Dispensationalism Then & Now, Part 2

At least, I think it is small!

We know that in Daniel 12, Daniel himself did not completely understand all that God meant by what God told him to say.

Having said that, I hold that the words Daniel (and other prophets) mean exactly what they meant when God inspired their writing, nothing more and nothing less. I think that is what you are saying also.

And I doubt we ouselves yet understand the full import of the words Daniel wrote!

For instance, we can be wrong in our determination to what the human author was referring. Sailhamer notes that Hosea was reading Messianic thought in the Pentateuch when he wrote: “out of Egypt I called my Son.” So there is more than one counter proposal to faulty hermeneutics.

I wonder if sometimes our hermeneutics are more the product of Western thought than Biblical observation. Although we have to start with some broad hermeneutics (like historical and grammatical approaches) we can still observe what we see.

I am among those who believe that when Joel is speaking of the locust plague as the “Day of the Lord,” he is referring in one sense to the plague at hand and in another sense the Tribulation.

Isaiah 14 describes the fall of Lucifer and refers to the king of Babylon on one level but flashes back to a more literal fall, and this idea is affirmed in the New Testament (Luke 10:18, Rev. 12:1-8). Ezekiel 28 would be another case in point.

David refers to the King. of that name, but also to the ultimate heir of David who is sometimes called “David,” not just the heir of David (Jeremiah 30:9).

We need to remember that it is the Bible that is infallible, not the hermeneutical principles through which the Bible is read and interpreted. Those principles can get us started, but to refuse to hone them based upon what we actually observe in Scripture is like saying that the ancient Creeds take precedence over Scripture. The creeds are good summaries (some better than others), but, the Reformers argued, even the creeds are subject to rigorous challenge by the Bible. I would suggest we take the same stance toward hermeneutics.

Good hermeneutics, therefore, should lead us to adopt the logical system that the Bible’s original authors embraced, not the system of logic that has evolved over the centuries.

Perhaps this needs a thread of it’s own but I’ll ask it anyway. How essential to dispensationalism is the pre-tribulational rapture?

I agree fully with Dr. McCune’s point:

But I would argue for a Biblical first principle or a presupposition regarding human language in the first place.

However, I would challenge a couple of his points (or his way of wording) of “several principles” that flow from that. These two in particular:

A third principle is that this selfsame word and its meaning cannot accrue or develop an expanding afterlife of changing meaning. [and related to that statement, this one]… what the human author meant is exactly what God meant, no more and no less.

Whether I would agree or not depends upon what Dr. McCune means by his statements, but generally, how he has stated it I have issues with. I like to use Genesis 3:15 to discuss this aspect. Here it is from the NKJV (bolded for the point I will discuss):

And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.

Asking and answering a series of simple questions regarding the bolded referent of “her Seed”:

1. General Referent
   • Did the human author (I believe Moses) mean a descendent of Eve? Yes.
   • Did God mean a descendent of Eve? Yes.
   • Did Adam and Eve understand this as to mean a descendent of Eve? Yes.
   • Did the serpent (I believe Satan) understand this as to mean a descendent of Eve? Yes.
2. Specific Referent
   • Did God mean Jesus Christ as the specific descendent referred to? Yes.
   • Did the human author mean Jesus Christ as the specific descendent referred to? Not likely. (Though Heb 11:26 makes one wonder just how much Moses knew of the Person of Christ.)
   • Did Adam and Eve understand this to mean Jesus Christ? No.
   • Did the serpent/Satan understand this to mean Jesus Christ? No.
3. Alluded Details
   • Did the human author mean this descendent would only have a human connection through the mother and not the father, i.e. a virgin birth by divine conception? No.
   • Did God mean a virgin birth by divine conception? Yes.
   • Did Adam and Eve understand this to mean a virgin birth by divine conception? No. (I believe in Gen. 4:1, Eve is showing her belief that her first son was the promised one; and still holding on to that promise in 4:25 when Seth was born, having realized both Cain and Abel were lost to her with respect to God’s promise.)
   • Did the serpent/Satan understand this to mean a virgin birth by divine conception? No.

