New Testament 'fulfilment' of prophecy: Weeping in Ramah

[Robyn Banks]

The New Testament idea of 'fulfillment' is so broad that there is usually little shared context between
- the Old Testament Scripture on which it is based
- the New Testament event which 'fulfills' the Old Testament.

We're dealing with a method of interpretation that is much more a 're-reading' of the Old Testament than a 'reading' of it.

Take for example the story of ‘the slaughter of the innocents’, which concludes by citing a ‘fulfillment’ of prophecy:

"16 When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men.

17 Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah:

18 "A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they are no more."

The ‘prophecy’ derives from Jeremiah 31.15. Rachel is mourning for ‘her children’ who ‘are no more’. The reason Rachel’s children have been taken from her is not clear. However, Jeremiah 40.1 informs us that Ramah was a transit station for the exiles from Jerusalem and Judah to be deported to Babylon in 587 BC. A Targum on Jeremiah 31.15 explicitly connects the two verses, and it is probable that there was Jewish tradition contemporary with Matthew which also did, given also the proximity of the verses in Jeremiah. Alternatively, Jeremiah 31.15 could be a reference to the captivity and deportation of the tribes of the Northern Kingdom by the Assyrians in 722-721 BC, since some of the principal Northern tribes (Manasseh and Ephraim) were reckoned as her descendants, along with Benjamin. Rachel’s ‘motherhood’, however, was not restricted to the descendents of her literal offspring. Rachel was also thought to be the mother of all Israel, as for example in Gen R 82.10; ascribed to R Simeon b Gamaliel, c140CE.

The slaughter of the innocents takes place in Bethlehem, 7 kms south of Jerusalem, but Rachel's voice is heard in Ramah, 8 kms North of Jerusalem. Why would Matthew link Ramah to Bethlehem, when they lie in opposite directions from Jerusalem? Not only that, but they lie in the area of different tribes. Bethlehem is situated in the territory of Judah, Ramah in Benjamin. Leah was Judah's Mother, Rachel the mother of Benjamin.

So what is that the sense of saying that a prophecy about mourning in Ramah has been realised in a massacre in Bethlehem?

The reason makes sense when we realize that, within the Old Testament, there are two traditions about the place where Rachel had been buried:

1. According to 1 Samuel 10.2 and Jeremiah 31.15, Rachel's tomb is in the territory of Benjamin, in the vicinity of Ramah.

2. According to Genesis 35.19-20 and 48.7 in their present form, Rachel was buried "on the way to Ephrath, that is, Bethlehem."

Matthew has then simply confused the two traditions on Rachel's tomb, probably by reading Jeremiah 31.15 in the light of the references to Bethlehem in Genesis 35.19 and 48.7

Matthew then connected the Jeremiah passage with an event that took place at Bethlehem. We do not know the quality of Matthew's geographical knowledge. In any case, it seems that he located Ramah not far from Bethlehem. Whereas, Bethlehem was south of Jerusalem, and Ramah about the same distance north of Jerusalem. Matthew, presupposing that Rachel had been buried in the vicinity of Bethlehem, connected the episode of the massacre of the young boys at Bethlehem with Rachel's complaint for her children at Ramah.

Some of the Northern clan of Ephrathah eventually settled in the region of Bethlehem and the name of Ephrathah was associated with Bethlehem, as indicated by the parenthetical gloss in Genesis 35.19 and 48.7 ("that is, Bethlehem"). It is this late (and mistaken) association of Bethlehem with Ephrathah (which lies north of Ramah) that Matthew has drawn upon in associating Rachel's mourning with a happening at Bethlehem, south of Jerusalem, even though the Jeremiah text he cites more correctly associates it with Ramah and the region north of Jerusalem.

Furthermore, Matthew changes the meaning of the Jeremiah text. Although Jeremiah described Rachel as crying for their children, the message in Jeremiah is for her is to stop weeping and crying, since the children are going to come back from the land of the enemy (31.16-17). In other words Jeremiah’s message is a message of joy and hope, whereas none of this appears in Matthew .

Christian scholar Rudolf Schnackenburg rightly concludes that:
"it seems far-fetched to quote the text as fulfillment of prophecy."
- Das Mathausevangelium 1.1 – 16.20 (Die Neue Echter Bibel, 1.1; Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1985), p27

Robyn

[GrayPilgrim]

Some of the Northern clan of Ephrathah eventually settled in the region of Bethlehem and the name of Ephrathah was associated with Bethlehem, as indicated by the parenthetical gloss in Genesis 35.19 and 48.7 ("that is, Bethlehem"). It is this late (and mistaken) association of Bethlehem with Ephrathah (which lies north of Ramah) that Matthew has drawn upon in associating Rachel's mourning with a happening at Bethlehem, south of Jerusalem, even though the Jeremiah text he cites more correctly associates it with Ramah and the region north of Jerusalem.

The Book of Ruth indicates (and the geneaology of 1 Chronicles) indicates that Ephrathah was the wife of a descendent of Caleb whose children settled in Bethleham in Judah.

[Hitch]

A primary function of an Apostle is Scriptural interpretation. Apostles are gifts to the church and we are to obey them. They had the best teacher.



Luke 24:44
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
(KJV)



Take care

Hitch

[smilax]

Someone is woefully ignorant of the standard rabbinical exegetical practice of pesher application...

[Robyn Banks]

GrayPilgrim:
The Book of Ruth indicates (and the geneaology of 1 Chronicles) indicates that Ephrathah was the wife of a descendent of Caleb whose children settled in Bethleham in Judah.
And then we ask, so what is that the sense of saying that a prophecy about mourning in Ramah has been realised in a massacre in Bethlehem?

The reason makes sense when we realize that, within the Old Testament, there are two traditions about the place where Rachel had been buried:

1. According to 1 Samuel 10.2 and Jeremiah 31.15, Rachel's tomb is in the territory of Benjamin, in the vicinity of Ramah.

2. According to Genesis 35.19-20 and 48.7 in their present form, Rachel was buried "on the way to Ephrath, that is, Bethlehem."

Matthew has then simply confused the two traditions on Rachel's tomb, probably by reading Jeremiah 31.15 in the light of the references to Bethlehem in Genesis 35.19 and 48.7

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Hitch:
A primary function of an Apostle is Scriptural interpretation. Apostles are gifts to the church and we are to obey them. They had the best teacher.
That being so, the interpretive methods they chose (or were inspired with) had little regard to the context of the Old Testament. They chose to 're-read' the Old Testament as much as they chose to 'read' it.

As a result, as the Christian scholar James Crenshaw points out:
"a prophetic word may find any number of ‘fulfilments’, each of which is in many respects different from what was spoken of in the original prophecy"
James L Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict – Its Effect Upon Israelite Religion (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971).(p50-51).


Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

smilax:
Someone is woefully ignorant of the standard rabbinical exegetical practice of pesher application...
Then we should teach that 'someone' the 'standard rabbinical exegetical practice of pesher application'. :p

I however am quite familiar with Rabbinic interpretation, generically referred to as midrash. I am also familiar with the pesher or midrash-pesher technique used especially in texts such as the DSS, and in wider Judaisms. To this we should add the allegorical and typological techniques of interpretation - and even the peshat (literal) interpretation.

I have no doubt that the broad and loose interpretive methods employed by the Gospel writers are no more broad and loose than those used by their contemporaries.

But this is all quite consistent with my point that the New Testament idea of 'fulfillment' is so broad that there is usually little shared context between
- the Old Testament Scripture on which it is based
- the New Testament event which 'fulfills' the Old Testament.

Whether the hermeneutic is literal, midrash, pesher, allegory or typology, the New Testament author has all but eliminated the shared context between the Old Testament prophecy and his 'fulfillment'.

We're dealing with a method of interpretation that is much more a 're-reading' of the Old Testament than a 'reading' of it.

Now, the first century notion of prophecy fulfilment in Judaisms has to be appreciated as different from a simplistic prediction-fulfilment model. There is, in the first-century Christian understanding of prophecy, what may be well described as a two-way intertextual dynamic. When prophecy-fulfilment 'occurs', it (usually) occurs both because of (1) the coming to pass of what was written in the prophetic text, and at the same time (2) the interpretation of a deeper meaning in the prophetic text than what was earlier thought to be there, sometimes by the prophet himself.

D Senior explains this well:
"By means of the formula quotations Matthew asserts that the person and mission of Jesus "fulfils" the plan or promise of God expressed in the Hebrew Scriptures. For Matthew -- as was true of virtually all the Testament interaction with the old Testament -- the relationship to the Hebrew Scriptures is dialogic rather than linear. "Fulfilment" does not mean simply a matter of applying old Testament quotations to events in the light of Jesus. The events of Jesus' life are illuminated and their authority revealed in the light of the Old Testament and, at the same time, new understandings of the voice of God in the Scriptures and the history of Israel are revealed in the light of Jesus' person and mission. Thus Jesus "fulfils" the Scriptures both by being in harmony with the Scriptures and revealing their intended meaning."
- Senior, D, "The Lure of the Formula Quotations - Re-assessing Matthew's Use of the Old Testament with the Passion Narrative as Test Case" in CM Tuckett (Ed) The Scriptures in the Gospels (Brussell: Leuven University Press, 1997), 89-115, 104

And so the methods of interpretation largely eliminate the literal correspondence with the Old Testament texts.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[smilax]

Ah, cool. But if you know all this, why are you attacking hyper-literalism, and why do you attack the idea that all prophecy is necessarily predictive rather than typological? I for one hold to inerrancy along with the first-century hermeneutic; what would be the problem with this?

The rereading, as you should know, is based upon the concept of spiraling history, so a certain amount of (rather free) recodification occurs.

[Jaltus]

I agree with smilax.

Why do you negate tyopoligical fulfillment, especially when most of the gospels (possibly excluding Mark, I have not done enough research there) use tyopology as their primary method of defining who Jesus is (for example, Jesus as tyopological fulfillment of the temple in John)?

[Hitch]

Robyn Banks:

That being so, the interpretive methods they chose (or were inspired with) had little regard to the context of the Old Testament. They chose to 're-read' the Old Testament as much as they chose to 'read' it.

As a result, as the Christian scholar James Crenshaw points out:
"a prophetic word may find any number of ‘fulfilments’, each of which is in many respects different from what was spoken of in the original prophecy"
James L Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict – Its Effect Upon Israelite Religion (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971).(p50-51).


Robyn They chose to 're-read' the Old Testament as much as they chose to 'read' it.Either the NT is ispired revelation or it is not. Agreement with you or any literal and or interpretiive reading is meaningless outside of agreement with Apostolic revelation.
Which I for one, value greatly over any other. It matters not what it is called or what method they used etc. What matters is they performed ther tasks of setting down the interpretations revealed by the Holy Spirit, a task solely their own and the authorty of the Apostles is unquestionalbe.


Take care

Hitch

[Robyn Banks]

smilax:
Ah, cool. But if you know all this, why are you attacking hyper-literalism,
I'm not attacking hyper-literalism. ;)

I am though challenging the idea (although I haven't said it yet) that the prophecy fulfillments cited in the New Testament could be used to convince anyone that Jesus was the Messiah.

Unfortunately, it's an either-or:
Either: a hermeneutic which is as loose as midrash, pesher, allegory and typology
Or: a hermeneutic which can be used to convince people of the prophesied Jesus

You can't have your cake and eat it too. :rofl:


smilax:
and why do you attack the idea that all prophecy is necessarily predictive rather than typological?
Not all prophecy is predictive. However, all prophecy cited in the New Testament is thought to be 'fulfilled' in some way.

smilax:
I for one hold to inerrancy along with the first-century hermeneutic; what would be the problem with this?
The problem with believing in inerrancy, within a literalistic authorial-intention aimed modernist interpretation, is that it is too absurd to believe.

smilax:
The rereading, as you should know, is based upon the concept of spiraling history, so a certain amount of (rather free) recodification occurs.
I've got no doubt about the recodification.

It strikes me that what is going on in first-century Christian prophecy-fulfillment is both (1) a correspondence theory of truth type of fulfilment and (2) a coherence theory of truth type of fulfilment. The first is clearly there in the NT, and it is apparent that the New Testament writers want to prove to Jews (i.e. apologetics), and "teach" their own fellow believers (i.e. didactics), that the life of Jesus was prophesied in the OT, and is the 'logical' continuation of the OT/Israel tradition. The very wording of the formula citations in Matthew indicates this apologetic and didactic motive. The second point demands that the OT as a whole is viewed in the light of Jesus.

That both of these things are going on, I think has two consequences:

1. No New Testament fulfilment passages can be 'disproved' because of the (different) context of the Old Testament prophecies to which they correspond.

2. No Old Testament prophecies 'prove' that the events narrated in the life of Jesus make him 'the Messiah', without the reader having previously accepted that this is true.

Because both of these things are going on within the intertextual dialogue, it is still possible to show where a New Testament writer has misunderstood the Old Testament. Conceptually, one may still misunderstand a text, before one interprets it according to one's hermeneutic. One may simply misread the words in one text, for example, misreading 'sane' for 'insane' before interpreting it. One could also recall a text incorrectly from memory, as another example. If this is applied to the New Testament author, he may misunderstand an Old Testament prophecy, before interpreting it using his (Jesus-) messianic hermeneutic. This is what I interpret Matthew as doing in respect of the Ramah prophecy, and also with the triumphal entry prophecy.

