hermenêutica contextual

7/29/2019 hermenutica contextual

1/21

JOURNALOF THEOLOGY FORSOUTHERN AFRICA 3

THE USE OF SCRIPTURE INTHEOLOGYTOWARDS A

CONTEXTUAL HERMENEIHIC1

CHARLES VILLA-VICENCIO

Man is unable to know God apart

from His self-revelation in the person ofChrist and through Christ increation.

2Knowledge of this God

brings those who partake of itundera claim which is God's giftto man that is both total and unlimited.

3More conscious than most

1 Karl Berth's interpretation of Scripture in his

flomerbrie/ (Epistle to the flomansj continues to

be an in cent ive to many theologians to use

Scripture in a creative manner Barth oncenoted of this commentary that it is better under

stood by non-theologians than by theologians

This together with other similarities to present-

day contextual theology partly explams the

heavyBarthian nature of the introductory com

ments in this article

2 The Bart hian stat us of this presupposi tion is

substantiated m the following representativequotations

"Theology must begin with Jesus Christ, and not

wi th ge ne ra l pr in ciples , however better, or, at

any rate, more relevant and illuminating, they

may appe ar to be as though He were a continu

ation of the knowledge an d Word of God and notits root and origin, not indeed the very Word of

God itself

Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh & Clark) II,

2, 5 (Her eafte r q uot ed as CD)

"H e unveils Himself as the One He is by veilingHimself m a form which He himself is not ' CD

II, 1, 52

3 Bar th noted that it was on this claim that the

"Third Reich" of Adolf Hitler was shipwrecked"Let this sentence be utter ed in such a way that

it is heard and grasped, and at once 450 pro

phets of Ball are always in fear of their lives "CD II, 1, 444

Charles Villa-Vicencio is an Associate Professor in

that all theology is tentative and a

mere approximation o the truth,Barth stresses that it is impossiblefor man to be silent about God.4

Theology may thus be describedas fides quaerens intellectum (faithseeking after understanding), andnever irrational mysticism, it is anattempt by each generation to re-

flect and repeat that which is in-itiated and controlledby God's self-

revelation. It is theologla viatorum(a pilgrim theology). The primarysource of this revelation in JesusChrist is the Scriptural record recognised by the Christian tradition to always be higher than thechurch and a corrective to allphilosophy, theology, ethics orspeculation.5

From this mainstream protestant

formulation on the nature of theology several contexlual consequences can be drawn. Theologyarises out of a community's experience and practice of faith. Assuch faith is always related to agiven situation and theologygives expression to this experienceof faith within a particular cultureand life experience. Note can well

be taken of the position of the


2/21

4 SCRIPTURE IN THEOLOGY

Roman Catholic Church in this regard as it comes to expression inthe encyclicals of Benedict XV,Maximum iJJud and that of Pius XI;ferum EccJesiae. It is here stated

that the church desires that "theindigenous soul be penetrated, andthe presentation of dogma andmoral teaching be adapted to theunderstanding of the indigenoussoul".6 Theology can thus he de-

fined as an articulation of theexperience of God within a givensituation understood in relation tothe tradition of the Christian faith

in general and specifically as re-corded in Scripture. Yet clearly notall theology is as explicitly concerned to affirm the contextualnature of its thought as might beassumed from the above paragraphs. This point will be furtherdeveloped in the course of thispaper as attention is given to theuse of Scripture in theology.

1. SOLA SCRDPTURA AS A

. HERMENEUTICAL PROBLEM

To appeal to the authority ofScripture as the basis of theology isan ambiguous and confusing exercise. This is made explicit by DavidH. Kelsey in his article, "Appealsto Scripture in Theology" in which

it is shown by making use ofStephen Toulmin's analysis of thestructure of arguments thatScripture can be used either asdata, warrant or hacking in a theological argument.

7When one multi

plies these three basic logical options with the numerous traditional

6 Jabula ni A Nxumalo, "Chr ist and Ances tors inth e African World a past ora l consider ation ',

Journal of Theology for Southern Africa (Vol 32September, 1980, 4 (Hereafter quoted asJTSA)

uses ofScripture in theology whichrange from liturgical to criticalexegetical models one realizes thatthe authority of Scripture can haveseveral different meanings for the

ology. To this other factors need tobe added: Different types of logicalarguments can be used to justifythe hacking or warrants ofarguments. The use ofScripture asdata is influenced by the results ofdifferent methods of Biblical andliterary criticism, and "authority"can be defined in numerous different ways. Ultimately one realizes

that the reformed principle of solaScriptum is not a simple and definitive court of appeal for theologiansin a moment of confusion and uncertainty, but rather a complexhermeneutical principle.

This is not to suggest, however,that theologians need not regardScripture as a primary and corrective source of their work astempting as this may seem to someproponents ofthe discipline. Numerous are the problems involved inascertaining a viable hermeneutical bridge between theology andScripture, but one cannot avoid

venturing across a bridge of somekind without denying a basic Christian presupposition that Scriptureis the primary record ofGod's self-revelation to man and ofthe uniqueorigin of the church. Barth is decisive at this point. "If it (the church)

would see Jesus Christ, it is directed and bound to Holy Scripture."

8But here we find ourselves

back with the hermeneutical dilemma already discussed in relation to David Kelsey's article. Inwhat sense is Scripture authorita-tive for Christian theology? Thisquestion entails numerous further


3/21

JOURNAL OFTHEOLOGY FOR SOUTHERN AFRICA 5

questions to which we need to givesome attention.

1.1 IN WHAT SENSE IS SCRIP-

TURE INSPIRED?Fundamentalistic doctrines of inspiration which endow the wordsof Scripture with total inerrancy isa consequence of Greek (Aristotelian) logic (of cause and effect)rather than Biblical teaching (theconcept "Biblical" is used hereconscious that the Bible consists ofa melody and at times a cacophony

of different teachings). Mainstreamprotestant theology has traditionally made a clear distinction

between the words of Scriptureand the Word of God.

9

Incontemporary theology this point isperhaps most clearly articulated inT.F. Torrance's distinction betweenJaJia (the actual words of Scripture)and logos (the Word of God).

10It is

to the lalia that we must direct ourhistorical-critical questions forelucidation. Yet in so doing wemust seek for the Jogos "to reachthrough the JaJia", which is "in andthrough", "beyond", "above andbehind" the JaJia. Inspiration isthus orientated against the Greektheopneustos connotation of directness (the Scripture is inspired

because the Holy Spirit has filledeach letter and word renderingthem inerrant and infallable). Ittends rather towards the Latininspirata connotation of indirectness (the Scripture is inspired because in reading it we areencountered by the Word of God).

