58

 

 

BIBLE STUDY I

 

I understand our task this afternoon and to­morrow is to relate the Bible, the Word of God, to today's concern for Justice. So let us start with the Word: this afternoon with the Old Testament and tomorrow with the New Testament. Suppose we begin with Deuteronomy 26: 5-9

"And you shall make response before the Lord your God, 'A wandering Armenean was my father; and he went down into Egypt and sojourned there, few in number; and there he became a nation, great, mighty and populous. And the Egyptians treated us harshly, and afflict­ed us, and laid upon us hard bondage. Then we cried to the Lord the God of our fathers, and the Lord heard our voice, and saw our affliction, our toil, and our oppression; and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an out­stretched arm, with great terror, with signs and wonders; and he brought us into this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey”.

What we have here may have been considered as the basic confession of faith, a creed. That is to say, when the Israelites confessed their beliefs, this is one of the expressions that they may have used. I would like to treat this basic statement of faith as an expression of their lived religion, the faith by which they lived.

This Bible was compiled around 600 B.C. But long before this time there was a lived religion, a religion lived by the Israelites. It was only later when they produced a reli­gious literature, which we now call the Bible. However, from the time of Abraham to the writing of the Bible, the creed, the statement of faith was affirmed. In fact, the Bible grew out of this basic creed. When we look at and into this creed then, we look into the hearts and minds of a people, into an expression of their basic belief, which made their religion different from the religions around them. For theirs was a lived faith.

Now what is the creed saying? In order to understand the creed we should look back to the history of this people. First of all, around the year 2000 B.C., in what we now

 

59

 

call the Middle East, there were two rivers — the Euphrates and the Tigris. In this area there was a city called Ur, another city call­ed Haran and still another place called Palestine, now known as the Holy land. Towards the southwestern region was Egypt. In Ur there existed a tribe, a clan, a Semitic tribe whose ancestor was claimed to be Abra­ham or alternately Isaac and Jacob.

At one time, because of certain historical events, there was a migration from Ur to Haran, to the Holy Land and on to Egypt. We can no longer tell why there was a migra­tion. Most likely, one explanation is because there were a lot of wars at this time especial­ly between the great empires. Thus, there was a lot of displacement and evacuation — people were on the move. In any case, Abraham's clan was included in the migra­tion from Ur to Haran, eventually to the Holy Land and to Egypt. You must be familiar with the story about the tribes of Israel — the descendants of Jacob who eventually found their way to Egypt and stayed there. For many years, they enjoyed prosperity and peace under the leadership of Joseph. But after several centuries, they found themselves to be an enslaved people in Egypt. They were made slaves by the Pharaohs. Most likely, this was due to certain historical changes — the rulers, for example, were changed from the Hyksos to the Pharaohs.

Out of that slavery, one day they experienc­ed an escape. The Israelites went out of Egypt and escaped back into the desert. They became a religious federation, that is to say, the several tribes that went out of Egypt became united in one religion. Mark that, they were not yet a political unity — they were not yet a nation. They were just desperate tribes with one uniting element — they believed in the same God — Yahweh. They were one in faith. So, a religious federation was formed in the desert. Eventually they re-entered Palestine from the desert. They fought battles and eventually they possessed the land.

There were five great important events in the life of this people:

1.       the migration of their forefathers

2.       the prosperity and peace that they had experienced in Egypt

3.       the escape from slavery

4.       the becoming of a unity in the desert — a religious federation

5.       the possession of the land.

These were great historical happenings, great social events in their life as a people. These are great human events, or if you wish, deep experiences of a people.

Now, in faith, they understood this migra­tion, not as simple emigration, but rather as a time when God was calling them. "God called my father Abraham, and He promised him a land and children." The meaning of this historical migration for them in faith was that of a call from God. God called them and promised them. God called them and promised them when HE called the patriarchs to leave their former land: He would give them a beautiful land flowing with milk and honey, a land that would give them children numerous as the stars in the sky and as numerous as the sands of the sea.

The time of prosperity and peace was under­stood not just a time of peace and prosperity but a time of God guiding them. This second event is what I consider as the greatest oc­currence in their life as a people. Again, their escape from slavery is understood not as a simple escape but rather a time when God, Yahweh, was leading them out of their bondage, delivering them with mighty hands and outstretched arms, with terrible signs and  wonders. So the escape from slavery, the deliverance of God, was the great Exodus.

The formation of the religious federation in the desert neither was just an event; rather in faith, they understood it as God saying to them, "I am your God and you are my people". That is to say, they understood this event as a special covenant with God. Finally, the last event, the possession of the land, was a time when God was with them fighting their battles with them and giving them this

 

60

 

land flowing with milk and honey.

We have in the history of these people, the Israelites, then the important moments, historical and social happenings which were interpreted as God’s saving interventions. The migration was not a simple migration, but an intervention of God taking the form of a call, a promise, the escape from slavery was an intervention of God delivering them with a mighty hand with an outstretched arm. So, here, we have human events which they understood in faith as saving actions of Yahweh.

