Original Research

Silenced languages: Probing biblical texts and South African context post-colonially

Mlamli Diko

Received: 08 Nov. 2024; Accepted: 02 Apr. 2025; Published: 19 June 2025

Copyright: © 2025. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The marginalisation of languages by colonial and apartheid structures distorted cultural identities, obstructing the power and independence of various communities. In this article, I probe the ongoing oppression of languages, especially native languages, and the concerted efforts to decolonise them by drawing parallels between Revelation 7:9, Isaiah 19:18 and Psalm 137 as well as the South African context. I aim to unmask the decolonisation of oppressed languages through the three selected biblical scriptures using post-colonial theory. This article makes three notable findings. Firstly, Revelation 7:9 depicts a varied, multilingual heavenly community, affirming that linguistic multiplicity transcends earthly segregations and mirrors spiritual inclusion. Secondly, Isaiah 19:18 presents a vision of linguistic transformation where Egyptians adopt the language of Canaan, symbolising a shift towards collective identity and religious unity, thus underlining the power of language in advancing inclusivity. Thirdly, Psalm 137 expresses the agony and resilience of the Israelites in a foreign land, exemplifying how language serves as both a repository of cultural identity and a tool of insubordination against assimilation. Collectively, these findings mean that intellectualising sidelined languages nurtures a sense of belonging and solidarity. Above all, this article draws connections with contemporary South Africa, where revitalising indigenous languages echoes the biblical themes of decolonisation.

Contribution: This article contributes to the scholarship on language decolonisation by blending post-colonial sociolinguistics and post-colonial biblical critique to uncover how biblical texts inform contemporary efforts to revitalise sidelined languages and cultural identities in South Africa and beyond.

Keywords: biblical texts; decolonisation; language; marginalisation; post-colonial.

Introduction

Contextual background

This article is interdisciplinary in nature as it invites scholarly perspectives from both the discipline of sociolinguistics and biblical studies. By definition, sociolinguistics is the scientific scrutiny of how language and society interact, examining how social factors like culture, class, gender and ethnicity influence language use and variation (Mesthrie & Mfazwe-Mojapelo 2023:11). This area of research explores the ways in which language influences social identities and relationships within different communities (Babane & Chauke 2016:49–51). For the purposes of this article, sociolinguistics ought to be recognised as the scientific study of how dynamic forces of language mirror and influence power structures, particularly focusing on the social mechanisms through which oppressed languages are either suppressed or revitalised. It entails critiquing the role of language in identity formation, power relations and cultural resistance, aiming to discern how linguistic decolonisation restores social independence, cohesion, consciousness and visibility to historically overlooked communities and languages. Therefore, sociolinguistics unmasks how people’s words and languages influence who they are, like a mirror reflecting their stories, and it also explores how some languages have been pushed aside while others have been given more power.

On the other hand, biblical exploration is the scientific scrutiny of the Bible, analysing its scriptures, historical contexts, literary forms and theological themes to gain a greater understanding of its messages and meanings (Davies 2014:35). This specific area of research employs various theoretical underpinnings and research methodologies such as historical-critical analysis, literary critique and cultural discourses, among others, to interpret biblical writings and their impact on religious and cultural traditions. In this context, biblical exploration moves far beyond cosmic interpretations to critically assess the socio-historical forces that influenced the development of biblical texts. This method not only uncovers the complexities of scriptural meaning but also underscores the ways in which these biblical texts continue to influence contemporary cultural and ideological landscapes.

Together, these two disciplines (sociolinguistics and biblical exploration), when blended in a scholarly manner, unmask how language in biblical scriptures both represents and influences communal structures, concentrating on how linguistic choices transmit power dynamics and cultural identities. Given these circumstances, I explore the decolonisation of marginalised languages by critiquing three selected biblical texts alongside contemporary South African language contexts, seeking to rebuild agency for dismissed linguistic communities, especially rural or indigenous communities, through historical and cultural understanding. In spite of this nexus between the two disciplines, I need to put forward that a common misconception about this interdisciplinarity is that sociolinguistics and biblical studies are fundamentally unrelated fields with minimal theoretical and methodological overlap (Polak 2006:116; Webb 1984:43). This alleged minimal overlap arises because biblical studies have continually been viewed as a textual and historical discipline, while sociolinguistics is seen as a contemporary, socially grounded field. Yet, probing biblical texts through a sociolinguistic perspective reveals how language in sacred texts exemplifies and influences societal power dynamic undercurrents, an integration necessary for comprehending processes of language marginalisation and decolonisation.

By the same token, another key phenomenon to be noted in this article is decolonisation. Both in the context of the Bible and South Africa, decolonisation entails revitalising and reinterpreting linguistic, cultural, religious and historical elements to contest past oppressive structures imposed by colonial powers such as the British, Egyptian, Roman, French and Dutch empires, among others. For both these contexts, I argue that decolonisation signifies restoring dignity and visibility to trivialised languages and cultural narratives, both within biblical interpretation – by foregrounding intricate linguistic perspectives – and within the South African context, by intellectualising indigenous languages and dismantling imperialist ideologies entrenched in religious and social discourse (Decker 2010; Heleta 2018; Masenya 2022; Ndimande 2012). No wonder, therefore, Keller (1995:156) posits that ‘decolonisation advances a critical reflection on the role of religious and social institutions in propagating imperialist ideologies and advocates for linguistic and cultural revitalisation that empowers forgotten communities’. On account of these assertions, I contend that the oppressive structures that have long silenced indigenous languages are nothing more than the linguistic remnants of colonial arrogance, masquerading as intellectual superiority while deliberately weakening centuries of knowledge, philosophy, ontology, cosmology, epistemology and cultural identity. These hegemonic ideologies, draped in the illusion of universality, have not only devalued linguistic diversity but also cemented a notable epistemic violence that fractures the very foundation of equitable discourse and representation.

