Who is Israel?

[ViaCrucis]

So when will Zechariah 8 happen, according to your interpretation?

That was my original question to you, and you replied saying "Christ reigns as King now".

How else do you expect a reader of that statement to conclude?

The content of the chapter seems to be remembering God's judgment in the Exile, and now that the people have been restored, and the Temple rebuilt, there is the promise of blessing. So it is a post-Exile text about how God brought judgment through Exile, and has restored His people to the land.

The text looks forward, to the coming of Christ, in this way:

"Many peoples and strong nations shall come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem and to entreat the favor of the LORD. Thus says the LORD of hosts: In those days ten men from the nations of every tongue shall take hold of the robe of a Jew, saying, 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'" - Zechariah 8:22-23

The immediate context is God's present in His people via the Temple, and how Israel was always meant to be a light to the nations. Its fuller significance is found in the coming of Christ, for YHWH made Visitation in His Day, when He taught among the people, but was crucified and then rose again. And through Him the nations are reconciled to God. For there is neither Jew nor Gentile.

So the immediate context is the restoration of the people post-Exile; the deeper meaning is Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Guojing]

The content of the chapter seems to be remembering God's judgment in the Exile, and now that the people have been restored, and the Temple rebuilt, there is the promise of blessing. So it is a post-Exile text about how God brought judgment through Exile, and has restored His people to the land.

The text looks forward, to the coming of Christ, in this way:

"Many peoples and strong nations shall come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem and to entreat the favor of the LORD. Thus says the LORD of hosts: In those days ten men from the nations of every tongue shall take hold of the robe of a Jew, saying, 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'" - Zechariah 8:22-23

The immediate context is God's present in His people via the Temple, and how Israel was always meant to be a light to the nations. Its fuller significance is found in the coming of Christ, for YHWH made Visitation in His Day, when He taught among the people, but was crucified and then rose again. And through Him the nations are reconciled to God. For there is neither Jew nor Gentile.

So the immediate context is the restoration of the people post-Exile; the deeper meaning is Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

Zechariah 8:23 is obviously not happening now, nor ever in the past, literally.

No one today is going to Jerusalem by "taking hold of the robe of a Jew, saying, 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you"

So you are spiritualizing the meaning of that verse to make it fit reality, alright then.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Zechariah 8:23 is obviously not happening now, nor ever in the past, literally.

No one today is going to Jerusalem by "taking hold of the robe of a Jew, saying, 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you"

So you are spiritualizing the meaning of that verse to make it fit reality, alright then.

Jesus took bread and said "This is My body", but you don't believe He meant that.

I don't want to hear anything about "spiritualizing" the meaning of the Bible.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[HarleyER]

If you were a gentile during the OT, you have to join Israel to partake in God's promise,

And what were the promises that they would have to partake in? Naaman and the Shunammite woman are examples of people that never join Israel. Yet they were called out by Christ for their faith (Luke 4:26, 27)

 

[Guojing]

And what were the promises that they would have to partake in? Naaman and the Shunammite woman are examples of people that never join Israel. Yet they were called out by Christ for their faith (Luke 4:26, 27)

How do you conclude they did not?

Anyway gentiles could have faith but without joining Israel in the ot, they were still cut off from God (Genesis 17:14, Ephesians 2:11-12).

After Israel was formed, and before Paul, there was no way to be saved by faith alone without works (James 2:24)

 

[Guojing]

Jesus took bread and said "This is My body", but you don't believe He meant that.

Just because some passages are meant to be metaphors, does not mean every scripture passage are likewise.

I don't want to hear anything about "spiritualizing" the meaning of the Bible.

-CryptoLutheran

But that was what you did to zechariah 8.

 

[Fervent]

I'm not sure there is a single entity that we can call the true Israel of God. Jesus is God's Israel, as the one who accomplishes the purposes that Israel was chosen for. Mary is God's Israel, as the embodiment of those who receive God's mercy. The Church is God's Israel, as the instrument of Christ in the world. The faithful remnant of national Israel is God's Israel, as the descendants of those who first received the promises. Ultimately, it all comes back to Christ and flows through Christ.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Just because some passages are meant to be metaphors, does not mean every scripture passage are likewise.

