The Beautiful, Frustrating Truth

By: Adriana R. Hanson

Introduction

Luke, in Luke 16:19-31, claims that inheritors of God must understand Jesus as

the fulfillment of the Old Testament, messianic prophecies and react accordingly.

Through this exegetical paper, I hope to show that this passage is not about the use or

misuse of wealth, but rather about how correct eschatology leads to correct ethics. The

understanding that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Torah, is the foundation to correct living.

This paper will begin with a discussion of the structure of Luke 16:19-31, followed by

how the passage relates to its neighbors. Then I will address the two major literary

devices used by Luke to prove Jesus’ role in the redemptive narrative as the fulfillment;

this will then lead us to question Luke, through Jesus, through Abraham means by

“Moses and the prophets.” This paper will conclude with a discussion about how Luke

has called us to apply the true knowledge discovered within this complicated and

beautiful text.

Context and Structure

Luke 16:19-31 is a narrative passage. This means that it is written in a story

format and follows the same basic structure: setting, characters, and plot (conflict, action,

and climax). Because this is a parable (a simple story used to impart some kind of

message or lesson), it is not set in any real, earthly place. We know that the first half of

the story takes place on Earth around the rich man’s house. Less than halfway through the

story, the setting switches to “Hades.”

Hanson 1

There are four main characters within this story: Lazarus, the rich man, Abraham,

and the rich man’s five brothers. Lazarus, the rich man, and the brothers are flat

characters. But Abraham round; he surprises us by rejecting the man’s plea for a heavenly

messenger for his brother’s salvation, claiming in vv. 31 “If they do not listen to Moses

and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.”

The narrative as the book as a whole, and the immediate narrative surrounding it,

is nearing Passion Week where Jesus fulfills the Old Testament prophecies; this tells us

that we are near and within the redemption phase of the redemption narrative. The setting

within Luke takes place in Galilee, Samaria, and Jerusalem (at varying points in the

story). Luke 16:19-31 takes place at the beginning of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. This

point signifies a switch in the Lucan narrative. At this point, the Pharisees have begun to

plot Jesus’ death, and every confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees escalates the

tension between them.

The Pharisees were scholars that prided themselves on their knowledge of the

Torah. They spent their entire lives studying the scriptures. They were considered the

most righteous of men. They also relied very heavily on public support. Jesus was a loose

canon in their eyes. He was drawing large crowds and teaching with “authority.” The

Pharisees on the Sabbath did not teach authoritatively because that, in their eyes, was

blasphemy. Jesus, the great radicalizer, was ushering in a whole new order that threatened

their current way of life. “The parables on which Jesus’ present instruction build were, in

the Lukan co-texts, delivered as challenges to Pharisees and legal experts.”1 This

particular passage is Jesus’ “indictment against [the Pharisees]: in neglecting the poor,

1 Green, Joel B. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke, (William B. Eerdman’s Publishing co.: Grand Rapids/Cambridge, MI:1997), 612.

Hanson 2

2

they have disregarded the will of God so clearly expressed in the scriptures.”2 This

accusation against the Pharisees of breaking or failing to follow the law would have only

added fire to the flames.

The conflict of this story, the rich man’s refusal to “hear Moses and the prophets,”

was not obvious, but it became evident upon discovery of the climax. Joseph A. Fitzmyer

said, “the stress [the climax] of the parable lies in the second part [of the passage].”3

Fitzmyer goes on to say, “Jesus’ words are not meant as a ‘comment on a social problem,’

but as a warning to people like the brothers of the rich man. They face a crisis in their

lives and do not realize it.”4 By saying this, Fitzmyer suggests that the climax of the

passage is vv. 29, “they have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.” The Brothers

do not hear Moses and therefore, will not repent. We know that the rich man did not listen

to Moses and the prophets both by the fact that he is now in “torment” and by how he

lived. One of the words used to describe the rich man is “splendor” (“lampros” in Greek),

or “sumptuous living.”5 This word is only used once in the New Testament. The word

implies a form of consumption. Here the rich man is living a life of “conspicuous

consumption without regard for a poor man, in spite that this beggar who resides at his

gates is quite literally his neighbor.”6

The scene is resolved after the rich man says that if someone returns from the

dead, his brothers will “repent.” Abraham disagrees and resolves the scene by saying, “if

2 Green, The New International Commentary, 610.3 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Anchor Bible: The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV), (Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.: New York, NY:1985), 1128.4 Fitzmyer, The Anchor Bible, 1128.5“Strong’s #2988,“ Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, BibleTools.com 6 Green, Joel B. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke, (William B. Eerdman’s Publishing co.: Grand Rapids/Cambridge, MI:1997), 599.

Hanson 3

3

they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone

should rise from the dead.”

With this understanding, it is now important to comprehend how Luke

16:19-31 fits in with the surrounding passages. After reading through Luke 16 and

17 at least 50 times, I made an amazing realization. Luke 16:1-17:20 is a chiasm:

A Luke 16:1-13 – The Parable of Dishonest Manager

B Luke 16:14-18 – The Pharisees and the Law

C Luke 16:19-31 – The Rich Man and Lazarus

C’ Luke 17:1-6 – Temptations to Sin

B’ Luke 17:7-10 – Unworthy Servants

A’ Luke 17:11-20 – Jesus Cleanses the Ten Lepers

To prove this, I will briefly summarize the conflict of each passage. In Luke

16:1-13, The Parable of the Dishonest Manager, Jesus tells the story of a manager

who, after being discovered of mismanagement, acts “shrewdly” in order to

guarantee that people would welcome him into their dwellings after he is fired. He

acts generously to his master’s debtors by decreasing their debts, so that they might

think fondly of him and welcome him into their home.

But what should attract our attention is that the steward [manager] has shrewdly appraised the situation in which he found himself, and acted to save himself. The challenge is for us to have the shrewdness to recognize the opportunity that exists in midst of threat.7

The manager managed to secure his future well-being; even the master “praised the

unrighteous manager because he acted shrewdly.”8

7 Nolland, World Biblical Commentary, 803.8 Luke 16:8 (NASB).

Hanson 4

4

In the next passage about the Pharisees and the Law Jesus turns and

chastises the Pharisees who are “lovers of money,”9 about how they are focusing on

the things that are “exalted among men,”10 and need to focus more on the law. This

would have been especially insulting to the Pharisees due to their strong tradition of

being considered the law keepers.

He then goes on to say that it “is easier for heaven and earth to pass away

then for one stroke of a letter of the law [become void].”11 The word used for “stroke

of a letter” (“keraia” in Greek12) is used only one other time in the New Testament

(Matt. 5:18); though Luke does not exactly quote Matthew, the phrasing of both

passages is too close to be a coincidence. This grandiose statement, written about by

two gospel writers, explains Jesus’ reaction to the Law; Jesus intends to preserve the

Laws passed down through the Torah.

He follows this up by how it is adulterous for a man or woman to remarry if

they are divorced. At first glance this is an odd add-in passage that ruins the flow of

the section. However, after reading through the section several more times it

becomes apparent that there is a purpose to the location of this verse. According to

Nolland, “Until John, there were only the law and the prophets; now the ministries of

John and Jesus, involved as they were with the coming of the kingdom of God, both

confirm the demands of the Law and make yet more radical demands.”13 Joel B.

Green stated,

9 Luke 16:14 (NASB).10 Luke 16: 15 (NASB).11 Luke 16:17 (NASB/brackets taken from ESV translation).12 “Strongs #2762.“13 Nolland, World Biblical Commentary, 822, 823, 833. (Italics added by me).

Hanson 5

5

Jesus’ statement distinguishes itself from contemporary rabbinic teaching by its severity. On this issue he thus offers an interpretation that at once assumes the ongoing authority of the law (Duet. 24-14), makes the mosaic laws more strident than they appear in Deuteronomy, and challenges the relaxation of the law among his contemporaries.14

Both of these authors recognize the importance of this passage and how Jesus uses

this statement to give an example of what he means by “the law.” By itself, this one

passage seems to lack as an argument, however, Luke is drawing on other passages

from the other gospels, most especially from Matthew 5-7.

This brings us to Luke 16:19-31’s other border, chapter 17. Many

commentators hold the view that chapters 16 and 17 are completely unrelated.

Nolland argues that the narrative structure of chapter 16 (“Luke’s section on the use

and abuse of riches”) “comes to its climax with the present parable and its judgment

emphasis.”15 He is not the only one to think that the narrative structure of Luke 16

ends with this parable, however. When Fitzmyer moves to chapter 17, he argues

“Luke now continues his travel account with further sayings of Jesus, which are

completely unrelated to the foregoing chapter or parable.”16 However, I believe that

the next 20 verses of chapter 17 complete the chiasm started in chapter 16.

In Luke 17:1-6, Jesus tells his disciples that they must “rebuke” those that sin

and “forgive” those who “repent” (using the same Greek word that Luke used in vv.

16:30). He expands this statement by saying, “if he sins against you seven times a

day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent;’ forgive him.”17 Then in vv. 5-6,

14Green, International Commentary, 603. (Italics added by me).15 Nolland, World Biblical Commentary, 831.16 Fitzmyer, Anchor, 1136. 17 Luke 17:4 (NASB).

Hanson 6

6

when the disciples ask Jesus to “increase their faith,” Jesus tells them that if they

(together as a group—the word for you is plural) had even just a tiny speck of faith

they could perform tremendous miracles. In this passage, Jesus strongly emphasizes

the power of repentance and faith in our daily lives.

Moving on to Luke 17:7-10, Jesus begins to talk about the unworthy servant.

In this parable, Jesus tells us about the relationship between a master and his slave.

He explains that a master does not thank his slave, or reward him for doing “what is

his duty.” In the same way, Christian are God’s slaves. This passage seems to imply

that obedience to the law is a Christian’s duty, not their salvation.

Finally, in Luke 17:11-20, Luke tells us the story of Jesus cleansing the ten

lepers. In the story, Jesus cleanses ten lepers and tells them to go to the priest (to

perform the cleansing sacrifices spelled out in Deuteronomy). However, one, when

he notices he is cleansed, comes back and worships God at Jesus’ feet. Jesus then

responds by asking why only one, and a foreigner (Samaritan), came back. Jesus

then tells the man that his “faith” (same word used in vv. 5 & 6) has “made [him]

well”. It is important to note that the word used for “made well” or “to save”

(“sozo”18) is different then the word used to mean “cleansed” or “to cure”

(“iaomai”19). This implies that his faith secured his well-being above and beyond a

physical healing.

With all this in mind, I will map out the chiasm again:

A Luke 16:1-13 – Shrewdness secures your well-being

B Luke 16:14-18 – Preserver and follow the law

18 “Strong’s #4982.“19 “Strong’s #2511.”

Hanson 7

7

C Luke 16:19-31 – They will not repent

C’ Luke 17:1-6 – Repent and forgive

B’ Luke 17:7-10 – The law is a servant’s duty

A’ Luke 17:11-20 – Faith made the Samaritan well

Though it is true that Luke 16:19-31 cautions the readers against abusing their

wealth, this does not seem to be the main point of the narrative. Rather, this passage

fits into a larger narrative about repentance and how this repentance plays a larger

role in a believer’s salvation, as well as how they respond to the law. As this exegesis

continues, I hope to prove that this passage plays a central role in Luke’s attempt to

drive home the importance of having and living out the true knowledge that Jesus is

the fulfillment of the Torah.

Literary Devices

There are two literary techniques that Luke utilizes in this passage: allusion and

allegory. When Luke mentions Abraham, he is drawing on a rich background from the

Torah of Abraham as the father of the nations.

Behold my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant to be God to you and your offspring after you.20

20 Genesis 17:4-7 (ESV). See also, Gen. 12:1-3, 15:5-6, 17:16, 17:20, 22:15-18.

Hanson 8

8

When the rich man calls out to “Father Abraham,” he “insists on his kinship with

Abraham” as a Hebrew.21 Abraham reciprocates by calling the rich man, “my child.”

However, the word he uses is “teknon,” “the same term used of the elder brother of the

prodigal [son]), acknowledging indeed the rich man’s kinship, but not his right to share

Abraham’s merits.”22 If it is true that the rich man is a biological descendent of Abraham,

but not an inheritor, then what makes someone an inheritor of Abraham? Lazarus, who

rests in the bosom of Abraham, who the rich man calls Abraham’s “servant,” what makes

him an inheritor? The following allusion should make this more clear.

There are many who have accepted the view that this parable was modified

from an ancient Egyptian tale about Si-Osiris and his journey into the afterlife.23 This

folktale tells the story of a reincarnated into flesh god who takes his earthly father

into the afterlife to show him the “reversal in fortune” of an evil-doing wealthy man,

and a poor but virtuous man after the “former’s magnificent burial and the latter’s

mean one.”24 When they descend, they see the poor man Si-Osiris says to his father,

“My father Setme, dost thou not see this great man who is clothed in raiment of royal

linen, standing near to the place in which Osiris is? He is that poor man whom thou

sawest being carried out from Memphis, with no man following him, and wrapped in

a mat.”25 Later we see the rich man tortured with starvation and dehydration

because “his good deeds were weighed against his bad deeds and it was found that

21 Fitzmyer, Anchor, 1133.22 Fitzmyer, Anchor, 1133.23 World Biblical Commentary. 826.24 Hock, R.F. “Lazarus and Micyluss: Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke 16:19-31” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 106, no. 3, (Sept. 1987), 449.25 Griffith, F. Ll. Stories of the High Priests of Memphis: The Sethon of Herodotus and the Demotic Tales of Khamuas, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1900), 48.

Hanson 9

9

his bad deeds were found more numerous than his good deeds.”26 Both here and in

Luke 16:19-31 we see two men, one rich with a lavish burial and one poor without

anything. The rich man ends up in a place of suffering and the rich man ends up

richly dressed by the side of a powerful figure.

There are two Jewish forms of this folktale that are found in the Palestinian

Talmud. Hugo Gressman, a German Biblical scholar who specialized in the study of

ancient Hebrew and Jewish folktale, believed that it was likely that Alexandrian Jews

brought the Egyptian story to Palestine, “where it developed as the story of a poor

Torah scholar and a rich tax collector named Bar Ma’yan.”27 Furthermore, it is

possible that Jesus would have heard this story and been able to integrate it into his

teachings.28 In both the Egyptian and Jewish versions, though the characters and

form of torture have been altered (The Egyptians struggled to reach for food above

there heads while others dug ditches under their feet and the rich tax collector was

chained by a river unable to ever reach it), the story is essentially the same: “He who

is good upon the earth, they are good to him in Amenti, while he that is evil, they are

evil to him. These things are established.”29

Jesus opens the Lucan parable in a similar, if not the same fashion as these

folktales. It is likely, that when Jesus began this parable his audience’s minds would

have gone to these folk stories, especially as Jesus was addressing the Pharisees.

However, it is not the similarities in the texts that make this passage interesting, but

the differences. There are two major differences that stand out among the texts. In

26 Griffith, Stories of the High Priests, 49.27 Fitzmyer, Anchor, 1126-1127.28 Hock, “Lazarus and Micyluss,” 449.29 Griffith, Stories of the High Priests, 50.

Hanson 10

10

the original versions of this story of retribution, it is very clear that the rich man

performed many evil deeds on earth and the poor man lived a more righteous life.

Jesus makes no explicit distinction between these men’s lives other than that one is

rich and lives sumptuously and one is poor and suffering.

The second half of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man alludes to other

Jewish traditions, specifically about the “methods by which the living might know

what happens in the world of the dead.”30 Most notably one such story depicts a “rich

and godless married couple.” The woman dies, a young boy travels to hades, and

comes back with a message, “tell my husband to turn over a new leaf, for the power

of repentance is great.”31 Jesus’ parable deviates from this pattern when Abraham

refuses to send Lazarus back.32 “Messages from the dead that provide the central

dynamic for these tales become a rejected possibility in the Gospel parable.”33 This

all shows that Jesus has come to a different conclusion about these men’s lives. In

the folktales, these men’s positions in the afterlife depend upon how the act on

earth; Jesus, however, makes the claim that it depends on whether or not they “hear”

“Moses and the prophets.”

The second literary device that Luke uses is allegory by making parallels to the

Jesus’ redemption story. In this allegorical interpretation, Abraham would then represent

God. The suffering Lazarus would represent well the gentiles who have been deprived of

the “scraps” of God’s word by Israel (the rich man) who had been blessed with an

30 Bauckham, Richard. The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, (BRILL: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1998), 108.31 Fitzmyer, Anchor, 1127. 32 Bauckham, The Fate of the Dead, 116.33 World Biblical Commentary, 826.

Hanson 11

11

abundance of wealth in God’s word. The dogs licking Lazarus’ wounds represent

wayward, evil men who only add to the poor Lazarus’ sufferings. The word used to mean

literally wild dogs or metaphorically impudent men, “kuon,” is used five times in the

New Testament (Matt. 7:6; Phil. 3:2; 2 Peter 3:2; Rev. 22:15); in most of these instances

the author used the word metaphorically, therefore it is likely that the dogs in this story

are symbolic of “men of impure minds.”34

If we continue with this interpretation, Jesus would be the man/messenger raised

from the dead (Lazarus at the side of Abraham—Lazarus at different parts of the parable

represents both Jesus and the Gentiles). The phrasing “rises from the dead,” should draw

the readers’ attention to Jesus rising from the dead. Even more interestingly, when the

rich man asks Lazarus to “dip his finger in water and cool his tongue,” the word used for

finger, “daktulos,”35 is used only 7 other times in the New Testament and all but are used

in reference to Jesus either performing his miracles (Mk. 7:33; Lk. 11:20, 46; John 8:6) or

after the resurrection when he tells his disciples to place their fingers in his palms so that

they may know that he has truly risen from the dead (John 20:25, 27). The seventh

instance Jesus condemns the Pharisees for “[tying] up heavy burdens and [laying] them

on men’s shoulder’s, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a

finger.”36

Lastly, the rich man’s five brothers reaction parallels that of the Pharisees and the

other unrepentant Jews.37 According to John Nolland, “the resurrection of Jesus…makes

no impact upon [the unrepentant Jews] because, despite whatever they may seem to be on

34 “Strong’s #2965.”35 “Strong’s #1147.”36 Matt. 23:4, (NASB/Italics added by me).37 Nolland, John. Word Biblical Commentary: Luke: 9:21-18:34, vol. 35B, (Word Books, Publisher: Dallas, TX:1993) 831,

Hanson 12

12

the surface, they have, in their failure to attend God’s call upon them in the law, already

hardened their hearts to the voice of God.”38 This hardening of their hearts leads the

Pharisees to reject Christ’s divinity. They do not and cannot see Jesus for what he is: the

fulfillment of the messianic prophecies.

“Moses and the prophets”

One question that has not yet been answered is: What does Abraham mean when

he says “they have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them?”39 On first look, it can

easily be interpreted to mean the Torah as a law code. However, after researching this, I

have come to the conclusion that the phrase “Moses and the prophets” refers to the Torah

as a book of messianic prophecies.

In Luke 1:4, Luke states clearly the reason he wrote the book of Luke, “so that

you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.”40 This statement

expresses the importance of knowing the “exact truth,” but what is that exact truth? In

Luke 24:44-49, Jesus has risen from the dead and has gathered all his disciples together

and explains to them how he is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. This scene is the

climax of the book of Luke, and, through it, we can understand the overall conflict of the

book of Luke.

44Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to y’all while I was still with y’all, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the

38 Nolland, World Biblical Commentary, 831, 826.39 Luke 16:29 (NASB).40 Luke 1:4 (NASB).

Hanson 13

13

third day, 47and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48Y’all are witnesses of these things. 49And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon y’all; but y’all are to stay in the city until y’all are clothed with power from on high.41

The arrangement of words “Moses and the prophets” is only used in these two passaged

in Luke (with a slight modification as Jesus adds “the Psalms” vv. 24:45). Luke, in his

gospel, wants us to know and have a correct understanding how Jesus and his role

as the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

There are approximately 456 Old Testament passages “used to refer to the

Messiah and the Messianic times.”42 J. Barton Payne estimated that there are 3,348 verses

that predict the messiah including typological predictions about the Messiah and His

times and 574 “direct personal messianic foretellings.”43 Walter Kaiser, a biblical scholar

who specializes in a variety of fields including prophecy, believes that there are 6 direct

messianic prophesies within the Pentateuch (which is believed to have been written by

Moses) alone. “Two in the pre-patriarchal times (Gen 1-11), 2 major ones in the

patriarchal era (Gen 12-50), and two dominating ones in the mosaic epoch (Ex.-Dt).”44

Kaiser believed that the first prophecy (Gen. 3:15) promised “a seed.” The second (Gen.

9:27) hinted that the seed would come from the house of Shem where God would “come

to dwell.”45 The next two promises (Gen. 12:3, 49:10) “announced that there would be

two marvelous results” that would come with this “coming man.” The first that all the

nations would be blessed and, secondly, that this man would be given authority over the 41 Luke 24:44-49 (NASB/italics added by me).42 Kaiser, Walter C. The Messiah in the Old Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub., 1995.) 29.

43 Kaiser, The Messiah, 29.44 Kaiser, The Messiah, 36.45 Kaiser, The Messiah, 36.

Hanson 14

14

nations. 46 The last set of two (Nu. 24:17; Dt. 18:18) announced that the promised man

would come as a victorious king and destroy his enemies, and that he would also be a

prophet like Moses.47

These prophecies, if read together build on each other that “belong to a single

plan of God”48that was started “in immediate historical fulfillments” and will end “in a

final, climatic fulfillment in the last days.”49 Luke wants us to understand that the climax

of these prophecies is Jesus; Jesus is the fulfillment of the Torah. However, simply

knowing something is true will never be enough. True belief must lead to a change in

behavior.

Application

We must acknowledge truth when we hear it and change our behavior

accordingly. Many times I have found myself walking down a New York street,

convinced I am heading toward my destination. But when I look down at the GPS on my

phone I find that I am headed in the exact opposite direction of where I want to be.

Awkwardly, I have to backtrack past the man smoking a cigarette on the street, and

pretend like I don’t see the condescending smile on his smug face. The embarrassment

that comes with this scene is immense, and yet, if I do not recognize my fault and correct

it, I would never get to my destination. The rich man lived a sumptuous life, ignoring the

problems in his life as evidenced by the way he treated his neighbor, Lazarus.

This form of greedy denial can be found everywhere; from Marie Antoinette’s

refusal to acknowledge the state of the French people to the plantation owners denial of

46 Kaiser, The Messiah, 36.47 Kaiser, The Messiah, 36.48 Kaiser, The Messiah, 30.49 Kaiser, The Messiah, 26.

Hanson 15

15

their slaves humanity. We can see this in an argument between a married couple where

the husband refuses to see that he has taken his wife for granted or the wife vehemently

denies that her constantly contradicting her husband has undermined his authority over

their kids. I often see this in my own life when I scorn my close friend and roommate for

being right. The refusal to acknowledge truth when we hear it, though it may be easier to

live with, cripples our morals and our relationships.

To trust that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies must lead us

to make a change the way we treat those around us, but this will never be possible unless

we first recognize that we have mistreated them. Then, like in the eighth and ninth steps

in the AA’s twelfth step program, we must make a list of those we have wronged and then

make amends to those people. Only this is a process that we should do daily. The most

memorable sermon my old youth pastor gave was when he told us about the power of the

apology. He told us that to apologize is one of the most powerful and important jobs of

being a Christians. First, we become Christians by asking God to forgive our sins, and

then we have to continue to ask God for forgiveness everyday. The asking and giving of

forgiveness is so deeply ingrained in what it means to be Christian, yet, we often do not

bring this to our daily interactions. It is better to give up our pride and denial and

apologize than it is to lose the ones we care about. We may sin seven times a day, but we

must continually repent and apologize; this means that we must acknowledge our faults

and make a change to prevent us from sinning like that again. When someone apologizes

to us, maybe because they stepped on our toe or stabbed us with a knife, the implication

behind that apology is that they recognize their mistake and will not do it again. There

Hanson 16

16

must be a change in how we act and react when we repent. When we sin against our

neighbor it is our responsibility to make amends.

Hanson 17

17