That is my evaluation of the passage and what each author understood at the writing of it, was well as what would have been understood by those hearing it initially. By McCune insisting that: “meaning cannot accrue or develop an expanding afterlife of changing meaning” and “what the human author meant is exactly what God meant” ignores two important points of distinction between the human and divine authors and also the very linguistic principles of language he held as a first principle:

1. God’s omniscience: God can and does know more about any “referent” He refers to than any human author ever could. In the case noted, God certainly was referring intentionally with a vague reference to Jesus Christ using the description of “her Seed” to designate Him. But the human author, who in this case particularly was not present at the speaking of this, and those hearing that statement, only have an understanding of it on that “vague” level. In other words, only on level #1 are all parties on the same plane of knowledge. The verse certainly “means” a descendent of Eve is in view. The question is, did God also intend it to mean specifically who He has in mind and how He intends the promise to be fulfilled, i.e. the virgin born Son, Jesus Christ? Given omniscience (and His sovereignty to plan it out), the answer clearly must be “Yes,” which means God means more than the human author understands (and more than what the recipients then are able to understand)—but how does this then relate to univocal nature of the statement? Does it destroy it? No. The second point relates to understanding that.
2. Divine Authorship: God’s authorship of Scripture spans the whole of it, not just Genesis. But Moses’ authorship of Scripture is (largely) limited to Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch. Now an author has the linguistic privilege of being vague at one point, and bringing clarity to that vagueness at a later point. Human books do this as well. So there is no issue with a later book of Scripture, written by a different human author, revealing more insight as to what was meant by Genesis 3:15 referent, which is “expanding” the meaning by that divine Author’s privilege to do so. The referent itself never changed, but the Author clarifies the meaning of it later in His text, a clarity the human author did not have and did not “intend” in his writing of it, but which the divine Author did “intend” and later clarifies. So if I write now and say “I pet my in-law’s dog this morning,” I’ve given you all the information I intend for you to know at the moment. But if 10 years from now, I refer back to this statement, and write to you again and say “what I meant by that was that I gave Dan’s dog, a brindle pit-bull, a back rub at about 7:00am,” suddenly you have much more insight into what I meant by “pet,” “in-law,” “dog,” and “morning” in the original statement, without that statement losing its original meaning, yet my (the author’s!) explanation gives it an expanded meaning.

So the above points relate then to McCune’s next statement that I feel needs distinction:

A fourth factor is that the sentences thus constructed mean only what the author intended the words to mean.

I agree with the statement. But in Genesis 3:15, I maintain that “what the [human] author intended” was only a subset of “what the [divine] author intended,” because of God’s omniscience and His divine Authorship of the whole text of Scripture, not just a part of it.

Because of the above points, I then have to disagree that …

“God could mean more but never less than what the human author meant.”

… is only …

The dictum of non-dispensational hermeneutics

… and not, rather, what should be the dictum of any hermeneutic based in the reality of God’s knowledge and involvement in the authorship of all of Scripture (as a whole), which would include dispensational hermeneutics.

I do not believe this position:

[1] Would abandon the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture. … [2] This approach then calls for another authority, outside the text being interpreted, to extract the “real” meaning that God intended but of which the human author and his first readers/hearers were oblivious. … [3] it all is the replacement of the original authorially-intended meaning

Let me address those three points in reverse.

As to #3, the original human author’s intended meaning is part of, and included in, God’s intended meaning. So the “original authorially-intended meaning” is not replaced.

As to #2, there is not “another authority” involved in clarifying and/or expanding upon the understanding of the text. There is only God Himself, as the continued divine Author of later Scripture (working through other human authors), Who is the Authority helping bring understanding to the ‘fuller’ meaning (both the original understanding and the expanded understanding are equally “real” meanings, since the expanded meaning contains the lesser).

As to #1, I should start with what my definition of perspicuity is (since McCune’s may be different):

The clarity of revelation both to the fact that the words mean what they say, and that the concepts man is most in need of knowing and believing are plainly stated.

