Sukkot David and the House of Levi in the New Testament
The House of David and the House of Levi in the New Testament
Edi Nachman
Table of Contents
Introduction
I Purpose of Research
Methodology and Limits of Research
Research Structure
Sources
Chapter 1 David in the New Testament
Chapter 2 Levi in the New Testament
Zechariah
John the Baptist and the Dead Sea Sect (The House of Zadok)
Chapter 3 The House and Lineage of David and Levi (The Background)
The Role of Geneaologies
Intertestamnetal Literature
Pre Exilic
Exilic
Post Exilic
Chapter 4 The Opposition to the House of David in the New Testament
The House of Annas Illegitimate Priests
The House of Herod Edom
The House of Rome The Nations
Chapter 5 The Claims of Jesus of Nazareth, Son of David, Son of God
The Prophetic Affirmation
The Priestly Affirmation
The Role of Miracles
The Role of the Resurrection
Chapter 6 The Role of the Sukkot David after the Resurrection
Yaacov brother of Jesus
Peter, Yaacov and John
Gamaliel
Chapter 7 Rabbinic Literature and the Claims of Jesus
Chapter 8 Josephus and the Claims of Jesus
Chapter 9 Jesus to the nations, The Mishna to the Jews
Chapter 10 Conclusion: The real relationship between the Church and Israel
Introduction
Bibliography:
NKJV Spirit Filled Study Bible (Thomas Nelson, 1991)
Sources: Jeremiah 33, Ezekiel 21,44. Ezra 7, Jeremiah 33, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles
I Purpose of Research
My purpose is to test a hypothesis born from my desire to understand the true relationship of the early Church to the wider Jewish community until about the middle of the second century. As I understand it the keys to this relationship are families, OT precedents and prophetic expectations. We have in the first century interaction between the Church (the House of David, its supporters in Israel and later on Gentiles) and the rest of the Jews, families vying over who had the legitimate and God given right to rule. The claim of the New Testament Church I will seek to show to be that "he who comes in the name Yahwah" had the right to rule in the city of the great King over the tribes of Israel. His name was Jesus and he came as prophesied from the house of David (the legitimate lineage). However, there were many sons of David in the first century, the phrase was not simply a title for Messiah but a description of a person relationship, for example the angel in Matthew 1:20 calls Joseph, "son of David". How then would the legitimate succesor to the throne be identified? The New Testament gives a number of answers to this question. Firstly Peter says Jesus was approved to them by sign wonders and miracles. For Paul the decisive sanctifying action was the resurrection from the Dead. The resurrection and post resurrection appearances may have been what convinced Yaacov Jesus brother, that Jesus was the one. The point was that from the many sons of David in the first century it was expected that one would be chosen to sit on the throne of his Father David. The house and lineage of David expected that one day the throne would be reestablished under their authority. This is clear from their inherent trust in the scripture and the promises, which the scripture held out to them. Ezekiel had prophesied the overturning of the throne:
And thou, profane wicked prince of israel, whose day is come
When iniquity shalll have an end
Thus saith Adonai Yahwah;
Remove the diadem and take off the crown
This shall not be the same
Exalt him that is low and abse him that is high
I will overturn overturn overturn it
and it shall be no more until he come whose right it is;
and I will give it him (KJV Ezek 21:27)
Ezekiel prophesied this in the last years of Jerusalem before the exile, some where between 594 and 586 BC. Thus there was a tradition that the crown of David had been reserved as Israel entered exile for the one to whom it truly belonged. The judgements at the time of the exile lead some to accuse Yahwah of rejecting the two families he had chosen. Jeremiah mentions this gossip among the people:
Moreover the word of Yahwah came to Jeremiah saying
Considerest thou not what this people have spoken saying:
The two families which Yahwah hath chosen,
He hath even cast them off? (Jeremiah 33:23-24)
But rather Yahwah affirmed to Jeremiah that these two families were under his special protection:
In those days shall Judah be saved,
And Jerusalem shall dwell safely
And this is the name wherewith she shall be called
Yahwah our Righteousness
For thus saith Yahwah
David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of Israel
Neither shall the Levites want a man before me to offer
Burnt offering and to kindle meat offerings
And to do sacrifices continually
Thus saith Yahwah
If you can break my covenant of the day
And my covenant of the night
And that there should not be day and night in their season
Then also my covenant be broken
With David my servant
That he should not have a son to reign
Upon his throne; and with the Levites
The priests my ministers
As the host of heaven cannot be numbered
Neither shall the sand of the sea measured;
So will I multiply the seed of David
My servant and the Levites that minister unto me.
These prophecies all come at the time Jerusalem was about to be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and the house of David and Levi and all Judah were about to be exiled to Babylon. However the writings of Jeremiah and Ezekiel were both preserved by the Hebrews and when they returned from Babylon these works with these promises came with them. Thus there was a tradition in Israel that both the Davidic throne and the Levites were under divine protection and would minister in Israel together.
Jeremiah does not distinguish among the families with in Levi. However at the time of David there were two main priests working with David, Zadok and Abiathar. Zadok son of Meraioth son of Ahitub the ruler of the house of God ( 1Chron 6:8) and Abiathar acted as spies for king David when Absalom took over the throne.There son’s Ahimaaz and Abiathar acts as messenger couriers. When David returned and Absalom was dead David sent Zadok and Abiathar to ask the elders of Judah why they were the last to welcome him back. However when Adoniyahu tried to usurp the throne of David Jonathan son of Abiathar joined him. Zadok , Nathan the prophet, Benaiah son of Jehoiada , the Cherethites and the Pelethites to appoint Solomon as the legitmate successor. Zadok took a horn of oil from the tabernacle and anointed Solomon, they blew a trumept and proclaimed "God save king Solomon" in Gihon. Solomon took over. He replaced Joab with Benaiah and Abiathar was replaced by Zadok (1 Kings 2). Zadok represnted the sons of Eleazar the son of Aaron. Abiathar came from the line of Ithamar Aarons other son. By the time of Hezekiah the chief priest was Azariah of the house of Zadok. When Israel returned from exile it was Ezra from the house of Zadok who returned in BC 458 to reestablish the nation. The people even during the exile had kept geneaologies for the prietly families. These were very important in establishing who could legitimately rule and in another sense in showing Yahwah had kept his promises spoken through Jeremiah. Ezra is given a geneology: He was son of Seraiah, Azariah, Hilkiah, Shallum, Zadok, Ahitub, Amariah Azariah, Meraioth, Zerahiah, Uzzi, Bukki, Abishua, Phinehas, Eleazar and Aaron. This clealry inidicates that genealolgies were preserved though out the exile. We will find the same with the house of David.
A key prophetic tradition linked with house of Zadok also issued forth in the exile.
The priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the
The children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister
And they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood saith Adonai Yahwah
They shall enter into my sanctuary and they shall come near to my table to minister unto me
And they shall keep my charge.
Those who preserved the writings of Ezekiel may have held to this tradition from Ezekiel. Clearly this was confirmed or represented by Ezra connection with Zadok.
His coming meant some in power would lose power and some who were with out power would gain it. Hence the battle between the families. Those who would lose power attacked the Church because of their desire to hold onto power. Those from the legitimate house of David and the royal house of Judah must be seen as the family and relatives of Jesus and other from Benjamin and othe tribes who would agree from the prophecies that the house of David should sit on the throne of David over Israel would give support to the cause. King David did not reign in Israel alone, the Son of Zadok were the priestly family aligned with him. Priests from this family were ministering in Jerusalem at this period but some were living as a community at the Dead Sea. These expected a Davidic king to come as a priestly representative of the house of Zadok. So this group in Qumran ought to have a similar vision to the house of David.
With the claim of Jesus to be the Son of David to fulfil the prophecy of Nathan to David (2 Sam 7) there will clearly be a tension with the role of Solomon. For even in
Methodology and Limits of Research
Research Structure
Sources
Chapter 1 David in the New Testament
Chapter 2 Levi in the New Testament
Zechariah
John the Baptist and the Dead Sea Sect (The House of Zadok)
Chapter 3 The House and Lineage of David and Levi (The Background)
The Role of Geneaologies
Intertestamnetal Literature
Pre Exilic
Exilic
Post Exilic
Chapter 4 The Opposition to the House of David in the New Testament
The House of Annas Illegitimate Priests
The House of Herod Edom
The House of Rome The Nations
Chapter 5 The Claims of Jesus of Nazareth, Son of David, Son of God
The Prophetic Affirmation
The Priestly Affirmation
The Role of Miracles
The Role of the Resurrection
Chapter 6 The Role of the Sukkot David after the Resurrection
Yaacov brother of Jesus
Peter, Yaacov and John
Gamaliel
Chapter 7 Rabbinic Literature and the Claims of Jesus
Chapter 8 Josephus and the Claims of Jesus
Chapter 9 Jesus to the nations, The Mishna to the Jews
Chapter 10 Conclusion: The real relationship between the Church and Israel
Sukkot David and the House of Levi and the House in the New Testament
The idea for this paper sprung from a number of texts which I came across which seem to render the relationship between Jesus and the early church on the one side and the greater Jewish community on the other, explicable. The key was the idea of families and specifically the two families which Yahwah set apart to serve in a special way. The first was the house of Levi, the sons of Aaron and the Levites. The second was the tribe of Judah and the house of Jesse and from that the house of David. The Masoretic text relates a speech of Abiyah in defense of these two families:
Abiyah (Abiyam) April 4th 928BC (Nisan 1)
The Speech of Abiyah on Mount Zemaraim
Hear me,
Thou Jereboam and all Yisrael
Ought ye not to know that Yahwah Elohei Yisrael gave the Kingdom over Yisrael to David forever, even to him and his sons by a covenant of salt. Yet Jereboam , son of Nebat, the servant of Shelomoh son of David, is risen up, and hath rebelled against his lord.
