Davidic Covenant - conditional or unconditional?

[siti]

This is a separate question from why gospels talk about descent from David.

Well at the risk of taking the cryptic (gnostic?) revelation as a "text book" - how is it a separate question? It seems to me that the entire purpose of claiming Davidic lineage was to legitimize a claim to the Davidic throne. What other purpose does it serve?

There is a right way and a wrong way to learn about these writings, and we are doing it the wrong way...These are cryptic gifts lovingly cared for in secret for ages.

So how are we supposed to decrypt them? Are we supposed to decrypt them at all? And if not, what possible use are they to us?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well at the risk of taking the cryptic (gnostic?) revelation as a "text book" - how is it a separate question? It seems to me that the entire purpose of claiming Davidic lineage was to legitimize a claim to the Davidic throne. What other purpose does it serve?

Oh its a separate question, because the purpose of the gospels is not to act as a text. People today are using them like beginner texts as well as Weegee (spellcheck) boards. I think to 'Decrypt' one you have to know some Torah, some things about the culture and the mindset of the school of thought including their thoughts about politics, war, family, etc. The gospels are written to people already familiar with these things and steeped in Torah. Anything in the gospels that does not seem to allude to Torah in some way, it still does. In short reading the gospels without preparation is like substituting recipe ingredients without knowing what they are. You end up with a baking soda cake.

So how are we supposed to decrypt them? Are we supposed to decrypt them at all? And if not, what possible use are they to us?

They are written to somebody other than me, so I keep that in mind. I think to decrypt them as you say is difficult and ought to be unnecessary except that they cannot be avoided. Most of my family are in Bible based churches for example. That makes it my business to try to make sense of the gospels. Generally common sense and love are equal or better than living by a literalist reading of the gospels. You dont do things like dance with snakes and scorpions.

 

[siti]

Oh its a separate question, because the purpose of the gospels is not to act as a text. People today are using them like beginner texts as well as Weegee (spellcheck) boards. I think to 'Decrypt' one you have to know some Torah, some things about the culture and the mindset of the school of thought including their thoughts about politics, war, family, etc.

I still don't see how the genealogies given by Matthew and Luke were there for any purpose other than to establish the validity of the Christian claim for Messianic status on the grounds of Davidic lineage. What other purpose could this list of names possibly serve? Perhaps in Matthew there is a case for a non-literal interpretation given that the list is clearly incomplete and divided into 3 unequal equal sets of 14 generations - but I suspect that that was really more by way of an aid to memory than anything. The key theological point is to establish Jesus as a descendant of Judah in the royal line of David. I can't see how it can be anything other than that - and especially so taking the Torah into account. Maybe we just have to agree to disagree?

 

[Dawnofhope]

So now I must confess, I'm confused.

If the Covenant was unconditional, why was it "ripped away" from David's descendants on account of their "iniquity"? And why is there not still a King of Israel from David's line to this day?

And if it was conditional, how can anyone hundreds or thousands of years later legitimize a claim to the throne on the basis of being a descendant of David?

(I'm sure - if anyone is still there this far down an original post - you can see the dilemma - especially if you are a Christian).

Supplementary question: Are God's promises really worth the parchment they were written on?

We need to talk about the Eternal Covenant of God of which the Davidic Covenant forms a small but essential part. It is of course an agreement between man and God, where God makes promises to man to bless and protect us and in return we must recognise His prophets and Messengers and follow His commandments. It must be seen as a continuation and development of other Covenants such as those with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David and then Christ. Central to the story of the Bible is the plight of the Jewish people that God in His mysterious wisdom has chosen to bring His message to humanity and the promises to David speak of a future glorious role for Jewish people again. Perhaps they will be the first as a people or nation to recognise the Messiah for this age and establish God's Kingdom forever (relatively speaking).

There are a couple of key parts of the story that should be included. The plight of the Jewish people between the decline of their empire after King David, what the prophets had to say, the destruction and rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple at the decree of the Persian emperor Cyrus(whom Isaiah called the anointed one), only for both to be destroyed again 70 AD when the Romans invaded. Then after the Jewish diaspora we have Muhammad as the seal of the prophets who is very much like King David in uniting His peoples and Moses in bringing forth the Qur'an. It is no coincidence that He brings a Revelation He alleges from God that mentions over 40 Hebrew characters and prophets.

