Jesus' Identification with Galilee and Dalit Hermeneutic
Dhyanchand Carr

 Introduction

Asia can tell stories of many oppressed and marginalized people. Starting from Japan, we can identify the Burakumin people, Ainu people, Koreans forcibly resettled by Japan and now made stateless, and of more recent origin, the surviving afflicted people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Korea tells stories of the minjung, comfort women, and of more recent origin, the farmers hit by the rice market being flooded with cheaper imported rice under pressure from WTO. Taiwan has the story of the Taiwanese craving for a new identity and political freedom and of the marginalized Aborigines. Prosperous Hong Kong has the cage dwelling old people, Vietnamese refugees, and the separated families who await China�s quota system queue to let them be united. The prosperous North Asia have millions of migrant workers, mostly women from the Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia, who suffer inhuman treatment, sexual harassment. Annexed Tibet and other people like the Mongolians are craving for freedom. While China has become a free market country, in certain areas a vast majority are marginalized and left out of the economic boom. In Thailand there are stateless Burmese settlers, refugees in camps and Tribals, not to mention the number of girls who are forced into becoming sex workers.

In India, among the many oppressed the largest group is the Dalits, people deemed as untouchable, who are made to live in separate colonies, whose women are liable for sexual exploitation by the caste overlords, who are denied land-owning rights, who are served tea in the village tea shops in glasses which are kept apart. The Dalits, i.e. the crushed and trampled upon people, amount to nearly a quarter of the total population of India. Inasmuch as the Dalits suffer pauperization, indignity, marginalisation with the support of religion, and wide acquiescence from the rest of society, they can represent all oppressed people of India.

Do these oppressed people matter to God? Hinduism has a very simple answer. Everyone's fate is sealed by the merit or demerit earned in their previous life. Only four per cent of the people in India earn enough merit to be born as Brahmins! About a similar number are born in the princely ruling class. Another ten per cent are born as merchants. Fifty to fifty five per cent are Sudras, i.e. the Fourth Caste. The rest are casteless Dalits. By being faithful to their particular caste (Dharma), Dalits and Sudras have to work their way upwards in successive regenerations. So clearly, according to Brahminical myth, the Dalits suffer only as a result of their own wrongdoing. God is not to be blamed and need not care for those who suffer for their own wrongdoing.

In Japan, Shintoism has developed similar myths about the Burakumin and Ainu people. The Australian Aborigines were deemed by the white settlers as the cursed generation of Ham, the son of Noah who was cursed by Noah (Genesis 9:25).

Although all oppressed groups listed above may not be deemed cursed in the same way, there is a naive prevailing belief that only those who fall out of favour with God suffer and all those whose lines fall in pleasant places are held as God's favourites. We Christians are not entirely free from such assumptions. We do not associate wellbeing with moral excellence but with faith and thus make God unjustly partial.

It is in such a context that many theologies of liberation with particular reference to one or the other of the oppressed groups have emerged in Asia during the second half of the last century. All these theologies try to reverse the prevailing sentiments of the dominant castes, races and classes.

Through this lecture, I hope to provide a biblical hermeneutical base on Jesus' own deliberate choice of Galilee as his mission field and on the Gospel of Matthew which seeks to tell the gospel story as a gospel for the despised Galileans. If we are prepared to take the Galileans as a paradigm of all oppressed, marginalized and stigmatized people, we can learn a great deal about the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth being in fact a gospel of the last and the least of human history and not of the rich and the powerful.

I shall present to you a hermeneutical theological position on the biblical legitimacy of a Dalit theology. The first part wrestles with this question: Is there not just one gospel of salvation equally applicable to Brahmin and Dalit, the white man and the black, the rich people and the poor? Have not all sinned and are in need of forgiveness? If we start speaking of different theologies and gospels are we not in danger of bringing in disunity within the Church?

The second part is an exercise in exegesis and hermeneutics of Matthew to show that even in the first century there was a gospel for Galileans which also became a gospel for all nations! That is, the universality of the gospel starts with an affirmation of God's special love for the marginalized and includes all those who say 'Yes' to God's preference ungrudgingly.

Rationale for a Dalit Theology

It is hoped that the following exposition of Scriptures, set in the context of the legitimized oppression of the Dalits, would provide answers for the questions earlier cited. It is also hoped that it would become clear to all that 'Dalit Theology' or any contextualized theology of liberation for that matter, which seeks to interpret the gospel for oppressed groups and sections, can incorporate both 'ecumenical' and 'evangelical' concerns. This is to say that contextualized theologies which seek to confront situations of oppression can at the same time hold together the ecumenical concern for one human community and the evangelical concern that God accepts everyone on the basis of genuine repentance. In other words, by being open to Dalit Theology, non-Dalits can also feel included within the pale of salvation through conscious repentance of their past participation, either directly or indirectly, in the unjust structures, practices and attitudes produced and nurtured by the caste system.

