Divine Violence in the Book of Samuel

Much of the drama, theological paradox, and interpretive interest in the book of Samuel derives from instances of God’s violence in the story. The beginnings of Israel’s monarchy are interwoven with God’s violent rejection of the houses of Eli and of Saul, deaths connected to the Ark of the Covenant, and the outworking of divine retribution after David’s violent appropriation of Bathsheba as his wife. Divine Violence in the Book of Samuel explores these narratives of divine violence from ethical, literary, and political perspectives, in dialogue with the thought of Immanuel Kant, Martha Nussbaum, and Walter Benjamin. The book addresses such questions as: Is the God of Samuel a capricious God with a troubling dark side? Is punishment for sin the only justifiable violence in these narratives? Why does God continue to punish those already declared forgiven? What is the role of God’s emotions in acts of divine violence? In what political contexts might narratives of divine violence against God’s own kings and God’s own people have arisen? The result is a fresh commentary on the dynamics of transgression, punishment, and their upheavals in the book of Samuel. The book offers a sensitive portrayal of God’s literary characterisation, with a focus on divine emotion and its effects. By identifying possible political contexts in which the narratives arose, God’s violence is further illumined through its relation to human violence, northern and southern monarchic ideology, and Judah’s experience of the Babylonian exile.

Jeremiah’s Non-Burial Refrain

The non-burial refrain in the book of Jeremiah is often overlooked in favor of the repeated Jeremian verb pairs “to pluck up and to pull down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant” introduced in Jeremiah 1:10. This chapter argues that the non-burial refrain serves as the book’s dominant metaphor for exile from the perspective of those left behind. The non-burial refrain testifies to conditions on the ground in sixth-century bce Judah, including beliefs about the dead and shifting burial practices, while encoding traumatic memories from the siege and fall of Jerusalem. Furthermore, the non-burial refrain functions as a vehicle by which the text of Jeremiah suggests, refutes, and revises its claims about the role of the God of Israel in the Babylonian exile. Specifically, Jeremiah explores the idea that God is responsible for the slaying and scattering of Judah, then moves to a belief that God is the one who will ultimately consecrate, inter, and gather a fallen people after cataclysmic military defeat.

Exile and Diaspora in the Bible

This essay focuses on biblical views of exile as portrayed in historiographic narrative and in prophetic and poetic literature. It considers the pre-exilic idea that exile is a punishment for unfaithfulness to God and the broader postexilic concept of the ongoing exile as a way to describe the Jewish condition in the restored Judah. Drawing on Mesopotamian documents as well as on the Bible, it constructs a picture of Jewish life in the Babylonian exile and discusses the diaspora stories of Esther and Daniel, where Jews preserved their ethnic identity and flourished. In the Bible, exile transcended the historical deportations and became an important element in postexilic Jewish identity.

„Ich bringe euch in die Wüste der Völker“ (Ez 20,35)

Among many other peculiarities of the Book of Ezekiel, the numerous movements and spatial terms mentioned in it stand out. Using the cultural-anthropological concept that underlies rites of passage and related transitional phenomena (A. van Gennep, V. Turner) some of them can be taken as elements of a transitional process. Therefore, the spatial structure in Ezek. 20 and in the overall layout of the Book of Ezekiel is used to illustrate that the Babylonian exile is a necessary liminal phase of the transition from Israel’s status as an apostate people to a new status given by JHWH.

THE DAVIDIC COVENANT IN EZEKIEL 37:15–28 AND 2 SAMUEL 7:11–16: AN INTERTEXTUAL READING / L’ALLIANCE DAVIDIQUE DANS EZECHIEL 37:15–28 ET 2 SAMUEL 7:11–16: UNE RELECTURE INTERTEXTUELLE

Reading Ezekiel 37:15–28 and 2 Samuel 7:1–16 from an intertextual perspective establishes that the text of Samuel 7:1–16, which is prior to that of Ezekiel, might have a certain influence. The first part of Ezekiel 37 (verses 1 to 14) describes the miserable condition of the Jewish people in the Babylonian exile. The text indicates that only YHWH is able to restore the people. In the second part (verse 15 to 28) the text presents the promise of God to fully restore his people and put them under a new leadership based on the Davidic Covenant that appears for the first time 2 Samuel 7:1–16. The two texts have many connections. The emphasis in the text of Ezekiel is on the promise of restoration that will come to realization under the leadership of the future Davidic Prince. The connections between Ezekiel 37:15–28 and 2 Samuel 7:1–16 are clear to the point that, cumulatively, we might suggest that the text of 2 Samuel 7:1–16 had influence on the text of Ezekiel 34:15–28. La relecture d’Ézéchiel 37:15-28 et 2 Samuel 7:1-16 d’un point de vue intertextuel établit que le texte de 2 Samuel 7:1-16, qui est antérieur à celui d’Ézéchiel, pourrait avoir une certaine influence sur celui d’Ézéchiel. La première partie d’Ézéchiel 37 (versets 1 à 14) décrit la condition misérable du peuple juif dans l’exil babylonien. Le texte indique que seul YHWH est capable de restaurer son peuple. Dans la deuxième partie (verset 15 à 28), le texte présente la promesse de Dieu de restaurer pleinement son peuple et de le mettre sous un nouveau leadership basé sur l’Alliance Davidique qui apparaît pour la première fois dans 2 Samuel 7:1-16. Les deux textes ont de nombreuses connexions et similarités. Dans le texte d’Ézéchiel l’accent est placé sur la promesse d’une restauration qui se réalisera sous la direction du futur Prince Davidique. Les connexions entre Ézéchiel 37:15-28 et 2 Samuel 7:1-16 sont claires au point que, cumulativement, nous pourrions suggérer que le texte de 2 Samuel 7:1-16 a eu une influence sur le texte d’Ézéchiel 34:15-28. <p> </p><p><strong> Article visualizations:</strong></p><p><img src="/-counters-/edu_01/0720/a.php" alt="Hit counter" /></p>

