African Bibvlical Hermeneutics

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379897287

African Biblical Hermeneutics; A Liberative Reading of the New Testament

African Biblical Hermeneutics; A Liberative Reading of the New Testament Canon

By

Tapiwa Huggins Gusha

(Anglican Priest in the Diocese of Harare. Lecturer in Old and New Testament at Wadzanai Training Centre and Bishop Gaul College. PhD (New Testament) student Stellenbosch University)

Submitted to Sacra Testamentum Journal Project

23 June 2018

Abstract

The Bible was interpreted differently in different epochs in the history of humanity. This alone proves that by and large the Bible is more atheological document than historical. In this regard, every theology is contextual and should address the concerns of people justifying the general claim that “the Bible is a living document”. With this background, Africans have every right to make the Bible relevant to their context hence “African Biblical Hermeneutics”. It is also crucial to note that there is no interpretation which is totally objective but every interpretation is subjective because the process of interpretation is affected by many things and the leading among those things being “orientation” or “background”.By so saying, this paper acknowledges the weakness of African Biblical Hermeneutics but that does not take away the fact that this method remains arguably the best tool of making the Bible relevant to the Africans. The Bible have been abused in so many instances by the earliest missionaries on Africans in a way that met their interests and not God’s desire for Africans. This makes the claim of John Mbiti exciting when he argued thatwhen White missionaries came to Africa they thought that they were bringing God to Africa and forget that they were called by God to minister to the African context. I would also further argue that the missionaries were not necessarily called to minister to Africa but they were called to experience the diversity of God’s grace and unfortunately they did not utilise that opportunity. Due to their prejudice, missionaries embarked on a “terrible hermeneutic principle of “fishing Biblical verses”.Good and proper exegesis looks at any verse within its entire pericope. This paper picks a few verses which were “fished” by some early White missionaries to advance their interests and reinterpreted them from an African Biblical hermeneutics taking into considerationthe pericope and context. The researcher takes seriously the impact of hermeneutic gap in Biblical interpretation and values contextual theology hence a strong advocate of African Biblical Hermeneutics.

Introduction

In his letter to the missionaries Congo in 1883, King Leopold II of Belgium wrote “Reverends, Fathers and Dear Compatriots: The task that is given to fulfil is very delicate and requires much tact. You will go certainly to evangelise, but your evangelisation must inspire above all Belgium interests. Your principal objective in your mission in the Congo is never to teach the niggers to know God, this they know

already. They speak and submit to a Mungu, one Nzambi, one Nzakomba and what else I don’t know. They know that to kill, to sleep with someone else’s wife, to lie and to insult is bad. Have courage to admit it; you are not going to teach them what they know already. Your essential role is to facilitate the task of administrators and industrials, which means you will go to interpret the gospel in the way it will be the best to protect your interests in that part of the world.For these things, you have to keep watch on disinteresting our savages from the richness that is plenty [in their underground. To avoid that, they get interested in it, and make you murderous] competition and dream one day to overthrow you. Your knowledge of the gospel will allow you to find texts ordering and encouraging your followers to love poverty, like “Happier are the poor because they will inherit the heaven” and “It’s very difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of God”. You have to detach from them and make them disrespect everything which gives courage to affront us…The children have to learn to obey what the missionaryrecommends, who is the father of their soul. You mustsingularlyinsist on their total submission and obedience, avoid developing the spirit in the schools, teach students to read and not to reason. There, dear patriots, are some of the principles that you must apply…Recite every day, “Happy are those who are weeping because the kingdom of God is for them.”…Force them to pay you a sign of recognition-goats, chicken or eggs-every time you visit theirvillages…Make them pay tax each week at Sunday mass…Teach the niggers to forget theirheroesand to adore only yours…Never present a chair to a black that comes to visit you…Don’t give him more than one cigarette…Never invite him for dinner even if he gives you achicken every time you arrive at his house.