Considering this reality, I further submit that it would be a miscalculated move to divorce decolonisation from the scholarly scrutiny of sociolinguistics and biblical studies, given that this may downplay the interconnectedness of language, culture, religion and power dynamic forces that form both religious texts and social settings. As previously pointed out, sociolinguistics provides critical philosophies into how language sustains colonial ideologies, while biblical studies offer a platform for re-considering sacred texts in ways that empower buried voices. Disengaging these two disciplines risks solidifying the very problematic hierarchies and injustices that decolonisation, by its very nature, seeks to dismantle. At the same time, comprehending the linguistic and cultural nuances in biblical texts may unmask covert meanings and drive inclusive interpretations that resonate with contemporary struggles against oppression in South Africa, ultimately enriching the process of decolonisation (Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2021:883).

Bearing this contextual background in mind, this article has two aims to address. Firstly, it aims to critique how Revelation 7:9, Isaiah 19:18 and Psalm 137 mirror and conserve colonial mentalities connected to language and power dynamic subtleties, and to explore how decolonising interpretations could restore arbitration to sidelined languages in the South African context and elsewhere in the global village. Secondly, it aims to investigate (in a scholarly manner) the role of sociolinguistic factors in the revitalisation of oppressed languages within South African communities, assessing how these factors inform the reinterpretation of biblical texts to advance cultural identity and linguistic diversity. The three selected biblical texts are directly quoted from the New International Version (NIV, henceforth) of the Bible, published in 2011, while debates concerning indigenous South African languages are elicited from the existing body of knowledge. The ultimate goal of this article is to draw fundamental connections between the decolonisation of languages in the Bible and the South African context. To address these two aims, I apply post-colonial theory.

Post-colonial theory

By definition, post-colonial theory critically explores the perennial impact of colonialism on language, culture, religion and power structures, aiming to reveal and question how colonial legacies influence societies long after formal colonial rule has ended (Diko 2024:11). For the purpose of this article, the prefix ‘post-’ does not suggest that colonialism has completely died or ended but rather acknowledges that colonial influences linger in various forms, particularly in cultural, educational, linguistic, religious and ideological arenas that continue to affect underprivileged communities. A prime example of colonialism’s tenacity in various forms is observable in the hegemony of colonial languages, such as English and Afrikaans, in former state colonies like South Africa, where these languages frequently overshadow indigenous languages in education, government, diplomatic communication and mainstream media (Errington 2001:7; Meighan 2023:146). This linguistic hegemony manifests in the continued privileging of English and, in some cases, Afrikaans as primary languages of instruction in higher education, frequently at the expense of local languages, which remain oppressed in academic and professional settings. Similarly, government policies and mass media representation cement this hegemony by prioritising colonial languages in official discourse, which obstructs the functional expansion and advancement of indigenous languages in critical and controlling domains.

I must also indicate that colonialism did not just impose foreign rule in South Africa. It waged an insidious war against indigenous languages, treating them as primitive echoes unworthy of intellectual discourse. Like a parasite that drains its host, colonial systems entrenched the myth that only Western languages were vessels of knowledge, systemically stripping indigenous tongues of their status, functionality and prestige. Even today, its remnants persist in education, law, diplomatic governance and science and technology, where indigenous languages are overlooked, their speakers forced to navigate a world that refuses to acknowledge their linguistic heritage as legitimate. This enduring linguistic apartheid is not a mark of progress but an intellectual fraud – an oppressive relic that continues to suffocate linguistic diversity under the mask of globalisation and modernity. It is my view, therefore, that to accept this linguistic oppression is to endorse a system that privileges colonial residues over the rich, complex knowledge systems interwoven in indigenous languages – an unacceptable betrayal of linguistic equity and human dignity.

As previously pointed out, this linguistic hegemony intensifies social, religious and economic hierarchies, continually privileging those eloquent in the colonial languages, and thus downplaying speakers of indigenous languages. For example, the arena of religious interpretation in South Africa, where Western philosophies on biblical scriptures have historically overshadowed or clouded local interpretations, sometimes undermined traditional philosophies and spiritual practices such as ukuthwasa or go thwasa [traditional healing initiation]. This particular influence shaped how indigenous South African communities robustly interacted with biblical scripture, recurrently aligning with colonial value systems rather than local cultural contexts, thereby disseminating colonial ideologies within religious and cultural practices. Accordingly, post-colonial theory, as a supreme theoretical viewpoint, attempts to address and (de)construct these ongoing influences, allowing for a reimagining and reclaiming of identity and language, especially indigenous languages.

Owing to the reality that this article invites two disciplines – sociolinguistics and biblical studies – two theoretical tenets of post-colonial theory are applied to strike a balance between these two disciplines in a bid to address the earlier stated two aims. These two theoretical tenets of post-colonial theory are post-colonial sociolinguistics, which explores how language depicts and interrogates colonial power dynamic forces; and post-colonial biblical critique, which questions how biblical texts are interpreted through colonial perspectives and advocates for a sober reflection or re-reading these biblical texts in ways that empower and liberate indigenous and subjugated voices. In explaining these two theoretical tenets, Levisen and Sippola (2013:3) underscore that, collectively, post-colonial sociolinguistics and post-colonial biblical critique provide a compelling framework for unearthing how language both mirrors and counterattacks colonial power ideologies, while also critiquing the colonial interpretations that influence biblical texts. These theoretical facets encourage a re-consideration of biblical scripture and language practices in ways that liberate indigenous and buried voices, solidifying a critical interaction with linguistic plurality, demystifying linguistic oppression and revitalising cultural and linguistic identities (Lazarus 2011:4; Roy 2016:201). Through the application of post-colonial theory, which is an overarching or supreme perspective, both sociolinguistic and biblical discourses are scrutinised to demystify lingering colonial ideologies and advocate for linguistic and cultural decolonisation, particularly in the South African context or in Africa broadly. Given that post-colonial theory, alongside its two theoretical tenets, has been explained, it is central to focus on the exegeses of the three biblical texts mentioned earlier.

