No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

YHWH’s statement to Moses, אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה , has been much discussed by biblical scholars and theologians. For much of the last century this discussion related to matters of etymology or history of religion, or the precise grammar of the text. However, recently there has been renewed interest in understanding the statement in its present context as part of the book of Exodus, and in particular its role in the call of Moses. My thesis seeks to deepen understanding of the implications of this statement through a close reading of the dialogues between Moses and YHWH. My close reading of individual dialogues involves three steps: first investigation of the way in which the narrator portrays the actions of the characters, then the manner in which the narrator portrays individual speech of the characters and finally the way in which an analysis of the dialogues utilising principles from the socio-linguistic field of Conversation Analysis adds to an understanding of the characters. Through this close reading I show that the phrase אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה is best understood as linking the meaning of the name YHWH to the verb “to be” and in particular God’s promise to “be with” Moses in 3:12. The phrase affirms both YHWH’s presence with Moses and his freedom to be present in the manner he chooses and the implications of this affirmation of presence and freedom are worked out more fully in the narrative of Exodus. In the thesis my reading of the dialogues in Exodus 3-4 shows that YHWH transforms Moses into the means by which YHWH delivers his people from Egypt and also by which YHWH is present with his people. My examination of the dialogues in Exodus 5-7 demonstrates that YHWH’s plans are accomplished by his speech which re-designates and reshapes those with and about whom he is speaking. My analysis of Exodus 19-24 finds that the dialogues demonstrate YHWH’s freedom to be present as he chooses to different people at different points. Exodus 32:7-33:11 gives further meaning and significance to the divine name in terms of YHWH’s withdrawal in response to the idolatry of the people. From the final section of dialogue, Exodus 33:12-34:35, I show that the intercession of Moses is critical to the demonstration of YHWH’s mercy and compassion. My analysis of each of these dialogues demonstrates that a key means by which YHWH is present to his people is in and through Moses.

