The davidic covenant not upheld

[Humanistheart]

The davidic covenant, according to the bible was established between the abrahamic god and king david. In this covenant god promises several things to David. The land of Isreal would always be held by the isrealites and would always be ruled by a king of david's line. This was unconditional as nothing was stipulated to David or his kingdom that would result in the lose of this devine contract. (2 Samuel 7)

And yet, the isrealites did loose their land, for quite some time too. In fact I don't think they've recovered it all even today, but I could be wrong about that. Also, Isreal is not ruled by a king, much less one from the lineage of david.

So what's going on here? Does this god not keep his word? Perhaps he's too busy causing floods or not existing. What do you think?


"I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto david my servant, thy seed will I establish forever, and build throne to all generations." - Psalm 89:3-4

Also see Psalm 28-29 and 34-36

 

[Riverwolf]

Are your sources only Psalms? because those weren't written by God at all, but by poets, whose job it is to utilize hyperbole.

 

[xkatz]

The davidic covenant, according to the bible was established between the abrahamic god and king david. In this covenant god promises several things to David. The land of Isreal would always be held by the isrealites and would always be ruled by a king of david's line. This was unconditional as nothing was stipulated to David or his kingdom that would result in the lose of this devine contract. (2 Samuel 7)

And yet, the isrealites did loose their land, for quite some time too. In fact I don't think they've recovered it all even today, but I could be wrong about that. Also, Isreal is not ruled by a king, much less one from the lineage of david.

So what's going on here? Does this god not keep his word? Perhaps he's too busy causing floods or not existing. What do you think?


"I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto david my servant, thy seed will I establish forever, and build throne to all generations." - Psalm 89:3-4

Also see Psalm 28-29 and 34-36

Maybe your referring to a book that's much older than you are and thus has undergone a couple changes. (No offense)

 

[Humanistheart]

Are your sources only Psalms? because those weren't written by God at all, but by poets, whose job it is to utilize hyperbole.

See OP.

(2 Samuel 7)

 

[Humanistheart]

Maybe your referring to a book that's much older than you are and thus has undergone a couple changes. (No offense)

None taken, the books of the bible are old, and changes have been made. But that is not a great argument if everytime something doesn't work out in the bible it must be because the passage or passages have changed.

 

[Riverwolf]

See OP.

Argg... did it again...
But this time, I can counter!

From: Book of Samuel

-Critical View:
Rabbinical tradition assigns to Samuel the prophet the authorship of ch. i.-xxiv. (his own biography up to his death), while, on the strength of I Chron. xxix. 29, it credits Gad and Nathan with having written the remainder of the book (I and II forming one book in the Jewish canon; B. B. 14b, 15a; see Biblical Data, above). In so far as tradition recognizes that the books of Samuel are not by one author, it accords with the conclusions of the critical schools. It is, however, needless to add that modern scholars reject the theory of the joint authorship of Samuel, Gad, and Nathan. As preserved in the canon, the books of Samuel are clearly not the work of men contemporary with the events chronicled. Behind these documents lie various and conflicting traditions which, in keeping with the method of early Hebrew historiography, the compiler has to a certain extent incorporated in his work without making any attempt to harmonize discrepancies. Thus, in recording how Saul was chosen king, the first book in ch. ix., x. 1-16, xi. 1-11, 15, xiii., and xiv. 1-46 proceeds on the theory that Yhwh had appointed a king over the people in order to liberate them from the yoke of the Philistines, commanding the seer to anoint young Saul, who had come to him while seeking his father's ***** (ix. 15 et seq.). In the war against the Ammonites, Saul proves himself a hero and is chosen king by the people (xi.), after which he leads them against the Philistines (xiii. et seq.). It is for this war that he enlists young David's services (xiv. 52). An altogether different sequence of events and ideas is unfolded in vii. 2 et seq., viii., x. 17-24a, xii., and xv. Samuel the judge is remembered as having finally and conclusively driven off the Philistines. Ungrateful Israel, in order to be like the other peoples, compels Samuel in his old age to yield to their clamor for a king; and Yhwh, though greatly incensed, at last gives His consent (viii., x. 17 et seq.). With due solemnity Samuel relinquishes the office which he has administered so faithfully, but reserves for himself the post of censor and counselor, and interceder with Yhwh (xii.). At the first test Saul is discovered to be disobedient and is rejected by Yhwh (xv.).
In the story of David a similar duplication and divergence are easily established. In xvi. 14-23 David is called to Saul's court to dispel the king's evilmoods by playing on the harp. He is a young but tried warrior, and is at once appointed armor-bearer to the monarch. In ch. xvii. David is a lad who, up to the time when the story opens, tended his father's flock. He is not inured to war and kills Goliath with a stone from his shepherd's sling. This feat of valor attracts to him the attention of Saul, who has him trained subsequently for a warrior's career. Analysis with reference to both the content and the religious conception thereby disclosed, and also to stylistic and linguistic peculiarities, makes it apparent that the books of Samuel in their present form are a compilation from various written and oral sources, their last editor being post-Deuteronomic.

Keep in mind that, because it's so late, I don't have time to read through this entire article; it'd take hours, and I'm tired.


Nevertheless, it seems that this is also not the direct word of God, but of historians and scribes.

 

[Riverwolf]

None taken, the books of the bible are old, and changes have been made. But that is not a great argument if everytime something doesn't work out in the bible it must be because the passage or passages have changed.

Nope. More likely that the books were compiled by various sources and eventually canonized. After all, single authors are usually successful at keeping inconsistencies and contradictions out of their own works, at least when they work seriously.

 

[Zardoz]

..."I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto david my servant, thy seed will I establish forever, and build throne to all generations."

Maybe you are unfamiliar with the concept of a Messianic Age? This is prophecy of the future, when a Davidic Messiah ushers in a new Age, where 'swords are beaten into plowshares' etc.

