Why I am no longer a futurist

[DurbanDude]

Good comment. This is where the Full-Preterism interpretation of the Olivet Discourse falls apart; and where the Dispensational interpretation of the Olivet Discourse similarly false apart equally as well. They both attempt to interpret the entire Matt 24-25, Mark 13, Luke 17, 21 either all pushed into the 70AD past or all into the 2012+ future; with no middle ground. Neither of them recognize or accept that the Olivet has two questions being asked and answered, one related to near-time events, and one related to future endtime events; and that Jesus went back and fourth between the two questions, supplying the answers.

True! I jokingly refer to myself as a "partial" partial preterist because I do see 70AD in the Olivet discourse. I believe Luke 21 is more focussed on the destruction of the temple question (70AD) and Matthew 24 is more focussed on the second coming question.

[Cyberseeker]

"partial-partial preterist" sounds about right to me.

[Matthehitmanhart]

I believe Luke 21 is more focussed on the destruction of the temple question (70AD) and Matthew 24 is more focussed on the second coming question.

By saying that Luke and Matthew are "more focused" on either 70AD or the SC, do you mean that they are two separate discourses where Jesus happens to say a lot of the same things with reference to entirely different events, or do you mean that they are the same discourse interpreted differently by each evangelist?

For my part, I find several difficulties with the view that Jesus is answering a different set of questions in Matthew 24 than in Luke 21 or Mark 13. The first difficulty stems from the expectation of the disciples; in using the word parousia, they were not, as many have wrongly assumed, thinking of Jesus returning again from heaven after his cross, resurrection and ascension as we so naturally do in hindsight. As N.T. Wright put it, "[the disciples] had not yet even thought of his being taken away from them, let alone that he might come back; nor did they have any idea of another figure, earthly, heavenly, or something in between, who would one day come down to earth riding on a literal cloud." (Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 345). The Jewish scholar G. Vermes has often pointed out that the literalized reading of "the son of man coming on the clouds" is a comparatively modern and non-Jewish invention (cf. e.g. Jesus and the World of Judaism, ch. 7). But the point here is that in asking the question "what will be the sign of your parousia", the disciples were not thinking of the word parousia in the standardized theological sense that much later scholarship has thought. You might wish to argue that in this discourse Jesus introduces the idea of a "second coming" and thereby invests the word with this new sense, but there are two more points which make this option highly unlikely.

The word parousia means simply "presence" as opposed to apousia, "absence". Thus it often denotes the "arrival" of someone not at the moment present. It is especially used in relation to the visit of a royal dignitary, an emperor or magistrate, to a loyal city or region. Understanding this more technical sense of the word sheds great light on the disciples' question and on Jesus' answer, since only days before this scene Jesus had entered Jerusalem in triumphal procession with multitudes from the city coming out to welcome him as their rightful king. In other words, Jesus had just come to Jerusalem in what would have been seen as nothing less than a royal parousia. The disciples and the multitudes were undoubtedly expecting him to set up his messianic rule immediately upon his entrance into Jerusalem, but all he does is symbolically enact the desolation of the Temple by disrupting the levitical business going on inside. The fact that this episode was indeed an intentional symbolic enactment of the coming judgment of Israel is confirmed by the mutually interpretive "fig tree" event which occurs next to it in all three Synoptic accounts. What Jesus does shortly afterwards then, in answering the disciples puzzled question about his parousia, is make explicit the event which he enacted symbolically only days before. And the mutually interpretive point is this: that Jesus' enthronement as Messiah, his parousia, and therein the rule of God (cf. Luke 21:31), will be seen by the desolation of the present ruling regime within Israel, the nation which has rejected his offer of peace and his way of the kingdom.

The allusion to Daniel 7:13 is thus intended to cast the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple in a particular theological light, namely putting degenerate Israel in the place of the "beast" while putting Jesus and his followers in the place of "the son of man" vindicated over the "beast". Jesus had previously made a similar point with an allusion to Daniel 2:34, casting the leadership of Israel as the "feet" of Daniel's statue which the "stone" of the kingdom breaks in pieces (Matt 21:43-45). Pulling on similar Danielic themes, Jesus' prophetic announcement of the destruction of the Temple is also the announcement of his own vindication; in other words, of his own "coming" into the presence of the ancient of days, exalted over his enemies as the rightful king. This explanation makes much more sense, both historically and contextually, of the disciples' question and of Jesus' answer.

