Where does it come from and how does it differ from the Mosaic and especially the Abrahamic Covenants?
Davidic Covenant
- Thread starter crossnote
- Start date
Thanks for asking!
The Covenant's in the Bible make up the way God saves man.
The first explicit covenant in Scripture is between God and Noah after the flood. Its first mention simply highlights God’s plan to preserve Noah and the others in the ark. God’s covenant with Noah reaffirms his original plans, temporarily disrupted by judgment.
The Abrahamic covenant follows soon after in Genesis, laying the groundwork for the nation of Israel and the coming Messiah, through whom God would bless all the nations of the world. The covenant in Gen 15 formally ratifies God’s promise to make Abraham into a “great nation” (Gen.12:2); the primary focus is on how God will work out his creative goal in Abraham’s biological “offspring,” subsequently identified as the sons of Jacob (Israel).
The Mosaic covenant continues God’s dealings with the nation of Israel, the descendants of Abraham, calling them to reflect the glory of their Lord to the nations around them. The focus when given at Sinai was less on what Abraham’s descendants must do in order to inherit the land and more on how they must conduct themselves within the land as God’s chosen people (Ex. 19:5-6). In order to be God’s “treasured possession,” “kingdom of priests,” and “holy nation,” Israel must keep God’s covenant by submitting to its requirements as the stipulations were set forth in Ex. 20-23.
The covenant made with King David pointed ahead of Israel to the coming Messiah, the one who would rule perfectly on David’s throne forever. It was not until Jesus came as Israel’s Messiah, however, that the covenants with man were kept perfectly and fulfilled. Jesus came to ratify the new covenant, promised in the Law and the Prophets, bringing along with it the eschatological blessings promised to God’s people.
Thanks for your explanation. BTW, you're not morphing into a preterist on us, are you? (See boldened above)
Really?
I said...........
"that the covenants with man were kept perfectly and fulfilled."
God said in Mathew 17:17.........
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. "
Right, isn't He still fulfilling them, or are we already in the Millennium? (see where I am coming from?)
You are correct! However, that is a question with really deep implications.
Did Jesus fulfill the Law or is He still fulfilling the Law?
Preterism is the false teaching that ALL of Biblical "Prophecy" was fulfilled in 70 AD.
In Matthew 17:17, would you agree that there is something Jesus did and something He did not do. At the same time, Jesus emphasized the eternal nature of the Word of God.
By that I mean Jesus DID go out of His way to promote the authority of the Law of God. He did not come to abolish the Law, regardless of what the Pharisees accused Him of. In fact, Jesus continues His statement with a commendation for those who teach the Law accurately and hold it in reverence: “Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19).
Consider what Jesus did not do in His ministry. In Matt. 5:17 Matthew 5:17, Jesus says that He did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets. In other words, Jesus’ purpose was not to abrogate the Word, dissolve it, or render it invalid.
The Prophets will be fulfilled; the Law will continue to accomplish the purpose for which it was given .
If the Law is still binding on us today, then it has not yet accomplished its purpose—it has not yet been fulfilled. If the Law, as a legal system, is still binding on us today, then Jesus was wrong in claiming to fulfill it and His sacrifice on the cross was insufficient to save. Thank God, Jesus fulfilled the whole Law and now grants us His righteousness as a free gift. “Know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified” (Galatians 2:16).
The whole story is available all over the net my dear. I would highly recommend Josephus’ "Jewish War" for details.
The short answer is that in studying this subject, it’s good to remember that prophecy does not describe the future in the same way that history describes the past. That’s why there are varied interpretations of biblical prophecy. Predictions dealing with the end times, a category known as eschatology, are of particular interest to many people. Within modern Christianity, most of these discussions are less about which events are predicted than when the events will happen. The most common point of reference for these opinions is the significant year of AD 70, when the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple.
Virtually all Christian interpretations of biblical prophecy agree that several prophecies were fulfilled in or before AD 70. Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple and, some would argue, the Jewish genocide at the hands of Rome. Historically, these events align extremely well with Jesus’ statements. There is broad agreement within most Christian interpretations that these prophecies were literally fulfilled in AD 70.
