The Department of New Testament and Related Literature (formerly the Department of New Testament Studies) for the past 100 years has had a proud tradition of practicing life-giving theology. From very early on, several members of the department were critical voices against exclusive and discriminatory narratives of their time. Representing the voices of the disadvantaged, excluded and marginalised people, they critiqued systemic injustices, envisaged inclusive believing communities, advocated an open society with equal opportunities for all and called for social justice. This article shows that the current members of the department are upholding this proud tradition in their research and publications. Common to the current trend in the department is the avoidance of a literal reading of texts by paying attention to the historical and social contexts of texts and using all possible approaches in reading the text from as many angles as possible. This approach has led to new avenues to reread texts with concomitant new interpretations. As an example of this approach, a rereading of the so-called parable of the Samaritan is presented, challenging its dominant and universally accepted interpretation. The article concludes with a statement of intent linked to the vision of the department, that is, to practice and teach life-giving theology that counters individualised and unreflective ways of living by articulating and embracing a theology that leads to a flourishing life for all creation.
Parables; The Samaritan; Reformed Church of Africa; Dutch Reformed Church; Apartheid; Life-giving Theology.
The Department of New Testament and Related Literature (formerly the Department of New Testament Studies), since 1917, has a proud tradition of practicing life-giving theology, often (almost always) in the face of severe critique and adversity. From their academic publications, requested denominational reports, popular contributions and newspaper articles, it is clear that several members of the department, from very early on, were critical voices against dominant grand narratives that perpetuated exclusion and discrimination. As the voices of the disadvantaged, excluded and marginalised, they critiqued systemic injustices, envisaged inclusive believing communities, advocated an open society with equal opportunities for all and called for social justice.
For the sake of time, two examples in this regard will suffice. Since 1904, up to 2016, the Netherdutch Reformed Church of Africa (NRCA), from an ecclesiological point of view, understood itself to be a ‘people’s church’ (or ‘ethnic church’), first embodied by Article II (1904), and then by Article III (1951), and later, in 1997, by Ordinance 4 of the NRCA’s church order. This ecclesiological self-understanding was exclusive in intent, with a clear purpose, to exclude those ‘who are not like us’. The first voice in the NRCA (and the then Department of New Testament Studies, Section A) against this ecclesiological self-understanding was that of Greyvenstein, who, in 1936, argued in the monthly official newsletter that the church of Christ consisted of all believers, including those from all generations and nations. Later, in 1943, he also stated that discrimination in terms of race and the feeling of superiority over those from different ethnicities are hindrances towards an universal humanity. These convictions, needless to say, did not go down well.
In 1947, Albert Geyser, who succeeded Greyvenstein, reiterated that the New Testament teaches an inclusive and universal church, and that the church, if it wants to heed to its call, had to transcend national and geographical boundaries. In 1948, he repeated this conviction; that the main task of the church is to confess Christ to all, and not to serve national–political and ethnic interests. In 1960, in the face of severe adversity, especially from the side of the then church leadership, Geyser again took the NRCA to task regarding its exclusive ecclesiology, describing the church as a manifestation of
A year later, in 1961, Geyser condemned the fact that the gross majority of members of the church use Scripture to support racial segregation in church and society. As a minority voice in the then NRCA, these points of view eventually lead to his excommunication by the church. Only 23 years later, it was again a member of the department, Andries van Aarde, who openly in publications and in meetings of the church consistently voiced his disapproval of the NRCA’s exclusive ecclesiological self-understanding. In 2009, Van Eck (appointed in 2006) added his voice to that of Van Aarde, arguing that for Jesus, Paul and the author of acts, in spite of the fact that in antiquity group identity was based on cultural ethnicity, ethnicity meant nothing when it comes to being in God’s presence, being part of the early Christ followers or being part of any local (Pauline) congregation. The New Testament, simply speaking, bears witness to an inclusive ecclesiology.
The NRCA finally, in 2010, adopted a resolution in which the church, for the first time, officially stated that supporting Apartheid by means of Scripture was wrong. This resolution was the result of a press statement by five theologians of the NRCA (Johan Buitendag, Yolanda Dreyer, Jimmie Loader, Andries van Aarde and Ernest van Eck), calling on the NRCA to state that it was wrong, for so many years, to support Apartheid on the basis of Scripture. It is needless to say that these five theologians, yet again, in the preceding year, had to fend off a case of heresy made against them for their ‘unbiblical’ point of view.
