Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Photobucket
Welcome to Kadaish. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to participate in the discussions, sharing your ideas and questions. This will broaden the scope of our understanding together and we greatly appreciate your willingness to be involved, regardless of how we may agree or disagree. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
David's Rise to Power & Messianic Hope; Professor Christine Hays
Topic Started: May 6 2011, 05:02 AM (205 Views)
MarkStaneart
Member Avatar
Administrator



Edited by MarkStaneart, May 8 2011, 04:47 AM.
Visit Mark Staneart at www.renewourdays.com
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MarkStaneart
Member Avatar
Administrator
The political/national hope for Messiah was presumed by the 1st Century disciples clearly. Even in Yeshua's answer to them in Matthew 16:18, using the word ekklesia (Church), He describes His coming rule using a political term which they would have understood to be speaking of the nation of Israel (see Acts 7:38).

It is only much later, in the Greeko/Roman interpretation of the Bible, that the idea of Church becomes a separate and uniquely religious ideology, based upon Messiah's confession in John 18:36.
Visit Mark Staneart at www.renewourdays.com
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MarkStaneart
Member Avatar
Administrator
I want to add this video, not because I agree with it; but because it very clearly demonstrates the Christian understanding of covenants and how, in the scholastic community, these successive covenants are controvertible. The speaker states that the Covenant at Sinai was a conditional covenant, stating that if Israel violates her side, she will be expelled. This position requires interpreting passages such as Exodus 19:5 independently from Deuteronomy 32 (where it is demonstrated that God knows the people will undergo a period of chastisement due to their own rebellion).

This interpretation, the foundation of Dispensationalism distinguishes the covenants as separate and distinct as though God is willing and able to emancipate Himself from His Covenant obligations from one age to the next (forgetting the paradigm that God's Word endures forever, James 1:17).

The Whole Word interpretation of God's Covenants sees them as drawing the same plan into tighter specific detail as opposed to unique and successive promises: that each of the proceeding covenants fit neatly within the definitive confines of the previous covenant. This difference in interpretation allows us to better understand how, from the dispensationalist perspective, there are a number of applications of the covenant that we may not understand but from a whole word perspective, they are neatly defined.

Edited by MarkStaneart, May 8 2011, 05:33 AM.
Visit Mark Staneart at www.renewourdays.com
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · 1050-920 BCE: United kingdom under Saul, David and Solomon, with capital at Jerusalem · Next Topic »
Add Reply