1. Hanson 1
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.”

2. Hanson 2
2
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
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.

3. Hanson 3
3
particular passage is Jesus’ “indictment against [the Pharisees]: in neglecting the poor,
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
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.

4. Hanson 4
4
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
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
7 Nolland, World Biblical Commentary, 803.

5. Hanson 5
5
The manager managed to secure his future well-being; even the master “praised the
unrighteous manager because he acted shrewdly.”8
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
8 Luke 16:8 (NASB).
9 Luke 16:14 (NASB).
10 Luke 16: 15 (NASB).
11 Luke 16:17 (NASB/brackets taken from ESV translation).
12 “Strongs #2762.“

6. Hanson 6
6
confirm the demands of the Law and make yet more radical demands.”13 Joel B.
Green stated,
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.
13 Nolland, World Biblical Commentary, 822, 823, 833. (Italics added by me).
14Green, International Commentary, 603. (Italics added by me).
15 Nolland, World Biblical Commentary, 831.
16 Fitzmyer, Anchor, 1136.

7. Hanson 7
7
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, 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.
17 Luke 17:4 (NASB).
18 “Strong’s #4982.“
19 “Strong’s #2511.”

8. Hanson 8
8
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
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

9. Hanson 9
9
everlasting covenant to be God to you and your offspring
after you.20
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
20 Genesis 17:4-7 (ESV). See also, Gen. 12:1-3, 15:5-6, 17:16, 17:20, 22:15-18.
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.

10. Hanson 10
10
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 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
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.
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.

11. Hanson 11
11
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
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.”
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.

12. Hanson 12
12
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
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
34 “Strong’s #2965.”
35 “Strong’s #1147.”

13. Hanson 13
13
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
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
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,
38 Nolland, World Biblical Commentary, 831, 826.
39 Luke 16:29 (NASB).
40 Luke 1:4 (NASB).

14. Hanson 14
14
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
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
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.

15. Hanson 15
15
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
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.
44 Kaiser, The Messiah, 36.
45 Kaiser, The Messiah, 36.
46 Kaiser, The Messiah, 36.
47 Kaiser, The Messiah, 36.
48 Kaiser, The Messiah, 30.
49 Kaiser, The Messiah, 26.

16. Hanson 16
16
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
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

17. Hanson 17
17
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
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.