CrabCake
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,925
- Reaction score
- 694
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I presented a pretty strong case for my interpretation in the OP. You have not really countered that.
It's not a strong case. It ignores the way in which hermeneutics was done. It relies on us being ignorant of the existence of dual fulfillment hermeneutics. Once we understand how hermeneutics was done within the messianic movement, your idea that the author misinterpreted the Old Testament falls apart. The more likely scenario becomes that the author knew about the short term fulfillment of the prophecy and was now talking about its final fulfillment.
You can still argue he is wrong. But you'll have to do so differently. Your argument revolved around the idea that the author was oblivious to the context of the verses from Jeremiah he referenced and that he thus misinterpreted it to be about Herod. That's just not a very credible point of view. Knowing the culture the author came from, the level of education he would have had, and the way hermeneutics was done, it is far more likely he not only knew the context, but had memorized the entire book of Jeremiah long before he ever sat down to write the gospel.
Last edited: