没有走完的旅程

本来要坐今天下午一点的飞机前往底特律，去当地两家华人宣道会以及邻近的俄亥俄州一个半小时以南的多利多市一家宣道会三处七场布道与分享。不料美东再起特大暴风雪，所有去底特律的飞机班次已被取消。与东道主议定，我决定前往纽约曼哈顿唐人街坐通宵巴士。昨天下午吃过晚餐，就搭上通往纽约的火车。八点钟左右我抵达唐人街华人巴士候车室，买好票，就坐下来读神学书籍。候车室有三十多位乘客，大多是轮流辗转各地餐馆打工的青年人，据说他们基本来自中国南方同一个地方。其中有位年轻妈妈带上一个才三岁的小女孩，和小女孩的外婆一起前往底特律。十点刚过，巴士来到，我们鱼贯而入，按照号码就座。我被安排在车尾倒数第三排的位置上，发现离厕所和车底的废气排口噪音都比较近。巴士离开时，因路面滑，死火打火多次，带给此行一丝不详之兆。

我们离开荷兰隧道，巴士不快不慢地行使在新泽西的路上。大雪继续纷飞着。晚上十一点钟左右，巴士吃力地走上某座桥的上坡，不仅就死火了。折腾大约四个小时后(~3AM)，巴士仍在原地动弹不得。只好请拖车来帮忙。拖车费力十多分钟，才把巴士拉到桥面顶部地段。巴士司机担心回头路同样滑车状况而导致拖车于事无补，无理拒付150美元的拖车费。最后，一个女警过来斡旋，拖车的两位白人提高价码到375元。最后打电话请示巴士老板后，司机满不情愿地付了300元了结。

午夜前等候奇迹发生的那段时间，我先后打电话告诉妻子和底特律教会的谌牧师，巴士可能无法按期抵达目的地。他们直到今早才知事情的完整原委。邻座的几位得知我去底特律的目的是传道，问我有没有为车况祷告。我说已经为此祷告多次了。其中一位女士也是基督徒，她说也为此事祷告过。

早上四点多，我们在缺乏安睡后的身体困倦中回到唐人街的车站。迎接我们的是冷风、飘雪、滑街。艰难步行十余分钟后，我找到东百老汇街口的地铁站，不料此站刚巧在本周的深夜不停，布告建议乘客反方向离开曼哈顿，到布鲁克林后，再杀回马枪。我不得不照章办事。我从一个流浪汉睡觉的凳子附近售票机上买了车票，到达布鲁克林的一个车站，又向一个上五点钟早班的华人同胞请教地铁路线。我在人气不旺，相当冷清的地铁站等了大约四十分钟，其间还给谌牧师发了一个短信，告诉他此行未果。五点过后，我终于坐上A线，赶到纽约地铁总站。这段时间上早班的不多乘客，几乎都是有色人种。

地铁总站，正开始热闹起来。地上偶有席地打盹的人。或打着哈欠，或带着倦容的领带族，在我面前走过，估计有去华尔街上班的。六点零三分，驶往新泽西的火车启动了。六点半，离开目的站差十多分钟时，我打电话回家，希望妻子到站接我。但大雪天睡懒觉，天经地义，电话铃声果然没有吵醒睡美人。我想，干脆就打的回家吧，毕竟一夜飞雪，家里的车道一定积满了雪，妻子无法开得出车来接我。到Rahway站，广播通知我们前方一列火车在我要抵达的Metropark车站抛锚，我们需要停候若干时间。我抗拒极度的困顿状况，突然感觉车厢好冷。有位乘客到隔壁车厢走了走，发觉那边是一个温暖的世界。我也尾随而去。外面雪飘依然如注。过了数分钟的永恒，火车终于再次启动。广播通知我们马上下车的乘客，需要走到最前面两个车厢，才有可能下到月台上，因为月台停靠的大部分区段已经被抛锚的车占领了。等我们走到了头两个车厢间，广播又说话了，原来下一站根本无法停靠卸客，火车需要继续前行，我们下车后必须搭乘一站的回头路。

到了Metuchen站，广播又一次通知我们，出于安全考量，此站无法卸客，我们需要继续多走一站，到Edison站。火车可能为避免追尾撞车起见，需要尽量往月台前部停靠，故我们需要往尾部车厢走，并提醒我们有大约五分钟的时间完成步行。于是，我们几位又从车头匆匆步行到车尾。我们下了车，眼睛无法睁开，因为雪粒正密集地从天上倾倒下来。眯起眼，走完长长的积雪月台，再绕到对面，坐回头车。

我决定提前在Metuchen下车得了，反正打的的车程差不多。深一步浅一步，我来到车站边的出租车站。室内温暖多了。墙上的标语既窝心也睿智。比如，得到一位顾客得花数月，而失去一个顾客只需数秒。超凡(extraordinary) 与平凡(ordinary)的实质区别就在于多付出一点(a little extra) 。电话旁的接线员反复向顾客抱歉地解释，今天雪大，实在无法担保按时接人，需要一至一个半小时的误差时间。等了十多分钟后，有位头戴牛仔帽、脖系红布巾的老人，迈着碎步，缓缓走进门，问明我去哪，又步履蹒跚地领我去他的车。

我向老人解释此行十二三小时的诸多奇遇。他问我是否专职传道，信主多久，传了多少年。他听后感慨而喜悦。他说他常常鼓励儿子多认识主。他儿子的相片就挂在车里，很帅气的青年人。老人说圣经是他最爱读的书。我这才发现，他的驾驶盘左前方角落，有一小本被翻得明显卷角的圣经。他鼓励我要努力传道。我说理当如此。我想起最近一期时代周刊的封面故事，采访了百岁以上的人瑞。其中两位106岁祖父祖母级的老人给我留下深刻印象。那位祖母年轻时向往当宣教士，如今仍然每天读经。那位祖父如今每周仍在自己的教会讲道。

看来，没有走完的旅程，其实还不短。我在深深的积雪里走到自家门口，按响了门铃，迎接我的是吃惊的眼神。

Summary for “How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth”

Chapter by Chapter Summary for “How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth”

Summary for Chapter 1

Introduction: The Need to Interpret

To interpret is to get at the “plain meaning of the text” through enlightened common sense. But interpretation is not equal to simple reading, since it requires understanding of both the nature of interpreter and the nature of the Scripture.

A reader is an interpreter at the same time. One can easily read into the text the preconceived notion about particular words, phrases, and sentences. This is called eisegesis. But the real task of an interpreter is to exegete, bringing out the original authorial intent of the text.

The Scripture is the Word of God given in human words in history. This dual nature of both divine inspiration and human context makes the interpretation both challenging and necessary. The Bible as the Word of God has eternal relevance that demands our attention and obedience. The Bible written in human words in history has historical particularity that must be discerned. Thus, the Bible was written in many literature genres to which both general and genre-specific rules should be carefully applied. Also, the Bible was written to the people of biblical times whose vast separation from us both in temporal, cultural and historical settings creates the necessity to interpret correctly.

