Chapter 2
LIBERATION THEOLOGY: THE BIBLICAL ANCHORAGE
Introduction
1 ibemtion theology bases its claims mainly on four themes of the
Bible - the Kingdom of God as the ultimate plan of God's creation, the
exodus as the new paradigm for liberation, the notion of poverty and the image
of God as a God of justice - which together with other themes constitute the
central message of Jesus' teachings. Liberation theology makes use of these
ideas as central reference points in its advancement. The image of God to be
found in the Bible is that of a God who liberates, who is compassionate and
concerned with justice. Each of these themes, needs to be looked into in some
detail.
The Kingdom of God is one of the central themes in Jesus' teachings.
How thii Kingdom of God can be made meaningful to the contemporary world
has proved to be a contentious issue. To grasp its full import, the term 'Kingdom
of God' has to be studied in the context of attempts made to translate it into
modem idiom. One has to find out what it meant for Jesus and what it can
mean for the world today; that is to say, it has to be analysed as it is employed in
the Bible, and as interpreted by the liberation theologians as a dynamic world
transforming reality.
The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament
Although the phrase "the Kingdom of God" does not occur in the Old
Testament, the kingship of God is frequently stressed, especially in the psalms.
Most exegetes agree that the term "malkut" translated as 'Kingdom' is associated
with Yahweh. Now, the God of Israel- Yahweh - manifests Himself in terms
of an active power operating through history: not in terms of a kingdom, literal
or figurative, constituted by that power. When the kingship of Yahweh is
described "the emphasis is on kingly rule and domination rather than on a 2
territory or a place." There are various dimensions to this kingship as He is the
great king over all the earth (PS 47:2), He rules over all (Ps 103:19), and His
kingly control encompasses past, present and future (Ps 145: 13). Along with
thii general notion, God is also king of the covenant people and, exclusively,
Jacob's king (Is 41:21). The covenental kingship gives hope during national 3
decline and even in exile. The reign of God will be realised through the
"Messiah" who will bring salvation and blessing to aU people (Is 2: 1-4; 49: 7;
Mic 4: 1-5). Israel's experience of Yahweh, as the personal God and as the Lord
of history who cares, protects, forgives and makes a covenant with his people,
was unique to them. As a king, "Yahweh", creates a people, directs and
organises their ranks, redeems them, imparts justice to them all. This religious
experience might be said to prefigure the idea of the Kingdom of God as it is
fully and finally evolved under the new covenant.
The Kingdom of God in the New Testament
4 The phrase "the kingdom of God" occurs frequently in the NT,
especially, in the synoptic Gospels where it is the central theme in the
proclamation of Jesus. The fourth Gospel (St. John's) rarely uses the term and
when it does, the term is synonymous with "eternal life" (Jn 3:15). The "Acts of
the Apostles" preaches the kingdom (Acts 8:12; 1923) and Paul speaks of
inheriting the kingdom (1 Cor 6 9 ; Gal 521) ; for Paul, the kingdom of God is
also a "present" reality (Rom 14:17; 1 Cor 420) . The expectation of God's 5
coming rule pervades and dominates the whok New Testament.
Jesus never defined the kingdom of God or the reign of God in the
concrete but presented hi message in "kingdomn parables which, it must be 6
admitted, were the most effective means of putting over the idea to the
unlettered and the uninitiated among hi audience.
In the Bible the jubilee tradition is interpreted as a "great year of favour,"
the ultimate visitation of God, a time of great solace and salvation to His people.
Jesus announced this final visitation of God not as a future event but as having
occurred with his advent, once and for all. And so he said: "the kingdom of God
is at hand" (Mk 1:14). In Lk 1721, it is a present reality, one that is within our
reach (Lk 17:21). Thii effective presence is manifested through exorcisms
(Mt 12:28), healings and forgiving of sins. However, not all Gospel passages
support the idea that the kingdom of God has, indeed, been actualised. Though
it is made manifest in Jesus' m i n w , its fulfilment is still to come and much of
Jesus' teaching points to thii (Mk 9:l ; Mt 6:lO; Lk 11:2). "This creates the 7
tension of the "already" and the "not yet". Traditional theology stressed the 8
"not yet" to the detriment of the "already".
Thii kingdom of God is a gracious gift from Above. It is God who gives
the kingdom (Lk 12:31). It is a good offered to men and at the same time a 9
challenge to the people (Mt 25: 1430) as the parable of the talents and of the
treasure in the field (Mt 1344) make clear. The kingdom of God is "a purely 10
religious kingdom" and Jesus rejects outright all suggestions of a splendid
earthly kingdom (Lk 19:ll; 23:42; 24:21).
The "kingdom of God" or the "reign of Godn is a "saving event for the 11
sinners" and not a judgement of vengeance for them. Jesus' invitation to the
people for repentance invokes God's mercy and not Hi anger as John, the
Baptist, did. The revelation of God's love for sinners is a sign of Hi reign. The
reign of God "demands rather a radical decision for God. The choice is clear; 12
either God and hi reign or the world and its reign." Nothing should prevent
one from making thii choice.
Albrecht Ritsehl (1822-89) was the first scholar to examine Jesus' own
understanding of the kingdom and interpret it in ethical terms, according to 13
which all must strive to achieve the goal set by the kingdom. In reaction to this,
Johannes Weiss (1863-1914) argued that the background of Jesus' kingdom
preaching is the Jewish expectation of the manifestation of God's activity in the
future. Albert ~chweitzerl~ dewloped the ideas of Weiss and traced the Jewish
understanding to the apocalyptic literature. According to Schweitzer's
"consistent eschatology," the kingdom of God was for Jesus a universal
catastrophe along the lines of Jewish apocalyptic thinking and so no longer 15
meaningful to the present day world. Charles Ilodd5 speaks of a "realised
eschatologyn according to which the kingdom of God was a present reality for
Jesus and so for the believers, too.
It is clear that the "kingdom of God" is open to a variety of 16
interpretations. AU agree that Jesus preached the "kingdom of God" and
demanded a response from the hearers so that the ultimate goal of the kingdom 17
is to transform the whole creation.
The Theology of Liberation and "the Kingdom of God"
The theology of liberation tries to see the "kingdom of God" in the
context of "hiirical liberation." In order to understand the kingdom of God in
terms of the new theology, one has to have a certain knowledge of "doingn that
theology and the preconceptions on which it is based. It is important to look at
the changes that have been taking place in the past two hundred years in man's 18
self- understanding and hi rok in hiitoy.
19 A new hiirical situation wanants a new human self-understanding and
a re-thinking and a re-reading of the Bible. Thii new historical situation has
emerged from the industrial revolution which revealed man's ability to transform
nature, and the French Revolution which proved man's potential to change the
social and political order. The new human self-understanding is, thus, backed by
the awareness of man's capacity to transform both nature and the socio-political 20
order. Thii means that man has an active role in the transforrnation of hiitoy.
It implies a new manner of being a human person whereby individuals
have greater command over themselves and over their lot in h i r y . It implies,
also, a new way of b e i i a Christian in thii world. In thii context, the theology
of liberation occupies itself with the question posed by the poor and the
oppressed as they struggle to free themselves from the shackles of injustice and
try to create a just and equitable society. It is not to the "non-believern but to the
"non-person" to which liberation theology addresses itself. In the light of this
new historical situation, liberation theology attempts to rethink the concept of the
kingdom of God in its h i r ica l , social, political dimension and in its
transforming power.
Gutierrez on the "Kingdom of God"
To Gustavo Gutierrez, the idea of the kingdom of God is bound up with
the notion of "salvation" which embraces all of human history, transforming it
and leading it to its fullness in Christ. The opposite of the "kingdom" is "sinn
which is seen as a radically inb-hiirical reality - the kind of evil that Jesus 21
sought to eradicate through Hi m i n i . For Gutierrez, history itself is the 22
location of God's self-communication and of Christs' liberating act. The
kingdom of God is to be understood in the global sense and meaning of history,
both in the present and in its ultimate end. The "kingdomn as the goal of all
hi ioy, has deep consequences and strong implications for social and political
praxis in the present. Gutierrez cannot accept the idea of two histories - one sacred and the other profane--but only one which he calls "Christo-finalised"
23 hiioy.
Thii history has two aspects - a call to divine filiation, a vocation by
which human persons become God's chiklren, and a call to human fellowship by
which the human family draws together individuals the world over into one vast
spiritual kinship as brothen and sisters. These two aspects constitute the basii of
Gutierrez's idea of the kingdom of God.
