The Rich Man and Lazarus

19^th Sunday after Pentecost (Ordinary Time/UM Kingdomtide), Year C

September 29, 2013

Luke 16:19-31

Introduction

In my World Literature class, we are now discussing The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri. The Comedia tells of Dante’s adventures through Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso—Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise. It is said to be an allegory of the Christian soul to God. In Inferno, the soul discovers the true nature of sin as it witnesses how the various sins are punished in Hell. (For example, in the Third Circle of Hell, the gluttonous are punished by being made to lie down in “a vile slush” that is constantly added to by a “foul icy rain”.) In Purgatorio, the soul is “purified” from the root causes of sin. (In the First Terrace, souls are purged from Pride are forced to walk around bent with a huge weight on their backs, making them see examples of Humility on the floor). Finally, in Paradiso, the soul ascends to the very presence of God himself.

The Divine Comedy presents the view of the Roman Catholic Church—and of the world—during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. For example, Paradiso presents a geocentric view of the universe where the Earth is in the center of the Solar System, and not the Sun.

Discussion of The Divine Comedy is provoking a lot of questions in class. While Philippine Christian University is a Protestant school, a majority of the students are Roman Catholic. There are discussions between the differences in beliefs between Roman Catholics and Protestants. For example, Roman Catholics believe in Limbo (the First Circle of Hell in Inferno) and Purgatory; meanwhile many Protestants believe that when a person dies, his/her soul goes directly to Heaven or Hell.

The final authority for Christians, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, is the Holy Scriptures. It seems providential that we are discussing The Divine Comedy when the Gospel for Sunday is the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). What does Jesus say about life after death?

Excursus: Is the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus a parable? There are those who say that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is only a parable. And if it is only a parable, then it's not literally true. Parables are not just stories with a moral lesson, like fables for example. A parable is a figure of speech, therefore with symbolic meaning. For example, Jesus often introduces parables with “The kingdom of heaven is like…” (Matthew 13).

John Wesley argues that the story is history, not parable.

But is the subsequent account merely a parable, or a real history? It has been believed by many, and roundly asserted, to be a mere parable, because of one or two circumstances therein, which are not easy to be accounted for. In particular, it is hard to conceive, how a person in hell could hold conversation with one in paradise. But, admitting we cannot account for this, will it overbalance an express assertion of our Lord: “There was,” says our Lord, “a certain rich man.” — Was there not? Did such a man never exist? “And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus.”--Was there, or was there not? Is it not bold enough, positively to deny what our blessed Lord positively affirms? Therefore, we cannot reasonably doubt, but the whole narration, with all its circumstances, is exactly true. And Theophylact (one of the ancient commentators on the Scriptures) observes upon the text, that, “according to the tradition of the Jews, Lazarus lived at Jerusalem.” (Sermon 112, The Rich Man and Lazarus)

The “parable” is unique because of all the parables Jesus makes use of a historical person, i.e., Abraham. And if we follow John Wesley’s argument, Lazarus himself (not the one he resurrected, John 11) was a historical person!

I. A picture of life (Luke 16:19-21)

There are two pictures of life: the picture of luxury and the picture of poverty. The rich man “was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day.”  This reveals that the rich man was very successful in business so he can afford to live in luxury. Meanwhile, there is also a beggar “who was laid at the gate” and had nothing to eat: “and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.” He even has nothing to bind his skin ulcers: only “the dogs came and licked his sores”.

It should be pointed out here that there is nothing evil in being rich and there is nothing virtuous in being poor per se. But John Wesley warns,

And it is no more sinful to be rich than to be poor. But it is dangerous beyond expression. Therefore, I remind all of you that are of this number, that have the conveniences of life, and something over that ye walk upon slippery ground. Ye continually tread on snares and deaths. Ye are every moment on the verge of hell! “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for you to enter in the kingdom of heaven.” (Sermon 112)

II. A picture of death (Luke 16:22)

The great equalizer been the rich and the poor and the wicked and the virtuous is death. Mark Twain famously said that no one can escape death and taxes. But while there are many who have managed to cheat with their taxes, no one can ever escape death.

