Hill Road Journal

Forgiveness and Reconciliation in the Mosaic Laws

WONG Fook Kong

There are some clear teachings about personal forgiveness and reconciliation in the Mosaic Laws. It is clear from these passages what God expected this of his people. The ultimate basis of our forgiveness lies in God's very nature, the fact that he is a forgiving God and the fact that he has forgiven us (Ex. 34:6-7). In the actual practice of forgiveness, the Mosaic Laws teach us to communicate with those who have wronged us (Lev. 19:17-18). The legal context of the teaching presupposes the presence of witnesses if needed. This is not sufficient to help us deal with all the cases of ill-will and pure animosity in our lives. We need to use our God-given wisdom to think of practical ways to obey these teachings.

Forgiveness and Reconciliation: A New Testament Perspective

Poling J. SUN

It is not an understatement to claim that forgiveness and reconciliation form the centrality of the New Testament message. God's forgiveness of human sin in the work of Jesus Christ has reconciled the whole creation to God and has thereby broken all forms of estrangement, hatred, and domination. The praxis of forgiveness and reconciliation does not prevail automatically, however. Without repentance of the sinner, there could hardly be enduring reconciliation even when/if forgiveness is genuinely offered by the one who is sinned against. Similarly, unless truth be revealed and encountered, reconciliation would not lead to redemption of human relation and societal improvement. With selected passages from the New Testament as bases and contemporary cases as references and examples, this essay suggests that forgiveness and reconciliation demand repentance from wrong doings and truth telling.

Forgiveness as the Cornerstone of Church Unity: A Study of Paul's View of Forgiveness in Colossians

Shiu-lun SHUM

This essay shows that, while instructing the Colossian Christians in Colossians 3:12-15 on how to deal with disputes, Paul underscores three important principals. First of all, believers should forgive and accept one another with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience (v. 13b). The second principal is love (v.14). For Paul, love is the foundation of all Christian ethics and therefore is essential to the Christian community; only by love can one be restored, built up, and established. Finally, peaceful relationships and unity of the believing community should be safeguarded (v. 15). It is also shown in the essay that these three principals are not new insights or ideas of Paul for they are in fact what our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as the Old Testament and the Jewish tradition, has instructed us.

"Binding and Loosing": The Basics of John Howard Yoder's Perspective on Forgiveness

Vincent CP LAU

Peace Church, non-violence, and peacemaking are considered three of the most significant elements of Yoder's theology. In fact, these theological landmarks are derived from his conviction of forgiveness. Indeed, “binding and loosening” is the gist of this particular thought. The aim of this essay is to offer an introduction to Yoder's perspective on forgiveness. Firstly, the biblical foundation of the concept of binding and loosening is elucidated. Secondly, an analysis of the notions of forgiveness and discernment is expounded. Thirdly, the practice of forgiveness in the church is explicated. Finally, the relationship between forgiveness and conflict resolution (conciliation) is briefly discussed. A closing word on the national reconciliation of South Africa during the transitional period of the country in 1994 is included. This miraculous reconciliation may well serve as an illustration of the practice of forgiveness and reconciliation through which the social impact of our faith, as a Christian public witness or good news to the world, is effectively demonstrated.

A Discussion of Hauerwas on the Virtue of Forgiveness of the Christian Community

Wai-hoi IP

Is forgiveness a matter of human's will, decision and character only? Stanley Hauerwas takes a different position towards the matter. For him, forgiveness is firstly a gift from God, who revealed his forgiveness through the story of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for humanity; those being forgiven, as a Christian community, have both the power and responsibility to forgive others. Also, this kind of forgiveness, in practice, needs truthfulness, because Christians should point out the wrongs and, sometimes, even to counter the sins of others, and only then learn to forgive each other as God has forgiven their sins. As a result, forgiveness brings reconciliation and peace in the Christian community. This is real peace, without the cost of telling lies, taking forgotten (ie choosing to forget) and using violence. So, Hauerwas believes forgiveness is the basis of the so-called, “Peaceable Kingdom”. In addition, forgiveness is trained through praying individually and as a community. This is because, on the one hand, forgiveness is a gift from God; so Christians must ask Him to offer it to them. On the other hand, forgiveness is exercised on the community. Hauerwas, as a member of the Mennonite church, pointed out that they reject taking forgiveness as just a manifesto from God. It is also a truthful reparation to others that have sinned against us; so forgiveness is a truthful devotion to both God and community. This is a process of being a community and the disciples to our Lord. Such kind of forgiveness is strange to the world and, indeed, it challenges the world.

Forgetting and Forgiving: Miroslav Volf's Theological Perspective

Andres S. TANG

This paper aims to introduce Miroslav Volf's theological understanding of forgiving and forgetting through an analytical presentation of his two books, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Explanation of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation (1996) and The End of Memory: Remembering Rightly in a Violent World (2006). Volf's personal experiences of abuse and sharing in the suffering of mass killing of south Europe in the 1980s and 1990s respectively caused him to reflect theologically on what forgiveness and forgetting means in a Christian sense. This paper is divided in two parts. The first part is on forgiveness while the second is on forgetting. Each part consists of three sub-divisions: personal experience, Christological understanding and eschatological interpretation. For Volf, forgiveness is a necessity for humans as social beings; forgetting follows forgiveness. Otherwise both parties will live in an isolated and alienated world in which exclusion destroys humanity much more deeply. However this does not mean ignoring the truthfulness of suffering or being sinned against. Indeed, a proper remembering of this is important but this is possible only within the framework of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, forgiveness and forgetting could only be done under the cross and the final judgment of Jesus Christ, eschatologically, in which embrace happens between the two parties.

A Review of Dr. Sam Tsang's Recent Publication: To the End of the Earth: An Exposition on Romans

Simon CHOW

Having read the book in detail, the writer finds that it is far from the scholarship that it claims to be. The author makes outstanding allegations which are quite different from what we have learned in the field, such as the purpose and the structure of the book of Romans. However, no discussion is given to support the suggestions. Furthermore, there are many academic terms which are neither explained nor in anyway elaborated; thus the writer doubts that this book is written for lay people as the author said. Overall, the writer feels there are still many gaps that need to be filled in order to make the book beneficial to its readers.

The Danger of Looking at Trees without Understanding the Forest: A Response to Book Review by Simon Chow

Sam TSANG

This is a response to Simon Chow's book review of the author's commentary, To the Ends of the Earth: An Exposition on Romans. In this review, the author answers some of Chow's criticisms regarding the overall purpose, the reading process, the rhetorical structure of Romans as well as the process of interpreting modern interpreters.

In answering Chow, the author explains in greater details the reason why he reads Romans in a certain way as opposed to other ways. His interpretive choices, especially regarding structural-grammatical issues, demonstrate that there are many different ways to divide Romans, with some being more likely than others. In so doing, the author explains why it is important to use pronoun changes, key conjunctions, and thematic changes to determine the dividing points of Romans. He focuses especially on the differentiation between thematic division and grammatical structure.

The author takes the opportunity not only to answer Chow, but also to analyze the way his critic reviews a book, whether it be academic or otherwise. In reviewing the reviewer, the author lays out the problem of missing the forest for the tree not only in Chow's book review but in many like it. The author reminds the readers that as New Testament interpreters, people are not only responsible for understanding the “intention” of the original author, but also that of the modern interpreter in terms of context and intended readership. The process of interpretation is the same whether it is for ancient or modern writings.

The Speech Acts of God and Man: Kevin J. Vanhoozer's Theological Hermeneutics

CHIU Shung Ming

Given that we cannot talk about the future development of evangelical theology apart from the influence of hermeneutics in this postmodern era, this paper hopes to call forth attention to the need of constructing a theological hermeneutics in a convincing way. Kevin J. Vanhoozer is regarded as one of the most promising evangelical theologians, who makes a notable contribution on this area. This paper aims to introduce the main thought of his theological hermeneutics with a critical evaluation.

One of the most difficult and controversial questions of hermeneutics is about the understanding of meaning. Is there only one fixed meaning in a text? Where can we find the meaning/meanings? Do we get the meaning/meanings from author's intention, text, reader's interpretation or somewhere else? Of course, no consensus exists among the various views of hermeneutics.

Vanhoozer, as a proponent of hermeneutics realism, undoubtedly rejects both Jacques Derrida's deconstructive way of reading and Stanley Fish's reader response theory. He stresses that the death of the author in the hermeneutics non-realism is the consequence of the claim of the death of God. In view of that, Vanhoozer argues that in doing theological hermeneutics God must be our first thought and Scripture our second thought. That is to say, we cannot think about theological hermeneutics apart from who God is and what God communicates. In fact, the hermeneutics of the speech-act theory is of special interest for Vanhoozer. It exhibits both a speech-to-action and a God-centered communicative action model for a Trinitarian theological hermeneutics. Moreover, Vanhoozer also argues that we can find the fixed meaning in the authorial illocutionary act. By looking at the theory argued by Vanhoozer, the author attempts to conclude this paper with some evaluations as to how evangelical theological hermeneutics should be constructed in a convincing way by asking and examining the following questions: Is it possible to make consensus on Derrida's meaning of deconstruction? Does Vanhoozer misunderstand what Derrida means? Is there really a fixed meaning in authorial intention?

Diagnosis of the Syndrome of Islamophobia: History, Interpretation and Critique

HO Wai-yip

This article explores the emerging and the global proliferation of Islamophobia in the Post-9/11 era. It is argued that the 9/11 terrorist attack not only inaugurated the “War on Terror,” altering the Post-Cold War geopolitics, it also gave rise to Islamophobia, a neglected but hostile culture that shapes the global perception towards Islam (as a religion) and Muslims (as a community). This article asserts that Islamophobia has its historical roots and sociological significance in the West. Tracing from the legacy of Orientalism, the Western project of modernity, and the Abrahamic monotheistic tradition, this article contends that Islamophobia, as a contemporary expression of social exclusion, is rooted in the Occidental perception of the Orient, the inherent logic of the modernity project, and the selections of inter-religious impacts within the Judeo-Christian-Islamic heritage. Understanding the globalization of Islamophobia as a possible wave of new Holocaust, this article concludes by critiquing Islamophobia and appealing to the Christian ethic of caring for the “Other” during the process of cultural globalization.