Perspicuity cannot mean (and I am not saying McCune holds any of these, but others get confused by the term):

• That believers will necessarily understand it (else every believer would be in total agreement on all passages and education level would be completely irrelevant)
• That it is clear in and of itself (else historical studies, language studies, cultural studies, etc. would be completely unnecessary)
• That it is clear on the major doctrines (else all reasonably educated believers would clearly understand the hypostatic union, election, or any of a host of other rather “major” doctrines that have been discussed for centuries)

So clarity or perspicuity do not relate to “understanding,” but to the nature of the text itself. Yet even in my definition, there are still those presuppositional linguistic points that must be considered:

• Not all the meanings of all the words are necessarily known
• Not all people can necessarily understand even the plainest statements
• Not all concepts are equally clear

Lack of specifics in earlier texts, given clarity in later texts by the same author, does not defeat perspicuity.

So to conclude this, I believe a proper dispensational hermeneutic still requires some understandings about expanding of meaning that McCune’s definition does not appear to allow for, but never in such a way that eliminates what the less expanded meaning that the human author (and recipients at the time) would have understood.

You are much more generous with this *given rules of language* I than I am. This idea wants to tie God’s hands (so to speak). The addressees at the Genesis judgment were all culpable and not deserving anything at all. Everything we have is a privilege since God is both Creator and Sustainer: “what do you have that was not given to you?”

Also, how do you take 1Pet.1.11? The human author didn’t even know what the content referred to as for timing and person so how could those who heard or read it understand? Trying to determine meaning was an exercise not ever fully mastered which kind of destroys this whole notion of original meaning.

No explicit statement exists that these rules of language were a given in the image of God. Further, the plain reading of scripture doesn’t really support one referent. Additionally, the concept doesn’t allow for multiperspectives because it doesn’t recognize different facets of both persons and concepts.

The last point can be illustrated in that Christ was both the Door and the Shepherd of the sheep. The Spirit is seven-fold. As for concepts: the law functioned in several way such as if anyone kept it perfectly they would gain eternal life (Christ). If people kept it for the most part and had their sins atoned dutifully, “they would live a long time in the land.” The law probably worked to give individuals a Rom. 7 type of frustration so they would recognize in the sacrifice the mercy of God. The law was a witness to the nations surrounding Israel of their Wise God. The law worked well to regulate society (the people failed, yes but not the perfect Law). It provided rest for humans and taught them not to be greedy and that God would take care of them (Sabbath, New Moon, Jubilees, etc.). This list is not even exhaustive. All this to say that no one to one correspondence existed. That God gave any disclosure has to be seen as gracious from the beginning.

Sorry Alex, I’m not sure I am understanding your point.

Human language was God made to communicate His will to His creature, so that He could speak to Adam right from creation and Adam would “understand.” It is this that I refer to as the rules of language, and which generally we continue to use even as you seek to understand me and I to understand you. Yes, that ability is a “gift” of God and “gracious from the beginning,” but a grace I believe is related to Him creating people in His likeness.

Regarding 1 Pet 1:11, you state:

The human author didn’t even know what the content referred to as for timing and person so how could those who heard or read it understand

I agree. That is my point, it took further revelation to show that it was Christ and he would suffer by the cross at the time of His crucifixion (God knew this at the writing of the prophecies). But still, what the human author’s did understand from their writing was that (1) there was a Messiah (Christ), (2) there were sufferings of the Messiah, and (3) glories that would follow. But they did not know the details, which is what they sought for. So they knew what they wrote (their original meaning), in that they understood things generally, but were seeking more specifically what was meant by God. So 1 Pet 1:11 is a passage I use often to illustrate precisely my point about how inspiration must work.

You state:

the plain reading of scripture doesn’t really support one referent

I’m not sure what you are referring to there, or if you speak “generally” yourself. Are you saying there is more than one referent for “her Seed” (in my example)? I would need more clarity on what you mean by that.

When you say…

the concept doesn’t allow for multiperspectives because it doesn’t recognize different facets of both persons and concepts

…I believe you are referring to the concept of “one referent.” If so, I disagree with you. That Christ is both Door and Shepherd does not change that it is Christ that is the “one [Person as] referent.” That “the law” had multiple functions does not change that it is the Law that is the “one [conceptual] referent.” If this is not what you meant, then please clarify.

[ScottS]

Sorry Alex, I’m not sure I am understanding your point.

Human language was God made to communicate His will to His creature, so that He could speak to Adam right from creation and Adam would “understand.” It is this that I refer to as the rules of language, and which generally we continue to use even as you seek to understand me and I to understand you. Yes, that ability is a “gift” of God and “gracious from the beginning,” but a grace I believe is related to Him creating people in His likeness.

