Scriptural ethical principles and traditional African ethics

Scriptural ethical principles and traditional African ethics The traditional ethical code o f Africa is dominated by two factors, to wit, interpersonal relationships, which include the ancestor spirits, and taboo, which is mainly concerned with respecting the hierarchy o f forces. God is hardly a factor in everyday conduct. Biblical ethics, on the other hand, is totally dominated by the idea o f and relation.ship with God. The origin o f biblical ethics (creation and redemption), history (God's redemptive acts), content (being G od’s image, holy as He is holy), motivation (do as I have done to you), responsibility (both individual and communal responsibility) is directed towards God. Expectation (rewards and .sanction.?), universality (including all peoples, since God is the Creator o f all), internal character (in that thoughts and motives are also judged by God), leaching about property, jurisprudence (placing kings and the lowliest on the same level before God and his law), and work ethic (which is strongly critical o f using any magical means) all o f these are God-centred, and therefore sharply distinguished from African ethics which is man-centred. In the New Testament, the distinguishing factor is the new being, who is in Christ, being born again by the Holy Spirit, by which man is conformed to the image o f his Redeemer and King. The dominant theme in both Testaments is love, which in African ethics is reserved fo r one's nearest kit), but in Scripture demanded even fo r one's enemies.


Introduction
For more than one reason.Old Testament ethics is, despite its limitations (Vriezen, 1974;430-437), of paramount importance for New Testament Christians, In the first place, the New Testament did not replace Old Testament ethics with a new code of ethics, but presupposed it and built on it, bringing to it the new dimension o f salvation in Christ Jesus and the endowment with the power o f the Spirit.That is the reason why very few economic, political and social principles were spelt out by the New Testament: they had already been spelt out in the Old Testament.Secondly, New Testament Christians lived as a suppressed minority in a vast pagan empire.The ethical instructions given to them were not in the first place intended for a society in which believers had any influence in the government o f a country.Like Abraham, they knew that they were aliens and strangers on earth (Heb. 11:13), and that their citizenship was in heaven (Phil. 3:20).As a result their ethics tended to reflect the character of being meant for aliens on this earth, who by their conduct testify to their heavenly Lord and his kingdom.For instructions about social, economical and political ethics, and for the rich revelation of God about Christian ethics to be found there, one has first of all to turn to the Old Testament with its theocratical set-up.The contribution o f the New Testament to Christian ethics is to be found mainly in the work of the Holy Spirit, who enables and motivates God's people to conform to the image of Christ their Lord.
In order to forestall misunderstanding, it is necessary to take into account that this article is not a comparison between African and Western European ethics.The author does not regard traditional European or even Israelite ethics as superior to traditional African ethics.The influence o f modem European ethics, with its disregard for the value o f the community and for parental authority, is to be regarded as a negative rather than a positive factor.The fact that European and Israelite ethics are not critisized in this article, does not point towards any admiration for those, but merely means that they fall beyond the scope o f this article.

African ethics: interpersonal relationships and taboo
In Afnca the ethical code is determined mainly by two factors, namely inter personal relationships and taboo (McVeigh, 1974:21, 84, 85, 91), which are interrelated and interdependent.Taboo refers in the first place to one's attitude towards the hierarchy of forces into which one is supposed to be integrated, but there are also quite a number o f taboos which rule interpersonal relations, not least because those relations are regulated inter alia by laws o f seniority.God, and man's relationship with him, is, generally speaking, not a factor o f any significance in African ethics.We therefore have to disagree with Vriezen (1974:408) when he writes: "In all religions the relation between man and man is fundamentally determined by the relation between G od and man.Always and everywhere religion and ethics are bound more or less closely together," In Africa, the absence o f any influence on the ethics o f the relationship between God and man is very conspicious among most peoples.True, M odimo may be the energy vivifying man and his community, and therefore may be regarded as the "guardian" o f ethical norms, but there is no revealed will o f Modimo about these norms, neither are they observed out o f love and respect for i t .It does not call men to account for their behaviour.There is consequently no essential difference between "ethical" norms and the cosmic order.