So while I agree that a simplistic, purely one-way linear predictive-fulfilment model of understanding the New Testament writer is wrong, I disagree that the 'First-century Jewish model' means that the NT writer can never err. Such a conclusion would do away entirely with the meaning of the Old Testament prophecy - which the First-century Jewish model certainly does not do. And the reasons it does not is, as I indicated above, for apologetic and didactic reasons - as noted by Howell:

"The Old Testament and its authority as the word of God ([Matthew]1.22; 2 .15) exist independently of the narrative world of the Gospel. When Matthew appeals to prophecies which lie outside of his Gospel' s narrative world (prophecy whose authority is accepted by the implied reader), and when he shows how the events in Jesus' life which he is narrating fulfilled the Old Testament messianic hopes, he thereby gives his narrative plausibility and reinforces the truthfulness of his claims about who Jesus is. Since the old Testament formula quotations are cited by the narrator, his trustworthiness is also established for the implied reader."
-- DB Howell, Matthew's inclusive story: a study in the narrative rhetoric of the first Gospel (JSNT SS, 42, Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1990), 186

Hope that helps.

- Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Jaltus:
Why do you negate tyopoligical fulfillment,
I don't. I affirm it as one of the types of interpretation of the Old Testament 'fulfilled' in Jesus.

And that is part of the reason why I reject that there is any shared context between Old Testament passages and the New Testament narrative.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Robyn
They chose to 're-read' the Old Testament as much as they chose to 'read' it.

Hitch
Either the NT is ispired revelation or it is not. Agreement with you or any literal and or interpretiive reading is meaningless outside of agreement with Apostolic revelation.
Which I for one, value greatly over any other. It matters not what it is called or what method they used etc. What matters is they performed ther tasks of setting down the interpretations revealed by the Holy Spirit, a task solely their own and the authorty of the Apostles is unquestionalbe.
That may be so.

But in so doing, they ensured that they introduced a concept of 'fulfillment' so broad that there is usually little shared context between
- the Old Testament Scripture on which it is based
- the New Testament event which 'fulfills' the Old Testament.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[smilax]

The reality of spiraling history is precisely this shared context for typological correspondence. With the first-century hermeneutic, prophecy was expected to have multiple referents. I don't see why you see this as an example of magical cakes.

In any case, do you deny that there is a single prophecy directly fulfilled by Christ?

[Robyn Banks]

smilax:
The reality of spiraling history is precisely this shared context for typological correspondence. With the first-century hermeneutic, prophecy was expected to have multiple referents.
Exactly right.

As James Crenshaw points out that “a prophetic word may find any number of ‘fulfilments’, each of which is in many respects different from what was spoken of in the original prophecy.”

This is already in evidence amongst the Old Testament prophecies, with Jeremiah’s ‘70 year’ prophecy finding various ‘fulfilments’ in the rededication of the temple (in Ezra), in the peaceful conditions brought about by Persian rule (Hag and Zech 1-8), and in more cavalier fashion in Daniel’s ‘70 weeks’ to end the desolations in Jerusalem (Dan 9).

By the time of the New Testament, the citation of ‘fulfilment’ becomes so flexible that it is impossible to detect any shared context between prophecy and ‘fulfilment,’ except by positing a doctrine of some spiritual or ‘deeper’ meaning being thereby fulfilled. So, Jesus’ return from Egypt is somehow a ‘fulfilment’ of Hos 11:1, although Hosea was making a past reference to the Exodus. Jesus is called a Nazarene in the same chapter, probably due to some esoteric misunderstanding of the Nazarite ‘prophecy.’ Matthew’s account of Judas’ blood money is based on a text in Jeremiah which speaks of money approved by God.

smilax:
I don't see why you see this as an example of magical cakes.
Magical cakes? Hmmmm. Don't know what that means. But it shows that there is no shared context between Old Testament prophecy and New Testament fulfillment.

smilax:
In any case, do you deny that there is a single prophecy directly fulfilled by Christ?
Jesus 'fulfilled' everything the Gospel writers said he did - because they were operating with such a loose concept of 'fulfillment'. If I interpreted the Bible in the same way, I could find 300 or whatever prophecies that applied to Julius Caesar, Oliver Cromwell, or George W Bush.

And there would be next to no shared context between Old Testament text and these 'fulfillments'.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Hitch]

That may be so.

But in so doing, they ensured that they introduced a concept of 'fulfillment' so broad that there is usually little shared context between
- the Old Testament Scripture on which it is based
- the New Testament event which 'fulfills' the Old Testament.

Hope that helps.

RobynThat was their job Robyn.

H

[dizzle]

Man, I wish I had the time to devote to this. It is completely incorrect that there were no "brakes" on the typological method or that 300 prophecies could legimitately within the first century hermeneutic be found to apply to practically any person. It is not simply picking out any event and applying them to Jesus, it is the presentation of Jesus as the Ultimate Israel, as shown in the morphing relationship between the identity of the Servant in Isaiah. As Israel was God's first born son and taken out of Egypt, so Christ as the eschatological Passover Lamb was taken out of Egypt. The typological referents and associations are rich and deep and not simply willy-nilly cherry-picking of the OT text.

Glenn Miller (who shares the same closing signature line as Robyn - coincidence or contrived??) has some very excellent material on the issues of typology and this specific prophecy at his site at www.christian-thinktank.com

[Robyn Banks]

Robyn:
That may be so.

But in so doing, they ensured that they introduced a concept of 'fulfillment' so broad that there is usually little shared context between
- the Old Testament Scripture on which it is based
- the New Testament event which 'fulfills' the Old Testament.
[b]Hitch:
That was their job Robyn.
Then we agree. :)

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
Man, I wish I had the time to devote to this. It is completely incorrect that there were no "brakes" on the typological method or that 300 prophecies could legimitately within the first century hermeneutic be found to apply to practically any person. It is not simply picking out any event and applying them to Jesus, it is the presentation of Jesus as the Ultimate Israel, as shown in the morphing relationship between the identity of the Servant in Isaiah.
That Jesus is now the Servant Israel, and the Victorious Israel are central ideas in the conception of New Testament prophecy fulfilment. And many of these 'prophecies' had been associated with an eschatological messiah long before Jesus, so that early Christian writers already had lists of 'proof-texts' available to them. Nevertheless, the connection between Old Testament texts and New Testament pays little regard to context of the Old Testament passage. This is clearly in accordance with contemporary Jewish practice, but it remains the case.

Dee Dee Warren:
As Israel was God's first born son and taken out of Egypt, so Christ as the eschatological Passover Lamb was taken out of Egypt. The typological referents and associations are rich and deep and not simply willy-nilly cherry-picking of the OT text.
Oh - they're not willy nilly at all. In fact, most of the texts had possibly been selected by messianic Jews prior to Jesus, who associated some OT texts with their new messianic ideas.

Dee Dee Warren:
Glenn Miller (who shares the same closing signature line as Robyn - coincidence or contrived??)
Uncanny. I got my quote from reading Northrop Frye's book. I don't know Glenn Miller (isn't he a singer? :) ). But I'll trust he hasn't contrived his signature to be like mine.


Dee Dee Warren:
has some very excellent material on the issues of typology and this specific prophecy at his site at www.christian-thinktank.com
I may have a look at it. Thanks for the reference.

Robyn

[Hitch]

Then we agree.

Robyn

That will be a cold day in hell.

HITCH

[Chuck_D]

Robyn Banks:

I am though challenging the idea (although I haven't said it yet) that the prophecy fulfillments cited in the New Testament could be used to convince anyone that Jesus was the Messiah.

Unfortunately, it's an either-or:
Either: a hermeneutic which is as loose as midrash, pesher, allegory and typology
Or: a hermeneutic which can be used to convince people of the prophesied Jesus

You can't have your cake and eat it too. :rofl:




mmmm . . . cake :p

One can indeed have both sides of your either-or. A loose hermeneutic CAN be used to convince people of the "prophesied Jesus" if said people 1) agree that loose hermeneutics are a legit way to interepret scripture and 2) that the evangelists used these methods properly when applying prophecy to Jesus. This was exactly the case when God "added to the church daily such as should be saved." :yipee: The folks back then accepted the apostles' style of exegesis and they found their use of it persuasive.

Not trying to read your mind, but it sounds to me that you're REALLY arguing that "loose hermeneutics" aren't a valid way to interpret scripture.

[geebob]

if said people 1) agree that loose hermeneutics are a legit way to interepret scripture and

they did. Even Jesus' critics the pharasees used these loose methods.



Robyn Banks, even with the view your presenting here (not that I have followed it all as closely as I would like), is it still reasonable to hold to innerrancy in your opinion?

I don't see that it is necessary for the New Testament authors to have read the Old Testament without error and yet that it is not the case that without error, the New Testament communicates everything that God wanted it to communicate to the church.

[dizzle]

Dear Robyn:

Uncanny. I got my quote from reading Northrop Frye's book. I don't know Glenn Miller (isn't he a singer? ). But I'll trust he hasn't contrived his signature to be like mine.


I owe you an apology then. I unfairly assumed you were mimicking Miller (and no, this Miller is not the big band leader). And I sincerely do think that you will enjoy Miller's site.

[dizzle]

That Jesus is now the Servant Israel, and the Victorious Israel are central ideas in the conception of New Testament prophecy fulfilment. And many of these 'prophecies' had been associated with an eschatological messiah long before Jesus, so that early Christian writers already had lists of 'proof-texts' available to them.

Then your statement that they would be only convincing to those who were already convinced has just been defeated by you. The superstructure was already in place, and thus, these fulfillments were convincing. And again I disagree that there is no connection to the OT text itself.... there most certainly is, but not if we are going to read it one-dimensionally, which is not what the ancients, who were much closer in time to have an understwanding of what was being communicted, did.

[Jaltus]

1. No New Testament fulfilment passages can be 'disproved' because of the (different) context of the Old Testament prophecies to which they correspond.

2. No Old Testament prophecies 'prove' that the events narrated in the life of Jesus make him 'the Messiah', without the reader having previously accepted that this is true.
Actually, both of these are false. The rabbinic schools did in fact have a certain set of standards that the Messiah must fulfill, such as being born in Bethlehem and fleeing to Egypt. You are clearly denying these. Also, the Messiah must be of the line of David, something else you are neglecting. The scope is quite limited with just those three prophecies that ANY Jew would hold the Messiah up to.

[GrayPilgrim]

And don't forget prior to the destruction of the Temple, the genealogical records there could have been used to discount anyone's claim, if say he was really a descendent of Benjamin. They were strictest with the Levites and priests but also the records of the Davidic line were kept up too.

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
The superstructure was already in place, and thus, these fulfillments were convincing.
They were convincing: to messianic Jews (not to be confused with the modern messianic Jews). And to the Christians included in 'messanic Jews'.

Dee Dee Warren:
And again I disagree that there is no connection to the OT text itself.... there most certainly is, but not if we are going to read it one-dimensionally, which is not what the ancients, who were much closer in time to have an understwanding of what was being communicted, did.
There is no or very limited shared context (authorial intent) in allegory, typology, midrash, pesher, etc.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Jaltus:
The rabbinic schools did in fact have a certain set of standards that the Messiah must fulfill, such as being born in Bethlehem and fleeing to Egypt.
Quite. I don't doubt that the non-contextual interpretations by the Christian Jews were copied from earlier midrashic traditions.


Jaltus:
You are clearly denying these.
Oh no - I am affirming these. I am just noting that they too were out of context. They did not have regard to the authorial intent of the Old Testament author. In fact, most seminaries would give this type of interpretation a FAIL mark (rightly or wrongly!).

Jaltus:
Also, the Messiah must be of the line of David, something else you are neglecting.
Nonsense. I recognise that a king of Israel must be in the line of David. That goes without saying.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

GrayPilgrim:
And don't forget prior to the destruction of the Temple, the genealogical records there could have been used to discount anyone's claim, if say he was really a descendent of Benjamin. They were strictest with the Levites and priests but also the records of the Davidic line were kept up too.
But did anyone check Jesus' records (if he indeed had any)?

And did anyone check them before Matthew (AD85) or Luke (AD85)?

Your point is hollow and speculative.

Robyn

[dizzle]

There is no or very limited shared context (authorial intent) in allegory, typology, midrash, pesher, etc.

Did you interview the authors? And actually since I hold the ultimate Author to be God, that is rather presumptous.

[dizzle]

They were convincing: to messianic Jews (not to be confused with the modern messianic Jews). And to the Christians included in 'messanic Jews'.



And thus you have defeated your own point.

[GrayPilgrim]

Robyn Banks:

But did anyone check Jesus' records (if he indeed had any)?

And did anyone check them before Matthew (AD85) or Luke (AD85)?

Your point is hollow and speculative.

Robyn

It did not take Matthew or Luke to test his authenticity. All Caiphas or Sim Lev had to do when Jesus was proclaimed as Messiah, which would have been pre-70AD, is go to the archives in Jerusalem and say, "Hey look Jesus is from the Tribe of Issachar," and exclude him right away. There would have been no need for Gamaliel's pronouncement as a means of questioning whether it is from God. So no I do not see it hollow or speculative, rather your assumption of a c.85 date for Luke is what I see as the hollow and speculative. For a defense of a 60s dating of Luke-Acts see Darrell Bock's commentary on Luke in the Baker Exegetical Commentary series where he gives the following evidence
The picture in Acts of Rome, knowing little about the new movement, is still deciding where Christianity still fits.
Failure to note the death of James or Paul,
The failure to note the destruction of Jerusalem, even in passages where it could have been mentioned editorially
The amount of uncertainty concerning internal Jew-Gentile relations, which corresponds to Paul, and not a post fall of Jerusalem setting in which the Jews blamed the Christians for abandoning the city.

The fourth one is the one that Bock finds most compelling. he says:
Acts presupposes a racially mixed community, which in turn suggests an earlier date, not a later one. Details about the law, table fellowship, and practices that may offend (Actrs6:1-6; 10-1; 15) also suggest an earlier time frame. That the Gentile mission still needed such a vigorous and detailed defense further suggests this earlier period, since by the 80s the Gentile character of the Christian movement was a given... (p. 18, emphasis added)

So I can find my scholars too. This does not settle the issue, I think it just shows that your condescending tone is not called for and in my experience generally fails to accomplish much except to annoy others, which generally leads to poor dialogue.

GP

[Lizard]

Robyn Banks:

They were convincing: to messianic Jews (not to be confused with the modern messianic Jews). And to the Christians included in 'messanic Jews'.

Dee Dee Warren:


And thus you have defeated your own point.

I agree with Dee Dee here. The messianic Jews were very close to the author of Danial geographically, linguistically, culturally, and termporaly. It seems to me that they would have have a much better grasp of the authors intent, as opposed to a twenty first century, Western reader.

In fact, that is one reason why I find what you call the "non-contextual" interpritation to be valid.

[dizzle]

And when you through Daniel 2 into the mix (which although it frazzles futurists), the interpretation of Daniel 9 and Daniel 7 (the apocolyptic Son of Man) is crystal clear.

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
And when you through Daniel 2 into the mix (which although it frazzles futurists), the interpretation of Daniel 9 and Daniel 7 (the apocolyptic Son of Man) is crystal clear.
The interpretation of Daniel 9 and 7 IS crystal clear. Both chapters climax with the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Recourse to a proper chronology of Dnaiel demonstrates this:
http://www.tektonics.com/prophecy/daniel_chronology.html

It is only when one tries to make Daniel into an eisegesis about Jesus that one runs into great trouble.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Faramir:
I agree with Dee Dee here. The messianic Jews were very close to the author of Danial geographically, linguistically, culturally, and termporaly. It seems to me that they would have have a much better grasp of the authors intent, as opposed to a twenty first century, Western reader.
The Old Testament knows no end-times eschatological "Messiah". That includes the writers of Daniel - who were describing a specific Greek king as the 'messiah/anointed'. All Old Testament texts refer to any number of specifically anointed kings / priests / prophets - both Jewish and Persian (eg Cyrus).

The reinterpretation of Old Testament texts to refer to an end-times eschatological "Messiah" (capital "M") is a dramatic change in interpretation. It occurred in Jewish writings from about 100 BC onwards, most famously in Christian Jewish writings. It was a creative reinterpretation of the Old Testament, derived from an expectation of an imminent apocalypse.

So messianic Jews were a late and creative reinterpretation. Of course, messianic Jews became Judaism's most famous sect: Christianity.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[dizzle]

Nonsense. Those close to the writing disagreed with you thoroughly as you have already conceded, thus, selling the farm.

[dizzle]

It was a creative reinterpretation of the Old Testament, derived from an expectation of an imminent apocalypse.

Broad generalization, but I might add, a CORRECT expectation of an imminent apocalypse, which Jesus confirmed, and which DID happen.

[dizzle]

Robyn Banks:

The interpretation of Daniel 9 and 7 IS crystal clear. Both chapters climax with the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Recourse to a proper chronology of Dnaiel demonstrates this:
http://www.tektonics.com/prophecy/daniel_chronology.html

It is only when one tries to make Daniel into an eisegesis about Jesus that one runs into great trouble.



Well then Jesus got into a whole heap of trouble since He applied the Son of Man figure of Daniel 7 to Himself, and the abomination of desolation of Daniel 9 to His coming in judgment upon the apostate Jews in 70AD, and claiming that He was the fulfillment of the Kingdom promised in Daniel 2. Hmm, do I believe Robyn or do I believe Jesus? Jesus also claimed that the entire OT was about Him, yet Robyn disagrees. I think I will stick with what Jesus said.

[Lizard]

Robyn Banks:

That Jesus is now the Servant Israel, and the Victorious Israel are central ideas in the conception of New Testament prophecy fulfillment. And many of these 'prophecies' had been associated with an eschatological messiah long before Jesus, so that early Christian writers already had lists of 'proof-texts' available to them. Nevertheless, the connection between Old Testament texts and New Testament pays little regard to context of the Old Testament passage. This is clearly in accordance with contemporary Jewish practice, but it remains the case.


Oh - they're not willy nilly at all. In fact, most of the texts had possibly been selected by messianic Jews prior to Jesus, who associated some OT texts with their new messianic ideas.
emphasis added


Robyn:

I'm really trying to figure out what you are trying to say.

You seem to agree that the messianic "proof-text" existed prior to christ. You also seem to believe (stated elsewhere in this thread) that you believe that these "proof-text" are based on faulty interpretation and are not what the author originally intended. From this I can conclude you are trying to say one of two things:

1) Jesus lived a life that was an uncanny parallel to these "proof-text" that were nonetheless based on poor interpretation, and had nothing to do with Jesus being the Messiah.

or

2) The writers of the Gospels made up these parts about Jesus life in order to make it fit these "proof-text" which they believed to be based on a valid interpretation of OT prophecy, and that large portions of the Gospels are bald faced lies.

Which of these statements represents what you are tying to say here. Or is there something I missed?

[geebob]

that you believe that these "proof-text" are based on faulty interpretation and are not what the author originally intended.

the interpretation would be faulty by todays standards.

2) The writers of the Gospels made up these parts about Jesus life in order to make it fit these "proof-text" which they believed to be based on a valid interpretation of OT prophecy, and that large portions of the Gospels are bald faced lies.

or they just had a looser view of what constituted fulfillment.

[Robyn Banks]

geebob:
or they just had a looser view of what constituted fulfillment.
They sure did!