Regarding 1 Pet 1:11, you state:

The human author didn’t even know what the content referred to as for timing and person so how could those who heard or read it understand

I agree. That is my point, it took further revelation to show that it was Christ and he would suffer by the cross at the time of His crucifixion (God knew this at the writing of the prophecies). But still, what the human author’s did understand from their writing was that (1) there was a Messiah (Christ), (2) there were sufferings of the Messiah, and (3) glories that would follow. But they did not know the details, which is what they sought for. So they knew what they wrote (their original meaning), in that they understood things generally, but were seeking more specifically what was meant by God. So 1 Pet 1:11 is a passage I use often to illustrate precisely my point about how inspiration must work.

You state:

the plain reading of scripture doesn’t really support one referent

I’m not sure what you are referring to there, or if you speak “generally” yourself. Are you saying there is more than one referent for “her Seed” (in my example)? I would need more clarity on what you mean by that.

When you say…

the concept doesn’t allow for multiperspectives because it doesn’t recognize different facets of both persons and concepts

…I believe you are referring to the concept of “one referent.” If so, I disagree with you. That Christ is both Door and Shepherd does not change that it is Christ that is the “one [Person as] referent.” That “the law” had multiple functions does not change that it is the Law that is the “one [conceptual] referent.” If this is not what you meant, then please clarify.

In my thinking Scott, yes language is univocal but God’s disclosure doesn’t have to be since He is in part concealing information for certain reasons. It would be odd if God were subject to His creation of language. So, I think it best to say and have tried to say, that we are not owed anything as fallen creatures and this includes clarity of disclosure. So, sometimes parables are explained and sometimes not. The cryptic communication can involve such devices as intercalation it seems. Also, an event which portends to a greater event. Word play and code where words can refer to other things than usually what is meant.

Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood meant accepting Him. He used this device on the fickle and freeloading crowd because they became unmanageable and Jesus needed to teach certain things to His disciples and the redemptive agenda needed fulfilling. This was all valid. Jesus owed no one anything except what He decided to do ahead of time. He spoke to them in parables so that seeing, they would not see. God owes no one clarity but does share with His people truths in scripture. We have a relationship with Him now and He sanctifies us through His word.

Before the Fall undoubtedly things were different and noncryptic communication will return in the glorified state. So, my solution to the cryptic devices would be to differentiate relational status of the persons of address.

[Rolland McCune]

I take Jer 30:9 as the resurrected David, along with Ezek 34:24-25; Ezek 37: 24-25; Hos 3:5, who will be sort of a viceroy over millennial Israel.

“Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he [David] , foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up … Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God,…

“For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘The LORD said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.’

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:29-36)(NKJV)(boldface added).

King David, the son of Jesse and the father of Solomon, as a prophet, knew when he was speaking in the first person in Psalm 16:8-11—which Peter had quoted just before speaking at Pentecost as set forth above—that he was referring to himself as the representative head of his royal house, the Davidic dynasty. When God made covenant with David, He said to David, “When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men. But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever.” II Samuel 7:12-16)(NKJV).

David understood that one of his physical offspring, of the House of David, of the Davidic dynasty, would be the fulfillment of the prophecy that his throne would be established forever, as reflected in his response to God: “Now, O LORD God, the word which You have spoken concerning Your servant and concerning his house, establish it forever and do as You have said. So let Your name be magnified forever, saying, ‘The LORD of hosts is the God over Israel.’ And let the house of Your servant David be established before You. For You, O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, have revealed this to Your servant, saying ‘I will build you a house.’ Therefore Your servant has found it in his heart to pray this prayer to You.

“And now, O Lord GOD, You are God, and Your words are true, and You have promised this goodness to Your servant. Now therefore, let it please You to bless the house of Your servant, that it may continue before You forever; for you, O Lord GOD, have spoken it, and with Your blessing let the house of Your servant be blessed forever.” (II Samuel 7:25-29)(NKJV).