Exegeses of Revelation 7:9, Isaiah 19:18 and Psalm 137

The biblical texts of Revelation 7:9, Isaiah 19:18 and Psalm 137 each provide an entry point into comprehending the chemistry between language, power and identity in both biblical and South Africa’s contemporary post-colonial contexts.

Revelation 7:9 envisions a diverse multitude from ‘every nation, tribe, people, and language’ standing before God, symbolising linguistic and cultural inclusivity within the divine order. However, a post-colonial critique uncovers that colonial Christianity frequently weaponised such biblical passages, paradoxically using the rhetoric of unity to justify the distortion of indigenous languages in favour of colonial tongues (Davies 2014). This distortion mirrors how Western imperialists in South Africa imposed English and Afrikaans as dominant linguistic mediums while oppressing native languages. The challenge, therefore, lies in retrieving the original pluralism of Revelation 7:9, recognising that linguistic diversity is not an obstruction to divine unity but a testimony to the richness of human expression – one that must be restored in both biblical interpretation and contemporary South African linguistic policies (Morton 2000; Polak 2006). Against this backdrop, what is clear is that Revelation 7:9 does not endorse linguistic homogenisation but rather affirms the coexistence of multiple languages as integral to spiritual order (Song & Du Rand 2011). The calculated distortion of this inclusivity by colonial Christianity served as a machinery for linguistic oppression, cementing Western dominance while weakening indigenous languages. Consequently, the task of decolonisation demands a recovery of this biblical pluralism – both in theological interpretation and in South African linguistic policies – to restore the nobility and intellectual independence of historically ignored languages. True unity, as envisioned in Revelation 7:9, does not necessitate reductionist mentalities but rather the recognition and celebration of linguistic and cultural multiplicity.

Isaiah 19:18 speaks of ‘five cities in Egypt speaking the language of Canaan’, a biblical verse that has been misinterpreted to validate linguistic assimilation under theological pretexts (Paton 1914). Regarding this pronouncement, some argue that this verse endorses a spiritual mandate for cultural and linguistic homogenisation (Decker 2010; Pietersen 2021), solidifying the belief that non-dominant languages must yield to hegemonic ones. Nevertheless, a post-colonial re-reading interrogates this ideology, suggesting instead that the verse highlights a historical moment of linguistic negotiation rather than imposed assimilation. This coordinates with South Africa’s ongoing struggle to advance indigenous languages beyond tokenistic recognition, as colonial remnants continue to reduce them to informal settings while privileging English and Afrikaans. In decolonising biblical texts and language policies alike, the focus must shift from oppression to revitalisation – guaranteeing that linguistic multiplicity is embraced as a means of cultural and intellectual restoration rather than an obstacle to progress.

Psalm 137 – a lament over the forced exile of Israelites and their inability to sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land – resonates vastly with the plight of indigenous languages under colonial domination in South Africa. The psalmist’s anguish over cultural and linguistic displacement echoes the historical and ongoing subjugation of indigenous South African languages, which were treated as unfit for intellectual discourse and systemically silenced under apartheid and colonial rule (Babane & Chauke 2016). Nonetheless, some theologians contend that this biblical passage merely expresses individual grief, but a post-colonial theory reveals a collective struggle against cultural subjugation, paralleling South Africa’s fight to re-validate linguistic agency (Tshotsho 2013). Just as the Israelites longed for a linguistic and cultural homecoming, so too must decolonial efforts strive towards the successful institutional integration of indigenous languages – rejecting the illusion of progress that sustains the hegemony of colonial tongues. Thus, these three biblical texts, when re-considered through a post-colonial window, do not solidify linguistic oppression but rather demand the dismantling of oppressive structures that have historically silenced native languages. In any event, the next section concentrates on the interpretation and discussion.

Interpretation and discussion

This particular section is divided into three subsections. This then forms the thrust of this scholarly discourse. Each of these subsections is dedicated to each of the three selected biblical texts mentioned in the contextual background and introductory section. Of note, post-colonial theory is applied as an overarching perspective, with post-colonial sociolinguistics and post-colonial biblical critique serving as central tenets of this theory. As the African proverb implies, a river does not flow backwards; therefore, each subsection here progresses the scholarly debate, building on foundational ideas to fortify discernment. Guided by post-colonial theory, the subsections flow together, weaving post-colonial sociolinguistics and post-colonial biblical critique to uncover new philosophies in the decolonisation of language.

Revelation 7:9

This biblical text is an illuminating verse for examining the decolonisation of oppressed languages through the theories of post-colonial sociolinguistics and post-colonial biblical critique. This biblical verse presents a vision of a vast multitude from ‘every nation, tribe, people and language’ standing before the throne of God, unified in worship. This biblical text reads as follows:

9: After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people, and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holsing palm branches in their hands.

In this biblical scripture, the reference to ‘every language’ stands as a testament to linguistic multiplicity in spiritual dominion, suggesting that linguistic and cultural identities are valued eternally, even in spiritual contexts. For some post-colonial theorists, Revelation 7:9 challenges colonial assumptions that one language or culture should dominate (see Morton 2000; Song & Du Rand 2011; Stefanovic 2006; Winkle 1989). Here, it presents a pluralistic vision that implies a world where multiple languages and cultures coexist and are equally celebrated. Unfortunately, in the South African context, this vision of linguistic plurality is trampled beneath the heavy boots of colonial and apartheid-era language policies, which elevated English and Afrikaans while banishing indigenous languages to the periphery of intellectual and institutional life. Like rivers forcibly diverted from their natural courses, indigenous South African languages are constrained, belittled and denied the opportunity to flourish, leaving a linguistic landscape where the echoes of colonial and apartheid tongues still dictate access to power, education and socio-economic mobility.