[dizzle]

And I notice that Robyn is still trying to wash his hands of the tar baby he grasped here.

[djconklin]

That being so, the interpretive methods they chose (or were inspired with) had little regard to the context of the Old Testament. They chose to 're-read' the Old Testament as much as they chose to 'read' it.

No, they read the texts like any other Semite would have read it. You are using the modern, "scientific", literalistic mind-set when reading the text--note your point about the geographical locations of the towns.

As a result, as the Christian scholar James Crenshaw points out:
"a prophetic word may find any number of ‘fulfilments’, each of which is in many respects different from what was spoken of in the original prophecy"
James L Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict – Its Effect Upon Israelite Religion (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971).(p50-51).

The lack of a capital letter at the beginning of the quote and a period at the end indicates to me that the sentance has been clipped in some shape, manner or form. Would you mind quoting the whole? With more context see we can see where he is coming from (see below as an example)?

BTW, thank you for finally providing a whole citation.

From Gerard Van Groningen's Messianic Revelation in the Old Testament. (Baker Book, 1990), page 715:

"Commentators have pointed to Jeremiah's reference to Rachel as evidence that he was referring to the experiences of mothers in the northern ten tribes when these were overrun by the Assyrians. Rachel was the ancestress of Ephraim and Manasseh, two of the largest tribes. But it should be noted that there is also a reference to Ramah which was within Benjamin's border. Benjamin was part of the kingdom of Judah. One cannot avoid Jeremiah's stress on the experiences of the northern tribes (cf. vv. 18, 20). ...

The purpose for including a discussion of Rachel's weeping in our study of the revelation of the messianic concept is the fact that Matthew quotes this verse (31:15) when he concludes his account of Herod's massacre of the male babies more or less of the same age as the infant Jesus (Matt. 2:18). First of all, it should be understood that Jeremiah 31:15 is not strictly messianic; it does not refer to a royal person, the characteristics, reign, and work of the promised Messiah.* Second, Matthew's reference to the grief of the past, within the context of Jesus' birth, indicates that the inspired New Testament writers saw a definite connection between the covenant people's experiences and the events surrounding Jesus' birth. This connection is not a mental fabrication. The New Testament writers saw and proclaimed the organic unity of Yahweh's dealing with his people and the experiences of the people as Yahweh carried out his unchanging plans for them in the course of time."

*as it was conceieved by the people of Jesus' day. Note that Jesus didn't fulfill their expectations and so Matthew could then legitimately use this verse from Jeremiah as a prophecy ab't jesus.

[Seasanctuary]

The New Testament idea of 'fulfillment' is so broad that there is usually little shared context between
- the Old Testament Scripture on which it is based
- the New Testament event which 'fulfills' the Old Testament.

We're dealing with a method of interpretation that is much more a 're-reading' of the Old Testament than a 'reading' of it.
Your analysis here is right on the money. In fact, JP Holding recently admitted (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=416492&postcount=16) that the Immanuel prophecy is a re-reading of the OT by Matthew rather than an amazing predictive prophecy that Isaiah made which was fulfilled in Jesus in a Lee Strobel-style "Messianic fingerprint evidence" proof.

The Ramah "prophecy" is another great example of something that has no convincing power to an unbeliever. The Old Testament author was not making a prediction of Jesus. The same goes for "out of Egypt I have called my son." Again, it was history, not future predictions.

Christian apologists definitely cannot eat and keep their cakes on this one. I appreciate that Holding does not try to do both. I wish others would follow suit.

When unbelievers hear Christians claim amazing predictive prophecies where the OT text is obviously not not doing such a thing...that gives them a good reason to doubt Christian claims everywhere else. It's just like that darned Skeptic's Annotated Bible with its multitude of unjustified complaints...that gives inerrantists a great reason to doubt skeptical claims everywhere else.

[Seasanctuary]

Ah, cool. But if you know all this, why are you attacking hyper-literalism, and why do you attack the idea that all prophecy is necessarily predictive rather than typological?
If you don't hold that the Ramah prophecy is predictive, then there's no need to worry about Robyn's thesis here. There are a good deal of evangelical Christians, however, who think this is awesome invincible proof that there's supernatural predictive prophecy fulfillment afoot.

[Seasanctuary]

The folks back then accepted the apostles' style of exegesis and they found their use of it persuasive.

Not trying to read your mind, but it sounds to me that you're REALLY arguing that "loose hermeneutics" aren't a valid way to interpret scripture.
And that's fine. I don't think anyone here is saying that "loose hermaneutics" is illegitimate and therefore the Bible can't be trusted. We're just saying that there is an important difference between midrashic and predictive prophecy that Christians should take into account. The Midrashic approach is fine, as long as you don't try to pass it off as something it is not.

It's entirely likely that the first century Jews read Matthew's gospel and properly took these things as Midrashic and appreciated it from that approach. The problem is that modern Christians want to turn these into amazing prophetic predictions on the OT writers' parts. Skeptics like me take note of this tendency and question such Christians' reading comprehension. Christians like Josh McDowell who ought to know better...but still try to pass off midrashic fulfillment as amazing predictive fulfillment come off as dishonest to me.

Going with the Midrashic approach makes your apologetic self-consistant. Don't be tempted to claim amazing predictive prophecy when it isn't there. If it were there, it would help your cause...but when it isn't -- and your audience catches on to it -- it damages your credibility.

[Seasanctuary]

Actually, both of these are false. The rabbinic schools did in fact have a certain set of standards that the Messiah must fulfill, such as being born in Bethlehem and fleeing to Egypt. You are clearly denying these.
I'm interested in seeing references on this. I'm suddenly quite curious.

[Seasanctuary]

The messianic Jews were very close to the author of Danial geographically, linguistically, culturally, and termporaly. It seems to me that they would have have a much better grasp of the authors intent, as opposed to a twenty first century, Western reader.

In fact, that is one reason why I find what you call the "non-contextual" interpritation to be valid.
Ahem, I don't think Robyn is claiming the first century Jews were wrong.

...more like modern Christians are wrong for trying to present the midrashic interpretation the first century Jews were comfortable with as amazing predictive prophecy that 20th century Westerners would find convincing.

[djconklin]

Your analysis here is right on the money. In fact, JP Holding recently admitted that the Immanuel prophecy is a re-reading of the OT by Matthew rather than an amazing predictive prophecy that Isaiah made which was fulfilled in Jesus in a Lee Strobel-style "Messianic fingerprint evidence" proof.

Then JP Holding goofed and badly!

The shared context between the OT prophecy and the NT fulfillment lies not in the verbal and historical similarities of petty details. It is the concepts that are involved that are far more important. As many NT scholars have pointed out the life of Jesus is filled with "re-enactments" of the history of Israel and where they failed he does not. This was partially noted in the last sentance of my quote from Gerard Van Groningen's Messianic Revelation in the Old Testament. (Baker Book, 1990), page 715:

"The New Testament writers saw and proclaimed the organic unity of Yahweh's dealing with his people and the experiences of the people as Yahweh carried out his unchanging plans for them in the course of time."

[Seasanctuary]

Then JP Holding goofed and badly!

The shared context between the OT prophecy and the NT fulfillment lies not in the verbal and historical similarities of petty details. It is the concepts that are involved that are far more important. As many NT scholars have pointed out the life of Jesus is filled with "re-enactments" of the history of Israel and where they failed he does not. And how does JP's stance conflict with what you just said? I'm saying that passages such as Isaiah 7 do not -- within the OT text -- predict this or that specific thing that Jesus had to match or fail to match. Passages such as the "weeping in Ramah" in the OT text are not predictions like "The next king of England will die three years after he gets married."

Rather, the NT writers saw a parallel between the a concept here or a word there and via midrashic interpretation...called it a "fulfillment." This is FINE as long as the readers understand what is going on and do not mistake it for something else entirely.

[djconklin]

And how does JP's stance conflict with what you just said? I'm saying that passages such as Isaiah 7 do not -- within the OT text

And therein lies the rub -- trying to pay too close attention and restrict the prophecy to the OT context. As I said before: "The shared context between the OT prophecy and the NT fulfillment lies not in the verbal and historical similarities of petty details."

Passages such as the "weeping in Ramah" in the OT text are not predictions like "The next king of England will die three years after he gets married."

That's because OT prophecies are not of that nature. They don't need the very detailed specifics -- this is the same kind of mistake that Robyn was making on a different thread. In order to understand what constitutes a prophecy in the OT context we need to understand the Semitic mind-set vs. assuming that it was just like our own. As I said before: "The shared context between the OT prophecy and the NT fulfillment lies not in the verbal and historical similarities of petty details."

Another example: It was pointed out that when Jesus pointed to Jonah's experience He may also have intended his audience to pay attention to his prophecy to Nineveh: "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown". One of the keys is to note that the word translated as "overthrown" has more than one meaning (spiritual or physical overthrow). Jerusalem being overthrown by the Romans 40 years after Christ's death.


the NT writers saw a parallel between the a concept here or a word there and via midrashic interpretation...called it a "fulfillment."

I only know of one scholar who tried to explain Matthew in terms of midrash and as I understand it his fellow scholars poo-poo'ed the idea. So, I wouldn't go down that path unless I had lots more data to support it. So, I certainly wouldn't claim it as a certainty at this stage in time.

Since all the early Christians were Jews until about 35 A.D. or so I'd have to say that Matthew just didn't call something out of the blue a "fulfillment"--others saw it as such as well. If they hadn't not only wouldn't they have accepted Jesus as the Christ (which is what Matthew wrote his gospel for) but then the church could have been easily attacked by the Jewish leadership (pointing out that the "fulfillment" was made up and an invalid use/reading of Scripture) and thus the Christian church would have died fairly soon after Christ's death.

[Seasanctuary]

Since all the early Christians were Jews until about 35 A.D. or so I'd have to say that Matthew just didn't call something out of the blue a "fulfillment"--others saw it as such as well. If they hadn't not only wouldn't they have accepted Jesus as the Christ (which is what Matthew wrote his gospel for) but then the church could have been easily attacked by the Jewish leadership (pointing out that the "fulfillment" was made up and an invalid use/reading of Scripture) and thus the Christian church would have died fairly soon after Christ's death.

Once again, neither Robyn nor I have claimed in this thread that it was not a legitimate "fulfillment" to first century Jews.

We are claiming that what first century Jews term prophetic "fulfillment" is NOT in these cases what us moderns would deem amazing predictive prophecy (which Strobel and McDowell and Stoner pass these off as).

We are in agreement that the first century Jews considered Matthew's methods acceptable.

[djconklin]

Once again, neither Robyn nor I have claimed in this thread that it was not a legitimate "fulfillment" to first century Jews.

We are claiming that what first century Jews term prophetic "fulfillment" is NOT in these cases what us moderns would deem amazing predictive prophecy (which Strobel and McDowell and Stoner pass these off as).

We are in agreement that the first century Jews considered Matthew's methods acceptable.

Given that the methods were acceptable and that the prohecies were legitimately fulfilled by Christ then we should accept them as such as well and stop setting ourselves up as the final jury--the verdict is already in, and we must choose to either accept it or be willing to pay the ultimate price. They were predictive prophecies and they have been fulfilled, end of story.

[chsalvia]

Given that the methods were acceptable and that the prohecies were legitimately fulfilled by Christ then we should accept them as such as well and stop setting ourselves up as the final jury--

Obviously, the methods weren't always acceptable, since most Jews did not find the prophecy fulfillment aspect convincing enough to become Christians. Jesus was rejected as a false-Messiah according to the Gospels, and is portrayed as such in the Talmud.

the verdict is already in, and we must choose to either accept it or be willing to pay the ultimate price. They were predictive prophecies and they have been fulfilled, end of story.

Prophecy fulfillment is a very obscure and unconvincing approach to proving the divine origins of Jesus's ministry. Are we really supposed to be amazed that Matthew believed that a passage in the LXX version of Isaiah regarding an Aramean-Israelite coalition against Judah in the 8th century B.C. featured an element which, when taken out of context, shared some similarity with Jesus's birth? Frankly, I've seen better from Nostradamus. :wink:

[Seasanctuary]

Given that the methods were acceptable and that the prohecies were legitimately fulfilled by Christ then we should accept them as such as well and stop setting ourselves up as the final jury--the verdict is already in, and we must choose to either accept it or be willing to pay the ultimate price. They were predictive prophecies and they have been fulfilled, end of story.
Wow that was defensive. Did you miss the entire point that the "methods" under discussion were not "predictive prophecy?"

Please tell me that you at least understand the point I'm trying to make...that they were fulfilled in the midrashic style and not in the predictive prophecy style. I can understand if you want to disagree with this position, but it appears you're having difficulty understanding what my position is.

As far as "setting ourselves up as the final jury"...don't you realize that we are at least the final jury when it comes to deciding who we think the final jury should be? :ahem:

As far as "either accept it or be willing to pay the ultimate price"...JP Holding already agreed that some of these prophecies are fulfilled in the midrashic sense and not the predictive sense. Do you think JP is falling afoul of salvation for this view? Do you threaten all the alternative Christian theological positions with damnation? You must be popular at theological parties. :wink:

There's really no need to feel so threatened. Saying that the Immanuel or Ramah prophecies were fulfilled in a Midrashic sense but not in a predictive prophecy sense is not a threat to your faith whether it's true or not. And if it is true, then you come off as more honest to outsiders like me who see a lack of clear Jesus prediction in the OT texts in question.