The hierarchy of forces and taboo
Considering how important the principle of the hierarchy o f forces is in African Traditional Rehgion, one should not be surprised that this is a factor determining norms o f human conduct.It is an essential and basic principle o f African ethics to respect this hierarchy o f forces, to know and accept one's place in this totality and in society -a basic principle implying observing the taboos o f the tribe and respecting the authority o f one's seniors and preserving the wholeness and welfare o f the community (Metuh, 1981:108).In African ethics there is an elaborate code o f rules for conduct (McVeigh, 1974:84, 85, 91), designed to protect the hierarchy o f forces against would-be transgressors.A younger brother should not marry first; a wife should not throw her husband on the ground when they quarrel (Ilogu, 1974:125); a totem animal should never be eaten.
The important point is that this code of norms is not related to any personal communion with God, and therefore has a strongly legalistic character."It is not done," "It is taboo," is sufficient motivation for declaring an action forbidden (Ilogu, 1974:137).Tradition is sufficient authority.For the same reason this code o f norms is strongly negative, concerned with what is forbidden rather than with positive behaviour (Setiloane, 1976:32).
A serious social problem with such a legalistic moral code is that it could fiinction fairly well in a protective traditional society, but totally breaks down in the bewildering variety o f life and range o f choices in modem urban society (Rader, 1991:146).There is a need for a biblical basis for ethics in modem Africa, especially among Christians, who often have not yet integrated their faith into a comprehensive world view.

Human relations
In Africa, human relationships is a matter o f primary importance -a matter which determines ethical norms, modes of conduct and principles of education.This means that ultimately man is thrown back upon himself and his society in establishing ethical norms o f conduct.Man has no personal knowledge o f God and his law which expresses his will, and consequently the ethical code has become entirely man-centred.There are very few instances recorded where God is concemed with human behaviour towards other persons (Mbiti 1975:31;Metuh, 1981:108, 109, 115, 116).
When we say that African ethics has a man-centred motivation, the issue of ancestor spirits is included in the human community, since the ancestor spirits are regarded as part of the extended family (Smith, 1950:87).
It seems, therefore, that in cases where God is thouglit to be interested in human ethics at all, his interest is limited to the maintenance o f cosmic order, o f which ____________________________________________________________________ J.A. van Rooy In die Skrijlig 31(1 2) 1997:93-106 ^ respect for seniority among members o f the family is one aspect.In this way God may be indirectly involved in interpersonal ethics, but usually He does not determine what is right or wrong in one's conduct (Dymond in Smith ed. 1950:144, 149, 150;Davidson, 1950:178;Rosemary Guillebaud in Smith ed. 1950:199;Mbiti, 1970:248-249,251). The