And there gathered unto him vain men, the children of Belial, and have strengthened themselves against Rehoboam the son of Shelomoh, when Rehoboam was young and tenderhearted, and could not withstand them.
And now think ye to withstand the kingdom of Yahwah in the hands of the sons of David; and ye be a great multitude, and there are your golden calves, which Yereboam made you for Elohim.
Have ye not cast out the kohanim of Yahwah, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites, and have made you kohanim after the manner of the nations of other lands…
But as for us, Yahwah is Eloheinu, and we have not forsaken him; and the kohanim which minister unto Yahwah, are the sons of Aaron, and the Levites wait upon their business. And they burn unto Yahwah, every morning and every evening burnt sacrifices and sweet incense:
The shewbread also set they in order upon the pure table; and the candle stick of gold with lamps thereof to burn every evening; for we keep the charge of Yahwah Eloheinu; but ye have forsaken him.
And behold Elohim himself is with us as our captain, and his kohanim sounding trumpets to cry alarm against you. O children of Yisrael fight ye not against Yahwah Elohei your fathers; for ye shall not prosper. (2 Chron 13)
We see here then the outline of the administration Abiyah understands that Yahwah had established. Two points are significant for our case. 1 He gives the speech as the "son of David" Rehoboam was having a war with Jeroboam son of Nebat. Abiyah clearly sees the importance of the two families. The first is the Davidic. Yahwah gave the kingdom over Israel to David and his sons forever. This Kingdom over Israel is called the "Kingdom of Yahwah", which is perhaps carries more weight than the more general "Kingdom of God". The relevance to first century Israel is that John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazreth also proclaimed the Kingdom of God when they came to Israel. 2 The second point is that in this Kingdom the sons of Aaron minister to Yahwah. The Levites also do their work at the temple. Abiyah berates Jereboam for throwing the Levites out of their roles as priests. The accusation is that Jereboam has thrown the house of Levi out and appointed priests according to the way of the nations. The no longer keep the charge of Yahwah God of Israel. We notice it is the Kingdom which has the power not to cast out the levites but to preserve them in their ministry. The summary of this evidence is that David of Judah and Levis family serve Yahwah together in tandem. This is I believe is what Jesus came to Israel to restore. The rulers of Israel in first century Jerusalem had the role of king and priest but those who were occupying the places were not appointed the way Yahwah assigned and not the legitimate branches of the families the law and the prophets decreed. Jesus and his Church were working toward that restoration.
The fact that the compiler of Chronicles includes this speech in history of Israel points to the fact that the issues of the two families was still burning after the exile. Whether Ezra or an unknown writer is the chronicler does not effect the fact that this post exilic document sees the importance of the relationship between the two families. "The distinctive feature of I and II Chronicles is that it covers the history of Israelfrom Adam to the end of the Exile almost exclusively from the religious angle" (Neil 203). The two families are indeed connected to two issues worship (house of Levi) and kingship (house of David). In the kingdom of David, the King administered them both establishing the orders of the Levites for their service (1 Chron 20-30). The Lion Handbook to the Bible notes the importance of these two themes " true worship and true kingship in Israel" (Alexander, 286). The readers of the Chronicles were "the ment who had returned from exile to rebuild Jerusalem under Ezra and Nehemiah" (Alexander 286). The three books Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah are a kind of trilogy. Neil says they were a "tripartite work by the same author, which might well be called the Religious History of the People of God" (Neil, 203). This issue then of the two families and their proper roles was a postexilic issue. And I will argue that it was a concern of Jesus and the early Church, especially that of its Jewish branch.
The other two texts which lead to this thesis are recorded in Acts were recorded by Hegissipus and is preserved in Eusebius: The History of the Church (HE). The first is the judgment of Yaacov the head of the Church in Jerusalem after the death of Jesus. I hold that it is because of the restoration of the House of David under Yeshua that Yaacov was elevated to the seat of Jerusalem Community so swiftly. It was not long before that that Yaacov was among the unbelieving brothers of Jesus. John tells us "For neither did his brethren believe in him" (John 7:5). Jesus brothers were Yaacov bar Yoseph, Joses bar Yoseph, Simon bar Yoseph and Yehudah bar Yoseph. Of these 5 Yaacov was elevated to the seat of Church in Jerusalem after the resurrection. It is clear that if one of the activities of Jesus was a restoration of the house of David close family takes on significance. The words of Yaacov which strike me in this respect are his conclusion to the Jerusalem Council. Yaacov firstly firstly as the chief judge in the house is the last to speak in the council. That is after he speaks no one speaks, he makes the final decision as to Halakah for the Gentiles. But the decree is sent out in the name of the Church and the Holy Spirit. Yaacov says:
Brethren, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first concerned himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for his name. And with the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
" ‘After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen. And I will rebuild its ruins, And I will restore its ruins, and I will restore it, in order that the rest of mankind may seek Yahwah, And all the Gentiles who are called by my name’
Says Yahwah who makes these things known from of old"
Therefore it is my judgment (egoo krinoo) that we do not trouble those who are turning to God among the Gentiles.
What struck me about this passage is the fact that Yaakov is that the whole process taking place in the Church being established and the Gentiles coming to salvation is part of a process promised before hand in the prophets, as Paul puts it in Romans 1. The meaning of the text is not absolutely clear and there are textual issues, which need to be addressed, however the important thing for our immediate introduction is the understanding that the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David is part of this process. And after this the rest of mankind can seek Yahwah and all the Gentiles called by Yahwah’s name. The actions of Yahwah in the case of Cornelius is seen as "God … taking from among the Gentiles a people for his name". The work of the Church in Antioch is seen as a continuation of that process of "taking from among the Gentiles a people for his name". It was not man but God who concerned himself with the issue. And this was to fulfil his word in Amos 9. So we see the first stage mentioned by Yaacov was the restoration of the Sukkot David. This clearly implies the Jerusalem Church. The second stage includes mankind and the Gentiles called by Yahwah’s name. The Jerusalem Church saw them selves as the restoration of the legitimate Sukkot David. The House of Herod and the House of Annas the High priestly Family would feel threatened by the restoration. They were not the legitimate high priests from the line of Zadok, nor were they appointed according to the Torah order, which the Sukkot David would restore. We will considere this text in more detail later in the paper.
The third text which triggered my thought on this theme is one recorded in Eusebius HE. Eusebius cites Hegissipus a second century Hebrew Christian writer. Eusebius considers him orthodox. Hegissipus words focus on the importance of the family connections in the ordination of ministers in the Jerusalem church. The headship should go to people from the Lords physical family, which would clearly be people from the tribe of Judah and the house of David. It is relevant to note that Jerusalem was in the border between Judah and Benjamin among the tribes. It should be under the rule of the tribe of Judah and particularly the house of David. David was the founder of Zion at Jerusalem. This was the capital of the Davidic kingdom of Judah and for two generation of Judah and Israel. Hegessipus sees the sects among the Jews as competitors with the tribe of Judah. Eusebius says of him:
The same writer [Hegissipus] tells us that in the , when members of the royal house of Judah were being hunted, Symeon’s accusers were arrested too…
The same historian tells us that in the sequel that other descendants of one of the ‘brothers’ of the Saviour name Jude lived on into the same reign, and after bravely declaring their faith in Christ
He writes
‘ Consequently they came and presided over every church, as being martyrs and members of the Lord’s family’ (Eusebius Book 3:32)
The two area which stand out are the reference to members of the Royal House of Judah and people becoming leaders of the Church because they were martyrs and members of the Lords family. When we look at first century Judea we see the control is in the hands the House of Annas and the House of Herod under the Romans. The royal house of Judah ought to be in charge, but where are they? My contention is that they are in the family of Jesus up in the Galilee. They are at the time of Herod the Great and the Edomite control over Israel, about to burst back on to the scene.
Methodology
Our approach will be to address the background in Chronicles Ezra Nehemyah, the intertestamental literature. Then we will look at the internal evidence of the New Testament and see whether the hypothesis fits those facts and then we will turn to external evidence from until about 135 AD and the Bar Kocba rebellion.
The purpose of this paper is to understand what was going in Jerusalem in the time of Jesus and the early Church according to the New Testament and Early Christian tradition. My thesis is that the Gospels seek to represent Jesus as the legitimate heir to the throne of David. They present the case to Israel for the restoration of Sukkot David. In this context Sukkot David represents the House of David. The Gospels and Acts present Jesus as heir and head of the house of his father David. This implies that the Sukkot David had at one point fallen down and so needed restoring. If the Sukkot David was restored it would apply a change in the administration of Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. This would imply the "Falling and rising of many in Israel". On this hypothesis we would expect many in Jerusalem and Israel to support Jesus case but that the priest power holders to fight it to the degree that they would be negatively effected by the restoration of Sukkot David and the restoration of the scepter to the tribe of Judah. The main basis of my thesis will be the importance of David, his Sukkot and his house and throne in the New Testament. The expectation would be that the opposition to the house of David would come from three main sources. The Chief Priests, the House of Herod and the Roman Administration to the extent that they perceived danger from the house of David and its leader and supporters. In this reading of the gospels the disciples are seen as the supporters from the tribes of Benjamin, Judah and Levi who support the restoration to political control of the tribe of Judah and from that tribe the House of David. Because these will be perceived by the House of Annas and the House of Herod as the main advocates for the right of Jesus and subsequently his family as heirs to the throne, they will be attacked and persecuted by the House of Annas and the House of Herod. Jesus is the restorer of the administration of Yahwah under the House of David, and he would also organize the administration of the sons of Levi. It is most likely that the House of Annas would lose power in favor of the House of Zadok if descendants from the latter would be available to take the former’s place.
We need then in order to elucidate our theses to study:
David and the house of David in the New Testament
The House of Annas and there relationship to the House of David
The House of Herod and their relationship to the House of David
The House of Levi and their relationship to the House of David
Sources
The main primary sources available to us to understand our hypothesis in historical context are the Old Testament, the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books, the Pseudipigraphical books from the Persian period onwards, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo and Josephus among the Jewish Greek writers. The writings of the early Church from the early centuries The Fathers as well as the Apocryphal writings from that period. We will also consider light from the Rabbinic literature from the 3rd century onwards for although this is written down late it contains evidence which goes back to the first century and interpretation which go back to the first century. Our method will be to focus on the New Testament as the main basis of our case and elucidate the internal evidence gained by this with external literary evidence we have mentioned. We will also seek to take into account any relevant inscriptions which can help elucidate our understanding of the literary sources.
We will use the 21st edition of Ebehard Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece produced by the British and Foreign Bible Society in Germany (Stuttgart). It is reproduced in The Nasb-Niv Paralellel New Testament In Greek and English
Limitation
I would like to add that I am not claiming that this thesis in any way exhausts the explanation of the relationship between the house of David and the Jewish and other Hellenistic groups of that period. My hope is to elucidate the events from this perspective. Jesus clearly took on many other roles that simply head of the house of David, but we can not explore them all in one short theses. So we have limited our selves to the house of David and its role in first century Jerusalem and Israel.
David in the New Testament
The name David occurs about 56 times in the New Testament. The distribution is Matthew (15), Mark (7), Luke (12), John (2), Acts (11), Romans (3), 2 Timothy (1), Hebrews (2), Apocalypse (3). The first usage in the order of the New Testament is that of Matthew in the very first verse. From the New Testament we learn a number of things about David.
David in Paul
Paul teaches us that one of David’s seed was Jesus (Rom 1), and that David described the blessedness of the one who was granted righteousness without works in Psalm 32 and that in Psalm 69:22,23 David spoke to those in Israel who disobeyed the gospel. The Paul of 2 Timothy asserts that Timothy should remember that Jesus Christ is of the seed of David and was raised from the dead.
If we accept that 2nd Timothy was written by Paul the Apostle, it shows the issue of the Davidic connection stayed with Paul until the very end.
David in Acts
For Luke in Acts the issue is also of importance. Firstly the image of Paul in the Roman’s letter and 2 Timothy is confirmed. In Acts 13 during Paul’s speech to the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch during his first missionary journey around AD 47-49 Paul asserts that
He [Yahwah] raised unto them David to be their king to whom he also gave the testimony
And said ‘I have found David the son of Jesse (Ps 89:20)
A man after mine own heart which shall fulfill all my will’ (1 Sam 13:14)
It is then from the seed of David that Yahwah raised up Jesus the savior for Israel.
For Peter, in Acts, around AD 30, David is the one whom the Holy Spirit used to describe the end of Judas
Let his habitation be desolate and let no man dwell therein (Ps 69:25)
And his bishopric let another take (Ps 109:8) (Acts 1:16)
So it is David’s words which are used to understand Judas role and the policy of the Church in replacing. This puts David at the center of Church practice and belief before the Church has even been born.
Peter also cites David in his first sermon to the crowds in Jerusalem Shavuot 30 AD. Peter begins his sermon and addresses the Men of Judea and all dwelling at Jerusalem. Peter first explains the phenomenon of tongues, which the crowd was witnessing. Then he moves on to share about Jesus. Here he addresses the Men of Israel. He introduces Jesus of Nazareth and points out that Yahwah approved him through goods works and miracles. He explains that he was taken and slain by the hands of wicked men. Then he cites David saying that he had proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus
For David speaketh concerning him
I foresaw Yahwah, always before my face, for he is on my right hand
That I should not be moved:
Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover my flesh shall
Rest in hope; because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,
Neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption
Thou has made known to me the paths of life
Thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance (Ps 16:8-11)
Peter then asserts a number of things about David. David is a patriarch, he is dead and they have a tomb in Jerusalem for him. David was a prophet, who knew that Yahwah had sworn with an oath to place one from his loins, according to the flesh, on his throne. Christ is he who is to sit on the throne of David.
Peter then uses a citation from David to explain the ascension of Jesus:
For David did not ascend into heaven, be he says himself:
‘Yahwah said to my lord
Sit at my right hand
Till I make your enemies your footstool’ (Ps 110:1)
After Peter and John are tried and forbidden from speaking in the name of Jesus they return to the Church and have a prayer meeting. In the prayer they speak to Yahwah about the words of his servant David:
Yahwah, You are God, who made heaven and earth
And the sea, and all that is in them,
Who by the mouth of your servant David have said:
‘Why did the nations rage,
And the people plot vain things?
The kings of the earth took their stand
And rulers gathered together
Against Yahwah and against his Christ’ (Ps 2:1-2., Acts 4)
Here the words of David are used to explain the opposition to the proclamation message of Jesus. The citation specifically recognizes that Jesus as the king referred to in Psalm to. The King in Psalm 2 is called the Mashiach and declared Son of Yahwah by Yahwah himself. The opposition includes Herod the Edomite, Pontius Pilate the Roman and the nations, and the people of Israel, all aligned together against the Christ of Yahwah (Acts 4).
Stephen does not cite David but refers to him as one who found favor in the cited of Yahwah. David desired to find a dwelling place for he God of Jacob (Acts 7:45).
The next mention of David in Acts is that Paul which we have already mentioned. After Paul’s speech in Pidian Antioch we come to a key scripture regarding how the first century Jerusalem Church saw their growth and their development. It is Yaacov called the brother of the Lord Jesus who next mentions David. He cites a prophecy about the Sukkot David in Amos 9. He is giving a final judgement in the Jerusalem councils deliberations on the status of the Gentiles. This conference is seeking to decide on the halakha for the Gentiles who were joining the faith, need they be circumcised or not? Need they keep the Torah or not?
In closing the debate Yaacov concluded that the Gentiles joining the faith should be encouraged and not burdened because Yahwah was gathering a gentile people upon whom his name is called. Yaacov cites Amos 9:
After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David
Which has fallen down
I will rebuild its ruins
And I will set it up;
So that the rest of mankind may seek Yahwah
Even all the Gentiles who are called by my name
Says Yahwah who does all these things (Amos 9:11)
For Yaacov the tabernacle of David is in the process of being rebuilt from ruins. It is being set up by Yahwah so that the "rest of mankind may seek Yahwah" and all the nations upon whom his name is called. For Yaacov Cornelius is an example of a Gentile upon whom Yahwah’ name is called. We hold with Harnack, Bruce and Rackham that Acts was written around AD 63. So we see that for Luke the issue of Jesus connection to David and his throne are still burning issues in 63 AD 7 years after Paul wrote his letter to the Romans.
When then we look at David’s appearance in Acts we find that he is a prophet by whom the Holy Spirit spoke. The fact that Jesus body would not decay (Ps 16) and his resurrection (Ps 16 and Ps 2), the ascension (Ps 110) the seating at the right hand of Yahwah (Ps 110). He prophesied the demise and end of Judas (Ps 69), and his replacement by another (Ps 69), the opposition of Herod, Pilate, the nations and Israel (Ps 2). David is a king and a prophet, a man after God’s heart who would do all his will and found favor in the sight of God and desired to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. It was from David that Yahwah had raised up a savior to Israel. In all of Acts David’ s sins do not get a mention.
