This analysis considers aniconic rhetoric in Hosea, Second Isaiah, and Ezekiel, in order to assess commonality and difference with respect to prophetic and priestly perspectives of the divine image because interpreters draw on the prophetic literature in discussions of the thought of Gen 1,26-27. There is greater similarity in thought between Second Isaiah and Gen 1,26-27 as well as greater tension between Ezekiel and the first imago Dei passage than accounted for previously, and almost no commonality with Hosea. Furthermore, the prophets diversify the number and type of divine images as a means to resist idolatry.
The question of Paul's prophet-like apostolate has gained renewed interest due to the "Radical New Perspective", claiming that Paul remained fully within the confines of his Jewish identity. His prophetic call to become an apostle (Galatians 1) serves to substantiate that. The only new thing is that Paul came to a new understanding of the time, i.e. the time for the ingathering of the Gentiles had arrived (Pamela Eisenbaum). The present article argues that the prophetic model is not sufficient to explain how the Damascus event influenced the apostle's theology and mission. This event initiated a process of "slow conversion" as well.
This article is about the problematic identity of Malky-sedeq, in relation to his 'adherents' (qdc yklm lrwn) and YHWH. The method adopted analyzes the 11QMelch text, considered one of the most important Qumran MSS that mentions the figure of an 'anointed' person, the biblical passages cited in the same MS and a few other MSS from Qumran. In the eschatological jubilee Malky-sedeq, 'anointed' by a divine decree, performs the duties of a prophet-herald, a priest and a king for the benefit of his 'adherents' (lrwn), and proclaims freedom through the expiation of sins and the defeat of the 'adherents of Belial' (l(ylb lrwn).
The prophetic narrative Am 7,10-17 is understood as a text written for its present context, viz. the visions of Amos. Its intention is to explain the enigmatic Kn) in the third vision. Having been the subject of interpretation already in Am 7,9 and 9,1aa.4b, this time the Kn) is identified with the person of the prophet himself. Amos, the Kn), personifies the divine word. Therefore the text proves to be a Midrash which illustrates that innerbiblical exegesis and theology are closely related to each other in this particular case.
Recent scholarship interprets Isaiah 24,14-16 in light of a “prophetic disputation pattern” genre, which sees the praise in vv. 14-15 as an assertion and the “I” statement in v. 16b as the counter-assertion, thus, correcting the assertion in vv. 14-15. This article seeks to challenge this interpretation and argue that the “I” statement in v. 16b does not need to function as a “counter-assertion” to the praise in vv. 14-15 but, rather, as introducing the proclamation of judgment for the unrighteous (v. 16c).