Hill Road Journal

“Father’s House” () in the Old Testament: Family? or Household?

Tony HK SHER

Whenever the topic “Family in the Old Testament” is discussed the term “Father’s House” (

) often turns up. This term is generally taken as the standard term for “family” in the Old Testament, and it is commonly regarded as referring both to the blood relation of the Israelites and to the basic unit of the ancient Israelite society. However , the two meanings have different coverage. As referring to blood relation, it applies to Israelites with direct kinship only. As referring to the basic unit of the ancient Israelite society, it applies to everyone in the household, including both Israelites and the non- Israelites. Can the term be used to mean both? This paper sets out to survey the usage of the term in the Old Testament and to find out what the term refers to in different contexts. After studying all 151 occurrences of the term in the Old Testament, the writer concludes that “

” is a special term that can only be used to represent the blood relationship of the Israelites. It refers to an Israelite's genealogy or blood line, or his blood relatives. It is often used together with terms like “clan”, “tribe” and “people” to represent different levels of the kinship among the Israelites. In this sense the term applies to Israelites only. However, the result of the survey also shows that when the term “house” is used by itself it has a much broader meaning ; it covers everything and everyone in the “household”, both the Israelites and the non-Israelites..

Judges as a Narrative about Family: Metaphor and Reality of Israel's Family

Sam TSANG

This study views the story of Judges through the metaphor of family which intertwines with the real family stories of Israel's leaders before the monarchy. The story suggests that success comes only if members of the national family as well as individual members of each leader's family would fulfill their duties. The primary duty is religious with a view towards ethics. All such successes would give Israel her proper identity among the nations. Such a lesson was important for those in exile, whose identity was threatened by idolatry and whose ambition to return to their homeland was slowly faded by circumstances.

Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible

Alexander MAK

The traditional protestant view recognizes only two valid grounds for divorce and remarriage: adultery (Jesus) and desertion (Paul). This view has been challenged again and again in recent years. The works of three biblical scholars in particular deserve special attention. These three scholars use different approaches in their exegeses of relevant Bible passages, but they all conclude that there are valid grounds for divorce and remarriage apart from adultery and desertion. These scholars are Sprinkle (1997), Instone-Brewer (2002) and Zhekov (2009) .

Unlike many scholars who approached the issue by focusing on the dominical sayings, Sprinkle focuses mainly on Old Testament passages. He shows that there are many neglected Old Testament passages that deal with the issue of divorce and remarriage. He argues that marriage contract in the Old Testament Testament is essentially no different from other ancient business contracts in which rights and responsibilities of both parties are stipulated and that the contract can be broken once the stipulations are breached. These rights include the right to food and clothing, and conjugal rights. Sprinkle interprets Jesus ' reference to adultery as the only valid reason for divorce as a hyperbole.

Instone-Brewer takes a very different approach from that of Sprinkle. He traces the issue of divorce and remarriage from the Old Testament period down to the New Testament period, noting its development in the intertestamental period, both in the Jewish and the Greco-Roman context. Instone-Brewer's analyzes of the relevant background material shed many new lights on various biblical passages. For example, he points out that Paul's mention of “desertion” in Romans 7 has to be understood in terms of the Roman practice of “divorce by unilateral separation." On the basis of these historical data, Instone-Brewer concludes that, in addition to adultery and desertion, physical and emotional abuses are also valid New Testament grounds for divorce and remarriage. Physical abuse includes the failure to provide food and clothing , and emotional abuse includes the refusal of the spouse's conjugal rights.

Zhekov approaches New Testament teachings on divorce and remarriage through a method that combines both redaction and narrative critical approaches. Although his exegeses sometimes yield different results from those of Instone-Brewer, he also concludes that physical or emotional abuse is a valid ground for divorce and remarriage.

This article concludes with some hermeneutical insights and implications drawn from these authors and some suggestions on how the church should handle divorce and remarriage.

The Purpose of the Family in Theological Perspective

Lindsay ROBERTSON

This paper describes a theological rather than a merely practical perspective on the function of the family. Many Christian books on the family tend to be practically oriented, assuming certain things about the importance and priority of the family without serious theological work. Such work requires the use of biblical, eschatological and christological tools. A biblical theological approach is first used to highlight important aspects of the family. This investigation points to both a central place of the family as well as a de-centring of the family in terms of a greater divine purpose. This duality needs theological accounting. The greater purpose is first seen in terms of the church, though church itself is seen in eschatological terms. The family is then seen as an eschatological concept pointing to and contributing to the final purposes of God for his people.

These ideas are given theological form using various resources: Barth and Bonhoeffer especially, and Pannenberg and Hauerwas among others. Barth's view of covenant partner is useful as a basis for theological reflection but his discussion falls short of its promise in his work on the parent- child relation. Barth, though, recognizes that the church and not the family is the focus of God's work in the world. Bonhoeffer's work on the divine mandates (work, family, government, church) helps develop some of Barth's ideas. Christ is the goal of the mandates and as such the family is important but not ultimate and serves the wider purposes of God. The mandate of the church is central and is served by the family, though even church is not ultimate. Thus the family is for the sake of the divine task and goal. Various conclusions and implications are drawn out in terms of the relation of family and church and family and the state.

The Covenant Family in Karl Barth's Theology

CHENG Suet Ling

Barth connects God, the individual human person, and the others in the world in relation to the covenant. In this covenant, God, the human being, and his or her fellows are in fellowship. The person, as covenant partner of God, is commanded to correspond to his or her true being and to demonstrate cohumanity under the light of Jesus Christ. In the covenant, God commands the human person. The command of God always regulates one's life and life together with others in relation to the one Creator.¹

Barth insists that humanity is “humanity-for-others.” A family is a fellowship in which family members, as covenant partners of God, can practice their co-humanity. This definition of a family helps Christians focus their lives on being covenant partners of God. It gives a shape to and provides goals for the parenting experience. It also shows how we should treat children and what we should want for them. Marriage and parenthood are considered callings from God.

In this paper, we examine how Barth applies the concept of encounter and covenant partner in his Family Theology. Barth considers the family a fellowship; husband and wife are in a life-partnership to establish a permanent relationship. They give evidence of their love for each other in this relationship. If the couple have children, they become representatives of God to their children. They are charged with imitating the parenthood of God to their children. Although their children are not “born Christians”, they are called to be holy . The parents need to guide them to know God and help them establish close relationships with God. The parents are to understand themselves as elder covenant partners of God. Ultimately, the aim is for the children to see themselves as “junior” covenant partners of God. Birth control is also discussed in this paper. Barth insists that married couple should make responsible decisions together on this issue.

This special view of the family contrasts greatly with the common view in Hong Kong. This common view of Hong Kong people will be discussed. Some suggestions for Hong Kong Christians for building up their families will also be given.

¹ Karl Barth, Ethics., ed. Dietrich Braun, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley (New York: Seabury Press, 1981), 208.

Raising Children as the Church's Social Mission? Hauerwas's Theological Critique of the Modern Notion of Family

Chi W.HUEN

This essay explicates the theological arguments leading to Stanley Hauerwas's claim that having, rearing and welcoming children is the Church's primary social mission. Hauerwas's theological reflection on the modern individualistic notion and institution of family is considered part and parcel of his larger project of theological critique against political liberalism. His thinking is prefigured by a persistent concern for the (un)intelligibility of people's (Christians or otherwise) decisions of having (or not having) children. His theological ethics aims at helping Christians to make sense of beliefs, practices and commitments that they are commonly unable to account for, including sex, marriage, family, parenthood. Hauerwas's stance is elucidated by way of three propositions: (1) the telos of marriage is parenthood; (2) yet, parenthood is not natural, but a Christian calling; and (3) the vocation of marriage can only be properly understood and affirmed by accepting singleness as an equally valid form of life for Christians. It is argued that Hauerwas not only compels us to re-think whether and why family (as a social institution or a set of social values) should be a good to be defended by the church, but also spells out the heroic, subversive and political nature of Christian family as a practice of faithfulness, hope and patience. Under the light of Hauerwas's characterization of parenting as a form of adoption, some implications are drawn regarding the abdication of moral burdens by parents in late modern society like Hong Kong, and the correlative and collective role of the church as parent.

Family Counseling: Reflection of a Christian Counselor

Lai Cheung WONG

With the prevalent influence of psychological/counseling theories, the integrity of pastoral care is under threat. Despite a flourishing development of psychological theories in the people-helping profession, the author, from a Christian point of view, raises concerns about this development. They include the risk of justifying human problems, neglect of human sins, inadequate reflection on ethical issues, isolation of individual problems and arrogance of professionalism. Responses to the advance of psychological theories are various. Some adopt an open attitude, perceiving psychological theories as good resources for pastoral counseling. Some are skeptical and critical over the use of them. Some advocate a firm biblical stance when using these theories. Finally, some propose a mutual dialogue between theology and psychology.