The Synoptic Gospels
We have 34 mentions of David in the Synoptic gospels in the King James Bible. Mark mentions him seven times (2:25, 10:47, 10:48, 11:10, 12:35, 12:36, 12:37,). We list the seven mentions as recorded in Throckmorton’s Gospel Parallels
Mark Matt Luke
69 Plucking heads off Grain 2:23-28 12:1-8 6:1-5
193 Bartimaeus’ healing 10:46-52 20:1-16 18:35-43
196 Entry into Jerusalem 11:1-10 21:1-9 19:28-38
209 About David’s Son 12:35-37 22:41-46 20:41-44
Matthew on David Alone
The book of the Generation of Jesus Christ Son of David 1:1
Jesse begat David the King and David begat Solomon 1:6
Generations Abraham to David..to carrying away to Babylon 1:17
Angel of Yahwah "Joseph thou Son of David" 1:20
Is not this the Son of David? 12:23
Have mercy on me oh Lord Son of David 15:22
Have mercy on us oh Lord Son of David 20:30
Have mercy on us oh Lord Son of David 20:31
Hosanna to the son of David 21:15
Luke Alone on David
Joseph of the House of David 1:27
Jesus shall be given throne of his father David 1:32
Jesus is a horn of Salvation in the House of Yahwah’s servant David 1:69
The city of David is Bethlehem 2:4
Joseph is of the house and lineage of David 2:4
Jesus is a Savior Christ born in the city of David 2:11
of Nathan, of David 3:31
As can be seen all of Mark’s references to David are in the triple tradition. However Luke and Matthew both add references to David which can indicate to us the importance with which Jesus connection with David is viewed by the Evangelists.
So the first title of Jesus in the New Testament is Christ and the second is Son of David. This phrase Son of David occurs about 11 times in the New Testament Matthew ( Mark (3) Luke (2),
David in Paul
The Apostle Paul who may have written up to half of the New Testament documents is the first writer in the New Testament to mention the connection between Jesus and David. He mentions it in his letter to the Church of Rome around AD 57. When he writes the letter he has still not been to Rome. The letter is one of Paul’s undisputed letters and is considered by some to be the greatest he wrote. From the Greetings at the end of the letter it appears Romans was written from Corinth (Rom 16). In the New Testament it is placed as first among the Pauline epistles. This book is not simply Pauline it is as certainly his work as any. George Tybout Purves holds that it was probably carried by Phoebe a deaconess at Cenchraea and was therefore likely to have been written during Paul’s visit to Greece in during the winter of AD 57-58 (Davis, 518). The book was written during his third missionary journey. According to Neil "Coleridge called Romans the most profound work ever written" (Neil, 447). Neil says that in writing Romans Paul "pens what is in effect his credo, the distillation of twenty years’ reflection on the nature and meaning of the Christian faith" (Neil, 447).
Paul was a Pharisee according to his testimony (Phil 3:5) in his letters and his testimony recorded in Acts (23:6). He was a disciple of Gamaliel, surnamed the Elder by Jewish tradition and considered to be a part of the line of the House David from Hillel to Judah ha Nasi according to Rabbinic tradition. Paul testified to being a Pharisee after he wrote this letter. It is held that he wrote in AD 57 and he testified before the Sanhedrin in AD 58. Paul when he writes to Roman is writing to all the beloved of God in Rome. He begins his letter by introducing himself but goes on to make a declaration about his message:
Paul a bond servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for
the Gospel of God (2) which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures (3) concerning his Son who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,
(tou genomenou ek spermatos huiou kata sarka)
(4) who was declared Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead,
according to the Spirit of Holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord
(5) through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among the Gentiles, for his name sake. (Rom 1 1-5 NASB)
Paul asserts five things about the Gospel of God to the Roman Church. Firstly, it is promised before in the prophets. Secondly, it is concerning his Son. Thirdly, he is from the seed of David according to the flesh. Fourthly, he is declared Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead. Finally, through him comes grace and apostleship to bring the obedience of faith to the nations. Paul mentions David two more times in the letter. In this role David is a teacher of the Church through the Psalms. David is the one who describes for the Church the one who is imputed righteousness without works (Rom 4:6). David spoke about hardened Israel asserting:
Let their table become a snare and a trap
And a stumbling block and a retribution to them
Let their eyes be darkened to see not
And bend there backs forever (Ps 69:22-23)
Through the transgression of hardened Israel salvation came to the nations to provoke hardened Israel to jealousy, so they are not without hope. David then one one level is taken as one teaching the Church in the first century. The faith of the first century is the faith of David. The righteousness of first AD is the righteousness before hand in the writings of David.
If we return to the first reference to David we need to elucidate this a little more. The phrase according to the flesh is part of the Palestinian Church tradition of the first century. For Peter uses it in Acts 2:30.
The families of David and Levi had been chosen by Yahwah to represent him in the role of Government and in role of Avodah. The horn of the house of David would be exalted in the name Yahwah and the priests would bless in the name Yahwah. So these two families were intimately connected to Yahwah. The roots of the New Testament interactions between the two families goes back to the time of David. But it goes back through the Exile. We will focus on the post exilic period as the arena in which this battle for power developed. My thesis says that Jesus was the head of the restoration of the house of David. And that when he came it was the priestly families of Annas and Caiaphas who had most power in Jerusalem and over the people of Judah. But Jesus came with the declaration that Jerusalem was the city of the Great King. The priestly families knew that if Jesus were to be established as the great king over Jerusalem many of their privileges as a political power would be lost. Simeon noted the effect the life of Jesus would have on rulers in Israel:
Behold this [child] is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel
And for a sign which shall be spoken against (Luke 2:34)
Jesus: Legitimate Heir to David’s Throne
In the Gospels, Jesus came as the legitimate heir to the throne of David. If he was the legitimate heir to the throne of David he would be heir of the kingdom of David. This kingdom was initially established by David in Jerusalem back in about 1004 BC. We see this is 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. The Gospels indicate that Jesus is that heir in a number of ways. But first we need to note, there was no one sitting on the throne of David during the period of the life of Jesus. If someone came to take that role it was cause political and spiritual upheavals in Jerusalem. The Gospels indicate in a number of ways that this is exactly what Jesus came to do.
Gospel of Matthew
The Gospel of Matthew starts with the claim right at its start:
Biblos geneseoos Ieeou Christou huiou David huoiu Abraam
The book of the geneaology of Jesus Christ, son of David Son of Abraam
With both David and Abraham Yahwah, had made covenents. Abraham was promised that he would become a great nation in a land Yahwah would show him, Canaan and that all families or clans of the earth would bless them selves in him (Gen 12). David was promised that one of his seed would build a house for Yahwah, and that Yahwah would establish the throne of his kingdom forever. He would also be the Son of Yahwah and Yahwah would be his father. Matthew was most probably writing some time between 41 and 70 AD. During that period the battle between the Jerusalem born Church and the priestly powers and kingly powers of Jerusalem was raging. The House of Annas alligned with the House of Herod, were seeking to undermine the House of Jesus son of David. Matthew wrote his Gospel in full knowledge of the fact that the house of Annas had killed Jesus in 30 AD.
The War Against the House of David
The War consisted of 1 the trial and crucifixion of Jesus instigated by Annas and Caiaphas the high priests. 2 The trial and beating of Peter and John with the intervention of Gamaliel
3 The trial and stoning of Stephen, 4 The great persecution of the Church after the death of Stephen, lead by Shaul of Tarsus with letters from the high priests 5 The killing of James son of Zabdi by Herod Agrippa, 6 The arrest and imprisonment of Peter during the time of unleavened bread.
They had killed Stephen Jesus disciple in 31 or 32 AD, with the help of Saul of Tarsus a Benjamite from Tarsus in Cilicia. After the killing of Stephen a great persecution arose against the Tabernacle of David called the Church at Jerusalem (Luke 8). The house of David was then scattered all over Judea and Samaria. In AD 44 King Herod Agrippa I son of Aristobulus and Bernice and a grandson of the Idumean Herod son of Antipater (Antipas) murdered James son of Zebedee (Yaakov bar Zabdi) one of Jesus’ closest friends. Herod Agrippa I was initially a tetrarch but eventually possessed the entire kingdom which Herod the Great possessed when Jesus was born and ruled as King from AD 41-44. So the King who would be most challenged by Jesus inheriting the throne of David killed one of the top three supporters of the claim of the house of David. This same Herod Agrippa I the arrested and imprisoned Shimon Kepha (Simon Peter) and Yochanan bar Zabdi (John Son of Zebedee) the house of David’s other two main supporters. However Luke records that because of angelic intervention this plan did not succeed. Luke and Josephus both tell us of Herod Agrippa’s gruesome death at the hands of sickness and worms who ate him.
Appendix
I think there is a tension between the roles of the priests and the roles of the house of David in the arena of justice. Moses of the tribe of Levi used to sit and judge the people of Israel in the wilderness. Moses then appoints Sarim over 10s 100s and 1000s and they were taught the laws and then sat to judge the people in Moses place. If the case was too complicated or hard it would be referred to Moses (Ex 18:26). Moses chose chyil men and made them heads over the people and sarim of 1000s 100s 50s and 10s. They judged the people at all times. In Lev 19:15 the people were told to do no unrighteousness in judging. They were not to respect the person of the poor or honour the person of the mighty. But in righteousness they were to judge their neighbour. In the case of Baal Peor Moses was told to take all the heads of the people and to hang them. Moses then told the judges Shophtim to "Sly ye every one his men that were joined to Baal Peor" (Num 25:5). Phineas son of Elazar took a javelin and killed a midianite woman and an Israeli man from Simeon. This stopped Yahwah anger which was a plagued which killed 24000. Then in this context of judges and judgement Yahwah, noted that Phinehas ben Eleazar a priest had turned his wrath away from Israel because he was Zealous (qana) for the sake of Yahwah. He saved Israel from being consumed. Therefore Phinehas was given a Yahwah’s covenant of peace. He was given the covenant of an everlasting priesthood.
This is not complete
Edi Nachman
Table of Contents
Introduction
I Purpose of Research
Methodology and Limits of Research
Research Structure
Sources
Chapter 1 David in the New Testament
Chapter 2 Levi in the New Testament
Zechariah
John the Baptist and the Dead Sea Sect (The House of Zadok)
Chapter 3 The House and Lineage of David and Levi (The Background)
The Role of Geneaologies
Intertestamnetal Literature
Pre Exilic
Exilic
Post Exilic
Chapter 4 The Opposition to the House of David in the New Testament
The House of Annas Illegitimate Priests
The House of Herod Edom
The House of Rome The Nations
Chapter 5 The Claims of Jesus of Nazareth, Son of David, Son of God
The Prophetic Affirmation
The Priestly Affirmation
The Role of Miracles
The Role of the Resurrection
Chapter 6 The Role of the Sukkot David after the Resurrection
Yaacov brother of Jesus
Peter, Yaacov and John
Gamaliel
Chapter 7 Rabbinic Literature and the Claims of Jesus
Chapter 8 Josephus and the Claims of Jesus
Chapter 9 Jesus to the nations, The Mishna to the Jews
Chapter 10 Conclusion: The real relationship between the Church and Israel
Introduction
Bibliography:
NKJV Spirit Filled Study Bible (Thomas Nelson, 1991)
Sources: Jeremiah 33, Ezekiel 21,44. Ezra 7, Jeremiah 33, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles
I Purpose of Research
My purpose is to test a hypothesis born from my desire to understand the true relationship of the early Church to the wider Jewish community until about the middle of the second century. As I understand it the keys to this relationship are families, OT precedents and prophetic expectations. We have in the first century interaction between the Church (the House of David, its supporters in Israel and later on Gentiles) and the rest of the Jews, families vying over who had the legitimate and God given right to rule. The claim of the New Testament Church I will seek to show to be that "he who comes in the name Yahwah" had the right to rule in the city of the great King over the tribes of Israel. His name was Jesus and he came as prophesied from the house of David (the legitimate lineage). However, there were many sons of David in the first century, the phrase was not simply a title for Messiah but a description of a person relationship, for example the angel in Matthew 1:20 calls Joseph, "son of David". How then would the legitimate succesor to the throne be identified? The New Testament gives a number of answers to this question. Firstly Peter says Jesus was approved to them by sign wonders and miracles. For Paul the decisive sanctifying action was the resurrection from the Dead. The resurrection and post resurrection appearances may have been what convinced Yaacov Jesus brother, that Jesus was the one. The point was that from the many sons of David in the first century it was expected that one would be chosen to sit on the throne of his Father David. The house and lineage of David expected that one day the throne would be reestablished under their authority. This is clear from their inherent trust in the scripture and the promises, which the scripture held out to them. Ezekiel had prophesied the overturning of the throne:
And thou, profane wicked prince of israel, whose day is come
When iniquity shalll have an end
Thus saith Adonai Yahwah;
Remove the diadem and take off the crown
This shall not be the same
Exalt him that is low and abse him that is high
I will overturn overturn overturn it
and it shall be no more until he come whose right it is;
and I will give it him (KJV Ezek 21:27)
Ezekiel prophesied this in the last years of Jerusalem before the exile, some where between 594 and 586 BC. Thus there was a tradition that the crown of David had been reserved as Israel entered exile for the one to whom it truly belonged. The judgements at the time of the exile lead some to accuse Yahwah of rejecting the two families he had chosen. Jeremiah mentions this gossip among the people:
Moreover the word of Yahwah came to Jeremiah saying
Considerest thou not what this people have spoken saying:
The two families which Yahwah hath chosen,
He hath even cast them off? (Jeremiah 33:23-24)
But rather Yahwah affirmed to Jeremiah that these two families were under his special protection:
In those days shall Judah be saved,
And Jerusalem shall dwell safely
And this is the name wherewith she shall be called
Yahwah our Righteousness
For thus saith Yahwah
David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of Israel
Neither shall the Levites want a man before me to offer
Burnt offering and to kindle meat offerings
And to do sacrifices continually
Thus saith Yahwah
If you can break my covenant of the day
And my covenant of the night
And that there should not be day and night in their season
Then also my covenant be broken
With David my servant
That he should not have a son to reign
Upon his throne; and with the Levites
The priests my ministers
As the host of heaven cannot be numbered
Neither shall the sand of the sea measured;
So will I multiply the seed of David
My servant and the Levites that minister unto me.
These prophecies all come at the time Jerusalem was about to be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and the house of David and Levi and all Judah were about to be exiled to Babylon. However the writings of Jeremiah and Ezekiel were both preserved by the Hebrews and when they returned from Babylon these works with these promises came with them. Thus there was a tradition in Israel that both the Davidic throne and the Levites were under divine protection and would minister in Israel together.
Jeremiah does not distinguish among the families with in Levi. However at the time of David there were two main priests working with David, Zadok and Abiathar. Zadok son of Meraioth son of Ahitub the ruler of the house of God ( 1Chron 6:8) and Abiathar acted as spies for king David when Absalom took over the throne.There son’s Ahimaaz and Abiathar acts as messenger couriers. When David returned and Absalom was dead David sent Zadok and Abiathar to ask the elders of Judah why they were the last to welcome him back. However when Adoniyahu tried to usurp the throne of David Jonathan son of Abiathar joined him. Zadok , Nathan the prophet, Benaiah son of Jehoiada , the Cherethites and the Pelethites to appoint Solomon as the legitmate successor. Zadok took a horn of oil from the tabernacle and anointed Solomon, they blew a trumept and proclaimed "God save king Solomon" in Gihon. Solomon took over. He replaced Joab with Benaiah and Abiathar was replaced by Zadok (1 Kings 2). Zadok represnted the sons of Eleazar the son of Aaron. Abiathar came from the line of Ithamar Aarons other son. By the time of Hezekiah the chief priest was Azariah of the house of Zadok. When Israel returned from exile it was Ezra from the house of Zadok who returned in BC 458 to reestablish the nation. The people even during the exile had kept geneaologies for the prietly families. These were very important in establishing who could legitimately rule and in another sense in showing Yahwah had kept his promises spoken through Jeremiah. Ezra is given a geneology: He was son of Seraiah, Azariah, Hilkiah, Shallum, Zadok, Ahitub, Amariah Azariah, Meraioth, Zerahiah, Uzzi, Bukki, Abishua, Phinehas, Eleazar and Aaron. This clealry inidicates that genealolgies were preserved though out the exile. We will find the same with the house of David.
A key prophetic tradition linked with house of Zadok also issued forth in the exile.
The priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the
The children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister
And they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood saith Adonai Yahwah
They shall enter into my sanctuary and they shall come near to my table to minister unto me
And they shall keep my charge.
Those who preserved the writings of Ezekiel may have held to this tradition from Ezekiel. Clearly this was confirmed or represented by Ezra connection with Zadok.
His coming meant some in power would lose power and some who were with out power would gain it. Hence the battle between the families. Those who would lose power attacked the Church because of their desire to hold onto power. Those from the legitimate house of David and the royal house of Judah must be seen as the family and relatives of Jesus and other from Benjamin and othe tribes who would agree from the prophecies that the house of David should sit on the throne of David over Israel would give support to the cause. King David did not reign in Israel alone, the Son of Zadok were the priestly family aligned with him. Priests from this family were ministering in Jerusalem at this period but some were living as a community at the Dead Sea. These expected a Davidic king to come as a priestly representative of the house of Zadok. So this group in Qumran ought to have a similar vision to the house of David.
With the claim of Jesus to be the Son of David to fulfil the prophecy of Nathan to David (2 Sam 7) there will clearly be a tension with the role of Solomon. For even in
Methodology and Limits of Research
Research Structure
Sources
Chapter 1 David in the New Testament
Chapter 2 Levi in the New Testament
Zechariah
John the Baptist and the Dead Sea Sect (The House of Zadok)
Chapter 3 The House and Lineage of David and Levi (The Background)
The Role of Geneaologies
Intertestamnetal Literature
Pre Exilic
Exilic
Post Exilic
Chapter 4 The Opposition to the House of David in the New Testament
The House of Annas Illegitimate Priests
The House of Herod Edom
The House of Rome The Nations
Chapter 5 The Claims of Jesus of Nazareth, Son of David, Son of God
The Prophetic Affirmation
The Priestly Affirmation
The Role of Miracles
The Role of the Resurrection
Chapter 6 The Role of the Sukkot David after the Resurrection
Yaacov brother of Jesus
Peter, Yaacov and John
Gamaliel
Chapter 7 Rabbinic Literature and the Claims of Jesus
Chapter 8 Josephus and the Claims of Jesus
Chapter 9 Jesus to the nations, The Mishna to the Jews
Chapter 10 Conclusion: The real relationship between the Church and Israel
Sukkot David and the House of Levi and the House in the New Testament
The idea for this paper sprung from a number of texts which I came across which seem to render the relationship between Jesus and the early church on the one side and the greater Jewish community on the other, explicable. The key was the idea of families and specifically the two families which Yahwah set apart to serve in a special way. The first was the house of Levi, the sons of Aaron and the Levites. The second was the tribe of Judah and the house of Jesse and from that the house of David. The Masoretic text relates a speech of Abiyah in defense of these two families:
Abiyah (Abiyam) April 4th 928BC (Nisan 1)
The Speech of Abiyah on Mount Zemaraim
Hear me,
Thou Jereboam and all Yisrael
Ought ye not to know that Yahwah Elohei Yisrael gave the Kingdom over Yisrael to David forever, even to him and his sons by a covenant of salt. Yet Jereboam , son of Nebat, the servant of Shelomoh son of David, is risen up, and hath rebelled against his lord.