This specific understanding is crucial for addressing the historical marginalisation of indigenous languages, particularly in South Africa, where local languages such as isiXhosa, isiZulu, Setswana, Sepedi, isiNdebele, Siswati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga and Sesotho have long been sidelined by colonial powers (Diko & Celliers 2024:254). Here, colonial powers strategically oppressed indigenous South African languages by imposing English and Afrikaans as the dominant or relevant languages in education, administration, science and technology, as well as legal systems, thereby restricting the functional domains of local languages. In addition to this reality, oppressive policies such as the Bantu Education Act of 1953 deliberately limited the advancement of indigenous languages, driving their subordination and diminishing their status in formal and intellectual discourse (Makhenyane 2023).

For this reason, from a post-colonial sociolinguistic perspective, I argue that Revelation 7:9 underscores the value of each language as a vital receptacle of identity, history and philosophy. As previously pointed out, post-colonial sociolinguistics emphasises how colonial powers ostracise indigenous languages to wield control and power over colonised populations, which relegates their languages to a mediocre social and economic status. In the South African context, indigenous languages were systemically ostracised by colonial and apartheid regimes, which only celebrated English and Afrikaans. On the one hand, applying post-colonial biblical critique to Revelation 7:9 reveals a theological affirmation of linguistic multiplicity that stands against colonial practices of linguistic erasure. In other words, by portraying all languages before the throne of God, this biblical scripture implicitly rejects any attempt to privilege one language over another and supports concerted efforts to revitalise and celebrate oppressed languages in post-colonial societies. As an amaXhosa metaphorical expression implies, isiziba asihlangani sodwa, siza kuba ziintlambo [a pool does not form alone, it is filled by many streams]. This amaXhosa metaphorical expression reflects the exquisiteness and necessity of collective diversity. Just as a pool is formed by many streams, a society or a spiritual kingdom, in the case of Revelation 7:9, is solidified by the contributions of diverse languages and cultures, hence the reference to ‘every language’.

By the same token, I need to underline that a common misconception about the post-colonial interpretation of Revelation 7:9 is the supposition that this biblical text supports a complete reversal of linguistic hierarchies, such as those that were rampant in South Africa’s imperialist periods, where historically dismissed languages should now replace dominant ones like English and Afrikaans. This common misconception, if left uncontested, could lead to a distorted idea that post-colonial efforts should focus on displacing or diminishing the former colonial languages rather than promoting legitimate linguistic plurality, coexistence and balance (see Fishbane 1980; Wendland 2014). In view of this submission, I argue that this miscalculated notion is troubling, given that it risks accelerating the cycle of exclusion and hierarchy rather than advancing an inclusive, egalitarian approach to language revitalisation. I put forward that this biblical text’s vision, as observable through a post-colonial viewpoint, is not about replacing one form of dominance with another but about affirming the equal worth of all languages and cultures. This assertion is based on the ideology that legitimate linguistic diversity, as seen in Revelation 7:9, involves celebrating each language as an essential component of a communal identity, driving coexistence rather than supremacy.

On the grounds of this argument, recognising this distinction is crucial for driving post-colonial language revitalisation efforts that genuinely honour linguistic multiplicity without repeating patterns of oppression. In support of these views, Wolff (2017:5) is of the notion that post-colonial approaches to language should not be misconstrued as advocating for the replacement of one dominant language with another, but instead should aim to dismantle the colonial legacy of monolingualism and hierarchical language structures by advancing a pluralistic ethos where all languages are afforded dignity and equal footing. It is my view, therefore, that to misconstrue this situation is to fall into the same trap of linguistic essentialism that colonial mentalities imposed – where language is seen as a zero-sum game rather than a dynamic space of coexistence and mutual development. If post-colonial language revitalisation is wrongly interpreted as an act of linguistic retribution rather than restoration, then one risks normalising cycles of exclusion instead of dismantling the very structures that made linguistic oppression possible in the first place.

By contrast, it is significant to note that Genesis 11:1–9, the biblical experience of the Tower of Babel, has continually been interpreted as God’s judgement against human pride, resulting in the dispersal of languages (Hiebert 2007:29). Nonetheless, I put forward that from a post-colonial perspective, in its universal or cardinal context, this ‘confusion’ of languages ought to be understood as a rejection of linguistic imperialism and monolingualism. One would recall that traditionally, this biblical story has been regarded as a moment of spiritual punishment where humanity’s unified language is fragmented, but a post-colonial perspective reveals it as a rejection of a singular linguistic dominance (Hiebert 2007:29). Insofar as this is noted, by diversifying languages, this biblical act symbolically disperses power and prevents any singular language from monopolising communication, decisions, culture or identity. As a result of this observation, Genesis 11:1–9, when contrasted with Revelation 7:9, the Tower of Babel’s diversity of languages is no longer a symbol of ‘confusion’ but a testament to diversity in human identity and language. Together, these two biblical verses challenge colonial hierarchies of language and invite a sober consideration of biblical texts as potential resources for linguistic decolonisation – a phenomenon that is contemporary and prevalent in South Africa’s linguistic landscape.

To the same degree, while Revelation 7:9 disperses languages to disrupt monolingual hegemony, the event of Pentecost in Acts 2:1–12 offers a counterbalance by demonstrating how linguistic diversity does not preclude unity, but rather intensifies it. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit enables individuals to speak and understand multiple languages, not by collapsing them into one imperial tongue, but by preserving their distinctiveness while ensuring mutual understanding. This moment illustrates that linguistic diversity is not inherently chaotic or divisive but is divinely orchestrated to cement inclusivity and collective understanding. So, linguistic multiplicity – rather than being a ‘curse’ of confusion – serves as a mechanism for decentralising power while allowing diverse languages to coexist harmoniously.