[Robyn Banks]

Your analysis here is right on the money. In fact, JP Holding recently admitted (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=416492&postcount=16) that the Immanuel prophecy is a re-reading of the OT by Matthew rather than an amazing predictive prophecy that Isaiah made which was fulfilled in Jesus in a Lee Strobel-style "Messianic fingerprint evidence" proof.
Holding has a greater appreciation of the New Testament concept of prophecy than the vast majority of pop-apologists.




Christian apologists definitely cannot eat and keep their cakes on this one.
Right.





When unbelievers hear Christians claim amazing predictive prophecies where the OT text is obviously not not doing such a thing...that gives them a good reason to doubt Christian claims everywhere else. It's just like that darned Skeptic's Annotated Bible with its multitude of unjustified complaints...that gives inerrantists a great reason to doubt skeptical claims everywhere else.
Uncannily, I made a quite similar comment on one of my websites:

"This is not to say that the list of errors in 'The Skeptic's Annotated Bible' is without problems. The weakness in their list, which is an inherent weakness of all such error-lists, is that a large number of dubious errors and many non-errors are listed in amongst the actual errors. In our opinion, the actual errors listed in 'The Skeptic's Annotated Bible' constitute far less than half of the listing. And this fact tends to undermine the persuasive value of the whole enterprise. When fundamentalists discover that some of the alleged 'errors' are not in fact errors, they tend to - wrongly, but with understandable cause - dismiss everything within the list."
http://www.skepticsannotatedbiblecorrected.com

Robyn Banks

[Robyn Banks]

The messianic Jews were very close to the author of Danial geographically, linguistically, culturally, and termporaly. It seems to me that they would have have a much better grasp of the authors intent, as opposed to a twenty first century, Western reader.

In fact, that is one reason why I find what you call the "non-contextual" interpritation to be valid.

Ahem, I don't think Robyn is claiming the first century Jews were wrong.

You're right. There's nothing 'wrong' with a particular method of interpretation. They're just different. And, as I tell my brother-in-law from Virginia from time to time: 'different isn't necessarily bad'.




...more like modern Christians are wrong for trying to present the midrashic interpretation the first century Jews were comfortable with as amazing predictive prophecy that 20th century Westerners would find convincing.

Right again. Now, insisting that 'figurative' texts are 'literal' is not just "different" - it's bad.

Robyn Banks

[themuzicman]

Let's see... Rachel buried in Ramah... One of her kids was Benjamin... Bethlahem was a place where man Bemjamites settled... So, a cry from Ramah.. where Rachel is buried... because her children (descendents) are no more (slaughter of children who are her descendents.)

Golly, did I miss something? Why did the kids who died have to be in Ramah?

Michael

[Seasanctuary]

Let's see... Rachel buried in Ramah... One of her kids was Benjamin... Bethlahem was a place where man Bemjamites settled... So, a cry from Ramah.. where Rachel is buried... because her children (descendents) are no more (slaughter of children who are her descendents.)

Golly, did I miss something? Why did the kids who died have to be in Ramah?

Yep you did miss something. There's a good chance you'll figure it out just by reading this:

This is what the LORD says:

"A voice is heard in Ramah,
mourning and great weeping,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because her children are no more."

This is what the LORD says:

"Restrain your voice from weeping
and your eyes from tears,
for your work will be rewarded,"
declares the LORD .
"They will return from the land of the enemy.
So there is hope for your future,"
declares the LORD .
"Your children will return to their own land. Jer 31:15-17


Now, I'll spell it out: The OT context is about a figurative Rachael weeping over the exile of her nation...and about God's promise of their return. It is not about infants dying in Ramah...or anywhere else.

[djconklin]

Has anyone checked the International Critical Commentary fro Matthew by Davies and Allison to see what they say?

[Seasanctuary]

Has anyone checked the International Critical Commentary fro Matthew by Davies and Allison to see what they say?
Have you?

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin: Has anyone checked the International Critical Commentary fro Matthew by Davies and Allison to see what they say?

Have you?

Can't, don't have both volumes and the one I do have is packed up in one of way too many boxes (its got to be in one of 25 baoxes in this room--I can safely ignore 9 others.].

Two other commentaries that would be good to check on are Anchor Bible and Word Biblical--does anyone have them?

[Nicky]

Right on! :lol:

[shunyadragon]

Right on! :lol:

This was a good debate, but the issue was very complicated and the thread jumped around on different issues instead of remaining focused. The notes and references I collected from Robyn are pearls. Notice, she complemented Holdings knowledge on prophecy, which is one of his strong points.

Kind of glad you brought the threads back from the dead, but alass they will likely pass again into obscurity.

[Richbee]

Let's see... Rachel buried in Ramah... One of her kids was Benjamin... Bethlahem was a place where man Bemjamites settled... So, a cry from Ramah.. where Rachel is buried... because her children (descendents) are no more (slaughter of children who are her descendents.)

Golly, did I miss something? Why did the kids who died have to be in Ramah?

Michael

Excellent Michael, no wonder the SullieDragon is refuted and turned mute. (moot) on this topic.

[Seasanctuary]

So can we unban Robyn now?

[shunyadragon]

So can we unban Robyn now?

What was Robyn's unforgivable sin that banned her from the Garden?

[Nobby Snark]

Good point.

[LivniHaNetzari]

I'm interested in seeing references on this. I'm suddenly quite curious.

Haha, have fun with that. No Rabbinic source EVER says Messiah will flee to Egypt. That is a lie.

[djconklin]

This is what the LORD says:

"A voice is heard in Ramah,
mourning and great weeping,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because her children are no more."

This is what the LORD says:

"Restrain your voice from weeping
and your eyes from tears,
for your work will be rewarded,"
declares the LORD .
"They will return from the land of the enemy.
So there is hope for your future,"
declares the LORD .
"Your children will return to their own land. Jer 31:15-17


Now, I'll spell it out: The OT context is about a figurative Rachael weeping over the exile of her nation...and about God's promise of their return. It is not about infants dying in Ramah...or anywhere else.

Actually, back in those days when people were being driven into exile their infants would be slaughtered (see vs. 15) because they'd slow down the trip. Rachel here is seen as figuratively witnessing the pain and suffering of her descendants and weeping for the dead children. So, the claim that "It is not about infants dying in Ramah...or anywhere else." is blatantly false.