According to Gutierrez, the kingdom of God is a "gift" as well as a "task".
As a call to divine filiation the kingdom of God is a "gift" from God and this gift
24 imposes a "task" - to create an authentic community of brothers and sisters.
As the gift of divine filiation, the kingdom is accepted and adualised by cawing
out the task of creating a profound human fellowship in history. As the final goal
of hiiy, the Kingdom takes over and transforms the whole of history.
God's kingdom is identical with God's will which is hi reign of love in the
world. Thii love is a love which calls all human persons to total communion with
h i and with one another. The will of God is negated by situations of massive
poverty and oppression. In situations of this kind, to do the will of God would 25
mean, necessarily, to struggle for liberation.
The kingdom of God is the background against which the situation of
oppression and domination is denounced as sinful and incompatible with its
coming and in the light of which, on the other hand, evey achievement of
brotherly love and justice among human persons is announced as a step towards
total communion with God. Seen from the perspective of the kingdom of God,
the stmggle for liberation is no longer only a response to the economic, social
and political situation of poverty and oppression. It is not an expression of the
human being's awareness of the necessity of transforming hiiy. Rather, it is
fidelity to God's will and fidelity to Jesus' practice whose proclamation of the 26
kingdom revealed God as Father and human beings as brothers and sisters.
God, the Liberator: the Exodus"
The God of the Bible reveals Himself through historical events rather than
through direct interventions and dired inspi/ations. In this revelatory process,
three basic attitudes may be distinguished:
He is a God who liberates.
He is a God of justice.
He is a God of compassion.
It is pertinent to inquire into each aspect of this God-image as He reveals
himself through h i i r y , and, definitively and uniquely, in the person of Jesus
Christ.
The Exodus - Revelation of God's True Name The Book of Exodus, the second Book of Torah, "is the organic
28 continuation of the first bookn Genesis. It describes the Israelites' bondage in
29 k t , their deliverance, and the liberation journey to the promised land. The
book focuses on two important events: a) the Israelites' deliverance from k t
through God's mighty intervention and the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea
(Ex 1:l-18:26), b) the covenant at Mount Sinai (Ex 19:l-4038).
It describes how the God of Israel, through Moses, the chosen leader, 30
fulfills his threefold promise - to deliver Israel from the bondage of Egypt. to
re- instate them in hi favour and to bring them to the promised land. "Exodus"
is often used in a broad sense for the whole complex of events from the
deliverance to entry into the promised land. As such, it forms the high point of
OT redemptive hiistoy, as the means through which God constituted Israel as his 31
vehicle for the redemption of all mankind.
The exodus narration is considered by liberation theologians as a key text
in the Old Testament that reveals the true nature of God. The exodus event
reveals a God who responds to the cries of a people living under oppression and
is determined to change their destiny. The Book of Exodus reveals thii God as
one who:
- has seen the miserable state of hi people in Egypt.
- has heard their cry.
- has come down to rescue them (Ex 3:7-8).
Through the exodus event God made his name known as the liberator.
In order to fulfii his task God chooses Moses, one of the oppressed, to be hi
lieutenant, the agent of liberation. "So now go. I am sending you to Pharaoh to
bring my people the Israelites out of Egypt" (Ek 3:lO). But Moses was reluctant
to accept thii mission; God reassures and encourages him by saying: "I will be
with youn (Ex 3:12). Thii phrase, "I will be with you," expresses the leitmotif of
all God's redeeming actions in hiiory, to Joshua-a national leader (Josh 1:19),
to Gideon-a judge (Judg 6:16), to David and Solomon-kings (1 Kgs 1:37), to
Jeremiah* prophet (Jer 1:8), and to the Church - the true inheritor of hi 32
mission (Mt 28:20).
The Biblical God is a God who is always with his people and who reveals 33
himself under a new name not known beforehand-"I am who I amn (Ex 3:14).
Again He is a God who delivers (Ex 6:6); his name is the hope for the oppressed
people in Egypt and he wants to keep this meaning for ever. Thii God is on the
side of the oppressed and he declares his intention to liberate them. The
revelation of God's name as deliwrer-liberator is born out of the events of the 34
Exodus.
The experience of this liberating God should be a real experience of
liberation; othenrrise, it will not be a real experience. Conversely, the experience
of liberation should be an experience of the liberating God; otherwise, it will not
be a true liberation. It is a proclamation that only God can truly give liberation.
Wi was the experience of Israel (Ex 3:15). And Israel became one nation when
God delivered them from bondage. The whole of Israel's history was later
reinterpreted on the basii of this exodus event.
"Not only does God reveal himself, he reveals who he is. He is the
deliverer from whatever oppression afflicts hi people. He brought Israel . . .
from slavery in Egypt . . . His vey faithfulness in the past was a guarantee that
he would be there in whatever future need Israel had. Yahweh is Israel's 35
deliverer from oppression throughout time."
The Exodus: A Political Action
Gutierra considers the Exodus, the liberation from Egypt, as a historical
fact and considers it as a recreation of a people after the fust creation of human
beings. Further "The Liberation of Israel," according to Gutierrez "is a political
action."36 It is a breaking away from the situation of misery and "the beginning 37
of the construction of just and comradely society." It is the beginning of the
creation of a "new order." The early chapters of Exodus describe Egypt where
the Jewish people live as the "land of slavery" (Ex 13:3, 20:2, Jer 5:6),
characterised by repression (Ex 1: 10-ll), and alienated work (Ex 5:64)
humiliations (Ex 1:13-14), and enforced birth controls policy (Ex 1:15-22). God
appoints Mcses to liberate them and to lead them to the new land.
38 After surveying the literature on the theology of liberation Brown points
out that the greatness of the Exodus event for liberation theologians cons'& in
the idea of a God who takes sides to free the poor and the oppressed. The
conception of "the exodus as a socio-political revolution by and for the poor and 39
oppressed has long been typical of liberation theology."
George Pixley has done a thorough explication of the Evodus and
commented on almost all liberation theologians who have dealt with exodus
events. The Exodus story, according to Pixley, has undergone a four-stage
evolution. The first stage corresponds to the historical fact; a heterogeneous
group of peasants in Egypt with some immigrants from the east, under the
leadership of the levite Moses escaped from Egypt. In the second stage, the
levites joined the rebellious and Canaanite peasants, then known as Israel, and
the exodus was a struggle against the exploitation of the illegitimate ruling ckss.
In the thud stage, Israel was a monarchy and the exodus was a struggle between
two peoples - Israel and Egypt. In the final stage, according P iey , in the second temple period, the exodus was converted into a foundation for a
40 depoliticised Jewish community. According to Jon D. Levenson, for P i ey , the
Book of Exodus is "an artful but ultimately unsuccessful attempt to disguise the 41
reality of the exodus as a class struggle and social revolution." For him, the
exodus was in the nature of an insurrection. In saying this, P i y might be
thought to be stretching the fads to fit them into a liberationist perspective.
On closer scrutiny, it will be seen that the early chapters of Exodus do not 42
speak of social revolution or a class struggle within the Canaanite society. The
Exodus speaks of the miraculous escape of the oppressed people to their native 43
land. It is a fad that "the society that the Book of Exodus mandates is still one
in which there were slaws, some for a limited period, others for life."@ When
we consider Ex 23:9 "Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels
to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egyptn it is clear that the exodus was
somethiig to do with aliens rather than the emancipation of slaves. The very
purpose of the exodus event Sallah et ammi we ya a bd uni "let my people go
that they may serve me" denotes that freedom in the sense of selfdetermination,
is not the point of the exodus but senrice-the service of the God of Israel is the
main thrust of the exodus event.
45 Jon Levenson argues that the exodus event is not based on a principled
46 opposition to slavery but on the chosenness of Israel. God took notice
(Ex 2:23-25) of the suffering of Israel because He remembered the "covenant".