Biblical ethics
Although the Old Testament offers traces o f a precovenantal set o f moral values, as expressed by the sayings "This is not done in Israel" and "a disgrace in Israel" (Gen. 34:7;Jos. 7:15;Jgd. 19:23f, 30;20:6, 10;2 Sam. 13:12;Jer. 29:23 and Eichrodt, 1967:317), or manifested by Judah in his relations to Tamar (Gen.38), or o f the sons of Jacob in their dealings with the Shechemites (Gen.34:25), this does not mean that the theocratic motivation was entirely absent.The implications o f the election of Abraham and his descendants was not entirely lost on all o f the patriarchs.A clear indication that it actually was a factor to be taken into account is found in the history of Joseph, as for example in his reply to the advances of the wife o f Potiphar (Gen.39:9) or in his reassurance to his brothers: "I fear God" (Gen.42:18f).Even the negative statement o f Abraham to Abimelech in Genesis 20:11, "I said to myself, 'There is surely no fear o f God in this place'", indicates that ideally the fear o f God was supposed to direct men in their conduct towards their fellow-men -at least according to Abraham.
However, when God established his covenant with Israel and revealed his will to them in his law, a new dimension was introduced into the motivation for human conduct.Since then, human conduct has been primarily a religious matter (Snaith, 1944:59).What was regarded as good rested on the recognition o f God as the One who is perfectly good (Eichrodt, 1967:316).Kaiser (1983:5, 3) calls Old Testament ethics in the first place theistic."It is Israel's depiction o f God that sets it off from most other ethical systems".To what extent the religious obligations o f the Covenant dominated interpersonal relationships is illustrated inter alia by the fact that faithfulness towards other persons, even when against one's own interests, is called by Jonathan "loyal love such as God requires" (1 Sam.20:14, c f Eichrodt, 1967:322;De Groot & Hulst, 1952:281).
The fact that Yahweh is a personal God, also profoundly influences the ethical code o f the Old Testament.Whatever changes in accent and in nuance there may have occurred in the course o f the history o f Israel, this one factor remained constant in the faith o f believing Israel: ethics is founded on the expressed personal will o f a personal God, who has revealed that will to his people in the covenant legislation (Kaiser, 1983:5, 20;Dymess, 1979:172;Vriezen, 1974: 412).Leviticus 19:18 lays down the precept, "Love your neighbour as yourself', immediately followed by the motivation, "I am the LORD" , and the same applies to Leviticus 19:33, 34, where the Israelite is told to treat the alien with kindness, "Love him as yourself I am the LORD your God" .This commandment is, there fore, not a mere social prescription, but is rooted in Israel's faith in God (Vriezen, 1974:416).The relationship between man and man is determined by that between man and God (Vriezen, 1974:420).In the Old Testament morality is an integral part o f religion.God is the source o f the good, and if man is to do good, that is because he knows God (Dymess, 1979:172).
Not only the fact that God was regarded as the living God, a God who lived in personal fellowship with his Covenant people, influenced the ethical code of Israel, but also the fact that He was regarded as the one and only God.Polytheism involves a variety o f standards, which in the end boils down to no standard at all (Vriezen, 1974:411;Dymess, 1979:173).Yahweh's will was clearly and absolutely one, and in that respect there was a vast difference between Old Testament ethics and ancient Semitic ethics.James 2:10-11 is based squarely on Old Testament principles: "He who said, 'Do not commit adultery', also said, 'Do not murder'" .Biblical ethics is consistent and unchanging, because God is consistent and unchanging (I Sam.15:29; Ps. 25:8-10).

God-centred origin
The God-centred origin o f Israel's ethics is to be found both in creation (Kaiser, 1983:31;Dymess, 1979:75), and in the covenant (Wright, 1983:21) (Wright, 1983:21).Understanding this would contribute a lot towards a less legalistic and a more joyful ethic among African Christians.

The God-centred history of biblical ethics
The God-centred history of biblical ethics goes hand in hand with its basis in the covenant (ICaiser, 1983:33).Yahweh first and foremost revealed himself to Israel in his redemptive deeds in history.Evidently no man-made ethical code, whether European or African, could have this God-centred origin or history.This origin is the covenant o f grace, both in its Old Testament and New Testament dispensations, and the historical, redemptive acts of God (Haselbarth, 1976:25).
The ethics of natural man has no real motivation with regard to God. "It is not done", is the African motivation for ethics.This idea is often transferred to and implanted into the church, and the Christian life o f the church is undermined and emaciated by this ahistoric, "originless" approach, without any motivation in God or his Son.

The God-centred content of Old Testament ethics
The God-centred content o f Old Testament ethics refers in the first place to the character of God himself (Wright, 1983:26;Kaiser, 1983:29).Since Yahweh is a God o f love and mercy, Israelites have to demonstrate the mercy shown to them in their dealings with people.They were strangers and slaves freed from Egypt by Yahweh, and therefore they are expected to behave in a humane manner towards strangers and slaves: "Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt" (Ex.23:9; see also Deut. 15:12,13,15).(Wright, 1983:27;Dymess, 1979:172).
The broad Scriptural basis o f this God-centred content o f ethics reflects the fact that man was created in the image of God.One o f the implications o f this truth is that there is and should be a certain kind o f analogy between God and man.God has the heart o f a father, he is righteous, just, loving, compassionate and generous.He is not an idle God, he works.In this respect, man, his image, child and covenant partner, should reflect the character o f his God.

