Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The four hundred year transition period (*) was covered in part by the non-canonical books commonly called The Apocrypha.
Neither Jewish rabbinical scholars nor Christian theologians accept this document as divinely inspired. That being said, the Apocrypha serves as a historic conveance of important information especially with regard to the Jewish festival of Hanukkah, the festival of the miracle of the lights.
The Maccabees
During the inter-testamental period, Israel was a province of the Seleucid and Greek Empires. A band of freedom fighters arose under the leadership of a fellow by the name of Judah ben Mattahias. They became known as the Maccabees. Some of this information appears in the books of the Apocrypha.
The gospels record the appearance of the Son of God during the early period of Roman occupation of Judea. At that time much discontent still infected the attitude of Jews and their leaders, who were actively looking for another Judah ben Mattahias to lead them to freedom from Roman rule - who were looking for another messiah or ha-mashiach as such a figure is called in Hebrew.
The story of the Maccabean rebellion IS an important period in that it prepared Israel for a leader endowed by God with powers and abilities far beyond that of mortal man. But Jewish leadership was expecting a soldier, a general, on the order of Judah ben Mattahias or King David. THIS IS WHY Jesus (or Yeshuah as He is called in Hebrew) was called the Son of David BY MISTAKE. THIS IS WHY the inter-testimental historic record serves as an important division in the Bible.
Prophetically speaking Yeshuah actually held the office of Son of Jacob rather than Son of David. But that is the subject of another long story.....
The inter-testimental period was a preparation of Judea for the arrival of Yeshuah ha-mashiach, Jesus the messiah (messiah means anointed one).
The gospels are the beginning of a whole new story of the Son of God and His work of redemption. This is why the New Covenant begins with the gospels. The four books aren't a transition work at all. They record the beginning of a New Promise or New Covenant. They record the birth of a New Hope for mankind. They record God's work of liberation and new life in the midst of the failure of mankind to seize it for themselves.
Hope this helps.
I suggest further reading and study of the historic inter-testimental period. My post here is very very rudimentary and I've skipped over a lot of important points to explain.
that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
(*) The transition period is not exclusively a division in the Biblical narrative. It is historic.
I don't need a history lesson you Choir Loft so go holler at someone else.
Again, nothing in the Gospels takes place during the Church-age. All events in the gospels, the birth of Jesus, his public ministry, his death and resurrection all occurred during the age of Israel and the Mosaic Law was still in effect for Israel. The Gospels do not directly address the Church. Jesus' ministry was to the Jews. During his public ministry the kingdom was being offered to Israel. If Israel had accepted Jesus as the Messiah the kingdom would have been established as soon as Jesus had gone to the cross to die for the sins of the world. Since Israel rejected Jesus as the Messiah the kingdom has been postponed until his second advent. While Jesus made a reference to the future establishment of the Church (which is not the kingdom), it had not yet been established. The Church-age began on the day of Pentecost 50 days after the resurrection of Jesus. It is in that sense that the Gospels are Old Testament.
Since the ministry of Jesus was a transition period of sorts, with the age of Israel about to be interrupted for the beginning of the Church-age, and the Gospels record Jesus' ministry, the Gospels record this transition period between the two dispensations.
By the way, I am not saying that the four Gospels should be placed with the Old Testament books. I am simply saying that the events covered in the Gospels took place during the age of Israel, before the Church-age began.
Last edited by Michael Way; 09-25-2018 at 09:28 AM..
The story of the Maccabean rebellion IS an important period in that it prepared Israel for a leader endowed by God with powers and abilities far beyond that of mortal man. But Jewish leadership was expecting a soldier, a general, on the order of Judah ben Mattahias or King David. THIS IS WHY Jesus (or Yeshuah as He is called in Hebrew) was called the Son of David BY MISTAKE. THIS IS WHY the inter-testimental historic record serves as an important division in the Bible. THIS IS WHY Jewish leaders rejected the Prince of Peace. They wanted war, not liberation of the spirit. THIS IS WHY even Pontius Pilate was confused about Jews wanting to trade Barabbas, a dangerous rebel leader, for Jesus - a man who preached peace even with Rome.
Prophetically speaking Yeshuah actually held the office of Son of Jacob rather than Son of David. But that is the subject of another long story.....
I don't fully understand everything you're saying, but I don't believe Jesus was of the house of David either. It's clear to me from reading the text that he wasn't. I agree that the Israelites were looking for someone familiar. In terms of Christianity, the prophet didn't come from the Levites (which is what Israel would have expected). Having a prophet arise from Judah was supposed to be proof to Israel that this person was divinely inspired. They were supposed to be listening to the messages and not focusing on the messenger. Instead of thinking, "Hey, this person is speaking the same stuff we've always known. He must be a messenger of God!" They were all, "You are not a Levite. You must be an enchanter!" If we want to look at it across religions...Christians were supposed to realize that the Islamic prophet was bringing the same messages, but instead they were focused on the fact that this person was not of their religion and thus must be some type of fraud. Again...the message was missed. This is illustrated in the story of the drowning man who asked God to save him. Someone in a canoe came and he was like, "No thanks. Waiting for God!" He said the same thing when a helicopter came, and finally when someone actually swam out to him. When he died and went to heaven he asked God why he didn't answer the prayer, and God was like, "The heck are you talking about?! I sent a boat, helicopter and man to save you and you refused help!"
So...yeah. Humans don't learn from their mistakes. Can't put new wine into old wineskins. (Matthew 9:16-17)
I don't fully understand everything you're saying, but I don't believe Jesus was of the house of David either. It's clear to me from reading the text that he wasn't. I agree that the Israelites were looking for someone familiar. In terms of Christianity, the prophet didn't come from the Levites (which is what Israel would have expected). Having a prophet arise from Judah was supposed to be proof to Israel that this person was divinely inspired. They were supposed to be listening to the messages and not focusing on the messenger. Instead of thinking, "Hey, this person is speaking the same stuff we've always known. He must be a messenger of God!" They were all, "You are not a Levite. You must be an enchanter!" If we want to look at it across religions...Christians were supposed to realize that the Islamic prophet was bringing the same messages, but instead they were focused on the fact that this person was not of their religion and thus must be some type of fraud. Again...the message was missed. This is illustrated in the story of the drowning man who asked God to save him. Someone in a canoe came and he was like, "No thanks. Waiting for God!" He said the same thing when a helicopter came, and finally when someone actually swam out to him. When he died and went to heaven he asked God why he didn't answer the prayer, and God was like, "The heck are you talking about?! I sent a boat, helicopter and man to save you and you refused help!"
So...yeah. Humans don't learn from their mistakes. Can't put new wine into old wineskins. (Matthew 9:16-17)
Matthew emphasizes that Jesus was the son of David at the very beginning of his Gospel by stating that Jesus was the son of David even before stating that he was the son of Abraham despite the fact that Abraham was born before David.
Matthew 1:1 The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham:
Jesus is also referred to as the son of David in Matthew 12:23, 15:22, 21:9; Mark 10:48, 12:35; John 7:42; Romans 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8, and Revelation 5:5. Luke also includes David in Jesus' genealogy (Luke 3:31).
I think that reference is to confuse people. Please forgive my ignorance because I have not read all the books yet, but was Jesus around during King David's reign? I think we (myself included) really don't understand what "Son" means, and if we knew Hebrew (instead of relying on translations) we would better understand. Jesus went around Judah preaching and healing people. Remember...the Levites were not given land allotments. They had posts throughout the other tribes' land. So when he was traveling, he was likely in those cities/towns set aside for Levites. His mother Mary was a Levite, and so were her parents. He couldn't have been from Judah based on lineage.
Matthew emphasizes that Jesus was the son of David at the very beginning of his Gospel by stating that Jesus was the son of David even before stating that he was the son of Abraham despite the fact that Abraham was born before David.
Matthew 1:1 The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham:
Jesus is also referred to as the son of David in Matthew 12:23, 15:22, 21:9; Mark 10:48, 12:35; John 7:42; Romans 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8, and Revelation 5:5. Luke also includes David in Jesus' genealogy (Luke 3:31).