The task of interpretation comes at two levels: (1) exegetical analysis of the original intent of the biblical text as spoken then and there and (2) hermeneutical application of the text speaking to us here and now (note Fee and Stuart’s narrower and restricted use of hermeneutics in the book). Exegesis must be done while reading EVERY text by asking questions relating to both the context (historical and literary) and content, with help from good sources and tools.

Summary for Chapter 2

The Basic Tool: A Good Translation

All translations involve exegesis and are thus a product of the exegetical choices made by the translator. No translation can be perfect. Several good English translations should always be consulted to reveal consistency or nuances and difficulties with a particular verse.

Text is the first hurdle faced by translators. Is the Hebrew or Greek text early and closest to the original manuscript? KJV/NKJV translations are based on medieval, corrupted manuscripts and thus tend to be less reliable than other translations such as NRSV/NIV/TNIV based on much earlier manuscripts discovered later. Textual criticism is a science, an imperfect one that compares and contrasts manuscripts based on both external and internal evidences. External evidence concerns the quality and age of the manuscripts while internal evidence relates to the copyists and authors.

Using language that keeps or bridges the historical gap between then/there and now/here represents the next hurdle. To translate more literally (structural or formal equivalence) or less so (functional or dynamic equivalence) are two basic schools of translation theory. Literal translations include KJV/NKJV, NASB, and NASU. The latter translations (such as RSV/NRSV, ESV, NIV/TNIV, NAB, NJB, GNB, REB) still keep historical distance on all historical and factual matters but use modern expressions for matters of language, grammar and style. An extreme form of non-literal translation is free translation using paraphrase, such as NEB, LB and The Message. Fee and Stuart recommend TNIV/NIV, GNB/NAB, NRSV/NASU, and REB/NJB.

A few problem areas in Bible translations are identified and illustrated, including weights, measures and money, euphemisms, vocabulary, wordplays, grammar and syntax, matters of gender.

Summary for Chapter 3

The Epistles: Learning to Think Contextually

Epistles are not homogeneous in that not all conform to the six-part pattern: writer, recipient, greeting, prayer wish or thanksgiving, body of text, final greeting and farewell. Nevertheless, they are all occasional documents arising from and intended for a specific occasion during the first century. The occasional nature of epistles makes it difficult for us to second guess the questions and issues in the first century from the answers provided. This is like epistolary Jeopardy! It helps to bear in mind that epistles are not expounding systematic theology, but rather task theology for the occasional situations.

The first order of duty in exegeting epistles is to form a tentative but informed reconstruction of the historical situation that the epistle is addressing. Using 1 Corinthians as an example, Fee and Stuart suggest consulting Bible dictionary or commentary introduction to find out as much as possible about Corinth and its people. Then it helps to get the overall impression by reading and rereading through the whole book in one sitting. Jot down any notes or questions while reading. Draft a working outline for the book after reading. Reread section by section using at least two translations. List everything that tells something about the recipients and their problems. List separately key words and repeated phrases pertaining to the answer.

The next step is studying the literary context. Reread the section paragraph by paragraph and summarize each paragraph in a sentence or two about what and why. In the end, check if the exegesis is self-contained and self-sufficient, all deriving from the section in question. In handling problem passages, Fee and Stuart suggest four guidelines: (1) Historical situation may not be privy to us, so do not be dogmatic about any uncertainty; (2) Distinguish what is certain and what is not about a text; (3) Get the clear point despite some uncertainties; (4) Consult a good commentary.

Summary for Chapter 4

The Epistles: The Hermeneutical Questions

What do these texts mean to us today? We all do hermeneutics implicitly or explicitly, in ways influenced by our upbringing and theological commitment. We should avoid “getting around” certain texts that run contrary to our prior convictions.

Fee and Stuart set two ground rules for epistolary hermeneutics. Rule #1: A text cannot mean what it never could have meant to its author or original readers. Rule #2: Whenever we share comparable particulars (i.e., similar specific life situations) with the first-century hearers, God’s Word to us is the same as his Word to them.

Four problem areas are identified that warrant our careful attention. (1) The problem of extended application: Can we legitimately extend the principle of a particular text? Yes, if that is the intent of the text. (2) The problem of particulars that are not comparable: Is a clear principle articulated that transcends the historical particularity? If yes, apply it not randomly, but to genuinely comparable situations despite incomparable particularity. (3) The problem of cultural relativity: Distinguish the central core of the message from what is dependent on or peripheral to it, distinguish what is moral and what is not, distinguish what is uniformly taught and what is variant, distinguish principle and its specific application, distinguish many-option options from one-option option, distinguish first and 21^st century differences, and display Christian charity toward differences. (4) The problem of task theology: Be content with the limited understanding and avoid speculations, and do not try to find answer from a text not addressing a question of later time.

Summary for Chapter 5

The Old Testament Narratives: Their Proper Use

“Narratives are stories—purposeful stories retelling the historical events of the past that are intended to give meaning and direction for a given people in the present.” All narratives have three elements: characters, plot, and plot resolution. There are three levels to a narrative. The highest level is metanarrative (God’s grand scheme or universal plan). The second level is the story of God’s redeeming a people for his name, as embodied in the Old and New Testament. The lowest level is the numerous, individual narratives that make up the other two levels. OT narratives are not allegories or stories filled with hidden messages. They seldom teach moral lessons. They teach indirect and implicit lesson that is direct and explicit in Scripture.

Hebrew narratives have several characteristics. First, the narrator is comparably “omniscient” and responsible for the perspective from which the story is told. Second, Hebrew narratives are “scenic”, like moving clips of movie scenes. Third, characters in the scenes often appear in contrast or in parallel, with words and deeds. Fourth, dialogue is crucial to unlock the story plot and the character of the speaker. Pay attention to contrastive and repetitive dialogues. Fifth, notice the slowed pace in an otherwise fast moving plot. Sixth, to a hearing culture, narrative is often structured to enhance hearing by devices such as repetition and inclusion (e.g., chiasm and foreshadowing).

To figure out what is taught implicitly in the narrative, one should read between the lines. Implicit is not secret, it is embedded in the story without openly stated.

Several pitfalls are to be avoided: allegorizing, decontextualizing, selectivity, moralizing, personalizing, misappropriation, false appropriation, false combination, redefining.

Summary for Chapter 6

Acts: The Question of Historical Precedent

Acts is a book of history for the apostolic age. Fee and Stuart offer guidelines for finding out what and why in Acts. First, read the whole book in one sitting. Make note of observations and ask questions. Notice the natural divisions, based on ministries of Peter (chs.1-12) and Paul (chs.13-28) or on geographical expansion of the gospel: Jerusalem (chs.1-7), Samaria and Judea (chs.8-10), to the ends of the earth (chs.11-28). Alternatively, take hint from Luke’s brief summary statements in 6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:4; and 19:20.