God-centred motivation
As for God-centred motivation, Israel is often warned against forgetting God's great redemptive deeds, lest they become heartless towards others in need."If Israel were to lose sight o f what God had done for them, it would inevitably lead to failure to obey his law.They would lose both the model and the motive" (Wright, 1983:29).
Obviously there can be no God-centred motivation for ethics among people who do not partake o f G od's redemptive love, again irrespective o f whether these people are European, Semitic, ancient Egyptian or African -or even nominally Christian!

God-centred responsibility
To these four dimensions mentioned by Wright we may add that o f God-centred responsibility.In this respect the relationship between individual and collective responsibility is important.
In all "primitive" communities the idea o f collective consciousness and responsibility is basic (Krige & Krige, 1954:75-81 In this respect there are some similarities between Old Testament and traditional African ethics.When missionaries first made contact with Africans, the tendency among Africans was still towards a communal response to the gospel.In modem times, however, this has drastically changed, almost to the other extreme.Even more than in European households, one often finds religious and denominational divisions in African households, because o f the tendency to regard religious decisions as exclusively the responsibility o f the individual.

God-centred expectation
A sixth dimension o f Scriptural ethics is its God-centred expectation.In the framework o f the covenant, promises are the reverse side o f the sanctions.In both Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 the promises and blessings precede the threats and curses.This concept o f final judgment became more prominent as redemptive history advanced, and is drawn in clear terms in the New Testament, but it starts in Genesis 3: "Where are you?"The very same principle is revealed in the parables o f our Lord, for instance the parable o f the sheep and the goats (Matt.25:31-46).

God-centred universality
A seventh dimension o f biblical ethics is its God-centred universality.Kaiser (1983:11, 12) mentions the example o f the heathen cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, whose sins were so grievous that the outcry rose to God in heaven, although they did not partake o f God's particular revelation through his word.Their sins are judged as being just as serious as those o f Gibeah (Judg. 19,20).But even more striking is the indictment o f the nations by the prophet Amos in the sermon recorded in the first two chapters o f his prophecies.Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon and Moab are called to account and judgment is passed on them in exactly the same way as on Israel and Judah.And the accusation is in every case not the obvious one o f idolatry, but rather fransgressing the universal norm o f God the Creator, who demands that people treat other people with mercy and respect.If people like the warring factions o f the Zulu in Natal could understand this, and if the church o f Christ can illustrate this in its conduct in the midst of these conflicts, it should contribute a lot towards mutual acceptance among individuals o f different groups.In this respect one could only hope that the church among the Zulu people would do better than the church among Afiikaners in the apartheid era.

Biblical ethics is distinguished by its God-centred internal character
In the eighth place, biblical ethics is distinguished by its God-centred internal character.God judges not only the outward deeds, but even more the intent and motive of the heart.The tenth commandnient o f the Decalogue is unique in this respect when compared to pagan religious statements.That the tenth command ment refers to one's inner attitude and forbids "sins o f the mind", has been contested by some scholars, such as Albrecht Alt.Kaiser (1983:235-239) who convincingly argues the case for the tenth commandment referring to sins of intention.Keil and Delitzsch (1869:124) on Exodus 20:17 write, "The last or tenth commandment is directed against desiring (coveting), as the root from which every sin against a neighbour springs".This view is shared by commentators such as Alan Cole (1973:161).Dymess points out that the final command against coveting is also the most inclusive and the most difficult to enforce.But this is yet another example o f how well Scripture understands the motivational aspect o f sin.Sin is a matter o f the heart before it is a matter of behaviour.Coveting was the basic sin of Adam.It is not insignificant that this is the last of the commandments, for it virtually calls out for its New Testament interpretation which Christ supplies (Matt. 5:21-28;Dymess, 1979:180).
In the same way, sacrifices are of no avail if there is no broken spirit and contrite heart over our sins (Ps.51:17; see also Kaiser, 1983:7).It would be wrong to suppose that Israel did not know sins o f thought.Why, then, would Job have made a covenant with his eyes not to look lustfiilly at a woman (Job 31:1)?
In African ethics, intent and motivation are taken into account in evaluating a person's conduct, but for a different reason, to wit the fact that brooding anger and jealousy can actually activate black magic and kill the object o f hatred.It is a form of witchcraft (see also Bujo, 1992:37;Bujo, 1990:98-99).There is no theocratic dimension to it, the motivation is the possible threat to interpersonal relations.