With special reference to the South African context, it highlights the implications of Revelation 7:9. This means that in a nation where language policies have historically marginalised indigenous South African languages, this biblical affirmation of varied languages standing before God’s throne drives a decolonial recovery of indigenous South African languages and cultures. Under these circumstances, post-colonial sociolinguistics and post-colonial biblical critique, as theoretical perspectives, both unearth how colonisers associated English and Afrikaans with education, governance, religion, theology and social mobility, rendering indigenous languages invisible and unworthy (Makalela 2015:15). In this case, Revelation 7:9 offers a counter-narrative to this history, denoting that linguistic diversity is integral to divine worship and should thus be fundamental in societal structures in South Africa and elsewhere in the global village. This vision aligns with South Africa’s post-apartheid efforts to promote multilingualism and multiculturalism while intensifying the cultural presence of indigenous languages in education, mainstream media, science and technology and public life.

Over and above these scholarly discourses, other biblical texts such as Isaiah 2:2–3, which imagines all nations flowing to the mountain of the Lord, underscore a similar theme of inclusive diversity. Unlike Revelation 7:9, which emphasises linguistic multiplicity, Isaiah 2:2–3 speaks to the gathering of nations in a central space, implying a common purpose without distorting cultural and linguistic variations. In the post-colonial South African context, this inclusivity resonates with multi-collaborative efforts to construct a ‘rainbow nation’ where different languages and ethnicities coexist within a collective national identity. This being the case, applying post-colonial sociolinguistics to this biblical text illustrates that Isaiah’s vision, like that of Revelation, challenges the monolithic imperial idea that unity requires cultural assimilation. Rather, both biblical passages endorse unity that honours and maintains linguistic and cultural differences.

Bearing these scholarly pronouncements in mind, the contemporary implications of Revelation 7:9 in South Africa are profound, particularly regarding educational policy and language revitalisation. This is based on the presupposition that post-colonial theory, as an overarching lens, advocates for dismantling linguistic hierarchies that privilege English and Afrikaans. Because of this South African reality, this biblical vision of linguistic justice affirms the significance of teaching and publishing in indigenous languages and celebrating their visibility in academic and cultural contexts. It additionally motivates South Africans to embrace indigenous languages in religious and church practices, questioning the historical hegemony of English and Afrikaans in these settings. In fact, the biblical endorsement of every language as suitable for worship illustrates a theological foundation for indigenous language advocacy within the religious and church setting, proving the cruciality of indigenous South African languages as sacred conveyors of spiritual truth.

At the same time, Revelation 7:9 has contemporary implications for the psychological dimensions of language retrieval. This is based on the premise that decolonising languages is not merely about language conservation but about restoring identity, dignity and independence to communities that were once told their languages were insignificant and useless. Inevitably, by depicting each language as meritorious of standing before God, Revelation 7:9 reaffirms that all linguistic identities have intrinsic value and worth. It stands to reason, therefore, to agree that this theological validation is central for communities whose languages are stigmatised under colonial rule. Through post-colonial sociolinguistics, this vision supports the notion that language revitalisation contributes to healing and liberating previously overlooked communities. As a Swahili proverb indicates, ulimi ni silaha, which means ‘the tongue is a weapon’, implies the power of language as a tool for independence, dignity and self-expression. Just as a ‘weapon’ protects and empowers, so does language serve as a medium through which people assert their identity, resist erasure and salvage pride in their heritage.

Isaiah 19:18

Isaiah 19:18 offers a formidable foundation for unmasking the theme of language decolonisation within a biblical and post-colonial framework. This biblical verse reads:

18: In that day five cities in Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear allegiance to the Lord Almighty.

Here, the verse presents a scenario where a traditionally oppressed language is used by a people not native to it. As Paton (1914:205) reports, the language of Canaan was oppressed by authoritative empires such as Egypt and later Babylon, which imposed their languages and cultures over Canaanite territories. This imposition sought to assimilate or replace local identities, including the Canaanite language, ultimately weakening its use, function, cultural relevance and symbolic power in favour of the language and ideology of the ruling powers (Hiebert 2007:30). For these reasons, I submit that this calculated distortion of the Canaanite language was not just linguistic oppression; it was an act of cultural suffocation, stripping an entire people of their means of self-expression and historical continuity. Such ruthless imperialist strategies mirror the injustices suffered by indigenous South African languages, where colonial regimes unapologetically trampled upon linguistic identities, enforcing a linguistic hierarchy that privileged the oppressor’s tongue while condemning native languages to the peripheries of silence and neglect.

This shift in language allegiance and identification with the oppressed language of Canaan offers an opportunity to unravel the complex chemistry of language, power and identity. In the context of post-colonial sociolinguistics, Isaiah 19:18 represents a subversion of language hierarchies, where a typically silenced language assumes a central role. In this case, the silenced language was the Canaanite language. By the same token, applying post-colonial biblical critique alongside post-colonial sociolinguistics permits one to scrutinise the symbolic decolonisation of language in this biblical text, significantly contrasting it with South Africa’s linguistic realities, where local languages like isiXhosa, Tshivenda and many others have historically been downplayed by English and Afrikaans powers and their associated authoritative structures. According to an African proverb, ‘a tree is known by its roots’. This proverb underlines the resilience and inherent value of indigenous languages and identities, even under oppressive conditions. On the one hand, this proverbial wisdom reminds one that, despite the imposed hegemony of other languages, the roots of the Canaanite language – and its cultural identity – remain intrinsic to its people. As a direct result of this fact, the lesson for the South African linguistic landscape is that much like a tree’s roots reflect its true nature, the resilience of indigenous languages signifies their intrinsic cultural value, which underlines the demand to recognise and nurture these languages as foundational to the nation’s identity despite past oppression.