The So-called Deuteronomistic History and Its Theories of Composition

The idea of the Deuteronomistic History was invented by Martin Noth during the Second World War in order to explain the presence and the aim of deuteronomistic texts in the books of Deuteronomy to Kings. He came to the conclusion that the Deuteronomist (who was at the same time author and redactor) wrote his history shortly after 586 bce in order to explain the reasons for the fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian Exile. In North America, Cross transformed Noth’s theory by pointing out that many deuteronomistic texts should be understood as reflecting the reign of King Josiah. The first edition of the Deuteronomistic History became in the view of Cross and his numerous followers a propaganda work for the reign of Josiah. In Europe, Rudolf Smend and his students set up a theory of three exilic and postexilic layers of the Deuteronomistic History, whereas in the last decades many other scholars reject the theory of a Deuteronomistic History. This article will try to show that the best approach to Noth’s theory is to combine the models of Cross and Smend. Instead of a Deuteronomistic History, one should better speak of a “Deuteronomistic library” which was compiled in three stages in the seventh century bce, during the Babylonian exile, and in the first decades of the Persian period.

The Prophet of Second Chances: Jonah, Israel and Assyria and their Missed Opportunities for Redemption

The author of the Book of Jonah carefully selected the prophet Jonah ben Amittai, mentioned briefly in 2 Kings 14:23–29, to be the anti-hero of his tale. We may integrate knowledge from the historical context of this prophet’s lifetime in the eighth century bce to see structural parallels between the sinful actions, Yhwh’s merciful responses to the actions, and the continued sinful actions, of Jonah, Israel and Assyria. Jonah becomes the prophet of second chances: for Israel, for himself, for the Assyrians, and then for the Judean audience, either in the Babylonian exile or thereafter, in a work written in agreement with the theological paradigm of the Deuteronomistic histories that attempt to demonstrate Yhwh’s mercy.

Memahami Penerapan Taurat Pada Masa Yesus dan Implikasinya Dalam Menghayati Firman Tuhan Pada Masa Kini

The development of the Jewish nation in observing the Torah from the time of the Babylonian exile to the time of Jesus' presence in Judea continued, both amidst the changing cultural effects of politics on the existing government. The Torah is a reference for the Jewish people to live by in worship and in their daily life. The Jewish Torah strictly rules the norms relating to personal and social morals. The material of the Torah had developed at the time of Jesus, been added with interpretations of the 'letters' of the Torah, new attitudes of behavior, which were increasingly distant and increasingly difficult to do. The way they understand the Torah is seen in the attitude and manner of the teachings of Jesus. The scribes were adept at interpreting the Torah literally with convoluted explanations. Jesus declared that He came to fulfill the Torah. The application of the application of the Torah for the present time appears in spiritual values such as spiritual understanding of God's Word, Bible study, understanding the current passages of the Torah, as well as the need for one's qualifications to live the Word of God. Therefore, today we need hermeneutic principles so that we don't misinterpret the Bible.Perkembangan bangsa Yahudi dalam melakukan Taurat sejak dari masa pembuangan di Babel sampai pada masa kehadiran Yesus di Yudea terus berlanjut, baik di tengah perubahan budaya maupun dampak politik pada pemerintah yang ada saat itu. Taurat menjadi acuan pegangan hidup bangsa Yahudi dalam ibadah dan dalam hidup sehari-hari. Taurat orang Yahudi sangat ketat mengatur norma-norma yang menyangkut moral pribadi dan sosial. Materi Taurat sudah berkembang pada masa Yesus, ditambah dengan tafsiran-tafsiran ‘huruf’ Taurat, pedoman sikap tingkah laku, yang semakin jauh dan semakin sulit dilakukan. Cara mereka memahami Taurat yang terlihat pada sikap dan cara menanggapi ajaran Yesus. Para ahli Taurat mahir dalam menginterpretasikan Taurat secara harafiah dengan keterangan berbelit-belit. Yesus menyatakan bahwa Ia datang untuk menggenapi Taurat. Implikasi penerapan Taurat untuk masa kini muncul pada nilai-nilai rohani seperti kebangunan rohani memahami Firman Tuhan, pendalaman Alkitab, memahami perikop-perikop Taurat untuk masa kini, serta perlu kualifikasi seseorang dalam menghayati Firman Allah. Maka untuk itu di masa kini perlu prinsip-prinsip Hermeneutik agar tidak keliru dalam menafsir Alkitab.