Abstract This work offers a theoretically informed analysis of the characterization of maternity in religion using a spatial lens. The maternal body as a space is used as an analytical framework to discuss how Mary’s pregnancy is located and spatialized in Christianity. Through examining selected medieval Marian iconography, this work discusses what kind of space Mary’s body represents in the Christian doctrine. Analysis shows three central themes on the characterization of the maternal body as a space: (1) as a transitional space, (2) as a landmark, and (3) as a liminal space. The images of Marian pregnancy show that the maternal body is beyond its biological purpose in the Bible, but serves as a space that enables various interactions and spiritual events. The examination of Mary’s maternal body as a space offers an alternative perspective to discuss Mary’s character as a point of interface for Christian doctrines, biblical periods, and the Scriptures. In many ways, understanding Mary’s maternal body as a space speaks about the complexities and unveiled aspects of maternity’s role in religion. This work hopes to spark further discussions on how the maternal body intersects with spatiality in the context of religion.
{"title":"The Maternal Body as a Space: Examining the Visuality of Marian Pregnancy in Late Medieval Europe","authors":"Aireen Grace T. Andal","doi":"10.1515/opth-2020-0163","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2020-0163","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This work offers a theoretically informed analysis of the characterization of maternity in religion using a spatial lens. The maternal body as a space is used as an analytical framework to discuss how Mary’s pregnancy is located and spatialized in Christianity. Through examining selected medieval Marian iconography, this work discusses what kind of space Mary’s body represents in the Christian doctrine. Analysis shows three central themes on the characterization of the maternal body as a space: (1) as a transitional space, (2) as a landmark, and (3) as a liminal space. The images of Marian pregnancy show that the maternal body is beyond its biological purpose in the Bible, but serves as a space that enables various interactions and spiritual events. The examination of Mary’s maternal body as a space offers an alternative perspective to discuss Mary’s character as a point of interface for Christian doctrines, biblical periods, and the Scriptures. In many ways, understanding Mary’s maternal body as a space speaks about the complexities and unveiled aspects of maternity’s role in religion. This work hopes to spark further discussions on how the maternal body intersects with spatiality in the context of religion.","PeriodicalId":42436,"journal":{"name":"Open Theology","volume":"7 1","pages":"256 - 270"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42849636","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article provides a theological reading of Acts 6–7, combining biblical and social-scientific insights to support constructive Christian engagement with the phenomena of twenty-first century migration. It responds broadly to US-American migratory phenomena, while drawing on insights from the Bible, migration studies, and the author’s own work with Colombian victims of forced migration. The article begins with an exegetical examination of the dispute between Hebrews and Hellenists in Acts 6 and Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, arguing that migratory issues underlie both the conflicts in these texts and the theological arguments Stephen adduces in his own defense. These biblical-theological reflections are then supplemented with an introduction to two social-scientific concepts that have been influential in migration studies, specifically, the notions of identity hybridity and migrant integration (as opposed to assimilation). The article demonstrates how the book of Acts reflects the benefits of healthy forms of identity hybridity and migrant integration and commends similar approaches for contemporary migrants and Christian communities in the Americas (both the United States and Colombia).
