How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (2 (1 Viewer)

[Sparky Polastri]

But if that was the case roughly 2000 years ago, what makes us so sure that it is not the case today?

Yes and we see it all the time. Especially on the topic of hell. The Bible says hell is anywhere that God is not. All the hellfire and brimstone and descriptions of what hell is, is man's attempt to describe what THEY THINK things look like when God isn't present. So yeah, its absolutely the case today. Personally, I prefer to take the "wait and find out" approach.

I believe that is ultimately a third of the question. The other third is why does God allow his people to go off on such a tangent? And the final third would be those concerning the historically nasty fight with horrific consequence some to this day for ownership of the Jewish scriptures.

I'm of the belief that God does everything he does with an eye on creating curiosity in us to seek him. I believe that's why the three elements of worship are the way they are. The Bible is there to give us A LOT of insight. The Holy Spirit is there for us to reach out to with our "God, where are you? Am I doing this right?" kinds of questions/conversations. Communion with others is there because we are incredibly social creatures and have a lot to offer each other on this journey while on earth.

This is very insightful and I encourage you to keep posting your thoughts on this. It's got the makings of an interesting theological vision (a way to approach the faith and help put into practice in your life).

Its mostly my pops (foster dad who adopted me). We sit around and talk about this stuff a lot. Even more now that I've been afforded the opportunity to move closer to him and am now in my first house. Only problem is, its in Florida

If only we had a way to communicate over long distances. Curse this vast continent, keeping us apart!!

It's not the same.

 

[Paddington]

But if that was the case roughly 2000 years ago, what makes us so sure that it is not the case today?

Yes and we see it all the time. Especially on the topic of hell. The Bible says hell is anywhere that God is not. All the hellfire and brimstone and descriptions of what hell is, is man's attempt to describe what THEY THINK things look like when God isn't present. So yeah, its absolutely the case today. Personally, I prefer to take the "wait and find out" approach.

I believe that is ultimately a third of the question. The other third is why does God allow his people to go off on such a tangent? And the final third would be those concerning the historically nasty fight with horrific consequence some to this day for ownership of the Jewish scriptures.

I'm of the belief that God does everything he does with an eye on creating curiosity in us to seek him. I believe that's why the three elements of worship are the way they are. The Bible is there to give us A LOT of insight. The Holy Spirit is there for us to reach out to with our "God, where are you? Am I doing this right?" kinds of questions/conversations. Communion with others is there because we are incredibly social creatures and have a lot to offer each other on this journey while on earth.

This is very insightful and I encourage you to keep posting your thoughts on this. It's got the makings of an interesting theological vision (a way to approach the faith and help put into practice in your life).

Its mostly my pops (foster dad who adopted me). We sit around and talk about this stuff a lot. Even more now that I've been afforded the opportunity to move closer to him and am now in my first house. Only problem is, its in Florida

If only we had a way to communicate over long distances. Curse this vast continent, keeping us apart!!

It's not the same.

Doesn't he mean phones and computers?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

But if that was the case roughly 2000 years ago, what makes us so sure that it is not the case today?

Yes and we see it all the time. Especially on the topic of hell. The Bible says hell is anywhere that God is not. All the hellfire and brimstone and descriptions of what hell is, is man's attempt to describe what THEY THINK things look like when God isn't present. So yeah, its absolutely the case today. Personally, I prefer to take the "wait and find out" approach.

I believe that is ultimately a third of the question. The other third is why does God allow his people to go off on such a tangent? And the final third would be those concerning the historically nasty fight with horrific consequence some to this day for ownership of the Jewish scriptures.

I'm of the belief that God does everything he does with an eye on creating curiosity in us to seek him. I believe that's why the three elements of worship are the way they are. The Bible is there to give us A LOT of insight. The Holy Spirit is there for us to reach out to with our "God, where are you? Am I doing this right?" kinds of questions/conversations. Communion with others is there because we are incredibly social creatures and have a lot to offer each other on this journey while on earth.

This is very insightful and I encourage you to keep posting your thoughts on this. It's got the makings of an interesting theological vision (a way to approach the faith and help put into practice in your life).

Its mostly my pops (foster dad who adopted me). We sit around and talk about this stuff a lot. Even more now that I've been afforded the opportunity to move closer to him and am now in my first house. Only problem is, its in Florida

If only we had a way to communicate over long distances. Curse this vast continent, keeping us apart!!