9 Ds Pieter Schoeman, Word and Spiritrelevance ofScripture for a doctrine of the HolySpirit WS Vorster(ed)(Pretoria Umsa, 1980)The Spirit m Biblica] perspective

The Word of God is thus notderived from some remote point inthe past, the record of which isretained to a greater or lesser

degree of accuracy in the Scriptural record. It is an ever present,existential address to us, heardand encountered in the Scripture.The somewhat tattered definitionof Scripture being inspired becauseit inspires us is, apart from themaladies of subjectivism, thereforenot a vastly inaccurate definition.

1.2 WHAT IS MEANT BY THEAUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE?

The question now emerges precisely what is it within the

words of Scripture (the JaJia) that isthe authoritative Word of God(Jogos)? It seems to me that theultimate problem with so manydoctrines of inspiration is preciselythis reluctance to define thatconcept which is the Word of God

within Scripture. This reluctance isto be understood. To fail to definethis concept leaves one in abstract-ness and ambiguity concerningcriteria for the authority ofScripture against which to test atheological formulation or ethicalprinciple. Yet the articulation ofsuch a definition could result in the

identification of a smaller canonwithin the canon of Scripture as awhole. This could imply that whatremains outside of this definition isnot God's Word. Every attemptmust therefore be made to definethe authority of God's Word withinthe total canon of Scripture. Yetthis commitment to totality mustnot be allowed to leave one in

obscurity concerning the nature ofthe authority of the Bible. We needt i i l h t it i th t


4/21


needs to be proclaimed? It is herethat Eberhard Jngel's contributionto the W.G.C, study on the authorityof the Bible is of significance tous.11 For Jngel, the authority of theBible is that which makes the Wordof God audible and which leadspeople to faith and freedom in God.It concerns the claim of the divineupon an individual or community asultimate authority, which inevitably involves a basic conflict withother competing authorities. Thisconflict is, according to Jngel,both necessary and justified to theextent that it can be shown that theauthority of the Word of God in itsfunctional aspect is essential forhuman freedom. To speak of theauthority of the Bible is thereforeto suggest that within the Biblicalrecord of acts, events, speeches,thoughts and conversations,whether historical or mythical,there is a continuity that witnessesto faith and freedom which transcends all other faiths and freedoms. In a word, the authority ofScripture, can thus be discerned inthe freedom-giving nature of theScripture.

1.3 HOW IS GOD'S WORD TO BE

HEARD?

Having defined the Word of Godas the freedom-giving nature of theScripture, a further legitimatequestion now emerges: How is thisWord to be heard? Clearly there isno specific methodology requiredto enable one to hear God's Word,but it is theology's task to identifyand articulate the manner in whichGod's Word usually comes to man.

In what way, to resort to11 James Bar r "The author ity of the Bible A study

Torrance's language, is the logosrelated to the JaJia? To what extentis God's Word necessarily bound tothe words of Scripture?

This question is best posed within the contexts of three differentways of doing theology: fleveJationtheolosv as represented in Barthand Torrance. The HermeneuticaJtheology of Ebeling, MoltmannPannenberg and others. Liberationtheology as it has emerged primarily in contextual Latin American thought, although clearly thistype of theology is flourishing wellbeyond the confines of that subcontinent. There is of course basicagreement between these methodsof doing theology: (i) The centre oftheology is Jesus Christ madeknown in the Scriptures, (ii) Thiscentre of theology is a contemporary reality rather than merely areference to a point in past history.The basic difference between thesemethods of doing theology concerns, however, the way in whichthis centre is made known as theScriptures are read within a particular situation.

fleveJation theology, to againresort to Torrance's analysis, seesthis happening via a threefoldmovement of diaJogue, soteriologyand objective revelation.

12

ForTorrance, theology as science hasGod as its object. Yet this objectisin fact a self-giving or speakingsubject which engages the theologian in dialogue and self-analysis. It is this encounter andclaim that becomes soteriologicaland gives to man the free gift ofsalvation. The subjective moment

12 See the discussion on Tor ran ce as an example ofrevel atio nal theology m H M Vrooin, De SchriftAlleen

7 (Kampen Uitgeversma atschappi) J H


5/21

JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY FOR SOUTHERN AFRICA 7

of theology thus becomes central torevelational thought. Man as theenquiring subject becomes the ob

ject of God's love, is drawn intodialogue and involved in a new self-

understanding as he receives thegift ofsalvation. The Word of Godis, however, more than merely thecounterpart to an exercise of self-analyis. This Word is the person ofJesus Christ. As such the Word isthe objective moment in theologyand a corrective to all theology andself-understanding. As such theword of God is encountered within

the context of the Scripture per se in dialogue, in the moment ofsalvation, and in encounter withthe objective Word.

Hermeneutic theology is no lessconcerned with the nature andmeaning of the Scripture within itself, but is more concerned to define the criteria ofthe Word in contemporary society. That is, the con

cern is to interpret the meaning ofthe Word into concrete and secularsymbols of present reality. Paulvan Buren, for all the limitations ofthis theology, is a prime example ofthis approach. He utilizes Wittgenstein's analytical philosophy to determine in secular language whatthe Word means for contemporaryman. Ebeling in turn uses Heideg

ger to define his Word as anexistential life-giving event.Moltmann uses Ernst Bloch to showthe Word to be a political action inthe present and Pannenberg seeksto identify this Word as it emergesas a consequence ofman's culturalresponse to the Jewish-Christiantradition.

In a word, hermeneutical the

ology is more explicitly concernedthan is revelational theology tot f th i fl f

God. Hermeneutical theology istherefore more inclined to identifythe contemporary nuances andhues of colour which the accul-turalized forms of the Word ofGod

have acquired. While revelationaltheology regards these influencesto be a blemish on the pure Word ofGod which remains beyond andabove all historical manifestationsof it, hermeneutical theology ismore inclined to rejoice in theseacculturalised influences on theWord of God as being the presentligitimate, contextual, form of the