With regard to the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC), Prof. Andrie du Toit, also from the then Department of New Testament Studies, played a major role (with seven other academics, including Prof. Muller and Heyns from the Faculty of Theology) in paving the way for the DRC to move from an exclusive to an inclusive ecclesiological self-understanding. In 1980, Du Toit, with seven other theologians of the DRC, released a witness in which they called upon the church to formally renounce Apartheid in church and society.
Interestingly, amidst serious opposition in the DRC, 86 theology students from the faculty (Section B) released a declaration on 20 March 1981, published in
My second example relates to the discrimination in church and society against persons with a homosexual orientation, especially with regard to entry into the ministry. In the NRCA, the General Assembly of 2016 finally opened its doors for homosexual persons without any reservation. Homosexual persons now could enter the ministry in the NRCA. In the DRC, the jury is still out, with a very recent ‘yes’ turned into a ‘no’.
Focusing on the contributions made to this debate by New Testament scholars from the faculty, the publications of Du Toit, Steyn and Van Eck can be mentioned. Du Toit correctly indicated that the main problem of the debate on homosexuality in the church is that a modern understanding of a phenomenon or topic is read back into the New Testament as if the exact same phenomenon is under discussion (ethnocentrism). Steyn and Van Eck have come to the same conclusion, arguing that homosexuality, as understood today, is a modern construct not found in the New Testament, and that the texts on ‘homosexuality’ in the New Testament cannot simply, on a one-to-one basis, be used to exclude homosexual persons from the ministry of the church. These contributions, at least indirectly, played a role in the most recent resolution taken by the NRCA not to make sexual orientation a determinant when someone wants to join the ministry, and probably will play a role in the current debates in the DRC on the unlimited inclusion of homosexual persons, and persons of all sexual orientations, in the ministry of the church.
These contributions made by members of the department in the past 100 years are the result of a historical, critical and close reading of the text. This includes always starting with the Greek text, taking the historical and social contexts of the text seriously, attending to possible text-critical issues and using all possible approaches in reading the text from as many angles as possible. Very clearly, a literal reading of the text should be avoided, with the first focus on what the text most probably meant. Only then it is asked what a specific text may mean in any given (new) context. This approach not only led to new avenues to reread texts with concomitant new interpretations, but it also challenges traditional readings. Only by questioning, challenging and rereading can deconstruction take place, and new meaning and life can break through.
From the above, this is clear. This is also the way in which the current members of the department see the respective contributions they are making when it comes to their exegetical work; it must lead to life-giving theology. In my own work, especially on the parables, this has been my focus since 2006. To illustrate what I mean by this, I now will offer a rereading of the well-known parable of the ‘Good Samaritan’, challenging its universally accepted stock interpretation. Because the meaning of this parable is so obvious, almost all parable scholars will argue that it simply cannot be challenged. I believe it can, with a surprising result: the breaking down of stereotypes that perpetuate discrimination and exclusion.
Almost all interpretations of the parable of the Samaritan are in agreement on three points: the description of the Samaritan, the identification of the three-step structure of good storytelling in the parable and the surprise in the story.
Firstly, almost without exception, the Samaritan is described as a despised and hated person, part of a people that was the natural and sworn enemy of the Jews (see, e.g., Barclay
Secondly, a broad consensus exists that the parable follows the so-called ‘rule of three’ of good storytelling.
Traditionally, three traditional divisions existed among the Jews, namely priests, Levites and all Israel (Hultgren
Thirdly, the surprise or shock in the parable. The negative perception of Samaritans by the Jews, combined with the ‘rule of three’ or ‘three step-structure’ of good storytelling, most commentators on the parable argue, lead to the surprise in the parable. The third person arriving on the scene is not the suspected ordinary Israelite, but a hated Samaritan. This, according to most interpreters, is not only a surprise (Hultgren
In all cases, the negative depiction of Samaritans by interpreters of the parable, when it comes to literary evidence, is based on two texts, namely m.