The beggar died “and was carried by angels into Abraham’s bosom”. We are told how his body was disposed: He might have been eaten by the dogs (for example, Queen Jezebel, cf. I Kings 21:23-24; II Kings 9:30-37). The rich man also died; doubtless with pomp and buried in rich man’s tomb: “Doubtless with pomp enough, though we do not read of his lying in state; that stupid, senseless pageantry, that shocking insult on a poor, putrefying carcass, was reserved for our enlightened age!” (Notes on Luke XVI:22).

III. A picture of life after death (Luke 16:23-31)

A. Abraham’s bosom and Hades (v. 23). What is Abraham’s bosom? It is a name that the Jews give to Paradise. Talmud says mentions a certain rabbi now “sitting in Abraham’s bosom”:

"Rabbi [Judah] saith to Levi, Represent the Persians to me by some similitude. He saith, They are like to the host of the house of David. Represent to me the Iberians. They are like to the angels of destruction. Represent to me the Ismaelites. They are like the devils of the stinking pit. Represent to me the disciples of the wise, that are in Babylon. they are like to ministering angels. When R. [Judah] died, he said, Hoemnia is in Babylon, and consists of Ammonites wholly. Mesgaria is in Babylon, and wholly consists of spurious people. Birkah is in Babylon, where two men interchange their wives. Birtha Sataia is in Babylon, and at this day they depart from God. Acra of Agma is in Babylon. Ada Bar Ahava is there. This day he sits in Abraham's bosom. This day is Rabh Judah born in Babylon. (Kiddushin 72b, emphasis supplied)

Abraham’s bosom is not the same as Heaven. John Wesley refutes the idea that after death, souls immediately go to heaven:

So the Jews commonly termed what our blessed Lord styles paradise; the place “where the wicked cease from troubling, and where the weary are at rest;” the receptacle of holy souls, from death to the resurrection. It is, indeed, very generally supposed, that the souls of good men, as soon as they are discharged from the body, go directly to heaven; but this opinion has not the least foundation in the oracles of God: On the contrary, our Lord says to Mary, after the resurrection, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father” in heaven. But he had been in paradise, according to his promise to the penitent thief: “This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” Hence, it is plain, that paradise is not heaven. It is indeed (if we may be allowed the expression) the antechamber of heaven, where the souls of the righteous remain till, after the general judgment, they are received into glory. (Sermon 112)

 Therefore, Abraham’s bosom or Paradise, is merely an “ante-room” to Heaven.

Meanwhile, the rich man went to Hell (Hades in the original Greek). Hades is not Purgatory, a place for the “purging” of sins before the soul can finally enter Heaven (as in Purgatorio in The Divine Comedy). John Wesley says that there are those who believe that the souls that are in torment “in order…to atone for the sins committed while in the body, as well as to purify the soul from all its inherent sin.” He makes a comparison the Roman idea of the “purging” of sin after death as mentioned in the Aeneid by Virgil: 

“Ev’n when those bodies are to death resign’d,

Some old inherent spots are left behind;

A sullying tincture of corporeal stains

Deep in the substance of the soul remains.

Thus are her splendours dimm’d, and crusted o’er

With those dark vices that she knew before.

For this the souls a various penance pay,

To purge the taint of former crimes away.

Some in the sweeping breezes are refined,

And hung on high to whiten in the wind:

Some cleanse their stains beneath the gushing streams,

And some rise glorious from the searching flames.”

 --Here souls are “purified” wind, water, and flame. But Wesley says, “Tormented, observe, not purified. Vain hope, that fire can purify a spirit! As well might you expect water to cleanse the soul, as fire. God forbid that you or I should make the trial!” (Sermon 112).

B. Comfort and torment (vv. 23- 25). Some believe that after death, the soul will “sleep” in the dust, citing verses like I Thessalonians 4:13 where the expression “fallen asleep” is used as a euphemism for death. Our souls will not be unconscious after death. In our text, Abraham says, that Lazarus is now being comforted while the rich man is now being tormented (v. 25)—the exact opposite of what they had in life!

We are not told in the text what Lazarus is now experiencing. But other parts of the Bible portray the place of the righteous as a banquet with the patriarchs of the Jewish Scriptures: “And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 8:11).

But what the rich man is going through is describe in detail: He can see Abraham and Lazarus “afar off” and he can feel the torment of the flames, so much that he wanted Abraham to send Lazarus “to dip the tip of his finger in water” and cool his tongue because he is being tormented in flame.

Death is not an escape from punishment, but it is punishment not just for a time, but for eternity!

C. The great gulf (vv. 26-31).

1. Some people believe that there is still a chance for people to go to Paradise after death. But Abraham told the rich man that his request is impossible because “there is a great gulph [Wesley’s spelling] fixed” so that no one from either side can cross over to another (v. 26). In the doctrine of Purgatory, souls are being “purged” from sin before they can enter Paradise. But if there is a place of purification of sin, it’s in this life, not in the afterlife! (In The Divine Comedy, Purgatory is portrayed as a mountain on Earth.) The Bible says,

We then, as fellow-labourers, do also exhort you, not to receive the grace of God in vain, (For he saith, O have heard thee in an acceptable time, and in a day of salvation have I succoured thee. Behold, now is the acceptable time; now is the day of salvation.) (2 Corinthians 6:1-2).

2. Some people also believe that it is possible for spirits to return from the dead. Having been denied his request of Lazarus crossing over to give him a drop of water, the rich man now pleads to Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his five brothers who are still living. Doubtless that his brothers are also living in the same way that he did, and the rich man knows that they are also headed for the place of torment. But once more, Abraham denies his request. The living, he says, already have the Bible (called the books of “Moses and the prophets” here) with them. If they do not listen to the Word of God, neither they will listen even to someone who comes back from the dead (vv. 29-31).

Conclusion

In life, there are those of us who live with the good things in life; while there are those of us who live with the evil things in life. Our condition is life is only temporary, because one day death shall come to each and every one of us. In death, some of us who lived in with the good things in life will tormented, and some of those who lived with the evil things in life will be comforted. Once we die, our destiny is fixed. No amount of prayer can save us once we are put in torment. The time to change our final destination is not after we die but now, while we are still living.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him, may not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

Food Review - North Park-Jetti

We were driving under heavy rains and trapped in traffic. We had just attended a forum on “A Call of Righteous Governance” and we were cold, tired, and hungry. Among those of us in the vehicle were my mother, her district superintendent, the Rev. John Manalo, and our former bishop, Bishop Solito Toquero. We are part of a group of three vehicles that agreed to rendezvous at North Park near SM Mall of Asia to have dinner before going home to Cavite.

There are actually two North Parks in along Macapagal Avenue: one at Caltex and the other at Jetti. We were going to the one beside Jetti. These restaurants are on the property of the gasoline station itself.
 

 I find it curious for restaurants to be beside gasoline stations. I usually associate establishments on gasoline stations with convenience stores. If I had a car (which I don’t), I’d go to the gasoline station for fuel, maybe grab a drink and a snack at the convenience store, and maybe use the rest room. I wouldn’t go to the gasoline station to eat at a restaurant.

But times are changing. For example, the convenience store of Petron on the along DaangHari (near my former church appointment) is very well appointed, amply supplied with imported goods (for people living in the posh villages nearby). I once ate at a Shakey’s at Phoenix Oil at along Molino Road: the gasoline station also had a Mini-Stop.

North Park is a Chinese food restaurant, but more upscale than, say, Chowking. We were greeted at the door by a crew member saying “Ni hao” (Hello). (I’m tempted to lecture about Mandarin now, but maybe not.)  At the table, we were given some hot tea, on the house.

The food comes in big servings, good for a small group. We had China Chicken (half chicken for Php 278), Yang Chow (Php 188), Special Toasted Noodles (Php 278) Sweet and Sour Lapu-lapu Fillet (Php 278).

Overall, the taste of the food was subtle, not overpowering. The China Chicken comes with a tasty sauce. The Yang Chow was very delicious with its combination of chopped vegetables and meat. The Toasted Noodles came stiff, but when it was mixed with the rich sauce that came with it, it softened. It had plenty of vegetables, seafood, and meat in it. I like the sauce of the Sweet and Sour Fillet: I kept putting it on my rice.

I’m quite surprised that now you can get fine food at a gasoline station. I wonder what’s next? Pulling up the gasoline station for a black-tie dinner?