But one more point to note is that whereas Matthew relays the disciples' question in a three-pronged form (when will these things be, what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?), Mark and Luke relay the same question in a more basic two-pronged form (when will these things happen and what will the sign that they are about to take place?). Note, first, that while Matthew attaches the "sign" to Jesus' "coming", both Mark and Luke attach it to "these things", i.e. the destruction of the Temple. We must ask, then: is the disciples' question in Matthew different from Mark and Luke, or is it simply rephrased? Mark and Luke both seem to think that the disciples' question relates wholly to the destruction of the Temple, and the burden of proof rests on those who would argue that Matthew's version isn't simply a rephrasing of the same question. On the other hand, it would be entirely appropriate for Matthew (Jewish scribe that he was) to cast the destruction of Jerusalem in a more heavily apocalyptic light as the "coming" of Jesus and the "end of the age". Like the common use of the phrase "the day of the Lord" throughout the OT prophets to refer to various socio-political events which were not, properly speaking, the day of the Lord, this is simply how eschatalogical language regularly works.

[Matthehitmanhart]

From my perspective, even if I'm wrong about the sense in which 'this generation' is to be understood, your perspective causes even more problems. Such as how all the things mentioned in the 3 parallels accounts, how all of that can get fulfilled from the time Jesus spoke those words, until the time of 70 AD. Plus some of it doesn't even remotely fit with that time period. Such as.

Mark 13:34 For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.
35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.

The KJV gets this text disastrously wrong, as the part in bold is not in the original text. Jesus isn't explaining that he, the son of man, is going away and will one day come back, as that translation implies. No, he's explaining that the hour of judgment will come at a time when they do not expect, catching Israel by surprise, like a master who returns to find his servants sleeping.

This is pointing back to this.

Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.


Which then is pointing back to this.

Mark 13:29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.
30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.


None of that fits with what occured in 70 AD. If so, perhaps you can show how?

It all depends on whether you see the referent of "the coming of the son of man" to be Jesus' second coming, his final decent from heaven to earth, or, what I find much more likely, his exaltation and vindication over those who oppressed and opposed him, i.e. the leadership of Israel. Keep in mind that the imagery is taken from Daniel 7, in which the son of man ascends into heaven, into the presence of the ancient of days to be vindicated over his enemies; he does not descend from heaven to the earth.

[DurbanDude]

By saying that Luke and Matthew are "more focused" on either 70AD or the SC, do you mean that they are two separate discourses where Jesus happens to say a lot of the same things with reference to entirely different events, or do you mean that they are the same discourse interpreted differently by each evangelist?

For my part, I find several difficulties with the view that Jesus is answering a different set of questions in Matthew 24 than in Luke 21 or Mark 13. The first difficulty stems from the expectation of the disciples; in using the word parousia, they were not, as many have wrongly assumed, thinking of Jesus returning again from heaven after his cross, resurrection and ascension as we so naturally do in hindsight. As N.T. Wright put it, "[the disciples] had not yet even thought of his being taken away from them, let alone that he might come back; nor did they have any idea of another figure, earthly, heavenly, or something in between, who would one day come down to earth riding on a literal cloud." (Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 345). The Jewish scholar G. Vermes has often pointed out that the literalized reading of "the son of man coming on the clouds" is a comparatively modern and non-Jewish invention (cf. e.g. Jesus and the World of Judaism, ch. 7). But the point here is that in asking the question "what will be the sign of your parousia", the disciples were not thinking of the word parousia in the standardized theological sense that much later scholarship has thought. You might wish to argue that in this discourse Jesus introduces the idea of a "second coming" and thereby invests the word with this new sense, but there are two more points which make this option highly unlikely.