Another question that needs to be asked is: Should we then be open to the possibility of non-Dalits doing theology their own way? This is like asking, 'If according to the scriptures, God is constantly on the side of the oppressed, do not the oppressors have a right to claim that God is on their side too?' Although no one will dare to pose such a question, in fact, non-Dalits, the economic exploiters, the power elite and those men who are conscious of their male privileges all tend to think and act as if the answer to the question is in the affirmative. This tendency is evident because it is the theology of the powerful which has been imposed on the powerless. For only the dominant have the power to articulate theology! Now that the powerless downtrodden are waking up to understand what has happened, inevitably those who imposed the theology which legitimized their unjust privileges are trying to be very concerned about the oneness of the Church! They are challenged about their hitherto unacknowledged sins. Instead of repenting, they shout, 'All have sinned... therefore the Dalits, the women and the poor are also sinners!'

Dalit Theology and Feminist Theology do not seek to excuse the sins of individual Dalits or of individual women. Rather, it seeks to establish the fact that the dominant ones seek to strain the gnats while swallowing whole camels! (Matthew 23:23). For what is at stake is that the theologies of the dominant, whether brahminical, male chauvinist, or capitalist, really advocate the worship of the demonic and not the God revealed by our Lord Jesus. The brahminical endorsement of caste legitimized the history of dehumanizing the Dalits. The fact that many Dalits find themselves in a pitiable state in which their human dignity has been robbed is made a starting point for further mythmaking. A never-ending spiral of oppression is legitimized in the name of God. Therefore, what we have been led to do is to worship a false God.

Dalit Theology seeks to portray the true God of love and justice and expose the 'idol' behind the so-called universal theology. Non-Dalits consequently have to realize their idolatry and turn towards the true God. There is therefore no need for a theology of non-Dalits. The traditional theology currently in vogue is the heretical theology of non-Dalits and dominant classes. All that Dalit Theology is doing is to bring about an awareness of this and to call for repentance. Perhaps two concrete examples would help us to understand this.

The first example is De Nobili, a well-known Roman Catholic (Jesuit) pioneer missionary who worked in the city of Madurai in India. He became a Brahmin wearing a sacred thread. He also refused to have anything to do with Sudra Christians[1] or Dalit Christians. By becoming a Brahmin, he sought to win Brahmins for Christ. He made the following astounding statement: 'It is a devilish perversion to advocate that one has to relinquish one's caste or privileges or usages in order to become a Christian...'

In the recent past when indigenisation was the great fad of Christians who had suddenly become conscious that they are Indian and not British or American, many began to uphold the example of De Nobili with mad enthusiasm. It was a clear example of how not to contextualise theology because the privilege of theologizing had passed from the hands of Western masters to the Indian Christian upper caste elite. Not many Christians are shocked by De Nobili's attitude and practice. Rather, he was held aloft as a noble example. Little did any Indian Christian seem to realize that the mission advocated by the gospel calls us to dismantle the caste structure and all such structures endorsing domination, oppression and marginalisation and not to legitimize it.

The second example is Alan Boesak. In his book Black and Reformed, he quotes from the report of a Dutch evangelist who worked in South Africa: 'The evangelist writes with great satisfaction and joy at the success he had in being able to convert a few black slaves to Christianity.'

The evangelist approaches the white master of a plantation in South Africa and convinces him that his slaves would become better workers if they became Christians. For through 'the gospel' the evangelist would be able to allay all their anxieties about the families from whom they had been separated by force and would become able to accept their master as God's representative. They would come to see that their slavery was the means whereby God chose to save them. This would infuse in them a new sense of loyalty. Being able to forget their worries they would become docile and good workers. Having thus convinced the master and getting his permission, the evangelist approaches the slaves with 'his gospel'. The slaves, no doubt, are made to accept 'his gospel'. Then he writes home with great joy at the souls he had won for the Lord. Thus, through this way of imposing the White man's theology of privilege which is nothing but a gross perversion of the gospel, the White man's account of the gospel has been passed on as 'Universal Gospel'.

That the privileged and the dominant impose their theologies of legitimization and their own self-understanding of being God's favourites is not peculiar to the Christian tradition. The rich and the powerful as is well known have a lot of leisure. Some of it is devoted to spiritual exercises such as meditation and prayer. Those who devote a little of their leisure for prayer and meditation think they have become very spiritual. The poor, on the other hand, have no leisure. Therefore, they cannot indulge in quiet meditation. In fact, if at all, they are forced to have leisure because of imposed lay- off, yet they can only groan under the weight of oppression. They cannot experience inner peace without internalizing values of oppression. Should we, therefore, regard the Dalits who are resentful and angry as unspiritual beings?