The suffering, according to Levenson, did not qualify Israel for the exodus event;
at the same time, Israel's groaning, crying, suffering and bondage caused God to
remember the covenant. One cannot equate the chosenness of Israel with
preferential option for the poor. A mere political interpretation of the exodus
event without considering the other aspects goes contrary to the meaning and
spirit of that event. But, Gutienez contends that "to affirm that all human reality
has a political dimension in no way means, as the term itself indicates, to reduce 47
everything to this dimension." He is trying to emphasise a long neglected
aspect as he is aware that "while the social dimension is of the utmost 48
importance, it is only one side of liberation,"
The Exodus: A Reinterpretation
The exodus event's significance echoes throughout the Bible. Joshua
leads the people through the parted waters of Jordan (Josh 4) into the promised
land -a minor image of crossing the Red Sea. Prophets Isaiah (43: 14-21) and
Ezekiel (20: 3 2 4 ) speak of return from captivity - a new exodus - a mirror 49
image of the old. This reappropriation of the exodus event goes beyond the
Bible. The rabbies, the teachers of the Jewish people, consider the exodus event
50 an archetypal model of human redemption. The philosopher Emst Bloch
speaks of an "exodus principle" in the exodus event which he later transforms 51
into the "principle of hope." It is an attempt to inspire and instill hope in the
exiles of our times. It proclaims the message that "The lsraelits were men and
women like us, they had their sorrows and joys and they had an intense desire 52
for life."
According to Gerhard Von Rad, the theme of deliverance from Egypt has
been "theologically worked up into a sublimk chorale. In the deliverance from
the Egypt, Israel saw the guarantee for all the future, the absolute surety for
Yahweh's will to save, something like a warrant to which faith could appeal in 53
times of travail."
Liberation theokqans see the exodus as a paradigm of God's will for the
oppressed. They replace the people of Israel with the poor and the oppressed
everywhere. The exodus event inspires spiritual and political revolution. When
the American revolution broke out ". . . it was the Book of Exodus to which the
founding fathers turned for inspiration and hope, comparing George Washington
to Moses, King George Ill to Pharaoh, the British to the Egyptians, and the 54
Atlantic ocean to the Red Sea."
55 In his celebrated speech in Memphis, Tennessee, Martin Luther King
said: "I just want to do God's wiU. And He's allowed me to go up the mountain,
and I have looked over, and I've seen the promised land. I may not get there
with you. But I want you to know, tonight, that we, as a people, will y t to the 56
promised land . . ." Here King identifies hiis people with the suffering Israelites.
King brought the past to the present to convey the plight of hii people. He
compared American black experience to the experience of ancient Israel.
While presenting his dodoral thesis, Gutierrez said: "The theme of exodus
has been and still is an important theme for us but it is an over-statement to say 57
that it was the major theme in our theology of liberation;" he prefers to see
exodus as a "political action." Through the exodus event God presents Himself
as a "god who is with us in order to free us" from every kind of bondage and
oppression.
The Notion of Poverty in the Bible
Poverty is one of the central themes in both the Old Testament and the
New Testament. The Bible treats the concept briefly yet with great richness of
implication. We are invited to take a definite attitude towards the issue of
poverty. Poverty is referred to in different words and the meanings are not
a h y s the same.
Poverty in the Old Testament
Poverty in the OT denotes lack of material gods , powerlessness and
oppression. The poor in Israel were not a homogeneous class; it included "small
farmers, day labourers, construction workers, beggars, debt slaves, village 58
dwellers." The legal texts speak of the legal codes drawn up to ensure the
well-being of the poor through the redistribution of goods and food and by
regulation of slave ownership. Prophetic texts speak of those who were
exploited by the big landowners and the ruling class. The wisdom tradition says
that poverty is the result or undesirable consequence of laziness. But the Book
of Ecclesiastes puts forward the view that poverty is the result of political and
economic exploitation.
The OT uses a number of Hebrew words for the poor and b d f g h
po~erty-eb~on,' dal, , mahsor, misken,° miskenu, ani, anawim, and I 59
ms. Biblical authors make a seledive use of these words. For exampk, 'ras' is
a wisdom word and is not found in the prophetic books. This selectivity suggests
that even when the Biblical writers use the same words, they may not mean the 60
same thing by the same words.
Poverty in the New Testament
The NT's idea of poverty is centred on the words and works of Jesus
Christ. In life He belonged to a lower chss and made no attempt to escape or 61
hide the fad. Himself a poor Nazarene, he was committed to the "poorest of 62
the poor." The Gospels had their origin in the communities of the poor
(1 Cor 1: 26-27). But the New Testament lacks a general word for poorlpoverty. 63
"Ptochos" is the word most commonly used in the New Testament for 'poor' M
and means, oppressed, poor. In ancient Greek, the word Penes was widely
used to indicate one who has few material resources and has to live frugally.
Other related terms include: Penichros (poor), hysterematos (want), endees
(needy). Usually, these words denote persons lacking the necessities of life and
poverty a fad evidenced by manifestations of hunger, thirst, nakedness, 65
homelessness, unemployment. The NT gives a diversity of perspectives 66 67
regarding poor/poverty. Socio-economic and Anthropological studies
continue to refine the various perspectives and theological meanings of
poorlpoverty.
Poverty: Gutierrez's View
Poverty is an ambiguous term. In contemporay Christian spirituality
poverty has become a central, if, controversial, theme. For his part, Gutierrez 68
gives three different notions of poverty, such as material poverty. spiritual and
biblical conceptions of poverty.
Material poverty
In Gutierrez's scheme, poverty designates, in the first place, material
poverty which means "the lack of economic goods necessary for a human life
worthy of the name."69 This kind of poverty has been considered degrading and
ordinary men of conscience reject it outright. And even those who have little
understanding of the root cause of this material poverty would agree that we
should fight it as a social evil. Archbishop Vallejos proposes two methods - to
love and organise. In his speech to the poor, the Archbishop said:
I want to inspire hope in you. To tell you you should love the land
with its fruits - your seed, your animals, your tools . . . I want to
tell you you should love your culture, your songs, your language.
your way of doing things, your family, your landscape. That, along
with the other poor, you should make preparations and organise,
because in unity alone is there strength. That, sooner or later, you
or your children will possess the entire land because God has given
it to all as a gift and task God is the sole owner of the fields.70
Thus the Archbishop asked the poor to love the earth and its gifts and to
organ'w themselves that they may be the creators of their own histoy.
Today, the consciousness is growing across classes and nations of the
different degrees and forms of poverty, ranging from deprivation of basic
necessities to marginalisation in social and political life. As Gutierrez puts it:
"The life of the poor is one of hunger and exploitation, inadequate death care
and lack of suitable housing, difficulty in obtaining an education, inadequate 71
wages and unemployment, struggles for their rights and repression." He
describes the present day poverty as "collective poverty" which helps to create
solidarity among the poor themselves and to organise them against those who
benefit from their miserable de-humanising conditions.
Thanks to the works of sociologists and social activists, there is now a
better appreciation of these de-humanising conditions. Peter C. Phan observes
that "the pain of starvation, from which the hungry die, is a horrible suffering.
Of all human calamities famine is the principle one, and most of deaths [in the 72
third world] is, no doubt, by starvation." According to Gutierrez the problem of
material poverty is not simply an economic and social matter; it is an
all-embracing human problem. As he puts it, "The universe of the poor is
inhabited by flesh-and-blood human beings, pervaded by the forces of life and 73
death, of grace and sin."
Material poverty is a sub-human condition. It denies the individual the
status of a person. Concretly, to be poor means to die of hunger, to be .Illiterate,
to be exploited by others, not to know that you are being exploited, not to know 74
that you are a person."
75 Material poverty is a scandalous condition. To aspire after it goes
against the biblical teaching and is tantamount to promoting exploitation and
injustice. Poverty leads to cruel and inhuman death and is against the will of
God who wants us to live.76 But Christians "often have a tendency to give
material poverty a positive value, considering it almost a human and religious
ideal. It is seen as austerity and indifference to the things of thii world and a 77
precondition for a life in conformity with the Gospel." Those who are subject
to it will never see it as a blessing in disguise but as an infirmity, a sub-human
condition that has to be denounced together with the mechanisms that generate 78
the poverty; the ideal is to create a just society by uprooting poverty and
strengthening the bonds of universal brotherhood.
Spiritual Poverty
Poverty is closely related to contemporary Christian spirituality. Religious
communities make an ideal of imitating the poverty of Christ. There has been an
earnest endeavour to imitate and personalise the attitude of Christ towards
poverty.
The concept of spiritual poverty is less clear than material poverty. It is 79
often seen as an "interior attitude of unattachment to the goods of this world."