Word.It is therefore essentially hermeneutic theology and criticalexegesis in the field of biblicalscholarship rather than traditional theology generally that findsa measure ofcommon ground withliberation types of theology. Ascritical exegesis relativizes theabsolutes oftraditional exegesis so

does hermeneutic theology identifythe acculturalised manifestationsof the Word of God, while liberation theology in turn rejects theformal "givenness" ofcertain theological and ideological absolutes.The critical exegete ofcourse, indicates that the proposals of liberation theology need to be relativisedas much as those of traditional

theology.And the liberation theologianresponds by indicating that while itis nave to suggest that interpretations of Scripture and theologicalformulations can even be immunefrom ideological tendencies, thesocio-political crisis of our timesdemands that theologians quite explicitly commit themselves to share

in the ideological struggle for a justand free society.Th f iib ti


6/21


more articulately than in Juan LuisSegundo's discussion on the hermeneutical circle.13 His point ofcontact with the hermeneutictheology becomes clear when hesays the liberation theologian is"compelled at every step to combine the disciplines that open upthe past with the disciplines thathelp to explain the present." Hecontinues, "each new realityobliges us to interpret the Word ofGod afresh, to change reality ac-cordingly, and then to go back andreinterpret the Word of God again,and so on." In this latter sentencethe distinctive nature ofliberationtheology becomes clear. Its prioritytask is not to interpret society ormerely to engage in ideologicalcriticism but to change society,which involves an ideological commitment. This becomes clear inSegundo's articulation of the fourdecisive factors in his hermeneutical circle:1. The oppressed persons' expe

rience ofreality causes themto be suspicious and critical ofthe status quo interpretation orideology ofreality.

2. This ideological suspicion isapplied to the accepted superstructure oflife in general and

to theology in particular.3. This leads to a new way ofexperiencing theological reality, which in turn leads toexegetical suspicion that theprevailing interpretation of theBible is unduly influenced by alimited experience of realityand as such it does not takeother dimensions of reality into

account.

4. This in turn places the onus onthe liberation theologian to interpret Scripture and to dotheology in terms of theseother dimensions ofreality. It

is this positive alternativetheology that is the distinctivemark of liberation theology.This is not to suggest that thereis to be a symbiosis or identification offaith with a prevailing ideology ofchange. It does,however, mean that the theologian is to commit himself tothe struggle for politicalchange and in so doing to seekcontinually to understandwhat the gospel means in that

particular struggle, withoutprejudging the answer to thatquestion. Segundo contendsthat faith and ideology cannotbe separated in one's experience of reality, but it isimportant that some form oftheoretical distinction berecognised between them. Thisdistinction can best be identified by describing faith asone's basic response to anexperience ofGod's self revelation but this basic re-sponse is always in terms of anideological programme. Segundo uses the concepts ofproto-learning and deutero-Jearningfrom communication theory toexplain his position. Theformer refers to simple or initial learning, while the latterrefers to second or appliedlearning or the processofJearning how to learn. Ideology is thus for him, the almostinstinctive process ofdeuterolearning whereby one appliesand responds to a proto insight


7/21


that Segundo says that faithwithout ideology is dead faithand that it is not merely faithper s but ideology, used in thispositive sense, that is needed.

The focus of this paper is, however on a prior question: How doesone hearorhow is one encounteredby this Word ofGodin and relevantto a specified situation? Is it as aresult of reading the Scripturesand entering into dialogue withthem until the Word of God is encountered? Revelational theologyhas been described as a "ghosttheology" referring to the waiting expectation for the "ghost" orWord to suddenly appear frombeyond the words of the page enabling man to respond in total commitment with an "aha" as the"penny drops". Or is the Word encountered by carefully listening toand analysing Scripture and thenseeking for an analagous and consequential situation within the contemporary world? This is, generally speaking, the approach of hermeneutic theology. Or is the process to be reversed, as in liberationtheology, by starting from the opposite end in articulating one's basicexperience of reality in terms ofthe biblical tradition? These threeoptions (of revelation, hermeneuticand liberation theologies) are notmutually exclusive, they representdifferent answers to the "how"questioa In a word, contextualtype theologies allow for theanalysis of the social sciences inunderstanding present reality andraise socio-political and culturalfactors to a new level of consciousness in interpreting Scripture. It isessentially within this way of doingtheology that my proposal on the

1.4 WHY IS SCRIPTURE NECESSARY AT ALL?

Given the focus on the contemporary situation within which authen

tic reality is to be discovered it maywell be asked why it is at allnecessary to involve Scripture intheological formulations? Can onenot come to this position withoutScripture?

My response is simply that manis not able to reflect on questions ofmeaning apart from his tradition.This tradition is a pre-conscious

part of man akin to Dilthey's understanding of experience. It is a givenpart of my reality, a there-/or-me,prior to a conscious investigation ofit .14 One may well choose to rejectone's tradition and to find an identity elsewhere but one cannot avoidengagement with one's tradition.For the Christian, part of this givenis the Scripture. To explicitly inves

tigate it is in fact to investigate myself and to raise to the level consciousness my own self, my communal existence and my self-understanding.

To summarise: The appeal oftheology to Scripture is an ambiguous and a problematic exercise. Itconcerns what we mean by the inspiration and authority of

Scripture. It concerns differentmodels of theology, three of whichhave been referrd to in this paper:The revelation modeJ in the wordsof Scripture. The hermeneuticmodeJ which seeks to define thecriteria of the Word in contemporary society. The iiberationmodeJ which interprets Scripturein terms of the experience of the

poor and oppressed people and14 Wilhelm Dilthey "Die Entstehung der


8/21


uses this interpretation as a basisfor changing society. Finally anappeal to Scripture in theologyconcerns raising our own self-understanding to the level of con

scious and explicit reflection.

. IDENTIFYING THE GAP BE-

TWEEN SCRIPTURE ANDTHEOLOGY

(Section provides a briefhistory of the hermeneutics debateand can be omitted by thosereaders who are not particularly

interested in the roots of thecurrent debate.)

At various points in history theawareness of the complexity of theproblems surrounding the solaScriptura doctrine has been morekeen than at other times. At suchtimes an obvious and explicit gaphas emerged between Biblical exe

gesis on the one hand and systematic theology and ethics on theother. Exegetes have addressedthemselves primarily to exegesisand the related problems of textual, literary and historical criticism tending not to concernthemselves explicitly with the contemporary existential meaning ofthe texts to which they have ad

dressed theirattention. Theologianshave, in turn, endeavoured to construct pictures of reality and addressed existential questions within the mental-framework of contemporary society while beingaccused by critical biblicalexegetes of exegetical inexactitudes.

