Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Christian M. M. Brady" <cbrady AT tulane.edu>]

On 1/30/01 1:45 PM, "Jim West" <jwest AT highland.net> wrote:

> At 09:38 PM 1/30/01 +0200, you wrote:
>> Oops. my mistake!
> 
> no mistake at all.  the mention of david is secondary and your point still
> holds.
> 

I disagree. The only reason one would assert that it is later is due to a
prior assumption that a prophet in the northern kingdom would not also
accept the assertions of the Davidic dynasty. That need not be the case.

As Jonathan first said, the Davidic covenant may not have meant much to the
royalty of Israel, but that does *not* mean that others living in those
borders did not view the David dynasty as the legitimate one. Given the
context of all of Hosea, the rejection of the David dynasty is just one more
sin of the nation of Israel. In that future day, when the turn back to the
Lord, they will also return to David's heir.

Cb
cbrady @ tulane.edu
-- 
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work....
I want to achieve immortality by not dying."
                    --Woody Allen