Villages in India are organized according to a caste hierarchy which clearly defines the role of each caste. The hierarchy is universally accepted even by the most downtrodden and the trampled upon Dalits who are deemed as untouchables and are forced to live in separate enclaves. Not only are the Dalits socially ostracized and stigmatized through the system of bonded labour, they are also permanently kept in a pauperized position. The caste overlords also assume that Dalit women should not complain if non-Dalit males sexually assault and abuse them. As the Dalits are usually a minority in a village, they have been forced to accept such atrocities without being able to free themselves. On top of this the caste system has been advocated as divinely decreed. Out of sheer compulsion, out of internalization that inevitably arises in situations of helplessness and as a result of fear created of a false god who is supposed to back up this gross injustice, village communities have been enjoying a good deal of cohesion and quiet! That this is the apparent peace of a silent volcano has not been recognized. Rather, such a situation is erroneously propagated as harmonious social cohesion.

There are occasions when Dalits rise up in protest, after the last straw breaks their backs. When we feel compelled as a Christian community to stand with them in solidarity, the caste overlords always express a chorus protest: 'Until you appeared on the scene we lived like brothers and sisters in this village, as children of one mother. Now, you have divided our hitherto peaceful and harmonious co-existence.' The hidden assumption in this of course is that the theology of the dominant should be accepted to maintain the harmony of the stratified village community.

If you have eyes to see and ears to hear, this position of rural Hindus is echoed clearly in the traditional Christian position. Increasingly, Christians bound by traditional attitudes and Christians who benefit from those attitudes are voicing a false concern. They warn us that Dalit Theology will endanger the unity of the Church, that it will foster division and polarization. They refuse to recognize that through their supposed concern to preserve a non-existing Christian unity they advocate the worship of a God who endorses domination.

Hermeneutics for a Dalit Theology

Having thus recognized the legitimacy of our endeavour to articulate Dalit Theology, let us now turn to our specific task of hermeneutics. We have to seek to discover a paradigm within the Bible for Dalit Theology. We should then test whether this paradigm provides for: (1) a challenge to non-Dalits; (2) a place for non-Dalits within the overall ambit of Dalit Theology; and (3) an articulation of the Messianic consciousness of the Dalits as the community chosen to take the Gospel to the nations. We can sum up our task as theological articulation which will help realize the dream of Isaiah, viz. the day when the wolf having first learnt to feed on straw and grass will also become humble enough to accept the hospitality of the lamb (Isaiah 11:6)!

The proper paradigm for a Dalit Theology is God's election of the people of Israel itself. Israel was chosen by God simply because it is an oppressed nation, which however believed in God as Saviour. Viewing God's election of Israel as providing the base for a Dalit Theology would help us to see how this very same nation developed within it seeds of exclusivism and arrogance quite contrary to God's original purpose of Israel's election. The people of Israel, the royal priesthood of God, were repeatedly warned to remember their once alienated state and experience of slavery in Egypt, and thus to be kind to aliens, slaves, widows and orphans. Alas, this has been completely forgotten by the nation of Israel.

We have clear indications within the Bible that Israel's chosenness came about first by their choice to live as nomadic shepherds. Their oppressors, the descendants of Ham, were builders of cities. Ham is described as the cursed son of Noah from whose line came Shinar whose descendants initiated the building of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 10). Earlier still, we have the story of Cain and Abel. Abel's offering was acceptable while Cain's offering was rejected, mainly because Cain was remembered as the city builder (Genesis 4:17).

Israel had an indelible memory that their ancestors were wandering Arameans (Deuteronomy 26:5) and thus became chosen. This is why perhaps Abraham's renouncing the life of the City of Ur is also cherished. It seems clear that while Israel remembered its nomadic shepherding ancestry with pride, the city dwellers simultaneously despised the nomadic cattle rearing culture of Israel. People who built cities and prided themselves as a people of superior culture seemed to have developed a hatred towards the more simple and less oppressive nomads. Joseph's advice to his brothers who had recently migrated into Egypt was to tell Pharaoh that they were shepherds by ancestry as well as current practice and that they would prefer to be left alone in the land of Goshen, which was full of greenery. Joseph suggested that their request would be conceded because the Egyptians (the supposedly highly civilized people) looked down upon those who were shepherds (Genesis 46:34).

When we read the whole section of Genesis 46:32-47:10 it is interesting to note that it was Jacob, the father of the despised shepherds, who blessed Pharaoh. Thus, the Scriptures clearly put human pride in its place! In practical terms it also indicates what can happen when the powerless are empowered. As Pharaoh was heavily dependent on Joseph's wise management of the national crisis in spite of his traditional prejudice against those who cared for livestock, he sought to be blessed by Jacob, the wandering Aramean.

