The Fshbwl

Is it just me or is it a bit ironic that, on the day we publish this article, we link to an article that opens with, "Last time we confirmed the true identity of Jesus of Nazareth beyond a reasonable doubt."

I'm going to suggest that we continue on with the "Who is Israel?" line before returning to this, simply because what we do with a bunch of stuff in the OT has a huge impact on where this is going.

Again, keeping my cards on the table, I disagree with the bulk of his method of interpretation, but rather than just denouncing it, I'd like to move on through the OT and point out why.

I took a look at that article. I'd first start with what the article calls the re-birth of Israel. The scripture they called out was in Isaiah where it says:

In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the sea. He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth. (Isaiah 11:11-12)

The conclusion the article came to was that is what happened when Israel was re-founded as a nation a half century ago. But, I wonder if that is what Isaiah was talking about.

Let's look back at history. During the time of Nebuchadnezzar (who lived after Isaiah) Israel was literally ripped apart. The temple was destroyed and the Judah (the southern kingdom) was conquered. The Jewish people were transplanted from Judah to other parts of the Babylonian empire while other people were transplanted into the area. Think of it like a melting pot.

Under Cyrus the Great, after Persia overthrew the Babylonians, the Jewish people were allowed to return to their land.

So, why Israel today as fulfillment of the prophecy rather than what happened during the time of Cyrus the Great? It's interesting because the article goes on to talk about what happened after Babylon in it's next section.

The article gives a lot to be discussed. Mostly, because there is a lot of surrounding material that relates to these passages that's left out. For example, in the article it talks about the prophecy of Jerusalem being restored after the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. Two assumptions were made. The first that the Jerusalem that the passage is talking about refers to the physical city and not the "'the City of God founded by Christ', now wearing the form of the church, but after Christ's return to put on the form of the perfected Messianic kingdom". The second assumption is that the fulfillment of the Gentiles meant the end of the Gentiles time in that particular region of the world.

In any case there is a lot of possibility for discussion and that would take a lot of resource material to wrap our brains around it.