Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
BIBLICAL EVIDENCE AND GUIDELINES
INTRODUCTION
There are some common threads in the practices of ancestor worship in Korea, Japan and Africa. From the previous chapters, it is evident that ancestor worship is essentially based on the relationship between the living and the dead. This belief is intrinsic to the cosmology of the Japanese, Koreans and Africans and thus in turn informs their ritual practices. In all three cases, there is the underlying belief that the dead will benefit from the actions of the living descendants. This is essentially a symbiotic relationship, since the living descendants are believed to gain protection and blessings in return for their veneration of the ancestors.
This synergy is also based on the underlying beliefs about death and the afterlife. In all three cases, death is not considered to be a barrier between the living and the dead. In Japanese, Korean and African culture, the dead are believed to interact and commu- nicate with the living members of the family. For example, in African culture, all decea- sed members of the family are believed to become part of the collective ancestor group and have the ability to influence the lives of their descendants for the better or to the detriment of the family. Interestingly enough, the actual physical location of the ances- tors is unspecified. It is not clear whether they are considered to be living under the earth, in the sky, beyond the horizon or in the homestead (Nxumalo 1981:66-67; Aman- ze 2003:44; Chidester 1992:11; Mbiti 1971:133).
There are clear parallels to be drawn between the beliefs of these three groups. We now have to ask what the Biblical perspective is on these issues. More pertinently:
- What does the Bible say about the relationship between the living and the dead?
- What does the Bible say about death and the afterlife?
- Which passages in the Bible are the cause of dogmatic controversy?
The answers to these questions will provide a clearer picture of what a Christian’s attitude towards ancestors ought to be.
The fundamental point of departure of this study is sola Scriptura. Therefore, the perspective espoused by the Bible should fundamentally determine the Christian an- swer to ancestor worship. In this chapter we will endeavour to identify and interpret scriptural evidence that may help us to formulate such answers.
THE LIVING AND THE DEAD
The most prominent issue to discuss in the light of the Scriptures is the relationship between the living and the dead. As said before, the relationship between the living and the dead is the cornerstone of the ancestor worship. In many countries which practise ancestor worship, notably Japan, Korea and Africa, it is believed that the relationship between the living and the dead is one of inter-dependent synergy. There is an intimate and interdependent association in which the dead and the living are believed to com- municate and interact. The question arises as to what the Bible says about the condi- tion of the dead and the relationship of the living with the dead. Is it possible for the dead to exert an influence on the lives of the living? Is it possible for the living to exert an influence on the salvation of the dead?
Communicating with the dead (spiritism)
Spiritism is founded on the idea that the living can communicate with the spirits of the dead by means of mediums (individuals who act as intermediaries between the mate- rial and physical world). It is the contention of this study that such practices are neither “spiritual” nor approved of by God.
The Bible has a negative view of necromancy or attempts to communicate with the dead. In fact all contact with the spirit world is expressly forbidden irrespective of the nature of the spirits concerned (Leviticus 19:26-31; Deuteronomy 18:10-11; Job 7:7-10; Isaiah 8:18-20; Luke 16:19-31).
Kim (1999:86; 1996:76) points out that those individuals who practice ancestor wor- ship have an essentially pragmatic belief system which is primarily concerned with en- suring good fortune and avoiding misfortune. Shamanism is inextricably intertwined with the ancestor cult (Eliade 1964:461). Shamans are supposed to be experts in com- munication with the spirits of the dead. They also use divination to ascertain the best ways of doing things as well as the most opportune moment to act. Kim (1999:87) and O’Donovan (1996:242) point out that it is by this means that the Korean and African people attempt to find guidance and solace.
What is the Biblical view on divination and conjuring spirits? This section will attempt to find a Biblical perspective on these issues and how it can be applied to the African, Korean and Japanese contexts.
Leviticus
Leviticus 19:26
Leviticus 19:26 commands: “Do not eat meat with the blood still in it. Do not practise divination or sorcery.” (NIV)
This scripture has particular relevance. Grintz (1972:85) argues that the meaning of slaughtering practices similar to kosher slaughtering, was ritual and sacrificial: draining the blood onto the ground would nourish chthonic deities or spirits. If it was performed as part of a divination ritual it involved sacrificing the animal on the ground rather than on a stone, draining the blood into a deep trench and allowing the blood to soak in be- fore the meat of the sacrificial beast could be consumed. The significance of this blood rite was that it was believed to draw the spirits to the surface and that it enhanced their powers of foretelling future events.
So Leviticus 19:26 specifically prohibited a chthonic interpretation of kosher slaugh- tering.
The prohibition on divination covers augury and necromancy. Ronald (1980:685) suggests that uul may denote “augury,” which involves predicting the future by looking at the movement of animals, smoke or metals. An example of this can be found in Genesis 44:2 where the account describes how Joseph used a goblet (r›ıt) for divina- tion (uul; Gen 44:25,15). The other interpretation is that this term may be related to y lr , “cloud,” a word with the same consonants. Hartley (1992:321) argues that if this proves to be correct, it could mean that it includes predicting the future by looking at the movements of the clouds. The other interpretation is that the term is an onomatopoeic word for the sounds which a necromancer makes when he/she is communicating with a spirit.
Kaufmann (1960:21–24, 32–33) state that Scriptures consistently reject divination because it is founded on the notion that there is an intangible force (fate) which exerts an influence on the destiny of all things. It negates the omnipotence of God and the Sovereign creator. This is evident in Deuteronomy 18:9–12.
Leviticus 19:31 prohibits the Israelites from interacting with nıv, “ghosts,” and a›lrr›, “departed spirits” for guidance and/or divination. Hartley (1992:321) further asserts that this was necessary since many nations in the ancient Near East sought spiritual guid- ance from the dead through mediums and spiritists. In Scriptures the word »lg, “turn,” is used to denote turning to God but more often refers to turning to other gods in worship (v4; Deut 31:18, 20; Hos 3:1). The second term, u»ı, “seek,” in a religious context de- notes making a significant effort in the worship of God (2 Sam 21:1; Hos 5:6, 15; Zech 8:21–22; but in Isa 8:19; 19:3 with ntıv and a›lrr›). In this regard, Wagner (1975:238) states that it is only used to refer to spirits of the dead.
The exegetical analysis therefore implies that these individuals who approached mediums are seeking divine guidance through contact with dead spirits. The Biblical account of Saul’s visit to the witch of Endor is an example of this. He sought out Sam- uel’s dead spirit for guidance. The Bible strongly condemns such practices (1 Samuel 28). Yahweh abhors such practices because it denies Him as the Sovereign Creator and Living God.
One of the major premises underlying the justification of ancestor worship is respect for the elder members of the community and family. Some have used Leviticus 19:26b- 32 to justify the veneration of ancestor spirits. It reads: “Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the LORD.” (NIV)
However, it is important though that these texts do not state that the deceased eld- erly members of the community are included. It refers clearly to the living members of the family. This is particularly important since immediately before Leviticus 19:32 the Bible exhorts Christians not to consult the dead. There is nothing inappropriate about a fitting burial to honour those who have died. Note also the admonition of Leviticus 19:31 which states “Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God” (NIV)
The Bible expressly forbids consulting mediums or spirits of the dead and also for- bids certain practices which were associated with the dead. Notably the command in Leviticus 19:28 which warns “Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD” (NIV). This warning relates to the ancient practices of the living who scratched themselves or made markings on their bodies associated with sacrifices to the dead. Gehman (1999:150) thus argues that some of these traditions which were Babylonian (e.g. cutting of the hair and beards as a sign of mourning) were forbidden, although some Jews continued to practice it (cf Jeremiah 16:5f, 41:4).
The Bible expressly forbids any practices which have a remote connection with any form of idolatry. Ancestor worship which has the notion of divine appellation intrinsic to it is therefore clearly forbidden by the Scriptures.
Leviticus 20:6, 27
Hartley (1992:338) argues that Leviticus points out that God turns his back upon any person who ›uuv »lr, “prostitutes himself” (cf. v5) by pursuing communication with nıv, “ghosts,” and a›lrr›, “departed spirits” (Lev 19:31). Hartley (1992:340) asserts that the penalty the Scriptures prescribes for such behaviour is ostracism from the people (Lev 7:21). Furthermore, the Bible prescribes the death penalty for a necromancer and spiri- tist.
Isaiah 8:19
This text is very clear about God’s view on spiritism: “When men tell you to consult me- diums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?” (NIV)
Gehman (1999:151) mentions that this text uses the word darash in two ways namely, an acceptable and an unacceptable way of asking God for guidance. At Mount Sinai they were formed into a nation with a special relationship with God, their Re- deemer. Israel was chosen by the Lord, who said, “…out of all nations you will be my treasured possession” (Exodus 19:5). Any “seeking” or “enquiry” by Israel was to be directed to Him alone. This exclusive relationship between God and His people was for the glory of God and the good of Israel.
According to Watts (1985:126) the scripture is translated as “Seek out the fathers”. This is a clear reference to the ancestor worship in which the living believe that the dead ancestors have a bearing on their current earthly existence. This is a clear con- demnation of ancestor worship.
Watts (1985:126) says that this scripture also contains a fairly derogatory reference to the practices of necromancy when it describes the diviners/mediums/spiritist who “chirp and mutter”(a,»..„ »_„_, a,n.,y n y_g „). This implies a garbled gibberish which the necro- mancer utters in his/her trancelike state.
The text explicitly refers to people who consult the dead and therefore to the belief that the dead have the ability to help the living. This was necessary since the Ancient Near East (including Israel) was drawn to divination as much as any other group of na- tions in the history of mankind. The context here suggests that Isaiah had to defend his prophetic calling and role against diviners and spiritualists.
Gehman (1999:152) refers to Gesenius who defined a medium as someone with “a familiar spirit”. The Hebrew word ob denotes in its simplest terms, “a leather bottle” which was typically used for water or wine. It later also denoted a “necromancer, sor- cerer, conjurer who professes to call up the dead by means of incantations [magic words] and magic formulas, in order that they may give response as to doubtful or fu- ture things”. This clearly compares the medium to a leather bottle, filled with a spirit. From the belly of the medium come the gurgling, bubbling sounds of the spirit which possessed him/her.
The Greek word c’yyoocq›’µu0oç (“ventriloquist”) was used by the Septuagint to trans- late the Hebrew term s;u (Leviticus 19:31; 1 Samuel 28:3-9). Today the term “ventrilo- quist” denotes a person who has the ability to project his/her voice so that it appears to be coming from another person or puppet. However, among the Greeks it denoted someone who had a distinct involvement with spirits. Therefore, Langton (1942:178) argues that in the ancient world a ventriloquist implied a person who was virtually “pregnant” with a god or spirit.
Job 7:7-10
“As a cloud vanishes and is gone, so he who goes down to the grave does not return. He will never come to his house again; his place will know him no more.” (NIV)
These words must be interpreted against the context in which it was originally used. Clines (1989:186) mentions that in chapter 7 Job reflects on the fleeting nature of life and appeals to God not to forget about him. He implies respectfully that God may have temporarily overlooked him, comparing his life to the insubstantial being of a dead per- son, like air (utu), whether as breath or as wind.
Clines (1989:186) further argues that the fleeting nature of life is sometimes com- pared to the exhaled breath (Nı»; cf. v16; Ps 78:33; 39:6, 12 [5, 11]; 62:10 [9]; 144:4). In other cases it is compared to a “wind” (usually utu), more pertinently, “a wind that passes and returns not again” (Ps 78:39; cf. Eccl 1:14). Clines (1989:186) points out that there is a particularly close parallel with Ps 78:39 which states (“He remembered [usr] that they were… a wind [utu]”), but either sense is appropriate here. The crux of the matter here is that Job is aware that his life is bound to end at any moment and is aware that he has a very tenuous and tentative grasp on life. The only certainty he has is that he will never return to his former happy state: he will never again “see” (cf. Ps 4:7 [6]; 34:13 [12]) “happiness”(NIV), “good days”(NEB) (elsewhere in Job in this sense at 9:25; 21:13; 36:11 and cf. 17:15).
Job is very aware that his fortune will never return and that he is destined to die. He anticipates that he is soon to die and that his friends and family are expecting his death.
Job further describes this state of “nonexistence” (›ll›v, v8) as the dissolution of his being (»Ns, “be at an end, be spent, vanish”), a departure (yN»), a descent (ru›) from which there can be no ascent (»Nr) or return. Thus the regular daily routine in which one returns home at the end of the day to be welcomed by members of the household will no longer apply to him. This description of his death is metaphorically likened to the way in which clouds disperse and disappear into the ether – he will sink into L;xn in a weakness that does not allow him to rise again to go home.
Job’s views of the underworld which are evident from these verses are typical of the Old Testament and indeed of much of the ancient Near East.
When Job speaks of his own imminent death, he mentions that the dead do not re- turn from the grave. Elsewhere, he speaks of death as the “place of no return” (Job 10:21; Samuel 12:23; Genesis 37:35). From these verses it is evident that death is an ending in itself. There is no return to this life once you have died. It implies that life is finite.
The view of the underworld which is evident from Job’s words is typical of the Old Testament. Clines (1989:187) states that death is essentially a place of rest and signi- fies the end of earthly distinctions. There is no suggestion of any contact or communi- cation between the living and the dead.
From these verses it is evident that the Bible teaches that the dead are not able to return and influence the lives of the living or interact with the living.
Deuteronomy 18:10-14
Deuteronomy 18:9-14 provides extensive guidelines on God’s view on practices asso- ciated with ancestor worship and divination.
“When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving to you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no-one be found among you who sacri- fices his son or daughter in the fire, who practises divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft or casts spells, or who is a medium of spiritist who con- sults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord and because of these detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the Lord your God. The nations you will dispossess lis- ten to those who practise sorcery or divination. But as for you, the Lord your God has not permitted you to do so.” (NIV)
The Hebrew word for wizard or spiritist used in this passage, ,ı.,r˙» ,. denotes a wise and knowing person who is supposedly familiar with the secrets and mysteries of the unseen world. The King James Version translates this term as “the knowing one.” The female counterpart of the wizard is the witch. Both practise divination by the same means. Gehman (1999:155) points out that the Hebrew word actually denotes a “famil- iar spirit.” This points to the connection the wizard or spiritist had with the spirit realm (cf. Leviticus 19:3 1; 1 Samuel 28:3,9; Isaiah 8:19). This is not different from the role the shaman plays in primal religions and the role of the priest in ancestor rituals in Ja- pan and Korea.
From the exegetical analysis of these scriptures it is evident that a variety of terms have been used to denote anyone who has any contact with spirits. Christensen (2001: 408) provides a fairly exhaustive analysis of the scope of the practices associated with necromancy to which the prohibition applies. Notably, he mentions that “one who prac-tises divination” (~a,g.¨o » ao ,»)˙ would further include practices such as hepatoscopy (the “art” of reading the liver from a sacrificial animal), belomancy (use of arrows from a quiver), necromancy consulting spirits of the dead), and also false prophecy (Ezek 21: 29; Jeremaih 14:14).
Christensen (2001:408) further points out that the meaning of the term “soothsayer” (yı »,;rg) cannot be delimited with absolute certainty mainly because all interpretations are essentially founded on etymology. To support this statement, Christensen (2001:408) refers to Ibn Ezra who derived the term from ’anan, “cloud,” and asserted that it should be understood to denote “those who draw omens from the appearance and movements of clouds” (Tigay 1996:173).
Furthermore, the term “omen reader” (nn ,ı_g) appears to refer to oleomancy which is essentially divination based on mixing liquids, such as oil and water. This could refer to the manner in which Joseph’s silver goblet was used in matters of divination (Genesis 44:5). On the other hand, Christensen (2001:408) mentions that a “sorcerer” y% ».t_g could denote a practitioner of black magic as it is used in Exod 22:17, where it is described as a capital offence.
Christensen (2001:408) further mentions the phrase ,,,n . ,, »,n (a “caster of magic spells”) (v11) as it is used in Psalm 58:5. In this scripture it is understood to refer to magic of some sort used against venomous snakes. However, Finkelstein (1956:328-31) suggests the meaning “muttering” a spell and compares it to Akkadian habaru (“be noisy”). He also refers to “one who asks of a ghost” as a reference to the practice of necromancy (v11).
Christensen (2001) describes the common interpretation of the term ,;x as that of a hole in the ground where offerings and requests for information were made to the dead. He mentions that “medium” (,ı.¨r˙» ,) may be translated as a “familiar spirit”. He points out that it always appears with the term ,;x and therefore may simply have an adjectival function to the term ,;x Lx ,n to describe a spirit or ghost functioning as a medium. This appears to be congruent with the account of King Saul and the “witch of Endor” in which the ghost of the dead (Samuel) ascended from the depths of the earth and is seen by the medium. Consequently, Christensen (2001:408) argues that the phrase “one who inquires from the dead” (a,n..» „_-Lx, n, ,,) more than likely means one who per- forms necromancy by any other means than the two previous terms mentioned (Tigay 1996:173).