This Missiological thrust by early missionaries gives African theologians every right to embark on an “African Hermeneutics”. By so doing, they develop a liberative reading of the Bible and in this regard the New Testament. It was not by default but design that African evangelisation startedconcurrentlywith the “Scramble for Africa”, that is arguably between 1876/1881-1914. There are only two African states that are arguably said to not to have ever been colonised but it is of no doubt that they feelthe same effects of colonisation.From this background, it becomes a scientific guess that early missionaries interpreted the Biblein a way to safeguard their interests. In this regard, African Biblical Hermeneutics becomes inevitable. This write up will explore what African Biblical Hermeneutics is thereby establishing its link with Canonical

Criticism and Post-colonial biblical hermeneutics. The research will also exegete the mostly abused New Testament verses:Romans 13:1-7, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities…”; Ephesians 6:5-9, “Bondservants, obey your earthly masters…”; Luke 6:20-21, “…Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God…”; andMatthew 19:24, “Again I tell you, itis easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” The idea of making the gospel a liberative tool was and is never demonic because Jesus, Paul and the early Church demonstrated it in the fight against legalism. This legalism was the epicentre of early missionary evangelism.

African Biblical Hermeneutics

According to Adamo (2015:14), African Biblical Hermeneutics is vital to thewellbeing of African society because it makes African social cultural contexts the subject of interpretation. On the same note, Alonso (1998: 67) concurs by saying this discipline elevates the downplayed African world-views, cultures and experiences in Biblical interpretation. This is a principle of interpreting theBible for transformation of Africa and may also be called African cultural hermeneutic, or African biblical transformational hermeneutics or simply African Biblical studies, (Adamo 2004:4). Both Ukpong (2000:11) and Adamo (2006:33) agrees that the major task of African Biblical hermeneutics is seven-fold, that is to formulate a Biblical hermeneutic that is liberational and transformational; to break the hermeneutical hegemony and ideological strangleholdthat Eurocentric Biblical scholars have long enjoyed, to understand the Bible and God according to scripture and African culture and tradition; to interpret the Bible existentially; to blacken the Bible; to reappraise the Bible in order to correct the effect of the cultural ideological conditioning to which Africa and Africans have been subjected in the business of Biblical interpretation; last but not list is to promote African culture, tradition and identity.For African Biblical Hermeneutics to be complete, two important approaches need to be understood: Canonical Approach and Postcolonial Approach.

Canonical Approach

The chief proponent of this method is B. Childsand he distinguishes Canonical Approach from Historical Critical Approach, (Childs 1970:16). He further stipulates that the Church is always central in critical Biblical exegesis and sometimes need to refrain

from interpreting the Bible focusing on it as a finalised product. On another note, Banana (1995: 71) argues that the word Canonical Approach was firstused by James Sanders and become so popular is his famous writing, “Torah and Canon”. Of much importance, this method is mainly interested in the meaning of the text within their canonical context and takes into consideration the nature of their assigned authority, (Childs 1992: 53). In his 2002 edition, Childs strongly argued that the New Testament canon cannot be closed because it was done by the early Church acting on inadequate or false information hence informed people have every right to rearrange the New Testament Canon. This kind of discourse, enables African theologians to adopt new approaches to Biblical interpretation that can make sense to their context. In so doing the guiding factor is that the Bible was abused for a long time todisadvantage Africans and this thinking gave rise to Postcolonial Approach.

Postcolonial Approach

Punt (2015:20), postulates that Postcolonial Approach started in the 1940s in view of combatingthe imperialistand hegemonic attitude and actions of European powers. Eagleton (1999:5), advances that this method emanated as a result of the end of class struggle in Western societies and the rise of revolutionary nationalism in the hitherto colonialized world contributed to the rapid rise of postcolonial theory.In Biblical studies postcolonial theory was adopted towards the end of the 20th century, that was not influenced by the effects of colonialism but also by globalisation, neo-colonialism, commercialisation of human life and violent armed conflicts (Adam 2001:85).

Sugirtharajah (1999:12), argues that postcolonial or vernacular hermeneutics is very useful in Africa because it is context-sensitiveand that is alert to local language and culture.Sugirtharajah advances that this method the boosting of the marginalised voices thereby stimulating hybrid interpretations.Those marginalised voices were also viewed by Dube (1997:20), from an African perspective in the way colonisers seized African land using the Bible.Because of this, Biblical texts are taken as powerful rhetorical instruments of imperialism (Dube 1997:21). Elliott (1993:17) concurs with Dube (1997:14) that the relationship between the colonisers/missionaries and native blacks was never about cultural exchange but domination and assimilation.After exploring the dynamics of African Biblical hermeneutics, the research will now exegete some verses which were being abused especially by oppressors/colonizers by exposing what they do not mean as well as what they mean.