{"title":"What is the Place of My Rest? Being Migrant People(s) of the God of All the Earth","authors":"Christopher M. Hays","doi":"10.1515/opth-2020-0154","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2020-0154","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article provides a theological reading of Acts 6–7, combining biblical and social-scientific insights to support constructive Christian engagement with the phenomena of twenty-first century migration. It responds broadly to US-American migratory phenomena, while drawing on insights from the Bible, migration studies, and the author’s own work with Colombian victims of forced migration. The article begins with an exegetical examination of the dispute between Hebrews and Hellenists in Acts 6 and Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, arguing that migratory issues underlie both the conflicts in these texts and the theological arguments Stephen adduces in his own defense. These biblical-theological reflections are then supplemented with an introduction to two social-scientific concepts that have been influential in migration studies, specifically, the notions of identity hybridity and migrant integration (as opposed to assimilation). The article demonstrates how the book of Acts reflects the benefits of healthy forms of identity hybridity and migrant integration and commends similar approaches for contemporary migrants and Christian communities in the Americas (both the United States and Colombia).","PeriodicalId":42436,"journal":{"name":"Open Theology","volume":"7 1","pages":"150 - 168"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/opth-2020-0154","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43965079","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In this article, I examine the biblical commentary prefaces of Theodoret of Cyrus (d. 458), particularly the exegete’s presentation of his self-image in relation to his predecessors in the Greek exegetical tradition. I contend that in addition to its introductory function, the biblical commentary preface provided the context in which the exegete could rhetorically style himself vis-à-vis the prior tradition, articulating his own skills, credentials, and distinctive interpretive approach. Of Theodoret’s nine biblical commentaries, I focus particularly on the prefaces of his Commentary on the Song of Songs, Commentary on Daniel, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, Questions on the Octateuch, and Commentary on the Psalms, given that in these five, we find Theodoret remarking explicitly on the prior interpretive tradition. I demonstrate that at times Theodoret engages with the prior tradition with a critical tone, and at others, he shows respectful deference to his predecessors. In every case, however, his comments serve the rhetorical end of presenting himself as both an authoritative exegetical inheritor and curator of the prior interpretive tradition. The overarching argument of this article then is that Theodoret fashions his own identity as an exegete by making his relative late appearance on the exegetical scene work to his advantage, claiming that an authoritative interpreter of scripture is one who inherits and curates the exegetical legacy and traditions of the prior tradition. In other words, Theodoret overcomes the (rhetorical) problem that others have previously produced commentaries on the biblical book by claiming that the true authoritative interpreter is in fact one who knows both scripture and the prior tradition intimately, and that the exegete’s role at this stage in the tradition is to faithfully transmit the most fitting comments of others.
{"title":"Theodoret of Cyrus and His Exegetical Predecessors: A Study of His Biblical Commentary Prefaces","authors":"Miriam De Cock","doi":"10.1515/opth-2020-0175","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2020-0175","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article, I examine the biblical commentary prefaces of Theodoret of Cyrus (d. 458), particularly the exegete’s presentation of his self-image in relation to his predecessors in the Greek exegetical tradition. I contend that in addition to its introductory function, the biblical commentary preface provided the context in which the exegete could rhetorically style himself vis-à-vis the prior tradition, articulating his own skills, credentials, and distinctive interpretive approach. Of Theodoret’s nine biblical commentaries, I focus particularly on the prefaces of his Commentary on the Song of Songs, Commentary on Daniel, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, Questions on the Octateuch, and Commentary on the Psalms, given that in these five, we find Theodoret remarking explicitly on the prior interpretive tradition. I demonstrate that at times Theodoret engages with the prior tradition with a critical tone, and at others, he shows respectful deference to his predecessors. In every case, however, his comments serve the rhetorical end of presenting himself as both an authoritative exegetical inheritor and curator of the prior interpretive tradition. The overarching argument of this article then is that Theodoret fashions his own identity as an exegete by making his relative late appearance on the exegetical scene work to his advantage, claiming that an authoritative interpreter of scripture is one who inherits and curates the exegetical legacy and traditions of the prior tradition. In other words, Theodoret overcomes the (rhetorical) problem that others have previously produced commentaries on the biblical book by claiming that the true authoritative interpreter is in fact one who knows both scripture and the prior tradition intimately, and that the exegete’s role at this stage in the tradition is to faithfully transmit the most fitting comments of others.","PeriodicalId":42436,"journal":{"name":"Open Theology","volume":"7 1","pages":"445 - 460"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67246890","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract All commentators agree that Isaiah 16:1–5 is about refugees, yet the passage’s implications for forced migration have not yet been investigated. This article argues that it contains a prophetic call by Isaiah, speaking with God’s authority, that Jerusalem should welcome the Moabite refugees who have fled there for safety. Isaiah tells Jerusalem that by welcoming these refugees they are participating in the coming of a Kingdom and a Davidic King who will rule with justice, righteousness, love, and faithfulness.
