Remember that "Son of David" was the rightful title of anyone descended from him.
That is a dubious claim.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Remember that "Son of David" was the rightful title of anyone descended from him.
No its not, especially within a Jewish context. Remember Matthew 1:1, where our Lord Jesus is called the son of David. It the perspective of the line of descent that allowed for gaps within a family’s genealogy when a particular point was being made. It was all to common within Judaism or Jewish way of thinking. We don’t want to confuse chronology with genealogy in descendant. It is this way of thinking that we can all be called naturally children of Adam and not in just a theological context.Remember that "Son of David" was the rightful title of anyone descended from him.
That is a dubious claim.
No its not, especially within a Jewish context. Remember Matthew 1:1, where our Lord Jesus is called the son of David.Remember that "Son of David" was the rightful title of anyone descended from him.
That is a dubious claim.
No its not, especially within a Jewish context. Remember Matthew 1:1, where our Lord Jesus is called the son of David.Remember that "Son of David" was the rightful title of anyone descended from him.
That is a dubious claim.
Yes, it is a Messianic title, which argues against the dubious claim. The matter can be easily settled by an appeal to Scripture. There were many kings which sprang from David's loins; besides his own children and Jesus Christ, where are any of them referred to as the son of David?
We need to think about this in line of Near Eastern thought, and not with our Western mind set.
We need to think about this in line of Near Eastern thought, and not with our Western mind set.
We need to think about this according to biblical testimony and withstand the temptation to read into Scripture what is not there.
I did use scripture to back up my point in how can be implied in a line of descent, look yourself with the gap in Matthew 1 and in 1 Chronicles 3.
I did use scripture to back up my point in how can be implied in a line of descent, look yourself with the gap in Matthew 1 and in 1 Chronicles 3.
It comes down to a methodological choice. You are utilising an inference to argue for the explanation of an express title. All other biblical usage restricts the express title to the immediate male offspring of David or to the Messiah. The book of Proverbs specifically identifies Solomon as an author of canonical Scripture in terms of the express title. Each one will decide the matter on the basis of how Scripture regulates his thoughts.
I did use scripture to back up my point in how can be implied in a line of descent, look yourself with the gap in Matthew 1 and in 1 Chronicles 3.
It comes down to a methodological choice. You are utilising an inference to argue for the explanation of an express title. All other biblical usage restricts the express title to the immediate male offspring of David or to the Messiah. The book of Proverbs specifically identifies Solomon as an author of canonical Scripture in terms of the express title. Each one will decide the matter on the basis of how Scripture regulates his thoughts.
Every king of Israel was a "messiah" anointed and made king for a time, and was a son of David. Jesus is the final fulfillment of all these roles -- Messiah, King, Son of David. Do you think this is missing the mark?
Stylistic authorship comparisons need to be done with the works attributed to Solomon and that of Ecclesiastes.
I did use scripture to back up my point in how can be implied in a line of descent, look yourself with the gap in Matthew 1 and in 1 Chronicles 3.
It comes down to a methodological choice. You are utilising an inference to argue for the explanation of an express title. All other biblical usage restricts the express title to the immediate male offspring of David or to the Messiah. The book of Proverbs specifically identifies Solomon as an author of canonical Scripture in terms of the express title. Each one will decide the matter on the basis of how Scripture regulates his thoughts.
Matt 1:20 may shed some light:
"But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."
.Every king of Israel was a "messiah" anointed and made king for a time, and was a son of David.
Every king of Israel was a "messiah" anointed and made king for a time, and was a son of David. Jesus is the final fulfillment of all these roles -- Messiah, King, Son of David. Do you think this is missing the mark?
I would regard it as missing the mark because I cannot see how wicked kings as kings of the line of David are to be regarded as "messiah," that is, the one for whom the Davidic promises come to fulfilment, either partially or completely.
First, Solomon (temporally) and Jesus (eternally) build the house of the Lord, 2 Samuel 7:13. Secondly, Solomon (really) and Jesus (imputatively) suffered chastisement and enjoyed steadfast love, verse 13-15; righteous kings only had that privilege by derivation and wicked kings had it not at all. Thirdly, David's earthly posterity forfeited their thone and kingdom at the exile, so the promise of perpetual rule finds its only fulfilment in the eternal reign of Christ.
Narration of authorship however is different then actually writing it himself or dictation of the text. This sort of practice was common in the ancient world.
Narration of authorship however is different then actually writing it himself or dictation of the text. This sort of practice was common in the ancient world.
Perhaps you could point us to another ancient writing that exemplifies this practice, which you say is known to have been common?
Miscommunication on my part. I meant "messiah" as "one anointed to be king," not as partial fulfillments of the promise of the coming deliverer.
The Preacher probably lived in the post-exilic period when Palestine was under the rule of the Ptolemiac kings (5:7). As a wisdom sage (12:9) he had a special place in the wisdom thought of his time. ... (own translation)
We need to be careful with our use of tradition. Let us use the oldest and most widely accepted traditional interpretation of sons of God in Genesis 6:2 in both Christianity and Judaism
I voted that it does not matter.
I have wondered about this verse though.
(1:16) "I said in my heart, “I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.”
"All who were over Jerusalem before me." If it was Solomon who wrote it, and he is talking about Israel's kings, than the only one over Jerusalem before him was David. It seems strange to use the word all.
Blessings,
Grimmson
We need to be careful with our use of tradition. Let us use the oldest and most widely accepted traditional interpretation of sons of God in Genesis 6:2 in both Christianity and Judaism
But in Luke 3:38, "Son of God" refers to Adam. Does this inspired writer's approach bear no weight?
Besides being wise, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging many proverbs with great care. The Preacher sought to find words of delight, and uprightly he wrote words of truth. The words of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings; they are given by one Shepherd. My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh. The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, withevery secret thing, whether good or evil.
Dear friends
What do we do with Ecclesiastes 12:9-14? Was this also written by Solomon? It seems to me that it was written by another person evaluating the Preacher (Ecclesiastes). I was wondering, for what reason would the first commentator of Ecclesiastes not name Solomon's name? In what type of situation would Solomon be, if he was the writer, to not want his name to be mentioned?
Ecclesiates 12:9-14 in the ESV readsBesides being wise, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging many proverbs with great care. The Preacher sought to find words of delight, and uprightly he wrote words of truth. The words of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings; they are given by one Shepherd. My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh. The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, withevery secret thing, whether good or evil.
“If you say, ‘Behold, we did not know this, and does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man
according to his work?’” (ESV)
Dear friends
What do we do with Ecclesiastes 12:9-14? Was this also written by Solomon? It seems to me that it was written by another person evaluating the Preacher (Ecclesiastes). I was wondering, for what reason would the first commentator of Ecclesiastes not name Solomon's name? In what type of situation would Solomon be, if he was the writer, to not want his name to be mentioned?
Ecclesiates 12:9-14 in the ESV readsBesides being wise, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging many proverbs with great care. The Preacher sought to find words of delight, and uprightly he wrote words of truth. The words of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings; they are given by one Shepherd. My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh. The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, withevery secret thing, whether good or evil.
That seems to me to be a pretty small issue. Can't you imagine Solomon, a King without earthly equal, refering to himself in the third person? Especially when he balances it with the humble title of "preacher?"
It shows a good sense of literary flair, I think. I have always enjoyed the image of a great king sitting down his son and saying, in effect, "Son, you know me as a King, and you know me as a Father, now I speak to you as neither, but as a mere preacher subject to and bound by a higher authority."
There is precedent for this in the Pentateuch as well, where we read of the death of Moses. Do we deny Mosaic authorship because of this?