It's not the same.

Doesn't he mean phones and computers?

Nothing beats being able to engage face to face with other human beings.

 

[dgreen]

What I mean by the bold is what I see as a typical Christian view that Jews missed Jesus when they really have no reason to have missed him because the OT so clearly predicts so much of his life, death, and resurrection. I generally hear that the Jewish expectations were unreasonable based on our reading of the NT. If, for example, Isaiah 53 so clearly predicts the suffering of Jesus, then it would seem unreasonable to have another expectation. However, if it isn't clear and their expectations were reasonable, then I struggle with the expectation that Jesus should have been recognized.

I feel like I'm talking passed you maybe, so I apologize. First do YOU believe that Isaiah wasn't clear when it came to his suffering? I think it's pretty clear. He would be a man rejected by his people. He would be a man betrayed by a close friend. He'd stand in silence in front of his accusers. His hands and feet would be pierced.

If the assertion is the OT is not clear on something, I'd like whoever is making that assertion to present their case. Then it can be talked about. Between Isaiah and Psalms and the lineage passages, I think it's rather clear.

The argument I hear often, and the one I THOUGHT you were making before, is that people had come up with preconceived sets of events around HOW things would happen and since they didn't happen that way, he must not have been who he said he was. I find that argument completely lacking. That's why I posted my first comment above saying what I said.

Who is the he/his here? I assume you mean Jesus? As in, Isaiah was talking directly about Jesus/Messiah? You are saying the meaning of Isaiah 53 is about Jesus/Messiah and only about Jesus/Messiah? Just want to make sure we are on the same page there before I respond.

Use the pronoun of your choice, but you can substitute it for "the Prophet" if that's easier. My belief is that it was a forecast of what was to come in Jesus Christ.

Thanks, just making sure.

I assume Isaiah was clear and I assume his audience was clear on who he was talking about. Which goes back to what I said earlier that we don't really see this passage being talked about in relation to messiah prior to Jesus. It wasn't considered a messianic passage. There was no expectation that this described what messiah would do. "Suffering Servant" is a post-Jesus term, not a title that Jews were looking for. And "servant of the Lord" was a typical phrase used for all sorts of people (both individual and corporate - yes, even including messiah in both Zechariah and Psalms). A popular interpretation is that the "he" is Israel. We can see Israel/Jacob named as the servant in Isaiah 41:8, 42:19, 43:10, 44:1-2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20, and 50:10. The larger context leading up to Isaiah 53 repeatedly calls Israel God's servant. That doesn't mean it can't change as we progress through these poems, but it is the supporting evidence of why some people think Isaiah is talking about Israel as they return from exile.

The first section that we call one of the "Servant Songs" is in 42:1-4. And, here, the servant is unnamed. This is a section used multiple times by NT authors in relation to Jesus. But this follows the first appearance of Isaiah calling Israel/Jacob as the chosen servant in 41:8. So, is there a change to someone else by the time we get to 42? The Septuagint actually inserted Jacob/Israel into 42:1, so that appeared to be the interpretation at the time of that translation, which would have preceded Jesus. The Targum, which will be after Jesus, does insert "messiah" into 42:1. The Targum also inserts "messiah" into chapter 53, but it also interprets a lot of the suffering to the people instead of the messiah. For example, in verse 4, it is the "we" who are crushed/afflicted rather than the "he".

It's my belief that a passage doesn't have to be talking about Jesus (or predicting/forecasting him) in order for it apply it to him. Isaiah could have been talking about Israel or any number of other individuals/groups and the NT authors were still free to link Jesus to it. To use an extreme example, just because Jesus never murdered anyone, doesn't mean the commandment "thou shall not murder" is predicting Jesus. By not murdering, Jesus fulfilled that commandment. By not murdering, you and I fulfill that commandment. But it clearly isn't foretelling our lives. Similarly, if I act as a proper servant of the Lord, I too can fulfill portions of Isaiah 40-55. My current belief (which could very well be wrong and could change) is that Jesus lived out the ideals of Isaiah 53 and that's what made it appropriate for the NT authors to quote and allude to it. That doesn't require Isaiah to have been talking about Messiah/jesus/The Prophet/etc.