So, the first point that closely echoes the situation of the Dalits is that Israel was spurned because of its refusal to become urbanized and because of its adamant adherence to its traditional lifestyle, which was thought to be less sophisticated. Their lifestyle was most certainly also less oppressive. The city builders who had learnt to devise clever tools and were becoming more ruthless and less humane found a constant irritant in the people of Israel who interpreted their way of life as more acceptable to God.

The Dalits, in spite of being heavily stigmatized, most graciously seek to remain in a servile position not always because they are made to be so but because they have developed a sense of vocation. There are indications of the existence of such a consciousness especially among the most stigmatized Dalit group called the Madigas.

There is an apocryphal story in the Mahabarata epic. One young lad whose father was a shoemaker took a pair of beautifully made slippers to sell. Shantha, the daughter of a Brahmin teacher of Gauravas, was greatly attracted to the elegantly made slippers and wanted to buy them. When she asked for the price the boy said that he was not interested in gold or silver but that he should be allowed to pick flowers from her garden. Shantha was greatly surprised by the request. She expected the boy to demand a good price as these wretched cobblers needed only money for food and drink. Why should they be interested in flowers? The boy surprised her even further by saying that God appeared before his father every morning at 5 a.m. and that his father worshipped God with whatever flowers he could collect. Saying this he graciously invited Shantha to come and have a darshan of God if she did not mind getting defiled by entering the colony of the Untouchables. The girl, driven by curiosity as well as eagerness to meet with God who had never given a darshan to her Brahmin-scholar-father, went to the home of the cobbler and was enthralled by a real vision of God.

This experience motivated her to challenge her father's false assumptions. She perhaps expected her father to be as open-minded as she. Alas, he was enraged that not only did she get defiled by entering the home of a despised Untouchable, now she had defiled her entire home by not caring to get herself purified. So taken by mad rage he ordered the entire colony of the cobblers to be set on fire so that these people learnt a lesson forever.

Such a story could only have come from among the Dalits. It speaks volumes about their own level of awareness as well as their perception of what God is really like.

Israel's Oppressed Situation and the Situation of the Dalits

We saw earlier how Israel's chosen lifestyle created a stigma and provoked animosity towards them among the supposedly more civilized, urbanized peoples. Now we turn to see how Israel's experience of being oppressed in Egypt provides a parallel to the contemporary oppression suffered by Dalit communities all over the world. We need not elaborate for we know how Israel was oppressed by the Pharaoh and the Egyptians.

The very name Hebrews seems to have originated from this experience of slavery. It also made it possible for other peoples to join those of Israelic descent in the Exodus (12:38). The group of liberated slaves, then very conscious of wanting to evolve a society free from oppression, lived as tribes under the guidance of ad hoc judges without any system of taxation or a standing army. However, this situation did not last long and they too were sucked into adopting a dynastic monarchical rule. It was probably during this period that different tribes began to develop a sense of pride and exclusivism. See Deuteronomy 27:13, written probably towards the end of the period of kings when Reuben, Dan, Gath, Asher, Zebulun and Naphtali were deemed as cursed. We are particularly interested in the last two tribes as they settled in Galilee. For it was the despised Galilean people along with the ostracized groups of the physically handicapped, the leprosy stricken and the socially handicapped women and tax gatherers who formed the new community, constituted by Jesus (See Matthew 21:43). As a specific example we can take the way in which Matthew portrays the Galilean option of Jesus as a paradigm for Dalit Theology.

The Matthean Redaction

Matthew's gospel got written as a result of three contextual constraints:

1.      The Jew-Gentile complexion of the Matthean community was continuing to produce tensions within the community. The status of Gentile believers within a Christian community, which also included some Jewish believers, had not yet been fully settled.

2.      A definite move to Jesus, 'The Galilean', as a way of solving allegations of antinomianism and libertinism arising out of a prevalent misunderstanding of Paul.

3.      The apologetic need to offer a satisfactory answer to the pertinent question raised by the Jewish community: 'If Jesus was the Messiah, why did he not gather up the scattered Jews and lead them back to the homeland as prophesied by Jeremiah' (23:5-8)?

A combination of the above contextual needs along with a few other Christological motifs determined the redactional framework of Matthew's gospel.

