Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>]

Doug,
> I note that both Jesus and Paul referred to the Prophets to explain a 
> particular point , like Jesus in Luke 4:21 , "This prophecy has been 
> filfilled in your time", and Jesus refers to Is 49:6-8 ,

HH: You may mean that there is an indirect reference to Isa 49:9 
concerning Luke 4:21.

> Paul does the same in 2nd Cor 6:2 and Acts 13:46 , this is about the 
> "acceptable time" for which the light came first to Israel , and then 
> to the gentiles.

HH: Yes, Acts 13:47, referring to Isa 49:6.

> This of course leads us to read the rest of Is 49_14-18, which we have 
> touched on , and we see Zion , here subsituted for Israel crying out 
> she is forsaken , (See Rom 11:11 for the gentile purpose of making 
> Israel jealous) then restored as a bride , what we have read here , 
> and when it was to happen , which we know for both Jesus and Paul have 
> told us this , this is telling us that Israel will be retored as a 
> bride after the inclusion of the gentiles.

HH: That makes sense.
> That point is rarely taught , I have never heard it taught, but here 
> it is quite clear , as in Hos 2:14-20 , as in Is 54:5 and Is 62:5 all 
> refer to Israel as a bride after the children appear.

HH: What is your point about "a bride after the children appear"? In 
Hosea, the children are those living in 722 B.C. The children in Isa 
54:5 do not necessarily precede the reconstitution of the marriage. Nor 
do they in Isa 62:5.
> But back to Paul and Jesus reflecting back to Prophets to explain , as 
> did John with Rev 12:1 on the woman , I think most agre that this 
> woman is Israel , I think all would agree that this woman is also the 
> Zion of Is 66:7.

HH: Yes, roughly speaking. We do not see the woman fully victorious in 
Revelation 12, except perhaps at the birth of the male child, which is 
Christ, and then in escaping death. We don't see exactly the situation 
that we find in Isaiah 66.
> My point is that this is all in allegorical terms , the sons of God is 
> an allegorical term , well as I see it is , God is the Father , now we 
> still need mother in this family , we have I think shown that Israel 
> is the mother , I dont think we can devalue the allegorical term 
> because the context is not as strong , as say with the "daughter of 
> Zion" in Math 21:5 that is an absolute , there it can only be Israel , 
> we would be unwise if we decided that , because of a previous held 
> doctrine that we decided to reject the expression "daughter of Zion" 
> in other passages , where the content did not insist that we followed 
> that understanding of the daughter of Zion being an allegorical term 
> for Israel.

HH: This is where you go off a bit, in my thinking. These are many 
pieces of writing that use figurative language in many different ways. 
All these pieces of writing do not have to use it in exactly the same 
way,so we should not try to homogenize all images. "Daughter of Zion" is 
always a reference to Jerusalem, which is always indirectly symbolic for 
the welfare of the whole state of Israel. As goes Jerusalem, so goes 
Israel, so to speak. But there are places where "daughter of Zion" might 
be distinguished from other places in Israel geographically, such as:

CSB Isaiah 10:32 Today he will stand at Nob, shaking his fist at the 
mountain of Daughter Zion, the hill of Jerusalem.

HH: Nob was also a place in Israel.

> So too with the sons of God ,  and thus we come back to the family,  
> God the father , the church is the "sons of God",  but we dont have a 
> "mother" as firmly acknowledged , yet as you say she is firmly written 
> in Rev 12:1, and now we think also in Is 66:7, I would suggest then 
> that all the mother titles are of Israel.

HH: Where specifically does this imagery occur that we can be sure of. 
Perhaps Revelation 12:17, but that is perhaps unclear. Isaiah 66:7 does 
not refer to the church necessarily. Nothing makes that equation 
explicit. I believe there is a connection to some extent, because those 
faithful to the Lord at the end of the age will include many Jews.
> I think we must let whats written dominate , rather than a fear that 
> we may find a precious "doctrine' being placed under threat of being 
> inncorrect.

HH: What precious doctrine do you have in mind?
> Harold I know this is time consuming , and perhaps a little off the 
> beaten track but I do pray you will search it though , for I may be 
> wrong , and you can show me , but if I am right , well , who knows , 
> bless ya

HH: My main concern is with the idea of blending all these different 
references to achieve a single idea. For if the believers are sons in 
some biblical references, they are the bride in others, as in Revelation 
19:6-8 apparently and 2 Cor 11:2. So all these images cannot be combined 
into one. It is figurative, since the nation really consists of its people.
> ps Harold did I ask you who you thought were the role players of Hos 
> 2:2 , who tell their mother she is out. My thoughts are that they have 
> to be a mix of "Not My people" and "mercy is shown" , which is the 
> "sons of God" of Hos 1:11 , I'l be interested to hear your thoughts
HH: The role players of Hos 2:2 are named in Hos 2:1. The brothers are 
named "My People," and the sisters "Compassion."

Hosea 2:1 Call your brothers: My People and your sisters: Compassion. 2 
Rebuke your mother; rebuke her. For she is not My wife and I am not her 
husband. Let her remove the promiscuous look from her face and her 
adultery from between her breasts.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard