The Old Testament psalms of praise, which expressed the awe and joy of being in the presence of God, presented the early Christians both text and model for the expression of their joy that in Jesus Christ God had revealed himself.

In this article, the concept of inclusivity in the Old Testament is investigated and the theology of 'Otherness' is discussed broadly. Various authors discuss the 'Otherness' in biblical Israel. These views are critiqued and a conclusion is reached that an inclusive reading in the Old Testament, specifically of the known exclusive texts in the Hebrew Bible, is a possibility. To argue for inclusivity in the Old Testament, a view of hospitality is considered and a literary review of (...) inclusive texts is conducted, namely the Books of Ruth, Jonah, Ecclesiastes, Esther and some Deuterocanonical texts. (shrink)

Discernment is one of the concepts that urge each and everyone to think critically and anew. The concept of a never-ending spiral of thinking is very familiar in the circles of reformed churches. This concept is also known from the wisdom literature in the Old Testament. The realisation that you do not know, means approaching the ability to grasp something of wisdom. In order to find out what the Old Testament is saying about 'discern', I did a textual (...) research on the two Hebrew words: ”•- and ”•- I apply the results of this research to the context of the church attempting to find out what the church's responsibility is with regards to what is really important. (shrink)

What the Old Testament says about wealth and poverty cannot be taken as prescriptive for any modern society, but its emphasis on the fate of the powerless prompts us to ask how our society deals with those unable to protect themselves from the depredations of others.

The present article revisits the issue of messianism, particularly as it finds its expression in the Davidic kingship tradition, that is, the belief concerning a Davidic Messiah. Since Old Testament messianic hope is inseparably associatied with the dynasty of David a study that traces the various perspectives concerning the Davidic Messiah chronologically and canonically can bring a contribution to this important Old Testament theme, too often neglected. Thus, the study shows that the belief in the coming of a (...) Davidic Messiah is a prominent eschatological theme in the Old Testament. Its roots can be traced back to the historical covenant made by Yahweh with David, which receives hyperbolic and symbolical dimensions in the royal Psalms, and a full-fledged eschatological orientation in prophetic writings. The monarchic prophets: Isaiah, Micah, Amos, and Hosea draw on the covenant promises to David to ground their message regarding the coming of a ‘new David’, who would destroy the wicked, protect the poor and oppressed, and institute an eternal era of peace, justice, and righteousness. In the context of the Babylonian exile, Jeremiah and Ezekiel foresee that God will bring forth a righteous ‘shoot’ of Davidic line to reunite the nation and shepherd God’s people. In the post-exilic period, Zechariah underscores the promise that David’s son will build a house for Yahweh, moving from the initial historical focus on Zerubbabel and his role, to the eschatological expectation of the one and only messianic figure that will bring the final restoration. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:ICONOCLASM in the OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS Peter Goldman Westminster State College ofSalt Lake City Acentral problem for any monotheistic religion is distinguishing worship of the one true God from idolatry in all its forms. René Girard's pioneering interpretation ofthe Judeo-Christian scriptures clarifies this distinction by recourse to an ethical conception ofthe sacrificial: False religion or idolatry is essentially sacrificial, while the Judeo-Christian tradition opposes the sacrificial in all (...) its myriad forms. As Girard explains, the Passion narrative makes clear that the sacrificial or scapegoat victim, Christ, is innocent. The violence inflicted upon Christ is human, not divine. The Gospels thus reveal the violence that hides behind the sacred. Religious practices that further sacrificial violence are idolatrous, worshiping violence in the guise ofthe sacred.1 The ethical simplicity of the Girardian distinction between true faith and idolatry is complicated, however, by the issue of representation. According to the Old Testament, the one true God cannot be represented by images or figures of any kind, while idols typically take figurai form. From a biblical perspective, therefore, the question ofform is central to an understanding of idolatry. The Old Testament ban on images has never been investigated from a Girardian perspective. In this essay I apply Rene Girard's anthropological insights to the subject oficonoclasm in the Old and New Testaments. More specifically I address the second command-ment, the famous ban on "graven images," and the problem of representing God. From the per- ' For a fuller treatment ofGirard's interpretation ofChristianity in relation to the sacrificial, see his Things Hidden since the Foundation ofthe World 84Peter Goldman spective ofGirard's "fundamental anthropology" there are two basic issues in this regard. The first is the ethical function of the ban on images; how does the second commandment function ethically to preserve the human community in the Bible? Second, is the ban on images sacrificial as understood in Girardian terms? Or is it anti-sacrificial and therefore ethically progressive? The second commandment reads: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth : Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God" (KJV, Exod. 20.4-5). At first glance, this commandment might appear as an expression ofthe most primitive form ofreligious taboo. A specific cultural activity is arbitrarily forbidden under threat of punishment. The taboo on images, unlike the law against murder for example, has no obvious moral dimension. Images of any kind must be violently expelled —sacrificed, as it were—for no immediate reason. According to the second commandment, any attempt to represent God or his creation by images is a profane violation of his "jealous" nature; the second commandment therefore often finds expression in the violent destruction ofsocalled idolatrous images. Acts oficonoclasm directed againstthe images of foreign gods are quite common in the Old Testament. Nevertheless, I argue here thatthe second commandment is in practical terms ethically progressive and anti-sacrificial. It actually questions and underminesthe whole sacred-profane dichotomy. Indeed, the ban on images is ultimately a secularizing influence crucial for the development of modernity. I also address the Christian acceptance of divine images, which has often been understood as a reversal of the Judaic ban on figurai representations. In the interpretation of iconoclasm that I am proposing here, however, the image ofChrist on the cross can be seen as a logical development of the second commandment rather than its contradiction. I. The second commandment in context In the Old Testament, the giving of the second commandment is associated with the Exodus from Egypt and the Hebrew rejection of Egyptian religion and culture. In Herbert Schneidau's book Sacred Discontent, he argues persuasively that Hebrew monotheism is first of all a reaction against pagan polytheism. Schneidau writes, "The JudeoChristian tradition defines itselfas opposed to a pagan world which it sees Iconoclasm in the Old and New Testaments85 as essentialIy mythological"(12). Further, "TheHebrews habitually defined themselves negatively, by their differences from their neighbors" (51). Schneidau explains: We find... (shrink)

This article is an Introduction to a translation of ‘Zur Beurteilung der Schrift Das Wesen des Christentums’ by Ludwig Feuerbach. To my knowledge, no English translation of this essay currently exists. It was published in February 1842 and functions as both a general reply to critics of his 1841 book The Essence of Christianity, as well as a specific response to the claim of an anonymous reviewer that Feuerbach’s interpretation of religion was the same as that of his fellow Young (...) Hegelian Bruno Bauer. Besides capturing a central moment in Feuerbach’s development between The Essence of Christianity and his well-known works of 1842–4, the essay also sheds light on the rest of the Young Hegelian movement and provides crucial context for some of Marx’s later comments on Feuerbach and his philosophy. (shrink)