….be very careful to do exactly as the priests, who are Levites, instruct you. You must follow carefully what I have commanded them. Remember what the LORD your God did to Miriam along the way after you came out of Egypt and what he did to Michal and Jezebel. Remember what the priests did to Athaliah in Judah (c.f Deuteronomy. 24:8b-9). These female politicians were cornered, arrested, charged, beheaded and fragmented! Only their heads (names) that were hanged in this public place, the Bible, remained. Nobody would tell that this is Miriam, Michal, Jezebel or Athaliah. Lists of their crimes stand appended to their heads and names in public. When they were all silenced and the kings had sat in their rightful places, all the people of the land rejoiced and there was peace in the cities because these women had been slain (c.f 2 Kings 11:20). So be very careful to follow instruction and rules such that you do not end up like any of them. (Embellished by the author) Indeed, Miriam, Michal, Jezebel and Athaliah are politically killed off in the Hebrew Bible. Certainly, no one would tell from the Hebrew Bible that these women were people of significant political and leadership profiles; but merely as wicked in the history of humanity. All their political significance and contributions were literary and ideologically mutilated and separated from their names and left in the wild to be eaten by stray dogs. Their decapitated and fragmented images minus their political profiles have been ingested into an ideological system that regulates gender world order and influences social, intellectual and linguistic discourses and pictorial misogynistic polemics in the modern world. Figuratively, the remains of these women have been preserved in the way politicians of the ancient times and recent past would keep remains of their opponents. Ancient rulers would preserve a head (skull) of a particular enemy. David in the Bible cuts off Goliath’s head (1 Samuel 17:51); and the Philistines cut off Saul’s head (1 Samuel 31:9). In the Roman Republic of early 1st Century BC, political enemies like Marius and Sulla were decapitated and their heads displayed in the Forum Romanum. In 1355 Marino Faliero, Doge of Venice in medieval Italy was beheaded and his head hanged in a public place for staging a coup that was aborted. English traitors especially during the Elizabethan era were mutilated and their heads customarily spiked on London Bridge and other public places. In all these mutilations, other parts of the body were never accounted for. Stray dogs and other scavengers ate them as the case was with Jezebel in 2 Kings 8. Both head and name are proper national and political identifiers of every individual. So also the name! A head and a name are good identifiers of a person’s identity and activities. In modern times, identity documents and political campaign posters bear personal names and portraits. Preserving mutilated remains of an enemy served an ideological purpose of scarring and deterring future oppositions. It also symbolised total subjugation and control of the enemy. In movies about the political history of Uganda, Idi Amin is shown speaking ridiculously to the mutilated heads of his opponents. Preserving names of female politicians in the way they are preserved in the Hebrew Bible narratives merely serves an ideological purpose. I have argued in this paper that Miriam, Michal, Jezebel and Athaliah are political women. To African postcolonial Bible readers, they are political characters that stand for unconformity, radical activism, dissension, equality and self-reification to lead their people as their male counterparts. Although theirs is leadership based on royalty (and social prestige particularly in the case of Miriam), in their literary form they experience similar chronic maladies of patriarchal stereotype as the modern women whose political participation is based on liberal democracies. They are presented as foreign and aberrant gender in the politics of their time according to the ideological standards of the Hebrew Bible narrator. Their remains in the Hebrew Bible are positioned to ideologically kill off their political significance and portray them as evil women who destabilise the natural order. The study is contextualised on women and politics in sub-Saharan Africa with Uganda and Kenya as case studies. Both Uganda and Kenya are East African countries, with similar colonial experiences. They are predominantly Christian countries and the Bible is a very significant literature in the lives of people. It is literally the Word of God that does not only prescribe a faith, but a culture, philosophy and ideologies that are perceived as holy and pristine in socio-political intercourse of the people. Though the recent histories are different between Kenya and Uganda, in both cases the rise in female influence in politics has been paralleled by a rise in linguistic and sometimes physical abuse of female politicians. The similarities between the androcentric cultural worldview of the Bible and the African cultures have fostered a negative attitude against women’s influence in national politics. The biblical image of Jezebel is often used as a summary figure of this misogyny. Jezebel, the foreign Canaanite queen turned ‘harlot’ by the Dtr redactor is used to name a political threat—a foreign gender group infiltrating the political arena in East Africa.

This thesis concentrates on clarifying the significance of the clothing imagery in the Pauline corpus. This imagery occurs in six Pauline epistles (clothing with Christ in Gal 3:27 & Rom 13:14; clothing with the new man in Col 3:9-10 & Eph 4:22-24; and clothing with the resurrection body in 1 Cor 15:49, 50-54 & 2 Cor 5:1-4). The imagery constitutes a significant aspect of Pauline theology. For the background to the Pauline clothing-metaphor, Part I looks into clothing imagery in the OT, 1 & 2 Enoch, Apocalypse of Moses, Philo, rabbinic literature, Joseph and Aseneth, The Hymn of the Pearl, Apuleius' Metamorphoses, the Roman custom of clothing, and the baptismal praxis of the ancient church. In the Old Testament, significant background is found in the concept of God's clothing Adam and Eve with garments of skins in Gen 3 :21, in various rituals of the priest being clothed with priestly garments (Ex 29:4-9; Lev 16:3-4, 10-11, 23-24; Ezek 42:13-14; 44:19; cf. Zech 3:3-5), in traditions about God's Spirit's clothing himself with a specific human being (Jdg 6:34; 1 Ch 12:18; 2 Ch 24:20), and the analogy between an eschatological transformation of the cosmos and a change of clothing (Ps 102:26). Later Jewish literature adds other emphases: the analogy between the resurrection transfiguration and the replacement of an earthly garment with a heavenly one (1 Enoch 65:15-16; 2 Enoch 22:8-10), the concept of Adam and Eve's prefall clothing (ApoM 20-21), Philo's notions of the people being clothed with either virtue or vice and of the high priest's becoming superior to others when dressed in sacred priestly garments, the idea of Adam's being clothed with splendour before the Fall in rabbinic writings, and symbolic scenes of Aseneth's attire in Joseph and Aseneth. Also important are the prince's change of garments in The Hymn of the Pearl, various scenes of Lucius' symbolic attire in his initiation to Isis in Metamorphoses, the Roman custom of exchanging the toga praetexta with the toga virilis, and the practice of putting off and putting on clothes at baptism in the earliest church. Bearing in mind the result of a study of these background documents, Part 2 undertakes an examination of the Pauline clothing metaphor. In the clothing-with-a-person passages (Gal 3:27; Rom 13:14; Col 3:9-10; Eph 4:22-24), baptismal themes and the Adam-Christ typology predominate, while in the clothing-with-the-resurrection passages (1 Cor 15:49, 50-54; 2 Cor 5:1-4), the Adam-Christ contrast is presupposed. The former passages describe a radical change in a believer's nature at baptism, when he/she is united with Christ as the second Adam, while the latter passages depict the eschatological change in the believer's mode of existence at the parousia. In brief, the Pauline clothing-metaphor suggests that the life and glory in the image of God lost in Adam has been restored in baptism in Christ, and will be consummated at the parousia.