African HermeneuticInterpretation

Romans 13:1-7

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those thatexist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, andyou will receive his approval, 4for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore one must be insubjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sakeof conscience. 6For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed,revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honour to whom honour is owed (ESV).

This passage does not literary mean that all leaders or governments have to be respected regardless of their conduct. However,fivepossible meanings can be deduced:

• Intertextual analysis:Matthew (2005:80) advances thatRomans 13 appear to not to represent Paul’s theology,it cannot fit well between Romans 12 and Romans 13:8ff.In concurrenceNurnberger (1987:40), Paul in his wider theology as reflected in other sections of the New Testament such as Acts encourages obedience to God and not to man.

• Evaluation of the claim of honour/respect:Kim (2008:98) asserts that critical analysis reveal that verse 4 broke the hegemony by suggesting a criteria to distinguish good governance from bad governance. Thisis supported by Porter who points out thatonly good government or leaders should be respected. Then verse 5, introduced the idea of conscience implying that there is room to criticise leaders or governance. Then if authority is instituted by God that means it should be accountable to God in order to remain respected(Porter 1990:117).

• Interpolation:Jewett (2007: 67), argues that these verses disturb the flow of the story from chapter12 to 13:8 thereby suggesting that it is nolonger Paul writing but someone with different interest. On this notthen even the verses cannot be standard for doctrinal matters.

• Contextual: The passage is not universal but occasionally addressing a specific context. Meant to protect the Christian community from being used by

revolutionaries who were planning to overthrow the Roman regime (Nanos 1996:76).

• Renaming the authorities: According to Nurnberger (1987:46), in fact these verses show that the sword ofauthority ultimately belongs to the ruled. The people have the mandate to evaluate whether the governmentof the day is meeting the common demands of the people or not. If it’s meeting the common god then its God ordained and deserve respect but if not then the possibility of a justifiable revolt is necessary.

Ephesians 6: 5-8

5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, 6not by the way of eye-service as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, 8knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive backfrom the Lord, whether he is a slave or free (ESV)

Omanson (2006:78) argues that this passageisfashionedon thecontextof a table of rules for goodorganizationof thedomiciliary.Familysupervisionwas acollective worryof politicalthinkersand ethicists in theantediluvianworld.Obviouslyso, since thedomiciliarywascommonlyagreedto be theelementarycomponentof the state or society. The health of society andsteadinessof the statehencewas tobe governed byon theuncomplicatedaffairswithin thedomiciliary-husband and wife, father and children, master and slaves. The second and thirdgroupof Christians shared this unease: nohesitationsomewhattovalidatethevirtuousnationalityofminorhousehold churches which mightthenhaveappearedrebelliousofcustomarycommunal standards; but noreservationmoderatelyalso as a means of bearingnoblewitness to thevalueandoddityof the Christianfamily(Schweitzer1979).

Omanson advances that thisedificeispredominantlynearto that of Col 3:18-4:1, whichperhapsprovided themodelfor those whichtrailed.Theessentialteaching is equallyconservativei.e.virtuousprinciplesare by no meanscompletelyChristian. But theconservativeischangedby the Christianscopethat allassociationshave to be survived‘in the Lord’ and with thegenerous, sacrificial love of Christ as thedesignand motivation.

Burden (1980:34) has it that in theoriginalpart of the rule (5:21–33) thechange originatesat once. That wives should be subject to their husbands (5:22; Col 3:18; 1 Pet 3:1)renderedwith theethicalsensibilities of the time;thereis thereforeneed to

recall that in the law andphilosophyof the timefamiliesweremasculinetraditionsand that thefatherhadunqualifiedauthorityover the other associatesof the family. But the regulationispreviouslyrelaxedbyintroducingit with a call to be subject to one another: in a Christianfamilythesupremacyof the paterfamilias was notoutrightand the reminder that wifelyobedienceis to be ‘as to the Lord’ (5:22) sets theentireassociation within theprincipalsettingofreciprocateddiscipleship (Mk 10:42-5). It isspot-onthat theinsertionof theconnectionof husband and wifecorrespondingto that of Christ and church (5:23-4) seems to set the wife inafundamentallylower position(1 Cor 11:3). But that againreplicatesthephilosophyof the time and thechief thrust of what follows is clearlyplannedto transfuse andchangethat givenassociation with the love of Christ. Thestandardfor the husband is Christ as lover andsavior, not as lord and master.