The return of the Jewish people to their homeland in the 19th and 20th centuries was accompanied by the gospel of Christ being proclaimed to all the nations. At the same time a new religious movement exploded onto the scene, from Persia the very same empire that had decreed the rebuilding of Solomon's temple. This time twin Messengers of God whose paths were to intersect with the land Israel, that God had promised Abraham. The remains of One is buried on Mount Carmel, also known as the mountain of Elijah. Elected representatives from all nations echoing promises in Isaiah 2:2-5 are based near the shrine and not too far off we have the plains of Sharon and Akka described as the strong city in Psalms.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I still don't see how the genealogies given by Matthew and Luke were there for any purpose other than to establish the validity of the Christian claim for Messianic status on the grounds of Davidic lineage. What other purpose could this list of names possibly serve? Perhaps in Matthew there is a case for a non-literal interpretation given that the list is clearly incomplete and divided into 3 unequal equal sets of 14 generations - but I suspect that that was really more by way of an aid to memory than anything.

Three times fourteen equals forty-two. Keeping it short: each ream of fourteen stands for a level of refinement. Its another way of saying Jesus represents the hope of Israel and is carrying the torch. No, the geneologies in Matthew do not make literal sense and purposely so. Its supposed to be useless for establishing any real physical claim of patrology.

The key theological point is to establish Jesus as a descendant of Judah in the royal line of David. I can't see how it can be anything other than that - and especially so taking the Torah into account. Maybe we just have to agree to disagree?

For a Jew I think any claim of descent from David and inheritance of thrones will be beyond consideration, but not to a Roman. These gospels however are written from Jews to Jews. The Romans of course would get caught up into the red herring of geneological descent. Jews on the other hand have every reason to disregard patralineal (spellcheck) descent of any kind. There are many examples in the Bible of this disregard, but one of them is the story of King David wearing the ephod reserved for Aarons descendants. Of course there could be various arguments about why David may do this, but he was no descendant of Aaron but the opposite. His grandmother was a Moabitess. If patrilineal descent ever had any value in Judaism then what the heck.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Three times fourteen equals forty-two. Keeping it short: each ream of fourteen stands for a level of refinement. Its another way of saying Jesus represents the hope of Israel and is carrying the torch. No, the geneologies in Matthew do not make literal sense and purposely so. Its supposed to be useless for establishing any real physical claim of patrology.

For a Jew I think any claim of descent from David and inheritance of thrones will be beyond consideration, but not to a Roman. These gospels however are written from Jews to Jews. The Romans of course would get caught up into the red herring of geneological descent. Jews on the other hand have every reason to disregard patralineal (spellcheck) descent of any kind. There are many examples in the Bible of this disregard, but one of them is the story of King David wearing the ephod reserved for Aarons descendants. Of course there could be various arguments about why David may do this, but he was no descendant of Aaron but the opposite. His grandmother was a Moabitess. If patrilineal descent ever had any value in Judaism then what the heck.

There appears to be clear intent of the gospel authors to link Jesus to Davidic prophecy and lineage as the phrase ‘Son of David’ is used 17 times. Along with ‘Son of God’ and and ‘Son of man’ it appears to be a Messianic title. I think the term is used to symbolise His being a fulfilment of Messianic prophecy but in declaring Himself the ‘Son of God’ had deliberately negated the requirement to be a lineal descendant of David, a requirement to be met by a future Messiah or Christ.

I don’t agree with everything conservatives Christians believe as outlined in the link, but I do believe they are correct to expect a future Messiah after Christ whom they call the Return of Christ. One of the claimants will literally be descended from David.

What does it mean that Jesus is the son of David?