To rephrase the problem from a

slightly different vantage point:When this gap is identified, critical

for having lost itself in minute, literary, philological and historicalproblems of an esoterical naturethat are devoid of meaning or relevance for contemporary theologi

cal and ethical problems. Theologians and ethicists have in turnbeen criticized for dabbling in thesocial sciences instead of buildingtheirmental constructions on Biblical foundations, thus rendering theBible not immediately relevant tocontemporary questions of faithand behaviour. Biblical scholarshiphas been seen as too often atten

ding solely to questions of concernto members of their own fraternityand not relating their findings tocontemporary questions of faith.Theologians and ethicists have inturn often found themselves devoidof the scholarly tools to understandand use Biblical material in a manner that satisfies the critically sensitive eye of Biblical scholars.

The history of this gap, in oneform or another, is almost as oldas Christianity itself.

15

Its roots goback beyond this period to that ofthe early Greeks who indulged inthe intellectual game of interpreting and criticizing Homer andotherpoets as a favourite passtime.In this milieu Aristotle, the greatclassifier and dissector of literary

works, taught that the whole of aliterary product was to be divided

15 See Dilthey*s above articl e pp 317-338 fo ra dis

cussion on this history Also R Bultmann, "Dasproblem der Hermeneutik", Zeitschrift fur

Theologie und Kirche Vol 47, 1950, pp 49-69

Heinz Kimmerle (ed) Hermeneutik (Heidelberg

Carl Winter Universitat sverslag, 1969) Hans

W Frei , The identity of Jesus Christ The her

meneutic of dogmatic theology (Philadelphia

Fortress Pres s, 1975), Han s W Frei, The eclipseof Biblical narrative A study m eighteenth and

nmteenth century hermeneutics (New Haven

Yale U i i t P 1974) d R E P l


9/21


into its parts in order to understandthe message. With him the first hermeneutical rules were developed,and he has become, in a sense theproto-type of the critical exegeteoveragainst the more artistic interpretation ofhis contemporaries. Intime Greek criticism could clearlybe divided into philological andallegorical schools. This conflictwas to reemerge in a differentguise in the conflict between theAntiochian and Alexandrianschools oftheologians in the Greekchurch. The former, best illustrated in the work of Theodoros,looked only to grammatical-historical principles to interpret a text,while the latter, represented byPhilo, Clement, Origen and othersdistinguished between a spiritualand real or literal meaning oftexts.These two approaches to the interpretation and use of Scripturewould reemerge in various modifi

cations and nuances throughout thehistory of Christendom. Soonanther faction influenced Biblicalexegesis.16 The age of the creedshad dawned and Scripture was interpreted in terms of these basicdogmatic presuppositions, such asthe trinity, the two natures ofChrist and so on. These doctrineswere in turn undergirded by

Platonic thought and the Bibletended to be divested of its own lifeand employed as a verification ofchurch doctrine.

Reformation theology sought tobreak away from church dogma asthe norm for Biblical interpretationand stressed the historical meaningof the text. The hermeneutics of themid sixteenth century is clearlyseen in the work of the clavis of

16 F di d D i t "B b l i t t i en

Flacius. Not only did he oppose theexegetical method of restorationCatholicism which taught that it isimpossible to obtain an authenticinterpretation of Scripture apartfrom the teaching of the church,but he also opposed the Anabaptists who affirmed the simple,literal clarity ofScripture. FJaciusdevised certain grammatical andtechnical rules which he related tocontemporary religious experienceas key hermeneutical principles,but soon this was again to give wayto dogmatic interpretations ofScripture, now devised by Protestant orthodoxy. Soon others Baumgarten among them soughtagain to free the Scripture fromsuch ecclesiastical control. SemJerreached for a way forward by distinguishing betwen the temporal orhistorically conditioned dimensionsand the eternal dimensions of theBible. While not adequately

showing how one ought todistinguish these two dimensionshe contributed toward a less controlled form of exegesis. Theeternai truths of Scripture couldnow be appropriated and interpreted anew in each historical era.Clearly the hermeneutics debatehad not yet reached that point withSemler (and clearly such a position

is not without its problems) butSemler had taken a slep in thatdirection. Ernes ti in turnreasserted the verbal importanceof the text and slowly the grip ofdogmatism was broken. But it tookSchleiermacher to recognise thatunderstanding was not grasped ata deep enough level in the hermeneutical rules of the time. For all

the limitations ofhis psychologism,in which he sought to grasp the int ti f th th h h ld d


10/21


tics. Wilhelm Dilthey would slowlyseparate himself from Schleiermacher's psychologism and groundunderstanding in history. To theseemphases we must return. In aword, Schleiermacher sought toliberate hermeneutics from certainconfining rules which scarcely addressed the contemporary needsand challenges facing the Christianfaith. For the present it is sufficientsimply to note the recurring dualis-tic tendency within the history ofhermeneutics tending at timestoward a rigid, controlled authoritative interpretation and at timestoward a more fluid, creative andcontextual interpretation.

Perhaps the most obviousmodern illustration of the gap between exegesis and theology is thatconcerning the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule. We pick up the argument with nineteenth-century liberal theology. Scholars of this timehad an optimistic and easy interpretation of the Bible in which theOld Testament was seen as apleasant witness to the evolution ofethical monotheism and the gospelsas historical biographies of Jesusas a refined teacher of the goldenrule, the Fatherhood of God and theinherent value of the individual. Allthis came to an abrupt end inEurope at the hands of the radicalscholars of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule. An excellent articleby Krister Stendahl poignantly describes how the members of thisschool showed that, "... a pictureof Jesus or of the Old Testamentprophets was totally impossiblefrom a historical point of view andthat it told more about the ideals ofbourgeois Christianity in the latenineteenth century than about car

"it soon became", to quote Stendahl again, "a scholarly ideal tocreep out of one's western andtwentieth-century skin and identifyoneself with the feelings andthought patterns of the past." Yetwith this new awareness of nineteenth century spectacles throughwhich the Bible had so comfortablyand unwittingly been read, a remote historicism, or antiquarianapproach, seemed to engulf theology which left the contemporaryconcerns relatively untouched bythe theology of the day. In time andfor various reasons it came to therealization of some theologians thatthis new found historicism was notmeeting the existential needs ofpost world war I Europe. With thisthe great names of neo-orthodoxy:Barth, Brunner, Cullmann andothers began to emerge. Americantheology of the thirties in turn gaverise to the brothers Niebuhr andtheir critique of liberal optimism.17The deliberate non-modernizedreading of the Bible imposed upontheology by critical scholarshipposed the burning question,whether the Bible, so remote fromcontemporary life, could still beGod's direct word to His church.That is, how could the distance between the word of the Bible and themodern world be bridged?

