The crux of Jeremiah’s message depicted in the book of Jeremiah is the upcoming Babylonian invasion on Judah as a result of their sins and the unusual call on Judah to yield to the Babylonians. Jeremiah’s prophecy to the Judeans claimed that foreign invasion would result in the destruction of the nation and exile of its inhabitants. For this, he faced grave animosity from the recipients of his message especially the kings and the prophets and he even suffered persecution under them. The reasons for the hostility against him as portrayed in the book are investigated. The book of Jeremiah highlights that after the invasion, the Babylonians showed a special concern to Jeremiah and gave him privilege to choose whether he would go to Babylon or stay behind in Judah. Strangely, the prophet, who emphasized that the nation of Judah should not resist the Babylonian rule and should be exiled to Babylon, when given a choice, chose to stay behind in Judah. This appears to be a strange response of Jeremiah toward Babylonian exile. Also, when the Johanan faction forced Jeremiah to flee from Judah and find asylum in Egypt to escape another suspected Babylonian threat, Jeremiah responds negatively. The various responses of the kings, prophets and Jeremiah toward the destruction and exile require explanation. At the outset, the reason why there was fierce hostility against Jeremiah’s message appears to be Judah’s reluctance to be subdued by a foreign nation as the biblical text portrays. However, the book of Jeremiah appears to use many metaphors to point to the reasons for resentment against Jeremiah and his message. The study of the metaphors in Jeremiah employing cognitive linguistics methodology, using conceptual metaphor theory and conceptual blending theory has shown the interconnectedness of the metaphors and the meanings it implies. The metaphors of “destruction” and “exile” are found to be connected to the concept of shame. Jeremiah’s prediction of the forthcoming destruction of the land, cities, Temple, exile of Judeans, collapse of the Davidic throne and all kinds of calamities that would befall the city of Jerusalem and the nation of Judah is found to be associated with “shame.” Likewise, the metaphor of “restoration” is found to be connected to the concept of honour. Jeremiah’s prophecy of “restoration” is portrayed as replenishment of land, rebuilding of cities, return of the exiles, and restoration from all kinds of calamities termed as “return of honour.” This shows that the concepts of honour and shame play a key role to explain the antagonistic responses toward Jeremiah’s prophecy of the Babylonian invasion and exile. Also, by using conceptual metaphor analysis, Jeremiah’s reluctance to go to Babylon or Egypt can be explained as his anticipation to witness the restoration of the nation of Judah and return of its honour as Yahweh had promised.

Despite the fact that the majority of scholars agree that Paul’s letter to the Romans was written to address the Judean-Gentile ethnic divide in Rome, there is still a continued failure to follow through with the avenues that this position opens up for the study of Romans. Traditionally, Paul’s letter to the Romans has been read as a theological tractate, a reading that assumes an ideational or theological interpretation of the letter to the exclusion of Paul’s ethnic rhetoric present in the letter and how it might have related and even addressed the tangible relations between real-world Judeans and Gentiles in first century antiquity. This study investigates just that: how might Paul’s ethnic rhetoric have addressed the Judean- Gentile ethnic divide in Rome. After the introduction, the study reviews the current state of scholarship with regard to Paul and ethnicity in Romans. This then is followed by an elaborate socio-historical exploration of Judean-Gentile ethnicities and relations in ancient antiquity and the specific Roman context into which Paul’s letter was addressed. The impact of those relations to the origins of the early Christian movement in Rome and significant points of coherence between the socio-historical context and Paul’s letter are also established. Having established the socio-historical context, Paul’s ethnic rhetoric in Romans 1-4 is probed for how it might have addressed the Judean-Gentile ethnic divide and realised unity among them. / MA (New Testament), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

Despite the fact that the majority of scholars agree that Paul’s letter to the Romans was written to address the Judean-Gentile ethnic divide in Rome, there is still a continued failure to follow through with the avenues that this position opens up for the study of Romans. Traditionally, Paul’s letter to the Romans has been read as a theological tractate, a reading that assumes an ideational or theological interpretation of the letter to the exclusion of Paul’s ethnic rhetoric present in the letter and how it might have related and even addressed the tangible relations between real-world Judeans and Gentiles in first century antiquity. This study investigates just that: how might Paul’s ethnic rhetoric have addressed the Judean- Gentile ethnic divide in Rome. After the introduction, the study reviews the current state of scholarship with regard to Paul and ethnicity in Romans. This then is followed by an elaborate socio-historical exploration of Judean-Gentile ethnicities and relations in ancient antiquity and the specific Roman context into which Paul’s letter was addressed. The impact of those relations to the origins of the early Christian movement in Rome and significant points of coherence between the socio-historical context and Paul’s letter are also established. Having established the socio-historical context, Paul’s ethnic rhetoric in Romans 1-4 is probed for how it might have addressed the Judean-Gentile ethnic divide and realised unity among them. / MA (New Testament), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014