Forum - A Call to Righteous Governance

The UMC Challenge: A Call to Righteous Governance

Good Samaritan United Methodist Church

Quezon Ave., Quezon City

 

Last Saturday, September 21, 2013 together with clergy and lay leaders from my Conference (Philippines Annual Conference Cavite), I attended a forum on "righteous governance" sponsored by the Manila Episcopal Area of The United Methodist Church under Bishop Rodolfo A. Juan. One of the speakers was former chief justice of the Supreme Court, Reynato Puno, a member of the UMC. This is part of the Church's response--initiated by young people--regarding the ongoing "pork barrel scandal" that is currently embroiling (no reference to barbecued pork intended) members of the Congress of the Philippines.

The view from the vestibule.

The forum opened with a time of worship led by the praise and worship team of Puno UMC and the Unity Choir of the Quezon City Philippines Annual Conference-East (QCPACE).

The first speaker was Prof. Nieves Osorio, a commissioner of the Civil Service Commission, a member of Fairview Park UMC. She has a long experience in government service, especially when it comes to budgetary matters. Her talk was on the government's budgetary process, especially on the controversial PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund, otherwise known as the “pork barrel” fund). She explained how each government agency proposes their yearly budget and submits it to the Department of Budget, and Management. The DBM passes it to Congress, which writes up the General Appropriations Bill, which is finally approved by the President. Then each agency shall give an account of its expenditures to the Commission on Audit. They also publish their expenditure reports on their agency websites.

Prof. Osorio pointed out that while there is economic growth, there is still unemployment, which means that economic growth is not yet "inclusive", i.e, not everyone benefits from it.

The controversial PDAF is actually part of the national budget. A legislator can determine which projects he/she wants sponsor, e.g., agriculture. The legislator can either give the funds to a government agency (e.g., the Department of Agriculture) or a non-governmental organizations (NGO) involved in such a project. The problem is that whether the NGO is legitimate or bogus. She lamented that since the PDAF is currently "suspended", scholars who are currently supported by the fund may have to stop in their studies.

Former Chief Justice Reynato Puno, who hails from Puno UMC, gave a talk entitled "God's Power vs. People in Power" which presents the lay person's perspective on the PDAF issue. He seems to be in his element as he quoted Scripture, the UM Book of Discipline, and the Constitution. He quoted the UMC Social Principles which state that the State derives its just powers from the sovereign God. Therefore the must serve the common good of the people because governments are also under the accountability of God. "Our duty is to exert a strong ethical influence on the state." (Copies of his presentation were distributed after the forum. I wish it would be posted online so I can copy or link to it.)

Bishop Rodolfo Juan of the Manila Episcopal Area spoke "God, Righteous Governance, and the UMC challenge". He expounded on Micah 6:8--“It hath been told thee, O man, what is good, and what the LORD doth require of thee: only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.” (Copies of his talk was also distributed after the forum.)

There was an open forum which entertained questions from the audience. Most of the question was on the processes of the national budget, so naturally it was Comm. Osorio who answered these. Asked how graft and corruption can be curbed, her answer is vigilance on part of the people, but they should be educated on how the national budget works.

The Rev. Helen Cunanan, a district superintendent, gives a response as a representative of the clergy. Representative of the laity stand behind her.

 

Different sectors of the Church gave statements of challenge and response, given by representatives from the children youth, young adults women, men, deaconesses, and the clergy.

The forum ended with the congregationa singing of "Pass It On"--in Tagalog. A Litany on the UM Social Creed was recited. Bishop Juan and retired Bishop Solito Toquero read a pastoral statement issued by the College of Bishops. Bishop Toquero led in the closing prayer and gave the benediction.

Seminar – The Philippine English Symposium

 Dr. Shirley Dita and Dr. Danica Salazar, organizers of the Philippine English Symposium. (Photo from Shirley Dita on Facebook.)

Last September 14, 2013, a Saturday, I attended the first Philippine English Symposium (PES) at the Henry Sy, Sr. Hall, De La Salle University – Manila. It was sponsored by the Oxford University, De La Salle University (DLSU), and the Linguistic Society of the Philippines (LSP).