But that was what you did to zechariah 8.

Oh, so it's okay for you to take Jesus' words when He says "This is My body" and claim that's a metaphor. But when I say that the Prophets were pointing to Jesus, when Jesus Himself said the Law and the Prophets are about Him, I'm reading the Bible wrong.

"When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called My son." - Hosea 11:1

"And he rose and took the Child and His mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, 'Out of Egypt I called My son.'" - Matthew 2:14-15

Is Hosea 11:1 about Israel or about Jesus?

Are you upset that Matthew "spiritualized" the Bible to make it about Jesus?

"Then He said to them, 'These are My words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.'" - Luke 24:44

What you seem to have a problem with is that I'm using the New Testament's own hermeneutical principle, following the historic teaching and faith of the Christian Church, and thus subscribe to a Christ-centered model of biblical exegesis. Something that Christians have been doing, the way Christians have been reading Scripture, since the time of the Apostles and Evangelists, as attested to in the New Testament itself.

What is the point of the Bible? Is it Jesus, or is it something else? There's only one Christian answer to this question: It's about Jesus. It's always been about Jesus. From Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 it's all about Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[HarleyER]

How do you conclude they did not?

Anyway gentiles could have faith but without joining Israel in the ot, they were still cut off from God (Genesis 17:14, Ephesians 2:11-12).

After Israel was formed, and before Paul, there was no way to be saved by faith alone without works (James 2:24)

How do you conclude they did not?

Naaman when back to Syria (taking some dirt along with him). It is difficult to believe that the Elisha's friend and Naaman were cut off from God, especially when our Lord Jesus refers specifically to them as examples and God worked powerfully in their lives.

The blessing of Abraham was so that he would be a blessing TO THE WHOLE WORLD, not just Israel.

 

[Guojing]

Naaman when back to Syria (taking some dirt along with him). It is difficult to believe that the Elisha's friend and Naaman were cut off from God, especially when our Lord Jesus refers specifically to them as examples and God worked powerfully in their lives.

So let's be silent when scripture is silent. They could have joined Israel later on, we do not know.

All we do know are the rules set by God, before Paul, which were (Genesis 17:14, Ephesians 2:11-12).

 

[Guojing]

Oh, so it's okay for you to take Jesus' words when He says "This is My body" and claim that's a metaphor. But when I say that the Prophets were pointing to Jesus, when Jesus Himself said the Law and the Prophets are about Him, I'm reading the Bible wrong.

"When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called My son." - Hosea 11:1

"And he rose and took the Child and His mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, 'Out of Egypt I called My son.'" - Matthew 2:14-15

Is Hosea 11:1 about Israel or about Jesus?

Are you upset that Matthew "spiritualized" the Bible to make it about Jesus?

"Then He said to them, 'These are My words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.'" - Luke 24:44

What you seem to have a problem with is that I'm using the New Testament's own hermeneutical principle, following the historic teaching and faith of the Christian Church, and thus subscribe to a Christ-centered model of biblical exegesis. Something that Christians have been doing, the way Christians have been reading Scripture, since the time of the Apostles and Evangelists, as attested to in the New Testament itself.

What is the point of the Bible? Is it Jesus, or is it something else? There's only one Christian answer to this question: It's about Jesus. It's always been about Jesus. From Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 it's all about Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

Are we still discussing Zechariah 8 here?

If you want to spiritualize the meaning of Zechariah 8:23, that is your choice, I cannot stop you from doing that.

But just have the courage to admit that you are doing that, and we can move on.

PS: Notice I did not say whether you are correct or wrong in doing that, that kind of normative judgement is something only you can realize for yourself.

 

[HarleyER]

So let's be silent when scripture is silent. They could have joined Israel later on, we do not know.

