A Samoan Reading of Discipleship in Matthew

International Voices in Biblical Studies A SAMOAN READING OF DISCIPLESHIP IN MATTHEW READING A SAMOAN Vaitusi Nofoaiga offers an alternative interpretation to a traditional understanding of discipleship held by many Christian communities, namely, that church needs and demands are more important A Samoan Reading than family duties and responsibilities. Considering instead the Samoan tautua (servant), for whom the needs of family and local people are foremost, Nofoaiga turns to approaches in biblical criticism of Discipleship in discipleship is also about place, or, in this case, in-between spaces. Thisthat affirmunique theapproach locatedness allows of Nofoaiga readers toin offerorder tautuaileva to emphasize (service that in-between spaces) readings of Matthew 4:12–25 and 7:24–8:22 that Matthew tautuaileva interpretation that emphasize place (Galilee) as well as the marginalized and excluded offers(the crowd). them a Thecontribution result is toa thecomplex assembling of islander criticism. takes readers from the ancient Galilee to contemporary Samoa and is an ordained minister of the Congregational Christian Church Samoa and the Head of New Testament Studies at MaluaVAITUSI Theological NOFOAIGA College. He is a member of the Oceania Biblical Studies Association. Electronic open access edition (ISBN 978-0-88414-262-1) available at Nofoaiga http://ivbs.sbl-site.org/home.aspx Vaitusi Nofoaiga A SAMOAN READING OF DISCIPLESHIP IN MATTHEW INTERNATIONAL VOICES IN BIBLICAL STUDIES Editor Monica Jyotsna Melanchthon Jione Havea Editorial Board Musa W. Dube David Joy Andreas Kunz Lubcke Aliou C. Niang Nasili Vaka’uta Number 8 A SAMOAN READING OF DISCIPLESHIP IN MATTHEW by Vaitusi Nofoaiga Atlanta Copyright © 2017 by Vaitusi Nofoaiga All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permit- ted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission should be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Office, SBL Press, 825 Hous- ton Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329 USA. Library of Congress Control Number: 2017958307 Printed on acid-free paper. For my wife Mile, and our children: Nofoaiga, Aliisolia, Victoria, Samuelu, Rosetta, and Eirenei; and my loving parents: Lealaiauloto Nofoaiga and Aliitasi Nofoaiga CONTENTS Foreword, by Jione Havea ix Acknowledgements xiii Abbreviations xv Glossary xvii Introduction 1 Why This Study? 1 Why Matthew’s Perspective? 4 Why Discipleship? 4 How This Study? 8 PART 1: TAUTUAILEVA APPROACH 1. Situating Tautuaileva Reading 13 Traditional Approaches 13 Approaches that Affirm the Location of Readers 17 Sociorhetorical Approaches 20 Postcolonial Approaches 24 Conclusion 30 2. Tautua (service) at Third Space 33 Identity and Place 33 Tautua Identity and Place 34 Tautuaileva: Service at In-between Spaces 39 3. Tautuaileva among Islander Approaches 41 Samoan Approaches 41 Tautuaileva Lenses: Fa’asinomaga, Tautuatoa 45 Tautuaileva Approach 47 Conclusion 49 PART 2: TAUTUAILEVA READINGS 4. Tautuaileva Reading of Matthew 4:12–15 53 Matt 4:12–15 as Rhetorical and Narrative Unit 54 Inner-textures: Fa’asinomaga and Tautuatoa 59 Inter-textures: Isa 8:23–9:1 70 Social and Cultural Textures: Transforming of Honor 75 -vii- viii A SAMOAN READING OF DISCIPLESHIP IN MATTHEW Conclusion 83 5. Tautuaileva Reading of Matthew 7:24–8:22 85 Matt 7:24–8:22 as Rhetorical and Narrative Unit 85 Inner-textures: Fa’asinomaga and Tautuatoa 91 Inter-textures: Isa 53:4 106 Social and Cultural Textures: Honor and Shame 112 Conclusion 118 6. Conclusion 119 Bibliography 123 Index 137 FOREWORD Tautua is the Samoan word for serve, service, server and servant; Tautua-i-le-va refers to service that is rendered at a place which is in-between—this in-between place is the place of relations (va). Tautuaileva is the word that Nofoaiga coins for this service at the place of relations (or relational-places). As an approach in biblical criticism, tautuaileva is complex. It is the fusion of several things: 1. It is about service (a) toward local people and local needs in which the tautua (server, disciple) (b) privileges “the crowd” (tagata o le motu) and villagers who tend to be marginalized, disadvantaged and ignored; 2. It is about places like (a) Galilee and (b) Samoa, which are overlooked by readers who are orientated toward Jerusalem and who prefer Western ways and values; 3. It is about negotiating values and relations (a) of local peoples at home and abroad and (b) of past and present Samoan societies; 4. It is about intersecting, in this study, (a) the roles of the Samoan tautua, (b) the Matthean notions of discipleship, (c) the Mediterranean first- century patriarchal world driven by systems of honor and shame and (d) Jesus’s proclamation of ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὺρανῶν (the kingdom of the heavens); 5. It is also about rethinking traditional understandings of (a) who counts among the disciples of