We suggested that there were three motivating factors which prompted the writing of the Gospel of Matthew. Among them, the question relating to the non-return of the diaspora Jews probably was the most powerful one. It seemed to have provided the overall perspective and framework. Therefore, Matthew sought to portray Jesus as the Shepherd-King differently from the way in which he was expected to gather together the Diaspora and lead them home. The Shepherd-King of Matthew, namely Jesus, did indeed gather together the lost sheep of the House of Israel. However, the identity of the lost sheep of the house of Israel was now redefined. They were not the ethnic Israel comfortably settled among the nations. They were, in fact, the despised Galileans, exploited poor, physically handicapped who were deemed cursed, hated tax gatherers, and stigmatized women sex workers. They were the lost sheep of the House of Israel and they were the poor in Spirit who were to inherit God's kingdom (Matthew 5:3). Jesus gathered these socially and culturally scattered people together and gave them community status. Their sense of dignity was restored. Above all, as the collective who would inherit God's kingdom, they were given charge of the mission to the nations.

Let us now see how Matthew unfolded his programme step by step. The Jew-Gentile tension was another ingredient in helping the Matthean motif take a clear shape. The early chapters provide a blend of the two motifs: Jesus, the Shepherd-King who gathers together the lost Sheep of the House of Israel; and Jesus, the divine Son of God for all the nations. This double purpose is achieved through careful handling of the genealogy, visit of the Magi from the East, flight into Egypt and return to Nazareth together with a summary of the teaching of John the Baptist.

Matthew appears to be Jewish satisfying Jewish sentiments while at the same time subversively planting powerful explosives to blast away all claims to Jewish exclusivism. The apparent purpose of the genealogy is to present Jesus as the legitimate heir of the family of David within the chosen descendants of Abraham. However, the mention of four Gentile women in the genealogy � Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and the wife of Uriah � bears a clear hint that the Jewish people cannot afford to boast about a pedigree descent. Yet an even more daring suggestion present is that God seems especially to go out and choose children born of 'irregular' relationships. This is precisely why Bathsheba is not mentioned by name but referred to as wife of Uriah. Therefore, Matthew seems to say that the fifth irregular son, Jesus, has every right to be designated 'Son of David' in spite of a mixture of Gentile and Jewish blood. Mary tops the list of the poor in spirit who became the vehicle of the Holy Spirit to transport the Son of God from heaven to earth. So, in the genealogy itself, we see Matthew's double purpose of demolishing Jewish exclusivism and of defining the poor in spirit clearly.

An 'illegitimate child' is made legal. He becomes the long expected branch of David. This is because �Son of God' is a title applicable to all kings of Israel (Psalm 2:7). Jesus, as the real Son of God, qualifies supremely to be Son of David. Also, by virtue of having Joseph, a real son of David, as his foster father, his claim to the Davidic sonship is doubly made sure. But insofar as the Davidic line is a mixed line and because God is God of all, the Son of God is worshipped and adored by the Magi of the East although he is to be the Son of David. Matthew is a clever scribe. He can impute many nuances of meaning simultaneously. So we should see yet a third significant implication. Mary, as already mentioned, is the fifth in the line of women whose 'moral' standing could be questioned by the so-called decent people. Thus, the real Son of God, legally made Son of David, is also an illegitimate child. In this capacity he represents along with Mary all those who are made to bear the blame of being 'immoral' by the hypocrites and snobs of the world.

The least noticed but most significant fact is the use Matthew makes of Isaiah 9:1. Least noticed because the world over, when Isaiah 9 is read during Christmas, 9:1 is conveniently omitted. But, for Matthew, it is an important fulfillment text. The names 'Galilee of the Gentiles', the land of Zebulun and Naphtali (two of the six cursed tribes)' and 'the land beyond Jordan' all seem to indicate metaphoric distance of Galilee from Judea, home of Orthodox and decent Jews!

The flight into Egypt is also made to serve a double purpose. In Jesus' life is repeated the experience of slavery in Egypt and the exile. 'Out of Egypt have I called my son' (Hosea 11:1) and 'Rachel is weeping for her children...' (Jeremiah 31:15f) are effectively used for this purpose. But the fact that non-Jewish magi helped in the escape, Egypt served as a place of refuge and not of slavery. The culminating point that the 'Galilee of the Gentiles' (cf. Isaiah 9:1 and Matthew 4:15f) becomes his home serves to remind all readers at the very outset that Jesus has had a better reception among non-Jewish people than among his own people. The warning of John the Baptist (3:8) that God is able to make children for Abraham out of stones clinches the argument.

It is not the Jewish people as such who are the real heirs of the kingdom. The kingdom is to be taken away from the exclusively ethnically conscious Jews and given to 'another nation' (21:43) which in fact will not be a nation at all in strict ethnic terms. This new nation is constituted out of the rejects of society with the stone rejected by the builders becoming the chief cornerstone. Through such a radical reversal the poor in spirit are made heirs of the kingdom of God.