Numerous options wereproposed. Among the most impressive of these was that of KarlBarth. He captured the mood of theday as he wrote in the second edition of the Epistle to the itomans,commending Calvin's interpretation of scripture: " . . . having first

established what stands in the17 Knsten Stendahl, "Biblical Theology", The


11/21


text," he writes, Calvin "sets himself to re-think the whole materialand to wrestle with it, till the wallswhich separate the sixteenth cen

tury from the first become transparent, i.e. till Paul speaks thereand the man of the sixteenth century hears here, till the conversation between the document and thereader is totally concentrated onthe subject-matter, which cannot be a different one in the firstand sixteenth century." Barth'shermeneutic has, however, been

dismissed as providing further evidence of the gap between Biblicaland theological scholarship, as isseen in the criticism of James Barr,who accuses Barth of having distanced himself from Biblicalscholarship.18 Yet for Barth, thework of the historical critic ismerely prolegomena to the realtheological task of exegesis as set

out in his Church Dogmatics. Thepoint is, however, that most criticalBiblical scholars regard this "exegesis" as something other thanlegitimate, scientific Biblicalscholarship.

This breach in understandingseems to be an accurate characteristic of the relationship betweenBiblical and theological scholar

ship in the protestant tradition.Biblical scholars address themselves to what may be regarded asmaterial which is prolegomena toquestions of faith and existence inthe life of the believer. Theologiansand ethicists, on the other hand,tend either merely to accept theScriptures of the church at facevalue as God's word addressed to

18. James Barr, "Revelation through history in theOld Testament and in modern theology" Prince

His church to be understood andobeyed, or else they tend to groundtheir thought in systems and disciplines other than Biblical study.

Thus is the work of Biblicalscholars and that of theologiansand ethicists often virtually unrelated. The gap is a yawning one.And Lessing's question on how tocross this gap and to move fromthe accidental truths of history tothe reality of faith and its existential implications remains a burningone.

In identifying the gap whichexists between exegesis andtheology, an attempt has beenmade to show it to be a perennialand reoccuring one. This is not a"new" problem facing theologyand we need to learn from past attempts to resolve it to hopefully themutual satisfaction of both exegetes and theologians, but neces

sarily to the benefit of the contextual witness of the church. Inthe remainder of this paper a contextual model for the use ofScripture in theology is proposed inan attempt to bridge this gap between exegesis and theology and atthe same time to address the needfor an existential theology whichemerges from the contextual needs

of the day.

ffl. IN DEFENCE OF THE SCRIPTURAL BASE OF CONTEXTUAL THEOLOGY

feveiationaJ theology is often accused of exegetical inexactitudesin the employment of Scripture intheology. Certain forms of hermen

utica! theology have helped createthe gap identified above by concentrating on conceptual structures


12/21


cal exegetes for allegedly usingScripture non-critically and ideologically (used pejoratively). Clearly all these methods of theology

concentrate on the presen t existential meaning of Biblical texts ratherthan on what they possibly oncemeant in a different historical setting. The question is whether thisconcern to interpret a text in termsof its present meaning is a legiti

mate hermen eutic al exercise? This

question bristles with further questions: Can one legitimately se pa ra te

different meanings in a text ? Is ituseful to distinguish betw een themeaning (original public meaning)and significance (present meaningfor a particular community)? Canone legitimately speak of theoriginal meaning of a text? Does atext take on a meaning of its own,apart from either the author's intention or the reader's interpreta

tion? Is it possible to know thismeaning? These are questions notaddressed in this article.My inten

tion is simply to suggest that theuse of Scripture by some theologians and more specif ically so-called contextual theologians isin fact a legitimate hermeneuticalexercise. This, I suggest, could beso even when critical exegetes do

not regard it to be a legitimateinterpretation of a text.

.1 WHAT IS THE TASK OF THEEXEGETE IN RELATION TOTHE SYSTEMATICTHEOLOGIAN?

The task of the exegete in thebroader theological framework isto ensure that the Bible is not used

by th e systematic theologian, th eethicist or the preacher as a kind ofpandora's box out of which the ob

Given the na tu re of the Bible asalready discussed, in relation to

God's unique self-revelation inChrist and the unique origin of the

Church, theology must flow fromthe telling power of this record. Inorder for this to happen the Bible isto be used responsibly in thesense of theology flowing from

what indeed can be found in theBible an d not wh at ca n symbolically read into the Scripture hap

hazardly. Yet clearly it is a legitimate exercise to weigh and

measure an aspect of modernsociety, say apartheid or a particular contemporary economic system, against the teaching of theBible even though clearly the Bible

does not discuss either apartheid,capitalism or socialism in a specific manner. Certain Biblical teachings concerning human relationsand the use of wealth do, however,

contain teaching significance forthese contemporary issues.

The task of the exegete is essentially to define the nature of theBiblical literature under considera

tion. It is an illigitimate theological

exercise, for example, for the theo

logian to use Genenis 10-11 asthough it were history, as a basisfor the justification of separate

development in the South Africansituation.

19The nature of the litera

ture, in this instance myth or pre

history, determines the rules of interpretation. This is surely the mostimportant function the exegete canren der : to identify the nat ur e of theliterature, the circumstances under which it was written and itscontext within the larger unit of

Scripture within which it stands.

19 Willem Vorster "In gesprek met die Landman


13/21


This enables an adequate understanding of the text as a contextualcomment relevant to its own day.Dennis Nineham makes this point

clearly:The reader of the Bible must remember that the meaning ofwords is always relative to thesituation and experience of theperson who wrote them and ofhis contemporaries. In trying todiscover these he will need a

wide and detailed range ofknowledge. Here, for example

and here alone, I should say lies the importance of discovering as far as possible who wasthe writer of each book and of

being scrupuously honest aboutpseudepigraphy where it seemsto be indicated. If the FourthGospel, for instance, is locatedin the wrong context, chronologically, theologically or philo

sophically, to that extent theexegete's attempt to think theauthor's thoughts after him willbe frustrated. But it is not only aquestion of the hopes and fearsand presuppositions, the limitations, the outlook on thingsnatural and supernatural whichhe shared with his fellows. Theexegete cannot delve too deeply

into all these; for let him remember that in order to understandthe meaning of what St. Mark

wrote, he has in effect to become St. Mark for a while.