I have investigated the situation in Galatia in Paul’s times, the relationship between Judaism and Christianity in general and the situation in Antioch in John Chrysostom’s times. All the evidence cited in my introductory chapter points to the conclusion that the situation in fourth-century Antioch is very similar to that in first-century Galatia. This study, in part two, deals with early Christian exegesis and its methods of exegesis. It appears that early Christianity took over the existing methods of exegesis which were in use in Hellenism and Judaism adapting them to meet its own needs to confront Arianism, Nestorianism and Monophysitism in the fourth century. A special reference was made to Chrysostom outlining his education, his philosophical and spiritual formation, his use of scripture. I have also dealt with Chrysostom’s use of typology and allegory, the main methods of exegesis espoused by the schools of Antioch and of Alexandria, and his system of exegesis of Paul’s letters. Having given Chrysostom’s position within early Christian exegesis, I have proceeded, in part three, to examine Chrysostom’s understanding of Paul’s statements about the Law, comparing it with that of modern scholarship. The similarities between the situation in first–century Galatia and the situation in fourth-century Antioch, are not the only reason for taking Chrysostom’s understanding of Paul seriously. Chrysostom’s ability to analyse Paul’s rhetorical strategies, his extensive knowledge of scripture and his constant interest in searching for the literal historical meaning of scripture, make him also a good reader of Paul. Finally, and more importantly, Chrysostom’s approach to the question of Paul and the Law provides a coherent line of thought and makes sense of Paul’s views as a whole. Thus, Chrysostom might have a better understanding of Paul, and for these reasons his views should be taken seriously by modern scholarship in their effort to re-evaluate and even to revise their views in order to attain a consensus on the question of Paul and the Law.

Conversion has been a neglected topic in recent New Testament research. The thesis attempts to end this neglect through the pursuit of two inter-connected aims. They are: (i) to clarify crucial theoretical issues surrounding the study of conversion and converts, so making more accessible to New Testament scholars the insights offered by recent studies of conversion in several different disciplines. (ii) to explore the understanding of conversion held by Paul and the Corinthians, so contributing to our knowledge of each, and allowing the perspectives of an advocate of conversion and those who responded to his advocacy to be compared. The structure of the thesis flows from these aims. Part 1, Studying Conversion and Converts, examines theoretical issues. The nature of conversion is discussed. Is conversion a universal phenomenon or a particular one? Is it essentially an individual phenomenon or a social one? It is concluded that conversion is best approached through particular understandings of it, but that there are some common features across time and across the boundaries of religious traditions. One of the most important of these common features is that conversion involves both a personally acknowledged transformation of the self and a socially recognised display of change. Alongside the need to understand conversion stands the need to understand converts. Recent studies recognise that converts are active in their own transformation, especially in the accounts which they offer of their conversion experience. Taking issue with dominant recent trends, it is concluded that although such conversion accounts develop they do not necessarily distort. The work on conversion of New Testament scholars Gaventa and Segal is briefly reviewed in the light of the preceding theoretical discussions, and some broad questions with which to approach particular understandings of conversion are defined. These concern expectations as to how conversion takes place, and expectations as to its consequences. Anthony Gidden's structuration theory is selected as an appropriate theoretical resource with which to pursue these questions.