Gessius Florus loved money and hated Jews. As Roman procurator, he ruled Judea, caring little for their religious sensibilities. When tax revenues were low, he seized silver from the temple. As the uproar against him grew, in A.D. 66, he sent troops into Jerusalem who massacred 3,600 citizens. Florus’s action touched off an explosive rebellion—the First Jewish Revolt—that had been sizzling for some time.
The revolt was on and soon Titus came to Jerusalem and totally destroyed the city killing over a million and taking 100,000 as slaves.
Ok, the temple was destroyed we know that. It's not there anymore, though the site is of course, always there with other things built on it.
Isn't that the end of the story?
Christians aren't rebuilding temples and still sacrificing animals at the altar. God is only a prayer away, we don't need to make the trek to Jerusalem. There is no more Jewish royal family. They have presidents and try and carry on as a remnant of what they once were but if they don't know their Messiah they wouldn't have understood that it wasn't just for their sakes, but for everyone (all of humankind) to enter into a covenant with God.
So am not sure what else is expected...it HAD ended hadn't it? All things must come to an end so we can be born again and have a new beginning. Christians aren't like Muslims who are compelled to make Hajj to mecca and worship a rock.
Isn't that the end of the story?
Christians aren't rebuilding temples and still sacrificing animals at the altar. God is only a prayer away, we don't need to make the trek to Jerusalem. There is no more Jewish royal family. They have presidents and try and carry on as a remnant of what they once were but if they don't know their Messiah they wouldn't have understood that it wasn't just for their sakes, but for everyone (all of humankind) to enter into a covenant with God.
So am not sure what else is expected...it HAD ended hadn't it? All things must come to an end so we can be born again and have a new beginning. Christians aren't like Muslims who are compelled to make Hajj to mecca and worship a rock.
I think its a case of semantics that the passage can be misinterpreted.
Jesus did fufill the law, his death on the cross did pay for everyones sins. There was no more need for sacrifice, as book of Hebrews sets out to explain, and thus we are justified because Jesus death paid for OUR sins. His blood was the new covenant.
I am not sure what else needs to be said...? Otherwise, every time I sin should I be flying to Jerusalem and sacrificing a lamb to pay for it?
Jesus did fufill the law, his death on the cross did pay for everyones sins. There was no more need for sacrifice, as book of Hebrews sets out to explain, and thus we are justified because Jesus death paid for OUR sins. His blood was the new covenant.
I am not sure what else needs to be said...? Otherwise, every time I sin should I be flying to Jerusalem and sacrificing a lamb to pay for it?
Also, Jesus had no children (he never married) so the royal line, such as it was ended with him. BUT he did an amazing thing and said that everyone who believes in Him would inherit eternal life, meaning all believers are co-heirs with him.
And we are going to take turns sitting in heaven on those heavenly thrones. Of course this is in the spirit, not in the flesh, but, that's what is promised. So am not sure what else is expected. We aren't going to Lord it over people like gentiles do and become tyrants... as there is only ONE Lord who is righteous. Lord knows all the leaders on earth have flaws and can never do EVERYTHING right. They can't even follow all the laws God made perfectly.
And we are going to take turns sitting in heaven on those heavenly thrones. Of course this is in the spirit, not in the flesh, but, that's what is promised. So am not sure what else is expected. We aren't going to Lord it over people like gentiles do and become tyrants... as there is only ONE Lord who is righteous. Lord knows all the leaders on earth have flaws and can never do EVERYTHING right. They can't even follow all the laws God made perfectly.
Yes the Temple was destroyed, but that doesn't mean God is finished with Israel...
Romans 11:1-2,25,28 ESV
I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. [2] God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?
[25] Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
[28] As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.[\b]
2 Samuel 7:10 ESV
And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may dwell in their own place and be disturbed no more. And violent men shall afflict them no more, as formerly, (part of the Davidic Covenant)
Last edited:
Incorrect.
The Western Wailing Wall is in fact Solomon's Wall, and whose lower sections date to about the first century BCE of the 2nd Temple.
This is NOT about what Christians do. It is about the Jews and their Land, the Promised. Whne that is overlooked, you will miss the complete plan of God in our lives.