20

We can leave aside Nineham'spresuppositions concerning thepossibility of thinking another'sthoughts and becoming St. Markfor a while. The point is made in

favour of the importance of criticalBiblical scholarship. It is the kind

of careful background and exegeti-cal scholarship identified here thatis of fundamental importance forgood and thorough contextual theo

logy provided it is not left there.Theology is to flow from the Biblical record of the self-revelation ofGod in relation to the milieu inwhich it was recorded but to bespoken in relation to contemporarycontextual problems. Simply because it is impossible to divest oneself of one's contextual locationand presuppositions in one's theo

logy it is necessary to make theseexplicitly and consciously visible inone's theologizing. This at oncemakes visible both the differenceas well as the continuity betweenBiblical teaching and contemporarytheology. This is the most importanttask facing the theologian: How tochange, and therefore be contex-tually relevant, while remaining

the same, and therefore continuingto be within the Christian tradition.Theology is more than antiquariancaptivity in an age long past, yetmore than uncontrolled freethought oblivious of the tradition

which makes it Christian.

m.2 THE LIMITATION OF HER-MENEUTICAL METHODS

Hans-George Gadamer has identified the limitation of hermeneutical method, in reminding us thatmethod is incapable of revealingnew truth; it only renders explicitthe kind of truth already implicit inthe method.

21Marcus Barth, on a

recent visit to South Africa, expressed himself more pejoratively insaying that hermeneutics is thedeath of exegesis and methodologythe death of theology!


14/21


Most theologians do not consciously employ a method at all intheir use of Scripture, leavingthose who would dabble in suchmatters to discern their implicitmethod from their actual use ofScripture. Self-conscious contextual and liberation theologiansoften do not spell-out the methodology on the basis of which they useScripture as is done in 1.3. Yetclearly the focus is on the contextual significance of texts in relationto the prevailing socio-economicand cultural milieu of the time.

My intention is to identify brieflya tentative genre or style for suchusage. This will hopefully have twoconsequences: One, it will contribute toward bringing of contextual-liberation theology into dialoguewith critical Biblical hermeneutics.Two, it will possibly contribute tothe contextual-liberation theology

debate by testing such theologiesagainst a tentative genre of Scriptural usage which is designed toidentify the contemporary, contextual significance of Scripture. Itwill also hopefully motivate somecontextual theologians to correctthis genre, recognising that theidentification of genre and methodfollows usage and does not precede

it.IV. TOWARD A GENREOFSCRIP-

TURAL USAGE IN CONTEX-

TUAL THEOLOGY

The nagging suspicion withwhich I write this article is onemotivated by Paul Ricoeur's identification of two antithetical approaches to hermeneutics. The onedeals lovingly with a symbol in aneffort to recover the hidden meaning in it; the other seeks to destroy

and illusions in a relentless effortat dmystification. My suspicion isthat the religiosity that masks andconceals the reality imbedded inthe Biblical symbols needs to bedestroyed to enable the realitybehind the symbol to be freedwithin the present context so thatpresent reality may to be confronted with the challenge of thatwhich was considered worthy ofpreservation by the early church inthe symbols of the Biblical story.This Biblical reality is in turn to beunderstood and communicated interms of the mental and sociopolitical realities of today.

IV.l FEAR OF IDEOLOGY

Among White theologians in SouthAfrican who profess to be criticalof the White status quo, one findsan almost inherent fear of ideologywhich renders them reluctant toallow theology to in anywaybecome contextually supportive ofany particular political or socialmovement. Given the marriagebetween church and state thatbecame a major ingredient of theapartheid ideology-cum-theologythis reluctance is to be understood.A consequence of this position ishowever an abstract, academictheology among some of thiscountry's most able theologiansand exegetes with a consequent reluctance to address the politicalrealities of the day as they clinginstead to a somewhat "removed"critical analysis of the Bible.

At best this kind of theology hasa destabilizing affect on prevailingWhite political control and specifically on its theological sub-structure, as the direct "relevancy" ofthe Scripture to any political situ


15/21


apolitical, non-contextual and irrelevant to the major struggles facingthe people of the country.

Most Black theologians are less

apprehensive about committingtheir theology to the support of aparticular political ideology recognizing the dangers involvedbut willing to take this chance.Clearly the relationship betweenGospel and ideology is a complexone.22 The two are related.Ideology, used in an open or non-pejorative sense, enables thegospel to be a relational, contex-tually relevant and specific gospel,but if the gospel capitulates to aclosed ideology it becomes synonymous to the apartheid-ideologywhich needs to be rejected. Clearlycontextual theology is to be awareof this danger and is compelled tofind a way of resisting this option.Contextual theologians would hurriedly state, however, that the solution is clearly not to be found in anabstract academic quest for anapolitical theology recognizingthat such a position is tantamountto finding oneself an enclavesecurely on the side of the statusquo.

IV.2 SCRIPTURE AS A MIRROROF REALITY

The metaphorical reference toScripture as a mirror, can betraced back to Noordmans.23 TheBible is seen as a mirror in whichone can see reflected the image ofa people's history with God. Themirror is an appropriate imagebecause when one reads the Scripture in one's own context, one sees

one's own history superimposed on22 See my discussion on this relationship in

"Church and ideology in Africa" Missionalia

this Biblical history. One's ownhistory is thus challenged by theBiblical images. Therefore when apoor Black student in Soweto readsthe Bible he "sees" and "hears"something other than a white intellectual does in Waterkloof orHoughton.

Perhaps it is the inherent commitment to radical change in theblack student that enables him tobreak-though the religiosity imposed on the Scriptural symbols,and to grasp the reality of the mes

sage in its contextual relevance fortoday. The time-worn symbols ofsalvation, redemption, new life,hope, commitment and eschatologytake on new vital, life-giving political and social meaning. The Biblebecomes alive and is directly relevant to the prevailing situation.

IV.3 IN QUEST OF AN UNDER

STANDING OF SCRIPTUREWhat is needed in the hermeneu

tical debate of the present is acreative thinker of the calibre of aSchleiermacher to enable a deeperinsight into Scripture and at thesame time to enable theologians toaddress the cultural despisers ofthis day.

Critical exegetes readily reject

the psychologism of Schleiermachertogether with any new attempts toidentify a "deeper" meaning ofScripture. Yet until his time hermeneutics consisted of no morethan a set of rules.24 While employing these rules he identifiedhermeneutics to be a science, orperhaps more correctly an art ofunderstanding a text. Uniting the

merit of philology with philoso-


16/21


phical and theological insight hereached beyond the literary signsto identify the author's intentionand spirit. In an anticipation of

Gadamar he recognized that thereader's individuality had to be enlarged by that of the text. For thefirst time hermeneutics was defined as the study of understanding hearing, grasping and compre-hending a message embedded in aliterary form. Without getting intoSchleiermacher's thought system,

we need to recall that his emphasis

on psychology in isolation fromlanguage belongs essentially to thelater period of his life. Literaryunderstanding as such, forSchleiermacher, emerges from adialogical relationship in whichthere is a speaker, who constructsa sentence to express his meaning,and a hearer who reads the sentence. The hearer receives a series

of words, which the rules of philology and historial-criticism enablehim to analyse and grasp. Thensuddenly (almost miraculously) heis able to understand what is beingcommunicated. Understanding becomes a Nachbildung or a reproduction for the reader of what theauthor intended to communicate.Suffice it for our purposes not to

offer a critique of Schleirmacher'shermeneutics but simply to identifyhis intention. This was artisticallyto recreate from a sentence, withthe tools of literary critique, thespirit and message of the speaker.

