judge

Do any jews themselves interpret it this way?

Zenaphobe

I know Christians want to use those verses to support their faith as the fulfillment of that promise but how can the quote above refer to Christianity when it specifies the houses of Israel and Judah? There is no mention of Gentiles. :huh:

fromdownunder

In so far as they think of it at all (since many of them do not even know that it is an OT quote), only because Paul said so. And it is at least arguable that much of modern Christianity is based more upon the writings of Paul rather than the (possible but doubtful) words and actions of Jesus.

Norm

judge

Good point. However in other places the Hebrew prophets seemed to indicate the gentiles would be gods people. For instance in Hosea.

The fact is that if taken literally the Hebrew prophets seem to point to many contradictory views on what the messiah would be and what the salvation and restoration was to be. Early christian writings seem to look to connect many of these verses.

Either the Hebrew prophets provided a self-contradictory convoluted picture of all this, or the prophets pointed to some thing more holistic that fundamentalists of any persuasion would never grasp.

bacht

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that besides the sacrifices the Pharisaic Oral Law was now further developed by the rabbis unhindered by the more literalist conservative Sadducees.

As for diaspora Jews they may not have gone through as much change. They were meeting in synagogues and living with gentiles already. I'm not sure when the phrase "Next year in Jerusalem" became popular.

Zenaphobe

I don't want to get into a deep debate over how Christians interpret verses such as what you quoted here but it is easy to see the complete disregard of context with this type of proof texting the NT writers used.

Hosea does not mention gentiles in the context of his story, only unfaithful Israel and how he regards them as whoring and unfaithful.

Again, I don't want to argue about the specifics and only bring it up because it baffles me how Christians can be so concerned with context when someone has a heretical interpretation of the NT but will jump willy nilly through the OT and lift things out of their context to prove Christianity was there all along.

I tend to favor the view that there is not a unified message in the OT about the messiah but that Christians have imposed one on it to underpin their belief that the Bible is a seamless message with no contradictions or errors.

This straining is obvious with the NT as well with Paul vs Jesus and James and the 4 gospels.

Faith is the ability to argue that 2+2=5 and find all kinds of ways to "prove" it.

storytime

Ezekiel 11:15-20 provides the reason and breakup of the tribes of Israel, and the proclaimed reuniting[restoration] via a new covenant.

In the NT Jesus supports the Jewish belief while stating his purpose is to save the lost sheep in the house of Israel(the non Jewish tribes). "I am sent to none but the lost sheep in the house of Israel." House of Israel is then seen in these ten tribes which had been divided in days of Rehoboam, king of Judah. The ten tribes then labeled as not a people of God, but would again at some time be brought back in unity with Judah, the Southern kingdom, and declared "a people" and thus a new covenant would be made between Judah and Israel.

There is no new covenant made with uncircumcised and lawless people called Gentiles. Jesus excludes Gentiles in his ministry. Peter is the first to attempt to bring Gentiles in as equal inheritors with the Jews. Paul then begins his own constructed gospel to the Gentiles and creates a totally new religion.

storytime

I'm wondering what was the purpose of oral law? Maybe for updating the commandments for each successive generation? What would be some examples if that be the case? Maybe "next year in Jerusalem" was the spin-off of the old saying, "those who go up to Jerusalem each year - for the feast"?

bacht

Any written text becomes gradually unintelligible over time because language evolves and references lose their original meaning.

The Oral Torah is supposed to date to Ezra in the 5th C bce. The story is that Jews no longer read or understood the Hebrew scriptures (Aramaic was the common language at the time). Also synagogues had appeared by then, which substituted congregational worship for animal sacrifice.

The Pharisees wanted to have flexibility in interpreting the Torah, rather than being tied to a strict literal reading. Their ideological opponents the Sadducees were more "fundamentalist" in their use of scripture.

arnoldo

An example of an early christian writing of the first century which "connects" writings of Isaiah and Psalms with the person of Jesus can be found in the Epistle of Barnabas (the italized portions are quotes from the OT)

No.
It appears that according to NT writings that sinners and the uneducated had a better grasp of the prophet's writings than the "religous". Barnabas indicates this in a passage which quotes Mark in the following passage;