Now, obviously, tons of people think Isaiah was talking about Jesus. I'm a big fan of Tim Mackie and here's his take. He sees a change in who is being talked about starting in 48:16 and makes a pretty good argument that as we progress through these chapters, Isaiah is no longer talking about Israel. He switches from Israel, who couldn't live up to the standards of being God's servant, to some hypothetical ideal servant to come...which ultimately would be Jesus. Interestingly, though, the NET footnote sees 48:16 as Cyrus because they think verses 14 and 15 are talking about Cyrus. Many interpretations abound!

A lot of this is just about trying to communicate clearly. If I say "Isaiah 53 isn't about Jesus", I don't say that to mean "Jesus wasn't the messiah" or "The NT authors were wrong to use those passages in relation to Jesus".

 

[dgreen]

And, to add a little bit to all of this, Paul alludes to Isaiah 49 when he tells the Galatians about his calling. Isaiah 49 is another one of the unnamed servant songs that is quoted/alluded in the NT when talking about Jesus. A passage can be used to describe different people in different situations as long as the language is fitting. It's not an indication that the OT passage was speaking directly about the future person. I don't think Paul thinks Isaiah 49 was about him.

 

[Psychopav]

And, to add a little bit to all of this, Paul alludes to Isaiah 49 when he tells the Galatians about his calling. Isaiah 49 is another one of the unnamed servant songs that is quoted/alluded in the NT when talking about Jesus. A passage can be used to describe different people in different situations as long as the language is fitting. It's not an indication that the OT passage was speaking directly about the future person. I don't think Paul thinks Isaiah 49 was about him.

Respectfully, that's one way of looking at it. Another is that this is a good example of how God surprises us. There may be many folds of meaning in these prophesies and in fact we know from Paul in 1 Cor:13 that we prophesy imperfectly. It's making your case but also not making it in that this is not a flaw in the system, it's the way it was designed.

 

[dgreen]

And, to add a little bit to all of this, Paul alludes to Isaiah 49 when he tells the Galatians about his calling. Isaiah 49 is another one of the unnamed servant songs that is quoted/alluded in the NT when talking about Jesus. A passage can be used to describe different people in different situations as long as the language is fitting. It's not an indication that the OT passage was speaking directly about the future person. I don't think Paul thinks Isaiah 49 was about him.

Respectfully, that's one way of looking at it. Another is that this is a good example of how God surprises us. There may be many folds of meaning in these prophesies and in fact we know from Paul in 1 Cor:13 that we prophesy imperfectly. It's making your case but also not making it in that this is not a flaw in the system, it's the way it was designed.

Are you referring to approaches like double fulfillment and sensus plenior? If so, do you mind talking about how you understand those ideas? Personally, I've been unsatisfied with how I've heard those explained and applied and I tend to look for other explanations.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I've heard a lot of the arguments in the "Was he talking about Jesus or was he talking about Israel?" debate. In my mind, that was perfectly good question prior to Jesus' fulfilling of the prophecy. Once fulfilled, the question should go away. It was anyone's guess at the time and I have read several reasoned and well thought out arguments for it being Israel. However, I am of the opinion that if one still holds that position, today, they have a lot more explaining to do than those on team Jesus. If one is going to dismiss Jesus as fulfillment of that prophecy, there is a TON of "coincidence" rationalization that has to occur.

 

[dgreen]

I've heard a lot of the arguments in the "Was he talking about Jesus or was he talking about Israel?" debate. In my mind, that was perfectly good question prior to Jesus' fulfilling of the prophecy. Once fulfilled, the question should go away. It was anyone's guess at the time and I have read several reasoned and well thought out arguments for it being Israel. However, I am of the opinion that if one still holds that position, today, they have a lot more explaining to do than those on team Jesus. If one is going to dismiss Jesus as fulfillment of that prophecy, there is a TON of "coincidence" rationalization that has to occur.

I feel myself headed down the road of "I have to convince him I'm right!" and I don't want to go that direction in our conversation. I think you understand my point and I think I understand your point, so I'd like to move away from Isaiah 53. (But if you'd like to continue, I'm more than willing.)

If you're ok with it, I'd like to shift gears a bit. I'd like to stay on the same general topic, but use a different passage. Can we talk about Matthew 2:13-15:

13 Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord * appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to kill Him.”


14 So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. 15 He stayed there until the death of Herod; this happened so that what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: “ Out of Egypt I called My Son.”

How do you interpret Matthew's use of Hosea 11:1 here? Specifically, do you think Jesus was the "son" spoken of in Hosea?

