Contextual Approaches in Biblical Exegesis—An Exploration and Exemplification

The article is focused on the recent exegetical trend of “contextual” readings of the Bible, or context-sensitive exegesis in global Biblical scholarship. It is written by three authors from different ethnic and cultural contexts (German, Korean, Ethiopian) in order to emphasize the diversity to be considered. In the first part, the aims, history and relevant factors of contextual reading are described. The second part makes clear that also the traditional historical-critical exegesis is strongly contextual, drawing on Enlightenment thought and Western views of life. Therefore, any claims of “objectivity” or universality are problematic. In the third and fourth section of the article, two different contexts from global Christianity or the Majority World are introduced. first the African, especially Ethiopian context under the label of “vulnerability”, and then an Asian, precisely South Korean context with regard to the understanding of spirits and demons. The Ethiopian author describes how vulnerability has generally shaped the African cultural experience and specifically common language in Ethiopia, including religious attitudes which are characterized by a general openness for the divine. She also shows, that in such a culture, with the danger of naivete and acceptance of many problematic interpretations critical discernment is needed, as has already been stated by an Ethiopian philosopher of the 17th century. The part on Korean interpretation discusses the various views on spirits and demons in Korean Bible translations and the influence of Confucian thought and Shamanism on readings of the Bible. Using the example of the Gerasene demoniac, the author shows readers aware of shamanic ritual including pigs and intended to pacify the restless souls can impact the reading of this particular Biblical text even among modern Koreans. A brief concluding section draws some conclusions. Both examples demonstrate the diversity of contexts and their resonances with the Biblical texts when they are read in these different contexts. It is also obvious that there is not a single clear-cut dualism between Western and “postcolonial” readings. Neither the historical readings nor the contextual are “right” as such. Rather, there should be an open dialogue, on equal footing, that considers the context and also allows for critical interaction in order to prevent abuse of biblical texts, not only in colonial relations, but also within a given context by traditionalists, political powers, and spiritual authorities, so that the liberating power of the gospel can come into effect, for the benefit its readers.