When the prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hosea spoke of David the King, they were not speaking of David the son of Jesse. Rather, they were invoking David as the representative head of his lineage, of his house. This second David, this last David, would be the fulfillment of God’s covenant with David and with his offspring. David knew this. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hosea knew this. They all knew II Samuel 7. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hosea knew this would be the King of glory who would reign over a Kingdom of peace and prosperity with justice and righteousness forever and ever—not some sort of a viceroy. David, the son of Jesse, as a viceroy, would not give full effect to the words of these prophets.

All that being said, this does not violate the axiom: “a word can only have one meaning in a usage, or in one and the same connection.” David, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hosea all meant David’s greater Son. This is the plain, literal reading of their words in context.

[Ed Vasicek]

I wonder if sometimes our hermeneutics are more the product of Western thought than Biblical observation. Although we have to start with some broad hermeneutics (like historical and grammatical approaches) we can still observe what we see.

…

David refers to the King. of that name, but also to the ultimate heir of David who is sometimes called “David,” not just the heir of David (Jeremiah 30:9).

We need to remember that it is the Bible that is infallible, not the hermeneutical principles through which the Bible is read and interpreted. Those principles can get us started, but to refuse to hone them based upon what we actually observe in Scripture is like saying that the ancient Creeds take precedence over Scripture. The creeds are good summaries (some better than others), but, the Reformers argued, even the creeds are subject to rigorous challenge by the Bible. I would suggest we take the same stance toward hermeneutics.

Good hermeneutics, therefore, should lead us to adopt the logical system that the Bible’s original authors embraced, not the system of logic that has evolved over the centuries.

Well put. Fully agree.

Rolland, I appreciate your work. As far as I am concerned, if the entire evangelical world embraced Traditional Dispensationalism and there were no Progressive Dispensationalists, I would be happy. I do think that Traditional Dispensationalists have most of it right, and the areas in which we disagree are secondary.

But, since such is not the case, I think Progressive Dispensationalism is not only a better tweaking of the paradigm, but also answers objections raised by Covenant and Replacement Theologies in a fuller way.

Anyhow, I wanted to comment on your comment of my comment on your comment. :)

1) No Neo-Babylonian king fits the description, including Belshazzar the last such king. (2) The context. (vv 1-4) is eschatological, following Israel’s millennial kingdom rest and final triumph over her enemies. (3) The Babylon here is eschatological whose king will be the Antichrist (Rev 13; 17:11-13;; Isa 13:1-14:32), which will fall in the Tribulation Pd. (4) The city will be destroyed by fire in a permanent destruction, not true of the overthrow by Cyrus in 539 BC. (5) This passage parallels Rev 14:8; 16:9, 18. (6) Vv 12-14 seem inappropriate when applied to a human being but better describe an extraordinary creature such as Satan.

I do not disagree with you that this prophecy refers to Satan, but I am arguing it refers — in a less literal way — to the King of Babylon. The prophecy is given in the form of poetry. Its less literal (near) fulfillment is the King of Babylon. It’s far (either back in time, forward in time, or both), more literal fulfillment, refers to Satan.

Other examples of substititution (or a less literal fulfillment near at hand and a more literal fulfillment later) include: The virgin bith (Maher-Shallal Hashbaz near, less literal fulfillment, God With Us later, more literal fulfillment), Elijah’s return (John the Baptist less literal near, one of the 2 witnesses the more literal far, Luke 1:17), Jesus anointed by Mary (of Martha and Lazarus fame) and His coronation anointing by the Father in the Millennium (Psalm 2), the Magi for the Kings of the earth (Isaiah 60:6), Palm Sunday for Jesus’ future coronation, the Mount of Transfiguration for the Millennium then (2 Peter 1:16-18, coming of Jesus, which interprets Matthew 16:28-17:8 as the “Son of Man coming in His Kingdom”), Pentecost for the pouring out of the Spirit on Israel in the Tribulation, and the Cleansing of the Temple as a predictor of the full cleansing (Malachi 3:1-3).

The pattern to me seems clear. Prophecy, being mostly written in poetry, has a certain flexibility that I wonder if all interpreters appreciate. We may seek the MORE literal and sometimes LESS literal meanings. Since no interpreters I have known take poetry with wooden literalism (the trees of the file clap their hands, e.g.,) we may differ in how much flex we have within poetic prophecy.