And there gathered unto him vain men, the children of Belial, and have strengthened themselves against Rehoboam the son of Shelomoh, when Rehoboam was young and tenderhearted, and could not withstand them.
And now think ye to withstand the kingdom of Yahwah in the hands of the sons of David; and ye be a great multitude, and there are your golden calves, which Yereboam made you for Elohim.
Have ye not cast out the kohanim of Yahwah, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites, and have made you kohanim after the manner of the nations of other lands…
But as for us, Yahwah is Eloheinu, and we have not forsaken him; and the kohanim which minister unto Yahwah, are the sons of Aaron, and the Levites wait upon their business. And they burn unto Yahwah, every morning and every evening burnt sacrifices and sweet incense:
The shewbread also set they in order upon the pure table; and the candle stick of gold with lamps thereof to burn every evening; for we keep the charge of Yahwah Eloheinu; but ye have forsaken him.
And behold Elohim himself is with us as our captain, and his kohanim sounding trumpets to cry alarm against you. O children of Yisrael fight ye not against Yahwah Elohei your fathers; for ye shall not prosper. (2 Chron 13)
We see here then the outline of the administration Abiyah understands that Yahwah had established. Two points are significant for our case. 1 He gives the speech as the "son of David" Rehoboam was having a war with Jeroboam son of Nebat. Abiyah clearly sees the importance of the two families. The first is the Davidic. Yahwah gave the kingdom over Israel to David and his sons forever. This Kingdom over Israel is called the "Kingdom of Yahwah", which is perhaps carries more weight than the more general "Kingdom of God". The relevance to first century Israel is that John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazreth also proclaimed the Kingdom of God when they came to Israel. 2 The second point is that in this Kingdom the sons of Aaron minister to Yahwah. The Levites also do their work at the temple. Abiyah berates Jereboam for throwing the Levites out of their roles as priests. The accusation is that Jereboam has thrown the house of Levi out and appointed priests according to the way of the nations. The no longer keep the charge of Yahwah God of Israel. We notice it is the Kingdom which has the power not to cast out the levites but to preserve them in their ministry. The summary of this evidence is that David of Judah and Levis family serve Yahwah together in tandem. This is I believe is what Jesus came to Israel to restore. The rulers of Israel in first century Jerusalem had the role of king and priest but those who were occupying the places were not appointed the way Yahwah assigned and not the legitimate branches of the families the law and the prophets decreed. Jesus and his Church were working toward that restoration.
The fact that the compiler of Chronicles includes this speech in history of Israel points to the fact that the issues of the two families was still burning after the exile. Whether Ezra or an unknown writer is the chronicler does not effect the fact that this post exilic document sees the importance of the relationship between the two families. "The distinctive feature of I and II Chronicles is that it covers the history of Israelfrom Adam to the end of the Exile almost exclusively from the religious angle" (Neil 203). The two families are indeed connected to two issues worship (house of Levi) and kingship (house of David). In the kingdom of David, the King administered them both establishing the orders of the Levites for their service (1 Chron 20-30). The Lion Handbook to the Bible notes the importance of these two themes " true worship and true kingship in Israel" (Alexander, 286). The readers of the Chronicles were "the ment who had returned from exile to rebuild Jerusalem under Ezra and Nehemiah" (Alexander 286). The three books Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah are a kind of trilogy. Neil says they were a "tripartite work by the same author, which might well be called the Religious History of the People of God" (Neil, 203). This issue then of the two families and their proper roles was a postexilic issue. And I will argue that it was a concern of Jesus and the early Church, especially that of its Jewish branch.
The other two texts which lead to this thesis are recorded in Acts were recorded by Hegissipus and is preserved in Eusebius: The History of the Church (HE). The first is the judgment of Yaacov the head of the Church in Jerusalem after the death of Jesus. I hold that it is because of the restoration of the House of David under Yeshua that Yaacov was elevated to the seat of Jerusalem Community so swiftly. It was not long before that that Yaacov was among the unbelieving brothers of Jesus. John tells us "For neither did his brethren believe in him" (John 7:5). Jesus brothers were Yaacov bar Yoseph, Joses bar Yoseph, Simon bar Yoseph and Yehudah bar Yoseph. Of these 5 Yaacov was elevated to the seat of Church in Jerusalem after the resurrection. It is clear that if one of the activities of Jesus was a restoration of the house of David close family takes on significance. The words of Yaacov which strike me in this respect are his conclusion to the Jerusalem Council. Yaacov firstly firstly as the chief judge in the house is the last to speak in the council. That is after he speaks no one speaks, he makes the final decision as to Halakah for the Gentiles. But the decree is sent out in the name of the Church and the Holy Spirit. Yaacov says:
Brethren, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first concerned himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for his name. And with the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
" ‘After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen. And I will rebuild its ruins, And I will restore its ruins, and I will restore it, in order that the rest of mankind may seek Yahwah, And all the Gentiles who are called by my name’
Says Yahwah who makes these things known from of old"
Therefore it is my judgment (egoo krinoo) that we do not trouble those who are turning to God among the Gentiles.
What struck me about this passage is the fact that Yaakov is that the whole process taking place in the Church being established and the Gentiles coming to salvation is part of a process promised before hand in the prophets, as Paul puts it in Romans 1. The meaning of the text is not absolutely clear and there are textual issues, which need to be addressed, however the important thing for our immediate introduction is the understanding that the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David is part of this process. And after this the rest of mankind can seek Yahwah and all the Gentiles called by Yahwah’s name. The actions of Yahwah in the case of Cornelius is seen as "God … taking from among the Gentiles a people for his name". The work of the Church in Antioch is seen as a continuation of that process of "taking from among the Gentiles a people for his name". It was not man but God who concerned himself with the issue. And this was to fulfil his word in Amos 9. So we see the first stage mentioned by Yaacov was the restoration of the Sukkot David. This clearly implies the Jerusalem Church. The second stage includes mankind and the Gentiles called by Yahwah’s name. The Jerusalem Church saw them selves as the restoration of the legitimate Sukkot David. The House of Herod and the House of Annas the High priestly Family would feel threatened by the restoration. They were not the legitimate high priests from the line of Zadok, nor were they appointed according to the Torah order, which the Sukkot David would restore. We will considere this text in more detail later in the paper.
The third text which triggered my thought on this theme is one recorded in Eusebius HE. Eusebius cites Hegissipus a second century Hebrew Christian writer. Eusebius considers him orthodox. Hegissipus words focus on the importance of the family connections in the ordination of ministers in the Jerusalem church. The headship should go to people from the Lords physical family, which would clearly be people from the tribe of Judah and the house of David. It is relevant to note that Jerusalem was in the border between Judah and Benjamin among the tribes. It should be under the rule of the tribe of Judah and particularly the house of David. David was the founder of Zion at Jerusalem. This was the capital of the Davidic kingdom of Judah and for two generation of Judah and Israel. Hegessipus sees the sects among the Jews as competitors with the tribe of Judah. Eusebius says of him:
The same writer [Hegissipus] tells us that in the , when members of the royal house of Judah were being hunted, Symeon’s accusers were arrested too…
The same historian tells us that in the sequel that other descendants of one of the ‘brothers’ of the Saviour name Jude lived on into the same reign, and after bravely declaring their faith in Christ
He writes
‘ Consequently they came and presided over every church, as being martyrs and members of the Lord’s family’ (Eusebius Book 3:32)
The two area which stand out are the reference to members of the Royal House of Judah and people becoming leaders of the Church because they were martyrs and members of the Lords family. When we look at first century Judea we see the control is in the hands the House of Annas and the House of Herod under the Romans. The royal house of Judah ought to be in charge, but where are they? My contention is that they are in the family of Jesus up in the Galilee. They are at the time of Herod the Great and the Edomite control over Israel, about to burst back on to the scene.
Methodology
Our approach will be to address the background in Chronicles Ezra Nehemyah, the intertestamental literature. Then we will look at the internal evidence of the New Testament and see whether the hypothesis fits those facts and then we will turn to external evidence from until about 135 AD and the Bar Kocba rebellion.