A clear hint to this Messianic task of rendering justice to the poor by slaying the wicked (Isaiah 11:4, 5) is made in 2:23 when Jesus' sojourn in Nazareth resulting in the emergence of the name Nazarene is referred to as fulfillment of a united (and nonexistent) prophecy. It is well known that no such prophecy exists. The possible allusion to Samson fails to fit Jesus as our Lord was known for his enjoyment of wine, a definite taboo for everyone bound by the Nazerite vow. Therefore, the only possible allusion could be Nazer of Isaiah 11:1, the shoot from the stump of Jesse. If this is correct, then Jesus is shown as the Messiah who is filled by the Spirit and renders justice to the poor and brings about cosmic reconciliation. Interestingly, the mission of rendering justice to the poor and effecting cosmic reconciliation is achieved first through Jesus' sojourn in Nazareth and then by conducting his mission from another station in Capernaum, also within Galilee.

Matthew seems to want to suggest two things. First, that it is people of Galilee who are the people who sit in darkness and who see the great light. Second, Matthew's intention seems to be to argue that it was not necessary for Jesus to have crossed the boundaries of Palestine in order to work among those scattered in the 'nations'. Jesus� work in Galilee itself serves that purpose as Galilee is referred to as the Galilee of the Gentiles.

We are, however, more interested in the allusive equation drawn between people of Galilee and the poor who are rendered justice through describing Jesus as the Nazer by virtue of his sojourn in Nazareth. Along with the people of Galilee who formed the crowds (ochlos) who followed Jesus were all those people who were healed (11:2-5 and 19:1-2) together with the socially handicapped groups of tax gatherers and prostitutes (see Matthew 21:31).

It now becomes easy for us to understand the significance of that phrase, 'poor in spirit', in Matthew 5:3. The traditional interpretation which even today holds sway is that 'the poor in spirit' are the humble in disposition. Therefore, even if a rich person were to cultivate and exhibit a humble disposition he or she would be eligible for the Kingdom. Matthew is thus seen to have toned down the harshness of 'Blessed are you poor for yours is the kingdom' found in Luke (6:20). The probable original 'Q' version of the saying was perhaps closer to Luke. While it is true that the category 'poor in spirit' is more inclusive in that it includes the economically exploited and the socially handicapped, it is by no means a spiritualised version of the word 'poor'. Rather, it refers to the destitution of the spirit which results from loss to human dignity and freedom arising from being marginalized, ostracised or stigmatised one way or the other. This seems to be the meaning after examining the biblical reference which speaks of the spirit as a divine endowment given to the human race (e.g. Isaiah 42:7 and 61:3 which speaks of those who are constricted in spirit).

If this is granted, then we are now in a position to ask, �Who are the lost sheep of the house of Israel?' The most powerful catalyst in crystalising the Matthean shape of the gospel was the question, �If Jesus were the Messiah, why did he not gather together the harassed and scattered sheep as foretold in Micah 4:6-7 and Jeremiah 23:5-8, i.e. people of the diaspora?' Matthew's answer to this question is that the lost sheep of the house of Israel are not those who are well settled in the diaspora. Rather, the exploited poor, despised Galileans, ostracized physically handicapped, stigmatized tax-gatherers, and prostitutes are what constitute the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Jesus was fully engaged in gathering together such people. It was the Galileans and those healed by him (19:1-2) who went all the way from Galilee to Jerusalem and remained faithful to him (especially the Galilean women). Hence, they are those who are now gathered together to constitute the new nation, the new Messianic community commissioned to continue the same in-gathering work through the proclamation of the gospel to all the nations. They become the paradigm of the sheepfold of the Shepherd King gathered out of the harassed and helpless sheep without a shepherd (9:36).

 

This argument is further strengthened when we take note of the fact that the risen Lord appeared only to Galilean women in Jerusalem (28:10) and then to all disciples back in Galilee only. Matthew makes no mention of any Jerusalem appearances to the disciples. 'I will go before you to Galilee' (26:31, 32), 'He goes before you to Galilee' (28:7), and 'there I will meet them' (28:10). It is the Galilean crowds who are referred to as the scattered and helpless sheep without a shepherd. From this it is clear whom Jesus referred to as the 'lost sheep of the house of Israel when he sent the twelve on mission (Matthew 9:36 and 10:5-6). The prohibition to enter the Samaritan and Gentile homes was meant to be temporary. The messianic community was to be constituted out of the lost sheep of Israel, i.e. the exploited, marginalized, ostracized and stigmatized groups within Israel first. This messianic community would become the New Nation and would eventually take within its fold similar people from other societies of the world. All this clearly demonstrates that Matthew redefined the lost sheep of the house of Israel in a very clever rabbinic method.

Implications for Dalit Theology

We now turn to the task of interpreting the relevance of Matthew's Gospel for the Dalits in India.