When I say that the New Testament writers see a less literal and more literal fulfillment of certain things, I recognize they were authorized to write infallible Scripture, and thus their interpretations must be correct, albeit often partial. My attempts to rightly divide the Word are fallible, and so is everyone else’s. But whatever our hermeneutical system, it must NOT result in our condemnation of the interpretational examples we find within Scripture.

I think you and I largely agree, though our terminology might be different. You give examples or reasons of what/why you believe God is not bound by “univocal” language:

• “in part concealing information for certain reasons”
• “intercalation”
• “an event which portends to a greater event”
• “Word play and code where words can refer to other things than usually what is meant” (i.e. “Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood meant accepting Him.”)

My contention would be that every example given is still God using univocal language and “God [being] subject to His creation of language.” Regarding that last point, God voluntarily binds Himself to many things in His creation. His covenants are a voluntary binding of Himself. So by creating a creature such as humanity with which God designed to communicate with Him by language, it seems God at least chose to make Himself subject to language at the time of creating mankind; however, I think there may be something more profound with respect to pure language than that, as I take Gen 1:26 (“Let us”) to be God speaking to the other members of the Trinity, so language was used “before” mankind for communication in the Godhead, and then language was what “created” creation to begin with (Gen 1:3, et. al.; cf. Heb 11:3). So there is likely fundamental rules of language inherent in the very nature of God Himself that He cannot but be subject to them because it is part of who He is.

Nevertheless, back to your example points.

• “Concealing” of information does not mean that there is but one thing being concealed (i.e. univocal). So concealing and univocality are not mutually exclusive.
• An “intercalation” still does not, by definition (#2), describe two things, but simple puts a gap between two events.
• Portending one event by another event is also not breaking univocality. Rather, it is using the first event to become an illustration for the second event. This is related to a human author giving an illustration in order to make an application for another point. Only in God’s case, He is able to control historical events in such a way, and then disclose critical points about those events in Scripture, such that the illustration in history/Scripture pictures yet future events He has planned and will later disclose in Scripture. Hence, my view of typology is that it is a confirming point of Scripture, more than a prophetic device; God put types in Scripture, not to prophetically clue in the original readers who would have no idea that God would later develop the historical illustration to be reflective of a future event, but rather to show later readers via the anti-type that the whole of His word is tied together through Him. The anti-type is what reveals the type, which revealing shows that God is the one true God that is in control of history, even to the point of using history to reflect later history. But the original event that is the type still refers to only that event, whereas the later event utilizes the earlier event as a parallel illustration to help the reader gain understanding of the future event.
• That “words can refer to other things than usually what is meant” is figurative language, but that does not destroy the univocal nature of language. Your example proves the point, for you conclude that “Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood” meant only one thing, the concept of “accepting Him.” It did not mean both literally eating/drinking Him and figuratively doing so; nor did it mean both of those things and say a third point of cannibalizing all believers (i.e. those the Bible declares are part of His body), nor say a fourth point of eating and drinking all the animal sacrifices offered to Him in the Old Testament (i.e. the flesh and blood of all animals “owned” by Him via sacrifice). So the statement is referring to a single concept, which concept, I would agree in context, is essentially along the lines of what you stated, that of “accepting Him” (though I would probably phrase it as “choosing to partake in Him,” i.e. in His sacrifice).

Thanks for the discussion.

I think a word limits a range of meaning. There is a lot of play in language. But, I would argue, that meaning can apply in greater or lesser ways to differing (but similar) situations.

For example, “they shall look upon Him whom they have pierced” can refer to those at the cross (John 19:37 quoting Zechariah 12:10), or to the final generation of Jews who mourn in repentance (as in Zechariah). “They” here refers to a group of people — genetically connected — but nonetheless a different group. One looks in rejection, the other in repentance. But the words themselves in the quoted passage are limited. “look” means “look, behold.” “Him” doesn’t refer to some pierced matzoh, but “him whom they have pierced,” the Messiah.

The words all have one range of meaning. “They” means at least two people, but can mean mliions as well, a broad range but a range. But the application of the verse can be made to two situations. And it is this latter part, I think, with which I and some others seem to be in disagreement, unless I have been misunderstanding, which has been known to happen!