In addition to these observations, I argue that from a post-colonial sociolinguistic perspective, Isaiah 19:18 ought to be viewed as a biblical symbol of reversing language hegemony, as the language of Canaan – a language historically spoken by a subjugated people – gains prominence in Egypt, a traditionally dominant nation (Pietersen 2021:3). It is evident, therefore, that this linguistic shift echoes the decolonisation pursuits in South Africa, where there is a progressing struggle to intellectualise indigenous languages within a scenery dominated by former colonial tongues. This being the case, I contend that Isaiah 19:18 symbolises an idealised future where oppressed languages are not only recognised through contemporary language policies but also celebrated by foreign powers, particularly in the context of controlling and semi-controlling domains such as education, diplomatic communication, economy and business.

Having said this, through post-colonial sociolinguistics, this biblical text raises critical questions about the cultural and spiritual implications of using an oppressed language as a medium of expression, suggesting a reclamation of linguistic identity that corroborates with broader efforts in decolonisation. Over and above these declarations, post-colonial biblical critique outlines the political dimensions of language and power entrenched in Isaiah 19:18. As seen in this biblical scripture, the ‘language of Canaan’ is more than a linguistic signifier; it exemplifies a cultural and religious reorientation. Nonetheless, by choosing to adopt the language of Canaan, Egyptian cities implicitly recognised the legitimacy and value of Canaanite culture and, by extension, its deity. This mirrors the dynamic chemistry in post-colonial South Africa, where regenerating indigenous languages not only revives linguistic practices but also holds accountable the cultural and religious impositions of colonial rule. In essence, in both Isaiah 19:18 and the South African context, language emerges as a means of opposing cultural oppression, driving an inclusive identity aligned with a previously marginalised philosophy.

Contrasting Isaiah 19:18 with other biblical scriptures, such as Acts 2:4–6 – where ‘all of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them’ – unmasks two distinct ways language could be used to influence social dynamic subtleties. Firstly, language is a means of obstructing understanding and creating separation. In other words, language serves to fragment social cohesion and consciousness, controlling group interactions by restricting mutual comprehension, as evident in Acts 2:4–6. Secondly, language is a conduit for unity and understanding. In other words, language facilitates connection, permitting varied individuals to share meaning and advance a sense of community across cultural or linguistic divides. Collectively, this contrast underlines the dichotomy or dualistic roles language plays in both fragmenting and uniting societies, depending on the motivations of those in power. This contrast solidifies human discernment of decolonisation, as reviving language in the South African context seeks not to create additional division but to nurture unity and mutual deference among diverse cultures (Hurst-Harosh 2019:113; Makhenyane 2023:351).

Above all these perceivable dialogues, I contend that probing Isaiah 19:18 through these post-colonial theoretical perspectives uncovers an aspiration for spiritual and cultural renewal. This is based on the presupposition that by harnessing the language of Canaan, Egypt symbolically joins the covenantal community, mirroring an ideal where linguistic shifts are accompanied by a transformative cultural and spiritual alignment. In post-colonial South Africa, elevating the status of indigenous languages intersects with reviving traditional cultural practices, religious belief systems and values. Owing to this indication, I put forward that Isaiah 19:18 resonates with contemporary efforts in South Africa to recover and nurture the spiritual and cultural fundamentals that were dismissed by colonial rule, positioning language as an entryway to cultural restoration. In support of these views, Wa Thiong’o (1998) suggests that:

Language does not merely communicate; it enacts identity and imparts cultural values, serving as a repository of collective memory and social cohesion. When previously reduced languages are revitalised, this process transcends mere linguistic recovery, driving cultural and spiritual renewal within communities as they reclaim autonomy over their narratives. Such endeavours underscore how language acts as a gateway to reasserting suppressed histories and traditions, offering pathways to both healing and cultural affirmation. (p. 102)

Accordingly, post-colonial sociolinguistics intensifies when examining contemporary language policies in South Africa. Thus, I argue that despite official recognition of indigenous languages, English and Afrikaans remain the preferred medium in education, mainstream media, diplomatic communication and government. For instance, the National Language Policy Framework (NLPF, henceforth) of 2003 was revised to align with the Constitution’s mandate for linguistic equity. Within this framework, the NLPF aims to intellectualise indigenous South African languages. Nevertheless, despite these constructive intentions, practical and visible implementations remain minimal for indigenous languages as English and Afrikaans still dominate official and public communication because of resource constraints and the ingrained damaging ideologies concerning indigenous languages (Kretzer & Kaschula 2021:106; Tshotsho 2013:39; Webb 1999:351).

As a result of this concern, the discrepancy between language policy and practice mirrors a residual colonial mentality that rejects indigenous languages, similar to the biblical context where Canaanite language and culture were ostracised. It stands to reason, therefore, to accept that by interrogating these dynamic undercurrents, Isaiah 19:18 suggests that legitimate linguistic decolonisation requires more than symbolic gestures like naming streets or places, or publishing translations of national documents in indigenous languages. It necessitates structural changes and transformations that elevate indigenous languages to equal status with colonial ones. In my view, this is a crucial consideration for post-colonial biblical critique, which calls for actionable transformation far beyond symbolic inclusion.