Wilhelm Dilthey was able to liberate this aspect of hermeneuticsfrom the later Schleiermacher'spsychologism via a threefold

analysis of communication into:experience (Erlebnis) or lived-experience the expression fAus-

of it.2 5

This latter phase of Dilthey,as for Schleiermacher, was alwaysmore than rational. It involves is arediscovery of oneself in the other

and since man is an historicalbeing he needs to discover himselfin history. For a person to discoverhimself he is required to journeyback into his past (into his tradition cf. 1.4) and to engage in dialogue

with those who have lived beforehim, with whom he shares a basiccommon understanding on the

basis of a shared historical

humanity. Dilthey thus seeks forunderstanding in history as opposed to the later Schleiermacher'sexperience of divination or psychologism. R.G. Colling wood is theEnglish counter-part of Dilthey.One recalls his view of history asthe process of thinking the thoughtsof a predecessor after him.Through historical detail, he tells

us, he sought to think the thoughtsof Nelson as he stood on the deck ofthe Victory at the battle of Trafalgar until he not only thoughtabout Nelson but was Nelson.

26

This basic grasp or understanding of the essence of a text's message has fascinated hermeneuti-cians throughout the years. In thisregard it is useful to recall the his

toriography of the nineteenth-century Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt, severally described as apoet, an artist and a psychologist ofhistory in his response to thescientific microscopic history ofhis day. In correspondence with acertain Karl Frensenius, he describes himself as one who does notapply himself to abstract thought

for a single minute in a whole year."I cling by nature to the concrete,


17/21


to the visible nature and tohistory", he writes. "But as a resultof drawing ceaseless analogiesbetween facts I have succeeded inabstracting much thct isuniversal." "My surrogate", hewrites, "is contemplation" (Anschauung). Alexander Dru, theeditor of Burckhardt's publishedcorrespondence, has defined Anschauung as "looking, seeing, vision,insight, intuition, contemplation,. . . neither rationalistic nor irra-tionalistic." "Listen to the secret ofthings", Burckhardt would tell hisstudents, "the contemplativemood!"27 The theologian can welllearn from Burckhardt's methodology. He is to cling to the "concrete" literary data but to seekwithin the context of the totaltradition to discern "the secret" ofthe text in relation to the present.Yet this contemplation is neverundertaken directly from this ageto that (the sitz im Leben) of thetext. It rather takes place throughthe entire process of tradition. Anypursuit of this option must therefore be seen in relation to thistradition.

This means that one's interpretation of a text is invariably influenced by the past and the

present. The hermeneutics of RolfRendtorff, Wolfhart Pannenbergand others have employed the concept of the history of the transmission of tradition (berlieferungsge-schichte) to show that one cannotreach beyond the history of the interpretation of an event to theevent itself. We only know thatevent via the tradition surrounding

it and they go even further tosuggest the various interpretations

of an event are all part of the "inexhaustible meaning of the event"and as such part ofGod's self revelation through the event.28 This pasthistory of a text therefore instinctively influences our perception ofthe text. Yet clearly our present experience alsc influences our perception of the text and in terms ofthe history of the transmission oftradition debate this too is part ofthe inexhaustible meaning of thetext. Biblical criticism has taughtus that there are signs of this kindof continuing revision and reinter-pretation of texts already in theOld Testament. As changing eventsand circumstances influencepeoples' lives and their perceptionof reality they tend to read theirreligious documents with a different understanding and to change,revise and develop them accordingly. In his inaugural lecture alreadyreferred to Ferdinand Deist writesas follows: "Every new situation,every new context, brought with ita new text; to be sure on the basisof the old, but nevertheless a newtext. With each revision (lit: ver-werking = recasting) of an old textthe superficial reader lost theearlier text forever. Yet once a textobtained canonical status, the revision process came to an end." Butas Deist shows, this did not put astop to the continuing revisionprocess. For while the authors ofChronicles, for example, did ultimately not produce a revised edi-

28 Carl E Braaten New Directions m TheologyToday Vol II, History and Hermeneutics(Philadelphia West minst er Press , 1966), 115Wo lfha rt Pa nne nbe rg Basic Questions m

Theology Vol I (Philadelphia Fort ress Press,

1970), 91Rolf Rendtorff "Ge sch ich te und berlieferung",Studien zur Theology der alttestestamenthchen


18/21


tion of the Books ofKings they didwrite a new book on the sameperiod of history. Gerhard VonRad, in turn, illustrates this

revision process in his discussionof the story concerning Jacob'swrestling at Jabbok in Genesis32:23f.29 He shows how a pre-Yahwistic Canaanite story concerning a "river demon" is appropriated by Yahwism, and how laterthe prophet Hosea reads into thisstory Jacob's deceit and importunity, which was not ascribed to it by

the Yahwist. We clearly see how apre-Israelite story is reinterpretedon at least two occasions to makedifferent points. Clearly thescientific Biblical scholar caninterestingly point out the originsand development of this story. Hemay further challenge theChristian who may yet again reinterpret the story in the light of

Jesus Christ and show how thisinterpretation is historically andliterally "incorrect" but it is difficult to deny the spiritual andtheological value ofsuch modifications to the literal meaning, and impossible to deny that he is indulgingin an exercise which is no morequestionable than that undertakenby Biblical writers before him. And

indeed when we come to the NewTestament it is abundantly clearthat the writer's fundamental purpose was to proclaim the risen Lord and the Old Testament was employed almost indiscriminately,whether allegorically, typologicallyor literally to involve it (at timesagainst its own character) in thispurpose. Here the purpose is not

the exposition of a historical docu-

ment but the proclamation ofChrist.