The poor person is not one who is deprived of goods but one who is not
attached to them. He will not allow the goods to rule hi heart. The poor in this
sense are not those who have no material goods but those who cultivate a
detachment from them. Thus, one may be materially rich and spiritually poor;
conversely the poor can be materially poor and, at the some time, rich at heart. 80
But this line of interpretation of "the poor in spirit" may lead to comforting and
tranquilising conclusions. The Bible, at any rate, cannot be thought to
recommend the sort of sub-human poverty which is a "scandalous situation" and
opposed to the God of life.
Spiritual poverty is not simple detachment but a total availability to the
Lord. In thii sense, it is a "spiritual childhood - an ability to receive. not a
passive acceptance - defines the total posture of human existence before God,
persons, and things. "81
Guiterrez also speaks of evangelical poverty which is appropriate to a
particular vocation and not obligatory to all Christians. It is confined to the
narrow limits of the religious life. He describes evangelical poverty as "a counsel
appmpriate to particular vocation and not a precept obligatory for all 82
Christians." In thii context he warns against a possible misunderstanding:
"We often confuse making a vow of poverty with a life of poverty. We often
confuse possession of absolute essentials with comfortable ensconcement in the 53
world. We often confuse instruments for service with power leverage." AU
these concepts make for ambiguities and uncertainties in the understanding of
spiritual poverty.
Biblical Poverty
The next line of thinking on the question of poverty concerns the biblical
understanding of thii notion. According to the Biblical interpretation, Gutierrez
says, the poor person is the "client" of Yahweh and poverty is "the ability to
welcome God, an openness to God, a willingness to be used by God, a humility
before ~ o d . " ~ Gutierrez shows that the various words used in the Bible to refer
to the poor together indicate a degrading sub-human situation. The poor are 85
portrayed as "indigent, weak, bent over, wretched." Thus understood, the
words ought to have the effect of stimulating protest in the reader, challenging
him to take a stand against poverty because, it is, as he puts it, a "scandalous
condition."
The Bible, according to Gutierrez also makes clear the cause of poverty -
the injustice of the oppressors (Job 242-12). The prophets criticized every form
of poverty and the method used for keeping people in poverty (Hos 12:8; Amos
8:5, Is 3:14, Jer 527, 6:12). There is evidence of strid legislation for fighting
poverty (Dt 2419-21, Lev 19:9-10, Ex 23:12, Dt 5:14), of the practice of
relieving the burden of the people during sabbath and the jubilee year
(Ex 21:2-6, Dt 15: 1- 18, Lev 2510).
The Bible also understands poverty as "spiritual childhood". Repeated
infidelity to the covenant on the part of the chosen people forced the prophets to
speak of a "remnant" which is faithful to God and which will be the "Israel."
From this "remnant" will come the Messiah. From the time of prophet Zephania
(7th centuy BC) those who awaited the Messiah were known as the "poorn
(Zeph 312-13). Thus the term acquired a spiritual meaning and came to be
seen as an ideal. In Zephania 2:3 poverty "is opposed to pride, to an attitude of
self-sufficiency; on the other hand, it is synonymous with faith, with 86
abandonment and trust in the Lord."
Jeremiah calls himself poor when he sings before God (Jer 20:13). Thus
spiritual poverty became a precondition to approaching God (Ps 662). The
Psalms also contain numerous instances of this idea. To know Yahweh is to seek
hi (Ps 9:114), to entrust oneself to him (Ps 10:14, 34:9), to hope in him
(Ps 25:3-5) to fear him (Ps 25:12-14); the poor are the just ones, the whole ones
(Ps 34:20, 2237, 37:17). The opposite of the poor is the proud, helpless ones
(Ps 10:12, 18:28, 37:10, 8614).
In the NT, Mt 5:l gives striking expression of the idea of spiritual poverty.
Here the "blessed" are the poor of Zephaniah, the persons who are "totally at
87 the disposition of the Lord." This total dependence is the precondition to
receiving the word of God which comes to the people as a gift. The poor are
blessed not because the injustice they suffer will be compensated in the kingdom
of God but because the reign of the kingdom of God has begun in a special way
by the incarnation and the new d i n s a t i o n will establish justice. The poor may
now take comfort in the thought that they are soon to be liberated from the
exploitation that had hitherto prevented them from being really human.
According to Guiterrez, the above two notions of poverty, as "a 88
scandalous conditionn and an "attitude of openness to God," converge in the
third notion of poverty as "a commitment of solidarity and protest."
Poverty: A Commitment of Solidarity and Protest
It has been pointed out that material poverty is a "scandalous condition"
and that spiritual poverty is an attitude of openness to God. The first of these
conceptions is subtly deceptive and the second, partial and insufficient.
According to the Biblical teaching, material poverty has to be rejected and
spiritual poverty is a total availability to the Lord. The supreme exemplar of
poverty of either kind is Christ who emptied himself (Phil 2:6) and became poor
(2 Cor 8:9). This is his kenosis (Phil 2:6-11). But Jesus did not take up the sinful
human condition to idealise it.
For Jesus, "poverty is an a d of Love and liberation. It has a redemptive 89
value." Thecause of hi poverty was love for mankind (Jn 3:16). "Christian
poverty has meaning only as a commitment of solidarity with the poor, with 90
those who suffer misey and injustice." It is a protest and an attempt to abolish
it. Jesus became poor in order to be with the poor. He became poor because
He loved the poor. "Christian poverty, an expression of love, is solidarity with 91
the poor and is a protest against poverty" Christian poverty is an imitation of
the "poor Christ."
The early church community "held everything in commonn (Ads 244,
433). These early Christians were anxious to see that there were no "poorn
amongst them (Acts 4: 34-35). They tried to eliminate poverty from their
community and did so. The church in the modem world presents an altogether
different picture. The p w r are in it everywhere, and in large numbers.
Solidarity and comm*hent are conspicuously lacking in the wealthier section of
the faithful. Some of the more thoughtful among them are moved to lament the
plight of the poor with passion and eloquence: "The "poor person" today is the
oppressed one, the one marginated from society, the member of the proletariate
struggling for the most basic rights; the exploited and the plundered social class,
the country stnrggling for its liberation. To be with the oppressed is to be against m
the oppressor." To be in solidarity with the poor involves a personal risk, even
a risk to one's life. The commitment to the poor, even in hostile conditions, is
the sign of the Church's authentic mission proclaimed by Jesus.
Optlon for the Poor
The meaning of poverty is central to the theology of liberation and
"preferential optionn for the poor is now a commonly accepted strategy in the
Church. The Medellin Conference adopted "a clear and prophetic option 93
expressing preference for and solidarity with the poor." The very word
"preference" denies all exclusiveness and seeks rather to call attention to those
who are fust with whom we should be in solidarity. Gutierrez is careful to
maintain the delicate balance between the universality of God's love and God's
"predilection for those on the lowest rung of the ladder of histoy. To focus
exclusively on the one or the other is to mutilate the Christian message. 94
Therefore, evely attempt at such an exclusive emphasis must be rejected."
Puebk chose the formula "preferential option for the poor," the
motivation of which is the awareness that "the vast majority of our fellow
humans continue to live in a situation of poverty and even wretchedness that has 95
grown more acute."
Gutienez notes that the word "option" is often misunderstood. The
Christian "optionn towards the poor is not optional in the sense that one is free
to make it or not to make it. People belonging to the categoy of poor and
non-poor have to make thii option. Before Vat 11, Pope John XXIII spoke of the
"church of the poor." "In the face of the underdeveloped countries, the church %
is, and wants to be, the church of all and, especially, the church of the poor."
The early Church, as has been pointed out, had been noted for its
commitment to the poor. The fathers of the early Church were deeply
committed to thii ideal. Gregoy of Naziams says: "The main part of charity is
the love for the poor and mercy and compassion for our fellow brotheren . . . we
must . . . open the doors to all the poor and all those who are victims of 97
d i i e r s , whatever the cause may be . . ." John Chrysostom, patriarch of
Constantinople, went further when he said: "not giving part of one's possessions 98
to others is already a kind of robbery." In St. Augustine's (354-430) opinion,
the "failure to share [one's] surplus with the needy is like to theft."99
In modem times, the turning point in the Church's official policy comes
with Vat 11. Again, at Puebla, Pope John Paul I1 endorsed a preferential option
for the poor. CELW Documents speak of the "preferential option for the poor:"
"The option for the poor is preferential in the sense that it is more central or 100
enjoys a higher priority than other pastoral options . . . "
Vatican Instruction I1 substituted "preferential love" for "preferential
option" fearing that the concept of "option" would encourage partisan choice
resulting in conflict. But John Paul 11's encyclical "Solicitude Rei Socialis" is quite
clear on the understanding of the terms "optionn and "love" in this context:
Here I would like to i n d i t e one of them: the option or love of
preference for the poor. This is an option or special form of
primacy in the exerc'w of Christian Charity to which the whole
tradition of the church bears witness. It affects the life of each
ChiMan in as much as he or she seeks to imitate the life of Christ,
but it applies equally to our social responsibilities and hence to our
manner of living, and to logical decisions to be made concerning 101
the ownership and use of goods.