Quote:
Originally Posted by treemoni
I think that reference is to confuse people. Please forgive my ignorance because I have not read all the books yet, but was Jesus around during King David's reign? I think we (myself included) really don't understand what "Son" means, and if we knew Hebrew (instead of relying on translations) we would better understand. Jesus went around Judah preaching and healing people. Remember...the Levites were not given land allotments. They had posts throughout the other tribes' land. So when he was traveling, he was likely in those cities/towns set aside for Levites. His mother Mary was a Levite, and so were her parents. He couldn't have been from Judah based on lineage.
The Gospels, including the genealogies and the other references to Jesus as the son (descendant) of David were not given to confuse people.
The word 'son' is being used in the sense of a 'descendant.' Jesus was a descendant of David. Both Matthew's and Luke's genealogies were given to prove that Jesus was a descendant of David.
Since Jesus did not have a human biological father his line of descent from David had to be through Mary. Since Mary and Elizabeth were relatives and Elizabeth was a Levite, Mary could still be descended from David as a result of somewhere along the line a Levite having married a non-Levite, specifically, someone from the tribe of Judah.
I am not sure I understand the purpose of the question. What difference does it make? "OT" and "NT" are merely categories set up by some long-dead men.
The post above this one just seems like over-thinking.
The OT was written to the Jews and it is for our learning today not our doctrine. You can't find the gospel of grace in that OT, the disciples knew nothing of it until Paul brought it up. We find a picture of our beloved Savior but He isn't down here anymore. As far as salvation in the gospels the Judaizers preached this to the little groups Paul started......Acts 15
Act 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
Act 15:2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
Act 15:3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers.
Act 15:4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them.
Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."
Act 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.
They had no idea that JESUS HAD CHANGED THE PROGRAM and what they had all been brought up under, the law of Moses, no longer applied. It is no different today.......if your Pastor teaches out of the 4 gospels all the time he is clueless as well.
The OT was written to the Jews and it is for our learning today not our doctrine. You can't find the gospel of grace in that OT, the disciples knew nothing of it until Paul brought it up. We find a picture of our beloved Savior but He isn't down here anymore. As far as salvation in the gospels the Judaizers preached this to the little groups Paul started......Acts 15
Act 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
Act 15:2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
Act 15:3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers.
Act 15:4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them.
Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."
Act 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.
They had no idea that JESUS HAD CHANGED THE PROGRAM and what they had all been brought up under, the law of Moses, no longer applied. It is no different today.......if your Pastor teaches out of the 4 gospels all the time he is clueless as well.
Not saying that you're right or wrong, but Genesis 6:8 states, "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD".
and Grace is unmerited favor, which is the Hebrew word, H2580 חֵן chen (chane) n-m.
1. graciousness.
2. (subjective) kindness, favor.
3. (objective) beauty.
[from H2603]
KJV: favour, grace(-ious), pleasant, precious, (well-)favoured.
Root(s): H2603
and in Abraham, who is the Father of all Nations, he gain God favor by "FAITH".
Romans 4:13 "For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
for are we not all saved by Faith/Hope? Romans 8:24 "For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
Romans 8:25 "But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it".
and HOPE is what? .... "FAITH", scripture, Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".
and GRACE is stored upon all of us by the work of Christ on the Cross. for all men sin was removed, it's our Faith/hope in Christ that saves us.
Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God".
Grace has been in effect from the beginning, before the Law, but they had to access this GRACE by FAITH, meaning they DIED in HOPE/FAITH of it. because Abraham got the promise when he was still uncircumcised, and died in hope/Faith. Romans 4:11 "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Romans 4:12 "And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
Romans 4:13 "For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Romans 4:14 "For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect"
The Gospels, including the genealogies and the other references to Jesus as the son (descendant) of David were not given to confuse people.
The word 'son' is being used in the sense of a 'descendant.' Jesus was a descendant of David. Both Matthew's and Luke's genealogies were given to prove that Jesus was a descendant of David.
Since Jesus did not have a human biological father his line of descent from David had to be through Mary. Since Mary and Elizabeth were relatives and Elizabeth was a Levite, Mary could still be descended from David as a result of somewhere along the line a Levite having married a non-Levite, specifically, someone from the tribe of Judah.