{"title":"“A Throne Will Be Established in Steadfast Love”: Welcoming Refugees and the Davidic Kingdom in Isaiah 16:1–5","authors":"Barnabas Aspray","doi":"10.1515/opth-2020-0169","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2020-0169","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract All commentators agree that Isaiah 16:1–5 is about refugees, yet the passage’s implications for forced migration have not yet been investigated. This article argues that it contains a prophetic call by Isaiah, speaking with God’s authority, that Jerusalem should welcome the Moabite refugees who have fled there for safety. Isaiah tells Jerusalem that by welcoming these refugees they are participating in the coming of a Kingdom and a Davidic King who will rule with justice, righteousness, love, and faithfulness.","PeriodicalId":42436,"journal":{"name":"Open Theology","volume":"7 1","pages":"426 - 444"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47112079","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The Book of Ben Sira was popular in the early Christian church and influenced the Church Father Augustine (354–430). He adopts the person of Wisdom as a divine mother and adapts her within the context of the early Christian church. He links to Mother Wisdom a wisdom theology, in which Jesus is her envoy. Augustine describes Mother Wisdom as an eternal nourishing divine mother. She has a permanent revelatory status by continuously giving life-giving power, which she mediates through Jesus of Nazareth. He presents her grace which she has prepared for the competentes (the candidates for Baptism), who are working towards initiation into Christian Faith. Mother Wisdom serves as hostess in biblical Wisdom literature. For Augustine, Jesus Christ has taken this place. Mother Wisdom serves instead the angels and the spiritual persons as a representative of divine nourishment.
{"title":"The Influence of Mother Wisdom on Augustine","authors":"Kitty Bouwman","doi":"10.1515/opth-2020-0155","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2020-0155","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Book of Ben Sira was popular in the early Christian church and influenced the Church Father Augustine (354–430). He adopts the person of Wisdom as a divine mother and adapts her within the context of the early Christian church. He links to Mother Wisdom a wisdom theology, in which Jesus is her envoy. Augustine describes Mother Wisdom as an eternal nourishing divine mother. She has a permanent revelatory status by continuously giving life-giving power, which she mediates through Jesus of Nazareth. He presents her grace which she has prepared for the competentes (the candidates for Baptism), who are working towards initiation into Christian Faith. Mother Wisdom serves as hostess in biblical Wisdom literature. For Augustine, Jesus Christ has taken this place. Mother Wisdom serves instead the angels and the spiritual persons as a representative of divine nourishment.","PeriodicalId":42436,"journal":{"name":"Open Theology","volume":"7 1","pages":"238 - 247"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/opth-2020-0155","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43162099","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Editor’s Introduction to the Topical Issue “Reception of the Biblical and Patristic Heritage: Case Studies and Reflections on Theory and Method”","authors":"Miriam De Cock","doi":"10.1515/opth-2020-0186","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2020-0186","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42436,"journal":{"name":"Open Theology","volume":"7 1","pages":"626 - 630"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46324651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Recently, Yujin Nagasawa has argued that “systemic suffering” – suffering inherent in the evolutionary process – poses a problem for existentially optimistic theists and atheists who think that the world is overall good and therefore are happy and thankful to be alive in it. In short, he shows that it is difficult to consistently believe that the world is overall good when also recognising the existence of systemic suffering. In this article, I evaluate a sceptical response to the problem. The idea behind the response is a sort of scepticism according to which we do not know whether our knowledge about the realm of values is representative. I argue that the response fails, but that theism in conjunction with such scepticism succeeds. Atheism in conjunction with such scepticism, on the other hand, does not. I also argue that atheists can at least consistently hope that the world is overall good, despite systemic suffering. Finally, I answer objections and conclude.
