforcers to
murder when their mandate is to protect the citizens and defend their right
to a safe and secure environment. Woe to you who blindly follow unjust
and unlawful orders! You who blindly obey the command to "kill drug
suspects if they resist arrest!" Woe to you who plant evidence in order to
justify murder!
Woe to you who pretend to care about the lives of your victims! You even
bother to bring them to hospitals only to have them declared "dead on
arrival"! Do you even get to sleep at night after writing a false police
report, claiming that they had fought back when God knows they did not?
Do you not have wives and children yourselves?
Woe to you funeral handlers who are in cahoots with the murderers. You
shamelessly arrive at the crime scenes, way ahead of the police! You who
circle around human carcasses like vultures, preying on their families
while they are still in a state of shock, charging nonrefundable down
payments and exorbitant funeral services! You low creatures who take
advantage of the helplessness of the widowed wives and orphaned
children of the victims, pushing them more deeply into the mire of debts
just so they could give their dead a decent burial.
Woe to you who just stand by and watch while the masked killers kill
their targets in broad daylight! You who dismiss the murder quickly with
a toxic whisper: "Must be another drug suspect!" You stare at them
sprawled on cold pavement and note the brains spilling out of their
shattered skulls. You stall the traffic by slowing down your vehicle to take
a close look, shaking your heads as you go your way. "It's just another one
of those low lives anyway," you reason within yourself. It's just one
criminal less, one of those elements your family is being "protected from."
You do not even bother to cover the cadaver with a blanket or some sheets
of newspaper. How long has it been since your consciences died?
Woe to you who would give "due process" to influential people who flood
the country with billion pesos worth of illegal drugs, you rotten vermins
who allow tons of shabu to pass through the green lanes of the Bureau of
Customs, you who just sneer at your accusers because you have all the
means to enjoy legal protection and remedy! Are not the poor who are
hunted like rabid dogs and cats in the slums, citizens of this country as
well? Are they not entitled to due process because they are poor?
Woe to you who cover your faces with bonnets, ski masks, or helmets,
and murder drug suspects like chickens! You who wrap up your victims in
plastic bags and packaging tapes and leave them still gasping for their last
breath. You who play god and even bother to hang on your victims' necks
what you killed them for, not minding at all that you have acted as
accuser, judge, and executioner – rolled into one? God knows who you
are!
Woe to you law enforcers who pretend not to know who these serial-
killing death squads are! They pass by your police stations, walk through
narrow alleys in big groups, drive vehicles with no plate numbers, abduct,
and murder "drug suspects". But you neither see them nor apprehend
them; you neither pursue them nor engage them in a firefight; you neither
investigate nor bring to a resolution any of the deaths resulting from their
 criminal operations. How will these criminals be caught if the ones who
should be pursuing them are partners in crime?
Woe to you barangay captains who are in collusion with killers! You who
turn off street lamps and CCTV cameras on cue, except when the killers
have failed to "coordinate" properly with you! How often have the
families of your constituents run to you asking for CCTV footages and
you've given the standard reply, "CCTV not functioning"?
Woe to you boatmen who, for a fee, drop the corpses of victims into the
North Harbor with weights tied around their bodies so as to keep them
from floating? You who have no qualms about literally following orders
to "fatten the fish of Manila Bay"? How can your consciences give you
sleep at all?
Woe to you who call yourselves "Christians" but do not care an iota
about the victims of extrajudicial killings, or even about priests who are
being murdered. You who can still afford to laugh even when your faith
is trampled upon and your God is called stupid! You blind fools! You
come to Church and hear the Word of God; you line up for communion to
receive the Lamb of God who died for sinners, but you tolerate the murder
of those whom he died for! Woe to you who call yourselves "shepherds"
but allow your sheep to be slaughtered.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abellana, Espiridion S., et al, The Mission of Prophetic Dialogue: Education

with a Mission Worktext, revised ed. (Cebu City: University of San Carlos
Press, n.d.)
Boadt, Lawrence. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction. Makati: St.
Paul Publications. 1993.

Iglesias, Yolanda and Salvatore Putzu SDB. The Promise: An Introduction to

the Old Testament. Makati: Word & Life Publications, 1993.

Komonchak, Joseph A., et al, eds. The Dictionary of Theology. Metro Manila:
Daughters of St. Paul, 1991.

Lanaria, Levy Lara. “Jesus as Mangingisda in the Shallow Waters of

Globalization.” Hapag 12, no. 1 (2015).

Nolan, Albert. Jesus Before Christianity. Quezon City: Claretian Publications,

2008.

O’Murchu, Diarmuid. Inclusivity: A Gospel Mandate (Quezon City: Claretian,

2016)

“Prophetic Dialogue,” In Dialogue with the Word, 2001, n. 32, n. 35.