In this paper, the author argues that psychological theories are indeed effective lenses for pastoral counselors to view human problems, as long as they are used discreetly. Pastoral counselors should not only adopt the skills offered by these theories but must also be ware of their underlying value and philosophy. There is a tendency among practitioners to be subjective and functionalistic with psychotherapeutic knowledge. The result will lead both practitioners and clients to forget the place of Christ. A wise use of psychotherapeutic knowledge depends on the quality of life of the practitioners.

In a research conducted by the author years ago, it was found that the choice of counseling theories is a reflection of the counselor's worldview, personality and personal experience. In other words, we should not be fearful of the advancement of psychological theories. Rather the life of counselors should be the focus of concern. If they maintain a healthy psyche and an independent thinking ability, these psychological theories can be helpful tools for counselors to help the people of the church. Finally the implication of the above for the training of Christian counselors are drawn.

Discussion with Prof. Jason Yeung on the Understanding of Paul Tillich and Schleiermacher: A Review of 20th Century Selected Theologians

Keith KF CHAN

This review critiques Prof. Jason Yeung's 20th Century Selected Theologians on the theological understanding of Paul Tillich and Schleiermacher. Firstly, Yeung is dissatisfied with Tillich's rejection of the Chalcedonian Christological formula and incarnation. Yeung comments that Tillich committed the error of adoptionist Christology. This review clarifies that the reason Tillich rejects “two-natures Christology ” is that he prefers to use a dynamic framework to describe the dynamics between divine Logos and human being in Jesus' life rather than to employ static language to struggle with the union between divine and human “natures”. Also, Tillich disagrees with the metamorphosis character of the doctrine of incarnation rather than the concept of incarnation as such. Regarding the problem of adoptionism, Tillich's pneumatological Christology is an alternative way of understanding his intention of balancing these two classical models of Christology.

Secondly, Yeung critiques the non-cognitive character of Schleiermacher's description of religious feeling and points out that its subjective and emotional tendency would destroy the objectivity of theological language. If so, Schleiermacher's God will be dismissed in the scientific world. This review points out that "Gefühl” in Schleiermacher's usage doesn't identify with psychological faculty; it actually points to the human ontological mode in its totality. Based on the view that the object of Christian dogmatics is Christian religious consciousness, Schleiermacher asserts that the definite and objective object of Christian dogmatics constitutes its “positive” character and this is why theology is a kind of “positive science.” The “scientific” nature of theology should be understood in view of its postive and encyclopedic character.

A Rejoinder to Dr. Keith Chan's Critique of 20th Century Selected Theologians

YEUNG Hing Kau

Dr. Chan's critique focuses on two theologians out of the eleven discussed in the book. These two theologians are Paul Tillich and Schleiermacher. My response is as follows:

1. The name of Christ and Christology
Tillich uses the term “Jesus as Christ” rather than “Jesus Christ” when referring to the second person of the Godhead. This reveals the main concern of his Christology. In dialoguing with his students, he makes it clear that the term “Christ” serves only as a symbol. The teaching of the Chalcedonian Creed that Jesus Christ is both true God and true man is unacceptable to him. He cannot figure out how incarnation is possible. He treats Jesus as half-monophysitic. The difficulties of his Christology lies in his ontology, which strictly contradicts his Christology. For Tillich , incarnation can be regarded as metamorphosis, a sort of absurdities.

2.Philosophical theology
Tillich's concept of God is basically a kind of agnosticism. No knowledge of God is possible in view of the absolute transcendence of God. Being and Becoming are two segregated things. To say that Tillich wants to strike a balance between Logos-Christology and adoptionist Christology would be mis-reading his theology. In fact, Tillich insists that God cannot become man. This is a conviction deeply rooted in his heart.

3. Typos will be amended and translation will be improved on the second edition of my book.

4. Schleiermacher
The response of German theologians in the post-Kantian period to the issue of “how ontological knowledge is possible” concentrates mainly on the discussion of consciousness and unconsciousness. Schleiermacher stresses on feeling rather than the “knowledge” of God. Feeling is not psychological emotion but a sort of pre-reflective experience. One may have the feeling that he is embraced by God. This feeling is similar to the feeling of beauty and sublime in Kant's philosophy. Schleiermacher points out that the content of religion lies in the religious affections of the mind; it is classified as religious consciousness. In evangelical faith, we accept that God's revelation is revealed in history and space. This divine revelation exists objectively. It is by no means a dependant of human subjectivity.

Schleiermacher is indeed a figure of considerable standing in Western academia, but we may not agree with all his theological standing on the fundamentals of evangelical faith.