I believe its the same discourse in all 3 chapters. The gospel writers often emphasized different aspects and used different wording when describing the same events. There were two questions, Matthew focussed on one answer, Luke 21 focussed on both answers, clearly demarcating which part applied to the end (from the "signs in the sky onwards") and which verses applied to 70AD (the period before the exile described in Luke 21:12-24).

The disciples still retained their "warrior Messiah" expectation even though they recognised that the Messiah was with them as a gentle preacher. This expectation can be seen in Acts 1:6 when they ask Jesus "at this time are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel". In Jesus own words as He was standing before the Sanhedrin "Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven".
Jesus said to his disciples: "For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. " (Matthew 16:27)

Matthew 25: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

So the Son of Man was with them, but even He kept referring to a glorious coming with all the angels, which neatly fits in with all the OT chapters concerning a "day of the Lord" when all things would be made right. The disciples were clearly expecting a second coming, this fits in with Matthew 24.

. In other words, Jesus had just come to Jerusalem in what would have been seen as nothing less than a royal parousia. The disciples and the multitudes were undoubtedly expecting him to set up his messianic rule immediately upon his entrance into Jerusalem, but all he does is symbolically enact the desolation of the Temple by disrupting the levitical business going on inside. The fact that this episode was indeed an intentional symbolic enactment of the coming judgment of Israel is confirmed by the mutually interpretive "fig tree" event which occurs next to it in all three Synoptic accounts. What Jesus does shortly afterwards then, in answering the disciples puzzled question about his parousia, is make explicit the event which he enacted symbolically only days before. And the mutually interpretive point is this: that Jesus' enthronement as Messiah, his parousia, and therein the rule of God (cf. Luke 21:31), will be seen by the desolation of the present ruling regime within Israel, the nation which has rejected his offer of peace and his way of the kingdom

.

Sorry, I just don't see it. He had already arrived in Jerusalem, and now you are saying Matthew 24 is describing His arrival the day before? I think he was simply answering the disciples questions about the destruction of the temple and their expectation regarding his glorious coming as an emperor. (parousia). You are getting way too complicated here, I seriously do not think that God would expect us to interpret what is a straight forward chapter in the more complicated manner in which you approach it. I believe the fig tree is just an emphasis that the signs preceding the second coming are tangible and should be watched out for, just as many modern Christians are doing, carefully watching for these described signs.

The allusion to Daniel 7:13 is thus intended to cast the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple in a particular theological light, namely putting degenerate Israel in the place of the "beast" while putting Jesus and his followers in the place of "the son of man" vindicated over the "beast". Jesus had previously made a similar point with an allusion to Daniel 2:34, casting the leadership of Israel as the "feet" of Daniel's statue which the "stone" of the kingdom breaks in pieces (Matt 21:43-45). Pulling on similar Danielic themes, Jesus' prophetic announcement of the destruction of the Temple is also the announcement of his own vindication; in other words, of his own "coming" into the presence of the ancient of days, exalted over his enemies as the rightful king. This explanation makes much more sense, both historically and contextually, of the disciples' question and of Jesus' answer.

I believe the allusion to Daniel 7 is confirming that Matthew 24 is in effect a "day of the Lord" setting, because Daniel 7 when read with Daniel 2 is describing a time when the dominance of Europe/Turkey (the region of Rome-the fourth beast) would come to an end and the saints would inherit the kingdom. This has not happened yet, Western Europe and Turkey have had continued dominance for over 2000 years and will continue to dominate until Jesus comes.

But one more point to note is that whereas Matthew relays the disciples' question in a three-pronged form (when will these things be, what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?), Mark and Luke relay the same question in a more basic two-pronged form (when will these things happen and what will the sign that they are about to take place?). Note, first, that while Matthew attaches the "sign" to Jesus' "coming", both Mark and Luke attach it to "these things", i.e. the destruction of the Temple. We must ask, then: is the disciples' question in Matthew different from Mark and Luke, or is it simply rephrased? Mark and Luke both seem to think that the disciples' question relates wholly to the destruction of the Temple, and the burden of proof rests on those who would argue that Matthew's version isn't simply a rephrasing of the same question. On the other hand, it would be entirely appropriate for Matthew (Jewish scribe that he was) to cast the destruction of Jerusalem in a more heavily apocalyptic light as the "coming" of Jesus and the "end of the age". Like the common use of the phrase "the day of the Lord" throughout the OT prophets to refer to various socio-political events which were not, properly speaking, the day of the Lord, this is simply how eschatalogical language regularly works