The daughters of the Samaritans are [
Missing from citing this evidence, Levine (
The daughters of the Sadducees, if they follow after the ways of their fathers, are deemed like to women of the Samaritans; but if they have separated themselves and follow after the ways of the Israelites, they are deemed like to the women of the Israelites. (p. 748)
Clearly, as m.
The second text cited as evidence for the hated relationship between Jew and Samaritan is
Moreover they declared that before him that R. Eliezer used to say: He that eats the bread of the Samaritans is like to one that eats the flesh of swine. (p. 49)
What, however, is not cited, is the explicit rejection of this view of the Samaritans by Rabbi Akiba, as
Contrary to the so-called hated relationship between Jews and Samaritans, literary evidence from the Tannaic literature, the Mishna, the two Talmuds and Tosefta on the position of the Samaritans are clear: The Samaritans, contrary to their stereotyped description, were regarded as Israelites.
Gamaliel says, ‘A Samaritan is equivalent to an Israelite for all intents and purposes’.
This rule accords with him who said, ‘A Samaritan is equivalent to an Israelite in all regards’… Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, ‘A Samaritan is equivalent to an Israelite for all intents and purposes’. (see also
Several other examples from the Tannaic literature confirm that the rabbis saw the Samaritans as trustworthy Israelites. Samaritans were permitted to participate in the Jewish cultic meal (
If this positive picture of the Samaritans indeed was the case, some would immediately argue what then to make of texts such as
Initially, it was thought that the references to Samaritans in Mishna, the Talmuds, Tosefta and the minor tractates show evidence of non-agreement among the rabbis concerning the Samaritans. While some saw them as Israelites, others considered them to be on a rank lower than the Israelites (see, e.g.,
This shift in attitude towards the Samaritans, Schiffman (
Religious as well as social co-existence demanded a clear definition of conditions and demarcation of Samaritans from heathens, who had been understood to be different from Samaritans. When it came to ‘food, marriage, cult practice, religious feasts, trade, circumcision, collection of tithes, and so on’, Samaritans were still considered to belong to ‘the children of Israel’. (p. 105) (see also Schottroff
Taking as a point of departure that Samaritans were seen as trustworthy Israelites, at least at the time Jesus told the parable (27–30 CE), has obvious implications for its interpretation. Firstly, it is clear that a selective selection of rabbinic literature in service of condemning the Samaritans has not helped the interpretation of the parable (Levine
Samaritans were seen as trustworthy Israelites, and therefore, it was, in essence, an Israelite who arrived, as expected.
But if the Samaritan is not the surprise in the parable, what then is it? The moment one looks past the so often stereotyped Samaritan as the key to the parable, the one who arrives at the scene is not first and foremost a despised Samaritan, but one of the most despised figures in the 1st-century advanced agrarian world, namely a merchant. That the Samaritan is a merchant is clear from the parable: he is travelling (ὁδεύων; Lk 10:33), has to his disposal oil and wine (common items of trade at the time), has an animal (κτῆνος; Lk 10:34) to carry his wares and most probably rode a second animal himself (Jeremias
Interestingly, only three interpreters of the parable have paid some attention to the Samaritan being a merchant. Jeremias (
What was the perception of merchants, persons who most probably belonged to the upper class (Miller
Turning to Greek and Roman writings, Herodotus of Halicarnassus places merchants below the swineherds (
In the New Testament, James depicts merchants as godless and evil (Ja 4:13–16), and, according to the author of Revelation, merchants have grown rich with the wealth of their wantonness, gained wealth from the earth and deceive all nations by their sorcery (see Rv 18:3, 15 and 23). Finally, according to the
Why this negative perception of merchants and mercantilism? First-century Mediterranean persons saw their existence as determined and limited by the natural and social resources of their immediate area and their world. This perception and belief lead to the idea that all goods available to a person were limited, the so-called concept of limited good (Malina
This then seems to be the surprise in the parable – unexpectedly, it is a hated and despised person who saves a life, and above all, with the help of an innkeeper, also a trade that was despised by many in the time of Jesus. Contrary to the standard interpretation of the parable, the priest and Levite had no excuse such as ‘uncleanness’ or ‘purity’ to claim no responsibility to help the injured human. A human was lying in a ditch, dying, and to save a life was so important in the Jewish world that ‘Jewish Law mandates that it override every other concern, including the Sabbath’ (Levine