According to Michael Novak, a Catholic intellectual, "the option for the 102
poor" is the right option to make. Ultimately, the option for the poor is,
according to Gutierrez, the option for God and is based on the Bible where a im
prediction for the poor is evident. The rationale of this commitment
"is grounded," according to Gutierra, "in the final analysis, in the God of our
faith."lW The poor deserve preference not because of their poverty but because
God has a preference for them.
Poverty, in the final analysis, denotes a sub-human and scandalous
condition. Whii living with the poor Gutierrez discovered that:
a ) poverty is destructive and has to be destroyed "not something to
be accepted or condoned by occasional acts of charity or justified 105
on the basii of biblical passages." Further, he points out that
b) "poverty is not accidental but structural . . . The poor do not exist
by a decree of fate . . ." The poor are there because of the present
day system; they are oppressed, exploited, and the fruits of their
labour are snatched from them. Their humanity is degraded. Yet
another recognition is that
C) "the poor is a social class. The poor belong to those levels of
culture that are not respected by others, to races against whom 106
diirimination is practised . . . [a class that] is exploited." So,
the Church has to make a preferential option for the poor.
107 Thii option is based on and supported by the teachings of the Church and the
Bible: "To speak of a "preferential option for the poor" is not to speak of an
exclusive option for the poor," as though God loved only the poor and hated 108
everybody else, especially, the rich." According to Sobrino the four traditional 109
signs of the Church are equally well suited to the "church of the poor." "The
poor" are, so to speak, evangelising the Church challenging and summoning it to
conversion-a new social order envisaged by God.
The God of Justice
The Hebrew word for justice is 'mispat' of which the root word 'spt' is
multifarious in meaning. According to various contexts, it can mean "to rule, to
govern, to command (an army), to judge (in a forensic sense), to arbitrate (in a
diipute), to warn, to punish, to vindicate." "Consequently, the substantive mispat
yields a variety of meanings such as "justice", "judgement", "rights", 110
"vindication", "deliverance", "custom", "norm". Usually, mispat is translated
as justice. Justice is one of the main themes in the Bible. In the Bible, the
Israelites are described as a people who had an unparalleled thirst for justice.
?he Nomadic History of lsrael and the Theme of Justice
The nomadic lifestyle of Israel's ancestors seems to have instilled a 111
profound sense of justice in the people. AU members of the tribe considered
themselves equal since they claimed to be descendants of a common ancestor.
Political power and wealth took second place to moral values. The belief that all
were created in the "image of God" guaranteed the rights of everyone and
demanded the same responsibility from everyone. The nomadic life and the
desert demanded each other's help. What counted was generosity, hospitality
and a feeling of solidarity. The consciousness that they were living at the
"margin of societyn and being quite different from others naturally impelled them
to cling to each other and to help each other."' Israel emerged as a radically
egalitarian community, one that was averse to hierarchical systems of
domination. "Yahwism", the unique experience of Yahweh as the only living
God of Israel, is considered to be an isolate source and agent of change in the 113 114
hitory of Israel. Yahwism is central to Israel's unique culture. Thii is the
root of Israel's egalitarian society which also produced a feeling of solidarity
within the society. The experience of slavery and injustice caused a deep-seated 115
hatred towards tyrants and a thirst for freedom and justice.
Justice and the Bible
The biblical idea and meaning of justice (Hebrew: sedek, sedakah) can be
gathered from contexts dealing with judgement and righteousness. Thus, a
righteous measure (weight) is what it is supposed to be (Dt 25:15, Lev 19:36, Job
31:6, Ezk 4510). R 23:3, Dt. 3319, Ns 4 6 , 51:21, etc. contain the idea that
"righteous" or "just" is that which meets a standard. In common usage, "sedek
is applied to the legal process. Judges should Judge with justice (Lev 19:15,
M 1:16). "Malfeasance of legal process throws justice to the ground (Arnos 5:7) 116
and turns its fruit to poison (Arnos 6:12)." In the legal context, "just" means
free of a charge, or absence of any charge, or not guilty (1553:11, Gen 38:26, Is
43:9,26). Thus a saddik is a just man. A just man's conduct is in conformity
with the law (Prov 11: 4f; 19:12,28; Gen 18:17; Ezek 3:16-21, 18:524). A just 117
man is a friend of God (Prov 18:10, Gen 7:l; 18:23- 32; Ezek 18:5-26).
Justice and the Knowledge of God
In Wis 1:15, justice is wisdom put into practice. The knowledge of justice
should lead to the practice of justice. Justice should be concretly involved in
one's conduct towards God (religious deeds), towards oneself (distributive 118
aspect), and towards one's neighbour (juridical-legal aspect). Justice in the
Bible is a principle by which we judge all interpersonal relationships. People
know Yahweh because He delivered them from Egypt (Ex 6: 6.7). The ad of
deliverance, which is an act of justice, revealed Yahweh. Ezekiel uses the
following expression seventy-eight times: 'You shall know that I am Yahweh 119
when I do such and such a thing . . ." Again, according to Ezekiel (3427).
"they shall know that l am the Lord, when I break the bars of their yoke . . . "
For Hosea (6:6) justice is intervening on behalf of the poor; and according to the 120
Psalms (37:21) a just man has compassion and gives to the needy.
According to Jer 22: 13-16, to practice justice and right and to defend the
cause of the poor and the needy is to know God. In Hosea 4:12, to know God
is interhuman justice. The knowledge of God and injustice cannot go together.
For Amos, Hosea, Isaiah and Micah there is only one main theme: justice and
right. To know God is, virtually, to have compassion for the needy and to do
justice to them. Again, Hosea 2: 21,22; 4: 1,2; 6:6 associates knowledge of God 121
and compassion.
In is 11:9 and Hab 2:14, knowledge of God is synonymous with justice.
Hosea 14:4 defmes God as "the one in whom orphans find compassion." Amos
5:23-25 stresses the need for interhuman justice. in Is 1:10 God even rejeck
prayers and demands, instead, that justice should be done: "The question is not
whether someone is seeking God or not but whether one is seeking Him where 122
God himself said that he is." It is important to note that not only Hosea,
Jeremiah and Isaiah but nearly all other prophets, too, took it for granted that to
know God and to do justice to the needy are one and the same thing.
Such is the conclusion reached by Miranda in hi "Marx and the Bible"
which makes a close study of the matter. Miranda says that western innslations
of the Bible, especially since the sixteenth centuy, have robbed biblical texts of
their point and force. What the Hebrew texts connote as "justice", the
translations render as "almsgiving". According to Miranda, one cannot claim to
know God, to love or to worship Him except by doing justice. Justice is not just 123
one of the ways but the unique way to God's service and God-realisation.
Justice, God and Neighbour
A diinctive characteristic of the Biblical God is His relationship with the
"neighbourn. This God identifies Himself with the poor, the needy, and the
alien. He lends a ready ear to the supplications of these people (Dt 24:19;
Ex 22: 21-23). In the Bible, the transition is easily made from knowing and
loving God to establishing "just relationships among persons," and recognising 124
"the rights of the poor." In other words, one comes to the knowledge of God
as an active power and presence in hiiory ("he reigns for ever" Ps 146:7), by
the doing of justice. And we know this justice by having an encounter with God
and allowing our being to be touched by him. The "Jacob episode" in Genesis
(25:19, 3320) illustrates this idea wy clearly. The name Jacob, literally
meaning 'cheat', perfectly fits in with the character of that person. He had an
encounter with God in which he overcame hi pride and self-righteousness and
accepted the new name ''Israel" which means 'God perseveres' or 'shall prevail'.