Luke’s chief purpose in Acts was not so much in the biography of apostolic personalities or normative modeling in church organization, ministry and polity as the Holy Spirit-directed, radiant mission movement from Jew/Jerusalem-centeredness to gentile/worldwide phenomenon.

Does the apostolic church precedent become the absolute norm for the future church to follow? According to Fee and Stuart, the precedent in Acts does not serve as normative models, due to the incidental nature to the main point of the narrative and the ambiguity of details from narrative to narrative. One commonly held assumption is this: “Unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is only narrated or described does not function in a normative (i.e. obligatory) way—unless it can be demonstrated on other grounds that the author intended it to function in this way.” One must discern what is primary and secondary in doctrinal statements about Christian theology, Christian ethics, and Christian experience or practice. The latter is most often derived by way of precedent, not by direct teaching. For example, to baptize is primary, how and when to do it is secondary. What is merely recorded may be a repeatable pattern but is not the same thing as what is advocated or mandated, unless it is so intended.

Summary for Chapter 7

The Gospels: One Story, Many Dimensions

The difficulties with the gospels arise from the fact that Jesus did not write his own gospel and there are four canonical gospels that are not carbon copies to each other, but function as hermeneutical models to the first century churches. The gospels record some of Jesus’ doings and some of his sayings. They are biographical but not biography.

Fee and Stuart recommend some good outside readings that help to understand the historical context of Jesus in general. The specific context, however, is much harder to come by, due to the scanty description of such context in the gospels. The evangelists were apparently free to put various blocks (pericopes) of sayings of Jesus into whatever contexts in the gospels. Another, somewhat different, historical context relates the evangelists. What prompted each evangelist to write the respective gospel can be indirectly informed by the way he selected, shaped, and arranged his materials.

To exegete individual pericopes in their literary context, one must think horizontally and vertically. To think horizontally for a pericope means to study the parallels in the other gospels. To think vertically means to be aware of the historical contexts of both Jesus and the evangelist. How the evangelists selected, arranged and adapted Jesus’ life ministries helps to explain many of the discrepancies in the gospels. Fee and Stuart affirm that such selective and adaptive telling of the Jesus story is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Hermeneutical guidelines for epistles and historical narratives should be applied for the gospels. Also, “One dares not think he or she can properly interpret the gospels without a clear understanding of the concept of the kingdom of God in the ministry of Jesus.” This means eschatological thinking for the already but not yet nature of the kingdom of God.

Summary for Chapter 8

The Parables: Did You Get the Point?

Parables are a mixed bag, including true parables (a story having a beginning and end with a plot), similitudes, metaphors, similes, and sayings that may sound similar to allegories, although parables are not allegories. The story parables are intended to throw a punch to, or call forth a response on the part of, the first hearer who readily understands the points of the reference in the parable as in a joke. Our hermeneutical task is to recapture the punch of the parables in our times and settings.

The requisite keys to understanding the point of a parable (the punch line or intended response) are the points of reference—those parts of the story with which the original listener identifies. A helpful resource on the cultural background of the biblical times should be consulted to get the fine points of reference. For contextless parables, it is important to repeatedly reread the parable until its points of reference and original audience become clear. The kingdom parables all have an emphasis on one or both aspects of “already and not yet”.

To our modern day audience, we need to translate the same point of the parable into our own context. This may mean retelling the story in a parallel way that we identify with the new points of the references and feel the same feelings of the original listeners. In addition, just as Jesus used parables as vehicles to proclaim the kingdom, we need to immerse ourselves in the meaning of the kingdom in the ministry of Jesus and proclaim with urgency the impending judgment and salvation.

Summary for Chapter 9

The Law(s): Covenant Stipulations for Israel

The law(s) have various connotations, including (1) the specific laws (600+ of them), (2) collectively the laws, (3) the Pentateuch or the Books of the Law (almost all in four of the five books), (4) OT religious system, and (5) OT law as interpreted by the rabbis. The focus of the chapter is on uses 1 and 2. In addition to the Law, Pentateuch also contains narrative materials. The most difficult with the law(s) is the hermeneutical relevance to us today.

While Christians are no longer under the OT law, we should understand our relationship with it. Fee and Stuart give six guidelines: (1) The OT law is a covenant that brings blessings or curses. (2) The OT is not our testament. (3) Two kinds of old-covenant stipulations, Israelite civil laws and ritual laws, have clearly not been renewed in the new covenant. (4) Part of the old covenant (such as some aspects of the OT ethical laws) is renewed in the new covenant (e.g., the two chief laws of loving God and loving your neighbor). (5) All of the OT law is still the Word of God for us even though it is not still the command of God to us. (6) Only that which is explicitly renewed from OT law can be considered part of the NT “law of Christ”.

Apodictic laws (general, unqualified dos and don’ts) in OT are paradigmatic, examples rather than exhaustive. They are very comprehensive in spirit and are impossible to keep on our own. Casuistic (case-by-case) laws, the bulk of 600+ OT laws, are only applicable to some people in some situations, not to everyone in all situations. None of them are explicitly renewed in NT. Regarding slaves laws (Deut.15:12-17), God’s provision was gentle, loving and protective for the slaves while restrictive to slave owners. The food laws have protective purposes. The laws about the shedding of blood set a high standard for justice and due process for sacrificial atonement for Israel, foreshadowing the substitutionary sacrifice by Christ.

Summary for Chapter 10

The Prophets: Enforcing the Covenant in Israel

Prophecy is not all messianic or about future yet to come; it is mostly about the immediate future (i.e., our past) of Israel, Judah and other nations around them. Prophets are primarily not predictors of future but speakers for God to their own contemporaries. Longer prophetic books contain collections of spoken oracles often without chronological order or historical context. The historical distance makes it difficult for us to understand the prophets.

It is important to understand the function of prophecy in Israel. (1) The prophets were covenant enforcement mediators. (2) The prophets’ message was not their own, but God’s. (3) The prophets were God’s direct representatives. (4) The prophets’ message is unoriginal, but new wording—in each prophet’s own style and words—of the original Mosaic message from God.

Outside resources are helpful for our exegetical task. They include Bible dictionaries, commentaries, Bible handbooks, and “How to Read the Bible Book by Book” by Fee and Stuart. The tumultuous three centuries from Amos (ca.760BC) to Malachi (ca. 460BC) form the larger context for covenant enforcement mediation by prophets. The specific context of a prophetic oracle should be understood next, including the date, audience and situation. It is recommended to think oracles in isolation, just like one should think paragraphs in the Epistles. Also pay attention to the forms of the prophetic utterance, such as the lawsuit, the woe, the promise, the enactment prophecy, and messenger speech.

Two hermeneutical suggestions: (1) A caution: the prophet as foreteller of the future (usually our past). (2) A concern: prophecy and second or fuller meanings (sensus plenior) in NT different from in OT. Sensus plenior is a function of inspiration, not illumination.

Summary for Chapter 11

The Psalms: Israel’s Prayer and Ours

Psalms are prayerful words spoken about God or to God. They are rich in human emotions, be they joy or sorrow, gladness or anguish, hope or despair, praise or curse.

Psalms are poems—musical poems. Hebrew poetry has three distinguishing features: synonymous parallelism (the first line is repeated or reinforced by another line), antithetical parallelism (the first line is contrasted by another line), and synthetic parallelism (the first line is supplemented or completed by another line).

Fee and Stuart point out three additional features with Psalms as poetry. First, “Hebrew poetry, by its very nature, was addressed to the mind through the heart (i.e., much of the language is intentionally emotive)”. Thus, Psalms use more colorful language than a prose or narrative. It is prudent not to “overexegete” in thinking that synonymous parallelism says more than originally intended. Second, “The psalms themselves are musical poems”. Thus they are primarily not cognitive and doctrinal, but to appeal to our emotions and to evoke strong feelings. Third, “The vocabulary of poetry is purposefully metaphorical”. The key to correct interpretation is to look for the intent of the metaphor, not the literal meaning of a metaphor. For words not meant for a metaphor, however, correct and often literal exegesis is in order.

Psalms are also a form of literature. Fee and Stuart provide five cautionary notes. (1) Psalms are of several types. (2) Each psalm is also characterized by its formal structure. (3) Each type of psalm was intended to have a given function in the life of Israel. (4) There are also various patterns within the psalms. (5) Each psalm has its own integrity as a literary unit. This is to caution against taking any verse out of its context in a particular psalm.

Summary for Chapter 12

Wisdom: Then and Now

Wisdom is the ability to make godly choice in life. It has nothing to do with IQ. There are proverbial wisdom (Proverbs), experience-based speculative wisdom (Ecclesiastes and Job), lyric wisdom (Song of Songs) and psalm wisdom (Psalms). Wisdom is often expressed in poetry. Understanding wisdom literature takes wisdom to avoid abuses and misuses. Common misuses: reading these books in bits and pieces; misunderstand wisdom terms and categories as well as styles and literary modes; fail to follow the line of argument (especially in Job).

Proverbial wisdom emphasizes practical attitudes and behavior in everyday life. It is a brief, particular expression of a truth. It is inexact statements pointing to the truth in figurative ways. It may not be universally applicable. Fee and Stuart offer hermeneutical guidelines: (1) Proverbs are not legal guarantees from God but poetic guideline for good behavior. (2) Proverbs must be read as a collection. (3) Proverbs are worded to be memorable, not to be theoretically accurate. (4) Some proverbs need to be translated to be appreciated.

The Book of Job contrasts the worldly wisdom (from Job’s friends) with God’s wisdom. On the wisdom of Ecclesiastes, Fee and Stuart part hands in their understanding. One takes Ecclesiastes to be an expression of cynical wisdom, a kind of foil regarding an outlook on life that should be avoided. Ecc.12:13-14 is the final, corrective, orthodox warning. The other views the book more positively, as an expression of how one should enjoy life. The lyric wisdom in Song of Songs is not allegorical, but centers on human love between a man and a woman. When understanding Song of Songs, one should appreciate the overall ethical context, be aware of the genre, read it as suggesting godly choice rather than merely describing these choices, and notice the different values from those of our modern time.

Summary for Chapter 13

The Revelation: Images of Judgment and Hope

Revelation is a unique, finely blended combination of three literary genres: apocalypse, prophecy, and letter. As apocalypse, Revelation finds its taproot in OT prophetic literature, especially in Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, and parts of Isaiah. Yet, apocalypses are a form of literature in its own style. It is often presented in visions and dreams with cryptic and symbolic language. The images are often fantasy instead of reality. As prophecy, it is a word from God for the present situation of the seven churches under persecution. As letter, it has an occasional aspect.

To exegete Revelation, one is to seek the authorial intent. Do not overuse the concept of the “analogy of Scripture” in the exegesis of the Revelation; instead, find intrinsic clues to the book or its original recipients. With regard to images, images borrowed from OT or other sources may not have the same meaning. Images may be of various kinds, with fixed or shifting meaning. Intrinsic interpretation by John must be strictly adhered to. One should see the visions as a whole and not allegorize all the details. Pay attention to the echoes from OT. Downplay the chronological account of the future.

As before, historical and literary contexts are keys to understanding Revelation. The historical context is clear: The church was being persecuted by the state. The main themes are: tribulations will continue to be endured by the church; the wrath of God will be exacted on those that persecute the church. As for literary context, per Fee and Stuart, Chapters 1-3 set the stage and introduce the key characters, John, Christ, the church. Chapters 4-5 further help to set the stage. Chapters 6-7 begin the unfolding of the drama. Chapter 8-11 reveal the content of God’s temporal judgments on Rome. Chapter 12 is the theological key to the book. Chapters 13-14 describe the vengeance from Roman Empire, followed by their doom in Chapters 15-16. Chapters 17-22 conclude with a tale of two cities.

Some hermeneutical suggestions: (1) Pictures of the future are just that—pictures. Do not expect a literal fulfillment in every detail. (2) Certainty of God’s judgment does not mean “soon-ness”. (3) Temporal judgment is not simultaneous with eschatological, despite closeness to each other to the original readers. (4) Allow some ambiguity. (5) There are eschatological pictures yet to be fulfilled in our future (e.g., 11:15-19; 19:1-22:21).

Review of Brauch’s “Abusing Scripture”

One week after I finished reading Manfred Brauch’s book “Abusing Scripture: the consequences of misreading the Bible” (2009, Intervasity Press), I challenge myself to write down what stays in my mind. The next two paragraphs are what I can retrieve from my memory without reopening his book.

Summary

It is a fact that virtually everyone selectively reads the bible to their own liking or preconceived notion, sometimes with trivial consequences, but oftentimes resulting in gross misunderstanding and distortion of the biblical intentions and grave damage to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Notable cases of abuse that Brauch addresses in various chapters include the social/cultural justice versus personal salvation mandate of the gospel, the cross versus prosperity gospel, the obedience versus civil disobedience to the governmental authority (e.g., just versus unjust war), the traditionally held but biblically untenable, hierarchical inequality in gender (male-female, especially husband/wife), ethnic (us vs. them) and social (master-servant) relations.

