2012, Vol.18, No.3

Prohibiting Oppression of the Disadvantaged and the Aliens in Society by the Deuteronomic Reform-Movement

Han, Dong-Gu | 2012, 18(3) | pp.10~33 | number of Cited : 4

PDF

The present article studies the social reform, a part of the deuteronomic reform-movement which was taken place in the 8th-7th centuries BCE and was particularly concerned with the oppression of the socially disadvantaged and the aliens. The economic growth of the 8th century had brought about enormous changes in the Israelite society, the very cause of widened gap between the rich and the poor. The majority of the Judaean cities expanded around the time of late 8th century, which had resulted in the three times larger residential area of Jerusalem by the time of 7th century. The massive immigration of the refugees from the northern kingdom was the main cause of the expansion, alongside that of the farmers from the rural regions. Israel as a state charged its people tax and corvee, to which tributes to Assyria were added. The prolonged state of war left the farmland deserted with the reduced agricultural products. Because of the economic hardship, the rural farmers fell into debt to the rich, who took advantage of the situation to increase their wealth. Since Hezekiah the aliens/the sojourners had been a serious social problem. The theological justification to support them was definitely associated with this historical context. The present article seeks to find the exact reasons of the appearance of the aliens, particularly the historical causes of it in the 8th-7th centuries BCE. The concern for the aliens and the socially weak in Deuteronomy is examined in light of various legal ordinances. Among the ordinances are (1) the prohibition of excluding the aliens from the Sabbatical services(Deut 5:14), (2) the encouragement of various groups in society to attend the services(Deut 16:11, 14; 26: 11; cf. Deut 2:18), (3) the bringing of the tithes to help the poor(Deut 14:28-29; 26:12-13), (4) the concern for the socially disadvantaged attested in humanitarian ordinances(Deut 24:6-25:18).

Understanding the Bible within the Multi-Cultural Society - A Study on Hospitality in the Old Testament -

Pong Dae Im | 2012, 18(3) | pp.34~59 | number of Cited : 14

PDF

This study addresses the topic of hospitality in the Old Testament, particularly in an attempt to respond to the steadily increasing rate of multi-cultural families in our society and the subsequent need to understand how to treat them hospitably in our community. Hospitality, a practice of receiving and extending friendship to strangers, is a highly esteemed virtue in the Old Testament. The concept of hosting originated with the need for aid when being away from home. A stranger is welcomed into an encampment, village, or town and is given a new status as a guest, thereby removing the hostile overtones associated with the different and the unfamiliar. While Gen 18:1-8 provides an example of hospitality, the stories of Sodom(Gen 19) and Gibeah(Judg 19) accuse violations of the communities’ obligations to provide hospitality. In Gen 19, the Sodomites treat Lot as an alien and disregard him, in Judg 19, old man which treats the Levite hospitably is a resident alien just as Lot was in Sodom. Resident aliens - or ‘sojourners’ - were not qualified to function as hosts. In both instances the host, who is responsible to protect the guest, is a resident alien, while the citizens from the community attempt to rape the guest. The tragedy comes in making resident aliens serve as a community’s hospitable party, which is not respected by the men of the city. As a result, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gibeah violate the law of hospitality by harming the guests. Many similarities between Gen 19 and Judg 19 suggest that Israel is always in danger of becoming like Sodom(cf. Isa 1:10; 3:9) and hence liable to a punishment like that of Sodom(cf. Deut 29:23-24). These biblical cases help us to understand the fact that we need to treat the multi-cultural families increasing in number in our society, not as the marginal groups, but as the full members of our community.

An Interpretation of the Name of God, in Ex 3:13-15 Based on the Ancient Egyptian Understanding

Eunpyung Ju | 2012, 18(3) | pp.61~84 | number of Cited : 7

PDF

Studies on the Theology of Lev 19 on the Basis of Analysis and Comparison with other Legal Codices: Focusing on 5 Stereotyped Expressions

Cheol-Woo Park | 2012, 18(3) | pp.85~115 | number of Cited : 1

PDF

A Synchronic Reading of the Account of Moses' Failure to Enter the Promised Land in Numbers 20:2-13