It was difficult to choose among all the activities that seemed to have converged on that day, the Feast of the Holy Cross. There was another seminar, the Emy Pascasio Memorial Lecture at the Ateneo de Manila University (I was able to attend last year in spite of a typhoon), also co-sponsored by the LSP. There was also the annual Manila Book Fair at the SMX Convention Center, SM Mall of Asia. A former bishop of ours in The United Methodist Church, Dr. Emerito P. Nacpil, would launch his second book on the same day; and my confreres in the Order of St. Luke (OSL) are attending that. There would also be a lecture by respected columnist Dr. Isagani Cruz in the evening.

Back in Cavite, I was supposed to attend a meeting of church workers in our district and also a seminar led by the host of Hardin ng Panalangin on DZAS, the Rev. Joey Umali, also a UMC pastor.

So many events, so little time!

I decided to attend the seminar at La Salle because: 1) since I am in the academe, I need to attend a seminar that is related to my field; 2) the topic, Philippine English and lexicography, interests me as a linguist; and 3) it was free.

I happened upon the PES when I was browsing on Facebook. Dr. Shirley Dita of DLSU, one of the organizers, he just posted it as an event and I was among the first to confirm my attendance. I think it was originally planned for an attendance of 150 (based on the number of kits prepared). But interest in the symposium swelled; reaching up to 500. To my surprise, a lot of my former classmates in the graduate school at Philippine Normal University – Manila have also signified their attendance, making it an impromptu reunion!

I arrived at DLSU a little before 12 noon. The symposium’s venue, the Henry Sy, Sr. Hall, is an imposing edifice. It was supported on the ground floor by huge concrete pillars, creating an open space beneath the building. When I arrived, some students were executing formations for their ROTC training.

I met one of my former classmates, Mam Gwen So, at the first floor. There were the registration tables, with statuesque Dr. Dita herself at the head. We were handed our seminar kits—a status symbol meaning you are among the first registrants. It was a foldable blue “eco-bag” that are the rage these days. It was stamped with the name of the Oxford English Dictionary, a sponsor of the symposium. Since we didn’t have lunch yet, Mam Gwen and I looked for somewhere to eat before we went to the seminar venue on the fifth floor (not before we got caught it a sudden downpour).

The foldable OED eco-bag. Geeky.

When we arrived at the seminar hall, we were quickly spotted by our former classmates: Phoebe, Mark, Jessica, and Guia. There was also another former classmate, Karren, who was with her boyfriend. One professor, another Methodist, recognized the cross-and-flame logo on my shirt. I also spotted Chelsea, another friend, on the other side of the hall. Pictures were quickly snapped and we prepared ourselves for the start of the symposium.

"Selfie" is not a Philippine English word. But maybe "we-fie" will.

The participants were all welcomed by Dr. Dita and Dr. Danica Salazar of Oxford University the co-organizer of the symposium. Dr. Dita herself gave the first talk, which was about the unique grammatical features of Philippine English (henceforth referred to as “PhE”). Among these were:

• PhE tend to use based from and results to instead of the standard based on and results in.
• PhE tends to say such + 0 noun (without the articles a, an, and the) instead of such a/an/the (thing).
• PhE tends to use the word to assure with only the indirect object and without the direct object; i.e., The president assured the flood victims (of what? More typhoons to come?).
• PhE tends to use the simple aspect (past and present) instead of the more complex forms such as the perfect aspect (had/has/have + past participle) and the progressive (forms of to be + -ing form of the verb; e.g., They lived in Manila vs. They had lived in Manila… and They are living in Manila.
• PhE tends to use the “zero majority” as in Majority of the student instead of the standard A majority of students.
• PhE also tends to use the singular form of the noun in expressions such as one of the student instead of one of the students.
• PhE is fond of repeating intensifiers, such as the famous “major, major”.
• PhE is fond of using disjuncts as “discourse fillers” such as Actually, okay, as a matter of fact, & c.

Dr. Ariane Borlongan, also of DLSU, discussed the diachronic (‘across time’) features of PhE. He compares the Phil-Brown corpus with the International Corpus of English – Philippine corpus (ICE-PHI). He demonstrated the PhE tends to use quasi-modals (going to, have to, able to) just like in American English; while British English tends to use full modals (will, must, can). Also, Filipinos tend to see indefinite pronouns ending with –body (everybody, somebody, nobody) more “elegant” than those ending with

Dr. Aileen Salonga began her talk on “the politics of PE” by showing Kachru’s “concentric circles” illustrating World Englishes (yes, the plural for “English”): The inner circle are countries which are native speakers (US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada); the outer circle includes countries where English is a second language (Philippines, India, Singapore, & c.); and the “expanding circle” includes the rest of the world (e.g., the rest of Europe and Asia). "Access to different varieties of English is not really equal," she says. "Philippine English is not really equal with the other varieties... They are judged asymmetrically." She talked about the use of English used by Filipino call center agents and their difficulties in communicating with foreigners who use other varieties of English.