To avoid such abuses of the scripture, Brauch has a unique and what I would call realistic and still “high” view of the Bible. He readily acknowledges that Bible has alternative and even opposing teachings on many of the controversial issues, due to both the progressive, incarnational nature of revelation and the discrepancy between divine authorial intent and human understanding and practices during and after biblical times. The singularly most important word to bear in mind during exegesis is context, be it literary, theological or historical. One must examine a passage in its immediate and larger literary, historical and theological contexts and sort out the overarching, superintending biblical intent against the backdrop of imperfect human modeling and praxis during both biblical times and the two millennia of church age. To Brauch, such overarching and overriding principles must hang on the biblical theology of Cross with Christ at the very center of all divine intentions. Any teachings that do not reflect the Christ intention cannot have the all-time, universal and trans-cultural authority even if recorded in the Bible. Personally, I find Brauch’s handling of the scriptural interpretation properly balanced, well reasoned, and expertly articulated.

In the remaining pages, I will review in greater details by reopening his book and rereading many of the important paragraphs. Instead of summarizing linearly according to his chapter arrangement, I choose to cut across his discourse throughout the entire book and outline his counterarguments against gender inequality, arguably the single most discussed abuse of Scripture in the book. This way, one can clearly see how Brauch builds up his arguments for this specific and pervasive abuse. Someone said that the gender inequality is the last bastion of human inequality. Throughout the book reading, one cannot help but come away with a strong sense of Brauch’s championing gender equality based on an egalitarian as opposed to a hierarchical relation.

Intention and incarnation

Before he dives into the various aspects of abuses, Brauch identifies two pillars of intention and incarnation as the backbone of responsible, trustworthy interpretation of the Scripture. According to him,

“Much of the abuse of Scripture is the result of not taking the intention of Scripture—both the intention of God’s inspiring action and the intention of the particular authors of the biblical documents—with full seriousness. A second reason behind the abusive interpretation and application of Scripture is a disregard for, or a diminution of, its incarnational character. For when the historical, cultural and situational contexts of particular biblical texts are not given their proper due—or when their redemptive intention is not adequately considered—the trustworthy reading and understanding of the biblical word is seriously compromised”

Brauch issues poetically poignant critique to a bifurcated gospel due to abuse of the whole gospel. The modernist-liberals’ vision “offers a social gospel without a personal savior; a gospel of political peace without the Prince of Peace; a gospel of bread for the world without the Bread of Life; a gospel of harmony in human relationships without a life-giving and life-transforming relationship with the Holy One of God”. On the other spectrum, the evangelicals’ half gospel emphasizes what is neglected, and neglects what is emphasized, by the social gospel.

Be not selective but be balanced with passages.

Brauch traces the abuse of biblical teaching on gender issue to selective reading of the scripture. People who favor a hierarchical relation between men and women would frequently quote passages such as Gen.2, 1Tim 2, 1Cor.11, 14, Eph. 5, Col. 3, Titus 2, and 1Peter 3. Brauch points out an apparent contradiction between 1Cor.11 and 14, which the advocates of hierarchical school of gender relation seem to ignore. Furthermore, there are other passages that teach a divine intent for gender equality, chiefly in the creation intent (Gen.1:26-28) and redemption intent (Gal.3:27-28). How to reconcile the disparate teachings is the task at hand. Burying one’s head in the sand, turning a blind eye, or inclining a deaf ear to opposing teaching is not a viable option, for doing that would constitute scriptural abuse and damage to our reputation as biblical truth seekers. Worse, misunderstanding of this gender issue will continue to subject one sex (female) to unnecessary oppression and hurtful injustice of inequality.

To avoid the abuse of selectivity, Brauch gives the following cautions: (1) Never be satisfied with only part of a loaf of the “biblical bread”. (2) Seek to hear and understand the whole counsel of God in Scripture on particular issues. (3) When confronted with tensions between biblical affirmations or apparently contradictory voices in Scripture, employ “the forest versus the trees” principle. (4) Compare specific biblical texts—that support a particular point of view, doctrine or practice—with the “redemptive movement” within Scripture.

To void the abuse of biblical balance, Brauch suggests us to: (1) Acknowledge the reality of having to balance complementary or multiple biblical perspectives. (2) Refuse to dictate in advance what Scripture reveals about any particular aspect of God and God’s dealing with human life. (3) Approach complementary biblical materials with a “both/and” rather than an “either/or” mindset. (4) Heed the biblical call to practice humility. (5) Give heed to biblical precedence! (6) Never separate components of Scripture.

Correctly decode the meaning of words.

The fact that Eve was created as a “helper” (ezer) suitable for Adam (Gen.2:18) is by no means suggestive of her, or future women’s, second class status, just as the prolific use of the same Hebrew word about God being the helper of his people in the Old Testament never means an inferior or subservient status of God. The word “adam” was also misunderstood to mean only man. The singular and plural forms of “adam” have been recognized now in many translations to mean man or mankind in general, not just Adam the first specific man, in Gen.1:26-27. Essentially, both men and women are co-bearers of God’s image. The poetic rendering of wife as the bone of bones and flesh of fleshes to her husband (Gen. 2 and Eph.5) connotes an intimate, “biunitarian” (a term I coined not long ago) relation that jointly beams the glory of the triunitarian God. A third word, “issabon” (pain, toil, sorrow) was often incorrectly translated in Gen.3:16-17 to mean greater culpability for woman than man, even though it signifies troubles of related kinds in life-giving (for woman) and life-sustaining (for man). A fourth word, “kephale” (head) was badly misunderstood, with modern meanings read back into the biblical text. A historical word study in Greek lexicon and Septuagint reveals that “source” or “origin”, rather than authority over (which is often translated in Greek as archon, megas, hegeomai instead), best describes the word kephale. Only six out of 180 Hebrew word “ros” is rendered as kephale in Septuagint, and even there, literal rather than metaphorical meaning is emphasized. The context of 1Cor.11 also affirms the meaning of source or origin, rather than authority, for kephale in describing the God-Christ-man-woman relations. Similarly, in Eph.4:12-16, 5:23, Col.1:18, 2:19, Christ was referred to as the kephale (source and origin) of the church. A fifth and final word, “hypotasso” (submission), used to describe male-female relation in Eph.5:22-24; Col.3:18; 1Tim2:11; tit.2:5, 1Pet. 3:1-5, is best understood as self-giving in serving. Eph.5:21 is clear about the mutuality aspect of such hypotasso.

To avoid the abuse of words, Brauch has the following advice: (1) Remember that the biblical revelation was given within the confines of human language. (2) Recognize that “hearing” the biblical revelation includes the possibility of understanding and misunderstanding. (3) Be attentive to the range of meanings particular words have in the original and translated languages. (4) We must take seriously the contexts in which words are created and used. (5) Linguistic tools and resources are critically important to avoid the abuse of words.

Apply literary-theological contextual analysis.