The exegesis of four verses enables us to discuss whether the author uses existing material and to discern whether the teaching is in harmony with Ephesians as a whole and with Pauline teaching, especially on reconciliation. Ephesians 2:14-17 speaks of the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile through the reconciliation of both to God. This passage is not hymnic in origin, although it does reveal hymnic characteristics. These are partly due to the style of Ephesians, but mainly appear through the use of Is. 57:19 and Col. 1:20-22. Evidence of a gnostic background, to the passage is insufficient. We have an example of inclusio, where the words ()and () (v.13) are elaborated upon and then cited again (v.l7). The word peace in Is. 57:19 prompts the writer to show how Christ is our peace. The meaning of the term "middle wall" is problematical, but no suggestion is better than that of the temple barrier in Jerusalem about which the readers would know something from the Old Testament. The middle wall illustrates the divisive aspect of the law. The punctuation of vv. 15, 16 with a comma after () is to be preferred. The negative statements of breaking down and abolishing are followed by the positive of the creating of a new man and the reconciliation of both Jew and Gentile into one body () is used generally and does not refer specifically to the literal body of Christ. Christ preached this message of peace through the apostles and prophets, who were the foundation members of the church. The passage is an example of the author's love of Isaiah, whose message the Christ event has fulfilled in a fuller sense than the prophet envisaged. Not only have the Jews of the Dispersion been brought near, but also the Gentiles. This concept is in harmony with the general theme of Ephesians and Pauline teaching on reconciliation. The evidence is insufficient to support the non-Pauline authorship of Ephesians.

The Nicene Creed (AD 325), expressly states that Jesus Christ "for our salvation came down from heaven" and that He "was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried and the third day He rose again, according to the scriptures." Here the structure and sequence of soteriological events are explicitly stated in creedal formulation, where Christ's crucifixion holds the strategic centre point, where Jesus not only dies, but dies for our salvation. The Cross is the emblematic sign of Christian authenticity, the kernel of the kerygma of faith and paradoxically the preferred mechanism that God uses for salvation. Indeed, St Paul proclaimed to the world in the first century: "We preach Christ crucified a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." Even in the Gospels the apparent contradictory sign of the Messiah being nailed to a tree is highlighted, with taunts from onlookers and the last satanic tempatation, to "save yourself and come down from the Cross", is used to psychologically torment him in a last ditch attempt to abort the salvific enterprise; but salvation transparently can only come through the acceptance of the Cross. For as the great Spanish mystic and doctor of the Church St John of the Cross declares: "If you desire to possess Christ, never seek him without the Cross ... whoever seeks not the Cross of Christ, also seeks not the glory of Christ." Jesus indicates the magnetic pull of the Cross when He says in His own words: "and I, when I am lifted up from the Earth, will draw all men to myself", thus indicating the portal or ladder to heaven that the Cross symbolizes, where the divine glory shines diaphanously through the wood of the Cross. "It is as well to remember, however, that when we speak about the glory of God we are in fact speaking about the disclosure of his nature, which means that in his death, Jesus glorifies God and he himself is glorified; in other words, we see here the nature of God, and the nature of his Son. The glory of God is revealed." On Good Friday the centrality and instrumentality of the Cross is venerated, "behold the wood of the Cross on which hung the saviour of the world." The Cross is thus heavily laden with soteriological significance but we should never look at the Cross without being reminded of the resurrection, for the death and resurrection of Christ cannot be separated, since both are part of the mysterious purpose of God.