God-given property
The basic assumption o f the whole o f Scripture is that everything belongs to God, the Creator."The earth is the l o r d 's, and everything in it," we read in Psalm 24:1.But in his grace, God grants to his people property to possess for themselves, although it remains God's property (Lev. 25:23).In this granting, the individual element is predominant.When the Israelite brings the first fiiiits to the temple, he is instructed to recite the words: "He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey; and now I bring the firstfiiiits of the soil that you, 0 l o r d , have given me" (Deut.26:9,10).One should observe the singular form me here.
The Israelite did not think in terms of the whole land given to the whole nation.That concept could have been compatible with the whole land being held on the nation's behalf, as it were, by a king as their representative.That, in fact, was the Canaanite system (Wright, 1983:54).
The history o f Ahab and Naboth, recorded in 1 Kings 21, illustrates how strongly this unalienable right o f possession was experienced among Israelites.Micah expresses the horror o f faithful Yahwists at the disregarding o f covenant law by the nobles o f Judah in the times o f Jotham and Ahaz: "They covet fields and seize them.They defraud a man o f his home, a fellow-man o f his inheritance" (Mic.2:2).David does not dare to confiscate Araunah's piece o f land, but buys it (2 Sam.24:24).
According to traditional African custom, individual property was limited to livestock and moving possessions, but the land was always, and even unto this day predominantly is, communal property.The advantage o f the Israelite system found in the Old Testament and sanctioned by God himself, was that people tend to care for the land they own, but to exploit and ravage communal land, since it is not in the first instance the individual who benefits from conservation farming, but the whole o f the community, who might not be as conservation conscious as the individual and therefore do not do their share in it.Furthermore, if a field is not one's property, it can and indeed often is taken away by a jealous chief for himself or given to one o f his favourites, especially after one has developed it.

God-given jurisprudence
In the case o f natural man -and that includes black natural man just as surely as white natural man -the natural tendency is to limit loyalty and justice to the ingroup, those towards whom one would be naturally inclined to feel love.The ethical code o f Africans demands that in traditional court cases, for the sake of safeguarding the integrity o f the tribe, powerful persons often win their cases, because they can do more harm to the tribe if they are dissatisfied with the result o f litigation (Van Warmelo & Phophi, 1948:11-15).In the covenant legislation, however, "even the rights o f the lowliest foreigner are placed under the protection o f God; and if he is also dependent, without full legal rights, to oppress him is like oppressing the widow and the orphan, a transgression worthy o f punishment, which calls forth God's avenging retribution" (Eichrodt, 1967:321).The basic principle applied here is that judgement belongs to God (Deut.1:17), and therefore favouritism is forbidden (Deist, 1986:181).
The principle o f compensation and reconciliation, which is sadly neglected in European jurisprudence, is the main object o f African penal procedure.In this respect, African law is much nearer to that o f Scripture than European law.On the other hand, the theistic angle which is brought to the fore by the principle of purging is absent in Africa, except in cases o f murder and witchcraft, where the culprits are eliminated because they constitute a threat to society.