We can see that this creed then is nothing but a celebration, a recitation, a proclama­tion of the great saving deeds of God. In short, a testimony of the great saving moments in their life. Looking at it closely, we see that the story of the wandering Armenean is an expression recalling the migration. The verse on going down into Egypt and staying there, first as few in number yet later becoming great mighty and populous refers to the time of prosperity and peace in Egypt. The next phrase speaks of the enslavement and then the deliverance to the possession of the land, the fulfillment of the promise.

In sum, I am saying then, that first, this creed is an expression of the basic belief of the people called Israelites, Second, that the content of the statement is the saving actions of God acknowledged in faith. That God is alive, active and present in the great human events of their history. Drawing conclusions from this creed understood in the light of my explanation, I can see the following.

Basically, I will say two things which have some import for us here today in Asia — for our theology, our faith and for our action. The two words I would point out are historical and total. First, if we look at this basic statement of faith, it says the following: That the emphasis of this religion and its focus is EVENTS. This sense of history is of utmost important, for I don't know what the tradition is in the Protestant confession, but for us Catholics, we had a tendency before Vatican Council II to focus on metaphysics.

For example, if you ask an educated Catholic of what faith is, he will say that for him / her, faith is an assent to truth, the intellect which one does not necessarily understand. I don't know what it is with you but we went through this stage in our growth as Christ­ians in which what was important was to be able to define the essences of things and of God. For example, the notion of one God in three divine persons — and so on and so forth became the main concern of religion, of metaphysics. In contrast to this, the Biblical faith is concentrated on or emphas­izes events in history. It confesses, it cele­brates great moments in history — the migration, the possession of the land, the covenant, the escape from Egypt. So, that is the first point which might be used for dis­cussion later. What implication does this have for us today? Are we also historical in our mind set, in our thinking? Similarly, if we ask the Cathechetical question of where is God? One whose religion is not biblical will answer by saying that he is in heaven, every­where; he is in the church building, and in sacred places. For a historical religion. God is found in socio-historical events.

Then we can take a next point for possible discussion. A religion, which focuses on metaphysics, can be very concerned with life hereafter, life after death. Supposing when a baby is born, you ask the important question: Has this baby been baptized? Your unconscious sense of guidance tells you that the important thing is to prepare the baby for life after death. On the other hand, if you ask questions whether this baby is going to be brought up malnourished, or whether the father has sufficient wage to support the baby or whether the baby would grow as a decent human being with proper education, then you are asking questions which do not belong so much to the hereafter as to the here and now. In short, there is a difference between life after death — certain religions are concerned basically with the life after death — and there is also a life after birth.

 

61

 

Now it has been our experience in the Chris­tian religion that we are more concerned with the life after death and not very con­cerned about life after birth. The Israelitic religion is a religion concerned with the here and now, in fact in the beginnings of this religion there was no belief in the hereafter. The point I want to make is this – if you look at the blessings which Yahweh their God gave to them as a community are the blessings of land, children and deliverance from slavery. Those things would pertain to the here and now blessings in this world. It was only later that they would develop a religion of life after death. In any case, you could say quite safely that this religion has a God who is concerned with land, children, prosperity, peace, deliverance from slavery; in short, blessings of the here and now as contrasted to blessings for the after-life. Now you can say as an objection that a religion that believes in the hereafter is superior to a religion, which focuses on this world, on the here and now. This is not the main point of contrast here. Rather the point being asked by this religion is whether we are concerned with the here and now.

The next thing is to look into another level. I exercise my ministry in such a way that I am basically concerned with the individual or the problems of the individual particu­larly in the fulfillment of his / her personhood or during times of sorrow or suffering again as they relate to personal salvation. In contrast to that there would be another type of ministry in which one is concerned with problems and questions, which are social in nature, so the questions are societal hunger, poverty, oppression, wars. What I am saying is that it is possible that the later Christian religion is basically concerned with the individual but does not have very much the societal dimension — concern for social questions and problems of people as people.

But we could see from the creed that the Israelitic religion certainly has societal con­cern. The Christian religion, however, going into Greek philosophy dichotomized the soul and the body. Thus, the understanding was that the soul is spiritual and the body is material. Then because the soul is spiritual it is also immortal it does not corrupt, does not disintegrate; thus, it is understood as some­thing good. On the other hand, the material is understood to be mortal, something which dies, something as being source of evil. Thus, the dichotomy brings about emphasis on the spiritual well-being of man as opposed to his/her material well-being. In contrast to this understanding, the anthropology of Biblical religion looked at man not as made out of soul and body but simply as man – concrete man — a living being of flesh and blood. The way they saw it, as it was record­ed, would be that God at one time took clay or dust and he breathed his own breath into the dust and that dust became a living being. So if this man, this living being forgets to breathe, then he is dead since it is his breath that is making him alive. Or if you slay him, and his blood runs out, then he is dead be­cause it is the blood which makes him alive. It is always concrete. It is never separation between something material here and some­thing metaphysical and spiritual there. So from the Biblical perspective, it is not just the soul which is the seed of good and the body which is the seed of evil but the whole man is good and the whole man is bad. He has tendencies to be good and he has to tendencies to be bad. It is total.