GENERAL JESUS
The reference to Jesus as Son of David was a testimonial record as are all the gospels. Jesus DID NOT exercise the office of Son of David. He was mistakenly taken for an insurrectionist by the general population who were looking for a leader against Roman occupation. Historic accounts of the era serve well to instruct the curious reader.
The Jewish leaders of Jesus' time mistook the Son of Man for a rebel. Proof is shown during his trial before the Roman governor. When the crowd demanded Barrabus to be released they gave outright proof they wanted a rebel murderer to lead them instead of the Prince of Peace. This is a clue as to why Jews don't generally acknowledge Jesus as Son of God to this day. Please read historic accounts of the era.
SON OF DAVID
Jesus exercised the office of Son of Jacob rather than Son of David. If the reader doesn't know who Jacob was or understand my reference have a look at the passage in Genesis 28, then compare it to John 1:50-51.
Jesus is prophetically declared by the Bible to appear in the world twice.
The first time He came as the suffering servant. The second time He shall come as judge and conqueror. The first time He came as the Son of Jacob. The second time He shall come as Son of David. Jews fail to see the separation (neither do they read Isaiah 53).
ANCESTRY
Jewish ancestry is not tracked through the father's line. It's tracked through the mother's lineage. Ask any rabbi or explore a Jewish web site. Therefore Jesus' ancestral line is through the house of David, though He was literally not David's son but God's son. The difference may appear to be subtle but it is important nonetheless.
PRIEST
Jesus was NOT related to the tribe of Levy (for a reason).
He was NOT a Levite and could not be a priest according to the old Law. Jesus is High priest according to the order of Melchizedek (read Hebrews 5, Genesis 14 & Ps 110). The implications of the book of Hebrews states that Jesus' priesthood supersedes and is superior to that of the tradition of Aaronic temple priests.
The book of Hebrews says its better because it's based upon the innocent blood of God as sacrifice for sin, because Jesus is now appointed as High Priest (an office which He holds at this time) and because He represents/fulfills the New Law/New Covenant.
Sunday school question; Since the old Law has NOT passed away (Matt 5:17), what then is the substance of the New Law/New Covenant?
Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law. What does this mean and how does it apply to us?
Those weren't silent years. A prophet was sent. Islam claims him.
Prophet Mohammad [pbuh] wasn't born until circa 600AD. That would put the foundation of Islam one thousand years after the inter-testamental period. Minimum.
Islamic writings of the Hadith literary tradition are even later than that. Minimum.
You make assertions about the Biblical inter-testamental period without a shred of evidence documentation or knowledge. Ignorance isn't evidence of fact. If you've got some, please share it. Otherwise please read history. You may learn something of value.
The inter-testament period was one of massive political and military significance as I've stated in earlier posts. The events of those years prepared the Jewish people for the arrival of ha-mashiach - the messiah, anointed One of God. Prophecies of His advent are numerous throughout the Law Prophets and Writings (Tanakh - or Old Covenant as protestants know it). I specifically refer to Isaiah 53 as the most numerous collection.
The OT was written to the Jews and it is for our learning today not our doctrine. You can't find the gospel of grace in that OT, the disciples knew nothing of it until Paul brought it up. We find a picture of our beloved Savior but He isn't down here anymore. As far as salvation in the gospels the Judaizers preached this to the little groups Paul started......Acts 15
Act 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
Act 15:2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
Act 15:3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers.
Act 15:4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them.
Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."
Act 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.
They had no idea that JESUS HAD CHANGED THE PROGRAM and what they had all been brought up under, the law of Moses, no longer applied. It is no different today.......if your Pastor teaches out of the 4 gospels all the time he is clueless as well.
I'm Episcopalian. We follow the traditional lectionary in our services. OT reading, Psalm in unison, NT/epistle reading, Gospel reading, Year A, B, C cycle.
Priest's job is to find a theme and tie them together. Sometimes it's easier to do than others. Some are better at it than others. Overarching rule is that Jesus said to love one another, and that takes priority over anything else because that's the only real sermon there is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can't put new wine into old wineskins. (Matthew 9:16-17)