Brauch believes that Genesis 1:26-27 offers a general, overarching biblical principle about the male-female polar complementarity, while Gen.2 illustrates “its particularity in the man-woman relationship (Gen.2:18-23) as the grounding for the covenantal relationship of marriage (Gen.2:24-25)”. Furthermore, the depiction of woman’s creation from the man (Gen.2:21-22) as “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen.2:23) reaffirms the con-substantial essence and equality before God and with respect to each other. The analysis so far dismantles the foundation for a functional or essential inequality between men and women. In light of this understanding, the unfortunate fallen condition that describes male-female in Gen.3 is not a norm but a drastic distortion and departure from the aforementioned overarching biblical principle about male-female relation. The redemption by Christ includes a restoration of male-female relation, as well as Jew-Gentile, slave-free relations in the “Christian Charter of Freedom” (Gal.3:27-28), back to the original divine intent for all mankind. Sadly, Christian church has not lived up to this ideal and has done unjust violence to women and slaves over the centuries, largely due to misunderstanding of the biblical teachings about these passages and the meaning of power. Of the five kinds of power (exploitive, manipulative, competitive, nutrient and integrity power), nutrient power exercised for the other and integrity power exercised with the other align well with the redemptive purpose of Christ in human relations, best exemplified by Christ (Mk 8:27-38; 9:30-37; 10:32-45; Phil. 2:3-8).

Brauch offers some important guidelines to avoid the abuse of literary and theological contexts. (1) Ask “what is its context”. (2) Analyze, first, the immediate literary and then the larger context (from verse, to paragraph, to chapter, to book). (3) Resist the temptation to bring preconceived notions to what a text should mean. (4) Ask “What would the implied audience of this text, when it heard or read the text within the author’s context, have heard?” (5) Interpret any text from the perspective of the larger literary and/or theological argument of which it is a part.

Understand historical situation and cultural reality.

Basically, discern what is historically and culturally relative and what is universally abiding and authoritative. This is not only inevitable, legitimate, but crucial and necessary. Brauch candidly acknowledges that we Christians all implicitly and explicitly ignore some of the biblical instructions or injunction while emphasizing others. This, in fact, has biblical precedents. Examples of such apparent disharmony due to historical/cultural relativity include the blessed faith versus suffering faith, mandate for versus rebuke against sacrificial offerings, “clean” versus “unclean”, Sabbath observance, retributive justice versus mercy and forgiveness. Brauch believes that Christ is the litmus test to the discernment between what is historically and culturally relative and what is universally abiding and authoritative. This is so because Christ fulfills all the Scriptures about him and he is the consummation of all Laws. In Brauch’s words, “in the written Word of God, whatever blossoms in the light of the cross has abiding authority for Christians faith and life and mission; and whatever withers in the light of the cross is culturally and historically relative”. When applied to man-woman relationship, “the exercise of power over and control of the other withers, but the subordination of each to the other in self-giving love blossoms”.

Another criterion or “hermeneutical filter” that is helpful for our discernment of relativity versus absolute authority lies in Jesus’ words and acts. It boils downs to: what would Jesus say and what would Jesus do? According to the gospel record, Jesus modeled a radically different relation with men and women, often treating women with respect and dignity usually accorded to men then.

A third criterion is prophetic anticipation and apostolic implementation during redemptive movement from God’s vision (articulated by contrary prophetic voices) to the embodiment of that vision in the Word, to the (often imperfect) implementation of that vision in the life and mission of the community of Jesus’ disciples. Brauch explains,

“In seeking to discern those elements in Scripture prior to Jesus that are historically-culturally relative, the continuity between the prophetic voices that challenged the faith tradition and the lived and spoken words of the Word is very significant. For while contrary prophetic voices give a tentative hermeneutical filter and place question marks over the legitimacy of certain elements in the tradition, the confirmation of those contrary prophetic voices by the person, words and acts of Jesus remove the question marks and replace them with exclamation marks.”

Thus, all texts that stand between the declarative, creational vision and the incarnational embodiment of that vision, and that reflect a reality falling short of the vision, do not have abiding authority. Likewise, the partial or limited implementation of the vision in apostolic teaching and ecclesiastical practice does not have normative authority. For example, the old conviction of the over-under status of the master-slave and man-woman relationship in a fallen condition is no longer valid (Gal.3:28), a new creation in Christ (2Cor.5:17) now emerges to reflect the original intent of creation: all human beings are created in the image of God. The Lord Jesus made himself a servant, challenging all to imitate him (John 13:12-15). The New Testament community of God implemented, albeit imperfectly, some of this vision, treating humanely slaves regarded as brothers and sisters in the Lord (Eph.6:9; Philem. 15-16).

Brauch summarizes eight points in avoiding the abuse of historical situation and cultural reality: (1) Scripture is communicated in particular, changing historical and cultural contexts. (2) Scripture can transcend a historical, cultural context, be limited to that context and/or be misunderstood in many contexts. (3) We must distinguish between what is relative and what transcends all contexts. (4) All Christians, from the first century to the present, have been and are engaged in this discernment process. (5) These pitfalls can be avoided if we ground our discernment in biblical precedent. (6) Precedents found in Scripture: (i) Christ is the center; (ii) Jesus’ words and acts are normative and paradigmatic; (iii) There should be concurrence between prophetic anticipation and apostolic implementation. (7) We must judge the vision in Scripture as having normative authority rather than its limited implementation. (8) The cross of Christ is the ultimate hermeneutical key.

The Rich Man and Lazarus

Source and parallels

This parable is unique to Luke (16:19-31) among the four gospel books in the New Testament. This is not to say that there are no parallels about the great fortune reversal between this life and afterlife in extrabiblical, non-canonical and canonical sources. In fact, Snodgrass detailed no less than twenty such sources from early and later Jewish writings as well as Greco-Roman writings. The most cited example includes an Egyptian folktale about Setme whose son Si-Osire soothes his grief over a poor man’s unremarkable burial with an otherworldly vision of fortune reversal [1-6]. A Judaism story of note casts the fate of a rich tax collector named Bar Ma‛jan and a poor teacher of the law in a similar light [2, 3]. Another Jewish legend tells of a rich and godless woman in Hades who relays via a boy a message of repentance to the living husband [4]. Intertestamental writings such as 1 Enoch 103:5-104:6 and 4 Ezra 7:75-99 also warn rich sinners and comfort the righteous poor with blessing reversal in afterlife [1]. Several “dead man talking” tales from Greco-Roman writings recount the greater humiliation and punishment of the rich after death [1]. Later Jewish writings (e.g., Exod. Rab.31.5 and Midr. Ps. 46.1) promise the poor righteous with posthumous reward while castigating the wicked rich to eternal torment [1].