Luke 6:20-21

20And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. 21“Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. “Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.(ESV)

Tucket (1987:64) observed that thepreliminarybeatitude is to thedeprived.However, beforedeliberatingontheselfof theconsecrateddeprived, theconceptionof a beatitudedesiresremark.Proclaimingsomebodyhappy,satisfied, blessed, or privilegedwas common in theprimevalworld. Dupont (1966: 17)offerscasesfrom Egyptianphilosophy, and Hauck and Bertramexhibitits usage inHellenistic culture and Jewish culture. Beingsanctifieddenotesto alogicofinwardcontentmentatnoble affluence.Betz (1985: 25)recordsfourtraditionalevents that mightyieldsuch a beatitude: religioussettings, secularaffluence,incitementsof wisdom, ormockery.In OldTestamentreligioussituations, thenotionishappinessatundergoingfortune from God’s hand, and it is almost always a person who issanctified-not things or states (Fitzmyer 1981: 632-33).Such OldTestamentblessingsappear mostly in the Psalter and in WisdomWritingstourgeone to goodconduct, which God honors either now or in the future.Generally, theassuranceof blessing comes first and then thefoundation for the blessing or its content is given via aqualifiedclause, a participialexpression, or a clause thatdenotesto the blessed in the third person.Thesecond-person beatitudes are also given (Deut.33:29; Isa. 32:20; Ps. 128:1–2) (Marshall 1978: 248). In afew OldTestamentmanuscripts, blessingis given as aupcomingpromise in order

to comfort God’s people (Isa. 30:18; 32:20; Dan. 12:12; Guelich 1982: 65). In theInterTestamental period, theprocedurehas an eschatologicaltraditionand stresses the cozinessthat Godprovidesto hisdistresspeople as he promises to deliver them (Guelich 1982: 64-65). TheOldTestament-like wisdom beatitude is alsocorporate, and it is in the Wisdom Literature that the first known beatitude list appears (Sir. 25:710). In fact, such beatitude lists areuncommon.

Luke’soriginalbeatitude has three peculiarities: it appears todenoteto a state, is given in the less common second person, and is in the present tense. As such the blessing is not future, but already exists.Nonetheless, this beatitude sets theplatformfor the ones thattrail, which all haveimpendingpromise inopinion. In this way, Jesus’ promises, when taken as afull,marrythecurrentand theupcomingtogether in a way that isdistinctiveof his “already-not yet” eschatological language. What one has now is asymbolicof the fullproprietorshiplater. Jesus’ offer isinclusivein scope, encompassingboth present and future. As such, his promise is an offer of hope spreadinginto the future. This hopepermitsthe disciple to suffer now, because glory awaits later. The promise given here is inaugurated, but it has hardly reached its total fulfillment. The entry point into the promise is the right to belong to the kingdom, which is the honor of those poor who are at Jesus’ side and have identified with him. This emphasis issuitableeven if the Aramaic tenseinitiallyused here wasliberalin force so that the meaning isprolongedfrom the present into the future (Marshall 1978: 250). Theregularityof thecustomat this point in giving a presenttenseinterpretationshows that the emphasis is on the currency of thecustodyof the kingdom. In this regard,Luke’s use of the second person highlights the current, personal possession of the kingdom: “Yours is the kingdom of God.” As noted in the discussion of sources for 6:20-26, Luke’sexceptionaluse of the second person brings out the direct application more clearly, while Matthew’s third person, being the usual form of such beatitudes, is more likely tobe original.Luke is summarizing the real force of Jesus’ remarks to hishearers, but one could also argue that Matthew generalized a uniquesecond-person beatitude, as Marshall (1978: 249) argues by appealing to a prophetic context. If Marshall isaccurate, then Matthewprolongedthe application beyond Jesus’listenersin an analogy: “As with the disciples, so also with Jesus’ later followers.” This change would show the timeless character of his teaching. Either view is possible; certainty is impossible.Who are the participants in the promise that are called the poor and are said to have the kingdom?Πτωχός(ptōchos, poor)

Matthew 19:24

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter thekingdom of God.(ESV)

Omanson stipulates that there isno need tomove offfrom thebasicmeaning of the text:

(i)The passagesimplygoes on to speak about what isimpossible. As Jerome argues‘one impossibility is compared with another’.