God-given daily task: the work ethic
In Africa, with its magico-animistic beliefs, there often exists no evident relationship between input in the form o f work and results in the form of prosperity and blessing.Blessing, good luck, and prosperity are often regarded rather as the results o f magic powers.The result is that there is little appreciation for the "Puritan work ethic" which lies at the basis o f the prosperity o f Western civilization.According to the African work ethic work is a kind o f necessary evil, which no one will indulge in unless compelled to by circumstances.According to a Western work ethic work includes studying diligently at school and university level.The dissatisfaction o f many African students and the constant strikes are partly a result o f these basic magico-animistic beliefs.Why should some students fail, while others pass?There is a strong suspicion that lecturers fail students because they simply do not want them to have the benefits o f a degree or diploma.Why not grant it to everyone, so that everyone may get work?Whether those graduates are technically qualified for any work is beside the point.It is the duty of the government to provide work for those who can show a qualification on paper, so that they might draw a salary.Again, the question whether the work is usefiil is not important.People simply demand a slice o f the cake, which they regard as their due, because they have obtained a diploma or degree.Many instances o f this attitude can be adduced.The problem is not that Afiicans are lazy by nature, but that the magical substratum in the world view tends to discourage diligence.
Needless to say, this work ethic can only lead to economic disaster, poverty and hunger, and I believe that it is indeed one o f the most important reasons for Africa's dismal economic situation.I also believe that Scripture, in the much-maligned Puritan work ethic, provides the answer to this dismal predicament o f Afiica.Creative work, ruling and developing the earth in a responsible way, is one o f the very first and basic commands o f God to man (Gen.1:28).Nature and the results o f work have, to be sure, been influenced by the fall ), but work is definitely not the result o f the fall.The command to work was given with creation, not with the fall.Therefore diligent work is just as much required from Christians than from pagan slaves (2 Thes.3:6-10).
3.12 Christ, the Spirit and the New Creature The distinctive elements o f New Testament ethics are Christ-centred.In the redemptive acts of the Lord Jesus, Christian ethics receives additional motivation.Because Christ loved us even while we were still God's enemies, we should and can also love our enemies.The Holy Spirit, the Spirit o f the risen Christ, re generates us and enables us to be conformed to the image o f Christ, our Redeemer and King.Our conduct and motives therefore are totally controlled by the love o f Christ.
The Holy Spirit not only regenerates us, but also dwells in us.This brings further motivation for sexual purity and respect for our bodies and those o f others.In Africa, sexual instruction consists o f nothing else than "dont's".This kind of unmotivated instruction is futile in a modem, unprotective society.The new motivation o f respect for the human body, the temple o f the Spirit (1 Cor.6:19), alone can provide a sound basis for sexual purity.Equally powerful for marriage morality is the principle that human marriage should reflect the relationship of Christ and his church: holy, based on Christ's love, permanent and exclusive (E f 5:22-33).