Another apparent parallel was discussed in relation to the Lazarus resurrection story in John 11 [1, 4, 5]. By all accounts, the two Lazarus are fortuitous namesake but not the same person and any illusion to establish such a connection is without merit and, at best, forced [1, 4, 5]. The connection between Abraham and Lazarus (meaning Eliezer) in the parable and Abraham and his servant Eliezer in Gen.15 is more credible and well known to the Jewish audience [3].

What to make of such parallel writings about fortune reversal in afterlife? While it is certainly within the realm of possibility that some tales may be borrowed and adapted from another, it is equally, if not more, plausible that human heart is universally wired by God to view life’s fortune and misfortune with a dialectical perspective. There are a number of canonical passages that teach the reversal of various sorts [1]. Jesus himself was a master communicator in teaching the reversal between the humble and haughty, first and last, leader and servant, plentiful and paltry, gain and loss, weeping and laughing, and poor and rich. There is reason to think that this refashioning of prevalent folktales was done by Jesus himself and that an allusion to Jesus’ own death and resurrection is unmistakable [4].

As a side note, there is a cyclical fortune reversal in the Chinese legend about a certain man living near the country’s border. One day, his son lost their only horse. The villagers came to console the family. But the old man cracked wise in saying that such a loss can turn into a gain of blessing. Before long, the lost horse returned with another, wild horse, instantly doubling the family’s horse stock. Thus the well-wishing villagers came to congratulate the family. But the old man cracked wise gain by saying that such a sudden gain of fortune may spell misfortune. Before long, the son fell off the wild horse and broke one of his legs. The compassionate villagers gathered at the house and listened to what the old man had to say this time. It may not be a bad thing either, thus said the old man. Before long, the country was at war with an intruding army and many young men had to be enlisted to fight the war. But the man with a broken leg was sparred of enlistment and potential casualty.

Parable pairs

In general, Luke’s account of Jesus’ parables seems to have a favorite theme on money and wealth, often contrasting the rich and the poor. Examples include the rich fool (Luke 12:13-21) and the parable pairs in Luke 16, namely, the unjust steward (Luke 16:1-13) and the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). While Luke apparently has arranged many of Jesus’ parables without much regard to the historical and ministerial context (e.g., the odd verse 18 in the middle of Luke 16), it is agreed by many scholars that the two parables in Luke 16 are like a parable pair teaching prudent handling of wealth with both positive (first parable) and negative example (second parable) [1, 2, 4, 5]. Luke’s frequent portrayal of wicked rich men should not be misconstrued as his decry of personal wealth, but instead, taken as his or rather Jesus’ emphasis on the proper handling of wealth. Luke’s subsequent account of Zacchaeus in Luke 19, the rich tax collector at Jericho, also bears out this point [2].

Snodgrass points out that several “hooks” exist between this parable and that of the Prodigal Son, not to connote the same meaning but to assist the listeners: the distress desire by Lazarus and the prodigal, the contact with impure animal (dog or pig), celebratory meals after the prodigal’s return versus the rich man’s daily extravagant feast, Abraham with Lazarus versus the father of the prodigal, five brothers of the rich man versus the elder brother of the prodigal [1]. Notwithstanding the parallels, it is difficult to see this parable and the Prodigal Son as pairs, despite their close literary juxtaposition (Luke 15 vs. 16). It is more plausible, however, that the three parables of lost sheep, lost coin and two lost sons in Luke 15 form a trio of parables on the lostness of mankind [1].

Context

Other than the oddly placed verse 18, the intervening verses 14-17 between the parable pairs in Luke 16 are the immediate context. According to Snodgrass, “the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus demonstrates the validity of both vv.14-15 and vv.16-17. What human value so highly—money and luxurious living—is abominable to God [vv.14-15], and the Law and the prophets are still valid for the rich man’s brothers, even though the kingdom has arrived” [1]. Evidently, the audience of Jesus include not only his disciples (verse 1), but others as well (such as the money-loving Pharisees, verse 14). The larger context of Jesus ministry in Luke’s account has a lot more diverse listeners, including, for example, the tax collectors and sinners (15:1), many people (14:25), a prominent Pharisee (14:1), passers by (13:22), many thousands (12:1). The religious and the powerful of the day are often the foes of Jesus, whereas the underprivileged, the social outcast, and the despised sinners of the time are often friends of Jesus. Thus, Luke’s abridged version of the beatitude (6:21-26) pits the poor against the rich, the hungry against the well fed, the weeping against the laughing. It is in this ministerial context of Jesus and the literary, parabolic context with the unjust steward (16:1-13) that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus teaches the biblical wisdom of prudent handling of wealth.

Dynamics of the Parable

Snodgrass believes this parable is one of the four two-stage narrative parables [1]. Bock divides the parable into three parts: this life, afterlife, the painful plea [2]. Others question if the second part, afterlife dialogue (vv.27-31) belongs to the original parable or a post-resurrection, Lukan composition [3, 5]. The argument that vv.27-31 is either Jesus’ addition to a traditional story of Egyptian or Jewish origin or a later Christian addition alluding to the resurrection of Jesus recorded in Luke 24 stems partly from the disbelief in resurrection by Jews [1]. Nevertheless, there does not appear to have solid reason not to attribute this whole parable as a unit to Jesus [4], especially since the non-Lukan vocabulary in the parable suggests a pre-Lukan origin of both parts [6]. For example, the Freer manuscript uses “go (apelthe) from the dead,” not “rise (anaste) from the dead” [1]. Regardless of the authenticity of the Freer reading, Snodgrass believes the idea of return from the dead fits the story pattern well, even though the parable actually rejects the possibility of a return from the dead [1]. Besides, v.26 is already in the middle of the dialogue between the rich man and Abraham [1], making vv.27-31 an integral part of the parable [1].

Curiously, this parable stands out as one identifying a character’s name (Lazarus). Lazarus is a shortened version of Eliezer (or Eliazar, Eleazar), meaning God helps. Perhaps the name Lazarus carries a strange irony in that the man whose God is supposed to help lives a sickly, poor pauper’s life. One can almost hear the chuckle from the Jewish audience surrounding Jesus. Of course, the reversal of Lazarus’ fortune after death testifies to the faithfulness of God as his ultimate helper. The stark contrast between Lazarus and the rich man cannot be greater. The pauper Lazarus whom God helps was full of sore (but unlikely a leper who would be forbidden from begging in public), probably crippled so that he had to be placed by others at the gate of the mansion of the rich man who was feasting luxuriously in purple clothing and fine linen undergarment. The sickly pauper’s only desire was to be fed with some of the bread used as “finger towel” [2]. Yet no mercy came from the rich man. Even such disposed food waste stayed far from him. Scavenging dogs that fed on such bread came to lick the juices that ooze from his sores, intensifying his painful agony with hunger and making him ceremonially unclean. Likely in the derisive laughter of the unmerciful rich man and his friends, the silently suffering Lazarus breathed his last breath and died the death of an empty-stomached and bony-skinned sore loser. The rich man died too as his good life came to an inevitable end, but was properly buried in an extravagant pomp befitting any rich man of the day. Lazarus’ misfortune was beginning to turn, with his angel carrying him to the bosom of his forefather Abraham, a symbol of blessedness. Death became a watershed for both Lazarus and the rich man, as the fortune reversal played out to Lazarus’ favor and the rich man’s disfavor.