The purpose of this paper is to understand what was going in Jerusalem in the time of Jesus and the early Church according to the New Testament and Early Christian tradition. My thesis is that the Gospels seek to represent Jesus as the legitimate heir to the throne of David. They present the case to Israel for the restoration of Sukkot David. In this context Sukkot David represents the House of David. The Gospels and Acts present Jesus as heir and head of the house of his father David. This implies that the Sukkot David had at one point fallen down and so needed restoring. If the Sukkot David was restored it would apply a change in the administration of Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. This would imply the "Falling and rising of many in Israel". On this hypothesis we would expect many in Jerusalem and Israel to support Jesus case but that the priest power holders to fight it to the degree that they would be negatively effected by the restoration of Sukkot David and the restoration of the scepter to the tribe of Judah. The main basis of my thesis will be the importance of David, his Sukkot and his house and throne in the New Testament. The expectation would be that the opposition to the house of David would come from three main sources. The Chief Priests, the House of Herod and the Roman Administration to the extent that they perceived danger from the house of David and its leader and supporters. In this reading of the gospels the disciples are seen as the supporters from the tribes of Benjamin, Judah and Levi who support the restoration to political control of the tribe of Judah and from that tribe the House of David. Because these will be perceived by the House of Annas and the House of Herod as the main advocates for the right of Jesus and subsequently his family as heirs to the throne, they will be attacked and persecuted by the House of Annas and the House of Herod. Jesus is the restorer of the administration of Yahwah under the House of David, and he would also organize the administration of the sons of Levi. It is most likely that the House of Annas would lose power in favor of the House of Zadok if descendants from the latter would be available to take the former’s place.
We need then in order to elucidate our theses to study:
David and the house of David in the New Testament
The House of Annas and there relationship to the House of David
The House of Herod and their relationship to the House of David
The House of Levi and their relationship to the House of David
Sources
The main primary sources available to us to understand our hypothesis in historical context are the Old Testament, the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books, the Pseudipigraphical books from the Persian period onwards, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo and Josephus among the Jewish Greek writers. The writings of the early Church from the early centuries The Fathers as well as the Apocryphal writings from that period. We will also consider light from the Rabbinic literature from the 3rd century onwards for although this is written down late it contains evidence which goes back to the first century and interpretation which go back to the first century. Our method will be to focus on the New Testament as the main basis of our case and elucidate the internal evidence gained by this with external literary evidence we have mentioned. We will also seek to take into account any relevant inscriptions which can help elucidate our understanding of the literary sources.
We will use the 21st edition of Ebehard Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece produced by the British and Foreign Bible Society in Germany (Stuttgart). It is reproduced in The Nasb-Niv Paralellel New Testament In Greek and English
Limitation
I would like to add that I am not claiming that this thesis in any way exhausts the explanation of the relationship between the house of David and the Jewish and other Hellenistic groups of that period. My hope is to elucidate the events from this perspective. Jesus clearly took on many other roles that simply head of the house of David, but we can not explore them all in one short theses. So we have limited our selves to the house of David and its role in first century Jerusalem and Israel.
David in the New Testament
The name David occurs about 56 times in the New Testament. The distribution is Matthew (15), Mark (7), Luke (12), John (2), Acts (11), Romans (3), 2 Timothy (1), Hebrews (2), Apocalypse (3). The first usage in the order of the New Testament is that of Matthew in the very first verse. From the New Testament we learn a number of things about David.
David in Paul
Paul teaches us that one of David’s seed was Jesus (Rom 1), and that David described the blessedness of the one who was granted righteousness without works in Psalm 32 and that in Psalm 69:22,23 David spoke to those in Israel who disobeyed the gospel. The Paul of 2 Timothy asserts that Timothy should remember that Jesus Christ is of the seed of David and was raised from the dead.
If we accept that 2nd Timothy was written by Paul the Apostle, it shows the issue of the Davidic connection stayed with Paul until the very end.
David in Acts
For Luke in Acts the issue is also of importance. Firstly the image of Paul in the Roman’s letter and 2 Timothy is confirmed. In Acts 13 during Paul’s speech to the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch during his first missionary journey around AD 47-49 Paul asserts that
He [Yahwah] raised unto them David to be their king to whom he also gave the testimony
And said ‘I have found David the son of Jesse (Ps 89:20)
A man after mine own heart which shall fulfill all my will’ (1 Sam 13:14)
It is then from the seed of David that Yahwah raised up Jesus the savior for Israel.
For Peter, in Acts, around AD 30, David is the one whom the Holy Spirit used to describe the end of Judas
Let his habitation be desolate and let no man dwell therein (Ps 69:25)
And his bishopric let another take (Ps 109:8) (Acts 1:16)
So it is David’s words which are used to understand Judas role and the policy of the Church in replacing. This puts David at the center of Church practice and belief before the Church has even been born.
Peter also cites David in his first sermon to the crowds in Jerusalem Shavuot 30 AD. Peter begins his sermon and addresses the Men of Judea and all dwelling at Jerusalem. Peter first explains the phenomenon of tongues, which the crowd was witnessing. Then he moves on to share about Jesus. Here he addresses the Men of Israel. He introduces Jesus of Nazareth and points out that Yahwah approved him through goods works and miracles. He explains that he was taken and slain by the hands of wicked men. Then he cites David saying that he had proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus
For David speaketh concerning him
I foresaw Yahwah, always before my face, for he is on my right hand
That I should not be moved:
Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover my flesh shall
Rest in hope; because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,
Neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption
Thou has made known to me the paths of life
Thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance (Ps 16:8-11)
Peter then asserts a number of things about David. David is a patriarch, he is dead and they have a tomb in Jerusalem for him. David was a prophet, who knew that Yahwah had sworn with an oath to place one from his loins, according to the flesh, on his throne. Christ is he who is to sit on the throne of David.
Peter then uses a citation from David to explain the ascension of Jesus:
For David did not ascend into heaven, be he says himself:
‘Yahwah said to my lord
Sit at my right hand
Till I make your enemies your footstool’ (Ps 110:1)
After Peter and John are tried and forbidden from speaking in the name of Jesus they return to the Church and have a prayer meeting. In the prayer they speak to Yahwah about the words of his servant David:
Yahwah, You are God, who made heaven and earth
And the sea, and all that is in them,
Who by the mouth of your servant David have said:
‘Why did the nations rage,
And the people plot vain things?
The kings of the earth took their stand
And rulers gathered together
Against Yahwah and against his Christ’ (Ps 2:1-2., Acts 4)
Here the words of David are used to explain the opposition to the proclamation message of Jesus. The citation specifically recognizes that Jesus as the king referred to in Psalm to. The King in Psalm 2 is called the Mashiach and declared Son of Yahwah by Yahwah himself. The opposition includes Herod the Edomite, Pontius Pilate the Roman and the nations, and the people of Israel, all aligned together against the Christ of Yahwah (Acts 4).
Stephen does not cite David but refers to him as one who found favor in the cited of Yahwah. David desired to find a dwelling place for he God of Jacob (Acts 7:45).
The next mention of David in Acts is that Paul which we have already mentioned. After Paul’s speech in Pidian Antioch we come to a key scripture regarding how the first century Jerusalem Church saw their growth and their development. It is Yaacov called the brother of the Lord Jesus who next mentions David. He cites a prophecy about the Sukkot David in Amos 9. He is giving a final judgement in the Jerusalem councils deliberations on the status of the Gentiles. This conference is seeking to decide on the halakha for the Gentiles who were joining the faith, need they be circumcised or not? Need they keep the Torah or not?
In closing the debate Yaacov concluded that the Gentiles joining the faith should be encouraged and not burdened because Yahwah was gathering a gentile people upon whom his name is called. Yaacov cites Amos 9:
After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David
Which has fallen down
I will rebuild its ruins
And I will set it up;
So that the rest of mankind may seek Yahwah
Even all the Gentiles who are called by my name
Says Yahwah who does all these things (Amos 9:11)
For Yaacov the tabernacle of David is in the process of being rebuilt from ruins. It is being set up by Yahwah so that the "rest of mankind may seek Yahwah" and all the nations upon whom his name is called. For Yaacov Cornelius is an example of a Gentile upon whom Yahwah’ name is called. We hold with Harnack, Bruce and Rackham that Acts was written around AD 63. So we see that for Luke the issue of Jesus connection to David and his throne are still burning issues in 63 AD 7 years after Paul wrote his letter to the Romans.
When then we look at David’s appearance in Acts we find that he is a prophet by whom the Holy Spirit spoke. The fact that Jesus body would not decay (Ps 16) and his resurrection (Ps 16 and Ps 2), the ascension (Ps 110) the seating at the right hand of Yahwah (Ps 110). He prophesied the demise and end of Judas (Ps 69), and his replacement by another (Ps 69), the opposition of Herod, Pilate, the nations and Israel (Ps 2). David is a king and a prophet, a man after God’s heart who would do all his will and found favor in the sight of God and desired to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. It was from David that Yahwah had raised up a savior to Israel. In all of Acts David’ s sins do not get a mention.
The Synoptic Gospels
We have 34 mentions of David in the Synoptic gospels in the King James Bible. Mark mentions him seven times (2:25, 10:47, 10:48, 11:10, 12:35, 12:36, 12:37,). We list the seven mentions as recorded in Throckmorton’s Gospel Parallels
Mark Matt Luke
69 Plucking heads off Grain 2:23-28 12:1-8 6:1-5
193 Bartimaeus’ healing 10:46-52 20:1-16 18:35-43
196 Entry into Jerusalem 11:1-10 21:1-9 19:28-38
209 About David’s Son 12:35-37 22:41-46 20:41-44
Matthew on David Alone
The book of the Generation of Jesus Christ Son of David 1:1
Jesse begat David the King and David begat Solomon 1:6
Generations Abraham to David..to carrying away to Babylon 1:17
Angel of Yahwah "Joseph thou Son of David" 1:20
Is not this the Son of David? 12:23
Have mercy on me oh Lord Son of David 15:22
Have mercy on us oh Lord Son of David 20:30
Have mercy on us oh Lord Son of David 20:31
Hosanna to the son of David 21:15
Luke Alone on David
Joseph of the House of David 1:27
Jesus shall be given throne of his father David 1:32
Jesus is a horn of Salvation in the House of Yahwah’s servant David 1:69
The city of David is Bethlehem 2:4
Joseph is of the house and lineage of David 2:4
Jesus is a Savior Christ born in the city of David 2:11
of Nathan, of David 3:31
As can be seen all of Mark’s references to David are in the triple tradition. However Luke and Matthew both add references to David which can indicate to us the importance with which Jesus connection with David is viewed by the Evangelists.