IV.4 CONTEXTUAL THEOLOGY

When we consider the contextualtheology debate as seen, forexample, in Latin Americanthought, it becomes clear that liberation hermeneutics operates essentially in accordance with this Biblical way ofinterpreting texts. Thisis most clear in the hermeneutics ofJ. Severino Croatto.30 He unabashedly suggests that "exegesis is eise-gesis, and anybody who claims tobe doing only the former is, wittingly or unwittingly, engaged in ideological subterfuge. Not even thephysical sciences are exempt fromthis principle". His point is simplythat the reader can do no otherthan read the text in terms of hisown experience ofreality and in sodoing he necessarily reads into thetext. For Croatto, "a hermeneuticalreading of the biblical messageoccurs only when the readingsupersedes the first contextualmeaning (not only that of the authorbut also that of the first readers).This happens through the unfoldingof a surplus-of-meaning disclosedby a new question addressed to thetext." In this sentence the point of

the transmission of tradition becomes most clear. He further talksof the "reservoir-of-meaning" inevents such as the exodus and in sodoing employs language similar toBraaten's "inexhaustible meaningof the text". While Croatto's hermeneutical discussion f o cusses onthe exodus, creation, the prophetsof Israel, Christ as liberator and

Paul's paschal liberation, it suffices to illustrate it in terms of hisdiscussion on the exodus:


19/21


He shows that the word, say onthe salvific nature of the exodus,occurs only after the event. As thesignificance of the event becomesrealized it is interpreted by thosedirectly affected by it. Then asthose so affected, namely theHebrews, are exposed to new experiences and events so theyreinterpret the event in terms ofthese experiences. The event hasnow become message with an unfolding reservoir of meaning andmore than that it becomes promiseto each succeeding generation.This becomes the basis of a liberation hermeneutic articulated underfive headings: (i) The situation ofthe Hebrews in Egypt which is usedas a parallel for contemporary exploitative situations, (ii) The word response to this event as theword of promise and conscientisa-tion. (hi) The event of liberation andthe significance of this for an oppressed people today, (iv) The hermeneutical account of the eventwhich supersedes the event andaddresses the present situation,(v) The basic message of the eventconcerning liberation as contextualtheology reality.

The point is simply that Croattoseeks quite explicitly to interpret a

text for a contemporary oppressiveperspective, allowing the continuing reinterpretation of the text tohappen.

A more explicitly methodologicalessay on hermeneutics is the one byDeist to which reference hasalready been made. His point ofdeparture is Lessing's agonisingquestion concerning how eternal

truth can be derived from a historical document such as the Bible. Herejects both Semler's too easy dif

as well as fundamentalism's dismissal of Lessing's challenge bydeclaring the Bible to be a supra-historical, (eternal) truth and to seeall truth as historically conditioned". He shows that absolute,objective truth is meaninglesssimply because while it is unknownit is without meaning and themoment it becomes known it is subjective. In acknowledging this, thesubjective and historical nature ofall knowledge is acknowledged. (Itis here that Schleiermacher whosaw the subjective dimension oftruth and Dilthey who stressed thehistorical nature of knowledge areimportant.) But clearly it was KarlMannheim's and more especially the Frankfurt school's realisation that all knowledge is perspective knowledge and relative to acertain position that is decisive forhermeneutics. For Deist the Bible ishistorical (and therefore relative)in a double sense. It was writtenunder historical conditions andinterpreted in terms of historicalcircumstances. The rubric underwhich his lecture was given (namely "Biblical interpretation andideological critique") becomesclear when Biblical hermeneuticsis thus understood, as he contendsthat both the text and the interpretation of the text must be subjectedto ideological critique. For himtheology is therefore essentially anexperimental exercise and onemight add a critical analyticalexercise.

Clearly there is a point of contactand of difference between Croattoand Deist. Both are Old Testament

scholars, but while Croatto standswithin the liberaton theology movement, Deist would regard himself


20/21


torical or relational dimension tobe both an inevitable and a legitimate dimension of Biblical hermeneutics. Croatto affirms the need fora reading of the text which"supersedes the first contextualmeaning" and Deist in turn writes,"the course of history ensures thatthe Bible remains alive and that theBiblical text helps people in allperiods of time to formulate theirproblems and the solution of theseproblems". Deist's critical approach causes him to suggest thatall interpretation must be subjectedto ideological critique and it is herethat the point of difference between him and Croatto emerges.While Croatto is clearly mindful ofthe need for liberation theology tobe self-critical he is more inclinedto take the chance of ideologicalcaptivity, mindful that any suchcapitulation would be corrected bysubsequent generations of oppressed people. Clearly liberationtype theologies have fallen victimto the ravages of such captivitybefore today but perhaps it is atthis point that the fundamental difference between Deist togetherwith many other critical theologians and liberation theologianssuch as Segundo, Croatto and somany other black and third worldtheologians becomes explicit. Thedifference is, to resort to Segundo'sstatement, that the liberation theologian is one who is unequivocallycommitted to the struggle forpolitical change whereas othertheologians while possibly criticalof the status quo have not yet madethat fundamental decision. The

difference is therefore an ideological one rather than a hermeneutical one per s. Some theologians

they continue to seek for a thirdoption to the ideological struggle orelse simply wait for the walls of theedifice to collapse. Liberation theologians reject the idea of a thirdoption and deliberately elect to beon the ideological side of the oppressed albeit in a supportive critical role.

While the radical critic of bothideological and traditional theologyon the one hand and the liberationtheologian on the other differ at thepoint of ideological commitment,there is probably more hermenutica] common ground between themthan is really conceded by either ofthem. Liberation theology is anirreversible trend in theologicaldiscourse and ideological critique avaluable handmaiden to allstruggles for human dignity. It is atthe point of contact between thesedisciplines that one feels the futureof the hermeneutical debate is to beshaped.

V. POSTSCRIPT

Helmut Gollwitzer has describedBarth's Rmerbriefas having beenwritten in a "lively expressionisticstyle". One hopes he did so with agreat expressionist like VincentVan Gogh in mind, who rebelled

against impressionism as not allowing the artist enough freedom toexpress his innerfeelings. Barth in what was at times an extremelyacademic manner and now con-textualists use the Bible as a mirrorof their reality. From the above discussion one realizes that a genre isemerging in the contemporary hermeneutical debate which places an

explicit and necessary emphasis onthe present in biblical interpretation This of course has interest


21/21

^ ,

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined byU.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution ofthis journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holderforan entire issue ofa journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author ofthe article maymaintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork foranyuse not covered bythe fair use provisions ofthe copyright laws orcoveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,orcontact ATLA to request contact information forthe copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed bythe American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from LillyEndowment Inc.

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the propertyofthe AmericanTheological Library Association.

hermenêutica contextual

Documents

Transcript of hermenêutica contextual