1.   The Dalits and Galileans

How can we see Dalit people as a people destined to become the messianic community, i.e. the community of salvation for all people of India?

The Dalits are an oppressed, ostracized and stigmatized group. Their labour is exploited, their women are abused and they are deemed untouchable. They are the poor in spirit for their human dignity and freedom get plundered. They are like sheep without a shepherd, harassed and scattered as their culture has been subjugated by imposing alien religious and cultural values.

The Jesus community, the community of the Shepherd-King, was first paradigmatically formed out of the despised Galileans together with other similar groups of despirited people. Let us look at the way in which sentiments about Galilee had taken roots during the first century. It is clear that even guileless Israelites of the southern origin had instilled into them a deep prejudice about Galilee (e.g. Nathanael in John's Gospel). The Sanhedrin collectively decided to indict Jesus without proper trial just because he was a Galilean. They mockingly asked Nicodemus, 'Are you also a Galilean' (John 7:51f)? The book of Acts also reflects the same sentiment when the disciples Peter and John were referred to as 'idiots' (unlearned) by the Sanhedrin (Acts. 4:13).

What are the sources of this irrational but clearly culturally conditioned prejudice? There may have been several cumulative causes. First, we take note of the fact that Galilee was the land assigned to the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali. In spite of the fact that both these tribes are highly praised in the Song of Deborah, the Deuteronomic tradition deems them as cursed (Deuteronomy 27:13). Naphtali was perhaps deemed as cursed because his mother was a slave woman, but it is difficult to find why Zebulun was also considered cursed.

Similarly the Dalit people, notwithstanding their real merits, are deemed as a cursed people due to irrational prejudices whose origins are difficult to locate. Increasingly now, however, new research bears out that the Dalits were the persecuted Buddhists who held out for some time, got thrown out, rendered landless, deemed untouchable, and eventually, out of continuing tyranny, got accommodated within Hinduism.

The second probable reason for the deeply ingrained prejudice was perhaps due to an assumption on the part of orthodox Southerners that the Galileans had easily compromised their culture and had accepted certain Gentile cultural modes. Isaiah 9:1 refers to Galilee as Galilee of the Gentiles perhaps because Galilee, falling within the Fertile Crescent, had been situated on the trade route between Assyria and Egypt. Perhaps some Gentile settlements had been established as a result of this. And also perhaps some Galileans made gains by serving food preferred by Gentile traders but taboo for the Jews.

Yet a third reason could be, in the judgement of southern Jews, that the religion of the people of Galilee was not orthodox enough. Zealotism, which originated in Galilee, had a zealous religious base. But southern Jews had learnt to spurn the religion of Galileans. So too we can find umpteen examples of dominating Hindu religion disparaging the folk religion of Dalit people. Orthodox Hinduism could be shown to exhibit legitimizing tendencies providing religious sanction for patriarchy, exploitative trade, the hierarchy of caste structure, etc.[2]

Conversely, the religion of the Dalits could be seen to contain many liberative aspects. During the specifically Dalit religious festivals, it is not uncommon to find women officiating as priests or priestesses. Further, the meat of sacrificial victims is very carefully shared among the people. Neither the priestess nor the leader claims a major share. In spite of this glaring contrast between the oppressive religion of Brahminical Hinduism and the religion of Dalits it is the former which steals the show. This oppressive form is forcefully thrust upon the Dalits. They are made to accept it.

2.       The Dalits understood as 'the Lost Sheep'

The lost sheep paradigm also lends itself as a base for theological reflection on the Dalits.

The constitution of India provides for positive discrimination towards the Dalits to offset the results of millennia-old practices which crush the Dalits from enjoying legitimate human dignity. This privilege given to the Dalits, however, is deeply resented and vehemently opposed by non-Dalits. We have begun to see many communal riots springing up as a result of this resentment. Is there a theological solution to this problem? Matthew's gospel seems to address this question for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

The episode of the Canaanite woman seeking the Lord's help for healing her possessed daughter provides a beautiful paradigm (15:21-27). The Matthean redaction of the story is significant. First, the woman is referred to as a Canaanite and not simply as a Syro-Phoenician-Greek as in the Markan parallel. The designation Canaanite, although basically does have an ethnic connotation, seems to have semantically acquired a new meaning. Zechariah 14:21 looks forward to a time when there will be no more Canaanite merchant within the temple. The Zealots had come to be referred to as Canaanite (could we say because of their fascist leaning, pardon my anachronism). Therefore, it is highly probable that Matthew wanted to point to the powerful position in which the woman was when compared with the underprivileged people about whom Jesus was mostly concerned.