 

[Humanistheart]

Nope. More likely that the books were compiled by various sources and eventually canonized. After all, single authors are usually successful at keeping inconsistencies and contradictions out of their own works, at least when they work seriously.

I'm glad you added that disclaimer, so I don't have to list various inconsitences and contradiction within the individual books that comprise the bible.

 

[Humanistheart]

Maybe you are unfamiliar with the concept of a Messianic Age? This is prophecy of the future, when a Davidic Messiah ushers in a new Age, where 'swords are beaten into plowshares' etc.

The thread was specificially on the davidic convenant, but yes I'm aware that that portion you reffur to addresses a future time. The jewish people have yet to be sent their messiah. And?

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm glad you added that disclaimer, so I don't have to list various inconsitences and contradiction within the individual books that comprise the bible.

However, in my opinion, such consistencies don't mean much. It's just an indication that if they are God's words, they've been tampered with.

 

[Free4all]

The thread was specificially on the davidic convenant, but yes I'm aware that that portion you reffur to addresses a future time. The jewish people have yet to be sent their messiah. And?

That it's still future, that covenant will be fulfilled in the FUTURE. The Jews were sent their messiah and they turned him down, if they would have accepted him then they would have went right into the kingly reign. He will come back a 2nd time and they will accept him, hence to be fulfilled in the future.

 

[arimoff]

That it's still future, that covenant will be fulfilled in the FUTURE. The Jews were sent their messiah and they turned him down, if they would have accepted him then they would have went right into the kingly reign. He will come back a 2nd time and they will accept him, hence to be fulfilled in the future.

OOh stop with all this crap. Why every time words Jew and messiah are used in the same sentence some Christian has to stick his nose in to it?

 

[Riverwolf]

That it's still future, that covenant will be fulfilled in the FUTURE. The Jews were sent their messiah and they turned him down, if they would have accepted him then they would have went right into the kingly reign. He will come back a 2nd time and they will accept him, hence to be fulfilled in the future.

Would have been nice if he actually fulfilled the messianic prophecies, which Jesus did NOT.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

The davidic covenant, according to the bible was established between the abrahamic god and king david. In this covenant god promises several things to David. The land of Isreal would always be held by the isrealites and would always be ruled by a king of david's line. This was unconditional as nothing was stipulated to David or his kingdom that would result in the lose of this devine contract. (2 Samuel 7)

And yet, the isrealites did loose their land, for quite some time too. In fact I don't think they've recovered it all even today, but I could be wrong about that. Also, Isreal is not ruled by a king, much less one from the lineage of david.

So what's going on here? Does this god not keep his word? Perhaps he's too busy causing floods or not existing. What do you think?


"I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto david my servant, thy seed will I establish forever, and build throne to all generations." - Psalm 89:3-4

Also see Psalm 28-29 and 34-36

My take is this is all spiritual language and promises. Not literal for the land of Israel...

 

[Humanistheart]

My take is this is all spiritual language and promises. Not literal for the land of Israel...

How do you mean?

 

[Humanistheart]

However, in my opinion, such consistencies don't mean much. It's just an indication that if they are God's words, they've been tampered with.

Perhaps, I certianly never said they were a gods words. But these particular prophicies are central to an entire religion/people, so it's wording would seem especially important. Besides, if god went to the throuble of having his words written down at one point, why not ensure they stay as accurate as possible in some fashion?

 

[Humanistheart]

That it's still future, that covenant will be fulfilled in the FUTURE. The Jews were sent their messiah and they turned him down, if they would have accepted him then they would have went right into the kingly reign. He will come back a 2nd time and they will accept him, hence to be fulfilled in the future.

The highlighted portions of your argument show your contradiction. You said they'll be fullfilled in the future, but as you already indicated jesus was in the past. Even if he did come back and fullfill the messianic prophicies later, he hasn't yet qualified as a messiah, so the title would not currently be apt, not to mention there are other qualifications that, even if he returned, he could not meet. Being a descendant of david for one.

But more importatantly, even if jesus came back, it would make no difference to the DAVIDIC COVENANT, you know, the one this threads about. Jesus returning would not change the fact that the jewish people lost their home for what, 2000 yrs, and when reastablished was not with a king of david which seems to contradict the davidic covenant.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

How do you mean?

Israel, was simply a name given to a person, and that person inherited a promise through another, all the way back to Abraham.

this collective body of people that belong to this promise are know and described in many ways. Nation of Israel, City of Jerusalem, City of David, Church of God, Body of believers, Body of Christ, so forth and so on.

It is my belief, and fully supported by the scriptures, that no such place existed accept in a spiritual sense. Yes, man did build a city and temple, and gave it names, but obviously none of them lasted into eternity. Logically one can only attribute this to the spiritual collection of God's children/chosen from the beginning of time until the end of time that make up this group. It is called many names in the bible, but the mistake would be to assume it is speaking of something carnal and earthly.

IMO

 

[Humanistheart]

Israel, was simply a name given to a person, and that person inherited a promise through another, all the way back to Abraham.

this collective body of people that belong to this promise are know and described in many ways. Nation of Israel, City of Jerusalem, City of David, Church of God, Body of believers, Body of Christ, so forth and so on.

It is my belief, and fully supported by the scriptures, that no such place existed accept in a spiritual sense. Yes, man did build a city and temple, and gave it names, but obviously none of them lasted into eternity. Logically one can only attribute this to

IMO

Ah, I see what you're attemtping. You are trying to alter a previously given prophicy to support your personal opinions about 'jesus'. That's not how it works. The logical conclusion's would be that the davidic covenant was not in fact created by god but in the minds of men. No, the prophicy is quite specific, and jesus has nothing to do with it.