Hope and Resilience in the Books of Jeremiah

Jeremiah is the only prophetic book that provides readers with a direct view of life in Jerusalem during the Babylonian siege and destruction of the city (588–586 bce). It also appears in two forms, the classic Masoretic Hebrew form of the text and the Septuagint Greek version of the text, each of which has its own distinctive understanding and presentation of material. Although both forms are especially concerned with destruction and exile, Jeremiah presents its vision of restoration in MT Jeremiah 30–31; 32–33 and in LXX Jeremiah 37–40. This chapter examines Jeremiah 30–33 / 37–40 in relation to the literary form and outlook of each version of the book. It begins with treatment of the formal structure and contents of the two major textual units. It then turns to the contextualization of these passages in relation to other passages that present hope, i.e., Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles in Jeremiah 29 / 36; the oracles concerning Babylon in Jeremiah 50–51 / 31–32; and the royal oracle in Jeremiah 23:1–8. The chapter proposes that each form envisions a distinctive model of hope for the future: MT Jeremiah envisions a future in which the Jerusalem temple and its Levitical priesthood constitute the future of YHWH’s eternal promise to the House of David, and LXX Jeremiah envisions a future in which the rule of a righteous Davidic monarch constitutes the future of Jerusalem and Judah in relation to the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple.

PRIMACY OF THE APOSTLE PETER IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 16,18-19

The paper discusses the problem of the proper interpretation of the Petrine text from the Gospel of Matthew 16,18-19. It is based on the mainly protestant but also orthodox and catholic commentaries to these verses. Jesus Christ bestowed on the apostle Peter the unique and supreme authority in the Kingdom of God. He changed his name from Simon to Peter to show him and others that this apostle received new dignity and mission, which is to be the rock for the future community of believers. What is more, Jesus also entrusted to Peter the “Keys of the Kingdom” in the same way like in the Old Testament king of the house of David appointed his own prime mister, royal steward by giving to him the “Key of the House of David”. Therefore Peter occupies the same office with the same supreme authority under the new jewish king, Jesus Christ. Due to this fact it also means that this office is transferred from one prime minister to another. Furthermore, to Peter was given the power of “binding and loosing” with the special protection of God called infallibility. For these reasons, the Catholic interpretation which does not ignore the jewish context and the Old Testament allusions to this passage is truly shedding the new light on the proper interpretation of this Matthew’s fragment and the role of the Apostle Peter.

The Distinctive Roles of the Prophets in the Deuteronomistic History and the Chronicler’s History

This article examines the distinctive roles of the prophets in the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua; Judges; Samuel; Kings) and the Chronicler’s History (Chronicles). It posits that the prophets are especially associated with leadership in the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH), beginning with prophetic figures such as Joshua, Deborah, and Samuel, who functioned as leaders in Israel, and continuing with the prophetic figures who played major roles in establishing and critiquing the various dynasties that came to power and ruled both Israel and Judah. It further posits that prophets play a key role in establishing and critiquing the house of David in the Chronicler’s History (ChrH). But the prophets function primarily in the ChrH to explain the significance of their subjects and the reasons why they so frequently suffered either blessing or judgment for their conduct in relation to YHWH and the Jerusalem temple.

Jerusalem

Jerusalem is the most important location in the Bible and the most researched within the realm of biblical studies. Already a Canaanite city of some standing by the Middle Bronze Age period (c. 2000–1550 bce), Jerusalem’s significance for the biblical writers begins in earnest with the portrayal of the city’s acquisition by David around 1000 bce. Jerusalem functions in the Hebrew Bible as the royal center for the House of David and the divine sanctuary for Yahweh, the God of Israel, for the next four centuries until, in 586 bce, the location is conquered and destroyed by the Babylonians. Around 515 bce the Second Temple is constructed and Jerusalem becomes a modest temple-city within the Persian Empire (c. 550–330 bce), during which time a number of biblical texts are written and revised. A century and a half after Alexander the Great’s conquest of the region, a Jewish group called the Maccabees revolted against the Greek rulers of the time (c. 167 bce) and established an autonomous kingdom with Jerusalem as its capital. The independent status of this kingdom ends, however, when the Roman general Pompey took control of Jerusalem in 63 bce and incorporated it and the region of Judea into the Roman Empire. During the reign of Herod the Great (37–4 bce), a client-king of the Romans, the temple in Jerusalem is extensively renovated and a number of other impressive building measures are carried out in the city’s precincts. This large, Roman city is the one referred to at various moments in the Gospels and in the Book of Acts, and it is the location where Jesus of Nazareth is said to have been crucified around 33 ce. Though Jerusalem is destroyed by the Romans in 70 ce after the First Jewish-Roman War, a new, heavenly Jerusalem is depicted in the later writings of the Book of Revelation.

Corvée in the Kingdom of Israel: Israelites, ‘Canaanites’, and Cultural Memory

Archaeological evidence of certain cultural traits supports the witness of some biblical passages that the (northern) kingdom of Israel was ethnically diverse, with non-Israelite populations in the northern lowlands. Texts in Judges 1 and 1 Kings 9 stating that ‘Canaanites’, etc., were subjected to forced labour, the corvée, either by Israelite tribes or by Solomon, should be regarded as texts of cultural memory, justifying the actual practice of the kingdom of Israel in the ninth and eighth centuries BCE in restricting the corvée to non-Israelites. This article proposes that these texts should be placed alongside the story of the rebellion against the house of David in 1 Kings 12, which, although in its present form is written from the point of view of Judah, carries clear traces of its origin as cultural memory in Israel. Taken together, the texts suggest that the kingdom avoided imposing the corvée on ethnic Israelites.

Like Rachel and Leah Who Together Built Up the House of Israel (kĕrāḥēl ûkĕlē’â ’ăšer bānû šĕtêhem ’et-bêt yiśrā’ēl)

The national history of the “House of Israel” was a contested history of a divided house. Maternal subunits within the house of Jacob came to define the Rachel-born northern kingdom of Israel, known as “Ephraim,” and the Leah-born southern kingdom of Judah, known as the “House of David.” Peripheral territories and nations traced their ancestry to foundational mothers whose houses had become satellite houses, no longer nested within the father’s house. Sons who inherited the satellite houses of their mothers became “seeds of women,” inheritors of a maternal covenant. Sent out from their chosen brothers in the Promised Land, unchosen sons dwelled “alongside” their brothers. Far from being reproductive “vessels” who produced male heirs to continue the tôlĕdôt of their husbands, foundational mothers become nations, kingdoms, military units (’ummōt), and household alliances. Mothers served as the building blocks for the biblical house of the father and its attendant kinship structures; their breasts and wombs defined social and political alliances within the house of the father.