I think I could take another point — the understanding of salvation. I think we could say that in the Christian understanding at a later stage, salvation meant salvation of the soul for heaven or salvation of the soul from sin, i.e. to be in grace so that the soul will go to heaven. In contrast to this, the Israelitic religion when talking about salvation would not refer to the salvation of the soul, but of the whole man. And more accurately, we can say that for them judging from the creed salvation was God’s concern for clan, for a tribe, for a people. That is the kind of salva­tion they talked about. Is it salvation from sin? Yes, for they spoke about an “up­right heart”, righteousness. So salvation meant righteousness but it also meant salva­-

 

62

 

tion from slavery, from famines, from disease, from enemies, from catastrophes. Likewise, it meant land, peace, freedom and things of the like.

Lastly, if we look at the creed, we find the following implied hints, which are useful for us today. Remembering that the focus is not on abstract truths or doctrines or essences, but rather on events in history, on social happenings and events as the lived exper­iences of people in their struggle in the con­crete work, what is being asked of us today is what are we doing for the historical happenings, for the social forces, the social dynamics, the forces of liberation and the forces of oppression at work in our world today?

Do we confess a God who is merely a God in the temple or in the Church or in heaven, or a God who is involved in the making of history or a God who is there when history is being shaped, in these human events and forces which create the history for now and the future? Is the God we confess the God who is involved in the present and the future. Is the God we confess the God who is involved in and with people? Is our religion a religion which is concerned only or at least mainly with the hereafter, life after death, eternal salvation? Or is it a religion which while believing in the life after death is also passionately concerned with the blessings in this world? Is it a religion concerned merely or mainly in the individual or is it one which also sees this individual in society and is concerned with social problems as such — questions such as land, slavery, prosperity which the Bible celebrated?

And then, how do we look at man? Do we look at him as made up of two, very dif­ferent entities, one spiritual and one material, so that we no longer have man as a whole. And in the process, we stress one part of him and neglect the other. Or do we rather see man always as a whole. It is true that the Bible speaks about spiritual and material but the understanding of it is not that soul is spiritual and body is material; rather that the whole man is spiritual when he is not pos­sessed by the Spirit of God. So that spiritual in Bible means firstly the rule of God, the power and life of God and secondly, as it applied to man, it meant man being spiritual­ized or transformed by the power and spirit of God.

Finally, the Biblical religion in the Old Test­ament is challenging us today by saying that religion should be concerned for man, for clan, for tribe for nation. That while it dealt with religious things like grace and righteous­ness, it was also concerned with all types of evil — slavery, war, catastrophe — and with the blessings of life like land, food, peace and justice. So the challenge becomes a con­cern for the totality of salvation.

So in short, the two questions posed to us by the Biblical religion are: 1) can we be historical? i.e. can our religion or is our religion concerned for history and does it find God in history? and 2) can we be total in our concern not just for the hereafter but for the here and now, not just for the in­dividual but for society, not just for soul but for total man, not for separated or individual salvation but for social salvation?

 

Discussion:

Nimalka: In most of our emerging theological studies or in our attempts to return to the Biblical roots, I see a new kind of trend of religious revival. On the other hand, the importance of religion is being questioned. We speak of the Bible in a new way so that we could make people be more socially oriented, but certain events in Asia particularly those, which emanate from the liberation processes tell us a different story. How would you see your Biblical reflection in this light?

Abesamis: My perspective is this: here is a world today, characterized by poverty and oppression and this world is question­ing any and all religions. What does reli­gion have to say to this? What does religion have to contribute to saving 90% of human being in Asia from their com­mon light?

 

63

 

This study is seeking to establish what the original meaning of the Biblical religion is. And to do that we have to try to see what the religionist had to say at the period when he confessed his religion not at a later date. Now when this is clear, we get the meaning of our faith and this will shed light in our situation today. For our religion historically has something to say to the oppression today. There is some­thing which challenges us to respond to this religion. It is necessary to have progressive theological thinking to back an individual or the church to be socially oriented.

To have social change, it is not necessary to be a man of religion, a man of faith, in the sense of religion. In fact, most of those who are dedicated to justice and peace are not believers. But if a man has faith, he has to find his faith in harmony with his commitment; it will be good for a person to find such religion which makes this harmony possible.

What kind of questions are posed by this faith? For example, in metaphysics the main question is where do we come from and where do we go after death? For me this question is not as urgent as the question: Where are we going? Not in terms of situation after death, but with the human situation today. I participate with other human beings who are specially oppressed, who are trying for a life and a future, which would make man more than what he is today. In faith I believe that there is a final stage in which there will be a sort of a transformed world order — total redemption. I believe in faith that this is where we are going. In the mean­time, what is important to me now is the world today — suffering from hunger, poverty and injustice — and what is my response to it NOW!