The implications of this scholarly dialogue extend to contemporary debates on linguistic justice and the preservation of local knowledge systems. This means that language decolonisation, as implied in Isaiah 19:18, is fundamental to preserving the cultural legacy and guaranteeing that indigenous voices are heard within dominant contexts. For South Africa, this underscores the significance of not only preserving indigenous languages but also utilising them to reinterpret historical and spiritual narratives from a decolonised perspective. According to Ramantswana (2024:117), this decolonial ideology corroborates with progressing post-colonial critiques that advocate for revitalising languages as a means of asserting cultural sovereignty and defiance against the vestiges of colonial oppression. In a nutshell, Isaiah 19:18’s vision of Egyptian cities speaking the language of Canaan serves as both a biblical and sociolinguistic ‘metaphor’ for linguistic decolonisation, where the adoption of an oppressed language is a step towards cultural and spiritual realignment. This biblical verse thus presents a robust parallel to South Africa’s journey towards recognising and elevating indigenous languages, underscoring the plausibility of language intellectualisation to advance unity, nobility and cultural restitution. When approached with the critical ideals of post-colonial sociolinguistics and post-colonial biblical critique, Isaiah 19:18 interrogates both biblical and contemporary societies to dismantle language-based hierarchies and embrace a more inclusive, decolonised linguistic scenery (Diko & Celliers 2024:256).

Psalm 137

Psalm 137 is a powerful lament that captures the sorrow and resistance of the Israelites exiled in Babylon, offering an incisive entry point into discerning the effects of linguistic and cultural oppression. This biblical scripture reads as follows:

1: By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept

when we remembered Zion.

2: There on the poplars

we hung our harps,

3: for there our captors asked us for songs,

our tormentors demanded songs of joy;

they said, ‘Sing us one of the songs of Zion!’

4: How can we sing the songs of the Lord

while in a foreign land?

5: If I forget you, Jerusalem,

may my right hand forget its skill.

6: May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth

if I do not remember you,

if I do not consider Jerusalem

my highest joy.

7: Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did

on the day Jerusalem fell.

‘Tear it down’, they cried,‘tear it down to its foundations!’

8: Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,

happy is the one who repays you

according to what you have done to us.

9: Happy is the one who seizes your infant

sand dashes them against the rocks.

This biblical text is explored herein through both post-colonial sociolinguistics and post-colonial biblical critique to explicate how language functions as a site of identity, historical consciousness and memory as well as opposition. With this indication in mind, one could draw connections with contemporary efforts to decolonise oppressed languages in South Africa, where indigenous languages continue to face dismissal because of the lasting impacts of colonialism and apartheid. The opening verse of Psalm 137 – ‘By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion’ (Ps 137:1) – reflects both geographical displacement and the sense of linguistic exile, as the Israelites are removed not just from their homeland but also from the sociocultural and religious practices interweaved in their language. Having said this, post-colonial sociolinguistics, which explores language as a mechanism of both control and resistance, illuminates how the Israelites’ loss of their homeland involved more than physical exile; it signified the coerced silencing of Hebrew’s sacred resonances (see Ahn 2008; Barton 2022; Boloje 2024).

At the same time, colonial powers in South Africa imposed English and Afrikaans, trivialising indigenous languages, and thus discomposing cultural identity and heritage. Bearing this assertion in mind, post-colonial biblical critique, focusing on the dynamic forces of power in biblical scriptures, assists one in observing Psalm 137 as not just a lament but as an act of defiance. This claim is on account that the psalmist’s refusal to sing Hebrew songs in a foreign land, expressed in verse 4 – ‘How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land?’ – underscores a defiance of cultural assimilation and linguistic distortion. In other words, by refusing to perform their cultural identity on the oppressor’s terms, the Israelites assert a boundary around their language. For this reason, I argue that this biblical verse bears striking relevance to South Africa’s contemporary linguistic struggles, where post-apartheid language policies and practices strive to resist the hegemony of English and Afrikaans. Yet, the legacy of colonial linguistic hegemony persists, as indigenous languages remain secondary in educational and professional settings.

In addition to these scholarly views, I put forward that this resistance to colonial censorship is escalated in verse 5, where the psalmist vows, ‘If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning’ (Ps 137:5). Within this framework, language is tightly interwoven with memory, cultural loyalty and identity. Inevitably, post-colonial sociolinguistics considers this linkage essential in contexts of opposition, where the preservation of an oppressed language serves to maintain cultural continuity. In the South African context, the memory of language is similarly interwoven with cultural survival. Concerted efforts to revitalise indigenous languages through education, mainstream media and literature represent a form of remembrance and cultural preservation, echoing the psalmist’s desire to keep Jerusalem alive within themselves. In support of this submission, an African proverbial expression suggests that ‘the river that forgets its source will dry up’. This proverbial expression captures the fundamental role of memory and heritage in cultural survival. Just as the psalmist’s vow to remember Jerusalem, the act of preserving and revitalising indigenous languages in South Africa serves as a way to remain connected to cultural origins. Just as a river sustains itself by staying rooted in its source, cultural identity is sustained through the remembrance and active practice of ancestral languages, averting the ‘drying up’ or loss of heritage.

An observable biblical passage that offers a contrasting view on linguistic diversity is Isaiah 28:11–12, which states, ‘very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people, to whom he said, ‘This is the resting place, let the weary rest’; and, this is the place of repose’ – but they would not listen’. Considering this biblical passage, foreign languages are used as an instrument to communicate spiritual messages, yet the people resist understanding. Unlike Psalm 137’s refusal to sing in a foreign land, Isaiah 28:11–12 exemplifies foreign tongues as a way to reach people, albeit with a message they are unwilling to accept. This biblical passage aligns with a post-colonial critique by unmasking how linguistic diversity is regenerated to dismantle linguistic hegemony and offer inclusivity, even if the purposive audience may resist.

