Search

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19–31) has attracted many interpretations from different cultural and theological contexts. But one thread that holds most of the works together is structural disparity in human society and the reality of judgement in the afterlife. This article re-reads the parable within the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This method of re-reading the parable in this particular context (of COVID-19) is to serve two major purposes within the Nigerian and global sphere. First, it demonstrates how humans in their (dis)ingenuity try to outwit the moral and theological, and even the eschatological, import it is meant to serve. Second, it elucidates that despite human efforts to manoeuvre theological truth, the faithful should be encouraged to abide in the truth.

This research aimed to know the intercultural competency teaching model of Jesus (Teacher) using a parable technique based on Luke 10:25–37 to improve intercultural competence. The authors used a method of diacognitive analysis with three lenses that include dialogue, cognition and position. The results of the study have shown that the application of the parable technique can improve the competence of intercultural students (the expert in the law) towards people with different cultures (Samaritan), as well as increase the understanding and awareness that love is the basis of intercultural competence, compassion as an internal outcome and must act as an intercultural agent. The teacher’s pyramid model of intercultural competence moves from love, attitude, knowledge, skill, internal outcome, external outcome and becomes an intercultural agent. Contribution: Research on Luke 10:25–37 has shown that the parable technique can improve students’ intercultural competence based on love and compassion. Teachers can apply parable techniques to attract, encourage, and stimulate the student’s active involvement to think critically and perform interpretations to discover the real truth in the context of cultural differences.

This article offers a reading of the parable of the Dishonest Steward from the perspective of Greco-Roman status concern. It observes that the parable has a long and complicated history of interpretation. The different approaches in the reading of the parable reveal the unresolved quest in scholarship to establish a reading of the parable that takes into account both the steward’s act of generosity towards his master’s debtors and the praise that follows this action. This article proposes the Greco-Roman status concern as a framework for understanding the meaning of the parable in its original context. Status concern was the spirit of tenacity in maintaining one’s status and honour against all odds characteristic of Greco-Roman honour and shame culture. The article argues that when the parable is read within its literary context, it reveals that at the heart of Jesus’ message in the parable is the theme of persistence as an attribute of authentic discipleship. This understanding of the parable resonates with the entrenched Greco-Roman spirit of status concern. The interpretation would also have been relevant to Luke’s Greco-Roman auditors living on the periphery of the Greco-Roman culture with the constant pressures to conform to the ethos of the larger social context. The steward’s resolve to maintain his status even in the most difficult circumstances provided a paradigm for those Christ-followers to remain steadfast in the faith against all odds. Contribution: The article presents an alternative interpretation of the parable of the Dishonest Steward. By proposing status concern as an interpretative framework, it offers both new insights into the socio-economic and socio-cultural realities of Luke’s world and the continuing evidence of the contribution of Greco-Roman world to the development of the New Testament texts.

The article is on the exegesis of the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:25–35) and its relevance to the challenges that are being posed by COVID-19. Through the historical-critical approach, the article has concluded that the parable is relevant in troubleshooting the challenges that are caused by COVID-19, such as discrimination, stigma, hate and stereotypes. The article sees COVID-19 as teaching humanity the important lesson that no one can live in isolation, however powerful or economically strong they are. Therefore, there is a need to take the opportunity of being a neighbour. Neighbourhood is understood as offering services to those in need and COVID-19 has presented a chance to the entire world to help someone with needs. A need-based world requires neighbours and this makes the parable relevant. Contribution: This article is a reflection of the challenges that are currently faced by people in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is within the scope of this theological journal that issues of identity, relationships, and theological reflection should be addressed, hence the article fits well within this scope.

n the Synoptic Gospels, listeners ask Jesus about the purpose of his parables. These Gospels provide two parallel accounts of this discussion (Mt 13:10–17 // Mk 4:10–12 // Lk 8:9–10 and Mt 13:34–35 // Mk 4:33). The version in Mark 4:10–12 particularly raises problems related to a sharp distinction between the ‘mystery’ that the ‘insiders’ understand, and ‘parables’, which are intended ‘so that’ the ‘outsiders’ would not understand, repent and be forgiven. Mark’s reference to Isaiah 6:9–10 differs from the Masoretic Text (MT) and Septuagint (LXX) versions, but corresponds with the Aramaic Targum, which reads ‘they may be forgiven’ instead of ‘and I would heal them’. It seems that the Markan Jesus deliberately uses parables to prevent ‘those on the outside’ from understanding, repentance and forgiveness. Luke retains the ‘so that’, but does not distinguish between the two groups that sharply, as he refers to ‘others’ and not ‘those on the outside’. He omits Mark’s apparent offensive phrase about the prevention of repentance and forgiveness. Matthew smooths out some of these difficulties by changing the ‘so that’ to ‘because’. According to Matthew, Jesus speaks in parables because the people do not see, hear and understand. The reason for their inability to comprehend, is their rejection of Jesus. This article investigates these parallel passages to decipher the meaning within their textual context. The argument of this article is that these parallel statements should be read within the context of the parable of the sower to grasp their meaning.

In his influential 1987 monograph, Kloppenborg identified three layers in the Sayings Gospel Q: the ‘formative stratum’ (or Q¹), the ‘main redaction’ (or Q²), and the ‘final recension’ (or Q³). He ascribed the cluster of sayings in Q 12:39–59 to the main redaction. Within this cluster appears the parable of the loyal and wise slave (Q 12:42–46). In my view, some portions of this parable actually originate with the formative stratum. The aim of the current article is to reconsider the redactional make-up of this parable by appealing to Kloppenborg’s own criteria for distinguishing between Q1 and Q2, including those of ‘characteristic forms’, ‘characteristic motifs’ and ‘implied audience’.

This publication argues for the existence of a seam between verses 44 and 45 of the parable in Q 12:42–46. In the process, a case is also made for identifying the second half of the parable (Q 12:45–46) as a redactional addition to a more original first half (Q 12:42–44). The arguments that make up this article form the basis for a follow-up article on the redaction of Q 12:42–46 within the context of the Sayings Gospel as a whole.

Many scholars have regarded the parable of the shrewd manager (Lk 16:1–8) as the most puzzling of all parables as Jesus seems to use the unrighteous actions of a dishonest (worldly) manager as a model for emulation by others. The unease associated with this understanding was managed in part by focusing almost exclusively on the ‘shrewdness’ of the dishonest manager. In this interpretation, it is not his unjust behaviour that is to be imitated but his wise and intelligent actions. This interpretation has led to a divergence of applications regarding the ‘property’ that was entrusted to him. The author, however, argues that, in the context of the historical Jesus, the entrusted property in the parable references first and foremost the Torah entrusted to God’s people and that the manager mirrors the life of Jesus, who was ‘accused’ by the religious leaders of being unjust. Despite being threatened, he continued unabatedly to scatter God’s mercy, epitomised by the reduction of debt and symbolising the dawning of God’s Kingdom. The manager is therefore not a negative figure but a positive (diaphorical) example of what it means to be a faithful manager of God in the light of adversary and opposition.