(ii)Thecentralpatristiccustomapprovesthe literal interpretation.

(iii)The camel, the largestnaturalcreaturein Palestine, wasaxiomaticallylarge thanthe hole in a sewing needle a well-known example of a very small opening.

(iv)Thebizarrecontrastistypicalof Jesus (Mt 23:24, refers toswallowinga camel-another contrast of large and small).

(v)There areoutstandingparallelsandone never dreams of an elephant going through the eye of a needle andworse tomake an elephant pass through a needle’s eye

The disciples’ subsequent question, which uncriticallypresumesthat wealth is a sign of divinefavor,entailsthat if not even the rich man, blessed as he is by God, can enter the kingdom, who can? The answer lies in God’ssupremacy, which isadversativeto humanineffectiveness:concerningsalvation only God haspower-just as, withrespect to goodness, God and human beings belong todiverseclasses.But note that verse 26 speaks only of the possible, not the probable. God’s omnipotence does not warrantyanyone’s salvation.Verse26 is not comfort for the rich; it does not cancelat the same time does not guarantee salvation to the poor.

Conclusion

After an enquiry on the subject of African Biblical Hermeneutics, this paper acknowledgesthree major significance of this method: Relevance; Justice and Liberation. By “Relevance”, the encouragement is that for logical missiology the Bible as a theological document should be interpreted contextually and addresses the specific needs of a specific people but at the same time maintaining objectivity. By “Justice”, the paper argues that if God is just then the Bible should be a vehicle of promoting justice within the communities and not foster oppression of any kind. By

“Liberation”, the researchers observes that the history of salvation cannot be divorced from liberation hence the Bible should be a liberating tool. African Biblical Hermeneutics observes that early missionaries did not do justice in promoting the above in their missiology.From thisunderstanding, for Christianity to spread and be fully embraced in Africa, there is need to make African Biblical Hermeneutics a leading hermeneutic tool.

Bibliography

Adam, M. K. 2001. Handbook of postmodern BiblicalInterpretation. St Louis: Chalice

Burden, F. E. 1980. An ABC of Biblical Exegesis. Pretoria: Sigma Press (Pty)

Childs, B. S. 1970. Old Testament Theology in crisis. Philadelphia: Westminster

Childs, B. S. 1992. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testament Theological reflection on the Christian Bible. London: SCM Press

Childs, B. S. 2002. Biblical Theology: A Proposal facets. Minneapolis: Fortress Press

Dube, W. M. 1997. Toward a postcolonial feminist’ interpretation of the Bible Semeia 78, 11-25

Elliot, J. H. 1993. Social-scientific criticism of the New Testament: An introduction. London: SPCK

Jenett, R. 2007. Romans. A commentary. Hermeneia. A critical and historical commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press

Kim, S. 2008. Christ and Caesar.The gospel and the Roman Empire in the writings of Paul and Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans

Matthew, R. 2005. “Bible and the state: A Pauline perspective” Bible Bhashyam 31, 77-83

Moo, D. J. 1983. WTJ45:73-100

Nanos, M. B. 1996. The mystery of Romans. TheJewish context of Paul’s letter. Minneapolis: Fortress Press

Nurnberger, K. 1987. “Theses on Romans 13” Scriptura, 22, 40-47

Omanson, R. L. 2006. A textual guide to the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft

Porter, S. E. 1990. “Romans13:1-7 as Paul’s political rhetoric. Filologia Neotestamentaria 3, 115-39

Punt, J. 2015. Postcolonial interpretation, reframing Paul: Volume 20

Schreiner, T. R. 1997. The law and its fulfilment: A Pauline Theology of Law. London: SPCK

Sugirtharajah, R. S.1992. Postcolonial criticism and Biblical interpretation Oxford: Oxford University Press

Thielman, F. 2007. From Plight to Solution: A Jewish framework for understanding Paul’s view of the law in Romans and Galatians. London: SMS Press

Tuckett, C. 1987. Reading the New Testament-Methods of interpretation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press