Jesus and (b) what discipleship in Matthew in- volves. With the twirlings and ebbings expected from an author who is a native of oral cultures, Nofoaiga holds the complexity of tautuaileva in this study and offers it as a contribution to the assembling/assembly of islander criticism. In that spirit, i draw attention to four critical moves that Nofoaiga makes in this study. First, regarding perspectives: this study shows that the Bible (like other Scriptures) contains perspectives, and that there is no reason to privilege those over and against the perspectives of Samoan readers. It is not just readers who bring their perspectives to the act of reading; the Bible too brings its perspectives. The Bible is not innocent. It brings biases to the reading encounter. Given that the Bible is a foreign book to Samoa, why should we expect Sa- moan readers to favour and uphold the biblical perspectives? The same question applies with respect to readers from (is)lands outside of the biblical land. Why do we priviledge biblical perspectives (read: hegemonies)? And when we are -ix- x A SAMOAN READING OF DISCIPLESHIP IN MATTHEW critical of readers and their perspectives, should we not also be critical of the Bible and its perspectives? But then, why should the people of the biblical land uphold and privilege the biblical perspectives? This is the more critical question, seeing that the Bible has been used to justify the displacement of Palestinians and the occupation of their land. Second, regarding approaches: this study shows that the perspective behind one approach in biblical criticism arose out of actual practices and life situa- tions. Nofoaiga’s approach is grounded (rather than imagined). Tautuaileva arises out of cultural and life struggles, and Nofoaiga draws upon the language (gagana), customs and traditions (fa’asamoa) of Samoa to situate his approach. In my humble opinion, this is a new form of nativism: Nofoaiga does not privilege or romanticize fa’aSamoa but uses it to sanction tautuaileva as a Samoan mode of reading. Tautuaileva is not a “traditional” (old, ancient) Samoan practice but a “tra- ditioning” (formative) Samoan mode of reading. In this way, Nofoaiga is not a cultural gatekeeper in the (old) nativist sense but a creative Samoan biblical crit- ic in the cultural sense. It is for this reason that Nofoaiga could challenge, for example, the view held by the majority of Samoan Christians that discipleship is about putting God and the church before one’s family. This study is thus critical of the Samoan mind and practices, through a Samoan study of different views of discipleship in Matthew. Third, regarding the workings of orality: there is circularity in Nofoaiga’s arguments, for two key reasons—he reads a text (e.g., Matt 4:12–15) through lenses (fa’asinomaga and tautuatoa) that look into and inform each other, and he uses the same lenses to read different texts (e.g., Matt 4:12–15 and Matt 7:24–8:22) within the same contexts (e.g., the narrative and rhetorical contexts of Matthew, the social and political contexts of the first century CE, and the traditional and current contexts of Samoa). Some repetitions are unavoidable, even with slight twists (that would still bore most readers who prefer linear arguments). But circularity and repetitions are characteristics of the oral preferring cultures behind both Matthew’s text and Nofoaiga’s Samoa. Put another way, this study is another invitation to consider and engage the workings of orality: as the atmosphere behind the biblical texts, as the rhetorical device that holds the units within the biblical texts, as well as the verve that moves readers in front and around the biblical texts. Orality is not exhausted by textuality; orality can inspire dry texts. On orality, insofar as islander and biblical criticisms are concerned, more attention and work are needed. Fourth, regarding the temptations to contextualize and appropriate: Nofoaiga does not deliver the usual contextual reading whereby something from his native culture is appropriated to make sense of, and thereby authorize (for both natives and foreigners), the biblical texts. Rather, his tautuaileva reading FOREWORD xi approach negotiates the (rhetorical) world encoded in the text of Matthew with the (sociohistorical) world of the first century CE in a way that it allows Nofoaiga, and other Samoan readers, to read in-between rigid historicism and formal literarism. There is hardly any benefit for Samoans to be involved in the historical or literary study of the Bible. The Bible is a foreign book to Samoa; and so are the principles and methods of historical and literary criticisms. What worked for Nofoaiga is to start with Matthew as a rhetorical and narrative construction, and to use Samoan lenses (fa’asinomanga and tautuatoa) to seek out local people (in the text) and their responses to Jesus’s proclamation of ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὺρανῶν.

Load more