Seokgyu Jung | 2012, 18(3) | pp.116~144 | number of Cited : 2

PDF

This paper is an exegetical paper on the final form of Numbers 20:2-13, which depicts Moses' failure to enter the Promised Land. This paper is not concerned about the exposing the cause of Moses' failure, but about the intention of the text. In order to disclose the intention of the text, this paper examines the final form of the text by a synchronic approach rather than a diachronic approach. First, this paper analyzes the structure and texture of the final form of Numbers 20:2-13. The extant form of Numbers 20:2-13 is portrayed in the rhetorical scheme of inclusio of the introductory exposition on the situation (20:2a) and the concluding etiology on the name (20:13). In this framework, the main block concerning the event caused by the lack of water (20:2b-12) is described in terms of a five-part concentric design as follows: a. People's negative evaluation on Moses' action (20:2b-5), b. Moses' and Aaron's response on the people's complaint (20:6a), c. YHWH's instruction (20:6b-8), b'. Moses' and Aaron's response on YHWH's command (20:9-11), a'. YHWH's negative evaluation on Moses' action (20:12). Second, the structural analysis on Number 20:2-13 exposes the literary intention of the text. In its extant form, the third major unit concerning YHWH's instructions to Moses (20:6b-8) is most highlighted by being placed at the center of the literary block (20:2b-12) in the chiastic structure, and the first and fifth major units (20:2b-5, 12) are emphasized by composing the rhetorical scheme of inclusio. In YHWH's instructions to Moses (20:6b-8), YHWH is exhibited as not only a comforter with Moses and Aaron in trouble, but also the One who provides the best possible thing for the people in need as well as the One who restores the crisis of the leadership of Moses caused by the people's protest. The framework of the account (20:2b-5, 12) illustrates that Moses was not a legitimate leader for the people as they entered Canaan by emphasizing the negative evaluations on Moses by both the people from below and YHWH from above (cf. the law of kingship in Deut 17:14-20). Third, other texts concerning Moses' transgression (Num 20:22-29; 27:12-14; Deut 32:48-52) portray YHWH's denial of Moses and Aaron in relation to their leadership and its transfer to Joshua and Eleazer. Also, the final form of Numbers 20:2-13 shows that YHWH is the only leader of the Israelites but not Moses by the comparison between YHWH's leadership and Moses' leadership (20:12-13).

A Study about the differences of the meaning of between Tetrateuch and Deuteronomy

한규승 | 2012, 18(3) | pp.145~179 | number of Cited : 0

PDF

The purpose of this paper is to search the differences of the meaning of (inheritance/possession) between Tetrateuch and Deuteronomy. The words indicating the land of promise is various in Torah. But this paper only reviews as a expression of the land of promise. In Genesis, God gave the promise of the land to the three patriarchs, Abraham, Issac and Jacob. But in Genesis, the words indicating the land of promise are mainly . In Exodus, means the place to which God leads Israel or Israel itself as the people of God. Leviticus is the most important text that describes the land of promise in the Old Testament. But is scarcely appeared in Leviticus. Leviticus mainly uses . Once is used in 25:46, it means the hired workers or strangers who live in Israel. In Tetrateuch, Numbers the most frequently uses for example, in the story of the five daughters of Zelophehad. In Numbers 27 and 36, is used 21 times. But in Numbers it indicates a personal or familial inheritance(possession). In contrast, in Deuteronomy, indicates the land of promise especially “the land which the LORD your God is giving you(2nd person singular) as an inheritance to possess”(Deuteronomy 15:4-5). It is not a personal or familial dimension. , in Deuteronomy, is used to show the promise of the land for Israel as a whole community. What is of importance, is that this idea is related to the historical background of the period of Hezekiah. In the reign of Hezekiah North Israel perished and many people flowed into Judea. Hezekiah had an ambition to make one Israel. On the basis of the historical background, E.W. Nicholson affirms that Deuteronomy was written in the reign of Hezekiah. Therefore the desire of one Israel penetrates Deuteronomy. Naturally , in Deuteronmy, is an expression of the whole community to which God gave an inheritance to possess, and is a theological statement to justify the territorial expansion involving the North Israel in the period of Hezekiah.

Rethinking the Northern Israelite Refugee Theory

Koog-Pyoung Hong | 2012, 18(3) | pp.181~206 | number of Cited : 4

PDF

It has been commonly assumed that a group of northern refugees flooded into Jerusalem after the fall of Samaria (722 BCE) and they played an important role in the ensuring religious reform in Judah. This essay reconsiders the biblical, historical, and archaeological evidence and explores its implications. The Hebrew Bible is almost entirely silent about any mass immigration from northern Israel to Jerusalem. The archaeological evidence of the expansion of the Jerusalem wall, which does prove a major societal change in Judah around the 8th century BCE, still remains inconclusive in proving the influx of northern refugees. Against the underlying assumption that the doomed Israelites would have found refugee in Judah given their ethnic tie, it is pointed out that the realpolitik around Judah and Israel at the wake of the Assyrian threat may not have allowed Hezekiah to accept Israelite refugees. To question the refugee theory is not to categorically reject the influx of Israelites; it is rather to critically rethink the implications of the ambiguity around this theory. While it is true that the refugee theory helps resolve many difficult questions around the composition history of biblical literature, the efficacy of the theory does not ensure its validity. As the uncritical basis of the theory lays bare, one must reconsider its implications to theories that are dependent upon the refugee theory. An uncritical acceptance of the refugee theory frequently resulted in a failure to pay attention to a complex dynamic involved in Judean's creative reception and reinterpration of the old Israelite tradition. It is suggested that in order to better understand this critical period in which Judah found a new self identity and went through a critical theological revolution, one must pay attention to the subtile dynamic between Judah and Israel at the aftermath of the Assyrian conquest. This will lead into a new way of understanding of the composition history of the texts that were composed or compiled in this period.

A Study on the Lamentation in the aggravation and restoration of the Healthy

김태경 | 2012, 18(3) | pp.207~234 | number of Cited : 3

PDF

KJCKorea
Journal Central

Korean Journal of Old Testament Studies 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.67

2012, Vol.18, No.3