Therefore, this perspective resonates with multi-collaborative efforts in South Africa to intensify indigenous languages, positioning them as essential instruments for both cultural restoration and inclusion. In addition to these scholarly expositions, I argue that Psalm 137’s imprecatory nature, particularly in its final verses, is troubling but highlights the psychological toll of oppression. For example, verse 9 – ‘happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones’ – is a cry of a community devastated by exile and erasure. However, from a post-colonial biblical critique, this biblical verse articulates the profundity of resentment against imperial domination. It serves as a testament to the psychological trauma inflicted upon oppressed communities. In South Africa, similar linguistic and cultural wounds persist, as many indigenous speakers of local languages experience the distortion of cultural capital and voice, trapped within dominant linguistic structures that subjugate their heritage and identity.

In the contemporary South African setting, the decolonisation of language entails not only revitalising indigenous languages but also blending them into controlling and semi-controlling domains such as education, legal contexts, governance, science and technology, to counter the very cultural erasure Psalm 137 describes. For example, introducing isiXhosa or any other local language as a medium of instruction in schools or creating literature in these languages recovers cultural pride and practical utility to indigenous languages, moving far beyond symbolic recognition to functional usage. This ideology agrees with post-colonial sociolinguistics, which emphasises that decolonisation ought to involve structural changes in language policy and everyday linguistic practices. In essence, Psalm 137 reminds one of the determination inherent in language as a tool of both memory and resistance. This is based on the fact that the Israelites’ determination not to forget Jerusalem speaks to the potency of language in conserving cultural memory and consciousness against imperial forces of dismissal.

Similarly, in South Africa, ongoing concerted efforts to expand indigenous language access and recognition mirror a collective resolve to restore cultural identity from colonial legacies. In fact, as more South African institutions adopt multilingual policies, the country takes constructive steps towards a linguistic scenery where ancestral languages are not merely tolerated but celebrated, thus undoing or reversing centuries of linguistic oppression. One should also be mindful of the fact that the implications of this scholarly exposition extend globally, underscoring that decolonising language requires sustained advocacy, policy reform and, crucially, a communal shift in valuing linguistic plurality. Accordingly, Psalm 137’s narrative offers both a historical testament to the agony of linguistic dispossession and a remembrance of the determination required in efforts to restore oppressed languages, affirming that true decolonisation of language is both a cultural and moral imperative. Now that the entire discussion has been presented, it is prudent to focus on the concluding remarks in an attempt to solidify the arguments that have already been made.

Conclusion

Sociolinguistics and biblical studies intersect in their examination of how language influences, preserves and communicates cultural and religious identities within communities. In this context, by scrutinising language use, variation and social context in biblical texts, sociolinguistics helps uncover the dynamic forces of power, identity and community values that underpin biblical experiences. Nonetheless, in probing the decolonisation of subjugated languages through Revelation 7:9, Isaiah 19:18 and Psalm 137 in the South African context, post-colonial sociolinguistics and post-colonial biblical critique and its theoretical underpinnings highlight the complex chemistry between language, culture and power. For instance, Psalm 137 radiantly illustrates the anguish of linguistic dispossession as the Israelites lament their inability to express their identity and faith in an alien land. This linguistic struggle significantly resonates with the experiences of indigenous South African communities, whose languages were systemically sidelined under colonial and apartheid rule. As proven during the course of the discussions herein, through post-colonial sociolinguistics and post-colonial biblical critique, it becomes evident that the struggle for linguistic freedom is profoundly entwined with concerted efforts to revive cultural identity and autonomy in the adversities of oppressive hierarchies.

On the one hand, the scholarly analysis of Psalm 137, alongside contrasting biblical texts such as the Pentecost account in Acts 2, proves how language functions both as a means of defiance and as a symbol of supernatural inclusivity. As pointed out earlier, while Psalm 137 articulates a steadfast refusal to assimilate into a foreign culture, Acts 2 celebrates linguistic diversity as a form of unity, suggesting that reviving language elevates both resistance and harmony. In the same vein, it is enthralling to note that Isaiah 19:18 reveals how language operates as both a cultural and religious bridge. In this biblical context, as pointed out earlier, the shift to speaking the ‘language of Canaan’ represents a movement towards collective religious identity and unity under a new linguistic expression of faith. In the South African context, decolonising language comprises not only defying the hegemony of colonial languages like English and Afrikaans but also actively driving the presence of indigenous languages in educational, governmental and cultural spheres. This multi-collaborative effort goes far beyond symbolic gestures, aiming to reintegrate these languages as vibrant and fundamental tools of everyday life.

To the same degree, decolonising language in South Africa today requires structural adjustments that honour indigenous languages as equal to previously dominant ones. This entails reforming educational policies, expanding mainstream media representation and intensifying the visibility of indigenous African languages in professional and academic contexts. As a matter of reality, I am of the view that by greatly advancing these efforts, South Africa may counter the lingering effects of colonial and apartheid suppression and support indigenous communities to express their identities meaningfully. This covenantal relationship aligns with the broader discourse of post-colonial theories, which advocate for a revitalisation of identity through the active restoration of cultural and linguistic facets, reshaping society to mirror a more egalitarian and equitable linguistic scenery.

In closing, scrutinising the decolonisation of oppressed languages through post-colonial ideologies and ideals in biblical and South African contexts unravels the profound resilience of language as both a symbol of cultural memory, history and consciousness, and an instrument of empowerment and liberation. I must also point out that the journey towards linguistic decolonisation is progressing, with significant strides still to be made. However, as more individuals and institutions embrace the value of indigenous languages, South Africa moves closer to a future where all linguistic identities coexist and thrive. This endeavour echoes the biblical longing for a homeland – a place where cultural and linguistic identities thrive without fear of distortion, promoting a society that values linguistic plurality as essential to its identity and collective strength. Unlike this scholarly discourse, which has an ending, the concerns and interests surrounding linguistics and the Bible are ongoing; therefore, it would be prudent to continue this debate.

Acknowledgements

The author declares that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

M.D. is the sole author of this research article.

This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.

This article received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

The data supporting this article are publicly available in the Bible.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

References