I find that when there are specific examples in the Scripture that contradicts my beliefs, it is best to review my beliefs and adjust my theology to what the Word of God is saying. My goal is to understand God as best as possible. Not to support what someone has told me.

 

[All Becomes New]

Hebrews 8:11
"And each person will not teach his fellow citizen,
and each his brother or sister, saying, “Know the Lord,”
because they will all know me,
from the least to the greatest of them."

Someone please tell me when this happened.

 

[Guojing]

I find that when there are specific examples in the Scripture that contradicts my beliefs, it is best to review my beliefs and adjust my theology to what the Word of God is saying. My goal is to understand God as best as possible. Not to support what someone has told me.

I have provided you with so many scripture supporting my points.

If you have a different interpretation of those, feel free to share.

 

[HarleyER]

Hebrews 8:11
"And each person will not teach his fellow citizen,
and each his brother or sister, saying, “Know the Lord,”
because they will all know me,
from the least to the greatest of them."

Someone please tell me when this happened.

Romans 8:14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

Romans 8:26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;

1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,

1 Corinthians 3:16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

How many of these verses do you need? There are plenty.

 

[HarleyER]

I have provided you with so many scripture supporting my points.

If you have a different interpretation of those, feel free to share.

Ditto.

John 8:39 They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus *said to them, “If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham.

Romans 9:8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Galatians 4:28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.

1 John 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

There are only children of God and children of the devil. There are only believers and unbelievers. There are only the righteous and the unrighteous.

I'm not sure why this concept is so hard to understand. There is no special category.

 

[The Liturgist]

But just have the courage to admit that you are doing that, and we can move on.

Why should he admit to something as if it were a shameful thing, when the reading of the Old Testament as Christological prophecy is taught by no less a man than Christ our True God in the Gospel According to Luke?

Are you suggesting that Luke isn’t canon?

Because if not, there is no reason to object to a Christological reading of Old Testament prophets, since Christ showed the Apostles how all of the books of the Law and Prophets were about Him.

Indeed, it is the case that both of the two ancient Catechtical Schools in Christianity, with their own approach to hermeneutics, that of Antioch, with its emphasis on literal-historical exegesis, and that of Alexandria, with its emphasis on typological-mystagogical exegesis, both were ultimately focused on a Christological interpretation (although as it happens the most important Early Church Fathers tended to use a blend of both techniques, with the most hardline Antiochene and Alexandrian exegetes, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Origen, both being controversially declared anathema in the Three Chapters Controversy).

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

I'll suggest that "Israel" is the man first named Jacob, whom God renamed Israel, his descendants, and adoptees. I'll note that those of Israel who convert to Christ, are no longer of Israel, because we are all born again, our fatherhood has been changed:

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Matthew 23:9

 

[Guojing]

Ditto.

John 8:39 They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus *said to them, “If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham.

Romans 9:8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Galatians 4:28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.

1 John 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

There are only children of God and children of the devil. There are only believers and unbelievers. There are only the righteous and the unrighteous.

I'm not sure why this concept is so hard to understand. There is no special category.

So basically, you don't separate Israel from the Body of Christ.

Thus, you interpret all these scripture according to that axiom.

Alright then, we can agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Guojing]

Why should he admit to something as if it were a shameful thing, when the reading of the Old Testament as Christological prophecy is taught by no less a man than Christ our True God in the Gospel According to Luke?

I admit I am interpreting Zechariah 8:23 literally.

Now what is wrong with stating that?

Because if not, there is no reason to object to a Christological reading of Old Testament prophets, since Christ showed the Apostles how all of the books of the Law and Prophets were about Him.

Zechariah 8 is about Christ returning to Earth and ruling it with the nation of Israel, I certainly agree with that interpretation and will not object to that.

But that is separate from reasoning that Zechariah 8:23 is happening right now, when its not.

It is also separate from reasoning that somehow, Christ has already returned to Jerusalem NOW, when he hasn't.