So the first title of Jesus in the New Testament is Christ and the second is Son of David. This phrase Son of David occurs about 11 times in the New Testament Matthew ( Mark (3) Luke (2),
David in Paul
The Apostle Paul who may have written up to half of the New Testament documents is the first writer in the New Testament to mention the connection between Jesus and David. He mentions it in his letter to the Church of Rome around AD 57. When he writes the letter he has still not been to Rome. The letter is one of Paul’s undisputed letters and is considered by some to be the greatest he wrote. From the Greetings at the end of the letter it appears Romans was written from Corinth (Rom 16). In the New Testament it is placed as first among the Pauline epistles. This book is not simply Pauline it is as certainly his work as any. George Tybout Purves holds that it was probably carried by Phoebe a deaconess at Cenchraea and was therefore likely to have been written during Paul’s visit to Greece in during the winter of AD 57-58 (Davis, 518). The book was written during his third missionary journey. According to Neil "Coleridge called Romans the most profound work ever written" (Neil, 447). Neil says that in writing Romans Paul "pens what is in effect his credo, the distillation of twenty years’ reflection on the nature and meaning of the Christian faith" (Neil, 447).
Paul was a Pharisee according to his testimony (Phil 3:5) in his letters and his testimony recorded in Acts (23:6). He was a disciple of Gamaliel, surnamed the Elder by Jewish tradition and considered to be a part of the line of the House David from Hillel to Judah ha Nasi according to Rabbinic tradition. Paul testified to being a Pharisee after he wrote this letter. It is held that he wrote in AD 57 and he testified before the Sanhedrin in AD 58. Paul when he writes to Roman is writing to all the beloved of God in Rome. He begins his letter by introducing himself but goes on to make a declaration about his message:
Paul a bond servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for
the Gospel of God (2) which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures (3) concerning his Son who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,
(tou genomenou ek spermatos huiou kata sarka)
(4) who was declared Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead,
according to the Spirit of Holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord
(5) through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among the Gentiles, for his name sake. (Rom 1 1-5 NASB)
Paul asserts five things about the Gospel of God to the Roman Church. Firstly, it is promised before in the prophets. Secondly, it is concerning his Son. Thirdly, he is from the seed of David according to the flesh. Fourthly, he is declared Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead. Finally, through him comes grace and apostleship to bring the obedience of faith to the nations. Paul mentions David two more times in the letter. In this role David is a teacher of the Church through the Psalms. David is the one who describes for the Church the one who is imputed righteousness without works (Rom 4:6). David spoke about hardened Israel asserting:
Let their table become a snare and a trap
And a stumbling block and a retribution to them
Let their eyes be darkened to see not
And bend there backs forever (Ps 69:22-23)
Through the transgression of hardened Israel salvation came to the nations to provoke hardened Israel to jealousy, so they are not without hope. David then one one level is taken as one teaching the Church in the first century. The faith of the first century is the faith of David. The righteousness of first AD is the righteousness before hand in the writings of David.
If we return to the first reference to David we need to elucidate this a little more. The phrase according to the flesh is part of the Palestinian Church tradition of the first century. For Peter uses it in Acts 2:30.
The families of David and Levi had been chosen by Yahwah to represent him in the role of Government and in role of Avodah. The horn of the house of David would be exalted in the name Yahwah and the priests would bless in the name Yahwah. So these two families were intimately connected to Yahwah. The roots of the New Testament interactions between the two families goes back to the time of David. But it goes back through the Exile. We will focus on the post exilic period as the arena in which this battle for power developed. My thesis says that Jesus was the head of the restoration of the house of David. And that when he came it was the priestly families of Annas and Caiaphas who had most power in Jerusalem and over the people of Judah. But Jesus came with the declaration that Jerusalem was the city of the Great King. The priestly families knew that if Jesus were to be established as the great king over Jerusalem many of their privileges as a political power would be lost. Simeon noted the effect the life of Jesus would have on rulers in Israel:
Behold this [child] is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel
And for a sign which shall be spoken against (Luke 2:34)
Jesus: Legitimate Heir to David’s Throne
In the Gospels, Jesus came as the legitimate heir to the throne of David. If he was the legitimate heir to the throne of David he would be heir of the kingdom of David. This kingdom was initially established by David in Jerusalem back in about 1004 BC. We see this is 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. The Gospels indicate that Jesus is that heir in a number of ways. But first we need to note, there was no one sitting on the throne of David during the period of the life of Jesus. If someone came to take that role it was cause political and spiritual upheavals in Jerusalem. The Gospels indicate in a number of ways that this is exactly what Jesus came to do.
Gospel of Matthew
The Gospel of Matthew starts with the claim right at its start:
Biblos geneseoos Ieeou Christou huiou David huoiu Abraam
The book of the geneaology of Jesus Christ, son of David Son of Abraam
With both David and Abraham Yahwah, had made covenents. Abraham was promised that he would become a great nation in a land Yahwah would show him, Canaan and that all families or clans of the earth would bless them selves in him (Gen 12). David was promised that one of his seed would build a house for Yahwah, and that Yahwah would establish the throne of his kingdom forever. He would also be the Son of Yahwah and Yahwah would be his father. Matthew was most probably writing some time between 41 and 70 AD. During that period the battle between the Jerusalem born Church and the priestly powers and kingly powers of Jerusalem was raging. The House of Annas alligned with the House of Herod, were seeking to undermine the House of Jesus son of David. Matthew wrote his Gospel in full knowledge of the fact that the house of Annas had killed Jesus in 30 AD.
The War Against the House of David
The War consisted of 1 the trial and crucifixion of Jesus instigated by Annas and Caiaphas the high priests. 2 The trial and beating of Peter and John with the intervention of Gamaliel
3 The trial and stoning of Stephen, 4 The great persecution of the Church after the death of Stephen, lead by Shaul of Tarsus with letters from the high priests 5 The killing of James son of Zabdi by Herod Agrippa, 6 The arrest and imprisonment of Peter during the time of unleavened bread.
They had killed Stephen Jesus disciple in 31 or 32 AD, with the help of Saul of Tarsus a Benjamite from Tarsus in Cilicia. After the killing of Stephen a great persecution arose against the Tabernacle of David called the Church at Jerusalem (Luke 8). The house of David was then scattered all over Judea and Samaria. In AD 44 King Herod Agrippa I son of Aristobulus and Bernice and a grandson of the Idumean Herod son of Antipater (Antipas) murdered James son of Zebedee (Yaakov bar Zabdi) one of Jesus’ closest friends. Herod Agrippa I was initially a tetrarch but eventually possessed the entire kingdom which Herod the Great possessed when Jesus was born and ruled as King from AD 41-44. So the King who would be most challenged by Jesus inheriting the throne of David killed one of the top three supporters of the claim of the house of David. This same Herod Agrippa I the arrested and imprisoned Shimon Kepha (Simon Peter) and Yochanan bar Zabdi (John Son of Zebedee) the house of David’s other two main supporters. However Luke records that because of angelic intervention this plan did not succeed. Luke and Josephus both tell us of Herod Agrippa’s gruesome death at the hands of sickness and worms who ate him.
Appendix
I think there is a tension between the roles of the priests and the roles of the house of David in the arena of justice. Moses of the tribe of Levi used to sit and judge the people of Israel in the wilderness. Moses then appoints Sarim over 10s 100s and 1000s and they were taught the laws and then sat to judge the people in Moses place. If the case was too complicated or hard it would be referred to Moses (Ex 18:26). Moses chose chyil men and made them heads over the people and sarim of 1000s 100s 50s and 10s. They judged the people at all times. In Lev 19:15 the people were told to do no unrighteousness in judging. They were not to respect the person of the poor or honour the person of the mighty. But in righteousness they were to judge their neighbour. In the case of Baal Peor Moses was told to take all the heads of the people and to hang them. Moses then told the judges Shophtim to "Sly ye every one his men that were joined to Baal Peor" (Num 25:5). Phineas son of Elazar took a javelin and killed a midianite woman and an Israeli man from Simeon. This stopped Yahwah anger which was a plagued which killed 24000. Then in this context of judges and judgement Yahwah, noted that Phinehas ben Eleazar a priest had turned his wrath away from Israel because he was Zealous (qana) for the sake of Yahwah. He saved Israel from being consumed. Therefore Phinehas was given a Yahwah’s covenant of peace. He was given the covenant of an everlasting priesthood.
This is not complete
posted by Evangelist Edi Nachman Bsc. PGCE @ 10:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home