 

[Psychopav]

And, to add a little bit to all of this, Paul alludes to Isaiah 49 when he tells the Galatians about his calling. Isaiah 49 is another one of the unnamed servant songs that is quoted/alluded in the NT when talking about Jesus. A passage can be used to describe different people in different situations as long as the language is fitting. It's not an indication that the OT passage was speaking directly about the future person. I don't think Paul thinks Isaiah 49 was about him.

Respectfully, that's one way of looking at it. Another is that this is a good example of how God surprises us. There may be many folds of meaning in these prophesies and in fact we know from Paul in 1 Cor:13 that we prophesy imperfectly. It's making your case but also not making it in that this is not a flaw in the system, it's the way it was designed.

Are you referring to approaches like double fulfillment and sensus plenior? If so, do you mind talking about how you understand those ideas? Personally, I've been unsatisfied with how I've heard those explained and applied and I tend to look for other explanations.

I'm not familiar with those terms, and this certainly won't be a precise answer. You won't get many precise answers with me, mostly because while I find the intellectual approach to the faith important, and very helpful in understanding and deepening my personal faith, it's not that it's not important; on the contrary, systematic theology has been critical to the life of the Church.


When I think about these folds or layers of meaning, I view it as a way of expanding understanding, not limiting it, and adding a new layer of understanding does not remove or diminish the surface layer (which may or may not have been what the original author has in mind). Here's a simple example from today's morning prayer. One of the psalms we pray today is Psalm 149:

Sing a new song to the Lord,
his praise in the assembly of the faithful.
Let Israel rejoice in its maker,
let Zion’s sons exult in their king.
Let them praise his name with dancing
and make music with timbrel and harp.

For the Lord takes delight in his people.
He crowns the poor with salvation.
Let the faithful rejoice in their glory,
shout for joy and take their rest.
Let the praise of God be on their lips
and a two-edged sword in their hand,

to deal out vengeance to the nations
and punishment on all the peoples;
to bind their kings in chains
and their nobles in fetters of iron;
to carry out the sentence pre-ordained;
this honor is for all his faithful.

In the most obvious sense, the "honor for all his faithful" of dealing out vengeance with a two-edged sword is a promise that the people of God will triumph in a worldly fashion, describing a military victory. And no doubt the Psalmist (I am fine assuming it's David) meant that, and no doubt this psalm did prove itself prescient on more than one occasion.

But here we are, 21st century Christians, living under a new covenant and believing that God "makes all things new" through the lens of that new covenant (Rev 21). In that sense, another way of thinking of this passage is to recognize that the Word of God (that is, Jesus) IS the two-edged sword, and the praise of God IS the mechanism by which the Word reaches the nations, the kings, the nobles*. One simple support for this alternative interpretation: in Mathew 10, Jesus spoke of Himself as a sword.

So through this lens, the psalm proves itself prescient in a very different way, and challenges me to think about how it applies in the "life of Christians" and, more importantly perhaps, how it applies in my own life and the practice of the faith. The wonder and the beauty of it is that one can pursue this one spark of a thought and it can open up so many other things that illuminate the faith.

*In yet another sense, the nations, the kings, the nobles, may be thought of as my own passions, and so another way of thinking of this is that the Word of God binds my own worldly inclinations. So there's another layer that I hadn't thought of before now.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I've heard a lot of the arguments in the "Was he talking about Jesus or was he talking about Israel?" debate. In my mind, that was perfectly good question prior to Jesus' fulfilling of the prophecy. Once fulfilled, the question should go away. It was anyone's guess at the time and I have read several reasoned and well thought out arguments for it being Israel. However, I am of the opinion that if one still holds that position, today, they have a lot more explaining to do than those on team Jesus. If one is going to dismiss Jesus as fulfillment of that prophecy, there is a TON of "coincidence" rationalization that has to occur.

I feel myself headed down the road of "I have to convince him I'm right!" and I don't want to go that direction in our conversation. I think you understand my point and I think I understand your point, so I'd like to move away from Isaiah 53. (But if you'd like to continue, I'm more than willing.)

If you're ok with it, I'd like to shift gears a bit. I'd like to stay on the same general topic, but use a different passage. Can we talk about Matthew 2:13-15:

13 Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord * appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to kill Him.”


14 So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. 15 He stayed there until the death of Herod; this happened so that what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: “ Out of Egypt I called My Son.”

How do you interpret Matthew's use of Hosea 11:1 here? Specifically, do you think Jesus was the "son" spoken of in Hosea?