Interestingly, therefore, in spite of the Canaanite woman hailing Jesus as 'Son of David', Jesus does not say a word to her but tells his disciples that his priorities were different. Listening to this argument between Jesus and the disciples, the woman intervenes to say 'Yes, Lord! But at least the pups could have the spillovers from the table of the children'. This intervention of the woman conceding the legitimacy of prioritizing the lost sheep and expressive of a willingness to be satisfied by the spillovers draws the commendation from the Lord and her request is granted.

Let us recall that capitalism deliberately talks about the spillover benefits reaching the poor when the cup of the capitalist runs over. It is the same with regard to the caste system. People who deem themselves to belong to a higher caste assume that the Dalits are to survive by their benevolence and that they should not claim anything as theirs by right. According to Jesus, however, it is the heretofore dominant and the powerful who have to learn to concede that it is right for God to have a preferential option towards the poor and to be prepared to be satisfied by the crumbs that fall from the children's table. Therefore, applying this principle with special reference to Dalits, all non-Dalits, who are so willing, can of course be commended for their faith and included within the household of the Dalits, if they willingly concede that it is right to treat the Dalits preferentially.

If our earlier conclusion that Matthew saw in the name Nazarene a fulfillment of Isaiah 11:1 was correct, then that conclusion also supports this application of Matthew 15:21-27 to the Dalit situation. For in Isaiah 11:6-10 we have a vision of the predatorial beasts giving up their predatorial habits and accepting the humble food of sheep and cattle. Isaiah 11:6 then could be seen as a dream of the prophet in which the lamb becomes able to host the converted and transformed wolf within its dwellings. A situation very similar to the one dramatized in this episode when a woman belonging to a rich and powerful Canaanite group expresses her willingness to be treated as a pet dog in a household fed by the leftovers from the table of the children who are the Dalits of her contemporary society.

It is necessary to take a brief note of how this particular episode is traditionally treated by interpreters. First, personally, I can recall that acute embarrassment with which I used to handle this episode in my classes on the Synoptic Gospels during the first phase of my teaching career. Given a conservative temperament and a profoundly Orthodox Christology, it was embarrassing to face a Jesus who apparently could not transcend his Jewish exclusivism and pride. So in order to lessen the embarrassment I used to indulge in all sorts of apologetic gymnastics. 'Perhaps Jesus was indulging in a little humour'. 'Perhaps he wanted to bring out into the open the depth of the woman's faith of which he had prior knowledge, so that his own disciples could be challenged'!

Modern commentators, however, have found a different way out. "Should we look for perfection in Jesus?" If Jesus was born a real man and was brought up in a Jewish cultural milieu, is it proper for us to expect him to have exhibited a total transcendence which would make us doubt the reality of the incarnation?

Yes, others see the episode as one which relates the title Son of David to the preferred title 'Lord'. It is only when the woman learns to address Jesus as 'Lord' that Jesus responds by commending her faith and granting her request. One need not labour to show that Matthew is very fond of the title Son of David and so this explanation is not valid.

All those who try to seek an explanation from a theology of incarnation or purely from a study of Matthew's way of handling the titles of Jesus are bound to miss the point. The explosive relevance of the episode could only be seen from a real awareness of the continuous processes of scattering and oppression and from the point of view of a firm conviction that God in Jesus has set in motion the reverse process. Can we say also that only those interpretations based on an acceptance of God's bias toward the scattered and harassed would be valid? Only such interpretations cohere with the original intent of Matthew. I may be permitted to add that this interpretation had helped enhance my conservative belief in the divine co-authorship of scripture and in the incarnate Son who exhibited a unique transcendence, i.e. transcendence over culturally conditioned inhibitions.

It is therefore clear that Matthew provides the most comprehensive model for Dalit Theology. For it affirms God's bias towards the socially ostracized and stigmatized groups, it proclaims that the messianic community entrusted with the responsibility to take the gospel to all is constituted out of such scattered and harassed people. Matthew's gospel also points to the way in which those who have hitherto enjoyed the benefits of belonging to the privileged sections of society can deliberately and willingly take the second place thus getting God's approval. It is hoped therefore that the church would be invigorated by listening to what Matthew has to say.

We hope and pray that non-Dalit Christians will seek to struggle for liberation of all Dalits, with the specific goal of building a human community totally devoid of all walls of separation and all hierarchical structures of authority. Working towards this goal demands that we work on the basis of Dalit Theology.

Another explanation is in order. Other Asian countries might say, 'We have no Dalits. Why then did you labour so much to expound a theology from their perspective?' Well, just as oppressed Israel, the Galileans, the lost sheep of the house of Israel, served as paradigms to understand God's favour towards the Dalits, we could apply the same method to other oppressed and marginalized groups. It is for the goal of demonstrating this that the above exercise was done. If you become aware of one of the last and the least brother or sister of our Lord then you know how to see them as the new national to which the heritage of the gospel is given.