 

[Brickjectivity]

There appears to be clear intent of the gospel authors to link Jesus to Davidic prophecy and lineage as the phrase ‘Son of David’ is used 17 times. Along with ‘Son of God’ and and ‘Son of man’ it appears to be a Messianic title. I think the term is used to symbolise His being a fulfilment of Messianic prophecy but in declaring Himself the ‘Son of God’ had deliberately negated the requirement to be a lineal descendant of David, a requirement to be met by a future Messiah or Christ.

I took a look at the link. Its not changing my mind right now, but thanks.

 

[siti]

Its supposed to be useless for establishing any real physical claim of patrology.

Shhh! Don't tell the fundies that - and all that stuff about thrones and Jesus returning as conquering King and what have you - its all rubbish too is it? Good grief! They'll have a dicky fit if you tell them that.

But I do agree that it makes more sense to focus on the spiritual aspects of Bible teaching - the effect of God's "rule" in the "hearts" of human beings and so on. But I am far from convinced that that was what the original writers intended.

I also think we need to be careful not to go too far in back-projecting Jewish thought as it might be now. Clearly a couple of millennia is quite sufficient time for the notions of "the throne of David" and "Messiah" to have changed considerably. It seems pretty clear that Second Temple era Judaism was profoundly Messianic and profoundly nationalistic - they fully expected their Messiah to be a very real King (at least like David if not in his line) as far as I can tell. But the collection of scriptures about it that they collated is confused - and that's the point I was really making.

I don’t agree with everything conservatives Christians believe as outlined in the link, but I do believe they are correct to expect a future Messiah after Christ whom they call the Return of Christ. One of the claimants will literally be descended from David.

It is (on the basis of what I just said and the evidence I presented in the OP) preposterous at this stage for anyone to stake a claim (on anyone's behalf) to Messianic status on the grounds of natural Davidic lineage - and yet that is exactly what fundamentalist Christian groups (and others) do - which is really why I started this thread. One has to explain exactly how any such claim is still valid because if the covenant was unconditional, there should be no question about it - the King should still be on the throne and his line should never have left it - and if it was conditional, it was (as a natural inheritance) forfeited by Solomon.

 

[sojourner]

I still don't see how the genealogies given by Matthew and Luke were there for any purpose other than to establish the validity of the Christian claim for Messianic status on the grounds of Davidic lineage. What other purpose could this list of names possibly serve? Perhaps in Matthew there is a case for a non-literal interpretation given that the list is clearly incomplete and divided into 3 unequal equal sets of 14 generations - but I suspect that that was really more by way of an aid to memory than anything. The key theological point is to establish Jesus as a descendant of Judah in the royal line of David. I can't see how it can be anything other than that - and especially so taking the Torah into account. Maybe we just have to agree to disagree?

The Matthean geneaology doesn’t ground the !essianic status on the Davidic lineage. Notice that there are three sections to the genealogy, with a female outsider listed in every section. This solidifies Matthew’s main point of the gospel, which is that the church is the “true” Israel,” which proceeds, not from the traditional authoritative markers, but from those “on the outside.”

 

[siti]

The Matthean geneaology doesn’t ground the !essianic status on the Davidic lineage. Notice that there are three sections to the genealogy, with a female outsider listed in every section. This solidifies Matthew’s main point of the gospel, which is that the church is the “true” Israel,” which proceeds, not from the traditional authoritative markers, but from those “on the outside.”

Which Gospel of Matthew are you reading? There are three sections - they don't all have female outsiders - the first section has two - Rahab (a Canaanite woman from Jericho) and Ruth (a Moabite woman who was David's mother). The second and third sections have no outsiders as far as I can tell. The second mentions only one female and that was Bathsheba (the wife of Uriah the Hittite). There are various versions in Judaism about who were Bathsheba's father and grandfather, but she was definitely an Israelite as far as the Biblical account goes. And that last section mentions only Mary who according to Luke's genealogy was also a descendant of David - that being the natural line of descent to Jesus - Joseph's line obviously didn't reach Jesus because the Holy Spirit intervened - but legally he was recognized (in the text) as the father of "Jesus the Messiah, the son of David".

And apart from that - what other evidence is there in the text that Matthew did not intend his genealogy to focus on Davidic lineage?