Well like I said earlier in this post, Luke 21 shares focus on both questions, Matthew 24 focusses mainly on the second coming portion. Luke 21 devotes only 12 or 13 verses to 70AD . The clarity of Luke 21 emphasizes the answer to two questions, let me summarise Luke 21:

Jesus starts to answer regarding some future period of SIGNS IN THE SKY until verse 11, we know its a future period because Jesus then says this:
But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake. And it shall turn to you for a testimony. ............................. And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

So we have a clear sequence of events described by Jesus, firstly (before all of this means it comes first) we have persecutions and armies and the destruction of the temple, followed by a period of exile. Then we have signs in the sky followed by a coming with angels and gathering of the elect.

Due to the fact that there were persecutions as described by Acts, and 70 AD did occur, and there has been an exile of Jews, I would assume that the next step is to see wondrous signs in the sky. Call it a simplistic approach to interpreting the bible, but I believe Luke 21 sets out a clear series of events.

[the rookie]

Well, I commented that you would probably have more success and find more openness on my end if you actually dealt with what I'm saying, instead of trying to get behind it to whatever you (wrongly, it seems) suspect lies underneath, holding my motivations and character on trial. You responded that you couldn't help it, because you're reflexively pastoral. But I can't help thinking that such a strong reliance upon your own intuition of other people's hearts, neglecting to interact with the points they raise, and instead defaulting to deconstructing them personally, is a very strange thing to label "pastoral" - to say nothing again of its effectiveness.

It is what it is. Since you equated "futurism" with "doubt masquerading as faith" you aren't necessarily one to throw stones

Okay. You still haven't answered my question, though - the main question I've been asking you since your thread on Jeremiah 50-51. You've insisted several times now that I don't really understand the way you read the passage or where it challenges you. But you've also declined to set the record straight and demonstrate exactly how you exegete Jeremiah's oracle, on grammatical-historical grounds, and yet still come out with the view which you expressed in the OP of that thread, that the passage "seems to be set entirely in the future - not Jeremiah's future as it relates to the overthrow of Babylon and the return of the captives...but our future," that it "is an oracle about a future Babylon (the one revealed to John in Rev. 17-18) not 'past Babylon', which invaded Israel and ultimately destroyed Jerusalem from 605 BC - 586 BC."

No I haven't, "declined to set the record straight". I was very clear within that thread in regards to what I was thinking. First, John in Revelation references the passage as it relates to his future. Second, there is a possibility within the passage itself that Jeremiah had more than the immediate end of Babylon in view.

Again, the only explicit reason which you gave in that thread was that the apparent non-fulfillment of the prophecy necessitates that it be placed in our future. As you said, "The oracle refers, in much detail, to an end that 'past Babylon' did not meet - the complete and utter destruction of Babylon at the hands of 'the people of the north' in a manner that would be destructive, bloody, violent, and total." And once more, "there are details that seem to demand that it be placed in the future - during a time in which the kings and the merchants unify with her against the believers of the earth." But as I pointed out, this has nothing to do with what the text would have meant at the time it was written.

And I disagreed. And asserted that you cannot know that with certainty, and that your conclusion is one that is too strong related to what Jeremiah understood and was communicating, in essence substituting your lens for his and calling that "grammatical-historical".

So I ask once more: Do you have any reason, from the text itself, for seeing Jeremiah 50-51 as a prophecy about "our future" and a "future Babylon", and not the historical nation which invaded Israel and ultimately destroyed Jerusalem from 605 BC - 586 BC? And do you have an answer for the point which I and others have raised from the text, that the whole point of the passage, resting on the law of retribution, is that the violence and destruction which Nebuchadnezzar dealt to Israel would come back upon his own head (cf. 50:17-18, 29; 51:34-35)?