Firstly, the above reading of the parable fits with several other parables of Jesus in which the kingdom of God is likened to the actions of ‘outsiders’, the despised or the so-called unacceptable in society. In the parable of the Merchant (also known as the parable of the Pearl; Mt 13:45–46), it is the action of yet another merchant that symbolises the kingdom when he stops exploiting the poor. In the parable of the Lost Sheep (Lk 15:4–6), it is a despised shepherd
Secondly, read from this perspective, as said earlier, the parable has as its focus the breaking down of stereotypes that perpetuate discrimination and exclusion. This, I believe, the parable does on two levels. The first level is that of the first hearers of the parable. Here, we must remember that 1st-century Mediterraneans were ‘neither psychologically minded nor introspective … stereotypes were the main way to get to know [
In the end, it is the merchant who is merciful and honourable. Clearly, in the kingdom, it is not who you are that matters, but how you act. The manner in which the merchant acted was not the stereotyped expected exploitation, but to save a life. As such, the parable does not teach good neighbourliness or that one specific Samaritan can, contrary to all expectations, be ‘good’; at a deeper level, the parable questions the way in which its hearers in principle interact with others, especially with those who were ‘socially unacceptable’. As put by Levine (
The second level on which the parable breaks down stereotypes that perpetuate discrimination and exclusion is on the level of its modern hearers. Although we as moderns are psychologically minded and introspective, we also tend to construct our social reality by means of stereotypes. Stereotypes, the social psychologist Claude Steele states, are one way by which history is created and one of the many ways that effect present life. The reason for this is that all of us have many identities – our gender, our ethnicity, our age and our sexual orientation. And for each of these identities, we have negative stereotypes (see Steele
Read from this perspective, the parable is a good example of what is meant by life-giving theology, or in the words of Volf and Croasmun, a theology that makes a difference (see Volf & Croasmun
Nowadays, however, the general sense is that ‘theology isn’t producing any genuine knowledge that accomplishes anything, that it trades with the irrationality of faith and is useless’ (Volf & Croasmun
At the Department of New Testament and Related Literature, we want to heed to the call to practice life-giving theology. That is why my focus for the past 10 years have been the stories of a social prophet from Galilee as symbols of social and personal transformation. In the work of Dr Zoro Dube, the focus is first on Jesus the healer in a social-political context of imperial domination. In this context, the healings of Jesus are interpreted as acts that restored shalom and dignity. Secondly, with synergies from Ubuntu philosophy and Gabriel Marcel’s theory of participation, he focuses on Jesus’ concept of inclusiveness to advance a theoretical perspective that responds to the negative effects of globalisation such as raising nationalism, racism, immigration and xenophobia. Dr Hanré Janse van Rensburg, at her turn, studies eschatological literature, focusing on embodiment (the body is a location of religious expression), identity (e.g. gender, religious identity) and orality. As one of her methodological points of departure, she works with a hermeneutic of suspicion which premises that people and groups do not readily admit that they create, systemise and institutionalise their own social world and institutions while purporting that the created world and the institutions thereof are transcendentally ‘given’. This process of religious legitimisation is called ‘mystification’, and results in a reification or naturalisation of institutions created by people. In other words, ideology is naturalised, and the socially engendered state of affairs is seen as permanent, natural, outside of time and directly revealed by God. To expose, for example, these dehumanising power interests, de-mystification and de-naturalisation are needed. In her work, she argues that eschatological texts aim to do exactly this: expose
With these foci, we want to, as put by Volf and Croasmun (
By doing this, we believe, we will continue not only the proud tradition of this department, that is, practicing a life-giving theology as a critical voice against narratives that breed systemic injustice such as exclusion and discrimination; but also a voice that calls for an open society with equal opportunities for all, a world in which all of creation can flourish.
A Samaritan merchant and his innkeeper friend save a life. After them, from an ideological point of view, they had friends in the department who practiced theology that gave new life to many. We, the current members of the department and faculty, consider ourselves also to be their friends.
The author declares that no competing interests exist.
I declare that I am the sole author of this research article.
This article followed all ethical standards for carrying out research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the authors.
The reasons for this pejorative description of the Samaritan are manifold, including historical factors and religious differences. Tension between Samaritans and Israelites started in 922 BCE after the death of Solomon, when Israel split into the northern and southern kingdoms when the northern kingdom (Samaria) led by Jeroboam revolted against Rehoboam. The Assyrians captured the northern kingdom in 722 BCE, and brought immigrants from foreign lands to live in Samaria (see 2 Ki 17:24–41). These peoples worshipped foreign gods, and over time married Samaritans. As a result, the Jews considered Samaritans as half-breeds, the people who lost their racial purity. The Babylonians captured the southern kingdom in 586 BCE, and after their return, under the leadership of Haggai and Zechariah, began to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. The Samaritans offered to help, but their help was declined; because of their foreign marriages, they had lost, in the eyes of the returning Jews, the right to be regarded as Jews in any way. For the Jews from the south (Judea), the Samaritans had no continuing place in the covenant of the Hebrew people. In reaction to the refusal for help, the Samaritans sought to hinder the reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple, and build their own temple at Gerezim near Shechem in the late 4th century BCE. They rejected the Old Testament as a whole, and their scripture was a redaction of the Pentateuch, which is known as the Samaritan Pentateuch. In the 2nd century, the Samaritans helped the Syrian rulers in their wars against the Jews, and in 128 BCE, John Hyrcanus, the Jewish Hasmonean king and high priest, burnt the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerezim. In the early 1st century (somewhere between 6 and 9 CE), the Samaritans scattered the bones of a corpse throughout the court of the temple during Passover, defiling the temple and preventing the celebration of the feast. From their side, the Jews publicly cursed the Samaritans in their synagogue services, and petitioned for their exclusion from eternal life. Scholars who reject the biblical account in 2 Kings as unhistorical, see the origins of the schism in the building of the Samaritan temple and John Hyrcanus’ burning down of the temple in 128 BCE (see Schiffman
See, for example, 2 Samuel 7;19, 2 Chronicles 35:2–3, Ezra 10:5, Nehemiah 11:3 and 20,
See Luke 10:30–32: The man who fell among the robbers was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho (ἄνθρωπός τις κατέβαινεν ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴμ εἰς Ἰεριχὼ), the priest was also going down the same route (ἱερεύς τις κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ἐκείνῃ), as was the case with the Levite (ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Λευίτης).
If three eat together, they must say the Common Grace. If one of them ate
‘If a man ate and forget to say the Benediction, the School of Shammai say[
‘An Israelite may circumcise a Samaritan, and a Samaritan an Israelite’ (
‘R. Aqiba maintains that Samaritans are authentic converts, and priests who are mixed up with them are fit priests, as it is said, ‘And they made up to them from among themselves priests of the high places’ (2 Ki. 17:32), and said Rabbah bar Hannah said R. Yohanan, ’That was from the choicest of the people’(
‘If a man brought his wheat to a miller that was a Samaritan … its condition remains as before in what concerns Tithes and Seventh Year produce; but if he brought it to a miller that was a gentile, [after it has been ground], it is accounted
If a man buys wine among Samaritans, he may say, ‘Let two
‘If a man leased a field from an Israelite … or Samaritan, he must divide [the produce] in their presence’ (
‘Said R. Pappa, “May it be God’s will that this bull may be eaten in peace. Here with what sort of case do we deal [in the Mishnah which implies that we do not burn priestly rations in this context by reason of doubt]? With a Samaritan who is an associate [in that he observes the rules of cultic cleanness even in connection with ordinary food]”’ (
‘Unleavened bread prepared by Samaritans is permitted for use on Passover, and a person carries out the obligation for eating such unleavened bread on Passover by eating Samaritan unleavened bread. But R. Eleazar prohibits doing so, for they are by no means expert in the details of the laws of unleavened bread. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, ‘Any religious duty that the Samaritans preserved they observe with far great[
‘The parable should not be interpreted in ethnic terms, as though the Samaritan was from a different people, hated by the Jews. They worshipped the same God differently albeit at a different place, also regarded the Pentateuch as a holy book, and there were continual attacks and exclusions from both sides’ (Schottroff
See also Jeremias (
This description of merchants and mercantilism is taken from Van Eck (
See
See, for example,