Kirt Schneider is doing a great job of trying to get Christians to understand the beauty of the Jewish people and the importance of learning from them to properly interpret and apply the Scriptures. This is similar to what Paul communicates in Romans 9 and elsewhere.
[4] They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. [5] To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
I’m currently reading and enjoying his book titled The Lion of Judah. Here’s an excerpt from it that is apropos.
“Jesus says in Revelation 22:16, ‘I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.’ Not only does Jesus describe Himself by associating with David, Israel’s greatest king, but His description indicates something profound that can only be possible through Him. Jesus is both the root (the beginning) and the offspring (the fruit). If you think about it, this is logically impossible. Nothing can be both the creator and the created … except for Jesus! He was the root of all peoples but describes Himself in particular as the root of Israel’s royal line—through David. And He is the offspring of David biologically, as we have already seen in Jesus’ lineage recorded in Matthew. The same person who created the Jewish line lives today as its ultimate fulfillment!” (p. 31).
As an American born in the late 1900s, I have been personally trying to discover the original meaning of the Hebrew authors of the Bible and their intention by realizing and riding myself of the bias of the Western culture in which I live and was raised. This is in keeping with proper hermeneutics, where we must discipline ourselves to investigate the culture and mindset of the authors of the Bible. Weston W. Fields, in his article “Early and Medieval Jewish Interpretation of the Song of Songs” from the Grace Theological Journal, puts it this way when he says, “… [T]he interpreter must be especially careful that he does not judge the book on the basis of his Western culture, question its canonicity, and allegorize its historical meaning away so completely that its original intention, meaning, and use are entirely obscured” (p. 222).