Dr. Alejandro Bernardo presented an “endonormative pedagogical model” in teaching English; that is, that the norms of teaching English should be that based in the Philippines instead of those from other countries like the US (“exonormative”). He advocates a “pluricentric model” where both PhE and “standard” American English are taught. He also said that students should not be penalized if they use PhE syntax and accent when they are using English in the local context.

Dr. Danica Salazar talked about “Philippine English on the cutting edge of lexicography”. She shared her work at Oxford University and at the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED is now sponsoring a project to create a dictionary of Philippine English words (such as bananacue and carnapping). She also shared an online project to compile a “Pinoy English Community Dictionary”.

Dr. Danilo Dayag of DLSU, former chair of the Department of English and Applied Linguistics (DEAL) and former president of the LSP, presented the status of Philippine English. He cited the need for a connection between linguistic research and educational practice: "Research should NOT be done for research sake." He echoed Dr. Borlongan that students should not be penalized for the use of PhE because they can be understood in the country anyway. Nor should students waste their time and effort in correcting student’s pronunciation and grammar when they can be understood anyway.

The seminar ended with a round-table discussion with all the speakers of the seminar plus Jessica Zafra, a popular writer, Reynaldo Binuya from La Consolacion College, Kriza Kamille Santos from the Divine Mercy College Foundation, and Freddie Sale, a BSE-English student at DLSU. Ms. Zafra quipped, “I don't like Facebook but I can't fight progress.”

* * *

After the seminar (or rather, “shortly” before it ended), Phoebe, Mark, Jessica, Guia, and I hustled over the Book Fair to catch Dr. Cruz’s lecture. We were crestfallen when we found out that there was a registration fee that was a bit steep. So we decided to browse some books at the Book Fair itself. We drooled over the books (not literally) but a lot were simply out of our reach. We crossed over to Mall of Asia to have dinner before going home.

 Photos courtesy of Phoebe Sarah Montubig.

Ibalong, the Review

Tanghalang Pilipino’s poster for Ibalong for this year.

“Ibalong” is an epic tale coming from the Bicol region. For its 2013-2014 theater season, Tanghalang Pilipino, the resident theater company of the Cultural Center of the Philippines, once more brings the Bicol epic onstage as a musical play.

“Ibalong” tells the tale of heroes in search of a new homeland for their people (see a retelling of the epic in the blog Instructional Minutes). The story is reminiscent of Virgil’s Aeneid where Aeneas finds a new homeland for his people after their city was destroyed in the Trojan War (as told in The Iliad by Homer). He founds a new home for them in Italy, which would later become Rome. In Ibalong, the heroes originate from the island of Samar and found a new homeland in the Bicol region, calling it Ibalong. The heroes of both stories pass through various troubles as they fight for a new home for their people.

Once more, I had the opportunity to watch a play at the CCP gratis, thanks to my former student (who had invited me to watch her in Jun Ispater and Sandosenang Sapatos, both reviewed in this blog). She now plays a chorus girl in the play. I watched the play during its gala on August 31, Saturday, at 8:00 pm. I arrived at the CCP on the dot, so I dispensed with the cocktail socials before the play.

BEWARE: Below be SPOILERS! If you wish to watch the play and witness the story as it unfolds, read the summary-free review in my other blog, Instructional Minutes. Or scroll down to my review of the set and my reflections. Otherwise, continue reading at your own risk. You have been forewarned.

The story

Gugurang, the young Oryol, and Aswang.

Tanghalang Pilipino’s Ibalong, the Musical is a reinterpretation of the epic tale. The play opens by a song by the beautiful but dangerous snake woman, Oryol (played by the beautiful Jenine Desiderio). Together with the halimaw’s (monsters) that inhabit the land of Ibalong, she explains the laws of nature by which they abide. Also introduced were Aswang, the father of the halimaw’s and Gugurang, a personification of heaven. They also herald the ominous arrival of a new creature called man.

The young Oryol with her friend Opon. (Photo by Erik Crisologo Liongren)

The first hero is Baltog, who arrives in Ibalong with his men and declares the place as the new homeland for his people. Spying on the humans are the young Oryol (portrayed by the young and talented Trixie Esteban) and Opon, a gruff giant wild boar. Opon gets enraged by the encroachment of the humans and attacks them. Baltog and his men defeat Opon and take his head as a trophy. The young Oryol, witnessing the brutal slaying of her friend, vows revenge.

Baltog takes the head of Opon as a trophy. (Photo by Erik Crisologo Liongren)

By the time Oryol grows up as a young (snake-) woman, Baltog has died and the city he built has been reclaimed by the forest. But a new invader arrives in the person of the young Handyong. He declares his intention to build a new kingdom in Ibalong.

ANAKIN: I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new empire!

OBI-WAN: Your new empire?

(Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith)

Led by Oryol, the halimaw’s attack Handyong and his men but were repulsed by the humans. Oryol and the halimaw’s go into hiding to wait for an opportune time to strike the humans.

In hiding, Aswang, the father of Oryol, explains that indeed, the time of the monsters had ended and that the age of man has come.

Oryol and her father Aswang.

He also reminds Gugurang that after man vanquishes them monsters, man will then attempt to conquer even heaven. Aswang tells Oryol to join forces with Rabot to fight the humans. Then Aswang dies in the arms of his daughter.

Handyong and his men continue in their subjugation of the halimaw’s. They kill the giant crocodiles and tame the wild carabaos in order to work in their fields. They slay or subdue all the halimaw’s that come their way. Handyong sends his best friend, Bantog, to hunt and kill the monster Rabot.

Handyong fights the monsters. (Photo by Jude T. Bautista)

Oryol confronts Handyong and orders him to stop killing her fellow monsters. They duel but Handyong gets the best of her.

Handyong fights Oryol. (Photo by Jude T. Bautista)

“I call it ‘aggressive negotiations’.”

(Padme Amidala, in Star Wars Episode II: Attack to the Clones)

In order to save the life of her kind, she capitulates to a treacherous agreement with Handyong. She would help Handyong find her friends. But in order for their life to be spared, she agrees to marry Handyong. She agrees to cut off her snake tail in order to be fully human. As she cuts of her tail, Bantog decapitates Rabot.

Oryol reluctantly relents to be the wife of Handyong. (Photo by Erik Crisologo Liongren)

After a ten-minute intermission, the play resumes with Oryol, now a proper human wife, giving birth to the now-mature Handyong’s first son, named Makusog. Handyong grooms his child to be his successor: as he has conquered the earth, his son shall conquer heaven. The sky rumbles ominously and as Makusog foolishly tries to fight heaven, he is struck down by thunder. Gugurang appears to Handyong and rebukes him for attempting to conquer heaven. Handyong, seeing the body of his dead son, realizes the error of his ways. Gugurang explains that Makusog will live only after he dies. Filled with remorse with all the evil he has done, Handyong takes his life.

Makusog is brought back to life. Gugurang explains to Oryol that her son Makusog will eventually be the father of Daragang Magayon. Her grave will eventually give rise to Mayon Volcano, whose destructive power would be a reminder to humans of the awesome powers of nature. The play ends with the young Daragang Magayon (also portrayed by Trixie Esteban) singing a song on Ibalong, as Mount Mayon rises in the background.

Set, sounds, music, and costumes

The set is built on three levels: the stage floor; a middle level with inclined ramps (the one on the right has a trap door) representing high ground; and a topmost level, representing heaven. The curtain appears to have been made of plastic straw strings, which appear represent tall grass. It is used for dramatic effect as Oryol mysteriously slithers across the stage.

The music of the play is supplied by three live musicians: an acoustic guitarist and two percussionists. (I’m not sure if recorded music was also used.) The music used in the play has a strong ethnic vibe. Rock was also used in the play, and there are times when the groaning of an electric guitar can be heard. (I could have sworn that there were at least two scenes that are introduced by the first three notes of the “Imperial March”, which explains why all the Star Wars references in this review!)