After the encounter with God he was ready to enter into a new relationship with
hi brother Esau (Gen 32:23-32). The relations between the brothers that had
once been vitiated through greed and cunning was now re-established on the 125
secure foundation of justice because Jacob had an experience of God. The
incident bears out the fact that knowkdge of God leads to ads of justice towards
others.
The SabbaticalJubilee Tradition and Justice
In ancient Israel, social status was invariably linked to ownership of
property so that thaw who lost their property might be said to have lost 'caste',
ending up as wage labourers or slaves. The result was an ever-widening gap
between the rich and the poor. The poor, orphans, widows, etc. were the ones
most exposed to gross injustice even though a law had been devised to give
special protection to them (Ex 23:l-3, 6-8).
The time of the great prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel),
which sociologists call "Early Capitalism," indicates a shift in social relations.
During that period, land, instead of providing livelihood, became capital. A
reorientation took place from personal values to economic profit and naturally, 126
the interests of the entrepreneur got the upperhand. This gradually paved the
way for the establishment of an aristocracy in which the peasants were
dependent on and exploited by the aristomk. To prevent such a society
becoming a permanent order a law was formulated (Lev 25). The aim was to
ensure periodic restoration of the ideal order and to give everyone an
opportunity to reunite with hi family and original property. Accordingly, all
those who had been enslaved were released to unite with their families. Thii
law was aimed at the reconstruction of the entire society on the basis of 127
covenantal egalitarian principles.
Justice and Jesus
Jesus inaugurates Hi m'kion by invoking the messianic expectation of
Deutro-Isaiah. Thii text of Isaiah carries a direct reference to the Jubilee
proclamation which consists in the liberation of the "afflicted", "brokenhearted",
"liberty to the capitivesn (Is 61:l-3) and an year of favour for the poor. Here,
Jesus proclaims himself as the Messiah who would restore the rule of justice and
side with the poor and the oppressed against their oppressors. He meant to
bring about a transformation of the human m d u r e s in favour of justice and the
poor. It is a fad that the Gospels did present Jesus as the righteous judge. He
condemns the false justice of the pharisees and denounces the hypocritical
observances of a "human and haughty religion" (Mt 23).
Jesus's inaugural speech provides a definition of the ideal of justice
(Mt 5: 17-48, 6:l-18). He rejects even those who perform miracles in Hi name,
when they are guilty of injustice (Mt 7:23). In 1 Cor 11:20-22, in the context of
Lord's supper, Paul says: "it is not the Lord's supper that you eat [while] . . . one
is hungry." That means the hungry people before them rob God's supper of its
meaning or render fruitless the supreme a d of eating God's supper.
In 1 Jn 478 , one who loves one's neighbour is, thereby, said to know
God and, conversely, one who knows God, must of necessity, love one's
neighbour as well. God is knowable only through knowledge and love of the
neighbour, so that, for John, this love is of the very essence of justice. God is for
ever hidden from the one who tries to get close to Him while keeping his 12.8
distance from the neighbour.
Social Justice
129 In the various teachings of the Church in recent times there is evidence
of a renewed awareness of the need for justice in personal and social relations.
The Church sees the practice of justice to be in conformity with the Gospel 130
message. Justice is a form of love. Promotion of justice ". . . supposes that we
are launching something historically new; it supposes that we have the humility
to be learners. It supposes, too, that we are willing to run the present or 132
foreseeable risk that the promotion of justice brings with i t . . ."
Liberation theology claims to find its anchorage in the Bible and, drawing
attention to the central scriptural themes, inspires a vivid sense of biblical faith as 132
"praxis in the service of justice." But, for its supporters and opponents alike,
there seem to be good grounds for criticising the way it handles its biblical
credentials. There are some who would challenge its "arbitrary" and overly
"political" use of biblical texts. Alfredo Fierro critic'ws Liberation theology for its
"selective" use of certain Biblical themes such as exodus, prophetic criticisms of 133
society, Jesus' encounter with the authorities, etc. In such cases, in hiis
opinion, there is no attempt made to go into the details of the biblico-social
structures and biblical hiioy; and, hence, there is little biblical exegesis. Fierro's
observation is fair enough; yet, one must remember, that the new theology is
attempting to correct, as they put it, the misreadings of the dominant theologies
of the past.
The Bible has been analysed to lay bare the "original historical
struggles"134 of the biblical ancestors and the human and religious ideas upon
which they based their lives. Biblical struggles also yield certain valuable lessons
for those involved in current social struggles. The Bible contains narratives of a
variety of hiiorico-social conflicts and the politics involved in them makes them
particularly relevant today. The Bible does not present any chasm between 135
"religion and the rest of life." In it, the religious life is inseparable from the
politics and the socio-economic life of the people. There is no division between
"thought" and "practice", though the conhry of this has been propagated by
western idealism. The Bible, as we have it today, has evolved from intense
socio-politicaleconomic struggles of the bygone ages; in other words, biblical
136 137 literature itself is "the produd of struggle" and "it has liberative potential.
Liberation theologians are trying to "interpret life" with the help of the Bible or,
conversely, they might be said to mix life in with the Bible.
Thii new awareness has led to the discovery of a new dimension of
scriptural meaning and the presence in it of the liberating God. It means a
judgement on the social order, a new hope for the future, a new experience of
God and understanding of Christian faith. In this context, the four biblical
themes - the kingdom of God, God as liberator with exodus as a prototype of liberation, the notion of poverty and God's command to "do" "justice" - most
often recur in the writings of the liberation theologians.
The kingdom of God gives new hope to the people. Jesus preached not
himself but the kingdom of God; it dominated his teachings and gave 138
"meaningfulness to all hi activity." The kingdom of God comes as a "grace"
and as the result of God's initiative. This recognition, by itself, would make
nonsense of the charge that liberation theology identifies the kingdom of God 139
with human activity. It is meant to be expressed in deeds - a transformation
of the wretched, oppressive and hostile situations. Today, people find
themselves in an oppressive situation and 'the kingdom of God' holds out the
hope of liberation from everything that dehumanises them. The idea of the
kingdom of God gives people the strength to fight against the oppressive
situations because from faith they know that God the liberator is on their side.
God and Hi revelation in hitory is a much discussed topic in recent
theological scholarship. God reveals himself through and in h i i r y . The very
expression "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" indicates that God revealed
himself gradually to successive generations. God initiates h i r y by creation.
With exodus, He recreates history, liberates lsrael from the land of bondage and
leads them to the promised land. God liberates and saves, not after death but
here and now, in the life on earth. God acted to save people from hunger and
misery. The exodus provides liberation theology with a striking paradigm for the
liberating power of God. It moulded a new consciousness and gave a new hope 140
to the oppressed Israelites. The exodus event shows that God's liberative
activity has a political charader in history, embracing the whole life of a 141
people under subjection. Through exodus, God, liberated lsrael physically
from the land of bondage; similarly, liberation theologians hope and work for a
new exodus-a new liberation from oppressive systems.
Liberation theologians consider poverty a "scandalous situationn. God, in
the Bible, identifies himself with the poor and the oppressed. Love of God and
love of the neighbour cannot be separated one from the other. God, according
to the Bible, "puts on" our humanity so that every individual should be
considered as the "temple of God." The description of the last judgement
(Mt 25) summarises vividly this gospel ideal. It indicates that to "know God" and
"do justicen is one and the Only by doing justice can one claim to
know God. Yahweh, the God of Israel, reveals Himself as the God who
descends into history to do justice (Is 42:5.7).
Finally, it must be remembered that biblical passages do often lend
themselws to different interpretations. The very biblical themes that liberation
theologians most often use may themselves be cited to show that liberation does
not come about through struggle and oppression. The exodus, for example, is
not a case of overthrowing oppressors. The oppressed people, the Jews, instead
of overthrowing the oppressed regime, fled Egypt under the leadership of Moses
to establish a new order elsewhere. Again. no prophets call for a concerted
political action to overthrow the rich and the rulers; instead, they call for the
conversion of the powerful and the wealthy. Bearing this in mind, liberation
theologians are discussing the political dimensions and political implications of
the Bible. They go beyond the polltical questions and consider politics as only 143
one dimension of faith. The Bible, so they argue, defends the poor,
denounces injustice and calk for the creation of a "new society".
Notes
1 Arthur F. McGovem, "The Bible in Latin American Liberation
Theology," The Bibk and Liberation, eds. Norman K Gottwald and Richard A.
Horsley (New York: ORBIS, 1993) 7485.
2 Rino F~icheUa and Rene Latourelk (ed.), A h'ctionary of Fundamental
Theobgy (Bangalore: St. Pauls, 1994) 588.
Sinclair B. Fergusson and David F. Wright (eds.), The Mw Dic6'onaty
of Theobgy, rpt. (Illinois: lntenmristy Press, 1991) 367.
Mark and Luke use the term ihe "Kingdom of Godn while Matthew,
whose Jewish respect for the name of God caused him to avoid "Godn and use,
instead, "heavenn meaning exactly the same thing as Mark and Luke. Hans
Kiing prefers "reignn to "kingdomn. He uses reign of God for Kingdom of God.
For further explanation see, Hans Kiing, 73e Church 71.
Gustaf Dalrnan (1855-1941) using his profound knowledge of
Aramaic showed that "kingdom of Godn and "kingdom of heavenn are
synonymous. The term "malkuth" translated as "kingdom" according to
Dalman, refers to sovereignty and not tenitoy. R. J. Coggins, J. L Houlden
(eds.), A Dictionaty of Biblicallnte~pretation 374.
R. J. Coggins and J. L Houlden, A Dicb'onay o f Biblical
Intepretation 374. 6 B. Scott, Jesus: Symbol Mker for the Hngdom (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1981) 11.
Rino Fwhella and Rene Latourelle (eds.), A Didonay of Fudamental
Theobgy 588.
' G. Lohfmk, J e m and Communify (London: Macmikn, 1983) 103.
Rudolf Schnackenburg, God's Rule and Kingdom (New York: Herder
K G., 1963) 85.
lo Hans Kiing, The Church 77.
l1 /bid 79.
l2 Ibjd 81.
13 R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden (eds.), A Dictionary of Biblical
Interpretation 374-75.
l4 ~lbert Schweilzer, The Quest of Historical Jesus: A CriticaIStudy of its
R ~ E S from Reirnarus to Wrede (London: Adam and Charles, 1973) 10.
l5 ~harles H. Dodd, The Apostolic Reaching and Its Developments (New
York: Anchor Doubleday, 1936).
l6 Hans Kiing gives the following meanings:
a) It is eschatolog'~cal in that it is the fully realised, final and absolute
reign of God at the end of time, which, as an event, is now "at
hand."
b) The reign of God "appears as a powerful sovereign a d of God
himself."
c) The reign of God "is rather a purely religious kingdom."
d) The reign of God "is rather a saving event for sinners."
e) The reign of God "demands rather a radical decision for God."
Hans Kiing, 77?e Church 69-83. See a h , Oscar Cullmann, Chnd and
7irne: The Rimitive Gbnception of Time and History (London: SCM Press,
1957); Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (New York: Torch Books, 1%2). 17 Rino Fwchella and Rene Latourelle (eds.), Dictionary of Fundamend
Theokqy 594.
l8 Joseph W. Wans (ed.), On the Philosophy of History of Jacques
Marifah (bndon: Geoffrey Bks, 1959).
19 Karan Armstrong. A History o f God (London: A Mandarin Paperback.
1994) 337. Karan explains how the process of technicalisation produced an
entirely different society on a new idea of humanity, 337-396.
20 Gustavo Gutierrez, A T h e o k of Libemtion 127.
21 Gustavo Gutierrez, The Power of the Poor in Histoy 62.
* Hans Kiing, Does God &sf? See, for Hegel's conception of world h i i r y as the "realization of the kingdom of God on earth," 154-156.
" Gustavo Gutierrez, The Power o f the Poor in History 64. 24 Gustavo Gutierrez, We Drink From Our Own Welk 104.
25 Gustavo Gutierrez, The Power of the Poor in History 122.
26 Gustavo Gutierrez, "Finding Our Way to Talk About God," Inuption of
the Third WorM, eds. Fabella and S. Torres (New York: ORBIS, 1983) 232.
27 "Exodusn literally means "way out". The term, in English Bibles, is
ultimately derived from the Greek 'exodus'-departure (Ex 9:1), the name given
to the book in the septuagint. In the Hebrew Bible, the book is known from its
first two words W2 6Ueh Semot-these are the names, following the ancient
custom of naming a text. See lsidor Singer (ed.), The Jewish Encyclopedia,
Vol. V. (New York: Funk and Wagnak, 1916) 293. Also, William La Sor
Sanford, Old TeshmentSurwey (Michigan: W . B. Eerdmans, 1985) 2%. 28 lsidor Singer (ed.), The Jewish ficyclopaedia, Vol. V 2%.
29 For further explanation on promised land, its meaning and theology,
etc. Encyclopedia Judica, Vol. VI (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd.,
1971) 1042.
30 For a detailed study, see Stephen Bigger (ed.), Creating the OM
Testament (Oxford: Basil Bhckwell, 1989).
31 William La Sor Sanford, OM Testament Survey 131. 32 Topel John L, The Way to Peace, Liberation Through the Bible (New
York: ORBIS, 1979) 9.
33 "1 will be present on the one who will be presentn-God reveals "1, the
ever present, will be with you in your battles, always," or "1 will be with you as
your Deliverer, your ever-ready Helper." See, John M. Oesteriaher, The
Unfinished Diahgue (New York: Seabuny, 1986) 37.
For fu" deWtls, s ee Topel John L The Way to perm-
Through h e Bibk (New York: ORBIS, 1979) 2-3. :. .
35 /bid 10. ' _ .~ \ '4 . +.
36 Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation 88. , ... ! ,
37 Ibid 88. '. . .~.. .. 38 Robert McAfee Brown, Theology in a New I@yc Responding to
Liberation memes (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 88.
39 Jon D. Levenson, "Euodus and Liberation." Horizons in Biblical
T h e o b (13.2, 1991) 136.
40 George V. Pixley, On Exodus: A Liberation Perspective (New York:
ORBIS, 1987) xviii-xx.
41 Jon D. Levenson, Evodus and Liberation: Horizons in Bibhcal
T h e o b ( 1 3 , 2 , 1991) 136. 42 Baruch Halpesn, "The Emergence of Israel in Canaan," SBLBS (29,
1983) 84.
43 John Hanard Yoder, "Producing the Meaning of Liberation,"
Sopurners (5, 7 , 1976) 26-29.
Jon D. Levensbn, ''Exodus and Liberation," Horizons in Biblical
Theo&(13,2, 1991) 137.
45 hid 161.
46 The chosenness of Israel is because of the identity of Israel as a
biological family. Michael Wysechogrod, The Body of Faith (New York:
Seabuny, 1983) 36.
47 Gustavo Gutierrez, The Truth Shall Make You Free 130.
hid 132.
49 See, W. Eichrodt, Theolbgy of the Old Testament (Philadephia:
Westminster Press, 1961) 36. 50 Lyle Eslinger, "Freedom or Knowledge, Perspective and Purpose in the
Exodus Narrative," Journal for the Study of OM Testament (52, 1991) 43.
/bid 44.
52 liunga, Bakole W. A., Paths offiberation, trans. Matthew J . O'Connell
(New York: ORBIS, 1984) 41. 53 Gerhard Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M . G. Glatker
(New York: Harper and Row) 176.
Gordis Robert, A Faith for Modems (New York: Block Publishing Co.,
1961) 34.
55 It was king's last speech.
56 David J. Garrow, Bearing the Cross (New York: William Marrow,
1986) 621.
57 Gustavo Gutierrez, The Truth Shall Make You F E ~ 29. 58 The Anchor Bibk Dictionav, Vol. V, 402.
a) It occurs 61 times in the OT and means economically or legally
di iessed, destitute beggar.
b) Dal occurs 48 times and means poor, weak, inferior, lacking.
C) Dalla occurs 5 times and means a social ckss, representing the
lowest orders of the society.
d) Mahsor occurs 13 times and means lack of, or need for, material
goods.
e) Nisken appears only 4 times, used in comparative statements
meaning wisdom aimed poverty.
f ) Miskenut appears only once in Dt 8:9 meaning scarcity of material
goods.
g) Ani occurs 80 times in the OT. Thii most common term means
economically poor, oppressed, exploited, suffering.
h) Anawim occurs 24 times and means poor, pious, humble.
i) Ras occurs 22 times. It refers to someone who is politically and
economically inferior and someone who is lazy.
59 For an ethyrnologcal analysis, see, The Anchor Bible Didiondry,
Vol. V, 402-413.