{"title":"The Sceptical Response to the Existential Problem of Systemic Suffering","authors":"Francis Jonbäck","doi":"10.1515/opth-2020-0151","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2020-0151","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recently, Yujin Nagasawa has argued that “systemic suffering” – suffering inherent in the evolutionary process – poses a problem for existentially optimistic theists and atheists who think that the world is overall good and therefore are happy and thankful to be alive in it. In short, he shows that it is difficult to consistently believe that the world is overall good when also recognising the existence of systemic suffering. In this article, I evaluate a sceptical response to the problem. The idea behind the response is a sort of scepticism according to which we do not know whether our knowledge about the realm of values is representative. I argue that the response fails, but that theism in conjunction with such scepticism succeeds. Atheism in conjunction with such scepticism, on the other hand, does not. I also argue that atheists can at least consistently hope that the world is overall good, despite systemic suffering. Finally, I answer objections and conclude.","PeriodicalId":42436,"journal":{"name":"Open Theology","volume":"7 1","pages":"102 - 110"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/opth-2020-0151","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47851680","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract When David ben Jesse’s triumphant return from battle in 1 Sam 18 causes King Saul to despise him, the wheels are set in motion to make David an asylum seeker, refugee, and return migrant. It is burdened with those traumatic experiences that he is announced king in 2 Sam 2. What follows is a narrative of familial conflict and fracture, involuntary migration for David again (2 Sam 15), and a final return (2 Sam 20). From this point, David lives a sedentary life. Although this is an atypical summary of the narrative in 1 Sam 18–2 Kings 2, it foregrounds the important role involuntary migration plays in its plot. This article will explore that story, looking especially at how David’s attitude toward mobility as king is implicitly rejected by the narrative.
{"title":"On the Road Again: King David as Involuntary Migrant","authors":"C. Strine","doi":"10.1515/opth-2020-0171","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2020-0171","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract When David ben Jesse’s triumphant return from battle in 1 Sam 18 causes King Saul to despise him, the wheels are set in motion to make David an asylum seeker, refugee, and return migrant. It is burdened with those traumatic experiences that he is announced king in 2 Sam 2. What follows is a narrative of familial conflict and fracture, involuntary migration for David again (2 Sam 15), and a final return (2 Sam 20). From this point, David lives a sedentary life. Although this is an atypical summary of the narrative in 1 Sam 18–2 Kings 2, it foregrounds the important role involuntary migration plays in its plot. This article will explore that story, looking especially at how David’s attitude toward mobility as king is implicitly rejected by the narrative.","PeriodicalId":42436,"journal":{"name":"Open Theology","volume":"7 1","pages":"401 - 412"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48148617","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The story of Jephthah and his daughter (Judg. 11:29–40) is a peculiar and problematic text. This article explores the question of the accountability for the sacrificial act with which the story culminates, and which provokes sharp disapproval in certain quarters, especially because of its gender bias. Applying the hermeneutical framework of René Girard and his distinction between sacrifice in Greek mythology (divinity in charge) and sacrifice in Judeo-Christian revelation (everyone responsible for his/her actions), I investigate the question: Is Jephthah’s daughter a mute puppet in a drama staged by her tyrannical father, or perhaps fate, or is she rather a woman who is responsible for her own actions and accountable only to herself? The answer is twofold: she is a woman fully responsible for herself; however, the responsibility for her premature and violent death is shared by her father, herself, and the biblical author–redactor. After identifying Jephthah’s daughter as a person responsible for her own actions, I aim to overcome the dialectic of “the text of terror” (post-structuralist interpretation) and the search for “herstory” (neoliberal interpretation). I suggest that in her powerlessness against patriarchal tyranny, Jephthah’s daughter nonetheless exerts power and authority in condemning the existing power structures. Without approving any form of sacrifice, reading the story through a lens of powerful powerlessness can help us discern different forms of power and, ultimately, reject the aggression and violence that has dominated our world to this very day.