Perhaps the only down side of the play was the sound system! I appreciated the music of Sandosenang Sapatos because the instruments can be heard live without amplification (but then, that was in the tiny Tanghalang Huseng Batute studio theater). At the beginning of the play (at least for this night), I could hardly understand the words in the song of Oryol. There were also times when the sounds from the wireless microphones on the cast would be spotty. The problem appears to have been fixed during the final act.

The greatest upside of the play are the costumes, especially of the monsters. One would be dazzled at the ingenuity and creativity that went into the construction of the costumes. Winning best costume hands-down is that of Oryol, whose shiny scaly tail was operated by two puppeteers in black manipulating the tail (like those dancing dragons during Chinese New Year). Hats off to the play’s costume designer, Leeroy New!

Plus points also to the choreography: In their vibrantly-color costumes, the chorus would fill the stage, making it a sight to behold.

Jenine Desiderio was excellent in her portrayal of the beautiful and seductive snake-woman Oryol. She also plays the dramatic parts very well. Once more, Trixie Esteban garnered my admiration as the young and innocent Oryol. Her voice, which was like a young Lea Salonga, rang as clear as a bell.

Reflections

Tanghalang Pilipino’s re-creation turns the epic into a modern-day parable on man’s relentless destruction of nature. As Baltog and Handyong pronounce their intentions to clear the forests and flush out all the monsters to make space for their kingdoms, I can see in my mind’s eye developments like seaside hotels and condominiums. Their destruction of nature is accidentally coincidentally relevant, for our country reeled from the destruction wrought by Typhoon Maring and habagat, the southwest monsoon, just the week before.

The Bible speaks of man’s destruction of nature in a way that is eerily modern:

And the nations were wroth; and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they be judged, and to give a reward to thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and to them that fear thy name, small and great, and to destroy them that destroyed the earth. (Revelation 11:18, emphasis added)

The destruction left behind by the recent typhoon revealed how damaged nature is because of the work of man. Entire towns were flooded because waterways were clogged by garbage. Also, there is the alleged theft of public funds that would have been otherwise used for flood-control projects and relief operations. Could it be that the apocalyptic signs in the Bible like pestilences and famines be—in part—caused by us human beings?

After the destruction of Earth, is rebellion against heaven itself. Greek mythology tells of the Gigantomachia, the Clash of the Giants, where the giants piled one mount on top of another in order to reach Mount Olympus and fight the gods. The Bible tells (in Genesis 11:1-9) of a story of people building the city of Babel (yes, it’s actually the city that is called Babel) with a tower in rebellion to God. Both stories tell of the futility of this: the gods strike down the Giants with thunder and lightning and God scatters humans all over the earth by confusing their language.

Personal notes

The play ends with a preview of the Legend of Mount Mayon. As Miss Esteban sings on the stage’s topmost level, Mayon rises majestically in the background. Will there be a sequel to Ibalong, one that tells the tale of the beautiful Daragang Magayon? I wish there will be.

The cast taking their bow during the curtain call. Mount Mayon can be seen in the background. (Photo courtesy of Carlo de Castro on Facebook)

The rise of Mount Mayon kind of reminds me of this scene. Will there be a sequel to the epic musical?

(Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith)

After the play, the cast (except for Miss Desiderio—wasn’t able to spot her) gathered at the CCP lobby for a meet-and-greet and photo-op with the audience. Once more I had the opportunity to have pictures taken with my student Lhorvie and with Trixie.

 

My former student Lhorvie Ann Nuevo and I.

Trixie Esteban and I. (Thanks to Lhorvie for calling her and for snapping this picture.)

* * *

“Ibalong” is running at the Tanghalang Aurelio Tolentino (Little Theater) on the following times and dates:

August 30, September 6 & 13 (Friday) - 8:00 pm

August 31 (Saturday) - 8:00 pm

September 1 (Sunday) – 10:00 am and 3:00 pm

September 7 & 14 (Saturdays) – 3:00 pm and 8:00 pm

September 8 & 15 (Sundays) – 3:00 pm

Tickets available at the CCP and at all TicketWorld outlets at Php 800 each and at Php 400 for students.

All images used in this blog entry are property of their respective owners.