So, Hosea 11:1 is:

When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.

Hosea is speaking of Israel. In Matthew, he's speaking of Israel too. Joseph did as he was told to protect Jesus because Jesus was the one who would fulfill the prophecy of saving Israel. And by "saving Israel" here we mean being the human sacrifice for all sin. At least this is how I understand it.

 

[dgreen]

I've heard a lot of the arguments in the "Was he talking about Jesus or was he talking about Israel?" debate. In my mind, that was perfectly good question prior to Jesus' fulfilling of the prophecy. Once fulfilled, the question should go away. It was anyone's guess at the time and I have read several reasoned and well thought out arguments for it being Israel. However, I am of the opinion that if one still holds that position, today, they have a lot more explaining to do than those on team Jesus. If one is going to dismiss Jesus as fulfillment of that prophecy, there is a TON of "coincidence" rationalization that has to occur.

I feel myself headed down the road of "I have to convince him I'm right!" and I don't want to go that direction in our conversation. I think you understand my point and I think I understand your point, so I'd like to move away from Isaiah 53. (But if you'd like to continue, I'm more than willing.)

If you're ok with it, I'd like to shift gears a bit. I'd like to stay on the same general topic, but use a different passage. Can we talk about Matthew 2:13-15:

13 Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord * appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to kill Him.”


14 So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. 15 He stayed there until the death of Herod; this happened so that what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: “ Out of Egypt I called My Son.”

How do you interpret Matthew's use of Hosea 11:1 here? Specifically, do you think Jesus was the "son" spoken of in Hosea?

So, Hosea 11:1 is:

When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.

Hosea is speaking of Israel. In Matthew, he's speaking of Israel too. Joseph did as he was told to protect Jesus because Jesus was the one who would fulfill the prophecy of saving Israel. And by "saving Israel" here we mean being the human sacrifice for all sin. At least this is how I understand it.

Oh, interesting. I'm not sure I've heard an interpretation quite like that. Or, maybe I have and I just don't remember.

I think everyone agrees Hosea is talking about Israel. It's hard not to agree with that. I've never heard someone argue that Hosea was knowingly talking about Jesus or the Messiah. There's clearly nothing messianic about Hosea's prophecy. However, what some people do say is while Hosea was referring to Israel, God must have had a second meaning that became apparent to Matthew later on. This is an approach that I can at least understand with something like Isaiah 53, but not here. I don't know how anyone can read Hosea 11 and see a hidden prediction of Jesus. There's no prediction at all. It's all backwards looking. But, some people hold that view because they think that's how prophecy-fulfillment has to work (always as a prediction) and they assume that's what Matthew was trying to say about Hosea.

What I hear most is that Hosea refers to Israel as the son and Matthew refers to Jesus as the son. What's important, though, is the event being referred to. Hosea is talking about the Exodus, where God called his son, Israel, out of Egypt. In Matthew, God is calling his son, Jesus, out to lead another Exodus. It's part of a series of stories in Matthew with Exodus themes that show Jesus as the New Moses or New Israel. So, I think Matthew wanted his audience thinking about the Exodus and used Hosea's language to do that.

It's interesting that you see both sons as being Israel and then reach a very similar conclusion about Matthew's main point (saving Israel vs a second Exodus...basically the same thing). God brought his son, Israel, out of Egypt before and he'll bring his son, Israel, out again - this time with Jesus leading the way. That's cool. I'll have to give it some thought that maybe Matthew was also referring to Israel as the son.

Either way, it appears we are in agreement that in order for these events in Matthew to have fulfilled Hosea, it wasn't necessary for Hosea to be a prediction of the events in Matthew. But I don't want to misrepresent your position on that.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I've heard a lot of the arguments in the "Was he talking about Jesus or was he talking about Israel?" debate. In my mind, that was perfectly good question prior to Jesus' fulfilling of the prophecy. Once fulfilled, the question should go away. It was anyone's guess at the time and I have read several reasoned and well thought out arguments for it being Israel. However, I am of the opinion that if one still holds that position, today, they have a lot more explaining to do than those on team Jesus. If one is going to dismiss Jesus as fulfillment of that prophecy, there is a TON of "coincidence" rationalization that has to occur.

I feel myself headed down the road of "I have to convince him I'm right!" and I don't want to go that direction in our conversation. I think you understand my point and I think I understand your point, so I'd like to move away from Isaiah 53. (But if you'd like to continue, I'm more than willing.)