The LAND is one of the KEY componants in grasping real history!
There were in fact Kings in the line of Jesus, however, the sinless Son of God, the Christ was incarnated from a very long line of sinners.
David was a KING. He was also a liar, a murderer, and an adulterer among several other sins.
Judah and his brothers tried to kill Joseph. He was also a "slaver". He raised two sons who were “wicked in the Lord’s sight” and died for it. He then refused to do what the law demanded and either marry their widow, Tamar, to either his youngest son or marry her himself. He himself even admitted it when confronted by Tamar. “She is righteous, and I am not.”
Rahab was a prostitute.
Ahaz, Judea had some nasty kings, but King Ahaz might win the prize for “worst king of Judea.”
According to the Bible, Ahaz essentially went through a checklist of all the things God said not to do and then went out and did them.
Joash. Before Ahaz came along and stole the title of “worst king of Judea,” Joash might well have held that dubious honor.
Solomon. According to 1 Kings 3, Solomon was in the habit of making offerings at the high places, something that was forbidden. At first, this sin did not seem to get him into much trouble, but his habit of worshipping in a way that was not permitted ended up ruining him. According to 1 Kings 11, Solomon had a variety of foreign wives despite God warning the Israelites against intermarrying with pagan peoples.
Not so. It is not semantics at all.
It is the difference between the Jewish faith and the Christian faith. Old Covenant and the New Covenant.
Semantics means the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the significance of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development.
Jesus came to establish a “better covenant” or a completely different or, a “new covenant” that Jesus said was in His blood. Jesus shed His blood on the cross to take away the sins of the world and ratify the new covenant between God and man.
Before HIs death the Jews had to go to Mecca-(Paraphrase for Jewish Temple) yearly and offer a blood sacrifice.
On the night He was betrayed, Jesus took the cup and said to His disciples, Matthew 26:27-28.......
“Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”.
By “this cup,” Jesus referred, by metonymy, to the contents of the cup, which was the “fruit of the vine” = blood from His body!. This was representative of Christ’s blood. Jesus gave His disciples the cup, infusing it with new meaning, and told them drinking it was to be a memorial of His death: it was to be drunk “in remembrance of me”.
Now, “whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (verse 26).
The New Covenant is based on faith in the shed blood of Christ to take away sin, not on repeated sacrifices or any other kind of work. Because Jesus is the holy Lamb of God, His one-time sacrifice is sufficient to atone for the sins of all who believe in Him thus removing the need to go to the Temple to offer an animal sacrifice.
And so the temple in Jerusalem was "destroyed" in 70 AD. There is a reason WHY it was destroyed!
It is because the Jews belived that God visted them in the Holy of Holies, and in fact He did at one time. However, We have a new temple, a new priest, a new sacrifice, a new access to glory and fellowship with God. So when John the apostle has a vision of heaven in Revelation 21:22–23, he says, .......
"And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb."
What Jesus meant when he said, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up," was that he himself was taking the place of the temple—by dying for sin once for all, and by rising from the dead to reign as the everlasting priest and Lord of glory. When I die, the temple system dies. And when I rise, I am the temple. I am the sacrifice for sins. I am the priest and go-between with God. I am the presence and radiance of his glory.
Well they now have the holy land back (mostly) and protected from attack (mostly) so I don't know what else anyone is expecting.....if anyone doesn't believe in the Messiah on faith they'll just have to wait till He returns to see Him with their own eyes right? After all Heaven is prophecised to come down over Jerusalem, not anywhere else but it will extend quite far from that central point - to the ends of the earth.
I don't think it means...Jersualem will become one giant Kingdom and everyone else outside of it will speak Hebrew I think it means we would be free to come and go when we please, just those who don't believe will be outside and not invited, though I really think it was promised and benefits the Israelites first of all as their own homeland, inheritance and birthright. Other nations can just be their holiday destinations??
I don't think it means...Jersualem will become one giant Kingdom and everyone else outside of it will speak Hebrew I think it means we would be free to come and go when we please, just those who don't believe will be outside and not invited, though I really think it was promised and benefits the Israelites first of all as their own homeland, inheritance and birthright. Other nations can just be their holiday destinations??