Conclusion
There are many similarities between Scriptural ethical principles and those of Africa, such as the importance o f the community, but these similarities should not blind us to the radical differences, based on the theocentric character o f Old Testament ethics, which is entirely absent in Africa.
Biblical ethical principles, resting on the personal knowledge of, love for and gratitude towards a personal God, have a renewing effect on people and society as a whole, especially in times o f spiritual renewal, when God becomes particuiary real to people.Traditional African ethics cannot renew society.According to African ethics, the idea o f nepotism, "providing for one's family", "looking afier one's own people", is a virtue.Corruption has become a way of life in many African countries where biblical ethics has not yet penetrated, as the disclosures in the media (November/December 1993) o f corruption in the administration o f Lebowa and Gazankulu illustrate.
. The ethical stipulations o f the covenant are made on the basis and in the light o f God's work o f creation and redemption.The theological basis for ethical matters such as marriage, human sexuality, duties to parents, duties to employees, property, work, life and the lower created forms are already found m the record o f creation in Genesis 1 to 3.
In the New Testament, in the light o f our redemption through the death o f Jesus Christ, the demand is focused on becoming Christ-like people.The summary of the fruits of the Spirit in Galathians 5:22-23 represents in fact the character traits o f Jesus our Redeemer, and the description in 1 Corinthians 13 o f what love is, is a description o f Christ HimselfThis dimension opens the view to the vast chasm between African or traditional, pagan European ethics on the one hand and biblical ethics on the other, and also indicates the reason why Scriptural ethics has such a great transforming power in the lives o f men and peoples.Scriptural ethics has transforming power because it has its origin, motivation and model in the love and redemptive work o f God himself, which is brought home to the hearts of God's renewed people by the Spirit o f God.
These themes recur in the covenant legislation.There, the ethical imperative rests on the indicative o f redemption, which indicates how the vertical relationship with God dominates the horizontal relationship.The introduction to the covenant document o f Exodus reminds Israel that they are a kingdom o f priests for Yahweh(Ex.19:5,6), and the preamble to the Decalogue reminds them that God the Law giver is first of all God the Saviour.The overview o f Israel's history recorded in Deuteronomy 1-4 precedes the Decalogue in Deuteronomy 5 and all the "legislative parts" following it.Chapters 32-34 o f Exodus remind the people that redemptive grace has the necessary concomitant o f forgiving grace, which provides even deeper motivation for obedience in our relations with other people(s)."Ethics then becomes a matter o f gratitude, not o f blind obedience alone" This whole principle is summed up in one sentence in Leviticus 19:2: "Be holy because I, the l o r d your God, am holy" .But the rest o f Leviticus 19 shows us that the kind o f holiness which reflects God's own holiness is thoroughly practical [and therefore ethical -JAvR], This principle of practical, ethical conduct includes generosity to the poor at harvest time, justice for workers, integrity in judicial processes, considerate behaviour to other people, equality before the law for immigrants, honest trading and other very "earthly" social matters.And in the ensuing chapters the refrain is heard; 'I am the LORD', as if to say, 'This is what I require o f you because it is what I myself would do'."This condition makes the command o f Leviticus 19:2 quite breathtaking.Your quality o f life, it said to Israel, must reflect the very heart o f God's character" ).The sense o f inter dependence is stronger in primitive communities than that o f individual existence, and that of corporate responsibility supercedes that o f individualism, "Primitive" Israel was no exception to this rule, but it was not limited to the early stages of the history o f Israel.The concept of interdependence and corporate responsibility remained valid until New Testament times.Adam's whole posterity is included in his guilt, just as in the New Testament everyone who believes in Christ, shares in his righteousness.The family of Achan (Joshua 7), the children o f the On the other hand, although the communal element is very prominent in Israel's ethics and responsibility, this does not displace but merely supplements personal responsibility before God.The first man to transgress, Adam, is personally called to account: "Where are you?Who told you that you are naked?Did you eat of the forbidden fruit?" (Genesis 3).In the same way Cain is addressed and called to account (Genesis 4).At a very early stage believers are put before individual decisions: Abraham, for instance, in the call to Canaan (Genesis 12) and in the command to sacrifice his son (Genesis 22).The Decalogue, as well as the basic Canaanites (Joshua 6:24f)and o f the Amalekites (1 Sam.15:3), and the descendants o f Saul (2 Sam.21), share in the guilt of their fathers.This communal element is typical o f nomadic societies(Van Oyen, 1967:160), and God incorporated it into his covenantal relations with Israel.Africans have, by virtue of their traditional ethical principles, more empathy for this corporative element in the Old Testament than Europeans have for it.It was striking that, when a group o f Europeans was asked by a colleague o f mine to report what revelation o f God they found in Genesis 3, they referred to the nature o f sin, such as disobedience, rebellion, ingratitude.When the same assignment was given to a group o f Africans, the response was almost unanimous: "O ne's sin does not affect only oneself but also o n e 's posterity." covenantal instructions of Deuteronomy 6, is framed in the second person singular.It can be accepted that this sense o f personal responsibility grew stronger in the course o f the history o f revelation, until Ezekiel's classical expression of it in Ezekiel 18: "The son will not die for the guilt o f the father, neither will the father die for the guilt of the son" .