If you're ok with it, I'd like to shift gears a bit. I'd like to stay on the same general topic, but use a different passage. Can we talk about Matthew 2:13-15:

13 Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord * appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to kill Him.”


14 So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. 15 He stayed there until the death of Herod; this happened so that what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: “ Out of Egypt I called My Son.”

How do you interpret Matthew's use of Hosea 11:1 here? Specifically, do you think Jesus was the "son" spoken of in Hosea?

So, Hosea 11:1 is:

When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.

Hosea is speaking of Israel. In Matthew, he's speaking of Israel too. Joseph did as he was told to protect Jesus because Jesus was the one who would fulfill the prophecy of saving Israel. And by "saving Israel" here we mean being the human sacrifice for all sin. At least this is how I understand it.

Oh, interesting. I'm not sure I've heard an interpretation quite like that. Or, maybe I have and I just don't remember.

I think everyone agrees Hosea is talking about Israel. It's hard not to agree with that. I've never heard someone argue that Hosea was knowingly talking about Jesus or the Messiah. There's clearly nothing messianic about Hosea's prophecy. However, what some people do say is while Hosea was referring to Israel, God must have had a second meaning that became apparent to Matthew later on. This is an approach that I can at least understand with something like Isaiah 53, but not here. I don't know how anyone can read Hosea 11 and see a hidden prediction of Jesus. There's no prediction at all. It's all backwards looking. But, some people hold that view because they think that's how prophecy-fulfillment has to work (always as a prediction) and they assume that's what Matthew was trying to say about Hosea.

What I hear most is that Hosea refers to Israel as the son and Matthew refers to Jesus as the son. What's important, though, is the event being referred to. Hosea is talking about the Exodus, where God called his son, Israel, out of Egypt. In Matthew, God is calling his son, Jesus, out to lead another Exodus. It's part of a series of stories in Matthew with Exodus themes that show Jesus as the New Moses or New Israel. So, I think Matthew wanted his audience thinking about the Exodus and used Hosea's language to do that.

It's interesting that you see both sons as being Israel and then reach a very similar conclusion about Matthew's main point (saving Israel vs a second Exodus...basically the same thing). God brought his son, Israel, out of Egypt before and he'll bring his son, Israel, out again - this time with Jesus leading the way. That's cool. I'll have to give it some thought that maybe Matthew was also referring to Israel as the son.

Either way, it appears we are in agreement that in order for these events in Matthew to have fulfilled Hosea, it wasn't necessary for Hosea to be a prediction of the events in Matthew. But I don't want to misrepresent your position on that.

So, a lot of what you say here, I am hearing for the first time outside of noisy bickering over theology AND I am a little slow on this stuff. What events are we talking about here? Hosea was a prophecy of the future. Matthew was not even born yet, much less a document to consume. All we can really say about Matthew is that the events recorded there check the boxes of the prophecy in Hosea, right? What exactly is the argument against that? Break it down for this dumb dumb please

 

[dgreen]

I've heard a lot of the arguments in the "Was he talking about Jesus or was he talking about Israel?" debate. In my mind, that was perfectly good question prior to Jesus' fulfilling of the prophecy. Once fulfilled, the question should go away. It was anyone's guess at the time and I have read several reasoned and well thought out arguments for it being Israel. However, I am of the opinion that if one still holds that position, today, they have a lot more explaining to do than those on team Jesus. If one is going to dismiss Jesus as fulfillment of that prophecy, there is a TON of "coincidence" rationalization that has to occur.

I feel myself headed down the road of "I have to convince him I'm right!" and I don't want to go that direction in our conversation. I think you understand my point and I think I understand your point, so I'd like to move away from Isaiah 53. (But if you'd like to continue, I'm more than willing.)

If you're ok with it, I'd like to shift gears a bit. I'd like to stay on the same general topic, but use a different passage. Can we talk about Matthew 2:13-15:

13 Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord * appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to kill Him.”


14 So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. 15 He stayed there until the death of Herod; this happened so that what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: “ Out of Egypt I called My Son.”

How do you interpret Matthew's use of Hosea 11:1 here? Specifically, do you think Jesus was the "son" spoken of in Hosea?

So, Hosea 11:1 is:

When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.