It's about both. In the past, God dealt with Babylon. In the future, God remembers, and deals with, Babylon.

You specifically mentioned OT prophecies about Jesus' first coming, saying that the passages "that describe the first coming of Jesus were all fulfilled in the manner in which the prophets described". Earlier you mentioned Zechariah 12-14 as an example of "first coming and second coming passages that are contained within one prophecy". But now you agree with me that Zechariah 13:7 is not an example of such a first coming passage? Is there another text within Zechariah 12-14 that you had in mind, or are you pulling a Mitt Romney? What am I missing?

Was that humor, sarcasm, or disrespect? I don't want to deconstruct you and determine which one on my own

I missed your Zechariah point. I don't agree with you there.

Again, what passages do you have in mind that you think were straightforwardly predicting Jesus' first coming? For my part, I do not think the NT writers viewed the OT as a repository of timeless truths in which to simply index "Prophecies About The First Coming" and "Prophecies About The Second Coming" as much as a story in search of an ending, and thus they all present Jesus' story as the appropriate climax to that larger unfinished story. Specifically, reading all of Matthew's OT quotations and statements about fulfillment in this way makes much more sense, in my opinion.

That is your opinion; the question is: did (and do the Jews now) interpret OT prophecy that way, or are Gentile scholars and historians asserting that they did it that way? There seems to be a superimposition that lacks actual Jewish sources. At least, in the manner in which things are being presented here.

Awesome! But if you agree with it, how do still come out thinking that prophecies like Jeremiah 50-51, or Isaiah 13, or Mark 13, are straightforwardly "about" our future? As I explained, in such cases where there is "eschatological excess" beyond the initial referent, it is because the language, which is being used metaphorically, is in some way eschatological. And thus, if there is a picture of the ultimate end which we can draw from such passages, it is more impressionistic, based on the themes of tribulation and judgement and redemption etc, and less photo-realistic - because such passages are not, strictly speaking, "about" the ultimate end.

I said, "Great stuff". I like your thoughts. Doesn't mean that they line up with how the Jews actually interpret the passages in question. In fact, I think you would do well to prove that they did (and do) versus asserting that it is so. Simply saying that something is so does not make it fact, and while I like your thoughts and appreciate where you are coming from, I question your scholarship. By saying, "Great stuff" I was saying that I like what you're saying, I'm content to leave it at that, and we can go our way on this. But if you're pushing the point, I think that you have fallen into some perspectives on scripture that have the appearance of being informed, but are in fact sophisticated ways of reframing scripture to suit a particular worldview and end that the Jews did not (and do not) have in mind.

[divaD]

The KJV gets this text disastrously wrong, as the part in bold is not in the original text. Jesus isn't explaining that he, the son of man, is going away and will one day come back, as that translation implies. No, he's explaining that the hour of judgment will come at a time when they do not expect, catching Israel by surprise, like a master who returns to find his servants sleeping.

I just checked that out. You are correct. So the passage is pretty much saying the following.

as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.
35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.


But now we have to see why Jesus said that, since it would be strange to say this if it didn't relate to anything He was just talking about. And since it begins with as, it could then be a simile in relation to the context leading up to this passage.

I would think the translators based their conclusions about verse 34 from that of verse 26.

26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

Clearly the Son of man is in the text here and not added by the translators. If we then continue on thru the context all the way to verse 37, it's obvious it's in regards to the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. That would have to be the correct perspective. To prove this point, notice the following.

Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father

Let's look at this from another perspective.

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.


Clearly then, this shows Mark 13:32 is meaning he coming of the Son of man. So that would have to mean that Mark 13:33-37 has to be in regards to this same Son of man, and that the translators got it spot on when they concluded Mark 13:34 was meaning the Son of man, even tho it wasn't in the original texts.

It's all about perspective and how you look at things. Coincidentally then, it seems that I must be looking at this from pretty much the same perspective the translators did, since I can easily see how and why they came to their conclusions and added Son of man to the text in Mark:13:34. It really puzzles me that some can't see this?