60 For example in prophets 'dal' is an object of exploitation. lbid 403.
For further reading, T. Donald, "The Semantic Field of Rich and Poor in the
Wisdom Literature of Hebrew and Accadian," Or Ant (2, 1%4) 27-41.
J. Gibson, Canannite Mjn!hs and Legends (Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 1977).
J. Kennedy, Sfudies in Hebrew Synonyms (London: Macmillan, 1898).
J. D. Pieins, "Poverty in the Social Work1 of the Wise," JSOT ( 37,
1987) 61-78.
61 John, L Mekenzic, Dicfionaly of the Bible (Bangalore: Asian Trading
Corporation, 1983) 683.
62 Jose Cardenans Pallares, A Poor f i n Called Jesus: Reflections on the
GospelofMrk, trans. R. Barr (New York: ORBIS, 1986) 2.
The Greek word ptochas occurs 34 times in the NT and means poor,
oppressed and literally "beggar. "
64 Penes, the common word for poor used only once in the NT,
2 Cor 8:9.
The Anchor Bibk Dictionary, Vol. V , 414-421.
&~cha th f f and W. Stegemann (eds.), God of the Lowly: Seio-H'irical
Interpretation of the Bible (New York: ORBIS, 1984) 68.
67 B. J. Malina, "Interpreting the Bible with Anthropology: The Case of
the Poor and the Rich," Journalof ReLgon and Culture (21, 1986) 149.
Malina has argued from hi anthropological perspective that in
Biblical cultures, religion, politics and economics have a close relationship with
kinship institutions. k a result even "wealthyn, "sonless" widows would be
referred to as "poor widows" (LK 214-5) which meant the inability to take an
active part in social life, lack of self-respect, etc.
Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation 162-64.
69 lbid 163.
70 Cited by Gustavo Gutierrez, We Drink From Our Chvn Web 156.
71 Gustavo Gutierrez, We Drink from Our Own WeUs 124.
72 Peter C. Phan, Social Thought (Wilmington: Glazier Michael,
1984) 119.
73 Gustavo Gutierrez, We Drink from Our Own Web 125. 74 Gustavo Gutierrez, A T h e o h of Liberation 163.
75 For further explanation, see, lbid 165-168.
76 bid xxiii.
77 lbid 163.
78 R~eblaandBeyond, No. 1160-1161.
79 Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology o f Liberation 164. 80 Mt. 5:3.
Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation 171.
82 Ibid 164.
Gustavo Gutierrez, The Power of the Poor in Hisow 1%.
84 Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theo&y o f Liberation 169.
85 /bid 165.
/bid 169.
87 /bid. 169.
98 Puebk documents (Nos. 28-32 speak of poverty as a scandal). 89 Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology o f Liberation 172.
90 lbid 172.
91 Ibid 172.
/bid 173.
93 Puebla and Beyond, No. 1134.
94 Gustavo Gutierez, A Theology of Liberation xxvi. 95 Puebla and Beyond, No. 1135.
% Address of the Pope on September 11, 1962. Cited by Gustavo
Gutierrez, A T h e o b of Liberation xxvi.
97 Cited by Peter C. Phan, Socia/ Thought 122.
98 Cited by lbid 138.
99 Cited by /bid 226.
1 0 0 Dennis P. Mccann, "The Preferential Option for the Poor," The
hferential Option for the Poor, ed. Richard John Neuhans (Michigan:
Eerdmans, 1988) 36. 101 Pope John Paul 11, Sollcitudo Re; Socialis No. 42.
'" Richard John Neuhans (ed.), The Referential Option for the Poor 35. '" lbid 53. 1 W Gustavo Gutierrez, A T h e o k of Li&mtion xxvii.
105 Robert McAfee Brown, Gusfaw Gutierrez: An lnboduction to
Li&ration T h e o b 32.
'06 Ibid 32.
lo' The Roman Catholic Bishops of USA in their pastoral letter
"Economic Justice for AU" in 1984, calls for a preferential option for the poor
and gives three reasons for thii option (a) The example set by Jesus, He
identified himself with the poor, (b) The teaching of Christ: He taught human
beings to serve the poor, (c) The close connection between the Gospel and the
poor that demands a connection between the church and the poor. Cf. /bid 59.
'08 /bid 60. 1 0 9 The Council of Constantnople (381) described the signs of the true
church as "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church." Jon Sobrino, The Tme
Church and the Poor (London: SCM Press, 1985) 99.
1 1 0 See, for further explanation, The Anchor Bible Dicr7onary. 111 For a detailed study on the tribes of Israel, see Norman K Gotwakl,
The Tribes of Yahweh: A S o c i o l q of the Religion of Liberated Ismel,
1250-1050 BCE(New York: ORBIS, 1979).
Norman K Gohvald, "Theological Issues in the Tribes of Yahweh,"
eds. Normank Gothwald and Richard A. Honley, The Bibk and Liberation
(New York: ORBIS) 229. 113 Norman K. Gathuald, "Domain Assumptions and Societal Models in
the Study of Pre-rnonarchie Israel," VT (28, 1974) 93. 114 For further explanation, see Normank Gothvakl, The Tribes of
Yahweh A Sociobgy of the Religin of Liberated Israel 1250-1050 BCE
210-33+.
Epzztaii Leom, Social Justice in the Ancient Near East and the People
of the Bibk (London: Seon Press, 1986) 86-104.
John, L Mckenzie, Dictionary o f the Bible 739.
117 For further explanation see, Xavier, Leon Dufour, Dictionary of
Biblical Theobgy, trans. P. Joseph Cahill, S. J. (Bangalore: Asian Trading
Corporation, 1973) 283-286. 118 See Angelo Di Berardino, Encyclopedia of the Early Church, trans.
Adrian Walford, Vol. I (Cambridge: James Clarke and Co., 1992) 461.
119 [bid 461.
l2'See Jose P. Miranda, Mam and the Bible: A CCrque of the Philosophy
of Oppmsion, tram. John Eagleson (New York: ORBIS, 1974).
121 Ibid 46.
'22 bid 57.
la lbid 14-15.
124 Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theokgy of Liberation 110. 125 See, Horacio Simian Yofre, "'Justice', Biblical Themes," Reitgous
Education, ed. J. S. Marino (Alabama: Birminham, 1983) 96-233.
126 J. L Mays, "Justice, Perspectives from the Prophetic Tradition,"
Interpretation (37, 1983) 5-1 7.
127 P. HoUenbach, "Liberating Jesus for Social Involvement," Biblical
T h e o b &IUetin (15, 1985) 51-57. 128 Jose P. Mranda, Marx and the Bible: A Critique of the Philosophy of
Qupression 65.
129 Pope John XXIII, "Mater et Magistran (1961). See, John Desrochers,
7he SocMl Teaching of the Church (1982) 116-17. 130 Paul VI, &fogesima Adveniens (l971), lbid 203-04. 131 Jon Sobrino, 73e h e Church and Poor 47-53.
13' Rid 72.
133 Norman K GothwaM, "The Exodus as Event and Process: A Test
Case in the Biblical Grounding of Liberation Theology," The Future of
fiberation T h e o b , eds. Mare H. Ellis and Otto Maduro (New York: ORBIS,
1989) 250-260.
134 See for details, Alfredo Fierro, The Militant Gospelc A Critcal
Inb-oduction to Political Theobes (New York: ORBIS, 1977) 12981.
135 Norman K Gottwald, Richard A. Horsley (eds.), The Bible and
Liberation (New York: ORBIS, 1993) xiii.
136 /bid xiv.
137 Iturneleny J. Mosala, "Biblical Hermeneutics and Black Theology in
South Africa: The Use of the Bible," Bible and Liberation 51-73. 138 Norman K. Gothwald, Richard A. Horsley (eds.), The Bibk and
fiberation (New York: ORBIS, 1993) xvi. 139 Jon Sobrino, Christobgy at the Crossroads: A Latin American
Pezspective (London: SCM Press, 1978) 41.
'40 Leonardo Boff, "Salvation in Jesus Christ and the Process of
Liberation," Concilum (96) 81-88. 141 Rubem Alves, A T h e o k of Human Hope Corpus Books
(Washington DC: Corpus Books, 1%9) 89. 142 Jose Miguez Bonino, Doing 771eok in a Rewlutionay Situation
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 134-35.
'" Gustavo Gutierrez, "Liberation Praxis and Christian Faith," Frontiers of Theokqy in Latin America 128.