Hosea is speaking of Israel. In Matthew, he's speaking of Israel too. Joseph did as he was told to protect Jesus because Jesus was the one who would fulfill the prophecy of saving Israel. And by "saving Israel" here we mean being the human sacrifice for all sin. At least this is how I understand it.

Oh, interesting. I'm not sure I've heard an interpretation quite like that. Or, maybe I have and I just don't remember.

I think everyone agrees Hosea is talking about Israel. It's hard not to agree with that. I've never heard someone argue that Hosea was knowingly talking about Jesus or the Messiah. There's clearly nothing messianic about Hosea's prophecy. However, what some people do say is while Hosea was referring to Israel, God must have had a second meaning that became apparent to Matthew later on. This is an approach that I can at least understand with something like Isaiah 53, but not here. I don't know how anyone can read Hosea 11 and see a hidden prediction of Jesus. There's no prediction at all. It's all backwards looking. But, some people hold that view because they think that's how prophecy-fulfillment has to work (always as a prediction) and they assume that's what Matthew was trying to say about Hosea.

What I hear most is that Hosea refers to Israel as the son and Matthew refers to Jesus as the son. What's important, though, is the event being referred to. Hosea is talking about the Exodus, where God called his son, Israel, out of Egypt. In Matthew, God is calling his son, Jesus, out to lead another Exodus. It's part of a series of stories in Matthew with Exodus themes that show Jesus as the New Moses or New Israel. So, I think Matthew wanted his audience thinking about the Exodus and used Hosea's language to do that.

It's interesting that you see both sons as being Israel and then reach a very similar conclusion about Matthew's main point (saving Israel vs a second Exodus...basically the same thing). God brought his son, Israel, out of Egypt before and he'll bring his son, Israel, out again - this time with Jesus leading the way. That's cool. I'll have to give it some thought that maybe Matthew was also referring to Israel as the son.

Either way, it appears we are in agreement that in order for these events in Matthew to have fulfilled Hosea, it wasn't necessary for Hosea to be a prediction of the events in Matthew. But I don't want to misrepresent your position on that.

So, a lot of what you say here, I am hearing for the first time outside of noisy bickering over theology AND I am a little slow on this stuff. What events are we talking about here? Hosea was a prophecy of the future. Matthew was not even born yet, much less a document to consume. All we can really say about Matthew is that the events recorded there check the boxes of the prophecy in Hosea, right? What exactly is the argument against that? Break it down for this dumb dumb please

I’m on my phone right now so I don’t want to type too much. But for now, are you using “prophecy” to mean “prediction of the future”? If so, that could be where our disconnect is and I think that can help me know where to start in my fuller response.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I will offer my point of view on this.

Thanks. I hope to reread this when I can better let it sink in.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I've heard a lot of the arguments in the "Was he talking about Jesus or was he talking about Israel?" debate. In my mind, that was perfectly good question prior to Jesus' fulfilling of the prophecy. Once fulfilled, the question should go away. It was anyone's guess at the time and I have read several reasoned and well thought out arguments for it being Israel. However, I am of the opinion that if one still holds that position, today, they have a lot more explaining to do than those on team Jesus. If one is going to dismiss Jesus as fulfillment of that prophecy, there is a TON of "coincidence" rationalization that has to occur.

I feel myself headed down the road of "I have to convince him I'm right!" and I don't want to go that direction in our conversation. I think you understand my point and I think I understand your point, so I'd like to move away from Isaiah 53. (But if you'd like to continue, I'm more than willing.)

If you're ok with it, I'd like to shift gears a bit. I'd like to stay on the same general topic, but use a different passage. Can we talk about Matthew 2:13-15:

13 Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord * appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to kill Him.”


14 So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. 15 He stayed there until the death of Herod; this happened so that what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: “ Out of Egypt I called My Son.”

How do you interpret Matthew's use of Hosea 11:1 here? Specifically, do you think Jesus was the "son" spoken of in Hosea?

So, Hosea 11:1 is:

When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.

Hosea is speaking of Israel. In Matthew, he's speaking of Israel too. Joseph did as he was told to protect Jesus because Jesus was the one who would fulfill the prophecy of saving Israel. And by "saving Israel" here we mean being the human sacrifice for all sin. At least this is how I understand it.

Oh, interesting. I'm not sure I've heard an interpretation quite like that. Or, maybe I have and I just don't remember.