{"title":"Whose Story? Which Sacrifice? On the Story of Jephthah’s Daughter","authors":"Kateřina Kočí","doi":"10.1515/opth-2020-0167","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2020-0167","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The story of Jephthah and his daughter (Judg. 11:29–40) is a peculiar and problematic text. This article explores the question of the accountability for the sacrificial act with which the story culminates, and which provokes sharp disapproval in certain quarters, especially because of its gender bias. Applying the hermeneutical framework of René Girard and his distinction between sacrifice in Greek mythology (divinity in charge) and sacrifice in Judeo-Christian revelation (everyone responsible for his/her actions), I investigate the question: Is Jephthah’s daughter a mute puppet in a drama staged by her tyrannical father, or perhaps fate, or is she rather a woman who is responsible for her own actions and accountable only to herself? The answer is twofold: she is a woman fully responsible for herself; however, the responsibility for her premature and violent death is shared by her father, herself, and the biblical author–redactor. After identifying Jephthah’s daughter as a person responsible for her own actions, I aim to overcome the dialectic of “the text of terror” (post-structuralist interpretation) and the search for “herstory” (neoliberal interpretation). I suggest that in her powerlessness against patriarchal tyranny, Jephthah’s daughter nonetheless exerts power and authority in condemning the existing power structures. Without approving any form of sacrifice, reading the story through a lens of powerful powerlessness can help us discern different forms of power and, ultimately, reject the aggression and violence that has dominated our world to this very day.","PeriodicalId":42436,"journal":{"name":"Open Theology","volume":"7 1","pages":"331 - 344"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/opth-2020-0167","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45102280","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article explores John’s Exodus rhetoric as a decolonial strategy and maps its implications for contemporary migrants. Other scholars have convincingly argued that local authorities deported John to Patmos as a vagus, because his message opposed civic institutions, but they do not explain the nature and function of his preaching. Using migrant narratives and decolonial theory, I read John’s call to come out of Babylon and his deployment of Exodus topoi as migration rhetoric. He uses topoi of liberation, wilderness wanderings, and promised land to subvert the colonial situation of the assemblies under Rome. Rather than migrating to a place, believers embody the eschatological Exodus by rejecting food offered to idols and upholding the boundaries of Jewish identity as they wait for the full realization of God’s kingdom in the New Jerusalem. Regarding Latinx migrant communities, John’s Exodus rhetoric informs how migrants legitimate their migration and how they negotiate identity and resist imperialism in the US/Mexico borderlands.
{"title":"The Deportation of Juan: Migration Rhetoric as Decolonial Strategy in Revelation","authors":"Roberto Mata","doi":"10.1515/opth-2020-0185","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2020-0185","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article explores John’s Exodus rhetoric as a decolonial strategy and maps its implications for contemporary migrants. Other scholars have convincingly argued that local authorities deported John to Patmos as a vagus, because his message opposed civic institutions, but they do not explain the nature and function of his preaching. Using migrant narratives and decolonial theory, I read John’s call to come out of Babylon and his deployment of Exodus topoi as migration rhetoric. He uses topoi of liberation, wilderness wanderings, and promised land to subvert the colonial situation of the assemblies under Rome. Rather than migrating to a place, believers embody the eschatological Exodus by rejecting food offered to idols and upholding the boundaries of Jewish identity as they wait for the full realization of God’s kingdom in the New Jerusalem. Regarding Latinx migrant communities, John’s Exodus rhetoric informs how migrants legitimate their migration and how they negotiate identity and resist imperialism in the US/Mexico borderlands.","PeriodicalId":42436,"journal":{"name":"Open Theology","volume":"7 1","pages":"654 - 669"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41640351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：