[Nihil Obstat]

That is your opinion; the question is: did (and do the Jews now) interpret OT prophecy that way, or are Gentile scholars and historians asserting that they did it that way? There seems to be a superimposition that lacks actual Jewish sources. At least, in the manner in which things are being presented here.

I'm confused by what you're trying to draw out here. Jews at large now do not interpret OT prophecy in any way that we as Christians do today, nor do they have the spirit of Christ, and it's clear that not all Jews did back then in the first century either, given the differing sects within Judaism and the great ingathering of the Gentiles into the Nazarene sect (in comparison to how many Judeans joined). On top of this, Jews today are so far removed from Jews of the first century that it's not like they have some advantage over you or me when it comes to hermeneutics. So would you mind clarifying this for me, since this isn't the first time you've said this? Thanks.

[the rookie]

On top of this, Jews today are so far removed from Jews of the first century that it's not like they have some advantage over you or me when it comes to hermeneutics.

How so ?

[Nihil Obstat]

You honestly think they've gone these two thousand years without changing, while the world around them is constantly shifting? Look how much they changed in just 70 years while in Babylon! We're talking twenty-five times longer than that! (Not to mention the greater distance, greater number of empires they found themselves in, and absolutely no promise of another temple this time.) Furthermore, to place any emphasis on how the Jews of today might interpret OT scripture while calling the church of today "Gentile" is backwards, and sounds like it could be a modern Jewish perspective rather than a timeless Christian one.

[the rookie]

I'm asking you to back up your assertion with fact, not assumptions.

[Nihil Obstat]

Those were not anthropological assumptions: they're universal. Even the church of God has changed immensely - are the lost Jews without a shepherd any different?

[the rookie]

Those were not anthropological assumptions: they're universal. Even the church of God has changed immensely - are the lost Jews without a shepherd any different?

When asked to provide facts, you instead provided a more forcefully worded opinion?

[Nihil Obstat]

Not sure why you have such a big stake in this...? I'd say if you think that the Jews, who forsook God's own son and therefore the curse was laid upon them - that the Jews alone, of all people groups (including the church), remain unchanged by the world around them - that if this were true, then they would be the set focus of anthropologists around the world because of this. They'd be asking, "What about their customs, or their language, or their beliefs, has made this people immune from other societies?" But anthropologists aren't asking this of the Jews, because it's not true of the Jews. The burden of disproving this is all yours, sorry to say.

How about answering my first question posed to you though? Why should any of us care more about how modern day Jews interpret their scriptures - more than, say, a "Gentile" Christian?

[the rookie]

Not sure why you have such a big stake in this...? I'd say if you think that the Jews, who forsook God's own son and therefore the curse was laid upon them - that the Jews alone, of all people groups (including the church), remain unchanged by the world around them - that if this were true, then they would be the set focus of anthropologists around the world because of this. They'd be asking, "What about their customs, or their language, or their beliefs, has made this people immune from other societies?" But anthropologists aren't asking this of the Jews, because it's not true of the Jews. The burden of disproving this is all yours, sorry to say.

You're overdoing my point rather than providing factual evidence for a hermeneutical shift amongst the Jews related to how they interpreted scripture from Babylon, to the days of Jesus, to our day. Anthropologists do marvel at the consistency of Jewish culture apart from a national identity. It is a bit of a historical anomaly. Because, while they had no nation, they had a book with a set of laws and rules governing their culture that they maintained with some measure of consistency over the centuries that actually is a topic of wonderment. However, that is neither here nor there. I'm asking for facts to back up your assertion - that the hermeneutical rules have changed for the Jewish people, or that the conclusions they came to in Jesus' (and Paul's) day are irrelevant.

How about answering my first question posed to you though? Why should any of us care more about how modern day Jews interpret their scriptures - more than, say, a "Gentile" Christian?

I care about how modern Messianic Jews interpret the scripture. Beyond that, the manner in which a modern Jew interprets scripture is something that Paul noted was important to consider. So, it matters to me - they are a people to whom the words were given, they are a people about whom the book is talking about, and, having been cultivated to a measure by those words, have valuable insight to give me in learning to understand them. That's fairly common missionary praxis, really.