I think everyone agrees Hosea is talking about Israel. It's hard not to agree with that. I've never heard someone argue that Hosea was knowingly talking about Jesus or the Messiah. There's clearly nothing messianic about Hosea's prophecy. However, what some people do say is while Hosea was referring to Israel, God must have had a second meaning that became apparent to Matthew later on. This is an approach that I can at least understand with something like Isaiah 53, but not here. I don't know how anyone can read Hosea 11 and see a hidden prediction of Jesus. There's no prediction at all. It's all backwards looking. But, some people hold that view because they think that's how prophecy-fulfillment has to work (always as a prediction) and they assume that's what Matthew was trying to say about Hosea.

What I hear most is that Hosea refers to Israel as the son and Matthew refers to Jesus as the son. What's important, though, is the event being referred to. Hosea is talking about the Exodus, where God called his son, Israel, out of Egypt. In Matthew, God is calling his son, Jesus, out to lead another Exodus. It's part of a series of stories in Matthew with Exodus themes that show Jesus as the New Moses or New Israel. So, I think Matthew wanted his audience thinking about the Exodus and used Hosea's language to do that.

It's interesting that you see both sons as being Israel and then reach a very similar conclusion about Matthew's main point (saving Israel vs a second Exodus...basically the same thing). God brought his son, Israel, out of Egypt before and he'll bring his son, Israel, out again - this time with Jesus leading the way. That's cool. I'll have to give it some thought that maybe Matthew was also referring to Israel as the son.

Either way, it appears we are in agreement that in order for these events in Matthew to have fulfilled Hosea, it wasn't necessary for Hosea to be a prediction of the events in Matthew. But I don't want to misrepresent your position on that.

So, a lot of what you say here, I am hearing for the first time outside of noisy bickering over theology AND I am a little slow on this stuff. What events are we talking about here? Hosea was a prophecy of the future. Matthew was not even born yet, much less a document to consume. All we can really say about Matthew is that the events recorded there check the boxes of the prophecy in Hosea, right? What exactly is the argument against that? Break it down for this dumb dumb please

I’m on my phone right now so I don’t want to type too much. But for now, are you using “prophecy” to mean “prediction of the future”? If so, that could be where our disconnect is and I think that can help me know where to start in my fuller response.

Yes. I'm not sure how else its defined

 

[Paddington]

I will offer my point of view on this.

Thanks. I hope to reread this when I can better let it sink in.

If you have any other questions I am glad to answer them.

 

[Paddington]

In my opinion, he is the greatest Bible Teacher. He is just a Rancher from Oklahoma, but powerful in Scriptrual Knowledge. I listen to three or four episodes of these a day.

He walks you through the Bible from the beginning to the end in 25 minute lessons:

Through the Bible with Les Feldick https://share.google/i8JHKhYUaYtIIeKTi

 

[Paddington]

But if that was the case roughly 2000 years ago, what makes us so sure that it is not the case today?

Yes and we see it all the time. Especially on the topic of hell. The Bible says hell is anywhere that God is not. All the hellfire and brimstone and descriptions of what hell is, is man's attempt to describe what THEY THINK things look like when God isn't present. So yeah, its absolutely the case today. Personally, I prefer to take the "wait and find out" approach.

I believe that is ultimately a third of the question. The other third is why does God allow his people to go off on such a tangent? And the final third would be those concerning the historically nasty fight with horrific consequence some to this day for ownership of the Jewish scriptures.

I'm of the belief that God does everything he does with an eye on creating curiosity in us to seek him. I believe that's why the three elements of worship are the way they are. The Bible is there to give us A LOT of insight. The Holy Spirit is there for us to reach out to with our "God, where are you? Am I doing this right?" kinds of questions/conversations. Communion with others is there because we are incredibly social creatures and have a lot to offer each other on this journey while on earth.

This is very insightful and I encourage you to keep posting your thoughts on this. It's got the makings of an interesting theological vision (a way to approach the faith and help put into practice in your life).

Its mostly my pops (foster dad who adopted me). We sit around and talk about this stuff a lot. Even more now that I've been afforded the opportunity to move closer to him and am now in my first house. Only problem is, its in Florida

If only we had a way to communicate over long distances. Curse this vast continent, keeping us apart!!

It's not the same.

Doesn't he mean phones and computers?

Nothing beats being able to engage face to face with other human beings.

It depends on the situation. When it comes to spiritual matters a lot of people are embarrassed to talk about it. But if they see a thread on the internet they are more likely to engage. That's my belief.