PREFACE
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The problem
1.2 Thesis of this study
1.3 Scope of this study
1.4 Research methodology
CHAPTER 2 ANCESTOR WORSHIP AS A MULTI-RELIGIOUS PHENOMENON
2.1 Initial description of ancestor worship
2.1.1 Ancestor worship is widespread phenomenon
2.2 Definition of ancestor worship
2.2.1 Ancestor veneration, cult or worship?
2.2.2 Who are the ancestors?
2.2.2.1 The identity of ancestors
2.2.2.2 Ancestors are the dead
2.2.2.3 Ancestors are the departed kin
2.2.3 The function of ancestors
2.2.3.1 The living dead as members of the family and community
2.2.3.2 Intermediaries and mediators
2.2.3.3 The representatives of law
2.2.3.4 Giving the living welfare as well as wrath.
2.2.3.5 Ancestors as senior elders
2.2.4 The relationship between ancestors and others
2.2.4.1 The ancestors and the living.
2.2.4.2 The ancestors and God
2.2.4.3 A communicating relationship
2.2.5 Their prevalent abodes
2.3 Why ancestor worship has not dissipated?
2.3.1 Socio-anthropological motivation
2.3.2 Religious-phenomenal motivation
2.3.3 Socio-political interwoven motivation
2.4 Conclusion
CHAPTER 3. THE CHALLENGE OF ANCESTOR WORSHIP IN AFRICA
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The current South African scenario
3.2.1 The current status of ancestor worship in South Africa
3.2.1.1 Similarities in social structures in Black South African ethnic groups
3.2.1.2 The effect of urbanisation on ancestor worship and the tribal structures of Black South Africans
3.2.2 The current status of Christianity in SA
3.2.2.1 Christianity as interloping missionary religion
3.2.2.2 Revival of ancestor worship
3.3 AIC’s and African Traditional Religion
3.3.1 Three types of African Indigenous Churches
3.3.2 Rapid growing
3.3.3 African Indigenous Churches and the ancestors
3.4 African Traditional Religions and ancestor worship
3.4.1 The nature of African cosmology: power and force
3.4.2 God as a Supreme Being
3.4.2.1 Humanity and involvement in communal life
3.4.2.2 The African concept of cyclic time
3.5 Veneration or worship
3.5.1 Antithetical interpretations of the ancestor cult
3.5.2 Ancestor worship as a social function
3.5.3 Ancestor worship as religious phenomenon
3.6 Ancestor rituals in South Africa
3.6.1 Case study: Xhosa ancestral ritual
3.6.2 The symbolic significance of ancestral rituals
3.7 The assimilation of ancestor worship into African Christianity
3.7.1 The assimilation of ancestor worship: Roman Catholic and Protestant perspectives
3.7.2 Ancestral beliefs within ecclesiology
3.7.3 Ancestral beliefs within eschatology
3.7.4 Ancestor beliefs within Christology
3.7.4.1 Akrong’s notion of African Ancestor Christology
3.7.4.2 Bujo’s notion of the proto-ancestor
3.7.4.3 Nyamiti’s paradigm of African Christology and Ancestor Kinship
3.8Conclusion
CHAPTER 4 THE CHALLENGE OF ANCESTOR WORSHIP IN KOREA
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The present situation in Korean Christianity
4.3 Religious background of ancestor worship
4.4 Two factors in ancestor worship
4.5 Ancestral ritual
4.6 Early Korean Christianity and ancestor worship
4.7 Memorial service, Chudohoe
4.8 Conclusion
CHAPTER 5 THE CHALLENGE OF ANCESTOR WORSHIP IN JAPAN
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The cornerstone of Japanese culture
5.3 The religious phases of ancestor worship
5.4 Japanese ancestral rites
5.5 Ie system
5.6 Ancestral rites: religious implications
5.7 Ancestor worship and Japanese Christianity
5.8 Conclusion
CHAPTER 6 BIBLICAL EVIDENCE AND GUIDELINES
6.1 Introduction
6.2 The living and the dead
6.3 Death and afterlife
6.4 Passages of dogmatic controversy
6.5 Conclusion
CHAPTER 7 THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION ON ANCESTOR WORSHIP
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Ancestor worship: A critical evaluation
7.3 Parallel drawn between traditional beliefs and the Old Testament
7.4 Critique of contextualised Christologies
7.5 Critique of Roman Catholic doctrine
7.6 Missiological approach to ancestor worship
7.7 Conclusion
CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
KEY TERMS
SUMMARY
