This is the first in a series of posts on postcolonial critical interpretations of the Biblical Exodus narratives. This first post will outline the traditional postcolonial view of the Exodus narrative – future posts (posted on a daily basis) will offer a cautious critique of this view.
The Biblical Exodus narrative describes the emancipation of the Israelite people from 430-years of enslavement to the Egyptians.[1] Despite ongoing questions regarding the historicity of the events narrated in the text, the narrative has been central to postcolonial and liberation critical readings of the Old Testament, which seek to read the Bible from the perspective of, and with, those who have experienced oppression and colonialism, with the practical goal of transforming society.[2]
Whilst postcolonial and liberation critics accept the Exodus narrative to be rooted in varying degrees of historical truth, they are concerned less with historical and source critical reconstructions than with the final canonical form of the Exodus narrative, which they believe primarily portrays a God who has “seen the affliction,”[3] and “heard the cries”[4] of His people, and who has preferential concern for the needs of the afflicted and the poor.[5] YHWH is a God who takes sides – relentlessly siding with His oppressed people Israel, liberating them from bondage in Egypt,[6] saving them from enemy armies,[7] confirming a lasting relationship with them,[8] and establishing for them a new set of laws[9] and social structures,[10] even in the face of their collective failures.[11]
Although the Exodus narrative is the story of a particular people postcolonial and liberation critics interpret the narrative as demonstrating God’s plan of liberation for all humanity.[12] In order to affirm this notion, the doctrine of creation is used as a means of qualifying various groups, at different times in history, as the people God wishes to liberate.[13] God’s act of creation is thus reinterpreted in light of the liberating movement of Exodus – God’s creation of humanity in Imago Dei[14] demonstrates that God’s purpose for all people is freedom.[15] Creation is thus the first act of salvation,[16] an action that from the beginning requires humanity to participate in their own salvation, just as the Israelites were called to participate in their liberation from Egypt.[17] The Kingdom of Peace, foreseen by the prophets,[18] is one that is to be established within the earthly, historical world, not merely an abstract spiritual concept.[19] This view insists that Christians are to work to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth,[20] co-operating with the divine will to actualise a transformed reality in which all peoples return from their exile and realise God’s creative intention for their freedom.[21] The Exodus narrative is thus a text that requires a response from the modern reader, for liberation critics emphasise praxis and belief as holding equal importance, with some Liberation Theologians even emphasising orthopraxis over orthodoxy.[22] The story of the Exodus, thus invites the reader to continue the ‘exodus experience’ in the modern world, by striving for liberation for the poor and oppressed.
Postcolonial critics thus emphasise the socio-political dimension of the Exodus, which is seen as not simply seen as God providing support for the oppressed whilst leaving the oppressing regime intact, but an entire removal of the people from oppression and establishment of a new social order. There is no sense in the Exodus narrative that God intends the oppressed to conform themselves to the system of oppression, joyfully accepting their ‘lot’ as a way to God, as some colonial exegetes advocated. For Norbert Lohfink, the liberation from Egypt and the entry into the land must be contextualised by the constitution of a new social order, presented in the canonical form at Sinai, post-liberation from Egypt and pre-entry to the land.[23] Modern familiarity with the Exodus story has, for Lohfink, minimised the radical uniqueness of the Exodus narrative, the likes of which were unattested in the Ancient Near Eastern world,[24] and the newness of the society which was constituted at Sinai – characterised by legislation rooted in concern for the vulnerable.[25]
Indeed some liberation and postcolonial critics have sought to claim that the group of individuals who followed Moses (the so-called “Moses group” who were later to be identified as Israel)[26] were bound together not by ethnicity, but by a shared ideal of an egalitarian, just, society.[27] Indeed historical evidence almost universally supports the notion that the Israelites emerged from the Canaanites,[28] and the heavy tax burdens imposed on the working classes by Canaanite kings would have led to popular support for a social revolution, as proposed by Mendenhall.[29] Nevertheless, this account of the formation of Ancient Israel is highly speculative and does not account for the radically different presentation found in the Bible – for example the Military Consolidation led by Joshua[30] – and is not entirely faithful to the liberation and postcolonial concern with the canonical form rather rather than speculative historical reconstruction.
As a political event, the Exodus is the precursor to the formulation of a new social order, governed by the obligations of the covenant. These obligations are not generally interpreted by postcolonial or liberation critics as purely religious obligations, or those pertaining simply to the correct ordering of the relationship between YHWH and individual people. Rather, they are seen as social and political obligations that allow for the construction of a society based on community, equality and justice. From the liberation and postcolonial critical perspective, the division of politics from religion is a false one – it is axiomatic that religious faith brings social and political obligations[31] – any worship devoid of practical, political, consequences is a mere lip service.[32] Despite the emphasis on human response found in liberation and postcolonial theology, the miracle of the Exodus is emphasised – God’s action within creation effects the liberation of the poor.
[1] Exodus 12:40.
[2] Pottenger JR. The Political Theory of Liberation Theology. (New York: State University of New York, 1989): p173.
[3] Exodus 3:7.
[4] Exodus 3:9.
[5] Pleins JD. ‘Political Deliverance: Exodus’. In: Pleins JD. Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible. (London: Westminster John Knox, 2000): p156.
[6] Exodus 5:1-15:21.
[7] Exodus 14:1-31; 17:16-8.
[8] Exodus 19:1-25.
[9] Exodus 21:1-23:33.
[10] Exodus 28:1-29:46.
[11] Exodus 32:1-6.
[12] Pleins JD. op cit. p156-7.
[13] Comblin J, Berryman P. People of God. (Virginia: University of Virginia Press, 2004): p64.
[14] Genesis 1:26.
[15] Gutierrez G. A Theology of Liberation. (London: SCM Press, 1974): p172.
[16] The link between creation and soteriology is not unique to liberation and postcolonial critical readings of sacred scripture. For example, St Irenaeus of Lyons, writing in the second century, broadly agrees with this interpretation of creation, without sharing a postcolonial perspective. See: Steenberg MC. Irenaeus on Creation: The Cosmic Christ and the Saga of Redemption. (London: BRILL, 2008): p35.
[17] Exodus 12:34-39.
[18] Isaiah 32:17.
[19] Corretto C. In Search of the Beyond. (London: Darton, Logman and Todd, 1975): p28.
[20] Gutierrez G. ‘The Task and Content of Liberation Theology’ in: Rowland C (ed). Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology. 2nd Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007): p16. [Online Version].
[21] Chalke S. The Lost Meaning of Jesus. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003): p3.
[22] Bennet Z. ‘Action is the all of life: the praxis-based epistemology of Liberation theology.’ In: Rowland C (ed). The Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology. 2nd Edition. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007): p39. [Online Version].
[23] Lohfink N, Maloney LM (tr), Christensen DL (ed). Option for the Poor: the Basic Principle of Liberation Theology in the Light of the Bible. (Berkeley: Bibal Press, 1987): p44-5.
[24] Ibid. p40.
[25] e.g. Exodus 23:9.
[26] Ceresko AR. Introduction to the Old Testament: A Liberation Perspective. (Maryknoll NY: Orbis, 1992): p74.
[27] Gottwald NK. The Politics of Ancient Israel. (London: Westminster John Knox, 2001): p170ff.
[28] Smith MS, Miller PD. The Early History of God. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002): p10.
[29] Lemche NP. Early Israel: Anthropological and Historical Studies on Israelite Society before the Monarchy. (London: BRILL, 1985): xi.
[30] Exodus 17:9-16.
Joshua 10-19.
[31] Ellis S, Haar GT. Religion and Politics in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Modern African Studies. 36.2 (1998): 175-201.
[32] Tutu D. The Rainbow People of God. (London: Doubleday, 1994): p29.