One commonly recognized uniqueness with this parable is its prominent contrast between this life and afterlife [1-6]. This parable is notably a parable of great reversal: Lazarus’ misfortune and the rich man’s good fortune in this life changed positions in the afterlife. Given the irreversible fallout from this to next life (how we live in this life has a deterministic impact on the next), I would call it the “irreversible reversal”. Recognizing it is Lazarus who rests in the bosom of Abraham, the rich man cries out to Abraham, asking, rather selfishly [3,4], for the favor to send Lazarus over so that Lazarus the pauper-turned-servant may cool his flamed tongue with a drop of water. What an ironic contrast! Lazarus’ plea for a bread crumb was mercilessly unheeded for. Now the rich man’s plea for a mere drop of water is justifiably ignored. Realizing the inescapable fate of separation and suffering, the rich man, out of his limited compassion [2], or possibly selfish and narrow-minded kindred care [1], pleads with Abraham to dispatch Lazarus to travel back to the earthly world and warn his five living brothers not to follow his footsteps. This seemingly altruistic plea based on the rich man’s false premise that dead man walking is a superior witness than the Scripture [2] is again rejected by Abraham, due to the sufficiency of the Scriptural testimony embodied in Moses and the prophets. The rich man’s final plea may also be a tacit complaint that he was deprived of adequate knowledge despite the well-heeled warnings from Moses and prophets [1].

Interpretation

Of the four options for interpretation, Snodgrass favors an early church exegesis and most modern studies centering on the parable’s moral impact with its denunciation of the wealthy who neglect the poor [1]. Discredited options relate to allegorical interpretation about Jews and Gentiles relation, Jesus’ ministry among the sinners and warning for Pharisees, or reversal coming with the kingdom’s advent [1].

Bock thinks the parable has four points: “(1) the treatment of people in this life, (2) the consequences of being callous to the needs of the poor, (3) the permanence of judgment, and (4) the inability of a person not hearing the Scripture to respond to God’s action in the world—even miraculous action” [2].

Others (Marshall, Fitzmyer, Stein) believe the two-part parable has two themes: the reversal of fortune and the sufficiency of the Scripture [3, 4, 6]. It teaches the prudent use of material wealth (Luke 16:9; 6:20, 24; 16:15) and salvation involving a reaction of obedient faith to the Word of God (similar to Rom.10:5-10) [4]. To Nolland, the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus dovetails nicely with the earlier parable (Luke 16:1-13) in teaching the use and abuse of riches [5].

Other Elements

There are some nuances in the parables that invite further discussion. What is the exact locale and nature of abode in afterlife (be it intermediate or final state)? What is the difference between Hades and Abraham’s bosom? What exactly has caused the different fate between Lazarus and the rich man? How much of the graphic description is real or symbolic?

To say one way or another about afterlife is presupposing that one knows something about it. To remain agnostic or ambiguous about it is another option. Snodgrass cautions that it would be foolish to ignore the parable’s relevance for future eschatology as it would be to think it presented a picture of the actual state of affairs [1]. The equivalent of hell is Hebrew word sheol, Greek word geenna or Hades. Sheol is a place of the dead, such as the grave, or simply death. Hades, Greek word for sheol in LXX, refers first to the god of the underworld and then to the place. Sometimes both the wicked and the righteous are said to be in Hades (see Acts 2:27 in describing Jesus being in Hades after death). Other times, Hades is a temporary place of internment for the dead until judgment day. In our parable here, it seems to suggest a place where judgment is already rendered and punishment is taking place. But then, the fact that five brothers are still living while the rich man is in Hades indicates the intermediate nature of the place, even though the final fate of both the rich man and Lazarus is already sealed upon death [1]. It is unclear if both Lazarus and the rich man are in different parts of the same Hades, but it is clear that wherever they are, there is an unbridgeable chasm separating them [2]. A related word, geenna, derives from the Hebrew ge hinnom, the valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem. Geenna is symbolic of the place of punishment. Abraham’s bosom may symbolize intimacy, meal setting, or euphemistically, being dead as the blessed [5].

The fact that the rich man can feel the torment and see Lazarus and converse with Abraham appears to suggest at least that there is genuine mental and cognitive awareness of one’s whereabouts and situation, although it may not be an actual description for the future life [1]. Such mental anguish experienced by the rich man serves as a warning to the living that how we live in this side of eternity has a great deal to do with how and where we shall spend in the other side of eternity. The present life is deterministic of our afterlife and there is an unbridgeable chasm between the blessed and the cursed [2]. That is indeed a very powerful statement of the parable.

Exactly why Lazarus gets to the bosom of Abraham, symbolic of the blessedness in afterlife, is less clear than why the rich man gets the shortchange of his fate. One can speculate about the reason but the parable simply does not say it [1]. The rich man’s failure to help the poor is an indictment for his lack of obedient faith in God’s Word. This parable continues to indict the rich Wall Streeters who lavish large sums of bonus on themselves while managing or mismanaging the collective monetary assets of the Main Streeters today. And both Main and Wall Streeters largely ignore the plight of the homeless, street-dwellers. Lazarus is still at the gate [1]. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is as clear today in the present economic upheaval as two millennia ago when Jesus first spoke of it.

References

[1] Snodgrass, Klyne R. Stories with Intent: a comprehensive guide to the parables of Jesus. Eerdermans, 2008.

[2] Bock, D. L. Luke 9:51-24:53. BECNT. Baker. 1996.

[3] Marshall, I. H. The Gospel of Luke. NIGTC. Eerdmans, 1978.

[4] Fitzmyer, Joseph. The Gospel According to Luke. V.2. Doubleday. 1985.

[5] Nolland, John. Luke 9:21-18:34.WBC, Word. 1993.

[6] Stein, Robert. Luke. NAC. Boradman, 1993.

送你，我底朋友

你说你意已决。
这一次，玩真的，
是远行。

我不是你的母亲，
没办法为你织衣。
只好，戴上老花镜，
垒字成为墙垣。

我在墙内
望你离去的步履
是那样矫健而肯定。

你在墙外，
向着西沉的太阳走，
留下身影给我。

我用手去抓，
空空的感觉。

影子
被我拉得越来越长。
但你
执意不归。

下雨了，
我仍在墙内
等候你回眸
或者灿烂的一笑。

天际的彩虹，
在你的头上升起。

（2010/2/5美东暴风雪前的黄昏疾笔）